Did the narrative require the destruction of Kings Landing?

[Lord Varys]

32 minutes ago, ummester said:

The trouble with this is that you are assuming, like D&D, that the Others are some kind of evil threat that has no narrative purpose other than to give the humans in the story a cause to unite over. I think there is a lot in the books, and even prior seasons of the show, that paint the Others as no more evil than the average of the human characters. I have always thought they must have a narrative point beyond being just the bad guys that bring us together, kind of thing.

We can be reasonably sure that the guys with the zombies aren't the good guys. I believe the Others - or whoever directs them - has a very good reason to see humanity as a sickness that has to be eradicated. And that's actually all you need to differentiate between mindless evil monsters and complex characters with understandable motivations.

I mean, if some still living Children greenseers were behind the Others who do this because they know and remember how the First Men - and later the Andals as well - continued to break every pact they made with the Children and essentially eradicated them then their motivation to destroy mankind is entirely justified.

It might be a little over the top if using the Others might also destroy all other life on the planet but if you are a sentient species that faces certain extinction then there is really nobody who can demand that you take the moral high ground.

I mean, assume for a moment we were suddenly invaded by aliens who infected us all with virus that would, eventually, kill us all. Would it be wrong if we did out best to take at least said aliens with us? That is an interesting question and there is no easy answer to that.

32 minutes ago, ummester said:

Remember his original draft with the retracted part of text? I'd wager the redacted bit was about Dany going Fire and Blood when she makes it to Westeros - I think she was planned as a bigger harbinger of destruction than the Others from the get go.

Well, then she wouldn't live until the ending, at least not if the great climax were supposed to be with the Others.

Chances are very high that the show just changed the chronology of events that might be somewhat inspired by the books.

[Free Northman Reborn]

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We can be reasonably sure that the guys with the zombies aren't the good guys. I believe the Others - or whoever directs them - has a very good reason to see humanity as a sickness that has to be eradicated. And that's actually all you need to differentiate between mindless evil monsters and complex characters with understandable motivations.

I mean, if some still living Children greenseers were behind the Others who do this because they know and remember how the First Men - and later the Andals as well - continued to break every pact they made with the Children and essentially eradicated them then their motivation to destroy mankind is entirely justified.

It might be a little over the top if using the Others might also destroy all other life on the planet but if you are a sentient species that faces certain extinction then there is really nobody who can demand that you take the moral high ground.

I mean, assume for a moment we were suddenly invaded by aliens who infected us all with virus that would, eventually, kill us all. Would it be wrong if we did out best to take at least said aliens with us? That is an interesting question and there is no easy answer to that.

Well, then she wouldn't live until the ending, at least not if the great climax were supposed to be with the Others.

Chances are very high that the show just changed the chronology of events that might be somewhat inspired by the books.

So not a response to this post specifically, but overall I think you are creeping deeper into denial, Lord Varys.

It is not conceivable that the Show would twist Dany’s character so radically from what is planned in the books. Their execution is poor, moronic, farcical, call it what we will, but ultimately Mad Queen Daenerys is the destiny of the books. Sorry to break it to you.

[King Perkis]

1 hour ago, ummester said:

Yes, good point - she was breaking the wheel - in a very savage way, of course but then I don't think Dany has ever been the most subtle or peaceful of characters.

Lol agreed.  Whether through bad writing, poor choices, or her own craziness, Dany finally found a way to break the wheel.  She just won't be around long enough to see that it stays that way.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So not a response to this post specifically, but overall I think you are creeping deeper into denial, Lord Varys.

It is not conceivable that the Show would twist Dany’s character so radically from what is planned in the books. Their execution is poor, moronic, farcical, call it what we will, but ultimately Mad Queen Daenerys is the destiny of the books. Sorry to break it to you.

