Endgame Discussion and Speculation

[WindyNights]

On 10/20/2017 at 1:30 AM, doram said:

So when a man wants to rule the world it's a good thing, but when a woman does it's evil?

The theme is that it doesn't matter who is not top when there's a more pressing outside threat at hand. GRRM talks about this in his interviews.

Actually, GRRM has talked about how most wars aren't even justified so I don't think he would see Daenerys' conquest of Westeros as justified.

On 10/20/2017 at 8:48 AM, 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.

The point of their respective journeys was to choose to save the people over their own desires.

R+ L= J isn't there for political purposes in the books. It's there for the magical plot and for how it affects Jon.

[WindyNights]

On 10/20/2017 at 8:12 AM, screamin said:

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.

See, this is a good argument based on the show. 

It's not somethinng that will happen in the books.

Book Daenerys is going to lay waste to a lot of Westeros. 

"Everywhere the dragons danced, the people died."

[WindyNights]

On 10/20/2017 at 10:30 AM, 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.

No one is going to rule Westeros at the end imo. And a large part of the story is going to be dealt dealing with the aftermath. 

Also Tyrion's arc in ACOK was about him ruling. Did you forget that? : p

And frankly, Jon's not a very good ruler. He couldn't even rule over hundreds of men without getting assassinated. And in the show, the Northern lords are already wanting to switch loyalties plus he just gave up his crown(not a good way to endear himself to them).

Bran won't be king or lord of anything. He's already something much greater than that. He's a Demi-God at this point.

GRRM showing Daeneys and Jon ruling is similar to showing Tyrion and Cersei ruling. He wanted to explore that concept and how hard it really is. 

I have to keep coming back to this but "Dragons plant no trees." 

I mean, guys. Did you forget that insanity runs through the Targaryen line? 

[screamin]

8 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

See, this is a good argument based on the show. 

It's not somethinng that will happen in the books.

Book Daenerys is going to lay waste to a lot of Westeros. 

"Everywhere the dragons danced, the people died."

I've read the books AND watched the show. So what are you basing your argument on? What has happened in the books that has convinced you that Book Dany will not and CANNOT reach the same point that she has reached on the show - that is, the point of realizing that the needs of the world to win the fight against the WW trumps her desire to take back her throne? What in the books shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Book Dany can eventually attain that insight that Show Dany has achieved?

Not to mention you leave out completely everything else I wrote about the A-bomb and dragon analogy, and GRRM's view of WWII as a just war as opposed to Vietnam.

[TarotQueen]

If anything in the GoT world is comparable to the a bomb, I'd say its the WW.

The CotF unleashed them as a weapon of war and now they cant put the genie back into the jar ... they too have to live (or die) in fear of this weapon they thought they would control against thier enemies.

I know this doesnt fit into some greater argument being had, just wanted to throw it out there for fresh discussion.

[SimoneS]

3 hours ago, screamin said:

I've read the books AND watched the show. So what are you basing your argument on? What has happened in the books that has convinced you that Book Dany will not and CANNOT reach the same point that she has reached on the show - that is, the point of realizing that the needs of the world to win the fight against the WW trumps her desire to take back her throne? What in the books shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Book Dany can eventually attain that insight that Show Dany has achieved?

Not to mention you leave out completely everything else I wrote about the A-bomb and dragon analogy, and GRRM's view of WWII as a just war as opposed to Vietnam.

Not only this, but D&D have said that the main characters will have the same ending so clearly Book Dany is going to end up in the same place as Show Dany.

[herbz]

Arya's the one character I can't quite get a hold of when it comes to the endgame. Book Arya has a *lot* of foreshadowing regarding leadership (more than Sansa tbh, but the show has upended that), what with her concern for the smallfolk and the training in Essos and the fact that she keeps holding on to Ned's teachings. Show Arya doesn't seem to be in quite the same place- will she end up adventuring West? That would be fun. 

My best guess as to where book!Dany is going combining her portrayal in both mediums is that she'll cause a lot of unjustified damage to Westeros (more than a loot train anyway. King's Landing and its inhabitants are probably toast) before turning her attentions North, so why she might be a saviour she'll be far more conflicted about the morality of her quest and have way more trouble convincing others to join her than she is in the show. But the show can't take her tooooo dark if she's the ultimate heroine. I could be totally off base. It's one of the reasons I suspect Tyrion will do something majorly heroic in S8 (especially after the whole 'not a hero' chat in S7) because he's been so whitewashed. I do love the show, but 'shades of grey' is definitely not as apparent a commentary on the human condition as it is in ASOIAF. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by herbz

[WindyNights]

On 10/21/2017 at 1:30 PM, screamin said:

I've read the books AND watched the show. So what are you basing your argument on? What has happened in the books that has convinced you that Book Dany will not and CANNOT reach the same point that she has reached on the show - that is, the point of realizing that the needs of the world to win the fight against the WW trumps her desire to take back her throne? What in the books shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Book Dany can eventually attain that insight that Show Dany has achieved?

Not to mention you leave out completely everything else I wrote about the A-bomb and dragon analogy, and GRRM's view of WWII as a just war as opposed to Vietnam.

Well that's not what I said at all. I've repeated a lot that Daenerys is going to be the one to beat back the Others and save the world.

My contention is that Daenerys is going to do a lot of bad before she does a lot of good. Not "muahaha evil" but brutal things that have bad consequences that hurts more people than it helps. And I mean that's already happened in Essos so expect more of the same in Westeros.

(Remember that she freed the slaves in Astapor only for it to get turned into a hole in the ground as a result of her actions which lead to a plague sweeping Slaver's Bay.)

And the show sort of touches on it but because it's in a rush to get to its endgame, it didn't really apply itself to how even good people Daenerys can do so much wrong no matter what her intentions are. 

