Jump to content
Daemos

This is all Jon’s fault

Recommended Posts

Just now, King Jon Snow Stark said:

I don't think she is entitled to it. She might think that and she says it over and over again. When she left Essos she was an invader with support with some lords and a famous name.  

Yes I agree with you and said it in another post, that all of this entitled things are a political campaign for supporters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

I'm hoping all this will be a Bran or Ned Stark dream which would blow people's minds if there is kind of a reset and Ned pushes for t hem to kill Dany so dragons are never born and Ned tells Robert Jeffrey is jokes mid and gendry is his real son.

It’s been done. They tried that in “Dallas” back in the eighties I believe? Didn’twork out too well for em... :D

Edited by Green Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

I'm hoping all this will be a Bran or Ned Stark dream which would blow people's minds if there is kind of a reset and Ned pushes for t hem to kill Dany so dragons are never born and Ned tells Robert Jeffrey is jokes mid and gendry is his real son.

Catelyn wakes up and hears water sloshing. She rises and pats warily to the next room. She sees Eddard bathing in the hot spring.

Edit: GMTA

Edited by weirwoodface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Brace yourselves, rant incoming:

Honestly, at the end of the day, both the "Daenerys always had it in her, the traces of madness are there"-camp and the "Daenerys never had it in er, her intentions are good"-camp are both being somewhat disingenuous. 

Daenerys has never before this episode shown signs, let alone acted out of cruelty and evil for no reason - fact.
Daenerys has before this episode, talked about razing cities and killing people for not good enough reason - fact.

If this was more or less any other sort of fiction or story, a character in Daenerys position ("flawed protagonist/tragic hero") that's brought to to the absolute edge of the abyss in the same manner as she is, would in 99% of the time, right before falling over the edge, ultimately come to realize what she's about to become - the monster she's always been fighting - then take a step back from the abyss, recuperate and that would be that. 
This is pretty much where the end of Episode 4 leaves us - at this point, Daenerys is pushed to the brink, she's furious, vengeful and sad. 
She talks about doing the unforgivable, but it is not yet too late for her to come back from the brink.

This is however, Game of Thrones, which is that 1%. In this case Daenerys never takes a step back, but fully embraces the darkness in her. Jon's rejection is the final push (in a long series of pushes, see my earlier post in this thread) and after this there's no coming back.
Her ultimately going down this dark path is not entirely unbelievable considering the narrative as a whole, but it is unbelievable given what we have seen of her character-arc in the last couple of seasons, especially season 7.

This is coming from a huge Daenerys-fanboy. I'm absolutely devastated at what they've done to her character this season. 
By going down this route, I consider her entire arc and basically her entire character as tragic and pointless. 
I'm still waiting for whatever the payoff (if there even is one) of it will be. What's the moral of her story?

But even I, despite the love I had (and still to some extent have) for the character, can't ultimately consider the idea of her becoming a genocidal tyrant to be impossible from what I've seen from her arc. I considered it extremely unlikely, but never impossible. Again, that 1%.

My instant reaction to seeing it starting to happen last week was one of disbelief. I felt hollow and I hated that it happened at all, because I refused to believe it.

Having had time to process this over the last week however (thanks leaks...), I no longer hate that it happened (well I do, but not in the same way, because I've come to the conclusion that it always "could" happen), now I instead absolutely hate how it happened. 

The mhysa-arc of Daenerys, her acting as the champion of the downtrodden has always been her main drive.
It began already back in S1 before Viserys was even dead. Despite all her flaws, bad decisions and occasional ruthless, callous nature, this compassionate part of her has always been there. This is the part of her that some of the time causes her to commit some of the ruthless, outright cruel things she has done. On top of my head: 
- She crucified the masters of Mereen out of compassion and sorrow for having seen crucified slave children. 
- She attacked Yunkai in the first place, because of there being slaves in the city that she wanted to save.

Now, to see her dismantle this main drive of hers, in a single episode (episode 4) is a bit hard to swallow.
This is basically the equivalent of having Jon forsake his honor in a single episode. It is something that should be chipped away at over the course of several episodes, preferably a whole season. But I get it, we're running out of time because D&D are tired of the project and wanted to do less episodes. Suspension of disbelief it is then; Daenerys main drive is starting to fail when it get's her nowhere. I can accept this.