Sure, it is conceivable. You just don't want to conceive it, do you ;-). I mean, if that's that is the story then why not Sansa raped by Ramsay (could still happen), Euron could still drop his sorcerer facade and become the great character of the show, Arianne and Aegon could die at Storm's End without affecting the overall plot at all, Cersei could rule KL with an iron fist, Arya could singlehandedly defeat the Others, Bran and Rickon could be utterly useless and pointless characters, and Jaime and Cersei could remain deeply in love until the younger brother of the ceiling of the Red Keep finally puts them out of their misery.

But it is not Mad Daenerys I've issues with, it is mad and pointless Daenerys. And Mad Daenerys anybody gives a crap after the Others have been defeated.

I certainly can see killing all of Aegon's supporters along with him and then also some innocent bystanders. But I don't even remotely think that's the end of her arc or the reason why she is going to be put down like some kind of mad dog. That is just crazy. I mean, think for a moment how as shitty a story as this would have to be written. What would Dany think while she roasts thousands of civilians, destroys the city she wants to rule, and completely ignores the woman she is supposed to hate/want to punish?

[King Perkis]

For what it is worth, it was nice seeing the Lannisters lose power in the same way that they gained it.  

Tywin took Kings Landing through false pretenses and then sacking it.  Not saying it was made clear in the show by any means, but no way what happened to her family wasn't something Dany hadn't thought of prior to this attack. 

 

Also, somewhat nice seeing the North have a chance to finally butcher the Lannisters in the same way they have been butchered throughout this entire damn show. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, it is conceivable. You just don't want to conceive it, do you ;-). I mean, if that's that is the story then why not Sansa raped by Ramsay (could still happen), Euron could still drop his sorcerer facade and become the great character of the show, Arianne and Aegon could die at Storm's End without affecting the overall plot at all, Cersei could rule KL with an iron fist, Arya could singlehandedly defeat the Others, Bran and Rickon could be utterly useless and pointless characters, and Jaime and Cersei could remain deeply in love until the younger brother of the ceiling of the Red Keep finally puts them out of their misery.

But it is not Mad Daenerys I've issues with, it is mad and pointless Daenerys. And Mad Daenerys anybody gives a crap after the Others have been defeated.

I certainly can see killing all of Aegon's supporters along with him and then also some innocent bystanders. But I don't even remotely think that's the end of her arc or the reason why she is going to be put down like some kind of mad dog. That is just crazy. I mean, think for a moment how as shitty a story as this would have to be written. What would Dany think while she roasts thousands of civilians, destroys the city she wants to rule, and completely ignores the woman she is supposed to hate/want to punish?

You are deflecting with a strawman. I agree fully that her death will be meaningful, and that her descent into madness will make sense when Martin writes it. And that the climax will be the war against the Others, not the taking of King’s Landing.

But time for you to accept. She ain’t getting the Throne, my man. And Jon IS the true heir.

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that would even go against George's original outline structure - it was A Game of Thrones (Starks vs. Lannisters), A Dance with Dragons (Dany's Conquest), and The Winds of Winters (war against the Others).

The huge climax of ASoIaF is the Song of Ice and Fire, the fight against the Others, not some bickering over a throne. The entire point of the book series is to hammer home the fact that the people fight the wrong wars, waste their resources in pointless campaigns, etc. 

In the books - just as in the show - there would be zero tension on the question who rules in the end - because that's literally meaningless.

There might be some sort of cleaning-up plot after the Others are defeated but it is not going to be another climax, rather some sort of unpleasant epilogue.

The Others will not be defeated in TWoW. They have yet to affect the plot in any meaningful manner. And Dany is not even going to arrive in Westeros in TWoW, possibly not even starting her journey west in that book.

There is no Jaime character from season 3 onwards in the show.

Is that the same outline where Jamie always remains a villain, Jon and Tyrion are in love with Arya, Sansa betrays her family, Rob hurts Joff in combat before being killed at the end of the first book, Cat retreats with her surviving children beyond The Wall and Tyrion isn’t a dwarf.

Yea, I somehow think we’re no longer getting that ending in the books.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

But time for you to accept. She ain’t getting the Throne, my man. And Jon IS the true heir.

