Endgame Discussion and Speculation

[GrailKing]

1 minute ago, Eyes High said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. 

 

My comment had nothing to do with the military aspect. Unlike Jon and Dan, neither Bran, nor Sansa, nor Tyrion have had arcs setting them up to be rulers of Westeros. At best, Sansa will use her experiences in the Vale to be a competent Lady of Winterfell in a non-independent North. At best, Tyrion will use his experiences as Hand to be a Hand to a king and queen worthy of his talents (unlike Joffrey).

I'm not sure why you're mentioning Elizabeth of York, since Elizabeth of York was queen consort with no governance responsibilities of her own, quite a different thing from being queen regnant. Unless endgame Jonsa is a thing (unlikely), Sansa's never going to be queen consort. Moreover, I think TV Sansa given her experiences and outlook would balk at any situation where her power derived from her husband's status (as Lady of the Vale, e.g.) as opposed to enjoying power in her own right, which she would as Lady of Winterfell.

Maybe EOY isn't a good example, but Elizabeth 1st is, and I'm sure we could find other examples, Sansa is running the Vale ( with some guidance from LF ) and adding to what she learned from mom and Cersei etc.In show she is actually running the North in Jon's place, she knows the politics ( most of it )she knows the threat and she's preparing a land larger then the area south of the Neck, she's being thrown into the fire, while Cersei is sitting smug and not caring about the people of KL Sansa's actively getting stores up and preparing Winterfell for a huge influx of refugees, these are experiences that can move a person into leadership or ruler roles, I don't think we can count her out, not yet anyways.

JMHO.  : ) 

[GrailKing]

On 10/23/2017 at 10:51 AM, 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. 

GRRM should watch Desert Heart, Thief of Hearts (?) , The Lover, and Outlander, because there is not heat in his sex scenes

[GrailKing]

On 10/23/2017 at 7:14 PM, 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.

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

I did say spy work.

[SeanC]

2 hours ago, Eyes High said:

My question about Varys betraying Jon/Dany is the same as with Tyrion: whom could they betray Jon/Dany to? Is Varys going to sneak off to engage in clandestine negotiations with the Night King?

My theory is that Varys is going to try to remove Dany so that Jon can be sole ruler, having concluded that Jon fits his criteria for the proper attitude of a king moreso.  It ticks a few boxes that the show seems to be setting up, such as a major plot consequence to Jon's Targaryen ancestry and Varys' suggested dissatisfaction with Dany's Tarly BBQ, etc. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by SeanC

[MadMouse]

2 hours ago, Eyes High said:

As if Ned 2.0 TV Jon is going to execute Tyrion for a "non-malicious" betrayal to save a child or similar. Does that really sound like something Jon would do? If Tyrion is a saint in the TV show, TV Jon, who magnanimously pardoned the Karstark and Umber heirs and who refused to order Melisandre's execution after she admitted to murdering a child, is a step up from that. If TV Jon did execute Tyrion, it would be because Tyrion did something truly terrible and exile wouldn't cut the mustard as punishment, not because of some mere misunderstanding blown out of proportion or because Tyrion tried to save a child's life. Since the show has ruled out a face-heel turn on Tyrion's part, and since he's extremely unlikely to do anything on the order of burning a child to death, it's safe to say that this won't happen...not to mention that Cersei was originally going to have a miscarriage in 7x07, so all the "Tyrion will betray Jon/Dany to save Cersei's baby" speculation is a non-starter.

My question about Varys betraying Jon/Dany is the same as with Tyrion: whom could they betray Jon/Dany to? Is Varys going to sneak off to engage in clandestine negotiations with the Night King?

If it caused harm to his family or a pregnant Dany? Yeah I could see him doing that, he was going to beat Ramsay to death for Rickon's death so some of that book Jon temper is there. And Cersei having a miscarriage in S7 or 8 wouldn't matter, since Tyrion would have no idea. Its not like she would send him a raven about it.

Do I think it'll happen not really but if it did I wouldn't be shocked either.

Edited October 26, 2017 by MadMouse

[GrailKing]

On 10/24/2017 at 5:26 AM, 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. 

Sansa DID NOT give SR anything, the Maester did, but he said he can't have any more for 6 months or more, the reason for it was he had to traverse a winding and windy stoney path, and he had to look Lordly.

Excerpt wise, her thoughts were if SR was going to throw a tantrum, did Maester give him something to keep him calm, but there is no indication if the maester did so.

Also per excerpts, SR is getting stronger and more alert under her, so if Sansa knows what LF is doing, LF and SR actions in the excerpts seems to show LF is failing in his plan. To me it can only be because like in show, Sansa is moving in a way he doesn't expect; SR may be an annoyance but I don't think Sansa is actively killing her cousin.

Of course I could be wrong, but won't know unless George finishes the damn book (s). 

[GrailKing]

On 10/24/2017 at 0:05 PM, herbz said:

Sansa seems like the only wildcard candidate now on the show at least- I know a lot of fans of show!Sansa feel it's her because Cersei underestimated her and wouldn't see her coming, but you know if we'd had a Cersei POV in books 1-3 she'd have been freaking out about this pretty girl coming to supplant her position at Joffrey's side in the same way she later obsesses over Margaery. My long held book theory was that it was Brienne 'the Beauty' (it just seemed a very subversive, writerly thing to do), but the show does seem to be pointing at Daenerys. 

'I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples and bastards and broken things'. I actually think Jaime might stand a shot at making it out alive precisely because he's also a member of this motley crew (he might still kick the bucket at any time, but until I see it on the page I will never buy that GRRM means for him and Cersei to die together in some sort of dramatic murder/suicide. There is so much book foreshadowing otherwise). I would find it rather hilarious if Sweetrobin is still rolling around the Vale when all is said and done. The Eyrie seems like a good place to hole up- can the Others climb?! Forget the Starks and Targaryens, these are the pressing questions I want answered in S8 :P 

No particular order : Margery, Brienne, Danny, and Sansa, I would sill like it to be Sansa, but I rather she be YMB in the North alive and well and smiling knowing Cersei bought the farm.

On 10/24/2017 at 0:33 PM, screamin said:

I think the YMBQ part of the prophecy has kind of fallen by the wayside on the show, because all Cersei's three children have died at different times and different causes that can't be attributed to just one person, regardless of how much younger and more beautiful she may be.

I seem to think they never tell us the whole prophecies, they give enough to know; then they just point blank SHOW the result of the prophecies.

[GrailKing]

On 10/24/2017 at 1:08 PM, Eyes High said:

Also, Dany is the only non-Cersei queen running around.

 

Yeah, I don't think GRRM's love of the underdog is any secret. His main five characters are all underdogs, which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see them come out on top in the end, although what "coming out on top" might look like will be very different from character to character.

 

I've always thought that the YMBQ prophecy in the books as it has played out is dumb, because Book Cersei has already lost a good deal that she holds dear, and there's no one single person, let along an identifiable YMBQ, responsible. Her pride? Walk of shame. Her beauty? Age and booze. Tywin? Tyrion. Joffrey? The Tyrells. Jaime? I think she has only herself to blame for losing him. 

The only way the prophecy works in either the books or the show is if you assume that Cersei hasn't yet lost anything she holds dear, which is nonsense in my opinion.

 

Going back to the endgame, one possible scene I've been batting around is a newly-crowned Jon and Dany sitting down with a group of lords/ladies representing the seven regions:

Stormlands: Gendry (legitimized, I'm assuming)

Reach: Sam

Iron Islands: whoever survives of Theon and Yara (if I had to guess, I'd say Theon)

Vale: Robin

North: Sansa

Westerlands: Tyrion

Dorne: No idea. There's a throwaway line in the S7 script outlines about there being multiple families fighting for control of Dorne after the deaths of the Sand Snakes.

It would be a nice way of tying everything together, in my opinion.

What about the Riverlands?

[GrailKing]

8 hours ago, Wouter said:

Margaery is doing her best to take Tommen from her (in the books she's trying, in the show we can say she succeeded even if posthumously), but her premature death in the show seems to rule her out. Both Sansa and Margaery had a role in Joffrey's death.

Neither Dany, Margaery or Sansa is likely to have any hand in Myrcella's fate.

What Cersei loves most of all though, may be power. In the books, Margaery has already cost her a lot of that but maybe she'll regain a lot of it, if her trajectory is anything like in the show (but due to fAegon, the books may turn out quite different). Dany looks the most likely to take her last scraps of power, in book and show.

Sansa may be the underdog but it would be kind of appropriate, so to speak, if she was it anyway. We know Cersei was/is afraid of Margaery as YMBQ in the books and show, and now fears Dany as same during and after S7. But I think it was implied that she was suspicious of Sansa too, and thus happy that Joffrey wasn't influenced by her in a meaningful way. Keeping Sansa powerless and miserable must have been quite pleasing to Cersei, with the prophecy in the back of her mind. 

Brienne could well take Jaime from her, but it's debatable if she holds him that dear by now, anyway. 

Only thing Cersei totally holds dear is Power.

I don't see Brienne in any position to get that or want that, she rather serve then rule, her beauty is totally internal.

 Danny does, she has a following and some heavy weapons and by Westeros standards HOT looking.

 Sansa has a personal history with Cersei and none of it good, book  wise she has no army, no Northern lords following her, show wise she has the Vale, but are facing more pressing issues, but Sansa doesn't have to be face to face to take power away from Cersei, she can move pieces and back someone else ( maybe she convinces the GC to betray Cersei, if they come North? ) we are told Sansa has a mind like LF by GRRM so maybe the younger player takes the power away.?

8 hours ago, screamin said:

But then, I like Sansa, so I'm probably biased.

Yeah, you and me both.

[Eyes High]

8 hours ago, MadMouse said:

If it caused harm to his family or a pregnant Dany? Yeah I could see him doing that, he was going to beat Ramsay to death for Rickon's death so some of that book Jon temper is there.

Yeah, and if Tyrion spends S8 raping and torturing Sansa or murdering Bran in the most sadistic manner possible before Jon's eyes, I could absolutely see Tyrion coming in for the Ramsay treatment from Jon, but how likely is that?

The fact of the matter is that Tyrion, unlike, say, Ramsay, or even people who helped Jon but whom he never particularly cared for (Stannis, Melisandre, etc.), has built up considerable goodwill with Jon. Jon firmly believes that Tyrion's a good man, sees him as a friend, likes him as a person, and trusts him implicitly. If Tyrion were in fact caught in some sort of tragic misunderstanding that blows back on Dany as has been suggested, Jon would be his staunchest defender and the least likely to render hasty judgment. And if Jon does execute Tyrion, it will be because Tyrion did something even worse than Melisandre (whom Jon declined to execute even though she admitted to murdering an innocent child) to deserve it. Heck, Jon was even willing to forgive Theon by the end of S7.