 

Here's GRRM conflating who should be King with petty power struggles:

Quote

Well, of course, the two outlying ones — the things going on north of the Wall, and then there is Targaryen on the other continent with her dragons — are of course the ice and fire of the title, “A Song of Ice and Fire.” The central stuff — the stuff that’s happening in the middle, in King’s Landing, the capital of the seven kingdoms — is much more based on historical events, historical fiction. It’s loosely drawn from the Wars of the Roses and some of the other conflicts around the 100 Years’ War, although, of course, with a fantasy twist. You know, one of the dynamics I started with, there was the sense of people being so consumed by their petty struggles for power within the seven kingdoms, within King’s Landing — who’s going to be king? Who’s going to be on the Small Council? Who’s going to determine the policies? — that they’re blind to the much greater and more dangerous threats that are happening far away on the periphery of their kingdoms.

So ultimately, I don't think he's writing Daenerys' invasion of Westeros as a just war. The just war is against the Others.

Edited October 22, 2017 by WindyNights

[screamin]

33 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

So ultimately, I don't think he's writing Daenerys' invasion of Westeros as a just war. The just war is against the Others.

I didn't say he was either. I said that Book Dany, like Show Dany, will eventually come around to the idea that the War Against the Others is the important one, AND that diverting her efforts and dragons to THAT war will redeem her as a ruler....and that I don't think that she MUST necessarily die at the end of the story as karmic punishment for whatever damage her dragons inflict in her first efforts to get her throne. As others have mentioned, Aegon's Conquest was not depicted as a crime against humanity crying out for justice by Westerosi standards, and Aegon was conquering a land he was a stranger to, unlike Dany, who HAS a claim to rule. To say that Aegon's acts are forgivable but DANY must be punished by death, regardless of her subsequent repentance and redemption, is to come down harder on her for no clear reason. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by screamin

[MadMouse]

Quote

"Everywhere the dragons danced, the people died."

Everywhere the Wolves fought the Lions people died, everywhere the Stags fought the Roses people died. Everywhere there's a war people die.

 

Quote

I mean, guys. Did you forget that insanity runs through the Targaryen line? 

Nonsense. That's like saying all the Starks are noble or Lannister's evil.

[WindyNights]

2 hours ago, screamin said:

I didn't say he was either. I said that Book Dany, like Show Dany, will eventually come around to the idea that the War Against the Others is the important one, AND that diverting her efforts and dragons to THAT war will redeem her as a ruler....and that I don't think that she MUST necessarily die at the end of the story as karmic punishment for whatever damage her dragons inflict in her first efforts to get her throne. As others have mentioned, Aegon's Conquest was not depicted as a crime against humanity crying out for justice by Westerosi standards, and Aegon was conquering a land he was a stranger to, unlike Dany, who HAS a claim to rule. To say that Aegon's acts are forgivable but DANY must be punished by death, regardless of her subsequent repentance and redemption, is to come down harder on her for no clear reason. 

Daenerys is even more of a stranger to the land than Aegon the Conqueror tbh. Aegon grew up in Dragonstone and traveled across Westeros before conquering it.

 I never said it would be karmic punishment. It's tragedy not karmic punishment.

1 hour ago, MadMouse said:

Everywhere the Wolves fought the Lions people died, everywhere the Stags fought the Roses people died. Everywhere there's a war people die.

 

Nonsense. That's like saying all the Starks are noble or Lannister's evil.

That doesn't refute anything I'm saying. I'm saying the show didn't really touch on how innocents are suffering under Daenerys' conquest of Westeros. That's something I expect the books to showcase.

About the Targaryens, it's a running theme down the line. Not saying all Targaryens are insane but there's a history of them not turning out well.

Edited October 23, 2017 by WindyNights

[screamin]

22 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

Daenerys is even more if a stranger to the land than Aegon the Conqueror tbh. Aegon grew up in Dragonstone and traveled across Westeros before conquering it.

 

Aegon grew up in Dragonstone, which had no traditional dominion over the rest of Westeros, which was several independent kingdoms. He conquered those kingdoms not because he had any past claim or right to them besides superior irresistible force - he took them because he could. And I don't think the fact that he flew over them first makes that more justifiable than Dany's claim.

Quote

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said it would be karmic punishment. It's tragedy not karmic punishment.

Yes, indeed, it would be a tragedy if Dany died because she turned her attack toward the true enemies of humanity, and by doing so saved Westeros and the world but died after proving herself a worthy ruler by that selfless act.

What you're not explaining at all is WHY you think Book Dany's death is inevitable as a consequence of the 'evil' you think she is going to do with her dragons. Whether you call that death 'tragedy' or karmic punishment or whatever, you're still connecting the 'evil' destruction Dany does with her dragons with her eventual demise...even though many have pointed out to you that the destruction Dany may wreak is not incompatible with a good and desirable outcome either in GRRM's worldview - where he has said he felt the Allied cause in WWII was just even though they used atomic bombs - or in GRRM's own Westeros universe...where Aegon's Conquest is viewed as having significant good consequences. People have also pointed out to you that ALL the participants of the war have at some point wreaked death and destruction on the innocent.

So again, what in the books have I missed that have you so convinced that Dany must die as a consequence of her wickedness, as you say?

Quote

 

See, this is a good argument based on the show. 

It's not somethinng that will happen in the books.

Book Daenerys is going to lay waste to a lot of Westeros. 

My contention is that Daenerys is going to do a lot of bad before she does a lot of good. Not "muahaha evil" but brutal things that have bad consequences that hurts more people than it helps. And I mean that's already happened in Essos so expect more of the same in Westeros.

(Remember that she freed the slaves in Astapor only for it to get turned into a hole in the ground as a result of her actions which lead to a plague sweeping Slaver's Bay.)

 

Edited October 23, 2017 by screamin

[WindyNights]

14 minutes ago, screamin said:

Aegon grew up in Dragonstone, which had no traditional dominion over the rest of Westeros, which was several independent kingdoms. He conquered those kingdoms not because he had any past claim or right to them besides superior irresistible force - he took them because he could. And I don't think the fact that he flew over them first makes that more justifiable than Dany's claim.

Yes, indeed, it would be a tragedy if Dany died because she turned her attack toward the true enemies of humanity, and by doing so saved Westeros and the world but died after proving herself a worthy ruler by that selfless act.

