• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Game of Thrones Season 4: Valar Morghulis *No Book Spoilers*

dmcheatw said:
1) what?
2) no the reason there isn't a lot of fantasy is because GRRM chose to write about characters of westeros. The title of the first book to me is the "thesis" of the whole story.
3) . I said that right above your post.

this is what i mean when i say people keep misconstruing my argument and putting words in my mouth. i never said it would get more historical, i think it will get more fanciful as he'll need to start to tie things up as much as he can. so i actually said the opposite, man!
Click to expand...

The title of the whole series is basically a direct reference to the two largest fantasy elements.
 
Grandpa_bfaf78_777622.gif
 
dmcheatw said:
no what's clear is that

1) You don't seem to be appreciating that there is more than one reason to watch the show and therefore more than one thing to take from it, and;

2) you're post suggests you miss all the parallels in his show to real history that an ancient history buff might like, since they're inspired by real historical events.

wildfire? sounds a lot like greek fire to someone familiar with history. valyerian steel? reminds me of damascus steel. when joff says "i was merciful, I gave him a quick death," ...it's true, usual punishment for treason is draw and quarter. the boom tyrion laid across the blackwater made me think of Mehtmet the Conquer and the Battle for Constantinople in 1453. I could go on and on.
Click to expand...

I understand and appreciate both 1 and 2. Really that's not very unique to GoT though, as those elements exist in many stories lumped into the fantasy genre.

You can backtrack all you want but your original position was that Martin was looking for a way to get rid of the dragons so he had Daenerys lock them in a tomb forever and that you couldn't see the dragons ever being used in battle.
 
Here an an eloquent, anon post, i read about one person's take on GoT:

George R R Martin decided to write a story with a faux-European Middle Ages setting, probably because he wanted to, and he seems to have done more research into the topic than most other fantasy writers out there. And despite this, he still managed to devote a significant chunk of his later books to fleshing out the faux-Moorish culture in the setting far more than I had initially expected him to.

Martin has made a series of books that have resonated with women, ethnic minorities and history majors more than any other piece of work in the genre, and as a minority history major and fantasy/sci-fi nerd who has always felt more than a little bit alienated by the shameless whitewashing that comprises most of the genres… deal with it?

As far as schizobagel’s criticism re: the focus on tribalism, I hope he realizes that one of the whole points as the series progresses is just how sand and salt those pillars of identity really are.
Click to expand...

RChildress107 said:
I understand and appreciate both 1 and 2. Really that's not very unique to GoT though, as those elements exist in many stories lumped into the fantasy genre.

You can backtrack all you want but your original position was that Martin was looking for a way to get rid of the dragons so he had Daenerys lock them in a tomb forever and that you couldn't see the dragons ever being used in battle.
Click to expand...

1) like what? Harry potter, Lotr, the new camelot on stars, all had characters basically not behaving in a realistic enough manner for me. I don't really watch TV fyi. You could say ROME on (HBO?) but that wasn't any fantasy

2) I speculated that she locked the dragons up to die. apparently that interpretation is wrong and i admitted in the initial exchange i could be wrong and have now backed off that completely after seeing nobody else interpreted it that way. So I don't think i'm backtracking just changing my interpretation to the mainstream one. This happens all the time among real historians faced with ambiguous evidence btw...the last step in the historical method is: 'and what is your interpretation?" and it's okay to be wrong, as long as your argument is supported and sensical.

I do stand by i don't see the dragons being used in battle at their current level of power except perhaps against the white walkers. I'd like to go into some detail about what an ancient battles are like, so that you all could better understand the absurdity of stannins trying to openly challenge her, but i don't think anyone cares to hear it.
 
