Endgame Discussion and Speculation

[anamika]

15 minutes ago, SeanC said:

If you're going to extrapolate from that comparison (which I think is being used only in reference to that particular scene), the second-most-famous literary work about Odysseus is about him getting bored with home and leaving again to sail "beyond the baths of all the western stars".

Damn. There's goes that theory.

[Oscirus]

2 hours ago, Azi said:

Is it too much to hope that they actually went and talked to her about it? Cause while I wouldn't BBQ anyone for it, I think I would be pretty annoyed with my counsel if they talked about getting me to listen with each other like I'm their unruly child after I didn't follow their advice 100% one time.

Editing misdirection. While they were indeed talking about worrying about her, the person Varys wanted Tyrion to get to listen to him was Cersei as their attention  transfers to the great other.

Arya's the most Stark of all the Starks alive. She's also the only one left with an alive direwolf. Her being lady of winterfell on her own terms is looking better and better.

[Francie]

Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along. These aren't the intelligent beings you're looking for:

 

[Notwisconsin]

22 hours ago, SeanC said:

If you're going to extrapolate from that comparison (which I think is being used only in reference to that particular scene), the second-most-famous literary work about Odysseus is about him getting bored with home and leaving again to sail "beyond the baths of all the western stars".

reference please. I've never heard of that one.

[Eyes High]

33 minutes ago, Notwisconsin said:

reference please. I've never heard of that one.

The Tennyson poem Ulysses.

Topic: 

20 hours ago, Oscirus said:

Editing misdirection. While they were indeed talking about worrying about her, the person Varys wanted Tyrion to get to listen to him was Cersei as their attention  transfers to the great other.

Arya's the most Stark of all the Starks alive. She's also the only one left with an alive direwolf. Her being lady of winterfell on her own terms is looking better and better.

Except we learned in 7x02 that that direwolf can't be tamed, and neither, it seems implied by the writers, can Arya. Sansa has been told twice in two episodes that being Lady of Winterfell suits her (Littlefinger telling her that command suits her, Arya telling Sansa that "Lady Stark" suits her). Given how much the writers are telegraphing in Season 7, it seems we can take both those developments at face value when it comes to foreshadowing.

I admit that at this point, it looks like endgame ruler of Winterfell is down to either Sansa or Arya, unless Bran loses his powers and decides he wants to be Lord of Winterfell again.

Not sure where it leaves Sansa if Arya is indeed destined to end up as the endgame Lady of Winterfell. Dead, I guess?

[Katsullivan]

On 8/7/2017 at 9:12 AM, SeanC said:

Between Varys' death being essentially confirmed by Mel, and his increasing disenchantment with Dany, I'm guessing that when the truth of Jon's parentage comes out Varys tries to kill Dany so that Jon can be sole ruler, and he gets BBQ'd, just as Dany promised.

Yes, I imagine that they'll transfer Varys's role in the fAegon plot from the books to Jon with roughly the same conclusion for Varys. 

[Wouter]

On 8/8/2017 at 3:20 PM, Eyes High said:

Except we learned in 7x02 that that direwolf can't be tamed, and neither, it seems implied by the writers, can Arya. Sansa has been told twice in two episodes that being Lady of Winterfell suits her (Littlefinger telling her that command suits her, Arya telling Sansa that "Lady Stark" suits her). Given how much the writers are telegraphing in Season 7, it seems we can take both those developments at face value when it comes to foreshadowing.

I admit that at this point, it looks like endgame ruler of Winterfell is down to either Sansa or Arya, unless Bran loses his powers and decides he wants to be Lord of Winterfell again.

As a book reader, I had long pegged being endgame lord of Winterfell as the plot purpose of young Rickon, but now that they killed him off in the show that possibility seems remote. While Rickon himself is not a main character, it would be a major change for one of the other Starks, and those are all main characters.

So, who are we left with?

Jon now is de-facto leader of the Starks, but it is probably not an accident that the show has created a distinction between the "king in the north" on the one hand, and "lady/lord of Winterfell" on the other hand. Jon seems to want to leave the lesser title to the trueborn children of Ned, and we 99% certain know the king in the north will disappear and be replaced by one half of a Targaryen power couple that will be aiming to rule all seven kingdoms (and I think Martin would view the 7K remaining together as a good thing, given this means on average better stability and more trade). This would leave Winterfell open for Bran, Sansa and Arya.

 

Pros and cons:

-Bran:

cons: has become a mystic seer. Doesn't want the job, at least as of now. Being crippled is a bit of a downer, for the tough northern lords. May not be able to have children, so he may need a heir provided to him by (one of) his sisters.

pros: is arguably Ned's legal heir, considering Robb believed him to be dead when he wrote his will naming Jon as his heir. May be a hero after the war for the dawn. May change his attitude at some point.

 

-Sansa:

cons: was disinherited by Robb in the books, and may not even be in Winterfell in the books (at the equivalent point in time, say right after Dany sets foot on Westerosi soil). Has a southern air, from a northern POV. The marriage to Tyrion may yet be hindering her in the books, much like Lyanne throw Tyrion and Ramsay in her face in S6. She was also not really a major character in Martin's original outline (but in his "evolved" plans, he may have combined parts of outline-Arya and outline-Sansa just as he switched the roles of the Lannisters around). Her claim is inferior to Bran in any case.

pros: has been given both the position and to some extent, the skills to run Winterfell in the show. Her focus on food, especially in the show (but longterm probably in the books too, as she is in a good position in the Vale) may make her popular when this turns out to be crucially important. The snow model of Winterfell may be foreshadowing, in books and show.  Is older than Arya and thus in line before her.

