Daenerys 'Stormborn' Targaryen: The Breaker Of Chains, Mother Of Dragons Etc

[SNeaker]

17 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I have a hard time seeing Dany in this episode as being driven by grief specifically. Or at least, grief in the way most people experience it. Because yes, she lost a lot. But she

Saying it's everyone else's fault that she burned a city down because she was sad her friends died erases that her friends were her subjects there to support her in an aggressive war to take over 7 kingdoms. Sure if everyone had behaved in such a way that she'd flown in and taken the city to great acclaim she wouldn't have wound up burning it down or losing her friends, but her friends would also still be alive if they hadn't followed her to the throne. It takes for granted that Dany's ambition for the throne in itself can't be questioned but of course it can be. Almost everybody in the show has had friends and loved ones die and even been schemed against and betrayed in far more extreme ways than Dany without having any such response.

My point is that the notion that Varys was "right" about her is unearned. The same people worried she would do something were the ones who drove her to that point by scheming instead of working with her. Dany wouldn't have burned down KL if she'd taken it at the start of Season 7. She did it in part BECAUSE of people like Varys who essentially created a self-fulfilling prophecy. You want the Mad Queen? You got her.

All of these people are "foreigners" if you go back far enough. She was considered a foreigner on Essos also. She never had a home.

Edited May 15, 2019 by SNeaker

[Hana Chan]

Just now, Umbelina said:

Which is exactly what her ancestors were.

At first, but they did gain a significant amount of native support. Oddly enough, the Baratheons were close allies to Dany's ancestors. It took time, a bit some force to pull things together and then showing that they were able to actually rule well for the Targaryens to be accepted.

Dany's reign will last only the length of her life. If things stand as they are and she has no children, then once she dies the Targaryen restoration will be over. Especially since she was so resistant to any discussion of a plan for succession. She planned the conquest, but clearly hasn't given any real thought to actually ruling. And after the destruction of Kings Landing at her hands, she's going to find herself completely dependent on her foreign troops. 

Dany may have some power, but her position is very precarious. She's got little support in Westeros (and I'm going to guess that a lot of it's going to evaporate now). She's got one dragon, and however powerful Drogon is, he can still be killed. Her foreign troops are not limitless in number. Shock and awe may work for a time, but we have history books filled with examples of weaker forces being able to wear down and then defeat a stronger force. And with Dany listening only to herself now, her grip on power is going to slip sooner rather than later.

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, Hana Chan said:

It's also impossible for a Hand to be effective when you've got a King that refuses to listen to their advice and feedback and has members of the inner circle actively working against you. Something that Tyrion knows very well now.

Interesting that you mention Tyrion.  When Tyrion was Joffrey's Hand, Joffrey refused to listen, Cersei (Queen Regent) was actively keeping him out of the loop about wildfire, and the Small Council was untrustworthy (so he sent Janos Slynt to the Night's Watch and threw Pycelle in the Black Cells). Yet Tyrion is usually rated by most as an effective Hand then.

Tyrion was terrible as Dany's Hand because, rather than focus on the task at hand (no pun intended), he decided to smoke a peace pipe, sing Kumbaya and attack Casterly Rock.

So I think Ned is still a valid of example of someone who didn't want to rule, was dutiful about it, but was still terrible at his job, thus disproving Vary's Season 8 assertion that the best person to rule is someone who doesn't want to rule.

[slf]

5 hours ago, ursula said:

I won't say never. The fact that the King on the Iron Throne was not a Targaryen was one of the reasons the Northern Lords gave for secession. And the wording was very specific: "Renly Baratheon is nothing to me... nor is Stannis... The others take the Lannisters, too.... it was the dragons, we married and now the dragons are dead."

Even the choice of "married" versus "bowed to", implying a mutual partnership and not a conquest. (Which is technically true as Torrhen knelt without a battle).

Truth is that the North vs Targaryen conflict is mostly a show invention. Ned wanted Justice for his father and brother, but it was Jon Arryn who first called his bannermen to oust Aerys. Ned was personally disgusted with the murder of the Targaryen children before he knew he was the uncle to one. And he backed Robert's claim to the Throne based on his Targaryen lineage.

"My lords. MY LORDS! Here's what I say to these two kings. [Spits, drawing laughter from the men] Renly Baratheon is nothing to me, nor Stannis neither. Why should they rule over me and mine from some flowery seat in the south? What do they know of the Wall or the Wolfswood? Even their gods are wrong. Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we bowed to and now the dragons are dead. [Draws his sword and points it to Robb] There sits the only King I mean to bend my knee to: the King in the North!"

Northern independence was a major reason given by Robb's lords for breaking away, both in the show and the books (even more so). It wasn't specifically that the Targs were gone (there was no love lost there), that's just pointing out that the Starks originally bent the knee to them, bringing the North into the Kingdom. But with the overthrow of the Targs... the North has no oath the fulfill and can leave like they want. The Umbers wanted an independent North, so did the Karstarks, the Mormonts, and just about everyone else. "Even their gods are wrong"/"their red castle and their iron chair as well." Resentment against "the south", really anything that wasn't the North, had been brewing for decades. And with an independent North and the Starks as their Kings, as they were in the ever longed for, ever mentioned days of old, the Northern lords have massive influence which they haven't enjoyed in the Seven Kingdoms. That's why Robb's bannermen were so quick to declare him their King.

Dany wants the Seven Kingdoms. She can't have that without the North. But the North doesn't want to be part of the Seven again when Robb is their King.

Edited May 15, 2019 by slf

[ursula]

40 minutes ago, Hana Chan said:

He also was Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.

Which was actually a mark against him in the books with the Blackfish using Jon's "ambition" as proof of Catelyn's distrust of him. His sister's Tully allies are not necessarily his own, the opposite as a matter of fact. That small matter of being a bastard and embarrassment to Catelyn. 

Jon's best claim to fame besides being Ned's bastard is the Lord Commander who let wildlings through the Wall. Then broke his oath and deserted his post to usurp his trueborn siblings and become King in the North. 

It's a question of believing 6 impossible things before breakfast: believe he resurrected from the Dead; and that he's not Ned Stark's bastard; oh and he's Lyanna's and Rhaegar Targaryen's erstwhile unknown son; oh and they were legally married and the entire reason for the war was a lie.... 😂😂

Against the woman with a verifiable claim, 3 large dragons and 2 armies, who actually looks the part. 

Of course Jon's crowning was a show construct which was why it was fundamentally illogical. 

The same reason why the Tarlys, Targaryen loyalists were suddenly against Dany... ad nauseum... It's just a lazy plot device to get to the desired endgame not the natural evolution of the characters or coherent with the established world-building. 

[ursula]

24 minutes ago, slf said:

It was the dragons we bowed to and now the dragons are dead.

Again another show construct because the book specifically words it as "married".

(The choice of words is a play on the title "ice and fire" and probably foreshadowing of Lyanna/Rhaegar. It's significant that the Starks were one of only a few major Houses that never married a Targaryen.)

The only Kingdom in the books that has shown a constant, persistent rebellion against Aegon's unification of Westeros is the Iron Islands. Until Aerys, the North were probably the staunchest Targaryen loyalists. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by ursula

[ursula]

1 hour ago, SNeaker said:

All of these people are "foreigners" if you go back far enough. 

