rotting-sea-cow

[rotting-sea-cow]

This is gold!

Westeros Cakes by kethryn

[rotting-sea-cow]

Why in ASOS and ADWD Daenerys often says "I am only a young girl and know little of [insert a political/military/etc area]" before making a statement? Is it a rhetoric thing? Does it tell us something about her?

It’s a pretty clever tactic she uses to play on her enemies’ preconceived biases in order to gain the upper hand.

Daenerys is young and female, and in this incredibly misogynistic society, those are two things that other rulers and diplomats consistently use as a reason not to respect her. By pointing this obvious fact out, she’s playing into their ignorance and using it to her advantage. Take these two passages in ASOS for example:

"Five hundred of your Stormcrows against ten thousand of my Unsullied," said Dany. "I am only a young girl and do not understand the ways of war, yet these odds seem poor to me."

"The Stormcrows do not stand alone," said Prendahl.

"Stormcrows do not stand at all. They fly, at the first sign of thunder. Perhaps you should be flying now. I have heard that sellswords are notoriously unfaithful. What will it avail you to be staunch, when the Second Sons change sides?" (Daenerys IV, ASOS)

Dany took a sip of wine. "It is true that I am only a young girl, and do not know the ways of war. Explain to me how you propose to defeat ten thousand Unsullied with your five hundred. Innocent as I am, these odds seem poor to me."

"The Second Sons have faced worse odds and won."

"The Second Sons have faced worse odds and run. At Qohor, when the Three Thousand made their stand. Or do you deny it?" (Daenerys IV, ASOS)

Daenerys emphasizes how young and naive she must be, based on the evidence that she is a young girl and therefore “naturally” weaker and more innocent. These people go into their meetings with her already assuming this, after all, and this supposed confirmation puts them at ease.

Then she turns around and verbally obliterates them. If a young girl who knows nothing about war still knows these things, what does that make them? They can’t use her gender or youth against her when she’s already done it herself and still managed to knock their legs out from under them. It’s a twisted sort of credibility statement on Dany’s part, and one she can use in multiple situations.

"I am only a young girl and know little of the ways of war," she told Lord Ghael, "but we have heard that Astapor is starving. Let King Cleon feed his people before he leads them out to battle." She made a gesture of dismissal. Ghael withdrew. (Daenerys I, ADWD)

Instead of flexing military knowledge and might, here Daenerys uses the phrase in as a diplomat. Again, if even this “ignorant” young girl can understand the basic principle that a ruler needs to care for their people, what excuse does a grown man have? Daenerys may not be able to feed Astapor herself, but she can try to shame King Cleon into realizing he needs to do it.

I mean, just look at what Tyrion does during the Battle of the Blackwater:

Only a handful had responded to his command, no more than twenty. They sat their horses with eyes as white as the Hound's. He looked contemptuously at the others, the knights and sellswords who had ridden with Clegane. "They say I'm half a man," he said. "What does that make the lot of you?"

That shamed them well enough. A knight mounted, helmetless, and rode to join the others. A pair of sellswords followed. Then more. The King's Gate shuddered again. In a few moments the size of Tyrion's command had doubled. He had them trapped. If I fight, they must do the same, or they are less than dwarfs. (Tyrion XIII, ACOK)

It’s the same basic concept.

We-the-readers should know that Tyrion being a dwarf doesn’t make him less capable or courageous, just like we should know that Daenerys being a young girl doesn’t automatically negate her ability to strategize and rule. The people in-universe, however, are steeped in an incredibly ableist and misogynistic society. Both Tyrion and Daenerys have the wits to use those biases against them to exert influence.

[rotting-sea-cow]

That’s a pretty cool theory. So, you say that once the Wall fall, the Others will be able to strike wherever they want? Or just teletransport to these ‘thin places’ like Harrenhal, etc.?

How much stock do you put in some of the fan theories that The Land of Always Winter has an intercontinental reach? Or that Essos once had two moons and the Wastelands east of the Mountains of the Morn are the site of it's impact, along with some of more creative fan explanations for the change in the seasons?

As to the first theory, not much. The Known World Map from the World of Ice and Fire shows scattered icebergs rather than a solid landmass heading east. (Also, said icebergs are hundreds if not thousands of miles north of the north coast of Essos.) It looks like the Land of Always Winter’s eastern coast is right about at the same latitude as the isle of Skane. 

