Random Events shaping Westeros? (Spoilers will abound)

I sometimes get lost in the maps of the books for a while, looking at this and that and I remember as I was reading ACOK the 2nd time, thinking about what a pill Frey is and I had this lightbulb/duh! moment of "why doesn't someone/if I were king the FIRST thing I would do is, build another bloody bridge!" Would mean a lot less drama in the books, but I mean, c'mon people, Westeros is HUGE--you can't find another spot to cross those rivers to avoid having to deal with that wretched man??? lol

The Green Fork is massive, and my speculation is that the Twins were constructed in the age of heroes, with the aid of magic/giants. So they can't build another bridge.

Having said that, there is another crossing point, but it requires you to come down to the Ruby Ford (where the Battle of the Trident occurred) which is north of Harrenhal. That's why Harrenhal is such a crucial site.
 
Gumboot, excellent posts. I have read that GRRM talks about not wanting to do very precise maps and distances so that he can fudge with the stories (I am paraphrasing) and not worry too much about accuracy matters in that way. He also publically regretted making the Wall so high in his fiction!

It would be interesting if you asked him about your ideas about the timing of Lannister intentions towards the throne.

Yes, Ned had to die, or no story.
 
Just to be clear....I don't think GNABB is arguing that these alternative events SHOULD have taken place (I certainly am not arguing that). The events we have had have produced the story we've got, and I am not wishing the story had gone a different way. As far as I'm concerned, we're just spitballing and talking about how major changes in the direction of the story have stemmed from seemingly small events. And that is a lot like life.

I'll give a great (real life) example, and this is a 100% true story.

Back in 1997 I was a college student and, at the time, one of the few who had a personal computer and internet access where I lived. I was using a program some of you may remember, ICQ, one of the first instant messaging platforms. ICQ had a "random chat" feature which would select a random chat partner for you. Since there weren't many people (relatively speaking) on IM programs at that time, most people used IM to make new friends instead of keeping in touch with current and old friends.

I used the random chat feature one night and struck up a conversation with someone my age several states away. He and I began to talk regularly and became very good friends, which we remain to this day (16 years later).

My "random" friend, in 2003 (6 years into our friendship), took a job as a contractor working in Kuwait, and eventually Iraq. He talked to me about his job and said he felt like it was something I should look into. I did. And in the Summer of 2004 I accepted a position as a contractor in Iraq.

I worked in Iraq for 5.5 years, during which time I met and fell in love with the man who would later become my husband. We left Iraq in 2009, went to work in Kuwait and eventually moved to the Philippines, where we live now. We have a home and a small business there, and I am back to working in contracting, presently in Afghanistan.

Had I not connected with my friend that day in 1997, I never would've gone to Iraq...there is no one else I know from any other part of my life (whom I knew before going to work overseas) who did what Jeff did, and no other way I would've come up with the idea of going. If I hadn't gone to Iraq, I wouldn't have met Bill.

One small, very random event completely changed my life path.

We see the same things happening in ASOIAF. So I get where Gumboot is coming from, but I must respectfully disagree. One of many reasons that ASOIAF resonates so clearly with me is that, in spite of being a fantasy series, the characters are so very, very human, and make the same kind of choices we have to make...albeit in a different context.

The stakes may not be life and death (though in some cases, they may be), but we, too, have to choose whom to trust and whom to be wary of. We, too, have to make hard choices that may take us away from something comfortable and familiar and may lead to our ruin or may lead to a life we can't begin to imagine. We lose loved ones, we make new friends, we make the wrong friends, we make bad choices or we hesitate at the wrong time.

What if Theon had listened to Maester Lewin earlier and surrendered Winterfell to Ser Roderick and taken the Black? What if Theon had joined the Night's Watch? An accomplished archer and seasoned soldier would have made a huge difference in a few of those battles. What if Cat had listened to her instincts and anticipated the Red Wedding? What if Ned hadn't gone to Cersei, but taken his suspicions straight to Robert? Or if Ned had gone with Robert on that hunt? What if Dany hadn't "saved" the witch who took her son and her husband from her? She'd have been storming Westeros with a Dothraki horde at her back and sent Joff screaming like a little girl on the skirts of his mother....off into exile (assuming Drogo didn't kill him). No Aegon needed.

Small things, very human choices, have dramatically altered the direction of the story time and time again.
 
We see the same things happening in ASOIAF. So I get where Gumboot is coming from, but I must respectfully disagree. One of many reasons that ASOIAF resonates so clearly with me is that, in spite of being a fantasy series, the characters are so very, very human, and make the same kind of choices we have to make...albeit in a different context.

I'm not sure we're actually in disagreement. I totally agree with the idea that tiny actions can have massive ramifications - the "butterfly effect", if you will (in fact it's one of the main themes of my own writing). And "A Song of Ice And Fire" certainly features that phenomenon.

It was just that there was one particular event - Jaime throwing Bran out the window - that I feel, while it has ramifications for specific characters, hasn't dramatically changed the course of history for Westeros as of yet (that's not to say it won't).
 
