Fist of the Dragon

If you mean 6 main characters, it is not correct. It doesn't matter what Martin says and what he wants from the audience (for example, the lack of security for the protagonist while you are turning the page).The reality of the story is something else. What George showed in the Red Wedding was not a rule, but a warning that regardless of their position in the story, the characters pay for their mistakes, and yes, they can be in dangerous situations that endanger their lives, but when you read a fantasy story, you should never expect one of the main characters of the story to be killed, while you know that the character you are looking for is growing and evolving and a great task is planned for them. It will be a complete disgrace if they are killed before they fulfill the mission and duty that fate has planned for them. Besides, when you are facing the biggest threat in the entire history of humanity, expect a much more effective death and much bigger dangers than what happens just because of stupid political games. For example, you see that Robb Stark and his companions turn into mincemeat. You are probably cursing here, but you already knew that the suspicious atmosphere around the twins is not a good thing, and that Walder Frey is a sly weasel. So this whole damn thing is not something that affects the logic of the story. Instead you don't expect the Sons of the Harpy to kill Daenerys in a successful operation (or any other mortal danger) because that's a flaw in the canon of storytelling.

Yes, and did I object to this at all? Dario is what he is, standards are defined and he fulfills them for him. So they will never have any problems in bed. But in the first place, as an audience, one relationship is preferred over another, and my basis was not physics. It has nothing to do with it. First of all, I didn't mention that the Drogo/Danny relationship is better than what Danny does with Dario in bed. Secondly, if Drogo was supposedly the best Kali that Dany could marry, then no distinction of such behavior can be considered for the behavior of other Dothraki (according to what we saw in the story). Now whether he loves his wife or not.

I don't think so. Even by today's standards, instead of being gay, the majority consider Dario's clothing and behavior to be a kind of hollow drum. Ever since I got acquainted with the song of Ice and Fire (I visited the site many times even 3 years before I joined this fandom and read the comments of many friends), I have explored many sites and fandoms related to this series. However, in most of these fandoms, the romantic relationship between the dragon queen and her flamboyant commander was considered attractive and in most cases was of little importance. And all this has nothing to do with Dario's cover or flirtations, which can be considered as homosexuality. In his relationship with Dany, he had nothing special to offer. None of the contradictions or elements that made Jon/Ygritte or Jaime/Cersei one of the most popular romances in the entire series were present in Dany/Dario. Not only was Daenerys and her thoughts instilling half of the apparent charm of this relationship to the audience, but even Dario himself actually has nothing special to offer. Whatever Drogo and his character (courage, loyalty, love, or even a little intelligence and tact) showed to the audience, he proved them in a way, but Dario either doesn't have these or he didn't prove them (at least for the reader). ). So that it even becomes suspicious for Daenerys herself at times. Daenerys is definitely one of my favorite characters in the entire series and even though I enjoyed her POVs in Dance with Dragons, when it came to Darius and his charms, she was pure torment. lol, I'd rathe rwait another four years for The Winds of Winter than see more Dany/Dario in Dany's chapterand( while Dario is her husband!)

Man, you hate Jon Snow more than the people of Middle-earth hate the dark lord Sauron.

House Martin It is not included in the series, but head of their house has been tormenting us for more than 12 years

But the importance of Jon/Tormund(Like what we most likely saw at the end of the show), which Martin laid the foundations of, should not be neglected, for example, where Tormund keeps telling Jon about his big dick, which is apparently the size of his own arm. This shows that Tormund is planning to drag Jon to the same famous cave (the same cave of Ygritte). And then he says the famous line ''you know nothing, Jon Snow'' and finally pulls down his pants and ....... (let me finish it right here)

Yes, you do this, otherwise I will be surprised

Well, I think (almost certain) that Jon died at the end of the dance. I don't know which of Jon's decisions you mean by cooperation with Stannis, but as far as I can remember, Jon did not cooperate with Stannis in the decision that led to his death. Look, if you want to continue the discussion with these kinds of arguments, it's better to end it here. But if you show correct and logical reasons for your opinion, I would like to read it.

