StarkTullies

Well, Jon isn't inbred. Despite the absolutely ludicrous premise of this thread stating otherwise, incest greatly increases likelihood of negative traits being passed onto future generations.

No, I don't think they were that bad. I haven't read the World of Ice and Fire, only Fire and Blood, so I only know of their actions during the early Targaryen reign. And while any large group of people are going to have dissenting views and some people behaving badly, their primary concern was an invading incestuous family of self-proclaimed (false) gods riding fire demons claiming that they were racially superior and now they are overlords while raging a genocide campaign against Dorne. So yeah, I 100% approve of the Faith Militant's disapproval of the Targaryens. Maegor was an evil despicable man and his mass murder against people protesting against his family's abominations is not justified. In the current story, the Faith Militant did not invade brothels and murder their patrons (I think some people are biased by what they did in the "alternate story"). They are literally only going after the powerful who bring suffering to their people. They arrested Margaery, but then they let her go because the charges were too weak. I don't approve of Cersei's walk of atonement, but that was Kevan's idea as much as the High Septon's, and Cersei certainly deserved it after what she did to the Blue Bard (I just don't think the High Septon was right to authorize it: I have zero sympathy for Cersei).

I agree in the real-life world, and I mostly agree in this story too. >80% of the story thus far as been about human conflicts and greed and non-fantasy conflicts (this includes the majority of Dany and Jon's stories so far), with the dragons and Others/wights having relatively little impact on the story so far. The Westeros conflicts aren't irrelevant filler for the supernatural threats to come. However, I see dragons not as animals, but as weapons in the hands of humans. I love animals; I'm a vegetarian and I literally don't hurt a fly (I catch them if they are in my house and set them free.) But since dragons aren't real and come across as only fire demons, I don't apply my love of "animals" to George Martin's self-claim that dragons are winged WMDs. To the original question, the dragons were already extinct and Dany did the world a disservice by sacrificing three human lives to bring three fire demons back from stone (see * below.) I'm not wishing them to become extinct (because they already were), but to undo Dany's mistake. But it also depends what the Others are. Are they a misunderstood race of thinking, feeling people, or are they ice demon WMDs created by the Children or whoever? If they are the counter of the dragons, and like dragons they did go extinct and got revived from extinction, I think storywise they should all go. If the Others are a complex race that just minded their own business for thousands of years and now something brought them out of hiding, then there is no ice and fire opposites, and I feel less strongly about the dragons going away too. *In regard to Dany sacrificing 3 human lives, Dany's thoughts themselves literally claim that the three human deaths brought back the dragons (see below) so either she is Azor Ahai and she knew what she was doing by sacrificing three human lives, or she isn't and she didn't. DanyFanatics can't have it both ways.

I like the subdued nature of "fantasy" in ASOIAF. Magic exists, but it is very low key. A horn being blown and magically collapsing a ~700 foot tall, multi-hundred mile long magic ice wall would be a bit anticlimactic. I feel the same way about the magic Dragonbinder horn that Euron/Victarion supposedly have. However, since the proposed cover of The Winds of Winter is a giant horn, I suspect that either the Horn of Winter is real, or the false legend of this magic horn will have a large impact on the story. If the horn exists, I think that it is the horn that Sam brought to Oldtown... where Euron happens to be pursuing. (I know this is not a unique or original theory.) Someone already attempted to blow that horn in ACOK and nothing happened, but I assume more needs to happen than simply blowing it. Since I suspect Euron will get his hands on this horn, and he already has (well, technically Victarion has it at the moment) the other magic horn that I don't like... the two horns might be connected. The ice horn and the fire horn, the song of ice and fire, and all of that.

