Jump to content

Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot


Recommended Posts

On 2/5/2022 at 8:11 PM, Lady Anna said:

I believe that Bran being King of Westeros (what's left of it) will also happen in the books and to me it's a simple case of him being Jon's next male heir.

But surely the heir has to be on the Targaryen side?

Personally I think Bran will be elected king by a Grand Council of all the lords in the realm. Why he'll be elected, I have no idea.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Darryk said:

But surely the heir has to be on the Targaryen side?

Personally I think Bran will be elected king by a Grand Council of all the lords in the realm. Why he'll be elected, I have no idea.

 

But there aren't any more Targaryens in this scenario. The Baratheons ?

I agree with your second sentence. I think - regardless of motive - that Bran will be chosen that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2022 at 5:14 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

There are a few things I think were probably just fan service in retrospect: Cleganebowl, Cersei blowing up the sept (there’s no indication that they’re going to outlaw trial by combat in the books. If anything, I think Cersei’s love of wildfire is a red herring for Daenerys. Plus, don’t forget that Natalie Dormer asked to be killed off the show), Jaime and Brienne having sex (although I could see him knighting her).

All I know is that I don’t want Jaime to be the valonqar. People act like this would be a redemptive thing for him, but no matter how many times she betrayed him, Cersei is still Jaime’s sister, partner, and the mother of his children. Killing her would essentially turn Jaime into OJ Simpson.

I personally think that Jaime will get a short drop and a sudden stop in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Question about Tyrion: is it possible that the political and strategic missteps seen in the last three seasons  would be ones taken by Ser Barristan Selmy? Selmy is neither an experienced general outside of Old Wyk, nor a politician (which also explains Tyrion's strategic miscues in Season 7; he's never prepped an actual strategy), though Selmy has had some small successes in ADWD.

Edited by Angel Eyes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2022 at 4:54 PM, Angel Eyes said:

Question about Tyrion: is it possible that the political and strategic missteps seen in the last three seasons  would be ones taken by Ser Barristan Selmy? Selmy is neither an experienced general outside of Old Wyk, nor a politician (which also explains Tyrion's strategic miscues in Season 7; he's never prepped an actual strategy), though Selmy has had some small successes in ADWD.

Selmy has had too many successes in Dance to make that many mistakes in Dream. Barring of course some unexpected or abnormal developments...which, given that fact that since we are talking about an apocalypse, that's understandable.

 

However, I think it's far more likely that Tyrion will make those missteps on purpose. So they won't be mistakes; they'd be calculated decisions to either advance his own interests, destroy all those who "wronged" him or to undermine the enemy a la 'scorched earth'

 

I think Tyrion is becoming a full-on villain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Just seeing this, from August, GRRM talking about differences:

Will your upcoming books diverge from “Thrones,” the TV series?

A lot of this story comes to me as I write it. I always knew once the show got beyond my books — which honestly I did not anticipate — they would start going in directions that the books are not going to go in. Now, as I’m writing the books and I’m making more and more progress and it’s getting longer, ideas are coming to me and characters are taking me in directions that are even further from where the show went.

So I think what you’re going to find is, when “Winds of Winter” and then, hopefully, “Dream of Spring” come out, that my ending will be very different. And there will be some similarities, some big moments that I told David and Dan about many years ago, when they visited me in Santa Fe. But we only had like two, three days there, so I didn’t tell them everything. And even some of the things I told them are changing as I do the writing. So they will be different. And then it’ll be up to the readers and the viewers to decide which one they like better, and argue about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/arts/television/george-rr-martin-house-of-the-dragon.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I started writing an epic posting of every little detail, and then I realized nobody would have cared 3 1/2 years ago when this thread started, and they certainly won't care now.

I will comment anyway, but just on the main things from the show which are seemingly most controversial: Arya is the Princess Who Was Promised, Jaime's utter failure of a "redemption arc", Mad Queen Dany, King Bran, all surviving characters live happily ever after.