The Starks drove out Giants and the children of Men from the North. The Andals established dominance over the First Men originally in the South. 

I mean apart from the borderline offensive insinuation of Calling Dany a foreigner for being a war refugee, it's not even something that comes up in the books. If anything, there is evidence that portions of the smallfolk are sentimental about the Targaryens and would be happy to see a dragon eat up the ruling Lannisters. (Which is human nature: the nostalgia factor). The show's "Dany has no love here" is again, another construct to push her into madness. Jon has none south of the Neck either with the Tullys actively hating him for Catelyn's sake and the Vale being at best indifferent. 

Again, show construct. Exactly how popular is Lyanna's suddenly!son going to be if he shows up and he's like "oh by the way, that war that happened a couple of decades ago to rescue my mom was a lie. My dad was a dick who couldn't keep it in his pants and my mom was a ditz. Sorry for the confusion. Can I have my throne now?"

Edited May 15, 2019 by ursula

[slf]

16 minutes ago, ursula said:

Again another show construct because the book specifically words it as "married".

The only Kingdom in the books that has shown a constant, persistent rebellion against Aegon's unification of Westeros is the Iron Islands. Until Aerys, the North were probably the staunchest Targaryen loyalists. 

Show/book differences in wording in that one sentence aside, Northern independence was a rallying point for the North. The North were loyalists because of their views on oaths, not out of any personal loyalty to the Targs. With the Targs overthrown the Northerners saw the opportunity to retake what they were forced to give up. Dany means going back to all that, and doing so after Ironborn and Rivermen and Westermen destroyed the North.

Edited May 15, 2019 by slf

[sistermagpie]

50 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

Interesting that you mention Tyrion.  When Tyrion was Joffrey's Hand, Joffrey refused to listen, Cersei (Queen Regent) was actively keeping him out of the loop about wildfire, and the Small Council was untrustworthy (so he sent Janos Slynt to the Night's Watch and threw Pycelle in the Black Cells). Yet Tyrion is usually rated by most as an effective Hand then.

Tyrion was terrible as Dany's Hand because, rather than focus on the task at hand (no pun intended), he decided to smoke a peace pipe, sing Kumbaya and attack Casterly Rock.

So I think Ned is still a valid of example of someone who didn't want to rule, was dutiful about it, but was still terrible at his job, thus disproving Vary's Season 8 assertion that the best person to rule is someone who doesn't want to rule.

Varys is over simplifying either way but I wouldn't consider the hand the ruler. If Ned were king he would listen to advisors.  That's part of Varys's point. He'd hire an effective hand and listen to him etc. He'd try to be fair and just. It wouldn't guarantee him success by any means but he wouldn't be a tyrant or a weak person manipulated by others.

[ursula]

10 minutes ago, slf said:

Show/book differences in wording in that one sentence aside, Northern independence was a rallying point for the North. The North were loyalists because of their views on oaths, not out of any personal loyalty to the Targs. With the Targs overthrown the Northerners saw the opportunity to retake what they were forced to give up. Dany means going back to all that, and doing so after Ironborn and Rivermen and Westermen destroyed the North.

Only the opportunity rose with their war against the Lannisters, not with the overthrow of the Targs. In fact Ned Stark specifically crowns Robert (the throne could have just as easily been claimed by him) because he was heir to the Targaryen throne. 

The wording is important, obviously otherwise GRRM would have used something less obscure. And it's interesting that you bring up oathbreaking too. 

Anyway the Northern Lords are so different from books to show (and so fundamentally illogical... they crown Jon after Sansa won the war they didn't want to fight....?) that using show logic to support the North vs Targaryen plot device always fails. I mean we have Lannisters getting better welcome in the North. I guess the The North "Kind Of Forgot" about the Red Wedding ... 🤣🤣🤣

Edited May 15, 2019 by ursula

[slf]

36 minutes ago, ursula said:

Only the opportunity rose with their war against the Lannisters, not with the overthrow of the Targs. In fact Ned Stark specifically crowns Robert (the throne could have just as easily been claimed by him) because he was heir to the Targaryen throne. 

The wording is important, obviously otherwise GRRM would have used something less obscure. And it's interesting that you bring up oathbreaking.

Winning the throne via conquest is hugely unpopular, both in fiction and throughout history. It is very common for those who took their throne by conquest to try to come up with some blood claim, no matter how distant, no matter if it's through a female line, etc. The blood claim offers legitimacy which lessens the impact of being a conquerer.

Wording is important, I agree. And GRRM repeatedly has the Northerners talk about how much they hate the south, having been ruled by southroners, how they want the North independent again, how the Starks had always been their kings, etc. Using that one word to imply a partnership, to me, is sketchy because noticeably the Starks never married a Targ and only bent the knee after the Field of Fire.

Loyalty is big for the northerners and Ned in particular. But the Northerners weren't obligated to follow every Targ for the rest of history, even after they were overthrown. Dany wasn't owed allegiance because, after all, while claiming a throne by conquest isn't desirable in a world that places huge importance on blood and inheritance, it is still legal. The Baratheons legally took the throne, thus ending the Northerners obligations to the

Quote

I mean we have Lannisters getting better welcome in the North. I guess the The North "Kind Of Forgot" about the Red Wedding ... 🤣🤣🤣

I can't even talk about this. This is still the most infuriating thing the show has done (completely selling out the North).

Edited May 15, 2019 by slf

[RobertDeSneero]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I think Dany had "terrible advisors" is only because the show wanted spectacle and to rush the ending, cram it into the arbitrary number of episodes the showrunners set for themselves.

I've never really believed this talking point.  There are six episodes this season, but you have the runtime of eight episodes, just chopped up into larger chunks so that the two major battles are in uninterrupted episodes instead of two parters.  If they were rushing the show, they would have figured out a way to get it done so they didn't have to skip airing in 2018.

I think they tend to come up with the episode-ending moments that they want to highlight and fill in the pages in between.  They sketched out six moments and decided to make some extra-long episodes.

They were going to have Dany go straight from Winterfell to King's Landing, demonstrating her impulsiveness and desire for instant gratification without concern for the lesser folk who make up her army.  

[Umbelina]

5 minutes ago, RobertDeSneero said:

I've never really believed this talking point.  There are six episodes this season, but you have the runtime of eight episodes, just chopped up into larger chunks so that the two major battles are in uninterrupted episodes instead of two parters.  If they were rushing the show, they would have figured out a way to get it done so they didn't have to skip airing in 2018.

I think they tend to come up with the episode-ending moments that they want to highlight and fill in the pages in between.  They sketched out six moments and decided to make some extra-long episodes.

They were going to have Dany go straight from Winterfell to King's Landing, demonstrating her impulsiveness and desire for instant gratification without concern for the lesser folk who make up her army.  

The only made extra long fight and battle scenes.

The character development and motivation and logic was tossed in favor of cool scenes (and they were cool, but that's all.)

