Colorful Mess

I just don't see Martin continuing with this stasis in the Vale. He's going to have her sitting there waiting around for Tyrion to die and so she can marry Harry? Nope. This plot is about to be shaken up, just like Joffrey's wedding. Alayne's Winds chapter - Shadrich and Corbray are there dropping anvils about a kidnapping. These knights are desperate for gold. If the tourney ends in disaster, they'll still want a reward. A window open in LF's office suggests someone is snooping; it may be Shadrich and he knows the status of Littlefinger's accounts. He knows Alayne is Sansa. Corbray is also looking for any opportunity to betray LF, undermine his plans, while still pretending to be on his payroll. Shadrich has mentioned that he is willing to split a ransom. Myranda wants Alayne to disappear. This has to be going somewhere. Also LF is drinking more and more; he's not thinking clearly. He's growing overconfident and every chapter, he's putting the moves on Alayne. If you want to read some really gross foreshadowing for an assault, re-read passage where Arya passes under the Titan of Braavos. Throw in foreshadowing for a wildling attack, and Sansa needs to GTFO of there.

Not quite. Mance's plot needs resolution. The "hidey holes" he mentioned when Mel described the grey girl is a chekhov. That's significant knowledge that has yet to be applied. He could end up helping Sansa somehow with that info. He could also provide the horse. Theon thinks of a "winged horse" in WF, and Mance mentions stealing a horse during his infiltration of Robert's feast. Moreover, Theon thinks that Mance is going to die for the wrong girl. I don't believe this is going to happen, because his arc is inspired by Bael (Abel), and Mance isn't the fool; he's the one who fools others. His goal would be to "steal" an actual Stark daughter. Mance may also be the new "Reek," but it's iffy if Ramsay has actually captured Mance. Most importantly, when Mance met Jon, he said he got a look at all the faces of the Starks at the feast, and this seems like another chekhov. He would be the only person in Winterfell to recognize her as Sansa, and he would know that he fulfilled his mission to trick the kneelers twice over. Jon's intentions to save his sister (and her friend) would be serendipitous foresight. It's after all of this, when she rides North, that she falls off the horse and dies.

On Jon post-rez - I think he will be even less ambitious. If he was already ambitious his death would change him in the opposite direction: "I do think that if you’re bringing a character back, that a character has gone through death, that’s a transformative experience...My characters who come back from death are worse for wear. In some ways, they’re not even the same characters anymore" - GRRM on Gandalf, Bullseye Interview, 2011 "Each time he’s revived he loses a little more of himself. He was sent on a mission before his first death. He was sent on a mission to do something, and it’s like, that’s what he’s clinging to. He’s forgetting other things, he’s forgetting who he is, or where he lived. He’s forgotten the woman who he was once supposed to marry. Bits of his humanity are lost every time he comes back from death; he remembers that mission. His flesh is falling away from him, but this one thing, this purpose that he had is part of what’s animating him and bringing him back to death. I think you see echoes of that with some of the other characters who have come back from death.” - GRRM on Beric, Bullseye Interview, 2011 It would be interesting if Jon felt he had to fulfill his last mission, but his heart really wasn't in it to fight. It would be like a tension. On the one hand there's Jon, wolfblood running hot, who wanted to take a band of wildlings to Winterfell and "make Ramsay answer for his words" because of what he did to his sister. On the other is Jon who doesn't really care anymore about being at the head of an army, or being victorious. Kind of like, this entire world is shit, why should he fight for it. And his memory may be scrambled. And because he'll be less powerful, he'll lose the battle. Which is why Sansa probably has to do something like she did in the show - wake his ass up and save him. He just doesn't have the passion that Sansa has to get WF back, but he'll still kick Ramsay's ass because that was his mission, and because he does seem to care about his wolf pack (Sansa and Rickon). I can see it playing out as very anti-Gandalf-the-White.