 

-Arya:

cons: doesn't seem the type to want to be tied down in a castle, running a keep as well as a kingdom. Her claim is inferior to both Bran and Sansa. Her most important skills may be wasted in this position. I also have a hard time seeing her marrying, especially with someone befitting the lady of Winterfell.

pros: she's the most northern type, more like Jon. She has not been disinherited and is not a mystic, seemingly detached seer. No doubt she would be skilled if the job really interested her.

[Hecate7]

3 hours ago, Wouter said:

As a book reader, I had long pegged being endgame lord of Winterfell as the plot purpose of young Rickon, but now that they killed him off in the show that possibility seems remote. While Rickon himself is not a main character, it would be a major change for one of the other Starks, and those are all main characters.

So, who are we left with?

Jon now is de-facto leader of the Starks, but it is probably not an accident that the show has created a distinction between the "king in the north" on the one hand, and "lady/lord of Winterfell" on the other hand. Jon seems to want to leave the lesser title to the trueborn children of Ned, and we 99% certain know the king in the north will disappear and be replaced by one half of a Targaryen power couple that will be aiming to rule all seven kingdoms (and I think Martin would view the 7K remaining together as a good thing, given this means on average better stability and more trade). This would leave Winterfell open for Bran, Sansa and Arya.

 

Pros and cons:

-Bran:

cons: has become a mystic seer. Doesn't want the job, at least as of now. Being crippled is a bit of a downer, for the tough northern lords. May not be able to have children, so he may need a heir provided to him by (one of) his sisters.

pros: is arguably Ned's legal heir, considering Robb believed him to be dead when he wrote his will naming Jon as his heir. May be a hero after the war for the dawn. May change his attitude at some point.

 

-Sansa:

cons: was disinherited by Robb in the books, and may not even be in Winterfell in the books (at the equivalent point in time, say right after Dany sets foot on Westerosi soil). Has a southern air, from a northern POV. The marriage to Tyrion may yet be hindering her in the books, much like Lyanne throw Tyrion and Ramsay in her face in S6. She was also not really a major character in Martin's original outline (but in his "evolved" plans, he may have combined parts of outline-Arya and outline-Sansa just as he switched the roles of the Lannisters around). Her claim is inferior to Bran in any case.

pros: has been given both the position and to some extent, the skills to run Winterfell in the show. Her focus on food, especially in the show (but longterm probably in the books too, as she is in a good position in the Vale) may make her popular when this turns out to be crucially important. The snow model of Winterfell may be foreshadowing, in books and show.  Is older than Arya and thus in line before her.

 

-Arya:

cons: doesn't seem the type to want to be tied down in a castle, running a keep as well as a kingdom. Her claim is inferior to both Bran and Sansa. Her most important skills may be wasted in this position. I also have a hard time seeing her marrying, especially with someone befitting the lady of Winterfell.

pros: she's the most northern type, more like Jon. She has not been disinherited and is not a mystic, seemingly detached seer. No doubt she would be skilled if the job really interested her.

The whole point of Arya's character was her profound disinterest in being Lady of a castle.

[Wouter]

16 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

The whole point of Arya's character was her profound disinterest in being Lady of a castle.

Yes, which likely means that Sansa ends up with Winterfell.

Though then again, the people in ASOIAF/GoT rarely get what they want, so while Arya is probably not terribly interested (and ruling lady is not the same as merely being lady to a ruling lord), she may still get the job anyway.

But there is that tidbit of GRRM having toyed with the idea of including her in a Braavosi murder mystery post-ASOIAF, probably not something that a ruling lady of the north would engage in.

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, Wouter said:

Yes, which likely means that Sansa ends up with Winterfell.

Though then again, the people in ASOIAF/GoT rarely get what they want, so while Arya is probably not terribly interested (and ruling lady is not the same as merely being lady to a ruling lord), she may still get the job anyway.

But there is that tidbit of GRRM having toyed with the idea of including her in a Braavosi murder mystery post-ASOIAF, probably not something that a ruling lady of the north would engage in.

Yes, I doubt Arya will be skipping off to Braavos if she's the Lady of Winterfell. That tidbit seems to be the strongest indication that Arya's endgame is not to be tied down to any particular castle.

[Bill1978]

For ages, I thought the end game would involve the Iron Throne being more of a representative title than an actual ruling one. Similar to what the British Throne is today. You still have a monarch but they aren't actually determining the running of the place like they use to. I also imagined that the 7 Kingdoms would end up similar to today's British Commonwealth. Each of them being independent of one another but having a 'foreign' head of state. But with Season 7, it is very clear that there won't be many noble families left to enable something like a Commonwealth to exist. Or course all this extinquishing of the noble houses and all those characters could just be the writers showing GRRM that he added too many 'pointless' characters that don't ultimately impact the big end, so they have decided it is just easier to wipe them all out to assist in focusing on the Starks, Lannisters and Dany.  and the books may still have noble houses filled. But big picture I think it's either no throne or still a united continent.

 

I remember reading some people thinking that Tyrion would end up on the Throne. The way the show is killing off people, I'm beginning to see how this is plausible. If Dany and Jon are killed, that's the end of the Targs. The Baratheon line is dead (I'm assuming Gendry can' inherit). So that leaves the current family on the throne - Lannisters, and assuming Cersei and Jaime both die that means the only heir to the throne would be The Queen's younger brother - Tyrion. I don't think it's likely and I couldn't understand all those people saying Tyrion will get it, but now that Cersei is on the Throne I understand how it can happen.

[Eyes High]

6 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

I remember reading some people thinking that Tyrion would end up on the Throne. The way the show is killing off people, I'm beginning to see how this is plausible. If Dany and Jon are killed, that's the end of the Targs. The Baratheon line is dead (I'm assuming Gendry can' inherit). So that leaves the current family on the throne - Lannisters, and assuming Cersei and Jaime both die that means the only heir to the throne would be The Queen's younger brother - Tyrion. I don't think it's likely and I couldn't understand all those people saying Tyrion will get it, but now that Cersei is on the Throne I understand how it can happen.

