Jump to content
Ran

[Spoilers] Episode 805 Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2019 at 7:42 PM, Sly Wren said:

They did this a LOT better in the books. Showed from the first that she had a choice between "Home" and the dragon.

And that the dragon meant power and the world in ashes.

Here--they rushed it.

But they did show her monstrous side last season with the field of fire and the Tarlys' execution.

Dany's not innately a monster--but she's made some monstrous choices.

The Tarly's execution was the common price to pay for losing such a battle/war. It was nasty, and ruthless, but they were a hugely powerful house that refused to bend the knee. There were other options and I would've chosen them, but I could understand her reasoning when she decided to make an example of them. Burning a city alive a la Tokyo, Dresden, Guernica, Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc only makes sense in the context of an environment of Total War where civilians are considered fair game by all warring parties to some extent or another. That wasn't so in the context of this story. Sure civilians had it hard, but there's a reason the bells were used. The city fully expected to receive mercy and compassion, if subjugation in exchange for submitting. Instead they were treated like the Romans treated Carthage, like the Assyrians treated, well, everybody. It doesn't fit w/what we've seen of Dany. It just doesn't. Ruthless in her commitment to her cause? Yes, to some degree, but really, after having spent years having her titles focus as much as anything upon the concept of "breaking the wheel/breaker of chains" etc to then turn and engage in a Vietnamese era rationalization of "We have to destroy the village to save it," is just absurd.

If they'd spent enough time developing this storyline it might have eventually been believable. Instead it plays like some emo lunatic losing their blank and slaughtering everyone left and right in a fit of pique. Yes she suffered. But try comparing stories with Arya. Did Dany witness her father being beheaded, finally after having suffered that trauma and much more, finally reached her mother and brother only to see them butchered as well as her future sister in law and niece/nephew in the most horrific way imaginable, and that was really only the first what, third of her journey? Dany didn't suddenly earn the right to go "mad" and become a homicidal, genocidal mast murderer because her boyfriend/nephew broke up with her, and a couple of close, close friends and dragons died. It just feels beyond ridiculous and lazy to me. The buddha told us life is suffering. This is nothing new. It's not ground breaking, the only difference is in the scale of the suffering. Dany was/is surrounded by people who suffered every bit as much as her and much worse. Someone who spent seven seasons and an episode or two trying to rebuild the world in a better fashion decides to burn it all down because of what happened over the course of a couple of episodes with Jon, Jorah, Missandei, Rhaegal etc? I just can't buy it. Maybe this was the story outline George gave them, but they sure as hell didn't deliver in making it remotely believable, and some of it was pacing, but a lot of it was just flat out ham fisted writing and character development down the stretch and the proof is in those "inside the episode" type mini-doc's where their explanations of "choices" are beyond pathetic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by stoneghost28
fixing an allusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 7:50 PM, Hodor&Bran said:

All through human history after almost every war the conquerors burn and sack the cities.  This does NOT mean Dany is mad!!!!  It's called revenge.  Rome literally ground Carthage into the ground when they conquered them.  They poured salt into the soil and plowed it under where Carthage stood.  

I asked my Husband who fought in Vietnam and killed people what he thought after watching this.  His answer was "You have know idea what it's like in war and yes that's what happens".  He also said "war is madness and it makes you mad".  My Husband is 75 years old and he still has nightmares from Vietnam.

The weird thing about Carthage is that the Roman's provoked and instigated the final war, it was very much an Austro-Hungary gazillion demands placed on the Serbians 1914 scenario x10 (placing demands that are so insanely restrictive it was impossible to accede to them w/o retaining any degree of independence whatsoever). Carthage had no issue starting stuff early in the Punic Wars, but the finale involving the sacking/salting which can still be kinda seen from satellites etc was entirely the Roman's digging around for a pretext to squash and seize the independent territory still controlled by Carthage (essentially Carthage was thriving like Japan and Germany Post WWII, and Rome wanted the wealth generated from their thriving sea/port based trade for themselves, and decided to take it, by force, and Carthage made it difficult by repeatedly acceding to demands only for Rome to repeatedly renege on agreements and up the demands until finally Rome just sacked the largely defenseless city state/empire. 

