Season 7: Speculation and Spoilers Discussion

[Minneapple]

19 hours ago, Wouter said:

At the end of S4, it looked like Sansa would become a power player ("Darth Sansa"), as it was more or less hyped by the production/actors, but not much came out of it.

Because last season they took five giant steps back with her rape plot. That was partly what frustrated me so much about that plot. You finally give a downtrodden character some measure of agency...and then take it away in pretty much the worst way possible. 

[Advance35]

Quote

I'm also kind of over hearing about how naive Jon is in comparison to characters who have yet to acknowledge the fact that THERE IS AN ARMY OF ICE ZOMBIES COMING TO WIPE TO WIPE OUT ALL OF HUMANITY. Yeah, you could say that Jon doesn't "get" politics and intrigue, but on the other hand characters like Littlefinger and Sansa don't seem to "get" that none of that is going to matter in the very near future.

This is something I am starting to question, actually.  We have 13 episodes left, we still have a notable checklist of items that need to be dealt with that should take at LEAST the entirety of Season 7.   Can this big event be given the payoff it's been built up as in so little time?   And this isn't a show only thing, the books are not even close to letting the WW threat take center stage and if there are only 2 more how huge can this black swan event be.   Sometimes I wonder if it's going to be a handful of characters alone that deal with the threat of the White Walkers and the other characters keep doing what they are doing.

I don't even know if I'm articulating my point well.  In terms of LF, I think he'll still matter if he's alive because even in times of crisis, there are/will always be people who are out for themselves alone, even when cataclysmic things hang in the balance.   GRRM knows who will  end up on the Throne, implying there will be one when all this is over so I think LF's antics do matter.

[Love]

I have been thinking lately about this....I have read on this thread and others about how Jon would never want the Iron Throne.  When he was named King, he looked pretty proud.  I want to speculate that maybe he does develop a liking for this whole "King" thing after ruling the North, however short or long his rule.   Perhaps his aspirations may change.  Especially if (when?) he learns of his true heritage. 

[WearyTraveler]

I don't know about TV Jon, but I think book Jon wouldn't want the throne.

He did admit to himself he had wanted Winterfell, but not because he wanted the seat and the power that came with it, not because he wanted to rule.  He wanted WF because, most of all, he wanted to be acknowledged as his father's son.  He wanted the legitimacy that in the society he grew up in made people somehow more worthy.  He even remembers how he was better than Robb at everything, and that still didn't matter.  He was still somehow tainted, less than all his brothers because of something he had no hand in.  He worked hard to earn Ned's approval and admiration, but most of all, he wanted to be Ned's son, not his bastard, not someone who made Ned feel ashamed.  He wanted to be able to call Ned father, just as his brothers and sisters did, and yet he had to call him "my Lord", because that was his place.

When they found the direwolves, he was the one who said to Ned that he had 5 children (not 6), "my Lord", and that there were 5 direwolves.  His own wolf was away from the others, alone, separate, discarded, almost dead.  That's exactly how Jon felt all his life.  WF was a symbol of his father's love, of having a place in this society, of being able to call his father by that name without feeling ashamed.

He accepted the position of LC, mostly because he felt it was his duty, since his brothers chose him.  If book Jon accepts the position of KitN, I suspect it will also be out of a sense of duty to lead the armies of the North against the Walkers and defend the realm, not because he craves admiration, power or a crown upon his head.

I think he would refuse the Iron Throne, if there's one to be refused once this is all said and done.  And if he doesn't die saving the world, he might be the only guy in the history of Westeros to be the 998th and the 1,000th Lord Commander.

Edited July 8, 2016 by WearyTraveler

[YaddaYadda]

8 minutes ago, doram said:

I think it's really important to factor in Jon's mindset after he discovers he is not the bastard son of Ned Stark but the true born son of Rhaegar Targaryen.

This is something I'm looking forward to, how he will process the information (more so in the books though). There are people who loved Rhaegar, people who hated him (though that seemed to be more of a Robert thing), people who believe he kidnapped Lyanna and raped her, and those who knew him very well and tell a different story. I'm assuming Jon knows the same story Sansa knows and will probably think the worst until he is told otherwise. 

[TxanGoddess]

Okay so who is actually even left on the show that knew Rhaegar well enough to testify as to his general character with women?  Just Jamie right?

I don't for a minute believe the show will ever give us a definitive answer re:  rape and kidnap vs honorable marriage.  But I guess if Jamie makes it that far into the storyline alive he could at least tell Jon what might have been most consistent with Rhaegar's other behavior.

Edited July 8, 2016 by TxanGoddess
stop trying to help me autocorrect!

[YaddaYadda]

Quote

Okay so who is actually even left on the show that knew Rhaegar well enough to testify as to his general character with women?  Just Jamie right?

On the TV show, Jorah maybe, Jaime for sure, Lady Olenna perhaps. The Tyrells fought against Robert during the rebellion. Wylla maybe (???) who looked like she was looking straight at Bran during his vision.

In the books, Barristan was still alive, and I usually look to him for any kind of information.  

Edited July 9, 2016 by YaddaYadda

[anamika]

8 hours ago, AshleyN said:

There are plenty of reasons I'm not looking forward to the way the Sansa/Littlefinger/Jon story seems to be going, but I think the biggest is that it's looking increasingly likely that whichever way they go with Sansa, Jon is going to be thrown back into the "noble idiot" box that the show insists on shoving every male Stark into. It's a really annoying oversimplification of all of them, but Jon in particular considering that his book version, while not perfect or immune to making mistakes, is actually a pretty smart guy.

It's even more frustrating when Jon is actually much more smarter than Sansa in the books. He is the first person who identifies Joffrey as an asshole in an early chapter, while it takes Sansa an entire book and her father losing his head to come to that understanding. Jon is playing the game of thrones at the wall, while Sansa is following LF's orders in the Vale.

But it's very clear that this is the way they are writing it and are going to write next season : Jon the idiot, who needs Sansa's gamesmanship to survive. This is clear from the interviews with the writers and actors etc. Sophie Turner laughing about Sansa becoming 'agitated' by naive Jon. Even unsullied viewers see it this way and I don't blame them because that's how it's portrayed on the show. The writers seem to have taken Ygritte's 'You know nothing Jon Snow' literally.

It would be great if they are done with the Sansa/LF/Jon plot or just stick Sansa with LF by the first half of next season and Jon can go and do his own story instead of serving as a plot device to build up Sansa's character development and her struggles with LF. As mentioned above, they need to give Jon some build up and character development to becoming a credible leader.  And I don't see that happening with Sansa by his side.

4 hours ago, Love said:

I have been thinking lately about this....I have read on this thread and others about how Jon would never want the Iron Throne.  When he was named King, he looked pretty proud.  I want to speculate that maybe he does develop a liking for this whole "King" thing after ruling the North, however short or long his rule.   Perhaps his aspirations may change.  Especially if (when?) he learns of his true heritage. 

It would be great if we got a darker Jon. I suspect resurrected Jon in the books will be more dark and do things that not many people will like. Dany got a lot of dislike for doing some unsavory things like crucifying the masters and engaging in torture. I think we will see book Jon do some shitty stuff as well. But I don't see noble idiot Jon on the show actively pursue power and the throne. Others may do so for him or use him to gain power.

If Jon is AA, then I am curious as to who they will use as NN on the show. Arya and Ghost is out of the question since the show has ignored his relationship with both of them. It would not have as much of an emotional impact on viewers I would think. There would not be enough time for Jon-Dany to go that route and I think Sansa's story is with LF rather than serve as Jon's NN. I would be glad if they ignored that entire NN thing on the show as I always found it to be a good example of fridging an important female character to serve a male character's story and I love Ghost a lot and would hate to see him at the of Jon's sword.

[Hecate7]

14 hours ago, doram said:

Then the miscarriage would have been more plain since its purpose was to prove her barren-ness. And that would only make sense if indeed, Dany was holding out hope that she was not barren. As it is, Dany doesn't understand that she's miscarried. She's just surprised at the amount of blood, and confused at the length of her cycle, and probably believes it's all down to her infection and dehydration in the savannah. It's the readers who are putting two and two together. 

 

These are the actual words of the prophecy/curse:

The endpoint of this prophecy is Drogo's return. Everything before then is a condition. So there is no magic keeping the sun to rise in the east and set in the west any more than there is magic keeping Dany sterile. It's just one of a list of "impossible things that must happen for Drogo to return". 

But notice an interesting point here: Dany's womb quickening (conceiving) AND bearing a living child are conditions of it. So the fact that her womb has quickened at all even if it ended in a miscarriage already fulfils one of the "impossible conditions". 