Yeah, I can see it either way. I'm partial to her getting out of the tower and breaking and running on her own. What else do you think she needs to do in terms of political maneuvers? I'm open to this, as long as it's something that would be as valuable as getting outside the Vale/castle/carriage - because right now that's too much shelter, too much imprisonment, for too long. Also, she might not have time for much political maneuvering if the tourney ends in disaster. It's too perfect and happy of an event for such a dark book. Winter is coming to the Vale and elsewhere in Westeros. I'm sensing a bloody wildling attack from the mountain clans. They've been growing braver as Winter is approaching and have been attacking the small folk. I think they might actually raid the nobility itself during the tourney, like the bread riots in KL.The Chekov’s gun for the mountain clans doing this goes back to Tyrion arming them and allowing them to see how much wealth the nobility really have. I also think LF is going to "go there" and sexually assault her, and she would now be looking for any opportunity out of there. Corbray or Shadrich could kidnap her for ransom and she escapes from them too.

I think D&D picked up on the Sansa/Jeyne/Arya/Alys connections that GRRM has been carefully layering into the books, and decided "we'll just make her Jeyne!" without really caring for subtlety (not exactly their strong suit). I envision Sansa's arc in Winds written as a Tyrion or Brienne style travelogue, something D&D appear to loathe and aren't at all interested in telling. Nonetheless, after that rape episode aired, he reiterated the butterfly effect again, how much the plots had diverged, but how they'll end up in the same place. I don't think Jon and Sansa meeting is just D&D fanfic. The first Stark reunion is too important. I really believe Sansa in Winds will end up at the Wall. While there won't be a marriage, I could possibly see a Ramsay-style hunt (hunting foreshadowing, Alayne Winds), and Sansa may end up captured, but Ramsay won't know who she is. It would be savage irony that Ramsay is looking for "Arya" who is "Jeyne" while having captured "Alayne" who is "Sansa." So the asshole would have a legitimate Stark daughter in his possession, but she throws his own chicanery back in his face. Hell to the yes. The Jeyne/Sansa connection is solid. The Alys/Sansa connection is even more interesting. Jeyne/Arya/Alys are all connected to the grey girl; it's super easy to throw Sansa into that: Jeyne is a false Arya who could be a red herring for Sansa, because "Arya" is Jeyne, Sansa's best friend, the steward's daughter, while Sansa is "Alayne," the steward's daughter in the Vale, and Alayne would look similar to Jeyne because of her dark hair. Alys could be a red herring for Sansa; she has Sansa-like traits, she's fleeing a marriage like Sansa would be (in this case, Harry). Alys in the show also looks like a Sansa body double; that's odd because she's described as looking like Arya. Even if this isn't the plot that he's going with, the parallels between the Northern girls are fascinating to explore.

Most weaknesses described in that first chapter are likely establishing characterization for future growth. It's not like she couldn't learn if someone would teach her. I mean how many of us are "bad at math" but can actually do it, with instruction. Or how many of us understand math better when it's applied in a different context or in a new way. Also, Sansa at age 11 probably can't run a household at that point, but could do it if she had lessons. She's already taking on that role in the Eyrie to some degree. Since Sansa can't ride a horse very well, this might also be a set-up for future growth. If Alys and Jeyne are red herrings - and why it looks like Sansa "took over" their storylines - I could see her riding that dying horse at some point to the Wall.

I can see her as a steward too. Either a steward for Bran as Lord of Winterfell or for Jon as King in the North. Managing affairs of state/manor in their stead.

Dinklage on the post-Field of Fire: "He's wondering what he's done. Is this the right way to do it?" Dinklage on the Tarlys: "What Daenerys does in this scene is not so good." The phrase "Second Thoughts" flashes across the screen. Mylod: "Tyrion sees that happen, and he's horrified. And he wonders is Daenerys like her father the Mad King or is she someone that he can really rally behind...the two of them are afraid that they're backing the wrong person." Dinklage: "Tyrion's relationship with Daenerys is very fragile." Tyrion probably isn't the third "WTF moment." If that was the case why would they so openly discuss that his support is wavering like this? Even in earlier scenes, Dany appears to consider him betraying her; she accuses him of it because of his battle losses. A betrayal (actually a "treason"...there is a difference) is someone she would never expect; even she knows this herself (books).

Cersei, Stannis, Robert, Tywin, are characters who do whatever it takes to win. Does Dany belong in this group? Dany asking for a ceasefire looks like someone who has gone soft in Cersei's mind. So I think this might be useful information for Cersei in the future. I think she will pull a Robert B. at the Battle of the Bells. She'll hide underneath the tunnels of the King's Landing and force Dany to kill civilians if she wants her dead. Jon Connington (book character) wouldn't torch the town to find Robert B. I could see Dany burning down King's Landing because she's never been defeated before and she wants to win.

