>Writing is hard. This was maybe my answer to that fat fucking retard, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Game of Thrones had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, it's only because he was a cripple and some deformed dwarf liked his backstory and told everyone he needed to be king because the story needed to be over. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Martin can say that Bran the Broken became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But he doesn’t ask the question (which is the same thing he ripped Aragorn for): What was Bran’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these other kingdoms? By the end of the war, Dany is gone but the rest of the houses (who only fell in line because of the Targaryens) are still there. Also the north, ruled by his sister, gets to become a free independent kingdom but the rest of the lands don't? Are the other houses really okay with this shit just because Bran is a cripple? Seems like the whole story was one massive power grab by the Starks without ever showing how they ruled or maintained their rule, let alone saying anything at all about the human condition. Of course that's what happens when you're a fat fucking idiot who can't finish his own story and outsources it to hollywood jews so you can pay for all the happy meals you're shoving in your fat fucking face. Respectfully.