The ONLY way to finish The Winds of Winter 

Martin's statement about Gardener's writing sounds great, but I'm not sure he ever fully realized, that one part of a gardener's work is removing the weeds and trimming the hedges.

Maybe him not finishing the book series _is_ his ultimate subversion of tropes

I think ASOIAF is fundamentally about good people having to match their ideals with a brutal reality. I never got the impression that Martin condemns, mocks or condescends idealism with his characters - quite the opposite. “Seven, Brienne thought again, despairing. She had no chance against seven, she knew. No chance, and no choice. She stepped out into the rain, Oathkeeper in hand.” - Chapter 37, AFFC Brienne does not need to get involved. She can just walk away. But in her mind *She has no choice*. She must defend the weak in every instance, at all times, regardless of the odds against her, regardless if it means her own death.

Actually it being a mess of themes and building up so many storylines without finishing any is accodentally genius perhaps because now so many interpretations of themes, solutions to mysteries and continuations of stories now exist through fan theories etc Like seriously, the reasons so many of us are still so invested in this series is because it's unfinished and could go anywhere, so we discuss every little detail and have fun doing that. So in conclusion: The true meaning of a song of Ice and Fire is the friends we made along the way

In some old review, I read this quote: Martin won a contest Tolkien didn't attend. Tolkien didn´t subvert expectations, because he couldn't. He didn't write a story, he created a world (he wrote a mythology, not "a fiction"). He was the one making rules, there was no reason to violate them. Martin is telling a story about "real" people in a world where rules exist, even conflicting rules. It makes sense for the characters to not stick to them. They must break some to fulfill another.

Tolkien was also inspired by war. The worst war to be a solider in, in history. World war 1. He witnessed it all first hand and fought in it and he turned his experience into a story of hope for a better world. Its criminal to talk about Georges influence with the vietnam war, a war he didnt take part in but not mention ww1s influence on Tolkien, who actually did take part in it. If anybody understands war better of the two, its Tolkien.

This sounds a lot like the Silmarillion. The Elven kingdoms fall one-by-one to Morgoth's forces due to a combination of hubris, infighting, and Morgoth's exploits, retreat to an island, and send Earendil to beg the Valar for forgiveness. The Valar do save the elves but in the process Beleriand sinks beneath the sea, and the elves' human allies become the most powerful race in Arda.

I like how Jaime's character is a double subversion. At first he looked like the typical knight in shining armor, turned out to be a child-killing, sister-fucking, oath-breaking asshole. GRRM initially intended for him to sit the iron throne, be the main villain but that would have been too easy. And so he subverted his own expectation and wrote the greatest redemption arc in history. Jaime's character, after 2 subversions, became the one of most complex and well-liked character in the asoiaf universe.

Btw the themes are post modernism even in morality eg: if you do good, you can lose; if you do good, you can win; if you do evil you can win; if you do evil you can lose . This creates the impression that anything can happen, no one is safe.

"And then, Heimdall will blow his might horn announcing Ragnarok, and Loki will come in his cursed ship with the unworthy dead to wage war against Asgard, accompanied by the Jotun and the fire giants, and fall in ruinous combat while also killing Heimdall. The monstrous wolves Haiti and Skol will devour the Sun and the Moon, and Fenrir finally kills the allfather Odin, being slain by his son Vengeance. Then, Thor and Jormungandr will engage in deadly battle, with Thor finally slain the serpent. Covered in the poisonous blood of the serpent of Midgard, Thor laughs, exclaiming "I did it! I've finally slain the serpent of Midgard!", then Thor takes 7 steps and falls to the ground, dead". GRRM: "but what was Odin's tax policy?"

Arya killing the "Night King" is a very poor example to use for an example of how the books might "end" like the show- since the books doesn't mention the presence of a "Night King" whatsoever. He is purely a show fabrication. There is even footage of Dan and Dave saying something to the effect that they thought "Arya" made the most sense for the scene. So they were trying to subvert Azor Ahai - not George. This fact alone is a major contributor to why many fans despise season 8. I doubt that George will screw that part up in the books. :b

High fantasy written by a devout Catholic vs. High fantasy written by an agnostic postmodernist

He already broke his naming convention with A Feast for Crows

While I agree with your ending, the only thing I disagree is that Jon somehow barely participated in this at all, considering that he’s a character who’s the most invested in this white walker issue since the beginning. He should be the one to do something about it, not being left out altogether because “subversion”.

At this point, people waiting for the Rapture sound more convincing than fans waiting for aSoIaF to ever finish.

Tolkien himself delighted in subverting or distorting Shakespeare. Macbeth gets quite a bit of this.

12 minutes in now and I don't think you're really correct about all of this. "A Song of Ice & Fire" isn't about subverting Tolkien, it's about deconstructing Tolkien. Those are NOT the same things. Subversion is just about making it superficially seem like you're going to do it in the same way, and then pulling the rug out from under people to reveal it is the opposite. But this is not what George does. What he does is he takes a closer look at the assumptions and beliefs inherent in Tolkien's writing and lays out the benefits, the downsides, the flaws, and the nuances of them. Your example about advice is actually a good one to go to in order to illustrate this. Your argument is that Robert and Ned is a subversion of Gandalf and Theodin because in this case good advice just strengthens the bad king's bad qualities. But putting aside whether that's a fair description, I don't really think it is, I would point you to someone like Young Griff. This character is clearly set up to be advised in a better way and, though hardly perfect, to probably be willing to listen to his advisors and make some good decisions too. Daenerys does as well. She struggles to create peace in Meereen, listens to some of her advisors, and helps to create peace. Yes, the peace falls apart due to bad actors but she did still manage to create peace. This nuance is possible because, again, you're not correct about what George is trying to create. He isn't trying to subvert Tolkien, he is trying to deconstruct him. Show all of the nuances, assumptions and investigate them. Martin's world also is not nihilistic, it's existentialist in nature. George's world isn't about saying there is no meaning, it's about saying that people choose their meaning.