In theory it looks rational, so I think that's why it went over the audience's head. But they didn't write it as Dany acting rationally and making a case that Cersei would attack them. It was written about her being either naive, self-interested, or not wanting to give Cersei an advantage - not exactly the same level as "defend the realm from two threats." There are three instances where her dialogue suggests that Dany doesn't want to lose to Cersei: "As soon as I march away, she marches in" (0705), "I’m grateful for your loyalty, but my dragon died so that we could be here. If it’s all for nothing, then he died for nothing." (0707) "I can’t forget what I saw north of the Wall. And I can’t pretend that Cersei won’t take back half the country the moment I march north." (0707). I think these lines indicate that Dany wants some compensation for her loss of the dragon, which again makes it look like her dragon is more important than Jon's her people. She also says before that last line, "If I had trusted you, everything would be different." which means she appears to regret the entire wight hunt disaster. She's mad at herself for not trusting Jon sooner, which humanizes her (thankfully). However, then she still tells him that Cersei will "take back half the country," i.e. her territory that she's gained. It sounds like she's focused on winning, not protecting people. I'm not sure if that's true, but that's how it comes across. She is torn; but it also appears that she's fickle while an apocalypse is going on. That's why I think the season has framed it as a choice for her - duty vs. desire. They could have easily given her a line of dialogue like Sansa's warnings about Cersei "everyone she's crossed she's found a way to murder." Or "we need to strategize a way to face both threats equally". But I think the idea was that Dany is written as too trusting, naive, and not really understanding what she's facing. She doesn't understand Cersei, she doesn't understand the Night King, and she doesn't understand Winter. As for Jon - oh boy. What a mess. Hard to say what he was thinking at all because we're blocked from his thoughts for most of the season. Really hate how he was written because we get no insight on his decisions. However, in an attempt to explain his motives, I think he threw the kitchen sink (i.e. the North) at her after the wight hunt expedition. She said that she would help him defeat the Night King, but they're sailing in the opposite direction to do it, and she appears to have no sense of urgency like Jon does. Both on the boat and at the dragonpit he asserts that Dany has the North. I think it's to reinforce in her mind that she has to defend the North, and that there is one threat that is much more pressing right now. Cersei can wait. Dany's dragon died North of the Wall. Jon saw a wight polar bear, he has to know that a wight dragon can now fly OVER the Wall. So I think while wight hunt was a terrible idea and all parties can be blamed to some degree, I think Jon was trying to correct for that failure by giving Dany something in exchange so she will abandon the ceasefire. The ceasefire wouldn't be THAT bad if they hadn't created a wight dragon. Now if Dany continues to go south, waste time, despite all the warnings against it - and time is of the essence - she starts looking even less queenly. I get the idea that they are stuck between two threats, but the ceasefire was a revealing feature of Dany's characterization. It was about having her make a choice (like all good drama), but somehow she didn't want to make a choice - she wanted both. And no character in this show or books can ever have both things they want. Practically, it was a bad idea because 1) Cersei cut Dany out of the negotiations anyway, and 2) Cersei isn't going to honor her word. The fact that Dany agreeing to help the North now hangs on Cersei's word still astounds me. But for the time being, it did serve a function to get Dany to agree, and from Tyrion's standpoint, it placates her so that she can actually look heroic instead of looking like her father. It was a tepid success that came at great cost, because if Dany "had trusted him, everything would be different." ETA: Per his convo with Sansa in 0701, I think Jon is gambling that Winter will fend off any southern soldiers that try to march North. Probably flawed thinking as we'll see in S8, but he knows that Winter will at least thin their ranks and demoralize them (like Stannis' men). Winter is the North's secret weapon. The Russians used it to their advantage multiple times.

@screamin I am going to respond to your post in the Dany thread.