Basically, you can't have Ned 2.0 Jon, whom we've been constantly reminded is loyal to a fault and magnanimous, executing Saint Tyrion, whom we've been constantly reminded means well and abhors violence, for a misunderstanding. Either Saint Tyrion does something truly evil to warrant Ned 2.0 Jon's wrath (which would mean he wouldn't be Saint Tyrion anymore, an unlikely character development at this juncture), or Ned 2.0 Jon turns on his well-meaning but blundering friend and executes him over a misunderstanding blown out of proportion (which would mean he wouldn't be Ned 2.0 Jon anymore, also an unlikely character development at this juncture). It's illogical no matter which way you slice it.

Also, as @SeanC pointed out, if anyone's going to betray Jon/Dany, it will be the person who has been prophesied to die in Westeros and whom Dany specifically warned not to betray her.

 

7 hours ago, GrailKing said:

What about the Riverlands?

Sure, why not?

Edited October 26, 2017 by Eyes High

[screamin]

7 hours ago, GrailKing said:

Only thing Cersei totally holds dear is Power.

I don't see Brienne in any position to get that or want that, she rather serve then rule, her beauty is totally internal.

 

Brienne would certainly not want power for herself. But I can see her involved in a scenario in which she works with Jaime to take power away from Cersei (by fighting, naturally, that's Brienne's strong point), and Cersei upon being captured see that Jaime's fidelity has changed to Brienne...while she never valued Jaime's heart all that much, she did value him as her strong right arm who was always mindlessly at her service. It would hurt to see that he's been permanently amputated from her, used by another woman to take Cersei down and remove her beloved power, and it would be an enlightening shock for her to hear that other woman referred to mockingly behind her back by subordinates as 'Brienne the Beauty." Which is why we can't count Brienne entirely out.

[MarySNJ]

I just watched this video about Maggy the Frog's prophesies to Cersei, just to add some more speculation about the possible endgame: from Secrets of the Citadel  In think the whole video is excellent but starting at about 16:24 she points out that the prophesy says "Queen you shall be, until there comes another, younger and more beautiful to cast you down..." It does not say 'until there comes another queen, younger and more beautiful', although Cersei (and I and others) took it that way.  "Another" doesn't necessarily mean a queen, or even a woman - or even a living human.  

[screamin]

Sometimes I wonder if GRRM's composition style is like Agatha Christie's. I read that when she wrote her mystery novels she didn't know who her murderer was in the first draft, so she sprinkled hints throughout her narrative that implicated ALL her principal characters to some extent in the crime. Then, when she decided which character would be the most dramatically satisfying as the murderer, she would lay a trail of conclusive clues in the second draft "framing" that person.

Trouble with GRRM, he publishes what Agatha Christie would consider her first draft, so he can't go back and change it later. He sprinkles trails of bread crumbs and false leads all over his landscape and eventually will say that one trail is true and the others red herrings. Unfortunately, IMO, since he didn't plan far enough ahead to choose one trail conclusively and make it more convincing, none of his ultimate solutions are really going to satisfy all of us.

[GrailKing]

1 hour ago, screamin said:

Brienne would certainly not want power for herself. But I can see her involved in a scenario in which she works with Jaime to take power away from Cersei (by fighting, naturally, that's Brienne's strong point), and Cersei upon being captured see that Jaime's fidelity has changed to Brienne...while she never valued Jaime's heart all that much, she did value him as her strong right arm who was always mindlessly at her service. It would hurt to see that he's been permanently amputated from her, used by another woman to take Cersei down and remove her beloved power, and it would be an enlightening shock for her to hear that other woman referred to mockingly behind her back by subordinates as 'Brienne the Beauty." Which is why we can't count Brienne entirely out.

I don't count her out, she's in my list and has been for as long as the others have.

[domina89]

13 hours ago, Eyes High said:

"Hold the door" wasn't at odds with Hodor's character up to that point, and nor was Stannis burning Shireen, so your comparison doesn't hold. 

TV Tyrion is not only "smart, funny and charming," he's a good guy, as D&D have repeatedly made clear. He's such a good guy, in fact, that unlike Book Tyrion, he can't bear the thought of Jaime and Cersei--both of whom profess to hate him and want him dead--dying as a result of Dany's invasion. That Tyrion's desire to spare his family from destruction is seen by some as a guarantee that he will turn on Jon and Dany is completely mystifying to me. To me, Tyrion being conflicted over the idea of Jaime and Cersei's deaths is just another reminder of Tyrion's saintliness in D&D's eyes, which points about as far away from a turn to villainy and betrayal as you can possibly get.

The show provided ample hints and suggestions that Sansa would turn on her family, including an "ominous look" of her own in 6x10 matching Tyrion's supposed "ominous look" in 7x07, and she didn't. Tyrion has also been whitewashed in the show to the point that a face-heel turn would not be a "plot twist," it would be completely nonsensical. It would be about on the order of Davos slitting Jon's throat.

I don't see Tyrion betraying Dany/Jon being at odds with his character, either.  Game of Thrones is filled with gray characters who have all done things they never thought they might do because of reasons they never imagined.  I'm sure Tyrion never imagined he would be capable of actually killing his own father or strangling a woman to death who he loved, but he committed those acts.  He is certainly capable of betrayal at this point or perhaps much worse.  I, like others, tend to think his reasons in the end might not necessarily be malicious, but I don't think he's so much of a white hat that it is impossible.  

Edited October 26, 2017 by domina89

[Eyes High]

23 minutes ago, domina89 said:

I don't see Tyrion betraying Dany/Jon being at odds with his character, either.  Game of Thrones is filled with gray characters who have all done things they never thought they might do because of reasons they never imagined.  I'm sure Tyrion never imagined he would be capable of actually killing his own father or strangling a woman to death who he loved, but he committed those acts. 

TV Tyrion is not grey; even the whitest of the white hats among the main cast have killed people, and D&D saw to it that TV Tyrion killed Shae in self-defence. And the idea that it's possible or even probable that Tyrion would betray Jon/Dany because he turned on Tywin and Shae is ludicrous, given that Jon as far as we know has not been belittling and mocking Tyrion for years, much less arranging his execution and banging his ex, and that Dany has not professed to love Tyrion, sold him out in the most humiliating fashion possible, and then fucked his dad. TV Tyrion doesn't even bear Sansa any ill will, whom he may consider to have wronged him. What about him suggests he's capable of betraying Jon and Dany, who not only haven't done anything to wrong him but are two of the only people who have ever treated him with dignity, kindness and respect?

And sure, Book Tyrion is grey, but we're talking about the show here. TV Tyrion is unquestionably a white hat, particularly in recent seasons what with D&D's emphasis on Tyrion's desire to save lives and avoid bloodshed, and there's nothing in Season 7 to indicate that this is going to change. The fact that D&D continue to write Tyrion as a white hat, stressing his peaceful nature, his guilt over the Lannisters, and his hatred of violence, as we careen towards the show endgame suggests that in the books, Tyrion's "greyness" won't keep him from the side of the angels, either. Is it possible that Tyrion turns on Jon/Dany? Only in the sense that it's possible that S8 will consist of one scene of a sinkhole opening up and swallowing Westeros whole. Is it likely? No.

I get that some have this fantasy of Tyrion experiencing a last-minute turn to betrayal or even outright villainy, but let's be serious. There's nothing in S7 to support the Tyrion betrayal theory, and given that D&D's writing is about as subtle as a sledgehammer in S7, that means that it won't happen. If anyone turns on Jon/Dany, it will be Varys, who has at least been hinted to turn on Dany.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Eyes High

[domina89]

4 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

TV Tyrion is not grey; even the whitest of the white hats among the main cast have killed people, and D&D saw to it that TV Tyrion killed Shae in self-defence. And the idea that it's possible or even probable that Tyrion would betray Jon/Dany because he turned on Tywin and Shae is ludicrous, given that Jon as far as we know has not been belittling and mocking Tyrion for years, much less arranging his execution and banging his ex, and that Dany has not professed to love Tyrion, sold him out in the most humiliating fashion possible, and then fucked his dad. TV Tyrion doesn't even bear Sansa any ill will, whom he may consider to have wronged him. What about him suggests he's capable of betraying Jon and Dany, who not only haven't done anything to wrong him but are two of the only people who have ever treated him with dignity, kindness and respect?

And sure, Book Tyrion is grey, but we're talking about the show here. TV Tyrion is unquestionably a white hat, particularly in recent seasons what with D&D's emphasis on Tyrion's desire to save lives and avoid bloodshed, and there's nothing in Season 7 to indicate that this is going to change. The fact that D&D continue to write Tyrion as a white hat, stressing his peaceful nature, his guilt over the Lannisters, and his hatred of violence, as we careen towards the show endgame suggests that in the books, Tyrion's "greyness" won't keep him from the side of the angels, either. Is it possible that Tyrion turns on Jon/Dany? Only in the sense that it's possible that S8 will consist of one scene of a sinkhole opening up and swallowing Westeros whole. Is it likely? No.

I get that some have this fantasy of Tyrion experiencing a last-minute turn to betrayal or even outright villainy, but let's be serious. There's nothing in S7 to support the Tyrion betrayal theory, and given that D&D's writing is about as subtle as a sledgehammer in S7, that means that it won't happen. If anyone turns on Jon/Dany, it will be Varys, who has at least been hinted to turn on Dany.

The fact that Tyrion has committed murder regardless of the reasons means he's capable of betrayal regardless of the reasons.  I understand why Tyrion killed Shae and Tywin, but it doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't make him a "good guy" regardless of how justified it might seem.  He could have escaped without incident- Tyrion is the one who chose to go looking for trouble and he found it.  My point is, if the circumstances fashioned themselves in such a way in season 8 that he deemed betraying Jon and/or Dany necessary, he would do it.  We can't know what season 8 will throw at us or what the reasons may be- Tyrion may absolutely be heartbroken over having to betray them, or he may not be.  It is a guessing game for all of us at this point.  All I know is that Book!Tyrion and Show!Tyrion's endgame should end up in the same place, so if Book!Tyrion is becoming darker and more gray, then it is possible for Show!Tyrion to end up there as well, regardless of how D&D may try to mislead us to think otherwise.

[screamin]

Regarding Dany...I have tended to feel that there IS an element of truth in the vision she had of seeing the Red Keep and the Iron Throne abandoned and empty. It's pretty clearly foreshadowed that in the future magic will die out of Westeros forever, including such magical creatures as dragons. And without dragons, IMO, keeping up a huge continent-wide medieval kingdom full of disparate regions who'd really rather be independent isn't viable in the long term.