What you're not explaining at all is WHY you think Book Dany's death is inevitable as a consequence of the 'evil' you think she is going to do with her dragons. Whether you call that death 'tragedy' or karmic punishment or whatever, you're still connecting the 'evil' destruction Dany does with her dragons with her eventual demise...even though many have pointed out to you that the destruction Dany may wreak is not incompatible with a good and desirable outcome either in GRRM's worldview - where he has said he felt the Allied cause in WWII was just even though they used atomic bombs - or in GRRM's own Westeros universe...where Aegon's Conquest is viewed as having significant good consequences. People have also pointed out to you that ALL the participants of the war have at some point wreaked death and destruction on the innocent.

So again, what in the books have I missed that have you so convinced that Dany must die as a consequence of her wickedness, as you say?

Not saying that Aegon had a greater claim to them. I'm saying that Aegon actually knew Westeros better than Daenerys and is actually less of a stranger considering he's traveled the land and has played politics on Westeros before he conquered it.

Again, you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I say that Daenerys' death would be as a consequence of her wicked actions? 

I'm actually not connecting Daenerys' actions in her war with her death against the Others. I'm just pointing out that she's going to do bad before she does good not because she's a bad person seeking redemption but because war over who is on top is petty in the grand scheme of the situation and it's the innocents who suffer during war. Daenerys' war against Westeros only further weakens Westeros when the Others invade, Daenerys' war against the Others is righteous. And I'm pointing out that the show didn't dwell on it enough because it's rushing towards the endgame. We don't have a view on how Daenerys' war against Cersei is affecting the people.

Anyways, the reason that I think Daenerys dies is namely because the show and books point in that direction. MMD's prophecy, Show HOTU, Book HOTU(possibly), Chekhov's Wildfire in KL, the loosening bonds between the the crown and its vassals, GRRM's love of tragedy, his fascination with people who have been treated very badly by history etc.

There's a third Holy Shit twist moment that D & D have talked about it that would occur near the end and while that's broad, I think it might involve Daenerys and Jon. 

[Lemuria]

Quote

In the show, the White Walkers would have never broken through the Wall without a dragon so the dragons led to the invasion.

But that wasn't his original intent.  Before dragons ever flew to the North, the NK was marching his army to Eastwatch.  He wasn't going to sit there and hope a dragon showed up.  Yes, he was ready for dragons, with his spears, but AFAIAC that was  in anticipation of facing them after he went south, at which point Danaerys could not avoid realizing the threat and going against him.  

The NK, IMO, intended to go around the Wall.  There was no other reason to be marching to Eastwatch.  Look at the map that appears during the opening sequence:  from season 1-6, we can see water/ocean to the east of Eastwatch.  But in Season 7, it was white. This wasn't just any winter, this was the Long Night, and the ocean was freezing over.   (And the NK's powers might be increasing, because it was the Long Night, and he was speeding up the freezing process.)  The NK and his army were going to flank the Wall.  They were heading south no matter what had happened with Danaerys.

 

Quote

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'

And doesn't that sound like Cersei.  "I'm going to make them love me."  How ominous.

 

Quote

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.

Speaking solely for the show, Jon didn't fail.  He did what a good leader is supposed to do:  What is best for his command, as well as for others who need protection.  There were what, 50-100 men guarding the entire Wall?  There was no way they could hold the Wall against the NK and the Walkers.  Going for the Wildlings would serve two purposes:  one was to save the Wildlings, who were human, from the Others, who definitely were not.  The other was to beef up the forces guarding the Wall, that is, to help those under his command and to create a greater force to protect those to the south.

The failure was on the part of Thorne and his supporters to remember that the Wall had not been built to keep out the Wildlings but to keep out the Others.  (In fact, the Wall probably created the Wildlings, cutting off the First Men who were in the far North from the warmer, and more fertile, south.)  If any had kept alive the memory of the first Long Night, it should have been the Watch, but they failed in that charge.  And this was even after they had encountered a wight.  Even Cersei didn't need more than a wight to believe in the Others; she just didn't believe how great a threat they were.

(And isn't it ironic that Ser Thorne, who went to the Wall because he'd been a Targaryen supporter during the Rebellion, murdered the last trueborn male Targaryen heir.)

[Eyes High]

7 hours ago, Lemuria said:

Speaking solely for the show, Jon didn't fail.  He did what a good leader is supposed to do:  What is best for his command, as well as for others who need protection. 

Well, no. Strictly speaking, good leadership is about getting people to do what you want them to do the way you want them to do it. If you can't persuade your followers that they should do things your way because your way is the right way, to the point that they murder you over their disagreement with how you're doing things, you've failed as a leader. If a leader is murdered by his own men, it's usually because he fucked up as a leader somewhere along the way. TV Jon is no exception. He certainly didn't want his men to kill him; he thought he could steamroller the NW men into submission by ignoring their concerns, putting them in a position where they're forced to accept the wildlings, and bothering about winning hearts and minds later on. He thought he had won by begging Thorne to open the gates and could subsequently ignore Thorne and the others' qualms. He was wrong.

More generally, I brought up Jon's failures because often in discussions fans zero in on Dany's failures in ADWD as proof positive that she's not fit to rule while painting Jon as a poor misunderstood victim of the NW who did nothing wrong. If we're going to talk about Dany's mistakes in the books and show supposedly disqualifying her from being an endgame ruler, Jon's mistakes in the books and show are also fair game. I don't think either Dany or Jon's mistakes show that they're not endgame ruler material, although I don't get the sense in the show that D&D are bending over backwards to sell Dany as a credible endgame ruler, at least not without Jon by her side. Dany and Jon are very young, very idealistic, and very compassionate people; of course they're going to struggle when it comes to ruling, especially since they live in a world that tends to take idealistic and compassionate people, chew them up, and spit them back out again. 

I think Dany and Jon would have it much easier if they could be as ruthless as Tywin. (And in the books, for all of Tywin's horrible deeds, I sense a certain grudging admiration from GRRM of Tywin's canny competence.) Of the three main characters, though, the only one I've seen who seems to have Tywin's capacity for ruthlessness is Tyrion...in the books, anyway:

Quote

The fact that there were any good wells at all within a day’s march of the city only went to prove that Daenerys Targaryen was still an innocent where siegecraft was concerned. She should have poisoned every well. Then all the Yunkishmen would be drinking from the river. See how long their siege lasts then. That was what his lord father would have done, Tyrion did not doubt. 

