Eyes High October 16, 2017 Author Share October 16, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, WindyNights said: When GRRM wrote Aegon, he's poking fun at a Targaryen restoration by exposing "The Return of the King" as propaganda. No, his "Aragorns" are Jon and Dany, not Aegon. Jon and Dany's ruling arcs in ADWD where they wrestle with the complications of ruling are a fictional response to his comments that Tolkien never showed what it actually meant for Aragorn to rule justly and wisely and never bothered to delve into thorny political questions like setting tax policy. GRRM has his issues with LOTR, to be sure--i.e. the tax policy thing and Gandalf coming back from the dead better than ever--but there's nothing of mockery or parody in his references to LOTR in ASOIAF. He has a great deal of not only affection but also praise for LOTR for the most part and in particular has praised the way Tolkien chose to end the series. It's a work that he loved as a child and which has influenced him as an author; he freely and gratefully acknowledges that debt. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that Aegon's storyline is some sort of elaborate jab at ROTK exposing the notion of a Targ restoration as "propaganda." It seems to be pure unsupported conjecture on your part. The show strongly suggests that GOT (and by extension ASOIAF) is barreling towards a Targ restoration, which again is not surprising given GRRM's love of the Targs. Aegon's doomed, obviously, but that doesn't mean that a Targ restoration is a hideous joke, only that it has to happen with the right people, i.e. Jon and Dany. Quote The Rogue Prince, the Princess and the Queen and the Sons of the Dragon are all part of the same whole. He wrote them all when he was writing TWOIAF about the Targaryen reign over Westeros. They're parts of Fire and Blood Volume 1. So? He still devoted the lion's share of his attention to the Targs. There was nothing obligating him to write loads and loads about the Targs and put out Targ-centric stories. He chose to do so. Why? He clearly finds them fascinating, far more fascinating than I think most ASOIAF fans do, in fact. The idea that he's going to turn around in ASOIAF and wipe the Targs out seems very flimsy. Quote I think we need to acknowledge that 4 of the 6 main characters on ASOIAF are Starks. GRRM told Alan Taylor back when they were filming Season 1 that the whole story is about Jon and Dany. That's two Targs. We also know thanks to Season 7 and the foreshadowing in that season that Jon and Dany not only fall in love but will also marry and have a child or children. Edited October 16, 2017 by Eyes High 2 Link to comment
WindyNights October 16, 2017 Share October 16, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Eyes High said: No, his "Aragorns" are Jon and Dany, not Aegon. Jon and Dany's ruling arcs in ADWD where they wrestle with the complications of ruling are a fictional response to his comments that Tolkien never showed what it actually meant for Aragorn to rule justly and wisely and never bothered to delve into thorny political questions like setting tax policy. GRRM has his issues with LOTR, to be sure--i.e. the tax policy thing and Gandalf coming back from the dead better than ever--but there's nothing of mockery or parody in his references to LOTR in ASOIAF. He has a great deal of not only affection but also praise for LOTR for the most part and in particular has praised the way Tolkien chose to end the series. It's a work that he loved as a child and which has influenced him as an author; he freely and gratefully acknowledges that debt. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that Aegon's storyline is some sort of elaborate jab at ROTK exposing the notion of a Targ restoration as "propaganda." It seems to be pure unsupported conjecture on your part. The show strongly suggests that GOT (and by extension ASOIAF) is barreling towards a Targ restoration, which again is not surprising given GRRM's love of the Targs. Aegon's doomed, obviously, but that doesn't mean that a Targ restoration is a hideous joke, only that it has to happen with the right people, i.e. Jon and Dany. So? He still devoted the lion's share of his attention to the Targs. There was nothing obligating him to write loads and loads about the Targs and put out Targ-centric stories. He chose to do so. Why? He clearly finds them fascinating, far more fascinating than I think most ASOIAF fans do, in fact. The idea that he's going to turn around in ASOIAF and wipe the Targs out seems very flimsy. GRRM told Alan Taylor back when they were filming Season 1 that the whole story is about Jon and Dany. That's two Targs. We also know thanks to Season 7 and the foreshadowing in that season that Jon and Dany not only fall in love but will also marry and have a child or children. We also see Cersei struggle with ruling . She's not an Aragorn. I agree that Jon and Daenerys are Aragorns though. So is "Aegon". Fine, "Aegon" is a critique of Aragorn's Return of the Kings storyline. Quote Aegon, as I’ve said before, remixes Jon and Dany’s storylines. Per the former, he’s a hidden son (ostensibly) of Rhaegar’s watched over by a feigned father driven and haunted by his losses during Robert’s Rebellion, and per the latter, he was driven into exile by said Rebellion, but now has returned from his childhood in Essos to retake the Iron Throne. IMO one of GRRM’s purposes for Aegon was to demonstrate why he won’t be putting Jon or Dany on said Throne. That Aegon’s Return of the Rightful Heir arc is a propaganda coup cooked up by Varys, further twisted and manipulated by Tyrion, is GRRM’s critique of the trope, and so he won’t be applying it to the actual heroes. Jon's not a Targaryen btw. He's a Stark to the core even if he has a Targaryen dad. I mean you could him as a Stark and a Targaryen but that's still 3.5 main Stark characters to 1.5 main Targaryen characters. This is my mindset mostly: Quote Is it possible? I mean, anything’s possible, GRRM can do whatever he likes with his books. Do I think it’s likely? Eh, not particularly at all. I’m not saying there will be no romantic relationship between Jon and Daenerys - quite the opposite, I would be extremely surprised if there were not. But a child as a result of this relationship I think wouldn’t make much sense at all. For one, I think the logistics of TWOW and ADOS defeat any idea of this being true. How long, chronologically, are TWOW and ADOS going to take? After five books, we’re not quite three years from the beginning of AGOT, and the story is ramping up to its climax. Is GRRM really going to stretch out the final two books to be a decade and a half, or long enough that such a child would be able to do more than simply be a name on the page? Is GRRM really going to have Daenerys, the first of the modern dragonriders on the largest of the modern dragons, sit around pregnant and then recovering after the birth while the Others are coming into Westeros? That, I think, dramatically and very unfairly undermines Daenerys’ role in the story, relegating her to a less-active position while Jon and, presumably, Tyrion do the actual martial work (and while it’s certainly not necessary that a female character in the story hold a sword or be considered “lesser”, Daenerys is far too closely bound up with her dragons and will have had too much experience with dragonback fire-and-blood-ing to suddenly abandon that for months on end in favor of having a child). And what would such a child’s impact on the story be? Has it not been one of the central themes of Jon’s story that merely having this supernaturally potent, properly fantasy-hero parentage does not make him a hero and leader - that the truth of that will actually be shattering? Has it not been the very point of Young Aegon’s story to critique the Chosen One narrative - to show the sham of selling a “perfect prince” with an ideal origin story? So then, what kind of message would it send to have Jon and Daenerys have a child of their own (presumably surviving the series, or it would make even less sense to sideline Daenerys for so long)? There are no Chosen Ones, we are all the products of our choices … well, except you, little baby Targaryen. You get to continue the Targaryen line, so it doesn’t matter so much that your super special parents sacrificed themselves against the Others; oh, it’s sad, to be sure, but ultimately it was of little dynastic consequence. No, I think that, while it’s all but unquestionable that Jon and Daenerys will come together in a romantic/sexual way, they’ll both die before they have a child. The bittersweetness is that they will choose to die to save the world - a noble gesture, certainly, but one that assures that they themselves can’t enjoy the world they’re helping to save. It’s sacrificing the chance to continue the Targaryen dynasty, and letting Westeros return to its broken-up, pre-Conquest states, because the survival of the people is ultimately more important. Jon and Daenerys set out to save the Shire Westeros, and it has been saved - but not for me them, nor their line, and that’s what makes it bittersweet. Edited October 16, 2017 by WindyNights Link to comment
bubble sparkly October 16, 2017 Share October 16, 2017 There has been way too much foreshadowing for Dany not to end up pregnant in s8 imo. D&D were about as subtle as a hammer to the head, especially in the last two episodes. There were multiple conversations about Dany's allegedly barren womb, then Jon pretty much told Dany he thought the witch lied and intimated he would be more than happy to put this curse to the test. I suppose this doesn't necessarily mean the baby will be born, but I think the unborn child of the two main characters dying is far too 'bitter' and not enough 'sweet'. Besides, as others have said, GRRM is all about that Targaryen restoration. Also, given how quickly events happened in s7 I don't see why a pregnancy would sideline Dany. She probably wouldn't even be showing by the finale if s8 follows the same timeline. Cersei certainly didn't have a pregnancy bump after 2/3 episodes. 3 Link to comment