Arya is the Princess Who Was Promised:  Even though I would say with utmost confidence that this isn't the way it will happen, we don't need to speculate because the showrunners said this was their idea.  They also said it was originally supposed to be Jon but "that just didn't seem right"... so they decided to "subvert expectations" instead.  Does that mean that Jon is "the Prince Who Was Promised" in George's true story?  Maybe, but it sure isn't Arya.  I have a lot of possible notions of how the dispute with the Others might end, but none of them involve a character (any character) killing one Other with one stab using a magic weapon and instantly ending a 10,000 year threat.  I also think the Others are a complex race with complex motives: not soulless ice zombies who want to kill everyone for no reason.

Jaime's Utter Failure of a "Redemption Arc":  Also no.  Jaime "dying in the arms of the woman he loves" was his own self-prophecy in the show.  Jaime's chapters so far are mostly about his personal journey, not a story about the events of Westeros; they have to be leading to something.  Jaime turns back to his old ways and Sandor dies in "Cleganebowl" in the same episode, essentially saying redemption is not possible... and I don't think George Martin is quite that cynical.  Jaime and Cersei very well may die together, but not like that.

Mad Queen Dany:  I thought Dany was heading in a tyrannical direction before the show "confirmed" it, and I don't think the showrunners would have pulled that out of the air without some guidance from George Martin, but it won't happen like THAT.  I think either Cersei or JonCon will burn Kings Landing, and the showrunners like to transfer stories to the wrong character (see Jeyne Poole/Sansa).  I think Dany will re-take the throne in a non-peaceful manner, but not at the last moment (I think Cersei will be de-throned well before TWOW is over).  But Dany will be a conqueror in a way that people could plausibly defend, not a full-blown monster.  I think her jealousy over Aegon will lead to her tyranny, but it will be the "other" Aegon (Young Griff: another example of the story being transferred to the wrong character).  I don't like Dany, but I still hate how her story ended on the show almost as much as people who love Dany, and her story won't end like this.

King Bran:  Everything where the show aligns with what I think will happen are things I thought would happen anyway... everything except King Bran.  I didn't see that coming, but since George Martin confirmed that is his ending (one of the few things he did confirm), I believe it.  The "how" will be completely different of course.  Bran will do things to become the king, whether good or bad, and he won't be elected as a last-minute surprise.  Seeing as how the fantasy show writers hate fantasy and cut out the entirety of Bran's story, nothing about Bran's journey to become king will be the same.

All Surviving Characters Live Happily Ever After:  No, this is pure fan service.  I hated Bronn being named Lord of Highgarden and Master of Coin as much as all the other things people more commonly complain about.  Sam won't abandon the Night's Watch and abandon the Citadel AND still be named Grandmaester.  Brienne won't be lord commander of the kingsguard, Pod won't be a kingsguard, etc etc.  I do think Tyrion will be lord of Casterly Rock at the end, but I think he will be "the bad guy who gets away with it"... not as a happy, deserved ending.  Arya voyaging west is the show tributing itself for her random comment made seasons earlier.  Sansa could become ruler of the North, but much like King Bran, events will lead to it and it won't be a last-minute whim (if it happens at all).  Wherever Jon ends up (if he's still alive, and it's very likely he won't be), he won't be exiled to an organization that has no reason to exist anymore to appease a war criminal who was leaving Westeros anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2022 at 1:50 PM, StarkTullies said:

I started writing an epic posting of every little detail, and then I realized nobody would have cared 3 1/2 years ago when this thread started, and they certainly won't care now.

I will comment anyway, but just on the main things from the show which are seemingly most controversial: Arya is the Princess Who Was Promised, Jaime's utter failure of a "redemption arc", Mad Queen Dany, King Bran, all surviving characters live happily ever after.

