Dany will NOT fight the Others

[Marcus Agrippa]

Um, aren't you trying to argue she's not the "Jesus" figure of the series? Because saying she'll die and resurrect to conquer the figures you seem to believe are the Anti-Christs is probably not the way to go about it.

This is just getting more and more ridiculous.

You seem to be so focused on proving that Jon is the supreme bees knees that you keep missing the easy, logical reason why Dany is probably not going to be the sole person to defeat the Others: they are more complex than ice cubes, and seem to have a perversion of a different sort of magic going on, one which a different family seems to have possession of.

Use the fact that she left the anthill in tact as a symbolic piece of an actual argument. Don't rely on this and then bend ludicrous things to fit that (like how Dany will ignore zombies running around and not be involved in the Long Night because she's apparently so desirous of the throne).

This. The ant hill was just to show Dany knew the wall existed. If the Ant hill was the others that means the others are not that big of a deal.

[BearQueen87]

But Martin directly connects them. Like, Martin actually made a point of having Dany liken this wall to the great one Vis spoke of. How isn't this a symbolic connection to that wall? There's other layers of symbolism, but Martin is making a big point of connecting those 2 walls in this case by calling attention to it so explicitly.

I think PW is right in so far as this is a symbolic connection, and potential foreshadowing. I just think he interpreted the foreshadowing opposite of what it's actually showing us. Dany is asleep, ants crawl all over her; like the sleeping woman at the HotU "Westeros" is being ravaged. But unlike the woman in the HotU, Dany sees what's going on, gets up and removes the threat. Any foreshadowing is saying that she's going to address and eradicate this threat in Westeros. But the ant hill left in tact would suggest that she's probably not the one who will eradicate the source of it.

I agree. And after she tackles "the ants" in Westeros, then source of the ants can be dealt with by maybe (probably) Jon. And any action Dany takes does not, in fact, diminish Jon's overall importance as LB/TPTWP/AAR or any other variation therein. Just because Dany has a role to play doesn't mean that the other characters are suddenly less heroic or important. That doesn't seem to be how GRRM writes where "the hero" isn't just one person but rather a bunch of people who have heroic qualities to them.

@PaperWaver

And about Dany becoming 100x more ruthless: maybe. But even if that were true, it means the IT is in danger and she'd want to eradicate the threat against her precious throne anyway! So either way (cold-heart bitch or loving mother figure) she's going to go fight in the North for whatever reason.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

But Martin directly connects them. Like, Martin actually made a point of having Dany liken this wall to the great one Vis spoke of. How isn't this a symbolic connection to that wall? There's other layers of symbolism, but Martin is making a big point of connecting those 2 walls in this case by calling attention to it so explicitly.

Yes I think that Dany makes one literal connection to The Wall, and that is the extent of the connection. If it were meant to be secretive/symbolic foreshadowing I hardly think GRRM would have mentioned The Wall at all. It can be metaphorical or literal, not both.

[butterbumps!]

Yes I think that Dany makes one literal connection to The Wall, and that is the extent of the connection. If it were meant to be secretive/symbolic foreshadowing I hardly think GRRM would have mentioned The Wall at all.

I don't follow. Despite how Martin wrote this having Dany connect this wall to the Wall, he doesn't mean for us to read this as a symbolic connection between them? You don't think it's significant that after 4 books of not thinking about the Wall, Dany wanders in the desert and miraculously thinks about the Wall while contemplating her destiny? Showing us that she not only knows it exists, but also giving us a new iteration of that reclining nude being ravaged that reflects the current situation of Westeros? But you say it might be a symbolic connection or foreshadowing had Martin not made the explicit connection to the Wall?

[Dr. Pepper]

This. The ant hill was just to show Dany knew the wall existed. If the Ant hill was the others that means the others are not that big of a deal.

I'm not so sure. Dispatching of a few ants isn't quite the same as dealing with their source.

[Mithras]

You aren't using evidence to back up the assertion in the OP. Like, an assumption that Dany turns her back on a zombie apocalypse doesn't follow from her character.

I disagree with this. Too much “if I look back, I’m lost” and you will be shocked to see where you will arrive (or what you will become) if you actually do look back. That is an entirely possible character development for Dany IMO.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I don't follow. Despite how Martin wrote this having Dany connect this wall to the Wall, he doesn't mean for us to read this as a symbolic connection between them? You don't think it's significant that after 4 books of not thinking about the Wall, Dany wanders in the desert and miraculously thinks about the Wall while contemplating her destiny? Showing us that she not only knows it exists, but also giving us a new iteration of that reclining nude being ravaged that reflects the current situation of Westeros? But you say it might be a symbolic connection or foreshadowing had Martin not made the explicit connection to the Wall?

I am saying that if he wanted to symbolically foreshadow The Wall, he wouldnt have literally put The Wall in her thoughts. the only connection here is that they are both walls is what I think.

