Endgame Discussion and Speculation

[anamika]

40 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

Fair enough, but didn't GRRM say that Arya and Gendry have separate futures? None of these characters have to marry to have happy endings.

Sure, Arya and Gendry can have separate futures. That does not mean that Gendry is going to marry Sansa. If Gendry has a romance/marriage subplot on the show, it will be with Arya - that's the character he has a story with.

And sure, none of them have to marry to have happy endings. Maybe being single is their happy ending. But I don't think that GRRM would leave the future of the Starks to so much uncertainty - to the possibility that Sansa may someday marry some second son to have children to carry the Stark name.

If Rickon dies and if Arya is not destined for marriage in the books,  I think Sansa will end up either married or going to be married to someone who will take on the Stark name before the books end - the only viable candidate who has been introduced on the show and has a history with Sansa is the Hound. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by anamika

[Eyes High]

7 hours ago, anamika said:

Maybe GRRM does kill off Rickon, have Arya go away, Bran stuck as a tree, Sansa single and leave it open ended as to whether she will marry some poor sod in the future to continue the Stark lineage - I don't think GRRM is going to do flash forwards.

And then couple that with either Jon or Dany dying Or both of them dying and leaving behind an orphan child.

Jon's comments about KL and the million people cramped in there last episode makes me think that he's not going to be too happy if he does end up in KL as King.

What's the sweet part here?

I'll give it a shot:

Even if Dany and Jon die, their child (thanks to Tyrion breaking the wheel and inventing a parliament or whatever) will have a chance at a normal, peaceful life free of messianic destiny that was denied to both of them.

Arya gets to live the exciting, adventurous life she always wanted, free of the burden of needing to marry, have kids and settle down.

Bran always wanted to be able to see everything; that was why he was so fond of climbing. Now he really can see everything.

Sansa ends up with Winterfell and the ability to decide her own fate, and given her experiences, I think she'd be very happy with both. And who's to say the "poor sod" she may marry down the line won't make her happy? Ned didn't have much to recommend him as a husband other than his good character, but Catelyn came to love him deeply nonetheless.

Sounds pretty sweet to me. They get what they want--freedom for Arya, omniscience for Bran, Winterfell and self-determination for Sansa--but they're changed by their experiences, and the price is high (which makes it bittersweet). It's all about perspective, I think.

[spaceghostess]

On 8/29/2017 at 11:44 AM, SeanC said:

Also, wouldn't it be extremely dickish to lie to Jon's family about his having a kid?  I'm pretty sure Arya and Sansa would want the kid before Tyrion, who has no connection to it.

Ned was not anywhere near Lyanna or Brandon when the "abduction" occurred, nor did he see him afterward.  He knew nothing about Lyanna's running off with Rhaegar until he actually met Lyanna.

You just made me imagine an ending scene in which Arya and Sansa look at the baby lovingly and smile at each other. Together, they'll teach him/her to be a noble-yet-shrewd leader and deadly fighter and become closer as sisters in the process. Not gonna lie; I'm verklempt.

ETA: The fact that this could only happen if both Dany and Jon die is a huge downside to this scenario, IMHO. But if one or both of them must go (and I have the sinking feeling that my Iron Woobie, Jon, is marked for his permanent demise next season), this ending would make it a tad more bearable for me. And yes, it is, in fact, all about me.

Edited September 4, 2017 by spaceghostess
Morbid thoughts

[BitterApple]

6 hours ago, spaceghostess said:

You just made me imagine an ending scene in which Arya and Sansa look at the baby lovingly and smile at each other. Together, they'll teach him/her to be a noble-yet-shrewd leader and deadly fighter and become closer as sisters in the process. Not gonna lie; I'm verklempt.

If that was the ending, I could live with it. That would be a nice way to go out. 

[BooBear]

On 8/28/2017 at 10:51 PM, Tippi said:

If Sansa and Gendry marry, it would fulfill what their fathers wanted--a son of Robert's would marry a daughter of Ned's.  I think it is a strong possibility.

Agreed. I think Sansa fulfills the prophecy of a beautiful younger girl taking Cerci's place. And it would be a perfect irony if Sansa got what she wanted all along -- marriage to the young and handsome king. Also, why bring Gendry back if he wasn't going to play some important goal? Also strange that Gendry has practically met everyone in Sansa's family but her. 

I see both Cerci and Jamie dying. I think Jamie's story is done and it would clearly make sense for Arya to kill Cerci as Jaime. With all his children dead and Cerci lost to him what does he really have to live for? Probably going to die in some heroic way. Maybe even saving Bran.

They clearly seem to be pushing Brianne and Tormund but I just don't see it. 

I can't see Arya as the Lady of Winterfell but at the same time I can't see her traveling around killing people now that her family has largely be avenged. I can see her staying in the north and running Winterfell but in her own way. 

I can see Tyrion being hand of the king to Gendry and his former wife. 

Not sure what will become of Jon and Dani but I have a feeling their stated intentions will not come to pass. I don't think Jon or Dani will ever sit on the iron throne. I don't think Dani will "break the wheel".  Not in the way she wanted. Tyrion I think dropped a hint talking with her about how her wishes to break the wheel might not even occur in her lifetime.  Perhaps Jon and Dani's kid will break the wheel but in a slower and likely different capacity. 

I have no idea about Theon and Yara... kind of bored with them totally. 

[BooBear]

6 minutes ago, doram said:

When did Gendry meet Catelyn or Robb or Bran or Rickon or am I missing something?