And there's nothing particularly magical or remarkable about the conditions of Dany's miscarriage. She was dehydrated, drinking toxic water and eating suspicious fruits. She was suffering from extreme sunburn, diarrhoea and hallucinations. What would have been magical/remarkable is if a pregnancy that she wasn't even actively nurturing had survived under those conditions. 

If any character seems to fit the "die in childbirth" trope, I think it's more likely to be Sansa. I don't think that would happen though. 

No, because "when your womb quickens and you bear a living child," is supposed to be the preliminary for Dany meeting Khal Drogo "as he was." He will either have to rise from the dead, or Danaerys will have to pass into the spirit world, for him to be as he was. The easier conclusion is that she will bear a living child, and then pass into the spirit world. The alternative is that she will bear a living child, and Drogon will cease to be a dragon, and instead become Khal Drogo? Or that somehow the living child she bears will turn into Khal Drogo, and he will be her son, not her husband, which doesn't quite match up with "as he was." Dany's own mother died giving birth to her, and so did the mothers of both serious candidates to be her Iron Throne consort. So it's quite likely that if Dany ever gives birth, it will be at the cost of her own life, or the lives of the dragons. Once she is seated on the Iron Throne she will probably become far more concerned about producing an heir than she is currently. Obviously Drogo's return won't benefit her much if she's already married to Jon Snow or Tyrion when it happens, unless of course she dies and is reunited with him. It won't make a great story for Drogo to return, murder Jon Snow or Tyrion, and take his place next to Danaerys, and Drogo returning only to be immediately killed by Tyrion or Jon Snow is an even worse story.

I don't see Sansa dying in childbirth, because there's no dead husband for her to rejoin, and no real reason her child is important enough to die for, and because there's no symmetry in any of her candidates for husband raising her child with Danaerys, the way there is in her raising Danaerys' child with one of them, as her mother raised Jon Snow.

[InsertWordHere]

16 hours ago, doram said:

 Dany's womb quickening (conceiving) AND bearing a living child are conditions of it. So the fact that her womb has quickened at all even if it ended in a miscarriage already fulfils one of the "impossible conditions". 

Quicken does not mean conception. Quickening is when the woman can feel the fetus move, which did not happen to Dany. Neither condition has been met. 

[Colorful Mess]

8 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

He worked hard to earn Ned's approval and admiration, but most of all, he wanted to be Ned's son, not his bastard, not someone who made Ned feel ashamed.  He wanted to be able to call Ned father, just as his brothers and sisters did, and yet he had to call him "my Lord", because that was his place.

This post is amazing. It makes me think that, in revealing that R+L=J, Jon will get "everything he wants, in the worst possible way" (Jane Espenson's rules on good fiction writing). He'll probably get titles, titles, titles, approval, admiration, from all directions - when all he wants is to be Ned's son.

3 hours ago, anamika said:

He is the first person who identifies Joffrey as an asshole in an early chapter, while it takes Sansa an entire book and her father losing his head to come to that understanding. Jon is playing the game of thrones at the wall, while Sansa is following LF's orders in the Vale.

Another great insight (ya'll are seriously on point tonight!). Sansa is just as naive as him starting off, but he grows out of it faster. I think in the show, it's reversed. But why give interesting dialogue and complex plotting to the other characters and just let Kit swing a sword? I really don't get it. Are they so devoted to the "who run the world girls" theme that they can't give the LEAST misogynistic male in the series some awesome character development?

13 hours ago, AshleyN said:

I'd personally like to see him get killed by White Walkers

Me toooooo OMG, I'd rather have this than Sansa off him. I can see LF scurrying around Winterfell in fear for his life as a white walker pursues him. What a pretty picture!!

On 7/7/2016 at 9:41 PM, anamika said:

It's human nature and in a sense also allows us to sympathize with Catelyn's fear that Jon or his children would someday usurp her own children's rights to Winterfell.

If being King on the Iron Throne is going to allow Jon the power to make decisions that will be for the good of the 7 kingdoms or help fight the WW, I am damn sure he will go for it or even fight for it.

I didnt even think about her fear of Jon usurping Winterfell. This is rarely brought up in discussions about Cat/Ned/Jon. I had to watch her big confession scene from Season 3 Episode 2 again, to see if she mentioned this as a rationale. She actually says she hated Jon because she was jealous of his mother...haha. Oh, she also says "Maester Luwin said if he made it through the night, he would live. But it would be a very long night..." Jon Snow's Long Night...confirmed.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Colorful Mess

[SimoneS]

So despite all the posters banging on that Daenerys' being infertile has been "debunked" or "isn't true," the fact is that it isn't clear in the books either way. I always thought that Jon and Daenerys would marry and have children to inherit the Iron Throne on the show. The only barrier to this happening is her inability to have children which she believes. If the show resolves this, I can see the marriage happening, if not, I don't. 

[benteen]

11 hours ago, anamika said:

It's even more frustrating when Jon is actually much more smarter than Sansa in the books. He is the first person who identifies Joffrey as an asshole in an early chapter, while it takes Sansa an entire book and her father losing his head to come to that understanding. Jon is playing the game of thrones at the wall, while Sansa is following LF's orders in the Vale.

But it's very clear that this is the way they are writing it and are going to write next season : Jon the idiot, who needs Sansa's gamesmanship to survive. This is clear from the interviews with the writers and actors etc. Sophie Turner laughing about Sansa becoming 'agitated' by naive Jon. Even unsullied viewers see it this way and I don't blame them because that's how it's portrayed on the show. The writers seem to have taken Ygritte's 'You know nothing Jon Snow' literally.

It would be great if they are done with the Sansa/LF/Jon plot or just stick Sansa with LF by the first half of next season and Jon can go and do his own story instead of serving as a plot device to build up Sansa's character development and her struggles with LF. As mentioned above, they need to give Jon some build up and character development to becoming a credible leader.  And I don't see that happening with Sansa by his side.

It would be great if we got a darker Jon. I suspect resurrected Jon in the books will be more dark and do things that not many people will like. Dany got a lot of dislike for doing some unsavory things like crucifying the masters and engaging in torture. I think we will see book Jon do some shitty stuff as well. But I don't see noble idiot Jon on the show actively pursue power and the throne. Others may do so for him or use him to gain power.

If Jon is AA, then I am curious as to who they will use as NN on the show. Arya and Ghost is out of the question since the show has ignored his relationship with both of them. It would not have as much of an emotional impact on viewers I would think. There would not be enough time for Jon-Dany to go that route and I think Sansa's story is with LF rather than serve as Jon's NN. I would be glad if they ignored that entire NN thing on the show as I always found it to be a good example of fridging an important female character to serve a male character's story and I love Ghost a lot and would hate to see him at the of Jon's sword.

Your post a hundred times.  They've seem to have doubled up on making Jon dumber as the show has gone on and more and more unwilling to verbally defend himself.  Though I don't see what he could have done differently in the build-up to the Battle of Winterfell.  Ramsay calls him out, which means he'll have to respond.  Sansa convinces him to lead the battle, using their brother to convince him.  He raises what few men that he can to fight the battle while Sansa whines there's not enough men and for some reason REFUSES to tell him about the Vale army.  So he goes to fight with what he has.  What Jon dumb to fall into Ramsay's trap?  Yes but that was his brother, he couldn't not do that.

I don't actually see how Sansa's gamesmanship is so great.  Aside from concealing information to the commanding general which likely sent most of Jon's army to their death, the only reason she had access to LF's army is because LF is a pervert who wants her and wants power even more.  She could have been rid of LF at the end of Season 4 but she lied to protect him.

Jon is much smarter than Sansa in the book and an even better military commander.  But any great commander is going to struggle when he doesn't have all the information and Sansa refused to tell him all the information for some bizarre reason by the writers.

Edited July 9, 2016 by benteen

[Katsullivan]

On 7/8/2016 at 9:03 AM, doram said:

If any character seems to fit the "die in childbirth" trope, I think it's more likely to be Sansa. I don't think that would happen though. 

I don't think Sansa is going to die in childbirth because I don't think any of the main female characters will die in childbirth. But I agree that Sansa fits the "death by childbirth" trope better than any of the more military women like Dany or Arya. 

 

19 minutes ago, doram said:

This discussion (about Dany's fertility) just reminds me of the anti-R+L=J theories which always seemed so elaborate, and seemed more about avoiding the obvious conclusions because most it seemed to be too rote, too predictable, etc, and possibly elevating Sansa's general importance in the story / justifying a future marriage between her and Jon. Which is funny since to GRRM, Sansa isn't an important character (not one of his big 5 at least), and D & D clearly think they can alter as much as her plot as they like so structurally, it isn't likely that Daenerys (her life, or her potential children) is going to be sacrificed to further Sansa's story.

