Endgame Discussion and Speculation

[anamika]

12 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

Well if Dany is petty for not believing in fairy-tale zombies then Sansa and the rest of the Northern Lords - the people who literally live next door to the threat and who crowned a maybe-zombie their King, yet still disbelieve - are petty fools. 

This is the most hilarious part. Sansa literally tells Jon to ignore the WW and focus on Cersei as a threat, and asks him not to go south for allies and weapons. She and the Northerners are playing petty politics up North about who should rule while Jon is trying to save their asses - and these are the guys who grew up on tales of the WW, send men to man the walls and behead deserters. But it's totally alright for them to continuously shit on Jon's plans and disregard the urgency of the impending threat - But Dany should immediately abandon her life's mission and rush up North on Jon's say so. Otherwise she is being petty.

Like, seriously. Dany owes the North nothing. Absolutely nothing. Especially since Jon refused to bend the knee. She could have waited it out like Cersei is planning on doing. Or she could have continued focusing on Cersei while the North fights the WW and then deal with them after she defeats Cersei.

[Sunshinegal]

15 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

Well if Dany is petty for not believing in fairy-tale zombies then Sansa and the rest of the Northern Lords - the people who literally live next door to the threat and who crowned a maybe-zombie their King, yet still disbelieve - are petty fools. 

 

Just now, anamika said:

This is the most hilarious part. Sansa literally tells Jon to ignore the WW and focus on Cersei as a threat, and asks him not to go south for allies and weapons. She and the Northerners are playing petty politics up North about who should rule while Jon is trying to save their asses - and these are the guys who grew up on tales of the WW, send men to man the walls and behead deserters. But it's totally alright for them to continuously shit on Jon's plans and disregard the urgency of the impending threat - But Dany should immediately abandon her life's mission and rush up North on Jon's say so. Otherwise she is being petty.

Like, seriously. Dany owes the North nothing. Absolutely nothing. Especially since Jon refused to bend the knee. She could have waited it out like Cersei is planning on doing. Or she could have continued focusing on Cersei while the North fights the WW and then deal with them after she defeats Cersei.

The White Walkers are a threat but Cersei is also a threat.  Sansa, Dany and Arya all think that Cersei is a threat and not to be trusted.  They are not wrong.  Cersei wants to hurt Sansa (and Arya when she finds out that she's alive).  I think that if they already eliminated Cersei and Dany has the Iron Throne that it would be easier to fight the White Walkers.  I'm disappointed that Jon didn't take Sansa's opinion into consideration regarding Cersei because Sansa spent months with Cersei and knows Cersei's mind and motivations better than Jon.  Sansa didn't flee King's Landing and have to hide her identity in the Vale for shits and giggles.  Who sits on the Iron Throne is important and not all of it is petty (a lot of it is, but not all of it).  If you have a good ruler, you can utilize manpower and resources to fight the White Walkers.  If you have a bad ruler, that ruler can not give you manpower and resources and can hire the Golden Company to hurt you even more (like what Cersei is doing).

[Colorful Mess]

2 hours ago, Katsullivan said:

Stannis committed to fighting wildlings.

Well if Dany is petty for not believing in fairy-tale zombies then Sansa and the rest of the Northern Lords - the people who literally live next door to the threat and who crowned a maybe-zombie their King, yet still disbelieve - are petty fools. 

 

No, he committed to fighting the White Walkers because he believes what Melisandre is telling him about the greater threat. I can't believe Stannis comes off better than her in this regard.

 

There is no scene where the Northern Lords or Sansa have said that it's "make believe" or "fairy tales."

Sansa has said that Jon is "concerned about the enemy to the North" (so she believes that it's real) but that there is also an enemy to the South they should be careful of. It doesn't mean she disbelieves him. Where are you getting this?

In S07E03 she says "You're telling me we don't have enough food, especially not if the armies of the North come back to defend Winterfell" <--Why is she preparing armies if she doesn't believe the threat is real?

Then she says "Whatever direction the threat comes from this is the best place to be." <--She is preparing for both the WW and Cersei

So if Dany does believe him and she still doesn't agree to help unless the ENTIRE GAME IS PUT ON PAUSE JUST FOR HER, then I'm going to call it: she looks petty to characters who are trying to dance around her and get her to do basic stuff, like defend "her" kingdom. Which again, Stannis gets faster than her.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Colorful Mess]

2 hours ago, anamika said:

This is the most hilarious part. Sansa literally tells Jon to ignore the WW and focus on Cersei as a threat, and asks him not to go south for allies and weapons. She and the Northerners are playing petty politics up North about who should rule while Jon is trying to save their asses - and these are the guys who grew up on tales of the WW, send men to man the walls and behead deserters. But it's totally alright for them to continuously shit on Jon's plans and disregard the urgency of the impending threat - But Dany should immediately abandon her life's mission and rush up North on Jon's say so. Otherwise she is being petty.

Like, seriously. Dany owes the North nothing. Absolutely nothing. Especially since Jon refused to bend the knee. She could have waited it out like Cersei is planning on doing. Or she could have continued focusing on Cersei while the North fights the WW and then deal with them after she defeats Cersei.

Dany would have invaded Westeros regardless of who sits on the Iron Throne. It could have been Jon himself sitting on the thing, and she would still try to take it back. She would probably call it "Jon's Tyranny" just like she called it "Cersei's Tyranny." All that matters is that someone else has something that she thinks is "hers"

I'm glad you see it from Dany's perspective. You can keep rooting for Dany. I prefer to hop outside her POV and imagine how other characters view her. If I'm imagining that Davos or Jon think she's petty; you can dismiss that viewpoint if you'd like. I'm just pointing out how the shift in POV on Dany (because all we've ever had in the books so far is Quentyn and Barristan) casts her in a worse light than inside her own head. It's not insanity to suggest that the author (and D&D) are pulling a "hero in her own mind." 

And she does owe the North something if she wants to call it "her kingdom." If she wants to claim it, she has to defend it:

Quote

 

“True or false, the Wall must be warned,” the Old Bear said as Jon placed the platter between them. “And the king.”
“Which king?”
“All of them. The true and the false alike. If they would claim the realm, let them defend it.”
The Halfhand helped himself to an egg and cracked it on the edge of the bowl. “These kings will do what they will,” he said, peeling away the shell. “Likely it will be little enough. The best hope is Winterfell. The Starks must rally the north.”

- Jon 43, A Clash of Kings

 

In the end the Starks are looked to as the more competent leaders in this regard, but still...

Edited April 4, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Katsullivan]

32 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

No, he committed to fighting the White Walkers because he believes what Melisandre is telling him about the greater threat. I can't believe Stannis comes off better than her in this regard.

 

Stannis marched to the Wall to fight wildlings- the only "King" who answered the Lord Commander's call for aid. And if he had done it expecting nothing in return then that would have been noble, but not compared to him marching to the Wall to fight zombies.

Yet he didn't expect nothing in return. He tried to recruit the wildlings to join his army to fight Lannisters, and he tried to win the North by offering Jon legitimacy and heir-ship to Winterfell.

And generally, I won't call Stannis following Melisandre's advice to murder his nephew, and burn men for witch-craft as "coming off better than Dany".

 

Also I don't understand how Dany is reprehensible for executing 2 resolved traitors by dragon-fire but Stannis burning his daughter alive because he believed so strongly that he was the Chosen One ---- as Stannis coming off better than anyone.

[Colorful Mess]

Stannis and Dany are similar in a lot of ways, which I won't get into here. 

I will say that Stannis is invested in doing his duty; he does not want to be king, he feels that the line of succession falls to him. 

He thinks he has to make a sacrifice (Shireen, Edric) in order to defeat the Others:

Quote

 

“I never asked for this crown. Gold is cold and heavy on the head, but so long as I am the king, I have a duty … If I must sacrifice one child to the flames to save a million from the dark … Sacrifice … is never easy, Davos. Or it is no true sacrifice.”

- Davos, ASOS

 

Would Dany be willing to make such a personal sacrifice? (not counting Viserion here because she didn't intentionally kill him)

Stannis burned Mance because he needed more men (wildlings). He thinks he needs more men to attack Winterfell, regain a foothold in the North, and then rally them to fight against the coming darkness. Stannis eventually gives the wildlings over to Jon. Wise move.

Within the first five minutes of meeting Jon at the Wall, Stannis believes that he's the chosen hero:

Quote

“Stannis pointed north. “There is where I’ll find the foe that I was born to fight.”

- Jon, ASOS

Sure he's an ass about it. But if he believes he's chosen to help fight the WW, let him believe it. Jon isn't going to complain. That's not the issue here.

The main point is, Stannis by Book 3/Season 4  has realized that he needs to save Westeros from the Others, and he didn’t even need a ceasefire or a witness account to do it. IN THAT REGARD (key phrase) he comes across as more sacrificial, more committed, and dare I say - more kingly - than Dany. 

In the other regard (killing Renly) he does not. Killing a family member (Tyrion, Stannis, Dany) is pretty bad in my book anyway.

I think its pretty reasonable to identify how a person can be a hero and a villain at the same time. Dany and Stannis included. I mean, this is the authors mantra. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Katsullivan]

51 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Dany would have invaded Westeros regardless of who sits on the Iron Throne. It could have been Jon himself sitting on the thing, and she would still try to take it back. She would probably call it "Jon's Tyranny" just like she called it "Cersei's Tyranny." 

We have no way of knowing that really. For one thing, she gave the Iron Islands their Independence. For another... Every other character does this. Why is Dany singled out? I mean, you might as well argue that Sansa would have still invaded Winterfell with the Vale Army regardless of who was Warden of the North. She certainly didn't do it with the support of the North. The wildlings and the Vale fought against Northern houses in the Battle of the Bastards. She didn't do it to save Rickon, her brother. She had already written him off as good as dead. Jon himself did not want to fight Ramsay. He wanted to travel East, and escape the chaos of Westeros but Sansa dug her heels in.