IHe had no choice. Without the Goldcloaks he couldn't possibly move against the Lannisters.

I agree with or at least understand alot of what you are saying except this. I don;t think Ned would have gone to littlefinger if Cat hadn't persuaded him to trust littlefinger. Ned may have relied more on Renly or considered matters more. When Renly comes to Ned and tells him he can have 100 swords in his hand within the hour, Ned may have thoughs a little harder about denying Renly.

That part of the series always bugged me. I get that he didn;t want to drag frightened children from their beds in the middle of the night, but he could have dragged Cersei out of her bed in the middle of the night and locked her up. Add Jaime (as he would still be in KL in this version), Pycel, littlefinger, ilyn payne and Tyrion (again, he would have been there if not for Bran falling) to the dungeons as well. He would probably also try to arrest Varys but we all know that wouldn't work. Even if he got varys in a dungeon nothing would keep him there unless Varys decided he wanted to be there.
 
I'm not sure we're actually in disagreement. I totally agree with the idea that tiny actions can have massive ramifications - the "butterfly effect", if you will (in fact it's one of the main themes of my own writing). And "A Song of Ice And Fire" certainly features that phenomenon.

It was just that there was one particular event - Jaime throwing Bran out the window - that I feel, while it has ramifications for specific characters, hasn't dramatically changed the course of history for Westeros as of yet (that's not to say it won't).

Fair enough. I still disagree to a certain extent. While the preceding event of Jon Arryn's poisoning & death and Littlefinger's / Lysa's cover-up, deflection of suspicion onto the Lannisters are more relevant events, I do think Bran being pushed (and surviving the fall) had a big impact on the exact course of events. Of course we can only speculate, but on this argument I fall on GNABB's side. :)
 
I think Brans fall had such a huge impact not just because of the fall itself, but because that prompted Joff to send the assassin to finish him off. If that hadn't happened...

I also think that Tyrion being taken by Cat had a huge impact and we can trace the reasoning behind that back to Bran's fall as well.
 
I completely agree with your summary. A lot of things stemmed from Jaime's heat of the moment choice to push Bran from the window.

You could also say...if Bran had only listened to his mother...he never would've been climbing the tower in the first place.

For what it's worth, Spoiler under highlight:

But he had to push Bran, Bran had seen him schtupping his sis, and that would call Joffrey's legitimacy to the throne into question.

And don't say nobody would believe him and/or he wouldn't tell anyone. Some would and he'd tell somebody.

I dunno, Martin uses "idiot plots" as much as any tv/movie writer, but I don't see this as one.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. I still disagree to a certain extent. While the preceding event of Jon Arryn's poisoning & death and Littlefinger's / Lysa's cover-up, deflection of suspicion onto the Lannisters are more relevant events, I do think Bran being pushed (and surviving the fall) had a big impact on the exact course of events. Of course we can only speculate, but on this argument I fall on GNABB's side. :)


It would be a very boring world if we all agreed with each other. :D
 
I agree with or at least understand alot of what you are saying except this. I don;t think Ned would have gone to littlefinger if Cat hadn't persuaded him to trust littlefinger.

She didn't. It's made abundantly clear, many times, that Ned doesn't trust Littlefinger at all. The one time he suggests that maybe he was wrong to distrust Littlefinger, it's as a result of Littlefinger's actions in assisting him, not because of anything Catelyn said. When Ned seeks the support of the City Watch he's relying entirely on Littlefinger's professed loyalty to Catelyn, not on Catelyn's word that he can be trusted.

That part of the series always bugged me. I get that he didn;t want to drag frightened children from their beds in the middle of the night, but he could have dragged Cersei out of her bed in the middle of the night and locked her up. Add Jaime (as he would still be in KL in this version), Pycel, littlefinger, ilyn payne and Tyrion (again, he would have been there if not for Bran falling) to the dungeons as well. He would probably also try to arrest Varys but we all know that wouldn't work. Even if he got varys in a dungeon nothing would keep him there unless Varys decided he wanted to be there.

Because Ned is an honourable man, and the honourable thing is to give Cersei and her children the opportunity to leave.

I think that's Martin's point; if you play by the rules, and no one else does, you're doomed to lose. That's why I think Stannis is doomed to fail as well.
 
I think that's Martin's point; if you play by the rules, and no one else does, you're doomed to lose. That's why I think Stannis is doomed to fail as well.
You can make an argument that Stannis isn't playing entirely by the rules either...red priestess and fire sacrifices and birthing shadow murderers and whatnot....

But we do agree that Stannis is not destined to sit the Iron Throne.
 
What if Joffrey had been a nicer person and listened to Sansa and sent good old Ned to The Wall instead of taking his head.... Now that would have been interesting.

Rob wouldn't have gone to War, well most likely not, another life spared.


Imagine the conversations Ned and Jon could have had! Oh I like this one.
 