I'll answer the question for the coming "book" rather than "books". There are terrible characters who I don't want to survive the end but I want to last until toward the end because they are needed for the story (Tyrion, as an example). Characters whom I wouldn't mind if they died the moment they next appear on the page: Roose and Ramsay Bolton (They were great villains while they lasted, but we can move on to other plots now.) Sybell Spicer Westerling (And if her still-living son Raynald plays a part in her death, I wouldn't be sad.) Qyburn (The story needs Cersei for a while; Qyburn can die this instant.) Walder Frey (The rest of the guilty Freys should continue to be part of the Brotherhood plotline for a while, but Walder can drop dead of a heart attack this moment and that's more than fine with me.) Daario Naharis (The most insipidly annoying character in the entire book series.) Victarion Greyjoy (I hope he offers Dany the ships and does whatever he does with the dragon horn, and then his purpose in the story can be over) Bowen Marsh (I don't even need to wish it: he will be dead within 5 minutes after Jon's last chapter in ADWD ended) Gerold Dayne (I don't care enough about him to even dislike him; likewise I don't want to waste more time on a plotline I don't care about.) Characters dying before the end of The Winds of Winter: Lady Stoneheart (As a mercy: I loved Catelyn, and I don't wish the horror of her undeadness on her, yet she needs to play a major role before she dies or otherwise her return from the dead would have been pointless) Jon Connington (Also a mercy: I don't dislike the guy, he is on a dangerous path and putting people in danger. There is also no need for him as a POV since Arianne, I suspect, will soon be Aegon's storyteller) Jaime and Cersei Lannister (I rather have them die at the end of TWOW than linger on through the final book. I imagine that ADOS will be overwhelming enough to begin with, so we don't need unnecessary side-characters cluttering it up. I don't specifically want Jaime, but his story ends with Cersei's story ends, and I want Cersei's story in this book to be epic and chaotic, but then come to an end.) Obara Sand, Nymeria Sand, Tyene Sand Petyr Baelish (I hope Sansa turns to the tables on him sooner than later, and all his lifetime of diabolical plots crash down around him.) Brynden Rivers (I don't think there is a single "top villain" of the story, but I suspect he might be as close as we get.) Gregor Clegane (And dead for real this time.) Stannis Baratheon (I don't strongly dislike the guy, but he is obviously going to die and I think the expiration date on his story should be the of TWOW.)

I think Stannis will win the battle very early on, and he will survive. I don't think the Pink Letter's claim that Roose is dead is true (that would be a bit anticlimactic), but I think Roose and Ramsay will probably both die during the battle. Perhaps Ramsay will escape to continue to be a nuisance, but I hope not: there are too many loose ends right now, and some of them need to be cut. I think the "Grand Northern Conspiracy" is real, and Barbrey Dustin will have a pivotal role in destroying the Boltons. While her grudge against the Starks is somewhat genuine, obviously she prefers the children of the man who married somebody else over the psychopath who murdered her beloved nephew. Since we haven't seen Davos since the first half of ADOD, I don't think we will ever see Skagos except in memories. I think he is already near Winterfell with Rickon, and in the immediate aftermath of the battle, Stannis will be declared king of a unified North, with Wyman Manderly ruling as Rickon's regent. This will foil Petyr's plans to rule the North through Sansa, and I don't know how the Manderly/Rickon vs Baelish/Sansa power struggle will work. Regardless, I think the "lone wolf starves but the pack survives" is the Stark theme, and I don't think any of the Starks will go in open war against each other. I hope Petyr Baelish will be exposed and destroyed as soon as Sansa gets the Vale's backing, and maybe ruling the North is not in Sansa's future, but ruling the Vale instead? That said, I think the North would prefer Ned's eldest daughter over a 5-year-old boy being governed by someone who worships the Seven. I think Jon is dead and will come back "changed" but still a good guy. Whether he abandons the Watch after they murdered him or not, I can't guess, but I think Robb's will to name Jon Stark as King in the North will surface soon. If Wyman is genuine about his love for the Starks and not in this for his own power, he would be happy to accept Jon as king, but I'm not sure. I also don't know if Jon would be happy to accept the crown, or the North would accept a supposed oathbreaker (since I don't think "I died and came back from the dead" would be widely believed as an acceptable justification for abandoning the Watch). Stannis will die in AWOW, but he will go out in a bang rather than a whimper. I don't think the Starks will need to remove him; he will remove himself by his own misguided obsession with destiny. I think the Starks (not sure which one) will be in unquestioned control of the North by the end of TWOW, when I assume the Others will finally breach the Wall. As for the non-Stark POV characters in the North: I think Davos will cease to be a POV by the end of the book after there are multiple characters in Winterfell, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will die. I think Theon will die before the story's end but not immediately; I suspect that somehow Bran will spare him from execution. I have no guesses what will happen to Asha. I think Arya's first stop on her return to Westeros will be the Riverlands so she has a while left before she reunites with her siblings in Winterfell, but I think Bran will probably make it to Winterfell by TWOW's end.