I think we've been assuming that if Dany doesn't occupy the Iron Throne in the future, it means she WILL die. But IMO, Dany isn't so wedded to the idea of reigning on the Iron Throne that we MUST assume that if it stands empty in the future, it means Dany died before she could claim it. Looking at the book HOTU reminded me that over and over through the books Dany remembers with longing the house with the red door where she lived as a child. Where there was a responsible, caring grown-up she still remembers with affection raising her, when her only family, her brother, was still nice to her at least some of the time. Where she had a relatively happy early childhood, safe, secure and unimportant. I think that's what she truly longs for in her heart, and her being queen has always been more of a mission she imposed on herself.

I think it's at least possible that if she comes out of the story at the end still alive, at least partially responsible for the survival of the world, AND pregnant, the story will allow her the priviledge to decide that she wants that kind of childhood for her own child, and that life for herself, and have her leave the stage for some safe cozy refuge (maybe with Jon, more likely alone as I doubt he'll survive) in the Summer Isles or some other place where she can safely engineer as much of a happy ending as a traumatized widow with a child to raise can have. To me, that would count as a bittersweet ending.

Regarding Tyrion: he may be among the whitest of white hats among the principle characters, but in Westeros among surviving characters, even the whitest of hats looks pretty dingy. REAL white hats in Westeros get hanged, burned at the stake or at least end up rowing tiny boats continuously for years. Tyrion has his heart in the right place, but he's practical - and in Westeros practicality is generally associated with a significant degree of darkness. If he has serious reason to believe a betrayal would result in the greater good for the many, he'd probably do it.

Edited October 26, 2017 by screamin

[WindyNights]

16 hours ago, screamin said:

The Tiberius who was mainly the beneficiary of his mother's murderous ambition, who advanced not because he had any particular right to advancement or any strong feeling that he had a right to a higher place, but because his mom relentlessly murdered everyone who got in the way, though he was happy enough to carry on the tradition when she died? The one who amused himself with orgies on Capri with Caligula in his old age? Can't say as I see a strong resemblance. GRRM said the main characteristic he took from Tiberius was his 'unlikeability' when he wrote Stannis. I'd say they are many other differences besides 'righteousness'.

Okay, you were previously talking about how you knew for certain that Book Dany would institute villainous massacres and die (probably pregnant) in the fight with the Others, so first I checked out the book HOTU scenes as summarized in AWOIAF. And I can't say that I see which scenes you mean that definitely prophecy what you're saying. I do see that there are scenes that take place in the HOTU that refer to things that never happened and never will; i.e: "In the House of the Undying Daenerys sees a tall lord with copper skin and silver-gold hair standing beneath the banner of a fiery stallion, a burning city behind him," which seems a pretty clear vision of Rhaego as the Stallion that Mounts the World - a prophecy that never came true, a lie. So we must be careful which scenes we take as the truth. Which book HOTU prophecy do you think truly foresees your conviction that Dany will commit vile massacres and die?

In the TV HOTU, yes, one can interpret the scene of Dany walking through the ruin of the Red Keep (which doesn't look as though it was burned, IMO, but whatever), beyond the Wall, and into Drogo's tent as a vision of the failure of her quest to retake the throne and her death. But, since she rejected it and the whole HOTU was subsequently shown to be a trap to try to keep Dany there ALIVE as a prisoner forever (thus negating the vision as a prophecy, and making it seem more like a decoy to discourage her from her quest and stay with sweet Drogo) I'd say we can't depend on it as the truth.

And yes, 'everywhere the dragons danced, the people died.' And everywhere the Lannister Lions with their Mountain rode, the people died. Given the multitudes that have died since the war started, and the hero status of Aegon the Conqueror, I can't think there's really anything extra-specially-wicked about Dany using her dragons in war. I agree that the wildfire in KL is a Chekov's gun. But even if Dany attacks the Red Keep with her dragons and sets off the wildfire by mistake, I don't see how this condemns her morally beyond other leaders in the war. Cersei would undoubtedly have touched off the wildfire in defeat even if she were attacked by conventional armies. Does that mean anyone who tries to take Cersei down is evil? And since the show hasn't bothered to show Dany being outright evil upon her arrival in Westeros, and the showrunners have said they want to follow GRRM in the main thrust of narrative, I doubt Dany wickedly massacreing people is a huge plot point in the books either.

GRRM didn't say what characteristics that he took from Stannis. He just mentioned that there's a lot of George Baker's Tiberius in Stannis. This is the history fiction version not the historical Tiberius. I mean I've seen some of I, Claudius and besides the unlikeability, GRRM has lifted off some lines from Tiberius and tweaked it for Stannis. Also Augustus is to Tiberius in a way that Robert is to Stannis in the sense that both Stannis/Tiberius don't feel appreciated by Augustus/Robert.

Anyways on Daenerys:

You mentioned the tall copper lord in a vision meant to symbolize Rhaego. That's part of the vision that I think points to her death. The death part has to do with the first vision trio, the daughter of death of visions:

[quoteblock]Then phantoms shivered through the murk, images in indigo. Viserys screamed as the molten gold ran down his cheeks and filled his mouth. A tall lord with copper skin and silver-gold hair stood beneath the banner of a fiery stallion, a burning city behind him. Rubies flew like drops of blood from the chest of a dying prince, and he sank to his knees in the water and with his last breath murmured a woman's name. . . . mother of dragons, daughter of death[/quoteblock]

So what does this mean? The visions are clearly Viserys, Rhaego and Rhaegar but why them and why in that order? It's definitely not chronological.

I think the best answer has been that these three are the legacies she takes on. First, she takes on Viserys' legacy as the Beggar Queen in Qarth and beyond then she takes on Rhaego's legacy as the Stallion that Mounts the World when she begins her conquering and finally she takes on Rhaegar's legacy as the Prince that Was Promised to save the world.

 But there is no fourth legacy. None of these people reigned in Westeros. We have beggar queen, conqueror and savior. There aren't any prophetic hints that she takes over Westeros. I've looked but I can't find them.

I acknowledge that the Show's HOTU can be interpreted in two ways but in the context of the other stuff I mention, I think it's pointing towards death.

Aegon the Conqueror is as much a hero as William the Conqueror. People often idolize historical figures. That doesn't mean they were heroic.

Like GRRM has talked about how Edward II was a nice guy that loved to get down with the people and talk to them but history remembers him badly and as weak but Edward Longshanks is remembered as a good king despite him being a brutal warlord.

Anyways, I don't think that Daenerys is going fight Cersei in the books but "Aegon" who is a much better person which superficially casts Daenerys in the role of antagonist for the rest of Westeros. What happens when the people don't want you to rule and prefer who they already have? I think GRRM is making a pointed statement about the idea of rightful rulers being kind of a sham epitomized in "Aegon", Daenerys, Stannis, Joffrey and Tommen.

Anyways, I don't think that Daenerys is gonna start intentillay massacring villages intentionally but when she releases the Dothraki and dragons, she's going to be causing much greater destruction than Robb or Tywin by virtue of having so much more power. Should we actually be rooting for Daenerys to do this when her war is killing so many people? 

Also I'm not wedded to Daenerys' kid dying but I do think that Daenerys dies whether it's in battle or childbirth.

 

I think it's pretty naive to think that something not being showcased in the show means it's not a huge plot point. Aegon is in the books but not in the show and yet the Second Dance of Dragons is something GRRM says we'll see. I think another war is pretty damn important. And if you want to look at character arcs, Show and Book Tyrion are world's apart. One is a hero and the other villain. Show Tyrion wants to help Westeros and find it a worthy ruler. Book Tyrion just wants to wreck Westeros, rape Cersei and kill his family. Show Tyrion basically took all of Barristan's motivation. So if they wanted to keep with the main thrust of a character's narrative then they've already failed with a main character.  My point being that character narratives are being sacrificed upon the altar to get to the ending. 

[herbz]

7 hours ago, screamin said:

Brienne would certainly not want power for herself. But I can see her involved in a scenario in which she works with Jaime to take power away from Cersei (by fighting, naturally, that's Brienne's strong point), and Cersei upon being captured see that Jaime's fidelity has changed to Brienne...while she never valued Jaime's heart all that much, she did value him as her strong right arm who was always mindlessly at her service. It would hurt to see that he's been permanently amputated from her, used by another woman to take Cersei down and remove her beloved power, and it would be an enlightening shock for her to hear that other woman referred to mockingly behind her back by subordinates as 'Brienne the Beauty." Which is why we can't count Brienne entirely out.

I agree with all this. It's also not impossible that Brienne might one day face a situation where she might have to reluctantly step into a position of responsibility she doesn't want and/or doesn't think she can do. She's the *sole* heir to Tarth which, with the extermination of the Baratheon line (well, there's Gendry but he'd need to be legitimised), is likely the major house of the Stormlands atm. She's actually of a similar social rank to Sansa and Arya and probably shouldn't be serving them. She frets in the books about not being able to do her duty to her father/people. The show has pretty much ignored that part of her characterisation entirely so it's probably not important but I'm almost expecting Brienne to have to face that dilemma in the books, what with the rumours that the Golden Company has now landed on Tarth. 

Book Cersei does seem to value Jaime (or at least his devotion) more in his absence in AFFC/ADWD than she did when she took him for granted. She's desperate for him to save her while she's in prison and she can't comprehend that he might have abandoned her. Perhaps we'll see a similar sentiment play out in S8. 

I will hold on to this theory, if only because if it's correct I will enjoy watching some of the folks on Reddit who base their YMBQ predictions on whether they think Dany or Sansa is hotter try to wrap their heads round it. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by herbz

[bubble sparkly]

If Varys does decide Jon should be on the throne “for the good of the realm” or whatever, so you think he will try to have Dany assasinated? Because spearheading a movement to rally supporters for Jon is pretty pointless if Jon himself maintains his position that Dany deserves to be queen. And I can’t see Jon changing his mind on that anytime soon.

[SeanC]

2 minutes ago, bubble sparkly said:

If Varys does decide Jon should be on the throne “for the good of the realm” or whatever, so you think he will try to have Dany assasinated? Because spearheading a movement to rally supporters for Jon is pretty pointless if Jon himself maintains his position that Dany deserves to be queen. And I can’t see Jon changing his mind on that anytime soon.

That's my guess.  It's cleaner to just try to kill her in a way that nobody will suspect, since Dany can't be pushed out (given her power) against her will.