If you already know all this, apologies, it's just a really interesting story with parallels to a ton of 20th and 21st century battles/wars/foreign policy incidents. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think @Zorral fulfilled that request.

And read my response. That article doesn't really strengthen your case. It would seem the official government policy for years towards Ghengis had been negative and that didn't change because the people in China suddenly fell in love with him. 

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I didn’t actually say they’d “particularly” like him. I’ve lamented their feelings in regards to him are probably in alignment with the rest of the country. Which has shown a general respect. Not surprising the greatest conqueror in their in history. 

Yeah you offered up China as an example of this. Then offered up no evidence about how the Chinese feels about Genghis. Then I think largely misinterpreted why the Chinese government had a change of heart according to that article.  And then were seemingly unaware that Genghis wasn't particularly loved in other regions he had invaded.

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You apparently don’t since you’re still holding him to relatively modern understanding on on how war-fare ought be waged. 

Why doesn't Connington burn down an entire city again? Why is Ned seemingly angered by Gregor's actions in the Riverlands? Why is Ned angered by the murder of the Targaryen children. Why does Stannis punish his troops for rape. Why does Davos object to the killing of smallfolk?

Should I just excuse people like Tywin, Aerys and Roose Bolton? Was Robert B. right to want to have Dany killed? Was Tywin right to have the Targaryen children killed. Was Aerys right to order the murder of two innocent boys?

If Dany simply kills innocents in the books in the exact same manner and for the same reasons as she does in the show, do you think nobody in Westeros will find that objectionable? Should we as book readers just excuse that?

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes, yes, not every people conquered will grow to love/respect their conqueror. My position was simply that the exact opposite that sentiment  is also false; that just because a person  waged war and/or conquered a people doesn’t mean the conquered will hate that person for all time or even dislike him.

So in other words you're not really sure about how the people of Dorne would feel about Aegon. It seems to me there is a bit of daylight between that and @Lord Varys suggestion that Aegon I is well regarded throughout Westeros.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, darksellsword said:

That's actually a really good point. They were really inconsistent with how they did her makeup though, She looked haggard on Dragonstone but when she was attacking kingslanding she was back to her beautiful self apart from a dark patch on her face that I initially took for some kind of sickness but I guess was just soot from the fire. 

Either Dany made herself up for the occasion, or slaughtering her enemies put her in a better frame of mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stoneghost28 said:

It was ridiculous. I get that there was plenty of foreshadowing that she can be ruthless when dealing with her enemies but when did she ever actually annihilate civilians on the ground just living their lives? She was made more than aware that the everyday people of the city were being used as shields by Cersei. Arguing that she went mad is total horse bleep. I can get get w/showing the brutality of a city being sacked. Anyone who spends anytime studying ancient history, let alone medieval history knows what happens more often than not during sackings (mass slaughter, and the selling into slavery of the surviving women and children). Heck you can look at the 20th century to see what happened in the fire bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, what happened at Guernica or in the Rape of Nanking. We never needed dragons to accomplish much worse than what was shown here.

My issue is that Dany hasn't really shown an inclination to slaughter civilians from what I've seen. Her enemies? Sure. But children? Mothers? The elderly? Come on. It was ridiculous. For me, watching last night, and in season 7 and 8, all I've felt the whole time is Ive been watching two guys that got a sweetheart deal with Kathleen Kennedy (wonder if she's having any buyers remorse? She's got no problem giving significantly talented directors the hook after all), and after spending at least what, 2008 or 2009-2018 working on the project and they're beyond over it. The half-blanked moronic answers they've given in "Inside the Episode" specials to explain character motivation etc has been farcical at best, and absurd at worst. For anyone else who read it, this whole experience has echoed finishing Jean Auel's Earth's Children series with a fifth book that was at best tedious, and a finale that was a complete and total abomination and essentially worked as a negation of everything that came before it, if it hadn't been a library book I probably would have given it the Tess of the d'Urbervilles treatment from my high school days (tossed out an open window and into my backyard upon it's denouement). 

