#bittersweet ?

[fedonciadale]

How do politics work - Or why the endgame doesn’t make sense - Part II Tyrion as Hand

In my first post on the endgame of GoT, I spoke about how Bran does not make sense as a king because he is too magical. In this post I want to talk about how Tyrion as Hand does not make sense, because it would be too close to actual politics, too realistic and not in tune with some of the themes GRRM set up. It would be more in tune with a mobster story than with a fantasy story. I am speaking from the perspective of the books as they are now. I fully realise, that we still have two books to go, but tbh, like with Bran I do not see, how Tyrion as Hand can be considered a bittersweet ending, or in any way a satisfactory ending.

First, I want to remind everyone, that Tyrion is a rather dark grey character, if not black. The show has whitewashed him from early on. I always suspected that this might mean that in the books Tyrion will have some kind of redemption towards the end and that the show cut short on his downward arc by simply omitting it, but as things stand now, Tyrion has certainly much to answer for, and several of these things are things that are punished in-world.

What do we know about what Tyrion has done? (as an aside, please note, that I do not claim that some of these things are not explainable from what we see in his PoV, but his PoV is very misleading, and explainable is not the same as excusable)

He raped Tysha because his father told him to. He sowed unrest in the Vale by arming the mountain clans with Lannister gold as part of his revenge on Lysa Arryn. He essentially bought Shae as his personal sex-worker. He worked for Joffrey’s rule against Stannis knowing full well that a) Joffrey was a very bad king and b) Joffrey had no claim to the throne whatsoever. He let Bronn kill the singer Symon silver-tongue because he made eyes at Shae and cut to close to the truth in his songs and then poor Symon was served up in a stew to the starving population of King’s Landing. He wed Sansa Stark knowing full well, she does not want to marry an enemy of her house. He groped her in their wedding night. He killed his lover Shae when he caught her in his father’s bed (knowing she was a sex-worker who was probably paid for being there). He killed his father on the privy. He raped a serving girl in Illyrio’s house. He set up fAegon for a probably doomed expedition to conquer Westeros. He has frequently announced that he will rape his sister Cersei. He signed a number of fake contracts with no money behind it, because he wants an army. And this is just what is at the top of my mind when I think about what Tyrion did. I don't even mention the fact that his thoughts in ADWD are very disturbing.

Now, Tyrion is not stupid and he usually is sensitive to the fact that he cannot rule simply by fear. So, he knows, that a hungry smallfolk in the capital is bad news, that he needs to appease them. He is not a tyrant like Joffrey, he is careful not to hurt people, if he needs them. He cares for the payment of his soldiers and their well-being and safety, in so far he needs them in fighting shape. He is ruthless and cunning. His greatest wish is to be acknowledged as his father’s heir, not only in the literal sense as heir to Casterly Rock, but also in the sense that he wants to match Tywin in politics. Tyrion seems like the perfect copy of Tywin at least when it come to politcs, and his aunt Genna even says so in AFFC, when she talks with Jaime. So, you could argue that just like his father he is not a good person, but he is an effective politician.

Nevertheless, Tyrion is not as clever as he thinks he is: In ACOK he sets Littlefinger, Varys and Pycelle against each other to find out who works for Cersei and he makes a deadly enemy out of Littlefinger who later plots to frame Tyrion for Joffrey’s murder.  Tyrion in ACOK is still on a learning arc for ruthless politics so to say, and it might well be, that the does not make a mistake like that ever again.

Apart from his personal record, there is the problem of the Lannister legacy. The legacy of House Lannister and of Tywin is that of a ruthless politician. Tywin destroyed two entire houses because their heads did not respect him enough, he had no qualms about sacking King’s Landing in Robert’s rebellion, he had no scruples to let the Mountain kill Elia and her children, because he knew that Robert would be thankful to him for eliminating this problem. He instigated Walder Frey to murder King Robb - a man who had repeatedly bested Tywin on the battlefield - at the Red Wedding. The Lannister rule is described in-world as being quite effective even over a rather long period of time, but there can be no doubt that it does inspire wary respect but no love. The Stark rule, especially Ned's is set up as a foil for this. And while the show made nothing of it, we can see the loyalty House Stark inspires even when they are on their lowest point in ADWD. I do think that this is ultimately the difference : House Lannister has to stay strong, once they fall nobody will raise a finger for them.

Now, In-world Tyrion is accused several times of things he didn't do and we as readers know this. We tend to be on his side in this, because someone getting death penalty for something he did not do seems incredibly unfair. And yet, Tyrion has done several things that should be punished. We are told multiple times how the 'kinslayer' is cursed, and we hear In-world stories in legend and history how that curse always strikes. Always.

