Is there something that you really don't want to see happen in the series?

[RoamingRonin]

I don't want the dragons to die! People consider them living, breathing nuclear missiles but wild dragons don't hunt people or bother them at all unless otherwise provoked. If they did, Westeros would have been burned to ash long before the Dance of the Dragons. I'd hate for Dany to have brought them back just to use them for a grand war and then lose them.

If people think the dragons should die because they are too dangerous then so should all the wargs/skinchangers. So should the shadowbinders and all the other people that practice magic. I'd love for the magical creatures to be able find some place in the world to live at peace. 

[TeamWhiteWalkerz]

9 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I don't think he/she even read the story.  More likely listened to a Martian audiobook translation, after it had been edited by Sansa Stark.  

George wrote Dany as the hero in the story.  Everybody else is doing shitty things to protect their families and their own self-interest at the expense of everybody else.  Dany chose to postpone her ambitions to take back her kingdom in order to help millions of people win freedom from slavery.  Hers is the only truly justified war in the story so far. 

That is complete BS. Murdering thousands of people is not a justified war. Dany is by no means "THE" hero. "Fire and Blood" is not good. 

[TeamWhiteWalkerz]

9 hours ago, RoamingRonin said:

I don't want the dragons to die! People consider them living, breathing nuclear missiles but wild dragons don't hunt people or bother them at all unless otherwise provoked. If they did, Westeros would have been burned to ash long before the Dance of the Dragons. I'd hate for Dany to have brought them back just to use them for a grand war and then lose them.

If people think the dragons should die because they are too dangerous then so should all the wargs/skinchangers. So should the shadowbinders and all the other people that practice magic. I'd love for the magical creatures to be able find some place in the world to live at peace. 

How can you even compare the two. One is a beast, the other is a human. 

[khal drogon]

2 hours ago, TeamWhiteWalkerz said:

How can you even compare the two. One is a beast, the other is a human. 

But those humans could be more dangerous than dragons ever could be. People who could control other people to achieve whatever they want is disturbing. Compared to them Dragons are only giant flamethrowers. 

[khal drogon]

2 hours ago, TeamWhiteWalkerz said:

That is complete BS. Murdering thousands of people is not a justified war. Dany is by no means "THE" hero. "Fire and Blood" is not good. 

Then tell me in which war people had not died? Also when do you consider a war is justified? 

[ShadowCat Rivers]

3 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

But those humans could be more dangerous than dragons ever could be. People who could control other people to achieve whatever they want is disturbing. Compared to them Dragons are only giant flamethrowers. 

It seems that the actual text contradicts this view, whether you think it logical or not: Varamyr did not manage to subjugate the freefolk, they did not want him as their king, but accepted Mance instead, who was not a skinchanger. Mance also had the power to forbid Varamyr from taking Ghost, even though he very much wanted to. Which means that those humans cannot "achieve whatever they want". On the contrary, we've had accounts of dragonlords doing pretty much whatever they wanted and answer to none, enslave peoples etc.

However, I am all for the survival of dragons, as long as all humans lose the ability to control them, for good and forever. No exception. Wild dragons are fine; their human owners are not.

[LyrnaSnowBunnyAvenger]

On 1/29/2016 at 1:52 PM, A Song of Ass and Fire said:

Evil doesn't have to be intelligent.  It's often stupid.  If a person in power tortures innocent people out of a combination of bad judgment and cruelty instead of just cruelty, it's still evil.

 

Most often evil is banal.  That is what makes it so horrid.  

And as much as I dislike Dany and hope she ends up absolutely shit house crazy she is no Hitler.  

[anononymus]

More kinslaying. And Dany NOT going to Westeros. No Starks reuniting. Sansa getting raped. Cersei and Jaime killing one another. Tyrion and violence.

[khal drogon]

2 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

It seems that the actual text contradicts this view, whether you think it logical or not: Varamyr did not manage to subjugate the freefolk, they did not want him as their king, but accepted Mance instead, who was not a skinchanger. Mance also had the power to forbid Varamyr from taking Ghost, even though he very much wanted to. Which means that those humans cannot "achieve whatever they want". On the contrary, we've had accounts of dragonlords doing pretty much whatever they wanted and answer to none, enslave peoples etc.