But to see her not only dismantle this main drive in a single episode, but also do a complete flip and go completely against it in the very same episode? Even Anakin Skywalkers decent into darkness was more nuanced and better paced than this! Now we've reached a point that no longer makes sense. It's too sudden, too contrived, way too rushed and utterly unbelievable. Sadly the writing does nothing to patch up these glaring problems with her sudden 180, because it is the weakest part of this season.

Ultimately, I have no objective issues with GRRM and D&D opting for the dark ending for Daenerys. 
I don't like it, but I can potentially accept it: If there had been a proper buildup for the dismantling of her main drive (her mhysa-arc), and if her decent into darkness was better paced, more nuanced and didn't feel so rushed and contrived, I actually think that this could've made for some great final twist, something that would look Anakin Skywalkers transformation into Darth Vader look meek and toothless in comparison. 

Sadly at the end of the day however, it isn't. Not even close.
Instead we are shown a scenario in season 8 where Daenerys is willing to sacrifice her secondary main drive (the Iron Throne) for the sake her primary main drive (Mhysa). She takes everything that's dear to her; her children, friends and armies, and goes to fight the AotD in order to save a realm she hasn't yet fully claimed, and a people she doesn't know and who doesn't even like her. She's a heroine, a savior, and further away from the darkness than ever. 

...and then 2 episodes/a couple of weeks later, she is destroying King's Landing and incinerating up to a million of the very same innocent people that she had just fought to protect. It makes absolutely no sense from a narrative standpoint, and I fully sympathize with the large part of the fan base that hate it and find it utterly unbelievable. 

D&D went for the 1% super-smash to victory, and didn't even hit the ball, let alone the mark. 
They tried to do something that would require at least a full season of careful writing, in the spawn of less than two episodes, and the result was as expected. At the end of the day, we, like Daenerys, are left empty handed, with is a taste of ash and smoke in our mouths, as we watch something we once loved and cared about, burn down to cinders around us.

Rant over, thanks for reading.

Edited by MinscS2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Dany burned Kings Landing because she can - not because she is mad. It was a strategic move to subjugate Westeros. She cannot trust a single Westeros Lord and the North is already sowing the seeds of rebellion thanks to Sansa.

Dany burning the city is her announcement to the lords , ladies and littlefolk of Westeros- that the grown up has arrived and the childrens game is over,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

So if Jon had willing to have slept with the mess that was Dani she would not have burned kings landing. Jon s fault is not seducing his aunt. Jon s fault is going south and not listening to his sisters.

LOL, he can't keep his mouth shut and his zipper open....Useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

I get that. That’s not the point. The point is Bran is still the true heir over Sansa whether he wants it or not. If he turns it down that’s another thing entirely but that doesn’t lessen his claim one bit. 

No. That is precisely the point.

The fact that Bran abdicated and abandoned his claim is respected by everyone. Sansa rules Winterfell.

Bran doesn't want to be the Lord of Winterfell. Arya doesn't want to be the Lady of Storm's End. Jon doesn't want to be the King of Westeros.

See a trend there.

Why should Bran and Arya's wishes be respected (regardless of how smarter and politically advantageous it would be for them to claim it) but Jon's wishes be disregarded?

Why should Jon be forced to do and be something he doesn't want to do or be whereas it's cool if Bran and Arya continue to do their own thing?

50 minutes ago, ramla said:

How does one disregard "Bad Writing"? 

And as far as Jon is concerned, he can't be held responsible for what happened... Dany isn't controlled by him... She is responsible for her own actions. She won the day then went overboard and killed hundreds of thousands. That had NOTHING to do with Jon. Jon was written to be oblivious and dumb for the sake of the plot yet and still he didn't push dany to do anything. 

The point that everyone is making is that it would been in everyone's best interest for Jon to follow through on his love to Daenerys (how can you say you love someone and then pull back and turn away...ouch! you already kissed and slept with her multiple times! do you love her or not) marry her and bury all hatchets once and for all. A marriage between the two of them resolves all present and future issues of claims, permanently binds the supporters of Jon and Dany together and provides a very lonely Dany with a strong support system she can trust, thus forging a lasting peace and marking the birth of a new era.

The fact that they are not already married is extremely unrealistic and breaks not only show continuity but also invalidates all of the worldbuilding. In other words, it's another gigantic shark-jumping, plot hole.