Spoiler

Jon is going to kill Dany and refuse to sit the throne. Neither of them is going to get it in the show ;-).

 

[sifth]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Jon is going to kill Dany and refuse to sit the throne. Neither of them is going to get it in the show ;-).

 

Someone has read the leak, though I have as well. 

[Lord Varys]

Just now, sifth said:

Is that the same outline where Jamie always remains a villain, Jon and Tyrion are in love with Arya, Sansa betrays her family, Rob hurts Joff in combat before being killed at the end of the first book, Cat retreats with her surviving children beyond The Wall and Tyrion isn’t a dwarf.

Yea, I somehow think we’re no longer getting that ending in the books.

Those are just details, the overall structure remained the same. Characters changed arcs and events moved to other characters. Just think of the Dany plot in AGoT. It doesn't matter how she gets the eggs or whether Drogo or Viserys are the bad guys in her life - that plot remained the same. The same with Robb and Cat's story. It doesn't matter whether Joff or Walder kills Robb, whether it is Theon or Tyrion who takes Winterfell, etc.

The idea the grand climax of ASoIaF is going to be a great battle over that silly throne is utterly laughable.

[Varys_was_right]

2 hours ago, Wildling Queen said:

I think it did require the destruction of King's Landing. Radical change doesn't happen through an adherence to tradition. You burn it down and start over.

Yeah, that worked out well for Russia in 1918! Sometimes the people advocating radical change are worse than the current structure in place. That's why the last episode works for me. It's a warning against that kind of thinking.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

  Hide contents

Jon is going to kill Dany and refuse to sit the throne. Neither of them is going to get it in the show ;-).

 

Sure. I predicted Jon would be the 1000th Lord Commander of the Watch years ago. But we don’t know how long he will wait before he does so. And what will happen inbetween. 

Or if there will even be an Iron Throne at the end. My favourite outcome is that there is no more Iron Throne. And if King’s Landing really burns, that may be the event that erases this unfortunate 300 year blip on the 8000 year history of the Seven Kingdoms once and for all.

[sifth]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Those are just details, the overall structure remained the same. Characters changed arcs and events moved to other characters. Just think of the Dany plot in AGoT. It doesn't matter how she gets the eggs or whether Drogo or Viserys are the bad guys in her life - that plot remained the same. The same with Robb and Cat's story. It doesn't matter whether Joff or Walder kills Robb, whether it is Theon or Tyrion who takes Winterfell, etc.

The idea the grand climax of ASoIaF is going to be a great battle over that silly throne is utterly laughable.

So explain the Jon, Tryion, Arya love triangle or Cat going beyond the Wall? Because those are clearly big changes. 

Jamie not being a villain is a pretty huge change as well.

 

[BlackLightning]

1 minute ago, Varys_was_right said:

Yeah, that worked out well for Russia in 1918! Sometimes the people advocating radical change are worse than the current structure in place. That's why the last episode works for me. It's a warning against that kind of thinking.

Jon Snow has always advocated for radical change. Unlike his counterpart Daenerys, his radical changes have made little political sense. Cue the unusually fervent discontent amongst the northern lords

So naturally, Jon would make an excellent king.

 

[Old Blue Eyes]

2 hours ago, Wildling Queen said:

I think it did require the destruction of King's Landing. Radical change doesn't happen through an adherence to tradition. You burn it down and start over.

Trying to make sense of why Dany didn't just go burn down the Red Keep, instead of torching the whole city, and it's really pretty clear:  She chose FEAR over LOVE because she felt like she had lost her purpose with the revealing of Jon's stature.  The fact that she decided to "burn them all" completes her character arc into the "Mad Queen," and sets up the predicted "Neesa Neesa" prophecy as I am sure we will see Jon execute her in the final episode.

 

[David Selig]

The showrunners couldn't care less about stuff like that. Their principle is "Creatively it made sense because we wanted it to happen".