Arya is the Princess Who Was Promised:  Even though I would say with utmost confidence that this isn't the way it will happen, we don't need to speculate because the showrunners said this was their idea.  They also said it was originally supposed to be Jon but "that just didn't seem right"... so they decided to "subvert expectations" instead.  Does that mean that Jon is "the Prince Who Was Promised" in George's true story?  Maybe, but it sure isn't Arya.  I have a lot of possible notions of how the dispute with the Others might end, but none of them involve a character (any character) killing one Other with one stab using a magic weapon and instantly ending a 10,000 year threat.  I also think the Others are a complex race with complex motives: not soulless ice zombies who want to kill everyone for no reason.

Jaime's Utter Failure of a "Redemption Arc":  Also no.  Jaime "dying in the arms of the woman he loves" was his own self-prophecy in the show.  Jaime's chapters so far are mostly about his personal journey, not a story about the events of Westeros; they have to be leading to something.  Jaime turns back to his old ways and Sandor dies in "Cleganebowl" in the same episode, essentially saying redemption is not possible... and I don't think George Martin is quite that cynical.  Jaime and Cersei very well may die together, but not like that.

Mad Queen Dany:  I thought Dany was heading in a tyrannical direction before the show "confirmed" it, and I don't think the showrunners would have pulled that out of the air without some guidance from George Martin, but it won't happen like THAT.  I think either Cersei or JonCon will burn Kings Landing, and the showrunners like to transfer stories to the wrong character (see Jeyne Poole/Sansa).  I think Dany will re-take the throne in a non-peaceful manner, but not at the last moment (I think Cersei will be de-throned well before TWOW is over).  But Dany will be a conqueror in a way that people could plausibly defend, not a full-blown monster.  I think her jealousy over Aegon will lead to her tyranny, but it will be the "other" Aegon (Young Griff: another example of the story being transferred to the wrong character).  I don't like Dany, but I still hate how her story ended on the show almost as much as people who love Dany, and her story won't end like this.

King Bran:  Everything where the show aligns with what I think will happen are things I thought would happen anyway... everything except King Bran.  I didn't see that coming, but since George Martin confirmed that is his ending (one of the few things he did confirm), I believe it.  The "how" will be completely different of course.  Bran will do things to become the king, whether good or bad, and he won't be elected as a last-minute surprise.  Seeing as how the fantasy show writers hate fantasy and cut out the entirety of Bran's story, nothing about Bran's journey to become king will be the same.

All Surviving Characters Live Happily Ever After:  No, this is pure fan service.  I hated Bronn being named Lord of Highgarden and Master of Coin as much as all the other things people more commonly complain about.  Sam won't abandon the Night's Watch and abandon the Citadel AND still be named Grandmaester.  Brienne won't be lord commander of the kingsguard, Pod won't be a kingsguard, etc etc.  I do think Tyrion will be lord of Casterly Rock at the end, but I think he will be "the bad guy who gets away with it"... not as a happy, deserved ending.  Arya voyaging west is the show tributing itself for her random comment made seasons earlier.  Sansa could become ruler of the North, but much like King Bran, events will lead to it and it won't be a last-minute whim (if it happens at all).  Wherever Jon ends up (if he's still alive, and it's very likely he won't be), he won't be exiled to an organization that has no reason to exist anymore to appease a war criminal who was leaving Westeros anyway.

The two D’s were in love with the Lannisters.  Tyrion was a saintly pacifist, too good for this cruel world.  Tywin was “lawful neutral”, hard but fair.  Cersei was a tragic heroine, looking out for her children.  For the Starks, growing up meant becoming like the Lannisters.

I actually think they disliked Kit Harrington, hence the jokes about his height and penis size.  At the end, they turned Jon into a pathetic waste of space.

None of this aligns with the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2022 at 9:04 AM, SeanF said:

The two D’s were in love with the Lannisters.  Tyrion was a saintly pacifist, too good for this cruel world.  Tywin was “lawful neutral”, hard but fair.  Cersei was a tragic heroine, looking out for her children.