I think Arya and Sansa make a great team. Sansa's weaknesses are Arya's strengths; and vice versa. Sansa is called a "manipulator" but I prefer to think of her as having "emotional intelligence." She is absolutely brilliant at handling fragile male egos (Sandor, Joffrey, Jon, Littlefinger, Sweetrobin) that are in constant supply in this universe. Arya has zero tact, but she can sense danger/lies faster than Sansa. I have a feeling that Arya would have known that Dontos was part of a larger plot. However, Arya has a violent streak, she holds grudges, thinks in very black/white terms. Sansa tries to see the good in people; at times she even feels sorry for them (Jon, Lancel, Sandor). Once an idea about someone is fixed in Arya's head, it's almost impossible to change her mind about them. Showing mercy is a challenge for her, but she hasn't completely lost her humanity. I do like their dynamic and their growth over the show. I dont see Sansa as a Queen ruling by herself, but she would be a valuable addition to any small council or assembly in Westeros' future. I am dying to read her chapters in TWoW. I think Sansa is getting the heck out of dodge and going North as the grey girl.

I'm sure many fans would level the same critique, if Robb was attacking Essos in an expansionist imperialist policy to regain control of the Free Cities. And say that he took his troops to a completely different continent, that neither he nor his soldiers had ever stepped foot in, but he's doing this because his brother ruled there at one point, and he thinks it's his. He already had the kingdom to rule up North, but that wasn't enough. He just had to have those Nine Free Cities because he wants to restore his family's legacy, even though the last thing the Free Cities needs is another war, and even though no one really wants that legacy restored. And say that to justify himself, he said something like: “He could stay in Winterfell with Talisa. Their child would one day rule the North...that should be enough for any man . . . but not for the wolf.” (adapted from Dany, AGOT, Chapter 54). You bet your ass if he did that I'd be mocking him at every turn. I still think his war was stupid (Talisa points this out, in the show) and I do think he should have bent the knee at some point. I like Cat's advice. He squandered his victories by being incapable of playing the marriage game. But regardless of his failures, "Northern Independence" is more sympathetic of a cause than this Free Cities scenario that mirrors Dany's quest. I'd also be criticizing Lyanna Mormont, if she sent her troops to attack Braavos to reclaim some property that she felt belonged to her, because her father owned a castle there at some point, but he got kicked out of that castle because he was crazy and unstable and was terrorizing his neighbors. Like Lyanna, girl...just chill... The reason I bring up Braavos and the Free Cities is because they are on a completely different continent, relative to Dany in Slaver's - excuse me Dragons! - Bay. She already has a kingdom, safety, people who worship her. BUT THATS NOT ENOUGH?! Dany's war just doesnt have the same ring to it as Northern Independence / Stark restoration. Not to mention the fact that Dany's disinheritance and injustice as a young girl happened in flashback. Stark injustice occurs in real time - we literally watch the destruction of House Stark unfold throughout the novels, to our horror (or maybe you didn't care that much? I dunno). Even in the flashbacks, Targaryens were the aggressors; the Starks were up North minding their own business until Rhaegar pulled a Littlefinger and just HAD to have his Stark girl (not to excuse Lyanna for being ignorant here too of course, but Rhaegar had more agency/power in this scenario and should have known better). Dany was innocent of that of course. But if she wants to restore her family's legacy, that means she's also restoring their fuck-ups and failures. Additionally, I would also add that the Starks can always play the "rally the North to fight the White Walkers" card. Ramsay functions in the story like Mad King Aerys. He's just going to get in the way of the larger fight; while murdering people for the fun of it. As Sansa rationalizes in S7, the people look to Winterfell as a stronghold/place of defense in the Winter when the threat comes. I think Davos mentioned the WW when he tried to persuade Lyanna to fight for them. So they have an altruistic reason to defend the realm AND they have a personal/safety reason as well. I would hazard a guess that the Starks have more sympathy on their side because the Starks are the heroes and Dany is the antagonist.

Well I guess the wildlings could have fed him Qhorhin, just like Manderly's Frey pies. LOL. But I think they burned him? Hunting won't work. The reason why people were resorting to cannibalism is because the rivers and lakes had been overfished and there were no animals left to hunt. Not saying that Dany herself will partake but if her soldiers start doing it, I have a feeling that she will do the opposite of whatever Stannis did. Two reasons why I bring it up: 1. Reduced to cannibalism - Napoleon in Russia. I think the author is definitely making some Napoleon parallels with Dany's arc 2. Dany sees a "feast of corpses" in her Houses of the Undying prophecy. The common theory is that this refers to the Red Wedding. I'm skeptical. Because what does the Red Wedding have to do with her? A feast of corpses would be a great play on words for eating people. Haha this topic is so morbidly funny to me, please dont think I'm taking it too seriously. Its definitely a tinfoil theory.

