Daenerys Demurred

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, at least you have a nice, balanced view of things.

Well, I think I have a more balanced view than people who think Dany who keep predicting (with thin air as their basis) that Dany will die in childbirth, that she is going to go evil and will be hated by everyone (that is good/counts) or that she is going to conquer Westeros and then leave for Asshai for some mad reason.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I think I have a more balanced view than people who think Dany who keep predicting (with thin air as their basis) that Dany will die in childbirth, that she is going to go evil and will be hated by everyone (that is good/counts) or that she is going to conquer Westeros and then leave for Asshai for some mad reason.

She may well die in childbirth, but if so, not before the Others have been defeated. Maybe at the end of the series. That's if she has any children again, which is by no means a guarantee. Regarding whether she is going evil, well, she is certainly not lacking in hubris, pride and entitlement. She will end up being somewhere in-between good and evil, most likely. Whether she is a pro or antagonist will depend on various people's points of view.

Agreed on the whole Asshai thing. Didn't even know that was a theory.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

She may well die in childbirth, but if so, not before the Others have been defeated. Maybe at the end of the series. That's if she has any children again, which is by no means a guarantee. 

If you come up with theories that a main character who may very well be barren is going to die in childbirth it is very likely you have a certain agenda. There are no such theories out there suggesting/predicting that Sansa, Arya, Arianne, Brienne, or Asha are going to die in childbirth.

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Regarding whether she is going evil, well, she is certainly not lacking in hubris, pride and entitlement. She will end up being somewhere in-between good and evil, most likely. Whether she is a pro or antagonist will depend on various people's points of view.

An antagonist would mean, in the context of this series, that she is going to turn against most or all of the 'hero POVs'. I don't think that is likely to happen. I think she will ally with most of those characters - Tyrion, Jon, Bran, Sansa, Arya, Brienne, Davos, etc., assuming they all live that long. There may be some tension and conflict there, they are not necessarily going to be all best friends. But they will work together and won't be mortal enemies.

And she is certainly not going to become an enemy of all of Westeros or all of mankind.

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If you come up with theories that a main character who may very well be barren is going to die in childbirth it is very likely you have a certain agenda. There are no such theories out there suggesting/predicting that Sansa, Arya, Arianne, Brienne, or Asha are going to die in childbirth.

An antagonist would mean, in the context of this series, that she is going to turn against most or all of the 'hero POVs'. I don't think that is likely to happen. I think she will ally with most of those characters - Tyrion, Jon, Bran, Sansa, Arya, Brienne, Davos, etc., assuming they all live that long. There may be some tension and conflict there, they are not necessarily going to be all best friends. But they will work together and won't be mortal enemies.

And she is certainly not going to become an enemy of all of Westeros or all of mankind.

No, but you have to understand that an attempt by her to fundamentally change the nature of Westerosi society in a similar way to how she overthrew the social order in Slaver's Bay will make her an antagonist to many of the "hero" POV's as you call them. Readers were drawn to this story because they LIKE the medieval setup of Westeros. Else they would prefer a series set in a different time period or social environment.

Most readers don't want a revolution in the social order, else it would not be the Westeros we love and appreciate anymore. Sure, some would like to see that. But I am convinced the majority would not.

Anyway, I don't think Daenerys is going to bring about any such upheaval in any case. Because I don't think she is going to rule Westeros for very long. She may well conquer it, but it is pretty clearly foreshadowed in my view that Jon will be the one who bears the burden of ruling, and "figuring out tax  policy" for the decades to come, to use Martin's phrasing of the part of Aragorn's story that Tolkien failed to give much insight into.

As for the childbirth story. I have no idea what will happen there. She may well be barren, or Martin may have something in store there. But somehow I see Daenerys as a tragic figure. Martin is not in the habit of giving characters their obsessions and heart's desires. Daenerys's founding goal was to become ruler of Westeros. I can very easily see Martin giving her that conquest, only for someone else to rule it after she has completed her conquest and dies tragically/heroically. Kind of like a Moses figure.

[TMIFairy]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Daenerys doesn't need the love or the help of anybody in Westeros to conquer that continent against the will of its people if she must. She will have the loyalty and devotion of all the (surviving) Dothraki. That will mean hundreds of thousands of men willing to kill and die for her.

 

LOL!
The rest of you post reads pretty much like "Operation Sea Lion was possible" threads on AH forums. In case you are not aware, Operation Sea Lion was Hitler's half-baked idea for invading the UK in 1940. Pure ASB (Alien Space Bats) territory, same as your grandiose plans of moving large numbers of men, horses and food for them across the Narrow Sea.

Logistics dude, logistics.

Let me start with - "how many ships do you need for those men and their HORSES?"

And every fighting Dothraki has three horses?

And that the rule of the thumb is that during transport it is either 5 men or 1 horse.

Plus every fighting Dothraki has at least five family members/slaves? More probaly - ten non-combatants for every Screamer?

And that even if the families/slaves are left behind, what will they eat? You stripped Essos of food, didn't you?

Who will protect the families from (just) retribution from all those wronged by the Dothraki?