TV Tyrion's a pacifist pussycat, but the only Tywin 2.0 in the books is Tyrion. With that said, I expect both Book Dany and Book Jon post-ADWD to be more ruthless than before: Dany because of her "Dragons plant no trees" epiphany, and Jon because (I'm guessing) resurrection after getting killed by his own men is going to do a number on him psychologically.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Eyes High

[MadMouse]

3 hours ago, Eyes High said:

TV Tyrion's a pacifist pussycat, but the only Tywin 2.0 in the books is Tyrion. With that said, I expect both Book Dany and Book Jon post-ADWD to be more ruthless than before: Dany because of her "Dragons plant no trees" epiphany, and Jon because (I'm guessing) resurrection after getting killed by his own men is going to do a number on him psychologically.

Exactly, Dany is going all of Fire and Blood and Jon because of his time in Ghost more wolf, so expect some more of GRRM's "amazing" sex scenes between him and Val. I fully expect both of them to almost cross into villain territory but be pulled back by something horrific.

Edited October 23, 2017 by MadMouse

[herbz]

32 minutes ago, MadMouse said:

Exactly, Dany is going all of Fire and Blood and Jon because of his time in Ghost more wolf, so expect some more of GRRM's "amazing" sex scenes between him and Val. I fully expect both of them to almost cross into villain territory but be pulled back by something horrific.

Anything but the sex scenes! Has GRRM ever written a decent one? The best one I can think of off the top of my head is Jaime and Brienne's fight on the bridge frankly, and that hardly counts :p I still can't get over 'Myrish swamp'. I'm really interested to see what George does with Jon post-resurrection (I find sardonic, slightly ruthless book Jon much more interesting than Ned 2.0 on the show). I know there's been some speculation that he won't have a POV again, but that seems like an impossible corner to write yourself into. Imagine the R+L reveal without Jon's thoughts on it? Speaking of, I hope they spend quite a bit of time on the fallout from that next season in between all the ice zombie stuff. It will feel a bit hollow to me if the only consequence is Jon being a bit more brooding than usual for half an episode. 

[MadMouse]

3 minutes ago, herbz said:

Anything but the sex scenes! Has GRRM ever written a decent one? The best one I can think of off the top of my head is Jaime and Brienne's fight on the bridge frankly, and that hardly counts :p I still can't get over 'Myrish swamp'. I'm really interested to see what George does with Jon post-resurrection (I find sardonic, slightly ruthless book Jon much more interesting than Ned 2.0 on the show). I know there's been some speculation that he won't have a POV again, but that seems like an impossible corner to write yourself into. Imagine the R+L reveal without Jon's thoughts on it? Speaking of, I hope they spend quite a bit of time on the fallout from that next season in between all the ice zombie stuff. It will feel a bit hollow to me if the only consequence is Jon being a bit more brooding than usual for half an episode. 

The no Jon POV is nonsense just like him being a Beric or LSH clone. I brought up Val because you get his thoughts about her and how he desired her. So post resurrection Jon is going to be more savage, take and do what he wants damn the consequences. And that's going to include him and Val sexing it up all the time. Val is his Daario.

[domina89]

3 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Well, no. Strictly speaking, good leadership is about getting people to do what you want them to do the way you want them to do it. If you can't persuade your followers that they should do things your way because your way is the right way, to the point that they murder you over their disagreement with how you're doing things, you've failed as a leader. If a leader is murdered by his own men, it's usually because he fucked up as a leader somewhere along the way. TV Jon is no exception. He certainly didn't want his men to kill him; he thought he could steamroller the NW men into submission by ignoring their concerns, putting them in a position where they're forced to accept the wildlings, and bothering about winning hearts and minds later on. He thought he had won by begging Thorne to open the gates and could subsequently ignore Thorne and the others' qualms. He was wrong.

Part of the problem was that Jon was the leader of mostly disreputable men.  Most leaders have the luxury of surrounding themselves with people they choose to trust, but the Night's Watch is an exception.  Can we say that Jeor Mormont was a bad leader because he was also murdered by his own men?  I think the failing here is with the men, not necessarily solely with Jon's leadership.  They disagreed with him but chose the path of betraying a person they swore to obey.  They chose to believe that they knew what was best for the Watch instead of trusting the leader they elected.  Jon's idea of leadership is making the tough choices and having the quality of character to see them through despite any hardship.  The fact that he was dealing with men who may not want to endure the results of those tough choices with him is not really Jon's fault.  He expected more from them and (hopefully) learned something from their betrayal.  I will agree, however, that Jon is not the best communicator in the world, and his life would be much easier if he had but an ounce of Sir Davos' charisma.

[screamin]

14 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Again, you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I say that Daenerys' death would be as a consequence of her wicked actions? 

 

Okay, then why ARE you so certain of Dany's eventual death?

[screamin]

1 hour ago, domina89 said:

Part of the problem was that Jon was the leader of mostly disreputable men.  Most leaders have the luxury of surrounding themselves with people they choose to trust, but the Night's Watch is an exception.  Can we say that Jeor Mormont was a bad leader because he was also murdered by his own men?  I think the failing here is with the men, not necessarily solely with Jon's leadership.  They disagreed with him but chose the path of betraying a person they swore to obey.  They chose to believe that they knew what was best for the Watch instead of trusting the leader they elected.  Jon's idea of leadership is making the tough choices and having the quality of character to see them through despite any hardship.  The fact that he was dealing with men who may not want to endure the results of those tough choices with him is not really Jon's fault.  He expected more from them and (hopefully) learned something from their betrayal.  I will agree, however, that Jon is not the best communicator in the world, and his life would be much easier if he had but an ounce of Sir Davos' charisma.

In the books, at least, the timid little accountant whose name has slipped my mind who was one of the ringleaders of the plot against Jon was not a disreputable sort. The books make it perfectly clear that he felt he was acting for the good of the Watch, for reasons which seemed right and moral to him. I don't exonerate him of his own blame in the murder of Jon for being a narrow-minded sort who found it too difficult to wrap his brain around the idea that taking the wildlings as allies after they had been enemies for generations WAS the lesser evil compared to the WW.