There is no way, except to speed this shit along, for example, that the majority of the living would stand OUTSIDE the castle when zombies are attacking.  It makes ZERO sense, unless you want to end WINTER in one evening.  None.  There is no chance they are that stupid.  None, zip, not happening. 

[ursula]

33 minutes ago, slf said:

Using that one word to imply a partnership, to me, is sketchy because noticeably the Starks never married a Targ 

"...it was the dragons we married..."

In fact, it's the non-literalness  - that Starks are probably the only Great House (besides the Lannisters) to not have a Targaryen union - that makes the word choice all the more symbolic. Then of course the title of the series... the literal Pact of Ice and Fire that went unfufilled, etc. Jon's lineage, as the only person in the story's history that can claim these two magical bloodlines etc. 

Even in the early seasons of the show when it had the books to guide, Nexit was framed as a rebellion against the Southern pretenders. Joffrey is obviously not a true heir to Baratheon but there's the implication that neither Stannis or Renly can rightly claim the Iron Throne and therefore the North owe them no allegiance.  

33 minutes ago, slf said:

GRRM repeatedly has the Northerners talk about how much they hate the south

More applicable to the Iron Islands, who are clearly the Red Headed Stepchild of the Westeros family. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by ursula

[BooBear]

One point a co worker made today was that you get a sense that the show never really intended for Dany to be the bad guy to this extent simply because of the music. Almost every theme they used for Dany suggests a hero.  

[sistermagpie]

16 minutes ago, BooBear said:

One point a co worker made today was that you get a sense that the show never really intended for Dany to be the bad guy to this extent simply because of the music. Almost every theme they used for Dany suggests a hero.  

Dany saw herself as a hero and was set up as one intentionally imo knowing it wasn't end game.  She was freeing slaves etc. and we were supposed to be carried away with her. 

I think the use if the word married suggests the always insisted on seeing itself as more equal to the Targs. But a marriage is still an obligation.  It doesn't mean love. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by sistermagpie

[RobertDeSneero]

22 minutes ago, BooBear said:

One point a co worker made today was that you get a sense that the show never really intended for Dany to be the bad guy to this extent simply because of the music. Almost every theme they used for Dany suggests a hero.  

Is that like how the show never really intended for Robb to be the dead guy to this extent?

Edited May 16, 2019 by RobertDeSneero

[lucindabelle]

44 minutes ago, BooBear said:

One point a co worker made today was that you get a sense that the show never really intended for Dany to be the bad guy to this extent simply because of the music. Almost every theme they used for Dany suggests a hero.  

That is an excellent point. Her themes and the dragon themes are soul stirring and lovely. They make your heart beat. 

[slf]

2 hours ago, ursula said:

"...it was the dragons we married..."

In fact, it's the non-literalness  - that Starks are probably the only Great House (besides the Lannisters) to not have a Targaryen union - that makes the word choice all the more symbolic. Then of course the title of the series... the literal Pact of Ice and Fire that went unfufilled, etc. Jon's lineage, as the only person in the story's history that can claim these two magical bloodlines etc. 

Even in the early seasons of the show when it had the books to guide, Nexit was framed as a rebellion against the Southern pretenders. Joffrey is obviously not a true heir to Baratheon but there's the implication that neither Stannis or Renly can rightly claim the Iron Throne and therefore the North owe them no allegiance.  

More applicable to the Iron Islands, who are clearly the Red Headed Stepchild of the Westeros family. 

The use of the word marriage is more metaphorical than symbolic. IIRC 'marriage' is used several times to mean 'alliance'/'joining' and I believe that is how GRRM meant it. I don't believe that the Starks avoiding marriage to the Targs is proof of them having some kind of bond with or respect for the Targs. Quite the opposite (others avoided marrying with the Targs, or tried to, and it was because they thought badly of that family. Olenna Redwyne, for example). I also disgree that Northern independence was framed as a rebellion against pretenders. Stannis had a legal claim to the Iron Throne which was not disputed by the Northerners. The GreatJon's speech specifically points to the other contenders as being Not Northern and knowing nothing about life in the north. The Umbers, and others, were successionists.

While it's true that the Ironborn despise everyone who isn't them, the North is similarly xenophobic throughout the books. The only House that was ever really pro-Targ was the Martells, imo, because they benefited the most from an alliance with them.

So even if Robb had lived I just don't see him bending the knee to Dany. Perhaps if she threatened to burn them all...

Edited May 16, 2019 by slf

[ursula]

24 minutes ago, slf said:

I don't believe that the Starks avoiding marriage to the Targs is proof of them having some kind of bond with or respect for the Targs. 

😂😂😂 That's not how feudal systems work. The Starks couldn't "avoid" marriages to the Targaryens if they were offered. There's a reason why Robert's proposal isn't framed as a request. It's a related fabric of this world that led to the Red Wedding*. 

All that said, if you've read the supplementary books, you'll know that rather than the Starks avoiding marriage to the Targaryens, it was quite the opposite. However none of these marriage pacts, the famous of which was the Pact of Ice and Fire, fell through for a variation of reasons.

Also contrary to your thinking, the Martells were not historically pro-Targ. Dorne held out longest against joining the Unified Westeros for 187 years after the Conquest! Dorne was the only Kingdom that wasnt conquered by battle (or intimidation as per the North) and only finally joined not the 7K by marriage.

Now isn't that significant.... 

All which is to say that the symbolism of that word "...it was the dragons we married..." taking on more and more profound meaning the deeper into the story (and by depth I mean both in the forward narrative sense and in the backstory sense) one travels.

*That's the failure of D & D's adaptation - their insistence on reconciling feudal customs with 21st century sensibilities. Ergo, Robb's shotgun wedding in the books was adapted into a Love in the Battlefield nonsensical love story ostentatiously to make Robb more sympathetic... but in reality, it made him selfish and grossly irresponsible. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by ursula

[slf]

23 minutes ago, ursula said:

😂😂😂 That's not how feudal systems work. The Starks couldn't "avoid" marriages to the Targaryens if they were offered. There's a reason why Robert's proposal isn't framed as a request. It's a related fabric of this world that led to the Red Wedding*.

Marriages were often the result of negotiations. It wasn't just some guy pointing his finger at a woman and saying, "I want that one!" Lists of potential suitors/brides were made, advisors and others would debate the merits or cons of each, families would try their hardest to curry favor and others would do what they could to avoid attention, and sometimes negotiations and even engagements fell through. It wasn't as simple or direct as all that. 

23 minutes ago, ursula said:

All that said, if you've read the supplementary books, you'll know that rather than the Starks avoiding marriage to the Targaryens, it was quite the opposite. However marriage pacts, the famous of which was a Pact of Ice and Fire, fell through for a variation of reasons. And contrary to your thinking, the Martells were not pro-Targ and Dorne held out longest against joining the Unified Westeros. They finally joined not by conquest but by marriage. Now isn't that significant.... 

I've read books and noticed the Stark preference for Northern spouses. There just isn't any "quite the opposite"; a Targ married a Stark bastard and while promises were made for a legitimate match, quite noticeably, nothing ever materialized. The Targs ruled for centuries, they had plenty of opportunities to secure a marriage with a Stark if they had wanted one, if that "marriage" Umber refers to actually Meant Something other than simply joining the north with the other Kingdoms. Didn't happen. And it didn't happen because GGRM didn't want it to. For a reason.

