Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 4/16/2019 at 1:29 PM, Jabar of House Titan said:

. She's not going to win the unwavering loyalty of the Dothraki by being clever and politically astute. This isn't an area of the world or a culture where Sansa, Cersei, Littlefinger or even Tywin have a chance of being the powerhouses they are or will be. Not only does she have to be tough, clever and fierce but Daenerys has to be a winner and she has to be physically strong...probably moreso given the fact that she is a woman. To anyone who isn't Dothraki or already blindly loyal to her, Daenerys is going to be a nightmare.

However, as history shows us, the Mongols did not conquer Europe, and they couldn't conquer or dislodge the Mughals from Egypt either.  They did, however, use a certain amount of cunning, diplomacy, alliance and bribery withall the players -- and that includes crusaders and Europeans -- in whatever region to get their way, as well as their overwhelming numbers and war capacities -- which also included a whole lot of organization.  None of these are being shown with the Dothraki, alas, other than a bit when Drogo, bless praise and regret the last of his name, was still running the show.

In any case, though, the Mongols did not make inroads in the West -- though they, in one form or another, as huns, tartars, etc. out of the khanates further east-- they did make life  miserable and uncertain in many parts of what became Russia, Hungary and Poland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

However, as history shows us, the Mongols did not conquer Europe, and they couldn't conquer or dislodge the Mughals from Egypt either.  They did, however, use a certain amount of cunning, diplomacy, alliance and bribery withall the players -- and that includes crusaders and Europeans -- in whatever region to get their way, as well as their overwhelming numbers and war capacities -- which also included a whole lot of organization.  None of these are being shown with the Dothraki, alas, other than a bit when Drogo, bless praise and regret the last of his name, was still running the show.

In any case, though, the Mongols did not make inroads in the West -- though they, in one form or another, as huns, tartars, etc. out of the khanates further east-- they did make life  miserable and uncertain in many parts of what became Russia, Hungary and Poland.

The Mughals were never in Egypt. Surely you mean India.

The cunning, diplomatic nature of the Mongols is not the point. I'm not saying that Daenerys won't be cunning and diplomatic. What I'm saying is that Daenerys is going to have to do a lot more than be charming like Sansa or clever like Tyrion. Daenerys has to actually do stuff, do it well and do it quickly. The presence of Drogon will help but Daenerys has to win over more than just the Dosh Khaleen. She has to win over the khals and kos too. And they are not going to just glibly treat Daenerys like a khal.

The books have made it clear than Daenerys is a lot more athletic and tougher than other highborn girls her age which is good.

But she needs to be able to lead from the front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

The Mughals were never in Egypt. Surely you mean India.

Ooops. sorry, I intended to write Mamluks, those enslaved military forces who overthrew their masters in the 13th century and took over down in Egypt. GDDIT, I know that.  Sheesh.

The Mongols also tried to ally with them for a bit, that didn't work and then the Mamluks beat their asses -- just about the only ones who did at the time.

In any case, you are the only person who has presented this speculation -- which is based on cultural and military history of such sorts of military - conquering groups, who conquer in the name of a charismatic leader.  And even though Mohammed himself never seemed particularly bloodthirsty and never led a group of fighters against anyone, it was in his charismatic name that the Arabs swept out of the peninisula.  

I keep thinking what much more interesting show this would have been if this is where a whole lot of focus went, and if the stupid zombies had been left out. Zombies are inorganic to Epic Fantasy, though not to horror, which is George's first tendency always -- he never wrote heroic Fantasy tropes at all until sticking together like puzzle pieces the bits that were to be GOT.  So everyone's left with trying to retrocon what was already a flaw written into the program.

Thoroughly opposite of how Tolkien operated.  He made the world and all the characters by dreaming on them, himself -- not taking from what others had done that was popular -- like fandom's long established dragon worship thanks to Anne McCaffery and Pern.  He spent a lifetime working out all the parts.  Out of the parts then, he boiled out the particulate of a thoroughly coherent small in comparison vision of Middle Earth and its history.  Very little of that went in as expo or description in LOTR.  But all of it holds up the story telling narrative he alchemized out of all the elements he imagined before.