Although you are oversimplifying the issue, I understand your main point. Jon is really Rhaegar's son in this sense. See how both of them acted arbitrarily with a prophecy or inspiration or whatever else they somehow considered to be their only duty, and well, we saw the result. Both of them were killed and it was their own fault, It means that somehow they tasted their own cooking and it does not depend on intelligence and mental strength and the like, because Martin created them both Byronically and Byronic heroes can be very clever and intelligent (they are even very deceptive). But even so, both of them really had many weaknesses, which at that point of time makes them unfit to perform such heavy tasks on their own. Rhaegar, without informing anyone and by himself, wanted to fulfill the greatest prophecy known. What was the result? He drowned Westeros in blood, and even after all these years, most people even mistakenly looked at him as a crazed rapist. This is also true for his stubborn son. Jon also intended to make the most important decisions about the biggest threat of his time by himself, But in the end, he brought the Night's Watch into disarray, and like his father, even with the right intention, he failed (and was killed. Now we agree about Jon's death, don't we?) This is another characteristic of Byronic heroes, who are either immature or tragically failed, or even in the case of victory, their success is tied by a hair's breadth and often does not work. About the post Well, it's really ridiculous that Jon will go crazy. It took five books for Dany to reach a stage that makes us wonder if she has chosen fire and blood (insanity, as some of you call it) Then, after five books, should we go to a man who is in no way paired with madness? I don't even think Daenerys will go crazy, let alone Jon. (Finally, I apologize if my English was poor. As you may know, English is not my native language.)

You've probably heard this before, but the main reason I don't like Jon in the show at all is that these two idiots changed Jon from a very complex Byronic hero (you know the characteristics of these types of heroes) to a naive good boy who has simple intentions and a very pure heart. but this is not the end of the work, and in the final seasons, they lower his intelligence to the level of algae. Daenerys has nothing left to say. So much has been said in this forum about how Showrunners burned her character that I don't want to bore you with words. (Consider how much wiser Dany is in the books than in the show and This is the reason why I really like her character in the books, unlike the show). Unfortunately, they also bring similar disasters on other important characters such as Sansa, Tyrion, Bran and especially Varys.

Oh, and add that after conquering Westeros and destroying Others and the Night's King (Jon Snow), she will return to Essos and occupy it all. She then goes to the little-known continent of Sothoryos and eradicates its incurable and unknown diseases, as well as the strange and dangerous creatures there. Then she changes the name of the place to Targaryos. It is also possible that she will discover one or two other unknown continents in the west of Westeros and add them to her territory. In the end, she will rule over the people of the world with peace, tranquility and authority for a hundred years. (George R.R. Martin postponed Winds of Winters until 2030 after reading this comment)