23 minutes ago, ursula said:

And contrary to your thinking, the Martells were not pro-Targ and Dorne held out longest against joining the Unified Westeros. They finally joined not by conquest but by marriage. Now isn't that significant.... 

Yes, they did. (Because they did not want to be a part of the Seven, they wanted to be independent. Just as the North only bent the knee after the Southroners and Westermen were slaughtered at the FoF. Why does that matter for one and not the other?) Once in the Kingdoms, the Martells were the most consistenly pro-Targ. For example, they did not participate in overthrowing the Targaryens but rather fought to defend them. Then schemed to restore the Targaryens, the only major house to do so. And no, I don't believe the Martells joining by marriage is somehow significant w/r/t the Starks but rather fairly telling. The Martells, significantly, were able to secure marriages beyond count with the Targs.

One of my issues with characters referring to themselves by their house symbols, beyond if being embarrassing af, is that it can obscure meaning. When Umber says they "married" the dragons we know he isn't being literal because that literally did not happen. But does he even mean the house? Or does he mean the actual, literal dragons? Because dragonfire is the only reason the Starks bent the knee in the first place.

But the non-existent history between the Targs and the Starks beside, all that matters in determining what Robb would have done had Dany shown up is what was going on at the time. The Northern lords were successionists with no obligations to faraway Targs. It's no small thing that Robb's bannerman were all successionists and that Robb swore to them a free North. Without the incentive of dragonfire, which is the only thing that brought the Starks to the Targs in the first place, Robb has no reason to bend the knee.

Edited May 16, 2019 by slf

[ursula]

53 minutes ago, slf said:

For example, they did not participate in overthrowing the Targaryens but rather fought to defend them.

Dorne's investment in Targaren Restoration isn't so much devoted loyalty to the Targs but vengeance for the rape and murder of Elia. "Remember the Lannisters are not the only ones who pay their debts" etc. 

In fact, Aerys kept Princess Elia and her children hostage in the Keep instead of permitting them to return to Dorne to ensure that Dorne fought on the Targaryen side. 

Sadly, it just shows how much the show dropped the ball on Dorne that this even needs to be explained. 

53 minutes ago, slf said:

Marriages were often the result of negotiations. 

Only negotiations follow the flow of power. The Tyrells fought for the Lannisters and got "paid" by Margaerys engagement. Tywin Lannister turned cloak partly because Aerys rejected Cersei for Rhaegar and he got her engaged to the new King (and bankrolled the entire Kingdom as her dowry). The Starks got the "payment" of Jace T (or was it his child?), the heir presumptive to Queen Rhaenyra in exchange for backing her claim, etc. Much like Catelyn paid for Frey's bridge by marrying off Robb and Arya.  

In Westeros, "marrying up" means the same thing as in the real world  The Starks won't be offering the Targaryens marriage, they'd be demanding it as payment.

53 minutes ago, slf said:

And it didn't happen because GGRM didn't want it to. For a reason

Well... duh. 🤣 GRRM needed Jon's existence, the Rhaegar/Lyanna connection to be significant, in a way that was unique from any other union in the world. He didn't want Jon to be just one more Stark-Targaryen union in Westeros history. That's why all the preceding unions fell through (the marriage between Jace T and the Snow girl may or may not have happened... but it's significant that Jace was almost certainly a Strong bastard and if it had happened, it won't have "outshone" R+L). 

The implication being of course that there's some kind of mystical/prophetical consequence of a union of "ice and fire" and the Creator of this verse (literally GRRM! 🤣) would not permit it to occur before its time. 

53 minutes ago, slf said:

One of my issues with characters referring to themselves by their house symbols, beyond if being embarrassing af, is that it can obscure meaning.

Well ascribing 21st century sensibilities to a customary medieval practice is invariably embarrassing but other than that... duh. If GRRM's intention was just to claim that the North bowed to dragons... he would have written it that way. 

The meaning is supposed to be obscure and many-layered. That's how a good book rewards repeated reading. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by ursula

[slf]

57 minutes ago, ursula said:

Dorne's investment in Targaren Restoration isn't so much loyalty to the Targs but vengeance against the rape and murder of Elia. "Remember the Lannisters are not the only ones who pay their debts" etc. 

In fact, Aerys kept Princess Elia and her children hostage in the Keep instead of permitting them to return to Dorne to ensure that Dorne fought on the Targaryen side. 

I mean it just shows how much the show dropped the ball on Dorne that this even needs to be explained.

Regardless of their motives, the Martells have shown more loyalty to the Targs since joining the Seven than the Starks have, and really more loyalty than the other houses which was my point. Unless you are aware of any actions on the part of the Starks, or the North in general, that disputes that? And I'm not referencing the show but rather the books, as I've repeatedly stated.

57 minutes ago, ursula said:

Only negotiations follow the flow of power. The Tyrells fought for the Lannisters and got "paid" by Margaerys engagement. Tywin Lannister turned cloak partly because Aerys rejected Cersei for Rhaegar and he got her engaged to the new King. The Starks got the "payment" of Jace T (or was it his child?), the heir presumptive to Queen Rhaenyra in exchange for backing her claim, etc. Much like Catelyn paid for Frey's bridge by marrying off Robb and Arya. 

The Starks won't be offering the Targaryens marriage as payment, they'd be demanding it.

You understand that these were rare situtations, right? Both in the canon and in history, marriages were commonplace and their negotiations generally occured exactly as I outlined. Bridges and battles didn't factor into a significant chunk of them.

Though I do have a question for you: if the Starks couldn't refuse a marriage if the Targs wanted one, as you say in an above post, and the Starks would demand a marriage instead of offering one as payment, as you say above, then why did a marriage between a Stark and a Targ never happen? If there's this connection there and Umber's word choice is so telling and meaningful?

57 minutes ago, ursula said:

Well... duh. 🤣 GRRM needed Jon's existence, the Rhaegar/Lyanna connection to be significant, in a way that was unique from any other union in the world. He didn't want Jon to be just another Stark-Targaryen union. That's why all the preceding unions fell through (the marriage between Jace T and the Snow girl may or may not have happened... but it's significant that Jace was almost certainly a Strong bastard and even if it had happened, it won't have "outshone" R+L). 

Whether or not GRRM "needed" that, in your opinion, the point of this discussion has been whether or not the word "married" indicated some kind of partnership and that the Northern lords became successionists in part because there were no Targs. You're opening up your argument, trying to give some reason why there's a lack of history while still trying to claim there is a history that the Northern lords were referring to. 

There were no marriages between the Starks and the Targs, therefor that cannot be what Umber was referring to. And the majority of his speech is about everyone on, and trying for, the throne is not Northern and therefor not fit to be his King.

57 minutes ago, ursula said:

  Well it's embarrassing because you're ascribing 21st century sensibilities to a customary medieval practice but other than that... duh. If the intention was just to claim that the North bowed to dragons... it would have been written that way.