I'm giving Sansa as an example because she's just another character on the show playing the "game of thrones" - claiming a right to rulership, land and titles simply because they were born into a certain House or bloodline and demanding that men fight and die to re-establish their inheritance. Like I said every other character does this. It's taken as a matter of course that Sansa will fight for Winterfell, that Stannis will fight for the Iron Throne, and Cersei will defend her ill-gotten Crown. 

And yet when it's Dany, the same logic somewhat doesn't apply - and I really wonder why this is.

I see the same kind of ... should I say... dislike leveled against Arya and it makes me think that it might have to do with what kind of power these characters have.  Unlike Cersei and Sansa, Dany and Arya fight with their own power, which is usually coded as masculine. Cersei and Sansa command by proxy and a more traditionally feminine manner. I mean it's significant that when Arya threatens Sansa, Sansa's reply is "a 100 men have sworn loyalty to me"... while when threatened by the Dothraki, Dany's answer was to burn them alive herself? Jon and Stannis lead men because they themselves are great warriors and fighters. Dany leads an Army of Dothraki because she defeated all the Khals.  Like Arya, Dany has a very masculine kind of power, and I think that's why so much of what is taken for granted, or otherwise accepted in other characters - sometimes even the same identical scenarios - is condemned or criticized when it applies to Dany and Arya to a lesser extent.

(From a meta perspective, I wonder if there's a significance/symbolism in Sansa's direwolf dying early in the story while Arya's is still alive to this day.)

Edited April 4, 2018 by Katsullivan

[Colorful Mess]

2 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

We have no way of knowing that really. For one thing, she gave the Iron Islands their Independence. For another... Every other character does this. Why is Dany singled out? I mean, you might as well argue that Sansa would have still invaded Winterfell with the Vale Army regardless of who was Warden of the North. She certainly didn't do it with the support of the North. The wildlings and the Vale fought against Northern houses in the Battle of the Bastards. She didn't do it to save Rickon, her brother. She had already written him off as good as dead. Jon himself did not want to fight Ramsay. He wanted to travel East, and escape the chaos of Westeros but Sansa dug her heels in.

I'm giving Sansa as an example because she's just another character on the show playing the "game of thrones" - claiming a right to rulership, land and titles simply because they were born into a certain House or bloodline and demanding that men fight and die to re-establish their inheritance. Like I said every other character does this. It's taken as a matter of course that Sansa will fight for Winterfell, that Stannis will fight for the Iron Throne, and Cersei will defend her ill-gotten Crown. 

And yet when it's Dany, the same logic somewhat doesn't apply - and I really wonder why this is.

I see the same kind of ... should I say... dislike leveled against Arya and it makes me think that it might have to do with what kind of power these characters have.  Unlike Cersei and Sansa, Dany fights with her own power, which is usually coded as masculine. Cersei and Sansa command by proxy and a more traditionally feminine manner. I mean it's significant that when Arya threatens Sansa, Sansa's reply is "a 100 men are sworn loyalty to me"... while when threatened by the Dothraki, Dany's answer was to burn them alive? Jon and Stannis lead men because they themselves are great warriors and fighters. Dany leads an Army of Dothraki because she defeated all the Khals.  Like Arya, Dany has a very masculine kind of power, and I think that's why so much of what is taken for granted, or otherwise accepted in other characters - sometimes even the same identical scenarios - is condemned or criticized when it applies to Dany.

What identical scenarios are we talking about; I am not following you.

I don't believe that Dany taking back the Iron Throne is an identical scenario to the Starks taking back Winterfell.

We have to first agree on that before we can talk about a double standard.

[Katsullivan]

15 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

I don't believe that Dany taking back the Iron Throne is an identical scenario to the Starks taking back Winterfell.

Yes, I literally just said now:

42 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

It's taken as a matter of course that Sansa will fight for Winterfell, that Stannis will fight for the Iron Throne, and Cersei will defend her ill-gotten Crown. 

And yet when it's Dany, the same logic somewhat doesn't apply - and I really wonder why this is.

I mean, you just proved my point. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Katsullivan

[anamika]

30 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

I don't believe that Dany taking back the Iron Throne is an identical scenario to the Starks taking back Winterfell.

Why? KL was her family's home, where her family were murdered and hounded out of Westeros. Dany and her brother had to run off to Essos to survive and Robert send assassins after her even in Essos because she dared to become pregnant. KL and the Iron throne are as much Dany's birthright as Winterfell is Sansa's. Robert and his allies raped and murdered her kin. Why can't she fight for what is hers if Sansa can fight for Winterfell?

2 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

No, he committed to fighting the White Walkers because he believes what Melisandre is telling him about the greater threat. I can't believe Stannis comes off better than her in this regard.

 

And then after he defeated the Wildlings he went south to fight for Winterfell instead of staying at the wall to take on the WW. Why?

2 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

There is no scene where the Northern Lords or Sansa have said that it's "make believe" or "fairy tales."

Sansa has said that Jon is "concerned about the enemy to the North" (so she believes that it's real) but that there is also an enemy to the South they should be careful of. It doesn't mean she disbelieves him. Where are you getting this?

 

And yet she behaves as though Jon is an idiot for needing more allies and weapons. She knows that Jon has seen the WW and is the best man to prepare for that threat. Why does she keep opposing every decision that he makes? Why does she oppose him going south to get dragon glass and make alliances. Why does she complain to Arya about Jon being gone? Why does she not support him when the Northern lords complain about him being gone? Why does she want to depose him when he says he is coming back with armies to fight this war for them?

Tell me this. What exactly is Sansa's plan for taking on the WW apart from hoarding food and sitting tight at WF?

1 hour ago, Colorful Mess said:

Dany would have invaded Westeros regardless of who sits on the Iron Throne. It could have been Jon himself sitting on the thing, and she would still try to take it back. She would probably call it "Jon's Tyranny" just like she called it "Cersei's Tyranny." All that matters is that someone else has something that she thinks is "hers"

 

But Jon is not sitting on there is he? Cersei is. The Cersei who murdered babies and massacred civilians. Jon would have also attacked Winterfell if Dany was sitting there. Sansa would probably talk about how it is their home not Dany's and think WF rightfully belongs to her and and ask Jon to take it back for her.

1 hour ago, Colorful Mess said:

I'm glad you see it from Dany's perspective. You can keep rooting for Dany. I prefer to hop outside her POV and imagine how other characters view her. If I'm imagining that Davos or Jon think she's petty; you can dismiss that viewpoint if you'd like. I'm just pointing out how the shift in POV on Dany (because all we've ever had in the books so far is Quentyn and Barristan) casts her in a worse light than inside her own head. It's not insanity to suggest that the author (and D&D) are pulling a "hero in her own mind." 

 

I am glad you see it from Sansa's perspective. You can keep rooting for Sansa. I prefer to hop outside her POV and imagine how other characters view her. I imagine that Jon, Davos and Arya think that she's selfish and petty to keep undermining Jon, calling him stupid, not supporting him in anything, wanting to punish little children for the sins of their father etc. You can dismiss that view, if you like. I am just pointing out how the shift in POV on Sansa casts her in a worse light than inside her own head. From her interactions with Jon, Arya and Brienne she comes off as snobbish, dismissive and arrogant. Jon is on his way there with help to take on the threat and she is sitting there thinking of deposing him because he dared not ask her permission for bending the knee. This shows what her priority is and that she is unfit to be any kind of leader.

1 hour ago, Colorful Mess said:

And she does owe the North something if she wants to call it "her kingdom." If she wants to claim it, she has to defend it.

But Jon did not bend the knee. So it's not part of her kingdom yet. She does not owe it anything. They can all die and after she wins over Cersei she can go defeat the WW and what's left of the North and become queen. That's after all Cersei's plan to become queen of the 7K. Should work for Dany as well, because you know Dany is supposedly as evil as Cersei.

Edited April 5, 2018 by anamika

[Colorful Mess]

Quote

“During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. “They can keep the clothes,” she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it.”

-Daenerys, ASOS

- By Dany's own logic, her "house" was lost when she abandoned it (what's more, she never lived in it).  But she can keep her jewels/crown. I love how the author has her contradict herself in her own rulings.

- The woman also sounds suspiciously like Sansa. However, say the whores in this scenario have raped Sansa, she escaped with her life, and she knows that they are hunting her because she's the Key to the North (Ramsay "Wants His Bride Back"). What would Dany's judgement be then?

- Is Dany still being hunted or under threat of rape from her attackers because she's a pawn for her claim? We haven't been shown that that's the case so far (also, Dany is not a pawn by Season 5 the same way Sansa is)

-  Robert and Ned feared Viserys and Drogo as the big bads who were coming for everyone. Now Dany takes their place, and serves the same function in the story. What would be weird is, if during her invasion of Westeros, she thinks of herself as a liberator and that people will be happy to see her, just like it was in Essos. Sooooo....are people happy to see her? I don't see the flowers and banners greeting her. Where's Dany's crowd surfing scene in S7?

- I dont think Sansa is that deluded ^ Plus, people are happy to see her come with the Knights of the Vale (well everyone except Ramsay, but who cares). She gives herself some modest credit but doesn't call herself "The Prince or Princess Who Was Promised" while doing nothing of substance to actually earn her title (again, at least Stannis didn't insist on a ceasefire before he decided to help). 

- A sense of proportionality helps.

- (Sorry I don't know why I started talking in bullets, it just flowed better this way)

[anamika]

29 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

- By Dany's own logic, her "house" was lost when she abandoned it (what's more, she never lived in it).  But she can keep her jewels/crown. I love how the author has her contradict herself in her own rulings.

- The woman also sounds suspiciously like Sansa. However, say the whores in this scenario have raped Sansa, she escaped with her life, and she knows that they are hunting her because she's the Key to the North (Ramsay "Wants His Bride Back"). What would Dany's judgement be then?

