Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Aldarion

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Aldarion

    Varys' Letters

    Thing is, it might open an avenue for a lot of things. People will use it for their own purposes, even if they do not believe it to be true.
  2. Aldarion

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Well, it is less about ability and more about perception. Remember how Brienne faces opposition to joining Renly's Kingsguard for being a woman, despite her being one of best fighters in the series. But yeah; trying to make sense out of D&Ds mess is a mission impossible.
  3. Aldarion

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    Not really. Person can do both heroic and awful things while still having consistent mentality and internal reasoning. People react to circumstances as much as their own beliefs and ideas. But it should be clear why these "switches" are happening. For example, you could say that Stannis was good for saving the Wall, and evil for killing Renly and burning Shireen. But even though the last one was a stretch (and indeed will likely never happen in the books), we still were given a clear reason for why he did it: he considered it a sacrifice for the "greater good", so that his army could survive, and was desperate; he could not see how he could fulfill his duty to the realm otherwise. Same goes for his assassination of Renly. All his actions were expressions of his character traits, and of his beliefs.
  4. Aldarion

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    Character growth can be part of consistent characterization, if we are given reasons for that growth, if we can see evolution of that character. And that is my point: changes in characterization should be evolutionary, not revolutionary. You should be able to tell how, when and why these changes in character happened, and changes themselves should be gradual and flow from reactions to events. And you do not need to have comparable scenarios with which to assess consistency: greater trends in character evolution can be determined from a very wide span of disparate scenarios. Problem with King's Landing isn't just that she goes and burns the city. It is how it is portrayed: she just snaps, and for no obvious reason. I mean, if she did just snap, then there should have been a clear trigger. If she had gone and burned King's Landing after Cersei executed Missandei, I would not have had much of a problem with it: yes, it might have been out of tune with how she behaved most of the time, seeing how showrunners removed many of her darker moments from the books, but there would have been clear context and causal relationship (and I am one of those who believe that she always did have murderous tendencies). But bells? What is that supposed to mean? I guess it is a reference to Battle of the Bells, but it is not clear from within the episode, and even so it should not have led to what it did lead to. You are correct about "revelation of character that was always there in potential". But point is, revelation was done badly. There should have been gradual buildup, hinting at her true nature long before it comes out in the open. Instead, D&D have actually made her less morally ambigous as the show went on, up until they neared the point at which she goes to Westeros. It is not like scenario she faced at King's Landing was that outlandish and impossible to predict. But again, see my point before: it is not clear what caused her to snap. Was it the bells? The fact that Jon left her? The fact that citizens at King's Landing didn't cheer? The fact that she was not received as "Our Lady and Saviour" in Westeros? All of it together? Personally, I believe it is the last one - but would somebody without knowledge of books be able to tell? And was it even spur-of-the-moment decision or something she had been considering for a while? Again, unclear.
  5. Aldarion

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    Dot points were there - they were provided by Martin. It is just that, due to lack of time or else interest, D&D screwed up at connecting them.
  6. Aldarion

    religion and gods

    Which is just how it is in the real life - powerful are only charitable when it helps them gain power / influence / good street cred. Also, it works with the theme of the work: power corrupts.
  7. Except it is not. Army of the dead may be unprecendented, but "Dothraki being unbeatable in the open field" is patently false. We know that they had been beaten by the Unsullied (in the books, at least), and quite frankly, what I do see of their battle capabilities is pathetic. They had to survive long enough for the Night King to come out so that Jon and Dany can kill him. That is literally the entire point of the battle. If ground troops get slaughtered so quickly and completely that Night King can sit in the background twiddling thumbs and doing nothing, then strategy fails. That is what they had to work with. And I fail to see how Dothraki charge had any influence on the Night King deciding to come out. If I had been in his position, I would have concluded "Oh, these guys are idiots, I'm gonna sit here sippin' iced tea until my dear wights bring me Raven's head". That is my point: their strategy relied on NK being an even more massive idiot than they were. Up until that point, Night King only came out when 1) battle had been finished already and he was going to turn corpses into wights, or 2) resistance was too stiff for wights. They had literally no reason to think NK will come out - unless they expected him to do so in order to kill the two remaining dragons they had. In which case baiting him with dragons being used as close air support was actually a logical move - except we know that was not part of the original plan, so that was clearly not what they were expecting. Again, unless they somehow know his personal motivations (in which case it should have been brought up), they had no reason to believe Night King will come for Bran in person. He could have sent a wight, or another White Walker, in his stead, and plan would have been a failure. Found it: It seems that you are correct. Problem is that we do not see the tidal wave when scene is seen from above, only when they crash into the Unsullied; must have been why I missed it. But that means that their choice of open battle is even more idiotic than I had thought: they should have at least dug ditches or something, if Winterfell is too small. Because now I remembered that they had actually seen wights do something like that before: Are you forgetting Nan's stories? And besides, the entire premise of the show goes against "conventional victory is impossible" conclusion: if it had been impossible, at least in terms of surviving if not destroying the enemy, Andals should have found an empty continent when they had arrived. And I repeat again: if your strategy relies on the enemy being an idiot, then your strategy is faulty. I do not remember it ever being explained why they expect the Night King to play into their hands. I have no problem with Night King being an idiot; what I do have a problem with is that the entire strategy of the living side depends on that one assumption which, as far as they knew, could have been false. Which brings me back to what I wrote earlier in this post: "They had literally no reason to think NK will come out - unless they expected him to do so in order to kill the two remaining dragons they had. In which case baiting him with dragons being used as close air support was actually a logical move - except we know that was not part of the original plan, so that was clearly not what they were expecting." Again, they provided no explanation for how they expected to find the Night King, how they expected to make him come out, what were contingency plans in the case that dragon fire did not work... Not dragonglass arrows, fire arrows. The point of firing arrows is to set wights on fire so that you can see where the enemy is. Even firing blindly, hitting an army should not be impossible, as long as arrows are properly spaced. Again, wights are flammable and tightly packed. Just a few arrows hitting would be enough to reveal position of their army, and as far as I know, horses are faster than wights.
  8. Aldarion

