That would be really fitting. We've already had a glimpse of Cersei enjoying to burn things down, like when she burns down part of the Red Keep. Actually, wasn't the Wildfire plan at Blackwater originally hers before Tyrion improved it? I know her version wouldn't have worked, but I don't think she gets enough credit for that. Regardless, her going full mad queen makes sense for her character and for Jaime's to kill her.
Cersei had ordered the Alchemists to make as much Wildfire as possible but we're never told she had any specific plan for using it.
It's one of the things Tywin uses to discredit Tyrion, attributing every element of Tyrion's plan he can to someone else and ignoring he organised the overal strategy to implement them all to maximum effect.
And neither of them point out what Garlan does later that Tyrion's mountain clan raiders killed all Stannis's scouts which what allowed Tywin to take him unawares.
Edited by dcutter2 on Mar 22nd 2025 at 11:07:14 AM
While I can see Cersei try to burn King's Landing down once Aegon takes the city, I have to point out that Maggy is explicit that the valonqar will strangle Cersei to death. Strangulation is a murder technique strongly associated with serial killers, wife murderers and the like. Not with heroic deeds. And Jaime keeps calling her a whore and thinking of her as false.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanDevil's advocate: the other most likely prospect, Tyrion is equally as likely to strangle her and the prophecy also specifies hands. Of which Jaime has one. The prosthetic golden one not really being shaped for strangling.
eta:
I mean, it's not that vague. (text retrieved from here
)
Edited by dcutter2 on Mar 22nd 2025 at 1:44:02 PM
Also, AFFC Jaime V has the following:
Not sure why people think that Jaime is doing his AFFC things "for the greater good", by the by, unless we think that rewarding the Freys and oaths to an usurper somehow count. IMO that's just him being a competent concentration camp guard.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanOh, basically everything he's done actually in the novels isn't for any 'greater good', I just meant killing Aerys. If he does continue to have a redemption arc, presumably he'll start to actually work for the greater good again. The two things keeping him from being a hero is his Then Let Me Be Evil attitude after the way people treated him for killing Aerys and his (mutually, they both are bad) unhealthy relationship with Cersei. He's slowly growing out of the former and becoming much more distasteful of the latter.
I don't think that threating Edmure because of oaths to a false king fits into that scheme. That sounds more like the typical Kingsguard thing where people blindly obey orders. A.K.A the concentration camp guard mentality.
I've seen Jaime's arc being described as an identity finding arc. For example, the conversation with Genna about who is Tywin's true heir, "Sansa is my last chance at honor" (rather than "I need to save her") are more consistent with that than a redemption arc. A lot depends on how Jaime reacts to Lady Stoneheart, of course.
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Mar 22nd 2025 at 10:26:52 AM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI'm trying to make a list of things for rebuttling that A Song of Ice and Fire is more realistic than most fantasy. This is what I've come up with so far.
Speaking as a guy with a degree in European Medieval History, no it's not more "realistic" in...some areas.
- The Church is a complete nonentity for most of the series.
- Paganism and Christianity are living side by side under one roof relatively peacefully.
- The de-emphasis on disease.
- The mass attacks on civilians when this is kind of defeating the point of feudal warfare.
- Taking the worst things to happen in a thousand years and combining them into one 4 year period.
- The gross interpretation of the Mongols/huns in the Dothraki.
- The gross caricature of the Vikings as Ironborn. They were a race that ABSOLUTELY DID sew and were primarily known as traders.
- The massive Orientalism in general in the handling of Essos.
- The near complete lack of cadet houses.
- The massively expanded timeline for how long a house might rule before it got absorbed or changed.
- The timeline in general.
- The enormous England the size of South America.
- The fact forced marriages were actually one of the things the Church did have a vested interest in stopping even during more corrupt days.
- The size of the Wall and other "special" castles.
- The lack of any organization among the tribal peoples of the North (Wildlings) when this is just Pulpish caricature.
And so on.