However, I am all for the survival of dragons, as long as all humans lose the ability to control them, for good and forever. No exception. Wild dragons are fine; their human owners are not.

It was because he sort of followed a code. All wildling wargs seem to follow it. But still we know they could control people. In Varamyr's case,he did not choose to do. Anyways we also know he tried to subjugate and steal the body of a woman in his chapter. It is absolutely possible that wargs could use those powers to enslave people or misuse those powers in the future.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

1 minute ago, khal drogon said:

It was because he sort of followed a code. All wildling wargs seem to follow it. But still we know they could control people. In Varamyr's case,he did not choose to do. Anyways we also know he tried to subjugate and steal the body of a woman in his chapter. It is absolutely possible that wargs could use those powers to enslave people or misuse those powers in the future.

I think it is clear that Varamyr did not follow any code, when he could get away with it. He's just not as powerful - skinchangers are presented to have potentially a lot of power, but still limited, still not undefeatable, not at all.

Another examble is the warg kings, from the World book. Starks defeated them and then, by marrying their daughters, got the warg potential themselves. Point being, they defeated them without the use of magic, which means that skinchanging does not equal ultimate power, not even close.

 

Be it as it may, I wouldn't mind skinchanging ability to disapear from the world by the end of the series either.

(LOL, I should be a maester, it would seem.)

[Yet Another ASOIAF Fan]

On 1/29/2016 at 4:38 PM, A spoon of knife and fork said:

 

Personally I think of her thusly.  This is a person with a compassionate heart who is filled with rage upon seeing the suffering of the downtrodden.  So much so that she becomes vengeful very easily.  When she is feeling this righteous anger, she is prone to being thoughtlessly cruel.  If she wants to be the leader she should be she has to learn to channel her rage in more constructive ways.  I don't believe that is whitewashing the character.  It is describing her.  

Wow  Sorry for going off topic, but this is one of the best descriptions of Dany that I have seen.

[Little Lark]

21 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

Then tell me in which war people had not died? Also when do you consider a war is justified? 

Haha best of luck getting a solid answer on this! Everyone thinks about war differently and if you can get everyone to sit down and decide on the key criteria for what makes a war justifiable, then you have my vote for president!

But in seriousness, it's the beauty of GRRM's writing. I'm an avid supporter of Sansa but you don't have to be. My mom thinks, like you, that Dany has the right way of doing things and is a good leader because she sticks to her guns and calls things like she sees them. 

Terms like "hero" are pretty subjective in these books and Dany isn't the perfect ruler. You can argue that yes she is justified in freeing the slaves because humans are not and should not be treated as property. Conversely, you could argue that she had no business destroying the political and economic structure of Astapor and Meereen just because she thought their culture was barbaric. 

We don't all have to interpret these books the same way.

[khal drogon]

8 minutes ago, Little Lark said:

 Haha best of luck getting a solid answer on this! Everyone thinks about war differently and if you can get everyone to sit down and decide on the key criteria for what makes a war justifiable, then you have my vote for president!

But in seriousness, it's the beauty of GRRM's writing. I'm an avid supporter of Sansa but you don't have to be. My mom thinks, like you, that Dany has the right way of doing things and is a good leader because she sticks to her guns and calls things like she sees them. 

Terms like "hero" are pretty subjective in these books and Dany isn't the perfect ruler. You can argue that yes she is justified in freeing the slaves because humans are not and should not be treated as property. Conversely, you could argue that she had no business destroying the political and economic structure of Astapor and Meereen just because she thought their culture was barbaric. 

We don't all have to interpret these books the same way.

It all depends as you said. It is easier to defend Dany's actions(though some of them are problematic) than defending the economic structure of Slaver cities. One could also argue that the Slavers has no business in interfering in the lives of people who they enslaved. I cannot understand the people who defend Slavers anyways.

Dany might not be a perfect ruler. But her intentions are good and that is what matters and makes her a sympathetic character. I would change my mind on her when there is a drastic change in it.

