George RR Martin, his fanboys, and former fanbase

[God of Nothing]

Somehow, magically, fucking Puck ends up the ruler of Midland.

Because who among us has a better story than the great and mighty chestnut-head?

better than bran

 

[Pokemonquistador2]

Something I think begs to be ask is where are the major smallfolk characters that represent what's truly good and just in ASOIAF? For someone whose attempting to write a series of books that is a scathing critic of feudalism and monarchism, we really don't see too many commoner characters that are truly major characters that aren't equally bastardish like the rest in the land. Hell it seems people on Westeros don't value anything outside of themselves which is quite backwards given feudal society was community driven first and foremost.

I think Samwell Tarly is meant to be the "decent" character. Although noble born, he gets shit on by a lot of people for his fatness and timid nature, but he's willing to fight when the chips are down. I think in this way, GRRM meant him to be the "Samwise Gamgee" of the series.

Maybe I'm just a weird antisocial fucker but I can't for the life of me understand this weird obsession modern writers have with sex, both in film/tv and books. It feels like every single story trying to be "gritty and adult" simultaneously portrays every male character as this ape-brained maniac who goes from genius mastermind to complete idiot in the span of seconds because BOOBA. Is it me or is it the writers all being gross coomers who think everyone else is as sexually deviant as them?
And weren't medieval royalty the most prude motherfuckers in history? Like yeah I'm sure someone with lots of power would absolutely hire prostitutes every night and get away with it, but GRRM seems to think every single noble was as degenerate as the next one

Read The Canterbury Tales and you'll see that Medieval people were randy little motherfuckers, but GRRM's views about sex probably had more to do with the Renaissance, when kings started being a lot more shameless about their infidelity, as long as it (a) wasn't gay, and (b) they supported their bastard children. Kings committed adultery all the time but it wasn't "technical" adultery unless he planned on replacing a legitimate wife with his side piece. (Said side piece also had to be noble enough to marry in order to be a threat.) Queens of course couldn't cheat on their husbands because kings needed to know the DNA in their heirs' bodies were theirs and not that of some random footman or traveling bard. Even so, some kings (Henry VIII) found executing their wives for adultery to be a convenient way of getting rid of them, even when they hadn't committed said adultery.

Yes, royalty were sex obsessed, just like rich people of any era, although they had to be careful to follow rules and they couldn't just toss their wives aside all the time (if said wife was another member of royalty who was wedded off as part of a political alliance.) But just because history gives you an excuse to show kings rutting like rhinoceroses, that doesn't mean the audience needs to witness it (I'm looking at you, "The Tudors.) The displays of sex are in these shows to get people to tune in because people like watching sex. And the writers ARE disgusting coomers who want to make perversion seem more mainstream.

 

[Fluoxetine Man]

George believed he was a ¼ Italian but after having his DNA tested he discovered he was ¼ Jewish.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

It's a terrible review of feudalism and monarchism because the society GRRM presents is neither feudalist, monarchist, nor realistic in its portrayal of either. Religion and morals were important and arguably the foundation of society and civilization. In grimderp world, religion is a joke and everyone is an immoral cunt. The real nobles ruled by the grace of gods. In grimderp world, muh ancesturs ruled for le thousands of years and somehow never fucking lost the throne.

I wouldn't say religion's a joke in ASOIAF since there seems to be plenty of the nobles who take it seriously even if there's tons of cynicism. Come to think of it, the religion portrayed most positively is the traditional religion of the North which is clearly based on paganism than the main religion in Westeros which is clearly Catholic inspired (although even they have some genuine believers). The "ancestors ruled thousands of years" might as well be legends the characters repeat because there's no evidence proving they're wrong.

Something a lot of people don't understand is that the concept of nationhood did not exist at all in anyone's mind in those olden days. It was who you were sworn to and what village you were from. Culture was an odd mishmash of things from one village to another. Of course, from an outsider's point of view, these would all be the same and grouped together. It's how the Germans were dozens of different tribes yet all put under the same name, just like the Gauls. In GRRM's derp world everyone's literally the exact fucking same but they pretend they're different while fucking up where it really counts at the macro level.