domina89 October 16, 2017 Share October 16, 2017 17 hours ago, Eyes High said: But why would they? Even aside from the fact that there's an existential threat facing them all and winter is on the way, you've got a guy who is likely aware he can't father kids and courtesy of an omniscience download doesn't have much of a sense of anything being important beyond the "great war," a girl who has vehemently rejected the idea of being a lady and everything it entails, and a survivor of two forced marriages who has been raped many, many times. I can't imagine three people less likely to be concerned about the need to make babies. Ensuring the survival of the Stark line is going to be very low on their list of priorities for the foreseeable future. I'm not disagreeing with you on this. The only three couples whose stories seem to be aligning to create the next gen are Jaime/Cersei, Jon/Dany and Sam/Gilly. I guess there is a narrative foundation for a possible Arya/Gendry marriage at some point, but that looks to be no time soon, if ever. I can't see Sansa remarrying at all, really. The Stark future is pretty bleak, imo. 5 hours ago, WindyNights said: Jon's not a Targaryen btw. He's a Stark to the core even if he has a Targaryen dad. I mean you could him as a Stark and a Targaryen but that's still 3.5 main Stark characters to 1.5 main Targaryen characters Jon himself has stated over and over again "I am not a Stark." Of course this was placed in the text as an obvious hint that Jon was, in fact, from another house, but it also reflects that Jon never truly felt like he belonged to the Stark family. I think once he gets over his initial identity crisis, he will embrace the fact that he is a Targaryen and that Dany is his family now. 1 Link to comment
Eyes High October 16, 2017 Author Share October 16, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, WindyNights said: Fine, "Aegon" is a critique of Aragorn's Return of the Kings storyline. Again, based on what? Jon (and Dany, to a lesser extent) is Aragorn played straight. Aegon is "the mummer's dragon" or the cloth dragon Dany saw applauded by the crowds in her vision: he's not the real deal, so he's not a "critique" of anything. If GRRM truly intended to critique Aragorn's ROTK storyline, Jon--the Aragorn trope played straight--wouldn't exist as a character. Nor is Cersei much of a comparison; we see Cersei fucking up in many ways in AFFC, but that doesn't mean that Westeros having a ruler is a bad idea. Just because Aegon, a fake Targ (or strongly hinted to be), is doomed doesn't mean that a Targ restoration is a bad idea; the right Targs (Jon and Dany) are needed. 9 hours ago, bubble sparkly said: Also, given how quickly events happened in s7 I don't see why a pregnancy would sideline Dany. She probably wouldn't even be showing by the finale if s8 follows the same timeline. Cersei certainly didn't have a pregnancy bump after 2/3 episodes. Dany was pregnant for most of S1 and was still active and mobile. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that a pregnant Dany will be disabled and useless. 4 hours ago, domina89 said: Jon himself has stated over and over again "I am not a Stark." Of course this was placed in the text as an obvious hint that Jon was, in fact, from another house, but it also reflects that Jon never truly felt like he belonged to the Stark family. I think once he gets over his initial identity crisis, he will embrace the fact that he is a Targaryen and that Dany is his family now. Claiming that Jon is not a Targ makes no sense. He's a Targ, a legitimate Targ to boot. Even the Stark kings in his dream in the books told him in the crypts that his place wasn't with them. Edited October 16, 2017 by Eyes High 4 Link to comment
MadMouse October 16, 2017 Share October 16, 2017 Faegon also represents a mirror image of Jon. He's basically everything people would expect out of a son of Rhaegar but he's false, the Targ looks, his upbringing, temperament, supporters. While Jon the true son has none of that. Its another history repeating itself with Daeron and Daemon. 4 Link to comment
glowbug October 16, 2017 Share October 16, 2017 One of the changes from book to show is how much Jon identifies as a Stark and with Ned. In the show they've really played up his identification with the Starks. By contrast, in the books he's far less like Ned than in the show. There are multiple examples of where he behaves contrary to the way Ned would have. In at least one instance (with regard to sparing Ygritte's life in ACoK) he acknowledges that he's making a decision Ned wouldn't have made and even asks himself if he is his father's son. He's half Stark and was raised by Ned so he definitely has Stark in him but his non-Stark tendancies are also highlighted in the books. 1 Link to comment
MadMouse October 16, 2017 Share October 16, 2017 39 minutes ago, glowbug said: One of the changes from book to show is how much Jon identifies as a Stark and with Ned. In the show they've really played up his identification with the Starks. By contrast, in the books he's far less like Ned than in the show. There are multiple examples of where he behaves contrary to the way Ned would have. In at least one instance (with regard to sparing Ygritte's life in ACoK) he acknowledges that he's making a decision Ned wouldn't have made and even asks himself if he is his father's son. He's half Stark and was raised by Ned so he definitely has Stark in him but his non-Stark tendancies are also highlighted in the books. Book Jon is more like Daemon the Rogue Prince Targaryen than Ned Stark. Link to comment
SimoneS October 16, 2017 Share October 16, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Eyes High said: Dany was pregnant for most of S1 and was still active and mobile. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that a pregnant Dany will be disabled and useless. I don't get that either. Given how the episodes are operating on warp speed, I expect that it will unfold over a couple months and that Dany might not even know that she is pregnant until the sixth or final episode. Even if she did find out sooner, why would that stop her from hopping on Drogon and leading her armies in the battle? She isn't likely to be six months or more by the season finale. 11 hours ago, bubble sparkly said: There has been way too much foreshadowing for Dany not to end up pregnant in s8 imo. D&D were about as subtle as a hammer to the head, especially in the last two episodes. There were multiple conversations about Dany's allegedly barren womb, then Jon pretty much told Dany he thought the witch lied and intimated he would be more than happy to put this curse to the test. I suppose this doesn't necessarily mean the baby will be born, but I think the unborn child of the two main characters dying is far too 'bitter' and not enough 'sweet'. Besides, as others have said, GRRM is all about that Targaryen restoration. Exactly, the story has obviously setting Dany and Jon to produce the next generation of Targaryens. If not, what is the point of giving Jon this secret Targaryen parentage and having he and Dany fall in love? It is typical sci fantasy trope. Edited October 16, 2017 by SimoneS 2 Link to comment
screamin October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 22 hours ago, WindyNights said: There's an AA reborn but nothing about a Nissa Nissa reborn as of yet. Doesn't need to specifically be an exact Nissa Nissa, just as the Azor Ahai figure is not an exact copy of the legend (Jon can't forge a sword, for one thing). The point of the story is that someone near and dear must be sacrificed to get the power to defeat the Big Bad. Since both Jon and Dany can potentially be the Prince(ss) that was Promised, and they are both currently each other's nearest and dearest, I'd say the choice they'll have to make is drawn pretty clearly. 4 hours ago, SimoneS said: I don't get that either. Given how the episodes are operating on warp speed, I expect that it will unfold over a couple months and that Dany might not even know that she is pregnant until the sixth or final episode. Even if she did find out sooner, why would that stop her from hopping on Drogon and leading her armies in the battle? She isn't likely to be six months or more by the season finale. I agree that Dany wouldn't allow being pregnant to sideline her, especially if the situation is serious enough that the world may not survive for her babe to be born in it. 1 Link to comment
WindyNights October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 8 hours ago, MadMouse said: Book Jon is more like Daemon the Rogue Prince Targaryen than Ned Stark. Not at all. Daemon is considered an asshole that danced between villain and hero. These are Daemon's personality traits: Daemon was a skilled warrior described in the histories as dashing, daring and dangerous. He was also ambitious, impetuous, mercurial, amoral, reckless and quick to take offense. Archmaester Gyldayn described Daemon as being as charming as he was hot tempered Book Jon most closely resembles Robb Stark and Ned. He's basically a cynical bastard version of Robb Stark. I used to have a tough time trying to figure out their differences on my first read of the books. 12 hours ago, Eyes High said: Again, based on what? Jon (and Dany, to a lesser extent) is Aragorn played straight. Aegon is "the mummer's dragon" or the cloth dragon Dany saw applauded by the crowds in her vision: he's not the real deal, so he's not a "critique" of anything. If GRRM truly intended to critique Aragorn's ROTK storyline, Jon--the Aragorn trope played straight--wouldn't exist as a character. Nor is Cersei much of a comparison; we see Cersei fucking up in many ways in AFFC, but that doesn't mean that Westeros having a ruler is a bad idea. Just because Aegon, a fake Targ (or strongly hinted to be), is doomed doesn't mean that a Targ restoration is a bad idea; the right Targs (Jon and Dany) are needed. Dany was pregnant for most of S1 and was still active and mobile. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that a pregnant Dany will be disabled and useless. Eh, no. Jon is falsely believed to be the son of Ned Stark. He is King in the North because people think he's Ned Stark's son. (And that's the basis on which Robb legitimizes him as a Stark in the books) He's no less fake than "Aegon", the false son of Rhaegar Targaryen. The critique is how easily tropes can be manipulated to cloak someone in legitimacy and that basing the inheritance of power on lineage is absurd because no one can prove anyone is someone's son so everything is based on belief. Joffrey isn't Robert's son. Doesn't matter, people believe he's his son. Same with Tommen and Jon and Aegon. Like I said, Daenerys at the least isn't being set up to rule. "Dragons plant no trees." There's a large difference between travel a horse and flying a dragon to fight battles, you know. That said, I do think Daenerys will get pregnant but like the Cersei pregnancy, it's set up for a sacrifice. Jaime and Daenerys sacrifice their children for the greater good and all that. Link to comment
herbz October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 If this whole series boils down to Jon and Dany's romance for the ages bringing about a Targaryen restoration (ugh, I really don't like this at all if I'm being honest, I like Jon and Dany both as characters and want them to live but the rebellion to overthrow the Targ dynasty was 100% justified. Not going to pretend that the story doesn't seem to be signalling their return though) then I wish S7 had done more work to make it convincing. Rewatching some of it and it still comes across as really surface level attraction to me, and pretty much all of my show only friends concluded that their boat scene was deliberately intertwined with Bran's vision to make us feel uneasy about rooting for them, which is weird if they're meant to be *the* endgame couple. 1 Link to comment
