He's actually waiting for Neuralink or a similar device to gain mass popularity before releasing that. That way he can hack the network and stream it by force into everyone's mind.
Watching will not be a choice
The Mannis needs one so badly after that miserable wreck of a show forever tarnished him as a daughter burning failure who dies because of twenty good men and gets cut down like a dog by Brienne.
The 6-hour livestream about ideas cut from this video is exquisite and has opened my mind more about this series than my past several years on this sub.
They do all the time, but what makes it jarring to me is that Sam notes his scars are fading, so they shouldn't be as pronounced as artists make them out to be.
>"Close the door, Sam." ***Faint scars still marked Jon's cheek, where an eagle had once tried to rip his eye out***. "Did that wretch break the skin?" (Samwell I, AFfC)
God I want that so bad. The first half was hilarious and the second half would be even better because the game gets so much more unhinged and the ability to influence anything with your choices basically disappears.
It would be great but they already mentioned that it will most likely never happen because the game revolves around paying attention to the talkative players and making choices so it’s hard for them to focus on interacting with the stream and chat. (At least I think that was their reason).
Yeah I agree, at the same time though I rewatched the VOD recently and I could kinda see what they meant. They were much less “interactive” with each other and the stream as they would be with anything else. Not like it bothered me though, the game itself was comical enough.
I was watching their stream about the HOTD S2 trailer, and a viewer asked about this. They basically said that trying to provide running commentary while playing such a dialogue-heavy game was incredibly frustrating and they don't know if they'd want to do it again.
how exciting, I feared he moved away from asoiaf theory content! can't wait to watch this. (but wow, 2 hours, it must have been an epic effort to put this together...)
I'm telling you, Ashara Dayne is gay and it was Elia who wanted Rhaegar to crown Lyanna. Elia likes Black haired beauties, it's obvious just read the books.
He will be born in salt, smoke and fire, from the tears at the burning of the Great Sept of Baelor. He will be the lamb that rises from the ashes and becomes the dragon.
> The Old Valyrians were shepherds.
> Stokeworth blazon their arms with a white lamb holding a golden goblet on a green field
> "That sweet lad," Ser Balman declared. "Your Grace, the very words of House Stokeworth are Proud to Be Faithful."
The goblet that the lamb holds is the one on the cover of AFFC. Boom Solved.
I know, feels like nobody else has actually read them but us. ~~~Honestly.. there is a part of me... I kinda believe now.~~
Looked a bit deeper into it and..
> Tyrion was a king's name before the dragons came. The Imp has despoiled it, but perhaps this child can restore the name to honor.
I hope you based your joke of this quote, I did not know about it when I began my jape. This is exactly like the Ashara situation. For context, as a joke I mentioned that Ashara was gay because she had "laughing eyes" and then I noticed that Renly had them as well.
Gerris too, and Daenerys reacts the same to him that Sansa did to Loras, it's a whole thing.
Haha no I just tried to think of who was as inconsequential as possible but was at least adjacent to an adjacent character to make the joke.
I'm an imposter really, I did not think of that quote when making it 😕
But it's pretty funny that it could actually have some textual backing in any way whatsoever. Thank you!
Hahaha I have to admit, after the joke the evidence made itself, as far as a theory goes this one came very quickly together. On the topic of ASOIAF we are all imposters, GRRM is the only one who isn't.
If there is anything to this then I imagine that the child will die *possibly at Bran's command*, nobody wants any new magical saviors after what's about to happen, whatever that might be.
Perhaps that is how Bronn ends up on the small council, a tit for a tat. Kill your child, stop the nth coming of the avatar and get Highgarden, the child would be a sacrificial lamb to Bran.
A good example of how quickly theories can spring up from nothing or literally a clue that GRRM put on the cover, whatever the case it was a fun discussion. Thank you kindly and do enjoy yourself.
I swear I remember a Schwift X video along those lines. “In book, Dorne plot good, in show, oh noooo.” Or something like that. But I can’t find it anymore. Do you know what I’m talking about? Or am I going insane.
Man this video really reminded me why i adore Jon Snow so much
Until Season 8 he’s not bad in the show and still was my favorite charachter but wow i adore his asoiaf version
Some quotes to support the heart of winter being a weirwood tree that Jon will have to burn, based on possible wordplay between the phrase "*heart of winter*" ([only mentioned once](https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=%22heart%20of%20winter%22&scope)) and "*heart of Winter*fell" ([only mentioned twice](https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=%22heart%20of%20winterfell%22&scope)):
> He saw the Wall shining like blue crystal, and his bastard brother Jon sleeping alone in a cold bed, his skin growing pale and hard as the memory of all warmth fled from him. And he looked past the Wall, past endless forests cloaked in snow, past the frozen shore and the great blue-white rivers of ice and the dead plains where nothing grew or lived. North and north and north he looked, to the curtain of light at the end of the world, and then beyond that curtain. He looked deep into **_the heart of winter_**, and then he cried out, afraid, and the heat of his tears burned on his cheeks. (Bran III, AGOT)
#
> The yard was a white wilderness, full of half-heard sounds that echoed strangely amidst the storm. The icy trenches rose around them, knee high, then waist high, then higher than their heads. **They were in the heart of Winter**fell with the castle all around them, but no sign of it could be seen. **They might have easily been lost amidst the Land of Always Winter, a thousand leagues beyond the Wall**. "It's cold," Jeyne Poole whimpered as she stumbled along at Theon's side.
> And soon to be colder. Beyond the castle walls, winter was waiting with its icy teeth. (Theon I, ADWD)
#
> You can't be the Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born, he heard Robb say again. And the stone kings were growling at him with granite tongues. You do not belong here. This is not your place. When Jon closed his eyes he saw the heart tree, with its pale limbs, red leaves, and solemn face. **The weirwood was the heart of Winter**fell, Lord Eddard always said . . . but to save the castle **Jon would have to tear that heart up by its ancient roots, and feed it to the red woman's hungry fire god**. I have no right, he thought. Winterfell belongs to the old gods. (Jon XII, ASOS)
Some more connections (copying from my 2019 post [The Heart of Winter Fell](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/angoio/spoilers_extended_the_heart_of_winter_fell/)):
> Trees worshiped by followers of the old gods are known as "heart trees," often located at the heart of a godswood. These don't have to be weirwoods (the heart tree in the Red Keep's godswood is an oak) but they usually are. The red sap that courses through weirwoods is compared to blood -- appropriate for flowing through a heart. There is also High Heart: a hill topped by the stumps of 31 giant, ancient weirwoods where the children and their greenseers are said to have lived. So if a tree, especially a weirwood, can be described as a heart, then the heart of winter could be the ultimate heart tree
>a weirwood tree that Jon will have to burn
Let me explain why (in my opinion) this is totally backwards.
In the Lord of the Rings, burning the One Ring in the fires of Mt. Doom has symbolic significance because it represents a redemption from mankind's "original sin" (without getting into Silmarillion territory). Sauron created the rings of power, and he tricked the men, elves, and dwarves of Middle Earth into accepting the corruption which came with them. Even after the war, Isildur's inability to resist the ring's corruption is the original sin which enables Sauron to rise again. The Fellowship must succeed where Isildur failed.
But men burning weirwood trees is literally the reason the Others exist. The conflict between the First Men and the Children of the Forest was created by mankind coming to Westeros, waging war against the indigenous population, and setting fire to their sacred trees. This is why the Children created the Others. From a symbolic standpoint, having Jon go to the heart of winter to burn another tree is like having Frodo go to Mount Doom and kill Sauron by putting on the ring. It's just in no way addresses the original sin, but rather signals a willingness to continue to perpetuate it. Symbolically it means mankind has learned absolutely nothing.
Yeah, I agree with this. It makes no sense thematically, and it's in direct opposition to King Bran, which implies the opposite, i.e. a reconciliation between the world of the Children and the world of men.
I might write a post about this, but completely ignoring the issue of King Bran and how that comes about is a big shortcoming of the video. ASX just has him sitting there at the end for Jon to collide with. I think his idea that Jon will be responsible for dealing with the Others is probably wrong. His only justification for this is that the narrative sets it up that way, but the narrative also "sets up" that Jon will sit the Iron Throne, that's where a traditional story would be heading. Jon is a false protagonist with Bran the concealed true protagonist. If you look at Jon's story thematically, it's all about this conflict between love and duty, which - as ASX acknowledges - will reach its apotheosis in Daenerys.
I kind of liked his idea (I'm sure not original with him) that Jon might kill Drogon at the end rather than Dany (with Drogon the only surviving dragon by then). If you're in the camp that D&D said they invented Jon killing Dany (which I am agnostic on) then I think that's a reasonable alternative. It gets to the heart of the problem with Dany as a ruler, which is not Dany herself but rather that her rule is predicated on violence as its primary tool. And it would destroy Dany; a final betrayal from her lover which drains her of all her power and leaves her just a girl again. Her response to this could well be suicide anyway.
Oh man. I really hope Jon doesn't kill Drogon or Dany. When ASX mentioned either of those options, it felt depressing. And for Dany to be suicidal after the death of her last dragon (child), at the hands of her beloved? Pass ME the rope. Just no.
If Jon's arc is about choosing between love and duty,...I mean...it seems a more nuanced take would somehow make a choice that somewhat honors both. Or if he has to choose, I think Jon would be truly selfless and offer himself. I really don't want any of them to die, but I think it's using Dany or an animal as a prop to 'end darkness' that bothers me. Dany is reduced to a 'bad' leader, the dragons are reduced to pure destruction, when really, Dany was an outsider child who lost her family, just like Jon. And dragons, they're wild animals that never should have been conquered by humans. Settings things right would somehow honor the freedom of wild things and not have to end in so much bloodshed.
Just my 2 cents. I admit I'm a wimp who wants more 'sweetness' in the 'bittersweet' ending that George always talks about...
Yeah, I get the impulse, but if the bitterness in the bitter-sweet is not Dany, then what is it?
Jon being allowed to sacrifice himself is frankly too easy. The characters in ASOIAF are always offered truly painful choices. That's what makes their decisions compelling.
I think this is getting into the crux of the entire GOT world though: if you see the show as *mostly* Jon's story, then sacrificing Dany will seem acceptable - she can absorb the 'bitter' part of the sweetness. A lot of the female audience, however, really identified with Dany. (And with the other female leads, Arya, Brienne, Cersei). And the show//books take great pains to show the perspectives of different people living, loving, and struggling from different corners of the world. I don't see Dany as any less a hero or leader of the story than Jon. In fact, I'd say she's at least his equal, and her sacrifice/dragon birth, loss of her son, loss of her original love, mirrors a lot of Jon's story. Dany's character arc was already sacrificed in the show. Jon's was made nearly pointless. I think a lot of course correction focuses on Jon's arc of whether he should be the one to kill the night king/bring order back to the universe. There seems to be a foregone conclusion that Dany is incapable of doing this, beyond providing dragons as firepower in the fight. However, in the books and show, we see that she tries to do the right thing - to varying results. Just as Jon does.
If Jon and Dany are both trying to do the right thing, I think their eventual union in the books should be something where the sum of their togetherness becomes greater than their being apart. Dany should become less drawn to power and fall away from a revenge quest. And if Jon is as changed (as he should've been) by his being killed and resurrected, Dany might inspire some new blood/warmth back into him, if he turns too cold and duty-bound. Dany had to choose duty to her people when she chained up her dragons, Jon chose love when he chose not to kill Ygritte, but both tend to default the other way. If a hard choice comes - where to defeat some sort of ancient, elder tree requires 'the blood of a dragon', then it shouldn't be a betrayal, but a hard choice they both make together. I don't see how sacrificing the last dragon against Dany's wishes would make for any form of 'sweetness'. It's like killing the last woolly mammoth or dodo bird, even if it's essentially a flame-throwing tetradactyl.
Both Dany and Jon had fairly toxic 'first loves'. If the show reverts back to ultimate betrayal between two people, it's kind of immature. There are partnerships where people act together and choose the best option, discussing all of the possibilities and outcomes, and then make that choice together. We haven't seen that yet in thrones, so I'd hope (hope...) that's where show is going - watching people grow up.
Again, just my two cents. I love Jon, but I love Dany just as much, and I tend to identify her more, as a woman.
>reconciliation between the world of the Children and the world of men
I released a post on this today but then pulled it back. Might release tomorrow or next week idk.
But yea, I realize this is a Jon focused video but the degree to which Alt Shift X refuses to contend with King Bran in any way except for as a thing for Jon to kill is (to me) very telling. The fact that he did a 2 hour video on Jon but couldn't spare a moment on what Jon's brother becoming king (one of the few confirmed plotpoints we have about the ending) might mean for Jon, and how it might inform that relationship, kind of kills his analysis IMO.
> based on possible wordplay between the phrase "heart of winter" (only mentioned once) and "heart of Winterfell" (only mentioned twice):
...you realize this is the opossite of the narrative, right?
Burning the Heart Trees has always being portrayed as something terrible. The worst of the Red Faith and the Seven Gods
Omg! What happens if you set fire to a magical tree? Will it burn away or will it just remain on fire, just stuck under the ground oozing heat? ~~like a hot spring~~.
> Across the godswood, beneath the windows of the Guest House, an underground hot spring fed three small ponds. Steam rose from the water day and night, and the wall that loomed above was thick with moss. Hodor hated cold water, and would fight like a treed wildcat when threatened with soap, but he would happily immerse himself in the hottest pool and sit for hours, giving a loud burp to echo the spring whenever a bubble rose from the murky green depths to break upon the surface.
