Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About WolfOfWinter

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight
  • Birthday 10/04/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,754 profile views
  1. What? You don’t make your family members give you head? Dude, you’re missing out!
  2. Daenerys' arc really is a good illustration of how far a character can go and still have people defend her actions because she's charismatic and says all the right stuff, even when it contradicts her own actions. Cersei kills hundreds of people? Kill the evil bitch. Dany nukes a million people? Meh, she must have a morally sound reason, and btw nuking Hiroshima was also cool and so Dany must be cool too. Yikes.
  3. Oh how I wish the remaining books will be released one day. Watching Daenerys fail to win over Westeros and succumbing to tyranny will be glorious. There are so many things I wish to experience twice (and some for the first time). Please just give me a Stark reunion, George.
  4. It means that those of us who never bought into Dany's BS will have a mighty fine time if the books are ever released.
  5. I'll try to stay as loyal to the unconventional part as possible. - Garlan isn't a genuinely good guy but someone playing the game like the rest of his family. I don't think that necessarily makes him evil as I believe Mace has sort of forced his family's hand, but it does make Garlan more devious morally grey as people paint him out to be, especially since the Tyrells put targets on Tyrion and Sansa's backs. - Ned failed in some of his parenting duties to Sansa in that he failed to communicate anything with her, let the betrothal go on, and took his daughters to KL even after someone tried to kill Bran and succeeded in killing Jon Arryn. - While Dany sympathized with the Unsullied, she also freed them knowing they'd join her as they lacked free will. Additionally, her profiting from the slave markets outside Meereen, enforcing slave labor in Meereen, and protecting Illyrio, a slave owner and trader, makes her a slaver as well albeit a more benevolent one than the rest. - Dany's mass murder of 12-year-old (and +) Astapori boys was one of the biggest atrocities in the books and deliberately excluded from the show as they knew the visual of it would make her irredeemable in the eyes of show fans. It was also one of the biggest signs of her eventual descent into villainy.
  6. Unless it's a slaver, slave trader, rapist or child murderer Dany cares about, in which case they get the honor of being remembered as heroes by her as per her conversation with Tyrion about Drogo, Daario "fuck Meereen and its people" and Jorah. Or child killers such as Ellaria and the Sand Snakes who murdered two innocent children, one of them their own kin, making them usurpers. Or Theon and Yara. Child murder is a defensible sin in those cases. It's almost like Dany has a history of black and white thinking which reared its ugly head once again when the commoners refused to worship her. Dany ended up being the Mad Queen because that's how it's going to go in the books. And while the show spent way too much time whitewashing her, she was still portrayed as a person who constantly needed to be talked down from committing atrocities e.g. her pledge to burn down the entire cities of Astapor and Yunkai after she was to crucify every master, regardless of which among them actually waged war against her. She literally had someone tell her to chill every season. Additionally, throughout eight seasons of the show, Dany only gave one man a quick and merciful death. Everyone else was dragged behind her horse, burned alive, crucified, locked in a vault or fed to her dragons. Not even show!Cersei could beat that record of cruelty.
  7. It's true that everyone suffers in the series but the things that befall the Starks appear especially tragic because 1. most of the family consists of children and 2. the Starks were perfectly content to not play the game and just live their lives. They only got involved because Ned wanted justice for Jon Arryn, an inherently noble goal. Tyrion and Dany, while considered heroes by some, made an active choice to involve themselves in the game of thrones for personal gain and ambition. Tyrion's atrocities speak for themselves. As for Dany, for all her claims about wanting to settle down with a husband and children, she still tried to persuade Drogo to invade another continent to put her son, prophesied to be a future dark lord, on the Iron Throne. That choice had disastrous consequences for the innocent Lamb People, and Dany herself, who then chose to birth weapons of mass destruction instead of selling the dragon eggs because she chose war over settling down. Between that and the systemic murder of 12-year-olds in Astapor, the profiting from the slave markets outside Meereen, the torture of innocent girls in front of their likely innocent father, the crucifixions of random people, the burning of Mirri, and the many things to come, she's a morally dark grey character at best. Nothing the current generation of Starks has done even compares to Dany allowing the torture of the wineseller's daughters in a fit of rage after acknowledging that the man is probably innocent and torture is ineffective anyway.
  8. This thread is doing a great job of illustrating just how dangerous charismatic leaders such as Daenerys are when they veil their ambition in good intentions and pretend to be fighting for some higher ideal. How far is Dany allowed to go before her actions become indefensible? The murder of 12-year-old Astapori boys or profiting from the slave trade outside Meereen wasn't enough for some book readers. Feeding a random man to her dragons before admitting she didn't care whether he was innocent or not (he was) before threatening to kill Hizdahr as well, imprisoning him, letting him believe he was dragon fodder and then forcing him to marry her, after randomly crucifying his father, wasn't enough for some show fans. Will her actions always be defensible to some people because she claims to have good intentions? Is there really no such thing as good or bad in her case because she freed slaves once? Going by some of the discourse I've seen on other sites such as reddit, some people are already preemptively justifying Dany nuking King's Landing in the books "for the greater good." I want to point out the hilarity of singling out book!Dany as some great anti-slavery revolutionary who'll have to choose fire and blood to eliminate slavery, because that worked out so well in Astapor. The truth about slavery in Slaver's Bay is that it's so ingrained in the economic and cultural structures of the region that it'll take more than just violent interventionism to change its foundation. Even book!Dany finds herself partaking in slavery when she 1) allows a flourishing slave trade outside the gates of Meereen because the refugees are desperate, 2) profits from the aforementioned slave trade, and 3) enforces slave labor because it's "necessary" and justifies it because they're "paid" with food and shelter. Show!Dany allows former slaves to sell themselves back into slavery in season four because they're homeless, terrified and desperate. I'm sure someone will do a perfunctory job of explaining how this isn't slavery, how Dany is very different from all the other slavers (in the books), how slavery was totally necessary for those situations, or how fire and blood over diplomacy will create more jobs, stability, homes, food sources, and economic stability. OP, D&D didn't have some secret vendetta against Daenerys. If they had, they wouldn't have turned her into some sort of empowered, feminist figure whose actions and consequences were significantly toned down (to the point of turning even Mirri into a more devious character to prop up Dany) to get the audience to root for her. After the allegations of misogyny following Sansa's storyline, do people really believe they'd turn their most popular feminist and female character into a villain against Martin's wishes just to spite a significant part of the audience?
