Dark and Full Of Spoilers (GOT Season 8 Spoiler Thread Part 2)

[Mechalich]

I didn;t mean it 'in story' wise, i meant it from the storytellers perspective- why would you include prophecy in your story if not to follow it or subvert it. Not to omit it in last second.
Compare it to Chekov's gun - what would happen if a gun would be shown in first and second act, and never fire?

Evidence strongly suggests that the showrunners felt obligated (or lacked the creativity to work around) a series of pre-set plot points determined by Martin from his book plans. At the same time, certain subplots and characters were removed from the overall narrative. The result was a number free-floating plot elements no longer connected to anything. Essentially certain Chekov's guns were put into play, but the characters who were intended to fire them, or the elements they were intended to be fired at, simply did not exist. Likewise there were guns that continued to remain on the stage even after they'd completely been emptied of ammunition (most relevantly, Cersei) because the persons that were supposed to clear them away were absent.

This actually reminds me, in a strange (and ironically relevant considering the showrunner's next project) way of the incomplete nature of the ending of KOTOR II, where you were so very obviously playing your way around a whole pile of cut content.

[Ramza00]

I didn;t mean it 'in story' wise, i meant it from the storytellers perspective- why would you include prophecy in your story if not to follow it or subvert it. Not to omit it in last second.
Compare it to Chekov's gun - what would happen if a gun would be shown in first and second act, and never fire?

But more seriously the Azor Azhi prophecy is a Chekov gun that already fired. It is a prophecy that warped the world for it caused certain characters to take actions they would not have taken without the prophecy.

I am referring to Rhaegar being obessed with this prophecy and fathering a third kid Jon) for he thought his 3 kids would be necessary and one of the 3 would be the prince that was promised / Azor Azhi reborn. Rhaegar's sloppiness with how he eloped triggered Robert's Rebellion for after Rhaegar "kidnapped" Khanna Brandon Stark older brother to Ned rode into Kings Landing challenging the Prince that was not there for an honorable Duel. King Aerys than killed Brandon Stark and Ned's father in a dishonorable way.

Likewise Melisandre, the red woman, did actions she would not have done without the prophecy.

Pretty much we learn prophecies in Martin work are sometimes true sometimes false. (Stallion that would mount the world) And even when they are true they may fall apart / be twisted by human agency by which I mean you can have a Macbeth situation where you create your own downfall and better outcomes would have occurred if you ignored the prophecy but you did not ignore it for the prophecy sounded good at first listen.

Prophecies in Martin's work when listen with an ear of hubris instead trigger nemesis. Prophecies work better in Martin's work if you keep them liminal such as the Patchface mad ramblings. (Patchface is a book character, he is part of Stannis court as a jester, he was a bright kid that Stannis father sent to entertain his 3 sons but on the ship wide to Storms end the ship shipwreck and all died but Patches. Patches lost his wits due to the oxygen deprivation and now speaks in rhyme, has a weird gate with his walk, and has seizures. He speaks nonsense but to the book reader and not in universe you actually see some of his ramblings are imagery of prophecies of future book events, except the ramblings are not specific enough that it does not make sense till the event happens.)

Tyrion says this "Prophecy is like a half-trained mule. It looks as though it might be useful, but the moment you trust in it, it kicks you in the head."

And in interview GRRM has said this. "Prophecies are, you know, a double edge sword. You have to handle them very carefully; I mean, they can add depth and interest to a book, but you don’t want to be too literal or too easy."

So yeah the Azor Azhi prophecy is Bullock's in the TV show (who knows in the books) but it is already a Chekov gun that fired due to Rhaegar and Melisandre. We just expect more bullets to be in the chamber.

[Eldan]

That is how I want the prophecies to be handled ideally, really.

I absolutely want them to be important to the characters. But I would hate for them to be confirmed by the narrative independently. So, if Daenerys becomes queen, by any means have her proclaim that she is the Princess that was promised to save hte world. For political points. Not because word of god says so.

[The Pilgrim]

To be fair, I think the bulk of the show viewers failed to notice there was an Azor Azhi prophecy at all. Unless they went to the fan sites and were told about it.

Given the brutality of the GoT setting, each time some character mentions a prophecy, it feels a lot like "okay that is your escapist window to your fantasy world which you use to be able to get through the day without putting your head in the fireplace" to me. So I just toss it away and don't mind much about it.

[GloatingSwine]

That is how I want the prophecies to be handled ideally, really.

I absolutely want them to be important to the characters. But I would hate for them to be confirmed by the narrative independently. So, if Daenerys becomes queen, by any means have her proclaim that she is the Princess that was promised to save hte world. For political points. Not because word of god says so.

Part of the underlying structure of the books is that all the magic and prophecies are coming back.