Do you have anything else in mind? Say it don't be shy

I agree it was his fault. But Jon's biggest weakness as a leader should not be ignored. A section of A Storm of Swords quickly points this out: ''You must not balk, whatever is asked of you. Ride with them, eat with them, fight with them . . . But this old man had offered no resistance. He had been unlucky, that was all. Who he was, where he came from, where he meant to go on his sorry sway-backed horse . . . none of it mattered. He is an old man, Jon told himself. Fifty, maybe even sixty. He lived a longer life than most. The Thenns will kill him anyway, nothing I can say or do will save him. Longclaw seemed heavier than lead in his hand, too heavy to lift. The man kept staring at him, with eyes as big and black as wells. I will fall into those eyes and drown. The Magnar was looking at him too, and he could almost taste the mistrust. The man is dead. What matter if it is my hand that slays him? One cut would do it, quick and clean. Longclaw was forged of Valyrian steel. Like Ice. Jon remembered another killing; the deserter on his knees, his head rolling, the brightness of blood on snow . . . his father’s sword, his father’s words, his father’s face''(SOS, Jon V) This case points to the lack of control over instincts that lead to irrational decisions on Jon's part. His heroic instinct is not necessarily bad and it does not make him completely submissive, but when he starts killing an innocent person, it becomes difficult for him in the true sense of the word. He knows that the old man has no destiny but death, but he cannot overcome his stubborn morals and the feelings that arise from it to make the right decision. Well, this issue is clearly depicted in the first three books, and for this reason, Martin had planned very difficult tests for him in A Dance with Dragons, which finally, brings us to this famous quote from Willian Faulkner: “The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself” We witnessed that his heart was cruelly contradicting himself, and if I'm honest, when this heroic instinct was awakened in him, often the right decisions were not made. Lately, his decisions have turned into a kind of dangerous gambling and he was taking big risks, which was caused by the conflict of his heart. he is a good swordswoman, a skilled diplomat, a capable tactician or maybe a smart strategist (I think he has this ability unlike Rob) but his big weakness did not allow him to have all of these together and from Jon makes a very good leader. In other words, when his blind instinct was at the top of everything, the pieces of the puzzle that were placed together (his abilities) would suddenly fall apart. In A Dance with Dragons, Jon had the same situation (unfortunately, he didn't have good advisors either). At times, he would turn into the same boy that Aemon had warned him about, and at that time, he lacked a broad vision for the future of his decisions. This time, his heroic instincts immediately lead him to save the lives of innocent people (Alys Karstark, six thousand Wildlings in Hardhome and even his own poor sister). As a result, first of all, it was Jon's decisions that made his brothers hate him more (even if this hatred was based on ignorance) and put Jon's life at risk, so that this hatred was out of control at the end of the story. He went out. So it is not correct to say that Jon should have thought about his own safety from the beginning to avoid the wrath of the Night's Watch men (he cannot make a decision first, then see the results of his work, and then think about his life. The problem must be solved in advance be) For example, a little before Jon's decisions regarding the pink letter when about three thousand wildlings pass through the wall and their union with the Night's Watch, it seems that Bowen Marsh is not his usual complaint and is somehow affected by the great achievement of the Lord Commander. He has found himself and may trust him a little at this point in time. At least we can see that he does not have a plan or intention to assassinate Jon at this time (this happens at the end of his story). In the end, we reach the point called the pink letter and Jon's reaction to the fact that he actually signs his own death consent. Although the sudden events that happen before Jon's assassination play a good role in distracting him and give Bowen Marsh and his companions a good opportunity to kill Jon. Anyway, this time the fate of the boy killed the boy's work and somehow I will miss the boy. Jon will learn many lessons from his mistakes and this time his instinct may change completely. I personally enjoyed the standards that Martin set for Jon Snow as necessary for his character's arc (unlike many of you, I even enjoyed Dany's story line in A Dance with Dragons).

In fact, the most important test that Jon and Daenerys have to go through is their heart, which is in conflict with themselves. Daenerys in A Dance with Dragons as a leader is not going to fight all the slavery in the world.Dany's focus at this point in time is on the war with the Shadow and controlling the troubled state of Meereen. The rebellion is considered to be his biggest challenge during his rule over Meereen., and he often seeks to adopt effective policies to suppress it. The struggle against slave owners is never directly mentioned during her reign. But anyway, she realizes that Yunkai and New Ghis and other slavers have destroyed Astapor and are seeking to encircle Meereen (which with a peace treaty, slavery will return to its former state and only Meereen will There is no longer a slave in it). Jon's condition is also the same, so that during his command in the Night's Watch, he is repeatedly tested by Martin, and his heart is cruelly at odds with himself. But the fight or hostility with the Boltons is nothing but obsession. It is not his person. There are much bigger and more important risks than a political fight with the Boltons and the Lannisters. In general, even if the Boltons find enmity with Jon or Night's Watch at the end of Jon's story line in Dance with Dragons, it is because of Jon's decisions. The conditions in which each of Jon or Dany find themselves are not superior to each other in terms of difficulty.

Honestly, how do these things you said lead to an increase in trust towards Melisandre! Melisandre's god himself, the things that Melisandre does to please R'hllor are enough reasons not to trust her. The sword is fake, Jon realizes that something is not right (how does this lead to Jon's trust in the Red priestess?) Orwell's eagle, Rattleshirt's transformation into Mance Rayder, his magical connection with Ghost, all of this even if It led to Jon's trust in Melisandre It was shown in the stage with his trust in Mance Rayder to save Arya (which was done with Melisandre's suggestion) And it tells us that he really trusts at some point in time. Ask Stannis? This is funny.Someone needs to tell Stannis that he is not Azor Ahai and that he is wrong. The peak of Melisandre's sweet deeds is when Stannis leaves the wall and she stays with Jon (just when Jon should trust her). The most important reason for Jon's death is his carelessness. Not a lack of trust in a witch priestess and her predictions.