Yeah, that's like GRRM putting all the R+L=J clues and then turning around to say he put those clues to show that R+L is not equal to J. It's head-scratching because why did you put the clues in the first place? No one was even thinking R + L = J until you did?? Anyway, like you said, it's a waiting game at this stage. I remember all the increasingly elaborate reasons against R + L = J . The most common ones were that it was too predictable, and too Mary-Sueish. By the way, isn't interesting that Dany is considered a Mary Sue despite all her hardships (sold into marriage by her brother at 13, raped, lost her child and husband, etc) but Jon gets a second life and is not?

[Maximum Taco]

16 hours ago, TxanGoddess said:

Okay so who is actually even left on the show that knew Rhaegar well enough to testify as to his general character with women?  Just Jamie right?

I don't for a minute believe the show will ever give us a definitive answer re:  rape and kidnap vs honorable marriage.  But I guess if Jamie makes it that far into the storyline alive he could at least tell Jon what might have been most consistent with Rhaegar's other behavior.

I don't know about Jaime, he knew Rhaegar, to be sure, but I'm not sure Rhaegar trusted him as much as others. It seemed like right before the Trident Rhaegar (or perhaps the Kingsguard) had begun to notice Jaime's disillusionment, especially with regards to Aerys, and he confided in Jaime that he would be calling a council to make changes, in hopes that Jaime might side with him over his father. But I'm not sure how much he trusted him with beyond that.

Jaime also knows about "the things we do for love" if Rhaegar loved Lyanna (but Lyanna did not love him) he probably could easily see Rhaegar being capable of kidnapping and rape, even murder. After he saw Aerys go mad (remember Aerys was a charismatic magnetic individual once too), Jaime has first hand knowledge of the insidious madness lurking in the Targaryen bloodline, it wouldn't be a leap to think it may have claimed Rhaegar. 

Finally, Jaime, while he probably respected Rhaegar, didn't seem to love him like Arthur Dayne, Barristan Selmy or Jon Connington did, so I don't know how eager he'd be (if at all) to clear his name and speak to his character. He probably couldn't care less about how Rhaegar is remembered.

[TxanGoddess]

I didn't assume Rhaegar's name would necessarily be cleared.  I mean, I think we'd all like to think it was a big love story, but is there really any clarity for that even in the books?  I only read the first two .... Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel books came out about the same time I would have read the third ASOIF novels did and her ornate prose totally swerved me off from Martin. 

I'm just thinking that good bad or ugly, Jon is going to want to hear about his father from someone who knew him. 

Edited July 9, 2016 by TxanGoddess

[WearyTraveler]

3 minutes ago, TxanGoddess said:

I didn't assume Rhaegar's name would necessarily be cleared.  I mean, I think we'd all like to think it was a big love story, but is there really any clarity for that even in the books?  I only read the first two .... Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel books came out about the same time I would have read the third ASOIF novels did and her ornate prose totally swerved me off from Martin. 

There's enough in the books to think that Rhaegar was not a rapist.

[Eyes High]

2 hours ago, doram said:

This discussion (about Dany's fertility) just reminds me of the anti-R+L=J theories which always seemed so elaborate, and seemed more about avoiding the obvious conclusions because most it seemed to be too rote, too predictable, etc, and possibly elevating Sansa's general importance in the story / justifying a future marriage between her and Jon. Which is funny since to GRRM, Sansa isn't an important character (not one of his big 5 at least), and D & D clearly think they can alter as much as her plot as they like so structurally, it isn't likely that Daenerys (her life, or her potential children) is going to be sacrificed to further Sansa's story.

Hoping Dany will die conveniently to clear the way for Jon to live happily ever after with Sansa; for Sansa to be someone else's endgame queen consort of Westeros; or for Sansa to end up as queen regnant of Westeros a la Elizabeth I (yeah, right), seems to have things backwards. Sansa has never been as important as Dany. If anything, Sansa would be sacrificed to clear the way for Dany, not the other way around. Speaking of this strange wish among some fans for an unapologetically powerful and ambitious female character to die to make way for a much less ambitious and a more traditionally feminine female character to take her place...

1 hour ago, Katsullivan said:

By the way, isn't interesting that Dany is considered a Mary Sue despite all her hardships (sold into marriage by her brother at 13, raped, lost her child and husband, etc) but Jon gets a second life and is not?

"Interesting"? Maybe. Blatantly sexist? Yes.

I do have to laugh at people who argue until they're blue in the face that Dany is a Sue while holding up Jon as a shining example of a non-Sue. I suppose the unprecedented twin magical bloodline (Stark/Targ), the magical supercool albino direwolf with red eyes (colouring that the other direwolves lack), the magical supercool sword he gets as a reward for conveniently being in the right place at the right time, what I assume will be the completely unearned magical resurrection and a convenient out from the vows he swore, the many women flirting with or outright throwing themselves at him (Ygritte, Val, Mel, Alys) despite his average looks, the many offers dropped in his lap for reasons that have nothing to do with merit or having earned them (Lord Commander, Winterfell and legitimization, etc.) all escaped their notice. As I said, pure sexism.

I also have to call sexism at those who rail against Dany winding up the endgame ruler because it would supposedly be "too perfect" and "too cliche" but who see nothing overly cliched about Jon, the epitome of the lost heir fantasy trope, doing so.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Eyes High

[WearyTraveler]

I don't get all the competition.  "My character is better than yours".... Don't get it.

And I'm sick and tired of people calling EVERYTHING a trope.  I see the word and I cringe. Writing, television, cinema, painting, all forms of artistic expression really, are a reflection our shared human characteristics.  No matter who you are, where you were born, how you were raised, you will experience what they call the Universal emotions (like love, fear, sadness), writing that taps into that is universal, read everywhere, understood everywhere and praised.  These are things we share as the human race.

Our history spans over 100,000 years (since the first Homo Sapiens walked the Earth), so, guess what? Everything has already been done, and said and painted, and acted.  There's nothing new under the sun.  And because we all share our universal characteristics, every character is a Mary Sue.  Every.Single.Character.  They are all an expression of the author's myriad emotions and creativity.  They all represent a part of him.

If we go by logical story structure (the one they teach as the thing that would make most sense).  Jon, Dany and Tyrion are the stars in this story, and everyone else is the supporting cast.  Arya and Bran may be close to stardom, but they are not IT.  Everyone else is peripheral and expendable before reaching the end of the story.  I hope no more Starks or direwolves die before then, but that's just my personal preference.

One thing that is cool is that I don't know what Dany and Jon's roles are in the upcoming war (and believe you me, I read so much, that I don't have a hard time seeing the patterns of the story and its direction most of the time).  All the talk about romance and who is Queen and who is going to have whose baby bores me to death, TBH.  For me, the most important plot in the series is the WW threat and who is the one that will take the motherfuckers down.  Jon, Dany or both? And there's no one other than Jon or Dany to lead this fight in the text; anyone else would be unearned by the writing that came before.  One could set no groundwork for a character to take point on this and that would be a surprise, and earn a writer the apparently coveted "trope subverter" (not a word, I know) title, but it would be bad writing.  You have to set the foundation and build the road for the reader to walk, not just plop him into the story after 2,000+ pages.

Right now everyone's fates are undecided and in the balance, and all the characters have many possible roads in front of them.  I don't see the point of fighting to establish that the character will follow "this" road, when many are still possible.

Edited July 9, 2016 by WearyTraveler

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, WearyTraveler said:

And I'm sick and tired of people calling EVERYTHING a trope.  I see the word and I cringe. Writing, television, cinema, painting, all forms of artistic expression really, are a reflection our shared human characteristics.  No matter who you are, where you were born, how you were raised, you will experience what they call the Universal emotions (like love, fear, sadness), writing that taps into that is universal, read everywhere, understood everywhere and praised.  These are things we share as the human race.

Our history spans over 100,000 years (since the first Homo Sapiens walked the Earth), so, guess what? Everything has already been done, and said and painted, and acted.  There's nothing new under the sun.