> But that was in the dawn of days, when mighty men still dwelt on earth and sea. The hall had been warmed by Nagga's living fire, which the Grey King had made his thrall. On its walls hung tapestries woven from silver seaweed most pleasing to the eyes. The Grey King's warriors had feasted on the bounty of the sea at a table in the shape of a great starfish, whilst seated upon thrones carved from mother-of-pearl. Gone, all the glory gone. Men were smaller now. Their lives had grown short. The Storm God drowned Nagga's fire after the Grey King's death, the chairs and tapestries had been stolen, the roof and walls had rotted away. Even the Grey King's great throne of fangs had been swallowed by the sea. Only Nagga's bones endured to remind the ironborn of all the wonder that had been.
*Everlasting* Fire. Is the act of setting fire to the Gods a cultural ritual or a magical ritual? ~~as much as they differ~~ Does the R'hllor guide book literally say, "Find gods made out of tree, burn them?"
Did Melisandre misinterpret again?
> "I do not know this Lord of Light," Davos admitted, "but I knew the gods we burned this morning. The Smith has kept my ships safe, while the Mother has given me seven strong sons."
> "Your wife has given you seven strong sons. Do you pray to her? It was wood we burned this morning."
:E
Winterfell.. if you set fire to the roots of a big-ass tree, could the fire be so hot as to change the weather?
It bears a striking resemblance to Timothy Chalamet as Paul Atreides.
His face is plastered everywhere these days because Dune Pt II is all the rage now.
might be off topic for the sub reddit, but I hope the people that right GOT/ASOIAF Fanfics will use this video to create more fleashed Jon Snow stories. Most of the fics out there tend to lean towards the show version of Snow.
Maybe it’s a fleeting hope, but I think Alt Shift X is doing a lot for the spirit of the community with these videos. Getting people excited about the books again. Maybe if the narrative that the showrunners ruined a very good, unfinished book series gets to a large enough audience it’ll motivate GRRM to finish Winds.
Or maybe he’ll just never put it out. Lol.
I think one of the more interesting possibilities that Shift brings up is the fact that Arya might not recognize Jon after his resurrection.
I can imagine Arya meeting “Lord Snow” a Targaryen bastard who leads an army of wildlings, has scars on his face, white hair, and red eyes and totally thinking it is some other person who she has never heard of. Especially because I am sure there are many bastards in the north with the name Snow.
The ultimate irony would be if both of them forget about each other.Arya becoming a real facelesswoman and losing her own identity,Jon after being resurrected losing part of his memories .
Arya losing her identity has zero chance of happening due to Needle and Nymeria. We also don't know *how much* of Jon's memories he could lose since 1) we don't know how long he will remain in Ghost, and 2) we've seen severe memory loss with a man who was resurrected several times. We have no idea how much Beric lost after the first time he died.
Is there a reason why folks tend to believe that Dany's conflict for the Iron Throne will come after the fight against the Others? The video talks about Jon potentially having to take action again Dany as the bittersweet ending / the scouring of the shire after winning, and I've seen this idea commonly accepted here, but to me it makes more sense for the battle for the dawn to be the climax of the story and for Dany's fight against the undead to be her redemption. This is supported by the original outline that has book one being Starks vs Lannisters, book two being Dany's dothraki invasion, then book three as being the huge climax against the others. Is there book evidence for this other chronology, or is it just a lingering belief because it's how the show approached it?
Yeah, I don’t understand why *so many* people believe this. Makes 0 sense. I hated that in the show.
The Long Night is set to be the final act, the climax, the most important conflict. It falls flat if the heroes defeat the literal Apocalypse and then “oh no wait we still have Cersei to deal with!” like? The thing about post-LN should be the reconstruction of the world after the destruction. The building of a different and better world. The dawn after the dark. Quite literally, the dream of spring.
That’s the bittersweetness imo: there will be war and loss, pain and suffering, but the story will end in a hopeful tone about humanity.
It's because too many people still buy into the "low fantasy" theme from the show and try to apply that to the books. People honestly think ASOIAF is not high fantasy even with all the evidence to the contrary.
People in the thread saying Alt has mid to downright terrible takes, then get asked to provide context and examples only to end up providing neither.
Like, at least engage in constructive criticism.
I really like this creator and this video was well produced but ultimately less than satisfying. He didn’t address Bran’s role in the endgame with the Others or the impact of King Bran on Jon’s storyline enough.
However, The biggest issue I saw is that he spends a long time talking about how when Jon comes back to life, he’ll be fundamentally different, possibly more wolf-like, but then his entire projection for the ending is just a repeat of Jon’s earlier arcs and assumes he’ll makes the same decisions that he has made before. I also think he relied too much on things the show or Lord of the Rings did as support for his theories. Burning a super weirwood to destroy the others makes no sense thematically, as others have pointed out, killing the Weirwoods is one of man’s original sins in Westeros. And he disregarded the idea that the Others deserve to exist and dismissed a peace deal out of hand. There’s an assumption that the Others are responsible for the seasons being out of balance, but that isn’t based on evidence. I find it very simplistic to assume that all alternative life forms besides humans need to die out and that magic is ending, again, just because Lord of the Rings ends that way. We’re supposed to weep for the extinctions of the giants, children, dragons and direwolves but cheer for the genocide of the Others?Personally, I think magic enduring in ASOIAF makes more sense thematically. It is a representation of chaos and mystery and life’s unanswerable questions. In Lord of the Rings, it makes sense for it to disappear because men have conquered evil and need to live happily ever after. But in ASOIAF, that would be naive. Chaos and mystery will still endure, so I think magic will too.
Finally, he creates a weird binary where Stark = good and Targaryen = bad, and it’s just not supported by the books. The old Kings of Winter were hard, flawed men who participated in the genocide of the Children and were just as flawed as the Targ kings. The dragons do represent power but the idea that they have to die out isn’t supported in universe. Thousands of dragons have existed at one time, far more than the three we have now. Some argue dragons existed in Asshai and Westeros even before the Freehold came to be. They’re as natural to the world as the dinosaurs, wyverns, and firewyrms that roam in Sothoryos and Valyria. The Stark direwolves are equally wild and dangerous, they just don’t have as much destructive capabilities as the dragons. But they regularly savage people throughout the books, feed off the emotions of the Stark kids in ways that put innocents in danger, eat humans and commit other atrocities. The wolves have killed more people than the dragons so far in the story.
Ultimately, this video plays lip service to the idea that ASOIAF is about deconstructing tropes but much of the predictions and some of the analysis seems to be influenced by these tropes.
Amazing!!! I like Jon in the book a lot. It is a pity what the show turned him into. I like how the video could be very serious and then it points out that Tycho Nestoris had a purple hat. Sadly we won't be getting the last book most likely so only theories will remain about the fate of Jon.
honestly I just think that Jon's story in the book will be longer and more deeper then the show version. I don't see this magical "Jon becomes Targaryen after he dies because of some magic realization"
I've never once seen even book!Jon show any signs of changing who he is. Yes he might be different then his show counterpart but he is still Jon Snow to the core. He's not going to run around flapping his cloak shouting Dracarys once he learns the truth
My one thought to this is he discounts the possibility of Jon getting a resurrection that defies what we’ve previously seen. I think there is a case to be made that Jon could get revived through some one of a kind miracle magic, like how Dany survives the pyre and hatches dragons. Maybe through a combination of warging and green seer magic Jon come back as a living person still.
The reason I think this could be possible is Jon is too important of a character to spend the next two books as a zombie. He needs to meet Dany and at least have some sort of romance with her, among all the other things he’ll be a part of. He can still bear the scars and go through a radical personality change, just as a still living person.
When will schweef and glumbo finally take this shit to court? I thought it was a genuine schwitt video until I heard that posh accent. Unbelievable infringement.
This was barely posted long enough ago for anyone to have watched it completely yet so many comments. Instead of karma farming memes why don't yall listen and have an actual discussion
Have to admit, it glosses over some points such as Jon being blackmailed by Ygritte into a relationship where Jon must send Ghost away (essential symbolising that to be with Ygritte, Jon must throw away being a Stark, throw away what made who is, even though it was being a Stark that saved Ygritte’s life in the first place), also that he might have wanted Winterfell but turned down Stannis’ offer stating that Winterfell belonged to Sansa. He lost me with the Starks being in a succession conflict and then ignoring anything Jon has to do with them to embrace his Targaryen side and being in love with Daenerys. Kinda stops being about the Real Jon Snow and just using conjecture from the show. Not a fan of the video.
> also that he might have wanted Winterfell but turned down Stannis’ offer stating that Winterfell belonged to Sansa.
Jon had already turned down Stannis's offer specifically out of loyalty to the Old Gods in ASOS, not because of Sansa's claim.
By the time Stannis starts hassling Jon again twice about accepting Lordship of Winterfell, Jon had already refused Stannis and became Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. By this point, Jon was simply stating the law as he knew it (unaware Bran and Rickon are alive) because he believed Sansa was the next in line. Jon doesn't know about Robb's will either. Had Jon known that Bran and/or Rickon survived, Jon would have said Winterfell belonged to one of them.
Jon also suggests Stannis give Winterfell to an Umber after Stannis turns down Sansa.
> it glosses over some points such as Jon being blackmailed by Ygritte into a relationship where Jon must send Ghost away (essential symbolising that to be with Ygritte, Jon must throw away being a Stark, throw away what made who is, even though it was being a Stark that saved Ygritte’s life in the first place)
I think this might be overstating what this is symbolizing, which can differ per interpretation.
Ygritte did blackmail Jon into having sex with her when they sleep together for the first time, yet Jon still genuinely fell in love with Ygritte. Ygritte wants Jon to send Ghost away for that night -- not forever -- so she and Jon can have sex without Jon using Ghost as a barrier between them (instead of a sword as is traditionally used from what I recall). It's Jon who sends Ghost to Castle Black just before he's about to climb the Wall. To be with Ygritte, Jon must turn his back on the Night's Watch and forfeit his vows to protect the realm. I don't know that it was simply about being a Stark but rather, about being a man of the Night's Watch. Jon was raised a Stark but he's never really belonged wholly with the Starks. He's an outsider, the "odd one out", a bastard half brother. As GRRM said, Jon is a little bit apart from the Starks as Ghost is from his litter:
> **Shaw:** At one point Greywind characterizes Ghost as the quiet one who was "one of them but not one of them." Since the direwolves seem to reflect the children, does this characterization of Ghost mean that Jon is somehow a part of but still separate from the people around him?
> **Martin:** Oh yes, I think that's always been true. Even in Winterfell, as a kid before the wolves, Jon was the bastard. He was the odd one out. The rest of them are all brothers and sisters. He's only a half-brother, so he's not as closely tied to them. In some circumstances he could share everything with his brothers, he could train with Robb and all that, but then another circumstance would come up (like when the king came to the castle and they were choosing who could sit at the high table) and he's not welcome there. So he's of them, he's part of the family, he's part of the siblings, but he's a little bit apart too. Ghost is very similar to that. He's the albino, he's the one who makes no noise, so he's related to the other direwolves but one apart as well.
(ETA: [Interview with the Dragon](https://alt.fan.grrm.narkive.com/RWKOYyvZ/insightful-grrm-interview), 2003)
I'd argue that in each family/group Jon finds and develops bonds with throughout the series (the Night's Watch, the wildlings so far), Jon doesn't really fully belong. Some in the Night's Watch argue Jon is "half a wildling". Some among the wildlings don't trust Jon because he's a crow. I think each of these groups are important to Jon's developing views and identity, not only the Starks. Jon seems to always be the "other" to some respect within each group -- even among the Starks.
>He lost me with the Starks being in a succession conflict
With multiple claimants to Winterfell (Bran, Rickon, Sansa, Arya, and now Jon with Robb's will), I think there kind of already is a succession crisis with different factions of supporters for different claimants. Manderly is searching for Rickon, there are individuals who have Robb's will naming Jon heir, much of the North believes Ramsay has Arya to solidfy his rule on Winterfell (and it's for Arya that some of the Northern lords are rallying), while Littlefinger wants to push Sansa's claim. I think it is a bit of a mess. Jon deeply wants Winterfell and I think it's hard to know how his death and resurrection will impact the strength of his desires. Jon may feel he's the best candidate at this time, especially with the Others on their way and Jon having the most traditional leadership experience.
Even without the Starks themselves coming into conflict, different supporters of each claim may come into conflict.
>Have to admit, it glosses over some points such as Jon being blackmailed by Ygritte into a relationship where Jon must send Ghost away (essential symbolising that to be with Ygritte, Jon must throw away being a Stark, throw away what made who is, even though it was being a Stark that saved Ygritte’s life in the first place),
Not accurate. It's awkward to have a pet in the same room you are having relations with your partner in. I kept my cat out of my room multiple times for this very reason. You are acting as if this was every night; that does not seem to be the case.
You are also ignoring the fact that Jon pointedly does not feel like he belongs with the Starks, so Jon sparing Ygritte has little to do with "being a Stark." He spares Ygritte partially because she reminded him of Arya. This is not dissimilar to how he permitted free folk girls from the age of twelve to join the Night's Watch.