George doesn't believe in good and evil. To me thats the biggest difference between him and Tolkien. Personally I appreciate the difference

I find this analysis is a little myopic, for a couple of reasons, I will try to my best to give a few. First of all, A Song of Ice and Fire isn't specifically a response to Tolkien; the reputation it gets for being "subversive" is in large part owed to the TV show that marketed itself as being adult and subversive of fantasy. Asoiaf is still heavy with tropes and themes, and there is nothing particularly anti-fantasy about it. There are unexpected twists and turns, and quite a few of them, but what makes them shocking is the fact that the story has been silently building to them while we the readers are none the wiser. GRRM's comments about Tolkien are not specifically a criticism of Tolkien himself as a writer but a commentary of the impact his work has had on fantasy (which he himself is not immune to) and the way The Lord of the Rings has shaped the genre in ways Tolkien himself could never have anticipated. As in your commentary about chivalry in the books, I don't think GRRM is critical of the concept of chivalry; quite the contrary. Though yes, the idealism of characters like Sansa and Jaime who revere the knights of the songs and legend gets brutally tested, the Starks are posited as the heroes of the story precisely because of their honor and decency. Rather, I would argue what the story proposes is that chivalry and the strict code of honor the characters subscribe to (at least in theory) is the only failsafe in a system that is very much ripe for exploitation, from people like the Lannisters who have very little scrupples and will do anything to promote their own interests. However family ties are not portrayed as a necessarily bad thing; the Starks suffer for being parted from one another and all struggle to get home. "The lone wolf dies but the pack survives". Familial bonds are important. However they should not hamper one's partiality, as is demonstrated again by the Lannisters. You also mention the famous quote about Aragorn's tax policy and you specifically say 'he'd do what a wise and good King would do' but that's exactly the point... you can be as wise and good as you can, that still can not surmount the limitations of your resources and circumstances (as demonstrated by Daenerys in the books), and when there's a famine a good King may have to take harsh decisions. Politics is complicated, and goodness is not always rewarded in real life; for example, Ned Stark does the honorable thing and gets punished for it, because not everyone is playing by the rules. If they were, meaning, if everyone was chivalrous, then he wouldn't have met that end, but he makes that assumption because of his own morality and that brings about his downfall. I'd argue the framing tricks us here but it's not subversion for subversion's sake, it is the natural conclusion of what the story has been building up to since the beginning. I am also puzzled by your final point about the significance of the "father myth" because the inclusion of a personified god is very much not what makes Tolkien's lore work, and it shouldn't really be, Tolkien draws from a rich tradition of myths and stories, building upon them and weaving them into an intricate tapestry that produces something new. GRRM takes a more nihilistic approach and is critical of systems that can be abused to the detriment of the vulnerable, ergo, he is critical of religion; though it is unclear whether supernatural forces that we might name Gods are at play here, in fact that is heavily suggested. That is also not subversion for subversion's sake, as the philosophical concept of a god who is either indifferent to humanity or not necessarily benevolent is one that predates Martin. Tolkien appeals to our inner goodness and innocence that fables often cater to and as such his universe is governed by benevolent forces and his characters are fundamentally good. Each story is different. Each makes a different point. So each uses different building blocks to get to it. All in all, while I find most of your arguments compelling for the most part, I think the thesis of this video boils down to Tolkien-Good Martin-Bad, and I don't see why that is; they take fundamentally different stances on a lot of matters, but each has its own merits and each brand of fantasy does have a place in the jaded world that we occupy in the present moment. And they are both, at the end of the day, escapism into imagination, if you really think about it. And lastly, I would like to believe that "war is bad" is a pretty much uncontroversial statement. No?

George deconstructs all the traditional beliefs and customs of his own civilisation, thats why its called "WESTeros", but when tasked with replacing those things with something better he struggles immensly. Whatever he puts forward will be subjective and even more easily deconstructed. And of course he doesn't have the guts for a truly nihilistic ending.

I think fandom, and the most ASOIAF theoretics for years have been having versions of how to finish ASOIAF. You can take, for example, the best of them David Lightbringer (im my opinion) who goes through endless sea of symbolism and narrative roles present in ASOAIF and deciphers it all into a beautiful tapestry of mythological foreshadowing and (hopefully) future plot. There is nothing wrong that at some point some characters would act out the roles of "chosen ones" and so on, that you think George can't allow them to and therefore, he can't finish the books on a thematical level. Lightbringer's videos show an abundance of thematical coherence in ASOIAF and how exactly those tropes can still be subverted (against in-world prophecies and expectations). He analyzed Azor-Ahai myth, the Others and the possible resolution of the conflict, that is rooted deeply in the fact that George is a hippie in his heart, too. You're saying that it cannot be done only shows that you think it can't, because it is nihilistic in nature and, therefore, should disintegrate into a chaotic mess. Stories don't need an almighty Creator injecting himself into the narrative to wrap up or make sense or obtain the sense of purpose. That is a religious view that purpose can only be given from high above, and if not then everything is meaningless. I can assure you, there's plenty of non-believers out there who don't find life meaningless at all. I just want to say that there's plenty of books written and completed out there, much more nihilistic than ASOIAF ever will be, and they are finished. It is enough to look at plenty of "Grimdark" genre examples to see that even with trope subversion authors can finish books. Heck, even Dune is subverting the chosen one trope with Paul and he still does what hero's journey needs him to do, just in a subversive manner. There's plenty of room to keep with what ASOIAF is doing and go down to Azor Ahai vs Others, and still subvert it, in George's hippie's way, which is what majority of fandom thinks it will be (show sucked here). The fact that Martin can't finish a story is not rooted in the nihilism or subversion of tropes that he has to follow to the T. It is rooted in his absolutely poor writing routine, moody distractions, gardening approach and, probably, his 1987 DOS computer.