While there is nothing new under the sun, ASOIAF isn't "history," it's genre fantasy, and genre fantasy has a number of easily recognizable, often highly specific tropes. Let's call them cliches, but "tropes" works just as well. ASOIAF, like it or lump it, is full of them: lost heir to the kingdom raised in secret and ignorant of his/her heritage, feisty, gawky tomboy who has an anachronistic attitude towards princessing and who wants to be anything but (and despite her gawky looks blossoms into a beauty, because the alternative is obviously unthinkable), superhot priestess whose main use of magic involves sex (and the pulpier the fantasy, the bigger a plot element this is), magical superrace with hair and eye colours that don't exist in nature, disproportionately large number of female characters are superlatively beautiful (this isn't just specific to genre fantasy but to a lot of bad pulp, and the lower and cheesier the pulp, the prettier everyone is), etc. etc. A lot of other genre fantasy cliches can be blamed on the influence of LOTR, and a lot of genre fantasy involves varying levels of ripping off LOTR. GRRM has made no bones about being heavily influenced by LOTR, so you can draw your own conclusions.

I enjoy ASOIAF, but it contains far more cliches than it subverts or inverts, and I'm under no illusion that it's anything more than genre fantasy. Saying "Well, hasn't everything been done before? Isn't everything a trope?" seems to be a bit off the mark. It's like saying the last-minute dash to the airport to stop one's beloved from leaving town in romcoms isn't a cliche because that has happened at some point in history for real. Well, sure, it may have, but that doesn't mean last-minute dash to the airport is not a recognizable trope of the genre.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Eyes High

[WearyTraveler]

I didn't mean it has happened in history.  I meant that our history is so long, someone, somewhere, has already written a character like this.  Because as long as our history is, that is how long artists have expressed their thoughts and ideas in some way.  So, there is, off course, an archetype for every single character we see today.  I don't hold that against any writer.  Bad plotting, unearned developments for the sake of surprise, illogical leaps? That, I would complain about.  But not that a character is a trope.  All characters are tropes.

[glowbug]

13 hours ago, InsertWordHere said:

Quicken does not mean conception. Quickening is when the woman can feel the fetus move, which did not happen to Dany. Neither condition has been met. 

I highly doubt GRRM meant quickening in the context of a fetus' first movements. I would bet money he didn't even know the term for it. He isn't a parent and doesn't seem to have a lot of experience with children, hence wishing he had aged his character a couple years. Plus, if referring to fetal movements it would be incorrect to describe the womb as quickening. Quickening is the movements themselves. It's likely GRRM was using quicken by it's non-pregnancy related definition: To give or restore life to; to make alive; to vivify or revive; to animate. I interpret it as meaning she becomes fertile again, whether it means she's releasing eggs, conception, bleeding again (if she stopped in the first place—it's not clear that she did) or some other precondition for having a child relating to the womb. 

No one is saying Dany will for sure become fertile and bare a living child but since the first three conditions of Mirri Maz Dur's prophecy have come true in the books (the sun rising in the west and setting in the east [Quentin Martell], the seas going dry [the Dothraki sea has dried], the mountains blowing like leaves in the wind [the pyramids being destroyed]) it seems likely that the remaining two conditions (womb coming to life and baring a living child) will also happen. If Dany does bare a living child in the books then it's pretty certain she will not be naming Jon as her heir thereby passing over her own child. It's of course possible the show will have her remain infertile and name Jon as her heir. There are reasons to believe that as well. For one, the show left out the part about Dany's fertility and baring a living child from MMD's prophecy (although they had her connect the two early in season six by saying she won't have any children until the first three conditions of the prophecy are met), and two, the show has taken no steps to fulfill the prophecy, but since the books have hinted that she will have a child (and therefore not be naming Jon as her heir) it should cast some doubt that the show will go that rout since the characters' endgames are supposed to be the same in both mediums and that seems like a pretty big change. 

[SimoneS]

On 7/8/2016 at 0:41 AM, anamika said:

I don't know why Jon is being made out as some kind of saint.

I don't know understand why pointing out the fact that "Jon is not making a claim to any throne. He didn't even want to be King of the North. Jon isn't power grabbing or attempting to play the Game" makes him a "saint." I was specifically responding to the claim that Jon would somehow fight Daenerys for the Iron Throne. Of course, Jon has embraced power when it has fallen into his lap, but he has not burnt his child or murdered his brother or declared war on anyone to win a throne and he isn't deliberately playing the Game to accumulate power and destroy others like Littlefinger. What is there to debate about this truth? Where exactly in any of these comments do I claim that Jon is perfect or a saint?

Edited July 9, 2016 by SimoneS

[InsertWordHere]

5 hours ago, doram said:

Fair enough, but also note that the condition is a condition for Drogo's return as he was. I'm not going to go over again the literary significance of detailing the minutiae of Dany's miscarriage, if it only reinforces the status quo. Like I said above, at this point, it's agree to disagree and playing the waiting game. 

Oh, I agree that Dany is not infertile or at least she won't stay that way. I was just clarifying because quicken seems to be a misunderstood term here and elsewhere. So we don't have to agree to disagree.

I am also more for Jon/Dany than for Jon/Sansa, so I was not trying to beat Dany down to make Sansa look like a better option. I wouldn't call myself a shipper or an anti-shipper of either couple, but for me, I'd like to see Sansa and Jon get close as siblings, only to then discover that they're "only" cousins but still choose to view each other as the former. That, to me, for the two Starks who were the most distant growing up, is more meaningful than Jon and Sansa discovering they're cousins so that they can get married. But I can see the merits of romantic or political Jon/Sansa as well. 

[Wouter]

9 hours ago, SimoneS said:

So despite all the posters banging on that Daenerys' being infertile has been "debunked" or "isn't true," the fact is that it isn't clear in the books either way. I always thought that Jon and Daenerys would marry and have children to inherit the Iron Throne on the show. The only barrier to this happening is her inability to have children which she believes. If the show resolves this, I can see the marriage happening, if not, I don't. 

In both books and show, Jon was stabbed multiple times in the belly region. In both, he died (stopped breathing, lost pulse, was declared dead). Very likely, in both mediums Melisandre will revive him. But how does his body work afterwards, will he need food (Melisandre doesn't)? Will the healed region be like Victarion's "burning" arm after getting healed by Moqorro? Will his body still be fully human?

There are still ways the marriage could happen: if both are or believe themselves to be infertile, or if both happen to be fertile and they know it. Only if one is believed to be fertile and the other not, would there be a reason to arrange a match with a third party to preserve the bloodline and get heirs for the throne.

 

 

As for Sansa, book-Sansa is also far better at diplomacy and smalltalk than show-Sansa is. She takes the time to read a situation and to say what people want to hear. She also isn't one to lash out in anger, the way her show counterpart does. Granted, on the other hand the show character is far less passive. 

[Advance35]

Quote

I am also more for Jon/Dany than for Jon/Sansa, so I was not trying to beat Dany down to make Sansa look like a better option. I wouldn't call myself a shipper or an anti-shipper of either couple, but for me, I'd like to see Sansa and Jon get close as siblings, only to then discover that they're "only" cousins but still choose to view each other as the former. That, to me, for the two Starks who were the most distant growing up, is more meaningful than Jon and Sansa discovering they're cousins so that they can get married. But I can see the merits of romantic or political Jon/Sansa as well. 

I'm not into Jon/Dany but I'm not sold or sworn to Jon/Sansa either.   I just find the latter pairing more likely to be interesting.  This is of course my opinion.  If Jon/Dany end up a thing I doubt I'll care and it certainly won't detract from my enjoyment of the story as a whole, I'll likely just spend their page/screen time wondering what other characters are doing

I like Jon/Sansa from a character interaction perspective, I've heard theories about it before but never paid to much attention to it until reviews began to comment on the characters/actors chemistry.  Between those three characters (Dany, Jon, Sansa), the only one that has held genuine and consistent interest for me is Sansa.   But then, of GRRM's Special Five, the only one that has had a genuinely interesting storyline is Tyrion.  So I think I lose interest in those that are isolated from a majority of other prominent characters.   This is just starting to be rectified on the show with Dany interacting with Tyrion, Theon and Asha (not a fave but whatever).   With Jon he's been given Sansa, Littlefinger and Davos.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Advance35

[anamika]

4 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I don't know understand why pointing out the fact that "Jon is not making a claim to any throne. He didn't even want to be King of the North. Jon isn't power grabbing or attempting to play the Game" makes him a "saint." I was specifically responding to the claim that Jon would somehow fight Daenerys for the Iron Throne. Of course, Jon has embraced power when it has fallen into his lap, but he has not burnt his child or murdered his brother or declared war on anyone to win a throne and he isn't deliberately playing the Game to accumulate power and destroy others like Littlefinger. What is there to debate about this truth? Where exactly in any of these comments do I claim that Jon is perfect or a saint?