Practically being the key world there. 

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, BooBear said:

Agreed. I think Sansa fulfills the prophecy of a beautiful younger girl taking Cerci's place. And it would be a perfect irony if Sansa got what she wanted all along -- marriage to the young and handsome king.

There's nothing in the books pointing to Gendry (or Edric) as endgame king, and nothing in the show, either. Book Gendry is likely going to end up with Willow Heddle, a lower class version of Arya.

 

Quote

Also, why bring Gendry back if he wasn't going to play some important goal?

Who knows? What did Gendry do on his return except round out Jon's suicide squad and swing a hammer real good? Maybe that's all D&D require of him; they weren't writing him as anything but an earnest, well-muscled lunkhead in 7x05 or 7x06. They seem to have brought Sandor back solely for dick jokes and Cleganebowl, so assuming that Gendry's going to be the endgame king because he's been brought back seems like a stretch, to put it mildly.

 

Quote

They clearly seem to be pushing Brianne and Tormund but I just don't see it. 

I don't think so. They've made it very clear that Brienne has no interest in Tormund. They're "pushing" it the same way they were "pushing" Littlefinger/Sansa, and even Sansa seemed less disgusted by LF's romantic overtures than Brienne seems by Tormund's.

 

Quote

I can see Tyrion being hand of the king to Gendry and his former wife. 

Yeah, I bet Tyrion would be totally cool with that arrangement.

In all seriousness, if Gendry does somehow become king, Davos seems like a natural choice for his hand; he's also served as de facto hand to another bastard-born king.

[MarySNJ]

On 8/29/2017 at 5:22 PM, Wouter said:

If any of the Starks told a lie (with the best intentions, such as protecting Lyanna's reputation) then it is far more likely to be Benjen, who took the black after the war was over.

It is also worth noting that the war only started after Aerys demanded Neds' and Roberts' head - not after the supposed abduction and not even directly after Brandon and Rickard's death at the hand of Aerys.

I always wondered if Benjen joined the Watch in the books in part because he helped to facilitate Lyanna's elopement. 

[ParadoxLost]

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 0:22 PM, Eyes High said:

Who knows? What did Gendry do on his return except round out Jon's suicide squad and swing a hammer real good? Maybe that's all D&D require of him; they weren't writing him as anything but an earnest, well-muscled lunkhead in 7x05 or 7x06. They seem to have brought Sandor back solely for dick jokes and Cleganebowl, so assuming that Gendry's going to be the endgame king because he's been brought back seems like a stretch, to put it mildly.

I don't think Gendry is endgame king.  But I do think he'll be back again and he figures into whatever Arya's endgame is.  I'm not saying they'll marry (although that would be a callback and the TV show likes those).

At this point about 50% of the survivors on Arya's list have chosen Jon's side, so Gendry's return is probably a convenient excuse for Arya not to try to kill Melisandre and Beric when they turn up at Winterfell.

[absnow54]

I suspect Gendry is back because they have a ship full of dragon glass that needs to be made into weapons, and a bunch of smiths in Winterfell who don't know to put leather in the armor. But I also think he was brought back for Arya's endgame. Between her finding Hot Pie and then running into Nymeria (who had formed her own pack and no longer considered Winterfell home) I think Arya's endgame may involve her getting the band back together.

[Eyes High]

13 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

I don't think Gendry is endgame king.  But I do think he'll be back again and he figures into whatever Arya's endgame is.

Why? Gendry didn't mention Arya once in S7, even when it would have made sense to do so, since his friendship with Arya is his main connection to Jon. 

 

2 hours ago, absnow54 said:

I suspect Gendry is back because they have a ship full of dragon glass that needs to be made into weapons, and a bunch of smiths in Winterfell who don't know to put leather in the armor.

I dunno. Jon's suicide squad wielded dragonglass weapons with no mention of who had made them, and I don't believe the difficulty of forging weapons out of dragonglass was ever even mentioned in S7.

 

Quote

But I also think he was brought back for Arya's endgame. Between her finding Hot Pie and then running into Nymeria (who had formed her own pack and no longer considered Winterfell home) I think Arya's endgame may involve her getting the band back together.

TV Arya already got the band back together: her "pack" is the Starks. Arya realized in the books that Gendry and Hot Pie were never really her pack:

Quote

Hot Pie and Gendry had left her just as soon as they could, and Lord Beric and the outlaws only wanted to ransom her, just like the Hound. None of them wanted her around. They were never my pack, not even Hot Pie and Gendry. I was stupid to think so, just a stupid little girl, and no wolf at all.

[ParadoxLost]

7 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Why? Gendry didn't mention Arya once in S7, even when it would have made sense to do so, since his friendship with Arya is his main connection to Jon. 

I think its about Arya not Gendry so I don't think Gendry not mentioning her is that much of an indicator.

Very simply, I think the show will want to explore whether someone can come off Arya's list once they've been added.

Easiest way to do that is have Arya know that someone who was the victim (Gendry) that caused the victimizer to go on the list is ok and that the victimizers helped her brother (Beric, Melisandre). 

[absnow54]

Didn't she remove The Hound from her list? Or did she take him off her list because she thought he was dead? I thought she took him off before that.

[kcbuckeye2]

On ‎9‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 7:49 AM, absnow54 said:

Between her finding Hot Pie and then running into Nymeria (who had formed her own pack and no longer considered Winterfell home) I think Arya's endgame may involve her getting the band back together.