Because that's what's behind the Others beginning to wake up and march after eight thousand years, whilst the southern lords bicker and backstab and politick, an outside context problem is on the way.

[Rodin]

I like the idea that the prophecies are real, but the people telling them are misinterpreting the hell out of them. Take the Dothraki prophecy that Dany's child will be the Stallion that mounts the world. The wise women thought that it was referring to Daenerys's unborn child, but what if it was actually referring to her dragons? She considers them her children, and they fit a stallion metaphor just fine - she rides them into battle.

[deuterio12]

Likewise Melisandre, the red woman, did actions she would not have done without the prophecy.

Melisandre herself says that prophecies are only a possible future and they can be averted, otherwise what would be the point of seeing them? It would happen either way. When she sees a future she doesn't like, she'll take actions to try to change it.

In particular she prophecized that Renly would attack Stannis the Mannis while he was sieging King's Landing, and that's why they make a priority to take Renly out of the picture before going after King's Landing.

Alas in the books some other dude dons Renly's armor to rally a bunch of Highgarden knights and backstabs Stannis the Mannis while he's sieging King's Landing anyway, so seems like you need to work extra hard to change a prophecy otherwise you get a "But the future refused to change..." bad end.

[pendell]

Part of the underlying structure of the books is that all the magic and prophecies are coming back.

Because that's what's behind the Others beginning to wake up and march after eight thousand years, whilst the southern lords bicker and backstab and politick, an outside context problem is on the way.

Were coming back for the climactic confrontation of Ice and Fire. Now that the confrontation is over, magic is leaving the world again. The Walkers are gone. The Dragons are gone, the Children of the Forest are Gone, the Wall is damaged and can never be rebuilt, for the builders are extinct. The age of the epic myths are past, the age of ordinary humans with ordinary political problems begins. I think that is a major reason why Brann is willing to leave so much in the hands of his ordinary small council rather than ruling directly himself.

Another problem with prophecy, in this or any genre, is that if taken too literally it removes human agency. The sense that the books are already written and there's nothing you can do to change it. For humans to have any agency at all, then all prophecy has to have a certain element of conditional in it. The alternative is to say that humans are the mere gamepieces of the gods, unable to resist or control their fate in any way, moving through the arc of their lives as certainly as the orbit of the planets, and with as little control.

Technically in a book this is absolutely true, but nonetheless I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of world Martin wanted to describe. And so prophecy in their world is a bit of a murk. Visions in the flames, which humans mis-interpret. Consider the vision of King's Landing covered with "snow" ... but how that played out in show reality was not snow, but ash.

So the way I see it prophecy in GoT is information, to be treated with the same care as you would treat information from any other source. And it shouldn't cause you to compromise your morals in pursuit of the vision, as Stannis did. Rather, you do what you believe is right, based on the information you have, and the outcome will inevitably better than if you try to bring the prophecy about by your own efforts. As Tolkien put it through Treebeard in Two Towers when discussing the March of the Ents: " Still, I should have liked to see the songs come true about the Entwives. I should dearly have liked to see Fimbrethil again. But there, my friends, songs like trees bear fruit only in their own time and their own way: and sometimes they are withered untimely."

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Narkis]

Yes, prophecies in a story exist either to be fulfilled, or be deliberately subverted. Tension arises from the characters who strive to see them fulfilled, only for that to happen in unexpected ways, or for the efforts to see them averted causing the prophesied events to come to pass. In no good story are prophecies quietly just kinda forgotten, like it happened in the later seasons.

[GloatingSwine]

Were coming back for the climactic confrontation of Ice and Fire. Now that the confrontation is over, magic is leaving the world again. The Walkers are gone. The Dragons are gone, the Children of the Forest are Gone, the Wall is damaged and can never be rebuilt, for the builders are extinct. The age of the epic myths are past, the age of ordinary humans with ordinary political problems begins. I think that is a major reason why Brann is willing to leave so much in the hands of his ordinary small council rather than ruling directly himself.

See, that's a possible ending for a different story.

But not for A Song of Ice and Fire, which this show was based on for 3/4 of its run.

The world of the series at the start is one where the "age of epic myths" has been over for thousands of years already, and the petty concerns of men have risen to take their place. It's a world where all that stuff that's been so dead everyone's all but forgotten it is coming back, not fading away.

The dramatically appropriate ending for that story is not one where the status quo from the beginning is reasserted (because that's generally bad anyway, unless the point of the story is to point out the futility of existence and underscore a philosophy of nihilism), but one where people have to make a new status quo in a world stranger than they have known.

Technically in a book this is absolutely true, but nonetheless I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of world Martin wanted to describe. And so prophecy in their world is a bit of a murk. Visions in the flames, which humans mis-interpret. Consider the vision of King's Landing covered with "snow" ... but how that played out in show reality was not snow, but ash.

