440 replies to this topic

[tolthar]

I think The Others being the main villain isn't too obvious at all. I've always believed that when the meaning of westeros's odd seasonal pattern is revealed it will be so full of awesome original nerdtastic wickedness that we won't be bothered by GRRM resorting to such a textbook villain. to put it vaguely I think that A Song of Ice and Fire's storyline, from A to B will be centralized around those mystical, seldom seen aspects of the story. The 'Game of Thrones,' The fall and rise of multiple houses and even all of the ongoing tedium in the east, is nothing more than a setting for the writers ultimate idea. Thats why the series is so awesome. Dany might even die before the end, but in no way do I think she is going to be a villain. Even aside from the obvious, there are parts to her story arc that just urge me to believe she is nothing but the contrary. Her internal monologues usually point toward her longing for a simpler life, for 'home'.

Either way I don't think her becoming the antagonist of the story would be in George's style. He's got us too invested in certain themes to give up on them now. We might find as we get to the end of a Dream of Spring that ALL roads will lead to the obvious. because at the end of the day there there aren't a lot of plot choices when writing a fantasy story(good vs evil, monsters vs humans, swords, battles and dragons etc). It's all about how the story is told that matters.


P.S. you back up your theory's well though

[Black Crow]

The Mother of The Others, on 17 September 2011 - 06:29 PM, said:

pssssst. Ice shiv.

Quite, taking your earlier point, if obsidian (like steel) was hardened by fire, then the opposite would presumably be something which normally is liquid but is hardened by extreme cold - now I wonder what those swords which the White Walkers were using in the prologue to AGoT were made of?

With a bit of luck Mel might be about to find out.

[Black Crow]

Black Crow, on 17 September 2011 - 05:45 AM, said:

I’ve already suggested that Jon’s true destiny is not be become AA but to defeat AA, but take this a stage further the whole purpose of the magical war is to restore the original balance between Ice and Fire.

Continuing this theme I wonder if there are clues in the Starks themselves. When Robb was being proclaimed King in the North, Maege Mormont instead called him the King of Winter. Supposedly this is just an old variation, but why introduce it? While all the other houses have suitably uplifting words/mottoes, we're pointedly told that the Stark words are quite different: "Winter is Coming". Is this just a bland reminder that things are grim oop north [British joke] or does it have a deeper meaning that they were indeed once Kings of Winter and will be again when Winter comes - a link that could explain the direwolves, Bran's link to the Children and ultimately Jon's destiny as the son of Lyanna Stark to restore the balance between Ice and Fire.

[CrypticWeirwood]

Black Crow, on 18 September 2011 - 04:02 AM, said:

Is this just a bland reminder that things are grim oop north [British joke] or does it have a deeper meaning that they were indeed once Kings of Winter and will be again when Winter comes - a link that could explain the direwolves, Bran's link to the Children and ultimately Jon's destiny as the son of Lyanna Stark to restore the balance between Ice and Fire.

Brynden Rivers, son of Aegon the Unworthy and Mylessa Blackwood, is also necessarily a fire&ice blend, and Bloodraven has been working at it for a lot longer than Jon is likely to, even if the Blackwoods aren’t quite so famous as the Starks are.

[fassreiter]

[Posted this in the general version first]

I think there is good thinking here. If the Others are the ultimate evil/foe, why all the political background, the intrigue, the game of thrones, then? There has to be some metaphor in this whole business at the end, or it is just another very long and meaningless rattling with swords.

I think the notion that two essentially human armies will stand against each other in the end is a good one, and I also think both of them will believe their cause to be the right one, and we will have enough POVs of each to see these two perspectives. This board will fight until kingdom come about who was right in the end, when the last book is long done.