But I DO fault Jon strategically for not realizing what danger such dutiful, reputable men posed to him when he failed to convince them of the wisdom of his moves. He kept those men nearby him while sending away men he trusted to other errands (Sam, Edd), simply counting on their sense of duty to continue obeying his orders - orders he KNEW they distrusted as a possible violation of Watch rules. This trust ended up biting him in the ass when he undertook to break ANOTHER longstanding rule of the Watch - to go to war against Ramsey Bolton. This turned out to be that last straw for dutiful Watch men OCD bound to what they understood as the rules. It gave them the reason they needed to take him down as an outright vow-breaker - Jon in their eyes was declaring himself a deserter of his post, riding off to fight in a war for the family he was supposed to have renounced on taking his vows, and thus involve the Watch in the war when they're supposed to be neutral. It was dutiful, reputable men who took Jon down. Strategically, Jon should have either convinced them that attacking Ramsey WAS a part of his duty as a Commander to defend the Wall and the Watch, OR he should've surrounded himself with men he trusted when he declared he was going to fight Ramsey. He screwed up and paid the price.

Unlike other fatal screwups, he has the hope of learning from his mistakes (though his neglect to send messages to the North explaining his decision to renounce his crown and hand the North to Dany seems to show that he's still taking his followers' obedience and fidelity a little too much for granted).

Edited October 23, 2017 by screamin

[Eyes High]

2 hours ago, MadMouse said:

Exactly, Dany is going all of Fire and Blood and Jon because of his time in Ghost more wolf, so expect some more of GRRM's "amazing" sex scenes between him and Val. I fully expect both of them to almost cross into villain territory but be pulled back by something horrific.

I know that at least one of the big ASOIAF meta writers on Tumblr believes that in the books, Dany, Jon and Tyrion will have parallel arcs of almost crossing the line into villain territory and then pulling back at the last minute when they realize they have to save the world or whatever. If so, I wouldn't be surprised that D&D decided to dispense with those arcs to keep their three main characters sympathetic, which is why we have Saint Tyrion and Ned 2.0 Jon in the show.

 

1 hour ago, herbz said:

Anything but the sex scenes! Has GRRM ever written a decent one?

Not that I'm aware. Some of the sex scenes in ASOIAF seem almost deliberately ghastly, though, as if they were written for the Literary Review's Bad Sex in Fiction Writing contest.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Jon and Val had sex in TWOW. Val could be Jon's Daario, just as Ygritte was Jon's Drogo.

[GrailKing]

On 10/9/2017 at 3:37 PM, WindyNights said:

Daenerys surviving means she gets the throne. 

She's never getting the throne: 

 

 

She walks into a snow and ash-filled throne room. Right as she's about to touch the throne, she turns away to go North. This has already happened in season 7.

It's at the Wall where she meets Drogo and Rhaego who are already dead. That's when she enters the Nightlands. 

 

This is is a prophecy of Daenerys' death: 

 

Except, she refused the nights land in the end. 

Her death isn't guaranteed.

[GrailKing]

On 10/15/2017 at 1:06 PM, domina89 said:

My argument isn't so much who will pass on the actual Stark name as much as it is the current set of Starks don't seem to be interested in creating the next generation. Not to mention that there seems to be zero narrative focus on the Stark family's future. With so little time left to finish the series and with GRRM's obvious obsession with the Targs, I'm just being practical.  

Series time withstanding, if this was a real world situation NO Body would be thinking of creating the next generation, you need to survive first to even consider it.

Book wise, Sansa still longs for children, though marriage is questionable.

[Eyes High]

49 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

Series time withstanding, if this was a real world situation NO Body would be thinking of creating the next generation, you need to survive first to even consider it.

Book wise, Sansa still longs for children, though marriage is questionable.

Book Sansa as of AFFC is already balking at the idea of remarrying. If the Harry the Heir betrothal goes south--and it almost assuredly will, one way or another--that could well prove the final nail in the coffin of Book Sansa's desire to remarry. (Not that I think Book Sansa will be raped, just that the betrothal is not going to end well.)

I doubt we'll see TV Sansa ever interested in marriage short of some flashforward to several years in the future scenario where she appears happily married to some Northern lord we've never heard of before. Some fans are convinced that TV Sansa's going to get a romance arc in S8, but I'd be shocked.

[GrailKing]

1 minute ago, Eyes High said:

Book Sansa as of AFFC is already balking at the idea of remarrying. If the Harry the Heir betrothal goes south--and it almost assuredly will, one way or another--that could well prove the final nail in the coffin of Book Sansa's desire to remarry. (Not that I think Book Sansa will be raped, just that the betrothal is not going to end well.)

I doubt we'll see TV Sansa ever interested in marriage short of some flashforward to several years in the future scenario where she appears happily married to some Northern lord we've never heard of before. Some fans are convinced that TV Sansa's going to get a romance arc in S8, but I'd be shocked.

I don't think HH makes it out of the next book, I do think something has to happen to get her to the point of offing LF, whether it's HH, or Bran sending her a dream about KL, etc. I don't know but something is exploding in the Eyrie.

[GrailKing]

On 10/17/2017 at 1:57 PM, BlackberryJam said:

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. 

I didn't take the Jon & Sansa as animosity ( no dislike or hatred from either ), S6-10 clearly showed she was more worried about what LF would do since she did not move in a direction he wanted.

7-1, 7-2 showed two siblings who cared, but had differing opinions on how to handle things, but neither opinions were 100 % wrong, nor 100% correct.

[Eyes High]

16 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

I don't think HH makes it out of the next book, I do think something has to happen to get her to the point of offing LF, whether it's HH, or Bran sending her a dream about KL, etc. I don't know but something is exploding in the Eyrie.

Yeah, someone more observant than I pointed out that the Alayne TWOW chapter felt a lot like the PW chapters before the shit hit the fan: a lot of pleasantries and silly banter, with a subtle sense of dread underlying everything. You know something's going to go horribly wrong, but it's not clear what. The interesting thing about HTH is that GRRM was teasing the character to fans before GRRM scrapped the five-year time gap, which makes me wonder at what point in the then-planned time jump GRRM planned on betrothing him to Sansa (before, after, during?).