I think Tyrion is the only possible backup at this point if Jon and Dany both die, but I think it's very unlikely that both of them will die.

[SeanC]

7 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

For ages, I thought the end game would involve the Iron Throne being more of a representative title than an actual ruling one. Similar to what the British Throne is today. You still have a monarch but they aren't actually determining the running of the place like they use to.

Various fans have speculated stuff like that, but I've never understood it.  There's no setup at all in the books for Westeros having any sort of parliamentary government.  Westeros doesn't even have an incipient parliament, nor has anybody's arc involved interacting with or conceiving of such a body elsewhere.

[SimoneS]

4 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Why not? Aragorn and Arwen fell in love, married, had a baby and ruled together in love happily ever after, and GRRM has said on several occasions that he is going for the tone of the LOTR ending with ASOIAF's ending.

"Not something GRRM would write" isn't much of a guidepost, since GRRM hasn't written anything like ASOIAF before. Those fantasy works which GRRM has cited as inspiration for ASOIAF--the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy and LOTR--both ended with a marriage between two characters who loved each other resulting in a prosperous, happy reign. Even the historical Wars of the Roses, which inspired GRRM, ended with a marriage that proved fruitful and reasonably happy as far as political marriages go. 

This is exactly why I expect Jon and Dany to end up together. To me, Jon and Dany having sex at the end of season 7 along her belief that she is barren nicely lays the groundwork for a pregnancy and marriage. Almost sci fantasy books molded after LOTR give their protagonists happy endings after they overcome obstacles along the way.  Killing off "red shirts" and supporting characters is a sci fantasy trope primarily started by Tolkien. The tv show has set up tons of these to die in both upcoming wars.

[Eyes High]

Quote

But GRRM also said the ending would be bittersweet. Jon and Dany happily ever after isn't so bittersweet. 

GRRM specifically defined his understanding of a "bittersweet ending" with reference to the ending of LOTR, which featured, yes, Arwen and Aragorn getting married, ruling together and living happily ever after:

Quote

I haven’t written the ending yet, so I don’t know, but no. That’s certainly not my intent. I’ve said before that the tone of the ending that I’m going for is bittersweet. I mean, it’s no secret that Tolkien has been a huge influence on me, and I love the way he ended Lord of the Rings. It ends with victory, but it’s a bittersweet victory. Frodo is never whole again, and he goes away to the Undying Lands, and the other people live their lives.

In GRRM's view, the LOTR ending is bittersweet because Frodo is psychologically scarred and everyone moves on with their lives, not because there's mass destruction and despair. So to say that GRRM wouldn't have a LOTR-type ending with Arwen and Aragorn because it wouldn't be "bittersweet" is incorrect, since that's precisely how he views the LOTR ending notwithstanding that Arwen and Aragorn's romance is resolved in their favour.

Now, I think it's reasonable to believe that Jon and/or Dany will die--GRRM's recent comments that "fire wight" Beric foreshadows Jon's resurrection certainly were not reassuring for Jon fans--but it's also perfectly reasonable to believe that Jon and Dany will end up ruling and living happily ever after, just as Arwen did with Aragorn in LOTR, and just as Simon ("Snowlock") did with Miriamele in the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy which also inspired GRRM.

[SeanC]

As far as the debate about "bittersweet"'s meaning, I think it's worth taking into account that there'll be a range of endings for different characters, rather than every character arriving at some sort of balancing point between happy and sad.  Obviously nobody is going to live an uncomplicatedly happy ending (even if Jon and Dany become rulers, ruling Westeros is a lot of work, and one imagines, particularly so after the Long Night).

Bran's ending, at least based on present conditions, seems likely to be fairly heavy on the "bitter" side, for instance.  Unlike his living siblings/cousin, he's effectively lost his personality.

[magdalene]

I wonder whether the ending could be bitter sweet because there might be a big time jump in the finale?  Lets say that awesome Lady Mormont, now a grand mother, is telling the chronicles of Fire and Ice (written by Sam) to her grand children.  And some of the characters we knew would have died in the final battle, some may have lived to old age and died.  But the Iron Throne  and the united Westeros these characters knew are  gone. And all these characters we knew for eight seasons are legends now.

[WindyNights]

On 8/13/2017 at 9:28 AM, Eyes High said:

GRRM specifically defined his understanding of a "bittersweet ending" with reference to the ending of LOTR, which featured, yes, Arwen and Aragorn getting married, ruling together and living happily ever after:

In GRRM's view, the LOTR ending is bittersweet because Frodo is psychologically scarred and everyone moves on with their lives, not because there's mass destruction and despair. So to say that GRRM wouldn't have a LOTR-type ending with Arwen and Aragorn because it wouldn't be "bittersweet" is incorrect, since that's precisely how he views the LOTR ending notwithstanding that Arwen and Aragorn's romance is resolved in their favour.

Now, I think it's reasonable to believe that Jon and/or Dany will die--GRRM's recent comments that "fire wight" Beric foreshadows Jon's resurrection certainly were not reassuring for Jon fans--but it's also perfectly reasonable to believe that Jon and Dany will end up ruling and living happily ever after, just as Arwen did with Aragorn in LOTR, and just as Simon ("Snowlock") did with Miriamele in the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy which also inspired GRRM.

Frodo isn't just psychologically scarred. He goes off into the Undying Lands as you say but that's a representation of death. 

Frodo( Gandalf and the elves) "dies" and the rest of the world moves on.

 

Frodo: The Shire has been saved but not for me.

 

Anyways Daenerys and Jon ending on the throne isn't happening because GRRM has set it up for them not to be. Follow the clues.

