Nathan Stark

I think Lady died for one reason only; Cersei's desire to punish and humiliate House Stark. Robert wasn't going to do anything about... well, anything. He wanted the whole sorry business over with as soon as possible. As it all relates to Sansa's ark in the story, the loss of Lady clearly forshadows Cersei's future mistreatment of Sansa, and indicates that Sansa's naive romantic worldview will have to die if she is to survive to adulthood. Just as Jon was advised to "kill the boy and let the man be born," Sansa must "kill the girl and let the woman be born." Lady's death serves to remind us that Sansa's romantic worldview is as out of place and vulnerable in Kings Landing as an actual direwolf would be. Never forget, Arya had to give up Nymeria as well, but unlike Sansa, Arya was aware of the choice, whereas her naive sister had it made for her.

You are mistaken to say the game of thrones is in opposition to House Stark. Everybody plays the game. Ned played it and lost. Robb played it and lost. Jon played it and and was betrayed by his own men. The game of thrones is politics, not some ethereal standard to which the Starks stand in opposition. They want to win the game as much as anyone else. And yes, Lady was symbolic of Sansa's dreams of being a proper noble lady, which is why Sansa named her wolf Lady. Your argument would apply only if Sansa herself had killed Lady. But she didn't. Cersei ordered Lady's death, and Ned did the deed. Lady's death had nothing to do with anything Sansa did herself.

Ah, but Sansa didn't lie to Ned, her dad, she lied to Robert, her King and future father in law. And even then, the lie was "I don't know what happened, I didn't see." Very different from outright saying "Arya and Micah did it and Joffrey was entirely innocent!" Again, not a great moment for Sansa, but she's 12. Name one 12 year old you know who wouldn't fudge in front of authority to make themselves look better. Many adults do this. Sansa critics frequently make the error of applying the same standards to Sansa, a child, that they would to an adult like Cersei. The reality, in text, is that nothing Sansa has done of her own volition is anywhere close to the least of Cersei's crimes. Sansa murdering Sweetrobin in cold blood, fully aware of what she is doing, would be a major change in her character, way beyond anything she has done so far.

Nope. Lady's death is symbolic of the death of Sansa's dreams. She starts out far from the ethos of the contemporary Starks, much closer to the values reflected by Catelyn and Septa Mordayne. By AFfC, Sansa has grown much closer to the values of Ned and the North, reflected in her growing attachment to the Old Gods.

Even the book doesn't agree with the bolded part. Sansa certainly was not lying to her father "for days." She told him her story the night Arya vanished, which seemed to line up with the story Arya gave King Robert, since Ned saw fit to use Sansa as backup for the story Arya was telling. The text explicitly tells us that Mycah died long after Sansa could have done or said anything to save him. It really wasn't her responsibility anyway. It was the adults who failed in that situation, not the children. As for Lady, her death was not punishment for Sansa's sins, but a symbol of the death of Sansa's dreams. She desperatly wanted to be a Lady, a Queen, who everybody loves and looks up to the way she looked up to Cersei. And it was Cersei who ordered Lady put to death, forshadowing the way Cersei would ultimately betray, capture and abuse Sansa. The scene is not a sadistic punishment by the author upon one of his characters, but a tragedy fortelling how Sansa's naive dreams will eventually lead to her and her families downfall. Sansa running off to Cersei is hardly her best moment, and she will have to reckon with that some day. But lets not overstate her role here. Sansa made things a little easier for Cersei, but it was Littlefinger and Janos Slynt and even Ned himself who ensured Cersei's coup succeeded. None of this indicates that Sansa is capable of deliberately murdering a child. Unintentionally she may cause his death, or she may yet choose to save the boy. But there is no indication in the books so far that she is willing to commit murder solely for power.

There's not really a difference between Sansa and Alayne. Sansa is many things, but she doesn't have multiple personality disorder.