There is a possible standard - Jon. Sam. Davos. Brienne. It's not just about winning. Tywin style tactics, is not the moral of the story. It will help you win in the short term; but this approach won't help you in the long run. The extra good criteria comes from Dany being unique; she IS different from every other person who wants to be king/queen because she has more agency than the other characters to get what she wants. If she just wanted to be a conqueror and leave the ruling to someone else; it might be different. But she wants to be both. And since she has nuclear weapons that she fetishizes as her children, I would definitely hope that she's better than Cersei (which...is actually a backhanded compliment from Jon). In terms of petty squabbling over the Iron Chair, Dany can do whatever the hell she wants to win. She can Red Wedding the hell out of the Lannisters if she wants. She is an excellent conqueror, but it's basic ASOIAF 101 that a good conqueror doesn't necessarily make a good ruler. And we are not shown that Dany can really ever turn off her conqueror mode. She tries in Meereen to be a peaceful, competent queen - and her strategies actually work! - but she is irrationally angry that she has to compromise with people she dislikes (this is more in the books, obviously). So she flipped the mother of dragons/conqueror switch. If the question was "Should Dany be nice and sweet if she wants to win?" The answer is obviously NO. Instead the question should be "Does she have anything else to offer people, other than rule by fear and endless war?" And that's why she does have to be better than the rest - because she herself has set herself up to that impossible standard. "I'm going to break the wheel." I didn't say this - Dany did. Unfortunately, she is caught in a bind trying to be better while trying to be ruthless at the same time. This is the dilemma she's faced with, when she reaches Westeros. She wants to burn down the Red Keep. But if she does that, she's "not different, she's just more of the same." If she wants to prove Ned, Robert, Renly, Stannis, Cersei, fAegon, and whoever else wrong and beat them to the throne, she'll probably win. But again it's back to Mirri's lesson. What is a life worth, when all the rest is gone? What does it matter if Dany saved the life of one little girl whom Cersei would have neglected, if Dany killed that girl's brother and father (soldiers) to save her? "Are you a brother of the Night's Watch, or a bastard boy who wants to play at war?" Dany is playing at war. Stannis was playing at war too; but in some small way he still made more of an effort to fight the NK thus far in the story. Doing something for the greater good without self-interest appears to be the author's litmus test for what makes a good king/queen. Him burning his daughter is definitely deluded, but it's also about him thinking he has to give something up. He has drunk the Mel cool aid (which...I'm soooo glad Jon has not). He should have realized that a self-sacrifice is probably more effective.

I will reply later in the Dany thread to points above. But for endgame discussion, something caught my eye that I feels needs more elaboration. "Bran is a tree." I think this vastly underestimates his role in the story. I believe he is far, far more likely to be effective against the Night King than Dany. I have serious doubts that a person who just found out the Night King has existed 2 minutes ago is suddenly going to defeat an evil force that has persisted for thousands of years - a force that Brandon the Builder (Bran's namesake), the Last Hero (Bran's quest) and the Children of the Forest (whom Bran has actually met), couldn't even defeat permanently. Dany talks about defeating the NK like it's checklist; I don't think she really knows or understands what she's facing. Bran knows the history - HE CAN MANIPULATE SPACE AND TIME - and he has the control of EARTH MAGIC, which again is an underestimated force in the story. Fire magic is not the answer (it will probably only result in a stalemate). (Actually maybe magic won't even defeat the NK at all).