Whereas it's clear in the books that a world where all the old magic is suddenly coming back to disrupt the troubles of men is exactly the kind of world Martin wanted to describe. Winter is Coming.

It's all over the books. Dragons, wargs, prophecies, resurrection, magic flaming swords, and the Others themselves have all been gone for centuries, sometimes thousands of years, and they're all coming back.

Prophecies and dreams in the books describe events which will happen, even if the characters don't understand how they happen. So for instance Cersei will die with the hands of someone who can fit the description "Valonqar" (younger brother) round her throat. She always thought it would be Tyrion. People think it might be Jaime. It could even be Euron or Young Griff.

Prophecies in the show came true until they ran out of books, then they sort of got forgotten.

In that context, things like Azor Ahai/The Prince that was Promised will be important in the books.

[Dr.Samurai]

Bran being able to see things before they happen is already chipping away at agency way more than any prophecy might.

And I can't say Magic is leaving since the most powerful greenseer is now king. And Drogon still lives.

[deuterio12]

“I do not require your understanding. Only your service. Ser Cortnay will be dead within the day. Melisandre has seen it in the flames of the
future. His death and the manner of it. He will not die in knightly combat, needless to say.” Stannis held out his cup, and Devan filled it again
from the flagon. “Her flames do not lie. She saw Renly’s doom as well. On Dragonstone she saw it, and told Selyse. Lord Velaryon and your
friend Salladhor Saan would have had me sail against Joffrey, but Melisandre told me that if I went to Storm’s End, I would win the best part
of my brother’s power, and she was right.”
“B-but,” Davos stammered, “Lord Renly only came here because you had laid siege to the castle. He was marching toward King’s Landing
before, against the Lannisters, he would have—”
Stannis shifted in his seat, frowning. “Was, would have, what is that? He did what he did. He came here with his banners and his peaches,
to his doom . . . and it was well for me he did. Melisandre saw another day in her flames as well. A morrow where Renly rode out of the
south in his green armor to smash my host beneath the walls of King’s Landing. Had I met my brother there, it might have been me who died
in place of him.”
“Or you might have joined your strength to his to bring down the Lannisters,” Davos protested. “Why not that? If she saw two futures, well
. . . both cannot be true.”
King Stannis pointed a finger. “There you err, Onion Knight. Some lights cast more than one shadow. Stand before the nightfire and you’ll
see for yourself. The flames shift and dance, never still. The shadows grow tall and short, and every man casts a dozen. Some are fainter than
others, that’s all. Well, men cast their shadows across the future as well. One shadow or many. Melisandre sees them all.”

"Last night Cersei had dreamed of the old woman, with her pebbly jowls and croaking voice. Maggy the Frog, they had called her
in Lannisport. If Father had known what she said to me, he would have had her tongue out. Cersei had never told anyone, though, not even
Jaime. Melara said that if we never spoke about her prophecies, we would forget them. She said that a forgotten prophecy couldn’t come true."
____
"Three hundred years ago, when Aegon the Dragon landed beneath this very hill, the High Septon locked himself within the Starry Sept of Oldtown and prayed for seven days and seven nights, taking no nourishment but bread and water. When he emerged he announced that the Faith would not oppose Aegon and his sisters, for the Crone had lifted up her lamp to show him what lay ahead. If Oldtown took up arms against the Dragon, Oldtown would burn, and the Hightower and the Citadel and the Starry Sept would be cast down and destroyed. Lord Hightower was a godly man. When he heard the prophecy, he kept his strength at home and opened the city gates to Aegon when he came. And His High Holiness anointed the Conqueror with the seven oils. I must do as he did, three hundred years ago. I must pray, and fast.”"
___
"“Melara? No. I can hardly recall what she looked like. It is just . . . the maegi knew how many children I would have, and she knew of
Robert’s bastards. Years before he’d sired even the first of them, she knew. She promised me I should be queen, but said another queen
would come . . .” Younger and more beautiful, she said. “. . . another queen, who would take from me all I loved.”
“And you wish to forestall this prophecy?”
More than anything, she thought. “Can it be forestalled?”
“Oh, yes. Never doubt that.”"

Some choice book bits that show that prophecies are just one possible future and may be averted if one plays their cards right (or even just forgets them it seems).

[Narkis]

Some choice book bits that show that prophecies are just one possible future and may be averted if one plays their cards right (or even just forgets them it seems).

That is what the characters believe. But it is not how the story is presented.

Melisandre saw another day in her flames as well. A morrow where Renly rode out of the south in his green armor to smash my host beneath the walls of King’s Landing.

That came true, when Loras wore Renly's armor and smashed Stannis's host beneath the walls of King's Landing. Melisandre misinterpreted the vision, and Stannis was wrong.

Melara said that if we never spoke about her prophecies, we would forget them. She said that a forgotten prophecy couldn’t come true.