This is always what I've thought, but I never read GRRM saying that. Do you know when he did? It seems most people (on this forum, at least) think it is Starks and Targaryens, or Jon and Dany, or "the prince that was promised whose song is the song of ice and fire". But the two threats (ice and fire) coming to Westeros always seemed like the obvious explanation to me. I think the dragonriders and the dragons are just a big of a threat to Westeros as the Others and their wights. I also don't think that the Others are true one-dimensional villains. Villains to humanity for sure, but so is Tywin Lannister and his Bloody Mummers. Besides the fact that GRRM repeatedly says he doesn't want the enemy to be Sauron and Orcs but multi-dimensional villains, in the very first chapter we see the Others speaking and laughing. Villains can certainly talk and laugh, but this proves that the Others are more than just mindless monsters. If their goal is to simply wipe out all of humanity, they are certainly taking their time. The Others directly attacked the Rangers at the Fist, going after them directly while their attacks against Free Folk have been slow and intermittent so far. Craster is spared (not for good reasons certainly), but this shows they are capable of negotiations. Likewise, I don't think the dragons themselves are evil, but they are generally used as instruments of evil. GRRM has called them metaphors for WMDs, and George isn't writing a story about how nukes will save the world. Most of the "good" that the Targaryens accomplished with the dragons is the threat that they represented, but when they actually used the dragons it was almost always evil. Aegon I is a tyrannical ultra-villain who committed genocide in Dorne just because he could, and no story rewrites about prophecies will ever change my mind. Dany bringing dragons back to the world was not a good deed. The three dragonriders won't be a united front. (If not more than three: I think Sheepsteeler or her descendants may still live in the Mountains of the Vale... but I also think that new dragons appearing in the next couple books would seem out of left field and I prefer that doesn't happen.) Jon will almost definitely be one dragon rider, but whoever is the third won't be on Dany's side (and Jon won't necessarily be either). It could be Victarion, or Euron, or even Tyrion (George Martin's "the villain"), and none of them ending up with a dragon will be a good thing. I don't think dragon riders are necessarily bad, just like I don't think the Others are necessarily (all) bad, since George Martin is not writing a story about an exclusively evil race. But they all pose a threat to Westeros. I disagree about fire representing life. Here's a quote from Maester Aemon, from the House of Fire: "I should not have left the Wall. Lord Snow could not have known, but I should have seen it. Fire consumes, but cold preserves." Here is a quote from Beric Dondarrion, worshipper of the "fire god": "Fire consumes. It consumes, and when it is done there is nothing left. Nothing." I think the only person who talked about fire being "life" is Melisandre, who is famously wrong about everything. Yes, and yes. I doubt it. A threat, but I don't think there will be any one final "ultimate villain". I think the threat of the Others, dragons, and non-supernatural political warfare will all happen simultaneously. A very difficult feat to pull this all off (storywise), which I am sympathetic toward GRRM for taking so long to write these books.

Coldhands is the Night's King. The Night's King was not a villain but whose true actions were forgotten and rewritten after thousands of years of rumor, propaganda, and constantly changing word of mouth. The Great Northern Conspiracy. Daario is a mole working for the Sons of the Harpies. Targaryens aren't special in their dragon-riding abilities, and the claim that they are is just propaganda to keep themselves in power. Nettles wasn't a dragonseed but just an ordinary person who tamed a dragon. A Song of Ice and Fire isn't a song about the Starks and the Targaryens, or Jon and Dany, or a single prophesized hero... but about the two great threats (Others and dragons) coming to a continent ill-prepared for outside conflicts because they are already fighting from within.