One thing that I've noticed about S7 is how many times Jon gives Dany a rousing speech. He gives her a confidence boost in almost every interaction. He gives Dany his best Milton Friedman impression in the cave. This appeals to her heroic idealism - like "here's an opportunity to go down in history as a hero!" Then immediately afterward, he flatters her about how she's done something remarkable by bringing dragons back. He appeals to her pride over her dragons but also manages to gain her ear, in a way that Tyrion or Varys could not. On the cliffs. He appears to make a faux pas about her dragons and attempts to correct himself, again taking the same tone as he did on the beach. "Gorgeous beasts!" We can tell he's hiding his feelings. He messes up a second time. "They're not beasts to me." Oops. Then wight hunt and another rousing speech with "Trust in a Stranger." Jon volunteers and talks about his deeds in a way that is uncharacteristic of him ("I'm the only one here who has fought them!" "I am a king!"). Then he goes into a moving speech about his own heroism and bravery, "I came here knowing that you could have your men behead me or your dragons burn me alive." He appeals to Dany's image she has of him, that he's a messiah for his people. When he leaves for the wight hunt, he drops the idea that she may never see him again "At least you won't have to deal with the KitN anymore." But that's followed up by something that has typically been said to an enemy: "I wish you good fortune in the wars to come." So that's...odd. The next time is the conversation on the boat. I think this is his most rousing he's ever been because he uses terms that Jorah uses, like "My Queen!" Then he tells her that she deserves the North and that his people will see her for what she really is. Wow! The next scene is the dragon pit. A lot of rousing speeches here. He gives her a public pledge of loyalty! Then he goes on another speech about how lies won't help him in the fight. Of course Dany is eating this up, he looks like the most trustworthy man ever. Next, he continues the pattern; telling her that she's not like everyone else. Then he boosts her confidence that her line hasn't ended yet! She's still here! And hey, maybe she's thinking illogically about that witch, because it does sound like superstition! Finally, he gives her another speech, a bit more subdued but nonetheless more persuasive, about why they should take a boat North. Because it will send a better message. Each time he has out-maneuvered Jorah and Tyrion to get Dany to trust him. This level of persuasive technique involving flattery and rousing speeches has been seen before - when he tried to get the wildlings at Hardhome to fight for him, and when he asked for volunteers to kill the NW mutineers. I think it's his growth arc: his ability to persuade others. The fact that he got Daenerys Targaryen, one of the most unpredictable people in the history of Planetos, to put aside her war for the moment, and go North. It's pretty freakin' brilliant.

You keep asking why I have to compare people. And I would say that it's the story of two heroes. So, why shouldn't we be doing this? Interrogating their differences is probably the best way to determine whether someone is good enough to be a true king/queen (Jon) or even a true knight (Brienne) - by comparison. I think one of the themes of ASOIAF is "what makes good king/queen?" And so far, I think Dany almost makes the cut, but not quite. Jon is still the OTK. I do wonder if, philosophically, Jon and Dany are even on the same "team," or if it just appears that way, for a short-term Godzilla solution. The author encourages us to compare and contrast characters - he is happy when he hears that we're discussing them on forums like these. He marks it as a badge of success. You are excellent at defending Dany. But let's speculate. Where do you think her arc is headed, based on these points we've been debating? I think however she ends up, we can look back and see where her failures started (and again I think it's with the ceasefire...or maybe even the Tarleys). So far Dany has only claimed to help, with a ton of conditions. I wouldn't be surprised if Jon just wants to take a nap when he gets home. Getting Dany to do something that would benefit her in the long run is exhausting.

Sorry, I hit send too soon. I edited to re-phrase. She made it clear that the ceasefire was important to her. Even when she agreed to help - they're still sailing SOUTH so she can get a ceasefire. She lost her dragon and she still thinks this ceasefire is important. She lectures Jon: "My dragon died so we could be here." In effect, what she means is that my dragon would have died for nothing if the game isn't allowed to stop so I can help you. It's just the most convoluted mess ever. The cannibalism point was speculation. Fair game for a speculation thread, especially since the author is setting up a foil right there for the taking (why bring up cannibalism in Winter, otherwise). Anyway, it's tongue-in-cheek. It's not like I'm saying it will actually happen. It's fun to you know...speculate?