I think these books are more some kind of political parable (like T.H. White's Once and Future King), and I just can't see 'fire and blood' at its rightful center. Both Ice and Fire are destructive forces, and both the Others and the dragons are a danger to humanity. Not just because they kill or eat them, but because they are symbolisations of power. Power corrupts, and something as fickle and greedy as fire is much more dangerous when it gets corrupted, as we have already heard of, and start to see it. Fire is close to madness, so the Targaryens are constantly in danger of losing power by having too much of it. Ice, on the other hand, is 'conservative', which is almost as dangerous. Ice is cruel and merciless. Politics should be nothing of that kind, but a mixture of these two. So the logic thing would be to have these two mix up in a person like Jon, and look at what we found: he is exactly that. So all he needs is a foil to act on, and this would be Daenerys. The notion of the two of them joining forces and becoming King and Queen of Westeros is too easy, and too much of a cop out. Jon has been raised in the North, so far he has not done one simple injustice. I am sure he will die at the end of the books, but not before he is forced to kill Daenerys. Who has done many, many injustices so far. To bring the two of them together and just wipe out her tyrannical acts (like having a girl tortured to make her father confess, much like what we saw through Arya's eyes with the Tickler, by the way) would be lame.

I expect that in the end, North and South will stand against each other, and everyone has to choose a side. Then, in the end, before they go at it, I am sure there will be a moment of horrifying realization what they are doing here, and that they can understand the 'other', but still can't go against what they believe to be true. This will be the bittersweet moment GRRM has announced, not some sacrifice for love, or mounts to some beds, or some cheesy teenager's dream. We are talking politics here, and human beings who have to act them out and suffer for it. The more power you get, the more likely you are to suffer bad, or you have to make others suffer worse first. This has so far been GRRM's credo, why should he change that in the end? Fighting evil, otherworldly, non-human Others as ultimate goal is just too boring to be true.

Any post-structuralistically informed author, as I believe this one to be, who goes and creates entities that are by definition the enemies of humanity, and then goes and calls them THE OTHERS would be too stupid to come even up with a plot for a hundred pages. This book is about anything but about xenophobia. On the contrary, so far we have seen how walls were made smaller and cultures were made understandable for each other in small ways and small steps. So now there will come the real OTHERNESS, something we will finally be allowed to hate for a change? Because hatred is surely not what GRRM wants us to feel. Iit's much more true and much more bitter if the 'enemy' is someone we love. Or, in other words, if there is no enemy, just politcs, and people who want to do the right thing.

Although I don't believe it's Jon who will actually be elected Night's King by GRRM, the notion that Old Nan's stories about the Others will be subverted can almost be taken for granted, I would say, as well as the AA-Prophecy. Old Nan's claims about wildlings and giants have been subverted by now: no wildlings drinking human blood from skulls, in fact it's Ned's bannermen who wants their drinking cups to be made of human skulls, no giants eating human children either. The Others are certainly a threat and there will be a battle for the Wall again. But that they are planning to invade Westeros with their wight armies might be nicely subverted into Dany invading Westeros with her dragons and her obedient slave, sorry, brainwashed soldiers brought up in slavery with the label 'freed' attached to them, armies.

[Yellow Dog]

quine, on 15 September 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:

On the other side, I think we've had ample evidence that Dany and her dragons are not necessarily forces of good: Dany murdered all those people after the victory at Meereen, while her dragons are savage, uncontrollable beasts.  She has also shown that she is not particularly good at ruling a kingdom.  When she comes to Westeros with her dragons, the result may well be disastrous.

Many have wondered what the Others are waiting for: they could, in fact, be waiting for Dany to arrive with her dragons.

Thanks for the corrective to all the Dany-worship.

Yes: as the greatest danger to Westeros her character works much better. Certainly explains all the diddle-fucking around in Mereen: showing how catastrophic she is as a leader.

[The Mother of The Others]

She's alright.   The average store manager lasts 2 years.    She's more civilized than the natives and refuses to sink to the repressive tactics they'd respect, so they act up on her.    Time to transfer to the next job is all.