My argument would be that it’s a mistake to see the White Walkers being limited by a defined geographic location, such that they’d need to travel from the Land of Always Winter to the Grey Waste by conventional methods. Rather, we should think of them as Unseelie Fae who enter into the mundane world through any one of a number of “thin places” unless certain magical structures like the Wall or the Five Forts deny them permission to enter.

As to the second theory...plausible.

As to the third, I think GRRM has been pretty specific: the change in seasons was due to magic. Full stop. 

[rotting-sea-cow]

Because Bloodraven character is damn well written? The same reason why @joannalannister​ loves Tywin Lannister? The same reason why many fans like Roose Bolton. C’mom, I really enjoy reading Victarion’s chapters!

At the other end of the spectrum you have Jorah Mormon. A generally unlikable character, because there is little nuance in him, besides providing useful information to others. GRRM could have certainly done a much better work there.

These are fictional characters. Liking them is not the same as endorsing similar attitudes in the real world. In fact, they help to identify our real world villains.

What is there even to like about Bloodraven? Between child killings, unlawful execution, tyranny, establishment of a police state, and neglect of Westerosi subjects, what good is there? Despite his albinism, he had it easier than the other male Great Bastards with Aegor being exiled and his own father murdering his family and Daemon being used as a political pawn between father and older half-brother, plus married at 14. I don’t get the love for this awful character.

I can’t tell you what people like about Bloodraven or any other character. You have to ask them.

Bloodraven is a zealot, and such characters can be fascinating. In real life, most people make compromises as a matter of course and don’t always like it, but characters in fiction aren’t always subject to the same constraints. A character like Bloodraven or like Rorschach from Watchmen can be fascinating to watch specifically because they don’t make compromises.

Others might like him because he is derived from Elric of Melnibone, a famous and influential character from fantasy - or they may like him as GRRM’s specific take on Elric. Certainly, GRRM loves putting a spin on fantasy creations into his own works, it’s part of his signature style and it has rightly earned him popularity for the way he puts fantasy in the wringer. Others might find him tragic and full of pathos even if you do not, just the way others find Jon Connington sympathetic even though I personally do not. 

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[rotting-sea-cow]

We need to see the situation from what Roose knows. Stannis forces are maybe more numerous, but they are starving, most of their horses have died and they seem to be located in position where they are easy to encircle and unknowingly they have turncloaks among them. The Bolton forces (Freys, Manderlys and some Dreadforts I assume) are well fed, have fresh mounts and they have the element of surprise. Despite the lower numbers it should be an easy battle for the Bolton forces.

The discovery of the Karstark treachery (thanks to Jon), the death of Aenys Frey, the escape of Jeyne and Theon with key intelligence details, have destroyed these plans. Stannis being a competent commander will influence the outcome of the battle heavily and there is still whatever Bran will do.

I know it was likely a political decision of Roose, but sending the Freys and Manderlys to attack Stannis wasn't the worst decision he could do? Even counting on the Karstark as turncloaks, the Freys are still severely outnumbered by Stannis forces. And the Manderlys are not to be trusted, the Boltons know that. Sending their forces out is just asking for them to join Stannis.

At this point, he has people openly knifing each other along with other murders in Winterfell. Roose has no good options. He has to do something because otherwise, he’s a feudal lord who cannot provide order. The Freys are liabilities in the extreme, and in the worst case scenario, maybe the Manderlys joining Stannis causes them to starve out faster.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[rotting-sea-cow]

Timeline issues is probably one of the most critical reasons why the book has taken too long and there are not easy solutions unless our beloved author is willing to write a very long book or more than two of them.

The salvation for Ayra is likely going to come when Arya Stark Jeyne Poole arrives to Braavos with Justin Massey.

While I would agree with you that the logical course is that the FM have an issue with Arya's continued actions and won't let her leave easily, I'm not sure there would be sufficient room in the narrative for this conflict? It may stretch credulity slightly that they just let her leave (like the show), but it may stretch it more to assume that she can evade the entire organization for the length of two books and still accomplish any other goal, given they know who she is.