That's the thing about the implications of Jon being legitimate, incidentally:  to me, that can only be a significant factor if it matters to Dany herself, because Dany being the rightful heir under the Targaryen succession is important to precisely nobody besides her.  Her followers don't care in the slightest.  Not to mention that, between bastard Jon being chosen over this legitimate sibling(s), Cersei holding the throne despite no claim whatsoever, and Ellaria taking over Dorne in the same manner, the idea that legitimacy is at all important in GOT-world at large is simply unsustainable.

[WindyNights]

30 minutes ago, SeanC said:

That's my guess.  It's cleaner to just try to kill her in a way that nobody will suspect, since Dany can't be pushed out (given her power) against her will.

That's the thing about the implications of Jon being legitimate, incidentally:  to me, that can only be a significant factor if it matters to Dany herself, because Dany being the rightful heir under the Targaryen succession is important to precisely nobody besides her.  Her followers don't care in the slightest.  Not to mention that, between bastard Jon being chosen over this legitimate sibling(s), Cersei holding the throne despite no claim whatsoever, and Ellaria taking over Dorne in the same manner, the idea that legitimacy is at all important in GOT-world at large is simply unsustainable.

I find this scenario completely silly.

What you're really going to get is Daenerys and Jon marrying once they find out the truth and deciding to share power a la Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand. And that'll be what quells the North from getting too pissy with Jon. It'll be a compromise.

Varys isn't stupid enough to assassinate the only person that can ride Drogon in the middle of a war with the White Walkers.

Edited October 26, 2017 by WindyNights

[SeanC]

1 minute ago, WindyNights said:

What you're really going to get is Daenerys and Jon marrying once they find out the truth and deciding to share power a la Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand.

I think that is the probable outcome (though Ferdinand and Isabella actually had separate power bases), but that doesn’t mean there won’t be drama along the way.  Given all the buildup, it seems unlikely they’re just going to jump to the most reasonable outcome.

Quote

Varys isn't stupid enough to assassinate the only person that can ride Drogon in the middle of a war with the White Walkers.

Given that we know Varys will die and he has been foreshadowed to betray Dany pretty heavily, I’d disagree.

Also, once it’s known that Jon has Targaryen ancestry, that would remove the dragons as a concern since Varys would know he could presumably ride them.  He may already, in fact, if they have him mount Rhaegal.

[WindyNights]

4 minutes ago, SeanC said:

I think that is the probable outcome (though Ferdinand and Isabella actually had separate power bases), but that doesn’t mean there won’t be drama along the way.  Given all the buildup, it seems unlikely they’re just going to jump to the most reasonable outcome.

Given that we know Varys will die and he has been foreshadowed to betray Dany pretty heavily, I’d disagree.

Also, once it’s known that Jon has Targaryen ancestry, that would remove the dragons as a concern since Varys would know he could presumably ride them.  He may already, in fact, if they have him mount Rhaegal.

Daenerys and Jon would also have separate power bases. The North for Jon and the rest for Daenerys. I think that in the business of saving time, they're going to get to the most reasonable conclusion pretty fast just like how I don't think the show is really going to portray Jon coming to terms with his parentage much. That's what sucks about rushing to the end. 6 episodes isn't very much even if there engorged.

I also think Varys is going to die but I don't think it'll have to do anything with betrayal. Think wildfire explosion of KL. 

 

And being a Targaryen isn't enough to ride a dragon. The smarter play would be to assassinate Daenerys after the war is over not in the middle of it which is why it's silly.

[screamin]

8 hours ago, WindyNights said:

GRRM didn't say what characteristics that he took from Stannis. He just mentioned that there's a lot of George Baker's Tiberius in Stannis. This is the history fiction version not the historical Tiberius. I mean I've seen some of I, Claudius and besides the unlikeability, GRRM has lifted off some lines from Tiberius and tweaked it for Stannis. Also Augustus is to Tiberius in a way that Robert is to Stannis in the sense that both Stannis/Tiberius don't feel appreciated by Augustus/Robert.

Unlikeability is the only characteristic of Tiberius GRRM DOES mention when he talks about using Tiberius as a model for Stannis, here: 

Baker was one of the unsung heroes of I, CLAUDIUS. Derek Jacobi and Sian Phillips got an incredible amount of praise for their portrayals of Claudius and Livia, deservedly, while Brian Blessed and John Hurt were already well-established and well recognized, but I never felt Baker got nearly enough attention for his Tiberius... a thankless role, since the character was so unlikeable, but one that he performed brilliantly.There's a lot of his Tiberius in my Stannis, fwiw.

 And, yeah, he lifted some lines from Tiberius to paraphrase for Stannis. That isn't a characteristic in common with Stannis, so given the other differences (like, his actual emotional attachment to a wife that actually hurt when he renounced her, attachment to a son, comforting himself for his partially self-inflicted losses with diverse sexual depravities, a taste he companionably shares with Caligula) I don't think it's accurate to say that the main difference between him and Stannis is Stannis' "righteousness."

Quote

 

Anyways on Daenerys:

You mentioned the tall copper lord in a vision meant to symbolize Rhaego. That's part of the vision that I think points to her death. The death part has to do with the first vision trio, the daughter of death of visions:

....

So what does this mean? The visions are clearly Viserys, Rhaego and Rhaegar but why them and why in that order? It's definitely not chronological.

I think the best answer has been that these three are the legacies she takes on. First, she takes on Viserys' legacy as the Beggar Queen in Qarth and beyond then she takes on Rhaego's legacy as the Stallion that Mounts the World when she begins her conquering and finally she takes on Rhaegar's legacy as the Prince that Was Promised to save the world.

 But there is no fourth legacy. None of these people reigned in Westeros. We have beggar queen, conqueror and savior. There aren't any prophetic hints that she takes over Westeros. I've looked but I can't find them.

I acknowledge that the Show's HOTU can be interpreted in two ways but in the context of the other stuff I mention, I think it's pointing towards death.

 

That...doesn't quite follow. Firstly, you're considering that "Dany doesn't sit the Iron Throne" absolutely equals "death" when that isn't necessarily so. Secondly, if, in your own interpretation she takes on the legacy of the Prince(ss) That Was Promised - well, there's nothing in that particular savior figure that requires the savior's death to save the world. Nobody's a Christian in Westeros. The Azor Ahai figure doesn't peaceably give up his life to redeem the world with his blood, s/he is a warrior who fights and vanquishes the enemy threatening the world. No version we've read says that s/he dies.

ETA: Come to think of it, why should there be a fourth vision showing Dany she will reign on the Iron Throne after being the messianic savior of the world - even if she DOES reign afterwards? IMO, being the messianic savior of the world is the high point. Ruling afterwards on the Iron Throne like centuries of relatively humdrum monarchs before her would be a tedious anticlimax in comparison. If I were the scriptwriter for that series of prophecies I'd totally leave that bit out. :)

Edited October 27, 2017 by screamin

[WindyNights]

15 hours ago, screamin said:

Unlikeability is the only characteristic of Tiberius GRRM DOES mention when he talks about using Tiberius as a model for Stannis, here: 

Baker was one of the unsung heroes of I, CLAUDIUS. Derek Jacobi and Sian Phillips got an incredible amount of praise for their portrayals of Claudius and Livia, deservedly, while Brian Blessed and John Hurt were already well-established and well recognized, but I never felt Baker got nearly enough attention for his Tiberius... a thankless role, since the character was so unlikeable, but one that he performed brilliantly.There's a lot of his Tiberius in my Stannis, fwiw.

 And, yeah, he lifted some lines from Tiberius to paraphrase for Stannis. That isn't a characteristic in common with Stannis, so given the other differences (like, his actual emotional attachment to a wife that actually hurt when he renounced her, attachment to a son, comforting himself for his partially self-inflicted losses with diverse sexual depravities, a taste he companionably shares with Caligula) I don't think it's accurate to say that the main difference between him and Stannis is Stannis' "righteousness."

....I don't think that's the right interpretation of what he's saying. He thinks George Baker should've gotten more acclaim than he did but thinks he didn't because the character was unlikeable. Then he says there's a lot of George Baker's Tiberius in his Stannis. I don't think he just think the only resemblance is the unlikeablilty like there's also the fact that they're both competent, feel under appreciated and are extremely petulant people. That said, I was mostly exagerrating when I said Stannis was Tiberius but righteous but the character does feel like GRRM decided he wanted a cooler, badass version of Tiberius Caesar.

 

Quote

That...doesn't quite follow. Firstly, you're considering that "Dany doesn't sit the Iron Throne" absolutely equals "death" when that isn't necessarily so.

I think that the idea of a quiet life with the red door is something she's put behind her by the end of ADWD. She shut the door on that door. So Daenerys is in it to win it and "in the game of thrones, you either win or you die, there is no middle ground".

 

Quote

Secondly, if, in your own interpretation she takes on the legacy of the Prince(ss) That Was Promised - well, there's nothing in that particular savior figure that requires the savior's death to save the world. Nobody's a Christian in Westeros. The Azor Ahai figure doesn't peaceably give up his life to redeem the world with his blood, s/he is a warrior who fights and vanquishes the enemy threatening the world. No version we've read says that s/he dies.

No version says AA lives either. And this goes back to the themes of the books being about sacrifice and how being a hero is worth it even though no one is going to acknowledge you for it and how much it sucks ass. Being a hero means giving up your life. It isn't fun or cool just hard.

 

Quote

ETA: Come to think of it, why should there be a fourth vision showing Dany she will reign on the Iron Throne after being the messianic savior of the world - even if she DOES reign afterwards? IMO, being the messianic savior of the world is the high point. Ruling afterwards on the Iron Throne like centuries of relatively humdrum monarchs before her would be a tedious anticlimax in comparison. If I were the scriptwriter for that series of prophecies I'd totally leave that bit out. :)

I'm going to link you to a theory that just came out today that follows closely with my ideas of what Daenerys is going to go through on the show and it's extremely bleak albeit makes Daenerys look pretty good:

 

https://weirwoodleviathan.wordpress.com/2017/10/26/lightbringer-a-theoretical-outline-of-season-8-episode-3/

I rec you read it all but I'll spoil the gist of it:

The WW march on KL, Cersei abandons it, Team Starkgaryen try to defend KL while trying to evacuate the people with the Iron Fleet, the WW breach the Walls, they're losing, this whole time Bran has taken control of Varys to set up the wildfire in KL, Bran the takes control of Drogon while Daenerys is riding him to blow up all of KL,  Drogon kills everyone despite Daenerys' pleas to stop including everyone that Daenerys has freed and  people like Varys, Melisandre, Grey Worm along with the Unsullied, it was done by Bran to prevent the NK from getting more people in his army, the NK flees back North, Missandei loses faith in Daenerys who killed the man she loved, Westeros blames Daenerys for it and Daenerys flees to the Wall for the final confrontation with the NK in shock.