Not yet. I hope dark Jon does some crazy shit in the books. Just kidding :)

I agree that show Jon will not do any of those things and will remain a passive puppet that others move around. I was talking more of the book version.

There is this notion when it comes to Jon that he would not actively seek power or refuse it when it comes his way. You are essentially saying that even if Jon knows that he is the true heir to the IT, that he would not make a claim or fight for it. And I am saying that this is making Jon out to be saint. A saint is someone who renounces greed and worldly pleasures and is noble and good and all that. If someone leaves me a million dollar house in a disputed will and I refuse it because I would rather go live with the poor and serve them, that makes me a saint. But I would rather live in the million dollar house and then serve the poor. In which case I would fight for that million dollar house.  I am saying that, in the books at least, if Jon knows he has a chance for the IT and that will give him more power and control over things, he will make a push for it.

Jon, in the books, DOES play the game. He arranges the marriage of Alys and Sigorn, creates a new house allying the North to the Wildlings (Thus saving Harrion's life)  and reveals Arnolf's treachery to Stannis. Jon allies with Stannis, a man who was burning people to death and murdered his brother. Over reaching his bounds and involving himself in the affairs of the realms is one of the reasons for his downfall. Jon DID want to become LC of the NW. That's why he was okay with being Mormont's steward. Jon DID want to be Lord of Winterfell and was only held back by Stannis/Mel's demand that he burn the Godswoods. Jon has taken children as hostages and threatened to cut off their heads. Jon has separated a mother from her baby.

How do we know that Jon 'didn't even want to be King of the North'? We don't see him saying thanks, but no thanks. He seemed pleased to be KITN.

And then there's Dany. She is not burning her child or murdering her brother. She is fighting for the IT because she thinks that it's her duty to rule Westeros, to help the people of Westeros. What if Jon thinks the same way?

I agree that both Jon and Dany will not fight each other because they are sensible people who would see the bigger threat of the WW. But Jon may have the legitimacy to sit on the IT and Dany may have all the power (Her army) to do so. They both want the IT and so they marry aka Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, to bring peace and stability.

I am just disagreeing with the notion that Jon will not make power grabs, play the game or want to be King of anything. I see book Jon as being incredibly ambitious, who would love to be King of everything as long as it does not involve crossing a certain a line in the sand. And if it gives him the power and resources to beat the WW, all the better. 

If Robb's will legitimizes Jon and bumps him to the top of the queue and he has the support of most of the North, I see him accepting KITN and Lord of Winterfell over Rickon. I suspect this will happen in TWoW and this is how Jon becomes KITN in the books.

So far Jon has been holed up at the wall. It will be interesting to see his decisions after he moves south and playing with a different set of rules. Plus I suspect, resurrected Jon will be fundamentally different in some important ways.

Then there's this bit from Dany's dreams:

Quote

Hizdahr will bring me peace. He must…. Beneath her coverlets she tossed and turned, dreaming that Hizdahr was kissing her … but his lips were blue and bruised, and when he thrust himself inside her, his manhood was cold as ice.

I think that's not Euron, that's Jon. While we are worrying about Dany's ability to have children, I get the feeling that Jon himself is going to be a bit undead. Changed and not for the better. GRRM thinks there should be a price for coming back to life and I don't think Jon will be all there. Maybe Dany and Jon marrying is going to be bittersweet and may not bode well for the future of Westeros with more squabbling over the throne after their death. After all Robert's reign lasted just 15 years. 

On the show, I think they will ignore the fact that Dany is currently barren and Jon seems to be all okay except for some PTSD issues. Which paves a way for their marriage.

Edited July 10, 2016 by anamika

[Hecate7]

5 hours ago, anamika said:

And then there's Dany. She is not burning her child or murdering her brother.

Actually, technically she did. Granted the child was dead when it was burnt, and Viserys was killed in self defense, but still, technically Khal Drogo was acting on Dany's behalf when he killed her brother.

Jon Snow, by contrast, isn't even indirectly guilty of his brother or his child's deaths. He never had a child to burn, and he is completely innocent of the deaths of any of his brothers or cousins. This is making me worry and wonder how long that will last.

[arjumand]

5 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

Actually, technically she did. Granted the child was dead when it was burnt, and Viserys was killed in self defense, but still, technically Khal Drogo was acting on Dany's behalf when he killed her brother.

Jon Snow, by contrast, isn't even indirectly guilty of his brother or his child's deaths. He never had a child to burn, and he is completely innocent of the deaths of any of his brothers or cousins. This is making me worry and wonder how long that will last.

Actually - I've been thinking about that, and a recent line of dialogue, and Jon's mistakes in Season 5 sort of put a few things together for me.

In Bran's first Winterfell flashback he sees his father training Benjen, and after establishing their identities, we zoom in on the two boys, and Ned tells Benjen:

"Put your shield up, or I'll ring your head like a bell."

Now that line sounded incredibly familiar to me, but I only realised where it was from when I was doing a rewatch of Jon's scenes from season 5. Jon is training Olly with a sword and shield, and, after beating him down, helping him up, and putting an affectionate hand on his cheek, says:

"Keep your shield up, or I'll ring your head like a bell."

Now, I only really got into GoT this season and I've been going back and watching mainly Jon scenes (but some other good ones too), but this is when I realised why Jon trusted Olly so much, even though he had absolutely no reason to - it's because he looked at Olly and saw Bran. He saw a younger brother, when Olly just was a stranger. If you go back and watch the scenes once Olly is Jon's steward, it makes me cringe how Jon lets him sit in on top-secret meetings with Stannis - he trusts Olly implicitly, and this is after he sees how Olly can never reconcile with the wildlings.

Getting back to your point - we know how this ends. Olly betrays the Night's Watch and Jon has to execute him. And yes, Jon did have to execute him - Olly was in on the plan from the start (his dialogue with Sam in episode 8 suggests that he was wavering on the need to kill Jon, and that's when he accepted it).

But if we see it symbolically - Olly was his little brother surrogate, and Jon killed him. Jon even equates this himself, in case the audience didn't get it, when speaking with Sansa:

"I hanged a boy . . . younger than Bran."

Notice that he specifies how he killed Olly - hanging is deliberate, and can't be excused as a heat of the moment, heat of battle incident.

And is he responsible for Olly's death? He kind of is, in my opinion. Jon, in his eagerness to have a little brother again, didn't see that Olly should never have joined the Night's Watch (and if he hasn't, why is he wearing their livery?). Olly was a traumatised child, who'd never be able to see the bigger picture, who refused to believe or didn't care about the White Walkers etc. Once Stannis left, he should have been with that army. I mean, if Jon was considered too young, at the beginning of the series, to make that level of commitment, Olly was even younger.

ETA: Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying Jon is a horrible person - he's just not a saint, or a Gary Stu (in spite of the mystical special animal companion, special sword, and DESTINY, he just seems the most down-to-earth of all of them sometimes). He's still my favourite character, and I hope that when he says "We have to trust each other" to Sansa, he also means "We have to stop talking at cross purposes".

Edited July 10, 2016 by arjumand

[Eyes High]

7 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

Actually, technically she did. Granted the child was dead when it was burnt, and Viserys was killed in self defense, but still, technically Khal Drogo was acting on Dany's behalf when he killed her brother.

She didn't kill Viserys, "technically" or otherwise. Drogo made the decision to kill Viserys and executed it. Viserys was dead the moment he drew the sword on Dany and informed Drogo he'd happily cut Drogo's child out of her. She didn't intercede to try to convince Drogo to spare him, true, but that in no way changes the fact that 1) Drogo killed him and 2) it was not on Dany's orders. I don't think there's any way one can take "Dany killed Viserys" from what happened, even if you assume that Dany could have convinced Drogo to spare Viserys' life (highly unlikely).

6 hours ago, arjumand said:

I hope that when he says "We have to trust each other" to Sansa, he also means "We have to stop talking at cross purposes".

I read that line of Jon's--"We need to trust each other. We can't fight a war amongst ourselves"--in response to Sansa's apology for concealing information from him to be gently reproachful. He seems to be telling her to cut out all the shady shit (her airy "Only a fool would trust Littlefinger" does not appear to reassure him, either, probably because she was easily admitting she would use people as she needed regardless of what she thought of them); he doesn't even verbally acknowledge her apology, much less explicitly accept it. He's not just saying that she needs to trust him; he's also telling her that he needs to trust her.

It's funny that certain viewers read that part of the scene as shippy; if anything, it seemed like Jon was seeing the real Sansa, or at least the part of her she concealed to most people--duplicitous, manipulative, and happy to use others as it suited her--for the first time, and didn't particularly like what he saw.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Eyes High

[TxanGoddess]

Sorry, this was an error.