- Is Dany still being hunted or under threat of rape from her attackers because she's a pawn for her claim? We haven't been shown that that's the case so far (also, Dany is not a pawn by Season 5 the same way Sansa is)

So you want to talk books? Okay then.

Sansa agrees to Marillion being tortured (His nails are pulled out) to confess to a crime he did not commit - to cover up LF's crime. Sansa betrayed her family to become queen. Sansa bullied her little sister. Sansa keeps getting fooled again and again because she trusts the wrong people. Sansa is complicit in the slow poisoning of her little cousin in the Vale.  I love how the author has written Sansa to be selfish and disloyal and looking out only for herself.

Dany at least has actually ruled, handed out justice, made trade deals, dealt with an insurgency and sickness in her city. All Sansa has accomplished so far in the books is feeding Sweet Robin his dinner.

And look, Dany is not going and asking nicely if she can get the Iron Throne back like that slaver went and asked Dany. Dany is taking it back with force - using her armies. Just like the Starks will have to take Winterfell back by force in the books. Dany is taking back the Iron Throne by right of conquest, just like the Starks did on the show and will have to do in the books.

And considering that Sansa wants to punish little children for the sins of their fathers, I wonder what her judgement would be if Dany was standing in front of her. We know what Dany's judgement was when Jon stood in front of her. She forgave him and he forgave her. But Sansa's brutal sense of justice - wanting a child thrown out of his ancestral home to become another Arya - would have seen Dany kicked out.

29 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Robert and Ned feared Viserys and Drogo as the big bads who were coming for everyone.

Robert send an assassin to murder pregnant Dany. Not to murder Viserys and Drogo.

29 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

 She gives herself some modest credit

LMAO!!! 'Fall down on your knees and thank me - I won the BOTB - Jon lost! It was all me. Me, Me, Me! ' Modest credit indeed

And yes, a sense of proportionality helps. Dany spend seasons getting an army and she fought at the head of those armies. Those are earned victories. Sansa is bragging about winning the BOTB and shitting on the efforts of others when all she did was write a letter to LF accepting his help.

Edited April 5, 2018 by anamika

[Colorful Mess]

I'm fine with calling out Sansa for whatever morally questionable stuff she's done. Lord knows she's got her own demons to wrestle with. The point is that Sansa never asked to play the game but does it to survive as a pawn. All she has is her wits. Dany has 3 dragons - and in the show she's also fireproof. It's like comparing Superman to the daughter of a mayor of a town in terms of power. The choices that they make - one with unlimited power and the other with a very small amount - are going to look different. The person with unlimited power is probably going to be corrupted by it at some point. 

And we can see that playing out in the narrative. Dany isn't surviving anymore; she's doing it for her rights. She thinks that she could be happy with Drogo and her child; she thinks she could stay in the Valas Tolerro and make the dead city bloom. But as soon as she decides to take over Viserys' legacy, she gets drawn down a darker path. The rape of the Lhazareen is so that she can take back her Throne. We haven't seen a Stark administer/oversee this sort of intentional devastation. She feels guilty about it but she never learned Mirri's lesson - she can't be a conqueror and a liberator at the same time. IT IS A CONTRADICTION.

Sansa has been punished in the narrative, many times over, for backing Joffrey against her father. However, she also has a lot of mental blocking because of her past behaviors. We have yet to see her reckon with that; but I think she will come out of it looking stronger in the end. She started privileged and spoiled for a reason; so she could have a Growth Arc. The Starks are a pack; Sansa's story has deviated enough from the original outline that we can see that she's working for their family's benefit, not just her own survival. 

Also it's really hard to take Sansa's lines at face value; when it turns out that they were playing Littlefinger. For all we know she could have been exaggerating herself to make LF think they're in conflict. But even if she was sincere, yeah, it really does look MODEST compared to Dany who calls herself the savior of the UNIVERSE within two seconds, because Mel mentions a prophecy.

Dany of Essos cared about her people. The Dany of Westeros has lost that empathy; all she appears to care about is winning, and burning people/food to do it. 

Dany never knew the Seven Kingdoms, no one was chasing her after Robert died, and she's in Westeros out of spite.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[anamika]

18 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

I'm fine with calling out Sansa for whatever morally questionable stuff she's done. Lord knows she's got her own demons to wrestle with. The point is that Sansa never asked to play the game but does it to survive as a pawn. All she has is her wits. Dany has 3 dragons - and in the show she's also fireproof. It's like comparing Superman to the daughter of a mayor of a town in terms of power. The choices that they make - one with unlimited power and the other with a very small amount - are going to look different. The person with unlimited power is probably going to be corrupted by it at some point.

Then why do you keep doing it? Why do you keep comparing Jon and Dany? Why do you uphold Sansa as being right and Dany as being wrong? You are inviting the comparisons by casting everything Dany does in a negative light because she's 'bad' but of course Sansa's morally questionable stuff is okay because she has her demons to wrestle. Does not Dany? Was not Dany persecuted for who she was? Was not Dany used as a pawn? Was not Dany sold off as chattel, raped and defiled? Dany was 13 in the books when she was raped - at least Sansa's husband refrained from partaking in his marital rights in the books. Sansa had a good childhood - the favorite daughter beloved of all. Dany and her brother were beggars running for their lives, persecuted by the Baratheons.

And when I compare them, I am comparing their actions when they have power. What Sansa does when she has power is just as important with what Dany does. She had the power to inform Jon about the Vale army - she did not. She had the power to fully support Jon in front of the Northern lords - she did not. She had to power to get rid of LF before he went around manipulating everyone in WF - she did not.  Those are her choices - and they are just as open to criticism as Dany's choices are.

27 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

And we can see that playing out in the narrative. Dany isn't surviving anymore; she's doing it for her rights.  But as soon as she decides to take over Viserys' legacy, she gets drawn down a darker path. The rape of the Lhazareen is so that she can take back her Throne.

And why is that wrong? This is the fundamental question you need to answer. Can't Dany do it for her rights? Why is she the only one who is wrong to do this? Stannis, Renly, all the Lannisters, the Starks are all doing it for their rights.

27 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

We haven't seen a Stark administer/oversee this sort of intentional devastation. She feels guilty about it but she never learned Mirri's lesson - she can't be a conqueror and a liberator at the same time. IT IS A CONTRADICTION.

Do you think Robb's war for independence in the Riverlands was a peaceful flag waving protest?

32 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Sansa has been punished in the narrative, many times over, for backing Joffrey against her father. However, she also has a lot of mental blocking because of her past behaviors. We have yet to see her reckon with that; but I think she will come out of it looking stronger in the end. She started privileged and spoiled for a reason; so she could have a Growth Arc. The Starks are a pack; Sansa's story has deviated enough from the original outline that we can see that she's working for their family's benefit, not just her own survival.

So basically your problem is that Dany has not been punished enough by the narrative to earn her top dog status? So her entire childhood with an abusive brother who sexually molested her, her poverty, forever on the run, no parents or loving family, assassins behind her, sold into marriage, raped so badly that she wanted to die - realizing that she had to help herself if she wanted to survive - and then slowly pulling herself up with no one's help - getting Irri's help to survive Drogo, taking advice from Jorah, getting Drogo to do her bidding, hatching her eggs - all of this has no value?

And when has Sansa worked for her family's benefit on the show? She has only worked for herself. She used Rickon to get Jon to fight, gave up on Rickon as a lost cause, kept the information about the Vale army from Jon so that she could get the credit, undermined Jon in front of the lords, nearly had Arya executed and Jon deposed - all on LF's say so. We will see next season, if Sansa has finally realized the importance of family or if she will still be shitting on Jon

Look, Dany's arc in Meereen was about a flawed ruler. Just like Jon's time as Lord commander was flawed. That's the point of those plots - to show that ruling is not easy. Dany starts out confident and bored - she hands out sentences easily. There were several of her decisions that I disagreed with - that's the point. By the end she is humbled and forced to marry Hizdahr to secure the peace. Jon also makes blunders like the Hardhome mission. These characters find out how hard leadership - how it changes them? We will see.  But atleast GRRM is exploring them as leaders. Tyrion gets an entire book in ACoK leading in KL, Bran rules in WF, Arya is basically fAegon and has learned from Ned about Northern politics.

And even if Dany is a conqueror, I think she and Jon would then make a good pair. After all Aegon was a conqueror and his dynasty lasted centuries. Jon is a good administrator, politician and game player in the books. Dany is a conqueror and battle commander - together they could combine their strengths for the betterment of Westeros.

And Together was a word that was constantly used last season with regards to Jon and Dany. Both Jon, Dany and LF all mention it - Together they would be hard to defeat.

[Colorful Mess]

Why do I keep comparing them? This goes back to my earlier point waaaaay upthread. I am a harsher critic of Dany because of what she represents in the story. She was given a dangerous, destructive weapon and unlimited power. She is the most powerful person in the world. Therefore, she should be examined more critically for how she uses that power. If you have the potential to exact suffering on a massive scale you have to be EXTRA GOOD. You have to walk the line on the side of good better than the rest of them. If you say you're going to break the wheel; then you have to live up to that potential (or be less vague about it, for a start). If you say you're going to be better than Cersei (or your fire-worshiping father); you have to live up to that potential. If you say you want to help people, it has to come at the expense of something (and so far she's only accidentally lost a dragon). Accounting for her failures while holding her to a higher standard is what I'm trying to do. And if she isn't that special or amazing and she's just like all the other rival claimants, then let's agree to that.

I'll admit her successes when I see them, but she's acted more times out of pure self-interest that causes devastation (both intentional or unintentional). That's not acceptable for someone with this much hype, agency, power, and control. If it is too difficult to defend Dany by herself, without responding with, "Well x character isn't a saint either," then it's not good enough. Dany is supposed to be better. A hero with that much power is supposed to be better. Our own politicians in the real world are supposed to be better. 