Lots of handwavium and wishfull thinking in your post. Daenerys is in Meeren at "present", i.e. mid 300AC. A long, long way from Westeros. With all the conquests you envision on the way she may begin to move sizeable numbers of troops in mid/later 301AC. 302AC more likely. If it is still winter there will be storms - google for "Kamikaze Divine Wind" to see how seaborne invasions can go wrong.  

I giggled like Varys himself while skimming through your post

Sorry to say but the last time I've seen such ASB was a "Yamamoto invades and takes Ceylon in 1942" thread.

 

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 minutes ago, TMIFairy said:

LOL!
The rest of you post reads pretty much like "Operation Sea Lion was possible" threads on AH forums. In case you are not aware, Operation Sea Lion was Hitler's half-baked idea for invading the UK in 1940. Pure ASB (Alien Space Bats) territory, same as your grandiose plans of moving large numbers of men, horses and food for them across the Narrow Sea.

Logistics dude, logistics.

Let me start with - "how many ships do you need for those men and their HORSES?"

And every fighting Dothraki has three horses?

And that the rule of the thumb is that during transport it is either 5 men or 1 horse.

Plus every fighting Dothraki has at least five family members/slaves? More probaly - ten non-combatants for every Screamer?

And that even if the families/slaves are left behind, what will they eat? You stripped Essos of food, didn't you?

Who will protect the families from (just) retribution from all those wronged by the Dothraki?

Lots of handwavium and wishfull thinking in your post. Daenerys is in Meeren at "present", i.e. mid 300AC. A long, long way from Westeros. With all the conquests you envision on the way she may begin to move sizeable numbers of troops in mid/later 301AC. 302AC more likely. If it is still winter there will be storms - google for "Kamikaze Divine Wind" to see how seaborne invasions can go wrong.  

I giggled like Varys himself while skimming through your post

Sorry to say but the last time I've seen such ASB was a "Yamamoto invades and takes Ceylon in 1942" thread.

 

 

 

Without getting into the details of the valid logistical challenges that you raise, I disagree with Lord Varys's idea of a unilateral, unstoppable conquest on a more fundamental level. Which is that I don't believe it makes sense for Martin to have spent so much time making us get to know and love Westeros and is various regions, Houses and characteristics, only for all of Westeros to become essentially irrelevant and powerless in the face of the almighty Daenerys who can do as she chooses with it.

That would be a silly story. If the balance of power in Westeros is irrelevant due to Daenerys having an unstoppable army and Imperial Star Destroyers to just wipe them all off the board if they dare oppose her, well, what's the point of it all? Nope, Daenerys will not just waltz in and dictate her will to everybody. That is not the way I see the story going. It robs it of much of the drama and tension.

She will need allies.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No, but you have to understand that an attempt by her to fundamentally change the nature of Westerosi society in a similar way to how she overthrew the social order in Slaver's Bay will make her antagonist to many of the "hero" POV's as you call them. Readers were drawn to this story because they LIKE the medieval setup of Westeros. Else they would prefer a series set in a different time period or social environment.

Most readers don't want a revolution in the social order, else it would not be the Westeros we love and appreciate anymore. Sure, some would like to see that. But I am convinced the majority would not.

Nothing of that sort is going to happen. Dany and her people (Jon, too) are very likely to change the the society of Westeros more towards despotic and direct absolutist rule due to the fact that people have to whipped in shape to actually wage the war against the Others and win it. That's not going to be a nice and cozy affair where every peasant and every smaller or greater lord gets a voice. It will be a very small elite - an inner circle, consisting mostly of our gang, the heroes of the story (I expect Bran, Arya, Jon, Tyrion, Dany, and a bunch of other characters to be part of that) - of people making decisions and the everybody else obeying those commands. Else everything is going to hell.

Part of that might even be religious hero-worshiping to a ridiculous and every unhealthy degree. You can expect that both for Jon (due to him returning from death) - Catelyn, too, once she reveals herself to the world, although in a much darker fashion, perhaps more as a goddess of revenge or destruction - and Daenerys (due to her dragons and, perhaps, nearly unlimited power by the time she arrives).

Speculation about Dany as a force of change, etc. are - at least in my mind - restricted to her actual rule after the Others are defeated, not to whatever policies she implements during her reign in winter/the Long Night.

And the same would go for Jon in her position, of course. But he isn't a power of change. He has no new ideas. The most progressive idea he has was that 'men are men who deserve to live', basically. 

Quote

Anyway, I don't think Daenerys is going to bring about any such upheaval in any case. Because I don't think she is going to rule Westeros for very long. She may well conquer it, but it is pretty clearly foreshadowed in my view that Jon will be the one who bears the burden of ruling, and "figuring out tax  policy" for the decades to come, to use Martin's phrasing of the part of Aragorn's story that Tolkien failed to give much insight into.

So you think because George referring to Tolkien's male character Aragorn means he'll have a male monarch at the end, too? That makes no sense. This tax policy thing is something that interests him - he thinks Tolkien had far to idealistic characters. Aragorn just was the perfect king, period, and Tolkien didn't care why he was such a king. He just was. He didn't discuss any of the things he did as a king to explain why he was a good king.