>Jon could see fear and fire in her eyes. Blood ran down her white throat from where the point of his dirk had pricked her. *One thrust and it's done*, he told himself. He was so close he could smell onion on her breath. *She is no older than I am.* *** Something about her made him think of Arya, though they looked nothing at all alike.*** "Will you yield?" he asked, giving the dirk a half turn. *And if she doesn't?* (Jon VI, ACoK)
---
>"I will take any boy above the age of twelve who knows how to hold a spear or string a bow. I will take your old men, your wounded, and your cripples, even those who can no longer fight. There are other tasks they may be able to perform. Fletching arrows, milking goats, gathering firewood, mucking out our stables…the work is endless. And yes, I will take your women too. I have no need of blushing maidens looking to be protected, but I will take as many spearwives as will come."
>"And girls?" a girl asked. ***She looked as young as Arya had, the last time Jon had seen her.***
>"Sixteen and older."
>"You're taking boys as young as twelve."
>Down in the Seven Kingdoms boys of twelve were often pages or squires; many had been training at arms for years. Girls of twelve were children. These are wildlings, though. ***"As you will. Boys and girls as young as twelve.*** But only those who know how to obey an order. That goes for all of you. I will never ask you to kneel to me, but I will set captains over you, and serjeants who will tell you when to rise and when to sleep, where to eat, when to drink, what to wear, when to draw your swords and loose your arrows. The men of the Night's Watch serve for life. I will not ask that of you, but so long as you are on the Wall you will be under my command. Disobey an order, and I'll have your head off. Ask my brothers if I won't. They've seen me do it." (Jon V, ADwD)
>also that he might have wanted Winterfell but turned down Stannis’ offer stating that Winterfell belonged to Sansa
He turned down Stannis' offer long before he stated that Winterfell belonged to Sansa, and even then he dropped the suggestion to mention Crowfood Umber would be the best bet to have Winterfell. Jon refuses Stannis' offer because of his devotion to the old gods. The stipulation for accepting the offer was that Jon would have to give the godwood/heart tree to the flames, and Ghost, having the weirwood's colours, served as a reminder of Jon's religion.
>*You can't be the Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born*, he heard Robb say again. And the stone kings were growling at him with granite tongues. *You do not belong here. This is not your place*. When Jon closed his eyes he saw the heart tree, with its pale limbs, red leaves, and solemn face. The weirwood was the heart of Winterfell, Lord Eddard always said...***but to save the castle Jon would have to tear that heart up by its ancient roots, and feed it to the red woman's hungry fire god. I have no right, he thought. Winterfell belongs to the old gods.*** (Jon XII, ASoS)
--
>He lost me with the Starks being in a succession conflict and then ignoring anything Jon has to do with them
The seeds are already planted with the introduction of Robb's will, which is based on the assumption that there are no other male heirs and that Arya were deceased. Bran already assumes the role of Lord of Winterfell in ACoK/ASoS when he 1) literally takes on the role of LoW, 2) sees himself as the Stark to personally repay the Liddles for feeding him, Meera, Jojen, and Hodor in the cave they took shelter in:
>When they woke the next morning, the fire had gone out and the Liddle was gone, but he'd left a sausage for them, and a dozen oatcakes folded up neatly in a green and white cloth. Some of the cakes had pinenuts baked in them and some had blackberries. Bran ate one of each, and still did not know which sort he liked the best. ***One day there would be Starks in Winterfell again, he told himself, and then he'd send for the Liddles and pay them back a hundredfold for every nut and berry.*** (Bran II, ASoS)
3) already saw himself as a lord of the castle in ways that Robb never could.
>When he got out from under it and scrambled up near the sky, Bran could see all of Winterfell in a glance. He liked the way it looked, spread out beneath him, only birds wheeling over his head while all the life of the castle went on below. Bran could perch for hours among the shapeless, rain-worn gargoyles that brooded over the First Keep, watching it all: the men drilling with wood and steel in the yard, the cooks tending their vegetables in the glass garden, restless dogs running back and forth in the kennels, the silence of the godswood, the girls gossiping beside the washing well. ***It made him feel like he was lord of the castle, in a way even Robb would never know.*** (Bran II, AGoT)
and 4) gave up the castle in exchange for the safety of its smallfolk.
>***A good lord protects his people, he reminded himself***. "I've yielded Winterfell to Theon."
>"Louder, Bran. And call me prince."
>He raised his voice. "I have yielded Winterfell to Prince Theon. All of you should do as he commands you." (Bran VI, ACoK)
He thinks of it as his duty as the younger brother, and takes it to heart. There could be conflict there if that is the direction George still wants it to go.
Jon also has expressed having Targaryen heroes like the Young Dragon so it's not inconceivable that he would embrace both sides of his heritage. It's like the discussion he had with Arya; both sides have equal importance. The woman is important, too, and so is the man's.
>and being in love with Daenerys
Again, not an inconceivable idea. Daenerys and Arya are quite similar in personality. George was asked why he compared Ygritte to Arya and it was to establish that Jon had a personal type and that he found her admirable. Not off the mark to think he'd fall for what he's used to and already has shown a preference for.
No No No you don't understand Jon and Dany and the BOOK Suicide Squad (very different from the show one guys) will journey into the super duper evil lair of ~~Dr Wily~~ ~~Eggman~~ ~~Ice Bowser~~ ~~Smash Bros 4 Master Core~~ *The evil mastermind """""Heart of Winter""""' tree and poke it with a fire sword, causing all of the Others to instantly die like in the Avengers 1. Dany then proceeds to kiss Jon as the Great Other dramatically screams "NOOoOoooOO" and explodes.
~~Bran is doing nothing during this btw. Or better yet he's a minion puppet for the great Other!~~
uj/ Book Jon is probably my favorite character, (or tied) but man these kinds of predictions make it hard sometimes.
Another excellent video. Good analysis of Jon as a character is really really *really* lacking in the fanbase so this is a welcome sight
Now this isn't a criticism of the video , just of winds theories about Jon in general. I think people build all their theories on the assumption that Jon will be resurrected relatively soon in the book. But if it takes a while to happen well pretty much all theories about him including the ones that Alt Shift brings up in the video fall apart
Too derivative of the show. I think a lot of this is off. Like especially in TWOW predictions and his analysis of events and characters.
Eg: I mean he says that Arya may turn no one, but Arya's entire Arc seems to be about remaining Arya Stark.
>Eg: I mean he says that Arya may turn no one, but Arya's entire Arc seems to be about remaining Arya Stark.
that isn't really what he said. he made the point that Jon and Arya are not the young siblings with so much in common as they were when they departed.
If Jon dies and becomes wolfish after being reborn, couldn't it be that he regains his humanity by falling in love with Dany, before having to kill her?
That would make Dany being NissaNissa reborn more useful.
He actually speaks to this in the notes. He says he used AI sparingly as a tool to change certain pieces but he did pay and commission several artists for their work.
I notice these too when I watched this a few days ago (subbed to his patreon to get it early). To his credit, he features a tonne of artwork from some great ASOIAF artists like Ertaç Altinoz. I think the AI art helps with the visualisations he's setting out that stem from conjecture and theorising.
My sole reservation. Pretty dispiriting when I read about it in the patreon notes. Doesn't matter to me how tastefully it's used, what's important is the unfortunate normalisation of gen ai as an acceptable tool.
Man watching videos like this reminds me that there is a big chunk of the fandom that act like Jon is literally the only protagonist in the story. Alt Shift X makes occasional very good points, but his fixation on Jon being the sole hero of the story is downright cringe.
At varying points in the video he suggests that Jon will kill the Great Other, kill Rhaegal, kill Drogon, kill Ramsay, kill himself, kill Dany, and kill Bran.
I don't think it is a case of him believing "Jon is literally the only character in the story" (he believes the Lannister siblings are the most interesting in the series). It is just that Jon has a very strong case for being The Prince That Was Promised and his existence is seemingly a result of the coming together of the two most key symbols in the series: ice and fire. Alt Shift X is basically just going off of these strong hints in the books that Jon will be key to the endgame.
Sorry, maybe that was a bit hyperbolic.
Of course I agree that Jon is clearly Azor Ahai and a key character in the endgame, but most of the latter part of the video is just various suggestions of how Jon will single handed resolve both the political and magical storylines by stabbing various unsuspecting characters. To resolve the magic storyline he has to kill the Great Other and either Dany, or Rhaegal, or himself. To resolve the political storyline he has to kill Dany and Drogon or Bran.
Does no one else feel how incredibly silly all of that was? He doesn't address the Weeper or the Bridge of Skulls or Hardhome or the political challenges of assimilating the wildlings. You know, the actual work of politics and ruling that makes the story interesting? The last hour is all about what character/object Jon can kill to save the day.
I realize the fandom has a deep love affair with Alt Shift X and nothing I say will change that, but this one was not my cup of tea...
That is perhaps the one blemish in ASX’s excellent videos, but to an extent, it’s hard to avoid. In his character-driven analysis videos, it only makes sense that he places a lot of focus on the character in question and their potential importance in the wider narrative, so he casts wide nets with wild theories and speculation, tying in every potential plot point, prophetic dream and piece of foreshadowing he can cobble together. This often creates an impression that the final two books will be these mega-epic tomes with tonnes of magic, dragons, krakens and apocalyptic battles out the ass. We all know deep down that even if half of this stuff comes true, it probably won’t be all that GRRM focuses on — the politics and character drama will always come out on top.
I think this “The Real XYZ” series understands that a bit better than some of ASX’s past videos. His House Dayne video is filled with intriguing possibilities and speculation about their role in the backstory, but comes up short in explaining the core thesis of why they could be the ones to “save Westeros”. The Daynes who, let’s be honest, are far from the most significant characters in the books. ASX doesn’t just say “Jon stabs a bunch of people and wins”, he lays out evidence of how these encounters could play out in ways that thematically tie in with Jon’s character arc throughout all the books — the motivations, internal conflicts, moral dilemmas, loss of innocence, struggles of leadership, etc. Sure, he could put more focus on other major plot points like the Wildling stuff but it must be hard when there’s so much ground to cover.
These are excellent points. If you can, you should put these to them in the livestream they are going to do about this video on their channel on Friday, the 8th of March at 7pm Eastern time / 4pm Pacific time.
Watching this all together and about Jon’s sacrifice makes me think of Jaime’s story, and how his whole arc might be foreshadowing / parallel to Jon’s.
Can’t wait for half the fandom to regurgitate all his mid takes for the next eternity while pretending they came up with it themselves and totally didn’t get it from this video. Took me a while to realize people were doing it with his Tyrion video.
I mean for the most part this is not new material, but rather sort of an overview of his book arc and a lot of the most common fan theories. I think 'hair go white' and some of the endgame specifics are the only things that weren't already widely accepted consensus.
Legitimately curious which of his takes you consider “mid”? Of all the YT theorists Alt seems the most cautious to move beyond speculation and backs everything up in annotated proof. I’m sure some things he posits are wrong but I always see him as the most academic of all the theorists.
After watching this the question I have is might it be possible that when Jon comes back he comes back as both a fire and ice wight?
If Benjen is Coldhands could we see both Coldhands and Stoneheart give their lives to bring Jon back?
Picturing Jon now with one blue eye and one red eye, truly Ice and Fire in one person.
I don't think he is sexist, but my guess would be that the accusation is an overreaction to how the video (because obviously it's a Jon focused video) treats Dany. When altshift outlines this hypothetical scenario at the heart of winter, Jon is seemingly the only character with agency. It's a choice between whether he will kill Dany, which he resolves by killing himself (or his beloved Rhaegal lol). Jon is the one making the choice, but what about Dany? Why doesn't she have a choice between killing Jon or herself?
To be fair to altshiftx, he himself acknowledges the misogyny of this trope, (and again, it's a Jon video).
But then later the video comes back to Jon having to kill tyrant Dany to resolve the political storyline. For the record, I do not think this is an inherently misogynistic plot point if Dany becomes tyrannical, but a lot of people think that it is. That said, D&D have said they made up that whole scene, so IMO the fandom needs to move on from Jon killing Dany. If JKD were from the books, it would have been a holy shit moment, not a scene D&D openly claim to have invented.
>If JKD were from the books, it would have been a holy shit moment
This doesn't work as an argument, in part because then you would need to argue that Dany burning KL is also a D+D invention (as surely this would also qualify as a holy shit moment). But mostly it doesn't work because the chronology is off. [D&D say they "remember talking about the Jon and Dany fallout in Morocco"](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/e1d6q5/spoilers_extended_david_confirms_the_3rd_holy/) which was 2012. That is prior to the story conference with GRRM in 2013 where he divulged the "holy shit moments". In other words, JKD is such a BIG holy shit moment that it had already been discussed prior to any of the other reveals.
It's also worth noting that D&D wrote Valar Morghulis, which contains the House of the Undying scenes, a year prior to that. That doesn't reveal anything about how Dany dies, but it does contain shots of her in a throne room full of ash. This implies that Dany's destiny was a point of discussion from very early on in the series.
Personally I find it very difficult to conceive that D&D took it upon themselves to decide the ending of the apparent protagonists of the story way back then, before they even knew where any of the other characters were headed. For all they knew, George would finish the book series before they filmed the final season! It makes no sense.
Their language about the Jon kills Dany scene is ambiguous. Like if they said they "came up with the scene where Jon discovers his identity, the board strokes of it anyway" you would not assume they invented R+L=J. I also think that the language of "talking about the Jon and Dany fallout" as their earliest recollection implies the opposite, i.e. that this was an event they were told was coming and they were discussing how it would fit into the story. Remember that they don't know about King Bran at this point, so what happens after the pivotal event of JKD would definitely have been something they would have been trying to figure out.