Maybe now that Thoros is dead and in the books, Beric is dead, they can be the new Brotherhood without Banners. 

[MrWhyt]

On 9/6/2017 at 6:49 AM, absnow54 said:

I suspect Gendry is back because they have a ship full of dragon glass that needs to be made into weapons,

what does a blacksmith know about working with stone?

[screamin]

3 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

what does a blacksmith know about working with stone?

He could probably set sharp pointy bits of obsidian in nice spear and dagger handles.

[MrWhyt]

5 minutes ago, screamin said:

He could probably set sharp pointy bits of obsidian in nice spear and dagger handles.

any smith can do that

[SimoneS]

1 hour ago, MrWhyt said:

any smith can do that

They need as many smiths as they can get so Gendry will be helpful beyond fighting.

Edited September 7, 2017 by SimoneS

[WindyNights]

On 9/4/2017 at 8:40 AM, doram said:

When did Gendry meet Catelyn or Robb or Bran or Rickon or am I missing something?

He's met Catelyn in the books although he hasn't met Jon there so....trade off

[WindyNights]

On 8/31/2017 at 6:38 AM, anamika said:

Sure, Arya and Gendry can have separate futures. That does not mean that Gendry is going to marry Sansa. If Gendry has a romance/marriage subplot on the show, it will be with Arya - that's the character he has a story with.

And sure, none of them have to marry to have happy endings. Maybe being single is their happy ending. But I don't think that GRRM would leave the future of the Starks to so much uncertainty - to the possibility that Sansa may someday marry some second son to have children to carry the Stark name.

If Rickon dies and if Arya is not destined for marriage in the books,  I think Sansa will end up either married or going to be married to someone who will take on the Stark name before the books end - the only viable candidate who has been introduced on the show and has a history with Sansa is the Hound. 

Well Sansa is marrying Harry the Heir in the books and I think GRRM intends for him to impregnate her before he bites it. So an Arryn-Stark is probably who ends up inheriting Winterfell.

But Harry doesn't exist in the show so it's possible they could just sub in Gendry for Harry if they think it's absolutely important for Sansa to have a kid by the end 

[Eyes High]

3 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Well Sansa is marrying Harry the Heir in the books and I think GRRM intends for him to impregnate her before he bites it. So an Arryn-Stark is probably who ends up inheriting Winterfell.

How? In the books, Sansa is very much married to Tyrion and can't remarry until he dies (since requesting an annulment would out her as Sansa Stark, as GRRM has pointed out): LF specifically says the marriage needs to wait until Sansa is "safely widowed." Tyrion's not dying in the books anytime soon, if at all. Harry the Heir could still knock up Sansa, I suppose--he's already fathered two bastards, I think, so his fertility is not in question--but marriage is not going to happen. 

Harry the Heir seems like the kind of character GRRM looooooves fucking up--young, handsome, and full of himself (Loras, Theon, Jaime, Marillion, Renly, Ned's brother Brandon, etc.)--so I'm guessing he'll get the GRRM Treatment--swift death or incredibly painful mutilation and disfigurement--soon enough in any event.

Going back to the marriage issue, though, among the many divergences between the show and the books are the fact that Tyrion and Sansa are validly married in the books (requiring annulment by the Faith) and don't seem to be in the show (since non-consummation seems to void a marriage automatically by show rules, which seems to have been a contrivance to allow Sansa to remarry without requiring a proper annulment). So I'm wondering what's going to happen with Tyrion and Sansa's marriage in the books. If one of them dies, that would take care of the issue.

 

Quote

But Harry doesn't exist in the show so it's possible they could just sub in Gendry for Harry if they think it's absolutely important for Sansa to have a kid by the end 

There's no need for Sansa to have a kid by the end. Even if she ends the series single, it's perfectly plausible that she marries and has kids with someone else past the end of the series. Ditto for Arya.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Eyes High

[WindyNights]

7 hours ago, Eyes High said:

How? In the books, Sansa is very much married to Tyrion and can't remarry until he dies (since requesting an annulment would out her as Sansa Stark, as GRRM has pointed out): LF specifically says the marriage needs to wait until Sansa is "safely widowed." Tyrion's not dying in the books anytime soon, if at all. Harry the Heir could still knock up Sansa, I suppose--he's already fathered two bastards, I think, so his fertility is not in question--but marriage is not going to happen. 

Harry the Heir seems like the kind of character GRRM looooooves fucking up--young, handsome, and full of himself (Loras, Theon, Jaime, Marillion, Renly, Ned's brother Brandon, etc.)--so I'm guessing he'll get the GRRM Treatment--swift death or incredibly painful mutilation and disfigurement--soon enough in any event.

Going back to the marriage issue, though, among the many divergences between the show and the books are the fact that Tyrion and Sansa are validly married in the books (requiring annulment by the Faith) and don't seem to be in the show (since non-consummation seems to void a marriage automatically by show rules, which seems to have been a contrivance to allow Sansa to remarry without requiring a proper annulment). So I'm wondering what's going to happen with Tyrion and Sansa's marriage in the books. If one of them dies, that would take care of the issue.

 

There's no need for Sansa to have a kid by the end. Even if she ends the series single, it's perfectly plausible that she marries and has kids with someone else past the end of the series. Ditto for Arya.

There's quite a number of ways around it. Tyrion could allegedly die leading LF and Sansa to think she can remarry. Another option is that the High Sparrow invalidates it , there could be several reasons why he would. Tyrion could die in the end too.