That's addressed too in the books since the smallfolk mostly seem to care about the local lord and IIRC at times don't even know who the king is. They certainly treat armies of every faction about the same whenever you get their perspective. There's also clear ethnic distinctions since people from the Riverlands are distinct from those from the Reach and etc. and you get the feeling they all have distinct customs just from the dialogue and descriptions alone. Proto-nationalism was certainly a thing in the Middle Ages, just look at both England and France during the Hundred Years War.

Granted, Westeros isn't diverse enough given it's supposedly the size of South America yet has maybe 15-20 distinct cultures (most of whom get only the barest description). Maybe that shitpost of Tolkien commenting on the linguistics of Westeros in response to Aragorn's tax policy has some merit. Literally any one of the Seven Kingdoms should be as diverse as IRL medieval Germany or France, if not half of Europe. I'll give the fact Westeros is united in the first place a pass because the Targaryens and their dragons might as well be the equivalent of giving a medieval army strategic bombers armed with infinite nukes but the minute the dragons were dead there'd be literally no reason to listen to what some sister-fucking fag on a pointy throne has to say about tax policy.

Inheritance was important. You could fuck every girl you wanted, but the end result is potentially a bunch of sons pissed at their father and each other with a fancy bastard claim on the throne. They had to be careful. Also, cheating on your wife was a good way of fucking up a political alliance and making your neighbors think twice about allying with you if you didn't honor your vows.

That's literally the plot of the series.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

GRRM's grossness reminds me of the South Park episode were the boys write The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs - a book so disgusting everyone vomits when reading it but people still think the book has a deeper meaning & over-analyze it. That's GRRM's fans or what's left of it. Scrotie McBoogerballs could have been written by that fat fuck.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Nowadays I see the same mates posting memes about how racist the LOTR fandom is and I think everyone just moved on to watch Dune

I think one of GOT's strengths was the fact there was no ending. The last decade had a surgence of "theory" driven media, for example Lost or FNaF. GOT got a lot of traction because people could theorize and not have the temptation of ruining the ending (though they could have ruined other events).

But the ultimate problem in such media is that it's main appeal is consumable. Once the ending is known the entire theory angle vanishes and you are left with the original appeal and plenty of retarded barren internet forums. In FNaF case, it will be remembered because it was genre defining, unique, had a good creator and ended in somewhat acceptable explanation and conclusion.

GOT and Lost had very little impact on their genre, were overused settings, had cynical creators and had such terrible endings the backlash wiped them from collective memory.

 

[Safir]

I can't believe there are people who think GRRM is superior to Tolkien because "OMG! You can't tell whose going to die next! NOONE IS SAFE!!" Completely ignoring the fact that he killed off Boromir, Theoden and Gollum.

??? Those three were npcs marked for death. They weren't ever protagonists, however small. Boromir is The Rival, it's only unusual how fast he dies. There are many, many characters like him (one that easily comes to mind is the snobby prince in the Prydain books) and all of them meet the same moralfagging end. Theoden is an old rotting fart redeeming himself by going out in a blaze of glory, again a staple of sword and sandal and planetary romance. Gollum is a villain, again he was always going to die, either by sacrificing himself for the hobbits after getting treated well by them or betraying them after same.

Bad writers, of whom I consider Tolkien to be one, do not know what to do with their villains. Not a single one of the "evil" characters in LotR turns good and joins the heroes. Tolkien is just as if not more cynical than Gurm. There can never be peace, only extermination. Good can only kill. If you find yourself enchanted by beauty and grace, it's because someone wants to roofie and rob you.

GRR Martin had potential but every time he introduces a dude who kicks ass, he just dies.

Wut? Gurm makes it clear from the very beginning he's setting everything up for Jon Snow. He tries to create a rich pseudohistorical tapestry with a multitude of characters to serve as background for soyboy Jon Snow's bottom-tier story generator thrice-eaten-and-shat-out generic mary sue fantasy chasing Tolkien's coattails.