To bring this back to the thread topic, one of the possible endgames batted around for Sansa is Lady of the Vale, but I don't think there's been much setup for that in the show, other than the Vale lords' support and approval of Sansa in S7. Not to mention that as opposed to the books, in the show TV Robin neither suffers from his seizure condition nor is being poisoned, meaning that Sansa would have to marry him to become the Lady of the Vale, something it's unlikely Sansa would be willing to do. The show could always kill Robin off in other ways and introduce a Harry-like figure, but that doesn't look likely at this point.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Eyes High

[GrailKing]

2 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Yeah, someone more observant than I pointed out that the Alayne TWOW chapter felt a lot like the PW chapters before the shit hit the fan: a lot of pleasantries and silly banter, with a subtle sense of dread underlying everything. You know something's going to go horribly wrong, but it's not clear what. The interesting thing about HTH is that GRRM was teasing the character to fans before GRRM scrapped the five-year time gap, which makes me wonder at what point in the then-planned time jump GRRM planned on betrothing him to Sansa (before, after, during?).

To bring this back to the thread topic, one of the possible endgames batted around for Sansa is Lady of the Vale, but I don't think there's been much setup for that in the show, other than the Vale lords' support and approval of Sansa in S7. Not to mention that as opposed to the books, in the show TV Robin neither suffers from his seizure condition nor is being poisoned, meaning that Sansa would have to marry him to assume power in the Vale, something it's unlikely Sansa would be willing to do. The show could always kill Robin off in other ways and introduce a Harry-like figure, but that doesn't look likely at this point.

Yeah, not much time in the series for that, maybe the last episode is a time jump.

I for one don't believe SR dies in book ( he's thriving under Sansa's care ) but, GRRM could kill him off because of his lack of skills in fighting or the tourney in his name goes bad ( he does say HH wants him dead ).

[GrailKing]

On 10/17/2017 at 3:29 PM, Eyes High said:

on and Dany's love: their romance and (we can assume) marriage will solve a lot of problems, not cause them.

Show wise, I'm sure that after they win over Sansa, Sansa will mention marriage. LF doesn't give 100 % BS, and Sansa knows it could strengthen the North; if they survive in the long run.

[MadMouse]

A Dany and Jon marriage would be the biggest win for the North ever. Sansa would lady of the North and her future nephew would be King. 

[GrailKing]

On 10/20/2017 at 11:48 AM, 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.

There is nothing in book or show to equate Sansa to Cersei, she's far from Cersei as Jon is from Ares, Joffery and Bobby B.

She'll be closer to the QOT, House Stark version.

[GrailKing]

On 10/22/2017 at 8:29 AM, herbz said:

Arya's the one character I can't quite get a hold of when it comes to the endgame. Book Arya has a *lot* of foreshadowing regarding leadership (more than Sansa tbh, but the show has upended that), what with her concern for the smallfolk and the training in Essos and the fact that she keeps holding on to Ned's teachings. Show Arya doesn't seem to be in quite the same place- will she end up adventuring West? That would be fun. 

Actually both girls are showing the same amount of leadership, just on two different scales of measurement.

Arya's more towards battles and intelligence (spy work ), Sansa's on the political and running everyday needs of a great house and it's lands.

Together they're tough to beat, both augments the other.

[GrailKing]

57 minutes ago, MadMouse said:

A Dany and Jon marriage would be the biggest win for the North ever. Sansa would lady of the North and her future nephew would be King. 

Puts house Stark also in line if the need calls for it.

[WindyNights]

2 hours ago, MadMouse said:

A Dany and Jon marriage would be the biggest win for the North ever. Sansa would lady of the North and her future nephew would be King. 

It would be a win for House Stark not the North. Northern lords are actually better off under self-rule than they are under the yoke of the Iron Throne primarily because they have more power in their own homes and they no longer are subject to give royal taxes to the Iron Throne.

1 hour ago, GrailKing said:

Actually both girls are showing the same amount of leadership, just on two different scales of measurement.

Arya's more towards battles and intelligence (spy work ), Sansa's on the political and running everyday needs of a great house and it's lands.

Together they're tough to beat, both augments the other.

Eh, not battles. Arya's more akin to James Bond than a leader

Edited October 23, 2017 by WindyNights

[WindyNights]

3 hours ago, GrailKing said:

Yeah, not much time in the series for that, maybe the last episode is a time jump.

I for one don't believe SR dies in book ( he's thriving under Sansa's care ) but, GRRM could kill him off because of his lack of skills in fighting or the tourney in his name goes bad ( he does say HH wants him dead ).

SR is probably dead-meat.  He's joining the list of doomed noble children that consist of Rickon, Tommen, Myrcella and Shireen. I wouldn't be surprised if all 5 get offed in TWOW but more likely ADOS.

Like Sansa doesn't even realize that LF is poisoning SR. I mean maybe there's a chance we're leading towards a Charles II scenario where SR just hangs on life for decades to everyone's disbelief.

I don't think the show is going to kill off SR though because they don't care about SR. He's so minor, he's barely worth mentioning. 

At this point, the Vale is just the left arm of the North.

[SimoneS]

1 minute ago, WindyNights said:

It would be a win for House Stark not the North. Northern lords are actually better off under self-rule than they are under the yoke of the Iron Throne primarily because they have more power in their own homes and they no longer are subject to give royal taxes to the Iron Throne.

This isn't true, but if the Northern lords really think that they are better off without a Targaryen on the Iron Throne, they should go fight the NK/Others on their own. Dany, her dragons, and armies along with the Vale and the rest of the Westeros can chill out and await the outcome. 

[MadMouse]

33 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

This isn't true, but if the Northern lords really think that they are better off without a Targaryen on the Iron Throne, they should go fight the NK/Others on their own. Dany, her dragons, and armies along with the Vale and the rest of the Westeros can chill out and await the outcome. 

With fierce and hard warriors like this how could they lose.

[WindyNights]

1 hour ago, SimoneS said:

This isn't true, but if the Northern lords really think that they are better off without a Targaryen on the Iron Throne, they should go fight the NK/Others on their own. Dany, her dragons, and armies along with the Vale and the rest of the Westeros can chill out and await the outcome. 