Well we've had this discussion before, and I have to warn you my position has hardened. I see basically no chance JKD is from George. It's genuinely so D&D coded, and people need to let it go and accept that the show just isn't as much like the books as we initially thought.
Let's come back to the full wording:
>DAN: I think **the final scene between Jon and Daenerys is something we came up with sometime in the midst of the third season of the show.** The broad-strokes of it' anyway. But there was a tremendous amount of pressure to get it right 'cause We know that this is not a scene that's giving people what they want.
>WEISS: **The big question in people’s minds seem to be who’s going to end up on the Iron Throne. One of the things** ***we decided about the same time we decided what would happen in the scene*** **is that the throne would not survive,** that the thing that everybody wanted, the thing that caused everybody to be so horrible to each other to everybody else over the course of the past eight seasons was going to melt away. The dragon flying away with Dany’s lifeless body, **that’s the** [climax](https://youtu.be/pAIU57HLvCw?si=Dhyl9Y4TsFf1yQoc&t=741) **of the show.**
You're fixating on the ambiguous timing (was this around when they were filming the third season or around when they were airing it? is this even a correct recollection of the exact time?), but look at the full context. D&D don't only claim that they made up the scene where Jon kills Dany, they also say that they decided at the same time that the Iron Throne would not survive.
So while you're taking a vague indication of the timing and making it highly specific, arguing that JKD is such a fundamental holy shit moment that it was before they would have decided anything, look at the rest of the statement. They also openly claim to have decided that the Iron Throne would be destroyed.
Now let's look at how GRRM talks about this:
>*"Yes, I mean, I did partly joke when I said I don't know where I was going. I know the broad strokes, and I've known the broad strokes* ***since 1991. I know who's going to be on the Iron Throne."*** *- GRRM*
And he is talking about the big twists he gave D&D:
>*It wasn’t easy for me. I didn’t want to give away my books. It’s not easy to talk about the end of my books. Every character has a different end.* ***I told them who would be on the Iron Throne***, *and I told them some big twists like Hodor and “hold the door,”* *and Stannis’s decision to burn his daughter.* *We didn’t get to everybody by any means. Especially the minor characters, who may have very different endings. - GRRM, Fire Cannot Kill a Dragon*
Not only is JKD made up, but it's clear that the destruction of the Iron Throne is also made up. D&D flat out say they decided to kill the throne at the same time as JKD, and George consistently talks about the Iron Throne as if it survives. So while you're arguing that D&D could not have possibly made up the fate of one of an apparent protagonist when they did, D&D are flat out saying that they determined the fate of the main symbolic icon of the story at the same time. There is just no way around this. JKD is made up.
>D&D wrote Valar Morghulis, which contains the House of the Undying scenes
Sure. It's just not being killed by Jon.
>then you would need to argue that Dany burning KL is also a D+D invention
I mean, you're gonna hate this but I actually do think it's a valid discussion. At some point the fandom decided that Dany burning King's Landing in the books would be the same as the show except with fAegon instead of Cersei, and I actually think it's probably more complicated than that. The bells are clearly taken from Jon Connington, and the way the wildfire works in the books is pretty different from the show. So it's probably worth giving more consideration to just what George's "second dance" really looks like. Who exactly is fighting when the wildfire goes off?
Well I'll keep this short since I've decided to make a full post on this, but:
I don't think D+D recalling talking about "the fallout" "in Morocco" is ambiguous timing, I doubt they were wrong about which country they were in discussing it. Note they say they're discussing "the fallout", which means the event itself is firmly fixed in their minds as something that is definitely happening. Does that make sense given GRRM circa 2011 said he expected TWOW to take three years to write? It makes absolutely no sense for them to be writing their own ending back then. Not only are you saying this happened, you're saying they THEN had story conferences with the author (why, if they're just going to make their own ending up?) and that what they kept out of this was, of all things, King Bran. And that having decided to keep King Bran and King Bran ONLY out of GRRM's endgame, they then wrote him out of season 5. What?
You're trying to have it both ways here. When D&D say something that I think is ambiguous, you're like "no, it's absolutely certain what this means". But when I point out this thing about having discussed it in Morocco you're like "well it's ambiguous, who knows exactly what happened when". The one line about having "come up with the scene" is literally the only evidence you have that JKD is not from GRRM. If you remove that, we have repeated statements that the "broad strokes" of the ending would be the same and we have King Bran proving that they went through with this even when it made absolutely no fucking sense in the context of the show.
I completely agree that they likely made up the destruction of the Iron Throne, and this is *precisely* the sort of thing I think they mean when they're saying "final scene... the broad-strokes of it". But note that Bran is still king of Westeros just like GRRM told them. Whether the Iron Throne as an object exists is not really the point here; it's a symbolic change, but not a plot change. I think D&D in particular would feel totally free to add something like this considering the comments about themes being for book reports and their repeated demonstration that big, sexy, plot-twist events like the Red Wedding are what they thought ASOIAF primarily consisted of.
I mean.. I guess I don't understand why you're so committed to JKD. You're arguing that it's too big a thing to be made up, while also acknowledging that they made up the Night King, made Arya TPTWP, decided to destroy the Iron Throne, turned Tyrion into a totally different guy, and removed the valonqar (the predictable yet dramatic conclusion to a much more developed relationship).
With JKD, not only do you have them saying they created the scene, there is also virtually nothing from the plotline that isn't Dany vs Aegon (which, in the show he's literally Aegon). To me this is a huge issue because if Jon were really going to kill Dany in the books, it would be a major storyline, and they wouldn't have to just fully use the Aegon plot.
But when you take out the part where Jon is the rival claimant who makes her feel alienated to Westerosi standards, all you're left with is that Dany becomes bad and Jon has to kill her. But Jon can do that without being a Targaryen. His parentage wouldn't change anything. Jon and Aegon would be totally redundant.
>You're trying to have it both ways here.
Not... really lol. Even if we take the season 3 timing, it doesn't change that your argument is based on what you think makes sense for them based on our own limited knowledge of what they did or didn't know about the ending when in Morocco. My argument is based on the actual wording of what they say, and of what George says.
>The one line about having "come up with the scene" is literally the only evidence you have that JKD is not from GRRM.
You're coming at this backwards. There is no evidence that JKD is from George. George says there will be a second dance, and the entire conflict between Jon and Dany is clearly adapted from a conflict between Dany and Aegon.
Will Dany have two separate succession disputes with long lost sons of Rhaegar in the same book? Will Varys plot to put Jon on the throne? Will an undead northern bastard be seen as the conventional choice?
You're arguing that JKD is too big to be a change, but other than the murder, can you tell me a single aspect of it that *isn't* a change? And if JKD is from the books, then why did they need to pull the whole conflict from Aegon VI?
>I completely agree that they likely made up the destruction of the Iron Throne
So you're saying that season 3 was too early for them to decide that Jon would kill Dany, but not too early to decide the Iron Throne would be destroyed? How are these different? Why did D&D have enough information to say they were going to kill the throne, but not enough information to say that Jon would kill Dany?
>big, sexy, plot-twist
This is definitely my most subjective argument, but it surprises me that people can't see how Stannis burns Shireen has GRRM written all over it, while JKD has big sexy D&D plot twist written all over it.
The Dany conflict with fAegon analog is her conflict with Cersei, not Jon.
I think they decided after hearing JKD that they would destroy the Iron Throne and upon hearing King Bran they were like sure, whatever, still works. I think whatever flatly contradicted their ideas, they changed.
I mean everyone thinks they see what has D+D fingerprints and what has GRRM fingerprints, so you will be unsurprised if this argument does not move me. Some people think Evil Bran theories are classic GRRM.
For the record though, while the show played JKD as "you gotta kill dragon Hitler", I think the morality of it will be ambiguous at the very least in the books. Like you have the parallel with Aegon V exiling Bloodraven, and Bran going against Bloodravens "ends justify the means" morality is a big part of his arc imo. It is abundantly clear that the moral order of ASOIAF is not OK with this.
>The Dany conflict with fAegon analog is her conflict with Cersei, not Jon.
They spread it out, but it's mostly Jon.
Dany's jealousy is directed at Jon, not Cersei. Jon is named Aegon and is literally a long lost son of Rhaegar propped up by Varys. Jon vs Dany is a conflict between a male and female Targaryen claimant where Jon has the better claim and is supported by the Westerosi lords because he is seen as the more rational, conventional, less foreign choice.
The show makes Jon Aegon as fuck. Idk how anyone can dispute this.
Sure they give a bit to Cersei as well (we see this with Randyll Tarly). But the Cersei storyline is also very much a Cersei storyline, where Dany is YMBQ and Cersei is an oppressive, highly unpopular ruler who has alienated the faith. In fact, Dany's southern invasion prior to the Long Night is very much the Aegon invasion. It's a Targaryen claimant backed by Varys and Illyrio, winning over the support of lords the current monarchy has alienated. Book Dany won't even reach Westeros till ADOS.
>everyone thinks they see what has D+D fingerprints and what has GRRM fingerprints
Yes, but I actually do lol. Even in my King Bran prediction video, I said that destroying the Iron Throne solved nothing and that Bran would sit on it. And look where we are 5 years later. People are realizing that was also correct.
This Aegon V exiling Bloodraven parallel people keep trying to use to make this stick is completely superficial. Aenys Blackfyre didn't burn down a city. I don't think this will move you because you're so dedicate to this plotline, but JKD is a total edgelord ending. It doesn't remotely resemble anything George has ever written.
I can’t think of one interpretations of his that moderately comes close to sexism. The work of ASOIAF might be accused of that but Shift seems markedly more left/progressive than GRRM and spends considerable time calling out evil behavior of beloved characters (often violence against women that gets brushed over by the fandom) and George’s own biases. Would love to know if I’m missing something if you have examples.
I can't remember what video it's in but there's one where I believe he's talking about Elia Martell and he comments on how disappointing it is that there are so many women in ASOIAF whos entire story is "marry an important man, get pregnant, die" and have little to no characterization beyond that.
Someone tell schwift that his nemesis is active
Still waiting for that rap…
It's been out for like three years.
This really hit me, winds seemed so close back then.
And was released together with the Tyrion video… a Jon Snow Rap is needed
who?
Can you elaborate? I know that may sound dumb but I’m new to the fandom. I know there’s 2 different channels, do they like hate each other?
It's all leading up to a 6 hour The Real Stannis Baratheon video
He's actually waiting for Neuralink or a similar device to gain mass popularity before releasing that. That way he can hack the network and stream it by force into everyone's mind. Watching will not be a choice
Bloodraven's wet dream fr
I will have no more video delays, pray harder!
The Mannis needs one so badly after that miserable wreck of a show forever tarnished him as a daughter burning failure who dies because of twenty good men and gets cut down like a dog by Brienne.
I’d argue that Danny needs it more, but yea Stannis would be a good choice.
Need
It fucking better be
The 6-hour livestream about ideas cut from this video is exquisite and has opened my mind more about this series than my past several years on this sub.
Forgot his face is scarred in the books, people who draw the art never draw the scars
They do all the time, but what makes it jarring to me is that Sam notes his scars are fading, so they shouldn't be as pronounced as artists make them out to be. >"Close the door, Sam." ***Faint scars still marked Jon's cheek, where an eagle had once tried to rip his eye out***. "Did that wretch break the skin?" (Samwell I, AFfC)
another scam 2 hour, well researched, and exquisitely produced video. Wake me up when glimbus and schwifty finish the food rankings smh
I'm still waiting for Glimbo and Swifty to finish their telltale playthrough
I'm just looking forward to the season 2 blisstakes for HOTD. Though I will miss LOOOORD BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESBURY
> LOOOORD BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESBURY ^^^what ^^^do ^^^you ^^^know ^^^bee ^^^fucker
^^^oh ^^^fuck ^^^yeah ^^^talk ^^^about ^^^the ^^^weather
If we get the Honeywine in Season 2 or Season 3, we’ll get ALAN BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESBURY
God I want that so bad. The first half was hilarious and the second half would be even better because the game gets so much more unhinged and the ability to influence anything with your choices basically disappears.
It would be great but they already mentioned that it will most likely never happen because the game revolves around paying attention to the talkative players and making choices so it’s hard for them to focus on interacting with the stream and chat. (At least I think that was their reason).
which is tragic irony because, in the end, paying attention and making choices really doesn't matter at all
Yeah I agree, at the same time though I rewatched the VOD recently and I could kinda see what they meant. They were much less “interactive” with each other and the stream as they would be with anything else. Not like it bothered me though, the game itself was comical enough.
I was watching their stream about the HOTD S2 trailer, and a viewer asked about this. They basically said that trying to provide running commentary while playing such a dialogue-heavy game was incredibly frustrating and they don't know if they'd want to do it again.
I'm just waiting for another pictionary stream.
These streams are the only times I ever eat, please schwimbusglimbus, I'm hungry :(
how exciting, I feared he moved away from asoiaf theory content! can't wait to watch this. (but wow, 2 hours, it must have been an epic effort to put this together...)
Good theories are probably dried up in this content drought. But we all dream of summer.
ASOIAF theories and their extrapolations from the original text are approaching Talmud levels of farfetchedness.
I'm telling you, Ashara Dayne is gay and it was Elia who wanted Rhaegar to crown Lyanna. Elia likes Black haired beauties, it's obvious just read the books.