It looks like I'm in the extreme minority here, but I'd rather have Fire & Blood 2 than another Dunk & Egg. However, I rather George Martin not work on either until ASOAIF is finished (while also recognizing that GRRM owes me nothing and he can do whatever he wants with his life). If he "distracts" himself with another story, I rather have it be whichever takes up less of his time. Dunk is a great POV character and I like being in his head, but I still find F&B more interesting. To me, F&B doesn't read as a history textbook but as the POV of a very biased maester writing it. I really dislike the Targaryens in general (there are some exceptions), so it is not about me rooting for any character. I find it intriguing watching the narcissists who actually think (or say they think) they are gods bringing their own destruction upon them. The Dance of the Dragons (covering only 2 years of the >100 years in the book, but ~1/3 of the book) is extremely interesting, and I see so many real-life parallels in this fantasy fiction to real-life events. Plus F&B2 won't have dragons, so it will be more about the personal/political conflicts instead of "and then they showed up with dragons and burned everyone". I was surprised how Aegon's Conquest was the least interesting part of F&B, but largely for this reason. I also hope F&B2 would end with Robert's Rebellion, and it would be interesting to see characters we are already familiar with written by a biased maester's perspective.

Yep, it was stupid to bring Sam into this. I was just saying that Sam has "seen more combat" (meaning, been in the midst of an actual battle) than Jon, because Sam has seen very little... but Jon has seen even less. The siege against the Wall (from the north) was about tactics rather than direct combat. Though one battle that Jon was in the middle of (that I wasn't thinking of before) was when Stannis captured Mance Rayder. Even then, Jon didn't fight in it (he had no weapon). I was really reacting to an anti-Jon poster throwing Jon a bone by saying "Jon was pretty good at fighting", and I was just stating that Jon hasn't actually clashed swords in open combat... and that I am fairly certain the "pretty good at fighting" was coming from a source other than the books. So, sorry for the tangent.

According to George Martin? You mean according to Viserys Targaryen... whose ludicrous words were written by George Martin? The viewpoints of George's characters are not his own. Targaryens aren't gods. Some of them think they are, but they are narcissistic deplorables with delusions of grandeur. Do you really think that ASOIAF is racial supremist propaganda? Shame on me for reading it if that was the case, but fortunately, it is not. Calling themselves gods is deplorable enough, referring to the commonfolk as "beasts" adds to their deplorability. And I'm not talking about all Targaryens... just the ones spouting this non-sense. R + L = J, and not because I want to believe it. Jon is my favorite character, so why would I want him to be a Targaryen? Fortunately blood is not everything, and he has not demonstrated any signs of madness. I'd be more worried about the Targaryen who is currently embracing "fire and blood" (destruction and murder) while talking to blades of grass. Rhaegar is not a god. Again, ASOIAF is not racial supremacist propaganda... though it is a story about the danger of mortal racial supremacists thinking they are gods. But let's say you are right. Just because Rhaegar (and Dany)'s parents were brother and sister (disgusting) and their parents before that were too (double disgusting), their parents were not siblings. The "god" already mated with "a beast". So all Targaryens henceforth (including Dany) are already incompatible "god/beast hybrids in danger of losing their minds". And that's assuming that Aegon V was the first Targaryen to marry a non-Targaryen... which of course is not the case.