Last edited:
dmcheatw said:
no what's clear is that

1) You don't seem to be appreciating that there is more than one reason to watch the show and therefore more than one thing to take from it, and;

2) you're post suggests you miss all the parallels in his show to real history that an ancient history buff might like, since they're inspired by real historical events.

wildfire? sounds a lot like greek fire to someone familiar with history. valyerian steel? reminds me of damascus steel. when joff says "i was merciful, I gave him a quick death," ...it's true, usual punishment for treason is draw and quarter. the boom tyrion laid across the blackwater made me think of Mehtmet the Conquer and the Battle for Constantinople in 1453. I could go on and on.

that, and the fictitious medieval setting are why I watch.
Click to expand...

so you're impressed that GRRM reads fantasy and non-fiction medieval history
 
RChildress107 said:
Is that post supposed to be relevant to the current discussion?
Click to expand...

the first quote tangentially, but it's mainly a good assessment of the series. my address to you is a bit further down.

but listen, it's getting afternoonish on friday so can we agree to disagree then pick this back up sunday or mon?
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
Is this opinion based solely on the tv show or have you actually read the books as well.
Click to expand...

i've read up until somehwere b/t 4-5, i knew tywin gets killed but not anything after that that i can remember. but yes the books are laced with fictional references to actual historical events, it's impossible not to see that GRRM is either very well versed in history himself or consulted with those that are.

His plots are just too believable to not have been thoroughly well researched.

ImTheCaptain said:
so you're impressed that GRRM reads fantasy and non-fiction medieval history
Click to expand...

I'm indeed impressed with GRRMs knowledge of actual history and his writing abilities.

but yeah i gotta get outta here before this discussion sucks me in further, i'm happy to continue it later though.

have a good weekend all.
 
Last edited:
I was gonna finish the debate until I got high
I was gonna try to ease the hate but then I got high
I still don't understand the show and I know why yeah hey
cause I got high cause I got high cause i got high
 
dmcheatw said:
Here an an eloquent, anon post, i read about one person's take on GoT:





1) like what? Harry potter, Lotr, the new camelot on stars, all had characters basically not behaving in a realistic enough manner for me. I don't really watch TV fyi. You could say ROME on (HBO?) but that wasn't any fantasy

2) I speculated that she locked the dragons up to die. apparently that interpretation is wrong and i admitted in the initial exchange i could be wrong and have now backed off that completely after seeing nobody else interpreted it that way. So I don't think i'm backtracking just changing my interpretation to the mainstream one. This happens all the time among real historians faced with ambiguous evidence btw...the last step in the historical method is: 'and what is your interpretation?" and it's okay to be wrong, as long as your argument is supported and sensical.

I do stand by i don't see the dragons being used in battle at their current level of power except perhaps against the white walkers. I'd like to go into some detail about what an ancient battles are like, so that you all could better understand the absurdity of stannins trying to openly challenge her, but i don't think anyone cares to hear it.
Click to expand...

1) Harry Potter specifically has parallels (and references) to real history that a history buff might like, and there are multiple reasons to like the books apart from the fantasy. The day to day interaction amongst the characters is far more realistic (and uplifiting) than GoT, IMO.

You don't need a detailed understanding of ancient battles to conclude that Stannis would be fucked facing 8,000 unsullied and 3 dragons in battle.

Furthermore the show specifically foreshadows the use of dragons against Kings Landing several times. It might just be an epic tease by Martin and the showrunners but I doubt it.
 
dmcheatw said:
the first quote tangentially, but it's mainly a good assessment of the series. my address to you is a bit further down.

but listen, it's getting afternoonish on friday so can we agree to disagree then pick this back up sunday or mon?
Click to expand...

very tangentially. I'm heading to a wedding so sounds good.
 
i think it is safe to say that they entire series is leading up to a confrontation with most of the humans, three eyed raven/tree people, fire god, and dragons against the white walkers and their zombies and whatever other magic they have. the dragons will eventually tip the balance in favor of the good guys i would think. though with martin it will likely be at great cost.

the rest of the plot, characterizations, schemes flesh out the world and make it a good story and a way to move chess pieces around the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top