• You start to get behind Ned Stark because he's an honorable dude in a kingdom of deception, dead.

He isn't per the facts of the books, I don't like Gurm obviously thinking he is, and the whole plot point is retarded. A sheltered teenage thot can have a head full of romance, not a middle-aged king who fought in multiple wars and has cannibal rapists as underlings. But all you guys thinking Father King with a shitton of coming-of-age heirs is going to live, even in classic fantasy, please lay off the crystal meth.

• You decide Westeros is fucked and needs to be razed, so you get behind Khal Drogo, dead.

That was never going to happen, no eurofag writer except KJ Parker is going to ever write this kind of plot. It was only a question of whether Khal Drogo would inadvertently rescue a "hero" by fucking up a villain's triumph with a surprise attack when he landed or do the exact opposite, and who was going to finish him off. Killing him off before that is a bit unusual, but he was never going to win.

• You learn to like Robb Stark so that there's a hope for the North, dead.

Literally who, the only Stark child without a plot hook.

• Oberyn Martell shows up to dispense some justice in King's Landing? Dead.

Another literally who.

• You come to respect the cunning of Tywin Lannister? No problem, he's dead on the shitter.

Gurm obviously hates Tywin Lannister and he would never have gotten even an honorable end much less a victory.

Keep in mind that things like the origin of the Others. Doom of Valyria. Nature of Wargs. And other major details of the world of Westeros are completely ignored and abandoned.

What. This is something Lovecraft, CAS, Howard, Dunsany, Lin Carter, every great writer and their modern imitators like Alexis Kennedy and yes even Tolkien too understood: drip-feeding vague references is how magic is made. D&D stats make magic mundane. Every book with muh oh so very detailed magic system is garbage.

I think one of GOT's strengths was the fact there was no ending. The last decade had a surgence of "theory" driven media, for example Lost or FNaF. GOT got a lot of traction because people could theorize and not have the temptation of ruining the ending (though they could have ruined other events).

But the ultimate problem in such media is that it's main appeal is consumable

Media execs love fandom speculation because it's both free advertizing and the only "advantage" new shit has over (better) oldtimey entertainment. They love it so much that despite but Lost imploding like the pile of trash it is, media execs immediately let JJ do the same to Star Wars. However, massive fandom speculation doesn't mean a show or book lacks substance beyond that.

In GOT's case, its better-received seasons are those for which spoilers were available, and plot tweeeests from those still held up. Gurm will fuck up the ending (by dying or otherwise) but that's just cos endings are harder the more pretentious the author is. Patrick Rothfuss (another fat pervert) is stuck in the same predicament. When ASoIaF ends one way or another, it will still be read afterward.

Now FNaF's popularity has nothing to do with fandom speculation. It's a meme game for youtubers, same as tryhard pot guy or amogus. But as with anything hugely popular, there will be autistic hangers-on demanding muh lore, and FNaF's creator provided.

 

[Dom Cruise]

I think one of GOT's strengths was the fact there was no ending. The last decade had a surgence of "theory" driven media, for example Lost or FNaF. GOT got a lot of traction because people could theorize and not have the temptation of ruining the ending (though they could have ruined other events).

But the ultimate problem in such media is that it's main appeal is consumable. Once the ending is known the entire theory angle vanishes and you are left with the original appeal and plenty of retarded barren internet forums. In FNaF case, it will be remembered because it was genre defining, unique, had a good creator and ended in somewhat acceptable explanation and conclusion.

GOT and Lost had very little impact on their genre, were overused settings, had cynical creators and had such terrible endings the backlash wiped them from collective memory.

The OG of that is Twin Peaks all the way back in the early 90s, normies just wanted to know who killed Lara Palmer, as soon as it was revealed they bailed and the show was canceled soon after.

But Lost especially freaks me out, the show was an absolute cultural phenomena with entire conventions devoted to it, I remember seeing a really well done, full color webcomic outlaying someone's theories once.