GRRM is doing it backwards, in other words. So there is so much that doesn't work, and there is so much arguing about what are actually narrative flaws in both books and HBO series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Ooops. sorry, I intended to write Mamluks, those enslaved military forces who overthrew their masters in the 13th century and took over down in Egypt. GDDIT, I know that.  Sheesh.

The Mongols also tried to ally with them for a bit, that didn't work and then the Mamluks beat their asses -- just about the only ones who did at the time.

In any case, you are the only person who has presented this speculation -- which is based on cultural and military history of such sorts of military - conquering groups, who conquer in the name of a charismatic leader.  And even though Mohammed himself never seemed particularly bloodthirsty and never led a group of fighters against anyone, it was in his charismatic name that the Arabs swept out of the peninisula.  

I keep thinking what much more interesting show this would have been if this is where a whole lot of focus went, and if the stupid zombies had been left out. Zombies are inorganic to Epic Fantasy, though not to horror, which is George's first tendency always -- he never wrote heroic Fantasy tropes at all until sticking together like puzzle pieces the bits that were to be GOT.  So everyone's left with trying to retrocon what was already a flaw written into the program.

Thoroughly opposite of how Tolkien operated.  He made the world and all the characters by dreaming on them, himself -- not taking from what others had done that was popular -- like fandom's long established dragon worship thanks to Anne McCaffery and Pern.  He spent a lifetime working out all the parts.  Out of the parts then, he boiled out the particulate of a thoroughly coherent small in comparison vision of Middle Earth and its history.  Very little of that went in as expo or description in LOTR.  But all of it holds up the story telling narrative he alchemized out of all the elements he imagined before.

GRRM is doing it backwards, in other words. So there is so much that doesn't work, and there is so much arguing about what are actually narrative flaws in both books and HBO series.

Oh, if you believe that A Dream of Spring, the big finale of A Song of Ice and Fire, is going to be epic fantasy and not horror, you are sadly mistaken. The finale has always going to end up being a Gothic horror.

What epic fantasy hero tropes has GRRM used? He is currently completing reinventing the damsel-in-distress, Disney princess tale with Sansa. He's going Assassin's Creed meets Aesop's Fables with Arya. Tyrion is Walter White and Jon is going to be ice-cold version of Jesus Christ with serious PTSD. Bran is getting the exact opposite of a hero's journey where he ends up more broken than how he started. Tyrion is breaking bad. 

GRRM has already said that a lot of people are going to be disappointed because The Winds of Winter is not going to have these high-flying fanastic moods of triumph. It's going to be really dark and grim...even before the Wall falls. No reason why the zombie apocalypse that is coming in A Dream of Spring would not be horrific. 

Nobody seems to understand that we are heading for a complete pandemic of greyscale. Jon Connington is knowingly infected with greyscale and he's just waltzing around the Stormlands, touching things that the servants right after him are going to have to touch. Val and the wildlings keep trying to tell everyone at the Wall that greyscale can not be cured and that Shireen needs to be killed and burned NOW.

So, not only are there going to be half-decayed running around trying to eat you, you'll also have some people becoming stone-men.

Oh and there will be no food, the water will be bad, it'll be unbelievably cold and flying atomic bombs will be zipping around. Did I mention that the Ironborn imagery and Euron's brand of sorcery is more Lovecraft than Tolkien? Oh and how can we forget the mad scientist that is Qyburn who is -- more or less -- currently aligned with the richest woman in Westeros.

Yes, that's totally the work of an epic fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

O dear.  I thought I was saying that this wasn't an epic work of Fantasy.  But that so many including the tv folks are treating it as if it were.  Nevermind.

Still, it's pretty much a trainwreck because it is trying to push it into that in some way or another or something.  People fight over romance tropes when the spiral is toward anything but.