 

[TeamWhiteWalkerz]

1 hour ago, khal drogon said:

But those humans could be more dangerous than dragons ever could be. People who could control other people to achieve whatever they want is disturbing. Compared to them Dragons are only giant flamethrowers. 

Not the point. Sure skinchagers are potentially more powerful than dragons, but realistically not many are and that by that, I mean literally only one skinchanger that we know of, Bran, has the potential to be more powerful than a dragon. It's not like it's easy to skinchange humans. On the flipside, any dragon could torch a village...

[fabrik1980]

Arya dying before the big showdown.

Theon being killed off without much fanfare.

Ramsay being killed off casually without being made to pay.

Any more of Essos than necessary (whatever your plan is with the Dothraki, GRRM, just make it quick).

Dany winning.

R + L =/= J after all.

Cersei surviving.

Frankenmountain not getting killed and coming back as Unmountain. Come on, you know you want to see him becoming an Other.

Dragons surviving the endgame. Maybe one dragon. The smallest one.

Stannis being defeated at WF without making much of an impact like in the show.

Littlefinger surviving.

Varys on the IT (for whatever reason).

None of all the intrigues, plots and political decisions mattering in the end when/if the Others destroy everything.

King's Landing still being the capitol at the end. I'm okay if Westeros falls apart into 7 individual kingdoms again and the IT being only the seat of one single kingdom.

[Joy Hill]

Jon and Dany hooking up.

A Targaryen winning back the Iron Throne.

The last book focusing on an epic battle between the Others and the dragons.

Main characters becoming undead.

House Lannister's fall.

The High Septon turning out to be Howland Reed.

Tommen and Myrcella dying.

More Meereen.

[Ser Barristan the Badass]

13 hours ago, Joy Hill said:

Jon and Dany hooking up.

A Targaryen winning back the Iron Throne.

The last book focusing on an epic battle between the Others and the dragons.

Main characters becoming undead.

House Lannister's fall.

The High Septon turning out to be Howland Reed.

Tommen and Myrcella dying.

More Meereen.

Well there's definietely going to be more Meereen at least for the first half of the next book. 

The Others will most likely fight dragons, it's inevitable.

There's a 95% chance both Tommen and Myrcella will die in my opinion.

And Dany will most likely sit the Iron Throne.

[SeanF]

19 hours ago, Little Lark said:

Haha best of luck getting a solid answer on this! Everyone thinks about war differently and if you can get everyone to sit down and decide on the key criteria for what makes a war justifiable, then you have my vote for president!

But in seriousness, it's the beauty of GRRM's writing. I'm an avid supporter of Sansa but you don't have to be. My mom thinks, like you, that Dany has the right way of doing things and is a good leader because she sticks to her guns and calls things like she sees them. 

Terms like "hero" are pretty subjective in these books and Dany isn't the perfect ruler. You can argue that yes she is justified in freeing the slaves because humans are not and should not be treated as property. Conversely, you could argue that she had no business destroying the political and economic structure of Astapor and Meereen just because she thought their culture was barbaric. 

We don't all have to interpret these books the same way.

I don't have any issue with her using force against the Slavers.  They don't just keep slaves, they enslave free people, and fuel war and conflict across Essos as a result.

I think the issues are:-

1. Does she use excessive violence/violence against the wrong people?

2. Is she doing more harm than good?

[Little Lark]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don't have any issue with her using force against the Slavers.  They don't just keep slaves, they enslave free people, and fuel war and conflict across Essos as a result.

I think the issues are:-

1. Does she use excessive violence/violence against the wrong people?

2. Is she doing more harm than good?

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to defend the Slaver's, I wasn't. By reciting some of the arguments I've heard use in both support of and against her war on Slaver's Bay, I was trying to make the point that even Dany can't be painted as just black or white.

[El Guapo]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don't have any issue with her using force against the Slavers.  They don't just keep slaves, they enslave free people, and fuel war and conflict across Essos as a result.

I think the issues are:-

1. Does she use excessive violence/violence against the wrong people?

2. Is she doing more harm than good?

1. With the exception of the winesellers daughter I would say for the most part no.

2. In the short term, probably yes. In the long term probably no but that remains to be seen.