I think Harry the Heir will be killed as well but that doesn't necessarily mean he won't marry Sansa. From what I gather, GRRM intended Robert Arryn to marry Sansa after the timeskip at the same time that Tommen marries Marge. The timeskip cut led GRRM to create an entirely new character in AFFC so Sansa could get the Vale behind her by marrying him. I mean she could've married Robert Arryn still but I think GRRM wanted Sansa to have a kid out of it which is why he cut it and replaced Robert with Harry.

[Eyes High]

3 hours ago, WindyNights said:

There's quite a number of ways around it. Tyrion could allegedly die leading LF and Sansa to think she can remarry.

Tyrion can't "allegedly" die, and faking proof of death with Tyrion is pretty much impossible, thanks to his distinctive physical features (as the attempts to deceive Cersei in AFFC indicated).

 

Quote

Another option is that the High Sparrow invalidates it ,

He won't without a request from Sansa that she won't make until she can safely out herself as Sansa Stark, and she won't out herself as Sansa Stark until she can marry Harry. This seems to be the whole reason GRRM set up this dilemma in the first place. He has no intention of marrying Sansa to Harry, and the Tyrion/Sansa marriage combined with the annulment rules is a neat way of ensuring that. Just as D&D scrapped the Tyrion/Sansa marriage to enable their plot, GRRM put in place the Tyrion/Sansa marriage to enable his.

 

Quote

there could be several reasons why he would. Tyrion could die in the end too.

Nah. Tyrion was one of the five characters guaranteed safe passage through the books in the original 1993 outline. If one of them dies, it will be Sansa. Harry the Heir will be long dead by the time either Tyrion or Sansa dies, though.

 

Quote

I think Harry the Heir will be killed as well but that doesn't necessarily mean he won't marry Sansa.

GRRM has gone to considerable trouble to contrive a scenario where 1) LF is counting on an event which is not going to happen (Tyrion's death) to enable the marriage, 2) Sansa cannot request an annulment while she's still in hiding, and 3) Sansa can't come out of hiding until she marries Harry.

Trying to come up with reasons that Sansa can still marry Harry--or anyone else, for that matter--when GRRM has set up a situation that ensures that that can't happen is missing the point, in my opinion. Fans occasionally wonder why GRRM bothered to marry Tyrion off to Sansa; the most compelling reason is that it gives her a plausible reason not to be forcibly married off to anybody else.

 

Quote

The timeskip cut led GRRM to create an entirely new character in AFFC so Sansa could get the Vale behind her by marrying him.

This is not accurate. GRRM was talking about Harry the Heir in May 2001, a year before he scrapped the ill-fated time skip. Harry the Heir was always part of the picture. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by Eyes High

[WindyNights]

7 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Tyrion can't "allegedly" die, and faking proof of death with Tyrion is pretty much impossible, thanks to his distinctive physical features (as the attempts to deceive Cersei in AFFC indicated).

 

He won't without a request from Sansa that she won't make until she can safely out herself as Sansa Stark, and she won't out herself as Sansa Stark until she can marry Harry. This seems to be the whole reason GRRM set up this dilemma in the first place. He has no intention of marrying Sansa to Harry, and the Tyrion/Sansa marriage combined with the annulment rules is a neat way of ensuring that. Just as D&D scrapped the Tyrion/Sansa marriage to enable their plot, GRRM put in place the Tyrion/Sansa marriage to enable his.

 

Nah. Tyrion was one of the five characters guaranteed safe passage through the books in the original 1993 outline. If one of them dies, it will be Sansa. Harry the Heir will be long dead by the time either Tyrion or Sansa dies, though.

 

GRRM has gone to considerable trouble to contrive a scenario where 1) LF is counting on an event which is not going to happen (Tyrion's death) to enable the marriage, 2) Sansa cannot request an annulment while she's still in hiding, and 3) Sansa can't come out of hiding until she marries Harry.

Trying to come up with reasons that Sansa can still marry Harry--or anyone else, for that matter--when GRRM has set up a situation that ensures that that can't happen is missing the point, in my opinion. Fans occasionally wonder why GRRM bothered to marry Tyrion off to Sansa; the most compelling reason is that it gives her a plausible reason not to be forcibly married off to anybody else.

 

This is not accurate. GRRM was talking about Harry the Heir in May 2001, a year before he scrapped the ill-fated time skip. Harry the Heir was always part of the picture. 

Not necessarily. Cersei doesn't need to to be the arbiter over the truth. I don't think she's staying in KL and the HS will be working with Aegon so the truth can be whatever they want it to be.

The Mad Mouse subplot exists so Sansa Stark is outed prematurely.

Tyrion is guaranteed to make to the end not survive the end. That's what the outline said. These 5 characters make it to the end not past the end.

I'm actually with you on why GRRM married Sansa to Tyrion. It was so she wouldn't be married off to anyone else.

Good catch btw.

[Eyes High]

28 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

Tyrion is guaranteed to make to the end not survive the end. That's what the outline said. These 5 characters make it to the end not past the end.

Here's the quote:

Quote

 

"...The cast will not always remain the same. Old characters will die, and new ones will be introduced. Some of the fatalities will include sympathetic viewpoint characters. I want the reader to feel that no one is ever completely safe, not even the characters who seem to be the heroes. The suspense always ratchets up a notch when you know that any character can die at any time.

