Jump to content

Melisandre's Fate *SPOILERS*


Recommended Posts

I don't see how she can be executed for this. Her King told her to burn Shireen. He ordered his men to take her to the pyre while he and his wife watched. At most she might get banished and leaves, allowing Arya to meet her on the road, Mel told Arya they would meet again. Maybe Mel tells Arya about Jon and Sansa retaking Winterfell so Arya has a place to go? Last we see of Mel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post on WOTW sums up Mel in season 6:

"The idea that if she was present at the Blackwater, disaster could have been avoided, but yet at Winterfell — all she can say to Jon is “don’t lose” is laughable. They don’t know write Mel and clearly don’t know what to do with her.

Because by telling Jon certain things, she fears Jon may act upon them; and if she has misinterpreted the vision, disaster may result. She knows the Stark Banner will hang on the wall; she knows she will stand on the battlement catwalk and see it. It happens and she does. She knows her vision was true.

D&D have significantly changed Mel, her motives, and her powers, not simply from the books to the show — but within the show itself. D&D don’t like magic in this tale and have tried to keep most of it out, wherever they can. This is just more of the same.

How she was wrong about Stannis is never explained on the series and never will be. D&D just expect us to accept that Mel’s visions can be wrong. GRRM writes a very different character; her visions are NEVER wrong in what she sees, but she can misinterpret them. That’s the catch.

Ir is a distinction D&D are unwilling to highlight. They think “grown ups” don’t like magic in their Sunday night cable entertainment."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Drogo_1 said:

Melisandre never lied to Davos about Shireen. Davos asked her and before she could answer Brienne walked up and was all " I can tell you what happened." then left the Shireen part out. As far as suspension of disbelief... well we are dealing with dragons and zombies, my belief has been suspended for quite some time.

Why do people always bring up the dragons and zombies? That's not an excuse at all. The existence of dragons and zombies doesn't mean you can just throw internal logic and consistency out of the window. That's essentially for any kind of good storytelling. Things like Littlefinger teleporting, Arya surviving two stab wounds, Jaime being back to his season 1 arc, et cetera, all require suspension of disbelief and cannot be excused simply because "this show has dragons, so why are you complaining about this silly detail?".

As for Davos, yes it was very convenient that Brienne walked in on them. But that's not the point; it was a deliberate move by D&D. The problem is that they deliberately avoided Davos thinking about Stannis/Shireen or bringing it up in front of Melisandre (because let's be honest here, he easily could have, there were lots of moments where he could talk to her). Why? Because they knew they wanted Davos to find the stag and set up the confrontation, and whatever aftermath lies in store for Melisandre, in E10. That's how D&D write. They work towards some goal they've set for themselves but their in-universe consistency, logic, themes and character arcs suffer from it. The Davos we've seen in S1-5 would've never acted like he did in this season so far (at least up until this episode). That man loved Stannis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, mafro987daboss said:

This post on WOTW sums up Mel in season 6:

"The idea that if she was present at the Blackwater, disaster could have been avoided, but yet at Winterfell — all she can say to Jon is “don’t lose” is laughable. They don’t know write Mel and clearly don’t know what to do with her.

 

Because by telling Jon certain things, she fears Jon may act upon them; and if she has misinterpreted the vision, disaster may result. She knows the Stark Banner will hang on the wall; she knows she will stand on the battlement catwalk and see it. It happens and she does. She knows her vision was true.

 

D&D have significantly changed Mel, her motives, and her powers, not simply from the books to the show — but within the show itself. D&D don’t like magic in this tale and have tried to keep most of it out, wherever they can. This is just more of the same.

 

How she was wrong about Stannis is never explained on the series and never will be. D&D just expect us to accept that Mel’s visions can be wrong. GRRM writes a very different character; her visions are NEVER wrong in what she sees, but she can misinterpret them. That’s the catch.

 

Ir is a distinction D&D are unwilling to highlight. They think “grown ups” don’t like magic in their Sunday night cable entertainment."

 

She's not wrong about Stannis. He was an essential step in getting to Jon. He was needed to bail Jon out when the Wildlings attacked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

If he doesnt beheaed her, I will vomit.

Why should he behead her? Just because she burned a little girl on her king's orders? Is that a crime worthy of beheading?

Not being snarky, just genuinely curious why she deserves beheading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the plot is just waiting for Mel to see Arya again and tell her something significant, and then her watch is done. If Arya rocks by the Twins to take out Walder Frey, it might have to wait until the beginning of the next series, but Melisandre's story is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ErasmusF said:

She's not wrong about Stannis. He was an essential step in getting to Jon. He was needed to bail Jon out when the Wildlings attacked. 

100% agree. She had assumed her visions meant Stannis was Azor Ahai but they really only were meant to take her to Jon. 

As for her death I see Davos as being the one to do it. Maybe some kind of self sacrificing move that takes them both out? After losing his family and surrogate family I'm betting Davos is ready to go out in a blaze of glory. 

You need all the red priests you can get when prepping to fight the nights king though surely? I wouldn't blame Jon for trying to imprison her or something lenient just to keep her as an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon owns her his life, and if it's true that Shireen's death actually resurrected him, then I am not surprised both Jon and Davos will be in dismay because they don't know what to do with her. Yes she is responsible for Shireen's death, but it's Stannis's order so she shouldn't be the one who take full blame. I think she will live until she meets Arya. After that her storyline is done.

i still see that Davos is useful to Jon, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she is broken. I suspect she will own up to it but also show some remorse, I don't see Jon killing her though.

Also the person who said Jon is heading back to the wall, I believe is incorrect surely he needs to gather his forces as King in the North from Winterfell not from the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20-6-2016 at 11:06 PM, Aegonzo The Great said:

Why should he behead her? Just because she burned a little girl on her king's orders? Is that a crime worthy of beheading?

Not being snarky, just genuinely curious why she deserves beheading.

Yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine she's going to stick around until some of the Others get past the wall.
Given that she was shown acknowledging herself to be super old, I feel like she will sacrifice herself in some way. The show will probably have her create a wall of flames or something?...:dunno:

On 6/21/2016 at 4:18 AM, Future Null Infinity said:

Davos story has ended and melisandre's is not, she have so much to do with the the prince that was promised plot, I think Jon will pardon her (after all, stannis, selyse and meli share the responsability), Davos will not like that, he will try to kill her, but she will throw a shadowbaby or some fireballs on his pathetic ass and kill him

How very dare you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mel's argument would be that Shireen was a necessary sacrifice for the greater good -- ousting the Boltons, unifying the kingdom before the great war with the Others. Her god told her so. 

One then says "That's nonsense. Clearly it didn't help. You burned a young girl alive for no reason. You deserve to die for such a crime." Absolutely fair enough.

BUT she brought Jon back to life. She is no run-of-the-mill huckster. So would it not be somewhat hypocritical to judge her for one act of faith but celebrate her for another? It's a tough decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Aegonzo The Great said:

Why? She followed her king's orders. Although that excuse didn't work so well for the Nazis...

She didn't JUST followed her kings orders. She kept insisting on burning Shireen again and again and promising victory to Stannis, till Stannis was desperate enough to follow her advice. She was an instigator of the act and she pushed on till she actually got to do it. Stannis didn't just came up with an idea of burning his beloved daughter and heir out of nowhere and Mel just "followed orders". If Mel said - burn anyone else and here is victory, he would do it too in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...