It reminds me of the story of how "Easy Rider" had no ending when filming started; they were originally going to cross the entire country. After six months of shooting mostly useless footage the studio hired a script doctor to write a satisfying, but quick ending. I will not spoil the ending here, but he got paid a lot of money for a few lines of text.

2:28: "Maybe that's the reason why George can't finish his sixth book - the ending he'd originally planned is too close to the unpopular show ending." I think you've nailed it. George himself has stated several times that he really liked the secondary/minor threat of Saruman having to be dealt with after the main war with Sauron in the Lord of the Rings, so you can bet your last penny that his books will be, or at least WERE, following this template, which would mean dealing with Cersei after the Night King, in the same way as the show. In this way, the title 'A Song of Ice and Fire' compliments both the 'main' protagonist Joh Snow (born from Fire and Ice) and the twin threats of ice and fire (The Knight King and Daenerys). Personally speaking, I no longer care in the slightest whether Martin finishes the books or not - you've seen the story play out already in the show, and how did you all feel about it? Besides, while the books are undoubtably great examples of fantasy writing, they're not a patch on the first five seasons of Game of Thrones, which managed to cut out all the over-detailed filler (how many buttons are on a waistcoat, for example) that slowed the books to a halt constantly, introduce scenes which had better dialogue, and was far more streamlined (well, we're still waiting on George aren't we). Unless I'm out of other books, I really can't see me returning to A World of Song and Fire in book format (I feel I've gotten all I can from it at now), although I do love House of the Dragon, and consider myself fully on-board with any new series' developments (I'm almost certain we won't see another season 8 of GOT these days).

A Wind of Winter just doesn’t sound good, thank goodness he’s breaking the convention. 😂

25:25 He specifically shows that peace times are good. There are several generations if peace at several times in the franchise. There was a decade of peace after Robert's Rebellion. There was well over half a century of peace during the reigns of Jaeherys and Viserys I.

I take umbrage with this video lol. As someone who loves both Tolkien and Martin I think you’ve misunderstood the latter of these two by quite a bit. Let’s go analyze a few points here. “Oaths cannot be taken seriously” No, this is not the case, there are people who *do* keep their oaths generally at great personal cost. That’s what Martin is saying, Duty requires sacrifice, that’s why so many *cant* keep their word, because it’s difficult and comes with a price. Take Ned for example, he chooses to honor his oath to his dying sister at the cost of his own honor, he never breaks his vow to his sister but it certainly wasn’t easy to do so. There is also the point of when is it better to break your oath? Jamie for example was sworn to protect the king but in breaking that oath, saved countless innocent people. You bring up family ties as well, which is rather odd, as there is plenty of familial turmoil in Tolkiens writing. I mean Feanor and Fingolfin are great examples of that, Feanor leaves Fingolfin to die after crossing a frozen sea and hates him because he has a different mother. And Turin’s story is worse, he quite literally falls in love with his sister, she ends up killing herself when she finds out and in his despair Turin has his own sword slay him, there are no victors in his story. Sounds pretty grim dark to me. Or Eol’s son lusting after his own cousin, there is plenty of weird familial drama in Tolkiens tales. I also heavily disagree with your take on Martin’s interpretation of religion, it’s not entirely “false” just esoteric and often misunderstood. Take for example the faith of R’hllor, clearly there is some force at play with the practitioners of this faith, with fire magic, bringing people back to life etc. It is true the Martin criticizes institutions of religion I.e the Catholic Church (which I don’t think anyone would argue has not had plenty of corruption in it) and presents a world where the gods are not readily benevolent. Remember that Martin was also heavily inspired by the works of H.P Lovecraft, where the “gods” of his world are indifferent to humanity. That is more so the type of world George writes about, a place we’re the higher powers seemingly don’t care about humans unless they are willing to do something for the gods first(often in the form of sacrifice) certainly it’s different from a Christian viewpoint but it’s not explicitly anti-religious. There are good religious characters in the story, Thoros of Myr comes to mind You say that George can’t help himself when it comes to “subverting” Tolkien tropes but I don’t think that at all. Sure George can criticize at times the romanticized notions of fantasy ideals but this idea he’s taking everything Tolkien did and making it “oh so dark and edgy” is a very surface level take away from what most of Martin says. A great example of this is, the supposed ruling lineage of the realms. Aragorn is destined to be king because he is descended from the men of Numenor, the great men of old. He can wield the reforged blade of his ancestors, has their healing hands and is the rightful heir to Gondor Now compare that with the Targaryens, George makes the point that just because you are of a certain bloodline does not inherently make you a good person, plenty of Targ kings run the kingdom nearly to ruin because they weren’t fit for the job to rule, but got it anyway because of their lineage. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t good Targaryen kings in the story, there are a couple actually, it’s more that a man’s ideals is what makes him fit to rule not his bloodline. That’s the obvious story of Jon Snow, he’s the right one to rule because he tries his best to live by his adoptive father’s code of honor not because he’s the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. A Song of Ice and Fire is about how often our wants and desires conflict with what doing the right thing is, and how often doing what is right is difficult and costly. A story of people in an uncaring and hostile world still trying to do what they think is right. Not some hopeless world where everyone dies in the end. Illustrated in the conversation between Davos and Stannis when Stannis says “what is the life of one boy compared to the good of the realm.” And Davos says “Everything.” There are people who still do good and persist even when it is the more difficult option, even when the world is against them. This video comes across as praising Tolkien for sharing in your religious beliefs and mocking Martin for not doing so. As such it comes across as really bad faith arguments. That’s my takeaway anyhow, I’d encourage you to read them again with the outlook of the conflicts between, duty, honor, love and desire since that’s what George has said his story is about not a grim dark nihilistic Tolkien hit piece like you seem to think.