And no, I don't think Dany is worthy of Jon. In my view, he's walking that line better than her. He is concerned about people's welfare. He doesn't care about titles or a throne. I do think Jon and Dany are both Byronic heroes. They have a lot in common story-wise. But I also think they have some fundamentally different philosophies and worldviews that would destroy any real-world relationship. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[shireenbamfatheon]

Why the need to always bring Sansa up in a completely unrelated discussion? Why not discuss Daenerys on her own merits? These two characters haven't even met yet and they're constantly pitted against each other. I don't see any male character get the same treatment, certainly not to this degree, so tell me, does this have something to do with shipping wars or are female characters not allowed to exist independently of each other? 

 

43 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Dany of Essos cared about her people. The Dany of Westeros has lost that empathy; all she appears to care about is winning, and burning people/food to do it. 

 

In Essos, she got to be the Great White Hope. In Westeros, her reception is the complete opposite, which I for one am grateful for. Since this is the speculation thread and we all have our own theories on how this will pan out, I don't think Dany and Jon will get their happy ending. Speaking of pitting characters against each other, I think Jon and Dany seem to be have been set up as opposites in many ways in the show, which has set Jon up to be an amalgamation of Jon and fAegon (except real). Jon has the support and respect of people from what seems to be every corner of Westeros and beyond. From common people like Davos and Tormund, to Southerners like Beric and Tyrion and Sam, to various Northmen and Valesmen, and even a magical foreign priestess. Jon has proven through his actions to be a man of a people who doesn't distinguish between classes and social rank. Who can distinguish between justice and vengeance, and who can show mercy when it's called for. He's exactly what Varys and Tyrion sought for in Daenerys, and the reveal that Jon's the trueborn heir must be the closest thing to a miracle for Varys (and possibly Tyrion) who's already expressed doubt in Dany's character. I think initially the North will be conflicted about having a Targaryen for a King as we've already seen them express concerns about Dany, but will eventually come to terms with it as he proves himself once and for all by killing the NK. As cliche as it sounds, I prefer it to the even more cliche ending where the two young super hot super special last-of-their-kind protagonists marrying, having a child and successfully ruling the Seven Kingdoms from the backs of their super special dragons. Nor do I want Dany to die in child-birth, which would be a major disservice to her character. 

[Gwen-Stacys]

1 hour ago, Colorful Mess said:

I'm fine with calling out Sansa for whatever morally questionable stuff she's done. Lord knows she's got her own demons to wrestle with. The point is that Sansa never asked to play the game but does it to survive as a pawn. All she has is her wits. Dany has 3 dragons - and in the show she's also fireproof. It's like comparing Superman to the daughter of a mayor of a town in terms of power.

 

I  agree, we shouldn't be comparing Dany to Sansa. Never should. They're two different characters, with two different journeys, with different goals in mind. One of my biggest pet peeves is people glorifying one female character while pooping on another. You can like one without it being at the expense of another. Plenty of room for females to coexist in a narrative without being at odds with each other. Chances are, Dany and Sansa will never be too much at odds with each other in book (I'm also with the faction that believes the books are going to have a quasi Stark bowl, with the Maderleys/Rickon vs Jon/Widlings/Some Nothern Houses/(Arya/Bran) vs The Vale/Littlefinger/Sansa. It'll end with the Starks being united, Jon crowned king in the North, etc etc all to be resolved by the time Dany gets there) or on show. There will be awkwardness, but Dany's always been a girl's girl (she's a Margaery Tyrell-esque female, although less flirty and more brutal), Sansa will probably end up liking her. Same as Arya. 

@the Superman part....Lois Lane (a human) is deemed better than Kal El by some, because even without powers she's pretty formidable (and able to handle herself physically as well)

Quote

And we can see that playing out in the narrative. Dany isn't surviving anymore; she's doing it for her rights. She thinks that she could be happy with Drogo and her child; she thinks she could stay in the Valas Tolerro and make the dead city bloom. But as soon as she decides to take over Viserys' legacy, she gets drawn down a darker path. The rape of the Lhazareen is so that she can take back her Throne. We haven't seen a Stark administer/oversee this sort of intentional devastation. She feels guilty about it but she never learned Mirri's lesson - she can't be a conqueror and a liberator at the same time. IT IS A CONTRADICTION.

Dany started on this journey for Westeros in book 1 when the man sitting on her father's throne sent countless assassins after her and her brother. Two children that had not a cent to their name, and even had to resort to selling off the only memories they had of their mother to survive. If it wasn't for Illyrio (and a few scant others of his ilk, looking for the notoriety of housing refugee prince and princess until they grew tired and threw them back out on the streets), they probably would've been roaming the streets of Braavos still. Or dead. From Robert's assassins. Stepping into Dany's point of view (which is imperative to be able to properly critique both a character and their motivations), it's easy to see how she'd come to the conclusion that she needed to take Westeros back as a means of protection. How was she to know that the rulers to follow Robert wouldn't take up his vendetta against her? And even then, she abandoned her journey in order to free the slaves in the slaver cities and see to it that they stayed freed even after she left. 

She's not taking over Viserys legacy, she's taking her own. Dany never believed her brother capable of taking Westeros, nor did she believe he'd be a worthy ruler. And the rape of the Lhazereen could mean a lot of things. Some people theorize that that is meant to be current war ravaging Westeros and harming the people. Her trip through the house of the undying is part of what ramps up her desire for Westeros. She feels like she has to go there, not so much want. Dany wants to go back to the house with the red door and the lemon tree. Westeros isn't "home" for her.

Dany has always been about the people, love her or hate her. And is she perfect? No! She's impulsive, quick tempered, vindictive, etc etc. Her hardness/arrogance came from the men in her life constantly doubting her and her abilities (see, her trade deal in Astapor where her advisers publicly disagreed with her; see also the leaders of the Second Sons). Same as Sansa's sneakiness and underhandedness came from a need to survive her surroundings, and initially, youthful ignorance. 

 

Quote

Sansa has been punished in the narrative, many times over, for backing Joffrey against her father. However, she also has a lot of mental blocking because of her past behaviors. We have yet to see her reckon with that; but I think she will come out of it looking stronger in the end. She started privileged and spoiled for a reason; so she could have a Growth Arc. The Starks are a pack; Sansa's story has deviated enough from the original outline that we can see that she's working for their family's benefit, not just her own survival. 

Initially, Sansa was supposed to die in King's Landing (and Initially initially, she didn't even exist, which means that she probably doesn't factor much into the endgame of the story as a whole. She'll probably the last big, heartbreaking death. Dying in place of her sister Arya, same way Lady died for Nymeria). I think the reason for her being in the Vale (where she hasn't grown into a ruler, but a manipulator ---in the books) was to include The Vale and the Riverlands in the larger story. She's not good at keeping house (the books explicitly state that anything to do with numbers and keeping track of stores, was more Arya's wheelhouse than hers. Another case of the show giving Sansa more credit/story/ability than she has in the books), so I don't see her being some great lady taking care of her own house. If Sansa doesn't die, she'll probably end up marrying as means of forging an alliance (with someone not named Snow/Targaryen)

Quote

Also it's really hard to take Sansa's lines at face value; when it turns out that they were playing Littlefinger. For all we know she could have been exaggerating herself to make LF think they're in conflict. But even if she was sincere, yeah, it really does look MODEST compared to Dany who calls herself the savior of the UNIVERSE within two seconds, because Mel mentions a prophecy.

I think we can all agree that that story line was straight basura. Sure, Littlefinger wouldn't know that Arya never wanted to be a Lady, but Sansa did. And they never let on that the sister's were putting on a show for him either (who was there to see Arya quasi-threaten Sansa with a knife or them arguing on the bridge overlooking an empty courtyard? There wasn't even a cutaway to even hint at a spy. Dany didn't call herself azor ahai. She even points out that she's not a prince (and neither is Jon for that matter. Even legitimized, he is and was always a King) and not as a means to say that Mel was talking about her, but a means of asking why this prophecy would be important to her.

Quote

 

Dany of Essos cared about her people. The Dany of Westeros has lost that empathy; all she appears to care about is winning, and burning people/food to do it. 

Dany never knew the Seven Kingdoms, no one was chasing her after Robert died, and she's in Westeros out of spite.

 

Dany still cares about the people. It's why she doesn't just fly off to the red keep and burn it down like she considers in a moment of anger. It's also why she pauses her fight against Cersei to go North with Jon. Dany states her point of view quite plainly --- you can't protect people if you have zero power, you gotta do some unsavory things to get power. Dany wants to protect those under her because she never felt protected. She's in a unique position where she can (and does) empathize with the common people, and she has the means to help them. Something that Jon had to learn and Sansa still hasn't (that's not part of her narrative journey....right now). Arya has (never saw herself as above anyone to begin with) and Bran is a tree.  

As for the wagon burning, it was more keeping it from getting into the city/to Cersei. Their plan for lowest collateral damage was the lay siege to King's Landing and starve them out. Do something similar to what she did to the slave cities: let the people inside revolt and take the city for her. 

She didn't know that no ones else was coming to kill her. And who's to say that after the kings of Westeros were done fighting each other, they wouldn't turn their attention back to her? On top of that, someone did try to kill her after Robert died (the scorpion in the ball)

Edited April 5, 2018 by Gwen-Stacys

[bubble sparkly]

Tv show Jon Snow has pretty much been deemed Ned Stark 2.0, and declared the most honest, moral and decent man in all of Westeros. I kid... but not really lol.

Anyway, by the end of S7 Jon Snow is in love with Dany, has indicated he would be happy to prove the witch wrong and impregnate her, stated she has a good heart, bent the knee, said she isn’t like everyone else, publicly declared for her at the dragon pit, and said she will make a good Queen and the North will come to see how awesome she is.

So since the moral centre of Westeros thinks Dany is amazing and deserves to be Queen, I’m thinking there’s pretty much zero chance Dany will be portrayed as anything other than a hero in s8.