That would make some of Jon or Tyrion's conversation make a little more sense, but I don't think that is the case. I admit I don't follow "behind the scenes" much, but I did see clips of the script reading. Everything in those clips made it into the show, so I assume it was essentially the "final version". I also remember Emilia Clarke talking about her reaction after reading the scripts, and she seemed to be shocked by what Dany did rather than being upset that "Jon murdered her". I also heard it claimed that the green fire in Kings Landing was remnant of the original filming when Cersei blew up the city with wildfire... and that doesn't make sense. If that was the case, it would be all green... not green fire mixed in with the regular fire. Frankly I'm surprised the showrunners remembered there was wildfire hidden throughout the city with everything else they forgot. This is what I think... not a firm argument. Have these theories ever been officially verified? I half agree, but I think the "real story" will have all the threats mixed together at a time: the "ice threat" of the Others and their wights, the "fire threat" of the dragons and their riders, and the non-supernatural human political threat. And I think they will be intertwined, rather than the story focusing entirely on the "ice threat" and then neutralizing it completely, only to flip a switch to the "fire threat". ASOIAF is more complex than that; GOT is not. I would have liked Cersei to eliminated sooner simply because she should never have been the "final villain" (before "subverting expectations" and making it Dany instead). Cersei is a menace but never should never have been a "brilliant mastermind": her superior book version is anything but.

I meant actual combat fights. He showed he has skills with the new recruits, and later Emmet, etc., but I don't consider those actual fights. Sam was in the battle at the Fist, which is more combat than Jon has ever seen. Not intending to underrate Jon. I'm not going to talk about the "alternate version" of Jon in this part of the forum... but I feel like the claim of Jon being a "good fighter" is based on a source other than the books. Jon is not likely to rise in power at the Wall from being good in training while not proving himself in combat at all. Even killing the wight was about his intelligence of throwing fire at it... not "fighting" it. Jon became commander for reasons other than his fighting skills, while supposed fighting skills is about the only thing his alternate version had.

When has Jon ever shown to be great at fighting? In his training exercises with his peers? That's about it. Jon threw a flaming cloth at a wight, he ambushed a Wildling scouting camp in stealth, he fought Qhorin Halfhand in which Qhorin intentionally let Jon defeat him, and he had partial command in the Battle of the Wall by dropping oil, shooting arrows, etc. etc. That's about it. Sam has been involved in more fighting than Jon has. Longclaw hasn't gotten much use so far. I've always assumed that most of the most militant anti-Stark hatred comes from show fans who actually haven't read the books, and posts like these don't help dissuade me. Jon being a master fighter has not (so far) been demonstrated in the books.

A lot of people hate on the last 2 or 3 episodes of Season 8 (and I agree), but I think "The Long Night" was the worst episode of the entire series. The over-hyped big threat should not have been resolved from one perfectly placed stab wound from any character... and that character certainly shouldn't have been Arya. But if they were to keep the story of Arya killing the Night King and ending the Long Night, I definitely think she should have died in the process of killing him. I would not have wanted Arya to die in Kings Landing, because Arya shouldn't have been there at all. She already killed the Night King (which should not have been in her story arc), so they don't need to throw other extraneous side-plots on Arya that also weren't her story arc. She needed to have the conversation with the Hound (or some other trigger) to turn back against vengeance... but not then and not there. Jon's sisters should not have been a factor for Jon killing Dany. Jon shouldn't have been motivated by avenging his sisters, or protecting his sisters: it should have been about saving the world from a mass-murdering tyrant. Jon's character was thoroughly ruined when he defended Dany and said that she made "an impossible choice", so then Tyrion had to bring his sisters into it (if I remember correctly).

You left out the part that "his new king's wife" happens to be his sister. I know Targaryens and their most militant supporters think that sibling fornications deserves celebration and applause, but most readers and most Westerosi would find the fact that Cersei is his twin sister far more repulsive than the fact that she is his king's wife. Jaime is angry that Tyrion murdered his father (and supposedly murdered his son), but vengeance on Tyrion is not top on his mind. Jaime hates Cersei more than he hates Tyrion where the story left off, it seems. First, I agree with the above criticism against your use of derogatory terms. Second, there are a plethora of anti-Stark posters on this forum predicting what Bran will do "when" he finds out that Jaime attacked him... but he already remembered long ago. And there has not been one single thought of revenge against Jaime in his mind since then. Bran is not the Dark Lord or master of vengeance that Stark-haters want him to be. At current time, Jaime and Bran are not enemies. All hell broke out long ago and things are likely to get worse, and will continue to do so when Dany arrives. She does not intend to use her dragons and Dothraki as instruments of peace. Arya's list is very specific, and Jaime is not on it. She's given zero thought to Jaime, and though Jaime once intended to murder Arya to please Cersei, that desire is not lingering. Jaime and Arya are not enemies either. Lady Stoneheart is Jaime's enemy, however.