Highborn men (acknowledged bastard or otherwise) didn't just have sex a couple times with highborn women that outranked them and not marry them. That's not (nor wasn't) even common among the lowborn common people: they just didn't sleep with whomever and not marry them. That behavior was not only widely seen as dangerous and irresponsible but it was socially unacceptable. Both in the real world and on Planetos. Only active participants of prostitution or sex slavery did stuff like that. And even that was seen as socially unacceptable.

The fact that D&D are pushing a modern Western sex standards onto characters in a world based off of late medieval era, early Renaissance era is, frankly, appalling.

But anyway: Jon's inexplicable (what, are we supposed to guess?!) refusal to do so backs Daenerys into a corner. Not only is it unnecessary and a bit selfish but it is a massive political, socioeconomic and military blunder. Jon Snow is one of the few remaining characters that are still operating within character. Because Jon makes one big mistake after another after another but he suffers no real, lasting consequences.

That's what people are trying to tell you guys when they say: this is all Jon's fault.

Edited by Jabar of House Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Like I said, that argument I can get behind. It’s the “she’s entitled” folks that bother me. 

She's entitled to the Iron Throne as much as the Starks are entitled to Winterfell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:
Quote

<snip>
Daenerys has never before this episode shown signs, let alone acted out of cruelty and evil for no reason - fact.
Daenerys has before this episode, talked about razing cities and killing people for not good enough reason - fact. <snip>

FACT!!!
 

Quote

<snip>
The mhysa-arc of Daenerys, her acting as the champion of the downtrodden has always been her main drive. <snip>

Now, to see her dismantle this main drive of hers, in a single episode (episode 4) is a bit hard to swallow.
This is basically the equivalent of having Jon forsake his honor in a single episode. It is something that should be chipped away at over the course of several episodes, preferably a whole season. But I get it, we're running out of time because D&D are tired of the project and wanted to do less episodes. Suspension of disbelief it is then; Daenerys main drive is starting to fail when it get's her nowhere. I can accept this.

But to see her not only dismantle this main drive in a single episode, but also do a complete flip and go completely against it in the very same episode? Even Anakin Skywalkers decent into darkness was more nuanced and better paced than this! Now we've reached a point that no longer makes sense. It's too sudden, too contrived, way too rushed and utterly unbelievable. Sadly the writing does nothing to patch up these glaring problems with her sudden 180, because it is the weakest part of this season.

<snip>
Instead we are shown a scenario in season 8 where Daenerys is willing to sacrifice her secondary main drive (the Iron Throne) for the sake her primary main drive (Mhysa). She takes everything that's dear to her; her children, friends and armies, and goes to fight the AotD in order to save a realm she hasn't yet fully claimed, and a people she doesn't know and who doesn't even like her. She's a heroine, a savior, and further away from the darkness than ever. 

...and then 2 episodes/a couple of weeks later, she is destroying King's Landing and incinerating up to a million of the very same innocent people that she had just fought to protect. It makes absolutely no sense from a narrative standpoint, and I fully sympathize with the large part of the fan base that hate it and find it utterly unbelievable. 
<snip>

 

Thank you.

One thing I'll add to how poorly this was all set up is that the very transition was horribly botched. It all started at the party scene in epi 4 when the music and facial expressions suddenly shouted "MAD QUEEN" out of pretty much nowhere.

Because she was being ignored. And that was just so, so, so unbelievable. The most famous person in the world, the first person in centuries with dragons, an incredibly beautiful woman, and the person that just hauled her ass up north to save these yokels and sacrificed a very great deal to do so, ignored?

Puh-leeze. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

She's entitled to the Iron Throne as much as the Starks are entitled to Winterfell.

That is an interesting point. Technically speaking, Ned Stark confessed to treason against King Joffrey (who was the rightful occupant of the throne as far as most people knew). And of course Robb openly rebelled against the throne; after his defeat, Roose Bolton was named Warden of the North by decree of the Crown. Thus, by raising an army to attack Winterfell, the Starks were in open rebellion against the Crown. 

 

This is the great irony of Sansa wanting to take the castles of the Umbers and Karstarks away from them for treason. The Starks have always seen themselves as entitled to Winterfell, and the audience agreed. However, once Torren Stark bent the knee to Aegon Targaryen, the Starks were subjects of the Crown, and the Crown stripped their rights to Winterfell against Robb Stark's rebellion failed. 