"Five central characters will make it through all three volumes, however, growing from children to adults and changing the world and themselves in the process. In a sense, my trilogy is almost a generational saga, telling the life stories of these five characters, three men and two women. The five key players are Tyrion Lannister, Daenerys Targaryen, and three of the children of Winterfell, Arya, Bran, and the bastard Jon Snow."

 

Two things jump out at me. The first is the phrase "make it through all three [as then planned] volumes," which suggests they'll not only make it to the end but all the way through the series. The second is the "however," which suggests that GRRM's assurance that five characters will make it through all three volumes qualifies his statement that "any character can die at any time" and he wants to create the impression that "no one is ever completely safe." He seems to be saying that despite the books creating the impression that no one is safe, five characters are, in fact, safe.

Speaking of LOTR, in addition to the bittersweet quote from GRRM posted upthread, GRRM also said this in 2016 on the same subject:

Quote

"...as what I'd like to call the bittersweet ending, I think. Tolkien, you know...I keep coming back to Tolkien because he was a huge influence on me. If you look at LOTR its ending is at best bittersweet. Yes, the One Ring is destroyed, Sauron is cast down and defeated, Aragorn becomes King...but at great cost, at great cost. The Shire is destroyed, and the Scouring of the Shire...Frodo is never the same; the wound that he received never heals and he can never enjoy the world that he's won for others. To me, that ending had great poignancy and great power, especially as I got older and I understood it. You know, when I first read those books, I was like 13 and you know you reach the end where the ring goes into the fire and then you say, 'What are all these other pages? That was the end, wasn't it? That was it, that was the end, the good guys win' and I didn't know quite what to make of the Scouring of the Shire. But as I reread those books as I do every few years the brilliance and necessity of the Scouring of the Shire becomes clearer and clearer to me (...) Tolkien was really writing in a metaphorical sense about life in England after World War II and some of the things that were experienced there, but that's the perfect ending. The way he ended that book was just right. I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to end my book [audience laughter] but I suspect the overall flavour is going to be as much bittersweet as it is happy."

I had been assuming that if there's a Scouring of the Shire-type sequence it would involve KL, but the destruction of Winterfell would make a lot more sense, wouldn't it? Of course, Winterfell has already taken quite a licking in the show and the books already, since it was already sacked and burned in ACOK/S2.

The way he describes Frodo in this particular quote makes me wonder whether Jon, even though he seems to be the "Aragorn," will be the "Frodo" of ASOIAF: surviving but too haunted by his experiences to find any joy in it. 

 

Quote

I'm actually with you on why GRRM married Sansa to Tyrion. It was so she wouldn't be married off to anyone else.

Yeah. I was stuck on why GRRM bothered with the marriage in the first place, and that is the most compelling reason I can think of. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by Eyes High

[WindyNights]

3 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Here's the quote:

Two things jump out at me. The first is the phrase "make it through all three [as then planned] volumes," which suggests they'll not only make it to the end but all the way through the series. The second is the "however," which suggests that GRRM's assurance that five characters will make it through all three volumes qualifies his statement that "any character can die at any time" and he wants to create the impression that "no one is ever completely safe." He seems to be saying that despite the books creating the impression that no one is safe, five characters are, in fact, safe.

Speaking of LOTR, in addition to the bittersweet quote from GRRM posted upthread, GRRM also said this in 2016 on the same subject:

I had been assuming that if there's a Scouring of the Shire-type sequence it would involve KL, but the destruction of Winterfell would make a lot more sense, wouldn't it? Of course, Winterfell has already taken quite a licking in the show and the books already, since it was already sacked and burned in ACOK/S2.

The way he describes Frodo in this particular quote makes me wonder whether Jon, even though he seems to be the "Aragorn," will be the "Frodo" of ASOIAF: surviving but too haunted by his experiences to find any joy in it. 

 

See, but I'm absolutely certain Daeneys

doesn't make it so I can't really see that. Too

much foreshadowing and clues saying that

she dies in the North. Namely the show's HOTU positions her to never touch the throne and going North where she reunites with Drogo and Rhaego.

KL is home to no one but Gendry, Cersei and Jaime. And Winterfell has already been scoured. 

I absolutely do think that Jon is getting the Frodo treatment. Remember that Frodo feels lessened and people who are resurrected feel stretched and less. I'm ambivalent about whether Jon lives or dies but Frodo does leave to the Undying Lands as a stand in for death.

[WindyNights]

On 8/30/2017 at 0:03 PM, SimoneS said:

I don't see her winning, but I can see farfetched scenario where Jon and Dany spare for Tyrion's sake and have her locked up in a nunnery far away.

Not gonna happen. The prophecy says that she dies and the books add the little tidbit that it's her little brother that kills her.

To be honest, it seems to me the writers made Cersei pregnant so that when Jaime kills her, he's also killing his child.

[glowbug]

35 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

Not gonna happen. The prophecy says that she dies and the books add the little tidbit that it's her little brother that kills her.

To be honest, it seems to me the writers made Cersei pregnant so that when Jaime kills her, he's also killing his child.

Originally Cersei was supposed to have a miscarriage at the end of season 7 so that definitely wasn't the reason they had her get pregnant. I think it's far more likely that the miscarriage got pushed to season 8 than Jaime (or whoever kills Cersei) kills both her and her unborn child. 

[WindyNights]

35 minutes ago, glowbug said:

Originally Cersei was supposed to have a miscarriage at the end of season 7 so that definitely wasn't the reason they had her get pregnant. I think it's far more likely that the miscarriage got pushed to season 8 than Jaime (or whoever kills Cersei) kills both her and her unborn child. 