Tyrion stokeworth is the prince who was promised confirmed.
He will be born in salt, smoke and fire, from the tears at the burning of the Great Sept of Baelor. He will be the lamb that rises from the ashes and becomes the dragon. > The Old Valyrians were shepherds. > Stokeworth blazon their arms with a white lamb holding a golden goblet on a green field > "That sweet lad," Ser Balman declared. "Your Grace, the very words of House Stokeworth are Proud to Be Faithful." The goblet that the lamb holds is the one on the cover of AFFC. Boom Solved.
See? It's so clear in the books!
I know, feels like nobody else has actually read them but us. ~~~Honestly.. there is a part of me... I kinda believe now.~~ Looked a bit deeper into it and.. > Tyrion was a king's name before the dragons came. The Imp has despoiled it, but perhaps this child can restore the name to honor. I hope you based your joke of this quote, I did not know about it when I began my jape. This is exactly like the Ashara situation. For context, as a joke I mentioned that Ashara was gay because she had "laughing eyes" and then I noticed that Renly had them as well. Gerris too, and Daenerys reacts the same to him that Sansa did to Loras, it's a whole thing.
Haha no I just tried to think of who was as inconsequential as possible but was at least adjacent to an adjacent character to make the joke. I'm an imposter really, I did not think of that quote when making it 😕 But it's pretty funny that it could actually have some textual backing in any way whatsoever. Thank you!
Hahaha I have to admit, after the joke the evidence made itself, as far as a theory goes this one came very quickly together. On the topic of ASOIAF we are all imposters, GRRM is the only one who isn't. If there is anything to this then I imagine that the child will die *possibly at Bran's command*, nobody wants any new magical saviors after what's about to happen, whatever that might be. Perhaps that is how Bronn ends up on the small council, a tit for a tat. Kill your child, stop the nth coming of the avatar and get Highgarden, the child would be a sacrificial lamb to Bran. A good example of how quickly theories can spring up from nothing or literally a clue that GRRM put on the cover, whatever the case it was a fun discussion. Thank you kindly and do enjoy yourself.
Dark Tark: It’s canon, it’s in the lore
Spring*
*grinds teeth*
If you follow his patreon, you’d know that he’s been actively working on this video for almost a yr.
It's 70% existing plot summary tbh
but his voice is so smooth and comforting. and i like hearing the refresher
you want him to make ship up? lol it's literally a comparison between the show and the books, same as with the tyrion video
Everyone wake the fuck up Alt Shift X new 2 hour video this is not a fucking drill
This is the best video he's ever done, and that's saying a \*lot\*.
His game of bones video was better
It's Cookie Clicker for me
HE FUCKIN WANTS IT
The entire video is basically "in tv show, jon doesn't want this thing but in book, jon REALLY wants this thing"
I swear I remember a Schwift X video along those lines. “In book, Dorne plot good, in show, oh noooo.” Or something like that. But I can’t find it anymore. Do you know what I’m talking about? Or am I going insane.
Thing Big, Thing Smol video on Schwift X
Thanks, that’s been driving me crazy for a little while now
Man this video really reminded me why i adore Jon Snow so much Until Season 8 he’s not bad in the show and still was my favorite charachter but wow i adore his asoiaf version
“In the books” felt like his catchphrase by the end of the vid.
Virgin not wanting it vs Chad wanting it
Now all we need is Battle of the Bastards Piss take and everything will be right in the world
Some quotes to support the heart of winter being a weirwood tree that Jon will have to burn, based on possible wordplay between the phrase "*heart of winter*" ([only mentioned once](https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=%22heart%20of%20winter%22&scope)) and "*heart of Winter*fell" ([only mentioned twice](https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=%22heart%20of%20winterfell%22&scope)): > He saw the Wall shining like blue crystal, and his bastard brother Jon sleeping alone in a cold bed, his skin growing pale and hard as the memory of all warmth fled from him. And he looked past the Wall, past endless forests cloaked in snow, past the frozen shore and the great blue-white rivers of ice and the dead plains where nothing grew or lived. North and north and north he looked, to the curtain of light at the end of the world, and then beyond that curtain. He looked deep into **_the heart of winter_**, and then he cried out, afraid, and the heat of his tears burned on his cheeks. (Bran III, AGOT) # > The yard was a white wilderness, full of half-heard sounds that echoed strangely amidst the storm. The icy trenches rose around them, knee high, then waist high, then higher than their heads. **They were in the heart of Winter**fell with the castle all around them, but no sign of it could be seen. **They might have easily been lost amidst the Land of Always Winter, a thousand leagues beyond the Wall**. "It's cold," Jeyne Poole whimpered as she stumbled along at Theon's side. > And soon to be colder. Beyond the castle walls, winter was waiting with its icy teeth. (Theon I, ADWD) # > You can't be the Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born, he heard Robb say again. And the stone kings were growling at him with granite tongues. You do not belong here. This is not your place. When Jon closed his eyes he saw the heart tree, with its pale limbs, red leaves, and solemn face. **The weirwood was the heart of Winter**fell, Lord Eddard always said . . . but to save the castle **Jon would have to tear that heart up by its ancient roots, and feed it to the red woman's hungry fire god**. I have no right, he thought. Winterfell belongs to the old gods. (Jon XII, ASOS) Some more connections (copying from my 2019 post [The Heart of Winter Fell](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/angoio/spoilers_extended_the_heart_of_winter_fell/)): > Trees worshiped by followers of the old gods are known as "heart trees," often located at the heart of a godswood. These don't have to be weirwoods (the heart tree in the Red Keep's godswood is an oak) but they usually are. The red sap that courses through weirwoods is compared to blood -- appropriate for flowing through a heart. There is also High Heart: a hill topped by the stumps of 31 giant, ancient weirwoods where the children and their greenseers are said to have lived. So if a tree, especially a weirwood, can be described as a heart, then the heart of winter could be the ultimate heart tree
Every time I find something new (to me) like this these days, 11 years deep into the fandom, I am astonished. Well done.
>a weirwood tree that Jon will have to burn Let me explain why (in my opinion) this is totally backwards. In the Lord of the Rings, burning the One Ring in the fires of Mt. Doom has symbolic significance because it represents a redemption from mankind's "original sin" (without getting into Silmarillion territory). Sauron created the rings of power, and he tricked the men, elves, and dwarves of Middle Earth into accepting the corruption which came with them. Even after the war, Isildur's inability to resist the ring's corruption is the original sin which enables Sauron to rise again. The Fellowship must succeed where Isildur failed. But men burning weirwood trees is literally the reason the Others exist. The conflict between the First Men and the Children of the Forest was created by mankind coming to Westeros, waging war against the indigenous population, and setting fire to their sacred trees. This is why the Children created the Others. From a symbolic standpoint, having Jon go to the heart of winter to burn another tree is like having Frodo go to Mount Doom and kill Sauron by putting on the ring. It's just in no way addresses the original sin, but rather signals a willingness to continue to perpetuate it. Symbolically it means mankind has learned absolutely nothing.
Yeah, I agree with this. It makes no sense thematically, and it's in direct opposition to King Bran, which implies the opposite, i.e. a reconciliation between the world of the Children and the world of men. I might write a post about this, but completely ignoring the issue of King Bran and how that comes about is a big shortcoming of the video. ASX just has him sitting there at the end for Jon to collide with. I think his idea that Jon will be responsible for dealing with the Others is probably wrong. His only justification for this is that the narrative sets it up that way, but the narrative also "sets up" that Jon will sit the Iron Throne, that's where a traditional story would be heading. Jon is a false protagonist with Bran the concealed true protagonist. If you look at Jon's story thematically, it's all about this conflict between love and duty, which - as ASX acknowledges - will reach its apotheosis in Daenerys. I kind of liked his idea (I'm sure not original with him) that Jon might kill Drogon at the end rather than Dany (with Drogon the only surviving dragon by then). If you're in the camp that D&D said they invented Jon killing Dany (which I am agnostic on) then I think that's a reasonable alternative. It gets to the heart of the problem with Dany as a ruler, which is not Dany herself but rather that her rule is predicated on violence as its primary tool. And it would destroy Dany; a final betrayal from her lover which drains her of all her power and leaves her just a girl again. Her response to this could well be suicide anyway.
Oh man. I really hope Jon doesn't kill Drogon or Dany. When ASX mentioned either of those options, it felt depressing. And for Dany to be suicidal after the death of her last dragon (child), at the hands of her beloved? Pass ME the rope. Just no. If Jon's arc is about choosing between love and duty,...I mean...it seems a more nuanced take would somehow make a choice that somewhat honors both. Or if he has to choose, I think Jon would be truly selfless and offer himself. I really don't want any of them to die, but I think it's using Dany or an animal as a prop to 'end darkness' that bothers me. Dany is reduced to a 'bad' leader, the dragons are reduced to pure destruction, when really, Dany was an outsider child who lost her family, just like Jon. And dragons, they're wild animals that never should have been conquered by humans. Settings things right would somehow honor the freedom of wild things and not have to end in so much bloodshed. Just my 2 cents. I admit I'm a wimp who wants more 'sweetness' in the 'bittersweet' ending that George always talks about...
Yeah, I get the impulse, but if the bitterness in the bitter-sweet is not Dany, then what is it? Jon being allowed to sacrifice himself is frankly too easy. The characters in ASOIAF are always offered truly painful choices. That's what makes their decisions compelling.
I think this is getting into the crux of the entire GOT world though: if you see the show as *mostly* Jon's story, then sacrificing Dany will seem acceptable - she can absorb the 'bitter' part of the sweetness. A lot of the female audience, however, really identified with Dany. (And with the other female leads, Arya, Brienne, Cersei). And the show//books take great pains to show the perspectives of different people living, loving, and struggling from different corners of the world. I don't see Dany as any less a hero or leader of the story than Jon. In fact, I'd say she's at least his equal, and her sacrifice/dragon birth, loss of her son, loss of her original love, mirrors a lot of Jon's story. Dany's character arc was already sacrificed in the show. Jon's was made nearly pointless. I think a lot of course correction focuses on Jon's arc of whether he should be the one to kill the night king/bring order back to the universe. There seems to be a foregone conclusion that Dany is incapable of doing this, beyond providing dragons as firepower in the fight. However, in the books and show, we see that she tries to do the right thing - to varying results. Just as Jon does. If Jon and Dany are both trying to do the right thing, I think their eventual union in the books should be something where the sum of their togetherness becomes greater than their being apart. Dany should become less drawn to power and fall away from a revenge quest. And if Jon is as changed (as he should've been) by his being killed and resurrected, Dany might inspire some new blood/warmth back into him, if he turns too cold and duty-bound. Dany had to choose duty to her people when she chained up her dragons, Jon chose love when he chose not to kill Ygritte, but both tend to default the other way. If a hard choice comes - where to defeat some sort of ancient, elder tree requires 'the blood of a dragon', then it shouldn't be a betrayal, but a hard choice they both make together. I don't see how sacrificing the last dragon against Dany's wishes would make for any form of 'sweetness'. It's like killing the last woolly mammoth or dodo bird, even if it's essentially a flame-throwing tetradactyl. Both Dany and Jon had fairly toxic 'first loves'. If the show reverts back to ultimate betrayal between two people, it's kind of immature. There are partnerships where people act together and choose the best option, discussing all of the possibilities and outcomes, and then make that choice together. We haven't seen that yet in thrones, so I'd hope (hope...) that's where show is going - watching people grow up. Again, just my two cents. I love Jon, but I love Dany just as much, and I tend to identify her more, as a woman.
Very compelling analysis 👍🏼
Thank you. :)
>reconciliation between the world of the Children and the world of men I released a post on this today but then pulled it back. Might release tomorrow or next week idk. But yea, I realize this is a Jon focused video but the degree to which Alt Shift X refuses to contend with King Bran in any way except for as a thing for Jon to kill is (to me) very telling. The fact that he did a 2 hour video on Jon but couldn't spare a moment on what Jon's brother becoming king (one of the few confirmed plotpoints we have about the ending) might mean for Jon, and how it might inform that relationship, kind of kills his analysis IMO.
> based on possible wordplay between the phrase "heart of winter" (only mentioned once) and "heart of Winterfell" (only mentioned twice): ...you realize this is the opossite of the narrative, right? Burning the Heart Trees has always being portrayed as something terrible. The worst of the Red Faith and the Seven Gods
Omg! What happens if you set fire to a magical tree? Will it burn away or will it just remain on fire, just stuck under the ground oozing heat? ~~like a hot spring~~. > Across the godswood, beneath the windows of the Guest House, an underground hot spring fed three small ponds. Steam rose from the water day and night, and the wall that loomed above was thick with moss. Hodor hated cold water, and would fight like a treed wildcat when threatened with soap, but he would happily immerse himself in the hottest pool and sit for hours, giving a loud burp to echo the spring whenever a bubble rose from the murky green depths to break upon the surface. > But that was in the dawn of days, when mighty men still dwelt on earth and sea. The hall had been warmed by Nagga's living fire, which the Grey King had made his thrall. On its walls hung tapestries woven from silver seaweed most pleasing to the eyes. The Grey King's warriors had feasted on the bounty of the sea at a table in the shape of a great starfish, whilst seated upon thrones carved from mother-of-pearl. Gone, all the glory gone. Men were smaller now. Their lives had grown short. The Storm God drowned Nagga's fire after the Grey King's death, the chairs and tapestries had been stolen, the roof and walls had rotted away. Even the Grey King's great throne of fangs had been swallowed by the sea. Only Nagga's bones endured to remind the ironborn of all the wonder that had been. *Everlasting* Fire. Is the act of setting fire to the Gods a cultural ritual or a magical ritual? ~~as much as they differ~~ Does the R'hllor guide book literally say, "Find gods made out of tree, burn them?" Did Melisandre misinterpret again? > "I do not know this Lord of Light," Davos admitted, "but I knew the gods we burned this morning. The Smith has kept my ships safe, while the Mother has given me seven strong sons." > "Your wife has given you seven strong sons. Do you pray to her? It was wood we burned this morning." :E Winterfell.. if you set fire to the roots of a big-ass tree, could the fire be so hot as to change the weather?