[Colorful Mess]

Also I'm going to throw out my big speculation (speculation thread) that Dany's downfall began in S7. That ceasefire was, again, the reason why. That she continued on with it after she saw what the North was faced with has marked her as a goner in the story. She didn't give anything up and her willingness to help depends on Cersei's word (just...wow). Also, since Stannis called himself Prince who was Promised, if Dany does too, I think that's a sign she'll end up just like him: Winter-felled. 

I'm also concerned because the way Jon is talking about Dany being an ally - and how he needs her dragons as a weapon. It is disturbingly similar to how desperate the Children of the Forest were, to create the Night King as a weapon to fight the First Men. Jon has reached the Godzilla Threshold, and the Children appear to have been pushed to this threshold too. So they use a "Godzilla" to help them in their war, unaware of how that weapon could turn against them. This is why I think ice and fire are two dangerous, unpredictable forces that Jon will have to fight. I think Bran will take out the Night King while Jon will have to fight Dany somehow.

Also why is it so easy to imagine Stark soldiers replacing the Lannister soldiers in Spoils of War. If Jon was sitting on the Throne (or fAegon in this case), she wouldn't care what sigil they wore. They're on "her" territory, and they don't kneel, she cooks them. AND if she's faced with starvation up North? Maybe she even eats them? (that book cannibal plot with Stannis appears to be setting up a Dany/Stannis foil. It may only happen in the books though).

[Stella]

Jon pretty much dropped in Dany's lap the perfect opportunity for her to prove her willingness to do anything for "her" Seven Kingdoms. She's touting herself as the breaker of chains, the person to free the realm from tyrant Cersei. Had she listened to Jon from the get-go and began immediately strategizing with him on a plan to save "her people" and done so, she would have easily captured the hearts and devotion of "her people". Pretty much exactly like when she freed the Unsullied. And shouldn't we expect nothing less from a benevolent ruler? Looking at this objectively if she is truly a benevolent queen this is what would have happened. If this were the story it could easily have happened. Instead we are treated to her narcissism - "I was born to rule the Seven Kingdoms, and I will" burning "her people" alive and the food she needs for her soldiers and "her people". Martin has definitely proved one of his theses with his POV writing style. Which is that the hero is the villain of the other side. People that stan Dany seem willing to excuse everything she does, and to me it seems that they believe everything she does is justified and right, if not perfect. I agree she is a fascinating and complex character. I'm by no means suggesting she won't have some sort of redemption arc at the end. But IMO it is highly unlikely that she is the savior and I personally believe it's highly doubtful she will have a good outcome.

I would say that all the characters who are claiming the thrown - Cersei, Dany, Euron & Stannis (book) will fail in their quest. The character that cares only about saving the realm of men is Jon. He does not give a shit about the crown so probably he will be the king in the end. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Stella

[anamika]

57 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Why do I keep comparing them? This goes back to my earlier point waaaaay upthread. I am a harsher critic of Dany because of what she represents in the story. She was given a dangerous, destructive weapon and unlimited power. She is the most powerful person in the world. Therefore, she should be examined more critically for how she uses that power. If you have the potential to exact suffering on a massive scale you have to be EXTRA GOOD.

 

In your opinion how should Dany be EXTRA GOOD? What should she do with her dragons? She already liberated Meereen and freed the slaves there. What should be next on her agenda so that she can be EXTRA GOOD compared to all the other characters?

57 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

You have to walk the line on the side of good better than the rest of them. If you say you're going to break the wheel; then you have to live up to that potential (or be less vague about it, for a start). If you say you're going to be better than Cersei (or your fire-worshiping father); you have to live up to that potential.

 

So you are saying that Dany is not better than Cersei right now? That she has to prove it?

Let's see. Cersei commits adultery with her brother, has three bastards which then plunged the realm into war. She abused Sansa and let her son abuse Sansa. On the show, she murders babies and blew up the Sept killing hundreds. The Lannisters took down the Starks and ravaged the Riverlands. Ned, Robb, Catelyn are all dead, the Stark children are all traumatized survivors because of the Lannisters.

And Dany is a bad person for trying to take them down? Dany is a bad person for trying to liberate Meereen from the Slavers?

Dany has done more good than the Starks, Baratheons, Lannisters, Tyrells and Martells in the series. What have these guys done other than squabble amongst themselves?

Quote

If you say you want to help people, it has to come at the expense of something (and so far she's only accidentally lost a dragon). Accounting for her failures while holding her to a higher standard is what I'm trying to do. And if she isn't that special or amazing and she's just like all the other rival claimants, then let's agree to that.

What the hell does that mean? Why should Dany lose something if she wants to help people? This constant obsession with wanting Dany to suffer, wanting Dany to lose dragons, wanting Dany to lose everything is just blind hatred for the character. There is no justification for it - other than Dany has to suffer.

And Dany's point is that she can only effect change or bring about change from a position of power - and she can only get to that position of power using strength. And Strength is terrible.

There is a debate to be had here about book Dany and colonialism, imperialism, US foreign policy, collective punishment etc. But this is not the thread for that and this is not a debate to be had with someone who sees Dany to be as bad as Cersei. Nuance and the understanding of flawed characters are required there.

57 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

I'll admit her successes when I see them, but she's acted more times out of pure self-interest that causes devastation (both intentional or unintentional). That's not acceptable for someone with this much hype, agency, power, and control. If it is too difficult to defend Dany by herself, without responding with, "Well x character isn't a saint either," then it's not good enough. Dany is supposed to be better. A hero with that much power is supposed to be better. Our own politicians in the real world are supposed to be better.

 

So her stalling her campaign to help slaves is selfish? Her going North to help them is selfish? She demolished the Lannisters in the field of fire 2.0 - that's success for you. She saved Jon's ass - that's success for you. She's earned her victories and her successes by herself. As Tyrion states in ADwD

Quote

I know that she spent her childhood in exile, impoverished, living on dreams and schemes, running from one city to the next, always fearful, never safe, friendless but for a brother who was by all accounts half-mad...a brother who sold her maidenhood to the Dothraki for the promise of an army. I know that somewhere upon the grass, her dragons hatched, and so did she. I know she is proud. How not? What else was left her but pride? I know she is strong. How not? The Dothraki despise weakness. If Daenerys had been weak, she would have perished with Viserys. I know she is fierce. Astapor, Yunkai and Meereen are proof enough of that. She has survived assassins and conspiracies and fell sorceries, grieved for a brother and a husband and a son, trod the cities of the slavers to dust beneath her dainty sandaled feet

You are right. There is no comparison to Sansa here. What has Sansa accomplished that was not given to her by LF because of his infatuation with her? The Vale army? LF got them there. Glover and Royce support? LF got her that. What has she accomplished in the books that compares to Dany's efforts?

And yet, Sansa is constantly pushed forward as some wise, compassionate, good queen Bess who would be a better ruler than Dany despite not having done shit. You are right, in that we can criticize Dany and Jon about their leadership arcs because they actually got to be leaders. Sansa is still being led by the nose by LF. Let's wait and see what sort of leadership Sansa offers in the books - you can be sure she will not have an easy time of it. On the show, we have already seen her get manipulated by LF and continue to be classist and arrogant.

57 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

And no, I don't think Dany is worthy of Jon.

LOL! What is Jon? Some kind of God for Dany to be worthy of him?  No one is worthy of anyone in this series. They are all equally flawed characters. Dany does not need to be worthy of Jon. Both characters respect each other and see each other as equals. That's more than enough for me. Dany respects Jon's intellect and experience and Jon sees that Dany is a good person who wants to truly help the North and they love each other. The show rushed this plot as they did all plots, but that's the gist of the Jon-Dany romance on the show.

By the way, who do you think is worthy of Jon? And don't tell me that the answer is Sansa!

Edited April 5, 2018 by anamika

[anamika]

Regarding the 'food burning' which is touted to show that Dany is evil or whatever:

1. That food was looted from the Reach and already heading towards KL

2. Dany was burning those wagons to make way for her men to break through the Lannister soldier line. If you watch that battle, the Dothraki were approaching close by and those wagons were lined up behind the Lannisters blocking their way with spears. Burning those wagons was the only way for her to break their formation and not burn her own men approaching fast. It was a war tactic.

So it was either lose the food to KL or lose the food killing Lannister soldiers. She took option 2.

43 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Also why is it so easy to imagine Stark soldiers replacing the Lannister soldiers in Spoils of War. If Jon was sitting on the Throne (or fAegon in this case), she wouldn't care what sigil they wore. They're on "her" territory, and they don't kneel, she cooks them.

This is battle. Soldiers die. Robb's army killed thousands of Lannister soldiers.

Also why is so easy to keep coming up with hypothetical situations where Dany is weirdly attacking the good guys? She attacked the Lannister. Remembers the Lannisters? The central human villains in this series? The guys who arranged the Red Wedding? The guy who crippled Bran and killed Stark men in KL? The guys who looted the Tyrells and murdered Olenna?

Quote

AND if she's faced with starvation up North? Maybe she even eats them? (that book cannibal plot with Stannis appears to be setting up a Dany/Stannis foil. It may only happen in the books though).

Jesus!! I am now imagining evil witch Dany cackling over her boiling cauldron cooking the poor hapless Northerners.

Edited April 5, 2018 by anamika

[Colorful Mess]

43 minutes ago, anamika said:

What the hell does that mean? Why should Dany lose something if she wants to help people?

Because a hero is torn between what she wants to do and what she has to do.

She has to give up her pursuit of the Iron Throne before she can be on par with Jon. Because she insisted on a ceasefire, she's not.

This is the same conflict when she married Hizdahr. 

Duty vs. desire/self-interest. She has to lose something.

She hasn't completely given up on that desire for the throne yet. I mean...in LOTR terms, it functions as the ring of power? I don't know what more there is to say.