And that is why House Targaryen will not keep the throne. KL will blow up and Daenrys is going to be vilified. No one will want a Targaryen on the throne after this.

We have clues for this that plays into Bran and Daenerys' arc.

Quote

] "The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword."

Quote

"Your dragons will be a flaming sword over the world."

Bran swings Drogon at the people of KL and annihilates them. 

Quotes by the author of the theory:

Quote

Lightbringer because it's a twisted take on the savior narrative of Lightbringer. Instead of a fiery sword that heroically saves everyone, it's a jet of fire that comes down from the sky and burns away an entire city, sacrificing a million Nissa Nissas.

Quote

Yup. She ends the Long Night in the Lands of Always Winter and it's never really made known. GRRM also talks about the death of Wonderman and it's influence on his writing, so it's a lot like that. I think it's important that what she does beyond the Wall she does without any expectation of recognition or reward. It becomes a purely selfless, acting as a Queen even though she has no subjects.

But yea I don't think anyone is going to sit that particular throne in the end, as it's a symbol of Targaryen power and the Targaryen dynasty is going to be over.

Edited October 27, 2017 by WindyNights

[screamin]

12 hours ago, WindyNights said:

.

No version says AA lives either. And this goes back to the themes of the books being about sacrifice and how being a hero is worth it even though no one is going to acknowledge you for it and how much it sucks ass. Being a hero means giving up your life. It isn't fun or cool just hard.

 

But the only solid tale we have about Azor Ahai explicitly says that he sacrifices someone else to save the world. NOT himself. Yes, it was someone he loved most, but his loved one - who's named mostly as an afterthought, not the protagonist of the tale - is the one that gives up her life, not the 'hero' of the tale. Nobody in Westeros names Nissa Nissa as the hero who will save the world. Everyone calls Azor Ahai the hero and savior.  So being the hero in this tale doesn't mean "giving up your life." It explicitly means giving up someone else's life to beat the villain. And we have no information that says that Azor Ahai dies beating the villain. Yes, that's one typical end to the tale, the hero dying on the battlefield, mortally wounded by the enemy he vanquished. But other typical ends would be the triumphant hero taking to the equivalent of a monastery and/or humbly doing good deeds in eternal penance and mourning for having killed Nissa Nissa, even if it was in the greatest of good causes, while admiring chroniclers write raptures of praise for the man who humbly renounces all the power and glory a savior of the world could have to mourn his eternal love slain, and admire his heroic gloomy emo-ness till the end of time, and mention the woman who stood bravely there with her breast bared for the sacrifice as an afterthought, not as the hero. And THAT would be every broody emo superhero who mourns his fridged girlfriend whose sacrifice made him the person he is. (See the Women in Refrigerators trope.) If you're looking to GRRM to turn cliches on their head, all those aren't the endings you want.

Quote

 

I think that the idea of a quiet life with the red door is something she's put behind her by the end of ADWD. She shut the door on that door. So Daenerys is in it to win it and "in the game of thrones, you either win or you die, there is no middle ground".

 

And yet in A Dance with Dragons there are no less than six separate references to Dany either dreaming of the house with the red door or thinking longingly of it on different occasions. That is, there are more references in the LATEST book to Dany thinking of that life with uncomplicated longing than there were in any book since the first one. Count them yourself. It certainly doesn't SEEM like she's put that behind her and 'shut the door.'

And if she vanquishes the NK but loses all her dragons (as is likely) and probably Jon as her sacrifice, and wakes up the morning after faced with the prospect of rebuilding everything among a quarreling populace looking for scapegoats and restarting their usual power plays, (likely many of them against her), and knowing she will have to continue to play the game and use her unborn child as a playing piece for the rest of her life, thus dooming the child to a life of the same? Perhaps it would cross her mind that she had resources enough to give a better life to her child than that - a life in a house with a red door, say? Why, after all, should we take a limited thinker like Cersei as the last word on the only possible outcomes of the game of thrones? :)

As for that theory - I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole. I can't imagine Bran coldbloodedly deciding to kill a half a million people with as little emotion as a soldier blowing up a munitions dump to keep it from falling into the enemy's hands, and then cheerfully letting Dany take the blame for it. Yes, it's quite possible that KL may blow up. But as I said before, it would blow up whether Dany attacked it with her dragons or Jaime attacked it with an army, because it only blew up due to Cersei setting the wildfire up to explode in case of her defeat, as she already DID to the Sept on the show. So I don't think any unique blame and vilification will attach to Dany if it blows up because she attacked the Red Keep with her dragons and Cersei touches off the wildfire she set up to destroy the city, or even if Dany unknowingly touches off Cersei's wildfire HERSELF with a dragon attack.

Proof? You've brought up that GRRM mentioned the dragons as a nuclear bomb. I've said that I don't think that's accurate, because dragons can pinpoint targets the way bombs can't.  But I agree that dragons attacking a city that's booby trapped with tons of wildfire WILL give a result very similar to a nuclear bomb. Were the Allies universally vilified by the world for deliberately setting off nuclear bombs in TWO cities in the process of defeating an enemy? No, they were not - not even by GRRM himself, who has stated that while he didn't want to fight in Vietnam, he recognized the Allied side in WWII as a side worth fighting for, despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So I think it farfetched to suppose that GRRM will write a story where the whole world will villainize Dany for blowing up KL accidentally, when he recognizes (and the vast majority of the world ALSO recognizes) that the Allies were not vilified even though they blew up two cities DELIBERATELY.

Edited October 27, 2017 by screamin

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, screamin said:

And yet in A Dance with Dragons there are no less than six separate references to Dany either dreaming of the house with the red door or thinking longingly of it on different occasions. That is, there are more references in the LATEST book to Dany thinking of that life with uncomplicated longing than there were in any book since the first one. Count them yourself. It certainly doesn't SEEM like she's put that behind her and 'shut the door.'

And if she vanquishes the NK but loses all her dragons (as is likely) and probably Jon as her sacrifice, and wakes up the morning after faced with the prospect of rebuilding everything among a quarreling populace looking for scapegoats and restarting their usual power plays, (likely many of them against her), and knowing she will have to continue to play the game and use her unborn child as a playing piece for the rest of her life, thus dooming the child to a life of the same? Perhaps it would cross her mind that she had resources enough to give a better life to her child than that - a life in a house with a red door, say? Why, after all, should we take a limited thinker like Cersei as the last word on the only possible outcomes of the game of thrones? :)

My problem with this is that Dany has a strong sense of duty and responsibility. I don't see her leaving the people of Westeros to their own devices, particularly since Westeros is likely to be in shambles by the end of the war, and fucking off to parts unknown to raise her kid. I believe that as much as she may long for a peaceful, quiet existence symbolized by the house with the red door, especially if she loses her dragons and Jon and if there's a kid in the picture she wants to raise in peace, ultimately she'll suck it up and do her duty, no matter how miserable it makes her.

The show has also emphasized Dany's reformist hopes, although it would be pretty funny if we had an exchange like this:

Dany: Ugh, I'm so sick of this shit. Fuck the Iron Throne.

Tyrion: But, Your Grace, what about breaking the wheel???

Dany: Honestly, I don't even know what that means. I just thought it sounded cool. Peace!

Edited October 27, 2017 by Eyes High

[WindyNights]

2 hours ago, screamin said:

But the only solid tale we have about Azor Ahai explicitly says that he sacrifices someone else to save the world. NOT himself. Yes, it was someone he loved most, but his loved one - who's named mostly as an afterthought, not the protagonist of the tale - is the one that gives up her life, not the 'hero' of the tale. Nobody in Westeros names Nissa Nissa as the hero who will save the world. Everyone calls Azor Ahai the hero and savior.  So being the hero in this tale doesn't mean "giving up your life." It explicitly means giving up someone else's life to beat the villain. And we have no information that says that Azor Ahai dies beating the villain. Yes, that's one typical end to the tale, the hero dying on the battlefield, mortally wounded by the enemy he vanquished. But other typical ends would be the triumphant hero taking to the equivalent of a monastery and/or humbly doing good deeds in eternal penance and mourning for having killed Nissa Nissa, even if it was in the greatest of good causes, while admiring chroniclers write raptures of praise for the man who humbly renounces all the power and glory a savior of the world could have to mourn his eternal love slain, and admire his heroic gloomy emo-ness till the end of time, and mention the woman who stood bravely there with her breast bared for the sacrifice as an afterthought, not as the hero. And THAT would be every broody emo superhero who mourns his fridged girlfriend whose sacrifice made him the person he is. (See the Women in Refrigerators trope.) If you're looking to GRRM to turn cliches on their head, all those aren't the endings you want.

 

 

 

 

Sacrificing what you love is you making a sacrifice. That's why I say that AA is inherently a sacrificial figure. I'm not looking GRRM to turn cliches on it's head just turn cliches on their head. I'm looking for something thematically consistent with his work.

[

]And yet in A Dance with Dragons there are no less than six separate references to Dany either dreaming of the house with the red door or thinking longingly of it on different occasions. That is, there are more references in the LATEST book to Dany thinking of that life with uncomplicated longing than there were in any book since the first one. Count them yourself. It certainly doesn't SEEM like she's put that behind her and 'shut the door.'[

]

That doesn't actually refute what I said because I was talking about Daenerys' ending chapter as of ADWD. She's in it to win it.

 

[

]And if she vanquishes the NK but loses all her dragons (as is likely) and probably Jon as her sacrifice, and wakes up the morning after faced with the prospect of rebuilding everything among a quarreling populace looking for scapegoats and restarting their usual power plays, (likely many of them against her), and knowing she will have to continue to play the game and use her unborn child as a playing piece for the rest of her life, thus dooming the child to a life of the same? Perhaps it would cross her mind that she had resources enough to give a better life to her child than that - a life in a house with a red door, say? Why, after all, should we take a limited thinker like Cersei as the last word on the only possible outcomes of the game of thrones? :)[

]

I don't think that's the type of character that Daenerys is. I don't think she'd run away from helping people.

As for that theory - I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole. I can't imagine Bran coldbloodedly deciding to kill a half a million people with as little emotion as a soldier blowing up a munitions dump to keep it from falling into the enemy's hands, and then cheerfully letting Dany take the blame for it. Yes, it's quite possible that KL may blow up. But as I said before, it would blow up whether Dany attacked it with her dragons or Jaime attacked it with an army, because it only blew up due to Cersei setting the wildfire up to explode in case of her defeat, as she already DID to the Sept on the show. So I don't think any unique blame and vilification will attach to Dany if it blows up because she attacked the Red Keep with her dragons and Cersei touches off the wildfire she set up to destroy the city, or even if Dany unknowingly touches off Cersei's wildfire HERSELF with a dragon attack.