It's just beyond frustrating to see these yokel's pull a Lindelof, secure a guaranteed stretch run of multiple years to wrap up the series on their terms, and then show that they were out of ideas the second they gained such a controlling interest, and indeed were hacks w/a flair for Michael Bayesque filmmaking, all hat no cattle. Martin may be cynical as hell and maybe he wanted this, but regardless at least his material would have came w/quality depth and pacing, and clarity and coherence. Instead it's a heaping pile of manure filmed quite beautifully. I feel for Sapochnik. The guy who gave us Hardhome, The Battle of the Bastards, and The Winds of Winter gave us something stunning to look at, but he couldn't overcome the inept writing of D&D (happy to see he also directed the series opener for Altered Carbon, one of my favorite shows of the past half decade or so).

I'll say it again.  She didn't see the people of Kings Landing as being innocent.  She only saw them as enemies.  And, she has always been ruthless towards enemies.  Many of us have become used to the idea of guilt or innocence being determined individually, when most of the time, it has been determined collectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time I remember such fury on the boards was when storm of swords came out and the red wedding happened. Same complaints. “Robb would never have been so stupid, ruined his character, not reading anymore etc etc”. I have no doubt this was GRRM’s twist. 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And read my response. That article doesn't really strengthen your case. It would seem the official government policy for years towards Ghengis had been negative and that didn't change because the people in China suddenly fell in love with him. 

Yeah you offered up China as an example of this. Then offered up no evidence about how the Chinese feels about Genghis. Then I think largely misinterpreted why the Chinese government had a change of heart according to that article.  And then were seemingly unaware that Genghis wasn't particularly loved in other regions he had invaded.

Why doesn't Connington burn down an entire city again? Why is Ned seemingly angered by Gregor's actions in the Riverlands? Why is Ned angered by the murder of the Targaryen children. Why does Stannis punish his troops for rape. Why does Davos object to the killing of smallfolk?

Should I just excuse people like Tywin, Aerys and Roose Bolton? Was Robert B. right to want to have Dany killed? Was Tywin right to have the Targaryen children killed. Was Aerys right to order the murder of two innocent boys?

If Dany simply kills innocents in the books in the exact same manner and for the same reasons as she does in the show, do you think nobody in Westeros will find that objectionable? Should we as book readers just excuse that?

So in other words you're not really sure about how the people of Dorne would feel about Aegon. It seems to me there is a bit of daylight between that and @Lord Varys suggestion that Aegon I is well regarded throughout Westeros.

A conqueror may be hated, but eventually become admired by the people he conquered.  William became a very popular name among the English in the Twelth century.

WRT atrocities, I think absolutely, we should apply our views to them in the books, but give some leeway to people operating in a different environment.  Warfare hardens hearts, and people want to pay back evil for evil.

Dany (in the books) is an enigma in any case.  No reader can feel anything but huge sympathy for her to begin with, as well as great hope that she'll succeed.  And, she's almost always polite, well-mannered, and considerate to her servants and those close to her, as well as having sympathy for those who are oppressed.  And, that tends to make it easy overlook the fact that some of the things she does are - looked at dispassionately - appalling.  The sack of Meereen was just as horrible as the sack of Kings Landing in the show.  We just don't get to see it happening in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Valandil said:

The last time I remember such fury on the boards was when storm of swords came out and the red wedding happened. Same complaints. “Robb would never have been so stupid, ruined his character, not reading anymore etc etc”. I have no doubt this was GRRM’s twist. 100%

Even if it doesn't turn out quite like this, Dany will do some dark stuff on her way to power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, fairwarging said:

What would you have against Dany in season 1? 