I do not think Martin's work is as cold and cynical as some people belive it to be. If anything it seems he never mocks idealism.

In the idea of subversion, I think Jon would become a big-bad of the Others, as: 1) His story, being most about fighting against the Others, then becomes fighting with the others. 2) As there are many hints of his possibly being Azorahai, the saviour from the darkness, him instead being one of them who brings it upon the world. 3) As being of the Stark blood, which is heavily implied to be mixed with the Others, there might be something of him or at least another stark, to doom the rest of the world not of the Others. 4) Being of the nightswatch, a group often ignored and belittled by the rest of the kingdom, it would be ironic if they would end up destroying the kingdom as puppets of the Others.

I agree that ASOIAF cannot end without heavy involvement from Bran and the Weirdwoods, and that’s why the Show didn’t work. It systematically reduced the role of magic any time it could thus the ending felt weird and unearned. Therefore the book ending can possibly work. At 16:00 when you talk about possible American fantasy involving a monarch stepping down from power made me immediately think about Brandon Sanderson who has this exact thing happen several times

Ramsey owns the hounds but I don't know if they'd actually consider him their master, that would be the kennelmaster who takes care of them. They'd only see Ramsey when the hunts happen, and the kennelmaster would be there too.

I think you're wrong about the knighthood stuff. Yes it was probably a lot more to do with religion and all that in real medieval Europe, but there are plenty of accounts of knights abusing their status and being every bit as depraved as they are in ASOIAF. One example of this that I can think of is, during a tourney a bunch of knights decided to completely ransack and destroy a nearby village basically just for fun doing some very ungodly things while they're at it. Yes chivalry and all that existed, but it also exists in ASOIAF, there are many who break the codes and many who stick to them, this is how humans are in reality too

It’s funny that George states that due to Tolkien and Lord of the Rings, many fantasy writers created worlds with dark lords and ugly minions, oh no it should be that way, he says. Yet if you analyze his world with the Others/White Walkers and the night king it’s essentially the same concept except you swapped out orc for ice zombie. Brilliant George very original.

Martin's self described "gardeners" style of writing may have overwhelmed him. He spent so much time growing the story that it's too big for him to finish.

Euron Greyjoy is going to be The Witch King of the series.

My main beef with the final season of the television show is that the burning of King's landing is the conclusion and not the final battle with the others. I have no problem with the Mother of Dragons going mad and burning everyone and needing to be killed. I have no problem with the Nights King being killed by a little girl with a sword. They are just the wrong way round. I would move the battle of Winterfell to the charred ruins of King's Landing. With snow and falling ash merging. I would probably set it in daytime so we can see what's happening. One of my favourite television endings is Blakes 7. I've always wanted a story to end with evil succeeding and seeing what that means. What does a society of ice zombies do when the warm are all cold? Maybe when spring comes new dragons will hatch and reset the dance. Trees will cover the cities. Spring will bring forth blossom in a world without men. The Titan of Braavos, The Harpy of Yunkai, The faces of the Weirwoods could look out at a silent world of skulls and bones.

This is what I've always said, the walkers should destroy the kingdoms and slaughter everyone And I think you're right, it's his only option to end this thing

You have to probe the subtext to catch it, but the Seven in Westeros do hold sway over the affairs of men. This guy is twisting GRRM's themes to fit his narrative in some of these examples.

The difference between a fantasy world written by a Catholic VS an EX-catholic.

Respect for recognizing Lord Tywin as the real MC. One of the top 3 characters in all of fantasy

13:40 I’d like to challenge this. George as a history buff understands this very well. The choices he makes are deliberate. He is completely concious of the decisions he is making in even after considering the analogous historical context, as opposed to making decisions with lack of understanding. Where ideals differ, is clearly a choice.

arguing that tolkien's world is perfectly constructed while painting george as a mess si such a dishonest move when tollkien explicitly says in his letters how he doesn't even know many things fans asked and many silmarilion entries contradict themselves like the origin of orcs.