George's series certainly is also about what makes a good ruler/king in a medieval fantasy setting. Those questions are asked and there are many answers. But we won't get a good or definitive answer for the person who sits the throne in the end. Because the reign of that person simply won't be depicted. If Jon and/or Daenerys successfully unite Westeros under their (iron) rule and defeat the Others this still doesn't mean they will rule successfully after that. Their tax policy could suck. They could get depressed ten years down the road and lose control of their kingdom, etc. 

Jon has a pretty good chance, I think, to become the father of Dany's child but I doubt he'll live to rule the kingdom alone after the series is concluded. I think that possibility died with him in ADwD. We won't get an unnatural zombie king at the end. Especially not if magic were to go from the world again with the defeat of the Others (some people, not me, expect that). Jon and Dany both might get a brief time of true happiness and comfort in each other's arms and then Jon will have to go and fight and die in the good fight. That's his story. He is the traditional fantasy hero. The man who shoulders the burden of the Ring, so to speak. And this is not a story where some eagles are going to save the hero from certain doom.

The big question after Jon's return from the dead will be a big WHY? Why did this happen to him? Why did he, of all people, return to live some sort of second life. That is cheating to the extreme. It will trouble him that his father and brother(s) didn't get that chance. His role in the final fight against the Others will be the answer to that question, both in his own mind and in the larger picture. And then he will be able to die/sacrifice himself with a pretty good feeling.

The answer will not be so that he can sit a throne for a couple of decades, spending time counting coppers and grow into a fat drunkard.

Quote

As for the childbirth story. I have no idea what will happen there. She may well be barren, or Martin may have something in store there. But somehow I see Daenerys as tragic figure. Martin is not in the habit of giving characters their heart's desires. Daenerys's founding goal was to become ruler of Westeros. I can very easily see Martin giving her that conquest, only for someone else to rule it after she has completed her conquest and dies tragically/heroically. Kind of like a Moses figure.

Are you even reading Dany's chapters? Her goal is to return home. She wants to live a quiet life in that house with the red door. She doesn't want to be the Mother of Dragons, etc. She has to take on those roles or, well, die. We don't even know what's going to convince her to go to Westeros. Could be the news about Aegon. Could be the news about the Others. Could be both. But it is not very likely that it is a desire to rule this foreign land she never even sat a foot in. The only intriguing thing is that Westeros is the only place she can, right now, think of as some kind of vision of a home. It will most likely disappoint her greatly. But she is not going to turn her back on the people there, she will try to do her best help and save them, even if it makes her very unhappy and basically ruins her entire life.

That's what she did in Meereen, too. She did pretty much everything she could to make the people there happy.

25 minutes ago, TMIFairy said:

LOL!
The rest of you post reads pretty much like "Operation Sea Lion was possible" threads on AH forums. In case you are not aware, Operation Sea Lion was Hitler's half-baked idea for invading the UK in 1940. Pure ASB (Alien Space Bats) territory, same as your grandiose plans of moving large numbers of men, horses and food for them across the Narrow Sea.

Logistics dude, logistics.

Let me start with - "how many ships do you need for those men and their HORSES?"

And every fighting Dothraki has three horses?

And that the rule of the thumb is that during transport it is either 5 men or 1 horse.

Plus every fighting Dothraki has at least five family members/slaves? More probaly - ten non-combatants for every Screamer?

And that even if the families/slaves are left behind, what will they eat? You stripped Essos of food, didn't you?

Who will protect the families from (just) retribution from all those wronged by the Dothraki?

Lots of handwavium and wishfull thinking in your post. Daenerys is in Meeren at "present", i.e. mid 300AC. A long, long way from Westeros. With all the conquests you envision on the way she may begin to move sizeable numbers of troops in mid/later 301AC. 302AC more likely. If it is still winter there will be storms - google for "Kamikaze Divine Wind" to see how seaborne invasions can go wrong.  

I giggled like Varys himself while skimming through your post

Sorry to say but the last time I've seen such ASB was a "Yamamoto invades and takes Ceylon in 1942" thread.

George doesn't care about numbers, and neither do I.

Daenerys will have the ships of the Qartheen (if she sacks Qarth, which I consider not unlikely), the ships of all the cities around Slaver's Bay, the entire fleet of Volantis (both the 300-500 war galleys on the way to Meereen as well those ships that stayed back in Volantis - after she has taken that city), and then, finally, also all the ships of Myr, Lys, and Tyrosh. The power of those cities has to be broken, too, if slavery is supposed to end in the West for good. And she already has the Iron Fleet, of course.

That will be an enormous armada.

And I did not say Dany will take all the Dothraki to Westeros. I said she could do that if she wanted to, over a longer period of time. All she needs to do is to take KL if a smaller part of her overall force and then get the other khalasars ready whenever she is going to need them.

As to the ratios in a Dothraki khalasar - Drogo has 40,000 screamers and his entire khalasar (women, children, old people, slaves) is allegedly 100,000 strong. No idea whether that's realistic or not, it is the information we are given in AGoT.