What does Sansa want that Harry the heir could possibly give her? The North? She has a better path to that through Sweetrobin, or if we're being honest, she could just plain reveal her identity to the Vale. Marriage? Maybe, but we know she doesn't think much of Hardyng, and there's the problem of the marriage to Tyrion. Sansa is more likely to kill Sweetrobin unintentionally by overdosing him on sweetsleep than diliberately commiting coldblooded murder. Nothing in her pov chapters has ever indicated a desire to commit murder of the sort you are implying. If Sweetrobin does die, and I doubt he will, it'll have much more to do with Littlefinger, it will further traumatize Sansa, and would likely begin whatever progression of events leading to Sansa breaking away from Littlefinger. I doubt Harry has the intelligence or the courage required to make an ask of Sansa that requires her to murder Sweetrobin.

More and more, I am coming to the conclusion that Sweetrobin will survive the series outright. He just checks all the classic GRRM boxes for "unexpected survivor." He is in the category of "cripples, bastards and broken things," and I think George likes to have the traditionally "weak" or "fragile" characters, like Bran or Sweetrobin be the people who persevere due to some overlooked inner strength. What I'm saying is, Sweetrobin will live just to keep being a pain in the ass. As to Sansa, contradictory things can be true. I believe she is slowly poisoning Sweetrobin, and deep, deep down she knows that he is being poisoned. I don't believe she wants him to die, and she appears to sincerely think that what she is doing will benefit him in the end. That said, Sansa has a real failing in her tendency for denial. It's too painful to contemplate that Sweetrobin is dying, so she deludes herself that he's just fine. It's even more painful to admit that he's dying because she is poisoning him, so she tells herself that actually the sweetsleep is helping him get better, somehow. It gets even more complicated when you consider that, in small doses, the drug is fairly helpful to Sweetrobin. He wouldn't have gotten down the Eyrie without it. Sansa is a complex character capable of having conflicting desires and motivations, which is why posts that boil her down to "stupid bitch who betrayed her family and is killing Sweetrobin for power because reasons" so often miss the point. Sansa has a choice to make in the future; does she keep poisoning Sweetrobin, knowing what she knows about Littlefinger's intentions for him, or does she choose to stop giving him sweetsleep? Given her internal thoughts about the child, I find it hard to believe she would choose the former, however tempting the alternative might seem.

With regards to King Stannis, this quote from an interview George R. R. Martin gave always bears repeating: At the end of A Storm of Swords, Stannis, who has been convinced by Davos to help the Nights Watch, admits to Jon that he intends to earn the right to the Iron Throne by saving the realm, rather than demanding it bend to him. That is character growth. Before, Stannis was rightfully angry at being usurped in the line of succession not only by Roberts illigitimate bastards, but also by his own younger brother, who never had any legal claim to the throne. Perhaps he was in denial at that point about wanting the throne, but I suspect Stannis is telling the truth when he says he doesn't want it. Stannis wants the love and respect of his brothers, but as they are both dead, the Iron Throne just becomes a stand in for all the acknowlegement and respect that has been denied to him. It will never fill the aching need to be loved by Robert and Renly, and I think he knows that, deep down. Stannis would not be the first person to lose sight of his own sense of justice and personal values in his blind pursuit of the throne. Better men and women did the similar things as Stannis in the game of thrones. However, it takes a certain type of courage to chose, as Stannis did, to earn the right to rule by fighting to protect his would be kingdom. That alone makes him a worthier person to sit the Iron Throne than any of the other claimants taking part in the War of the Five Kings. Doesn't mean he'll win, though.

That's what you're doing with Tywin. He was all of the things you accuse Tyrion of being, as well as a monumental hypocrite, since he happily paid Shae for her services, and most likely others prostitutes on the down low. Your comments about rape in this series reminds me of comments made by right-wing politicians in my own country to the effect of "just lay back and enjoy it if you get raped." I assure you George R. R. Martin didn't add these details about Tywin's life and career in order to sing his praises. You are entirely missing the point that Tywin was meant to be a villian just as much as Tyrion is.

Yup. The OP's assuming the Lannisters are just the named characters in text. There are really a lot more of them than those that appear in the books. House Lannister is a fecund bunch. It's very unlikely the House falls and goes extinct.