In what way am I ascribing 21st century sensibilities to customary medieval practice? I don't care what century you live in, calling yourself a lion or dragon is just embarassing. (Wasn't it Illyrio who mocked Tyrion for this and offered to put him in a cage with a real lion? And Tyrion admits to himself that their nobility make too much of their sigils?)

If GRRM's intention in referring to a marriage was what you claim, the books would support that. They don't. 

I still haven't read anything that changes my mind w/r/t Robb bending the knee to Dany. IIRC, this is what prevented Stannis and Robb from forming an alliance against the Lannsters. Stannis was all-or-nothing; the Starks had to bend the knee and accept him as their King. Robb and the Northern lords wanted a free North. Daenerys could have threatened to burn the North to the ground, bringing the Starks to heel just as her ancestors did. But failing that, no, I don't see it.

Edited May 16, 2019 by slf

[ursula]

31 minutes ago, slf said:

Regardless of their motives, the Martells have shown more loyalty to the Targs since joining the Seven than the Starks have, and really more loyalty than the other houses which was my point.

Of course motives count. Or are you arguing that Tywin Lannister would have sacked King's Landing if it was Cersei in the Red Keep? Do you think the Tyrells threw in their support to the Lannisters after instigating a war against them because... reasons? 

The Starks showed more loyalty for the Targaryens and the Unified Kingdom with less "payment" compared to the other Houses. 

31 minutes ago, slf said:

then why did a marriage between a Stark and a Targ never happen?

Obviously, there's the small matter of #KeepingItInTheFamily and external marriages for Targaryens being a matter of expediency which significantly narrows the pool of opportunities for any potential Targ/nonTarg union...

But the easy Watsonian explanation is what you yourself pointed out: the Starks had no battles or bridges (or gold mines) to barter in exchange for a Targaryen prince or princess. Which makes it even more significant that the one time the Starks could afford to "buy" a Targaryen marriage (support for the Blacks or Greens) they demanded one.

Or put simply - The Targaryens never needed to "strengthen" their Northern ties because unlike all the other Houses in the realm, they never had to second-guess Stark loyalty. 

The Doylistic reason, of course, is that GRRM wanted R+L=J to be Significant(TM). 

31 minutes ago, slf said:

There were no marriages between the Starks and the Targs, therefor that cannot be what Umber was referring to.

I don't entirely follow your reasoning for bringing up the literal interpretation when I already said that the statement was multi-layered and symbolic and not literal and was included to reward repeated reading.

So are you arguing that it is not a symbolic/metaphorical statement but a literal one? A literal meaning that is false? I'm not sure I follow. 

31 minutes ago, slf said:

In what way am I ascribing 21st century sensibilities to customary medieval practice?

With this:

1 hour ago, slf said:

One of my issues with characters referring to themselves by their house symbols, beyond if being embarrassing af

Edited May 16, 2019 by ursula

[GraceK]

[Colorful Mess]

3 hours ago, BooBear said:

One point a co worker made today was that you get a sense that the show never really intended for Dany to be the bad guy to this extent simply because of the music. Almost every theme they used for Dany suggests a hero.  

She also had darker theme music whenever she burns someone. The show intended that.

The music helps create audience perception which is at odds with the visual imagery, in other words, it is used to deceive in some cases. In the S6 Dothraki speech she's talking about war, mass murder, death, and the music is just so inspiring!

[slf]

32 minutes ago, ursula said:

Of course motives count. Or are you arguing that Tywin Lannister would have sacked King's Landing if it was Cersei in the Red Keep? Do you think the Tyrells threw in their support to the Lannisters after instigating a war against them because... reasons?

Since when is loyalty about pure motives, personal respect or affection, etc? If that does matter, then in what way were the Starks actually loyal, much less especially so?

32 minutes ago, ursula said:

The Watsonian explanation is what you yourself pointed out: the Starks had no battles or bridges (or gold mines) to barter in exchange for a Targaryen prince or princess. Which makes it even more significant that the one time the Starks could afford to "buy" a Targaryen marriage (support for the Blacks or Greens) they demanded one.

Or put simply - The Targaryens never needed to "strengthen" their Northern ties because unlike all the other Houses in the realm, they never had to second-guess Stark loyalty. 

I myself pointed out no such thing. The Starks have the largest of the Seven Kingdoms, they are the oldest of the Great Houses (IIRC), their people are very insolated and xenophobic, practice their own religion, etc. They are among the most distant from the rest of the Seven and the Targs specifically in almost every possible interpretation of the word. But again, that doesn't matter. Supposedly there is some history there but still you can't say what that is, exactly?

32 minutes ago, ursula said:

I don't entirely follow your reasoning for bringing up the literal interpretation when I already said that the statement was multi-layered and symbolic and not literal and was included to reward repeated reading.

So are you arguing that it is not a symbolic/metaphorical statement but a literal one? A literal meaning that is false? I'm not sure I follow. 

I'm arguing that I believe it isn't literal as, despite your repeatedly bringing up marriage and 'ties', there's no "there" there. And it isn't symbolic because why the fuck would the GreatJon be speaking symbolically about a people he never says anything positive about in the entire series, in the middle of a speech about how only Northerners are Northern enough to rule the North? A metaphorical interpretation of the word fits well with the text and doesn't require you to twist yourself into a pretzel to make it work.

I guess Illyrio also assesses things with a 21st century sensibility, then, lmao. GRRM repeatedly knocks each of the houses this way, btw. Having Targs burned by their own dragons, for example.

Edited May 16, 2019 by slf

[ursula]

31 minutes ago, slf said:

Since when is loyalty about pure motives, personal respect or affection, etc? If that does matter, then in what way were the Starks actually loyal, much less especially so?

Because if you need a bribe to buy someone's loyalty ... then they can sell their loyalty to someone that makes a better offer? I mean, isn't that self-evident? 🤷

49 minutes ago, ursula said:

The Starks showed more loyalty for the Targaryens and the Unified Kingdom with less "payment" compared to the other Houses. 

31 minutes ago, slf said:

I myself pointed out no such thing.

I think you've lost the thread:

1 hour ago, slf said:

You understand that these were rare situtations, right? Both in the canon and in history, marriages were commonplace and their negotiations generally occured exactly as I outlined. Bridges and battles didn't factor into a significant chunk of them.

31 minutes ago, slf said:

And it isn't symbolic because why the fuck would the GreatJon be speaking symbolically

6 hours ago, ursula said:

The wording is important, obviously otherwise GRRM would have used something less obscure. 

(Aside for the whole semantics of metaphorical =/= symbolic...) not to ask the obvious but... you know Umber was not a real person? He "says" whatever GRRM wants him to say?

31 minutes ago, slf said:

GRRM repeatedly knocks each of the houses this way, btw. Having Targs burned by their own dragons, for example.

Be that as it may...

"He wasn't a true dragon. Fire cannot hurt a dragon..."

Edited May 16, 2019 by ursula

[ShellsandCheese]

It’s obvious that D&D have set out to dehumanize Dany and “other” her to ensure that people won’t object to whatever her fate may be. In 8.5 we don’t even see her face again once she decides to raze King’s Landing. Same with the promo, we see Tyrion’s face, Arya, Jon, but only the back of Dany. Interesting choices. 