Melara: Will I marry Jaime?
Maggy: Not Jaime, nor any other man, Worms will have your maidenhead. Your death is here tonight, little one. Can you smell her breath? She is very close.

According to Cersei, Melara fell down a well and drowned not long after hearing the prophecy. She recalls that Melara "was not so silent in the well" and that she had "screamed and shouted".

Melara's prophecy came true. She was wrong as well.

[deuterio12]

That is what the characters believe. But it is not how the story is presented.


That came true, when Loras wore Renly's armor and smashed Stannis's host beneath the walls of King's Landing. Melisandre misinterpreted the vision, and Stannis was wrong.

Those two may've had some trouble making the right choices, but the High Septon 300 years ago was right when he was given the visions of the two possible futures of "oppose Aegon and Oltdown will burn" or "accept Aegon and Oldtown won't burn".

Melara clearly couldn't forget her own prophecy, just like Cersei keeps remembering hers.

Can't find the exact bit right now, but I recall Melisandre pointing out that they're granted visions of the possible futures precisely so they can try to steer things towards the best one, otherwise what would be the point of being granted the vision of a prophecy and writing it down if it was gonna come true anyway?

[pendell]

Those two may've had some trouble making the right choices, but the High Septon 300 years ago was right when he was given the visions of the two possible futures of "oppose Aegon and Oltdown will burn" or "accept Aegon and Oldtown won't burn".

Melara clearly couldn't forget her own prophecy, just like Cersei keeps remembering hers.

Can't find the exact bit right now, but I recall Melisandre pointing out that they're granted visions of the possible futures precisely so they can try to steer things towards the best one, otherwise what would be the point of being granted the vision of a prophecy and writing it down if it was gonna come true anyway?

One value of prophecy is to give hope. For instance, if you read "The Prince who was promised will be betrayed by his own men and murdered, but will return from the fire to save the day", then you won't lose hope when you see Jon Snow get stabbed, because you know it's not the end of the story.

Even a purely negative prophecy, such as "King's Landing will burn", can give a degree of hope. Because if you see it and hear such a prophecy , and you see it's fulfillment, you know that there are more forces at work than merely those of humans. That Tywin and Cersei don't have the last word. That all of these events were known and anticipated, and the same beings who gave the prophecy are still at work to shape the world. So even when evil has a momentary triumph, one needn't simply lie down and despair. Human evil is not the greatest power in the world and does not have the last word.

Prophecy, then, in-world serves the threefold function of warning against bad courses of action, encouraging good ones, and providing hope to those who would otherwise despair. On a meta- level , it's a way for an author to sneak in some foreshadowing and engage audience interest.

ETA: When you think about it, those three things are exactly what Gandalf spends all of the Lord of the Rings doing, so he's more a seer than a classic fantasy wizard. The closest analogue in GoT is Melisandre, but she's too closely involved in the action and seems to invariably put the wrong interpretation on her visions, with uncalculable harm as a result.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The Pilgrim]

The dramatically appropriate ending for that story is not one where the status quo from the beginning is reasserted (because that's generally bad anyway, unless the point of the story is to point out the futility of existence and underscore a philosophy of nihilism), but one where people have to make a new status quo in a world stranger than they have known.

It would be worth to note that the role of the Hero in most literally works of all time, is restoring the status quo that has been broken by the villiain.

So, GoT ending with the status quo restored is, in fact, the standard ending for almost all literary works of all time.

[hamishspence]

Melara's prophecy came true. She was wrong as well.

I was under the impression that we were supposed to infer that Melara was pushed into the well- by Cersei.

[Narkis]

Those two may've had some trouble making the right choices, but the High Septon 300 years ago was right when he was given the visions of the two possible futures of "oppose Aegon and Oltdown will burn" or "accept Aegon and Oldtown won't burn".

Melara clearly couldn't forget her own prophecy, just like Cersei keeps remembering hers.

Can't find the exact bit right now, but I recall Melisandre pointing out that they're granted visions of the possible futures precisely so they can try to steer things towards the best one, otherwise what would be the point of being granted the vision of a prophecy and writing it down if it was gonna come true anyway?

The High Septon's vision is an anomaly, the only known vision in the series that was immediately and correctly deciphered by its recipient and acted upon to prevent its fulfillment entirely. I would discount it as a convenient lie made up by a shrewd religious leader who had learned from the destruction of Harrenhall and wished to spare his flock the same fate. Or alternatively as a sign that the strength and accuracy of prophecy has declined along with all other magic. Or perhaps the High Septon was an unusually wise man, and could navigate succesfuly the paths of the future when so many others failed. In any case, his (supposed) success is not indicative of anything and we should not

Melara was a child who thought that by not thinking about a bad thing, that bad thing would not happen to her. She was proven wrong on that very night. There is no reason to believe burying your head in the sand would work in any other case.