Her too much pride after the middle episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SeanF said:

A conqueror may be hated, but eventually become admired by the people he conquered.  William became a very popular name among the English in the Twelth century.

And in some cases that doesn't seem true. By the 1980s, it was what: Like 600 years since Genghis Khan had invaded Russia and Vietnam?

Share this post


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

WRT atrocities, I think absolutely, we should apply our views to them in the books, but give some leeway to people operating in a different environment.  

I don't fundamentally disagree with this. But a couple of points:

1. Certain sorts of people often want to use some modern examples to justify what happens, without understanding that some of those modern examples were controversial. For instance, several prominent US military leaders, holding 5 star rank, had their doubts about the use of atomic weapons being dropped on Japan. Or they want to use modern examples to justify what happens without seriously trying to grapple with what is required by those in command under our modern notions. It is not enough to say, even modern war, innocents die, so ergo everything is good to go. We know that. And that isn't very helpful in thinking about these issues.

2. If Dany were to just continue burning a city after it clearly capitulated that would be viewed badly in Westeros as opposed to the city being burned while there was still fighting. Even in Westeros there are limits.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so conflicted / confused how I feel about this episode , Dany, Jamie all of it but I want to know, and Maybe this has already been discussed , why were so many civilians going into the city???

like there’s an army bearing down on KL and a dragon queen coming why would you think that THAT city is the safe place to be ??? It was t even just the inner wall around the red keep but showed dozens/hundreds/thousands pouring into the city from outside of it. Why? 

Share this post


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

And read my response. That article doesn't really strengthen your case. It would seem the official government policy for years towards Ghengis had been negative and that didn't change because the people in China suddenly fell in love with him. 

I did read your response. I found it lacking an actual objection other than the obvious note that these tributes maybe  aren’t purely out of altruism. Not to the idea there are Chinese people today who revere Genghis. And there clearly are given they would  have had this lesson propagated into them. You cannot seriously contend that decades, of Genghis being taught as a hero in China would leave no significant impact on how many Chinese  perceive him favorably.

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah you offered up China as an example of this. Then offered up no evidence about how the Chinese feels about Genghis. Then I think largely misinterpreted why the Chinese government had a change of heart according to that article.  And then were seemingly unaware that Genghis wasn't particularly loved in other regions he had invaded.

No I didn’t. No where do I say the Dorn likes Aegon particularly more than any of other provinces. Again my position is their feelings are probably in alignment with the rest of the country in regards to Aegon.  I have for some reason have to reiterate myself. And me not mentioning the places Genghis warred with and disliked wasn’t a failing on my part. My point wasn’t all the peoples Genghis warred with show him any reverence. I offered up China as a rebuttal  to your seeming insistence that a conqueror must be hated/disliked/not thought of favorably by the populace he warred with in all cases long after he’s dead. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Why doesn't Connington burn down an entire city again? Why is Ned seemingly angered by Gregor's actions in the Riverlands? Why is Ned angered by the murder of the Targaryen children. Why does Stannis punish his troops for rape. Why does Davos object to the killing of smallfolk?

Well destroying the place you seek to rule from generally is a bad idea. Gregor is attacking Ned’s father-in law in attempt to draw him out. And, he doesn’t like  to see innocents suffer.  Not really unusual for there being an expression of disgust at noble children being butchered. Stannis is shown to be exceptional in punishing the troops that rape. I hope I do not have to explain to you generally, rape in war in this setting would be excused by most military commanders. 

Why is Aegon never characterized as acting inappropriately  for the Burning of Harrenthal, or his campaign in Dorne even when the Targyens have been displaced? Why do we see the lords of the region, push Aegon to continue to burn the Dornish when it’s proven they won’t break? Maybe because in the eyes of his setting he wasn’t doing anything abominable. What do you think would happen if Jon cut the throats of all the children hostages he’s taken in response to the sins of their kin? Do you think he’d be seen as a monster? Tell my why do you think Robert was  troubled by the fact Joffrey got his friend’s daughter ‘ wild pet killed yet offered no sorrow that Joffrey’s lie cost a boy his life?