[Gogossos]

She decided to rule Meereen in order to learn how it is like to be a queen. I think she did that and leant much more about herself in the process. Her detractors will point out that she used people as her dummies but that would be an unfair attack. I bet if she gets to rule Westeros she'd have a different reign. She indeed has dragons - those savage uncontrollable beasts - but Tywin had the Mountain. You use what you've got to your advantage. The difference is that Dany tried to control and lock up her beasts, she didn't unleash them on the poor peasants.

[Swordswench]

I don't understand why some people consider it to be so "out there" to consider that the Others have a direct connection to the CotF. They could be some evolutionary offshoot, the result of interbreeding with any variety of beings and the CotF, some kind of Frankenstein abomination created by the CotF, or predecessors they evolved from. Supplying men with dragonglass only means the CotF feared the Others for whatever reason. It tells us nothing about what sort of relationship they may have had with or to the Others. We can safely presume they coexisted with each other (however uneasily) as well as unicorns, giants, direwolves, etc before the coming of the First Men and raising of the Wall. With the degree of power that the CotF appear to have, it seems odd that they wouldn't have done something similar if the danger posed by the Others were as grave as it's portrayed by humanity.

Also, with 8000 years to soften the details, it's entirely possible (as Sam warns), that the histories taken down by the Andals are full of inaccuracies and bias, much in the way that the Christian monks that transcribed Norse myth put their own slant on things, casting many deities in the roles of demons, etc. It's also possible that they misunderstood the details of the pre-Andal oral histories, much the way that early European settlers misunderstood Native American social order and custom. So, a small group of CotF (or even a single leafy sprite person) makes a pact with some First Men against the Others, so the legend grows that they had an agreement with an entire race, when they may have not at all.

The whole "but they gave us dragonglass" idea just strikes me as a big McGuffin GRRM's thrown in there to keep us thinking in strictly dualistic terms regarding these two, ancient races.

[Swordswench]

Gogossos, on 19 September 2011 - 06:48 PM, said:

She decided to rule Meereen in order to learn how it is like to be a queen. I think she did that and leant much more about herself in the process. Her detractors will point out that she used people as her dummies but that would be an unfair attack. I bet if she gets to rule Westeros she'd have a different reign. She indeed has dragons - those savage uncontrollable beasts - but Tywin had the Mountain. You use what you've got to your advantage. The difference is that Dany tried to control and lock up her beasts, she didn't unleash them on the poor peasants.

I think Dany's a really cleverly written character that is designed to appeal to our modern sensibilities, but  many of her actions are only "good" to us because they reflect our mores more than those of many of the more "middle ages" types that pepper ASOIF. I mean, who decides to take on queenhood as a grand social learning exercise? It's not a very prudent course, when you break it down logically. There's no real similarity to Westerosi cities, economy, or society; the conflicts her occupation causes lead to disaster (and many, many charred peasants once just one of her dragons is on the loose), and ultimately the entire situation breaks down into bloodshed, pestilence, and chaos. We see her opposition to slavery as morally just. Put into practice, it creates just as much injustice as the old Mereen status quo did. On the other hand, simply calling non-nobles smallfolk doesn't raise their status much above that of slaves or thralls, so I'm curious what her opinion of that status quo will be.

I don't see Dany as evil, but I do think her rule would pose a grave danger to Westeros, and she must needs be at least neutralized/assimlated if there's to be any kind of true peace or balance achieved. Her dragons alone are horrifying weapons -- so much so that the last time three dragons came to Westeros, the entire cultural narrative of power was rewritten because of the terror and death they dealt to all who opposed Aegon. Dany appears to be poised to carry out the same scenario and for what? To gain a crown? How is that justifiable on the scale of human suffering? If you look at her more objectively, she's as "bad" a tyrant as any with the exception of the Boltons.

[The Mother of The Others]

Quote

We see her opposition to slavery as morally just. Put into practice, it creates just as much injustice as the old Mereen status quo did.