Aegon, Wildfire underneath KL, the author relating Dragons to nukes, GRRM pointing Jon as being a fire wight, fire wights being undead creatures, creating Robb because he wanted to subvert the idea of a son and king getting revenge for his father's death, dragons plant no trees, MMD's prophecy, Show's version of HOTU where Daenerys never touches the throne (but finds Drogo and Rhaego north of the Wall where she is reunited with them), Fire and Blood, his love of historical figures that are treated very badly etc.

 

It's all leading to one scenario.

 

Jon and Daenerys never sit the Iron Throne.

The Iron Throne blows up when the dragons set off the Wildfire. Daenerys goes down in history as one of the biggest mass murderers  despite her saving the world afterward against the Others. Maybe only the North celebrate her. The North Remembers.

Daenerys dies maybe even during childbirth but she dies in the North. 

Jon is a little harder to predict. Prophecy isn't as etched into his story as Daenerys' where the clues are a lot more blatant. But a fire zombie isn't ending up as King of Westeros in the end.  

[Eyes High]

11 hours ago, WindyNights said:

But a fire zombie isn't ending up as King of Westeros in the end.  

That's my biggest problem with the idea of Jon as endgame king. On the other hand, though, why is his legitimacy so important if he's just going to die fighting the WWs?

[Lies]

2 hours ago, Eyes High said:

That's my biggest problem with the idea of Jon as endgame king. On the other hand, though, why is his legitimacy so important if he's just going to die fighting the WWs?

I agree, this puzzles me as well.  I don't see how the parentage reveal 'destroying' Jon emotionally has any narrative impact if he's just a zombie. If Jon hadn't died then maybe I could see GRRM going down this route but he has died. Also, if he impregnates Dany (which I think will happen), how can he do this if he's dead? If it's by magic, then surely the baby would cease to exist too if/when magic goes away? 

As for Dany and Jon. Them sleeping together at the end of season 7 doesn't bode well for their relationship. Why rush this (a build up of what, 3 or 4 episodes), if they're endgame? Why have this happen in the penultimate act of the story?  Even assuming they both survive, I'm not so sure Jon will want to be with Dany once he finds out she's his aunt.  

Edited August 15, 2017 by Lies

[SeanC]

35 minutes ago, Lies said:

As for Dany and Jon. Them sleeping together at the end of season 7 doesn't bode well for their relationship. Why rush this (a build up of what, 3 or 4 episodes), if they're endgame? Why have this happen in the penultimate act of the story?  Even assuming they both survive, I'm not so sure Jon will want to be with Dany once he finds out she's his aunt.  

Most obviously because they wanted to really establish the relationship before he was revealed to be a Targaryen.

[SimoneS]

4 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Most obviously because they wanted to really establish the relationship before he was revealed to be a Targaryen.

I think also to make sure that Dany is pregnant so that a marriage is the only possible next step for them.

[Edith]

2 hours ago, Lies said:

I agree, this puzzles me as well.  I don't see how the parentage reveal 'destroying' Jon emotionally has any narrative impact if he's just a zombie. If Jon hadn't died then maybe I could see GRRM going down this route but he has died. Also, if he impregnates Dany (which I think will happen), how can he do this if he's dead? If it's by magic, then surely the baby would cease to exist too if/when magic goes away? 

As for Dany and Jon. Them sleeping together at the end of season 7 doesn't bode well for their relationship. Why rush this (a build up of what, 3 or 4 episodes), if they're endgame? Why have this happen in the penultimate act of the story?  Even assuming they both survive, I'm not so sure Jon will want to be with Dany once he finds out she's his aunt.  

But did he died in the book? When someone asked Grrm if Jon was really dead, his answer was  "Oh, so you think he's dead do you?

[SeanC]

7 minutes ago, Edith said:

But did he died in the book? When someone asked Grrm if Jon was really dead, his answer was  "Oh, so you think he's dead do you?

The writers would not have killed Jon if that didn't happen in the book.  As it is, they've tried as much as possible to minimal or that story point, and he's not shown any sign on the show that he's anything other than a regular human.

[Edith]

3 minutes ago, SeanC said:

The writers would not have killed Jon if that didn't happen in the book.  As it is, they've tried as much as possible to minimal or that story point, and he's not shown any sign on the show that he's anything other than a regular human.

Maybe that is how they simplify whatever is going to happen to Jon in the books. Dany is not fireproof in the books but she is in the show.

[WindyNights]

3 hours ago, Lies said:

I agree, this puzzles me as well.  I don't see how the parentage reveal 'destroying' Jon emotionally has any narrative impact if he's just a zombie. If Jon hadn't died then maybe I could see GRRM going down this route but he has died. Also, if he impregnates Dany (which I think will happen), how can he do this if he's dead? If it's by magic, then surely the baby would cease to exist too if/when magic goes away? 

As for Dany and Jon. Them sleeping together at the end of season 7 doesn't bode well for their relationship. Why rush this (a build up of what, 3 or 4 episodes), if they're endgame? Why have this happen in the penultimate act of the story?  Even assuming they both survive, I'm not so sure Jon will want to be with Dany once he finds out she's his aunt.  

It depends on how GRRM wants to play this.

There's really 2 options.

 

Jon ends up without a POV:

 

If he ends up without a POV, Jon's going to end up one huge enigma. How much does he care? Is he mad or sad? Is this affecting him? Does he plan to do anything with the knowledge? How much Jon is still left? 

 

Jon gets a POV:

We'll be in his head when we see him struggle with his newfound inhumanity, his memories fading, his parentage, the choices he has to make, his new compulsions and his drastic personality change. 

 

Theres a very good chance it's the former and GRRM turns Jon into a mythical hero-king sapped of what makes him Jon.