But it certainly feels more CONSEQUENTIAL than much fantasy.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Edited by king15 on Apr 5th 2025 at 3:24:19 PM
Two different questions:
- Is this world believable?
vs.
- Is this world like history.
![]()
Things have to follow an internal logic in order not to break the reader's suspension of disbelief, Real history acts as a guide and an example, but things don't need to be a copy of Real Life.
Say, you write a fantasy when you have a desert tribe that is an expy of the Tuareg, but their men don't cover their faces with the litham.
This is okay; you don't write a documentary about the Tuareg, you are using them as an inspiration.
................
Martin's world is not perfect, but it does feel like if you remove magic and dragons, people do act humanly, and events have that mix between logic and randomness that you find when you read real history.
It is certainly better than most constructed western fantasy worlds, with their human+ arrogant Elves+drunk Dwarve all trying to superficially imitate Tolkien.
Edited by jawal on Apr 5th 2025 at 5:43:59 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurtSkimmed the list. Technically nothing you've said proves or disproves the idea that " A Song of Ice and Fire is more realistic than most fantasy" because you've done no comparison. You've presented a list of reasons you think ASoIaF isn't realistic but it can be unrealistic and still more realistic than "most fantasy" if "most fantasy" is even less realistic.
eta: I mean what is 'most fantasy' and how do you define it's realism for comparison? Is it most fantasy that exists now or Fantasy that existed before aGoT came out? Since anything published after it may be influenced by it.
Edited by dcutter2 on Apr 5th 2025 at 6:59:52 PM
Frankly, I think Martin's work suffers from too much emphasis on disease vs other natural disasters. Famines, other weather-related disasters and even geological disasters should be a bit more common relative to epidemics. Also many Wildlings have organization - the Thenns, for example, and people like the Weeper are unlikely to work solo.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanFamines did happen IIRC during times of war in Westross, as for natural disasters, The Doom of Valeria technically counts, even if it was caused by magical reasons.
The main series, of course, is happening in the span of a few years, so it is normal if the setting doesn't experience earthquakes and tornadoes often there.
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurtI've written about that here
. TL;DR there probably isn't space for an epidemic narrative in the North, and it would seriously devalue the thematic value of the Stannis-burns-Shireen plotline.
So what with the death of Ser Hugh, Jon Arryn former squire?
It made sense to suspect Cersei when it was thought she is the murderer of Arryn, but we know now that she was innocent.
1-Did he work for Cersei as a spy (or maybe possible assassin before Lyssa got to Jon first) and he was silenced so that Cersei is not suspected.
2-Did he works for Littelfinger, and the latter had him killed by bribing the Mountain?
3-He didn't work for anyone and he was innocent, yet Littelfinger ordered him dead to throw suspensions at Cersei.
4-He did not work for anyone, he just (unwisely) did something to offend the Mountain.
5-His death was just an accident, no conspiracy there.
..............
I believe either 1 or 4 are the most probable, the detail about giving the boy his knighthood first and then killing him is what a Lannister will do, when they want to honor a promise but also kill a pawn. Littelfinger kills his pawns immediately, as Ser Donuts found.
Although it will be interesting if the Mountain took hit jobs in the side from other people than the Lannister, it will be still unwise for Pyter to use him from all people.
Edited by jawal on Apr 13th 2025 at 2:31:49 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurtI am not sure that Cersei does a lot of forward planning and there are no indications in her POV about a connection with Ser Hugh. Sure, Ser Hugh's death fits the pattern of Cersei's murders - namely how chancy and indirect it is - but I wanr more than that. Also, I don't think that Littlefinger makes a point on screwing his minions immediately.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I think my theory is more or less confirmed by the "original" ending to Season 8 before they dropped it.
Cersei planned to burn the city down with wildfire rather than let Daenerys take it and that's why the city is burned down. Jaime killing her like he killed Aerys is the perfect ending and he saves the city for a second time. It's so perfectly thematic that they have to do it.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 21st 2025 at 10:17:03 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.