Samwise Gamgee = Samwell Tarly Pippin = Pyp Aragorn = Aegon (Jon) Sauron = Euron J “RR” Tolkien = George “RR” Martin

In my heart, I think that GRRM realized one of three things: 1) GRRM has realized he's written himself into a corner and is desperately trying to find a way out of the woods without resorting to killing off characters left and right. He views a mass culling of the named characters as some kind of 'cop out' and is futilely trying to tie up every storyline in a nice bow (even though killing off a huge chunk of the characters would be pretty in line with the real life inspiration for ASoIaF, the War Of The Roses). 2) Like you said in the video, he saw people hate one of his planned endings, and thinks that the only other real option he had, that being the White Walkers come in and kill everyone because they won't stop squabbling for long enough to stop them, would be even worse (even though that'd be kind of awesome imo). 3) He's resigned himself to never finishing the series, or letting any other author finish it, in his lifetime, but it is too chicken to admit that to his audience.

GRRM subverts tropes but they aren't LOTR tropes specifically. The influence is there because Martin is a massive fan of Tolkien but he definitely wanted to write his own work that isn't an analogue of Tolkien's work.

Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems like you understand the novels on the same level the show runners of game of thrones did. I'm 13 mins in so far and it seems like you think george is writing things simply to subvert expectations, and to suggest that "nihilism" is some sort of truth. This couldn't be further from the truth and its genuinely sad how many people can miss this in his writing. He writes magical realism, and uses the lens of historical fantasy to explore that idea. In LOTR the characters are idealized versions of "people" but they aren't really "people" they are characters that are nearly perfect in their convictions. In ASOIAF they are simply people, acting with their own interests in mind; Much like the real world. It's strange to look at this and think "george must be nihilistic" unless you are in fact a nihilist yourself. George explores what it REALLY means to be a hero. There are MANY examples of this but lets look at Ned stark. He dies because he didn't want Cerce and her children to be killed, he betrays his honour and names Joff a trueborn son of robert only in the hopes that his daughters might live. To be a hero is give yourself for what you TRULLY believe in. We see Ned as honourable because he wears honour quite convincingly. But in truth what he cares about is family, and family is what he dies for. He forsakes his honour for the sake of his sister and the promise he swore to her (to keep jon safe from robert who wanted to kill all targs), and bears the shame of having a bastard. He forsakes his honour by naming joff trueborn, only once Varys reminds him that if he keeps his honour something might happen to his daughters. He lives and dies for family. The subversion in his character is not that his honour is weak, its that his honour is to his family, not some shallow LOTR style honour. Ok I watched another 30 seconds.... George's inspirations are numerous. Yes, history plays a part in shaping how the story reads, as does his hatred for war. But Norse mythology is CENTRAL to the entire culture of westoros and specifically the north. Verdic Mythos is central to Dany's plot. Tarot cards and comic book references can be seen in just about every inch of the story. Weirwood trees are OBVIOUSLY a parallel to Ygg or the world tree from norse myth. Literally any character who has one eye is an Odin parallel. Kali = khaliessi. Bran falling from the broken tower is a "The tower" reference from tarot cards. the list goes on. I cannot believe you suggested that chivalry and piety were somehow different or uniquely pure in medieval europe. There are countless tales of knights being brutes, or priests who abused their powers. Knights were a product of the church (because the king was the product of the church), and Knights in westoros are the product of the Faith of the Seven (because the king is the product of the faith of the seven. Aegon the conqourer was crowned in the light of the Seven. He does this to give his rule legitimacy) why would you expect them to require land as the Christian knights did? Its a different religion that governs them. I'm at 18:55 and it seems you think George was MUCH more involved in the shows than he was. He stopped talking to the show runners after season 4 and only ever wrote 4 episodes. The plot beats the showrunners used to script the ending (from seasons 6-8) was based on notes written in the style akin Fire and blood but even less detailed. I'm at 24:40 and again it seems like you're missing a lot of the point. Robert's rule was properious but after he's dead (and even during) its clear he's beggared the realm. They borrow and borrow and borrow and its clear that this will come back to bite them. Ned even talks about this before the tourney for the Hand. He complains that the crown is in debt but still borrows. Robert valued appearances and idealized versions of things. He wanted people to keep up appearance and so he raised little finger to master of coin because he was able to do that, but Robert did not care about the long term effects of this. When Ned becomes Hand and actually denis robert, its world shattering for him. I'm at 28:40 and I'm giving up. Its blindly obvious that you don't understand the themes at work. I won't say the ending is "obvious" to predict but every concluded plotline we have is a major hint as to how the story will end. Again Ned is a template/archetype (much like the Seven aspects of god in the Faith's religion); Characters will Give themselves entirely for what they truly believe in. Jon snow wants legitimacy because he was denied it. Tyrion wants revenge for the blame he bore for joff's death. Dany wants to provide home/shelter and free slaves because she never had a home, and knows what it is to be a scared child sold into slavery. If I would be so bold as to make a prediction as to how this all ends here I go: In very broad strokes: Jon is reborn and looked at as a deity for escaping death and rules the night's watch as the original night king did (the book version not the cringe HBO version). He discovers his purpose has something to do with the heart of winter and now that he can't die, he's perfectly suited to travel north. Dany wants to free slaves but is also being counciled by tyrion who wants revenge on the people of king's landing and for the whole tysa situation. Tyrion tricks dany into activating the wild fire caches that are placed all around king's landing. The people view her was a tyrant and a monster so she seeks absolution by answering the call of the night's watch and defeating the others with jon and freeing the thralls (or slaves) of the others . However she will likely have to killself in this process or her dragons, and its very likely that history will not remember her kindly. These are again, broad strokes and characters like Euron will definitely play a part. also at 11:30 you suggest that george wrote the dogs eating ramsey scene in the tv show... which he didn't, that was the showrunners D&D.

I love that you draw the line at dogs. Kudos to you. No one should be allowed to smear good dogos.