I think it's likely they changed their minds about it. It's more powerful if Jaime is killing his sister and his child for the greater good than if it's just his sister. 

 

It'd be reminiscent of how Talisa was stabbed in the belly over and over again by order of the Lannisters.

[GraceK]

1 hour ago, WindyNights said:

I think it's likely they changed their minds about it. It's more powerful if Jaime is killing his sister and his child for the greater good than if it's just his sister. 

 

It'd be reminiscent of how Talisa was stabbed in the belly over and over again by order of the Lannisters.

That doesn't make any sense for me. I can understand if Jaime kills Cersei for the greater good, but I don't think he would purposely kill his child no matter what. I think they are just saving the miscarriage for season 8 for dramatic contrast with Daenarys being pregnant.

the red weddings murder of Talisa was abhorrent for a reason. The utter horror of a pregnant woman being stabbed in her stomach on purpose was supposed to be a viceral tragedy. I cannot see Jaime Lannister doing that to his own child and twin sister, or anything similar. Especially if we are supposed to consider him redeemable or a flawed hero at the end of it all.

Edited September 11, 2017 by GraceK

[MadMouse]

1 hour ago, glowbug said:

Originally Cersei was supposed to have a miscarriage at the end of season 7 so that definitely wasn't the reason they had her get pregnant. I think it's far more likely that the miscarriage got pushed to season 8 than Jaime (or whoever kills Cersei) kills both her and her unborn child. 

Yep, or to contrast with Dany either finding out she's pregnant or giving birth.

Edited September 11, 2017 by MadMouse

[madam magpie]

53 minutes ago, GraceK said:

That doesn't make any sense for me. I can understand if Jaime kills Cersei for the greater good, but I don't think he would purposely kill his child no matter what. I think they are just saving the miscarriage for season 8 for dramatic contrast with Daenarys being pregnant.

the red weddings murder of Talisa was abhorrent for a reason. The utter horror of a pregnant woman being stabbed in her stomach on purpose was supposed to be a viceral tragedy. I cannot see Jaime Lannister doing that to his own child and twin sister, or anything similar. Especially if we are supposed to consider him redeemable or a flawed hero at the end of it all.

I agree if it's actually Jamie, but what if it's Arya wearing Jamie's face?

Edited September 11, 2017 by madam magpie

[WindyNights]

53 minutes ago, GraceK said:

That doesn't make any sense for me. I can understand if Jaime kills Cersei for the greater good, but I don't think he would purposely kill his child no matter what. I think they are just saving the miscarriage for season 8 for dramatic contrast with Daenarys being pregnant.

the red weddings murder of Talisa was abhorrent for a reason. The utter horror of a pregnant woman being stabbed in her stomach on purpose was supposed to be a viceral tragedy. I cannot see Jaime Lannister doing that to his own child and twin sister, or anything similar. Especially if we are supposed to consider him redeemable or a flawed hero at the end of it all.

Well Jaime isn't supposed to be considered anything. GRRM isn't answering that Jaime can be redeemed, he's exploring redemption and whether it's even possible with Jaime.

 

In GRRM's world, the most heroic thing that a person can do is sacrifice what they love for the greater good. The legend of AA isn't about some Messiah sacrificing himself but about a Messianic figure sacrificing his innocent wife to do what needed to be done:

A true sword of fire, now, that would be a wonder to behold. Yet at such a cost . . . When he thought of Nissa Nissa, it was his own Marya he pictured, a good-natured plump woman with sagging breasts and a kindly smile, the best woman in the world. He tried to picture himself driving a sword through her, and shuddered. I am not made of the stuff of heroes, he decided. If that was the price of a magic sword, it was more than he cared to pay.

 

Melisandre said, "Azor Ahai tempered Lightbringer with the heart's blood of his own beloved wife. If a man with a thousand cows gives one to god, that is nothing. But a man who offers the only cow he owns . . ."

The person not deserving to die only enhances how powerful the sacrifice is. It doesn't diminish it.

[GraceK]

25 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

The legend of AA isn't about some Messiah sacrificing himself but about a Messianic figure sacrificing his

Jaime is not AA. I see your point, and I think that Jaime sacrificing Cersei is enough anyway. He does love her more than anything.

i just honestly feel that he wouldn't murder his child. Nothing so far that we have seen or read leads to that IMO. I. I can totally see him killing Cersei eventually, but not his kid. 

25 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

. GRRM isn't answering that Jaime can be redeemed, he's exploring redemption and whether it's even possible with Jaime.

I think he absolutely IS saying that Jaime is redeemable. He's not even close to cersei anymore in the books, he has moved on and sees her for what she is. His road to redemption has been a significant part of the books. Not so much in show, but he finally seems to have reached that point in the finale. I jus think that from what we have seen of him, he would not kill his own child.

 

plus, I think it's pretty clear from th script leaks that  Cersei is destined for a miscarriage. Feel free to disagree, it's just my opinion.

35 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

I agree if it's actually Jamie, but what if it's Arya wearing Jamie's face?

That's a great point and something I would love to see

Edited September 11, 2017 by GraceK

[WindyNights]

3 hours ago, GraceK said:

Jaime is not AA. I see your point, and I think that Jaime sacrificing Cersei is enough anyway. He does love her more than anything.

i just honestly feel that he wouldn't murder his child. Nothing so far that we have seen or read leads to that IMO. I. I can totally see him killing Cersei eventually, but not his kid. 