Yep, I had a lot of rants about Tyrion in the original posting I decided not to post.  Changing Shae's death from a vengeful murder to a tearful self-defense was the moment Season 5 onward was doomed, in my opinion.  By making "the villain" (George Martin's words) the first credited actor and presumed "hero" of the show, how could the show not go off the rails?  Tyrion (presumably) initiated a civil war between Aegon and Daenerys just because he was bored and feeling malevolent, and he only seeks Dany to use her as a destructive force to bring doom upon Westeros... not to make the world a better place.  Obviously you and I disagree on the future of Dany's character, but any dark turns that I think Dany is likely to take will be highly influenced by Tyrion's manipulation.  He is "the small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of it all".

Many of Tywin's worst actions were in the show, but they did everything they could to water it down.  He "burned the Riverlands", but all of Arya's chapters showing the devastation he caused were cut out of the show entirely.  Cersei tells the story of "the Rains of Castamere", but that was more about a "comical" threat toward Margaery than a tale of Tywin's atrocities.  Tywin "allowed" the Red Wedding, but he didn't instigate it.  He was angry at Jaime for remaining in the kingsguard, but he didn't outright disown him.  We are to assume he ordered Gregor to murder Elia's children, but the show left it ambiguous.  And of course his "heartwarming" scenes with Arya at Harrenhal were fabricated and completely contradict the nature of his character.

Cersei's great love for her children is a show fabrication.  She was downright abusive to Tommen, and she only loved Joffrey as an extension of herself.  Though even in the show, she rather torture the septa than console her son after she murdered his wife, so her actions and then inactions led to Tommen's death.

Jaime, the only major Lannister who tried to do better in the books, is the character the show liked least.  They gave him a haircut and suddenly he was "nice", but he still never tried to redeem himself.  He raped his sister in a church next to their son's dead body, which was disgusting in the books too but at least it wasn't rape.  "Nice guy" Jaime was still telling Cersei that they will kill everyone in the world until they were the last ones alive as late as Season 6... and his motives for negotiating with Edmure weren't about keeping his oath to never harm Starks or Tullys... but so he could get back home and fornicate with his sister again.  Sure, he left Cersei for half a moment to keep his vow to fight the dead (for all the difference a single one-handed man made in that battle), but he went back to Cersei anyway after his brother virgin-shamed Brienne into sleeping with him.  Jaime was an epic fail.

On 12/19/2022 at 9:04 AM, SeanF said:

For the Starks, growing up meant becoming like the Lannisters.

Yep, Sansa might be my favorite Stark by the end of the show... and that is a very sad process of elimination.  Her "admiration" of the woman she claims killed her father, mother, and brother is sick... and being "grateful" for Joffrey, Ramsay, and Littlefinger for all their "lessons" is nearly as bad.  Sansa became "the smartest person Arya ever met" because... Sansa suddenly knows better than blacksmiths to line armor with leather to keep soldiers warm during the winter?  Making all the other characters stupid doesn't make her smart.

Bran is a robot, Arya is a psychopath, and Jon is just pathetic.  People complain that the show's ending catered to Stark fans, but this Stark fan wasn't pleased.  I don't care if they all got "happy endings" if their characters were wrecked in the process.  I didn't like any of the Starks by the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

Yep, I had a lot of rants about Tyrion in the original posting I decided not to post.  Changing Shae's death from a vengeful murder to a tearful self-defense was the moment Season 5 onward was doomed, in my opinion.  By making "the villain" (George Martin's words) the first credited actor and presumed "hero" of the show, how could the show not go off the rails?  Tyrion (presumably) initiated a civil war between Aegon and Daenerys just because he was bored and feeling malevolent, and he only seeks Dany to use her as a destructive force to bring doom upon Westeros... not to make the world a better place.  Obviously you and I disagree on the future of Dany's character, but any dark turns that I think Dany is likely to take will be highly influenced by Tyrion's manipulation.  He is "the small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of it all".