[MoIaF]

I disagree with this. Too much “if I look back, I’m lost” and you will be shocked to see where you will arrive (or what you will become) if you actually do look back. That is an entirely possible character development for Dany IMO.

Dany X ADWD:

"...and Drogon came, snorting plumes of smoke. The grass bowed down before him. Dany leapt onto his back. She stank of blood and sweat and fear , but none of that mattered. “To go forward I must go back,” she said."

[butterbumps!]

I disagree with this. Too much “if I look back, I’m lost” and you will be shocked to see where you will arrive (or what you will become) if you actually do look back. That is an entirely possible character development for Dany IMO.

But an assumption that doesn't follow from her character being used as evidence in a self-evident, inevitable manner as you were doesn't count as evidence. You're not looking at her savior impulse. Dany's just as much "savior" as she is "destroyer." She is currently lost because she doesn't know how to reconcile those seemingly irreconcilable impulses and thinks she needs to choose one or the other. But reacting to the Long Night is exactly the sort of thing that brings them together.

I am saying that if he wanted to symbolically foreshadow The Wall, he wouldnt have literally put The Wall in her thoughts. the only connection here is that they are both walls is what I think.

How are you coming to this conclusion? Because that first post of yours I responded to was arguing that this was just a generic wall unconnected to the Wall, and therefore, wasn't an example of symbolism or foreshadowing. That's why I pointed out that unlike the example you gave of Jaime bringing down a random wall, Dany actually does make the connection to the Wall, and that the case for this as symbolism and potential foreshadowing is greater. So can you walk me through how you're coming to these conclusions?

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

But an assumption that doesn't follow from her character being used as evidence in a self-evident, inevitable manner as you were doesn't count as evidence. You're not looking at her savior impulse. Dany's just as much "savior" as she is "destroyer." She is currently lost because she doesn't know how to reconcile those seemingly irreconcilable impulses and thinks she needs to choose one or the other. But reacting to the Long Night is exactly the sort of thing that brings them together.

:agree: Dany has a black and white view of the world and has to learn that she can be more than one thing and not just one over the other. Mother of dragons, Mhysa, Queen, woman, Khaleesi, Dany can all compliment each other.

[BearQueen87]

But an assumption that doesn't follow from her character being used as evidence in a self-evident, inevitable manner as you were doesn't count as evidence. You're not looking at her savior impulse. Dany's just as much "savior" as she is "destroyer." She is currently lost because she doesn't know how to reconcile those seemingly irreconcilable impulses and thinks she needs to choose one or the other. But reacting to the Long Night is exactly the sort of thing that brings them together.

:agree: Dany has a black and white view of the world and has to learn that she can be more than one thing and not just one over the other. Mother of dragons, Mhysa, Queen, woman, Khaleesi, Dany can all compliment each other.

And this is how GRRM views heroism over all: the combination of many different facets of individuals

For anyone who hasn't listened: LINK GRRM talks about his views on heroism and how he doesn't believe there is just one hero, but rather people who do heroic things together. And just because you're a hero on Tuesday doesn't mean you're not a "shit" on Wednesday and then change back. He doesn't believe in just one person going around doing ALL THE HEROIC THINGS. That's why, in the end, it's going to take the combined forced of Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Arya and Sansa, Bran, Sam, the nameless NW brothers, Jamie, Brienne, and whoever the heck else in whatever capacity they can to fight the Long Night.

[butterbumps!]

:agree: Dany has a black and white view of the world and has to learn that she can be more than one thing and not just one over the other. Mother of dragons, Mhysa, Queen, woman, Khaleesi, Dany can all compliment each other.

It's not only her, either. The KM tells Arya how there are very few female Faceless, because women bring life, and those who bring life cannot also bring death. So it's really set up as a huge either-or paradox, but has been thoroughly defied by virtue of her being the "Mother of Dragons." At least thematically.

But it does make me wonder if the Faceless have something more literal in mind. You know that Nissa myth? And how in Qarth, dragons allegedly emerged from the moon, which seems to be taken as a pretty universal female symbol (the Qartheens even call the moon an "egg" for heaven's sake)? Are the Faceless so conceptually against this creation-death paradox because that's actually how dragons come into being? As in, Nissa was the important one, not AA, and it's describing a "birth" of these creatures of death? That might be a tangent, but I find it very curious.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

How are you coming to this conclusion? Because that first post of yours I responded to was arguing that this was just a generic wall unconnected to the Wall, and therefore, wasn't an example of symbolism or foreshadowing. That's why I pointed out that unlike the example you gave of Jaime bringing down a random wall, Dany actually does make the connection to the Wall, and that the case for this as symbolism and potential foreshadowing is greater. So can you walk me through how you're coming to these conclusions?

You are making this far more complicated than it is. I am saying now, as I said in my first post, that there is no symbolic connection. They are both walls and that is all they have in common. She is laying against a wall, which makes her think about The Wall. That is all there is on the walk-through.