]

In the show, Bran doesn't really exist anymore. Bran got swallowed by the godhood/Three Eyed Raven hence him looking dispassionately as he talks about Sansa's wedding night and saying he remembers once what it was like to be Bran.

Cersei had wildfire when Stannis was outside her gates and she didn't try to rig the city to blow. Also I think if Cersei does it then it's just a villain acting like a villain rather than our heroes being forced to make some tough decisions (and like I said one of GRRM's protagonists in one of his stories chose to sterilize 99 % of a planet).

Also, yes, Daenerys would be vilified if she torched KL. That's no longer a savior figure in people's eyes. That's a female Mad King on a dragon and think about how Daenerys would feel.

Like look at the context of what GRRM is doing in the books. "Aegon" was purposefully created so most of Westeros would sympathize with him. So you have a king here that the people cheer for so what happens when Daenerys rides in to fight him? I don't think public opinion is going to be on Daenerys' side and that's ultimately what I think GRRM is trying to do with Daenerys. He's trying to make her a hero with bad publicity in Westeros. Just look at all of Daenerys' allies that she'll be bringing to the continent: Essosi Sellswords, eunuchs, ironborn, Dothraki, former slaves, dragons etc. and unlike the show, I don't think she can just tell the Dothraki and ironborn to not rape or pillage and then they'll all just do it (that's not how it works). The show sort of touches on it but it's rushing to the end so it doesn't give time to linger on what the effects of a Daenerys' conquest is doing.

 

Proof? You've brought up that GRRM mentioned the dragons as a nuclear bomb. I've said that I don't think that's accurate, because dragons can pinpoint targets the way bombs can't.  But I agree that dragons attacking a city that's booby trapped with tons of wildfire WILL give a result very similar to a nuclear bomb. Were the Allies universally vilified by the world for deliberately setting off nuclear bombs in TWO cities in the process of defeating an enemy? No, they were not - not even by GRRM himself, who has stated that while he didn't want to fight in Vietnam, he recognized the Allied side in WWII as a side worth fighting for, despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So I think it farfetched to suppose that GRRM will write a story where the whole world will villainize Dany for blowing up KL accidentally, when he recognizes (and the vast majority of the world ALSO recognizes) that the Allies were not vilified even though they blew up two cities DELIBERATELY.

Did the Allies nuke New York City? Did the Allies nuke one of their own capitals? 

Also this isn't the modern age. There will be no documents to share. People aren't going to know why Daenerys did what she did just that she did it. 

Also I didn't say the whole world will villainize Daenerys perhaps the North will remember her differently (The North Remembers). I just think that she'll be one of those figures like Stannis that'll be treated very badly by history (those are the historical figures that GRRM is fascinated by).

Edited October 27, 2017 by WindyNights

[screamin]

21 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

The show has also emphasized Dany's reformist hopes, although it would be pretty funny if we had an exchange like this:

Dany: Ugh, I'm so sick of this shit. Fuck the Iron Throne.

Tyrion: But, Your Grace, what about breaking the wheel???

Dany: Honestly, I don't even know what that means. I just thought it sounded cool. Peace!

That...that is hilarious!  Thanks :D

But it's funny because there's also truth in it. What DOES it mean to break the wheel? If there are no dragons by the time the war ends - which seems to be foretold by both the Children of the Forest's prediction that they themselves and all magical creatures are doomed to become extinct, and the death of one of Dany's dragons on the show in a single battle with the others - how is Dany uniquely qualified to govern and impose her will to force justice in the land, when she would only have mundane tools available to every other power player to work with - armies of ordinary humans with leaders recruited by political ties and maneuvers? Why would she necessarily feel that she was the ONLY one qualified to do that?

If she wants to establish, say, a constitutional monarchy (which is probably the most attainable improvement on a feudal absolute monarch in the short run) is it really her responsibility to stay and rule as Goddess Empress  - which is what she will necessarily be to them if she does save the world, and thus what she will need to use to establish her bona fides as supreme candidate for ruler? She already knows she's not the most adept ruler in peacetime. And IMO, it would be a really bad mistake to establish a ruling dynasty that bases its authority on the bloodline of a Savior of the World, if what you're looking for is a continued just rule...it would basically give your descendants religious as well as temporal authority over your people, and thus is open to even more abuse by unworthy descendants than an ordinary feudal monarchy.

[WindyNights]

"Your dragons will be a flaming sword above the world."

"

The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword."

Lightbringer because it's a twisted take on the savior narrative of Lightbringer. Instead of a fiery sword that heroically saves everyone, it's a jet of fire that comes down from the sky and burns away an entire city, sacrificing a million Nissa Nissas.

Yup. She ends the Long Night in the Lands of Always Winter and it's never really made known. GRRM also talks about the death of Wonderman and it's influence on his writing, so it's a lot like that. I think it's important that what she does beyond the Wall she does without any expectation of recognition or reward. It becomes a purely selfless, acting as a Queen even though she has no subjects.

 

Like I said, this lines up well with the direction I'm thinking.

[herbz]

I'm actually surprised the topic of the wildfire under King's Landing didn't really come up in S7. The show seemingly forgot their own canon- Jaime, at some unspecified point but presumably between S3 and S4, told Tyrion the truth about the Mad King and he in turn told Dany in S6. You'd think Tyrion's #1 argument against taking a dragon to any part of KL, Red Keep or otherwise, would be 'the city is booby trapped. One spark of dragonfire and you could blow a million people to hell'. Varys would definitely be able to tell you the location of 80% of those caches too, he knows all the secret passageways. Instead they all just appeared more concerned about the PR ramifications of using Drogon. 

[domina89]

14 hours ago, WindyNights said:

https://weirwoodleviathan.wordpress.com/2017/10/26/lightbringer-a-theoretical-outline-of-season-8-episode-3/

I rec you read it all but I'll spoil the gist of it:

The WW march on KL, Cersei abandons it, Team Starkgaryen try to defend KL while trying to evacuate the people with the Iron Fleet, the WW breach the Walls, they're losing, this whole time Bran has taken control of Varys to set up the wildfire in KL, Bran the takes control of Drogon while Daenerys is riding him to blow up all of KL,  Drogon kills everyone despite Daenerys' pleas to stop including everyone that Daenerys has freed and  people like Varys, Melisandre, Grey Worm along with the Unsullied, it was done by Bran to prevent the NK from getting more people in his army, the NK flees back North, Missandei loses faith in Daenerys who killed the man she loved, Westeros blames Daenerys for it and Daenerys flees to the Wall for the final confrontation with the NK in shock.

Very interesting theory, @WindyNights.  I'm not sure I'm in agreement with all of it, but I could see something similar happening.  My question to you is, if this did play out this way, and if Drogon does essentially become a weapon unwillingly, do you see Dany deciding to end his life herself so he would not be able to cause mass destruction in the same way again?  That would be terribly tragic in that Drogon would essentially be punished for something he didn't do, but if Dany was unaware he had been warged, I could see her making that hard choice.  We saw her lock up her dragons in Meereen despite how she feels about slavery, and that was only after one child had died.  If she thought Drogon was responsible for a MILLION deaths... gulp.  She does, after all, have one last fire to light... the one to love.

Edited October 27, 2017 by domina89

[screamin]

6 minutes ago, herbz said:

I'm actually surprised the topic of the wildfire under King's Landing didn't really come up in S7. The show seemingly forgot their own canon- Jaime, at some unspecified point but presumably between S3 and S4, told Tyrion the truth about the Mad King and he in turn told Dany in S6. You'd think Tyrion's #1 argument against taking a dragon to any part of KL, Red Keep or otherwise, would be 'the city is booby trapped. One spark of dragonfire and you could blow a million people to hell'. Varys would definitely be able to tell you the location of 80% of those caches too, he knows all the secret passageways. Instead they all just appeared more concerned about the PR ramifications of using Drogon. 

I think the show has made it canon that the city is not currently boobytrapped to that extent.  Cersei blew up the whole motherfucking Sept with wildfire and it didn't cause a chain reaction in the sewer tunnels to set off other hidden caches. If KL is to be blown up they'll have to make references on the show to Cersei deliberately arranging it to be again the way it was when Aerys was king, so that touching off wildfire in one place would touch it off in other places (the scheme probably originally depended on fuses that would have deteriorated over time, and/or a lot of smaller caches arranged close together that would all set each other off if one was set off...a set up Tyrion might have spoiled by using many thousands of gallons from the caches in setting the Blackwater afire.)

[WindyNights]

10 minutes ago, domina89 said:

Very interesting theory, @WindyNights.  I'm not sure I'm in agreement with all of it, but I could see something similar happening.  My question to you is, if this did play out this way, and if Drogon does essentially become a weapon unwillingly, do you see Dany deciding to end his life herself so he would not be able to cause mass destruction in the same way again?  That would be terribly tragic in that Drogon would essentially be punished for something he didn't do, but if Dany was unaware he had been warged, I could see her making that hard choice.  We saw her lock up her dragons in Meereen despite how she feels about slavery, and that was only after one child had died.  If she thought Drogon was responsible for a MILLION deaths... gulp.  She does, after all, have one last fire to light... the one to love.

I think Daenerys is going to use Drogon to fight the NK to the death in a place people aren't around and Drogon will die. I'm still not sure what the fire to love is yet or if it'll play out in the show. 

If the theory is right though then Daenerys, Bran and Drogon burning down KL is the third twist that D & D have said happens near the end. 

 

I'm not agreement with some of it but GRRM's biggest themes within this stories are the greater good versus sacrifice, heroism going unrewarded despite being worth it and the reality versus the reputation. 

Like Tyrion, Jon, Stannis, Brienne and Daenerys all have terrible reputations despite them being some of the more heroic figures in the story. (Although Tyrion goes villain after he's broken)

[herbz]

^ ah, must've missed that- I'd assumed that because it was pre-planned Qyburn had deliberately arranged things so that only the sept blew, but that someone who accidentally set fire to say, Fleabottom, might not be able to contain it in the same way. In the books at least they keep finding stashes of it, and they're cleared out the whole lot from under the sept, but it is continually emphasised just how temperamental and uncontrollable the stuff is. 

Either way, it still feels like an argument Tyrion could have potentially made against burning the city. 'Umm, I don't think it's that volatile any more...maybe? Nobody really knows how extensive that network is. You'll probably be fine!' 