Many of Tywin's worst actions were in the show, but they did everything they could to water it down.  He "burned the Riverlands", but all of Arya's chapters showing the devastation he caused were cut out of the show entirely.  Cersei tells the story of "the Rains of Castamere", but that was more about a "comical" threat toward Margaery than a tale of Tywin's atrocities.  Tywin "allowed" the Red Wedding, but he didn't instigate it.  He was angry at Jaime for remaining in the kingsguard, but he didn't outright disown him.  We are to assume he ordered Gregor to murder Elia's children, but the show left it ambiguous.  And of course his "heartwarming" scenes with Arya at Harrenhal were fabricated and completely contradict the nature of his character.

Cersei's great love for her children is a show fabrication.  She was downright abusive to Tommen, and she only loved Joffrey as an extension of herself.  Though even in the show, she rather torture the septa than console her son after she murdered his wife, so her actions and then inactions led to Tommen's death.

Jaime, the only major Lannister who tried to do better in the books, is the character the show liked least.  They gave him a haircut and suddenly he was "nice", but he still never tried to redeem himself.  He raped his sister in a church next to their son's dead body, which was disgusting in the books too but at least it wasn't rape.  "Nice guy" Jaime was still telling Cersei that they will kill everyone in the world until they were the last ones alive as late as Season 6... and his motives for negotiating with Edmure weren't about keeping his oath to never harm Starks or Tullys... but so he could get back home and fornicate with his sister again.  Sure, he left Cersei for half a moment to keep his vow to fight the dead (for all the difference a single one-handed man made in that battle), but he went back to Cersei anyway after his brother virgin-shamed Brienne into sleeping with him.  Jaime was an epic fail.

Yep, Sansa might be my favorite Stark by the end of the show... and that is a very sad process of elimination.  Her "admiration" of the woman she claims killed her father, mother, and brother is sick... and being "grateful" for Joffrey, Ramsay, and Littlefinger for all their "lessons" is nearly as bad.  Sansa became "the smartest person Arya ever met" because... Sansa suddenly knows better than blacksmiths to line armor with leather to keep soldiers warm during the winter?  Making all the other characters stupid doesn't make her smart.

Bran is a robot, Arya is a psychopath, and Jon is just pathetic.  People complain that the show's ending catered to Stark fans, but this Stark fan wasn't pleased.  I don't care if they all got "happy endings" if their characters were wrecked in the process.  I didn't like any of the Starks by the end.

I think the two Ds’ have such a skewed moral compass, they may not have realised how unattractive they were making the characters.

Book Tyrion is a piece of work, but he’s still a great character.  Show Tyrion was objectively evil (he was the enabler for a murderous government, and worked to keep a psychopathic usurper in power.  He only broke with them when they turned on him.  Even at the end, he was prepared to starve Kings Landing to death.  Then he kicked Jon to the kerb, after persuading him to do his wet work for him, in order to save his own neck.)  But at the same time, he was thoroughly sanctimonious, incompetent, yet failed upwards endlessly.

I view him in the same light as Albert Speer.  A horrid man, who persuaded others that he was righteous.

Much as I like Dany, I accept that he’ll probably be her evil genius, in the books.  He’ll be urging her to act like his father.  He’ll be insisting that “it’s better to be feared than to be loved”, and “mercy is just another word for cowardice.”  And, I do expect her path to the throne to be a brutal one, ( I don’t expect her to deliberately burn the capital, but I could envisage terrible street fighting between her forces and her enemies, with both sides murdering and raping civilians) as against which, I think she’ll play a major role in the battle against the Others.  So, I think her legacy will be more good than bad.

i don’t think anyone in this tale is wholly good.  There are people in it who are completely vile, but the sympathetic characters are shades of grey.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Book Tyrion is a piece of work, but he’s still a great character.

I'm a bit of a fanboy for ASOIAF; I like every chapter and I enjoy all the POVs, whether I "like" the character or not.  Book Tyrion is a great character and terrible one all at once.

