Jump to content

Rose of Red Lake

Members
  • Content Count

    2,897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About Rose of Red Lake

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

14,639 profile views
  1. I'm not following - genocide? What do you mean. Yeah, she should be doing a lot of things. Just because Jon knelt doesn't mean she's secured anything. I mean, the Northerners pretended to humor Theon when he said he was the Prince of Winterfell. But, Jon told her that his people wouldn't bend to another southern ruler. He was pretty firm on that. Then says, "they'll see you for what you are?" Okay...that's a stretch. Then he kind of smirks at the cold reception and basically says "I told you so" when they arrive. And in a deleted scene he also smirks when a Northerner spits in front of her?? It's just weird. Personally going evil is more fun. I wish more people would loosen up and learn how to be villain stans. Well since she promised Iron Islands their independence, I guess its more like 6? Although, she's pretty driven in the book toward living up to a Targaryen image, that she imposes on herself. That includes ruling like the Targaryens did in the past.
  2. Sansa wanted Jon to be king, because she trusts people she knows, not strangers. She opposed Dany because they had just gotten Winterfell back, and Jon had just been declared king. She warned him before he left that Dany wanted the North to kneel to her. It isnt about Sansa's position. It's who she supports to represent the North. Obviously independence mattered to her.
  3. I just read a theory about Elia Sand eloping with Aegon, it just makes sense to me now. Otherwise, what's the point of her tagging along, kissing boys and getting into trouble? Arianne as an exasperated chaperone instead of a wife would be a great twist.
  4. The lore and history of the series is there to learn from the lore and history, and Dany is willfully ignorant of it. She doesn't know about the second Daenerys, so the lesson from that historical moment is lost on her. Result: she rejects both marriages (Quentyn and Hizdahr). She doesn't know about the history of Qarth and the Dothraki, or ponder why that dragon carcass was in the Red Waste. So she's not understanding why Qarth might not want to support her, or would even try to kill her. She doesn't understand how the cities in the Red Waste died but doesn't want to create dead cities herself. Girl how are you gonna do that if you're ignorant of how said cities died in the first place? She doesn't think about how Valyrians with dragons enslaved the Ghiscari in the past, and that they're afraid of this happening again in the present. The Green Grace has to tell her this. Her historical igorance is a problem. GRRM said, "Maybe if she understood a few things more about dragons and her own history in Essos, things would have gone a little differently." There is no balance between ruling personalities when she's so off base with history. If she's not learning from it she's going to repeat the worst of it. The lesson she learned from the books Jorah gave here were that "dragons are fire made flesh." Wow. Revelatory.
  5. Why does this matter? Rebels from the Iron Throne's POV...independence declared from the North's POV. It lasted two seconds, then muh kween.
  6. They fought them and won without dragons before, although the show doesn't get into that. They probably think fire arrows will do the trick.The show also complicated things by having dragon glass be used on wights when all they need is a lantern to the face.
  7. I think Tyrion has more of a chance to "fix" Volantis, since he actually has some grasp on the history of the place. But even then he was just dropped in there to get a quick history lesson. There's just no way a person can change things for the better, while being historically ignorant. Just like Americans failed in Afghanistan because they failed to understand the history and culture, among other things (drone bombing children).She'll fail in Westeros too if she doesn't fly directly to the Citadel and start hitting the books. She didn't even know that there were other Targaryens who shared her name, or that she was reading about Baelor in that children's book Jorah gave her.
  8. Pretty sure her reasons for opposing Dany made sense, they had just won their independence and she knew Dany wanted to take that away. It would be different if the alliance was actually, you know, an alliance - where countries help each other without expectations of fealty afterward. Sansa seems to be dragging Westeros into something more like NATO/the EU where states can have mutual alliances but not necessarily give up sovereignty. And yes, I do think GRRM cares about sovereignty still, as a concept. Anyway the whole thing was just a demonstrate of, can people who dislike each other work together to prevent the apocalypse? The answer was yes. Sansa played along but wasn't going to be a pushover, either.
  9. I think political biases of the author are pretty clear in the text. He fights for refugees and wants to open up America's borders - this "bias" is added into the story with the free folk. Since no one really wants to engage with this, I'm going to conclude that Jon is just being his usual dense self. I'm expecting Sam to clarify to Jon that these are refugees who are afraid of his harsh methods, and are taking a huge risk climbing over on their own. Sam has a better grasp on situations like that (see: Jon dismissing Gilly asking for help).
  10. That's not really the outlook. The outlook is GRRM's own, when he angrily defended Syrian refugees on his blog. I think having Jon kill the wildlings who want to come over the Wall is undercutting this message, and it's a simple fix for him to realize that. Taking hostages and valuables is like taking out insurance on good behavior, not shooting people on site who try to come over.
  11. Immigration isn't a moral dilemma, it's only politicians who frame it like that. And two, Jon isn't caught in one in these passages, the conversation is about how wildlings need to be stopped from climbing the Wall or invading Westeros. Both Jon and Marsh are in agreement about that here, the reader isn't asked to question "should Jon really be stopping the climbers?" But I can see your point, maybe an army setting isn't the best place to value human life.
  12. Don't have Jon acting like ICE border patrol, for one. He's basically saying, we have to stop people from climbing the Wall illegally and committing crimes once they're here. Explain that if they're climbing over, they should be treated as refugees. Because they are, right? But Jon wants to shoot them on site. Avoid repeated associations of wildling to criminals. Why put that association in the readers head at all? Instead of saying "they've got some bad eggs, just like us!" focus on how the vast majority want a better life and are willing to work for it for their children. Have Jon at least think that closing off the gates sentences people to die. He doesn't have to verbalize it, but at least think of the human consequences...
  13. I get the immigration metaphor here - So far, so good. But then Jon starts to worry about climbers: So Jon jumps to wildlings killing people, "shoving a spear through your belly," when Marsh is saying that the climbers are actually less dangerous than they are. Why does he do that? He also reflects on the story of Redbeard, which just reiterates again that "wildlings=dangerous" and that the NW has to stop them. Yeah, gotta stop them refugees!! So the message seems to be "not all immigrants are bad, but people like Jon are just here to stop the bad ones." ?? Mkay...that's not actually helping our immigration debates in the U.S. right now. To add to that, why isn't Jon horrified by Marsh's proposition that people will be left to die if they seal up the gate? Instead he's worried that they won't be able to send out rangers. So he's a selective humanitarian? If GRRM is trying to make a comparison to the plight of immigrants, I think he could have done it in a better way.
  14. I dont know but in the show she was corrupted by power and didn't care about those people. Sapochnik said something that made sense to explain it - "She feels empty, it wasn't what she thought it was, it's not enough." And yes, Dany is never satisfied in the books, "That should be enough for any woman . . . but not for the dragon." She also decided to go to war simply because she didn't like Meerenese food, clothing, or housing, which is nothing really (she doesn't mention slavery at all as a reason to choose "fire and blood"). So in the show it's probably that she didn't want a bloodless victory, she wanted to inflict pain and make people pay, just like she did on the Plaza of Punishment and with the wineseller's daughters in the books. Because teaching people the dragon's power feels good to her. And if "it wasn't what she thought it was," then she had decided Westeros wasn't home. They weren't "her" people or even innocents, it was just another place to smash, just like the Dothraki did in Essos. I dont know, it just lines up for me more so than accidents or blood magic.
  15. Any character preaching about "saviors" is going to eat their own words. "Volantis will burn" means Dany kills him and the slaves. Firebombing tends to do that.
×
×
  • Create New...