I would also argue that Tywin's legacy is bound to be destroyed one way or the other. The Reynes and the Castameres cry for revenge. If House Targaryen is punished for generations of 'exceptionalism' then House Lannister is due for a reckoning as well. And we have seen the start: Cersei's children - the only children in the next generation of the main Lannister lineage - will all die in the books as they did on the show. The punishment for Cersei's and Jaime's incest and for the power hunger of the Lannisters. We can be sure about this. Genna 's children are Freys and will die in the Red Wedding 2.0. Lancel, Kevan's son will die as well.

So, how does that all fit into Tyrion as Hand at the end? It would mean that the rule that kinslayers are punished which GRRM hammered into our minds suddenly does not adhere to one person? It would mean that the Fall of the Lannisters GRRM set up will not happen? It would mean that poetic justice and a reckoning hits Tywin himself, Cersei, Jaime, the Freys, Ramsay and Roose Bolton, Theon Greyjoy, possibly Victarion Greyjoy but not Tyrion?

Now, you could argue that Tyrion does not need to be a good person to be a good ruler. You could argue that Tyrion is smart enough to rule with a modicum of justice because he knows that this works better in the long run. You could argue that he could stay unmarried and that this is how the Lannister legacy dies.

But I would argue that he will always look for loopholes and further his own agenda in secret. It is just how he plays the game and how he learned it by his father. Tyrion as Hand could work out for a majority of the people, but only if Tyrion let's go of his resentment he accumulated over the years and which is so prominent in ADWD. Imagine someone with that much bottled up hatred in a position of power! Imagine someone criticising Tyrion - and if he rules as Hand he will be criticised. That someone would probably vanish over night - at least if you consider how Tyrion's mind works in ADWD. Tyrion would still continue to just buy the women he wants and probably he'll be just as awful about it as he is in ADWD.

You could argue that Tyrion as Hand is 'realistic'. That ruthless politicians get offices and stay in office all the time. That is certainly true enough, but would it work together with Bran, the most magical of all persons bring chosen as King because of his almost omniscience?

In addition, Tyrion would get what he always wanted.... He always wanted a standing sufficiently high so that people could not hurt him. He wanted to stand in his father's shoes. He wanted power.... GRRM usually does not hand out anything one of the characters (or his readers) want and if he does, only with a twist. How would this work in Tyrion's case? Only if he gains the ability to reflect on his choices and mistakes much more than he does right now, only when he realises that he made mistakes and suffers for it. I don't see him becoming suddenly all reflective and full of remorse. Not if he is the one to bring Dany to Westeros in the books as well.

To sum up, Tyrion as Hand does mean: Tyrion getting away with kinslaying, Tywin's legacy alive and well at the end with the person who is most like Tywin in charge, Tyrion getting all he ever wanted, a ruthless politician as a successful de facto ruler.

I would argue that this does not fit into how GRRM handled themes up until now. To break his own rules he set up over five books once might work, but to break all? And in addition it does not fit with other parts of the endgame. Bran as a king with magic when we virtually have next to no magic? And at the same time Tyrion as the 'realistic' politician that is needed to run the country? Targaryen legacy finally put to rest for all eternity, but Lannister legacy thriving? Tyrion just getting all he ever wanted? Tyrion not getting punished for any of the crimes he did?

The books might prove me wrong if they ever come out. And there might be a way how GRRM reaches Bran as king and Tyrion as Hand at the same time. I just can't see it. Tyrion as Hand has its problems in itself, just as Bran as king has. These are not insurmountable, but honestly I can't think of a way how GRRM could strengthen magic enough to make Bran as king satisfying and heighten the realism to make Tyrion as Hand plausible.

I mean I always expected that old Lord Walder Grey will just die in his bed and that it will only be his family who suffers for his sins, but I would expect a little bit less 'realism' and more adjusting to themes the author set up himself in regard to one of the POVs.

[fedonciadale]

How is a king elected - Or why the endgame doesn’t make sense - Part I King Bran

So, just for the record, in case anyone suspects me of spouting Bran hate: I love all the Starks, and Bran is a wonderful character. I just have difficulty with him as King, especially as it was depicted on the show : the new government of Bran - discussing the renovation of brothels - did not strike me as overly competent or responsible.