The show was fucking HUGE.

And then it ended and POOF the entire thing just fucking vanished from memory like it never happened at all, I never watched or cared about Lost but being big on 2000s nostalgia it's still eerie how one of it's defining cultural touchstones is completely forgotten and will likely remain that way, no one will ever be nostalgic, all anyone can do when it's brought up is cringe because of the ending.

Twin Peaks on the other hand had more substance beyond the mystery angle which is why it still had a fan following and eventually did get a revival, so you've got to give something more substance than just a mystery box.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

The OG of that is Twin Peaks all the way back in the early 90s, normies just wanted to know who killed Lara Palmer, as soon as it was revealed they bailed and the show was canceled soon after.

But Lost especially freaks me out, the show was an absolute cultural phenomena with entire conventions devoted to it, I remember seeing a really well done, full color webcomic outlaying someone's theories once.

The show was fucking HUGE.

And then it ended and POOF the entire thing just fucking vanished from memory like it never happened at all, I never watched or cared about Lost but being big on 2000s nostalgia it's still eerie how one of it's defining cultural touchstones is completely forgotten and will likely remain that way, no one will ever be nostalgic, all anyone can do when it's brought up is cringe because of the ending.

Twin Peaks on the other hand had more substance beyond the mystery angle which is why it still had a fan following and eventually did get a revival, so you've got to give something more substance than just a mystery box.

Well yeah. David Lynch relied on a good setting bolstered by a bit of Americana, good actors, and setting a general tone of it. He didn't reply on some flashy packaging to replace substance, like Abrams is wont to do.

 

[ArthuriusMartyrius]

But Lost especially freaks me out, the show was an absolute cultural phenomena with entire conventions devoted to it, I remember seeing a really well done, full color webcomic outlaying someone's theories once.

The show was fucking HUGE.

And then it ended and POOF the entire thing just fucking vanished from memory like it never happened at all, I never watched or cared about Lost but being big on 2000s nostalgia it's still eerie how one of it's defining cultural touchstones is completely forgotten and will likely remain that way, no one will ever be nostalgic, all anyone can do when it's brought up is cringe because of the ending.

It's kind of funny to think about LOST in relation to Game of Thrones. Much like GoT, it was a huge cultural phenomenon. Both it and GoT defined/dominated the television of their respective decades (people forget how many shows of the late 2000s tried to ape LOST). Much like GoT, it has an absolutely godawful ending and much like GoT it vanished into memory basically mere hours after it ended. And to top it off, Game of Thrones started around the same time that LOST ended (LOST had its last season in 2010, GoT's first season aired in 2011).

The closest thing currently on air I can think of that has the same kind of impact is possibly The Boys.

 

[Radola Gajda]

I think Samwell Tarly is meant to be the "decent" character. Although noble born, he gets shit on by a lot of people for his fatness and timid nature, but he's willing to fight when the chips are down. I think in this way, GRRM meant him to be the "Samwise Gamgee" of the series.



Read The Canterbury Tales and you'll see that Medieval people were randy little motherfuckers, but GRRM's views about sex probably had more to do with the Renaissance, when kings started being a lot more shameless about their infidelity, as long as it (a) wasn't gay, and (b) they supported their bastard children. Kings committed adultery all the time but it wasn't "technical" adultery unless he planned on replacing a legitimate wife with his side piece. (Said side piece also had to be noble enough to marry in order to be a threat.) Queens of course couldn't cheat on their husbands because kings needed to know the DNA in their heirs' bodies were theirs and not that of some random footman or traveling bard. Even so, some kings (Henry VIII) found executing their wives for adultery to be a convenient way of getting rid of them, even when they hadn't committed said adultery.

Yes, royalty were sex obsessed, just like rich people of any era, although they had to be careful to follow rules and they couldn't just toss their wives aside all the time (if said wife was another member of royalty who was wedded off as part of a political alliance.) But just because history gives you an excuse to show kings rutting like rhinoceroses, that doesn't mean the audience needs to witness it (I'm looking at you, "The Tudors.) The displays of sex are in these shows to get people to tune in because people like watching sex. And the writers ARE disgusting coomers who want to make perversion seem more mainstream.