That would make Daeneys lesser than Stannis. Even Stannis rode out against a threat to the Northerners without needing their loyalty first and this was against Wildlings not the WW.

And well, it is Daenerys' fault that they broke down the Wall and jownhave a dragon.

 

Also I was speaking outside the Frozen Apocalypse situation.

Edited October 24, 2017 by WindyNights

[SimoneS]

Just now, WindyNights said:

That would make Daeneys lesser than Stannis. Even Stannis rode out against a threat to the Northerners without needing their loyalty first and this was against Wildlings not the WW.

Also I was speaking outside the Frozen Apocalypse situation.

Self-rule includes defending yourself against enemies. It is part and parcel of being an independent nation. There is no separating peace time prosperity from wartime defeat as you are attempting to do.

Dany refusing to sacrifice her armies and dragons for an enemy kingdom is good strategy. It doesn't make her less than anyone else, just smarter.

[MadMouse]

23 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

That would make Daeneys lesser than Stannis. Even Stannis rode out against a threat to the Northerners without needing their loyalty first and this was against Wildlings not the WW.

And well, it is Daenerys' fault that they broke down the Wall and jownhave a dragon.

 

Also I was speaking outside the Frozen Apocalypse situation.

So she's less of a leader for not pulling a Stannis and going North but its her fault for going North to save a rival King? She really can't win with you and it proves your bias against the character.

[SimoneS]

1 hour ago, WindyNights said:

And well, it is Daenerys' fault that they broke down the Wall and jownhave a dragon.

If this is your opinion okay, but independent nations like the North you are advocating for have to deal with all outcomes. They would have to fight the NK and his army regardless so they should defend themselves as the independent nation that you claim they are better off as. After they get wiped out, Dany can deal with what remains.

[MadMouse]

9 hours ago, Eyes High said:

I know that at least one of the big ASOIAF meta writers on Tumblr believes that in the books, Dany, Jon and Tyrion will have parallel arcs of almost crossing the line into villain territory and then pulling back at the last minute when they realize they have to save the world or whatever. If so, I wouldn't be surprised that D&D decided to dispense with those arcs to keep their three main characters sympathetic, which is why we have Saint Tyrion and Ned 2.0 Jon in the show..

Pregnant Val's death for Jon, Burning the Water Gardens in Dorne for Dany and Tyrion I don't know I think he's going straight villain myself. So him betraying Dany next season wouldn't be surprising, 

[WindyNights]

1 hour ago, MadMouse said:

So she's less of a leader for not pulling a Stannis and going North but its her fault for going North to save a rival King? She really can't win with you and it proves your bias against the character.

Jon is not the North. She didn't go Beyond the Wall to save the North. She went North to save Jon and the narrative punishes for it by taking one of her dragons  away and giving it the NK.

I don't have a bias against Daenerys. She's personally one of my favorites atm (Top 5) and I'm usually the one that has to defend her against fans that think she's a red herring for Jon.

[MadMouse]

1 hour ago, WindyNights said:

Jon is not the North. She didn't go Beyond the Wall to save the North. She went North to save Jon and the narrative punishes for it by taking one of her dragons  away and giving it the NK.

 

What? She wasn't punished by the narrative. It was D&D going oh shit, she doesn't have all three of her dragons at the climax of the story and we didn't include Faegon, Euron's dragon horn and the WW might have an ice dragon. So they just combined stories.

[herbz]

10 hours ago, WindyNights said:

SR is probably dead-meat.  He's joining the list of doomed noble children that consist of Rickon, Tommen, Myrcella and Shireen. I wouldn't be surprised if all 5 get offed in TWOW but more likely ADOS.

Like Sansa doesn't even realize that LF is poisoning SR. I mean maybe there's a chance we're leading towards a Charles II scenario where SR just hangs on life for decades to everyone's disbelief.

I don't think the show is going to kill off SR though because they don't care about SR. He's so minor, he's barely worth mentioning. 

At this point, the Vale is just the left arm of the North.

I absolutely think Sansa knows what LF is doing to SR. LF's whole plan rests on SR's death, and Sansa's continued survival currently rests on LF. She's smart and observant and the Maester has warned her more than once about the dangers of sweetsleep that she then gives to him anyway. She's going to be an accomplice in SR's demise but her coping mechanism has always been deep denial or imagining herself an alternative reality to the point where she can accept it as truth. In the show they probably won't mention it, or perhaps there will be a throwaway line about how his constitution was too weak to withstand winter if the Vale is important in any way to the endgame. 

Edited October 24, 2017 by herbz

[tangerine95]

11 hours ago, WindyNights said:

That would make Daeneys lesser than Stannis. Even Stannis rode out against a threat to the Northerners without needing their loyalty first and this was against Wildlings not the WW.

And well, it is Daenerys' fault that they broke down the Wall and jownhave a dragon.

 

Also I was speaking outside the Frozen Apocalypse situation.

Didn't Stannis lose a big part of his army and couldn't invade Kings Landing again or anywhere else so the north and their help if he'll help them was his only option?I don't think his mind was only on helping the north and not on how to win himself the throne.He kept asking for the free folk to bend the knee and asking Jon to do the same and he'll make him warden of the north.Even sent letters to other northern houses asking to bend the knee and we saw Lyanna refuse like probably all of them did because most were afraid enough of the Boltons that they refused Ned's kids let alone Stannis.

Yeah Dany went north to save Jon and probably Jorah and she had personal motivation but I think that's fine.She didn't agree with the mission in the first place and she argued against it and her actually going was a reckless and foolish choice for a queen even tho I loved that she did it.She risked her life and her dragons for like 7 people,it isn't the smartest thing for a queen to do especially when without her everything they want to accomplish falls apart and she literally can't be replaced.She showed plenty of times that she doesn't need a personal connection to save and help people before so I  think she's proven she'll do that enough by now.

I don't get how it's Dany's fault the wall fell and they got a dragon?I don't think it's any characters fault and I get how none of them considered it would come to that.But why is Dany singled out to blame and not for example Tyrion who proposed the plan in the first place especially when we later see all his plans were made with keeping his family alive in mind or Jon who wouldn't back down from the plan even when people told him it's dumb and dangerous?