I also wanted to bring something over from another thread. If you look at Dany’s character arc over the last few seasons it has entirely revolves around her trying to do the right thing, listening to her advisors, and making herself smaller to appease others and it got her absolutely nowhere. No wonder she finally decided to be a dragon. 

[slf]

23 minutes ago, ursula said:

Because if you need a bribe to buy someone's loyalty ... then they can sell their loyalty to someone that makes a better offer? I mean, isn't that self-evident?

If you have to burn thousands of people to death to get someone to bend the knee, is that person actually loyal then? The Starks didn't come to the Targaryens because they thought the Targs were wise and just rulers. They backed the Targs so they wouldn't be roasted. Ned didn't support the slaughter of the Targs during RR, but once he had another option with Robert he swore fealty to him even tho he knew there were living Targs out there.

Can someone remind me, it's been a while: Robb knew Dany was out there gathering an army, yes? 

23 minutes ago, ursula said:

This seemed clear enough to me:

Ah, you're confused. I asked why a marriage between the houses never occured and you said, "The Watsonian explanation is what you yourself pointed out: the Starks had no battles or bridges (or gold mines) to barter in exchange for a Targaryen prince or princess." Therefor no marriages. But as I pointed out, those things didn't generally factor into marriage negotiations anyway, so...doesn't matter. There should have been, if what you are suggesting is right, but nope. None.

23 minutes ago, ursula said:

I mean not to state that obvious but... you know Umber was not a real person? He "says" whatever GRRM wants him to say?

Obviously. What I am asking is, why would Umber be assigned a symbolic line of dialogue that, if your interpretation is correct, sticks out like a sore thumb? Since we're not likely to agree on this point, do you have anything else that supports that interpretation perhaps?

23 minutes ago, ursula said:

Be that as it may...

"He wasn't a true dragon. Fire cannot hurt a dragon..."

That was a good line. But fire killed a lot of "dragons", if memory serves.

Edited May 16, 2019 by slf

[ursula]

1 minute ago, ShellsandCheese said:

If you look at Dany’s character arc over the last few seasons it has entirely revolves around her trying to do the right thing, listening to her advisors, and making herself smaller to appease others and it got her absolutely nowhere. No wonder she finally decided to be a dragon. 

I think someone on Reddit it framed it this way: the show understands that having Varys betray Dany can push her to the edge.... but does the show realize that Varys betrayed Dany?

Like these events should make Dany sympathetic, not evil. I mean nothing justifies the mass murder of the people of King's Landing because morality, characterisation, story arc aside.... Cersei is right there... The bitch just murdered her best friend and kid and Dany glares at her then... takes a detour to kill some redshirts? Does Dany even know that Cersei is dead?

[ursula]

Just now, slf said:

If you have to burn thousands of people to death to get someone to bend the knee, is that person actually loyal then?

If you have to kill rival Kings, steal land, commit genocide, murder sons and rape daughters to get someone to bend the knee is that person actually loyal then?

Because that's how the North was won. The Starks weren't elected by 21st century-democratic unanimous election. I mean, it's stating the obvious but this is a feudal system. If every House kept grudges over how they were conquered, the North won't stand. 

Which is obviously what did not happen since when the dragons died out, the North didn't check out of Westeros. Instead The Stark Heir followed Daeron I into battle to conquer Dorne. 

6 minutes ago, slf said:

But as I pointed out, those things didn't generally factor into marriage ngotiations anyway, so...does not matter. There should have been, if what you are suggesting is right, but nope. None.

Well.. 🤷 

1 hour ago, ursula said:

Obviously, there's the small matter of #KeepingItInTheFamily and external marriages for Targaryens being a matter of expediency which significantly narrows the pool of opportunities for any potential Targ/nonTarg union...

But the easy Watsonian explanation is what you yourself pointed out: the Starks had no battles or bridges (or gold mines) to barter in exchange for a Targaryen prince or princess. Which makes it even more significant that the one time the Starks could afford to "buy" a Targaryen marriage (support for the Blacks or Greens) they demanded one.

Or put simply - The Targaryens never needed to "strengthen" their Northern ties because unlike all the other Houses in the realm, they never had to second-guess Stark loyalty. 

The Doylistic reason, of course, is that GRRM wanted R+L=J to be Significant(TM). 

I mean...🤷

11 minutes ago, slf said:

why would Umber be assigned a symbolic line of dialogue that, if your interpretation is correct, sticks out like a sore thumb?

6 hours ago, ursula said:

The choice of words is a play on the title "ice and fire" and probably foreshadowing of Lyanna/Rhaegar. It's significant that the Starks were one of only a few major Houses that never married a Targaryen

I mean... 🤷 Almost everything I've replied is reposted so I don't see if there's any point in continuing this...

[rmontro]

1 hour ago, GraceK said:

Nice video describing just one scene among many that shows Daenerys' generosity of spirit, which is in direct conflict with her actions at the end.  There's simply no way that person committed the atrocities we saw in episode 5, and it's a shame that they ruined the character.  

Speaking of the siege of Mereen, why didn't Dany unleash Drogon on the slavers forces like we saw at King's Landing?  Just another contradiction.

[slf]

57 minutes ago, ursula said:

Almost everything I've replied is reposted so I don't see if there's any point in continuing this...

Something we can agree on.

I've been thinking over whether or not Robb knew of Dany at that point. There's a decent chance he did, I can't recall, and if so it's telling he doesn't consider backing her claim. But ultimately, I think it doesn't matter. He had every reason to back Stannis' claim, yet he didn't because it meant handing over the North. Dany's terms would be the same, she wants all of the Seven Kingdoms (one of many reasons she and Sansa were never going to come to an agreement). A free North stands in the way of everything she's fought for.

They would have made a beautiful couple, tho.

Edited May 16, 2019 by slf

[Andromeda]

10 hours ago, ursula said:

The show pretty much switched genres to make the Insanity!Dany work. Nothing in the last 2 seasons fits into the narrative of the world we've been presented with. 

10 hours ago, SNeaker said:

Interesting, Ursula. Can you explain a little more about this? Did it go from fantasy to something else? (Maybe dark drama...)

[Andromeda]

6 hours ago, BooBear said:

One point a co worker made today was that you get a sense that the show never really intended for Dany to be the bad guy to this extent simply because of the music. Almost every theme they used for Dany suggests a hero.  

Nice, exactly. She got the hero's edit every time during her journey, until now. Swelling, triumphant themes, huge set piece scenes (many of which ended an episode), and the OTHER HEROES gravitated to her! That's what blows my mind (among many things). So all these people have sucky judgment: Tyrion, Jon, Yara, Theon, the Queen of Thornes, Jorah, Ser Barriston Selmy, etc. All but Varys, and only him because he changed his mind for...reasons that are not clear.