 

 

Stannis wasn't AA either.

 

That's the big theme that shows up in the series though. What you love versus your duty. 

Killing Cersei is ultimately not as harrowing because she deserves it and she's evil. But sacrificing your child for the greater good now that's tough. 

I also don't think that miscarriage is going to happen because what's the point? They built up her having a baby just so she could lose it in a miscarriage. What does that accomplish?

 

I could even see something similar happen with Daenerys where she has to sacrifice herself and her unborn child to save the world. 

 

3 hours ago, GraceK said:

I think he absolutely IS saying that Jaime is redeemable. He's not even close to cersei anymore in the books, he has moved on and sees her for what she is. His road to redemption has been a significant part of the books. Not so much in show, but he finally seems to have reached that point in the finale. I jus think that from what we have seen of him, he would not kill his own child.

 

He's exploring not answering it because he doesn't have an answer according to him:

 

GRRM:One of the things I wanted to explore with Jaime, and with so many of the characters, is the whole issue of redemption. When can we be redeemed? Is redemption even possible? I don't have an answer. But when do we forgive people? You see it all around in our society, in constant debates. Should we forgive Michael Vick? I have friends who are dog-lovers who will never forgive Michael Vick. Michael Vick has served years in prison; he's apologized. Has he apologized sufficiently? Woody Allen: Is Woody Allen someone that we should laud, or someone that we should despise? Or Roman Polanski, Paula Deen. Our society is full of people who have fallen in one way or another, and what do we do with these people? How many good acts make up for a bad act? If you're a Nazi war criminal and then spend the next 40 years doing good deeds and feeding the hungry, does that make up for being a concentration-camp guard? I don't know the answer, but these are questions worth thinking about

In a different interview, he also mentioned that he prefers books that ask us questions rather than answer them for us. 

 

So whether Jaime is redeemed or not is ultimately up to the person.

[glowbug]

Here is the full quote from GRRM about Jaime and redemption:

Quote

One of the things I wanted to explore with Jaime, and with so many of the characters, is the whole issue of redemption. When can we be redeemed? Is redemption even possible? I don't have an answer. But when do we forgive people? You see it all around in our society, in constant debates. Should we forgive Michael Vick? I have friends who are dog-lovers who will never forgive Michael Vick. Michael Vick has served years in prison; he's apologized. Has he apologized sufficiently? Woody Allen: Is Woody Allen someone that we should laud, or someone that we should despise? Or Roman Polanski, Paula Deen. Our society is full of people who have fallen in one way or another, and what do we do with these people? How many good acts make up for a bad act? If you're a Nazi war criminal and then spend the next 40 years doing good deeds and feeding the hungry, does that make up for being a concentration-camp guard? I don't know the answer, but these are questions worth thinking about. I want there to be a possibility of redemption for us, because we all do terrible things. We should be able to be forgiven. Because if there is no possibility of redemption, what's the answer then?

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140423

GRRM clearly states he would like to believe in redemption so that tells you something about where his mind is at in regards to whether someone can be redeemed. But even if you ignore that part of it he says he wants to explore if there is a point at which a person has done enough good to make up for the bad. When you consider this quote along with @WearyTraveler's point about following through on plot setups, I don't understand why people believe Jaime's redemption will end with him ultimately failing in some way. If he commits what is at best a morally ambiguous act at the end (killing what many people believe is an innocent (unborn) child, even if it is for the greater good), or goes back to Cersei as others have speculated, then GRRM isn't actually posing the question about redemption being possible, which is what he says he means to explore. Jaime will have proven himself to be the same despicable person we all thought he was (and some still think he is) in book one. If, however, he continues to become a better person (with some setbacks) as the series progresses, that is more akin to a Nazi war criminal who has spent the rest of his life trying to make up for the atrocities he has committed. For some, Jaime will never be redeemed, but some will be able to forgive him if he does enough good. 

[herbz]

^ This is why I think Jaime might just get out of the series alive. Redemptive Deaths (TM) are easy, living out the rest of your days trying to do better in the full knowledge that some will forever despise you and that some of your past acts are unforgivable is hard. Jaime ultimately failing and failing in a manner that's undebatable for the reader seems like such circular storytelling. I think GRRM has invested too much time in showing us Jaime's internal life and the process of him disengaging from Cersei for that.  I do not believe show Jaime (who bonded with Myrcella and was happy at the prospect of being able to openly father this new child, even if that was a pretty lie from Cersei) or book Jaime (who now wants to tell Tommen the truth and wonders if he'd rather a father or the throne) could kill his unborn child, greater good or not. Cersei, perhaps, but not his child. The whole pregnancy plot is probably just a device for Cersei to totally lose her mind when she loses the child. She's not quite the trainwreck from the books yet, there's still a (tiny) degree of rationality to show Cersei. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by herbz

[MrWhyt]

16 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Not gonna happen. The prophecy says that she dies and the books add the little tidbit that it's her little brother that kills her.

To be honest, it seems to me the writers made Cersei pregnant so that when Jaime kills her, he's also killing his child.

Who says the prophecy is correct?

[screamin]

9 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Killing Cersei is ultimately not as harrowing because she deserves it and she's evil. But sacrificing your child for the greater good now that's tough. 

I also don't think that miscarriage is going to happen because what's the point? They built up her having a baby just so she could lose it in a miscarriage. What does that accomplish?