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    1) There is difference between inconsistent character and inconsistent characterization. I do not think Dany was meant to be inconsistent character. As for "significant external influence", my issue never was in the fact that Daenerys turned into murderous dictator (and even then, as others point out, she had gone through just as bad stuff before without snapping). My issue is in how it was done. I have pointed out before that she always has had that murderous streak in her - yet after a certain point, said streak gets ignored, even disappears, for - as far as I can see - no good reason. Also, while it is definitely possible for her to go from "roses and flowers" idealist to a mass murderer - I expect it will happen in the books - it should have been handled better, in a more gradual transition perhaps. OP gives a rather good illustration of what I am talking about: 2) My main example there was actually Stannis. As for Jon, his main motivation is duty. He lied to, and got killed, woman he loved for the sake of the Watch. Having love be his primary motivation is still inconsistent with how he was portrayed before. So him refusing - not being unable, outright refusing - to see that Daenerys is turning into a tyrant, and refusing to do anything about it, is inconsistent characterization.
  9. Aldarion

    Tolkien 3.0

    Actually, my point was that he had actual training and preparation for rulership, which is what differs from your typical "hidden prince" trope (e.g. Daenerys apparently had no preparation, Jon Snow only has preparation in form of his leadership of Night's Watch, and in legends, King Arthur grew up as a son of a nobleman with no knowledge of his ancestry or any preparation).
  10. Aldarion

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    Problem is that while Dany's motivations were consistent, her actions were not. She was like a pendulum, shifting from one extreme to another. One moment she listens to reason, another one she does not. In books, at least, there is a farily consistent progression towards darker characterization, without much in the way of abrupt shifts.
  11. Aldarion

    Tolkien 3.0

    One thing I have noticed about Tolkien is how he actually pulls off "hidden king/prince" trope quite well. Yes, Aragorn had been in exile for a long time... but: 1) he had only been told of his parentage only when he was old enough to understand responsibility that comes with it (and not just rights) 2) he actually was raised in a way that prepared him to rule Gondor - remember that Elrond is also a ruler of Rivendell, and Aragorn later became chieftan of Dunedain His whole life was preparation for the throne, so it makes sense that he will be a good ruler. And that is one of problems in typical "hidden prince" trope, expecting a guy with no preparation to be a good ruler.
  12. Aldarion

    Red Flags: Dany = Meereen Nobles

    If you answer cruelty with forgiveness, you basically promote cruelty. So yeah, "not all slavers" doesn't work out, they choose to become slavers and they directly profited from the system of slavery. The only potential red flag is in the act of crucifixion itself - she basically went "eye for an eye" there - but even that was not exactly unjustified.
  13. Aldarion

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    Agreed. And "devastating lands" was often not done by burning, but rather by pillaging, as medieval armies lived off the land; armies with proper logistical support (e.g. Roman Empire) were an exception, rather than rule. Although sometimes devastation was an end in itself, especially where there was constant border warfare; you basically forced the enemies to live the land by making conditions unbearable, and then you moved in and occupied the land (Ottomans did that a lot).
  14. Aldarion

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    I hate defending D&D, but at least when it comes to killing Tarlys, I always interpreted it as manner of execution being more of an issue than the fact that they were executed to begin with. She didn't cut their heads off - which was portrayed as a humane and honourable manner of execution - she had her dragon burn them alive. That was always seen as a cruel way of execution - remember that in Europe such execution was reserved for witches? You know, women whom peasants claimed for hunger, draught and pestilence (specifically, plague)? Yet she did it for lords who had fought for the Iron Throne (which at the time she had not claimed yet, even if she was a rightful ruler)? Remember this guy: That being said, research I did so far indicates that the amount of atrocities in Middle Ages etc. is often overstated. There were quite strict rules of warfare back then, and "rape, pillage and burn" often involved lot of pillage, little rape and almost no burning.
  15. Aldarion

    The character assassination of Daenerys

    1) Actually, it is very easy for writer to make a mistake in characterization. Of course, that doesn't lead to incorrect characterization (writer cannot, by definition, be incorrect in characterizing his own character), but it does lead to bad one. You see, characterization should be consistent; if you have established person's character as being such-and-such, it should remain that way unless there is significant external influence for change. 2) D&D have put no effort in their work. It became quite clear that they never had understood the character or the motivations of the characters they were writing. Although at least in some cases it might be ambigious, but even there they eventually screwed up (for a long time you could say that Jon was using Daenerys to help his people survive, and was not actually in love with her, but they completely threw that possibility of the boat in the last season). They went out of their way to make it possible for Stannis to burn Shireen, and in fact f***ed up his characterization ever since he killed Renly, they completely cut out Young Griff and as a result screwed over Cersei and Daenerys both...