Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Tyrion1991

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,831 profile views
  1. Its a pretty reasonable bet she’ll land on that side of Westeros. I’d like a Wildcard showdown at Oldtown but it’s not likely. You can’t do a second Dance if Euron or Cersei are the ones to ruin Aegons day. So any conflict with them is going to play second fiddle. You mean the Starks lie to Dany and use her before stabbing her in the back? Yes I imagine they will use her to get what they want. Why wouldn’t a pack of barbarians do that? Dany is more likely to be like Rhaenyra in the Dance. That story is very blunt foreshadowing of how things will go for Dany unless she graciously gives up her claim to the throne. Rhaenys could have just waited for her son to inherit the throne and theDance was this pointless. George is definitely going to make the same point with Dany. He’s going to frame Barristan as being right that Dany only had to wait. Aegons problems become Danys once she takes over. So she’d be left holding the bill and taking the blame. It doesn’t matter if he’s a failure, he’s going Tim Ben popular and it will be too easy to make him a martyr. It’s too easy for Dany if everyone screams “the throne rejects him!” and go full 1660 restoration. Bran is Azor Ahai because he’s the mystical chosen one of the Children. Dany is a red herring in regards to that prophecy. There will be a build up o people thinking she’s the saviour and then it will be revealed that SHOCK it’s actually the most generic and boring one dimensional character in the series. How can George be deconstructing the hidden prince trope when he’s asking us to take Jon seriously? Was there too much polish on Aegons silver spoon? Which would be the easy way out if Dany dies saving the world to wash away her sins. George will do what creates the most conflict and drama. Which is Dany survives and wants her claim but is broken and yes, Westeros turns on her. I can’t quite understand how George will rationalise an ungrateful people murdering their Queen; but he’s getting started on the ground work for that. Aegon is a key part of Danys downfall.
  2. The character had passed under the shadow and endured the necessary sacrifices. It was not a dues ex machina that her dragons showed up. Thats not the same as a character being bombarded with Cthulhu insanity points. Dany isn’t choosing to get visitations by Quiathe and for some weird reason takes her seriously. Plus not having an axe to grind with mages despite Miri. I would not trust any mage on principle after that.
  3. “It still is a plot twist. The main reason why we can expect this to happen is that George himself let it slip that there will be a Second Dance of the Dragons. Without that I'd think that very few people would be very convinced that Aegon and Dany have to clash - and even with the Second Dance talk it is not a given that they will have to clash severely or at all. The Second Dance of the Dragons could still be another war/event. And I don't imagine it as a conflict strictly between Dany and Aegon. But as I try to argue here I don't think Daenerys is going to be 'the villain' here - I think Aegon will be the failure/tyrant, because he - unlike Daenerys - was set up to be the ideal king by the people who 'created' him, and George isn't the kind of author who is going to make Varys' plan succeed perfectly and have only Dany ruin it all. And this is not something coming out of the left field. Aegon is there since ACoK, when we get our first glimpse of the cloth dragon on a pole in front of a cheering crowd who is one of the lies Dany has to slay. He may look promising or nice enough now - like Stannis does right now - but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't the heroes of the story at all. Stannis defending the Wall doesn't absolve his earlier crimes and sins, and most definitely not the sacrifice of Shireen if that's going to be done at his command. You ignore the overall story here. There are still Euron and Cersei out there. It is wrong to assume Aegon is going to become some sort of shiny king who will restore peace to Westeros if Cersei and Euron and Littlefinger and Lady Stoneheart and the Tyrells and Stannis and many other people are still out there. Instead, he will be a short flame of hope before he starts to make things worse for everybody - just like many of the other people do. He will bring the grey plague to Westeros, he will continue the war against the old Targaryen enemies, possibly especially the Lannisters, but also against all those who contest his rule. He will make mistakes, he will fail to prepare the Seven Kingdoms for the Others, he will start to see traitors everywhere around him, etc. There are so many possibilities there. If you look at his character the crucial thing after ADwD is that we barely saw him in private, nor did we ever get a view of his true persona. He was just there, aside from the one conversation he had with Tyrion, and the speech he gave which was effectively Tyrion's. What he actually thinks and does in his heart we don't know yet, meaning there is potential there for a developing cruel streak, for a paranoia, mistrust, arrogance, and