I don’t know how this one’s getting resolved, but I think it is getting resolved and not dragging on into ADoS. Whether Arya forces a stop to pursuit, whether she and the Faceless Men come to an agreement, I don’t know, but I think it’s got to have more conflict than “we have come to the conclusion that you are a poor fit for our organisation, have two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice, farewell.”

I guess we’re all stuck waiting for TWoW on this one.

[rotting-sea-cow]

People are misremembering the scene. When Joffrey issued the command Janos Slynt and Ilyn Payne hurried to obey, without a second consultation with Cersei and even Varys was unable to stop it. At what moment could have Ned shout out for a Trial by Combat?

Doesn't Trial by Combat allow for the option of someone choosing another fighter to fight on their behalf? Theoretically Ned could've done that, though I think him choosing Trial by Combat at all would be out of character, especially given his familial experiences with that tradition.

Who would have fought for Ned? His own men are all dead, and anyone potentially sympathetic fled the capital one step ahead of the Goldcloaks.

This is something Cersei does well, making sure that people in her custody don’t have champions who could win the fight. 

[rotting-sea-cow]

This is true.

Yes, Stannis also hint to these reforms in “we will make new lords” and “I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown,from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat”

Jon is also an inclusive leader and so is Tyrion.

Dany’s advantage on this field is she would like the raw strength (aka dragons) to actually impose those reforms.  Without dragons it would be again impossible to get the lords to agree on that (this would be true for any leader). But the monopoly of force could easily bring problems down the road as we saw with the breakdown of the dragocracy during the Dance.

I think the Armageddon will sort things out to a certain extend.

Why are you against a Targaryen restoration? Based on the history GRRM has built for their dynasty, it was largely a positive for Westeros with only a handful of truly horrific kings (Maegor I, Aegon IV, and Aerys II). The rest were either typical screwups (for medieval times), good, or great (Aegon I, Jaehaerys I, Viserys II, Daeron II, and Aegon V). GRRM's historical presentation of the Targaryens seems to be in favor of the dynasty being restored.

Well, let’s ignore the discussion of whether the kings were good or great to focus on the idea of the Targaryen restoration itself, because in-universe, Aegon V is not considered “great,” I’m of the belief that Daeron II wasn’t “great,” and Aerys I was just abysmal. But I don’t want to retread old ground in light of the question why do I oppose a Targaryen restoration.

For one, the Targaryens lost the monarchy because of flagrant tyranny. To say that the Targaryens were not deposed legitimately and are the rightful rulers is to say that it’s okay to perform rampant murder if you’re a Targaryen, that Rickard was permitted to be denied his right to trial, that Brandon deserved to watch his father be burned to death in front of him, that Eddard and Robert should have been executed for the crime of being perceived as a threat from a madman. That’s a horrifying idea to accept, that a single person can have the right to execute anyone for whatever reason they desire.

For two, the Targaryen restoration claimant at this point, Daenerys (since the claimant Aegon VI is very clearly not the son of Rhaegar and Elia) isn’t as good as the current Baratheon claimant Stannis. So in terms of preference, I’m picking Stannis over Daenerys which would leave me opposed to the Targaryen restoration.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[rotting-sea-cow]

I think the problem here is the monarchy itself as styled in Westeros. Not a restoration or a new dynasty. Stannis could become a fine king, but nothing would assure that his heirs will also be as good.  Nothing, except big reforms that would likely be opposed by the Westerosi lords, as it hinted that was the problem with Aegon V. So, the system is fucked-up and probably without the Armageddon that is going to befall in Westeros, substantial reforms would be impossible.

Why are you against a Targaryen restoration? Based on the history GRRM has built for their dynasty, it was largely a positive for Westeros with only a handful of truly horrific kings (Maegor I, Aegon IV, and Aerys II). The rest were either typical screwups (for medieval times), good, or great (Aegon I, Jaehaerys I, Viserys II, Daeron II, and Aegon V). GRRM's historical presentation of the Targaryens seems to be in favor of the dynasty being restored.

Well, let’s ignore the discussion of whether the kings were good or great to focus on the idea of the Targaryen restoration itself, because in-universe, Aegon V is not considered “great,” I’m of the belief that Daeron II wasn’t “great,” and Aerys I was just abysmal. But I don’t want to retread old ground in light of the question why do I oppose a Targaryen restoration.