And Melisandre has interpreted her visions correctly approximately zero times. She has power, but that doesn't mean she is right about anything else. And that's true of everything. Characters in stories may believe things, but we shouldn't take everything they say as gospel. Especially not when the evidence points the other way.

It would be worth to note that the role of the Hero in most literally works of all time, is restoring the status quo that has been broken by the villiain.

So, GoT ending with the status quo restored is, in fact, the standard ending for almost all literary works of all time.

Not quite. Generally, at the beginning of the story the status quo has been broken by the bad guy. To quote someone more knowledgeable in such matters, "The wicked empire exists. It has existed for some time, and it will continue to exist if no heroes intervene." That pre-existing break in the status quo is the impetus for the Hero to begin their Journey, unbreak the status quo, and create a better future that more often than not doesn't actually resemble an idealized past.

A full restoration of the status quo is reserved only for bleak, nihilistic stories. Stories whose moral is that the Hero doesn't matter, their Journey doesn't matter, all their struggles and sacrifices were ultimately for nothing. There are tales like that, to be sure, but there are few and far between. I don't think Martin intended for this to be the takeaway of his story, and I don't think the showrunners intended it either. We just arrived here through incompetence.

I was under the impression that we were supposed to infer that Melara was pushed into the well- by Cersei.

Yes, Cersei is the instrument of prophecy in this case.


And to expand on prophecy a bit, storytellers use prophecy in their stories for two reasons: One, when the story is heard by an uninterested party, or the recipients are unable or unwilling to act on it. The prophecy doesn't affect the story, but acts as foreshadowing, allowing the audience to anticipate - and dread - the fulfillment. Cassandra is a classic example of this. And two, when the listeners believe and act upon the prophecy, only for their intentions to be twisted. Those who wish to avert a prophecy can only see their efforts ensure its passing. And those who act to ensure it can only see it happen in unexpected ways. Prophecy then acts as character motivation, their hubris in thinking they can meddle with fate ultimately being their downfall. Ancient Greek tragedies were built on this, and it has been by far the most common use of prophecy in stories, some examples being Oedipus, Macbeth and Voldemort.

Martin has used both types in his books. Daenerys sees visions of the Red Wedding in the House of the Undying, The Ghost of High Heart talks cryptically of many things, including Lady Stoneheart and the Purple wedding. Those aren't meant for the characters but for the audience, getting us to believe in the power of prophecy and invested in the second use, as character motivation, on which I'll return in a few hours because this has taken long enough already and I really gotta go.

[The Pilgrim]

Not quite. Generally, at the beginning of the story the status quo has been broken by the bad guy. To quote someone more knowledgeable in such matters, "The wicked empire exists. It has existed for some time, and it will continue to exist if no heroes intervene." That pre-existing break in the status quo is the impetus for the Hero to begin their Journey

Up until here, that is exactly what I said.

unbreak the status quo, and create a better future that more often than not doesn't actually resemble an idealized past.

"Unbreak"? You mean "restore", right? Because, for example, that is how the original triology of Star Wars ends, with the defeat of the Empire and the restoration of the Galactic Republic. It is also how the Lord of the Rings ends, with the rightful dinasty of kings restored in Gondor and all that.

By the way, in clasical literature, "creating a better future" means exactly "restoring an idealized past". Almost all civilizations thought about History as a progressive degeneration from an idealized past, an Age of Heroes. Heroes and leaders of the present could only aim to restore some of the former glory, but never surpass it. The notion that you could achieve better than the ancients was only defeated in the western civilization, thanks to the scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment. Literature caught up much later, in part due to the outbreak of Romanticism, which was a step back from the Enlightenment.

The Fantasy genre, allegedly, is a child of Romanticism, and thus heavly influenced by romantic escapism. But GRR Martin is a subverter of the Genre. Or at least he regards him as so.

A full restoration of the status quo is reserved only for bleak, nihilistic stories. Stories whose moral is that the Hero doesn't matter, their Journey doesn't matter, all their struggles and sacrifices were ultimately for nothing.

I'd say that the "bleak, nihilistic stories where the Hero doesn't matter, the journey doesn't matter and their sacrifices were for nothing" are actually the ones in which the protagonists are railoaded through the narration by a prophecy, as you described below:

(...) And two, when the listeners believe and act upon the prophecy, only for their intentions to be twisted. Those who wish to avert a prophecy can only see their efforts ensure its passing. And those who act to ensure it can only see it happen in unexpected ways. Prophecy then acts as character motivation, their hubris in thinking they can meddle with fate ultimately being their downfall (...)

Prophecies understood as Unavoidable Fate were a key narrative device in religious societies, intended to teach people to shut up and obey the will of Gods, because it is pointless to resist them (the will of the Gods being whatever the Priests said it was, of course).