 

I would suggest everyone read the Toy Soldier theory. It might not be true but the feeling is what I think it is similar to what GRRM intends to some extent with Jon.

 

The War for the Dawn needs Jon(his function ) but it doesn't need Jon(the person).

 

Sometimes the hero never resolves his identity before he dies.

[domina89]

17 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Jon is a little harder to predict. Prophecy isn't as etched into his story as Daenerys' where the clues are a lot more blatant. But a fire zombie isn't ending up as King of Westeros in the end.  

My problem with the comparison of Jon to Beric, a fire wight, is that we don't know how he will be resurrected in the books.  We know he's a warg and Ghost could very well be involved... Melisandre or R'hllor may end up having no part in it.  That could be a show-only explanation.  Until we have the next book (if we ever get it, that is), we simply can't say for sure if Jon is a fire wight or not.  Maybe he is on the show, but the writers may have already planned his ultimate ending before GRRM dropped that little nugget, so it may have no impact whatsoever.

[Wouter]

7 hours ago, Eyes High said:

That's my biggest problem with the idea of Jon as endgame king. On the other hand, though, why is his legitimacy so important if he's just going to die fighting the WWs?

Are we certain the legitimacy is going to be so important (as opposed to him having the "right" blood - as he demonstrated last episode by petting Drogon)? Because it would be very hard to prove in a way that many people accept it, especially with (f)Aegon also in the mix in the books, possibly proven to be a pretender. 

Moreover, the show is already moving toward an alliance by marriage. If the endgame is Jon+Dany, as soon as they have a child the legitimacy doesn't matter anymore. The two claimants are together and they have a heir. Should Dany die early, Jon will reign in the name of his child until it comes of age.

I wonder about that fire wight thing. What exactly did Martin say, that he created Dondarrion so resurrection would not come out of left field later?

I suspect that Victarion was also resurrected (or at least magically healed so that his arm functions like Dondarrions internal organs: driven by fire) and that Clegane may have been.

 

Jon can warg into Ghost and may retain more of his humanity that way, but his body must have taken enormous damage, in the books as well. And it's not like they can get him to intensive care. Melisandre is at the wall, I can hardly imagined she won't be involved in resurrecting/healing Jon.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Wouter

[SeanC]

55 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Are we certain the legitimacy is going to be so important (as opposed to him having the "right" blood - as he demonstrated last episode by petting Drogon)?

That the show went so far out of its way to create this annulment record suggests that legitimacy does matter a lot.

[WindyNights]

59 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Are we certain the legitimacy is going to be so important (as opposed to him having the "right" blood - as he demonstrated last episode by petting Drogon)? Because it would be very hard to prove in a way that many people accept it, especially with (f)Aegon also in the mix in the books, possibly proven to be a pretender. 

Moreover, the show is already moving toward an alliance by marriage. If the endgame is Jon+Dany, as soon as they have a child the legitimacy doesn't matter anymore. The two claimants are together and they have a heir. Should Dany die early, Jon will reign in the name of his child until it comes of age.

I wonder about that fire wight thing. What exactly did Martin say, that he created Dondarrion so resurrection would not come out of left field later?

I suspect that Victarion was also resurrected (or at least magically healed so that his arm functions like Dondarrions internal organs: driven by fire) and that Clegane may have been.

 

Jon can warg into Ghost and may retain more of his humanity that way, but his body must have taken enormous damage, in the books as well. And it's not like they can get him to intensive care. Melisandre is at the wall, I can hardly imagined she won't be involved in resurrecting/healing Jon.

GRRM said that Beric is not a living human being anymore because of his resurrection. He can't eat, he can't sleep, his heart isn't beating, his blood isn't flowing etc. 

He pretty much called Beric a lich. 

He then said Beric's resurrection was set up for Jon and LSH. 

 

Whether Jon wargs into Ghost or not, he's pretty much only going back into a dead body when he comes back.

 

Although warging into Ghost according to the prologue to ADWD makes you even less human and more wolf-like.

 

So it might even compound the problem making Jon's personality lift even worse than Beric and LSH's.  

Edited August 15, 2017 by WindyNights

[WindyNights]

1 hour ago, domina89 said:

My problem with the comparison of Jon to Beric, a fire wight, is that we don't know how he will be resurrected in the books.  We know he's a warg and Ghost could very well be involved... Melisandre or R'hllor may end up having no part in it.  That could be a show-only explanation.  Until we have the next book (if we ever get it, that is), we simply can't say for sure if Jon is a fire wight or not.  Maybe he is on the show, but the writers may have already planned his ultimate ending before GRRM dropped that little nugget, so it may have no impact whatsoever.

GRRM said that Beric's resurrection was set up for Jon meaning he gets resurrected through the same process which then means he's stuck living in a corpse.

I'm sure the showrunners know as well since they were asked what GRRM thought of their resurrection and their response implied he didn't agree with it.

But yes, Jon warging into Ghost will definitely be involved but it's likely only there to make it worse. Varamyr's chapter says that time spent in a wolf will lead to the person becoming more of a wolf and less human. So at best, you're just trading R'hllor resurrection personality side effects for warg side effects which all leads to the person becoming less human and losing memories.

 

I could see Ghost being killed so that Jon can be released from Ghost and put back into his own body. Ghost may even come along back into Jon's body if they're welded too tightly together that you could no longer split them. 

[Wouter]

11 minutes ago, SeanC said:

That the show went so far out of its way to create this annulment record suggests that legitimacy does matter a lot.

Admittedly, the three KG defending the Tower of Joy in the books suggest he is legitimate and thus king. But I don't see everybody being 100% convinced, first of the actual parentage (another fake, after Aegon?) and then arguments about (un)valid marriage (I'm guessing Rhaegar did not divorce Elia in the books, instead taking a second wife as Targs could do). Surely, only Dany's and Jon's own opinions really will count in the end, and there will be a lot of other factors to consider on that part?

