Game of Thrones: predictable?

    

     I think by now we have all heard of "A Game of Thrones" or as the HBO show calls it "Game of Thrones."  "A Game of Thrones" is the first book in "The Song of Ice and Fire" series written by the illustrious George R. R. Martin.  These books were loved by many for years before eventually being picked for the HBO series.  At the time the series started "The Song of Ice and Fire" was four books long with another three on the way.  George wasn't exactly known for his prolific writing skills at the time, so it came as no shock to his readers when it was stated that he hadn't finished "The Winds of Winter" in time for the sixth season of HBO's show.  Readers of the series famously had to wait six years between books before.  What I'm trying to say is George writes at the pace of a procrastinating fifth grader.

    With all that said I have made it my mission to avoid watching the show while I work my way through all the books.  I have a Facebook, and a Twitter so most of you can tell that isn't possible.  Nevertheless I have worked my way through a few of the books (slowly so maybe "The Winds of Winter" will come out before I'm done).  Now there is a lot of talk about who Jon Snow's parents are, and as I understand it HBO has just come out and said it.  Many people are acting like this is some kind of huge spoiler that HBO has released upon the world like a scourge of demons.  But honestly if you read the first book, and weren't able to put this together on your own I'm very concerned for your mental well being.  This is where you stop reading if you've somehow avoided this revelation.  No seriously I'm going to start making jokes about it and everything anytime now.  No one will launch a war to rescue you from this...Okay here we go.



    The absolute first thing I want you to remember is that when George R. R. Martin started to write these books he intended to write them as a trilogy.  Then as so often happens to writers he found more in his world to write about.  This expanded further and further until the series took on a monstrous size, bloating and bubbling into a swamp monster that consumes the minds of all that come in contact with it (this is the weirdest compliment I have ever given).  However "A Game of Thrones" was written before the great expansion started, and still has the elements of a trilogy.  Things you can tell from reading just the first book: Daenerys Targaryen, Jon Snow, and Tyrion Lanister are all extremely important characters to the series.  Why?  Well these are the three characters that are out of place in the first book.  Jon is a bastard that doesn't really know his parentage.  Tyrion is a Lanister (maybe) the only one that is a POV character at this time.  Daenerys is a princess without a home.  Ask yourself why would we want to follow these characters?  Holy crap-nugget it's because they're important.  But we follow other characters aren't they important.  Well...Yeah in a special snowflake kind of way sure.  But if you look at these you'll notice a theme: Ned is a noble Lord of the house Stark, nothing to prove.  Cat is the noble Lady of house Stark, useful for her reactions, but otherwise just like Ned.  Arya is Ned's daughter and a tom boy, her stories will always be about how she's found herself in a more and more violent profession.  Sansa is the helpless damsel, that is the sum total of her role.  What does that leave us with?  Jon the ultimate underdog, a boy that no one expects too much greatness from.  Tyrion a dwarf that gets by on his wit, and intellect (a writer's favorite).  Finally Daenerys another huge underdog, so much so she doesn't even have a land to call her own.



    Throughout every Ned chapter in the book there is a theme of showing him as the ultimate stand up guy, and having go through what can only be called PTSD flashbacks.  George R. R. Martin pairs Ned with King Robert, both in the events of the book, and the past that only gets referenced.  This is a common trick in fiction, pairing one character with the mirror opposite.  Ned is the epitome of honor, civility, and chastity (no not the stripper you pervert).  While Robert is in no uncertain terms a drunk womanizing glory hound (speaking of weird compliments).  This makes it weird that he would have had a bastard at all doesn't it.  Both Jon and Cat mention in their chapters that Ned never speaks about who Jon's mother is.  Cat has her suspicions as to who it is but it never gets mentioned.  Ned on the other hand gets excited when he finds out that Jon is going to join the Night's Watch, and says he'll tell Jon about who is mother is then.  Weird.  It's almost like he wasn't talking about it to protect Jon or something...why would that be?  Not to mention in every one of those PTSD flashbacks Ned is talking to his sister that is asking him to promise her something, I wonder what that could be?  No honestly think about it what could you possibly want someone to promise so bad that you wheeze it at them on your death bed, over, and over.  Promise me you'll take out the garbage Ned!  No that doesn't make sense.  Promise me you'll kill all the bastards that took me!  Hmm...maybe but that doesn't seem quite right.  Promise me you'll take my son, raise him as your own and protect him from harm!  Bingo!  That's the kind of thing you ask for as a promise on your death bed.