Oh, and I certainly think Dany will lose a lot of men and ships on the journey. That's where Euron will come in. But she will have so much resources that this is not going to matter all that much. It will slow her down, make things more difficult, but she will still win.

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Without getting into the details of the valid logistical challenges that you raise, I disagree with Lord Varys's idea of a unilateral, unstoppable conquest on a more fundamental level. Which is that I don't believe it makes sense for Martin to have spent so much time making us get to know and love Westeros and is various regions, Houses and characteristics, only for all of Westeros to become essentially irrelevant and powerless in the face of the almighty Daenerys who can do as she chooses with it.

That would be a silly story. If the balance of power in Westeros is irrelevant due to Daenerys having an unstoppable army and Imperial Star Destroyers to just wipe them all off the board if they dare oppose her, well, what's the point of it all? Nope, Daenerys will not just waltz in and dictate her will to everybody. That is not the way I see the story going. It robs it of much of the drama and tension.

She will need allies.

You just don't understand the story. The differences between the people of Westeros - between all the people of the world - are irrelevant in light of the power of the true enemy. That is reinforced again and again since the very first book. Mormont says it doesn't matter who sits the Iron Throne when the zombies are out there, Osha says Robb should march north, not south, etc.

The characters you somehow think will be stamped and crushed beneath Dany's heels won't suffer that fate in my picture. They will be her allies. They will look to her as their ally, not an enemy. They won't even have any reason to see her as an enemy. She is going to come at a time when the threat of the Others will be much realer thing than it is now.

In ADwD Jon chose his petty feelings and desires for revenge over the common good when he tried to save Arya and declared war on Ramsay. He is not going to repeat that mistake. When Daenerys comes he'll offer her an alliance and she will accept. They will work together not against each other. And many other of the people we would number amongst the good guys will join her. Sam basically already is in 'camp Dany', so to speak, thanks to Aemon.

There still might be people who oppose Daenerys but those most likely won't be people you care all that much about - Aegon, Cersei, Euron, Jaime, Arianne, whatever Tyrells are still around, the High Septon, etc.

The Starks will stand at Dany's side. Or, as you most likely prefer it, Dany will stand at the side of the Starks. It is, after all, a Song of Ice and Fire. And while fire and ice will also fight against each other (in the Others and the dragons, or in life against death), the Starks and the Targaryens won't be on different sides in that war. That was the last war.

[TMIFairy]

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That would be a silly story. If the balance of power in Westeros is irrelevant due to Daenerys having an unstoppable army and Imperial Star Destroyers to just wipe them all off the board if they dare oppose her, well, what's the point of it all?

I does give off "rocks fall, everybody dies" vibes, doesn't it?

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

George doesn't care about numbers, and neither do I.

 

So we are on different wavelengths, then. Sorry to have wasted your time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nothing of that sort is going to happen. Dany and her people (Jon, too) are very likely to change the the society of Westeros more towards despotic and direct absolutist rule due to the fact that people have to whipped in shape to actually wage the war against the Others and win it. That's not going to be a nice and cozy affair where every peasant and every smaller or greater lord gets a voice. It will be a very small elite - an inner circle, consisting mostly of our gang, the heroes of the story (I expect Bran, Arya, Jon, Tyrion, Dany, and a bunch of other characters to be part of that) - of people making decisions and the everybody else obeying those commands. Else everything is going to hell.

Part of that might even be religious hero-worshiping to a ridiculous and every unhealthy degree. You can expect that both for Jon (due to him returning from death) - Catelyn, too, once she reveals herself to the world, although in a much darker fashion, perhaps more as a goddess of revenge or destruction - and Daenerys (due to her dragons and, perhaps, nearly unlimited power by the time she arrives).

Speculation about Dany as a force of change, etc. are - at least in my mind - restricted to her actual rule after the Others are defeated, not to whatever policies she implements during her reign in winter/the Long Night.

And the same would go for Jon in her position, of course. But he isn't a power of change. He has no new ideas. The most progressive idea he has was that 'men are men who deserve to live', basically. 

So you think because George referring to Tolkien's male character Aragorn means he'll have a male monarch at the end, too? That makes no sense. This tax policy thing is something that interests him - he thinks Tolkien had far to idealistic characters. Aragorn just was the perfect king, period, and Tolkien didn't care why he was such a king. He just was. He didn't discuss any of the things he did as a king to explain why he was a good king.

George's series certainly is also about what makes a good ruler/king in a medieval fantasy setting. Those questions are asked and there are many answers. But we won't get a good or definitive answer for the person who sits the throne in the end. Because the reign of that person simply won't be depicted. If Jon and/or Daenerys successfully unite Westeros under their (iron) rule and defeat the Others this still doesn't mean they will rule successfully after that. Their tax policy could suck. They could get depressed ten years down the road and lose control of their kingdom, etc. 

Jon has a pretty good chance, I think, to become the father of Dany's child but I doubt he'll live to rule the kingdom alone after the series is concluded. I think that possibility died with him in ADwD. We won't get an unnatural zombie king at the end. Especially not if magic were to go from the world again with the defeat of the Others (some people, not me, expect that). Jon and Dany both might get a brief time of true happiness and comfort in each other's arms and then Jon will have to go and fight and die in the good fight. That's his story. He is the traditional fantasy hero. The man who shoulders the burden of the Ring, so to speak. And this is not a story where some eagles are going to save the hero from certain doom.