Edited October 27, 2017 by herbz

[domina89]

2 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

I think Daenerys is going to use Drogon to fight the NK to the death in a place people aren't around and Drogon will die. I'm still not sure what the fire to love is yet or if it'll play out in the show. 

If the theory is right though then Daenerys, Bran and Drogon burning down KL is the third twist that D & D have said happens near the end. 

 

I'm not agreement with some of it but GRRM's biggest themes within this stories are the greater good versus sacrifice, heroism going unrewarded despite being worth it and the reality versus the reputation. 

Like Tyrion, Jon, Stannis, Brienne and Daenerys all have terrible reputations despite them being some of the more heroic figures in the story. (Although Tyrion goes villain after he's broken)

I agree that Drogon will most likely die, but I really hope Dany isn't the one to do it... I'd never be able to pay for all the therapy I would need...

Very true about the themes- it does make sense and that would definitely be a twist few see coming.  There are many, many theories out there that Bran is the NK or actually a villain, so it would be ironic if this theory turns out to be true.  He would be both a hero and a villain in a sense.  

[Eyes High]

49 minutes ago, screamin said:

That...that is hilarious!  Thanks :D

But it's funny because there's also truth in it. What DOES it mean to break the wheel? If there are no dragons by the time the war ends - which seems to be foretold by both the Children of the Forest's prediction that they themselves and all magical creatures are doomed to become extinct, and the death of one of Dany's dragons on the show in a single battle with the others - how is Dany uniquely qualified to govern and impose her will to force justice in the land, when she would only have mundane tools available to every other power player to work with - armies of ordinary humans with leaders recruited by political ties and maneuvers? Why would she necessarily feel that she was the ONLY one qualified to do that?

If she wants to establish, say, a constitutional monarchy (which is probably the most attainable improvement on a feudal absolute monarch in the short run) is it really her responsibility to stay and rule as Goddess Empress  - which is what she will necessarily be to them if she does save the world, and thus what she will need to use to establish her bona fides as supreme candidate for ruler? She already knows she's not the most adept ruler in peacetime. And IMO, it would be a really bad mistake to establish a ruling dynasty that bases its authority on the bloodline of a Savior of the World, if what you're looking for is a continued just rule...it would basically give your descendants religious as well as temporal authority over your people, and thus is open to even more abuse by unworthy descendants than an ordinary feudal monarchy.

I have no idea what "breaking the wheel" means. At first,I thought she meant imposing authoritarian Targ rule to end the cycle of houses scrabbling for power, but 1) she names "Targaryen" as one of the spokes on the wheel and 2) Tyrion says that Aegon the Conqueror "built the wheel." At the same time, Dany in the short term at least has every intention of reinstating central Targ rule of Westeros, which sounds like a continuation of "the wheel" or the centralized rule set up by Aegon the Conqueror. It kind of sounds like her long-time goal is to put herself out of a job, since as a Targ ruler she would be part of "the wheel" and therefore part of the problem. On the other hand, she balks when Tyrion starts making noises about democratic methods of appointing her successor. The other issue is that if she marries Jon, has a Targ kid (or kids), and survives to take the throne with Jon as some have been speculating, then what happens to breaking the wheel? Because two Targ monarchs on the Iron Throne with a Targ heir in the wings sounds like more of the same to me.

According to the Targ histories, Aegon V tried to implement ambitious reforms aimed at putting in place rights and protections for the smallfolk and curbing the powers of the nobles. Tywin undid those reforms after Aegon's death, but maybe that's something along the lines of what Dany had in mind...? Taking action to cripple or at least curb the ability of (whatever's left of) the great houses to cause trouble seems sensible enough given the upheaval caused by powerful factions in the WOT5K and elsewhere.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Eyes High

[herbz]

I definitely don't believe Bran's the NK, but I do think he's going to be getting up to some very morally dubious stuff next season in order to assemble the weapons and people necessary to defeat the Others. I think he'll have his fingerprints over multiple storylines. His powers can't just be there for the deadpan revelation of Jon's parentage and some cool raven spying. He lost his legs for this! 

'Breaking the wheel' just seems like a cool but ultimately empty catchphrase given to show Dany to make her quest for the throne to seem a tad more altruistic than book Dany's, because everything she says in relation to the wheel just makes it sound like she wants to replace the spokes. I can well believe she does want to improve the lives of the smallfolk- it would only take two lines of dialogue to make clear what she wants to reform. 'We'll discuss it after I take the throne' is...probably not the way to convince everyone of it.

Edited October 28, 2017 by herbz

[screamin]

2 hours ago, WindyNights said:

That doesn't actually refute what I said because I was talking about Daenerys' ending chapter as of ADWD. She's in it to win it.

 

Okay, so what happens if she actually DOES win it? I think that defeating the NK and saving the world AND as a bonus getting pregnant with a child she never thought she could have IS a win in far more ways than she could ever have expected or measured in the last chapter of ADWD. IMO, that sort of thing is likely to change your perspective a lot about the desirability of mundanely ruling from the ugly chair and putting your poor child there afterwards. 

Quote

Also this isn't the modern age. There will be no documents to share. People aren't going to know why Daenerys did what she did just that she did it. 

Psst...this may not be the modern age, but I've seen some strong evidence in the book and on the show that Westerosi society does in fact have a writing system and even DOCUMENTS. With words on them and everything. 

The lack of an internet cuts both ways here. Yes, the destruction of a city by fire is horrifying, but the vast majority of people in Westeros will only know of it by description - there will be no newscast with videos of the horror to inflame the masses. Cersei blew up the Vatican and the Pope in her son's own city for no better cause than to escape the consequences of her own crimes, but still managed to have herself declared queen and a significant amount of the populace to follow her.

Quote

Did the Allies nuke New York City? Did the Allies nuke one of their own capitals?... Also, yes, Daenerys would be vilified if she torched KL. That's no longer a savior figure in people's eyes. That's a female Mad King on a dragon and think about how Daenerys would feel.

Again, Westeros is engaged in a civil war. Westerosi are attacking other Westerosi because that's what happens in a civil war. King Robert's allies sacked his own city of King's Landing because it was then occupied by Robert's enemy, and yet the country was quite content to accept him marrying the daughter of that ally and giving that ally more power. If the Westerosi accept such massacres as the sack of KL as the price a king pays in taking the throne, and accept Cersei as queen after she blows up the Vatican and the pope in her son's own city, why do you think they'd suddenly find Dany attacking KL as morally unacceptable? KL is currently occupied by the enemy. A civil war is won by attacking the enemy. If Dany attacks KL as the kings of old did, bravely on dragon-back, and it blows up - do you think the FIRST conclusion anyone is going to jump to is that Dany's dragon suddenly has superdragon powers - and then bravely condemn her en masse for it, instead of bending the knee and humbly acclaiming her a goddess? Do you think Dany is going to believe she suddenly has superdragon powers and decide that her use of dragons is therefore intrinsically evil and SHE is evil for using them? Doesn't sound likely to me.

Quote

Cersei had wildfire when Stannis was outside her gates and she didn't try to rig the city to blow. Also I think if Cersei does it then it's just a villain acting like a villain rather than our heroes being forced to make some tough decisions (and like I said one of GRRM's protagonists in one of his stories chose to sterilize 99 % of a planet).

Cersei has been a villain acting like a villain all through the series, it would be consistent. And Cercei THEN still had her three kids alive and hope of at least one of them surviving to rule after her (remember, both Myrcella and Tommen were not in KL) or of the battle being won. She hasn't got any of that now. What exactly are you saying, anyway? That Cersei won't rig up the city to explode but Dany will somehow blow up the city anyway with one wrongly placed puff of dragon breath, so it'll be all Dany's fault? Meh. Again, seems unlikely.

Quote

Also I didn't say the whole world will villainize Daenerys perhaps the North will remember her differently (The North Remembers). I just think that she'll be one of those figures like Stannis that'll be treated very badly by history (those are the historical figures that GRRM is fascinated by)

"Yup. She ends the Long Night in the Lands of Always Winter and it's never really made known. GRRM also talks about the death of Wonderman and it's influence on his writing, so it's a lot like that. I think it's important that what she does beyond the Wall she does without any expectation of recognition or reward. It becomes a purely selfless, acting as a Queen even though she has no subjects."

So basically Dany ends up the Nissa Nissa of the tale, except more vilified? The woman who enables a man to be the public hero of the tale and saves the world but has her contribution forgotten (and in this case actively derided as a monster?) Seems like the same old shit to me. I'd hope for better from GRRM.

Edited October 27, 2017 by screamin

[WindyNights]

22 hours ago, screamin said:

Okay, so what happens if she actually DOES win it? I think that defeating the NK and saving the world AND as a bonus getting pregnant with a child she never thought she could have IS a win in far more ways than she could ever have expected or measured in the last chapter of ADWD. IMO, that sort of thing is likely to change your perspective a lot about the desirability of mundanely ruling from the ugly chair and putting your poor child there afterwards. 

.

Daeneys like Stannis wouldn't shy away from that. She's not going to abandon the throne just because it's not a happy existence. She already knows what it's like to rule. She ruled Meereen. 

Psst...this may not be the modern age, but I've seen some strong evidence in the book and on the show that Westerosi society does in fact have a writing system and even DOCUMENTS. With words on them and everything.

And who is gonna write down that story in the immediate but chaotic aftermath? Who is going to advertise it? Even if someone does that doesn't make it true either? Stannis tried telling everyone that Joffrey wasn't Robert's son and some believed him and some didn't.

The lack of an internet cuts both ways here. Yes, the destruction of a city by fire is horrifying, but the vast majority of people in Westeros will only know of it by description - there will be no newscast with videos of the horror to inflame the masses. Cersei blew up the Vatican and the Pope in her son's own city for no better cause than to escape the consequences of her own crimes, but still managed to have herself declared queen and a significant amount of the populace to follow her.

That's more of a show-created problem because there isn't really any sense as to why the people aren't revolting. The people of Westeros are pretty religious. Realistically, the population should be assaulting the Red Keep especially since the people of King's Landing despise the Lannisters. 

I have to bring up the books here but in those, the people see the Lannisters as the villains and are looking for someone to save them. The only thing that Cersei could declare herself queen of in the books is of the Westerlands.