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

If Dany simply kills innocents in the books in the exact same manner and for the same reasons as she does in the show, do you think nobody in Westeros will find that objectionable? Should we as book readers just excuse that?

If by in the same manner you mean burning KL down, I’d probably say no, people would object. Less for the loss of civilian life, and more for it’s cultural, religious, and economic value.  

Tell me if Jon cuts the wildling children’s throat in response to their parent acting up do you think readers should condemn him? Tell me if Ned took a 13 year old Theon’s head in response to  Balon rebelling would you denounce him as a monster? Should we condemn Stannis(as most lords do), having tortures on hand to mangale their perceived enemies? 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

So in other words you're not really sure about how the people of Dorne would feel about Aegon. It seems to me there is a bit of daylight between that and @Lord Varys suggestion that Aegon I is well regarded throughout Westeros.

We see repeatedly see being compared to him being compared to him as a compliment from people from the various kingdoms he conquered. 

You can’t actually show anti-Aegon sentiment in Dorne and failed to provide a reason why’d they’d show more  animosity towards in comparison to most of the kingdoms Aegon conquered. You argue Dorne breaks the pattern for being in a bitter war with Aegon-quite literally 4 of the provinces, he conquered could say that but we don’t see it there. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

?

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And why would Dorne remember him fondly? After their country fought a bitter war against him? 

But beyond that, why is general Westerosi opinion about Aegon even relevant to what we as book readers think about him?

I have followed your discussion with Sean F following this post.

 

I think the most important argument that can support the people in Dorne remember him (or at least the Targaryens) fondly, is that the royalty of Dorne often married with the Targaryens. 

Share this post


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

And, that tends to make it easy overlook the fact that some of the things she does are - looked at dispassionately - appalling.  The sack of Meereen was just as horrible as the sack of Kings Landing in the show.  We just don't get to see it happening in detail.

Meh, the sack specifically targeted the slavers who ruled Meereen.People guilty one of the worst crimes. After, seeing said the slavers council crucify hundreds of children. In her position I’d think many would be enticed to enact some unilateral justice. Hell, I’ve encountered people who’ve said Daenerys should have executed  the slaver class as a wholeEven if some of the slavers opposed the measure(I genuinely doubt it), they’re still guilty of treating and trading people like cattle. 

Compare this to the innocent peasants who’ve no power, and mostly in the position of the exploited and not the exploiter. Not really hard to see why so many readers looks at one more favorably than the other.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Even if it doesn't turn out quite like this, Dany will do some dark stuff on her way to power.

She will, and she already has. You could not win the IT bloodlessly. She needs to be ruthless. I honestly picture her not turning out to be mad. That would make her sooo boring. I don’t particularly think “evil” would turn out to be the word to describe her either. I’d say just, typical for what she aspires to be; a conqueror. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, the sack specifically targeted the slavers who ruled Meereen.People guilty one of the worst crimes. After, seeing said the slavers council crucify hundreds of children. In her position I’d think many would be enticed to enact some unilateral justice. Hell, I’ve encountered people who’ve said Daenerys should have executed  the slaver class as a wholeEven if some of the slavers opposed the measure(I genuinely doubt it), they’re still guilty of treating and trading people like cattle. 

Compare this to the innocent peasants who’ve no power, and mostly in the position of the exploited and not the exploiter. Not really hard to see why so many readers looks at one more favorably than the other.

She will, and she already has. You could not win the IT bloodlessly. She needs to be ruthless. I honestly picture her not turning out to be mad. That would make her sooo boring. I don’t particularly think “evil” would turn out to be the word to describe her either. I’d say just, typical for what she aspires to be; a conqueror. 