The big question after Jon's return from the dead will be a big WHY? Why did this happen to him? Why did he, of all people, return to live some sort of second life. That is cheating to the extreme. It will trouble him that his father and brother(s) didn't get that chance. His role in the final fight against the Others will be the answer to that question, both in his own mind and in the larger picture. And then he will be able to die/sacrifice himself with a pretty good feeling.

The answer will not be so that he can sit a throne for a couple of decades, spending time counting coppers and grow into a fat drunkard.

Are you even reading Dany's chapters? Her goal is to return home. She wants to live a quiet life in that house with the red door. She doesn't want to be the Mother of Dragons, etc. She has to take on those roles or, well, die. We don't even know what's going to convince her to go to Westeros. Could be the news about Aegon. Could be the news about the Others. Could be both. But it is not very likely that it is a desire to rule this foreign land she never even sat a foot in. The only intriguing thing is that Westeros is the only place she can, right now, think of as some kind of vision of a home. It will most likely disappoint her greatly. But she is not going to turn her back on the people there, she will try to do her best help and save them, even if it makes her very unhappy and basically ruins her entire life.

That's what she did in Meereen, too. She did pretty much everything she could to make the people there happy.

George doesn't care about numbers, and neither do I.

Daenerys will have the ships of the Qartheen (if she sacks Qarth, which I consider not unlikely), the ships of all the cities around Slaver's Bay, the entire fleet of Volantis (both the 300-500 war galleys on the way to Meereen as well those ships that stayed back in Volantis - after she has taken that city), and then, finally, also all the ships of Myr, Lys, and Tyrosh. The power of those cities has to be broken, too, if slavery is supposed to end in the West for good. And she already has the Iron Fleet, of course.

That will be an enormous armada.

And I did not say Dany will take all the Dothraki to Westeros. I said she could do that if she wanted to, over a longer period of time. All she needs to do is to take KL if a smaller part of her overall force and then get the other khalasars ready whenever she is going to need them.

As to the ratios in a Dothraki khalasar - Drogo has 40,000 screamers and his entire khalasar (women, children, old people, slaves) is allegedly 100,000 strong. No idea whether that's realistic or not, it is the information we are given in AGoT.

Oh, and I certainly think Dany will lose a lot of men and ships on the journey. That's where Euron will come in. But she will have so much resources that this is not going to matter all that much. It will slow her down, make things more difficult, but she will still win.

You just don't understand the story. The differences between the people of Westeros - between all the people of the world - are irrelevant in light of the power of the true enemy. That is reinforced again and again since the very first book. Mormont says it doesn't matter who sits the Iron Throne when the zombies are out there, Osha says Robb should march north, not south, etc.

The characters you somehow think will be stamped and crushed beneath Dany's heels won't suffer that fate in my picture. They will be her allies. They will look to her as their ally, not an enemy. They won't even have any reason to see her as an enemy. She is going to come at a time when the threat of the Others will be much realer thing than it is now.

In ADwD Jon chose his petty feelings and desires for revenge over the common good when he tried to save Arya and declared war on Ramsay. He is not going to repeat that mistake. When Daenerys comes he'll offer her an alliance and she will accept. They will work together not against each other. And many other of the people we would number amongst the good guys will join her. Sam basically already is in 'camp Dany', so to speak, thanks to Aemon.

There still might be people who oppose Daenerys but those most likely won't be people you care all that much about - Aegon, Cersei, Euron, Jaime, Arianne, whatever Tyrells are still around, the High Septon, etc.

The Starks will stand at Dany's side. Or, as you most likely prefer it, Dany will stand at the side of the Starks. It is, after all, a Song of Ice and Fire. And while fire and ice will also fight against each other (in the Others and the dragons, or in life against death), the Starks and the Targaryens won't be on different sides in that war. That was the last war.

Not addressing the entire post now, as I believe it conflates a bunch of things incorrectly. Just a few points.

No, the Aragorn reference was not to equate the "two males" based on their gender. It was to equate the job of ruling to the onerous burden of setting tax policies, making judgments, engaging in the hard graft of ruling rather than the emotive and erratic job of conquest. A job which I think Martin has clearly been preparing Jon for, rather than the more emotionally variable Daenerys.

As for your reference to Daenerys arriving to help Westeros against the Others instead of warring on it. Well. What are the Dothraki screamers for then? I really doubt they are there to wreak havoc on the Others, in deep snowdrifts. Nope, they are basically good for one thing, and that is pillaging human settlements in environments that are not yet overrun by Winter. So no, Daenerys's big force is not going to go straight into warring with the Others. It is primarily going to focus on trying to wipe out human resistance to her rule. And then Jon and some of the other factions will force her into the alliance against the Others.