Isaac Hempstead-Wright said in an interview, that GRRM told D&D two things about Bran’s endgame: one was Hodor and one was Bran as king. Now, of course after season 6 aired and the “Hold the door” moment went down into the show history as an iconic moment, the foreshadowing for Hodor’s death was quite obvious in hindsight. And this is how foreshadowing should work: The event happens and you realise that it had build-up and that it was hinted at several times and yet I do not think that anybody would have been able to foretell that Hodor was just short for “Hold the door”.

As for foreshadowing for Bran as King, I can think of several scenes that might play into that: Bran as acting Lord of Winterfell in Robb’s absence, as Prince of Winterfell, the Reeds pledging allegiance to Bran very solemnly, and the Little from the clans in the North who gives Bran and the Reeds food on their way north and Bran makes a promise to reward him when the times come. I would still argue that these work as well for Bran as king in the North or Lord of Winterfell.

I have not yet reread the books for “Bran as king” foreshadowing. I am convinced that I will find it, because GRRM prepares his plot-twists and his important events. I am also convinced that GRRM plans to do even more in TWOW and ADOS and he might have a whole “learning arc” planned for Bran which should go beyond the magical.

But I don’t think that Bran as King of Westeros makes sense, not at all, and here is why. It makes me at odds with the endgame that GRRM planned and I feel some reluctance about that, but I think that apart from the storytelling - which GRRM will do a lot better than the show, Bran as King will not work, and that is because of the nature of the books. It is not an ending that fits with the overall character of the books.

ASOIAF is not a “high magic” fantasy. Magical people are rare, and they are mistrusted. They do not have the social standing of the citadel-trained (read university-trained) maesters whose research is mostly based on what we nowadays call science. So, it is strange, that one of the most magical persons of Westeros would gain the Throne, when we do not see magic or even wisdom as something that is highly regarded.

I always thought that we will have a great council (the third of that kind) at the end of ASOIAF and a sort of proto-parliamentary election of the king. There are the in-world historical precedents of great councils where who should be the heir (if not the king) was decided and there is the kingsmoot on the Iron Islands and the election of the LC of the Night’s watch as precedents in the timeline of ASOIAF. I do think it stands to reason that at the end of many wars, the lords will decide on a new king. It is not that unusual after the chaos and destruction of war. It is not that unusual if trust in the king has to be re-established. It is not unusual to renew the 'treaty' between king and nobles about good government. It happened in real history after all.

So, a royal election has been foreshadowed and still I think it makes no sense, that they would choose Bran. The example of the Kingsmoot shows what people do value in a king: It is not age, nor is it the wisdom and the restriction that Asha/Yara proposes in the face of Winter is not well received. The Ironborn choose a warrior king who promises them plunder and riches.

Let's look at royal elections in real history in a medieval setting. These came to pass if a dynasty died out, or was not seen as fit anymore or if there was doubt about who the heir should be if there was no son. I can think of several but for now I just stick to Stephen of Blois from England, Konrad II from Germany and Hugh Capet from France. All these men were elected because they were grown men who had proved themselves in war, who had wives and sons who were from important noble families. The Lords who chose them opted for a known experienced person who could guarantee the stability of a new dynasty. It is just not realistic that an assembly called together to elect a king would choose a child with no military experience, without wife and children. Because this is not a king that any medieval noble would choose. Just as an aside: all these Kings made promises to rule well before they were elected and promised on particular to be different than their predecessors.

GRRM knows all this. He talks about the importance of military success, the production of heirs and the respect people have for fighters all the time.

So, if GRRM wants to set up a scenario where Bran is chosen, I think he would have to upgrade the importance of magic considerably and/or he would have to eliminate almost every grown man from the great houses (which is not entirely unlikely) and/or he would have to increase the chaos in such a way that by the end of ASOIAF almost everything looks like a valid alternative and/ or the noble lifestyle of waging war would have to be that compromised that it looked like a good idea to abolish that and/or he would have to ignore claims by other contestants who are actually related to the last kings meaning no Baratheon or Targ claimant (safe maybe Jon - I'll return to that). So, GRRM would have to stretch the fabric of his tale to such a degree that it would not be 'realistic' any more, not in the way ASOIAF usually close to historical reality in the sense of being a very 'low magic' world.

In addition it is not even that realistic that Jon would not be a candidate. He has a claim, he is a military commander and might still get children. You could argue that killing Dany put him out of the field, but that is not necessarily so: the person who killed a tyrant in ancient Greece usually profited from the killing. Since Dany was not crowned, Jon could be defended by claiming that he fought for his own claim against an usurper who robbed him of his birth right. Of course we do not know how this will play out in the books.