Royal bastards were a thing in Medieval Europe. There were few ways to deal with them.
1) Marriage . If parents married bastards would be treated pretty much as legitimate children
2) Legitimisation . I hope Pope likes you. And prepare to to give gift to the Church or do some kind of favour.
3) Turn them into minor noble in exchange for them renouncing claims on your titles.
4) Church career
This one was really popular, because (Catholic) clergy can't marry so there will be no bastard branch of your dynasty. They will be last in inheritance line so unless rest of family is wiped out they will not inherit anything. They will live decent life out of spotlight so it is not bad deal for them. And if it is bastard Son you can push for them to become bishop in your kingdom.

 

[nikma]

It's kind of funny to think about LOST in relation to Game of Thrones. Much like GoT, it was a huge cultural phenomenon. Both it and GoT defined/dominated the television of their respective decades (people forget how many shows of the late 2000s tried to ape LOST). Much like GoT, it has an absolutely godawful ending and much like GoT it vanished into memory basically mere hours after it ended. And to top it off, Game of Thrones started around the same time that LOST ended (LOST had its last season in 2010, GoT's first season aired in 2011).

The closest thing currently on air I can think of that has the same kind of impact is possibly The Boys.

Lost didn't have spinoff. That's the major difference.

I mean yet. Who knows.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

Lost didn't have spinoff. That's the major difference.

I mean yet. Who knows.

I don't know many people interested in the story of the sisterfuckers and their dragons. Spin-offs don't matter when everyone knows they were only made as a desperate ploy to win anyone.

 

[God of Nothing]

I wouldn't say religion's a joke in ASOIAF since there seems to be plenty of the nobles who take it seriously even if there's tons of cynicism. Come to think of it, the religion portrayed most positively is the traditional religion of the North which is clearly based on paganism than the main religion in Westeros which is clearly Catholic inspired (although even they have some genuine believers). The "ancestors ruled thousands of years" might as well be legends the characters repeat because there's no evidence proving they're wrong.

That's addressed too in the books since the smallfolk mostly seem to care about the local lord and IIRC at times don't even know who the king is. They certainly treat armies of every faction about the same whenever you get their perspective. There's also clear ethnic distinctions since people from the Riverlands are distinct from those from the Reach and etc. and you get the feeling they all have distinct customs just from the dialogue and descriptions alone. Proto-nationalism was certainly a thing in the Middle Ages, just look at both England and France during the Hundred Years War.

Granted, Westeros isn't diverse enough given it's supposedly the size of South America yet has maybe 15-20 distinct cultures (most of whom get only the barest description). Maybe that shitpost of Tolkien commenting on the linguistics of Westeros in response to Aragorn's tax policy has some merit. Literally any one of the Seven Kingdoms should be as diverse as IRL medieval Germany or France, if not half of Europe. I'll give the fact Westeros is united in the first place a pass because the Targaryens and their dragons might as well be the equivalent of giving a medieval army strategic bombers armed with infinite nukes but the minute the dragons were dead there'd be literally no reason to listen to what some sister-fucking fag on a pointy throne has to say about tax policy.

That's literally the plot of the series.

Ah yes, ye old pagans were so peaceful and kind. And your evidence is the lack of evidence.

The English and French hundred years war was one of the few unique cases of any kind of nationalism in those ages before it ended and people returned to being unbothered by the other. It'd take a long time for actual nationalism to arrise as transportation and communication brought people closer together. Meanwhile, Westeros is still ilitterate and the fastest ride is a fucking carriage.