Share this post


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

The fact that D&D are pushing a modern Western sex standards onto characters in a world based off of late medieval era, early Renaissance era is, frankly, appalling.

But anyway: Jon's inexplicable (what, are we supposed to guess?!) refusal to do so backs Daenerys into a corner. Not only is it unnecessary and a bit selfish but it is a massive political, socioeconomic and military blunder. Jon Snow is one of the few remaining characters that are still operating within character. Because Jon makes one big mistake after another after another but he suffers no real, lasting consequences.

That's what people are trying to tell you guys when they say: this is all Jon's fault.

Truly John claims that he loves her but at the most critical hour and after seeing how depressed she is, he pushes her away. That's all for compassion. He doesn't even expresses why he is reluctant. He just freezes her. Hello there is a battle tomorrow and she is all alone. Do something. 

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


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

Both Jon and Dany come from families with an incestuous history. The idea that he could not reciprocate because they are related by blood is illogical and weak. 

It's especially weak since 1) the story is based on medieval history where aunt-nephew marriages were fairly common and accepted, especially amongst the nobility, and 2) even in a Song of Ice and Fire itself, there was an entire plotline where Alys Karstarks' uncle was trying to force her to marry him so he could take over Karhold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lorathi said:

That is an interesting point. Technically speaking, Ned Stark confessed to treason against King Joffrey (who was the rightful occupant of the throne as far as most people knew). And of course Robb openly rebelled against the throne; after his defeat, Roose Bolton was named Warden of the North by decree of the Crown. Thus, by raising an army to attack Winterfell, the Starks were in open rebellion against the Crown. 

 

This is the great irony of Sansa wanting to take the castles of the Umbers and Karstarks away from them for treason. The Starks have always seen themselves as entitled to Winterfell, and the audience agreed. However, once Torren Stark bent the knee to Aegon Targaryen, the Starks were subjects of the Crown, and the Crown stripped their rights to Winterfell against Robb Stark's rebellion failed. 

You can take it even further and say that Greatjon Umber was right. The Starks and their vassals owed their fealty to the Targaryens. Not the Baratheons, not the Lannisters. Only the Targaryens. And since the Targaryens were gone, the Starks and their vassals never re-bent the knee. They remained loyal to Robert Baratheon and his family because of Robert Baratheon's relationship with Ned Stark. It's almost like Robert and Ned were married. Once Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark were killed by foul play, there is absolutely nothing to tie the North to the Iron Throne.

They never owed the Baratheons and the Lannisters anything. Even less so now.

So, in the eyes of Greatjon Umber and those of like mind, the North wasn't rebelling. The North was already independent and were now seeking to avenge Ned Stark and save his daughters.

The only thing that the Starks and their northmen vassals owe anything to are the Targaryens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say its all Jons fault. When she tried to kiss on him, he had just watched a man burn to death. Can't blame him for not feeling the loves. Plus, it may have been a low key clue. Its said that the only time the Mad King really visited his queens chambers was when he had burned someone and it made him randy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, LadyBlackwater said:

I wouldn't say its all Jons fault. When she tried to kiss on him, he had just watched a man burn to death. Can't blame him for not feeling the loves. Plus, it may have been a low key clue. Its said that the only time the Mad King really visited his queens chambers was when he had burned someone and it made him randy. 

The Mad King burned and tortured people for sheer entertainment. And then he'd physically and sexually abuse his wife with the knights of Kingsguard standing outside. The last time Jaime saw Rhaella she had to wear a heavy hooded cloak to hide the scars and the bruises. Jaime acknowledges that Rhaella's handmaidens said that her breasts had bite marks and her inner thighs were wounded from what appeared to be claws. As if she had been ravaged by a beast.

In fact, Aerys' gross, repeated sexual abuse of Rhaella is probably what led to her dying during childbirth.

Daenerys executed Varys for treason and conspiracy with dragonfire.

So that's a false and dishonest comparison.

Edited by Jabar of House Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

The Mad King burned and tortured people for sheer entertainment. And then he'd physically and sexually abuse his wife with the knights of Kingsguard standing outside. The last time Jaime saw Rhaella she had to wear a heavy hooded cloak to hide the scars and the bruises.

Daenerys executed Varys for treason and conspiracy with dragonfire.

So that's a false and dishonest comparison.