Do you really understand what I mean about the similarity between Lincoln and Jon? I mean the conditions they face. Predictions? Let's ignore his assassination due to the prophecies he receives because in the first place it is Jon's own fault that he is too blind to think about his own life. (Not only because of lack of trust or caution towards a The red woman, Melisandre herself also plays a role in this story with her Wrong perceptions) And I agree with the rest of your words and I mentioned it in the previous comment, but personally, the other end of the scale is still heavier for me and I don't see Jon as a fool or an unworthy leader.

Incompetent leader? I disagree. Even deserving leaders fail. The issue is clear: The bastard Ned Stark, as the 998th Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, will soon face the greatest threat to humanity, and at the same time, the Wildlings want to cross the wall at any cost, and he knows that he must unite them somehow. Or witness that they will constantly attack the Night's Watch (or at least meet them in the form of Wights in the future). On the other hand, the usurper rebel, Stannis Baratheon is present in the wall and has his own expectations and demands. But wait, it's not over yet, because in the meantime, Jon Snow's oaths must be kept, otherwise he will be an ambitious oath breaker. Well, it is clear that the situation is such that no Lord Commander can imagine worse than it even in his dreams. But how does Jon deal with these issues: He knows that his priority is to face others. Protecting the territory from this superhuman disaster is considered the most important part of his oaths (ask me for my opinion, other oaths are not so important in such unnatural conditions) So he must unite the Wildlings first, even though he knows that many of his brothers, led by Bowen Marsh, will oppose him. He almost succeeds in this. The fact that each of the wildlings leaders swears to him in his own way while crossing the wall shows that he has enough respect among them. which makes him the best leader to lead them to Battle for the Dawn. He divides the Wildlings and uses them. ) He then makes a deal with Stannis. He doesn't take her back publicly, but he knows that this is a gamble and a risk, but he is the only decent person who cares about the threats on the other side of the wall. So getting his satisfaction is of diplomatic importance for Jon. He gains more than he loses. With his effective advice to Stannis (which proves his uncanny intelligence), he maintains the independence of the Wall and keeps the Wildlings that Stannis wanted to take with him to the south. As much as he can, he uses Stannis' soldiers to be stationed in other castles. He also does his best to provide the necessary provisions for the Night's Watch, either through the Wildlings' valuables or by borrowing from the iron bank. So in the first place (comparing to others) he is not an unworthy leader and who will do better than him right now? But did John fail? Yes! As much as he gained respect from Stannis and Wildlings, he also increased the hatred of his brothers towards him, and he either ignored or avoided this issue, which ultimately led to his death at the end of A Dance with Dragons. He should have known that he is the key to the union of the Night's Watch and the Wildlings, which is very important. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, this leads to the disloyalty of the men of the Watch to him, so that he alienates even those who are loyal to him. He could not have the necessary foresight among his people regarding his decisions. Although his advisers are not very capable (for example, Bowen Marsh is enough with his cardboard intelligence) Anyway, his story has similarities with Abraham Lincoln. His death serves a purpose for Martin and teaches Jon many lessons.

Where is it said that each of the four thousand people that Tormund brought with him are warriors? They may even have been sent to other castles of the Night's Watch or to Gift. Yes, he says that, but because Weeper is the leader of a significant number of Wildlings and knows the lands beyond the wall better than anyone else. His information is valuable to Jon. I'm sorry, but I find this alliance between Jon and Weeper leading to Jon's march to Winterfell or even using these people to defend the wall too much. And how does double four thousand become tens of thousands? Even so, why should all of them be able to fight?(Of the same twice as four thousand Wildlings) I am not saying that Jon did not make a mistake. I think you don't understand what I mean. I am examining the matter from Jon's point of view, that he had something on his mind and that everything is not as simple as it seems.