Sansa hasn't done as much as Dany - I agree. I'm not one of those people who even wants Sansa to be queen. I'm actually very critical of Sansa in the story. While I do think she has political skills, I think she would be best in the role Catelyn, Lady of Winterfell and a mother with kids. So you're right, she isn't on par with Dany's exceptionalism (thank god). But still, I don't understand why we have to keep talking about Sansa...

It's Dany who is the one who boasts "I'm going to save the North" (like if you have to say that out loud? ...it's not very promising).

43 minutes ago, anamika said:

So her stalling her campaign to help slaves is selfish?

I didnt say that. She felt guilt for what she had done to Slaver's Bay; same as she did with the Lhazareen. However, there is an element of questionable morals in freeing the Unsullied. Her personal distaste for the practice of slavery just happens to match up with her need for an army. That's a little too convenient. The show also appears to be hammering the point of how she never really helped the slaves learn how to be free. You can see this in Missandei and Greyworm's B stories. Yes, Dany gave them their freedom, but she also didn't really give them a chance or opportunity to do something other than serve her. All they know is how to serve, and obey, and she continues to ask them to serve, and obey. That's why Jon questioned Missandei so sharply. Like, how does it look, when she frees slaves yet turns around and uses them for her own purposes? That would be like Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves and then asking them to join his re-election campaign? Its corrupted whatever noble intentions she had.

But...Why wasn't she satisfied to stay in Essos though? Why does she continually have to conquer more and more territory? Why is she looking like Napoleon?

43 minutes ago, anamika said:

Her going North to help them is selfish?

Yes, because she made it clear that the ceasefire was important to her - even when she agreed to help - they're still sailing SOUTH so she can get a ceasefire.

43 minutes ago, anamika said:

She's earned her victories and her successes by herself. As Tyrion states in ADwD

No one is saying Dany is lazy? Like I don't think anyone has actually called her out for showing lack of initiative. If this was a contest of resumes and accomplishments, Dany would probably win. Lack of will/conviction is not the criticism. It's the "great power/responsibility" ethos. Let's hold her to a higher standard.

43 minutes ago, anamika said:

And Dany's point is that she can only effect change or bring about change from a position of power - and she can only get to that position of power using strength. And Strength is terrible.

That worked in Esoss. Not in Westeros. They don't need to be dominated; they need food, families, and good clothing for Winter. She has not proposed any of that; she hasn't even run a campaign to illustrate how she's better than Cersei. She is running her campaign into the ground by burning the Tarleys, and Tyrion knows it. Tyrion is worried that he's backing the wrong horse (quote by Mylod, the director)...so perhaps...maybe...the audience should be too?

I doubt that the message at the end of ASOIAF is that pummeling people into submission with excessive use of force is the best way to rule over a population. How about we try, rule by consent of the governed? And Dany may not even have that, because, how much can former slaves actually consent? Of course they're going to worship anyone who says they're free.

Dany is not an ideal king/queen. She's better as an activist working outside the power structure. But she has become the power structure.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Stella]

5 minutes ago, anamika said:

So it was either lose the food to KL or lose the food killing Lannister soldiers. She took option 2.

39 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

NO. She had complete control of the Field of Fire 2.0 and could easily have NOT burned the food.  Dany and her forces totally outmanned and out numbered the Lannister forces. To bring her "son?" Dragon in to burn the food (not to mention) the Lannister army was at the least - stupid. 

[anamika]

2 minutes ago, Stella said:

NO. She had complete control of the Field of Fire 2.0 and could easily have NOT burned the food.  Dany and her forces totally outmanned and out numbered the Lannister forces. To bring her "son?" Dragon in to burn the food (not to mention) the Lannister army was at the least - stupid. 

NO. Dany did not have complete control because the her own soldiers were fighting on the field.  The Dothraki were closing in and if she burned the Lannisters directly the Dothraki would also be burned. So she did Dracarys behind the Lannisters which killed them and broke their formation. Unfortunately since the wagons were lined up there, they became the casualty.

7 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

She has to give up her pursuit of the Iron Throne before she can be on par with Jon. Because she insisted on a ceasefire, she's not.

Why does she have to be on par with Jon? This is not the 'hero' competition you know? These are different characters, with different personalities, different plots, arcs and motivations. Jon's goal is to defeat the WW. Dany's is to sit on the IT.

[Gwen-Stacys]

4 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Yes, because she made it clear that the ceasefire was important to her BEFORE she agreed to help.

You're argument falls apart here, because she initially flew north before she got her ceasefire. She lost a dragon for it. A literal child to her. 

You accused Dany of future cannibalism. You don't like her, that's fine, but can we keep the discussion on brand for each character? We lose the discussion bit if we don't. 

1 minute ago, Stella said:

NO. She had complete control of the Field of Fire 2.0 and could easily have NOT burned the food.  Dany and her forces totally outmanned and out numbered the Lannister forces. To bring her "son?" Dragon in to burn the food (not to mention) the Lannister army was at the least - stupid. 

She burned the wagons because they were lined up behind the soldiers. They boxed them in (Dothraki through the front, dragon fire at the back). Yes, she burned the food, but I think they marked it down as a loss anyway. Either Cersei got it, or they destroyed it in a grande show of power. That is what the field of fire (1.0 and 2.0) were for ---to show off the destructive power of dragons. That, and she got retribution for her fallen allies. One, in particular, that encouraged her to do just what she did.

[Colorful Mess]

12 minutes ago, Gwen-Stacys said:

You're argument falls apart here, because she initially flew north before she got her ceasefire. She lost a dragon for it. A literal child to her. 

You accused Dany of future cannibalism. You don't like her, that's fine, but can we keep the discussion on brand for each character? We lose the discussion bit if we don't. 

Sorry, I hit send too soon. I edited to re-phrase. She made it clear that the ceasefire was important to her. Even when she agreed to help - they're still sailing SOUTH so she can get a ceasefire.

She lost her dragon and she still thinks this ceasefire is important. She lectures Jon: "My dragon died so we could be here." In effect, what she means is that my dragon would have died for nothing if the game isn't allowed to stop so I can help you. It's just the most convoluted mess ever.

The cannibalism point was speculation. Fair game for a speculation thread, especially since the author is setting up a foil right there for the taking (why bring up cannibalism in Winter, otherwise). Anyway, it's tongue-in-cheek. It's not like I'm saying it will actually happen. It's fun to you know...speculate?

Edited April 5, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[bubble sparkly]

Wasn’t the dragon pit meeting Tyrion’s idea? Wasn’t he the one who thought they could get Cersei on side and have all the kingdoms unite to fight the WW? Didn’t Jon volunteer to go North to get a WW for Cersei (mainly because he was jealous of Jorah), despite Dany wanting him to stay? Why does Dany keep getting blamed for this?

Also, Dany had already committed to fighting the WW prior to the dragon pit meeting. If Jon and the others thought it was so imperative to go North straight away and not get an alliance with Cersei they could have done it. Jon didn’t seem to have any objection to going South for this meeting.

[Colorful Mess]

37 minutes ago, anamika said:

Why does she have to be on par with Jon? This is not the 'hero' competition you know? These are different characters, with different personalities, different plots, arcs and motivations. Jon's goal is to defeat the WW. Dany's is to sit on the IT.

You keep asking why I have to compare people.

And I would say that it's the story of two heroes. So, why shouldn't we be doing this? 

Interrogating their differences is probably the best way to determine whether someone is good enough to be a true king/queen (Jon) or even a true knight (Brienne) - by comparison. I think one of the themes of ASOIAF is "what makes good king/queen?" And so far, I think Dany almost makes the cut, but not quite. Jon is still the OTK.

I do wonder if, philosophically, Jon and Dany are even on the same "team," or if it just appears that way, for a short-term Godzilla solution.

The author encourages us to compare and contrast characters - he is happy when he hears that we're discussing them on forums like these. He marks it as a badge of success. You are excellent at defending Dany. But let's speculate. Where do you think her arc is headed, based on these points we've been debating? 

I think however she ends up, we can look back and see where her failures started (and again I think it's with the ceasefire...or maybe even the Tarleys).

So far Dany has only claimed to help, with a ton of conditions. I wouldn't be surprised if Jon just wants to take a nap when he gets home.

Getting Dany to do something that would benefit her in the long run is exhausting.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[anamika]

Where do I think Dany's arc is headed?

1. She and Jon defeat the the WW, defeat Cersei, sit on the Iron Throne and restore the Targaryens back to power. Targaryen restoration hype!

2. She dies fighting the NK and goes down in a blaze of glory.

3. She dies in childbirth leaving Jon heartbroken.

4. She dies as Nissa Nissa and truest love to Jon's Azor Ahai - sacrificing herself to defeat the WW

5. She and Jon defeat Cersei and the WW, but Jon dies and she sits on the IT alone with her child.

6. She and Jon have to sacrifice their baby Martha to defeat the WW - they use a trebuchet to hurl the baby onto the NK. Then they sit on the IT.

7. She and Jon renounce everything and go off with their child to live a life of peace in a house with a red door and lots of lemon trees.

8. Both she and Jon die fighting the WW or Cersei and Aunty Arya becomes caretaker of their child.

9. Drogon and Ghost may both survive along with their humans, both die along with their humans or their humans survive and they both die.

I think I have covered all possible outcomes here...

Edited April 5, 2018 by anamika

[bubble sparkly]

4 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

So far Dany has only claimed to help, with a ton of conditions. I wouldn't be surprised if Jon just wants to take a nap when he gets home.

Why shouldn't Dany request conditions for providing assistance?  It's not like Jon was asking to borrow a cup of sugar.  He wanted Dany to risk her life, the lives of her dragons, and the lives of her people to come and save the North.  That is a massive request and deserves a massive quid pro quo.

Dany was perfectly happy to let Jon mine dragonglass from her land and even provide men to help with without asking anything in return.  I think this was very generous of her, as she would have been well within her rights to request gold, food or a bespoke Haus of Sansa wardrobe in exchange for the dragonglass.  Given the way Westeros works, Dany could have even demanded that Jon or Sansa marry her / someone of her choosing to grant this request.  Catelyn was more than happy to marry Robb or Arya off to a Frey to cross a bridge, so requiring Jon or Sansa to marry someone to get dragonglass seems par for the course.