For one, the Targaryens lost the monarchy because of flagrant tyranny. To say that the Targaryens were not deposed legitimately and are the rightful rulers is to say that it’s okay to perform rampant murder if you’re a Targaryen, that Rickard was permitted to be denied his right to trial, that Brandon deserved to watch his father be burned to death in front of him, that Eddard and Robert should have been executed for the crime of being perceived as a threat from a madman. That’s a horrifying idea to accept, that a single person can have the right to execute anyone for whatever reason they desire.

For two, the Targaryen restoration claimant at this point, Daenerys (since the claimant Aegon VI is very clearly not the son of Rhaegar and Elia) isn’t as good as the current Baratheon claimant Stannis. So in terms of preference, I’m picking Stannis over Daenerys which would leave me opposed to the Targaryen restoration.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[rotting-sea-cow]

From where do people get the notion that book Jon Snow does not know how to negotiate?  I just came across a post on my dash with thousands of notes about how Robb Stark would have done fantastically negotiating with Dany as opposed to Jon Snow. First of all, I doubt D&D would have bestowed Robb with good storytelling in season 7 had he survived that long and secondly, I don’t recall any examples of Robb Stark being a good negotiator in the books?

I will also say that however fantastic the negotiation would have been by whichever Stark, the North would have to bend the knee for Dany’s help. That’s just how it is in Westeros. Recall that Catelyn had to pledge both KITN Robb and Arya in marriage to the Freys for just the use of a bridge! Jon was asking that Dany halt her war and use all her resources to help the North at great loss to her. The least the North can do in return for her saving all their lives is be a part of her 7 kingdoms and assist her against their common enemy Cersei Lannister.

Recall that in the books, Stannis is at the wall to help Jon face the threat from beyond the wall - but the condition is still that Stannis will be king with the North as part of the 7K. And Jon is giving Stannis all the help to fight the Boltons, win the North and become king of the 7K. Jon is allying with and helping a king who  likes to burn people to death to please his red priestess and the Lord of Light.

Now coming to Jon Snow and his diplomatic skills, let’s look at the different types of people with whom 15/16 year old Jon Snow has successfully negotiated with:

Tycho Nestoris of the Iron Bank – We have seen how it’s no easy task getting a loan from the Iron Bank and yet Jon is able to secure a loan to buy food for the Night’s watch – and he does this while Tycho is there to actually meet with Stannis. Rulers are vying for a loan from the Iron Bank and here Jon is getting one despite the Wall not being a good place to invest in for a Braavosi banker.

The mountain clans of the North – The chiefs are invited to the wedding of Alys Karstark and the Magnar of the Thenns where Jon speaks to them and convinces them in the worthiness of his plans including letting the Wildlings in past the wall. The Grand Northern Conspiracy also theorizes that the clan chiefs know about Robb’s will and are there to assess Jon’s leadership capabilities and leave convinced that he would be a good leader. 

The Freefolk/Tormund -  In return for letting them in, Jon has taken child hostages to ensure good behavior, obtained soldiers to man the wall, people to cook, clean and sew and even took their belongings to purchase food! He in effect has command over the freefolk so much so that they are ready to march with him south of the wall to attack the Boltons.

Stannis Baratheon: Jon Snow negotiates so well with Stannis for control of the castles/Freefolk at the wall that he actually wins praise from him – something so rare to get from Stannis. As Stannis tells Jon – “You haggle like a crone with a codfish, Lord Snow” – high praise indeed! And remember that Stannis is a southern king.

The viewpoint that Jon at the wall does not know anything about politics and the south is simply not true. Jon Snow learnt the same as Robb Stark and from the same teachers.  The classist thinking that the bastard is less knowledgeable than the rest of the Starks is false. Ned educated all the boys the same – and that includes Jon and Theon.  And this is reflected in Jon Snow often thinking of Ned’s teachings.

These are Jon’s teachers and mentors throughout the series at various stages – Ned Stark, Maester Luwin, Rodrik Cassel, Jeor Mormont, Donal Noye, Maester Aemon, Mance Raydar and even Stannis himself. He has learned from maesters, warriors and kings. He has learned from NW brothers like the Halfhand and from Ygritte. Which of the younger characters in the books has had better teachers than Jon Snow at this point? The fact that he acknowledges that he still has much to learn ( ‘I know that I know nothing’ - Socrates) makes him one of the wisest characters in the books.