But we live in a secular society now, at least in the West. So Prophecies are incleasingly more and more featured in literature as a big pile of bollocks only believed by religious fanatics and gullible saps. Which fits quite correctly with the "realist" style GRR Martin proclaims to follow, and his will to "subvert narrative conventions". In GoT the best example of this usage is Stannis burning her daughter for absolutely no rational reason and to achieve absolutely nothing. Or Daenerys becoming a psycophatic tyrant for trapping herself in her own fantasy world in which she had a Manifest Destiny to Rule over All.

[Rodin]

Up until here, that is exactly what I said.



"Unbreak"? You mean "restore", right? Because, for example, that is how the original triology of Star Wars ends, with the defeat of the Empire and the restoration of the Galactic Republic. It is also how the Lord of the Rings ends, with the rightful dinasty of kings restored in Gondor and all that.

Generally, in clasical literature, "creating a better future" means exactly "restoring an idealized past".

That isn't what status quo means. In Star Wars, the Empire has been around for 20 years. You can't say that something that happened decades before the start of the story is that story returning to the status quo, because the status quo is the brutal Empire ruling over everyone. Lord of the Rings even makes a point about how returning to the status quo is impossible, with the Scouring of the Shire representing how you can't go home again and a general loss of innocence of the Hobbits. The Elves all sail away, resulting in a general decline of magic and humanity coming into their own. The return of the kings of Gondor is explicitly a change in the status quo that exists at the start of the story, where Gondor is ruled by stewards and has lost a ton of political capital as a result.

Making things better is inherently a change in the status quo, just as making things worse is. An example of the status quo remaining would be a show like Blake's Seven, where our plucky band of rebels ultimately fail to defeat the evil Federation and are killed in the final episode.

[The Pilgrim]

That isn't what status quo means. In Star Wars, the Empire has been around for 20 years. You can't say that something that happened decades before the start of the story is that story returning to the status quo, because the status quo is the brutal Empire ruling over everyone.

No, it is not. The status quo, the things as they should be, were the Galactic Republic, and the Balance in the Force. The villiains, that is the Empire, broke the status quo. During the original Triology, the Empire was defeated, the political system went back to a Republic, and the Balance in the Force was restored.

The new triology is the one that is about not defeating evil to restore anything, just kill the bad guys and move on to build something better. And most fans don't seem to like it. Apparently, people do not appreciate that the movie industry has caught up with the post-enlightnement perception of history as progress, instead of the classical percpetion of history as a cycle of degeneration from an idealized past until the cycle is renewed either by a Hero or an Apocalypse.

The return of the kings of Gondor is explicitly a change in the status quo that exists at the start of the story, where Gondor is ruled by stewards and has lost a ton of political capital as a result.

That Gondor is ruled by stewards is not the start of the story. It is part of the story. Sauron had been on the move since a lot before Bilbo gives the One Ring to Frodo. What belongs to before the start of the story, is when Gondor was ruled by the rightful Kings, and Sauron had been defeated, his rings losts, his forces scattered, giving birth to the Third Age. That was the idealized past that had degenerated and the Heroes restored, giving birth to the Fourth Age. Tolkien was true to the cyclical view of history I described avobe, each Age begins in an ideal state of things and then degenerates as the corruption from the forces of Evil grows on the Middle Earth, until they are vanquished by Heroes.

[Rodin]

No, it is not. The status quo, the things as they should be,

I'm going to stop you right there, and direct you to the definition of status quo.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/status-quo

noun
the existing state or condition.


You are using the word incorrectly.

At the beginning of A New Hope, the status quo the existing state or condition is that the Empire rules. At the end of the trilogy, the status quo has been upset, and the Empire has been destroyed.

You also cannot use backstory or in-story history as "the status quo". Because it isn't, by definition - it is something that happened in the past. It isn't the existing state or condition. And at the start of Lord of the Rings (i.e. when we first meet Frodo), there is no king in Gondor. Ergo, at the end of the story, when there IS a king, the status quo has been upset.

The entire foundation of your argument is based on an incorrect definition of the word being discussed.

[The Pilgrim]

I'm going to stop you right there, and direct you to the definition of status quo.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/status-quo

noun
the existing state or condition.

You are using the word incorrectly.

No, I am not.

"Status Quo" means the existing state or condition in a determinate moment.

The question is... when?

And the answer can be clearly read in my original message:

It would be worth to note that the role of the Hero in most literally works of all time, is restoring the status quo that has been broken by the villiain.

Therefore I was, as can be easly read, refering to the existing state or condition before it was broken by the villiain.

You are wrongly assuming that I was refering to the existing state or condition when the movie/book begins. But that is your false assumption, not what I wrote.

You are arguing against your own strawman.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Status quo" is largely contextual.