It's rare that we get any kind of thread analyzing Danaerys Taryaryen's story and narrative like this, so I'm sold. I think the author of the blog is correct in calling Dany a Shakespearean tragic hero. I have always understood the infamous House with the Red Door to symbolize Dany's desperate desire for family, safety, love, etc. In a sense, she has conflated Westeros with home, and the Iron Throne with the Red Door. But we know that the Iron Throne does not bestow happiness upon the people who sit it, except for people like Joffrey. Dany is in for a very unpleasant surprise when she returns to Westeros to find that her reputation has preceded her and the people of Westeros like their fake King Aegon, thank you. The tragedy of Danaerys Targaryen is that she will ultimately let her worst impulses drive her actions. And it will lead to her downfall.

I don't it matters, narratively speaking, whether Dany comes back in time or not. For that reason, I believe she will miss the end of the battle, having been preoccupied with events at the Mother of Mountains and the Dosh Khaleen. Taking over the khalasars and delving into prophesies and horselord politics should take four chapters at least, I would think. Unless George is going for a monthslong seige of Meereen, I think he is going to let Dany take her own time to get things dealt with before she returns to Meereen. That said, Dany showing up for the end of the battle probably wouldn't effect the larger story very much either way, except maybe to make things go faster, and George might leave a lot out of either the Dany or Meereen plotlines to make things more airtight. So I guess things could go either way. But my money would be on Barristan and co. winning the Battle of Fire before Dany comes back.

There are three wildcards left on the Yunkish side: the 100 elephants stationed to the East of Meereen, the Ghiscari legions, 36,000 in total, to the North, East, and South of the city, and the Volentene fleet. The elephants very notably have been mentioned only in passing in the chapters we have been given. I suspect GRRM intends to utilize them at some point, and they will be a challenge for the Meereenese, even with the Iron Born reinforcements. Their joining the battle will certainly not be good for the defenders, and will bear watching. The legions are also a danger. They are not anywhere as good as the Unsullied, of course, but they are a diciplined force nontheless, and a well timed attack could also throw Barristan and his army into disarray. When it comes down to it, I suspect the Unsullied would throw back such an attack, but it might not be without cost. The real gamechanger here is the Volentene fleet. Everybody on both sides are assuming they will join the slaver coalition, forgetting that this is a fleet comprised of mostly slave soldiers. When they arrive, there is a very good chance that they will join decisively with Danaerys's cause, in a nod to Tolkien's Battle of the Pelennor Fields. This is what will cause the slaver coalition to completely collapse. The dragons, of course, will do whatever they do. I make no predictions regarding the dragonhorn. I do think the slavers will be defeated, but it is going to be a very bloody and chaotic fight.

Dany is one of the protagonists. She is not the main protagonist. Jon, Arya, and Tyrion all have more total pov chapters. You have to do a lot of re-writing of the story we have been given so far to make this the more straightforward story you're arguing for.

I don't think GRRM wants us to take the AA story literally. It serves as worldbuilding, and as a way to give hints about the Long Night, which the myth is based on. But George has said that we won't see figures like the Nights King in the books, and the same is true for Azor Ahai imo.

C'mon guys. This sniping at each other is pretty counterproductive. No need to namecall or come within Godwin's Law. It's fiction. Let's enjoy the characters and discuss the proposal at issue. Is Dany Azor Ahai come again? I think not, because Azor Ahai was never a person that existed. Azor Ahai is a part of a monomyth, and is a similar figure to the Last Hero, another mythical figure that never existed. These figures are not here to be reborn as literal people. They are more or less archetypes. Dany might share similar traits to the mythical figure, as does Jon, but neither of them are literally Azor Ahai.

And the best dragons. Nobody has dragons like D.T. does, believe me!

D.T.- My dragons are fantastic, ok? They're so full of life and vigor, it's unbelievable. Totally amazing! Nobody has better dragons than I do, believe me! They have the best life, the best vigor! They are full of the best fire, ok? They have fire and fury, and, frankly, power!

It is a pretty iffy look on Lyanna's part, if it was an elopement. Though I do wonder how much we should be judging a hormonal 16 year old here. They don't have the greatest track record in the series to date on matters of physical relations. The more pressing issue here is Rheagar Targaryen. Like, how old was he? In his 30's? Late 20's? Either way, old enough to have been married, have one child and another on the way. So unless he was acting with Elia's full knowlege and consent, he was a pretty shitty husband and father, all so he could do the nasty with a teenager. Either way, Lyanna is the party with the lesser amount of power in this situation.