Also, if Jon needs to take a nap it's his own damn fault for being so stubborn.  In 7x04 Dany said she would help fight the WW if Jon bent the knee.  Jon refused her offer because of his pride.  So, despite Jon claiming that fighting the WW was the only thing he cares about, his pride was clearly more important to him until 7x06.  Jon claims that everyone in the North will die unless they kill the WW, yet until 7x06 he apparently felt that the lives of all the Northerners were less important than him retaining the title of KITN.

I understand why Jon would be hesitant to bend the knee when he doesn't know Dany, especially given the whiny bitches in the North had a massive cry about him leaving.  But honestly, if the Northerners are not prepared the bend the knee in order to have someone else fly in and save their assess then they should just sit back and wait for the WW to come and kill them.  If the Northerners are not prepared to give anything and just want to take, take, take, then they are the petty, selfish assholes and seem much more villainous to me than Dany does.

Frankly, the mission to beg for Dany's assistance just showed that the Northerners have abysmal political skills.  If they expected Dany to provide her help without having to bend the knee or give up anything of value then they are soft in the head and clearly know nothing about politics.  If Jon and the North were smart, they would have rocked up proposing a marriage alliance between Jon and Dany.  That way, when the WW are killed and Dany takes the throne, Jon will be right beside her as King ensuring the interests of the North are protected.  They could have also requested that Dany name Sansa as Warden so Starks continue to have day to day control of the North.  If Jon had done this in 7x03 then he and all of Dany's crew could have been on a boat North in 7x04, but Jon wasted 3 episodes being petty and caring more about his title as KITN than his people's lives.

Edited April 5, 2018 by bubble sparkly

[Katsullivan]

11 hours ago, anamika said:

So basically your problem is that Dany has not been punished enough by the narrative to earn her top dog status?

Or to ask it more meta-lly, can a female character ever merit hard masculine power?

 

10 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

 If it is too difficult to defend Dany by herself, without responding with, "Well x character isn't a saint either," then it's not good enough.

You literally put forward an argument that Stannis's blind faith in Melisandre that he was the Prince That Was Promised to destroy the White Walkers - a blind faith that led directly to him burning his daughter alive - made Stannis morally superior to Dany. 

The inversion of your statement is closer to the truth - the only way to attack/condemn Dany is by taking her actions out of context and proscribing some pseudo-ideology based on 21st century comic book philosophy on her that are neither realistic to this story or even real life. 

I mean, take the EXTRA GOOD™ Standard, for example. We've had characters on the show who've all been shining beacons of EXTRA GOOD™. Ned Stark - our hero, the moral standard upon which all other moral standards are measured. Warned his enemy of his plans to expose her. Gave her the chance to get herself and her children to safety. What did all that EXTRA GOOD™ get him? A head on the block. His children scattered. His daughter married to a man she loathed. Another turned fugitive. His son leading a war, and then dying for it. Talking about said son - that's another example of EXTRA GOOD™ at work. Robb Stark, who rather than keep Theon Greyjoy hostage to the Iron Islands's loyalty, decided to send his good friend to bring back an army. He rewarded for that bit of EXTRA GOOD™ by his home being raided, destroyed and his brothers (to the best of his knowledge) brutally murdered. He killed an ally, Lord Karstark because Justice, Morality and all those pesky EXTRA GOOD™ stuff. He lost half his army and gained an enemy. Despite all advice to discard a woman he slept with for comfort (book) or to keep her as a mistress (show), EXTRA GOOD™ demanded that Robb give up a strategic alliance to do the honorable thing. What did all that EXTRA GOOD™ get him? A literal wolf's head on his neck and his mother's throat slit. The North was lost because of the EXTRA GOOD™ of Ned and Robb Stark.

So you want to condemn judge Dany? You want to condemn her for not being EXTRA GOOD™? Then do it in in the fair context of the characters and the world and the story. Otherwise, it's just as relevant that the only way you can attack her is by holding her to an impossible standard that has been proven impractical.

[Meredith Quill]

Mod Note:

Please take pure discussion of any characters motivations, ideals and/or how good or bad they are to their character topic. This is fine as it relates to how you believe, or would like to see, it all ends but when it goes off on a tangent of "X is more deserving",  "no X is more deserving" followed by lengthy explanations of why - nope, that doesn't belong here. 

This topic is for discussing the Endgame, not who is more deserving because reasons.

Further posts that violate this will be removed.

[Colorful Mess]

I will reply later in the Dany thread to points above. But for endgame discussion, something caught my eye that I feels needs more elaboration.

"Bran is a tree."

I think this vastly underestimates his role in the story. I believe he is far, far more likely to be effective against the Night King than Dany. I have serious doubts that a person who just found out the Night King has existed 2 minutes ago is suddenly going to defeat an evil force that has persisted for thousands of years - a force that Brandon the Builder (Bran's namesake), the Last Hero (Bran's quest) and the Children of the Forest (whom Bran has actually met), couldn't even defeat permanently. Dany talks about defeating the NK like it's checklist; I don't think she really knows or understands what she's facing. Bran knows the history - HE CAN MANIPULATE SPACE AND TIME - and he has the control of EARTH MAGIC, which again is an underestimated force in the story.

Fire magic

is

not

the

answer

(it will probably only result in a stalemate).

(Actually maybe magic won't even defeat the NK at all).

[SimoneS]

15 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

The cannibalism point was speculation. Fair game for a speculation thread, especially since the author is setting up a foil right there for the taking (why bring up cannibalism in Winter, otherwise). Anyway, it's tongue-in-cheek. It's not like I'm saying it will actually happen. It's fun to you know...speculate?

Cannibalism. Bwah! Seriously? If you want to go there, then I speculate that if anyone is likely to be a cannibal it is Jon. After all, he is buddies with the Wildings, some of whom eat humans. Hell, Jon might been munching down on his fellow northerns when he was captured by the Wildings. I wouldn't put it past the northerners to eat the dead when they are starving. Dany, on the other hand, will have her dragons to hunt for her so she will be eating other animals.

[Gwen-Stacys]

4 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

I will reply later in the Dany thread to points above. But for endgame discussion, something caught my eye that I feels needs more elaboration.

"Bran is a tree."

I was being facetious. 

I also agree that he's more important to the story than the show suggests. He's one of GRRM's 5 mains (along with Arya, Tyrion, Dany, and Jon). I think he'll warg into Viserion during a key point in a battle and will be instrumental in taking him down. 

Quote

The cannibalism point was speculation. Fair game for a speculation thread, especially since the author is setting up a foil right there for the taking (why bring up cannibalism in Winter, otherwise). Anyway, it's tongue-in-cheek. It's not like I'm saying it will actually happen. It's fun to you know...speculate?

Yea, sure. But speculation has to come from somewhere. Dany balked at eating horses, I doubt she'd be the one to foray into the world of cannibalism. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by Gwen-Stacys

[Colorful Mess]

3 hours ago, SimoneS said:

Cannibalism. Bwah! Seriously? If you want to go there, then I speculate that if anyone is likely to be a cannibal it is Jon. After all, he is buddies with the Wildings, some of whom eat humans. Hell, Jon might been munching down on his fellow northerns when he was captured by the Wildings. I wouldn't put it past the northerners to eat the dead when they are starving. Dany, on the other hand, will have her dragons to hunt for her so she will be eating other animals.

Well I guess the wildlings could have fed him Qhorhin, just like Manderly's Frey pies. LOL. But I think they burned him? 

Hunting won't work. The reason why people were resorting to cannibalism is because the rivers and lakes had been overfished and there were no animals left to hunt. Not saying that Dany herself will partake but if her soldiers start doing it, I have a feeling that she will do the opposite of whatever Stannis did.

Two reasons why I bring it up:

1. Reduced to cannibalism - Napoleon in Russia. I think the author is definitely making some Napoleon parallels with Dany's arc

2. Dany sees a "feast of corpses" in her Houses of the Undying prophecy. The common theory is that this refers to the Red Wedding. I'm skeptical. Because what does the Red Wedding have to do with her? A feast of corpses would be a great play on words for eating people.

Haha this topic is so morbidly funny to me, please dont think I'm taking it too seriously. Its definitely a tinfoil theory.

[screamin]

On 4/5/2018 at 12:38 AM, Colorful Mess said:

She has to give up her pursuit of the Iron Throne before she can be on par with Jon. Because she insisted on a ceasefire, she's not.

Dany demanding a ceasefire is not just about greed for power. It is also strategically necessary if the NK is to be stopped - gathering a large army and marching North to face one enemy is doomed if another enemy takes advantage of your departure to attack you from the rear, burning your army's winter supplies and home base.

Of course, a formal agreement of ceasefire is useless if you're negotiating with a dishonorable enemy who won't respect any promise made - but deciding to do that's on Jon as well as Dany.

[Colorful Mess]

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

[anamika]

7 hours ago, screamin said:

Of course, a formal agreement of ceasefire is useless if you're negotiating with a dishonorable enemy who won't respect any promise made - but deciding to do that's on Jon as well as Dany.

Unless he is playing some sort of double game here, it's even more on Tyrion - the  brother who grew up with Cersei and played games with her in KL - who asked Jon to lie to Cersei about bending the knee and then expects Cersei to hold to her word.

This is why I think there's more to the Cersei-Tyrion conversation - the ending of which we did not see. The outline says it ends ambiguously, maybe to surprise the viewers when Cersei comes out and agrees to help. But it could also be Tyrion  knowing that Cersei was not really going to help.

[Colorful Mess]

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

[anamika]

Exploring the possible betrayal by Tyrion, let's look at all the prophecies that Dany has had:

Quote

. . . three fires must you light . . . one for life and one for death and one to love . . . . . . three mounts must you ride . . . one to bed and one to dread and one to love . . . . . . three treasons will you know . . . once for blood and once for gold and once for love . . .