And she sees it and tries to solve the problems of her freedmen like a rubiks kingdom.   This failure makes for a more interesting story because we've already had enough books about successful conquerors who don't care for the smallfolk.   So here's a failed conqueror who does.   Assuming Meereenese don't all die of disease, I think she's bound to turn things around.  She'll come up with a solution for her freedmen's problems like how in Aasimov's Foundation books some eras ended simply because it was time for them to end.  Some light bulb will go on in her head and her idea will give birth to the next era.  The post-slavery era.  Breaker of Chains will transition into Sustainer of Freedom.  Maybe she raises the status of the freed slaves by parceling out the gold of Casterly Rock to each of them.  

Or, the whole Meereen thing could implode and she'll realize she wasn't cut out for ruling.  (Freeing her up to change gears and go in an unexpected direction that could surprise even Aegon.)

[Lady of Long Lake]

The Mother of The Others, on 19 September 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

Or, the whole Meereen thing could implode and she'll realize she wasn't cut out for ruling.  (Freeing her up to change gears and go in an unexpected direction that could surprise even Aegon.)

From what we've seen about her ego, I'd say the chances of that are very, very slim=)

[Braddock Alias Thorne]

fassreiter, on 18 September 2011 - 10:55 AM, said:

I think the notion that two essentially human armies will stand against each other in the end is a good one, and I also think both of them will believe their cause to be the right one, and we will have enough POVs of each to see these two perspectives. This board will fight until kingdom come about who was right in the end, when the last book is long done.

Our perceptions of the major characters (Jon, Dany) and their good/bad/grey orientation revolves around how we are seeing the story.  The perspective of the books is POV.  We see what the character thinks.  Dany's, Jon's, etc. perceptions are their realities. It's easy to mistake what a POV character perceives as fact.  

Look at Robert's and Ned's view of Rhaegar.  Think if we had a Robert POV, and only a Robert POV, that discussed the abduction/eloping of Rhaegar and Lyanna.  Robert couldn't or wouldn't believe anything but that it was abduction and rape.  That would be our viewpoint.  Through Ned's POV and other sources we get more information and more truth to the matter.

Is Dany good? She thinks so.  Does it matter that she thinks so?  Or that we think she is right or wrong?  No.  It's increasingly evident that she's going to roll up on Westeros with a foreign horde and 3 dragons.  We've seen from the Essos POV's that these dragons are not some kind of smooth operating machine that can be easily controlled.  They are terrifying.  And even controlled they would be terrifying.  The reaction of Mereeen to them reflects that.  Why should Westeros or the North react differently.  

When Dany shows up I fully expect her to be forcefully opposed.   If the motivations of Dany and whoever commands power in Westeros collide there will be conflict.  And it wont matter who is good/bad/grey when that happens.   Because sometimes right and wrong don't mean jack, sometimes people are just set against each other.  Same goes for the Others.  If they are something more complex than ice cold killing machines it might not matter.  If their motivation is to destroy men then there will be conflict because there must be conflict.  

The name of the series and the nature of the world indicate to me that there will be a balancing.  Ice and Fire.  A world with irregular seasons.  GRRM has indicated that the cause of the seasons is supernatural.  I think that there will be two supernatural threats, two extremes.  And that the human world will be in the middle.  I think this about the nature of a world and not our ideas of right and wrong.

Edited by Braddock alias Thorne, 19 September 2011 - 10:09 PM.

[Black Crow]

I agree and this is why the White Walkers and Mel/Moqorro being direct opposites makes so much sense. Its also, ultimately, why the simplistic notion of the terrible Others sweeping down from the Icy North to be defeated by Jon, Dany (+ one) and the Dragons doesn't.

Given GRRM's Tolstoyan treatment of battles the final one is unlikely to be some huge setpiece but a much more intimate fight requiring Jon, representing Ice/Winter, to slay Dany/AA, representing Fire, in order to restore the balance upset long long ago.