White Walkers definitely should win at Winterfell, with survivors forced to make for Kings Landing in one last stand But instead Cercei lures the white walkers into the city to blow them up with wildfire would be amazing finale

GRMM: Complains about Dark Lords and Evil Minions Also GRMM: Creates the Others and their Zombie Army

Nah, he knows where he wants it to go, generally 😊 ... I dont think it's a matter of finding a resolution, it's simply too unwieldy. It's taking forever to deal with continuity. He has written himself into many corners.

If I can compare Asoiaf to the Dune series, Frank Herbert had an important moral message for his audience: a warning about charismatic leaders and our need for adventure in life. George R.R. Martin wanted a story where nothing matters, which is why it's so hard to write an ending to it.

George has communicated a very clear ending to the story which in all probability will end with a semi-democratic system in place in Westeros. Not everyone may have picked this up but it's there. His struggle is bringing all the sprawling narratives back to the conclusion. Tolkien's style reflects the POV of an omniscient narrator which was popular in the early to mid-twentieth-century. I actually find the unreliable narrators in ASOIAF more compelling. As far as the naming convention, that's just English grammar. All of the other titles have countable nouns- game, clash, storm, feast and dream are all countable. Winds is an uncountable noun, so you can't use a or an. There is an overarching narrative that will be revealed even if everyone may not be able to see it at this point. Don't focus so much on Tolkien, GRRM has many influences. Also, he is not going to switch to an omniscient God-like narrator, which would be stupid. Also, you can't rely on the show for the conclusion. It was just foolish. Overall, I think there is some validity to this conclusion, it's just not as nuanced as the real ending will be.

10 minutes in and I'm still waiting for a point of some kind.

18:47 I'm sorry, mate, but equating Martin's book with the abomination of a series Dave an Dan created is just wild to me. And I'm very sure that Martin already expressed and hinted quite often at his discontent with how the series ended. I highly doubt Martin seeks to subvert his own bulld up by letting some randon character defear the White Walkers. Also, I don't agree at all with how you paint him as a nihilistic, vengeful hippie who justs wants to show the world how awful it is.

I enjoyed hearing your analysis on this series but I'd have to say that I don't agree with most of your conclusions. I don't necessarily think GRRM has been trying to subvert JRRT in every decision and moreso that JRRTs works are idealistic fantasy where morality is backed by extremely powerful forces and good always wins in the end, and GRRM is writing a fantasy story in a fantasy world which doesn't have any of that. It's a realistic fantasy where for example broken oaths are treated how they would be in real life. There's no magical force making the just decision forcing people into doing the right thing. In GRRMs world very often doing wrong things is what gets you ahead in life, and that's just how in many cases the real world has been proven to work. HOWEVER, GRRM is also I think using this backdrop to tell a story of heroes the same way JRRT did but with the stakes feeling much higher and more personal because of how realistic the world is, and I think this story does subvert but it's also realistic in that in some ways the good guys will win, just at heavy a cost. I think he definitely can't finish this story I'm a satisfying way that aligns with his themes but considering how sprawling this story is, it's taking him a LOT of time.

ASOIAF is too post modernistic and deconstructionist. That's why it's so hard for George to conceptualize a high quality continuation to his story.

G RR Martin does understand closure. A Storm of Swords ended on a highly cathartic note and Daenerys riding Drogon out of the fighting pit was that as well. He even made sure to make the reader feel as uncomfortable as possible before Drogon arrived.

this is really well argued! You brought up a lot of the issues that I have had with the morality of the series and the character arcs!

In Lotr, beauty is not always good. Look at how Sauron was Annatar for a long time and undermined both the elves and the numenoreans

My suspicion of J.K. Rowling having written half of the books remains. AND: The former has NOTHING to do with GRRM premeditating the murder of Meleys!!! 😭 `Fools like Jon Snow were revived, but Meleys lay dead!´

I've felt for years that this is the only reasonable end to the series. Humanity has very often faced faceless challenges with denial, infighting, and self-delusion. It'd be very fitting for each lord to see the White Walkers as an opportunity to rid themselves as a rival or consolidate power, all the while having a pet scholar whispering into their ear that the Walkers aren't a real threat and there will be some stratagem or lore that will ensure their own survival.

I really loved this video. It was awesome to hear your thoughts. I really liked you're idea of the ending too. Good job man. Entertaining, interesting, respectful, and fun.

The thing though about Martin's works is that they're almost historical in nature. Tolkien's work is mostly mythical, like the Bible, it presents itself as a unified moral framework, there is clear good and evil. Martin's work is like that of an unbiased third party recording historical events of a world that is as cruel and chaotic as our own with ever shifting morals, religions, truths. Magic exists, but no one knows if the Gods exist, the religious fanatics may in fact be worshipping some Lovecraftian demons without their knowledge. Unlike Tolkien's work, A song of ice and fire seems very cynical, pointing towards unending suffering, with the inhabitants of its world constantly fighting among each other for power or their truths. It's a cynic's allegory for our own world and because of it, it's unfinishable by design

I have to say that at the beginning of this video I wasn't sure that the point you made was right, but in the end it made a lot of sense.