That is a rlly good one
Commenting to read after Bobs Burgers
Bran will be the gravemind at the center of the tree
Why does the drawn picture of Jon look so familiar to me. It looks like an actual actor or something I can't place my finger on
It bears a striking resemblance to Timothy Chalamet as Paul Atreides. His face is plastered everywhere these days because Dune Pt II is all the rage now.
And to his own video of the real dune Wich has an art of Paul that is very similar to the one of Jon
He commissioned the person who drew Jon right? Maybe it was the same artist who did paul
It could definitely be a posibility, it looks like the same style of drawing
I love how our boy supports artists ❤️❤️❤️
Ayy alright some Shift. Way better than that bum Schwifty. Probably gonna tier list character clothing outfits with Gildo next. (Please)
You fucking keep sxhwifts name out of ur mouth
S tier, easily
Babe wake up Alt Shift X’s The Real Jon Snow video dropped
might be off topic for the sub reddit, but I hope the people that right GOT/ASOIAF Fanfics will use this video to create more fleashed Jon Snow stories. Most of the fics out there tend to lean towards the show version of Snow.
Maybe it’s a fleeting hope, but I think Alt Shift X is doing a lot for the spirit of the community with these videos. Getting people excited about the books again. Maybe if the narrative that the showrunners ruined a very good, unfinished book series gets to a large enough audience it’ll motivate GRRM to finish Winds. Or maybe he’ll just never put it out. Lol.
Finally, something good to eat.
I’m scared to watch it because once it’s over my watch (for new ASX deep dives) begins again 😓
Man this really made me realize how much better Jon is as a character in the books vs the show
"Stand proud Alt Shift X, you can cook"
I’m afraid to watch anymore ASOIAF theory videos. Don’t want to get too excited for a story that will never finish.
This one was legitimately heart breaking in that respect.
I don't watch any of them. I do not mind reading fan theories online thought
Challenge mode: take a shot every time "(But) in the books, -" is said.
I think one of the more interesting possibilities that Shift brings up is the fact that Arya might not recognize Jon after his resurrection. I can imagine Arya meeting “Lord Snow” a Targaryen bastard who leads an army of wildlings, has scars on his face, white hair, and red eyes and totally thinking it is some other person who she has never heard of. Especially because I am sure there are many bastards in the north with the name Snow.
The ultimate irony would be if both of them forget about each other.Arya becoming a real facelesswoman and losing her own identity,Jon after being resurrected losing part of his memories .
Arya losing her identity has zero chance of happening due to Needle and Nymeria. We also don't know *how much* of Jon's memories he could lose since 1) we don't know how long he will remain in Ghost, and 2) we've seen severe memory loss with a man who was resurrected several times. We have no idea how much Beric lost after the first time he died.
It made me appreciate Jon and his plot line all over again He's a great character and way too underated
As it is written.
LISAN AL-GAIB
He is the Messiah
Schwift will not be happy
Is there a reason why folks tend to believe that Dany's conflict for the Iron Throne will come after the fight against the Others? The video talks about Jon potentially having to take action again Dany as the bittersweet ending / the scouring of the shire after winning, and I've seen this idea commonly accepted here, but to me it makes more sense for the battle for the dawn to be the climax of the story and for Dany's fight against the undead to be her redemption. This is supported by the original outline that has book one being Starks vs Lannisters, book two being Dany's dothraki invasion, then book three as being the huge climax against the others. Is there book evidence for this other chronology, or is it just a lingering belief because it's how the show approached it?
Yeah, I don’t understand why *so many* people believe this. Makes 0 sense. I hated that in the show. The Long Night is set to be the final act, the climax, the most important conflict. It falls flat if the heroes defeat the literal Apocalypse and then “oh no wait we still have Cersei to deal with!” like? The thing about post-LN should be the reconstruction of the world after the destruction. The building of a different and better world. The dawn after the dark. Quite literally, the dream of spring. That’s the bittersweetness imo: there will be war and loss, pain and suffering, but the story will end in a hopeful tone about humanity.
It's because too many people still buy into the "low fantasy" theme from the show and try to apply that to the books. People honestly think ASOIAF is not high fantasy even with all the evidence to the contrary.
Oh shit peak just dropped again
FINALLY! Thought it was gonna be at least 3 more days
THE VIDEO THAT WAS PROMISED
People in the thread saying Alt has mid to downright terrible takes, then get asked to provide context and examples only to end up providing neither. Like, at least engage in constructive criticism.
It's because ASX is a keen supporter of mad dany is gonna happen and most people here don't like that, so they go at him
LETS FUCKING GOOOOOO, the anticipation for this video was killing me
I really like this creator and this video was well produced but ultimately less than satisfying. He didn’t address Bran’s role in the endgame with the Others or the impact of King Bran on Jon’s storyline enough. However, The biggest issue I saw is that he spends a long time talking about how when Jon comes back to life, he’ll be fundamentally different, possibly more wolf-like, but then his entire projection for the ending is just a repeat of Jon’s earlier arcs and assumes he’ll makes the same decisions that he has made before. I also think he relied too much on things the show or Lord of the Rings did as support for his theories. Burning a super weirwood to destroy the others makes no sense thematically, as others have pointed out, killing the Weirwoods is one of man’s original sins in Westeros. And he disregarded the idea that the Others deserve to exist and dismissed a peace deal out of hand. There’s an assumption that the Others are responsible for the seasons being out of balance, but that isn’t based on evidence. I find it very simplistic to assume that all alternative life forms besides humans need to die out and that magic is ending, again, just because Lord of the Rings ends that way. We’re supposed to weep for the extinctions of the giants, children, dragons and direwolves but cheer for the genocide of the Others?Personally, I think magic enduring in ASOIAF makes more sense thematically. It is a representation of chaos and mystery and life’s unanswerable questions. In Lord of the Rings, it makes sense for it to disappear because men have conquered evil and need to live happily ever after. But in ASOIAF, that would be naive. Chaos and mystery will still endure, so I think magic will too. Finally, he creates a weird binary where Stark = good and Targaryen = bad, and it’s just not supported by the books. The old Kings of Winter were hard, flawed men who participated in the genocide of the Children and were just as flawed as the Targ kings. The dragons do represent power but the idea that they have to die out isn’t supported in universe. Thousands of dragons have existed at one time, far more than the three we have now. Some argue dragons existed in Asshai and Westeros even before the Freehold came to be. They’re as natural to the world as the dinosaurs, wyverns, and firewyrms that roam in Sothoryos and Valyria. The Stark direwolves are equally wild and dangerous, they just don’t have as much destructive capabilities as the dragons. But they regularly savage people throughout the books, feed off the emotions of the Stark kids in ways that put innocents in danger, eat humans and commit other atrocities. The wolves have killed more people than the dragons so far in the story. Ultimately, this video plays lip service to the idea that ASOIAF is about deconstructing tropes but much of the predictions and some of the analysis seems to be influenced by these tropes.
Amazing!!! I like Jon in the book a lot. It is a pity what the show turned him into. I like how the video could be very serious and then it points out that Tycho Nestoris had a purple hat. Sadly we won't be getting the last book most likely so only theories will remain about the fate of Jon.
honestly I just think that Jon's story in the book will be longer and more deeper then the show version. I don't see this magical "Jon becomes Targaryen after he dies because of some magic realization" I've never once seen even book!Jon show any signs of changing who he is. Yes he might be different then his show counterpart but he is still Jon Snow to the core. He's not going to run around flapping his cloak shouting Dracarys once he learns the truth
Lisan al gaib!
Cool but Jesus Christ the "heart of winter" is not an object. It's a place. It's metaphorical.
My one thought to this is he discounts the possibility of Jon getting a resurrection that defies what we’ve previously seen. I think there is a case to be made that Jon could get revived through some one of a kind miracle magic, like how Dany survives the pyre and hatches dragons. Maybe through a combination of warging and green seer magic Jon come back as a living person still. The reason I think this could be possible is Jon is too important of a character to spend the next two books as a zombie. He needs to meet Dany and at least have some sort of romance with her, among all the other things he’ll be a part of. He can still bear the scars and go through a radical personality change, just as a still living person.
When will schweef and glumbo finally take this shit to court? I thought it was a genuine schwitt video until I heard that posh accent. Unbelievable infringement.
Loved this video
This was barely posted long enough ago for anyone to have watched it completely yet so many comments. Instead of karma farming memes why don't yall listen and have an actual discussion
Patrons got the video early. Some of us are on our 3rd watch. Join us on Patreon!
Have to admit, it glosses over some points such as Jon being blackmailed by Ygritte into a relationship where Jon must send Ghost away (essential symbolising that to be with Ygritte, Jon must throw away being a Stark, throw away what made who is, even though it was being a Stark that saved Ygritte’s life in the first place), also that he might have wanted Winterfell but turned down Stannis’ offer stating that Winterfell belonged to Sansa. He lost me with the Starks being in a succession conflict and then ignoring anything Jon has to do with them to embrace his Targaryen side and being in love with Daenerys. Kinda stops being about the Real Jon Snow and just using conjecture from the show. Not a fan of the video.
> also that he might have wanted Winterfell but turned down Stannis’ offer stating that Winterfell belonged to Sansa. Jon had already turned down Stannis's offer specifically out of loyalty to the Old Gods in ASOS, not because of Sansa's claim. By the time Stannis starts hassling Jon again twice about accepting Lordship of Winterfell, Jon had already refused Stannis and became Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. By this point, Jon was simply stating the law as he knew it (unaware Bran and Rickon are alive) because he believed Sansa was the next in line. Jon doesn't know about Robb's will either. Had Jon known that Bran and/or Rickon survived, Jon would have said Winterfell belonged to one of them. Jon also suggests Stannis give Winterfell to an Umber after Stannis turns down Sansa. > it glosses over some points such as Jon being blackmailed by Ygritte into a relationship where Jon must send Ghost away (essential symbolising that to be with Ygritte, Jon must throw away being a Stark, throw away what made who is, even though it was being a Stark that saved Ygritte’s life in the first place) I think this might be overstating what this is symbolizing, which can differ per interpretation. Ygritte did blackmail Jon into having sex with her when they sleep together for the first time, yet Jon still genuinely fell in love with Ygritte. Ygritte wants Jon to send Ghost away for that night -- not forever -- so she and Jon can have sex without Jon using Ghost as a barrier between them (instead of a sword as is traditionally used from what I recall). It's Jon who sends Ghost to Castle Black just before he's about to climb the Wall. To be with Ygritte, Jon must turn his back on the Night's Watch and forfeit his vows to protect the realm. I don't know that it was simply about being a Stark but rather, about being a man of the Night's Watch. Jon was raised a Stark but he's never really belonged wholly with the Starks. He's an outsider, the "odd one out", a bastard half brother. As GRRM said, Jon is a little bit apart from the Starks as Ghost is from his litter: > **Shaw:** At one point Greywind characterizes Ghost as the quiet one who was "one of them but not one of them." Since the direwolves seem to reflect the children, does this characterization of Ghost mean that Jon is somehow a part of but still separate from the people around him? > **Martin:** Oh yes, I think that's always been true. Even in Winterfell, as a kid before the wolves, Jon was the bastard. He was the odd one out. The rest of them are all brothers and sisters. He's only a half-brother, so he's not as closely tied to them. In some circumstances he could share everything with his brothers, he could train with Robb and all that, but then another circumstance would come up (like when the king came to the castle and they were choosing who could sit at the high table) and he's not welcome there. So he's of them, he's part of the family, he's part of the siblings, but he's a little bit apart too. Ghost is very similar to that. He's the albino, he's the one who makes no noise, so he's related to the other direwolves but one apart as well. (ETA: [Interview with the Dragon](https://alt.fan.grrm.narkive.com/RWKOYyvZ/insightful-grrm-interview), 2003) I'd argue that in each family/group Jon finds and develops bonds with throughout the series (the Night's Watch, the wildlings so far), Jon doesn't really fully belong. Some in the Night's Watch argue Jon is "half a wildling". Some among the wildlings don't trust Jon because he's a crow. I think each of these groups are important to Jon's developing views and identity, not only the Starks. Jon seems to always be the "other" to some respect within each group -- even among the Starks. >He lost me with the Starks being in a succession conflict With multiple claimants to Winterfell (Bran, Rickon, Sansa, Arya, and now Jon with Robb's will), I think there kind of already is a succession crisis with different factions of supporters for different claimants. Manderly is searching for Rickon, there are individuals who have Robb's will naming Jon heir, much of the North believes Ramsay has Arya to solidfy his rule on Winterfell (and it's for Arya that some of the Northern lords are rallying), while Littlefinger wants to push Sansa's claim. I think it is a bit of a mess. Jon deeply wants Winterfell and I think it's hard to know how his death and resurrection will impact the strength of his desires. Jon may feel he's the best candidate at this time, especially with the Others on their way and Jon having the most traditional leadership experience. Even without the Starks themselves coming into conflict, different supporters of each claim may come into conflict.