Edited July 10, 2016 by TxanGoddess

[Ambrosefolly]

I bang on about this a lot, and this might be because I am an Alexander Siddig fan and was throughly disturbed by Trystan's murder, but I hope that the assassination of Marcella, Doran and Trystan by the Sand Snakes in a meaningful way, especially when Tryion encounters them.  

[bluvelvet]

On 7/8/2016 at 6:24 PM, doram said:

I think it's really important to factor in Jon's mindset after he discovers he is not the bastard son of Ned Stark but the true born son of Rhaegar Targaryen. All his life, he's wanted to be - well - Robb because Robb was the true born son of his 'father' and Winterfell and his loyalty to the North was tied to that. Finding he's a true born son of someone - and someone who to all intents and purposes loved and wanted him and would have given him a home and life and *name* if Ned's BFF Robert hadn't cut him down... Finding out that he had his own Lady Mother and NOT just a Lord Father but a Crown Prince Father... Finding out that Ned lied to him all his life - even if it were for his own good - and was willing to let go to die on the Wall (which was a rude awakening to Jon) before telling Jon the truth of his life... Well, it would be interesting to see how Jon processes this and how this impacts him. I don't think it's so easy to assume just how well or not Jon will handle the truth of his origins and his heritage. I think people grossly underestimate just how much of a MIND FUCK this is going to be for Jon when he finally realizes it.

 

This is one part of the story I am really looking forward to. So much of Jon is tied up in being Ned Starks son that to find out that while he is a Stark, Ned was not his father and concealed this for years will be a lot to take. I think we will see Jon go through a period of questioning his identity.

[Macbeth]

On 7/7/2016 at 10:27 PM, anamika said:

Daenerys being immune to fire was a gimmick used by the show to get Dany out of the Khal's clutches by girl power and not by dragon power (Drogon) or man power (Jorah and Daario). That's all.

No.  There were several instances in S1 that showed Dany couldn't be burned.  1.  She steps into an extremely hot bath in the pilot and a servant warns her it is too hot.  Dany has no problem with the heat.  2.  Dany is moving the dragon eggs on and off a fire - Irri warns her she will be burnt - removes the egg from Dany's hands.  Dany has no signs of burns while Irri does.  3.  Dany says her brother wasn't a true dragon as a true dragon can't be burned by fire.  4.  Dany walks into Drogo's funeral fire and survives.

When Dany walks out of the fire in S6 - you can hear the cry of a dragon in the background.  Dany is a dragon.

[Jazzy24]

1 hour ago, Macbeth said:

No.  There were several instances in S1 that showed Dany couldn't be burned.  1.  She steps into an extremely hot bath in the pilot and a servant warns her it is too hot.  Dany has no problem with the heat.  2.  Dany is moving the dragon eggs on and off a fire - Irri warns her she will be burnt - removes the egg from Dany's hands.  Dany has no signs of burns while Irri does.  3.  Dany says her brother wasn't a true dragon as a true dragon can't be burned by fire.  4.  Dany walks into Drogo's funeral fire and survives.

When Dany walks out of the fire in S6 - you can hear the cry of a dragon in the background.  Dany is a dragon.

In the books Dany gets burned multiple times. Dany is a human being not no dragon. The show is ridiculous to keep putting her unharmed through fire when her book counterpart is constantly burnt when she does come into contact with fire. 

[Hecate7]

On 6/29/2016 at 1:21 PM, SeanC said:

Of Rhaegar's two children with Elia, one looked like a Targaryen (Aegon) while the other looked like a Martell (Rhaenys).  GRRM-genetics is mostly variable like that.

We do not know for certain that the real Aegon was fair-haired.

[Hecate7]

13 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

In the books Dany gets burned multiple times. Dany is a human being not no dragon. The show is ridiculous to keep putting her unharmed through fire when her book counterpart is constantly burnt when she does come into contact with fire. 

When is she actually burnt? I don't remember this. I do remember GRRM saying that she's not fireproof, but that she was fireproof while carrying around and hatching the dragon eggs, as part of some kind of magic connected with the dragons. I imagine that if she's not at least a little fireproof, having dragons is going to be a very dangerous thing, and that her life is bound to be extremely brief.

[Minneapple]

In the books, Dany does think about how the heat comforts her and makes her feel clean, she takes the scalding hot bath, touches the hot dragon eggs and then of course walks through the funeral pyre while holding the eggs. And if I remember right, her hair was burned by Drogon, but she was otherwise unharmed in ADWD. The show has taken "Dany is immune to fire" to the nth degree, which is the showrunners' (fair) interpretation. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by Minneapple

[anamika]

42 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

When is she actually burnt? I don't remember this. I do remember GRRM saying that she's not fireproof, but that she was fireproof while carrying around and hatching the dragon eggs, as part of some kind of magic connected with the dragons. I imagine that if she's not at least a little fireproof, having dragons is going to be a very dangerous thing, and that her life is bound to be extremely brief.

After she deals with Drogon at the end of ADwD she has blisters from the burns on her hand:

Quote

They are better than they were, though, she decided as she picked at a broken blister. Her skin was pink and tender, and a pale milky fluid was leaking from her cracked palms, but her burns were healing

 

2 hours ago, Macbeth said:

No.  There were several instances in S1 that showed Dany couldn't be burned.  1.  She steps into an extremely hot bath in the pilot and a servant warns her it is too hot.  Dany has no problem with the heat.  2.  Dany is moving the dragon eggs on and off a fire - Irri warns her she will be burnt - removes the egg from Dany's hands.  Dany has no signs of burns while Irri does.  3.  Dany says her brother wasn't a true dragon as a true dragon can't be burned by fire.  4.  Dany walks into Drogo's funeral fire and survives.

When Dany walks out of the fire in S6 - you can hear the cry of a dragon in the background.  Dany is a dragon.

   These were instances where Dany shows that she can withstand high temperatures. Apart from the first time where she hatches the dragon eggs (mentioned by GRRM as a one time thing due to magic), the season 6 episode where Dany burns down that hut is when it is explicitly stated that show Dany is actually immune to fire. So immune in fact that she even survives smoke inhalation in an enclosed, no windows hut with falling timbers.

What I mean by the show using that as a gimmick is that I don't think this ability will have any narrative importance.  Dany's fire immunity makes no sense, even in GRRM's world of wacky genetics. Even if there is magic in certain bloodlines, I would expect there to be some uniformity in this. If Dany is fire resistant, Viserys should also be fire resistant. At least a little bit. Jon should not burn his hand just by holding a hot lamp. The Stark children are all wargs - Sansa being the weakest, not ever having done it and Bran the strongest. But they are all wargs.

These inconsistencies tend to confuse viewers. Currently there are show only watchers who are still arguing that Jon is not a Targ because he burnt his hand while Dany is immune.

[Hecate7]

41 minutes ago, anamika said:

What I mean by the show using that as a gimmick is that I don't think this ability will have any narrative importance.  Dany's fire immunity makes no sense, even in GRRM's world of wacky genetics. Even if there is magic in certain bloodlines, I would expect there to be some uniformity in this. If Dany is fire resistant, Viserys should also be fire resistant. At least a little bit. Jon should not burn his hand just by holding a hot lamp. The Stark children are all wargs - Sansa being the weakest, not ever having done it and Bran the strongest. But they are all wargs.

These inconsistencies tend to confuse viewers. Currently there are show only watchers who are still arguing that Jon is not a Targ because he burnt his hand while Dany is immune.

It's not genetic. It's magic. Dany is fireproof because she is the Mother of Dragons, not because she is a Targaryen. Targaryens throughout history have burned, but actual dragons do not, and neither, apparently, do the people who are hatching and raising them, at least for a certain amount of time.

I think in the books, Danaerys' blisters reveal that Drogon is grown. She is no longer his mother; she is his rider. He still loves her, but now he could easily kill her accidentally, and most likely he will. In the books Tyrion and Dany will probably never meet--Dany will go up in a blaze before they ever have the chance. D&D solved a glaring problem from the show by making Danaerys fireproof so that she can actually survive life with Drogon.

[arjumand]

On 09/07/2016 at 0:36 AM, YaddaYadda said:

This is something I'm looking forward to, how he will process the information (more so in the books though). There are people who loved Rhaegar, people who hated him (though that seemed to be more of a Robert thing), people who believe he kidnapped Lyanna and raped her, and those who knew him very well and tell a different story. I'm assuming Jon knows the same story Sansa knows and will probably think the worst until he is told otherwise. 