domina89 October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 7 hours ago, herbz said: I wish S7 had done more work to make it convincing. Rewatching some of it and it still comes across as really surface level attraction to me, and pretty much all of my show only friends concluded that their boat scene was deliberately intertwined with Bran's vision to make us feel uneasy about rooting for them, which is weird if they're meant to be *the* endgame couple. Everyone has a different opinion of whether the J/D relationship actually works or not, of course, but this video does a pretty good job analyzing it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvXXvXsckQE Link to comment
BlackberryJam October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 7 hours ago, herbz said: If this whole series boils down to Jon and Dany's romance for the ages bringing about a Targaryen restoration (ugh, I really don't like this at all if I'm being honest, I like Jon and Dany both as characters and want them to live but the rebellion to overthrow the Targ dynasty was 100% justified. Not going to pretend that the story doesn't seem to be signalling their return though) then I wish S7 had done more work to make it convincing. Rewatching some of it and it still comes across as really surface level attraction to me, and pretty much all of my show only friends concluded that their boat scene was deliberately intertwined with Bran's vision to make us feel uneasy about rooting for them, which is weird if they're meant to be *the* endgame couple. I absolutely agree that we are not supposed to be rooting for Dany and Jon as the endgame couple. There is a reason that they intertwined Bran's revelation with the sex. There is a reason there was no first kiss filmed. And the actors themselves in the Inside the Episode, both made barfing noises about the scene. Nothing about it was filmed as, "This is a romance. You should want them together." It felt skeevy and uncomfortable because we are supposed to always remember that it was incest. 1 Link to comment
MadMouse October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 12 hours ago, WindyNights said: Not at all. Daemon is considered an asshole that danced between villain and hero. These are Daemon's personality traits: Daemon was a skilled warrior described in the histories as dashing, daring and dangerous. He was also ambitious, impetuous, mercurial, amoral, reckless and quick to take offense. Archmaester Gyldayn described Daemon as being as charming as he was hot tempered Book Jon most closely resembles Robb Stark and Ned. He's basically a cynical bastard version of Robb Stark. I used to have a tough time trying to figure out their differences on my first read of the books. Martin himself describes Jon as Byronic hero that is definitely not Ned or Robb. And that description of Daemon minus the amoral and impetuous traits is Book Jon, just replace them with ruthless and pragmatic. Link to comment
Eyes High October 17, 2017 Author Share October 17, 2017 13 hours ago, WindyNights said: Eh, no. Jon is falsely believed to be the son of Ned Stark. He is King in the North because people think he's Ned Stark's son. (And that's the basis on which Robb legitimizes him as a Stark in the books) He's no less fake than "Aegon", the false son of Rhaegar Targaryen. Yes, but Jon's a genuine Targ, which is why your argument that Jon won't be king because he's critiquing Aragorn's ROTK arc with Aegon doesn't hold water. For your "critique" argument to hold any weight, Aegon would be the endgame king, which we can confidently state at this point won't happen. Quote That said, I do think Daenerys will get pregnant but like the Cersei pregnancy, it's set up for a sacrifice. Jaime and Daenerys sacrifice their children for the greater good and all that. Well, no. We know that Cersei was supposed to miscarry in S7. The writers pushed it to S8, likely to parallel Dany getting pregnant. 3 hours ago, BlackberryJam said: I absolutely agree that we are not supposed to be rooting for Dany and Jon as the endgame couple. There is a reason that they intertwined Bran's revelation with the sex. There is a reason there was no first kiss filmed. And the actors themselves in the Inside the Episode, both made barfing noises about the scene. Nothing about it was filmed as, "This is a romance. You should want them together." It felt skeevy and uncomfortable because we are supposed to always remember that it was incest. I would caution against reading too much into the 7x07 insider videos and what you think you saw in the treatment of Jon/Dany in 7x07 (no first kiss filmed, e.g.). Remember how much they played up Jon vs. Sansa at the end of Season 6, both in the episode itself (Sansa unhappily looking at LF) and in the post-episode videos, and that turned out to be a whole lot of nothing. And if we are going to parse the Jon/Dany love scene, what was clear was Bran saying "He loved her and she loved him" superimposed over Jon and Dany's encounter. 6 Link to comment
Meredith Quill October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Eyes High said: And if we are going to parse the Jon/Dany love scene, what was clear was Bran saying "He loved her and she loved him" superimposed over Jon and Dany's encounter. This. I immediately caught that they had Bran pause long enough to have Jon in the shot as Bran said 'He loved her', then another pause until after Dany opened the door and was on screen as Bran says "and she loved him". 5 Link to comment
BlackberryJam October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 8 minutes ago, Eyes High said: I would caution against reading too much into the 7x07 insider videos and what you think you saw in the treatment of Jon/Dany in 7x07 (no first kiss filmed, e.g.). Remember how much they played up Jon vs. Sansa at the end of Season 6, both in the episode itself (Sansa unhappily looking at LF) and in the post-episode videos, and that turned out to be a whole lot of nothing. And if we are going to parse the Jon/Dany love scene, what was clear was Bran saying "He loved her and she loved him" superimposed over Jon and Dany's encounter. I know what I saw in the treatment of Dany/Jon. I have no idea what you think you saw though. And the Jon v. Sansa stuff continued in Season 7 so I'm not sure how you call that a whole lot of nothing. I mean, that resulted in continued animosity between Sansa and Jon, followed by Sansa turning on Littlefinger to kill him. I mean, maybe you thought that was nothing. I thought it was character development leading to plot mover events. Yes, Rhaegar and Lyanna loved each other and it was a freaking disaster and tore apart the realm. That's the parallel. That giving into that love was a mistake. Not that "Oh they loved each other and therefore we should root for them, Incest YAY!" Link to comment
MadMouse October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said: I know what I saw in the treatment of Dany/Jon. I have no idea what you think you saw though. And the Jon v. Sansa stuff continued in Season 7 so I'm not sure how you call that a whole lot of nothing. I mean, that resulted in continued animosity between Sansa and Jon, followed by Sansa turning on Littlefinger to kill him. I mean, maybe you thought that was nothing. I thought it was character development leading to plot mover events. Yes, Rhaegar and Lyanna loved each other and it was a freaking disaster and tore apart the realm. That's the parallel. That giving into that love was a mistake. Not that "Oh they loved each other and therefore we should root for them, Incest YAY!" So Jon is married and Dany is betrothed to someone? Because that and not telling anyone what they were doing was the spark that caused the war, not falling in love. And no matter what your thoughts on "incest" these types of marriages happened in that world and our own. Dany parents and grandparents were siblings, Ned's parents were cousins, hell Starks married nieces to uncles. 1 Link to comment
Eyes High October 17, 2017 Author Share October 17, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said: I know what I saw in the treatment of Dany/Jon. I have no idea what you think you saw though. And the Jon v. Sansa stuff continued in Season 7 so I'm not sure how you call that a whole lot of nothing. I mean, that resulted in continued animosity between Sansa and Jon, followed by Sansa turning on Littlefinger to kill him. I mean, maybe you thought that was nothing. I thought it was character development leading to plot mover events. While Sansa and Jon argued in S7, it was always clear that he never doubted her allegiance, and that she would never move against him as much as he exasperated her. There was never any real suspense that she would turn on him, and indeed she never did. Sansa even curtly dismissed the suggestion that she should replace him. To watch the 6x10 insider videos and to watch 6x10, though, one would be justified in thinking that the hinted Sansa vs. Jon would have massive plot significance in Season 7. Heck, I thought so myself at the time. I won't make that mistake again. I therefore rolled my eyes at the 7x07 insider video nonsense, fake barfing noises and all, and you should too. Quote Yes, Rhaegar and Lyanna loved each other and it was a freaking disaster and tore apart the realm. That's the parallel. That giving into that love was a mistake. Not that "Oh they loved each other and therefore we should root for them, Incest YAY!" Rhaegar and Lyanna giving into their love wasn't a mistake in terms of the ultimate consequences for the realm. It gave Westeros Jon, who's likely going to end up saving it and eventually ruling it (along with Dany). Jon and Dany's love will be similarly beneficial for Westeros, as it will bring a Targ restoration in some form or another and the relative stability that entails. Also, Rhaegar and Lyanna's relationship was doomed because of his marriage and her betrothal. Jon and Dany are unattached, and the realm will only benefit from their romantic relationship, as it will unite otherwise competing claims. 43 minutes ago, SilverStormm said: This. I immediately caught that they had Bran pause long enough to have Jon in the shot as Bran said 'He loved her', then another pause until after Dany opened the door and was on screen as Bran says "and she loved him". Yes, I thought that was very deliberate. Edited October 17, 2017 by Eyes High 3 Link to comment