Because a hero is torn between what she wants to do and what she has to do. She has to give up her pursuit of the Iron Throne before she can be on par with Jon. Because she insisted on a ceasefire, she's not. This is the same conflict when she married Hizdahr. Duty vs. desire/self-interest. She has to lose something. She hasn't completely given up on that desire for the throne yet. I mean...in LOTR terms, it functions as the ring of power? I don't know what more there is to say. Sansa hasn't done as much as Dany - I agree. I'm not one of those people who even wants Sansa to be queen. I'm actually very critical of Sansa in the story. While I do think she has political skills, I think she would be best in the role Catelyn, Lady of Winterfell and a mother with kids. So you're right, she isn't on par with Dany's exceptionalism (thank god). But still, I don't understand why we have to keep talking about Sansa... It's Dany who is the one who boasts "I'm going to save the North" (like if you have to say that out loud? ...it's not very promising). I didnt say that. She felt guilt for what she had done to Slaver's Bay; same as she did with the Lhazareen. However, there is an element of questionable morals in freeing the Unsullied. Her personal distaste for the practice of slavery just happens to match up with her need for an army. That's a little too convenient. The show also appears to be hammering the point of how she never really helped the slaves learn how to be free. You can see this in Missandei and Greyworm's B stories. Yes, Dany gave them their freedom, but she also didn't really give them a chance or opportunity to do something other than serve her. All they know is how to serve, and obey, and she continues to ask them to serve, and obey. That's why Jon questioned Missandei so sharply. Like, how does it look, when she frees slaves yet turns around and uses them for her own purposes? That would be like Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves and then asking them to join his re-election campaign? Its corrupted whatever noble intentions she had. But...Why wasn't she satisfied to stay in Essos though? Why does she continually have to conquer more and more territory? Why is she looking like Napoleon? Yes, because she made it clear that the ceasefire was important to her - even when she agreed to help - they're still sailing SOUTH so she can get a ceasefire. No one is saying Dany is lazy? Like I don't think anyone has actually called her out for showing lack of initiative. If this was a contest of resumes and accomplishments, Dany would probably win. Lack of will/conviction is not the criticism. It's the "great power/responsibility" ethos. Let's hold her to a higher standard. That worked in Esoss. Not in Westeros. They don't need to be dominated; they need food, families, and good clothing for Winter. She has not proposed any of that; she hasn't even run a campaign to illustrate how she's better than Cersei. She is running her campaign into the ground by burning the Tarleys, and Tyrion knows it. Tyrion is worried that he's backing the wrong horse (quote by Mylod, the director)...so perhaps...maybe...the audience should be too? I doubt that the message at the end of ASOIAF is that pummeling people into submission with excessive use of force is the best way to rule over a population. How about we try, rule by consent of the governed? And Dany may not even have that, because, how much can former slaves actually consent? Of course they're going to worship anyone who says they're free. Dany is not an ideal king/queen. She's better as an activist working outside the power structure. But she has become the power structure.

Also I'm going to throw out my big speculation (speculation thread) that Dany's downfall began in S7. That ceasefire was, again, the reason why. That she continued on with it after she saw what the North was faced with has marked her as a goner in the story. She didn't give anything up and her willingness to help depends on Cersei's word (just...wow). Also, since Stannis called himself Prince who was Promised, if Dany does too, I think that's a sign she'll end up just like him: Winter-felled. I'm also concerned because the way Jon is talking about Dany being an ally - and how he needs her dragons as a weapon. It is disturbingly similar to how desperate the Children of the Forest were, to create the Night King as a weapon to fight the First Men. Jon has reached the Godzilla Threshold, and the Children appear to have been pushed to this threshold too. So they use a "Godzilla" to help them in their war, unaware of how that weapon could turn against them. This is why I think ice and fire are two dangerous, unpredictable forces that Jon will have to fight. I think Bran will take out the Night King while Jon will have to fight Dany somehow. Also why is it so easy to imagine Stark soldiers replacing the Lannister soldiers in Spoils of War. If Jon was sitting on the Throne (or fAegon in this case), she wouldn't care what sigil they wore. They're on "her" territory, and they don't kneel, she cooks them. AND if she's faced with starvation up North? Maybe she even eats them? (that book cannibal plot with Stannis appears to be setting up a Dany/Stannis foil. It may only happen in the books though).

Why do I keep comparing them? This goes back to my earlier point waaaaay upthread. I am a harsher critic of Dany because of what she represents in the story. She was given a dangerous, destructive weapon and unlimited power. She is the most powerful person in the world. Therefore, she should be examined more critically for how she uses that power. If you have the potential to exact suffering on a massive scale you have to be EXTRA GOOD. You have to walk the line on the side of good better than the rest of them. If you say you're going to break the wheel; then you have to live up to that potential (or be less vague about it, for a start). If you say you're going to be better than Cersei (or your fire-worshiping father); you have to live up to that potential. If you say you want to help people, it has to come at the expense of something (and so far she's only accidentally lost a dragon). Accounting for her failures while holding her to a higher standard is what I'm trying to do. And if she isn't that special or amazing and she's just like all the other rival claimants, then let's agree to that. I'll admit her successes when I see them, but she's acted more times out of pure self-interest that causes devastation (both intentional or unintentional). That's not acceptable for someone with this much hype, agency, power, and control. If it is too difficult to defend Dany by herself, without responding with, "Well x character isn't a saint either," then it's not good enough. Dany is supposed to be better. A hero with that much power is supposed to be better. Our own politicians in the real world are supposed to be better. And no, I don't think Dany is worthy of Jon. In my view, he's walking that line better than her. He is concerned about people's welfare. He doesn't care about titles or a throne. I do think Jon and Dany are both Byronic heroes. They have a lot in common story-wise. But I also think they have some fundamentally different philosophies and worldviews that would destroy any real-world relationship.