[ARYa_Nym]

Black Crow, on 20 September 2011 - 12:48 AM, said:

I agree and this is why the White Walkers and Mel/Moqorro being direct opposites makes so much sense. Its also, ultimately, why the simplistic notion of the terrible Others sweeping down from the Icy North to be defeated by Jon, Dany (+ one) and the Dragons doesn't.

Given GRRM's Tolstoyan treatment of battles the final one is unlikely to be some huge setpiece but a much more intimate fight requiring Jon, representing Ice/Winter, to slay Dany/AA, representing Fire, in order to restore the balance upset long long ago.

Would Jon still represent Ice if one of the dragons bonded with him? He may very well have dragon blood in him if Rhaegar was his father. & the "there must be one more" comment could be interpreted as him being an intended head of the dragon.

[Daenerys Faithful Servant]

Black Crow, on 20 September 2011 - 12:48 AM, said:

Given GRRM's Tolstoyan treatment of battles the final one is unlikely to be some huge setpiece but a much more intimate fight requiring Jon, representing Ice/Winter, to slay Dany/AA, representing Fire, in order to restore the balance upset long long ago.

How is that the Fire upset the balance? I don't recall the Long Night being described as dragons burning armies of First Men and said creatures being slain by a man wielding a blue sword called Darkbringer. The dragons only truly conquered an empire that had existed before them as when the Valyrian Freehold truly made a move to expand beyond what others had taken something tried to destroy them all and I doubt it was simply poor a geographical location. Even when the last surviving dragons came to Westeros it was the Andals that suffered and yet whose Gods were embraced, not challenged, by their conquer. The Fire did nothing to the Olds Gods, their followers, or the Ice to be blamed for creating an imbalance in the world where as the Ice and its followers travel South and stray from their place in order to strive for dominance outside their own land.

The Fire has been dormant for years and after its rebirth continues moving further to the East, yet the Ice that had thousands of years before the Fire and the Ice that keeps moving further South. So if there is imbalance that must be corrected it is not the Fire that must be slain to achieve balance.

[Ghost Rider]

The Mother of The Others, on 19 September 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

She'll come up with a solution for her freedmen's problems like how in Aasimov's Foundation books some eras ended simply because it was time for them to end.  Some light bulb will go on in her head and her idea will give birth to the next era.  The post-slavery era.  Breaker of Chains will transition into Sustainer of Freedom.  Maybe she raises the status of the freed slaves by parceling out the gold of Casterly Rock to each of them.  

We can only hope But from what I've seen so far of Daenerys, it seems a tad bit too optimistic.

ARYa_Nym, on 20 September 2011 - 01:54 AM, said:

Would Jon still represent Ice if one of the dragons bonded with him? He may very well have dragon blood in him if Rhaegar was his father. & the "there must be one more" comment could be interpreted as him being an intended head of the dragon.

I don't understand why Jon would represent Ice - surely he is born from Ice and Fire. There's no way he will bond with one of Daenerys' dragons - they are half a world apart, they will have other riders who are better located right now. There may be more dragons later on.

I don't see the "head of the dragon" stuff as directly related to bonding/riding actual dragons. We don't even have enough Targs left for three heads - excluding Aegon here since I don't believe he's the real deal. (He may have Targ blood, though not from Aerys line). And we don't know anyway how the head-stuff is supposed to work. Is there a main head like a main dragon (= original Aegon and Balerion)? Or are they on equal terms? It's hard to imagine 3 people of one mind though, so to say. That's why I don't even exclude the idea that the three heads might not be three people.

[Wouter]

Braddock alias Thorne, on 19 September 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

Is Dany good? She thinks so.  Does it matter that she thinks so?  Or that we think she is right or wrong?  No.  It's increasingly evident that she's going to roll up on Westeros with a foreign horde and 3 dragons.  We've seen from the Essos POV's that these dragons are not some kind of smooth operating machine that can be easily controlled.  They are terrifying.  And even controlled they would be terrifying.  The reaction of Mereeen to them reflects that.  Why should Westeros or the North react differently.  