I wasn't trying to compare the two really. I'm saying that in the show, it seems like they needed to rush her madness. Also I wouldn't call it false and dishonest, just the opinion in a sea of other opinions on a forum made for opinions.

Share this post


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

You can take it even further and say that Greatjon Umber was right. The Starks and their vassals owed their fealty to the Targaryens. Not the Baratheons, not the Lannisters. Only the Targaryens. And since the Targaryens were gone, the Starks and their vassals never re-bent the knee. They remained loyal to Robert Baratheon and his family because of Robert Baratheon's relationship with Ned Stark. It's almost like Robert and Ned were married. Once Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark were killed by foul play, there is absolutely nothing to tie the North to the Iron Throne.

They never owed the Baratheons and the Lannisters anything. Even less so now.

So, in the eyes of Greatjon Umber and those of like mind, the North wasn't rebelling. The North was already independent and were now seeking to avenge Ned Stark and save his daughters.

The only thing that the Starks and their northmen vassals owe anything to are the Targaryens.

 

I could agree with that, except that at the Wall, Jon did call Stannis the rightful king (because he remembered Ned dying for that claim). Even though Jon didn't accept Stannis's offer of legitimizing him, he did seem to accept Stannis's authority to do it. Sansa was also hopeful that Stannis would liberate her from Winterfell. From my interpretation, the Starks did seem to view Stannis as a legitimate authority due to his status as Robert Baratheon's brother. I say that to indicate that both Ned and his children regarded Stannis as king, by all indications, so they still considered themselves subjects of the throne.

Share this post


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

You can take it even further and say that Greatjon Umber was right. The Starks and their vassals owed their fealty to the Targaryens. Not the Baratheons, not the Lannisters. Only the Targaryens. And since the Targaryens were gone, the Starks and their vassals never re-bent the knee. They remained loyal to Robert Baratheon and his family because of Robert Baratheon's relationship with Ned Stark. It's almost like Robert and Ned were married. Once Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark were killed by foul play, there is absolutely nothing to tie the North to the Iron Throne.

They never owed the Baratheons and the Lannisters anything. Even less so now.

So, in the eyes of Greatjon Umber and those of like mind, the North wasn't rebelling. The North was already independent and were now seeking to avenge Ned Stark and save his daughters.

The only thing that the Starks and their northmen vassals owe anything to are the Targaryens.

That makes sense. 

Share this post


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

The Mad King burned and tortured people for sheer entertainment. And then he'd physically and sexually abuse his wife with the knights of Kingsguard standing outside. The last time Jaime saw Rhaella she had to wear a heavy hooded cloak to hide the scars and the bruises. Jaime acknowledges that Rhaella's handmaidens said that her breasts had bite marks and her inner thighs were wounded from what appeared to be claws. As if she had been ravaged by a beast.

In fact, Aerys' gross, repeated sexual abuse of Rhaella is probably what led to her dying during childbirth.

Daenerys executed Varys for treason and conspiracy with dragonfire.

So that's a false and dishonest comparison.

 

I always found it very interesting that Lord "For the Realm" Varys cared so much about the smallfolk, given that he stayed completely loyal to the Mad King (who he himself refers to as one of history's most cruel rulers), but worked overtime to undermine the peaceful reign of Robert Baratheon. And then Varys goes and throws all his support behind a woman he admittedly knows very little about. He does know, however, that she's a Targaryen (which according to Varys means that she always had a 50/50 chance of going insane). And yet he somehow was 100% sure that she would make the world a better place, based on knowing almost nothing about her. That makes no sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lorathi said:

 

I always found it very interesting that Lord "For the Realm" Varys cared so much about the smallfolk, given that he stayed completely loyal to the Mad King (who he himself refers to as one of history's most cruel rulers), but worked overtime to undermine the peaceful reign of Robert Baratheon. And then Varys goes and throws all his support behind a woman he admittedly knows very little about. He does know, however, that she's a Targaryen (which according to Varys means that she always had a 50/50 chance of going insane). And yet he somehow was 100% sure that she would make the world a better place, based on knowing almost nothing about her. That makes no sense. 

I think he prefers Targ rule and he should say it. He wanted to play king maker between the last two Targ. It was stupid. Jon could have killed him on the spot. He assumes that Jon is sane because he was raised by Ned Stark. Imagine if Jon and Dany were Mad together!

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

×