It certainly is a work of ultimate horror, that of families.

One of the potential outcomes is that those art works the NK makes of human bodies and parts are either sacrifices of of thanksgiving or altars to their creators, the CotF.  However it happens, the world of men that so offended the CotF is going to be gone.

Or not. Whatever.

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

LOL

Everything Ned did was not based on the truth and laws. That's the whole point.

That's why the revelation of Jon Snow's heritage and the true nature of Robert's Rebellion is such a big bombshell in the show and the books alike (but moreso in the books)

Most of the stuff he did after the Rebellion ended were based upon lies. They were all noble but it was not true nor did it feel good.

 

That has nothing to do with what he did when Robert died.  He discovered that Joffrey was not Robert’s son and he was following Robert’s will that said he was to act as regent.  He was arrested and executed based on known lies.  

 

And you’re exaggerating when you say that most of what was done in the rebellion was based on lies.  It was not true that Lyanna was unwillingly kidnapped. She was taken against the wishes of her family and Robert, who she was betrothed to.

Aerys was a madman who brutally murdered Ned’s father and brother, among other issues that spurred the rebellion, all of which have not been fully detailed in the books or show.

Edited by Forlong the Fat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

The fact that Cersei's base of power (both as Cersei Lannister the noblewoman and as the One who Sits the Iron Throne) is poorly explained is a huge plot hole. It's called jumping the shark and it's destroyed other shows just as good as Game of Thrones.

To skip over the Westerosi phobia of the Dothraki is a minor plot hole. The only people (Westerosi or not) who have explicitly expressed or shown a deep fear of or talked about the legendary status of the Dothraki to date have been: Randyll Tarly in one scene of season 7, Robert Baratheon in maybe three separate scenes in season 1, Cersei Lannister in one scene season 7 and Jaime Lannister in one scene in season 7. Both the Randyll Tarly and Jaime Lannister scenes happened after the fact that the Dothraki destroyed the armies of the West and the Reach and Cersei had a cold throwaway line about it in the finale.

If the Dothraki were as bad as described by Robert Baratheon, people should be running around screaming and cowering in fear. There should have been mass desertions amongst men fighting on the side of the Lannisters and the Tarlys. And it should have been a laughably one-sided battle. Like no Dothraki should have been felled.

But it wasn't. So evidently, the showrunners have repeatedly shown that the Dothrakiphobia present in Westeros is not worthy enough to home in on.

Yet, they have repeatedly shown that power bases are especially important...particularly for anyone aspiring to take and hold the Iron Throne. If it's not passed down, it has to be earned and fought for. Even if it's passed down or given to you, you have to be diligent enough to keep it. These are the rules of the show.

There should be absolutely no reason for Cersei to be on the Iron Throne. Especially not after suffering from such a crushing defeat at the hands of Daenerys. Unless you believe that there is no one to protest or challenge her...which is not true given the nature of the people who live in the city she rules.

What was the purpose of Stannis struggling so much? Nobody liked him and he had to struggle to find men to follow him and take what was owed to him under the rules of the Baratheon dynasty. 

So why does Stannis struggle so much for the bare minimum when Cersei only has to sip on a glass of red wine, smirk and click her heels three times.

It's a case of cleaning something that has only been ever-so-slightly used and not cleaning something that is a filthy health hazard.

 

As I said, I don’t think this element of the plot has been well explained in the show.  However, if you think referencing a fact in a show multiple times is not sufficient to establish the fact, I’m not sure what to tell you.  As you say, it has been said multiple times that the Dothraki are feared “savages,” including at some length by Randyll Tarly, the person for whom the motivation is most important. And it is fairly reasonable, for purposes of simplifying things for a show, to essentially have the Tarlys represent the houses that would be involved in the books.

Now with Tarly dead, it’s not clear who Cersei is even relying on.  Is it just Euron, Qyburn and now Strickland? That seems . . .strange. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine in the books countless houses would rally against Dany and her army. Tyrion will probably regret not backing Aegon. In the show his character seems to be heading in a similar direction.