We know how Westeros has reacted for about 200 years - by submitting to the Targaryens. One of the reasons GRRM is keeping Dany in the East for the time being is presumably so that she - and friends or 'friends' - can learn to control them properly. It doesn't seem Aegon and his sisters and their direct heirs had much problems controlling their dragons so it can be done.

And Dany may well be welcomed by many in Westeros, depending on how she acts on arrival (obviously not if she goes around randomly setting fire everywhere), what the threat of the others at that time is and how tired the smallfolk are with their current band of (warring) lords.

Braddock alias Thorne, on 19 September 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

When Dany shows up I fully expect her to be forcefully opposed.   If the motivations of Dany and whoever commands power in Westeros collide there will be conflict.  

It's a bit inconsistent that you emphasise on the one had how terrible the dragons are, and on the other hand you expect their owner to be forcefully opposed. If they are so terrible (and judging by 300 years ago, they probably will be if they grow a bit more), then any conflict will be over soon unless their opponents can fight like Dorne did.

[ARYa_Nym]

Ghost Rider, on 20 September 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

I don't understand why Jon would represent Ice - surely he is born from Ice and Fire. There's no way he will bond with one of Daenerys' dragons - they are half a world apart, they will have other riders who are better located right now. There may be more dragons later on.

I don't see the "head of the dragon" stuff as directly related to bonding/riding actual dragons. We don't even have enough Targs left for three heads - excluding Aegon here since I don't believe he's the real deal. (He may have Targ blood, though not from Aerys line). And we don't know anyway how the head-stuff is supposed to work. Is there a main head like a main dragon (= original Aegon and Balerion)? Or are they on equal terms? It's hard to imagine 3 people of one mind though, so to say. That's why I don't even exclude the idea that the three heads might not be three people.

I wasn't arguing that Jon was Ice. I don't think anyone is completely Ice except for maybe the Others and Wights.

We can't say for sure that Jon won't ride a dragon. Let's say that for example someone like Victarion gets to ride one. He might not make it back to Westeros. Dragons choose their riders and I don't think we can say at this moment that one of them won't ever choose Jon. There's also the possibility of Bran or Jon warging one too. Bran seems more likely though.

It's true that we don't exactly know what it means. At this point we can only speculate but we can conclude that Rhaegar appeared to be naming his children after Aegon 1 and his sister (s). They all rode dragons. Jon was supposed to be Visenya. Rhaegal or Viserion might choose Jon.

[Braddock Alias Thorne]

Wouter, on 20 September 2011 - 03:55 AM, said:

We know how Westeros has reacted for about 200 years - by submitting to the Targaryens. One of the reasons GRRM is keeping Dany in the East for the time being is presumably so that she - and friends or 'friends' - can learn to control them properly. It doesn't seem Aegon and his sisters and their direct heirs had much problems controlling their dragons so it can be done.

And Dany may well be welcomed by many in Westeros, depending on how she acts on arrival (obviously not if she goes around randomly setting fire everywhere), what the threat of the others at that time is and how tired the smallfolk are with their current band of (warring) lords.


It's a bit inconsistent that you emphasise on the one had how terrible the dragons are, and on the other hand you expect their owner to be forcefully opposed. If they are so terrible (and judging by 300 years ago, they probably will be if they grow a bit more), then any conflict will be over soon unless their opponents can fight like Dorne did.

Looking at it, you're correct.  Many could welcome Dany if she has satisfactory control, if she doesn't burn everything and if the conditions are right in Westeros.   You're also correct that conflict against grown and controlled dragons would be very short.  

However, opposing Dany is different from being defeated by her dragons.  The presence of the Iron Bank in the north suggests that Braavos will lend at least monetary support to Stannis or another candidate.  I don't think Stannis will bend the knee.  I don't think Braavos would let him.   The city was created as a haven against the Targs and now they're back with dragons.   Some faction will oppose her or whoever controls the dragons.  I agree that the opposition might not last long.

Edited by Braddock alias Thorne, 20 September 2011 - 10:21 AM.