I'm fine with calling out Sansa for whatever morally questionable stuff she's done. Lord knows she's got her own demons to wrestle with. The point is that Sansa never asked to play the game but does it to survive as a pawn. All she has is her wits. Dany has 3 dragons - and in the show she's also fireproof. It's like comparing Superman to the daughter of a mayor of a town in terms of power. The choices that they make - one with unlimited power and the other with a very small amount - are going to look different. The person with unlimited power is probably going to be corrupted by it at some point. And we can see that playing out in the narrative. Dany isn't surviving anymore; she's doing it for her rights. She thinks that she could be happy with Drogo and her child; she thinks she could stay in the Valas Tolerro and make the dead city bloom. But as soon as she decides to take over Viserys' legacy, she gets drawn down a darker path. The rape of the Lhazareen is so that she can take back her Throne. We haven't seen a Stark administer/oversee this sort of intentional devastation. She feels guilty about it but she never learned Mirri's lesson - she can't be a conqueror and a liberator at the same time. IT IS A CONTRADICTION. Sansa has been punished in the narrative, many times over, for backing Joffrey against her father. However, she also has a lot of mental blocking because of her past behaviors. We have yet to see her reckon with that; but I think she will come out of it looking stronger in the end. She started privileged and spoiled for a reason; so she could have a Growth Arc. The Starks are a pack; Sansa's story has deviated enough from the original outline that we can see that she's working for their family's benefit, not just her own survival. Also it's really hard to take Sansa's lines at face value; when it turns out that they were playing Littlefinger. For all we know she could have been exaggerating herself to make LF think they're in conflict. But even if she was sincere, yeah, it really does look MODEST compared to Dany who calls herself the savior of the UNIVERSE within two seconds, because Mel mentions a prophecy. Dany of Essos cared about her people. The Dany of Westeros has lost that empathy; all she appears to care about is winning, and burning people/food to do it. Dany never knew the Seven Kingdoms, no one was chasing her after Robert died, and she's in Westeros out of spite.

- By Dany's own logic, her "house" was lost when she abandoned it (what's more, she never lived in it). But she can keep her jewels/crown. I love how the author has her contradict herself in her own rulings. - The woman also sounds suspiciously like Sansa. However, say the whores in this scenario have raped Sansa, she escaped with her life, and she knows that they are hunting her because she's the Key to the North (Ramsay "Wants His Bride Back"). What would Dany's judgement be then? - Is Dany still being hunted or under threat of rape from her attackers because she's a pawn for her claim? We haven't been shown that that's the case so far (also, Dany is not a pawn by Season 5 the same way Sansa is) - Robert and Ned feared Viserys and Drogo as the big bads who were coming for everyone. Now Dany takes their place, and serves the same function in the story. What would be weird is, if during her invasion of Westeros, she thinks of herself as a liberator and that people will be happy to see her, just like it was in Essos. Sooooo....are people happy to see her? I don't see the flowers and banners greeting her. Where's Dany's crowd surfing scene in S7? - I dont think Sansa is that deluded ^ Plus, people are happy to see her come with the Knights of the Vale (well everyone except Ramsay, but who cares). She gives herself some modest credit but doesn't call herself "The Prince or Princess Who Was Promised" while doing nothing of substance to actually earn her title (again, at least Stannis didn't insist on a ceasefire before he decided to help). - A sense of proportionality helps. - (Sorry I don't know why I started talking in bullets, it just flowed better this way)

What identical scenarios are we talking about; I am not following you. I don't believe that Dany taking back the Iron Throne is an identical scenario to the Starks taking back Winterfell. We have to first agree on that before we can talk about a double standard.