10 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

GRRM said that Beric is not a living human being anymore because of his resurrection. He can't eat, he can't sleep, his heart isn't beating, his blood isn't flowing etc. 

He pretty much called Beric a lich. 

He then said Beric's resurrection was set up for Jon and LSH. 

 

Whether Jon wargs into Ghost or not, he's pretty much only going back into a dead body when he comes back.

 

Although warging into Ghost according to the prologue to ADWD makes you even less human and more wolf-like.

 

So it might even compound the problem making Jon's personality lift even worse than Beric and LSH's.  

I don't think the brief warging will create severe problems for Jon's personality, but if he explicitly called Beric foreshadowing for Jon and Stoneheart (did he actually mention both by name, or did he just say "later resurrections" or some such) than this should have consequences. Can an undead person be king in the end? How long would he live, maybe he can't even die from natural causes anymore?

Edited August 15, 2017 by Wouter

[SeanC]

46 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Admittedly, the three KG defending the Tower of Joy in the books suggest he is legitimate and thus king. But I don't see everybody being 100% convinced, first of the actual parentage (another fake, after Aegon?) and then arguments about (un)valid marriage (I'm guessing Rhaegar did not divorce Elia in the books, instead taking a second wife as Targs could do). Surely, only Dany's and Jon's own opinions really will count in the end, and there will be a lot of other factors to consider on that part?

Jon being legitimate would matter to Dany, I expect.  Wrestling with the idea that she's not the rightful heir would be a big moment for her.  Obviously, she has dragonz and can still take the throne if she wants to, but being the rightful heir is a big part of her self-image.

[Eyes High]

2 hours ago, Wouter said:

I don't think the brief warging will create severe problems for Jon's personality, but if he explicitly called Beric foreshadowing for Jon and Stoneheart (did he actually mention both by name, or did he just say "later resurrections" or some such) than this should have consequences. Can an undead person be king in the end? How long would he live, maybe he can't even die from natural causes anymore?

The quote from the Time interview:

Quote

 

Did Lady Stoneheart come about because it was hard to say a permanent goodbye to Catelyn?
Yeah, maybe. That may have been part of it. Part of it was also, it’s the dialogue that I was talking about. And here I’ve got to get back to Tolkien again. And I’m going to seem like I’m criticizing him, which I guess I am. It’s always bothered me that Gandalf comes back from the dead. The Red Wedding for me in Lord of the Rings is the mines of Moria, and when Gandalf falls — it’s a devastating moment! (...)
And then in the next book, he shows up again, and it was six months between the American publications of those books, which seemed like a million years to me. So all that time I thought Gandalf was dead, and now he’s back and now he’s Gandalf the White. And, ehh, he’s more or less the same as always, except he’s more powerful. It always felt a little bit like a cheat to me. And as I got older and considered it more, it also seemed to me that death doesn’t make you more powerful. That’s, in some ways, me talking to Tolkien in the dialogue, saying, “Yeah, if someone comes back from being dead, especially if they suffer a violent, traumatic death, they’re not going to come back as nice as ever." That’s what I was trying to do, and am still trying to do, with the Lady Stoneheart character.

And Jon Snow, too, is drained by the experience of coming back from the dead on the show.

Right. And poor Beric Dondarrion, who was set up as the foreshadowing of all this, every time he’s a little less Beric. His memories are fading, he’s got all these scars, he’s becoming more and more physically hideous, because he’s not a living human being anymore. His heart isn’t beating, his blood isn’t flowing in his veins, he’s a wight, but a wight animated by fire instead of by ice, now we’re getting back to the whole fire and ice thing.

 

[WindyNights]

2 hours ago, Wouter said:

Admittedly, the three KG defending the Tower of Joy in the books suggest he is legitimate and thus king. But I don't see everybody being 100% convinced, first of the actual parentage (another fake, after Aegon?) and then arguments about (un)valid marriage (I'm guessing Rhaegar did not divorce Elia in the books, instead taking a second wife as Targs could do). Surely, only Dany's and Jon's own opinions really will count in the end, and there will be a lot of other factors to consider on that part?

I don't think the brief warging will create severe problems for Jon's personality, but if he explicitly called Beric foreshadowing for Jon and Stoneheart (did he actually mention both by name, or did he just say "later resurrections" or some such) than this should have consequences. Can an undead person be king in the end? How long would he live, maybe he can't even die from natural causes anymore?

Depends how long GRRM wants Jon in Ghost. If GRRM wants a drastic personality lift then he'll leave him there longer. Bringing back Jon too quickly also brings problems. Like why does Melisandre convince Stannis to burn Shireen when she just resurrected Jon Snow? 

 

Rather than aging, he'd probably slowly rot. Jon's skeleton sitting the Iron Throne would be hilarious. Coldhands might only look so bad because he's been rotting this whole time. 

 

But yeah, it's very likely Jon wouldn't die from a natural causes anymore as a lich. I mean Jon as lich king of Westeros is possible but not likely.

[Eyes High]

27 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

But yeah, it's very likely Jon wouldn't die from a natural causes anymore as a lich. I mean Jon as lich king of Westeros is possible but not likely.

It raises all kinds of issues. Could a resurrected Jon even age and die like a normal person? Could a resurrected king Jon reign...forever, theoretically? Would his resurrected body start breaking down after a certain point? Jon's resurrection--coupled with GRRM's pique over Gandalf coming back better than ever in LOTR and his reproach to Tolkien with Beric and LSH (something he's discussed several times)--seems to point away from Jon ending up on the Iron Throne, if only because of all the questions it would raise. 