Ever since the show ended, I’ve always thought there could only be three potential endings for the series, and you nailed one of them. 1: George’s initial plan for the end was actually very close to how the show ended. But now seeing the kind of reception that got, couldn’t possibly still go with it. 2: One of the main characters manages to unite the Seven Kingdoms together, and banish the threat of the White Walkers. Seeing how much George has beefed with the character of Aragorn, and always seems to portray his story as the modern “response” to LOTR, I couldn’t ever see George swallowing his pride and doing this ending. 3. Much like how you posit, the White Walkers return, the Seven Kingdoms cannot overcome their selfish bickering, and die one by one. Westeros becomes a cold, barren tomb. As fitting as an ending as this is for the series, I kinda doubt George would spend so many years of effort to write a seven book series only to end with “nothing mattered and everyone died” Looking back on it, it kinda seems like ASOIAF was unfinishable from the start. From book one we are told that there will come a time when The Game of Thrones no longer matters and that everyone must unite against the coming threat. But at the same time, almost everything George has written tells us that such a scenario could never happen. These people are just too self-serving, too myopic and conceited to ever unite for a cause that doesn’t directly benefit them. Good video man!

This is great! You have passion in this and I can feel it through the screen a little bit.

Well you say that Tolkien was wise not to talk about economics etc. but that is why I cannot get into most fantasy worlds, including Tolkien's. They seem to me paper thin with ''that King was good, that King was bad, they ruled for 100 years and killed Oompaloompas in great War of Shagadoom'' or whatever, GRRMs world is not perfect or amazingly detailed, but it has plenty of details for me to really feel lived in and real. I do not think you always have to subvert expectations, like Jon Snow can be Azor Ahai, kill the white walkers and marry Daeneris and live at least somewhat fine further on, but a lot of fantasy to me seems too simplistic in how they portray humans or elves or whomever... as GRRM says, if somebody is good then they are good, is somebody is evil then they are absolute evil... there are not that many stories with in-between, where characters have various sides to them. I like realism. That is also why I cannot play computer games because especially NPCs irritate me, no matter how detailed the setting is, there are a lot of things that feel cardboard and not real. Maybe if we have real AI NPCs in games in future and you can interact with them and create and run your own stories with them, I might return that that genre of entertainment. The realism aspect in the world is also why I like House of the Dragon because it really is a story which does not have a clear villain at all. It does not have Cersei. Closest that we have so far are Aemond and Daemon and even they are deeply conflicted people with past scars. And that story is finished and we know it's ending and it is a rather realistic and good ending to me, for a tragic story like that. Also, dragons are not treated just as some cool beasts that spew fire, but also as an amazingly powerful weapon that shocks the world to the core, they are not there to make readers and viewers be just in awe of them, but also to fear what they can do.

You don’t get it. Read the brienne chapters. It’s not about nihilism, it’s not about subversion, it’s about realizing you freedom and doing the right thing with it. The story obviously isn’t devoid of a sense of morality.

This video needs to be forwarded to Preston Jacobs because he is the most likely candidate to finish the story before George. It is urgent that he understands importance of mythological structure so that his fan-fiction may be as great as can be. Please get on that, Internet🙏.

Your idea about Bran as the son of a theoretical Weir-god, a role which Bloodraven failed to fulfill, is fantastic-the Second Adam recapitulating what the First failed.

not gonna lie, and I don't mean to sound judgemental...but I feel like Tyrion Lannister is talking to us

Re: Subverting the prince and princess expectations. I'd argue that Tolkien already did this with Eowyn and "not by man's hand he will die". So I don't think this will be much of a subvered expectation today.

It’s only fitting that in one final subversion of expectations, GRRM creates the real life plot twist of not delivering on his promised finale to the series. For GRRM, oaths exist to be broken. (Unless of course he goes a step further, subverting that expectation by actually finishing the story).

25:00 JRR Tolkien was meticulous in a manner that the envious GRRM (who's so envious that stole the RR from his better) can never even dream to be. Tolkien took into consideration time passage, he took into consideration the amount of time that characters would take travelling between places, not just driving them between dream sequence to dream sequence as the plot demanded. He created several fictional languages for Tolkien's sake! George is just an envious and vengeful with hate for the world. He's a pitiful little creature who is angry that he'll NEVER be able to come close to Tolkien.

Ok but what if grrm subverts the subversion and the good guys win?

Based monarch over cringe and gay democracy and I'm not even a monarchist I,agree with the Council

The ending should have been the kingdoms break up and there is a council of monarchs that meet to discuss issues

Bro economic policy is extremely important, it's the reason why in the real world things are so messy. TLDR "The Dictator's HandBook - Why Bad Behaviour is almost always good politics" changes one's viewpoint of the way politics interferes with reality. Choosing whom to disappoint when managing finite resources is costly, people always come with baggage and they'll undermine your agenda. Your allies always feel like they deserve to be fairly paid, the problem is that the resources mean you must disappoint people. Some people you can disappoint free of charge and others come with a nasty price you must pay.

This ending is just perfect, I will consider this my canon ending if no more books are released.

Ironically, Martin has shown his disbelief in video games as art and yet the answer to his story has already been done by a game, Dark Souls. A world almost devoid of hope, where the same vicious cycle or the same wheel is kept spinning by the actions of beings either for selfish reasons or by ignorance, and in the bitter sweet ending George seems to aim his series towards, the wheel is broken by letting the fire fades, by allowing the status quo to be broken and a new word to be born. His answer comes from the one place he is ignoring for so long. It is interesting that the other, in the book at least, are not mindless zombies but a misunderstood race, just as those who's soul is dark, humanity itself in the case of the DS universe, and perhaps in Martin's world as well.