There are limits to analytical tools like "the monomyth", almost any story can be made to "fit" if you squint and twist enough, and those tools should never be taken as prescriptive and universal.

[John Campbell]

The new triology is the one that is about not defeating evil to restore anything, just kill the bad guys and move on to build something better. And most fans don't seem to like it. Apparently, people do not appreciate that the movie industry has caught up with the post-enlightnement perception of history as progress, instead of the classical percpetion of history as a cycle of degeneration from an idealized past until the cycle is renewed either by a Hero or an Apocalypse.

The problems with the new Star Wars trilogy have nothing to do with the perception of history. They're, well, the same problems the last season or two of Game of Thrones had: breaking universe logic and forcing characters to behave in baffling ways in order to execute a contrived plot that doesn't work otherwise.

[Max_Killjoy]

The problems with the new Star Wars trilogy have nothing to do with the perception of history. They're, well, the same problems the last season or two of Game of Thrones had: breaking universe logic and forcing characters to behave in baffling ways in order to execute a contrived plot that doesn't work otherwise.

Yeap.

When the author or show-runner or director's plot points become more important than the setting or characters, things fall apart.

[Olinser]

The problems with the new Star Wars trilogy have nothing to do with the perception of history. They're, well, the same problems the last season or two of Game of Thrones had: breaking universe logic and forcing characters to behave in baffling ways in order to execute a contrived plot that doesn't work otherwise.

It's what I call 'connect the dots' plot.

Instead of writing your plot out and changing it to adapt to the characters as they develop within the story, they're writing Big Scenes and then trying to figure out how they can write a plot to use those things, regardless of how characters would actually act in the situations.

The last season feels like they started with a list of bullet points from GRRM and figured out how they could get them in the show.

[deuterio12]

The High Septon's vision is an anomaly, the only known vision in the series that was immediately and correctly deciphered by its recipient and acted upon to prevent its fulfillment entirely. I would discount it as a convenient lie made up by a shrewd religious leader who had learned from the destruction of Harrenhall and wished to spare his flock the same fate. Or alternatively as a sign that the strength and accuracy of prophecy has declined along with all other magic. Or perhaps the High Septon was an unusually wise man, and could navigate succesfuly the paths of the future when so many others failed.

The "High Septon had huge Wis score being a cleric and stuff while Melisandre is a Cha based caster so dumped Wis " approach sounds actually quite plausible to me. If there was somebody that could claim the title of wisest of the land, it certainly would be the fantasy pope.

Even if you claim it was a lie to spare the flock, remember that everybody at present King's Landing was too retarded to surrender to Daenerys right away when she shows up with dragons and about a hundred thousand troops, so seems like wisdom is a common dump stat accross Westeros.

So it's possible to distinguish multiple futures and aim for a best one, but it's a pretty difficult Wis check to tell what's what.

[Olinser]

The "High Septon had huge Wis score being a cleric and stuff while Melisandre is a Cha based caster so dumped Wis " approach sounds actually quite plausible to me. If there was somebody that could claim the title of wisest of the land, it certainly would be the fantasy pope.

Even if you claim it was a lie to spare the flock, remember that everybody at present King's Landing was too retarded to surrender to Daenerys right away when she shows up with dragons and about a hundred thousand troops, so seems like wisdom is a common dump stat accross Westeros.

So it's possible to distinguish multiple futures and aim for a best one, but it's a pretty difficult Wis check to tell what's what.

It wasn't stupid to not surrender. She only had 1 dragon left and last time they saw her they shot a dragon down with little difficulty and zero casualties.

Not their fault they didn't read the patch notes nerfing Scorpions and buffing dragons.

As soon as the dragon proved superior they DID try to surrender.

[Narkis]

To continue what I started with the prophecies, there are three main ones that acted as character motivation in the books.

"As swift as the wind he rides, and behind him his khalasar covers the earth, men without number, with arakhs shining in their hands like blades of razor grass. Fierce as a storm this prince will be. His enemies will tremble before him, and their wives will weep tears of blood and rend their flesh in grief. The bells in his hair will sing his coming, and the milk men in the stone tents will fear his name. The prince is riding, and he shall be the stallion who mounts the world."

The Dothraki, and the blood witch Mirri Maz Duur, believe this to be Daenerys's unborn child. The Dothraki are elated by the revelation. Mirri acts to avert the prophecy. She kills Daenerys's child in her womb and leaves Khal Drogo comatose and Daenerys ostensibly barren, unable to have children. At first glance it seems to be a prophecy averted, as Mirri was certain before her death. But, prophecies are not so easily averted. Daenerys's dragons are her children as much as her son would be. She rides Drogon to battle like a stallion. Her enemies certainly tremble before them. And she unites the Khalasar, leading them to a conquest never before seen, across a sea never before crossed. That is a properly executed prophecy story. Mirri's hubris, her attempt to defy fate, is quite possibly the very cause of the destiny she sought to avoid.