I forget if Connington knew who Tyrion was in the books? If so you’d think the son of Tywin wouldn’t be allowed near Aegon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 12:08 AM, Error-504 said:

Bran didn't seem to express any contempt when he told Sam that Dany was coming, so I dismiss this argument as BS. I am sure Bran is quite aware that the North needs Dany, unlike the Northern fools. I don't think Brans comment was at all directed solely at Dany, but to both Sansa, Dany, lady Mormont, etc. What he was saying to everyone was that we don't have time for this petty bickering, period. I highly doubt Bran is the one to make snap character judgments, but looks at the big picture as well. No one is saying Dany hasn't made mistakes, but hell, Bran is about to forgive Jamie, something you shouldn't forget.  I also don't think Bran possess's the ability to foresee the future, and determine Dany is going to be bad. If you want to make something out of the looks bran was giving off, your much better to re-examine the look he was giving tyrion. 

I understand what he was trying to say. But he told that to her directly, by the way, Lady Mormont wasn't near (well she was obviously, but she wasn't taking part in that conversation). Bran interrupted the conversation directly after Dany reacted on Sansa's coldness and told that line her particularly. I agree, of course, that Bran one of few who sees the big picture (even more than anyone else, I would say). Time will tell what he thinks of Dany. There is a reason why he insists on Jon knowing the truth and I doubt it is because of incest. 

Of course, Bran does not see the future, I think in some cases with Dany - the past and the present is quite enough to understand what kind of person she is (mind you, I like Dany to some extent, but I do not appreciate some decisions she does and attitudes she has - demanding blind loyalty for one)

Let's not involve Jamie - Bran story and dynamics in discussion of Dany and Bran's attitude. Jamie is much more redeeming and complicated character despite his frankly simple desires. Dany has no history with Bran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gala said:

I understand what he was trying to say. But he told that to her directly, by the way, Lady Mormont wasn't near (well she was obviously, but she wasn't taking part in that conversation). Bran interrupted the conversation directly after Dany reacted on Sansa's coldness and told that line her particularly. I agree, of course, that Bran one of few who sees the big picture (even more than anyone else, I would say). Time will tell what he thinks of Dany. There is a reason why he insists on Jon knowing the truth and I doubt it is because of incest. 

 

Does it matter who was talking at the moment? That line was clearly intended for everyone in attendance, not just Dany. Not to mention it was Sansa that started the ball rolling down that court. 

1 hour ago, Gala said:

Of course, Bran does not see the future, I think in some cases with Dany - the past and the present is quite enough to understand what kind of person she is (mind you, I like Dany to some extent, but I do not appreciate some decisions she does and attitudes she has - demanding blind loyalty for one)

You can say that about most every character in GOT. And I do not thing you can draw any definite conclusions yet as to what type of ruler she might be. 

1 hour ago, Gala said:

Let's not involve Jamie - Bran story and dynamics in discussion of Dany and Bran's attitude. Jamie is much more redeeming and complicated character despite his frankly simple desires. Dany has no history with Bran.

Let's not involve Jamie why? Because doing so makes your argument weak? The fact of the matter is, if Bran is willing to forgive Jamie, not doing so for Dany is hypocritical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Error-504 said:

 

Does it matter who was talking at the moment? That line was clearly intended for everyone in attendance, not just Dany. Not to mention it was Sansa that started the ball rolling down that court. 

You can say that about most every character in GOT. And I do not thing you can draw any definite conclusions yet as to what type of ruler she might be. 

Let's not involve Jamie why? Because doing so makes your argument weak? The fact of the matter is, if Bran is willing to forgive Jamie, not doing so for Dany is hypocritical. 