[GraceK]

It’s faulty writing. That’s it. GRRM told them that Dany goes dark at the end. That it’s Jon against Daenaerys. That’s it. He gave them the outline. That’s it. However, Book Jon and Book Dany are vastly different. It’s possibly that Book Jon is more of the villain than she is at the end. Who knows? We know he dies. It’s possible he wargs into Ghost. Seriously, the books have a lot more magic and prophecy involved. 🤦🏻‍♀️ I mean, they took the most lazy, stereotypical route. Unstable queen gets rejected by noble hero, goes insane. It makes no sense narrative wise. They can’t even remember plot points in their own show. They are over it. Jaime suffered. Tyrion suffered. Varys differed. Littlefinger suffered. Jon suffered. All these great characters SUFFERED. Except you know who didn’t? Sansa. Why? Because she’s a show creation. They made her. They love her. They know her. They have developed and written for her exclusively since season 5. She’s gonna get a great ending. Because nothing about her comes from   George after season 4.

[ursula]

4 hours ago, Andromeda said:

Interesting, Ursula. Can you explain a little more about this? Did it go from fantasy to something else? (Maybe dark drama...)

Well the defining thing about ASOIAF is that it's "realistic" fantasy, that it's built on a foundation of real-world pragmatism. 

Robb Stark sends his best friend, pseudo brother Theon Greyjoy loose to the get Iron support for his claim. His mother tells him that this is a mistake, keep him hostage and ransom him for support. In "idealistic" fantasy, she'd be proven wrong - love would conquer all, bla blah, etc... and not the reality.

And in the specific thread I brought this up: The idealistic fantasy version of the ruler who doesn't want to rule is that he'd be the best one.... But the realistic version is that he'd be bad at it... and that's what happened with Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark. 

In the books, Jon isn't an unambitious, humble shepard boy archetype who just wants to serve, not rule. He's the opposite. He joins the Night Watch because a bastard can rise in the order. He is ambitious within the order, b resenting his first assignment until Sam explains that he's being groomed for leadership. He's tempted by Stannis's offer to be Lord of Winterfell etc. 

In the past few seasons, D & D have written him as a humble! unambitious! accidental! leader and rewarded him for this by having him fail upwards. Book! Varys who is grooming fAegon and even early seasons! Varys said Ned's honor was a handicap would not have any use for Jon. 

Which is what I mean by the show shifting genres by having Varys find all these elements Jon as qualities of a good leader. Even the argument he makes "Dany is too powerful for Jon" is played straight when in reality, the obvious counter is "what you mean is she's too powerful for you (Varys)... You want a King that you can control." Instead we're presenting with the idealistic but inherently contrarian argument that Jon's weakness and (and cock) makes him inherently more suitable to lead.

[Lokiberry]

5 hours ago, GraceK said:

However, Book Jon and Book Dany are vastly different. It’s possibly that Book Jon is more of the villain than she is at the end. Who knows? We know he dies

How do we know he dies? Is that a spoiler?

[domina89]

Here's a great video explaining the reasoning behind why many fans believe Dany's turn to darkness hasn't been earned or handled very well by the writers.

Foreshadowing Is Not Character Development:

https://youtu.be/2mlNyqhnc1M 

[Kate47]

12 minutes ago, Lokiberry said:

How do we know he dies? Is that a spoiler?

He's stabbed by the Night's Watch at the end of Book 5, which was covered in the show. That's the last we've heard of him.

[RobertDeSneero]

3 hours ago, ursula said:

And in the specific thread I brought this up: The idealistic fantasy version of the ruler who doesn't want to rule is that he'd be the best one.... But the realistic version is that he'd be bad at it... and that's what happened with Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark. 

I wouldn't say that Ned was bad at ruling.  He was bad at political intrigue.  He would probably be a competent Hand if given the chance.

What is bad is someone who seeks power for the sake of power, because that person seeks to obtain and maintain power and everything else becomes something worth compromising.  Does someone like Dany seek the Iron Throne as an end into itself, doing what is moral and fighting against evil only if that is the best path to power, or does she serve a higher purpose?

 

[Maximum Taco]

10 hours ago, rmontro said:

Nice video describing just one scene among many that shows Daenerys' generosity of spirit, which is in direct conflict with her actions at the end.  There's simply no way that person committed the atrocities we saw in episode 5, and it's a shame that they ruined the character.  

Speaking of the siege of Mereen, why didn't Dany unleash Drogon on the slavers forces like we saw at King's Landing?  Just another contradiction.

The Meereen storyline is all about Dany's inner conflict. Part of her wants to be better, to forge a peace in Meereen through compromise and diplomacy. This is embodied in the character of Hizdahr. She acquiesces to his marriage to stop the killings in the streets, and they stop. But then she starts losing all the little things. She has to wear the clothes she finds disdainful (floppy ears for the Queen of Rabbits), and she is pushed to eat the foods she doesn't like. And then the big things start happening, she chains her dragons, she opens the fighting pits, and suddenly she is ruling a peaceful city that she doesn't like any more. 

Dany is a good person with good intentions, and sometimes she's also a violent sociopath. GRRM goes to pains to try and establish this. Her coin is still flipping.  

Quote

I gave you good counsel. Save your spears and swords for the Seven Kingdoms, I told you. Leave Meereen to the Meereenese and go west, I said. You would not listen. 

"I had to take Meereen or see my children starve along the march." Dany could still see the trail of corpses she had left behind her crossing the Red Waste. It was not a sight she wished to see again. "I had to take Meereen to feed my people"

You took Meereen, he told her, yet still you lingered. "To be a queen."

You are a queen, her bear said. In Westeros. "It is such a long way," she complained. "I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl."

No. You are the blood of the dragon. The whispering was growing fainter, as if Ser Jorah were falling further behind. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. Remember your words. 

"Fire and Blood," Daenerys told the swaying grass. 

Obviously here Dany is like "Fuck Meereen, these people are weird and I don't like them." And a part of her psyche is obviously steering her towards a violent path. "Fire and Blood."

This is what the show fails to address, not that Dany is a good person at heart, but that she's conflicted. She could easily go either way. And that's how it should be seen, Targaryen Madness is supposed to be unpredictable. Aerys was seen as a noble king near the beginning of his reign, and only started to go more obviously mad after tragedies befell him (The Queen Rhaella had a series of miscarriages and stillbirths, the Prince Jaehaerys dies in infancy, and finally his abduction in the Defiance of Duskendale was the final straw.) Is it that hard to see this happening to Dany? She loses her husband, she loses her unborn child, she loses her city (I'm still convinced Meereen should be left in shambles when Dany leaves, not in the hands of Daario, it would've been much more impactful for us to see her abandoning the city to ruin), she loses her dragons, she loses her friends, she loses her second love. Is it any wonder she went mad?

Unfortunately the show occupies a lot of the beginning with her good attributes and crams all her less then noble ones into the last couple seasons. The show forgets that we can't see Dany's thoughts, and that inner monologue is a tool that Martin can use to make us more accepting of her turn when it comes in the books (and I do believe it's coming.)

But in the show it's a jarring effect and a lot of people can't accept the heel turn. If Dany's darker moments had been given more weight, then perhaps people would be a more willing to see her as a possible villain. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by Maximum Taco

[ursula]

2 hours ago, Maximum Taco said:

Obviously here Dany is like "Fuck Meereen, these people are weird and I don't like them." And a part of her psyche is obviously steering her towards a violent path. "Fire and Blood."