tangerine95 October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 (edited) I think they very much do want people to root for Jon and Dany despite playing up the they're related thing at the end.The season was shorter so they got less time than I sure would be given to them in a 10 episode season but imo they were treated as the endgame couple we should want.As someone who really likes the couple I wish we got the first kiss and I think it was a oversight not to include it but I don't believe GoT pays much attention to that tbh and it was clear their's was a love scene and they focused on that aspect of it instead of making it more gratuitous or graphic like their usual.I agree the he loved her and she loved him thing was very deliberate in case the audience didn't get it from the long emotional look they gave them. I do think they want the audience to think they're doomed to be a tragic love but I don't think we're supposed to see them as wrong or negative.They don't even seem to want Rhaegar and Lyanna viewed in a bad light and they are very romanticized in the show. Edited October 17, 2017 by tangerine95 3 Link to comment
Eyes High October 17, 2017 Author Share October 17, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, tangerine95 said: I do think they want the audience to think they're doomed to be a tragic love but I don't think we're supposed to see them as wrong or negative.They don't even seem to want Rhaegar and Lyanna viewed in a bad light and they are very romanticized in the show. Hee, indeed: "annulment means that rhaegar must have cast aside his lawful wife to run off with lyanna BUT IT'S ALL GOOD THEY WERE IN LOVE Y'ALL CHECK OUT THIS AWESOME ROMANTIC SECRET WEDDING." The takeaway from the R/L comparison with D/J wasn't that Jon and Dany's romance will be just as tragic and disastrous as Rhaegar and Lyanna's, but that they truly love each other just as Rhaegar and Lyanna did. Also, the reasons for Rhaegar and Lyanna's romance being disastrous had everything to do with external circumstances, and external circumstances only support Jon and Dany's love: their romance and (we can assume) marriage will solve a lot of problems, not cause them. I think a lot of what some are interpreting as "D&D don't want us to root for Jon/Dany"--no first kiss, focus on sexual attraction, etc.--are merely products of the plot timeframe requiring a rushed romance, rather than any message from D&D about how we're "supposed" to feel about the pairing: they're faults of execution rather than questions of intent. Edited October 17, 2017 by Eyes High 7 Link to comment
tangerine95 October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, Eyes High said: Hee, indeed: "annulment means that rhaegar must have cast aside his lawful wife to run off with lyanna BUT IT'S ALL GOOD THEY WERE IN LOVE Y'ALL CHECK OUT THIS AWESOME ROMANTIC SECRET WEDDING." I think a lot of what some are interpreting as "D&D don't want us to root for Jon/Dany"--no first kiss, focus on sexual attraction, etc.--are merely products of the plot timeframe requiring a rushed romance, rather than any message from D&D about how we're "supposed" to feel about the pairing: they're faults of execution rather than questions of intent. lol yeah they definitely want Rhaegar and Lyanna to have the simpathy of the audience if nothing else. I agree they had to fit a falling in love plot in a 7 episode season so some stuff got rushed.I had no problems buying the love story because even before they met I believed those two characters would totally fall for each other and were basically designed as perfect and complementary for one another but I would have loved to get a few more casual getting to know each other type scenes.And making their love scene part of a montage was pretty dramatic and all but not the best choice for a first time love scene.I still think they did pretty well tho,I enjoyed the Jon/Dany storyline despite wanting more. 1 Link to comment
BlackberryJam October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Eyes High said: While Sansa and Jon argued in S7, it was always clear that he never doubted her allegiance, and that she would never move against him as much as he exasperated her. There was never any real suspense that she would turn on him, and indeed she never did. Sansa even curtly dismissed the suggestion that she should replace him. To watch the 6x10 insider videos and to watch 6x10, though, one would be justified in thinking that the hinted Sansa vs. Jon would have massive plot significance in Season 7. Heck, I thought so myself at the time. I won't make that mistake again. I therefore rolled my eyes at the 7x07 insider video nonsense, fake barfing noises and all, and you should too. Rhaegar and Lyanna giving into their love wasn't a mistake in terms of the ultimate consequences for the realm. It gave Westeros Jon, who's likely going to end up saving it and eventually ruling it (along with Dany). Jon and Dany's love will be similarly beneficial for Westeros, as it will bring a Targ restoration in some form or another and the relative stability that entails. Also, Rhaegar and Lyanna's relationship was doomed because of his marriage and her betrothal. Jon and Dany are unattached, and the realm will only benefit from their romantic relationship, as it will unite otherwise competing claims. Yes, I thought that was very deliberate. Why don't you pump the brakes here about what I should and shouldn't roll my eyes at? Because I think you know where that's going. To be clear, I'm not a Stark fan, from Ned to Arya to Jon to Benjen, I have no affection for any of them. So I see them with a much clearer lens than people who feel invested in their stories. I think perhaps we have different definitions of plot significance in that I see setup where you expect payoff. I don't see Targaryen restoration coming. I don't see any setup for a positive payoff from a Jon and Dany union. Lyanna and Rhaegar were doomed because they put love before duty, acting irresponsibility because of emotion. I think you're in for a interesting awakening come S8. Link to comment
Meredith Quill October 17, 2017 Share October 17, 2017 Mod Note: Keep it civil in here please. The whole "I'm right. NO I'M right" back and forth is beginning to get snippy, not to mention being futile and really not worth getting our panties twisted over. Frankly, don't do that or posts will be removed. Thanks. 1 Link to comment
Eyes High October 17, 2017 Author Share October 17, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, tangerine95 said: lol yeah they definitely want Rhaegar and Lyanna to have the simpathy of the audience if nothing else. I agree they had to fit a falling in love plot in a 7 episode season so some stuff got rushed.I had no problems buying the love story because even before they met I believed those two characters would totally fall for each other and were basically designed as perfect and complementary for one another but I would have loved to get a few more casual getting to know each other type scenes.And making their love scene part of a montage was pretty dramatic and all but not the best choice for a first time love scene.I still think they did pretty well tho,I enjoyed the Jon/Dany storyline despite wanting more. I think that part of the problem is that 1) Jon and Dany aren't terribly deep or nuanced characters to begin with (in my opinion), 2) Kit and Emilia are not the greatest actors, and 3) D&D plotted S7 so that Jon and Dany would have to meet and fall madly in love within the space of one season. Those are some pretty significant limitations already. I don't think D&D did the best job they could have done with Jon and Dany's romance in a perfect world, but given that they were dealing with shallow characters depicted by limited actors with limited screen time to sell a love story, I'd say they made out about as well as could be expected under the circumstances. Fans may or may not buy it, but I don't think that has anything to do with what D&D intended. Also, while Jon/Dany isn't the greatest romance I've ever seen on TV, most GOT romances (and ASOIAF romances, for that matter) have left me cold. Neither D&D nor GRRM have shown much talent for writing romance. I almost feel relieved that establishing Jon/Dany as a couple is out of the way so that the show can move on to other things. Edited October 17, 2017 by Eyes High 2 Link to comment
tangerine95 October 18, 2017 Share October 18, 2017 39 minutes ago, Eyes High said: I think that part of the problem is that 1) Jon and Dany aren't terribly deep or nuanced characters to begin with (in my opinion), 2) Kit and Emilia are not the greatest actors, and 3) D&D plotted S7 so that Jon and Dany would have to meet and fall madly in love within the space of one season. Those are some pretty significant limitations already. I don't think D&D did the best job they could have done with Jon and Dany's romance in a perfect world, but given that they were dealing with shallow characters depicted by limited actors with limited screen time to sell a love story, I'd say they made out about as well as could be expected under the circumstances. Fans may or may not buy it, but I don't think that has anything to do with what D&D intended. Also, while Jon/Dany isn't the greatest romance I've ever seen on TV, most GOT romances (and ASOIAF romances, for that matter) have left me cold. Neither D&D nor GRRM have shown much talent for writing romance. I almost feel relieved that establishing Jon/Dany as a couple is out of the way so that the show can move on to other things. I like them both but the show definitely took out a lot of depth they had in the books.They did that with a lot of characters but Jon especially I think.Used to bother me a lot more before when there were books to compare it to.I do think Kit and Emilia do well tho,I never got why so much complaining about that.They're not Lena or Peter level for sure but imo they're fine for the roles. I agree about the romances in GoT,Jon and Dany for me at least are the first one I've liked.The fact that no one was raped,forced or threatened into it is already a step up plus I want some happiness for the both of them tbh no matter how it ends. 2 Link to comment
MadMouse October 18, 2017 Share October 18, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, tangerine95 said: I like them both but the show definitely took out a lot of depth they had in the books.They did that with a lot of characters but Jon especially I think.Used to bother me a lot more before when there were books to compare it to.I do think Kit and Emilia do well tho,I never got why so much complaining about that.They're not Lena or Peter level for sure but imo they're fine for the roles. I agree about the romances in GoT,Jon and Dany for me at least are the first one I've liked.The fact that no one was raped,forced or threatened into it is already a step up plus I want some happiness for the both of them tbh no matter how it ends. Losing all of Dany's yearning for family and someone who loves her for herself instead of the Queen did such a disservice to her character. That's why I loved her this season and S1 those were the only true book Dany moments we got. At least Jon got some of his book, I hate being a bastard moments in show. Edited October 18, 2017 by MadMouse 3 Link to comment