I say "the small council ruling in Tommen's name is about as decent as you can hope for" as a cynic. I hate Randyll Tarly; he's a despicable man, but capable for his role. Mace Tyrell is hardly the blubbering fool some people think he is. I don't know much about Harys Swyft, but he is certainly better than Baelish. Paxter Redwyne is as good a choice for master of ships as any. But let's say I don't have much "hope" for decent rulers, so the "best I can hope for" isn't a high bar. Tommen's small council (post-Cersei) is miles better than his small council under Cersei, or Robert's, or Aerys's. They may not be great men (certainly not Randyll Tarly), but more competent leaders than most others we've seen recently... and not nearly as malevolent as Varys or Baelish who would let the world burn for their own gain.

He might be the ripe old age of 6 by now, but he was 4 the last time we saw him. I'm not sure if any of the many anti-Rickon posters have ever met a 4-year-old before. He cried when his parents both left Winterfell without him... proving that he is a weak-minded, wild, insane child.

Yep. This is always the argument I silently think when the DanyFanatics constantly claim "Jon is the worst Lord Commander since the Night's King because HE IS AN OATHBREAKER!!!", but I decide not to bother. Same here. I stalked this forum for a couple years before joining, so I thought I knew what I was getting into. I was prepared for the juvenile "Daenerys is my favorite character so all other characters are EVIL!" posts. But the flood of pro-incest racial supremist ideology of "Dany is a superior race descended from the gods and the Starks are barbaric First Men who all deserve to die" makes me feel dirty. Worse is that these people keep bumping the same threads with pointless repetitive posts just to ensure that half of the top 10 threads are always anti-Stark spam regurgitating the same nonsense.

Lysa's instability has been known since the first published book in 1996. A sleep-deprived mother "going mad" after an assassin tried to murder her comatose 7-year-old son was also published in 1996. 27 years ago is not "new", and nothing in this thread is a "revelation". Hereditary madness is such a ludicrous claim for Targaryen fans to be pushing anyway. Targaryens are the only family in Westeros famously prone to madness. Claiming that being a product of multiple generations of incestuous inbreeding protects Dany from becoming mad is extremely illogical, but let's go for it. If there being no evidence of any children of Targaryen mothers going mad proves that Dany can't go mad, show us the evidence of children of Tully mothers going mad. There is none. At least be consistent with your arguments. Then there's the fact that none of Catelyn's children have shown any signs whatsoever of going mad, which trumps any hereditary disposition. Meanwhile, Dany is currently conversing with blades of grass in the Dothraki Sea. I blame her illness on that more than madness, but it is certainly a better case that Dany will go mad than any Stark-Tully madness "theories". People who love Dany should talk about how awesome Dany is. I see no need to trash every other character (about non-existent madness of all things) in an attempt to make Dany look good.

Is that the main argument you have for Bran being evil? He is a Stark and that automatically makes him bad? Do you really think A Song of Ice and Fire is just racist propaganda where Dany is a hero because she is born from a "pure-blooded superior race descended from the gods", and Starks are villains also because of their "blood"? A person's nature is defined by more than their race, family, or ethnicity. Can you tell us about Bran's evil deeds other than that he was born a Stark? I read the original post, and I saw no case for his evil ways there. The most obvious negative thing to say about Bran wasn't even listed. Instead I saw predictions of what Bran will do when he finds out that Jaime Lannister crippled him. As I pointed out earlier, Bran already knows, and the 10-year-old boy did not wreak havoc against all of Westeros as revenge for the wrongs done to him. What kind of nihilistic story do think George Martin is writing? 4 of the 6 main characters are all EVIL (and that's if you don't include Tyrion, which anti-Stark posters never do, whom the author actually named as "the villain"), just so the one character who has been isolated from the rest of the story so far will "heroically" burn them all? Be prepared to be disappointed if the next books ever come out. Obviously you can love or hate any characters you want, but I personally could not have gotten through the first book if I despised the Starks so much when 6 out of the 8 main characters were Starks.

