Rose of Red Lake

That's probably what will happen anyway. Refusing surrender happened during the Dance and Dany had displayed plenty of bad faith before. She turns quickly on a dime to punishment and anger.

What do you think Edric represented? If not foreshadowing then, what? I always thought that if Stannis thought (or...was told) it was his duty to burn his daughter to save the world, then he'd grind his teeth and do it. That's both a good and bad quality. He wouldnt burn himself because he thinks he has to be king. That's also good...and bad.

In a way Dany violated everyone's guest right in the city by killing all of them. She didnt seem to care about that place and was ready to jump into the next genocide so Jon did everyone a favor. Thats why he lives.

It looks like there is a distinction between oily black stone and fused black stone here.

Personal theory. Not a popular one. But I think that's symbolism for Sansa being assaulted by Tyrion, Sandor, Littlefinger, and Joffrey.

I think the byproduct of magic - or the cost if you will - is nuclear holocaust and pollution of the land, air, water. The magicians just dont realize it or make the connection. It's very Dying Earth.

But the trees/plants don't grow anywhere near Yeen and the fact that the Greyjoy's throne is also made of oily black stone might explain why trees don't grow on the Iron Islands. Oily black rain famously fell on Hiroshima.

I think who is on what arc is debatable and every fan has their own opinion on it. I think these characters are having a messy time of it and instead of putting them on a simple redemption arc it will be a lot less clear about if they were redeemed and by whom. In other words we'll be left with redemption questions for most of these characters. Only 1 or 2 will get a clear cut one.

I think he will get to the point where he’s fucked up so much that he want to hide as a little person like Penny. He will see the appeal in Penny’s simple life and want that, only to be yanked back into ruling. I think GRRM is going to put him to work when it’s the last thing he will want at that point. That’s why it’s a form of redemption. Tyrion is his history buff and political wunderkind. It’s Tyrion Stu. I don’t think that many characters are on redemption arcs. When fans say “this ending destroyed X characters arc” it’s a bit presumptuous. Maybe they were wrong about the arc in the first place.

He is writing Tyrion now as a character who wants to live - and he'll give him that. And even worse I think he's giving him the rare redemption arc. Because he's a "survivor." It's banal and trite.

Is murdering your lover and kinslaying your father worse than mass murder of an entire city? I don't know but this sounds exactly like the kind of red meat GRRM would throw out to the fans to debate. Problem is, many of us are tired. It's been 85 years of debate already. He even wanted us to debate the ethics of Oelenna killing Joffrey. I dont see anyone doing that. He really just seems to write from the perspective of "have fun debating this!" I know we love assigning blame so I'll just do that now, in show universe. I blame Tyrion for not seeing the signs sooner. Jon for pushing his men too far when he was advised that they needed time to recover. Both ended with some degree of culpability in the horror. In modern day they'd be charged with war crimes. GRRM might go with "they live, but it will haunt them." To his credit he does write trauma really well. Jon's arc would be a fall arc, combined with a choice that Ned never had to make. Tyrion dying is something most of agree should happen - but I dont think the author has the guts. Tyrion is (supposedly) the perfect creation of darkness and light that GRRM is most proud of. I'm willing to admit that I might not have read Tyrion's arc the way the author intended. At the same time the author may have made mistakes in writing to cause fans to believe things he didn't intend. Maybe by having so many Hands end in ~death~ it's a hint that Tyrion isn't on the track to a great life security plan? lol But if all 3 "heads of the dragon" died because they faced the consequences of their terrible actions, I'd accept that too. I just don't think it would foment the "debate!!!" that the author seems to love.

someone on twitter summed it up: https://twitter.com/PyaasiChudail69/status/1281820797124804608?s=20

Or maybe just a mix of Aragorn with the One Ring (dragons), and Saruman who strikes out at a defenseless people at one last gasp for power. GRRM: "The story’s over, and they destroyed the ring — but he didn’t write 'and now they lived happily ever after.' Instead, they went home and home was all fucked up. The evil guys had burned down some of the woods; a fascist-like tyranny had taken over." So Dany could do this to Winterfell or King's Landing, doesn't matter which, really. The point is that there's one last fight - one that the characters did not expect or foresee.

Battle for King's Landing in the show fits the Scouring of the Shire, in the sense that there was one last battle to fight after the Big One, and that it was about fighting tyranny imposed on people. If Dany burns King's Landing first, I doubt Jon would trust or kneel to someone like that.

Yeah, but arent they contractually obligated to adapt it to match the ending? Why would GRRM give them the rights then let them do something radically, completely different? His name is stamped all over it. He couldn't let them do that. It's probably all written down in legalese somewhere. Yup, minor characters are like...whatever. He doesnt' care. *GASP* how dare you brand that Lannister sigil!! Cersei is a certifiable ruthless badass bitch, in show and books. Her being the last queen to sit on the Iron Throne and last until the end, was GLORIOUS.

The point was that dictators destroy their people and themselves in the process of trying to be "strongmen." They think they are strong but they are actually undermining themselves with their efforts at rank terror. They are so eager to gain power and hold on to it that they will work to dismantle the state itself. Maybe they're not effective in some cases - but again this is on theme for Dany. By destroying her own city she did what MOST dictators have done. Whether they were successful in dismantling their empires doesn't really matter, it's that they took actions that attempt to do this whether intentionally or unintentionally. And what is up with the idea that rule through repression and terror is "normal" because an empire will fall regardless? GRRM isn't going to leave readers thinking that repression/terror is a great way to run things. He has to make a moral claim. If he uses Dany to make it, who cares.