The point about him actually not understanding medieval Europe, especially when it's coming through the lens of an American, who probably only ever got his information through relatively skewed and heavily simplified works, is pretty spot on. Considering he also started writing Asoiaf in the 90s (iirc), where the whole medieval discourse was still heavily misunderstood (as if, widespread belief in the Dark Ages, etc.) it shouldn't be that surprising.

I too think that the white walkers will likely be able to archive multiple victories and yeah humanity will win at the end but will be left in shambles.

Deagol was not Sméagol’s brother…they were cousins.

If the ASOIAF series is ever completed (by George it has to be George or it won’t “count” to enough people for this to matter) then it will become a equal to the LOTR series hands down. I’ll go a step further and say in 100 years it will be a back to back required reading for public high school students. You can basically read LOTR and learn how fantasy was started, how Tolkien’s work was so good it became how we even visualize fantasy itself with all the different tropes and characters. Then you would read Georges work and learn how he turned all of that on its head and even though without LOTR we wouldn’t have ASOIAF (or if we did it wouldn’t hit as hard as it does) George was still able to equal or even surpass Tolkiens work with his own.

House Redwyne in the end you described : uh, we're fine ! The last house of Westeros !

This is a good video, lots of interesting theories and ideas. Not sure I can agree with them all, but still a good watch. Here's hoping George has what it takes to prove us all wrong. The Others winning and causing another Long Night would be amazing, but I'd settle for them just making it past the first castle...

20 minutes on and now he's quoting LoTR like it's a point.

It doesn't seem like you actually read the books.

Genuinely such a good video. So thoughtful and well explained. “A Dream of Spring” being the final words in the book would be something beautiful indeed!

The tv show is george r r martins ending. They got the major character outcomes from him. Why does everyone assume he'll change it when he says the opposite

I don't think there is actually that much of a problem in finishing the book in a subversive way. George wants to subvert the idea of the "just final battle against evil" which is being set up with mankind against the others. This could be done by having it turn out that the others were seeking to save humanity from the children. If the show is to be believed the others were men who the children of the forest tried to turn into a anti-human army, but that went rogue. What a perfect subversion it would it be if it turned out all this time the goal of the others was to build an army to defeat the children and stop them from "taking westeros back from mankind". If we take the conclusion that there are no gods in ASOIAF then Bran is actually a man possessed by the visions sent to him by the telepathic COTF via the weirwood trees. He is the final victory of the COTF and the doom of mankind. So with a few minor changes the ending of the show is actually very subversive and very dark. It also makes sense that the prophecies are real, but the goal is to manipulate man into destroying themselves in a final battle against the saviours of mankind rather than against "death".

I broadly like your ending, but... I think the whole "divine intervention" stuff with the Allmaker is dumb. The point of the Old Gods is that they are a "divinity" crafted from the souls of basically every dead firstman in history. It's like, what if God was just the average human soul? Would you expect him to be good? Or would you expect him to be vengeful and cruel? That's what the old gods are. That's what Blood Raven has hooked himself up to. The White Walkers are going to try destroy Westeros regardless of if the humans to the south deserve it or not. It's not Divine Justice, it's more a force of nature. The test isn't even a moral one. Humanity doesn't need to become "good" in order to defeat the white walkers. It doesn't need to found a democracy, or achieve certain moral virtues. It just needs to unite. It's in the vast majority of people's own selfish interest to defeat the white walkers. I agree with you though that a lack of some unifying message is part of the reason this story is taking so long. But, I doubt that can change even at this point. GRRM is more interested in world building than he is at writing characters. The Winds of Winter is never coming.

I'm already waiting for an "And seven times never kill man" ending, where the Children of the Forest or the Others, or whoever is the real hidden evil, wins.

It really just comes down do GRRM’s contempt for Christian morality in spite of borrowing from it to justify his ludicrous view of relativism.

16:00 Sounds like the Mark Twain book “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”, which is quite well written

tl,dr: "it doesn't have god in it, i don't like 😭"

I've been saying a version of this for years. A Feast for Crows set the victory in stone. A long winter on the way and the river lands are a mess with the harvest lost, so is the North. The Nights watch's neutrality has been irreparably damaged by its boy commander who intervened in politics and attempted to desert. Cersei will further alienate the Tyrells who're having their territories raided by the Iron Born, and the capital of the Storm land's has been taken by an exiled Lord and new claimant to the throne. And all of this distracts from Bran who's being seasoned for a body snatching so the Children's 'last green seer' can upgrade from the dying body he stole from the once strong and formidable Brynden Rivers. The Children are the faction that's hiding in plain sight in this game of thrones. If Bran ends up on the Iron throne, it will be bran in body/flesh only, and the last green seer in spirit/actuality. The only fitting end is a Nymeria type of story where few Westerosis survive, take ship, and become refugees in the lands tot he East. The the bed of thorny roses that're growing out of his planted seed, but maybe that's not a big enough subversion 😅 Excellent video 😘

Alright, he gave the show runners the real ending, this means according to his own words he is not going to change any major plot points just because of expectations. So inevitably, if the white walkers win, he would have made a deal with the show runners, allowing them to show the wrong ending so he could reveal the real one in his books. THAT would be a major subversion. And would resurrect the possibility of N+A=J. I will accept the defeat of humanity on that condition :-D

i can see Martin finishing the book after this

A small criticism. Using page count is a poor factor as it is determined by page formatting. Word count would be a more accurate statistic to compare

I thought it was set up from the beginning to be a Lord of the Rings good beats evil story, and it's just that George can't figure out how to do it while still satisfying his subversion proclivities