I didn't say it wasn't, and I wasn't responding at all to a post that reffered to something that happened in the series as a major event, unless you count sex scenes as major

 

[draggs]

George fucked up the planning

He seems to have had the first three novels planned out in good autistic detail

Then being distracted by success he started winging it which resulted in the big mess that is Feast being split off from Dance and the first third or half or whatever of Winds originally being part of Dance

And POV characters being introduced and quickly killed off, Arya and Dany being stuck in neutral, hell nearly every character and storyline basically goes nowhere in Feast and Dance when shit was actually happening in the first three novels, it all points to George not planning shit out past Swords with the same time and energy he put in before and he sure doesn't want to put in that time and effort now to bring all the threads he's tossed out together to a coherent conclusion

 

[Mega Black]

And then it ended and POOF the entire thing just fucking vanished from memory like it never happened at all, I never watched or cared about Lost but being big on 2000s nostalgia it's still eerie how one of it's defining cultural touchstones is completely forgotten and will likely remain that way, no one will ever be nostalgic, all anyone can do when it's brought up is cringe because of the ending.

This is really the thing that sticks out with the flop of Game of Thrones in comparison to other shows. Sure, it may still be #1 in streaming (like there is ANY worthwhile competition on that front...) but there was SO MUCH of the show around all over the place, with so many good things being said, even during the shittier 5th and 6th seasons, just for all discussion to immediately evaporate the second the finale aired. The show's cultural impact turned to dust, there's not people making cosplays of the characters, there aren't people talking about it at the watercooler, there aren't any Youtubers making content about the show or the universe (unless it's to shit specifically on George)

It's just gone, with the only discernible evidence it ever even aired being the occasional shitposting thread on websites like this, or a bunch of ten year olds on the suicide watch list named Danaerys.

I don't know many people interested in the story of the sisterfuckers and their dragons. Spin-offs don't matter when everyone knows they were only made as a desperate ploy to win anyone.

I see no hype for that show anywhere, and especially not in normie-spheres. Nobody wants a prequel because everyone knows exactly how that's going to end.

This was one of the funniest things about George's 'woe is me' blogpost about not finishing Winds a few months back. "The world of Westeros has grown bigger than A Song of Ice and Fire!" Sure, but that's true for EVERY fantasy setting you retarded hack. People don't give a fuck about your lore and worldbuilding if the story you decide to tell in it hangs off a cliff for fifteen years, or ends like a big pile of shit. STORIES and CHARACTERS attract readers, watchers, and fanbases. Nobody wants a fantastical textbook about Dingleberry the Dragonfucker winning a battle in fantasy year X. They want to see what happens to the characters you've built up so far, you dumb fat fuck, and why would anyone trust you to make NEW characters and plots when you can't even be fucked to finish the stories of the ones you've created?

George fucked up the planning

He seems to have had the first three novels planned out in good autistic detail

I think he's pretty much admitted to not really even having that. When asked to submit an outline for the whole story he pretty famously wrote a letter to his potential publisher or editor or whatever the fuck that said he hates outlines and doesn't have a detailed one, the only thing he had was a "Book one is this, Book two is this, Book three is the epic conclusion."

That pretty quickly ballooned out of control, and already was back then I think.

 

[draggs]

Damn lol i guess he was just better at winging it for the first three books then, the lack of direction becomes really apparent shortly into Feast

 

[nikma]

I think you are in denial. Spinoff will do really well.

Everything that came after GoT was so bad that people will be ready to return.

Especially since LOTR on Amazon looks like a disaster. HOTD will have an easy competition.

S8 of GoT and then even bigger shit like The Witcher, WoT, LOTR and similar garbage.

Being just decent will make it the best fantasy show of the last 5 years.

 

[TheHarbinger]

I wouldn't be surprised if YouTube-level theories are better than whatever Martin has as "his planned" ending.

Pretty much any Game of Thrones theory video before season eight or even season seven is loaded with quality fan theories and potential plot points or character twists that are easily feasible in the future at that point in the story. Plus the amount of fan theories around who was going to die in the last seasons was immense because Game of Thrones still had a reputation for killing characters and removing plot armor. In addition to that people also were theorizing and guessing over characters like Quaithe or Robert Arryn and what their outcomes would be.