    So the first book all but tells us that Lyanna Stark is Jon's mom, but who is his dad then?  Ned?  Eww, no.  The book pretty clearly states that Ned and Robert went to save her from Rheagar and his rape-palace (a.k.a the Tower of Joy).   Wait...wasn't Rheagar the prince, and the next in line for the Iron Throne at the time?  Yup.  Weren't all his children killed?  Well...mostly.  Does that mean that Jon is the rightful heir to the old throne?  Yup.  But what about Dany?  Well Targaryen's are known to marry each other aren't they?  Yeah, but...ohhh.  That's right, that's where this whole thing is headed.



    Hey mean old writer man you ruined the story for me!  I did say there were spoilers up at the top didn't I?  I gave you like three warnings, that's more than my two year old needs.  Well...I don't believe you, so there! Why am I imagining you as a snotty six year old?  I may need mental help...  Anyway, the evidence is all right there in the book.  If you don't believe me read it again, or for the first time, I won't judge.  Man you read quick.  You mean all the things I talked about are there, wizard!  Oh but you don't believe me because you think that the author Mr. Snail Fingers himself meant this as the prolific thing it is.  Well you should have clicked the link I provided earlier.  That's right I have you in a mental checkmate.  Your welcome.

What's Smart Mean?

    

    What is smart?  Might sound like a silly question to some of you, but honestly think about it.  What is, smart?   Is it the ability to retain large amounts of information?  How about the ability to problem solve?  The ability to come up with new ideas?  Truth is as a culture we're all mixed up on what exactly this word means.

   Einstien gave my all time favorite quote on the subject.  "Everyone is born a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it's going to spend it's life thinking it's retarded."  To me this speaks to the many facets of intelligence.  To the fact that there isn't just one form of "smart."  For instance I have always been good a math.  To me it's easy.  Because of this I have been judged as "the smart kid" in many situations.  But if you asked me which two colors go together in an outfit I would stare at you blankly.  Smoke would come out of my ears.  I'd start to shut down.  Hell, if it weren't for my wife I would think all colors are just light and dark versions of the primary ones.

      Your sitting there saying, but writer-guy (in my head you're a surfer...I have no idea why) you like totally can't say that color differentiation is the same-like thing as like math, dude. (yeah I'm sorry for that)  Well...yes, and no.  Math is a high abstraction task.  It requires the ability to think about things as concepts instead of as realities.  Colors on the other hand are real, and right there in front of you.  Let me ask you this stranded on a deserted island which is more useful the ability to calculate how tall the hill is with trigonometry, or the ability to tell which berries are ripe enough to eat without getting sick?  You said the berries right?  I'm concerned about you if you didn't.

   

    



    So let's say you have a guy who recently wrote a piece on, oh I don't know...quantum mechanics.  Does this make him smart?  Nope.  It makes him good at science, smart in science.  Or at least it allows him to appear as such.  We have all been conditioned to see the skinny nerd as the symbol of smart.  You know the type: sits in the corner with books, talks incessantly about math, or science, or computers (or anime...the list goes on).  I'm here to tell you though, that's only one type of smart.  That nerdy guy in the corner reading probably isn't that good at social situations (hence the alone time with books).  The meathead at the gym, probably knows more about muscular metabolism than some doctors.  The carpenter knows wood, like things you wouldn't think someone could know about wood (fun fact: carpenters are the reason trees don't run for political office).  My point is that people are all smart in individual ways, and not to let yourself fall into the trap of thinking there is only one kind of smart because that severely limits you.  And as a society, we really can't afford to have people setting limits on themselves.