tangerine95 October 18, 2017 Share October 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, MadMouse said: Losing all of Dany's yearning for family and someone who loves her for herself instead of the Queen did such a disservice to her character. That's why I loved her this season and S1 those were the only true book Dany moments we got. At least Jon got some of his book, I hate being a bastard moments in show. I agree,I get that she's an internal character and all that but they could have shown it.After season 1 she got very few moments where she wasn't just putting on the Queen mask to the point that a lot of people think that's all there is to her and I can't really blame them for it.That's why I liked season 7 for Dany,she was finally allowed some emotion. Jon lost all his talent for politics and a lot of his gray areas as a character and is basically Ned 2.0 which I think even tho he wants to be that in the books,he isn't. 2 Link to comment
MadMouse October 18, 2017 Share October 18, 2017 21 minutes ago, tangerine95 said: I agree,I get that she's an internal character and all that but they could have shown it.After season 1 she got very few moments where she wasn't just putting on the Queen mask to the point that a lot of people think that's all there is to her and I can't really blame them for it.That's why I liked season 7 for Dany,she was finally allowed some emotion. Jon lost all his talent for politics and a lot of his gray areas as a character and is basically Ned 2.0 which I think even tho he wants to be that in the books,he isn't. Yep, when Jon didn't one hand choke Thorne I was so disappointed but I don't think book Jon would have gone over well with casuals or at least they thought so. Link to comment
Meredith Quill October 18, 2017 Share October 18, 2017 Mod Note: This topic is for Endgame discussion and speculation. Please take character talk or book comparisons to the appropriate character or book topic(s). Thanks 1 Link to comment
Stella October 18, 2017 Share October 18, 2017 20 hours ago, BlackberryJam said: I don't see Targaryen restoration coming. Neither do I. The idea that the series is about a Targaryen restoration undermines and misunderstands some of the most pivotal things GRRM is saying in ASOIAF. It is commonly known that GRRM was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War and was assigned to alternative service. Obviously through his actions and words Martin has demonstrated many convictions and beliefs about the destruction, horror and death war causes. There is no way to ignore the fact that in ASOIAF that Dany is a conqueror bringing death, destruction and horror to Westoros because of her obsessive belief she is entitled to rule there. She has brought foreign invaders and WMD in support of her quest. It is no accident that the Field of Fire scene physically represented what this means. The scene was purposefully shot from the Lannister armies POV - not the ‘Hero’ winner. How can the dragon fire be seen as anything but horrific nonsensical violence? Even if her attack was a smart battle strategy her acts with Drogon were not. An earlier episode introduced some very normal Lannister soldiers showing the rank and file of all armies are very similar. Good people doing what is asked of them. Whether they want to or not. Small folk being used by those in power. Martin cares very much about how war impacts these type of people. She burned alive countless men she believes her right and destiny is to rule over. It was a slaughter. Then she stupidly burns food that is needed not only by her own soldiers, but all her would be subjects. Recently I watch the latest Ken Burns documentary The Vietnam War. Decent and honorable soldiers on all sides. Endless graphic footage of the war that demonstrates the horrors in pictures; words can’t really summarize the suffering, again - on all sides. One Vietnamese soldier literally described Agent Orange (napalm) as “dragon fire”. I believe GRRM is not going to have his magnum opus end up being a hagiography of Targaryen restitution and an exaltation of WMD (dragons). Others have pointed out that he loves writing about the Targaryens and maybe this is true but it doesn’t prove or mean they are being restored to power. Doing so simply does not fit with his life narrative or beliefs. Sure it may seem that the NK and his ice zombies are the bad guys and that the dragons are necessary to survival. But dragons are not good either. Part of GRRM's genius as a writer is creating the dynamic that makes it seem like the dragons are going to save the day. Yet we have already seen how essentially effortlessly the NK acquired one and turned it into his own WMD. We also saw he seems to be fireproof. So I do not believe that a simplistic ending with Dany, Jon & the dragons winning over the NK is what Martin is writing. The ending is bound to be far more complex and unexpected. When thinking about GRRM the man, the vital things he is saying about war, power and conquest, it seems impossibly unrealistic that he would be advocating for the use of WMD type weaponry by having the person who uses them become victorious. To do so would negate and undermine the narrative's anti-war themes. 2 Link to comment
screamin October 18, 2017 Share October 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Stella said: Neither do I. The idea that the series is about a Targaryen restoration undermines and misunderstands some of the most pivotal things GRRM is saying in ASOIAF. It is commonly known that GRRM was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War and was assigned to alternative service. Obviously through his actions and words Martin has demonstrated many convictions and beliefs about the destruction, horror and death war causes. There is no way to ignore the fact that in ASOIAF that Dany is a conqueror bringing death, destruction and horror to Westoros because of her obsessive belief she is entitled to rule there. She has brought foreign invaders and WMD in support of her quest. It is no accident that the Field of Fire scene physically represented what this means. The scene was purposefully shot from the Lannister armies POV - not the ‘Hero’ winner. How can the dragon fire be seen as anything but horrific nonsensical violence? Even if her attack was a smart battle strategy her acts with Drogon were not. An earlier episode introduced some very normal Lannister soldiers showing the rank and file of all armies are very similar. Good people doing what is asked of them. Whether they want to or not. Small folk being used by those in power. Martin cares very much about how war impacts these type of people. She burned alive countless men she believes her right and destiny is to rule over. It was a slaughter. Then she stupidly burns food that is needed not only by her own soldiers, but all her would be subjects. Recently I watch the latest Ken Burns documentary The Vietnam War. Decent and honorable soldiers on all sides. Endless graphic footage of the war that demonstrates the horrors in pictures; words can’t really summarize the suffering, again - on all sides. One Vietnamese soldier literally described Agent Orange (napalm) as “dragon fire”. I believe GRRM is not going to have his magnum opus end up being a hagiography of Targaryen restitution and an exaltation of WMD (dragons). Others have pointed out that he loves writing about the Targaryens and maybe this is true but it doesn’t prove or mean they are being restored to power. Doing so simply does not fit with his life narrative or beliefs. Sure it may seem that the NK and his ice zombies are the bad guys and that the dragons are necessary to survival. But dragons are not good either. Part of GRRM's genius as a writer is creating the dynamic that makes it seem like the dragons are going to save the day. Yet we have already seen how essentially effortlessly the NK acquired one and turned it into his own WMD. We also saw he seems to be fireproof. So I do not believe that a simplistic ending with Dany, Jon & the dragons winning over the NK is what Martin is writing. The ending is bound to be far more complex and unexpected. When thinking about GRRM the man, the vital things he is saying about war, power and conquest, it seems impossibly unrealistic that he would be advocating for the use of WMD type weaponry by having the person who uses them become victorious. To do so would negate and undermine the narrative's anti-war themes. I really doubt that at this stage of the game, with so few episodes left, that the show is going to make the White Walkers well-rounded adversaries with reasons for the audience to empathize equally with their point of view. Yes, that was what Vietnam was like for GRRM, but he was explicitly NOT modeling his work after Vietnam. I don't think the show has time to plausibly color the White Walkers' motivations in enough for us to be able to sympathize with them, even if GRRM plans to do it in his books (which I also doubt). 2 Link to comment