Jon is groomed as the wise one with insight of the enemy here. He will be even wiser when returned from the dead. Dany's focus is on reclaiming her birthright. Jon will have to force her to change her mind first. And he won't do that by begging.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No, the Aragorn reference was not to equate the "two males" based on their gender. It was to equate the job of ruling to the onerous burden of setting tax policies, making judgments, engaging in the hard graft of ruling rather than the emotive and erratic job of conquest. A job which I think Martin has clearly been preparing Jon for, rather than the more emotionally variable Daenerys.

Can you back that up with a claim where Jon actually learns the day-to-day business of ruling? He spends most of his time in Castle Black in the practice yard, something that may come in handy in battle but not in ruling a kingdom.

He has a little bit of experience in dealing with the wildlings and some Northmen, and could keep the NW in line for some time. That's not the proper training for a king.

Daenerys rules an entire city she has violently conquered. And she manages reasonably well. It is her own, say, unwillingness to use more violence that endangers her rule. She goes too soft on the Meereenese. Jon quickly turns all of his officers against himself. Dany has as of yet not been betrayed by her closest friends and allies.

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for your reference to Daenerys arriving to help Westeros against the Others instead of warring on it. Well. What are the Dothraki screamers for then? I really doubt they are there to wreak havoc on the Others, in deep snowdrifts. Nope, they are basically good for one thing, and that is pillaging human settlements in environments that are not yet overrun by Winter. So no, Daenerys's big force is not going to go straight into warring with the Others. It is primarily going to focus on trying to wipe out human resistance to her rule. And then Jon and some of the other factions will force her into the alliance against the Others.

Sure, and that will put her against people like Euron, Aegon, Cersei, some Tyrells, etc. Not against the good guys you care for. They are not likely to even participate in that struggle.

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Jon is groomed as the wise one with insight of the enemy here. He will be even wiser when returned from the dead. Dany's focus is on reclaiming her birthright. Jon will have to force her to change her mind first. And he won't do that by begging.

Dany is not likely going to need Jon to convince her that the Others are thing. Marwyn will do that. And Sam and Sarella, too (who are not unlikely to reach her before she meets Jon).

I agree that Jon and Bran (he'll be more important there) will have more knowledge about the Others. But Dany will have the muscle and the other weapons. Knowledge is important but not everything.

Jon dying and returning from death is not going to help him rebuild and rule a kingdom, though. In fact, it is likely going to change his own outlook on life making stuff like that very unattractive for him. Just ask yourself what you would do if you died and magically returned from death. You would most likely care much less about mundane and worldly things. And at the end of the day being a king (if you take it seriously) is just boring and tedious work.

I'd agree that Jon/Dany could becomes king and queen in the end if the man hadn't died. That was my expectation prior to ADwD. But I just don't see that happen now.

[The Fattest Leech]

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Can you back that up with a claim where Jon actually learns the day-to-day business of ruling? He spends most of his time in Castle Black in the practice yard, something that may come in handy in battle but not in ruling a kingdom.

This is not a Jon thread. 

Quote

Jon dying and returning from death is not going to help him rebuild and rule a kingdom, though.

He is not dead to return as Jonny Stoneheart, so don't worry.

But this is not a Jon thread. 

 

[The Fattest Leech]

@dregs4NED You made a few good points in your theory. I want to read it again (this time without interruptions ) but this idea below you posted seems to be the crux of the idea:

It is known. She will touch down in Westeros, she will conquer King’s Landing, and she will sit the Iron Throne.

But instead of being victorious, this will lead to her own undoing.

---

The author seems to setting Daenerys up as a conqueror and not a ruler. 

I tend to think a dragon will melt that ugly iron chair that inspires so much greed, corruption and power gazing. Why else would an old hippy like George tell us in the story how it can be physically destroyed? 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Can you back that up with a claim where Jon actually learns the day-to-day business of ruling? He spends most of his time in Castle Black in the practice yard, something that may come in handy in battle but not in ruling a kingdom.

He has a little bit of experience in dealing with the wildlings and some Northmen, and could keep the NW in line for some time. That's not the proper training for a king.

Daenerys rules an entire city she has violently conquered. And she manages reasonably well. It is her own, say, unwillingness to use more violence that endangers her rule. She goes too soft on the Meereenese. Jon quickly turns all of his officers against himself. Dany has as of yet not been betrayed by her closest friends and allies.

Sure, and that will put her against people like Euron, Aegon, Cersei, some Tyrells, etc. Not against the good guys you care for. They are not likely to even participate in that struggle.

Dany is not likely going to need Jon to convince her that the Others are thing. Marwyn will do that. And Sam and Sarella, too (who are not unlikely to reach her before she meets Jon).

I agree that Jon and Bran (he'll be more important there) will have more knowledge about the Others. But Dany will have the muscle and the other weapons. Knowledge is important but not everything.

Jon dying and returning from death is not going to help him rebuild and rule a kingdom, though. In fact, it is likely going to change his own outlook on life making stuff like that very unattractive for him. Just ask yourself what you would do if you died and magically returned from death. You would most likely care much less about mundane and worldly things. And at the end of the day being a king (if you take it seriously) is just boring and tedious work.

I'd agree that Jon/Dany could becomes king and queen in the end if the man hadn't died. That was my expectation prior to ADwD. But I just don't see that happen now.