She didn't. It's made abundantly clear, many times, that Ned doesn't trust Littlefinger at all. The one time he suggests that maybe he was wrong to distrust Littlefinger, it's as a result of Littlefinger's actions in assisting him, not because of anything Catelyn said. When Ned seeks the support of the City Watch he's relying entirely on Littlefinger's professed loyalty to Catelyn, not on Catelyn's word that he can be trusted.

Which was still a result of Cat going to KL, and in that conversation, Cat tells Ned that Petyr swore to help him.

Because Ned is an honourable man, and the honourable thing is to give Cersei and her children the opportunity to leave.

I think that's Martin's point; if you play by the rules, and no one else does, you're doomed to lose. That's why I think Stannis is doomed to fail as well.

That part of the story doesn't bother me because I think Ned should have been less than honourable, it bothered me because it was like one of those moments in a horror movie when a character is going to go investigate the creepy noises coming from the barn when what they should be doing is getting the hell out of there and you find yourself yelling at the TV.
 
Personally, I have 3.

1) Ned not having talk with Sansa after the whole "orange in the face" incident.

Dude, the girl thought she'll marry a prince and later be a queen! Then her younger sister (who got her wolf killed) messes up her favorite dress on the same day you tell her, paraphrased "Yeah, you won't be queen after all. Forget about your teen dreams, we're taking the ball and going home.". He should have either been a good guy and told Sansa everything, making it abundantly clear that Cersei is not her friend and that their lives are at stake here, or gonne completely cold ******* "Dad, I hate you so much!" route and just locked Sansa inside her room so she wouldn't do anything stupid and teen-girl-in-love emotional. Boom, both Sansa and Arya are safe, Eddard is free to manouver, Cersei is in deep cack.

2) Sending his own men against the Mountain.

We're talking about difference between 20 and 170 swords available to protect him here. Add 100 of Renly and we are talking enough to take over Red Keep and throw everybody who needed throwing in jail/over the ramparts.

3) Rob not telling Edmure the plan to lure Tywin/Melissandre telling Stannis to besiege Storm's End instead of King's Landing.

Either of which would have ended in Stannis winning the Battle of Blackwater Rush. I blame Mellisandre more here. Think about it. Stannis besieged Renly's home and center of his power with contemtibly little force and asked him to bend his knee. If you were Renly, would you have done it?

Now, look at it the other way around. Stannis had besieged King's Landing. Here comes Renly, with full force of Tyrells and Stormlords behing him on the other side, via Rose Road. Maybe he would have fought against Tywin on the way (and defeated him, easily), maybe he wouldn't have. But he would have joined his forces with Stannis 100 percent under King's Landing and Cersei would have lost her pretty head.
 
I think that's Martin's point; if you play by the rules, and no one else does, you're doomed to lose. That's why I think Stannis is doomed to fail as well.

I think this is an oversimplification and a short-sighted view of Martin's theme.

I have no doubt that the north remembers or that winter is coming. I think the longer view on Martin's plot may be that you play by the rules because it works out best in the long run.

Ned may have died, but Cersei will get to see everything she holds dear destroyed. She's already had her favorite child poisoned in front of her and she was stripped naked to walk the streets of Kings Landing. I predict more to come.

I always like to use the example from All Quiet on the Western Front where the German Soldiers in the trenches refused to use notched bayonets because if they used them... the other guys would use them right back.
 
I think the longer view on Martin's plot may be that you play by the rules because it works out best in the long run.

This has to be true in the case of Daenerys. And in her case, playing by the rules is more about the moral decision to free slaves and trying to be a "good queen" for her people. If her efforts are all for nothing, I will almost feel I've wasted my time on the books. She's not exactly my favourite character, but with all the time spent developing her as some sort of ultimate badass but still good-hearted ruler, it would be a huge disappointment to see her fail.
 
This has to be true in the case of Daenerys. And in her case, playing by the rules is more about the moral decision to free slaves and trying to be a "good queen" for her people. If her efforts are all for nothing, I will almost feel I've wasted my time on the books. She's not exactly my favourite character, but with all the time spent developing her as some sort of ultimate badass but still good-hearted ruler, it would be a huge disappointment to see her fail.

Agreed. I think many people (myself included) feel the same way about Jon, which is why so few people believe he is actually dead.
 
Agreed. I think many people (myself included) feel the same way about Jon, which is why so few people believe he is actually dead.

Absolutely. It was that ending to ADWD that made me go "what the actual ****" and start googling stuff about the books - before that I had not as much as looked at a forum. My mother, who borrowed the books from me after seeing the first season of the HBO series had a similar reaction and actually had a go at me (!) when she thought that Jon had died.
 
My mother, who borrowed the books from me after seeing the first season of the HBO series had a similar reaction and actually had a go at me (!) when she thought that Jon had died.
Okay that's actually kind of funny, and also needs to go on the "You know you're obsessed when..." thread. :p
 

Similar threads


Back
Top