In the end it all amounted to nothing. Almost no one died in the main cast. The ones that did, died in the most forced and implausible ways, that also left almost no consequences or impact. Like when Jon kill Dany, her army just lets it go like it was nothing, her remaining dragon does not incinerate everyone out of panic or just pure rage either. Or when Varys is killed it just leaves the viewers stupefied at the entire situation. Or just monumentally fan service moments like Cleganebowl so that fags in some bar can react really loudly for social media views.

People forget that so many potentially horrendously bad plot points from Game of Thrones in seasons five through seven have yet to be realized in the books. Like Stannis's entire meltdown and mental breakdown likely occurs in the next book with him burning his daughter, losing his army, and then pathetically dying alone. Everyone is so hyper focused on season eight and the ultimate ending of the story that they do not realize that the next book only puts us another entire book or even two books from the main ending. There are so many bad moments from seasons five through seven that GRRM has to either change (which will affect the last book) or just jam them into the story readers be damned.

But GRRM's style of writing is very easy to predict now. Step one: introduce a character. Step two: build them up into a huge potential story. Step three: kill them off in an impossible to predict way ending that plot thread and character. Ned, Stannis, Jaimie, Oberyn, and so on. The other characters that are plot armored follow their own same pattern. Step one: introduce a character with some extreme debility like bastardy, dwarfism, living in exile. Step two: have that character coast through their entire lives wallowing in misery at their predicament yet protected by extreme plot armor that allows them to win any situation no matter how dire. Step three: have character survive until the dead end of the main story most likely living beyond the end. Jon, Dany, Bran, Tyrion, all fit that type.

At this point the theories are more like wishful thinking and fan fiction. Like "what if someone other than Bran sits on the Iron Throne!!!!". Yet GRRM himself confirmed Bran is on the Throne to both D&D and the actor who played Bran. So all non-King Bran theories are voided. People are not even guessing at the end of ASOIAF anymore. They just putting out superior endings to Game of Thrones and hoping that it somehow influences GRRM to change his original endings.

George fucked up the planning

He seems to have had the first three novels planned out in good autistic detail

No. He had three books total planned out very sloppily. That was the entire story length. Three 800-page books was what he told his publisher. But in his original outline he flat out says that he cannot plan the endings fully because he "loses interest" in finishing them. So no long term planning. And the books were awful in the outlines. Like so bad that ASOIAF is probably ghost written, or written by committee, and GRRM never wrote a single page of the story on his own. And his real ghost writer likely died in like 2008 and now his publishers are unsure of how to proceed. His first outline reads like some of the worst ASOIAF fan fiction possible. Like there is just no talent behind the story. It is shocking how he built his massive world from his trash outline. But even more shocking is how his writing progress has slowed to a crawl. Like the real writer is dead and now GRRM is just some empty figurehead.

First book was supposed to be Stark versus Lannister with the Lannisters winning and the Starks going into exile. Second book was Dany coming to Westeros with her Dothraki and dragons and waging war for the Throne until the Others arrived. Third book was everyone teaming up to the fight the Others. And then the Starks taking the Iron Throne in the aftermath. Three books total. 800 pages each. Yet by the time book five is out we are not even beyond the first book in his original trilogy. Because the first book in his original outline, ended with Dany arriving to the shores of Westeros, with her army and her dragons.

In the original outline Dany kills Drogo herself, flees into the desert alone, and randomly stumbles across dragon eggs and a live dragon. Jaimie Lannister murders every single person in the entire Lannister line of succession so that he can sit on the throne and he blames it on Tyrion who is forced into exile. Jon having secret lineage is spoiled in the outline as well. Jon and Arya also get married in the story once Jon's lineage is revealed.

And this is not just on GRRM but also on his publishers. Because their inability to set deadlines, stop him from his endless distractions, and just hire a ghost writer are all on them. These books could have been finished a decade ago with proper guidance. Which always lead me to believe that the first ghost writer is dead.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

They want to see what happens to the characters you've built up so far, you dumb fat fuck,

They are pissing, shitting & fucking, duh! Did you even read the books?? GRRM is writing about these very important events in great detail!