hubris.” It was really obvious anyway and that’s not brought up a lot on the forums that specific interview. I am sure she’ll be killing other people and continuing the trend of being the only faction truly impacted by logistics. But, simple geography says that she’s going to be mainly fighting Aegon. Euron and Cersei are on the other side of the continent and Aegons allies are in the way. Yes but peoples perception of Aegon is what matters. It doesn’t matter if he’s the real deal or not. He will have enough early success to secure a place of power and can blame any failing afterwards on his mad aunts betrayal. I think it’s one of two outcomes. Either beating him destroys Danys reputation with the common people. Or, they initially back him but start to get cold feet, however by time mob is starting to clock who he is, Dany goes full Genghis Khan and so they end up hating her anyway; or dead. George can still poke fun at Aegons flaws and demonise Dany at the same time. He wants to put the Starks on a pedestal so there’s no issue with criticising two Targaryens. That vision could be literally anything. George is a gardener and does not do outlines. He made up the character and the plot because he wanted to turn the people of Westeros against Dany. Simply rocking up with a foreign army wouldn’t be a compelling reason anymore. Oh I agree he will fail. But he’s going to mortally wound Dany in the process. I don’t see Dany walking away without her reputation in the gutter. Safely on the other side of Westeros from Dany. I can’t see Cersei holding more than the Rock and Euron has the fleet. The land is likely to fall to Aegon pretty quickly TBH. A total collapse isn’t beyond possibility if the Tyrell army is defeated. They’ll have their own problems to contend with. I agree I think George would have Aegon become this craven, diseased King surrounded by his dying subjects as he raves about how everyone is failing him. Problem is, ordinary people won’t know that and he’ll die a martyr in their eyes. Even if Dany is 100 percent legit heir and Aegon does terrible things it won’t matter. I think George is going to play on this power resides where men believe it resides. People will want to believe in him as a messiah and so he will be that in their minds irrespective of anything to the contrary. But ultimately Aegon exists to push Dany into doing evil things and to turn the people of Westeros against her.
  4. Its too consistent an opinion though. I don’t see much variation of it on the forum and not everybody on the forum will have reread multiple times. I doubt people assumed the Frey’s would backstab at the end of AGOT; he’s just that creepy lord. But Aegon, as soon as he shows up we’re immediately talking about a civil war. Which is a huge leap considering they’re ostensibly allies planning on marrying. Foreshadowing which he put into ADWD. Meaning it’s a left field thing that he threw into the story without any setup. Aegon introduced and Dany starts getting bombarded with unsubtle magical visions that she isn’t asking for. He is blatantly going to be used to vilify Dany. George had to explain why the Lords and people of Westeros would vehemently oppose Dany overthrowing Cersei. To explain why rational people wouldn’t just step aside and cut a deal. If the Lannister position is based on power that house of cards should fold once something more powerful shows up. It would never have made sense. George’s solution is to completely change the setting before Dany gets to Westeros. Have a popular Targaryen King become the hero and save Westeros from the Lannister’s long before Dany reaches Westeros. So people are committed to him personally and more willing to stand by him. This Dany is reframed as a villain trying to overthrow her nephew out of lust for power. The Targaryen Dynasty will have already been restored. There is no reason anymore for her to invade Westeros. She would go from fighting “the usurpers dogs” to Targaryen loyalists. That is satire. All of which has been done without any decision on Danys part. Aegon just shows up, gets given a Fleet and presented with an easy conquest of Westeros. Dany literally has a demon road put in front of her and put into story jail because she’s waiting for a fleet to show up. It’s not a choice if your entire army dies anyway. The character is being railroaded into a war that should not be happening. It is an absurd plot twist. Georges excuse is obviously going be. “Oh But Dany you’re being cynical. He refused to marry Arriane, but you’re listening to the evil mystics whispering in your ear rather than believing in something good. You only have to marry him and have everything you want”. Which is absurd because why would anyone believe anything Quiathe says or anything a mage says after one murdered your child? I don’t get why Dany isn’t taking the view of killing every mage on site. Nobody is going to trust a creepy ghost that’s haunting you; it would just freak you out. Again, it’s an absurdity and a contrivance meant to create this situation. That’s not really a choice because the characters are doing irrational things and everything is being rigged to create this dumb outcome. It would be a terrible direction to take the story in.