What negotiation has Robb Stark successfully done? Robb was a young prodigy, a genius battle commander but negotiator? His intelligent, strong willed, politically aware mother took care of that. Catelyn negotiated with Renly and Walder Frey for Robb.  What negotiation has Sansa successfully done in 5 books?  Getting SweetRobin to eat his dinner is not the same as conducting a financial transaction with the Iron Bank.

So this idea that Robb and Sansa were/are seasoned politicians and negotiators as opposed to ‘out of touch’ and ‘know nothing’ Jon snow has no basis in the books. In actuality,  GRRM is involving Jon more and more in the politics of the realm as of the last book.  And if Robb’s will does come into the picture, it looks as if Jon Snow as leader of the North will be doing a lot of negotiating – even with southern rulers that perhaps include Daenerys Targaryen who has arrived in KL.

Show Jon Snow has nothing in common with the book version and they are two entirely different characters with different personalities, characterization, plots, narrative themes and relationships.  Not sure why we are taking cues from the show on Jon’s negotiating skills and knowledge. Book Jon Snow’s journey in the next book is going to be different from what we got in the show. For one, he is going to be spending considerable time in a wolf!

Book Jon Snow is an intelligent and well versed diplomat who is capable of going toe to toe with Dany or Tyrion or whomever he would be negotiating with in the future. Hell, Tyrion was impressed by 14 year old Jon Snow. He’s going to be even more impressed when they meet up again in the books. 

[rotting-sea-cow]

What do you think of the theories/interpretations of Stannis as asexual or a deeply closeted homosexual?

I’ve always taken Stannis’s personality quirks in that department not to be an expression of sexual preference, but rather an aversion to intimacy and vulnerability.

When Stannis nurtured Proudwing, he demonstrated compassion toward the wounded bird, and hope that the goshawk would eventually develop into a healthy and active hunting bird, but that didn’t happen and he was roundly mocked by his older brother. Eventually, Stannis gave it up and presumably hunted with another bird, which was far more effective. Similarly, Stannis was close with his parents and (to Stannis’s mind) they were cruelly taken away by the gods and left him in pain. To Stannis, this means that affection is an invitation to feel loss and pain, and he wishes to avoid that by refusing to be in that position in the first place.

Similarly, Stannis’s defining moment of his adulthood was built around a defiant show of strength. To invite vulnerability was death, Stannis was required by the times to be tough, and so intimacy was an unnecessary weakness.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[rotting-sea-cow]

One of the best reads about the core of ASOIAF. Thank you @joannalannister

Anonymous asked:

Hey! It’s me again, your GOT secret Santa. Could you please elaborate on what aspects of the Tywin/Joanna ship you like? They’re not a ship I’ve ever written for, so I’d appreciate it if you could tell me why you like them so much. Anyways, I hope things are going great with you and that you’re getting ready for the holidays 😊

I love Tywin and Joanna because this ship is ASOIAF in its simplest form, stripped down to the bare bones, the meaning made plain. 

Keep reading

[rotting-sea-cow]

This is important in the discussion of Jaime “breaking” his vows. He didn’t betray and kill Aerys because he intended to hand the throne to Robert of to his father. He killed Aerys because he was planning genocide and Jaime had either to fulfill his vows as kingsguard or to fulfill his vows as a knight. It was either of them.

Do you think Robert, as a king, should have punished Jaime for killing Aerys? He broke a very important oath, but he killed an enemy. Reminds me of the biblical story of King David executing the man that claims to have killed his enemy, King Saul

It’s a hard thing, but I’m in a different place than Robert or Eddard. My opinion on this is colored by the fact that Aerys was looking to murder the entirety of King’s Landing. Jaime has the right both to self-defense against being murdered by his overlord and the right to defend those citizens of King’s Landing. I also know that Jaime was not planning on a Lannister coup.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[rotting-sea-cow]

Since Littlefinger borrowed so heavily from the Lannisters, what his relationship with Tywin like? Did he dupe Tywin as a primary backer for his financial house of cards where the Lannister's get the interest payments, but have no shot of getting the principal repaid? You would think Tywin would keep a closer eye on his investments.