Er... This is 💯 your self insertion into the text, though...🙄

2 hours ago, Maximum Taco said:

suddenly she is ruling a peaceful city that she doesn't like any more. 

By peaceful city you mean... terrorist attacks by the Harpy's Sons, besieged by the Yunkai coalition and Astapor plague victims at her gates?

I thought you were talking about the books?

Quote

Unfortunately the show occupies a lot of the beginning with her good attributes and crams all her less then noble ones into the last couple seasons.

In the show, Dany is nonsensically threatening to burn down Quaithe when in the books she was welcomed into the city after asking nicely. Xaro and Doreah weren't killed by Dany - Doreah died in the Red Waste and Xaro is still alive, a frenemy of sorts to her. In fact almost all her original khalasar (inner circle) are alive in the books, and helping her rule. orah in the books is a potbellied lecher old enough to be her grandfather, not the noble Knight that looks like Iain Glen.

She didn't even want to banish Jorah in the books and certainly didn't need Tyrion's advice not to kill him. It was Jorah's own arrogance and refusal to apologise ---- for selling her secrets to kill her! - that forces her to turn him away. And it goes without saying that in the books, Tyrion is Team fAegon and has never met Dany. Since Barristan Selmy is not dead, she has a robust inner council and events in Mereen are already underway, if they ever meet, Tyrion is not going to have the same arc and become her Hand. The show takes all her intelligence and strategy and cunning and gives it to Jorah, then Tyrion. 

The show has Dany feeding people to her dragons (and killed of Barristan Selmy to justify this, something that both the actor and GRRM have talked about). Dany constantly needs to be talked down from violence. In the books, Dany's ineffective against the terrorists because she is not violent enough! Even though she's adopted the Westeros practice of taking cupbearers, she can't bring herself to harm any of them. (Compare to Ned Stark who would have killed Theon Greyjoy at Robert's command. He won't have liked doing it, but he would have done it all the same).

In the books, it's Quentin who (accidentally) releases the caged dragons. Dany didn't free them to go on a rampage.

Dany's not failing at Mereen because she's too violent, but because she's not violent enough. "Fire and blood" isn't her giving into madness, it's her reconciling to the fact that - like every ruler in this world - she can't rule without some degree of ruthlessness. That her compassion needs to be stifled to an extent for her to be effective. 

Like the idea that the show whitewashes Dany is so far from the truth that it's borderline ridiculous that people assert this.

Edited May 16, 2019 by ursula

[Colorful Mess]

3 hours ago, Maximum Taco said:

Unfortunately the show occupies a lot of the beginning with her good attributes and crams all her less then noble ones into the last couple seasons. The show forgets that we can't see Dany's thoughts, and that inner monologue is a tool that Martin can use to make us more accepting of her turn when it comes in the books (and I do believe it's coming.)

Yeah I think GRRM said something like how you can do something good one day and something evil the next. That may be true but it doesn't work on TV. Audiences may end up confused. 

[RobertDeSneero]

16 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:

Yeah I think GRRM said something like how you can do something good one day and something evil the next. That may be true but it doesn't work on TV. Audiences may end up confused. 

I'm fine if writers don't feel obligated to cater to stupid audience members who are easily confused.

[TheGreenKnight]

2 hours ago, RobertDeSneero said:

I'm fine if writers don't feel obligated to cater to stupid audience members who are easily confused.

I don't feel that the audience should cater to stupid writers like Benioff & Weiss by accepting what they've done to the story without criticizing them for it. It's been obvious for two years (if not longer) that the audience likely has a better comprehension of GRRM's books than they do. A dragon rampage taking down KL probably will happen near the end of GRRM's story, but there's no doubt that they mutilated the particulars.

[Umbelina]

If the books are ever written, I have no doubt all of this will be earned.

The show?  Assassinated characters and their motivations in their mad rush to finish and move on.  Which is pretty unforgivable really, because with a few more episodes, or even another full season?  I might have believed Jon loved Dany, or visa versa.  We would have seen Arya, Jon, and Sansa talk out the implications of his birth.  We wouldn't have had to have Varys and Tyrion become stupid.  We would have watched Dany's descent into burning KL.

WORDS would have been used instead of just cool CGI and stunts and spectacular visuals, dragons and battles and sword fights.

Dumb and Dumber were sick of it, so they fast forwarded all of it, including Winter, which probably lasts a hell of a long time in the books, and devastates a lot of the country.  Cersei probably died a long time ago, and someone else is holding KL. 

This is a rush job, and it's sad.  They should have handed it off to less burned out showrunners who still cared about the characters and story.

All of that said?  It is in no way Sansa's fault that Dany takes these actions.  It's the showrunners fault for failing to flesh out Dany and show us how she gets to this point.  First up?  SHOW us why Jon and Dany love each other, that requires words, not CGI dragons and waterfalls.  That requires the kind of slow and steady and fascinating scenes we had back in the early seasons.  That requires actual dialogue for everyone on screen.

They didn't care enough to do that, because they turned this show into an action movie, rather than a movie about the characters and themes GRRM spent so much time making real.

[Katsullivan]

21 hours ago, ursula said:

I guess the The North "Kind Of Forgot" about the Red Wedding ... 🤣🤣🤣

More like D & D "Kind of Forgot" about good writing. 

23 hours ago, ursula said:

Well Varys had already read the script for 8x05 so he knew that she was going to go crazy. 🤣 That's why the "for the people" dude picked the Targaryen who treated his soldiers like pawns over the one who rode into battle to defend them.

You joke but it's the only thing that makes sense. 

[RobertDeSneero]

35 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

 The show?  Assassinated characters and their motivations in their mad rush to finish and move on.  Which is pretty unforgivable really, because with a few more episodes, or even another full season?  I might have believed Jon loved Dany, or visa versa.  We would have seen Arya, Jon, and Sansa talk out the implications of his birth.  We wouldn't have had to have Varys and Tyrion become stupid.  We would have watched Dany's descent into burning KL.

I adamantly believe that showing Arya, Jon, and Sansa talk about his birth is only useful if the goal is to show conflict between the three.  What exactly are they supposed to talk about that the audience needs to hear?  The important part of that scene is that Sansa makes a promise that she breaks.  We don't need Bran to retell a story that everyone should know.  And Sansa and Arya probably reacted by not saying anything and shuffling off to think about it on their own, anyways.  Well, Sansa probably did.  Arya probably shrugged and went back to practicing archery because it doesn't affect her plan to kill Cersei.

The people who should be talking about the implications of his birth are Jon and Dany, because of how it affects his claim, and Tyrion and Varys.

Dany was planning on burning King's Landing.  We don't see her say, "My battle plan is to treat the people of King's Landing as enemy combatants and burn them", but we do hear Tyrion begging with her to treat them as innocent hostages instead after what I think was Dany saying something along those lines.  Do you really need her to say those words or can the writers trust viewers to be able to figure it out from context?

I think her descent into madness, and I'm not convinced it was madness that made her burn King's Landing, is supposed to come off as more sudden than you want it to be.  It's supposed to be a change in her that is sufficiently rapid that you don't think Jon and Tyrion are stupid for not noticing where she was heading.