  5. As an aside. Do you think George thought Aegon and Dany going into a civil war was meant to be a surprise plot twist? Pretty much every reader has immediately assumed this without any suggestion of it in the text. I think a lot of the later books got very predictable coz I think readers have him figured out and what his game is. You’re not naïvely going to assume a little bit of discord between allies. No, it’s a satire and George is going to go for situation which creates the most conflict. IMO I think another Targaryen claimant pulling the rug out under Danys story is an absurd and contrived plot twist to railroad Dany into being the villain. It came out of nowhere and it completely undermines the integrity of the story.
  6. OP I think Aegon exists as a character to undermine Daenerys. He is a random character intended to railroad her into taking a dark turn. Because of this he will be an incredibly successful King. He will achieve everything Dany set out to do. The people will rise for him. The Targaryen loyalist Lords will flock to him. He will win battle after battle. This very success will make Dany irrelevant. Her story will have been achieved by another character. He does not even need to marry Dany though I suspect George will not give Dany that pretext. I think he’ll want to give her the illusion of choice. Then we have two Targaryens destroying each other leaving the Starks to inherit Westeros by default.
  7. I don’t think George as an author would want to depict House Stark in a negative light. Plotting to seize power, being underhanded and simply wanting power are traits that he assigns to those who oppose the Starks. He depicts this as an inherent good in House Stark. We are told not wanting power is good and House do not desire power. Anything that looks like it in the story we are provided with excuses and rationalisations which even their enemies dont seriously question. The Lannister’s don’t actually question the legitimacy or motives of Rob Starks rebellion. With that agenda in mind it becomes impossible. These were simply innocent acts that a paranoid and weak Targaryen thought were schemes. He made an enemy of the North and fell as a result. Well you’re striking at the issue with Targaryen insanity. It’s an absurdity. No normal person would behave or act as they do with the information available. So why should I take any moral lessons from that or sympathise with their position? If you had an absolute monarch who wasn’t an inbred moron the system would work. This is why readers love Robert Baratheon. It gets in the way of any serious debate about these factions.
  8. It’s a pathetic storyline and indefensible. People keep trying to rationalise this. Yeah “blood will always tell” clap clap. Get the man an Oscar. The foreshadowing is irrelevant. What’s the point of having Dany take a dark turn? Where is Citizen Kane? How is that a better story for her than overcoming her inner Daemons? Tragedy? How can it be that? The show goes out of its way to set Dany as the incompetent villain opposed to the obviously correct and rational characters. Every single character, especially the Starks, are opposed to Dany. We have no reason to be sympathetic to her within the scope of the story. We are battered over the head with why she should just step aside and let Jon be the man Westeros needs. Long before she burns the city her character has been completely dragged through the mud and her role in saving the world minimalized to the point where the audience could legitimately ask whether the North could have won on its own. Tragedies have to be tragic and this was a farce. Satire? Some moral criticism of a power fantasy chosen one character? Knocking women with power? Well, these kind of go out of the window when you make Magic Bran King. So some mystical chosen ones are okay? It’s just Dany wasn’t the messiah? Plus making Sansa Queen shows they have no issue with absolute monarchy. A statement against the moral danger of black and white morality? When exactly did House Stark ever forgive its enemies? There’s nothing nuanced about it. They killed everyone who opposed them unless like Theon they were reduced to mewling sycophants who wanted to kiss their boots. So black and white morality is fine for those with the right blood because they have the wisdom to navigate such nuance as baking people into pies and hanging children. I mean really, Sam died as a character for me the moment he condemned Dany for executing his traitor racist father as if that’s ever been morally questionable in the series. Caesar killed a million Gauls and I don’t recall HBO blasting him over that. Morally grey storytelling indeed. Commentary on the allies fire bombing and dropping of the nukes? Well, that happened because the Allies demanded unconditional surrender. Dany is not asking for unconditional surrender. Not only that, but they DO surrender once she uses her dragons in a limited fashion. So bomber Harris was entirely correct. Terror works. It is possible to cow a civilian population into betraying their ruler. Just don’t put a nervous wreck in charge otherwise they’ll continue to kill everyone. Because, you know, the allies kind of stopped bombing once the peace treaties were signed... Morlaising against the cult of personality and dictators. Okay, Hitler rose to power because the German loved him and saw him as a hero. How is that anything like dany and the people of Westeros? The whole reason Dany flips is because people hate her and don’t want her to be their Queen. It’s a complete disconnect. How is there a cult of personality if nobody wants her to be their Queen and is trying to overthrow her all the time. The problem can’t simultaneously be too much love and too little love. “No one man can have all that power, the clocks ticking....” The show actually has Tyrion tell Jon that he has felt that power of riding a dragon and would have the wisdom to not use it. So the show is not criticising possession of power as shown by Sansa becoming Queen and Bran becoming King. It doesn’t matter if these are absolute monarchs or had the power to kill millions. Jon on a dragon would have been fine because he would have used it proportionately and justly because he’s this Ubermench King. This series was just a dumb piece of Stark fan service where they went out of their way to defend and validate those stone faced maggots. Of course, they’d never just use Dany to get what they want and then murder her to seize the throne. That just wouldn’t do. We gotta end on a high note so let’s have her Bear all the moral condemnation. Danys only mistake was believing the Lords and people of Westeros were worthy of her. She should have turned her back on them and let fate take its course.