I find it hard to believe that the show, for all that TV Jon is essentially unchanged by his death other than being understandably traumatized, would have a resurrected Jon end up on the throne, either. I guess we'll know either way soon enough, though.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Eyes High

[WindyNights]

2 hours ago, Eyes High said:

It raises all kinds of issues. Could a resurrected Jon even age and die like a normal person? Could a resurrected king Jon reign...forever, theoretically? Would his resurrected body start breaking down after a certain point? Jon's resurrection--coupled with GRRM's pique over Gandalf coming back better than ever in LOTR and his reproach to Tolkien with Beric and LSH (something he's discussed several times)--seems to point away from Jon ending up on the Iron Throne, if only because of all the questions it would raise. 

I find it hard to believe that the show, for all that TV Jon is essentially unchanged by his death other than being understandably traumatized, would have a resurrected Jon end up on the throne, either. I guess we'll know either way soon enough, though.

Based on what the books are pointing at, GRRM's interviews, D&D's interviews and what the show is pointing at..........I suspect something really annoying is happening.

What I mean is that D & D seem to be trying to raise "hype" for a Jon Targaryen reveal and setting some foundational work for him to take the Iron Throne but then they pull the rug out from under the audience and Jon dies at the end.

Its basically one last huge "Gotcha" moment that is bound to tick people off.

[Hecate7]

On 8/7/2017 at 0:07 PM, Oscirus said:

Editing misdirection. While they were indeed talking about worrying about her, the person Varys wanted Tyrion to get to listen to him was Cersei as their attention  transfers to the great other.

Arya's the most Stark of all the Starks alive. She's also the only one left with an alive direwolf. Her being lady of winterfell on her own terms is looking better and better.

As much fun as it is to root for little miss badass, I would hate to be ruled by Arya, who wants heads to roll whenever anyone argues or complains, and who spies on her sister. I don't think I want to see her rule anything, much less Winterfell. Arya is suited for espionage work and assassination, and very little else.

[WindyNights]

2 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

As much fun as it is to root for little miss badass, I would hate to be ruled by Arya, who wants heads to roll whenever anyone argues or complains, and who spies on her sister. I don't think I want to see her rule anything, much less Winterfell. Arya is suited for espionage work and assassination, and very little else.

Personally, I think the show is clearly positioning Sansa as endgame ruler of the North.

[Oscirus]

3 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

As much fun as it is to root for little miss badass, I would hate to be ruled by Arya, who wants heads to roll whenever anyone argues or complains, and who spies on her sister. I don't think I want to see her rule anything, much less Winterfell. Arya is suited for espionage work and assassination, and very little else.

Eh, she's just a deadlier version of Lady Mormont. She'd be fine as leader, since she wouldn't take half the crap that Jon or Sansa does.

[Eyes High]

11 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Based on what the books are pointing at, GRRM's interviews, D&D's interviews and what the show is pointing at..........I suspect something really annoying is happening.

What I mean is that D & D seem to be trying to raise "hype" for a Jon Targaryen reveal and setting some foundational work for him to take the Iron Throne but then they pull the rug out from under the audience and Jon dies at the end.

Its basically one last huge "Gotcha" moment that is bound to tick people off.

The show is also positioning Jon to have BFFs, or at the very least people who respect him and take him seriously, in almost every corner of Westeros: his surviving Stark siblings (North), Tormund and the Free Folk (North), Sam (the Reach), Tyrion (KL, I guess), Gendry (Storm's End, eventually, maybe?), etc. etc. Even Theon if he makes it out of the series alive will likely spend the rest of his life trying to atone for what he did to Robb, so Jon could likely count on his support as well. It seems perfectly set up for Jon's endgame ascendance to the Iron Throne....were it not for the small wrinkle of him being technically dead and all.

I don't see any way that a resurrected Jon takes the Iron Throne and has a long and prosperous reign beyond ASOIAF without making a hypocrite out of GRRM, unless of course Jon doesn't actually die at the end of ADWD and just goes into a deep coma from which he's later revived.

On the other hand, if Jon and Dany, two of the most prominent characters, fall deeply in love in the books--as they seem to be doing in the show--and one of them dies, in what universe is that "bittersweet"? Letting these two characters, who frankly had pretty terrible formative sexual/romantic experiences, enter into a consensual, loving relationship and have a little bit of happiness before swiftly wrenching it away? That's not bittersweet, that's just cruel. @SeanC is right in that a "bittersweet" ending doesn't mean that everyone gets a perfectly bittersweet ending, and that some characters will make out better than others, but putting the two lead characters in a doomed romance would tip the balance of any ASOIAF ending to "bitter," for me anyway. 

Quote

As much fun as it is to root for little miss badass, I would hate to be ruled by Arya, who wants heads to roll whenever anyone argues or complains

They were openly discussing treason. Jon executed Janos Slynt for less.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Eyes High

[Francie]

13 hours ago, Eyes High said:

And then in the next book, he shows up again, and it was six months between the American publications of those books, which seemed like a million years to me

Yes, George, please tell me more about agonizingly long waits between books.  

If you think six months feels like a million years, there's quite a few people who would like to tell you just how long a six-year, and counting, wait feels.

[domina89]

12 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Based on what the books are pointing at, GRRM's interviews, D&D's interviews and what the show is pointing at..........I suspect something really annoying is happening.

What I mean is that D & D seem to be trying to raise "hype" for a Jon Targaryen reveal and setting some foundational work for him to take the Iron Throne but then they pull the rug out from under the audience and Jon dies at the end.

Its basically one last huge "Gotcha" moment that is bound to tick people off.

See I've never understood the idea for showrunners to do this to fans at the end of a successful series.  You reward their devotion with what- pain and suffering?  I don't expect unicorns and rainbows, but to build up something and then twist the knife at the very end, thus ruining the entire series for some people, has never made sense to me.  Essentially you are killing potential sales in the future also if the show ends in a way that gets terrible publicity.  I know everyone won't be happy with the ending, but the cheap tricks and "gotcha" moments are not worthy of a series like this or a fan base like this.