Oh, Tywin was a dupe, but a very dangerous dupe who had to be kept on the very long finger, as it were.

However, Littlefinger’s job there was made easier by the fact that Tywin doesn’t think about money as a merchant does, but rather as a nobleman does. While Tywin cares about being repaid eventually, that’s more about seeing repayment as a matter of respect and reputation than a need for the books to balance - he probably wouldn’t really care about interest payments or give them a second thought.

Rather, Tywin has always seen debt as a political transaction: if I lend you money, you owe me favor(s) in exchange. He bankrolled Aerys, but the quid-pro-quo was that Tywin became Hand of the King and got patronage for House Lannister. Indeed, one could argue that the central tension between Tywin and Aerys was that Tywin felt he was owed a royal marriage for his daughter, an appointment for his brother, etc. and Aerys kept reneging on the deal out of paranoia. Hence Tywin began shopping for another monarch, one who would honor their agreements. 

Tywin was a good deal happier with Robert because he generally played ball with Lannister patronage requests - Kingsguard appointments, a job for Ilyn Payne, etc. - although Robert was smart enough to not give Tywin the big prize (Jaime as heir to Casterly Rock) right away in order to keep the purse strings open.

So to answer your question, for Littlefinger’s purposes, Tywin is a different kind of target from the Iron Bank of Braavos. Tywin can be dealt with by supporting the Lannisters in the War of Five Kings, the Iron Bank insists on hard currency.

[rotting-sea-cow]

It also fits in the overall GRRM’s themes about choices.

Do you think there is credence to the theory that Aegon V tried to murder his granddaughter Rhaella and unborn great-grandson Rhaegar to get the dragons to hatch at Summerhall? That Dunk was the one who committed “treason” by defying his king and saving her and that’s the reason why it didn’t work?

I think it’s credible, yes. 

My own Summerhall theory is that dragons are “fire made flesh.” The wildfire provided the fire, and Aegon was to do a ritual to house it within flesh, resurrecting the dragons. Aegon tried to circumvent the need for human sacrifice by slitting palms, but it didn’t work, he was going to need to sacrifice Rhaegar, since only death pays for life. Either Egg aborted the ritual or Dunk interrupted it to defend the defenseless as a True Knight is supposed to do. Either way, the fire was unbound by flesh, so it burned down Summerhall.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[rotting-sea-cow]

I don’t think it’s the king’s blood. Because she offers to Davos to help his King that way and later she makes the same (very subtly) offer to Jon. She says she needs a man whose fires light bright and I think she can recognize such men.

Did not melisandre waste the second shadow killer? Why did she not create others of them? It is not hard for her to find men. Bye

I suspect it’s because of this:

Stannis waved a hand, dismissing his concern. “It is a chill, no more. [Edric] coughs, he shivers, he has a fever. Maester Pylos will soon set him right. By himself the boy is nought, you understand, but in his veins flows my brother’s blood. There is power in a king’s blood, she says.”

Davos did not have to ask who she was.

- Davos IV, ASoS, emphasis mine.

Furthermore, it seems from the state of Stannis’ health that creating shadowbabies drains the man she creates them with. She needs a man who is either a king or closely related to a king, and the magic kills the donor.

As for the question of whether Melisandre wasted the second shadowbaby…it got Stannis Storm’s End quickly and with a minimum of blood shed, when before it was looking like a long and painful siege that threatened to take so long that Stannis would not be able to effectively fight the Lannisters. Very much not wasted.

[rotting-sea-cow]

Yeah, bad plotting and even weak writing cannot be an excuse for these troublesome aspects

IDK anything about the mechanics of writing or story plotting, but opinions I respect online claim that a lot of the problems on GoT are from the writers ploting back from a predetermined event. My ask is: Do you think that's the problem with Fire & Blood? GRRM determined part of the plot, and published the dates of things like Jaehaerys' death or the relationships of kings in aGoT back in 1996 & was stuck writing to get to certain fixed events? Esp as he's naturally a gardner not an architect?

No. Unfortunately, I think the biggest problem with Fire and Blood was the decision to write it as a history. Overuses the conceit, denies GRRM the ability to show his strengths at conveying the interiority of characters, emphasises his weaker worldbuilding.