I'm so curious about this!

I mean, Sansa was clearly listening when these stories were told, and, at least up to that scene in the crypts with Littlefinger, swallowed the party line - Lyanna was kidnapped, raped and murdered, the end. But was Jon listening when Nan or Maester Luwin told these stories? Have we ever read / heard Jon thinking about the history of his own family (the Starks, I mean - he doesn't know about the other one!)? I remember he had that conversation with Aemon when he revealed his identity, but I think that never went into Lyanna's fate. Or I might be remembering wrong.

It just occurred to me - the kidnap and rape is the narrative tvLittlefinger sold Robin Arryn to excuse how Sansa ended up with the Boltons; he tells Robin and Yohn Royce that they were "set upon" on the road to wherever, and the Boltons carried Sansa off.

Going back to the point, I'd hate for Jon to think that he was a child of rape, just like Ramsey. Though if he thought about it a little, it would make no sense for Ned to take care of the son of the man who raped his sister - maybe he'd make sure that the baby had a home, but it wouldn't be his home.

On 09/07/2016 at 0:24 AM, doram said:

I think it's really important to factor in Jon's mindset after he discovers he is not the bastard son of Ned Stark but the true born son of Rhaegar Targaryen. All his life, he's wanted to be - well - Robb because Robb was the true born son of his 'father' and Winterfell and his loyalty to the North was tied to that. Finding he's a true born son of someone - and someone who to all intents and purposes loved and wanted him and would have given him a home and life and *name* if Ned's BFF Robert hadn't cut him down... Finding out that he had his own Lady Mother and NOT just a Lord Father but a Crown Prince Father... Finding out that Ned lied to him all his life - even if it were for his own good - and was willing to let go to die on the Wall (which was a rude awakening to Jon) before telling Jon the truth of his life... Well, it would be interesting to see how Jon processes this and how this impacts him. I don't think it's so easy to assume just how well or not Jon will handle the truth of his origins and his heritage.

This, so much. I was reading a blog which is analysing the books chapter by chapter, and this is a big fuck-up by Ned - the author suggests it's simply a sign to Ned's major character trait, which is really avoidance, rather than excessive honour. And it shows in his treatment of his children too - he seems to have made no marriage plans for Robb, he seems to be surprised when Benjen tells him Jon wants to take the black, etc.

Jon realises that in the show - he tells Tyrion "no-one told me the truth about this place, only you . . " While Benjen could be excused, because he didn't know Jon wasn't Ned's bastard, Ned couldn't. Even Ned's last words to Jon, that when they met again, Ned would tell him the truth - what would have been the point? Jon would have already sworn oaths to the Night's Watch.

Quote

I think people grossly underestimate just how much of a MIND FUCK this is going to be for Jon when he finally realizes it.

The thing is, he's worked through fighting the Wildlings (battle causes PTSD, even in hardened soldiers), fell in love and watched her die, fought a losing battle with the undead and ice monsters. He spent the entire season working through his issues from being murdered, being brought back, and wishing to be dead again. I do think it's going to be a mind fuck, but I doubt it'll break him. He's going to have massive anger towards Ned, though, mixed with love for the man.

I wonder who's going to dare to tell him that, essentially, he had to go to the Wall at precisely that time, as he seems like one of the few people in the entire country who is capable of seeing the bigger picture or even basic mathematics: if the Army of the Dead is now at 10,000 undead fuckers, and we kill 100,000 wildlings, who then rise up to join the Army of the Dead, how fucked are we?

[YaddaYadda]

3 hours ago, arjumand said:

Jon realises that in the show - he tells Tyrion "no-one told me the truth about this place, only you . . " While Benjen could be excused, because he didn't know Jon wasn't Ned's bastard, Ned couldn't. Even Ned's last words to Jon, that when they met again, Ned would tell him the truth - what would have been the point? Jon would have already sworn oaths to the Night's Watch.

Once Jon took the black, he could claim no crowns, no lands, or father children. Maybe that's the reason Ned decided he would tell him next time they met, because next time meant that Jon would be a sworn brother of the Night's Watch, and whatever claim he has to the throne is done and over with.

[Macbeth]

On 7/8/2016 at 6:36 PM, YaddaYadda said:

This is something I'm looking forward to, how he will process the information (more so in the books though). There are people who loved Rhaegar, people who hated him (though that seemed to be more of a Robert thing), people who believe he kidnapped Lyanna and raped her, and those who knew him very well and tell a different story. I'm assuming Jon knows the same story Sansa knows and will probably think the worst until he is told otherwise. 

Poor Jon.  He is probably one of the few people in all of Westeros who couldn't give 2 Fs to find out he  was a Targ.  It would only confuse him.  More reasons to have mopey Jon - not that the show needs to find any more reasons.  He thought he was Ned's son, and he loved and admired him.  It was the one thing that gave him comfort when Cat wouldn't allow him to sit with the family during banquets.

Now - not only has he never known his parents - his first thought will be didn't his father rape his mother?  Good times.  That never occurred to me.  He might go back to the Wall and beg them to finish the job.  Of course he has to get to the Wall before Bran makes it through customs and takes down Edd and the rest of the Night's Watch.

[SeanC]

8 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

We do not know for certain that the real Aegon was fair-haired.

We do.  It was confirmed by GRRM.

[arjumand]

3 hours ago, YaddaYadda said:

Once Jon took the black, he could claim no crowns, no lands, or father children. Maybe that's the reason Ned decided he would tell him next time they met, because next time meant that Jon would be a sworn brother of the Night's Watch, and whatever claim he has to the throne is done and over with.

I don't know,  I hate the idea that Ned could have been so calculating; I thought he liked and knew the kid better than that.

"Hey, guess what! You're not my son, you're not even a bastard, probably! But none of that matters anyway, 'cos if you try and leave the Night's Watch, you'll be beheaded! Laters, nephew! Enjoy your stay at Prison Castle Black!"

2 hours ago, Macbeth said:

Poor Jon.  He is probably one of the few people in all of Westeros who couldn't give 2 Fs to find out he  was a Targ.  It would only confuse him.  More reasons to have mopey Jon - not that the show needs to find any more reasons.  He thought he was Ned's son, and he loved and admired him.  It was the one thing that gave him comfort when Cat wouldn't allow him to sit with the family during banquets.

Now - not only has he never known his parents - his first thought will be didn't his father rape his mother?  Good times.  That never occurred to me.  He might go back to the Wall and beg them to finish the job.  Of course he has to get to the Wall before Bran makes it through customs and takes down Edd and the rest of the Night's Watch.

Yeah. I hope whoever tells him also explains that history is written by the winners (see Richard III being turned into an evil hunchback by Tudor historians and a certain W. Shakespeare), and that the 'Rhaegar the rapist' narrative was Robert Baratheon refusing to believe that any woman would ever refuse him.

This will probably never happen, but I really want one of the dragons to make the reveal, in a 'Don't look now, but an enormous dragon just landed behind you' sort of way.

'Sooo . . . that isn't Ghost nudging my back?'

[Chris24601]

6 hours ago, arjumand said:

He's going to have massive anger towards Ned, though, mixed with love for the man.

Why would he be mad at Ned though?

"I'm so angry that when I was an orphan who would have been murdered just because of who my real father was that he committed treason by taking me in and claiming me as his son and raising me as close to a son as conditions allowed despite the cost to his own honor and stress to his marriage that it caused?"

Let's remember too that the messenger can make a huge difference to the message. Bran, who loves his father and thinks of Jon as his brother is going to spin the revelation from the point of view of Ned's sacrifice for Jon's sake, not as "Gee weren't you screwed out of something important." Similarly, he could share what Lyanna told Ned and even vision of Rhaegar and Lyanna in love or evening marrying with Jon to head off the "my father was a rapist" angle if that's what's needed for the story.

I think profound disappointment that he was not actually Ned's son would be a far more likely reaction from Jon than anger. How could he hate someone who sacrificed so much to keep him safe? Just what sort of life was the orphaned prince of a fallen regime cheated out of by not having been told the truth?

It's also something where I think the reactions of Sansa and Bran will play a huge role in how it affects him (Arya too if she were going to be up there... but I think her story is headed south). Reminders that Ned did love him like a son and that they are still his family (albeit cousins instead of siblings) would help Jon to move past it. Which is what I expect him to do because this is a narrative and narratives have a structure to them.

The big question to me though is one of timing. If the only way for Jon to discover this is via Bran then when Bran arrives to share the news will make a difference to the story. I previously thought Bran might be delayed because the revelation might offer a solution to problems for Jon caused by Littlefinger, but if we want Jon brooding about his true parentage then Bran needs to get there earlier in the season... which also opens up the idea that Littlefinger learns of this and decides to use it against Jon (especially if Bran reveals some means of proving Jon's paternity).