The point is not to show Jon as a child prodigy in terms of Kingship - although his innate intelligence, empathy, willingness to engage in self sacrifice and ability to see the other side's point of view is already evident. The point is what he learns from his obstacles and mistakes at a relatively early age.

One's ability to rule is not defined by how much power you have - dragons, unlikely plot gifts like the highly contrived bargain she struck to get the Unsullied and the like don't make Dany a great ruler.  It just means she has dragons and Unsullied, matched against armies of weird guys walking on sticks and other weak enemies, and therefore people have to do as she says.

Real ability is shown when having to negotiate your way through an environment where you DON"T have power. Like when dealing with Stannis at the Wall, negotiating with Tycho Nestoris, dealing with the likes of Thorne, and Mance and all the challenges he faced at the Wall. Learning from his mistakes will make him far wiser than someone who just achieved success through luck and dragons.

In any case, regarding Jon's death and rebirth experience and mindset thereafter. You seem to imply that he would want to be king for him to end up ruling. I'm saying that he will not want it at all, but will pursue it out of duty, and that unwanted  burden is what will make him a great King. Those who seek power are the last ones who should end up having it. Which is why Jon is the perfect candidate.

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The point is not to show Jon as a child prodigy in terms of Kingship - although his innate intelligence, empathy, willingness to engage in self sacrifice and ability to see the other side's point of view is already evident. The point is what he learns from his obstacles and mistakes at a relatively early age.

One's ability to rule is not defined by how much power you have - dragons, unlikely plot gifts like the highly contrived bargain she struck to get the Unsullied and the like don't make Dany a great ruler.  It just means she has dragons and Unsullied, matched against armies of weird guys walking on sticks and other weak enemies, and therefore people have to do as she says.

You mean like Jon essentially fell up the ladder by becoming the favorite of Mormont, Qhorin, Ygritte, Mance, Tormund, Noye, and Aemon? Like he got things blown up his ass even more than Daenerys - it is very bad in her case, too, but not as much as with Jon. He has basically nothing to offer aside from the fact that he is a Stark bastard - and therefore *important* - and complains the entire day that life is unfair and doesn't even have the sort of magical destiny Dany has back in AGoT. Yet he still raises very high despite the fact that he doesn't even have either the ambition nor the necessary leadership skills. He is still a boy.

That is true for Dany as well, but she has plot devices that allow her to do what she does.

Daenerys and Jon aren't different. They are the two sides of the same coin. That is why they will end up in bed.

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Real ability is shown when having to negotiate your way through an environment where you DON"T have power. Like when dealing with Stannis at the Wall, negotiating with Tycho Nestoris, dealing with the likes of Thorne, and Mance and all the challenges he faced at the Wall. Learning from his mistakes will make him far wiser than someone who just achieved success through luck and dragons.

I suggest you reread ADwD. Dany does a lot better job at ruling than Jon did at managing the Watch. Jon does have power, too. That's how he could deal with Slynt. And that's why Stannis and Tycho Nestoris and the others take him seriously. The Lord Commander of the Night's Watch is not all that powerful but he still has some power.

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In any case, regarding Jon's death and rebirth experience and mindset thereafter. You seem to imply that he would want to be king for him to end up ruling. I'm saying that he will not want it at all, but will pursue it out of duty, and that unwanted  burden is what will make him a great King. Those who seek power are the last ones who should end up having it. Which is why Jon is the perfect candidate.

If he doesn't want to be king he won't be king because that would mean that he would reject the throne even if it was offered to him. There is no reason to assume Jon thinks it is *duty* to rebuild this kingdom he did not ruin just because he happened to defeat the Others (if that's what he is going to do).

This isn't a clichéd fantasy tale. We won't see the poor hidden prince going to be made king here by popular vote. 

And I daresay that your image of Jon not seeking power is actually wrong. If he doesn't seek power, very real and direct power he won't stand a chance against the Others. He may even be forced to be a in a very powerful position when the last battle against the Others takes place. Else he won't play an important role in that battle.

He might long be king by then, especially if he hooks up with Daenerys. She will make him king at her side.

But quite honestly, where do you get this idea that Jon is all about duty. He is not. He broke his vow repeatedly - to help Robb, to sleep with Ygritte, to save Arya, to avenge Stannis - but even if we ignore that and believed the fantasy story he did that all to defeat the Others (an excuse I've started to use in a modified version in day-to-day life - let's just say it doesn't work) - his sense of duty is about saving the realms of men from the Others, not being king. Why on earth do you believe he should feel the duty rule over a people who mostly led him down throughout the cause of this entire war?

You seem to want him to be king because he think he deserves to be king, not because it is in his arc, character, or interest.

39 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

@dregs4NED You made a few good points in your theory. I want to read it again (this time without interruptions ) but this idea below you posted seems to be the crux of the idea:

It is known. She will touch down in Westeros, she will conquer King’s Landing, and she will sit the Iron Throne.

But instead of being victorious, this will lead to her own undoing.

How do you know that?

39 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The author seems to setting Daenerys up as a conqueror and not a ruler. 