My post about Jaime was pointing out that every time the word 'Wall' is used, it is not symbolism for The Wall.

[Hodor's Dragon]

I love all your posts because the way you talk it's obvious you've read the last few books. That's really awesome. I'm very jealous.

After reading all 6 pages (so far) of this, I think LSH cut to the chase in the very first response. There's nothing at all the matter with the OP's theory except for the absolute certainty with which it is expressed, which in fact makes it kinda silly.

[butterbumps!]

You are making this far more complicated than it is. I am saying now, as I said in my first post, that there is no symbolic connection. They are both walls and that is all they have in common. She is laying against a wall, which makes her think about The Wall. That is all there is on the walk-through.

My post about Jaime was pointing out that every time the word 'Wall' is used it is not symbolism for The Wall.

Right.

In your first post, you pointed out that random walls aren't automatically examples of symbolism for the Wall:

Paper Weaver;

The main flaw in this argument is that the mention of the word 'wall' automatically foreshadows events happening at The Wall in the north. But that does not make sense because of how common the word 'wall' is. If we all assumed that every word in the novels was foreshadowing of something greater, it would be hard to get through one page.

For instance;

"Some of the other guards swore they could hear them calling faintly through the stone, but when Jaime's men tore down the wall they found only earth and rubble on the far side."

Does this sentence foreshadow Jaime ordering the destruction of The Wall in the North and finding lost humans inside?

Look, you are really falling into the category of delusional hating on Dany. It's fine if you dont like her, but going to such lengths to bash her (and her future unconfirmed actions) makes no sense, it does nothing for the Dany-hate cause and discredits you as a poster.

You used an example of Jaime breaking through a wall to illustrate that it's not automatic.

To which I pointed out that Martin is purposely forcing us to make an "ant wall"- "the Wall" connection by having Dany bring up said connection and elaborate. Which suggests that in this case, the connection is purposeful, and in all likelihood, a symbolic feature.

Then, you responded to this by saying that if Martin hadn't made a point of literally connecting the two walls in Dany's thoughts, then it might work as symbolism:

I am saying that if he wanted to symbolically foreshadow The Wall, he wouldnt have literally put The Wall in her thoughts. the only connection here is that they are both walls is what I think.

As in, the fact that Martin made the connection precludes it from being a connection.

Does this mean that the Jaime quote you provided actually does involve foreshadowing of his singlehandedly (pun intended) knocking down the Wall because Martin didn't foist that literal connection in that passage?

[Mladen]

No, LF will try to rape Sansa.

Another text book case of "foreshadowing" without a glimpse of narrative, other text proofs, thinking process, basically a Lesson 1.01 how not to theorize about anything.

As I said, many of us actually agree with your case but most of us have proofs and reasons far more substantial than ants.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Does this mean that the Jaime quote you provided actually does involve foreshadowing of his singlehandedly (pun intended) knocking down the Wall because Martin didn't foist that literal connection in that passage?

No it doesnt. You are jumping to very far fetched conclusions. I was not stating a canon literary rule for all use of the word 'wall'. I was simply saying that if he was trying to use symbolic foreshadowing, in this instance, I doubt he would spell it out so clearly is all. Of course this is all IMHO.

/conversation

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

It's not only her, either. The KM tells Arya how there are very few female Faceless, because women bring life, and those who bring life cannot also bring death. So it's really set up as a huge either-or paradox, but has been thoroughly defied by virtue of her being the "Mother of Dragons." At least thematically.

But it does make me wonder if the Faceless have something more literal in mind. You know that Nissa myth? And how in Qarth, dragons allegedly emerged from the moon, which seems to be taken as a pretty universal female symbol (the Qartheens even call the moon an "egg" for heaven's sake)? Are the Faceless so conceptually against this creation-death paradox because that's actually how dragons come into being? As in, Nissa was the important one, not AA, and it's describing a "birth" of these creatures of death? That might be a tangent, but I find it very curious.

Thats an interesting thing to look into. I've always been lured by the idea that the first Valyrian dragonrider happened in a similar way Dany did it, as in there was a first "mother of dragons" before Dany. .And it could very well be true that Nissa Nissa was the more important one, and the stabbing of the sword just metaphorically meant "sex" and lightbringer was a dragon from Nissa Nissa as the mother. It would make very much sense why the Faceless men are against "birth of death" and maybe why they could be linked to the downfall of Valyria.

[Bog Devil of Greywater]

I disagree with this. Too much “if I look back, I’m lost” and you will be shocked to see where you will arrive (or what you will become) if you actually do look back. That is an entirely possible character development for Dany IMO.

Too much "Kill the boy and let the man be born" can lead you to the same dangerous place as this. Do you say the same for Jon?

[Mithras]

As I said, many of us actually agree with your case but most of us have proofs and reasons far more substantial than ants.

I did not see anyone posting those proofs except butterbumps.