Say Bran gets to Wintefell by episode 2 or 3 and shares the news with Jon and Sansa. Jon is upset, Sansa and Bran decide to keep it a secret because it would undermine Jon as king, but Littlefinger learns of it and get the proof and then tries to blackmail Jon and Sansa with it. How do Jon and Sansa respond? Do they agree or disagree over what course to take? Would Sansa sacrifice herself by marrying Littlefinger? Would Jon sacrifice his kingship to keep Sansa free of Littelfinger? Do they decide to have Littlefinger killed even if it means alienating the Vale? Do they decide to get out ahead of it by revealing the truth themselves? Those are the seeds of an interesting conflict that could play out over the rest of an entire season.

[Ambrosefolly]

I know some like to wax poetic about the great love of Rhager and Lyanna, but even if it wasn't rape I hated it was a "love" story of a woman that was either the favorite wife of the prince or his mistress that he shacked up with for a year, while everyone else dealt with the fall out. If they ran off together, they did it during the eldest brother's wedding, which was really inconsiderate. She didn't want to marry Robert, fine. Considering how happy Lyanna was to see Ned, and that she got him to lie for her to his own wife, Ned might have been able to talk their father into marrying someone else she liked better who wasn't married with children, yes even if it hurt his bestie. 

Frankly, I never bought it completely that Rhagear had some great love for Lyanna. I hoping it turned out Elia couldn't have anymore children, and Lyanna might have had the same dreams of princes that Sansa had, getting her away from an unwanted betrothal, which made her an easy target for Rhagear to have more children. I don't think it would have been Ramsey/Joffrey bad, but it turning out to be its own nightmare. 

[arjumand]

31 minutes ago, Chris24601 said:

Why would he be mad at Ned though?

"I'm so angry that when I was an orphan who would have been murdered just because of who my real father was that he committed treason by taking me in and claiming me as his son and raising me as close to a son as conditions allowed despite the cost to his own honor and stress to his marriage that it caused?"

Let's remember too that the messenger can make a huge difference to the message. Bran, who loves his father and thinks of Jon as his brother is going to spin the revelation from the point of view of Ned's sacrifice for Jon's sake, not as "Gee weren't you screwed out of something important." Similarly, he could share what Lyanna told Ned and even vision of Rhaegar and Lyanna in love or evening marrying with Jon to head off the "my father was a rapist" angle if that's what's needed for the story.

 

That's not what I had in mind at all.

The one thing Jon asked him, at least in the tv show, was about his mother. All his life, Ned left him with this hope that his mother was out there somewhere - when Ned could easily have spun something like what happened to Robb and Talisa / Jeyne, except that Ned was already married at the time and couldn't do the honourable thing. Then add the detail that his mother died in childbirth, and Jon stops wishing for the impossible.

And yes, if he wanted to tell him the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Ned could have been the one to tell him that no, Rhaegar wasn't a rapist. And maybe Jon would have gone to the Wall anyway, because as I have asserted many times on this board, our John Snuh is not interested in playing the game (of thrones). It's about giving him a choice, not creating a fait accompli.

So now he's away from the Wall, and has finally achieved something that he feels maybe his father would have been proud of. Except Ned wasn't his father, others will say that with his Dragon bloodline and history of family insanity he can't be trusted, and he could have known that all along and prepared for it.

I don't know, that would make me pretty angry.

ETA
 

Quote

 

Considering how happy Lyanna was to see Ned, and that she got him to lie for her to his own wife, Ned might have been able to talk their father into marrying someone else she liked better who wasn't married with children, yes even if it hurt his bestie. 

Frankly, I never bought it completely that Rhagear had some great love for Lyanna.

 

Thing is, I read somewhere (I really can't remember where) that Aerys was right in being suspicious of the Northern lords, among them Rickard Stark, who'd set up a series of dynastic marriages for his kids, along with other lords: you had Lyanna Stark with Robert Baratheon, Brandon Stark with Catelyn Tully, and I'm sure there was something planned for Lysa Tully, except she went and boned Petry Baelish. So there was no way Ned could have talked his dad out of that one.

Also, I think they were starting to get together because after the failed meeting at Harenhal, they had enough of waiting for Rhaegar to pull his finger out and move against his dad, while Rhaegar, while interested in moving against his dad, also wanted his three heads of the dragon. I don't think it was true love on his part, either, but I like Lyanna so much I don't want to think of her as a victim, lol!

Edited July 11, 2016 by arjumand

[YaddaYadda]

1 hour ago, arjumand said:

I don't know,  I hate the idea that Ned could have been so calculating; I thought he liked and knew the kid better than that.

I don't know that he was being calculating. I think it was a Maester Aemon situation where they knew there was a Targaryen at the Wall and didn't touch him because there was protection in his vows. Ned kept his promise. Jon was safe from Robert, and that's what mattered to him in the end. If Jon wanted to find out about his mother, at least he was still safe.

I've been rereading the books, so I'm still on book 1 because it's slow go, but I actually laughed during a Tyrion chapter where they explain that Ser Allister Throne took the black because he was fighting on the Targaryen side of Robert's Rebellion. It's a detail I hadn't remembered, but rather funny. There's irony everywhere when we know the future.

 

1 hour ago, Ambrosefolly said:

I know some like to wax poetic about the great love of Rhager and Lyanna, but even if it wasn't rape I hated it was a "love" story of a woman that was either the favorite wife of the prince or his mistress that he shacked up with for a year, while everyone else dealt with the fall out. If they ran off together, they did it during the eldest brother's wedding, which was really inconsiderate. She didn't want to marry Robert, fine. Considering how happy Lyanna was to see Ned, and that she got him to lie for her to his own wife, Ned might have been able to talk their father into marrying someone else she liked better who wasn't married with children, yes even if it hurt his bestie. 

One thing about the whole Lyanna/Rhaegar relationship or "relationship" was that Lyanna told Ned that she didn't want to be with Robert because she didn't love him, and that he would never keep to one bed. Rhaegar just left his wife and children. He didn't live with her anymore, had not lived with them or seen them from the moment he had gotten together with Lyanna. She was in KL, and he was in Dorne. 

Rhaegar seemed to kind of live in his own bubble because of that whole prophecy business. The kingdom went to hell because of his father was left unchecked, and because of his own actions.

Since we'll probably never find out everything that went down between R&L on the tv show because I'm thinking it might be a tad too complicated to devote that much time to it especially with only 13 hours left.

About Lyanna being happy to see her brother, I think she was happy to see him not just because she missed him, but because she knew she was going to die, and if he hadn't shown up, she would died surrounded with people that weren't her family, not knowing what would become of her child. Yeah, she knew the handmaiden, and probably knew the knights guarding her rather well, but at that point, she likely knew that Rhaegar had been killed considering her words about Robert killing the baby if he ever found out, and Dayne and Oswell already knew. I'm assuming the knights had very specific instructions regarding the baby and Lyanna should the Targaryens fall (take the baby and the mother and go to Essos, or something like that) if the instructions were for Arthur Dayne to leave Westeros, then he (along with Lyanna) become fugitives. With Ned showing up, and the promise she extracts from him, at least she gets to die in peace knowing her son will grow up with his family and protected.

This is obviously all speculation, and we will likely never find out.

49 minutes ago, arjumand said:

The one thing Jon asked him, at least in the tv show, was about his mother. All his life, Ned left him with this hope that his mother was out there somewhere - when Ned could easily have spun something like what happened to Robb and Talisa / Jeyne, except that Ned was already married at the time and couldn't do the honourable thing. Then add the detail that his mother died in childbirth, and Jon stops wishing for the impossible.

At the same time, if Ned had done that, and spun his story with Jon's mother as some grand love affair, that would have hurt his current wife whom had come to love. There were rumors around the castle (servants gossip) that Ashara Dayne was Jon's mother, and when Catelyn asked him about it, Ned got angry, asked her where she had heard that, he made sure the gossip stopped. Him spinning some tale for Jon would likely have gotten to Catelyn and made the situation unbearable for her, and for Jon because of her feelings towards him. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by YaddaYadda

[evilmindatwork]

But Jon would have still been a bastard even if he were a Targaryen bastard? I've never gotten a sense from the books that Rhaegar married Lyanna. Not that Jon would know this, but I think he had a much better life in Winterfell than either Dany or her brother. I think all in all Jon will be understanding of Ned's decision to raise him as his own son.