  9. Why was Dany so antagonistic towards Cersei? Same answer as for Sansa: they had different political goals. Sansa wanted independence and Dany stood in the way of that. Dany wanted the Seven Kingdoms and Cersei stood in the way of that. The writing really isn't that complicated.
  10. I don't believe he's the real deal either, but I think it's one of the things Martin will keep ambiguous for characters as well as the readers. And ultimately, I foresee this being a dilemma of whether his legitimacy matters or not from a moral standpoint if he can manage to restore peace in Westeros and be a competent king to the people. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the books will also have Cersei and Euron on the Iron Throne during the Long Night. I don't have any deep analysis to prove it, but Euron's presence was so insignificant that I'm convinced he was only kept in the story because of his future alliance with Cersei in the books. I can totally see Euron getting a dragon and destroying the Wall before ditching everyone to deal with the mess while he takes advantage of the situation. The way I think it'll go is that Dany will kill fAegon and become the most hated person in Westeros. This will lead her to join the fight against the Others, both because it's the right thing to do and because of good PR. Except the Westerosi will continue to hate her because of her reputation as a kinslayer as well everything else she'll be associated with. Meanwhile, during what was meant to be her positive PR campaign, Euron and Cersei will take over KL. It will be a massive setback to what should have been a successful campaign, and she won't even have gained the love of her allies. Feeling like she's sacrificed so much for nothing in return except for a reluctant alliance with the North/Vale/Riverlands, she'll torch KL to the ground. Basically, I think Dany's journey in the last season was very true to what book!Dany's will be. It's the lack of Aegon and the destructiveness of her invasion, as well as the implication that she stabilized SB, that takes so much away from the story.
  11. Dany will win the battle but Aegon will win the war. Killing him will destroy Dany, emotionally as well as politically. Jaime's still loathed 18 years later for killing a mad king. Dany killing a beloved and competent king who's also her nephew after supposedly killing her own brother and husband? She's so fucked. The show has proven more than anything how important fAegon is to the overall story.
  12. The Northerners' fight for independence is a lot more bloody and drawn out in the books. And it's going to sting a lot more once Dany, whose Dothraki and dragons won't be as mellow in the books, flies in and forces them to kneel/Jon gives up sovereignty in the books. That's more than enough reason for the other Starks and the North to stand up against Dany. That's not even the most important part. We learn in Arianne's chapter that rumors about Dany killing her own brother to usurp him and then her husband for the same reason are spreading from Essos to Westeros. And now she's being set up to kill Aegon, her own nephew as well as her rightful king. Kingslayers and kinslayers are already loathed in Westeros, so why would the North and the Vale ever be comfortable kneeling to a person who's an oathbreaker extraordinaire? Moreover, how do you think the Starks are going to feel once they find out that their own brother is also Dany's nephew after she's already killed another nephew? It's absolutely going to cause a rift between them even if they were otherwise amenable to each other. Pitting the Starks against Dany, both sides who for the longest time have been considered the heroes, is a very Martin thing to do; especially after pitting Dany against one-dimensional villains for so long.
  13. The North wanted independence because they consistently got screwed over by the Iron Throne throughout the last several years, are regarded as uncivilized savages for having a different culture and customs, had two of their liege lords dishonorably killed, and almost got wiped out fighting off an apocalyptic event with practically no help from the rest of the realm (except the Vale) which everyone else benefited massively from despite their lack of contribution. Moreover, even Dany, an important ally who helped them fight off a world-ending event ended up screwing them over by forcing their traumatized and weary men into a war they weren't ready for, because she couldn't wait a week for the rest of Cersei's allies to abandon her. Why on earth wouldn't they want independence after the trauma, betrayal and loss they've suffered?
  14. I have never bought into the "Dany is mad" theory, and I still don't, but Dany IS straight up delusional. She seems to genuinely believe that she's in Westeros to end the wheel of oppression or what the fuck ever, while initially keeping a king prisoner because his people chose him to lead them, refusing t aid the North against a mythical threat for not bending the knee to her and burning people alive for not pledging to her. She buys into her own propaganda and is incapable of seeing the difference between what she's saying and what she's doing. She is unstable as shown on the show, just not the way her father was. Ellaria and the Sand Snakes were traitors, Yara and Theon are traitors, Olenna became a traitor the day she poisoned Joffrey at his own wedding. For a woman who goes on about her birthright, she sure as shit doesn't care about the right of succession unless she benefits from it. Dany is a hypocrite through and through.
  15. Get ready for endless "that's not how annulments work/Rhaegar was removed from the line of succession/Dany is still the rightful ruler" discussions, despite the show literally spelling it out for us.
  • Create New...