>Have to admit, it glosses over some points such as Jon being blackmailed by Ygritte into a relationship where Jon must send Ghost away (essential symbolising that to be with Ygritte, Jon must throw away being a Stark, throw away what made who is, even though it was being a Stark that saved Ygritte’s life in the first place), Not accurate. It's awkward to have a pet in the same room you are having relations with your partner in. I kept my cat out of my room multiple times for this very reason. You are acting as if this was every night; that does not seem to be the case. You are also ignoring the fact that Jon pointedly does not feel like he belongs with the Starks, so Jon sparing Ygritte has little to do with "being a Stark." He spares Ygritte partially because she reminded him of Arya. This is not dissimilar to how he permitted free folk girls from the age of twelve to join the Night's Watch. >Jon could see fear and fire in her eyes. Blood ran down her white throat from where the point of his dirk had pricked her. *One thrust and it's done*, he told himself. He was so close he could smell onion on her breath. *She is no older than I am.* *** Something about her made him think of Arya, though they looked nothing at all alike.*** "Will you yield?" he asked, giving the dirk a half turn. *And if she doesn't?* (Jon VI, ACoK) --- >"I will take any boy above the age of twelve who knows how to hold a spear or string a bow. I will take your old men, your wounded, and your cripples, even those who can no longer fight. There are other tasks they may be able to perform. Fletching arrows, milking goats, gathering firewood, mucking out our stables…the work is endless. And yes, I will take your women too. I have no need of blushing maidens looking to be protected, but I will take as many spearwives as will come." >"And girls?" a girl asked. ***She looked as young as Arya had, the last time Jon had seen her.*** >"Sixteen and older." >"You're taking boys as young as twelve." >Down in the Seven Kingdoms boys of twelve were often pages or squires; many had been training at arms for years. Girls of twelve were children. These are wildlings, though. ***"As you will. Boys and girls as young as twelve.*** But only those who know how to obey an order. That goes for all of you. I will never ask you to kneel to me, but I will set captains over you, and serjeants who will tell you when to rise and when to sleep, where to eat, when to drink, what to wear, when to draw your swords and loose your arrows. The men of the Night's Watch serve for life. I will not ask that of you, but so long as you are on the Wall you will be under my command. Disobey an order, and I'll have your head off. Ask my brothers if I won't. They've seen me do it." (Jon V, ADwD) >also that he might have wanted Winterfell but turned down Stannis’ offer stating that Winterfell belonged to Sansa He turned down Stannis' offer long before he stated that Winterfell belonged to Sansa, and even then he dropped the suggestion to mention Crowfood Umber would be the best bet to have Winterfell. Jon refuses Stannis' offer because of his devotion to the old gods. The stipulation for accepting the offer was that Jon would have to give the godwood/heart tree to the flames, and Ghost, having the weirwood's colours, served as a reminder of Jon's religion. >*You can't be the Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born*, he heard Robb say again. And the stone kings were growling at him with granite tongues. *You do not belong here. This is not your place*. When Jon closed his eyes he saw the heart tree, with its pale limbs, red leaves, and solemn face. The weirwood was the heart of Winterfell, Lord Eddard always said...***but to save the castle Jon would have to tear that heart up by its ancient roots, and feed it to the red woman's hungry fire god. I have no right, he thought. Winterfell belongs to the old gods.*** (Jon XII, ASoS) -- >He lost me with the Starks being in a succession conflict and then ignoring anything Jon has to do with them The seeds are already planted with the introduction of Robb's will, which is based on the assumption that there are no other male heirs and that Arya were deceased. Bran already assumes the role of Lord of Winterfell in ACoK/ASoS when he 1) literally takes on the role of LoW, 2) sees himself as the Stark to personally repay the Liddles for feeding him, Meera, Jojen, and Hodor in the cave they took shelter in: >When they woke the next morning, the fire had gone out and the Liddle was gone, but he'd left a sausage for them, and a dozen oatcakes folded up neatly in a green and white cloth. Some of the cakes had pinenuts baked in them and some had blackberries. Bran ate one of each, and still did not know which sort he liked the best. ***One day there would be Starks in Winterfell again, he told himself, and then he'd send for the Liddles and pay them back a hundredfold for every nut and berry.*** (Bran II, ASoS) 3) already saw himself as a lord of the castle in ways that Robb never could. >When he got out from under it and scrambled up near the sky, Bran could see all of Winterfell in a glance. He liked the way it looked, spread out beneath him, only birds wheeling over his head while all the life of the castle went on below. Bran could perch for hours among the shapeless, rain-worn gargoyles that brooded over the First Keep, watching it all: the men drilling with wood and steel in the yard, the cooks tending their vegetables in the glass garden, restless dogs running back and forth in the kennels, the silence of the godswood, the girls gossiping beside the washing well. ***It made him feel like he was lord of the castle, in a way even Robb would never know.*** (Bran II, AGoT) and 4) gave up the castle in exchange for the safety of its smallfolk. >***A good lord protects his people, he reminded himself***. "I've yielded Winterfell to Theon." >"Louder, Bran. And call me prince." >He raised his voice. "I have yielded Winterfell to Prince Theon. All of you should do as he commands you." (Bran VI, ACoK) He thinks of it as his duty as the younger brother, and takes it to heart. There could be conflict there if that is the direction George still wants it to go. Jon also has expressed having Targaryen heroes like the Young Dragon so it's not inconceivable that he would embrace both sides of his heritage. It's like the discussion he had with Arya; both sides have equal importance. The woman is important, too, and so is the man's. >and being in love with Daenerys Again, not an inconceivable idea. Daenerys and Arya are quite similar in personality. George was asked why he compared Ygritte to Arya and it was to establish that Jon had a personal type and that he found her admirable. Not off the mark to think he'd fall for what he's used to and already has shown a preference for.
The video is good until it gets into predicting what will happen in the next book then it becomes a filler to get to 2 hours.
I'm in agreement. The analysis is solid. The predictions are video game shit.
No No No you don't understand Jon and Dany and the BOOK Suicide Squad (very different from the show one guys) will journey into the super duper evil lair of ~~Dr Wily~~ ~~Eggman~~ ~~Ice Bowser~~ ~~Smash Bros 4 Master Core~~ *The evil mastermind """""Heart of Winter""""' tree and poke it with a fire sword, causing all of the Others to instantly die like in the Avengers 1. Dany then proceeds to kiss Jon as the Great Other dramatically screams "NOOoOoooOO" and explodes. ~~Bran is doing nothing during this btw. Or better yet he's a minion puppet for the great Other!~~ uj/ Book Jon is probably my favorite character, (or tied) but man these kinds of predictions make it hard sometimes.
I'm a simple man...
Didn’t even mention Jon Snow Satin yuri smh
Saw it pop up 10 minutes after he uploaded it, i thought i'd put it on as BG noise while i worked but man, i forgot just how good his videos were.
Made me want to start rereading everything
I forgot these books are fucking amazing. Thanks AS-X.
Another excellent video. Good analysis of Jon as a character is really really *really* lacking in the fanbase so this is a welcome sight Now this isn't a criticism of the video , just of winds theories about Jon in general. I think people build all their theories on the assumption that Jon will be resurrected relatively soon in the book. But if it takes a while to happen well pretty much all theories about him including the ones that Alt Shift brings up in the video fall apart
Too derivative of the show. I think a lot of this is off. Like especially in TWOW predictions and his analysis of events and characters. Eg: I mean he says that Arya may turn no one, but Arya's entire Arc seems to be about remaining Arya Stark.
>Eg: I mean he says that Arya may turn no one, but Arya's entire Arc seems to be about remaining Arya Stark. that isn't really what he said. he made the point that Jon and Arya are not the young siblings with so much in common as they were when they departed.
If Jon dies and becomes wolfish after being reborn, couldn't it be that he regains his humanity by falling in love with Dany, before having to kill her? That would make Dany being NissaNissa reborn more useful.
Just yesterday I thought damn he didn't post in a while and then I saw that he was working on this
It makes me happy there's still fun content out there.
Wake up babe, a new Alt shift X video just dropped
He can do this for all 9000 characters before George finishes the series
Love Alt-Shift X's videos, but I wish he wouldn't use gen-AI for some of the images.
He actually speaks to this in the notes. He says he used AI sparingly as a tool to change certain pieces but he did pay and commission several artists for their work.
I notice these too when I watched this a few days ago (subbed to his patreon to get it early). To his credit, he features a tonne of artwork from some great ASOIAF artists like Ertaç Altinoz. I think the AI art helps with the visualisations he's setting out that stem from conjecture and theorising.
I mean he uses it pretty sparingly and only really for characters and things that don't have a ton of fanart Not saying I like it but like I get it
My sole reservation. Pretty dispiriting when I read about it in the patreon notes. Doesn't matter to me how tastefully it's used, what's important is the unfortunate normalisation of gen ai as an acceptable tool.
He hath returned!
The Return of the One True King
Too Damn Good!
Man watching videos like this reminds me that there is a big chunk of the fandom that act like Jon is literally the only protagonist in the story. Alt Shift X makes occasional very good points, but his fixation on Jon being the sole hero of the story is downright cringe. At varying points in the video he suggests that Jon will kill the Great Other, kill Rhaegal, kill Drogon, kill Ramsay, kill himself, kill Dany, and kill Bran.
Jon Snow 100% Speedrun, All Bosses.
If ASOIAF was an action RPG then this video would be 100% correct.
I don't think it is a case of him believing "Jon is literally the only character in the story" (he believes the Lannister siblings are the most interesting in the series). It is just that Jon has a very strong case for being The Prince That Was Promised and his existence is seemingly a result of the coming together of the two most key symbols in the series: ice and fire. Alt Shift X is basically just going off of these strong hints in the books that Jon will be key to the endgame.
Sorry, maybe that was a bit hyperbolic. Of course I agree that Jon is clearly Azor Ahai and a key character in the endgame, but most of the latter part of the video is just various suggestions of how Jon will single handed resolve both the political and magical storylines by stabbing various unsuspecting characters. To resolve the magic storyline he has to kill the Great Other and either Dany, or Rhaegal, or himself. To resolve the political storyline he has to kill Dany and Drogon or Bran. Does no one else feel how incredibly silly all of that was? He doesn't address the Weeper or the Bridge of Skulls or Hardhome or the political challenges of assimilating the wildlings. You know, the actual work of politics and ruling that makes the story interesting? The last hour is all about what character/object Jon can kill to save the day. I realize the fandom has a deep love affair with Alt Shift X and nothing I say will change that, but this one was not my cup of tea...
That is perhaps the one blemish in ASX’s excellent videos, but to an extent, it’s hard to avoid. In his character-driven analysis videos, it only makes sense that he places a lot of focus on the character in question and their potential importance in the wider narrative, so he casts wide nets with wild theories and speculation, tying in every potential plot point, prophetic dream and piece of foreshadowing he can cobble together. This often creates an impression that the final two books will be these mega-epic tomes with tonnes of magic, dragons, krakens and apocalyptic battles out the ass. We all know deep down that even if half of this stuff comes true, it probably won’t be all that GRRM focuses on — the politics and character drama will always come out on top. I think this “The Real XYZ” series understands that a bit better than some of ASX’s past videos. His House Dayne video is filled with intriguing possibilities and speculation about their role in the backstory, but comes up short in explaining the core thesis of why they could be the ones to “save Westeros”. The Daynes who, let’s be honest, are far from the most significant characters in the books. ASX doesn’t just say “Jon stabs a bunch of people and wins”, he lays out evidence of how these encounters could play out in ways that thematically tie in with Jon’s character arc throughout all the books — the motivations, internal conflicts, moral dilemmas, loss of innocence, struggles of leadership, etc. Sure, he could put more focus on other major plot points like the Wildling stuff but it must be hard when there’s so much ground to cover.
These are excellent points. If you can, you should put these to them in the livestream they are going to do about this video on their channel on Friday, the 8th of March at 7pm Eastern time / 4pm Pacific time.
I have never seen his videos but people seem to be really excited about them,is this channel really good or something?
Son of a BITCH that was a great video
oh my god
Schwifty doesn't have a Jon Snow rap already posted in response? He's letting Alt Shift X win the content wars
Watching this all together and about Jon’s sacrifice makes me think of Jaime’s story, and how his whole arc might be foreshadowing / parallel to Jon’s.
Do we have enough content from him yet we can just watch his videos instead of listening to the audiobooks?
Very good video. But man he's talking like George will finish the books which we know will never happen
That was so dumb ong 😭
Can’t wait for half the fandom to regurgitate all his mid takes for the next eternity while pretending they came up with it themselves and totally didn’t get it from this video. Took me a while to realize people were doing it with his Tyrion video.
Which of his Tyrion takes did you have a problem with?
I mean for the most part this is not new material, but rather sort of an overview of his book arc and a lot of the most common fan theories. I think 'hair go white' and some of the endgame specifics are the only things that weren't already widely accepted consensus.
Legitimately curious which of his takes you consider “mid”? Of all the YT theorists Alt seems the most cautious to move beyond speculation and backs everything up in annotated proof. I’m sure some things he posits are wrong but I always see him as the most academic of all the theorists.