I did not say that Ramsay is the Warden of the North and that he has no military power to take back FArya is unbelievable. (Roose himself may give him soldiers directly) In addition, the Boltons have nearly 4,000 soldiers, while we have no idea how many wildlings are fighting for Jon. Yes, emotions definitely decide on him, but I wonder if this is his first time? Did he not get the news of Ned Stark's imprisonment and then death? Did he forget his brother's death at the Red Wedding? Didn't they tell him that Winterfell was on fire and that Bran and Rickon were dead? So this is not the first time he is in this situation. This time, we don't need to see a very emotional version of Jon Snow who easily makes a wrong decision based on his emotions. Do you remember Garth Greyfeather, Black Jack Bulwer, and Hairy Hal? Weeper has them killed, their heads removed, and their eyes plucked out, then leaves their heads on spears near the Wall for the men of the Night's Watch to find. I can't accept that he would suddenly ally himself with Jon at this point in time with such animosity towards the Night's Watch. And that Mance lost many of the wildling warriors he had brought with him to the wall (in battle with the Night's Watch or Stannis). So I don't think he had ten thousand or more.

I agree that Ramsay is a full-fledged sadist, but he is not stupid and shows cunning at the right time. But yes, the word ''sane'' is a little too much for him who enjoys torturing others.

Arya means Winterfell for Ramsey. Without him, how can he claim the lordship of Winterfell among the northerners? And for this, he will not need most of the northerners, he will definitely have his soldiers. When did I say all the people he wants are in Castle Black? How does Ramsay know this? Like any other sane person, he comes to the conclusion that Arya, who ran away with Reek, will go to Jon. What do you mean by unknown battlefield? Doesn't Jon know the north well? Even if, based on your arguments, we think that Ramsay just made an empty threat and no one will follow him (and even if he does it will take weeks to get through the blizzard) then Jon is a complete idiot with this decision. But Martin never does that to him and uses his intelligence and talent instead, but he is probably rawer and has weaknesses that make him killable. When Jon reads the pink letter, he has no reason to believe that Stannis is dead. Anyway, he knows enough about Ramsay and his sinister reputation is such that Jon immediately decides to do anything. So I don't know why he should hand over those who Ramsay wants to buy time. Weeper? tens of thousands of wildlings?How did you reach this conclusion?

I agree with you to some extent. The Riverlands are almost destroyed (although I think they still have a significant number of troops), the Lannisters won't interfere, and the Vale of Arryn has its own fresh and untouched forces,which you say They will not confront Danny's army(It is quite wise). As for the Tyrells or Martells, I really don't know whose side they will take, although I believe at least one of them will support Aegon. I don't think they have any strength left in stormy lands either. But the North will probably have a king by then (that could be interesting). So he will be the conqueror, but he doesn't have to go around all of Westeros and capture every castle she sees. She doesn't have to be Aegon the conqueror.King's Landing is ready for occupation. But do you think that Aegon will be defeated relatively easily in the end and will give up the throne? Will he not play a big role in the story? Will there be a second dance?

They are not similar in terms of personality, but I think you are referring to the role each of them play in their world. For example, Éowyn killed Witch-king of Angmar in Lord of the Rings and played a big role. Is it possible that Arya will also play such a big role in the war with others? For example, killing Great Other' champion (not necessarily Great Other himself).

Thank you. I'm not very good at English, but I'll try my best You are right. However, I think you get my point.

Please correct me if I am wrong AGoT Jon III ''Castle Black is not a true castle, as it has no walls to defend it to the west, east, or south. Only the Wall stands to the north. It consists of several stone towers and timber keeps'' I see that some of you are saying that Jon should stay in Castle Black and face Ramsay's army there,but considering the above paragraph and that most of the Nigth's Watch castles from the south are indefensible or destroyed,why does Jon have to stay at the wall and face Boltons there when evereyone ramsay wants is there (well exept Reek and Arya) I don't think Jon decided after two hours of taiking with Tormund to suddenly march in to the heart of enemy with three thousand wildings.He probably had something on his mind and we will finally find out.