Eyes High October 18, 2017 Author Share October 18, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Stella said: It is commonly known that GRRM was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War and was assigned to alternative service. Obviously through his actions and words Martin has demonstrated many convictions and beliefs about the destruction, horror and death war causes. In Fevre Dream GRRM comes out strongly in favour of war for the right reasons. I really don't think you can generalize from his objection to the Vietnam War to a simplistic "Dany plans to conquer Westeros through war, and GRRM thought the Vietnam War was bad, therefore GRRM thinks Dany's conquest is bad" message. Also, in-universe, Aegon conquered Westeros through war and liberal use of WMDs, involving the actual book canon Field of Fire, and the result was a period of relative stability and peace. So I don't know how you can read an anti-war message into that. Aegon's conquest, as bloody and destructive as it was, actually worked out pretty well for Westeros in the long run, and GRRM built that into his history. GRRM has also commented to the effect that whoever gets the throne has to be ruthless enough to hold it. I don't think he's as sentimental about the use of deadly or even overwhelming force--provided it's under the right circumstances for the right reasons--as you seem to think. Quote There is no way to ignore the fact that in ASOIAF that Dany is a conqueror bringing death, destruction and horror to Westoros because of her obsessive belief she is entitled to rule there. She has brought foreign invaders and WMD in support of her quest. Now that she's bringing those forces north in the show, she's a saviour, not a conqueror. This is strongly foreshadowed in the books as well, where Dany dreams of using her dragons to melt away her ice-armoured enemies "like dew." Quote I believe GRRM is not going to have his magnum opus end up being a hagiography of Targaryen restitution and an exaltation of WMD (dragons). Others have pointed out that he loves writing about the Targaryens and maybe this is true but it doesn’t prove or mean they are being restored to power. Doing so simply does not fit with his life narrative or beliefs. If you were right, Aegon's conquest, with its use of WMD and all, would be presented in very different terms, rather than as the founding act of a dynasty that reigned for many years, brought relative peace and stability to Westeros, and eventually produced two of the three leading characters of ASOIAF (three if you buy A+J=T) who are destined to save Westeros at the very least. On another note, one of the reasons I think we're looking at a full Targ restoration comes from Jorah's suggestion that Jon give Longclaw "to [his] children." Not child, but children. That raises the possibility that Dany and Jon live long enough to have multiple kids together. To be fair, that could be in the form of a twin or triplet pregnancy, but it could equally be the case that Dany and Jon live long enough for Dany to conceive and bear multiple children by Jon. Edited October 18, 2017 by Eyes High 2 Link to comment
WindyNights October 18, 2017 Share October 18, 2017 (edited) On 10/17/2017 at 8:53 AM, MadMouse said: Martin himself describes Jon as Byronic hero that is definitely not Ned or Robb. And that description of Daemon minus the amoral and impetuous traits is Book Jon, just replace them with ruthless and pragmatic. The term "Byronic Hero" is a fluid concept that encompasses anything from an Emo Teen to a Jerk with a Heart of Gold. But the original Byronic hero wouldn't fit Daemon Targaryen because he's missing three essential ingredients: he's not an outsider(which I grant could be debatable), he doesn't have any ideals and he doesn't have any internal conflict that we're aware of. Book Jon isn't ruthless btw or he wouldn't have done some of the things that got him killed in ADWD. Edited October 18, 2017 by WindyNights Link to comment
WindyNights October 18, 2017 Share October 18, 2017 (edited) On 10/17/2017 at 10:45 AM, Eyes High said: Yes, but Jon's a genuine Targ, which is why your argument that Jon won't be king because he's critiquing Aragorn's ROTK arc with Aegon doesn't hold water. For your "critique" argument to hold any weight, Aegon would be the endgame king, which we can confidently state at this point won't happen. Well, no. We know that Cersei was supposed to miscarry in S7. The writers pushed it to S8, likely to parallel Dany getting pregnant. 1) No one will be the endgame king. That's the subversion. Westeros so utterly wrecked itself that the bond between the throne and its vassals has vanished (exemplified by KL and the Iron Throne's destruction). Daenerys is the last chance that Westeros has for a unifying figure and she proves herself worthy of the crown by sacrificing everything including her house, child and throne to be the Protector of the Realm. If you follow the dominoes that GRRM has set up, it seems like the future is being set up for a Vale-Riverlands-the North kingdom under Sansa's control or at the very least Stark control. 2) I think they realized that they wanted Jaime to kill her while she was pregnant. It's more shocking and uncomfortable that way. Like I don't think Cersei will get pregnant in the books and if she does itll be Kettleblack's not Jaime's due to the timeline. 1 hour ago, Eyes High said: In Fevre Dream GRRM comes out strongly in favour of war for the right reasons. I really don't think you can generalize from his objection to the Vietnam War to a simplistic "Dany plans to conquer Westeros through war, and GRRM thought the Vietnam War was bad, therefore GRRM thinks Dany's conquest is bad" message. Also, in-universe, Aegon conquered Westeros through war and liberal use of WMDs, involving the actual book canon Field of Fire, and the result was a period of relative stability and peace. So I don't know how you can read an anti-war message into that. Aegon's conquest, as bloody and destructive as it was, actually worked out pretty well for Westeros in the long run, and GRRM built that into his history. GRRM has also commented to the effect that whoever gets the throne has to be ruthless enough to hold it. I don't think he's as sentimental about the use of deadly or even overwhelming force--provided it's under the right circumstances for the right reasons--as you seem to think. Now that she's bringing those forces north in the show, she's a saviour, not a conqueror. This is strongly foreshadowed in the books as well, where Dany dreams of using her dragons to melt away her ice-armoured enemies "like dew." If you were right, Aegon's conquest, with its use of WMD and all, would be presented in very different terms, rather than as the founding act of a dynasty that reigned for many years, brought relative peace and stability to Westeros, and eventually produced two of the three leading characters of ASOIAF (three if you buy A+J=T) who are destined to save Westeros at the very least. On another note, one of the reasons I think we're looking at a full Targ restoration comes from Jorah's suggestion that Jon give Longclaw "to [his] children." Not child, but children. That raises the possibility that Dany and Jon live long enough to have multiple kids together. To be fair, that could be in the form of a twin or triplet pregnancy, but it could equally be the case that Dany and Jon live long enough for Dany to conceive and bear multiple children by Jon. The conquest of Westeros is seen as a bad thing within the series. GRRM brings up multiple times that the true threat is the Others and compares the civil war to a bunch of politicians jockeying for power as we march onwards to our own self-annihilation. Teora gave a tiny nod, chin trembling. "They were dancing. In my dream. And everywhere the dragons danced the people died." GRRM himself even compares the dragons to nukes and says that he wanted to show that power to destroy doesn't necessarily give power to reform. Edited October 18, 2017 by WindyNights Link to comment
SeanC October 19, 2017 Share October 19, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, WindyNights said: The conquest of Westeros is seen as a bad thing within the series. GRRM brings up multiple times that the true threat is the Others and compares the civil war to a bunch of politicians jockeying for power as we march onwards to our own self-annihilation. How does that equate to the conquest of Westeros being a bad thing? Jockeying for position was not something the Targaryens invented; it just previously took place in 7/8/100 kingdoms, as opposed to one, and pre-unification the kingdoms were constantly at war with each other. There have been plenty of positives from a unified Westeros, based on the information we've been given. Edited October 19, 2017 by SeanC 5 Link to comment
MadMouse October 19, 2017 Share October 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, SeanC said: How does that equate to the conquest of Westeros being a bad thing? Jockeying for position was not something the Targaryens invented; it just previously took place in 7/8/100 kingdoms, as opposed to one, and pre-unification the kingdoms were constantly at war with each other. There have been plenty of positives from a unified Westeros, based on the information we've been given. The Targaryens seem to have been the only family to have built anything in Westeros (systems of roads, the capital, the Red Keep, the Sept of Baelor) in the last couple thousands years but remember the dragons don't plant trees. lol 4 Link to comment
SimoneS October 19, 2017 Share October 19, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, WindyNights said: The conquest of Westeros is seen as a bad thing within the series. GRRM brings up multiple times that the true threat is the Others and compares the civil war to a bunch of politicians jockeying for power as we march onwards to our own self-annihilation. The show is setting it up for Jon and Dany to defeat the Others before they turn their attention to Cersei so there isn't going to be any self-annihilation and conquering and rescuing Westeros from Cersei cannot be "a bad thing" in any context. No sci fantasy story ends without someone on a throne so most likely Jon and Dany will be ruling together with their child as the future Targaryen ruler. Edited October 19, 2017 by SimoneS 1 Link to comment
bubble sparkly October 19, 2017 Share October 19, 2017 It’s also possible that the remaining 2 dragons die during the fight with the WW, so they won’t be around to cause any problems in Westeros after JD kick Cersei to curb. Or else maybe they leave Dany behind and fly off to live somewhere else when they become the dragon equivalent of young adults. Link to comment
ElizaD October 19, 2017 Share October 19, 2017 GRRM's actual quote about Vietnam: I was, like many kids of my generation, a hawk. I accepted that America was the good guys, we had to be there. When I got into college, the more I learned about our involvement in Vietnam, the more it seemed wrong to me. Of course, the draft was happening, and I decided to ask for the conscientious-objector status. I wasn't a complete pacifist; I couldn't claim to be that. I was what they called an objector to a particular war. I would have been glad to fight in World War II. But Vietnam was the only war on the menu. I truly don't believe that his well-founded objections to Vietnam mean that the Others will suddenly, out of nowhere, deliver the Westerosi version of an unjustified war rather than a zombie apocalypse where the enemy is far more destructive than in WWII, a war in which GRRM says he would have been willing to fight. We're in book 5 and there's not even the slightest in-book hint that the Others are not a terrible threat to human life, only out-of-book interpretations of GRRM's intentions and beliefs. The "war is hell" theme has already been explored in depth through the misery of the Riverlands at the hands of various forces, but being realistic enough to point out that no side is 100% good doesn't necessarily mean that the writer is anti-war. A Targaryen restoration is going to end the war with a return to power of a royal house that currently consists of rulers (Jon and/or Dany) that everyone still living can agree to respect and obey without losing face: they have the claims and they'll have saved the realm from the Others. If the NK and wight Viserion kill the remaining two dragons, that even solves the WMD problem. If Jon and Dany actually have to learn to rule (going back to that awful "Aragorn's tax policy" comment that is so dismissive of the kind of story Tolkien was telling), that's another thing in favor of both of them living: they can't just die heroically or sail west after torching the problem, they have to stick around and do the tedious, difficult task of actually ruling, making the day-to-day decisions that will improve the lives of their subjects and slowly rebuild the realm so that it can recover from the various wars in an age of peace. 4 Link to comment