No, because it has nothing to do with current discussion and it is absolutely different story. Whether Bran is going to forgive Jamie or not  (personally, I hope that he does) does not say anything about Bran's attitude to Dany. Where is weakness in my argument? I told you before...let's just see, Time will tell what Bran thinks of Dany...for now I, personally, think he not that fond of her.

As for Sansa...Sansa actually did everything by the rules. "Winterfell is yours, your grace" - is not just a curtesy, but it's both submission and acknowledging Dany as a queen. Sansa is not obliged to kiss her ass right away and love her blindly, she is not that stupid little girl she was in season 1 anymore. Trust must be earned. Dany came to the North as much for the North survival as for her own (since she wants to sit the Iron Throne and rule the Seven Kingdoms, which would surely be swept away by the NK and his army and then she would be "ruling over the graveyard" as Jon said). 

As for "You can say that about most every character in GOT" - try to say something controversial about the likes of Davos or Brianne, or Meera Reed, Dolorous Edd, Lady Mormont etc. Despite the fact that I actually like Dany, I have always been a strong believer that she is not fit to rule...at all. That is because she wants it too badly and I doubt (after this episode even more) that she would be able to give any power away, which is sadly be the end of her (I personally think so), let's say it will be a lesson for all: a girl that came all that way, survived all that she had suffered, but thinks that she is some kind of undoubted messiah, will in the end become bitter powerhungry...queen (just like Cersei). Power corrupts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Even Cersei won the Tarlys and other Westerosi lords over to her cause by playing upon their fears of foreign conquest and whipping up their patriotism. She utilises soft machiavellian power, as well as brutality.

There was a clear attempt at convincing oratory and reasoned argumentation in that court scene last season where the Reach lords all attended, and she appealed for them to join with her against the Targareyn conqueror who feeds noblemen from Essos to her dragons.

But all Dany ever does, in contrast, is declare she is the Queen and demand that others show her both deference and obeisance. She never justifies the reasons 'why' they ought to serve her or appeals to them as free-thinking individuals in their own right, by persuasive arguments. If you don't bend the knee, then your condemned to being burned alive.

Her character is not that dissimilar now to Cersei and, indeed, arguably is starting to become more disturbing and scary, for instance by explicitly threatening Sansa - "dragons eat whatever they like", "if she can't respect me" - the 'sister' of her lover.

I'm beginning to think that Cersei had a point when she made that propaganda appeal, Army of the Dead on the March notwithstanding.

Cersei is cruel, sadistic and a tyrant of low cunning and guile. But Dany is becoming something even more frightening, precisely because she is arrogantly convinced of her own irreproachable rightness and the inherent wrongness of anyone who questions her.

Cersei is the devil you know - a machiavellian queen who makes little effort to hide the fact that her tactics are brutal and self-serving. Dany, however, cloaks her reprehensible crimes behind a veneer of righteous indignation and moral superiority.

 

Edited by Krishtotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Krishtotter said:

Even Cersei won the Tarlys and other Westerosi lords over to her cause by playing upon their fears of foreign conquest and whipping up their patriotism. She utilises soft machiavellian power, as well as brutality.

There was a clear attempt at convincing oratory and reasoned argumentation in that court scene last season where the Reach lords all attended, and she appealed for them to join with her against the Targareyn conqueror who feeds noblemen from Essos to her dragons.

Need to slow your roll with this analyasis. While she might have helped her cause with the Tarlys by playing on his racism, Ultimately it was Cersei's promise of Randyll become the ruling house of the Reach that got him to join sides. So far, Cersie is trailing really badly in the general election department the last I checked, with Dorne, the Reach, The a part of the Iron Islands and the North  all declaring for Dany. Cersei has managed to get one or two minor Houses. 

3 hours ago, Krishtotter said:

But all Dany ever does, in contrast, is declare she is the Queen and demand that others show her both deference and obeisance. She never justifies the reasons 'why' they ought to serve her or appeals to them as free-thinking individuals in their own right, by persuasive arguments. If you don't bend the knee, then your condemned to being burned alive.