Again, Westeros is engaged in a civil war. Westerosi are attacking other Westerosi because that's what happens in a civil war. King Robert's allies sacked his own city of King's Landing because it was then occupied by Robert's enemy, and yet the country was quite content to accept him marrying the daughter of that ally and giving that ally more power. If the Westerosi accept such massacres as the sack of KL as the price a king pays in taking the throne, and accept Cersei as queen after she blows up the Vatican and the pope in her son's own city, why do you think they'd suddenly find Dany attacking KL as morally unacceptable? KL is currently occupied by the enemy. A civil war is won by attacking the enemy. If Dany attacks KL as the kings of old did, bravely on dragon-back, and it blows up - do you think the FIRST conclusion anyone is going to jump to is that Dany's dragon suddenly has superdragon powers - and then bravely condemn her en masse for it, instead of bending the knee and humbly acclaiming her a goddess? Do you think Dany is going to believe she suddenly has superdragon powers and decide that her use of dragons is therefore intrinsically evil and SHE is evil for using them? Doesn't sound likely to me.

No, actually the people of King's Landing despise the Lannisters but they mostly put the blame of the Sack on Tywin's door. Like the Brotherhood Without Banners calls themselves Robert's men but they bring up the sack of KL and the Targaryen babes' deaths at Tywin and his men's hands.

And no, none of the things you said sound believable and they aren't things that I believe. Please don't put words in my mouth.

All that has to be said and done is that Drogon blows up KL, 500,000-1 million people die and no one knows why. The blame will go where people think it will. (Also there's a huge difference in scope between the Sack of KL and blowing up KL)

 

Cersei has been a villain acting like a villain all through the series, it would be consistent. And Cercei THEN still had her three kids alive and hope of at least one of them surviving to rule after her (remember, both Myrcella and Tommen were not in KL) or of the battle being won. She hasn't got any of that now. What exactly are you saying, anyway? That Cersei won't rig up the city to explode but Dany will somehow blow up the city anyway with one wrongly placed puff of dragon breath, so it'll be all Dany's fault? Meh. Again, seems unlikely.

Well Tommen was in KL in the show and Cersei was ready to poison Tommen and herself. Remember GRRM wrote that episode so Cersei was perfectly willing to commit suicide with her son. 

I'm not sure why you think it's unlikely since the story has carefully been wrapping Daenerys' story in Rhaegar and Aerys undertones. We know she's a hero, the people of Westeros do not. I think Daenerys' destiny is to be a polarizing figure in the history books but not for us really.

On top of that, you have KL rigged to blow up like a nuke with just the right amount of fire and GRRM comparing her dragons to nukes. Something's gotta give.

 

Also it might not even be a wrongfully placed puff of dragon breath. It could very well be intentionally placed if Bran decides to warg Drogon in an attempt to burn the people of KL before they become corpses.

 

So basically Dany ends up the Nissa Nissa of the tale, except more vilified? The woman who enables a man to be the public hero of the tale and saves the world but has her contribution forgotten (and in this case actively derided as a monster?) Seems like the same old shit to me. I'd hope for better from GRRM

No, she ends up as the AA of the tale since she gave everything she had and sacrificed everything including her cult of personality, her house and her future to save humanity. Like I said, I think she'll be a polarizing figure in Westeros.

No man will be the public hero. And heroism isn't always rewarded with a crown.

[WindyNights]

I will point out that there's some good evidence that Bran is the one to burn down KL with Drogon: 

https://youtu.be/QJbLaUnp8kc

This was in the last episode that GRRM wrote. Here, Bran has a vision. 

 

In order: 

 

Crypts of Winterfell with the Three Eyed Raven->Ned Stark cleaning Ice right after an execution -> Ned Stark in the dungeons of KL and looking at Varys-> Time passing for and the Three Eyed Raven on a tree -> wights -> crows-> roots-> White Walker on a horse-> the Red Keep and Iron Throne blown up with ash and snow -> reflection of a White Walker off ice -> Jaime pushing Bran out the window and Cersei saying "he saw us" -> And then a dragon flying over King's Landing 

Here's the Inside the Episode with D & D on that sequence:

 

D & D say every shot of that vision means something but the most crucial shot is the dragon flying over King's Landing but won't say whether it's from the past or the future but we'll find out. 

But here's another interesting vision that I think i context of what I've said makes it blatant: 

 

In quick succession this is Part 1:

 

we see the Black Cells, King Aerys and the Night King while we hear someone whispering "Burn Them All"---> then we see Bran falling and a dragon in the air and then flying over King's Landing--> Daenerys birthing dragons and the NK holding a baby and turning it into a White Walker -> Ned Stark being executed

Part 2: Then we go through the same visions but much faster -> wildfire being poured-> Aerys screaming burn them all-> the wildfire going off-> Jaime walking up to Aerys to execute up him->Lyanna dying in childbirth-> Jaime personally executing Aerys-> Roose Bolton personally executing Robb Stark -> a vacant Iron Throne -> Three Eyed Raven ->The Children of the Forest -> Jon killing a White Walker-> Aerys screaming even louder to BURN THEM ALL-> the wildfire going off

 

From the books:

Quote

"The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword."

Quote

"One day, Bran, you will be Robb's bannerman, holding a keep of your own for your brother and your king, and justice will fall to you. When that day comes, you must take no pleasure in the task, but neither must you look away. A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is."

Quote

Grown, they[the dragons] are death and devastation, a flaming sword above the world."

Quote

"You will never walk again, Bran," the pale lips promised, "but you will fly."

Edited October 28, 2017 by WindyNights

[Blonde Gator]

@WindyNights

Thanks for the excellent link(s).  I think this theory makes quite a bit of sense.

Since we have yet to see book Bran/3ER yet, it makes everything we "know" about Bran since he reached the tree somewhat suspect, as D&D know the "end", but do they necessarily know the mid-game regarding Bran's character.  But if we presume that the show has it right, Bran IS the 3ER, and probably Azor Ahai.  I believe some of the conjectures in the Weirwood blog....particularly about Varys.  "Burn them all" has been repeated, several times, and "voices in the flames" as well. 

What is a conundrum, though, is if Bran is omnipotent, why can't he just look back in time and actually WATCH the events of the First Long Night unfold?  (This is a problem for GRRM as well, as we know the COF were extant at the time, maybe why he's having such issues moving forward).  We know [some] of the North Remembers, but mostly it's Old Nan.  The Night's Watch has forgotten the important parts of their Charter, and as we know, the old scrolls there have turned to dust.  What did Sam find at the Citadel?   But with Bran all-knowing, he should be able to understand EXACTLY what happened the first time around.  He's obviously been placed in the story to intervene in the Second Fight for Humanity. 

I personally believe that there is great significance to "Winter Fell"....which is where the FLN ended.  I also believe AA was a Stark.  So it would make sense that AA is also a Stark.  Jon may be part of Nissa Nissa as well....and the rest of the Starks if you think about it, that would be a suitable sacrifice in order to have Bran save the world.  Dany could be part of the Nissa Nissa prophecy here, as well, having to lose all of her family, her new love, and her children (including both dragons and babies), friends and followers.   A sacrifice of epic proportions to save the world.  I really like the part about Bran choosing to connect with every human he chooses to annihilate to save humanity....what a great burden to bear that would be.  It would make Bran's 3ER robotic all the more understandable, although D&D may have jumped that too far forward in the story.  But without full details of a GRRM book as a roadmap, that's understandable.

There's also been the theory going around forever that Sam is going to be the endgame narrator, closing his newly finished book, at the Citadel, called "A Song of Ice and Fire"....and HE can choose to include Dany's great sacrifice if she goes off to the Land of Always Winter after losing everything in his story.  So Dany won't be vilified in the end.  

Who knows, but thank you again for the interesting read on an icky rainy day when my football team was abysmal.  I wish GRRM would get off the bloody dime already, it's bad enough he's strung us out for years waiting for AWOW, but now D&D have pulled the same dirty trick. 

[MadMouse]

On 10/27/2017 at 0:33 PM, Eyes High said:

I have no idea what "breaking the wheel" means. At first,I thought she meant imposing authoritarian Targ rule to end the cycle of houses scrabbling for power, but 1) she names "Targaryen" as one of the spokes on the wheel and 2) Tyrion says that Aegon the Conqueror "built the wheel." At the same time, Dany in the short term at least has every intention of reinstating central Targ rule of Westeros, which sounds like a continuation of "the wheel" or the centralized rule set up by Aegon the Conqueror. It kind of sounds like her long-time goal is to put herself out of a job, since as a Targ ruler she would be part of "the wheel" and therefore part of the problem. On the other hand, she balks when Tyrion starts making noises about democratic methods of appointing her successor. The other issue is that if she marries Jon, has a Targ kid (or kids), and survives to take the throne with Jon as some have been speculating, then what happens to breaking the wheel? Because two Targ monarchs on the Iron Throne with a Targ heir in the wings sounds like more of the same to me.

According to the Targ histories, Aegon V tried to implement ambitious reforms aimed at putting in place rights and protections for the smallfolk and curbing the powers of the nobles. Tywin undid those reforms after Aegon's death, but maybe that's something along the lines of what Dany had in mind...? Taking action to cripple or at least curb the ability of (whatever's left of) the great houses to cause trouble seems sensible enough given the upheaval caused by powerful factions in the WOT5K and elsewhere.

I think that's going to be part of the bittersweet ending, none of those things will happen because the realm will be devastated. Nobody is going to want wide sweeping changes or some kind of election system when they're starving or being over run by bandits. People will want a strong leader with a powerful name leading them, so they'll be forced to continue the system that's been in place for hundreds of years. 

If any changes were to be made, it would be more of an absolute style rule, where the great houses/wardens powers are limited. Sort of how the Tudors did after the War of the Roses.

[Eyes High]

Las Criptas de Invernalia published an interview with GRRM.

Update: confirmed fake. Sorry about that.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Eyes High

[SeanC]

21 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

2. Arya, Brienne, Theon, Grenn, Pyp and Sam are bisexual. [!!!!!! This isn't endgame-relevant, but I thought it noteworthy anyway. !!!!!]

Now there’s a weird bit of information.

[Eyes High]

I should add as a caveat that a number of fans are claiming that the interview is fake. Bryndenbfish says he's working on authenticating the interview, so we'll see.

[SeanC]

33 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

I should add as a caveat that a number of fans are claiming that the interview is fake. Bryndenbfish says he's working on authenticating the interview, so we'll see.

As far as content goes, other than the bisexual comment it comes across as things GRRM would say in an interview (a lot of it is his fairly typical maybe-yes, maybe-no).  Which, of course, hardly rules out it being fake.

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

As far as content goes, other than the bisexual comment it comes across as things GRRM would say in an interview (a lot of it is his fairly typical maybe-yes, maybe-no).  Which, of course, hardly rules out it being fake.

Update from Bryndenbfish: Elio's looking into it.

It does read similar to GRRM's style, so someone went to a lot of effort to come up with a convincing fake. Bryndenbfish dug up some defensive posts from the person who supposedly interviewed GRRM, though, so right now he's leaning against it being real. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Eyes High