Eyes High October 19, 2017 Author Share October 19, 2017 On the WMDs issue, I'd just add that GRRM has also set up a conflict where WMDs are not only going to save the world from an existential threat, they're the only thing that can. 8 hours ago, MadMouse said: The Targaryens seem to have been the only family to have built anything in Westeros (systems of roads, the capital, the Red Keep, the Sept of Baelor) in the last couple thousands years but remember the dragons don't plant trees. lol Yup. What have the Romans Targaryens ever done for us? 6 hours ago, ElizaD said: If Jon and Dany actually have to learn to rule (going back to that awful "Aragorn's tax policy" comment that is so dismissive of the kind of story Tolkien was telling), that's another thing in favor of both of them living: they can't just die heroically or sail west after torching the problem, they have to stick around and do the tedious, difficult task of actually ruling, making the day-to-day decisions that will improve the lives of their subjects and slowly rebuild the realm so that it can recover from the various wars in an age of peace. I'm sure Jon and Dany, especially Jon, would like nothing better than to die heroically and be relieved of the tedious, messy business of ruling. I doubt it will be that easy for them, though. 1 Link to comment
WindyNights October 19, 2017 Share October 19, 2017 11 hours ago, Eyes High said: On the WMDs issue, I'd just add that GRRM has also set up a conflict where WMDs are not only going to save the world from an existential threat, they're the only thing that can. Yup. What have the Romans Targaryens ever done for us? I'm sure Jon and Dany, especially Jon, would like nothing better than to die heroically and be relieved of the tedious, messy business of ruling. I doubt it will be that easy for them, though. GRRM has also set it up where dragons will cause massive devastation to Westeros(in his books): Teora gave a tiny nod, chin trembling. "They were dancing. In my dream. And everywhere the dragons danced the people died." Hell, he and the show have set up the bad guys getting their hands on the WMDs/dragons. In the show, the White Walkers would have never broken through the Wall without a dragon so the dragons led to the invasion. 18 hours ago, ElizaD said: GRRM's actual quote about Vietnam: I truly don't believe that his well-founded objections to Vietnam mean that the Others will suddenly, out of nowhere, deliver the Westerosi version of an unjustified war rather than a zombie apocalypse where the enemy is far more destructive than in WWII, a war in which GRRM says he would have been willing to fight. We're in book 5 and there's not even the slightest in-book hint that the Others are not a terrible threat to human life, only out-of-book interpretations of GRRM's intentions and beliefs. The "war is hell" theme has already been explored in depth through the misery of the Riverlands at the hands of various forces, but being realistic enough to point out that no side is 100% good doesn't necessarily mean that the writer is anti-war. A Targaryen restoration is going to end the war with a return to power of a royal house that currently consists of rulers (Jon and/or Dany) that everyone still living can agree to respect and obey without losing face: they have the claims and they'll have saved the realm from the Others. If the NK and wight Viserion kill the remaining two dragons, that even solves the WMD problem. If Jon and Dany actually have to learn to rule (going back to that awful "Aragorn's tax policy" comment that is so dismissive of the kind of story Tolkien was telling), that's another thing in favor of both of them living: they can't just die heroically or sail west after torching the problem, they have to stick around and do the tedious, difficult task of actually ruling, making the day-to-day decisions that will improve the lives of their subjects and slowly rebuild the realm so that it can recover from the various wars in an age of peace. I think saving the world is Dany and Jon's lot. I think helping rebuild the world is other people's work like Sansa and Bran and whoever else is left. I mean I'm also kind of cheating and using Daenerys' book trajectory to predict her show trajectory. Like the show kind of touches on Daenerys being opposed by some of the people in Westeros but the books seem to be going in the direction of Hero with Bad Publicity and I can't see Westeros letting Daenerys rule when no one wants her. (I predict her being in a similar situation to Stannis and it's a common theme in the series. The falseborn are more popular than the rightful King/Queen) Link to comment
WindyNights October 19, 2017 Share October 19, 2017 20 hours ago, SeanC said: How does that equate to the conquest of Westeros being a bad thing? Jockeying for position was not something the Targaryens invented; it just previously took place in 7/8/100 kingdoms, as opposed to one, and pre-unification the kingdoms were constantly at war with each other. There have been plenty of positives from a unified Westeros, based on the information we've been given. I didn't mean Aegon's Conquest. I meant Daenerys' Conquest of Westeros. 20 hours ago, SimoneS said: The show is setting it up for Jon and Dany to defeat the Others before they turn their attention to Cersei so there isn't going to be any self-annihilation and conquering and rescuing Westeros from Cersei cannot be "a bad thing" in any context. No sci fantasy story ends without someone on a throne so most likely Jon and Dany will be ruling together with their child as the future Targaryen ruler. I don't think there will be any turning attention to Cersei. Jaime is going to kill her in the middle of the Others' invasion so the GC stop attacking Jon and Dany. That's the set up. Daenerys and the NK die against each other and Jon ??? Plus there won't be anyone on the Iron Throne at the end. Chekhov's wildfire says KL and the Iron Throne get destroyed. Maybe there'll be a different throne somewhere else but I don't think that would be a Targaryen throne. Link to comment
bubble sparkly October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 On 10/19/2017 at 4:53 PM, ElizaD said: If Jon and Dany actually have to learn to rule (going back to that awful "Aragorn's tax policy" comment that is so dismissive of the kind of story Tolkien was telling), that's another thing in favor of both of them living Maybe the final episode of the series will be a sold hour (or 1.5 hours) of tax policy discussions lol? Just Dany, Jon & co sitting around and debating boring issues and writing policies. Should Westeros try to implement trickle down economics or is it indeed a myth? Will someone try to champion communist policies? The audience will be on the edge of its seat lol. 3 Link to comment
screamin October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 14 hours ago, WindyNights said: GRRM has also set it up where dragons will cause massive devastation to Westeros(in his books): So did the only military use of atom bombs cause massive devastation. Yet GRRM remembers WWII as a war he felt just enough that he could have fought in it on the Allies' side. At the time the bombs were used to bring a quick end to the war and avoid a bloody invasion. It did that. It brought about a great many civilian deaths in a horrifying manner. Military historians have argued that the bombings were unnecessary and Japan would have surrendered anyway without a general invasion. Other military historians have pointed out that the military government of Japan was making plans to arm and train all civilians to fight invaders to the very last man and inch of soil, and posit that a general invasion would have killed many more civilians than the bombs did. The argument goes on (and should). But IMO, the fact that GRRM remembers WWII as a just war gives the lie to the notion that because he's compared the dragons to the atom bomb, he thinks that the use of them is an unalloyed evil that the user WILL be punished for by his plot (as long as she's named Dany and not Aegon, for some reason). The Allies were the only ones who ever used nuclear weapons in war. Yet GRRM considers their side the just side that he feels he could have fought for without moral qualm. Ergo, GRRM probably concedes that there ARE valid causes to use even that worst of weapons. He might consider Dany in the wrong if she were laying waste to Westeros solely because of her claim to the throne (as she originally planned), especially if she were overthrowing a ruler who was at least marginally humane and competent. But Dany is way past that point now. She's seen the real threat, and she had the moral fiber to realize that THIS is the best use her weapons can be put to, and she even was worthy enough to put aside the war she could have won for her throne to concentrate on that worthier cause. Having done that, I think it would be simpleminded and unjustified for the plot to punish her by death because she DARED once contemplate to use dragons solely to restore her throne, as if even PLANNING it were an unforgivable wickedness that the moral of the story required her death for. I think the analogy of dragons with the atom bomb is inexact, anyway. Dragons, unlike the bomb, can be aimed at specific targets and do not devastate many square miles of territory indiscriminately (along with whatever civilians dwell in these, without care or exception). They also do not poison the land, causing death years after the war they were used in is over. So IMO, the use of dragons in war as often as Dany has used them isn't as heinous as if she were using atom bombs as often. I think that GRRM used the analogy 'atom bomb' to mean that if only one side has it (as the Allies did) it's a trump card that no opponent can stand against - not that dragons are intrinsically an evil weapon that condemns anyone who uses them irrevocably as evil. So I think that if Dany does use the dragons against Cersei (especially if Cersei attacks her from the rear, thus endangering the fight for the world's safety as well as Dany's own army and life) - I don't think this means that Dany would be wicked for doing so and therefore doomed to be punished by GRRM with death at the end of the story. I think Jon, on the other hand, since he's already died once and is living on borrowed time for a purpose the gods have granted but not yet explained, is the likelier target for that death. 1 Link to comment