Did you know that the books only use the term "white walkers" ten times, and always using lower case? It is a rare term, used by some of the Free Folk and Old Nan, so I don't know why so many anti-Stark posters use this term. Unless this forum is used by the Stark-haters as a fanfaction wish list for an alternate ending for the alternate telling of the story where the term "White Walkers" (capital letters) was used rather than "Others". When any poster uses the term "White Walkers" with all capitals, that is usually enough to convince me that they are show-watchers and not book-readers, but this statement also helps convince me. Bran is not going to learn that Jaime pushed him from the window. He already remembered very early on in A Clash of Kings. Does Bran constantly think about it or dwell on it? No, because he is not seeking vengeance. He knows about the Red Wedding, his father's death, and all of it. He's not plotting revenge because he's not the "Lord of Darkness".

Yep. George Martin is very open about his "gardening approach", and all the peripheral new plotlines that sprung up in A Feast for Crows and A Dance With Dragons (including Young Griff, JonCon, and all the rest) obviously hadn't sprouted in his mind by AGOT... and probably not even by ASOS. I think so too. George Martin is clearly poking a little fun at himself. But even though it is seemingly apparent that Young Griff is a new plotline, I think George Martin will make sense of how all these seeming contradictions work together. Not sure if he knows what that is yet, and that might be one reason why it is taking so long for these books to come out. Even though Petyr "thrives on chaos" and Varys is the "man with a plan", supposedly, I think it is really the opposite. Petyr creates chaos but he doesn't really need to respond to his plans going astray because so far (and perhaps in a very contrived plot-armor way), his plans always go accordingly. Varys is the one who has to shift every five minutes. Yeah, Varys may have hired an incompetent fool he knew would botch the job... but the wine merchant himself didn't intend to fail. And I'm not sure the plan was really that bad. Had Jorah not had a change of heart at that very moment, what would have stopped Dany from drinking the poisoned wine? Did Varys tell Jorah to expose the wine merchant to invoke Drogo's rage? Unlikely. As much as I think George Martin is genius storywriter, some of his plotlines are advanced by contrivance and luck... and I think the wine merchant's failed assassination is one of those examples. As for why did Varys support the Targaryens while simultaneously sending an assassin after Dany? He didn't support Dany, he supported Viserys (because Young Griff didn't exist in George's mind yet during AGOT)... and Dany's successful murder would have invoked Drogo's rage even more than her murder attempt. I don't think Varys's actions were really contradictory.