That's odd, I never once seen her to threaten Olenna, Theon or Yara, or the SS's. She never threatened to burn Jon alive either. What she did do was execute a few leaders how openly declared war on her. 

3 hours ago, Krishtotter said:

Her character is not that dissimilar now to Cersei and, indeed, arguably is starting to become more disturbing and scary, for instance by explicitly threatening Sansa - "dragons eat whatever they like", "if she can't respect me" - the 'sister' of her lover.

Really?  I mean Really? 

3 hours ago, Krishtotter said:

I'm beginning to think that Cersei had a point when she made that propaganda appeal, Army of the Dead on the March notwithstanding.

Cersei is cruel, sadistic and a tyrant of low cunning and guile. But Dany is becoming something even more frightening, precisely because she is arrogantly convinced of her own irreproachable rightness and the inherent wrongness of anyone who questions her.

Cersei is the devil you know - a machiavellian queen who makes little effort to hide the fact that her tactics are brutal and self-serving.

How many innocents has Dany killed? How many slaves has Cersei freed? 

3 hours ago, Krishtotter said:

 

 

Dany, however, cloaks her reprehensible crimes behind a veneer of righteous indignation and moral superiority.

 

Which reprehensible crimes might those be? You seem to forget the whole Marreen plot, oddly enough. You don't think Dany was using her position of strength to try to make a better life for the formers slaves of Marreen? Are we even watching the same show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gala said:

No, because it has nothing to do with current discussion and it is absolutely different story. Whether Bran is going to forgive Jamie or not  (personally, I hope that he does) does not say anything about Bran's attitude to Dany. Where is weakness in my argument? I told you before...let's just see, Time will tell what Bran thinks of Dany...for now I, personally, think he not that fond of her.

 

Except it has everything to do with the current discussion, so stop trying to move the goal posts. This is what you said:

"am guessing Bran is not fond of Dany at all - he actually expressed his attitude by only one phase said almost with contempt "We don't have time for this..." I presume that he knows that Dany would never abandon her crown even to save her people, she lacks that kind of self-sacrifice features (her lame attempt to be a good queen by marring a man she despises does not count, she didn't have to put her crown aside, it was done more to establish her as a queen rather than otherwise)"

You speculating how Bran feels about Dany. I am saying BS. It's actually quite obvious to everyone that Jamie has committed far more heinous acts than Dany (and I am a Jamie fan btw). And yet has Bran come to the same conclusion about him? Considering he is on trial in episode 2, and fighting for the North in episode 3, it's fairly safe to say Bran didn't condemn him. And I am quite sure he wasn't waiting for him outside all day just to tell him off either. The fact is, both Dany and Jamie have made some questionable decisions in the past, but they have both given up their personal ambitions for the time being for the greater good. To forgive one, yet not the other would be hypocritical. 

 

5 hours ago, Gala said:

 

 

 



As for Sansa...Sansa actually did everything by the rules. "Winterfell is yours, your grace" - is not just a curtesy, but it's both submission and acknowledging Dany as a queen. Sansa is not obliged to kiss her ass right away and love her blindly, she is not that stupid little girl she was in season 1 anymore. Trust must be earned. Dany came to the North as much for the North survival as for her own (since she wants to sit the Iron Throne and rule the Seven Kingdoms, which would surely be swept away by the NK and his army and then she would be "ruling over the graveyard" as Jon said). 

who said anything about Sansa? And what did Dany do up to that point except be very nice to Sansa? What Sansa said, compared to the bitch face she had when she said it was the only shade thrown before Bran spoke.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gala said:

 

As for "You can say that about most every character in GOT" - try to say something controversial about the likes of Davos or Brianne, or Meera Reed, Dolorous Edd, Lady Mormont etc. Despite the fact that I actually like Dany, I have always been a strong believer that she is not fit to rule...at all. That is because she wants it too badly and I doubt (after this episode even more) that she would be able to give any power away, which is sadly be the end of her (I personally think so), let's say it will be a lesson for all: a girl that came all that way, survived all that she had suffered, but thinks that she is some kind of undoubted messiah, will in the end become bitter powerhungry...queen (just like Cersei). Power corrupts.