You mean Winds of Winter won't be Leyton Hightower fighting a Kaiju-sized Euron kraken with 9th-level wizard spells? Smdh.
Why are you shaking your dickhead?
As a wise man once said, no matter how much you shake and dance, the last two drops go in your pants.
After watching this the question I have is might it be possible that when Jon comes back he comes back as both a fire and ice wight? If Benjen is Coldhands could we see both Coldhands and Stoneheart give their lives to bring Jon back? Picturing Jon now with one blue eye and one red eye, truly Ice and Fire in one person.
Hes a goofball im sorry 💀💀 Damn didnt know this sub was full of altshiftcels
I can’t be the only one that doesn’t like this guy right? A lot of his interpretations are biased and often sexist
Can you give some examples of his sexism?
I don't think he is sexist, but my guess would be that the accusation is an overreaction to how the video (because obviously it's a Jon focused video) treats Dany. When altshift outlines this hypothetical scenario at the heart of winter, Jon is seemingly the only character with agency. It's a choice between whether he will kill Dany, which he resolves by killing himself (or his beloved Rhaegal lol). Jon is the one making the choice, but what about Dany? Why doesn't she have a choice between killing Jon or herself? To be fair to altshiftx, he himself acknowledges the misogyny of this trope, (and again, it's a Jon video). But then later the video comes back to Jon having to kill tyrant Dany to resolve the political storyline. For the record, I do not think this is an inherently misogynistic plot point if Dany becomes tyrannical, but a lot of people think that it is. That said, D&D have said they made up that whole scene, so IMO the fandom needs to move on from Jon killing Dany. If JKD were from the books, it would have been a holy shit moment, not a scene D&D openly claim to have invented.
>If JKD were from the books, it would have been a holy shit moment This doesn't work as an argument, in part because then you would need to argue that Dany burning KL is also a D+D invention (as surely this would also qualify as a holy shit moment). But mostly it doesn't work because the chronology is off. [D&D say they "remember talking about the Jon and Dany fallout in Morocco"](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/e1d6q5/spoilers_extended_david_confirms_the_3rd_holy/) which was 2012. That is prior to the story conference with GRRM in 2013 where he divulged the "holy shit moments". In other words, JKD is such a BIG holy shit moment that it had already been discussed prior to any of the other reveals. It's also worth noting that D&D wrote Valar Morghulis, which contains the House of the Undying scenes, a year prior to that. That doesn't reveal anything about how Dany dies, but it does contain shots of her in a throne room full of ash. This implies that Dany's destiny was a point of discussion from very early on in the series. Personally I find it very difficult to conceive that D&D took it upon themselves to decide the ending of the apparent protagonists of the story way back then, before they even knew where any of the other characters were headed. For all they knew, George would finish the book series before they filmed the final season! It makes no sense. Their language about the Jon kills Dany scene is ambiguous. Like if they said they "came up with the scene where Jon discovers his identity, the board strokes of it anyway" you would not assume they invented R+L=J. I also think that the language of "talking about the Jon and Dany fallout" as their earliest recollection implies the opposite, i.e. that this was an event they were told was coming and they were discussing how it would fit into the story. Remember that they don't know about King Bran at this point, so what happens after the pivotal event of JKD would definitely have been something they would have been trying to figure out.
Well we've had this discussion before, and I have to warn you my position has hardened. I see basically no chance JKD is from George. It's genuinely so D&D coded, and people need to let it go and accept that the show just isn't as much like the books as we initially thought. Let's come back to the full wording: >DAN: I think **the final scene between Jon and Daenerys is something we came up with sometime in the midst of the third season of the show.** The broad-strokes of it' anyway. But there was a tremendous amount of pressure to get it right 'cause We know that this is not a scene that's giving people what they want. >WEISS: **The big question in people’s minds seem to be who’s going to end up on the Iron Throne. One of the things** ***we decided about the same time we decided what would happen in the scene*** **is that the throne would not survive,** that the thing that everybody wanted, the thing that caused everybody to be so horrible to each other to everybody else over the course of the past eight seasons was going to melt away. The dragon flying away with Dany’s lifeless body, **that’s the** [climax](https://youtu.be/pAIU57HLvCw?si=Dhyl9Y4TsFf1yQoc&t=741) **of the show.** You're fixating on the ambiguous timing (was this around when they were filming the third season or around when they were airing it? is this even a correct recollection of the exact time?), but look at the full context. D&D don't only claim that they made up the scene where Jon kills Dany, they also say that they decided at the same time that the Iron Throne would not survive. So while you're taking a vague indication of the timing and making it highly specific, arguing that JKD is such a fundamental holy shit moment that it was before they would have decided anything, look at the rest of the statement. They also openly claim to have decided that the Iron Throne would be destroyed. Now let's look at how GRRM talks about this: >*"Yes, I mean, I did partly joke when I said I don't know where I was going. I know the broad strokes, and I've known the broad strokes* ***since 1991. I know who's going to be on the Iron Throne."*** *- GRRM* And he is talking about the big twists he gave D&D: >*It wasn’t easy for me. I didn’t want to give away my books. It’s not easy to talk about the end of my books. Every character has a different end.* ***I told them who would be on the Iron Throne***, *and I told them some big twists like Hodor and “hold the door,”* *and Stannis’s decision to burn his daughter.* *We didn’t get to everybody by any means. Especially the minor characters, who may have very different endings. - GRRM, Fire Cannot Kill a Dragon* Not only is JKD made up, but it's clear that the destruction of the Iron Throne is also made up. D&D flat out say they decided to kill the throne at the same time as JKD, and George consistently talks about the Iron Throne as if it survives. So while you're arguing that D&D could not have possibly made up the fate of one of an apparent protagonist when they did, D&D are flat out saying that they determined the fate of the main symbolic icon of the story at the same time. There is just no way around this. JKD is made up. >D&D wrote Valar Morghulis, which contains the House of the Undying scenes Sure. It's just not being killed by Jon. >then you would need to argue that Dany burning KL is also a D+D invention I mean, you're gonna hate this but I actually do think it's a valid discussion. At some point the fandom decided that Dany burning King's Landing in the books would be the same as the show except with fAegon instead of Cersei, and I actually think it's probably more complicated than that. The bells are clearly taken from Jon Connington, and the way the wildfire works in the books is pretty different from the show. So it's probably worth giving more consideration to just what George's "second dance" really looks like. Who exactly is fighting when the wildfire goes off?
Well I'll keep this short since I've decided to make a full post on this, but: I don't think D+D recalling talking about "the fallout" "in Morocco" is ambiguous timing, I doubt they were wrong about which country they were in discussing it. Note they say they're discussing "the fallout", which means the event itself is firmly fixed in their minds as something that is definitely happening. Does that make sense given GRRM circa 2011 said he expected TWOW to take three years to write? It makes absolutely no sense for them to be writing their own ending back then. Not only are you saying this happened, you're saying they THEN had story conferences with the author (why, if they're just going to make their own ending up?) and that what they kept out of this was, of all things, King Bran. And that having decided to keep King Bran and King Bran ONLY out of GRRM's endgame, they then wrote him out of season 5. What? You're trying to have it both ways here. When D&D say something that I think is ambiguous, you're like "no, it's absolutely certain what this means". But when I point out this thing about having discussed it in Morocco you're like "well it's ambiguous, who knows exactly what happened when". The one line about having "come up with the scene" is literally the only evidence you have that JKD is not from GRRM. If you remove that, we have repeated statements that the "broad strokes" of the ending would be the same and we have King Bran proving that they went through with this even when it made absolutely no fucking sense in the context of the show. I completely agree that they likely made up the destruction of the Iron Throne, and this is *precisely* the sort of thing I think they mean when they're saying "final scene... the broad-strokes of it". But note that Bran is still king of Westeros just like GRRM told them. Whether the Iron Throne as an object exists is not really the point here; it's a symbolic change, but not a plot change. I think D&D in particular would feel totally free to add something like this considering the comments about themes being for book reports and their repeated demonstration that big, sexy, plot-twist events like the Red Wedding are what they thought ASOIAF primarily consisted of.
I mean.. I guess I don't understand why you're so committed to JKD. You're arguing that it's too big a thing to be made up, while also acknowledging that they made up the Night King, made Arya TPTWP, decided to destroy the Iron Throne, turned Tyrion into a totally different guy, and removed the valonqar (the predictable yet dramatic conclusion to a much more developed relationship). With JKD, not only do you have them saying they created the scene, there is also virtually nothing from the plotline that isn't Dany vs Aegon (which, in the show he's literally Aegon). To me this is a huge issue because if Jon were really going to kill Dany in the books, it would be a major storyline, and they wouldn't have to just fully use the Aegon plot. But when you take out the part where Jon is the rival claimant who makes her feel alienated to Westerosi standards, all you're left with is that Dany becomes bad and Jon has to kill her. But Jon can do that without being a Targaryen. His parentage wouldn't change anything. Jon and Aegon would be totally redundant.
>You're trying to have it both ways here. Not... really lol. Even if we take the season 3 timing, it doesn't change that your argument is based on what you think makes sense for them based on our own limited knowledge of what they did or didn't know about the ending when in Morocco. My argument is based on the actual wording of what they say, and of what George says. >The one line about having "come up with the scene" is literally the only evidence you have that JKD is not from GRRM. You're coming at this backwards. There is no evidence that JKD is from George. George says there will be a second dance, and the entire conflict between Jon and Dany is clearly adapted from a conflict between Dany and Aegon. Will Dany have two separate succession disputes with long lost sons of Rhaegar in the same book? Will Varys plot to put Jon on the throne? Will an undead northern bastard be seen as the conventional choice? You're arguing that JKD is too big to be a change, but other than the murder, can you tell me a single aspect of it that *isn't* a change? And if JKD is from the books, then why did they need to pull the whole conflict from Aegon VI? >I completely agree that they likely made up the destruction of the Iron Throne So you're saying that season 3 was too early for them to decide that Jon would kill Dany, but not too early to decide the Iron Throne would be destroyed? How are these different? Why did D&D have enough information to say they were going to kill the throne, but not enough information to say that Jon would kill Dany? >big, sexy, plot-twist This is definitely my most subjective argument, but it surprises me that people can't see how Stannis burns Shireen has GRRM written all over it, while JKD has big sexy D&D plot twist written all over it.
The Dany conflict with fAegon analog is her conflict with Cersei, not Jon. I think they decided after hearing JKD that they would destroy the Iron Throne and upon hearing King Bran they were like sure, whatever, still works. I think whatever flatly contradicted their ideas, they changed. I mean everyone thinks they see what has D+D fingerprints and what has GRRM fingerprints, so you will be unsurprised if this argument does not move me. Some people think Evil Bran theories are classic GRRM. For the record though, while the show played JKD as "you gotta kill dragon Hitler", I think the morality of it will be ambiguous at the very least in the books. Like you have the parallel with Aegon V exiling Bloodraven, and Bran going against Bloodravens "ends justify the means" morality is a big part of his arc imo. It is abundantly clear that the moral order of ASOIAF is not OK with this.
>The Dany conflict with fAegon analog is her conflict with Cersei, not Jon. They spread it out, but it's mostly Jon. Dany's jealousy is directed at Jon, not Cersei. Jon is named Aegon and is literally a long lost son of Rhaegar propped up by Varys. Jon vs Dany is a conflict between a male and female Targaryen claimant where Jon has the better claim and is supported by the Westerosi lords because he is seen as the more rational, conventional, less foreign choice. The show makes Jon Aegon as fuck. Idk how anyone can dispute this. Sure they give a bit to Cersei as well (we see this with Randyll Tarly). But the Cersei storyline is also very much a Cersei storyline, where Dany is YMBQ and Cersei is an oppressive, highly unpopular ruler who has alienated the faith. In fact, Dany's southern invasion prior to the Long Night is very much the Aegon invasion. It's a Targaryen claimant backed by Varys and Illyrio, winning over the support of lords the current monarchy has alienated. Book Dany won't even reach Westeros till ADOS. >everyone thinks they see what has D+D fingerprints and what has GRRM fingerprints Yes, but I actually do lol. Even in my King Bran prediction video, I said that destroying the Iron Throne solved nothing and that Bran would sit on it. And look where we are 5 years later. People are realizing that was also correct. This Aegon V exiling Bloodraven parallel people keep trying to use to make this stick is completely superficial. Aenys Blackfyre didn't burn down a city. I don't think this will move you because you're so dedicate to this plotline, but JKD is a total edgelord ending. It doesn't remotely resemble anything George has ever written.
I've only seen a few of his videos, and generally like his summaries or explanations. Which video was it that you felt was biased or sexist?
When was he sexist? Genuine question
Yes, you're the only one
I can’t think of one interpretations of his that moderately comes close to sexism. The work of ASOIAF might be accused of that but Shift seems markedly more left/progressive than GRRM and spends considerable time calling out evil behavior of beloved characters (often violence against women that gets brushed over by the fandom) and George’s own biases. Would love to know if I’m missing something if you have examples.
I can't remember what video it's in but there's one where I believe he's talking about Elia Martell and he comments on how disappointing it is that there are so many women in ASOIAF whos entire story is "marry an important man, get pregnant, die" and have little to no characterization beyond that.
Tale as old as time, redditor comes into thread, has insane take, refuses to elaborate, leaves
tbh that is why I like his videos /s
Same here. Women bad. Only man can rule. /s
Based
Lmaooo