  9. Jorah having been the man who dishonoured Ashara Dayne and this being why Barristan does not like him/wants him away from Dany because he thinks he disgraced Ashara Dayne and drove her to death. Plus if Dany is actually Ashara’s child that would be...well...
  10. Yes. He has purely been introduced to create problems for Dany and it’s an incredibly contrived plot twist. Another surprise Targaryen swoops in to take the throne thus putting her in the position of opposing many people who would be her allies. Ostensibly they’re allies and they talk as if they are that. Many readers have just seen completely through this and realises that they are going to be enemies. It’s obvious. I think he is going to be a full on Henry IV style King who will be victorious and carried to victory over the crumbling Lannister fortunes. His problems are going to start when the Gods curse him with Greyscale like the leper King out of Kingdom of Heaven and when that starts ravaging the capital. The Faith could very well turn on him as that would sure look like divine punishment if Greyscale strikes the city. Since this is a satire it would not surprise me if George has it where he’s initially an extremely popular King vis a vis a hated Dany, but later on, maybe even after Dany is dead n done all the nasty things, that sharply changes due all the events of the series. If Dany ends up helping defeat the Others whilst he’s in KL and they’re all dying of Greyscale before murdering the Messiah; that’s not going to paint him in a positive light. So the mob turns against the perfect King because power rests where men believe it does.
  11. The dragons can’t delete entire cities by looking at them. This is not Age of Sigmar level dragons. You certainly can achieve the same level of destruction with conventional weapons and tactics. Does it matter if you commit genocide with cold steel or with a flying lizard? If it takes you a few hours or a few days? If you’re looking your victims in the eye or like ants? That’s just casting moral judgement on the means and not the consequences. George is focusing in on the wrong aspect of this. He’s making moral judgements based on the method. As you say, killing people from a distance is somehow more monstrous than a Roman cutting up Carthaginian prisoners with his knife? Some guy in an Apache blasting guys on a street versus a marine shooting prisoners in the back of the head? It’s based on a flawed assumption. That if people are face to face that their natural empathy would prevail and we wouldn’t see as much violence. Therefore if you remove these powerful weapons that remove the Human element everything would be good. That is a dangerous distortion that misses the point. In the YouTube channel War against Humanity they make this point very clearly. People are hard wired to suppress empathy when they view a group they consider to be Other. It has nothing to do with them being like ants and a sense of detachment. People can be very evil without such things and looking their victims in the eye. The world would not be a better place if you removed the dragons and didn’t address the other issues. Which are for more important. Its like saying it’s more honourable to cut a mans throat than drop a bomb on his head. By focusing moral condemnation on such a superficial point you end up quietly sanctioning more conventional methods and behaviour.