domina89 October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, WindyNights said: I think saving the world is Dany and Jon's lot. I think helping rebuild the world is other people's work like Sansa and Bran and whoever else is left. We have seen over the course of seven seasons both Jon and Dany's slow build up to becoming rulers, but the narrative so far has not really provided us with much foreshadowing of either Bran or Sansa (or anyone else except perhaps Tyrion) being set up as future rulers. Sansa, uncomfortably, seems to be on a parallel track to become the next Cersei which, frankly, makes her more of a threat to Westeros than a savior, imo. If Jon and/or Dany have come this far just to die and leave Westeros in the hands of whoever is left, then what was the point of their respective journeys? What was the point of all the visual parallels between the two throughout the series? What was the point of revealing R+L=J and establishing the possibility of future Targs? Obviously I like both characters, but, even if I didn't, that ending just doesn't compute for me based on everything that has happened in the story so far. I don't expect a happy ending, but I do expect a logical one. Edited October 20, 2017 by domina89 1 Link to comment
herbz October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, domina89 said: We have seen over the course of seven seasons both Jon and Dany's slow build up to becoming rulers, but the narrative so far has not really provided us with much foreshadowing of either Bran or Sansa (or anyone else except perhaps Tyrion) being set up as future rulers. Sansa, uncomfortably, seems to be on a parallel track to become the next Cersei which, frankly, makes her more of a threat to Westeros than a savior, imo. If Jon and/or Dany have come this far just to die and leave Westeros in the hands of whoever is left, then what was the point of their respective journeys? What was the point of all the visual parallels between the two throughout the series? What was the point of revealing R+L=J and establishing the possibility of future Targs? Obviously I like both characters, but, even if I didn't, that ending just doesn't compute for me based on everything that has happened in the story so far. I don't expect a happy ending, but I do expect a logical one. I'm not the character's greatest fan by any means, but I'm going to have to disagree with that part about Sansa- she might've said that she learned a lot from Cersei (though you could interpret this as Sansa learning as much what not to do from her. I love the part in the book where Cersei is blathering on about ruling with an iron fist and Sansa is like 'if I ever become queen I'll make them love me') but her actual actions in S7 were most un Cersei-like. Considering she's just about the only person in Westeros currently concerned about food supplies, she's settled things with Arya, and hasn't taken the North even when the lords offered it to her on a plate, I think the likelihood of her becoming a threat to Westeros is pretty low. Certainly not greater than Dany, who still has the firepower to do real damage, even though it seems that she has now firmly chosen to steer away from that path in favour of saving the realm instead. If you'd asked me after reading ADWD if Dany would sit the throne, I'd have categorically stated no. Her whole arc in that book is of *failed* leadership- she makes a right bloody mess of Meereen and her embracing 'fire and blood' and rejecting peace and her better nature was ominous af. Her cause in Essos was justified and her upcoming conquest of Westeros would not be. She'd never be an outright villain, she'd still have an ultimately kind heart, but it's no stretch to see why Westeros wouldn't see that from someone who proclaims 'I am my father's daughter' and 'I will burn their cities to the ground'. A tragic heroine through and through- can't 'win' (not that the Iron Throne is any great prize) with her dragons, can't win without them. Sacrificing herself/her dragons to save the realm she came to conquer after unleashing yet more chaos on it seemed a fitting end given that trajectory. Now, with the gold plated plot armour her inevitable pregnancy gives her (Chekhov's womb?) I'm having to rethink all of my previous feelings on that arc. Edited October 20, 2017 by herbz 2 Link to comment
Eyes High October 20, 2017 Author Share October 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, domina89 said: We have seen over the course of seven seasons both Jon and Dany's slow build up to becoming rulers, but the narrative so far has not really provided us with much foreshadowing of either Bran or Sansa (or anyone else except perhaps Tyrion) being set up as future rulers. Bran, Tyrion and Sansa aren't being set up as future rulers of Westeros, in either the books or the show. Neither Tyrion nor Sansa received a ruling dry run the way Jon and Dany did in ADWD. Tyrion (if he lives) will likely end up as Hand to Jon and/or Dany (although given how precarious Tyrion's relationship with Dany currently is in the show, it will be interesting to see what happens there). Sansa (if she lives) will likely end up as Lady of Winterfell/the Vale/Riverrun/what have you, something she has been prepared for in both the books and the show. Bran did have a taste of ruling Winterfell in ACOK, but if his "I can't be lord of anything" attitude transfers to the books, it's quite unlikely that we'll see him as LOW in the end, much less as king of Westeros. Quote If Jon and/or Dany have come this far just to die and leave Westeros in the hands of whoever is left, then what was the point of their respective journeys? I agree. Why would GRRM go to the trouble of showing them learning how to wrestle with the business of ruling if the task of ruling Westeros is ultimately destined to fall to someone else? And if it is destined to fall to someone else, wouldn't GRRM have worked to show that character (or those characters) learning how to wrestle with the business of ruling? The theory that Jon and Dany will die in the end to clear the way for someone else to pick up the pieces only works if you assume that GRRM built ADWD around Jon and Dany's ruling arcs as a gigantic red herring. Quote If you'd asked me after reading ADWD if Dany would sit the throne, I'd have categorically stated no. Her whole arc in that book is of *failed* leadership Both Jon and Dany failed: Jon failed so badly that he was murdered by his own men. That doesn't mean that they're hopeless as leaders and will never rule, though, just that this leadership shit is hard. Going back to GRRM griping that Tolkien never bothered to show what was involved in reigning "wisely and justly," I think GRRM intended with Jon and Dany falling flat on their faces not to show that they don't deserve the throne, but to show that even the best and most talented people with the best of intentions when wrestling with these complexities will run into problems. Edited October 20, 2017 by Eyes High 6 Link to comment
herbz October 20, 2017 Share October 20, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Eyes High said: Bran, Tyrion and Sansa aren't being set up as future rulers of Westeros, in either the books or the show. Neither Tyrion nor Sansa received a ruling dry run the way Jon and Dany did in ADWD. Tyrion (if he lives) will likely end up as Hand to Jon and/or Dany (although given how precarious Tyrion's relationship with Dany currently is in the show, it will be interesting to see what happens there). Sansa (if she lives) will likely end up as Lady of Winterfell/the Vale/Riverrun/what have you, something she has been prepared for in both the books and the show. Bran did have a taste of ruling Winterfell in ACOK, but if his "I can't be lord of anything" attitude transfers to the books, it's quite unlikely that we'll see him as LOW in the end, much less as king of Westeros. I agree. Why would GRRM go to the trouble of showing them learning how to wrestle with the business of ruling if the task of ruling Westeros is ultimately destined to fall to someone else? And if it is destined to fall to someone else, wouldn't GRRM have worked to show that character (or those characters) learning how to wrestle with the business of ruling? The theory that Jon and Dany will die in the end to clear the way for someone else to pick up the pieces only works if you assume that GRRM built ADWD around Jon and Dany's ruling arcs as a gigantic red herring. Both Jon and Dany failed: Jon failed so badly that he was murdered by his own men. That doesn't mean that they're hopeless as leaders and will never rule, though, just that this leadership shit is hard. Going back to GRRM griping that Tolkien never bothered to show what was involved in reigning "wisely and justly," I think GRRM intended with Jon and Dany falling flat on their faces not to show that they don't deserve the throne, but to show that even the best and most talented people with the best of intentions when wrestling with these complexities will run into problems. Oh, I completely agree that it's self explanatory Jon was absolutely terrible at leading in ADWD- I didn't discuss him because I find Dany infinitely more interesting and her story is at least geared towards *wanting* to rule and do something from that position. Frankly I think Dany has more talent as a leader if we're going to go down that route- she's had no real training, unlike Jon, and still gets stuff done- but her failures, given her weapons of choice, also end up hurting a lot more people. Dany falling flat on her face is dangerous in the extreme- that's why I said that I did not believe George would have her rule in the end if she continues in the mindset she embraces in her last chapter (there are no good intentions there at all, though obviously she has swerved on the show). It's not a comment on her personal worthiness, simply how I thought, and have said I'm now rethinking, the narrative was being shaped once I finished that book. The issue I have with the way the story on the show is going (and again, this is probably more an issue of execution than intent, and will likely be very different in the books) is that neither- but especially Jon, who was portrayed in S7 as being as uncommunicative as ever- really seem to be learning from their previous failures, which if George intends them to end up ruling, is something I'd expect him to do. Edited October 20, 2017 by herbz Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.