There is usually not all that much of a difference between these two. Usually conquerors are great rulers, especially in this series and its history (evident in many of the conquering kings of old - Theon Stark, Artys Arryn, Benedict Rivers, Harwyn Hardhand, Aegon Targaryen, etc.).

Rulers who just inherent a kingdom usually have less legitimacy than those who actually conquered or build a kingdom. That is also the wildling view, by the way. If Jon isn't a conqueror and becomes a king he'll inherit it one way or another, either as Robb's heir or Dany's heir/consort or both.

39 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I tend to think a dragon will melt that ugly iron chair that inspires so much greed, corruption and power gazing. Why else would an old hippy like George tell us in the story how it can be physically destroyed?

If the throne is gone they will make a new one. Perhaps a better symbol of power? If that's not than the world will go back into a state of perpetual civil war. George hasn't created a world where people are able to peacefully coexist with each other.

[Moiraine Sedai]

Jon doesn't have the intellect to rule.  He's a known traitor.  He gave away Karstark lands to wildlings.  He's unfit to rule.  He shouldn't even be considered.  

 

[The Fattest Leech]

Just now, Moiraine Sedai said:

Jon doesn't have the intellect to rule.  He's a known traitor.  He gave away Karstark lands to wildlings.  He's unfit to rule.  He shouldn't even be considered.  

 

This isn't a Jon thread. The OP is clearly about Dany when you read it. 

[Brannis the Mannis]

8 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Jon doesn't have the intellect to rule.  He's a known traitor.  He gave away Karstark lands to wildlings.  He's unfit to rule.  He shouldn't even be considered.  

 

And Dany "Tortured a girl because I am so awesum and I have dragons lol" Targaryen is fit to rule?

[Brannis the Mannis]

Quote

How do you know that?

Are you really asking this after you made the claim that Dany would conquer all of Essos and Westeros with no sweat? 

[Springwatch]

On 11/07/2017 at 11:43 PM, dregs4NED said:

<snip>

Daenerys’ primordial motive is to “go home”, or to return to the house with the red door, which represents the freedom from danger that she once briefly had and still yearns for. It is arguably the basis for her other motives, such as her motive for revenge, as the Usurper had constantly chased her for virtually all of her life, driving her out sanctuary and diminishing her chances to find a new one, gradually robbing her of her sense of security.

It is also the basis for her motive to take Westeros, for Viserys had effectively asserted his own desire for reclamation over Dany’s uncertainty on where home might truly lie, so that when she things of “home”, she images of places she has never seen before (ie Dragonstone, King’s Landing), then paints all the doors red. Ultimately, when she mourns the death of her ‘Sun and Stars’, she is also mourning the lost opportunity of finally going home to Westeros, not the Free Cities.

<snip>

Dany wants freedom from danger? I don't think so. She's one of those girls who prefers fire to mud.

Likewise the red door. It's not the home of a sweet old lady, it's the home of a dragon queen, and she's just beginning to acknowledge her true nature ('dragons plant no trees'). Red means fire and blood. Lemons mean bitterness. That's her destiny.

She has no place of peace among humanity. The only honourable place for her is as fire's champion against the forces of ice.

[The Commentator]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No, but you have to understand that an attempt by her to fundamentally change the nature of Westerosi society in a similar way to how she overthrew the social order in Slaver's Bay will make her an antagonist to many of the "hero" POV's as you call them. Readers were drawn to this story because they LIKE the medieval setup of Westeros. Else they would prefer a series set in a different time period or social environment.

The social order in Slaver's Bay needed to change.  I don't think anybody outside of the KKK would argue to support the continued existence of slavery.   On the topic of changing the nature of Westerosi society, keep in mind that Dany has not even made the plans for her return yet.  We don't know what changes, if any, she plans to put in place.  What we do know is what one mad lord commander has already done to change Westerosi society: he brought in the free folk and what somebody wrote above, gave the lands of a noble family to a wildling.  That's not going to sit well with anyone in Westeros. 

Most readers don't want a revolution in the social order, else it would not be the Westeros we love and appreciate anymore. Sure, some would like to see that. But I am convinced the majority would not.

Then they better condemn Jon Snowflake because that is what he tried to do.

Anyway, I don't think Daenerys is going to bring about any such upheaval in any case. Because I don't think she is going to rule Westeros for very long. She may well conquer it, but it is pretty clearly foreshadowed in my view that Jon will be the one who bears the burden of ruling, and "figuring out tax  policy" for the decades to come, to use Martin's phrasing of the part of Aragorn's story that Tolkien failed to give much insight into.

As for the childbirth story. I have no idea what will happen there. She may well be barren, or Martin may have something in store there. But somehow I see Daenerys as a tragic figure. Martin is not in the habit of giving characters their obsessions and heart's desires. Daenerys's founding goal was to become ruler of Westeros. I can very easily see Martin giving her that conquest, only for someone else to rule it after she has completed her conquest and dies tragically/heroically. Kind of like a Moses figure.

I see it differently than you do.  I can easily see Daenerys rebuilding the Targaryen dynasty and rebuilding a unified Westeros.  A Westeros that is part of a new empire that includes most of Essos ruled by Empress Daenerys.