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Old Blue Eyes said:

Trying to make sense of why Dany didn't just go burn down the Red Keep, instead of torching the whole city, and it's really pretty clear:  She chose FEAR over LOVE because she felt like she had lost her purpose with the revealing of Jon's stature.  The fact that she decided to "burn them all" completes her character arc into the "Mad Queen," and sets up the predicted "Neesa Neesa" prophecy as I am sure we will see Jon execute her in the final episode.

 

And in the prophecy Nyssa Nyssa dies in order to forge Lightbringer. Meaning BEFORE the battle for the Dawn. Meaning this whole King’s Landing drama happens BEFORE the Battle of Winterfell in the books.

Somehow Jon forges a weapon through slaying Daenerys. And uses it to defeat the Others. Is that weapon an alliance? A dragon? Some kind of blood sacrifice that powers a spell?

Will be interesting to see how it plays out in the books.

[Lord Varys]

17 minutes ago, sifth said:

So explain the Jon, Tryion, Arya love triangle or Cat going beyond the Wall? Because those are clearly big changes. 

Jamie not being a villain is a pretty huge change as well.

Those are plot lines that were abandoned when the other things had ripple effects. Keep in mind much more time was originally supposed to pass during the books.

But I don't think those are particularly great changes, to be honest. Nothing of that affects the overall chronology.

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Sure. I predicted Jon would be the 1000th Lord Commander of the Watch years ago. But we don’t know how long he will wait before he does so. And what will happen inbetween. 

There is no purpose for a NW in the show. Jon leave the Seven Kingdoms, but he won't waste his life guarding a pointless wall watching for an enemy his cousin has already dealt with.

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And in the prophecy Nyssa Nyssa dies in order to forge Lightbringer. Meaning BEFORE the battle for the Dawn. Meaning this whole King’s Landing drama happens BEFORE the Battle of Winterfell in the books.

Somehow Jon forges a weapon through slaying Daenerys. And uses it to defeat the Others. Is that weapon an alliance? A dragon? Some kind of blood sacrifice that powers a spell?

Will be interesting to see how it plays out in the books.

Wait a minute. Didn't the show confirm that Arya is going to defeat the Others? How is that nonsense and your Jon fantasies still stand ;-)?

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Or if there will even be an Iron Throne at the end. My favourite outcome is that there is no more Iron Throne. And if King’s Landing really burns, that may be the event that erases this unfortunate 300 year blip on the 8000 year history of the Seven Kingdoms once and for all.

We all know that already:

Spoiler

Bran will be king for some reason. The guy who refused to rule Winterfell ;-).

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Those are plot lines that were abandoned when the other things had ripple effects. Keep in mind much more time was originally supposed to pass during the books.

But I don't think those are particularly great changes, to be honest. Nothing of that affects the overall chronology.

There is no purpose for a NW in the show. Jon leave the Seven Kingdoms, but he won't waste his life guarding a pointless wall watching for an enemy his cousin has already dealt with.

Wait a minute. Didn't the show confirm that Arya is going to defeat the Others? How is that nonsense and your Jon fantasies still stand ;-)?

We all know that already:

  Reveal hidden contents

Bran will be king for some reason. The guy who refused to rule Winterfell ;-).

 

Your tactics are obvious. And petty. You are trying to dismiss the likelihood of Dany becoming Mad Queen Daenerys in the books by suggesting that if that is true then all of the Show’s other absurdities must also be true.

Give it a rest, Lord Varys. The Show cherry picked the bits they wanted to stick to. Use your brain to decide. Is Arya slaying the (non-existent) Night King more likely? Or Danerys (who embraced her heritage of Fire and Blood at the end of the last book), becoming a Mad Destructive conqueror more likely? 

The answer is obvious.

[Hodor's Dragon]

2 hours ago, Kajjo said:

Stop it. The story is fine.

The telling is rushed and partly bad. But not the story itself.

??? Story good, telling bad? What's the difference between the two?

This story has been a stream of nonsense leading from one epic spectacle to the next ever since it passed the books.