Did I say they had to destroy them instantly? Decline can either be slow or fast. They also don't have to be the ones directly attacking people like Dany. It could come about just by stubbornly putting their people at risk because of pride like Harren the Black. Or it could come about by destroying their standing in the world, and then getting taken out before he can do more damage like Mussolini. Whichever. It's about weakening the state through repression, fear and overwhelming use of force. Repressive, violent dictatorships don't make healthier kingdoms. That's the lesson of the series. If an empire does survive, its because the people find ways to bring freedom and prosperity back after the dynasty is long gone. I'm sorry if people don't understand this basic moral claim that GRRM is making. Or maybe they just dont like it. I'm not really sure. He also made this claim when he questioned if Dany ruling through superweapons is sufficient. So the ending is saying something about how to rule effectively. Why wouldn't it? Either destroy your empire through fear or find some other tactic and you will survive to make the kingdom grow stronger. The Lannisters as a whole are destroying Westeros, and doing it quickly. The Targaryens' decline was a slower one, starting with the Dance. I would hazard to guess GRRM is fascinated with the Targaryens because he sees so many ways to illustrate the mistakes and the decline of empires through them (and the Valyrians). Your argument is flawed because the "People's Republic" is very new. Before Mao, China was seen as a beacon of democracy with a thriving civil society and free press. Mao's regime is only a few decades old. Will China will be a world superpower forever? Doubt it. The Great Leap Forward was a massive failure that absolutely weakened the state. The strength that you see now from China came not because of repression but in spite of it. People rejected collectivisation and moved their markets underground. The citizens undermined the planned economy. They'll continue to undermine it because people strive for freedom against repression. The Party had to establish relative economic freedoms just to stay alive. Dictatorships can last a bit longer, though, if they have propaganda and a cult of personality which is what China has now. But every dictatorship is actually weak underneath all that perceived strength. Most of the Cold War was pointless because the USSR was crumbling from within. Power is brittle like that. Tyrion directly tells Dany this. As Chinese history expert Frank Dikotter put it, "as China swats left, right, and center, it looks increasingly as if it has reached a dead end." In the British case, it wasn't a single ruler who led to the decline, it was the way the ran their colonies which was - surprise - like a military dictatorship. Constant revolts for independence are a sign of an empire that has stretched too far too fast. Wherever the British put their flag, people revolted. The British responded with systems of oppression. That didnt last forever and I would say, that also, lead to a slow decline. The Stalin and Hilter eras - don't even need to mention it. For Nero, the phrase about him fiddling while Rome burns may be historically inaccurate but is still on theme. It's probably more historically accurate to say that Rome's decline began when - surprise - it began an era of religious persecution and ethnic bigotry with repression to back it up. Rome lasted longer because they practiced tolerance for a time but it was still one long dictatorship. GRRM was so critical of the Iraq and Vietnam wars I wouldn't be surprised if he agrees with the idea these wars mark the decline of the American empire. If not, then Trump would be responsible (who by the way wants to resume nuclear testing. I'm sure GRRM is shitting a brick!) GRRM has a moral claim about ruling and it's that repressive tyrannical empires will do themselves in. They'll reap the seeds they sow. They are self-destructive. I dont know why you want to defend them.

Dictatos are known for destroying their own empires. That's what they do. It's on theme.

He wasnt king anymore remember? He made Dany Tyrant their queen. Jon being responsible committing war crimes because he stupidly followed her sounds about right.

The idea of Dany being a threat to Jon's sisters is the real heart in conflict, I can't see it being written any other way. Whatever Tyrion's motives, if Dany is objectively looking to punish Jon's family or the North for resisting her, then Jon has to choose. Tyrion doesn't even need to be in the room. The only reason he would need to tell Jon what's up is if Jon's resurrection made him dumber than shit. If he couldn't figure this out after she burned a million people then he just might be the stupidest character in all of fantasy.

I guess my point was that they were never going to rule because they weren't written to be the history buffs like Bran, Sam, and Tyrion are. GRRM said that if Dany knew her own history in Essos, things would have gone differently. He appears to believe that if a person knows their history they will make better and smarter decisions. Even if they do have good intentions, it won't solve their own historical blind spots that cause them to be unsuitable to rule because they're just repeating their predecessor's mistakes. This appears to be true for Jon who doesn't learn from Robb or Ned, nor does he learn from wiser people who warned him about Targaryens. Jon put himself in that pickle in the end where he ends up committing war crimes and has to decide between Dany or his family. Dany makes similar mistakes by not really understanding the limitations of hard power, and why Targaryens never really got ahead because of their reliance on it. Dany and Jon are just blundering their way through, blind. And while I agree with you that this makes them human and lessens the plot armor, I think the author put them out of the running to make a larger point about history.

I think GRRM would prefer a historian to rule, but the show doesn't make it clear or explain that very well. We're supposed to feel that the history gurus, Bran, Sam, and Tyrion have it under control because they can learn from past mistakes (perhaps avoiding what the Targaryens did). We're also supposed to feel that too much passion/lust makes an unsuitable ruler. Dany and Jon are quite stupid when it comes to history and keeping their emotions in check. They just repeat history, acting like stupid Targs again, until Jon wakes up. That Dany can just fix things by burning the bad men seems the most dishonest of all.

But he's not sitting on the Iron Throne. It's melted.

I can buy it (I dont really care that much). So what do you think that vision predicts then?

Possibly....but there are quite a few Daenerys/Cersei parallels about fire, so that it could be interchangeable. He may swap out one queen for another?