163 Slavers were crucified, but they weren't the only ones that suffered. In fact, their class weren't even the ones that suffered worst, as they were relatively safe in their pyramids.  Meereen was "savagely sacked" according to the author.  Much of this was due to slaves rising up against their masters, but much was down to Dany's sellswords and freedmen murdering, raping, and looting, after they broke into the city.  Dany gave them 24 hours of licence, before restoring order.  When she rode into the city, after its fall, the streets were choked with corpses, and that was before she gave the order to crucify 163 Great Masters.  The free lower classes suffered horribly when the city fell, as we learn in ADWD,  One can argue that they deserved their fate, for following the Great Masters, but then Dany (in the show) could make the same argument about the inhabitants of Kings Landing.

If we had been given a chapter from a Meereenese POV, describing the fall of the city, then I think readers' attitudes towards Dany would be somewhat different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I did read your response. I found it lacking an actual objection other than the obvious note that these tributes maybe  aren’t purely out of altruism. Not to the idea there are Chinese people today who revere Genghis. And there clearly are given they would  have had this lesson propagated into them. You cannot seriously contend that decades, of Genghis being taught as a hero in China would leave no significant impact on how many perceive him. 

Sure there maybe Chinese people that revere him. How about a majority? You provided no evidence of that. And I don't recall there being years of state sponsored propaganda about Aegon in Dorne.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No I didn’t. No where do I say the Dorn likes Aegon particularly more than any of other provinces. Again my position is their feelings are probably in alignment with the rest of the country in regards to Aegon.  I have for some reason have to reiterate myself. And me not mentioning the places Genghis warred with and disliked wasn’t a failing on my part. YMy point wasn’t all the peoples Genghis warred with show him any reverence. I offered up China as a rebuttal  to your seeming insistence that a conqueror must be hated/disliked/not thought of favorably by the populace he warred with in all cases long after he’s dead. 

Except your rebuttal wasn't very compelling. And the one piece of evidence that was offered up to support your assertion, really didn't help your case. In fact, in undermined it. There was no evidence that the people of China just woke up one day and said. "Genghis what a swell guy!"

 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well destroying the place you seek to rule from generally is a bad idea. Gregor is attacking Ned’s father-in law in attempt to draw him out. And, he doesn’t like  to see innocents suffer.  Not really unusual for there being an expression of disgust at noble children being butchered. Stannis is shown to be exceptional in punishing the troops that rape. I hope I do not have to explain to you generally, rape in war in this setting would be excused by most military commanders.

I understand exactly what Tywin was trying to do when he sent Gregor into the RL. The point was that seems a bit too much even for Westeros. And saying that rape would be excused by most commanders isn't the same thing as saying they view as not being bad. Why did Jaime execute somebody for committing rape? Does Dany just not care when the Dothraki commit rapes during their attack on the Lhazareen? People in the world of ASOIAF clearly understand rape is a bad act, even if some choose to look the other way.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Why is Aegon never characterized as acting inappropriately  for the Burning of Harrenthal, or his campaign in Dorne even when the Targyens have been displaced? Why do we see the lords of the region, push Aegon to continue to burn the Dornish when it’s proven they won’t break? 

So what was that Connington thing about again. Why didn't he just burn down the whole city? Seems like it was a no-brainer, if burning down entire cities isn't viewed as being that bad in Westeros.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

. What do you think would happen if Jon cut the throats of all the children hostages he’s taken in response to the sins of their kin? Do you think he’d be seen as a monster? Tell my why do you think Robert was  troubled by the fact Joffrey got his friend’s daughter ‘ wild pet killed yet offered no sorrow that Joffrey’s lie cost a boy his life?

Within Westeros. Probably not. That still doesn't mean it wouldn't be viewed as a good thing. People would still understand it was a tragic action even if "necessary". 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If by in the same manner you mean burning KL down, I’d probably say no, people would object. Less for the loss of civilian life, and more for it’s cultural, religious, and economic value.  

So even in Westeros people have their limits? Right? It's not enough to say, "Oh well people die war, no worries".