The former slaves of marreen would like to have a word with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Error-504 Just a heads up.

Krishtotter compared Daenerys to, among others, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong in a different thread. 
When Called out on it, he instead quoted half an essay on why Daenerys is like Robespierre. 

Don't bother. Some people will never see eye to eye, so it's best to just move on.


 

Edited by MinscS2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've hardly read anything of this thread yet(I've only just been accepted I'll get there) 

 

big deal--- Does tyrion know that jaime pushed bran???? Does anyone for that matter. ? Are the crimes he's defending just cerseis /'Lord commander' jaimes? ??? I feel like brans past the whole leg thing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Roux said:

I've hardly read anything of this thread yet(I've only just been accepted I'll get there) 

 

big deal--- Does tyrion know that jaime pushed bran???? Does anyone for that matter. ? Are the crimes he's defending just cerseis /'Lord commander' jaimes? ??? I feel like brans past the whole leg thing....

No one other than Bran and Cersei know right now. Tyrion I think suspects from the start, at least in the books. In fact I remember even in the show he taunts Jaime about wanting the kid to live, and Jaime wonders if Tyrion is on his family's side, so I think he knows.

Edited by NonoNono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think tyrion would sell out jaime. Maybe he'd tell Dany but not the whole North. Besides the three eyedness, North would believe Bran as Lord of winterfell, therefore making them supremely pissed about the fall.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Error-504 said:

 

Except it has everything to do with the current discussion, so stop trying to move the goal posts. This is what you said:

"am guessing Bran is not fond of Dany at all - he actually expressed his attitude by only one phase said almost with contempt "We don't have time for this..." I presume that he knows that Dany would never abandon her crown even to save her people, she lacks that kind of self-sacrifice features (her lame attempt to be a good queen by marring a man she despises does not count, she didn't have to put her crown aside, it was done more to establish her as a queen rather than otherwise)"

You speculating how Bran feels about Dany. I am saying BS. It's actually quite obvious to everyone that Jamie has committed far more heinous acts than Dany (and I am a Jamie fan btw). And yet has Bran come to the same conclusion about him? Considering he is on trial in episode 2, and fighting for the North in episode 3, it's fairly safe to say Bran didn't condemn him. And I am quite sure he wasn't waiting for him outside all day just to tell him off either. The fact is, both Dany and Jamie have made some questionable decisions in the past, but they have both given up their personal ambitions for the time being for the greater good. To forgive one, yet not the other would be hypocritical. 

 

who said anything about Sansa? And what did Dany do up to that point except be very nice to Sansa? What Sansa said, compared to the bitch face she had when she said it was the only shade thrown before Bran spoke.

 

So...it was you who brought up Jaime to this discussion. I still do not understand what Jaime and his history with Bran have anything to do with this discussion. Yes, I am speculating and that's why I wrote "personally" at least few time, if you haven't noticed. Let's just wait and see who is right. 

I am not discussing Jaime's heinous crimes (among them one which is actually heroic - slaying the Mad King) and certainly not comparing them to Dany's, that's absurd. One thing Jaime lacks - hunger to power, which both Dany and Cersei have, so comparing them would be more logical and appropriate. Additionally, Dany has no history with Bran at all. I definitely didn't use words like "condemn" when I talked about Bran and Dany.

Once again...Sansa was not obliged to do more than curtesy requires and she wasn't obliged "to fell blindly in love" with Dany on the spot, while Dany was actually expecting her to. Yes, after Dany's reaction - sort of "wtf" look on Dany's face after Sansa's cold curtesy- he broke the conversation and addressed directly Dany, because that was she who should have heard about dead dragon.  

And by the way, it was you who "said something about Sansa" and I just addressed your post, go and re-read.

Edited by Gala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×