We still don't know for sure who these guys are. But we do know that there is a treason for love waiting for her. We know that the script outline wanted to go there with Dany and Tyrion and there are some moments they had in there - Tyrion looking on as Jon goes into Dany's room, Tyrion and Dany arguing over how to rule, Tyrion assuring Cersei that she and Jaime are only alive because he was deliberately stalling Dany's plans.

Then we have this in the books:

Quote

"The glass candles are burning. Soon comes the pale mare, and after her the others. Kraken and dark flame, lion and griffin, the sun's son and the mummer's dragon. Trust none of them. Remember the Undying. Beware the perfumed seneschal."

The men that Quaithe lists are : Kraken (Possibly Victarion who is heading towards her), Griffin ( Jon Connington) who is fighting for the Mummer's dragon (FAegon), the sun's son (Quentyn Martell who made a mess of things) and the lion - Tyrion Lannister. Quaithe warns Dany to not trust any of these men.

There is also the perfumed seneschal which could be Varys who is on fAegon's side. We had Dany threatening Varys with death by fire if he ever betrayed her.

On the show, Tyrion and Dany start clashing when his plans start to fail. He suggests a siege of KL which would have starved the population and only made them hate Dany more. He disagrees with Dany's way of doing things and asks that she name a heir which she refuses to do. Dany accuses Tyrion of not wanting to hurt his family and we later see this is true from his conversation with Cersei.

The show's whitewashing of Tyrion would make this come out of nowhere and be really shocking - but Tyrion's betrayal could be the third holy shit moment - especially for show only viewers who only know of saint Tyrion and not the dark, bitter, rapist Tyrion of the books. I don't think Tyrion betrays Dany for Cersei in the books - I suspect Cersei would be long gone as an antagonist in the books. Tyrion would be doing it for himself and maybe to get Casterly Rock or sit on the Iron Throne for himself. Or maybe we do get the Tyrion-Dany-Jon love triangle in the books and his bitter rivalry with Jon leads to him being Dany's betrayal for love.

So if Tyrion does end up betraying Dany, I suspect his endgame is either death or banishment. With Jaime and Cersei most probably dying as well - Tywin's line is done for - unless Brienne gets pregnant and ends up with a little Lannister. I can't see Brienne dying.

Tyrion's ending is also apparently foreshadowed in the first book. From here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/145941-tyrions-death/

Quote

We know Martin’s first intention was to write a trilogy, so do we have to assume that a third of the clues that can lead us towards the end are in the first book?

Elio M. García Jr: When he was finishing the first book, he realized it wasn’t a trilogy, but a four-book series, so even part of A Clash of Kings was originally written for A Game of Thrones, but when he started the second book he said “Wait, this is getting even longer!”, so he stopped for a moment and visualized the whole story before deciding there will finally be six books, although now, for a very long time, he has said seven. Nonetheless, you are right. A good portion of the clues about various things that will happen in the very end are in the first book. For example, Daniel Abraham did a comic series adapting A Game of Thrones and there’s one interesting thing that George told him: “You have to keep this line because this line is important for what it happens in the end.

Linda Antonsson: The very last scene… So there’s something in the very first book that will be echoed there.

Anne Groell: I do know the endpoint of Bran’s story line—and Daniel Abraham, who has been adapting the graphic novel of AGOT for me, knows where Tyrion ends up. (I am jealous of that!)

People keep talking about GRRM changing the ending as his story evolved. But it looks like most of his ending is pretty much what he originally envisioned for it.

Some folks have theorized that Tyrion will live to be old

Quote

How would you like to die, Tyrion son of Tywin?”

"In my own bed, with a belly full of wine and a maiden's mouth around my cock, at the age of eighty,” he replied. - AGOT Tyrion

and sit on the IT with Sansa as his Queen. This would be a tiresome ending for the show considering that season one ended with a Lannister on the IT, followed by other Lannisters and the series ends with a Lannister on the throne. So the most villainous family wins the game of thrones which is hardly a game because the Lannisters have been continuously squatting in KL since the show started.

Edited April 9, 2018 by anamika

[WindyNights]

On 4/5/2018 at 1:40 PM, SimoneS said:

Cannibalism. Bwah! Seriously? If you want to go there, then I speculate that if anyone is likely to be a cannibal it is Jon. After all, he is buddies with the Wildings, some of whom eat humans. Hell, Jon might been munching down on his fellow northerns when he was captured by the Wildings. I wouldn't put it past the northerners to eat the dead when they are starving. Dany, on the other hand, will have her dragons to hunt for her so she will be eating other animals.

Well, Bran is already eating people.

 

Coldhands didn't just find a wild pig out in the middle of a blizzard.

[Eyes High]

6 hours ago, anamika said:

Tyrion's betrayal could be the third holy shit moment

 

D&D have said that the third WTF moment comes at the very end of the show, so unless Tyrion's betrayal goes something like this, it's unlikely:

Dany and Jon: So, Tyrion, now that the war is over, are you going to serve as our Hand?

Tyrion: Nah, I'm headed back to Casterly Rock. Tyrion out, bitches!

Dany and Jon: *shocked faces*

*credits*

On a more serious note, the two previous WTF twists involved fairly minor characters and didn't really tie into the main storyline. I'm thinking that the third WTF twist will relate to a more minor character's unexpected endgame. 

 

Quote

People keep talking about GRRM changing the ending as his story evolved. But it looks like most of his ending is pretty much what he originally envisioned for it.

By that logic, though, Tyrion will survive; GRRM explicitly said he would in the outline.

 

Quote

Some folks have theorized that Tyrion will live to be old (...) and sit on the IT with Sansa as his Queen. This would be a tiresome ending for the show considering that season one ended with a Lannister on the IT, followed by other Lannisters and the series ends with a Lannister on the throne. So the most villainous family wins the game of thrones

"The most villainous family"? The Boltons would like a word.

I think the throne is down to Jon and/or Dany, but Tyrion remains a dark horse candidate, as hideous, disfigured and reviled as Book Tyrion may be. I can't rule it out yet.

I don't think there's anything in the books pointing to Sansa as the endgame queen. She'll be lucky if she makes it out of the series alive in my opinion. 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Eyes High

[GraceK]

6 hours ago, Eyes High said:

I don't think there's anything in the books pointing to Sansa as the endgame queen. She'll be lucky if she makes it out of the series alive in my opinion. 

Agreed. Sansa as endgame queen is every Sansa fans wetdream. Ain’t happening.

[John Potts]

11 hours ago, anamika said:

Exploring the possible betrayal by Tyrion, let's look at all the prophecies that Dany has had:

Quote

. . . three fires must you light . . . one for life and one for death and one to love . . . . . . three mounts must you ride . . . one to bed and one to dread and one to love . . . . . . three treasons will you know . . . once for blood and once for gold and once for love . . .

We still don't know for sure who these guys are. But we do know that there is a treason for love waiting for her. We know that the script outline wanted to go there with Dany and Tyrion and there are some moments they had in there - Tyrion looking on as Jon goes into Dany's room, Tyrion and Dany arguing over how to rule, Tyrion assuring Cersei that she and Jaime are only alive because he was deliberately stalling Dany's plans.

The "Once for love" betrayal could be Jon killing her as Nyssa Nyssa to defeat the White Walkers (I'm not saying I'm sold on the idea, but it's certainly possible). The other two would be Miri Maz Dur (for blood) and Jorah (for gold)?

[whateverdgaf]

6 hours ago, Eyes High said:

 She'll be lucky if she makes it out of the series alive in my opinion. 

I would say Sansa has one of the best chances of staying alive. Her entire arc has been largely about survival so I struggle to think of a scenario in which Sansa dying wil be a satisfying conclusion. Maybe if Sansa were to choose to sacrifice herself. And she is unlikely to be anywhere near the fighting. Her role in the upcoming season is more likely to be a continuation of what she was doing in Season 7, managing the food stores and such. That we have seen her in this role also makes me think she will be of use in rebuilding Westeros at the end of the war.

[Eyes High]

5 minutes ago, whateverdgaf said:

I would say Sansa has one of the best chances of staying alive. Her entire arc has been largely about survival

Sansa's arc is no more about "survival" than that of any of the other main characters still alive at this point. Anyone who's still standing in S8 is only there because they've braved the odds and successfully survived great danger on numerous occasions, and I don't think that fact makes any of them safe, much less Sansa. I'd also add that for someone whose arc is supposedly "largely about survival," Book Sansa's had a relatively easy time of it compared to the other main characters.

[anamika]

1 hour ago, John Potts said:

The "Once for love" betrayal could be Jon killing her as Nyssa Nyssa to defeat the White Walkers (I'm not saying I'm sold on the idea, but it's certainly possible). The other two would be Miri Maz Dur (for blood) and Jorah (for gold)?

If Dany is Nyssa Nyssa, I think it happens only with Dany asking Jon to kill her to save the world. Jon is not going to go behind her back or suddenly pull out a sword and stab her. So I don't think it would be betrayal.

1 hour ago, whateverdgaf said:

 Her entire arc has been largely about survival

What does this mean exactly? Sansa's story is just about surviving?

[screamin]

12 hours ago, Eyes High said:

I think the throne is down to Jon and/or Dany, but Tyrion remains a dark horse candidate, as hideous, disfigured and reviled as Book Tyrion may be. I can't rule it out yet.

 

 

I can't imagine a Westeros that would accept kinslayer Tyrion with his all his original drawbacks (dwarf, no royal blood) and many new ones (mutilated, kinslayer, allying with foreigners to invade his own country, incurably self-sabotaging) as king, no matter HOW the coming apocalypse changes the face of the world.

Re: Sansa surviving, while I don't see her as THE queen, I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of possibility to see her as A queen. In the books, LF is setting her up for the QITN position and I think something will come of that.

Edited April 10, 2018 by screamin