[Eyes High]

3 minutes ago, domina89 said:

See I've never understood the idea for showrunners to do this to fans at the end of a successful series.  You reward their devotion with what- pain and suffering?  I don't expect unicorns and rainbows, but to build up something and then twist the knife at the very end, thus ruining the entire series for some people, has never made sense to me.  Essentially you are killing potential sales in the future also if the show ends in a way that gets terrible publicity.  I know everyone won't be happy with the ending, but the cheap tricks and "gotcha" moments are not worthy of a series like this or a fan base like this.

If there's a big backlash to the ending of GOT, that could effectively kill any spinoff, even if the spinoff is completely unrelated. This happened with the planned spinoff to How I Met Your Mother.

I agree that killing Jon off would be cruel, but it's wouldn't really be much of a surprise, since the guy has "Noble Doomed Hero" tattooed all over him. Not to mention that he's a zombie.

[SimoneS]

33 minutes ago, domina89 said:

See I've never understood the idea for showrunners to do this to fans at the end of a successful series.  You reward their devotion with what- pain and suffering?  I don't expect unicorns and rainbows, but to build up something and then twist the knife at the very end, thus ruining the entire series for some people, has never made sense to me.  Essentially you are killing potential sales in the future also if the show ends in a way that gets terrible publicity.  I know everyone won't be happy with the ending, but the cheap tricks and "gotcha" moments are not worthy of a series like this or a fan base like this.

I doubt any of that is happening with GoT. While GoT is extreme in some ways, it is a typical sci fantasy novel which generally have happy endings with good triumphing over evil and heroes rewarded for the hardships that they endured. Since D&D are giving the main characters the endings that Martin told them, I anticipate happy endings for most of the characters including Jon, Dany, and Tyrion. There are more than enough supporting characters (from Martin's perspective) to be red shirts if necessary and to give happy endings that will not occur in future books (if ever written).

Edited August 16, 2017 by SimoneS

[MarySNJ]

23 hours ago, SeanC said:

The writers would not have killed Jon if that didn't happen in the book.  As it is, they've tried as much as possible to minimal or that story point, and he's not shown any sign on the show that he's anything other than a regular human.

Since Jon is a warg in the books, I assume he will spend some time inhabiting Ghost after death based on the texts. If he is resurrected by the Lord of Light int he books, the warging aspect adds a twist to Jon's identity that does not exist for other "fire wights" like Beric. It's anyone's guess at this point to what extent that changes what Jon's post-death body and identity will be. 

In the show it was made clear that Jon is breathing like the other living people. So, I don't think the resurrection works exactly the same on the show as envisioned by GRRM in the books wherein a fire wight is a reanimated corpse.  

 

ETA: There has been precious little of Ghost in the show. I know that there are limits on CGI budgets, but if Ghost is important to Jon's endgame, I would expect to see more of him at some point setting that up. I can't help wondering if part of Jon's resurrection ritual in the books will involve sacrificing Ghost and that's why we don't see much of him in the show storyline. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by MarySNJ

[Hecate7]

On 7/29/2017 at 10:12 AM, anamika said:

Arya wanted to run things - be an advisor. She wanted to be Nymeria. She gets along with everyone. She knows the place. She can train little girls to fight. There's any number of things she can do.

When did Arya's fantasies ever involve "running things?" Particularly running a castle? I think the story has been very specifically showing us that that isn't her. I think she would hate it a lot, particularly since Arya running things would mean that everyone else is dead.

I'd like an ending for her that isn't dependent on killing Sansa or taking away from Sansa everything that she wants, that isn't dependent on marriage or children, and that doesn't subvert the training we've seen her getting. Arya's more of a cop or a detective than an administrator.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Hecate7

[Oscirus]

48 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

When did Arya's fantasies ever involve "running things?" Particularly running a castle? I think the story has been very specifically showing us that that isn't her. I think she would hate it a lot, particularly since Arya running things would mean that everyone else is dead.

I'd like an ending for her that isn't dependent on killing Sansa or taking away from Sansa everything that she wants, that isn't dependent on marriage or children, and that doesn't subvert the training we've seen her getting. Arya's more of a cop or a detective than an administrator.

Whenever given the choice between home and adventure, Arya's always chosen home. She'd be fine with running a castle her way. As for taking something from Sansa, who says that's what Sansa ultimately wants?

[Hecate7]

21 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

Whenever given the choice between home and adventure, Arya's always chosen home. She'd be fine with running a castle her way. As for taking something from Sansa, who says that's what Sansa ultimately wants?

All of Sansa's dreams have always centered around her memories of Winterfell and being a Lady. She has always wanted to a queen or a lady of a great keep, and her skills are ALL what a lady in charge is expected to do.  She has no fighting skills nor any wanderlust. She is currently running Winterfell and doing a great job of it. To make Arya lady of Winterfell, Sansa has to die. It should take more than just Sansa being dead to make Arya happy.

Arya has never daydreamed about inventories or fabric or food. She has never had reveries about any of that. It's all travel and excitement with her. Sansa dreams of safety, Arya of adventure, even when you'd think she had more adventure than a person could stand.  Arya is not an administrator or a "running things" kind of person. She's more of a cop.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Hecate7

[Enigma X]

2 hours ago, MarySNJ said:

In the show it was made clear that Jon is breathing like the other living people. So, I don't think the resurrection works exactly the same on the show as envisioned by GRRM in the books wherein a fire wight is reanimated corpse.  

Thank you. I was so very confused on why people here are insisting on calling Show Jon a zombie. I was wondering if I missed something. (I know about the book theories, but the books this is not.)