  12. No the weapons destructiveness is a defined quality and should be judged against a real world equivalent. The dragons in this world cannot delete entire cities on a whim and leave whole continents irradiated wastelands. So they are not nuclear weapons. The author calls them that either because he is exaggerating or he is framing their use in negative terms by association. Yes they can. A dragon can burn a hamlet down and kill the people inside. The Mountains guys can and they can be more creative doing it as well. People can lay waste to cities and salt the earth without fire breathing lizards. Saying that your characters fantasy animal is like a weapon many groups actively want banned and has museums dedicated to its victims is not a neutral association. How does that not cast a shadow on Dany? That is saying she is the destroyer of worlds simply for bringing the dragons into being. Its a poor allegory. Last Punic War. Rome exterminated and enslaved it’s ancient enemy Carthage. Their city was demolished and the ground salted. No dragons involved. Imagine if that happened in a fantasy book and somebody was waxing poetic nonsense about how dangerous fire breathing lizards are. By singling out a random fantasy animal, you are defining what a just War is. As long as we don’t use these evil creatures and stay with normal tactics then everything is okay. But you can have the same if not worse result without using this proscribed weapon. So Dany using the Unsullied to do the above to Yunkai is fine but burning the Masters Pyramid down with a dragon is evil? So you accept they are not like nukes? Normal wolves and bears. George wouldn’t have the Starks go through a moral dilemma of their Direwolf killing an innocent. He wants them to be untainted by those sort of problems and it subtly insinuates they’re better than Dany because of how effortlessly they control their spirit animals. Because those injustices are not in the same level as what can be achieved with nukes. The war in Syria isn’t on a level with dropping nukes. Whereas with your normal and acceptable methods of war you can do the same level of damage as one of these dragons. But the normal stuff isn’t subject to the same vehement moral criticism and debate. This is why the level of destruction matters and where the allegory falls apart. It doesn’t matter what I use to destroy a city. The issue is destroying the city. The Media is sensationalist and everyone would forget after a month. But the number of road traffic accidents would be a constant issue that would impact policy. I strongly doubt a character in the novels ever said a dragon was like a nuclear bomb. If he said this at an interview then he’s being hyperbolic and trying to convey themes. I am saying they are problematic and that the author has a flawed agenda. He’s only singling out Dragons because of the power fantasy element and that’s really all there is behind the satire. He’s not fussed on how the Starks got to the top without using Dragons because it’s not what he wants to focus on. That comes across as hypocritical.
  13. Its a ridiculous metaphor. Were Hannibals elephants nukes? Several hundred dragons would have the same impact as a few hundred WW2 bombers, still not nuclear bombs. They're animals. They aren't good or evil. An angry mob thinking they should kill all the dragons are not sympathetic; they're idiots. A bunch of old todgers who want to rid the world of dragons by poisoning them; they're idiots. Its a sign that a few criminals with torches and free time can do as much damage as this metaphorical nuke that we're supposed to hate Dany for considering using. Because its not doing the same damage as a nuke. The author is being disingenuous to say that its like a nuke and to drag those moral arguments into the story. Arguments which a general audience consider on very different terms to conventional war. You see this in the show where besieging a large city into starvation is handwaved as a good rational thing whilst attacking the walls with a dragon is considered a monstrous crime. This is because the show made this distinction between normal war and using the thing it had been telling us was bad. Even using it in a very limited sense was depicted as evil whist hand waving everything the Starks did as just how things are. So if we wipe out Carthage with swords and hammers its okay but you do it with a dragon and suddenly its an unspeakable war crime? That's missing the point of moral criticism. It should be the end result, not the methods that get disputed. The reason we single out nukes is because they are worse than conventional weapons and on a level with genocide; which is also banned under international law. What George is doing is casting severe moral judgement on using a dragon to set fire to a field or castle whilst its aokay to use trebuchets and minging guys with torches. Its not valid. Its a ham fisted satire of a "power fantasy" character. George has an axe to grind with that aspect of fantasy. That's what the criticism is all about. It doesn't matter if the consequences are achievable by conventional means in world, he wants to critique this because he objects to the power fantasy element. For example, one kid gets killed by Drogon and theres this moral panic whilst more children are killed by wolves and bears on a regular basis. Hell, how many kids get killed because some knight runs over them with his horse? When they're chopping kids hands off for stealing and branding them in the street? But oh no that's part of the world. Those dragons though...
  14. They aren't even remotely in the same category. If the Dragon was Age of Sigmar level, bigger than a mountain and its breath could vaporise entire cities in an instant then it is the equivalent of a nuke. Otherwise its hyperbole. Then how are they end the world category. Dragons have to be able to end the world for them to be like nukes. Making them analogous to nukes is calling them evil. You're implying, like nukes, the world would be better off without them. Its not really in an instant. More like an afternoon. Gregor Clegane laid waste to the Riverlands with fifty men. Its clearly not an impressive achievement. Because its not a WMD. So why single out dragons if normal war is just as bad? Its a poor anti war sentiment if your characters believe dragons are bad but torture, summary execution and genocide are acceptable norms. The only point of making a nuke analogy is to make precisely that point that the world would be a better place without them.If he has actually said that its definitely casting moral shades at Daenerys and excusing the characters who are using "normal" and "acceptable" violence.
  • Create New...