So what was this long story all about?

[Pacala]

9 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

 

probably he reached the point when he hate his book.

[ummester]

1 hour ago, Pauld123 said:

The wheel has not been broken - The more things change the more they stay the same.

Kind of - but there was some change.

I think Danys character was a (in large part) warning about the dangers of rapid change. Successful change has to be accepted gradually, by all, it can't be forced rapidly, because it will always be rejected by some. Thanos in the last Avengers movie touched on this as well - and it is kind of pertinent to the real world ATM.

In their little talk in this last episode of GoTs they laughed at Sams idea of democracy - like Dany, he was too idealistic and socially progressive for his world. Difference is, Sam shrugged it off, he didn't try to force the change.

So the nobles elected a ruler - fine - its not democracy but its not pure feudalism either - they were forced to think at least a little bit about the Westeros future outside of their own place in it. It was a form of slow, acceptable change.

[Nerevanin]

12 minutes ago, JagLover said:

I thought that Dany's actions were rational as well, but ultimately it would be utopianism, someone who probably genuinely believes they are doing right who creates horror (a Lenin or a Mao). Human society cannot be perfected by some tyrant imposing this from above.

That said I am not sure that Dany's world would have been any worse than the world as Westeros was at the moment. There would have been a lot of war and conflict while she created her empire and then no doubt a few decades of peace (replacing other wars that would have taken place anyway). I don't think really the show did a good job of presenting why Dany's vision was so unacceptable, because, as we have seen in the past, when she does rule she wants to do things like free slaves not kill everyone for fun. The ones who would have lost out most would have been the nobles (and those who died in the wars of course)

I think that the problem with Dany's utopic world was the way she would take to create it. She literally just burned some 300k people and she called it "liberation". And she wanted to "liberate" the rest of the world. Sure, after she "liberates" them all, there might be a relatively long era of relative peace but will anyone but Dany still be alive?

[Domeric Stark]

It was ultimately about incestuous love, about Jaime's love for Cersei, truly. About the rise and fall of one of the richest and greatest Houses, the Lannisters, as a result of that love.  

[CrypticWeirwood]

1 hour ago, Domeric Stark said:

It was ultimately about incestuous love, about Jaime's love for Cersei, truly. About the rise and fall of one of the richest and greatest Houses, the Lannisters, as a result of that love.  

Isn't Martin into Poe? The House of Usher has clear parallels here.

[btfu806]

I guess that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Though that seems to be more of what Season 8 means. As far as the whole show? I don't really know... I feel like I need to re-watch the whole thing.

I think the point of the books is that there are more important things than the petty squabbles of men/women wanting to sit on an iron chair. But that definitely wasn't what the show ended up being about.

[The Marquis de Leech]

That the Night King should have won, and put everyone out of their misery.