I mostly agree with this. I don't support anyone's claim, because I don't support the Iron Throne. But assuming the realm stays united and someone needs to sit the Iron Throne, see below for my ranking of the five people actively claiming the Iron Throne (this does not include potential claimants, such as Jon Snow, who haven't actually made a claim). 1. Tommen Baratheon: The Targaryens have no claim to the throne. If Aegon I "rightfully" gained the throne by conquest, then they "rightfully" lost the throne by Robert's conquest. Tommen is Robert's recognized heir... and obviously I know he isn't really the heir because he isn't really Robert's son. Is it worth more war and death and suffering so Robert's "true" heir (Stannis) can have the throne? No. I would have said differently for Joffrey, because Joffrey's Hand Tywin started a genocidal war in his name and Joffrey was a travesty of a human being, but Tywin is dead, the war is over, and Tommen is not a psychopath. Currently, the small council ruling in Tommen's name is about as decent as you can hope for... but with Varys's manipulations that is not likely to last. 2. Stannis Baratheon: The "true" rightful claimant of the throne, and better than the other contenders. If he came to the throne by peace, I think he would be a good king, and he is the "king who cares" by actually trying to deal with the Others and making peace with the Free Folk... even if his motives aren't pure. I'm not a "Stannis the Mannis" guy, but Stannis isn't terrible either. Burning septs and godwoods is a major strike against him, but I suspect if he actually gained the throne, he would largely cast Melisandre's influence aside. 3. Aegon Targaryen: Frankly I don't care if he is a real Targaryen or not, because (yet again) Targaryens have no claim to the throne. Varys's stated idea to raise "the perfect king" isn't a bad one... even though I don't think Varys's stated motives are his true motives. With Cersei's incompetence and Varys's manipulation, I think Aegon can take the throne with minimal bloodshed and be backed by popular demand. If he was peacetime king (he won't be), I think he would make a good king. 4. Daenerys Targaryen: If Dany really wants to help people, she would stay in Slavers Bay. She has no right to the Iron Throne, and her entitled sense of superior "dragon blood" repulses me. People say that her dragons can help fight the Others, and maybe they can... but so far she has given zero thought to a threat she doesn't know about and only wants to take what is "rightfully hers" (but isn't). While she would make a decent queen if she came to the throne peacefully, but she won't, and any means she will use to take the throne (dragons, Dothraki, etc.) will almost certainly ensure she is a tyrant by the time she sits on it. 5. Euron Greyjoy: No claim whatsoever, but he is making the claim anyway. His lack of claim is the least of the reasons why I hate him though, and no elaboration needed why he is the bottom of my list.

I marathoned the available seasons of the show in 2017 (1-6), and I read the books soon after that. I wasn't aware of the fandom opinions until I started lurking in this forum about 3 years ago (I joined much more recently), so I haven't seen the history. I hear repeatedly that this forum used have endless anti-Daenerys rantings the way there are endless anti-Stark rantings now, which I believe... but I certainly haven't witnessed that for myself. I am surprised how infrequently Tyrion is talked about on this forum, considering he is the #1 character in chapter count. I find his book character repulsive (and have ever since Book 1 when he silently triumphed over Masha Heddle's death). I'm sure I have unconscious bias on how the show impacts my perception of the characters, but honestly King Robert is the only character who I see the show version in my mind when reading them. Mark Addy was perfectly cast as Robert. (I would say the same thing about Sean Bean/Ned Stark, except that ~50 year old Sean was way too old for 35 year old Ned.) The other characters, my mind can't even connect them to their show counterpart when reading about them except for a few minor characters (Maester Luwin being one). The book and show versions are so different that my mind unconsciously refuses to acknowledge that they are supposed to be the same character. I never felt like the books were trying to trick us into think that Dany (or any other character) was perfect. Other than a few Red Priests (who say similar things about Dany as Mel says about Stannis), I don't think any character in the books claims she is the model of perfection either. Just some posters in this forum. Ah, glad I missed that. I liked the fact that there were signs all over the place for the Red Wedding, and it wasn't an out of nowhere shock. (Shocking perhaps if I hadn't seen the show first, but not out of nowhere.) Twists and shocks are great, but not if it compromises the story making sense, and "subverting expectations" sounds like a catchphrase for justifying illogic. It is difficult to believe from I see here, but that is sad because there is no logical reason why there shouldn't be an overlap. Both of them are strong females in other ways than picking up a sword. None of the Stark children have given any thought to the Targaryens, and Dany hasn't given any conscious thought to the children of the "Usurper's Dog". There is no reason to think they should be natural enemies. I always thought he was the most plot-armored character of any character, but if anything, the show makes me think the book version is less ridiculous (relative to the absurdity that was Post-Joffrey's Wedding Show Petyr). Yeah, that's one thing that I've seen change noticeably even in the short time I've been aware of the general fandom. The claim that Cat started the war and all the other anti-Catelyn statements were really annoying, and I'm glad I don't see it that much anymore.