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Tell me if Jon cuts the wildling children’s throat in response to their parent acting up do you think readers should condemn him? Tell me if Ned took a 13 year old Theon’s head in response to  Balon rebelling would you denounce him as a monster? Should we condemn Stannis(as most lords do), having tortures on hand to mangale their perceived enemies? 

Well, first, I'd view each of these acts as being fundamentally terrible. That doesn't necessarily mean I'd condemn the characters. That would turn upon the circumstances of each case and what options each character had. Certainly if they committed such an act and it served no remotely reasonable purpose, I'd likely condemn them. A point I'm trying to make here is that is not enough to say, "Oh well innocents die war, so we should just accept that." It will turn upon the particular facts of each case. For instance, Dany just bombing the shit out of KL means she deserves to be condemned by us the readers. Change the facts sightly. If innocents had simply died while the fighting was still going on, without being directly targeted, I'd would be a lot more hesitant to condemn Dany. I might be critical of her decision to make a direct assault upon KL, when she had other options and even say she made a bad decision, but not necessarily condemn her completely for it.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

We see repeatedly see being compared to him being compared to him as a compliment from people from the various kingdoms he conquered. 

You can’t actually show anti-Aegon sentiment in Dorne and failed to provide a reason why’d they’d show more  animosity towards in comparison to most of the kingdoms Aegon conquered. You argue Dorne breaks the pattern for being in a bitter war with Aegon-quite literally 4 of the provinces, he conquered could say that but we don’t see it there. 

Well sure I can't provide take a poll in Dorne about how the people their feel about Aegon. And neither can you for that matter.

This whole argument got started because somebody asserted that Aegon I is particularly beloved in Westeos. And I pointed out maybe not. And Dorne was a different because it fought a particularly protracted and bitter conflict with Aegon. There are good reasons to think he wouldn't be fondly remembered there.

But I guess you'll try to convince me that the Young Dragon is loved there too.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nymeria_2321 said:

I am so conflicted / confused how I feel about this episode , Dany, Jamie all of it but I want to know, and Maybe this has already been discussed , why were so many civilians going into the city???

like there’s an army bearing down on KL and a dragon queen coming why would you think that THAT city is the safe place to be ??? It was t even just the inner wall around the red keep but showed dozens/hundreds/thousands pouring into the city from outside of it. Why? 

 They are used to defending themselves with strong city and castle walls and no one has adapted to the fact that they are dealing with a dragon, not soldiers on foot or horse.  Cersei invited them in to protect themselves by coming within castle walls, so they are all doing so. Normally, people out in the open would be at risk, but instead they have become sitting ducks for Drogon to burn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very strange aftertaste. 

It's like everything's wrong. All the characters ruined. All of them. I hope that GRRM will write his own story. I hope that this ridiculous ending will inspire him to write. Because what I saw was ridiculous. Some whys.

Why GRRM didn't write scripts for these series? (can somebody answer?)

What the hell happened to Cersei always staring expressionless until she is just killed by bricks? Wtf is this? At least they died together though I hope that Cersei survived. This death just doesn't feel right.

Why Dany just burned everyone? Why? What happened to her when she started to burn children? They didn't even show her face. Maybe she fell from her dragon and he went nuts? Everything can happen in this show. Even the most absurd things... I understand that she's mad a bit. But why so violent? 

Wtf with Jon? Just watcing how Varys gets burned. What is he thinking? He loved Ygritte too but this love wasn't blind. Is he just tired? At least now he will take some action. Same about Tyrion. When did he become so blind? Staring sadly after making the hundreth mistake.

Two characters I hate - Euron and Bronn. They should have killed Bronn long ago but he keeps appearing and makes everything so boring. And that huge role they gave to Euron. And that shitty death. Those lame scorpions. But no... They will kill Bronn in the last episode. That should be the Night King's episode.

That useless Bran. :( He could be something! We will never know.
 

I liked the fight between the Mountain (Varysface) and the Hound. Really liked.

 

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

×