Look, I'm not against Bran on the Throne, not per se and not before I have seen how GRRM builds up to it in the books, but as the situation is now at the end of ADWD I do not think it makes sense, and I do not think it is a development that fits well into the overall world-building of ASOIAF. Bran is not a realistic candidate and neither the elections we have seen in the books nor the great councils nor royal elections in European history point to a suddenly likely scenario of a 'wise wizard' being chosen as King. Bran as king defies the world-building and in- world precedences. It is too magical for ASOIAF.

Another thing I do not understand is what is Bran's own agenda in this? Does he want to push for reform in Westeros? Does he want to make sure that Targs will never come again? Does he want to punish Jon for some crime we haven't seen yet? Is this some sort of cosmic revenge for Aegon the Conqueror forcing Torrhen to kneel? Why? Because the sins of the fathers have to be punished in the descendants? When Jon is not like Aegon? Does Bran become indifferent to Jon whom he loves in the books?

The only scenario I could think of is if the ambitious Bloodraven - who is far more sinister in the books than on the show - somehow orchestrates the whole thing: getting hold of Bran and maneuvering him and others toward Bran's kingship is something he probably would do. But that would mean that about the only positive thing that I can see in Bran's coronation (definitely no Targ restoration) would not be true.... And that would not qualify as 'bittersweet' either. That would definitely be creepy. That would be a for too sinister ending. Everyone in the grip of Bloodraven who watches the kingdoms with a thousand eyes and one. *shudder*

[fedonciadale]

In LotR we have Aragorn marriying Arwem, Faramir and Eowyn marry and heal each other. Rohan and Gondor renew their alliance throught the friendship between Aragorn and Eomer. Legolas and Gimli have a frienship beyond the history of their people. The Hobbits return to The Shire but remains friends. Sam marry and Frodo delays his departing until Sam is settled with his new family. (TBC)

(2) What we got in GoT? Every single relationship got teared apart (Gendrya and Braime happens and then are broken in the span or one or two episodes). The remaining family members that have survived (namely the Starks) goes their separate ways and the narrative pushes the idea that this goodbye is for life. Is this the ending inspired on that of LotR? Not a chance at all. Because there is no bitter pill than seeing people alone on their own. We humans are not that kind of beings.            

Hi there!

I agree completely. I mean GRRM complains about traditional fantasy authors not including sex in their narratives (and in a way I agree, because sex is an important part of human life) and then the man who wants to write about the human heart in conflict with itself writes an ending that denies the importance of human connections and affections altogether.

I am not sure, if this ending will be exactly the same as in the books. I have huge difficulties with Bran as King and Tyrion as Hand - at least in the same universe - but the ending of the show was very nihilistic. There was not one relationship that turned out important, only relationships that were finished. We saw Brienne still mourning Jaime, but we did not see at least Sam and Gilly with their newborn child. We saw Sansa as Queen but without familiar faces. And we saw Jon with the wildlings. Yes, these are people he likes, but at least in the books it is clear that he often thinks about them being very different from himself.

What kind of message is that? Human relationships are unimportant... We all fight and live for ourselves and even the grief we feel is a lie... Jaime left Brienne after all. The only relief is in death... What a garbage ending....

The thing is, that I think you could have salvaged something. Show Lord Royce at Sansa's side, show Sam and Gilly, show Podrick marrying, show Arya immediately befriending some persons on her ship. Show Jon unambiguously at the watch or with the Freefolk, not both? Show him supervising trade between the North and the Wildlings at the Wall.

It would have been easy to just give a little twist and have more hope in the ending than was shown.

I don't know, the concluding Stark Montage had nothing positive for me. I hate it. I hate that 'the pack survives' means nothing.

No, this is not bittersweet. This is 'life is meaningless and full of pain'... There is no point in denying pain, but to me this ending wS circular and therefore hopeless. I could imagine some twists though that could make it better and I haven't lost all faith in GRRM.

Thanks for the ask!

By the way, I have not forgotten your other asks, it us just that I am very very preoccupied at the moment. So bear with me that it will take time to answer!

[fedonciadale]

He drew a deep breath. 'Well, I'm back', he said.

Friendly reminder of how an actual bittersweet ending looks like.

[fedonciadale]

If King Bran is indeed GRRM’s ending then I believe he fell short of not only the author he so much admires but he fell short of his own statements as well aka What is Bran’s tax policy? *sigh*

Dear nonny,I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Bran as king. I plan on doing a meta about how Bran as king might work and how Tyrion as Hand might work, but that they would never work together. And if this is GRRM's ending, it is inconsistent. So, keep looking for that!Thanks for the ask!