This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Warning: LIkely unpublished book spoilers ahead.
Bran, as a figure, is the philosopher-king, the ideal ruler. He's totally detached from the past, without personal ambition or a desire for power. He sees the world from a perspective beyond mortal concerns, literally and metaphorically, freed from the bonds of human desire. For Tyrion, who is more than deeply aware of the consequences of dynastic power struggles, Bran is the ideal candidate. But there’s more here. Tyrion’s line is ironic not just because of Bran’s role but because Tyrion's biography and story is absolutely more tragic, complicated, and ultimately selfless than Bran's. The entire speech is probably lifted directly from Martin's canonical ending.
Tyrion's true story is that he is the son of the Mad King Aerys II and Joanna Lannister (heavily signposted in A Game of Thrones from the first pages as much as Jon Snow). This fact, known only to Tyrion, Bran (due to Bran’s connection to the Weirwood Network), and possibly Sam Tarly, is the only way to understand the ending of the series. Tyrion’s life is nothing but story after story of appearances being deceiving. He never gets his due, not because of legitimate reasons, but because of the deformity of his birth. But despite this, Tyrion spends his life trying to do what is right, and, in the end, he understands that his story—who he truly is—must remain untold so the world can move on. It's not about him.
This moment is the bittersweet denouement that Martin promised. The one person who could have claimed the throne by right--legal and practical--and who has a better story than anyone else chooses to remain in the shadows, his legacy untold, in order to ensure the end of the very conflict that would have finally given him the acknowledgment that was always rightfully his.
Tyrion’s story, then, is one of ultimate self-sacrifice. He is the bridge between the old world and the new, but he must remain unseen, his identity as the son of Aerys II irrelevant, because only by sacrificing his claim can the world heal and break free from the chains of the past.
Tyrion's remark is not just ironic. It is a resigned acknowledgment of the cost of peace, the painful but necessary erasure of the past. The true tragedy of Tyrion’s life is that his story--one of intelligence, compassion, and the weight of his heritage--will never actually be told (in world, anyway), but that is the ultimate sacrifice he has to make to end the dynastic wars and ensure that Bran, the outsider from the North who accepts the role, because all the principal actors have exited, can lead the new world.
It's an inversion to the ending of Hamlet.
[...]
[...]
Whenever I've told people about this, people typically fall into two camps. There's "Oh not another fucking targ!" or they say something like this cheapens Tyrion's and Tywin's arc, so it can't happen. The former is aesthetic. The latter is just untrue.
It really makes both of their arcs more substantial. Tywin doesn't hate Tyrion because his birth killed Joanna, nor that he was a dwarf. He hates him because Aerys II, master of karmic injustice, showed Tywin to be just like his cuckold father. All Tywin's bluster about putting the House first was hypocrisy. "I've gifted you a Lannister heir to the Iron Throne," cackles the Mad King, "All you have to do is acknowledge him." He doesn't, so Aerys appoints Jaime to the Kingsguard to further rub salt in the wound. "The only patrimony that doesn't matter to the House of Lannister, Tywin, is your own" cackles the Mad King, again. Martin even has Tywin's final words being the only acknowledgement he'll ever make of the truth of Tyrion: "You're no son of mine."
Anyway, there's a lot more subtext that points towards Tyrion's parentage that can be sniffed out if you're reading it closely, but ultimately the show's ending was the book's ending, but done so inartfully that actually accepting it requires a leap of faith. But I don't know if Martin will leave it as an exercise to the readers or actually confirm the denouement. And since Martin will likely never finish the book, this is about as complete an ending as I can expect to get.
Thats all very interesting, but... my problem isnt a lack of thematic impact in the ending. I had my own theories about those, though not as good as yours. The problem is that it betrays the beginning. How does Neds death contribute to any of this? The original tone survives quite long in Daenerys arc, which is consistent with the machiavellian reading all the way until we see her suffering from insanity at home after burning Kings Landing. He doesnt end that story; he just starts telling a more traditional one and ends that.
Separately:
Really? This would require that the revealed bastard both counts as part of house Lannister, and takes priority over the legitimate Targaryen children in inheritance. Those seem unlikely even individually, and extremely unlikely simultanuously. Besides, he does eventually get Joffrey on the throne, who is just as related to him officially as Tyrion would have been, and more so biologically.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link