Cersei: When will I wed the prince?
Maggy: Never. You will wed the king.
Cersei: I will be queen, though?
Maggy: Aye. Queen you shall be... until there comes another, younger and more beautiful, to cast you down and take all that you hold dear.
Cersei: Will the king and I have children?
Maggy: Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you. Gold shall be their crowns and gold their shrouds, she said. And when your tears have drowned you, the valonqar shall wrap his hands about your pale white throat and choke the life from you.

"Valonqar", as I'm sure you all know by now, means "little brother". Parts of this prophecy are very clear and undeniably came true. Cersei married King Robert Baratheon and became Queen. Robert fathered an undetermined but quite large number of bastards, while Cersei had only three. Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen all had golden hair. And they all died before Cersei. Other parts are more open to interpretation. Cersei herself believed the Valonqar to be Tyrion, and the younger and more beautiful Queen to be Margaery Tyrell. This drove her animosity towards both. It caused her to alienate Tyrion, leaving Jaimie the only good person in his early life. It caused her to immediately suspect Tyrion when Olenna Tyrell and Littlefinger framed him for Joffrey's murder, leading to the death of Oberyn, the Mountain, and Tywin, and for Tyrion to flee and eventually serve Daenerys. It lead her to try, and fail, to distance Margaery from Joffrey and Tommen, culminating in her false accusation of Margaery to the newly-rearmed Faith, her falling victim to similar accusation, her walk of shame, and (in the show) the destruction of the Sept of Baelor.

In the show, the prophecy was kinda forgotten in the later seasons. While Daenerys may have cast Cersei down and taken all that she held dear, she was smothered by a surprisingly light pile of rubble. No little brother choked her. In the show, the prophecy misfired at the end, through no effort of any character in the story.

In the books the prophecy has not fired yet. Myrcella and Tommen are still alive. Daenerys may yet end up being the younger and more beautiful Queen that Cersei fears, but Tyrion will probably not choke her. The most prominent candidate is Jaimie, who has been drifting apart from her since he lost his hand and met Brienne, and especially after Tyrion revealed she had been unfaithful with his parting words. When Cersei sends him a letter to come save her from the Faith Militant, he burns the letter. And that would, again, be a proper use of prophecy. Cersei's hubris has caused, and will continue to cause, problems. Her downfall will follow organically from her mistakes and flaws.

There will come a day after a long summer when the stars bleed and the cold breath of darkness falls heavy on the world. In this dread hour a warrior shall draw from the fire a burning sword. And that sword shall be Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes, and he who clasps it shall be Azor Ahai come again, and the darkness shall flee before him.

When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone.

No one ever looked for a girl..It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar I thought … the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King’s Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar Targaryen was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet.

What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years.
Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it.

I pray for a glimpse of Azor Ahai, and R'hllor shows me only Snow.

The big one. The prophecy that started everything. I won't dwell on Rhaegar whose attempt to fulfill the prophecy caused Robert's Rebellion and the downfall of House Targaryen. Neither will I dwell on Melisandre and her proclaiming Stannis Baratheon Azor Ahai. (At times, she seems rather dimwitted.) But I will say that Daenerys Targaryen was born in Dragonstone, a volcanic island, a place of salt and smoke. She woke dragons from her petrified eggs, while a red comet was blazing across the sky. It could be argued that her dragons were a metaphorical burning sword, drawn from the fire. And she certainly has the capacity to cause darkness to flee before her. It remains to be seen whether she will end up being the Princess That Was Promised, or it will be Jon Snow, the other prominent candidate. I'm unaware of anything that would make Jon Snow fit the prophecy as we know it, but we haven't seen the resurrection yet in the books and I have every confidence that Martin can make it seem obvious in retrospect.

The show, again, kinda forgot about the prophecy in the later seasons. The last mention was from that Red Priestess who, quite reasonably, proclaimed Daenerys Azor Ahai and helped Tyrion stabilise Meereen. After that, nothing. Not even Melisandre mentioned anything about Azor Ahai when she returned to Winterfell, sans the promised reinforcements. It is as if the showrunners knew they couldn't possibly twist the prophecy to fit Arya, and so they didn't even try. In the process, they made everyone who ever cared about these prophecies seem really, really stupid. They may congratulate themselves that they managed to subvert the audience's expectations and outsmart everyone, but that is the exact opposite of how to construct a good story, where the characters feel human and effect always follows a cause.

The Pilgrim, I think it would be best if we agreed to disagree. Words are the basis of communication. They are the means by which ideas are transmitted from mind to mind. Assigning different meaning to the same words is nothing but a recipe for miscommunication. There can be no meaningful dialogue unless both parties are listening to what the other wants to say, rather than what they want to hear.