 

Her getting pregnant accomplishes bringing Cersei and Jaime back together so that when he chooses to leave her he is actually sacrificing something, instead of just rightfully walking away from the woman who drove his last child to suicide (which, honestly, he should have done anyway.) Once he's done that, there's no dramatic need to carry on the pregnancy, since it has not proved capable of keeping him by her side.

[WindyNights]

2 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

Who says the prophecy is correct?

Because this isn't that kind of story where prophecies are all bs. 

Prophecies are meant to mislead characters but they're not outright false.(And it's already mislead Cersei, she thinks it's Tyrion that kills her not Jaime)

And in this story, it's also a way for the author uses to show us his hand. 

[MrWhyt]

28 minutes ago, WindyNights said:

Because this isn't that kind of story where prophecies are all bs. 

Prophecies are meant to mislead characters but they're not outright false.(And it's already mislead Cersei, she thinks it's Tyrion that kills her not Jaime)

And in this story, it's also a way for the author uses to show us his hand. 

that's an assumption. the prophecy is already wrong given that she is pregnant with child #4. 

edit: and if it is right, then it can't be jaime. The prophecy states that the valonqor "will wrap his hands around your pale white throat", Jaime doesn't have hands, he just has the one. There is also the assumption that "little brother" means Cercie's little brother when the prophecy doesn't say that.

Edited September 11, 2017 by MrWhyt

[WindyNights]

26 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

that's an assumption. the prophecy is already wrong given that she is pregnant with child #4. 

edit: and if it is right, then it can't be jaime. The prophecy states that the valonqor "will wrap his hands around your pale white throat", Jaime doesn't have hands, he just has the one. There is also the assumption that "little brother" means Cercie's little brother when the prophecy doesn't say that.

Not really. She's pregnant with a child. She'll never have it.

He could wrap his golden hand and real hand around her throat.

It meaning Cersei's little brother is the only emotionally impacting course. There's no meaning in it being anyone else.'s little brother besides it being a Shyamalan-like tweest

[BlackberryJam]

Is she really pregnant though? Or is it menopause? Or is it a tumor like Mary Tudor? Or is Qyburn outright lying to her about it?

 

Also, Jaime left King's Landing, never looking back. He's not going go hie back there to suddenly decide to kill his sister. The valonqar portion was left out of the show prophecy because the meaning behind it is either too confusing for the screen or because it just doesn't matter.

[WindyNights]

5 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

Is she really pregnant though? Or is it menopause? Or is it a tumor like Mary Tudor? Or is Qyburn outright lying to her about it?

 

Also, Jaime left King's Landing, never looking back. He's not going go hie back there to suddenly decide to kill his sister. The valonqar portion was left out of the show prophecy because the meaning behind it is either too confusing for the screen or because it just doesn't matter.

Or he's going to be sent back to talk his sister down and then realizes he has to kill her.

 Not for nothing did episode 1 of this season begin with Jaime standing on the Fingers and Cersei standing on the Neck.

I think they took the last line out from prophecy because they wanted to make it more surprising.

[BlackberryJam]

I have several bets on this. Jaime will not kill Cersei. 

And since everyone, everywhere, thinks Jaime is going to kill Cersei, it wouldn't be surprising at all.

[WindyNights]

13 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I have several bets on this. Jaime will not kill Cersei. 

And since everyone, everywhere, thinks Jaime is going to kill Cersei, it wouldn't be surprising at all.

Just like how R + L = J isn't surprising, right? : p 

It being surprising is more for Cersei. She thinks it's Tyrion that will kill her therefore it will be Jaime who she thinks will never betray her.

Jaime is her ideal self. It's meant to elicit horror from Cersei when her ideal self kills her. You couldn't get that from anyone else. 

[spaceghostess]

Just spitballin', but is Sandor Clegane not the "little" brother of Gregor? Maybe The Hound wraps his hands around Cersei's throat pre-(or post-) CleganeBowl. Maybe he's the valonqar.

Edited September 12, 2017 by spaceghostess
punctuation

[Oscirus]

There's only one person on GOT who has choked a woman to death. Whose little brother is that again? :x

[herbz]

18 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I have several bets on this. Jaime will not kill Cersei. 

And since everyone, everywhere, thinks Jaime is going to kill Cersei, it wouldn't be surprising at all.

I'm slowly coming round to this, having previously believed like the whole fandom that it'll be Jaime who finishes Cersei. Reading Jaime in AFFC and ADWD makes less sense if you come at it from the perspective that he's the valonqar. He works through his (considerable and understandable) anger in his therapy sessions with Ilyn Payne, and then he's done. He doesn't lash out at Lancel when he meets him. He has no desire to even see Cersei, let alone kill her, at the last point we see him. He literally runs away with Brienne rather than head back to King's Landing. I believed it would be an Aerys 2.0 situation when he killed her, but the show has already had Cersei blow up the sept and almost have Jaime murdered and he didn't do it then, so I'm presuming that scenario is off the table. I just can't imagine the pivot happening now, 6 episodes from the end, if it took the show this long to separate them- especially because I have always been 100% certain that Cersei's end does not mean Jaime's. 

Edited September 12, 2017 by herbz

[TheGreenKnight]

I always wondered if the "trick" might be that she asks for Jamie (or Tyrion) to kill her after she's lost all power because that would be kinder than an alternative fate. If that were the case, I'd lean towards it being Tyrion because then she'll have tried to get rid of him for years because she was scared of the prophecy and in the end it turned out to be a wanted act of mercy.

Edited September 12, 2017 by TheGreenKnight