Edited October 24, 2017 by tangerine95

[screamin]

4 hours ago, herbz said:

I absolutely think Sansa knows what LF is doing to SR. LF's whole plan rests on SR's death, and Sansa's continued survival currently rests on LF. She's smart and observant and the Maester has warned her more than once about the dangers of sweetsleep that she then gives to him anyway. She's going to be an accomplice in SR's demise but her coping mechanism has always been deep denial or imagining herself an alternative reality to the point where she can accept it as truth. In the show they probably won't mention it, or perhaps there will be a throwaway line about how his constitution was too weak to withstand winter if the Vale is important in any way to the endgame. 

In her last published chapter, you see Sansa sincerely trying to keep her resentment of Robin under check, trying to think the best she can of him while fending off his importuning, and wishing him a happy marriage with some highborn maiden who definitely ISN'T her. Yes, you may say that she's only doing this because she's in deep denial about what's REALLY happening. But IMO, she doesn't know that LF is poisoning SR because LF isn't actually poisoning SR yet. At the time we last see her in the books, she hasn't got Harry the Heir nailed down, and Littlefinger loses all his power if SR dies before Sansa attaches him to the next lord of the Vale through marriage. So LF is definitely NOT poisoning SR until Sansa is safely married or at least betrothed to Harry, a penniless heir he can control through his money and Sansa.

IMO, Sansa has still made herself believe that LF is content to wait till SR kicks off from natural causes...which is not at all an unlikely outcome, as epilepsy all by itself can easily kill him. Of course. we the readers know that as soon as Sansa has snared Harry, LF will have no further need of SR and will be happy to bump him off. He would undoubtedly use the 'clean hands' method, by taking a long trip to give himself a safe alibi, while demanding Sansa give SR the fatal dose to incriminate her so thoroughly she will never dare denounce LF lest she hang alongside him. I think at that point Sansa will realize denial is impossible, and what she does then will show us all what she's REALLY made of.

10 hours ago, WindyNights said:

I don't have a bias against Daenerys. She's personally one of my favorites atm (Top 5) and I'm usually the one that has to defend her against fans that think she's a red herring for Jon.

So staunch a defender are you of Dany that you are predicting that she will in the books commit huge acts of horrendous moral turpitude and eventually inevitably die along with her longed-for unborn child, without actually giving any particular reason why you are so certain this absolutely must happen. With friends like these...

Edited October 24, 2017 by screamin

[herbz]

2 hours ago, tangerine95 said:

Didn't Stannis lose a big part of his army and couldn't invade Kings Landing again or anywhere else so the north and their help if he'll help them was his only option?I don't think his mind was only on helping the north and not on how to win himself the throne.He kept asking for the free folk to bend the knee and asking Jon to do the same and he'll make him warden of the north.Even sent letters to other northern houses asking to bend the knee and we saw Lyanna refuse like probably all of them did because most were afraid enough of the Boltons that they refused Ned's kids let alone Stannis.

Yeah Dany went north to save Jon and probably Jorah and she had personal motivation but I think that's fine.She didn't agree with the mission in the first place and she argued against it and her actually going was a reckless and foolish choice for a queen even tho I loved that she did it.She risked her life and her dragons for like 7 people,it isn't the smartest thing for a queen to do especially when without her everything they want to accomplish falls apart and she literally can't be replaced.She showed plenty of times that she doesn't need a personal connection to save and help people before so I  think she's proven she'll do that enough by now.

I don't get how it's Dany's fault the wall fell and they got a dragon?I don't think it's any characters fault and I get how none of them considered it would come to that.But why is Dany singled out to blame and not for example Tyrion who proposed the plan in the first place especially when we later see all his plans were made with keeping his family alive in mind or Jon who wouldn't back down from the plan even when people told him it's dumb and dangerous?

Yeah, show Stannis is no altruist when it came to helping the North (neither's book Stannis, but people will defend him forever). Everything came back round to the throne for him IMO. 

The wight hunt was such a monumentally stupid plan that it puts into question that strategic ability of anyone involved in the formulation of it. I.e. not Dany! I don't see how she could possibly take the blame for this one considering Jon would be toast had she not gone to save him. And if Jon's toast, the whole realm probably is too, because he's the one trying to unite everyone against the WW. 

Edited October 24, 2017 by herbz

[herbz]

12 minutes ago, screamin said:

In her last published chapter, you see Sansa sincerely trying to keep her resentment of Robin under check, trying to think the best she can of him while fending off his importuning, and wishing him a happy marriage with some highborn maiden who definitely ISN'T her. Yes, you may say that she's only doing this because she's in deep denial about what's REALLY happening. But IMO, she doesn't know that LF is poisoning SR because LF isn't actually poisoning SR yet. At the time we last see her in the books, she hasn't got Harry the Heir nailed down, and Littlefinger loses all his power if SR dies before Sansa attaches him to the next lord of the Vale through marriage. So LF is definitely NOT poisoning SR until Sansa is safely married to Harry, a penniless heir he can control through his money and Sansa.

IMO, Sansa has still made herself believe that LF is content to wait till SR kicks off from natural causes...which is not at all an unlikely outcome, as epilepsy all by itself can easily kill him. Of course. we the readers know that as soon as Sansa has married Harry, LF will have no further need of SR and will be happy to bump him off. He would undoubtedly use the 'clean hands' method, by taking a long trip to give himself a safe alibi, while demanding Sansa give SR the fatal dose to incriminate her so thoroughly she will never dare denounce LF lest she hang alongside him. I think at that point Sansa will realize denial is impossible, and what she does then will show us all what she's REALLY made of.

 

I haven't actually read the Alayne sample chapter so I need to do that, but my interpretation of Sansa and Robin isn't too far off from yours- I think she's deliberately refusing to confront the reality of what's Littlefinger is doing/is going to do to him. Which is sort of what I meant by her constructing an alternative reality for herself. I do think Littlefinger has started to slowly weaken Robin though, and I don't think Sansa is entirely clueless to that. She doesn't like it, she tries to remain empathetic to him because that's who she is, but she's going with it (because really, what other choice does she have?) But YMMV! 

Edited October 24, 2017 by herbz