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Show Tyrion was objectively evil (he was the enabler for a murderous government, and worked to keep a psychopathic usurper in power.  He only broke with them when they turned on him.  Even at the end, he was prepared to starve Kings Landing to death.  Then he kicked Jon to the kerb, after persuading him to do his wet work for him, in order to save his own neck.)  But at the same time, he was thoroughly sanctimonious, incompetent, yet failed upwards endlessly.

I binge-watched the first six seasons before reading the books, and the first couple episodes I was on the fence about Tyrion's character.  It was the third episode when he gave his speech to Jon about life circumstances that I decided I liked Tyrion.  But Tyrion didn't make that speech in the books; Donal Noye did, and by transferring that to Tyrion, they set him up as a more righteous character than he actually is from the very beginning.  I consider Season 1 to be the only season they adapted particularly well, but Tyrion and Cersei's whitewashing was a fail from the beginning.  Tyrion's desire to make the Vale a smoking ruin and his pleasure in seeing Masha Heddle dead (who did absolutely nothing wrong) was removed.

The books do a great job in showing different perspectives.  Reading Tyrion's chapters, you are biased into wanting the Lannisters to prevail (not Joffrey specifically, but not wanting Stannis to win).  Reading Davos's chapters, you are biased into wanting Stannis to win.  At least in my case; I can't speak for everyone.  The show portrayed Stannis as a full-blown villain, with ominous music playing every time he was on screen.  Yes, we were supposed to hate Joffrey, but he was just the annoying little twerp that righteous Tyrion had to put up with.  It was definitely intended to be a "happy ending" when Tywin broke into the throne room and told Cersei that they won.

They made Tyrion/Shae a "love story" rather than a business arrangement, and they removed Tyrion ordering Bronn to murder Symon Silvertongue (and feeding him to unsuspecting peasants).  With all that, I never saw Tyrion as a villain in the show, even if he was working for the villains (while trying to limit their villainy).  But the villain of the books not being a villain in the show essentially ruins the story.

Late-season Tyrion was a complete mess; the "smartest character in the show" wasn't smart anymore because the show writers weren't capable of writing smart without the books' guidance.  Logically it would make sense that Tyrion's flailing incompetence as Dany's Hand was a subvert way to help his family, but no... he was just an idiot.  But everyone else was an idiot too, so it didn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

I'm a bit of a fanboy for ASOIAF; I like every chapter and I enjoy all the POVs, whether I "like" the character or not.  Book Tyrion is a great character and terrible one all at once.

I binge-watched the first six seasons before reading the books, and the first couple episodes I was on the fence about Tyrion's character.  It was the third episode when he gave his speech to Jon about life circumstances that I decided I liked Tyrion.  But Tyrion didn't make that speech in the books; Donal Noye did, and by transferring that to Tyrion, they set him up as a more righteous character than he actually is from the very beginning.  I consider Season 1 to be the only season they adapted particularly well, but Tyrion and Cersei's whitewashing was a fail from the beginning.  Tyrion's desire to make the Vale a smoking ruin and his pleasure in seeing Masha Heddle dead (who did absolutely nothing wrong) was removed.

The books do a great job in showing different perspectives.  Reading Tyrion's chapters, you are biased into wanting the Lannisters to prevail (not Joffrey specifically, but not wanting Stannis to win).  Reading Davos's chapters, you are biased into wanting Stannis to win.  At least in my case; I can't speak for everyone.  The show portrayed Stannis as a full-blown villain, with ominous music playing every time he was on screen.  Yes, we were supposed to hate Joffrey, but he was just the annoying little twerp that righteous Tyrion had to put up with.  It was definitely intended to be a "happy ending" when Tywin broke into the throne room and told Cersei that they won.

They made Tyrion/Shae a "love story" rather than a business arrangement, and they removed Tyrion ordering Bronn to murder Symon Silvertongue (and feeding him to unsuspecting peasants).  With all that, I never saw Tyrion as a villain in the show, even if he was working for the villains (while trying to limit their villainy).  But the villain of the books not being a villain in the show essentially ruins the story.

Late-season Tyrion was a complete mess; the "smartest character in the show" wasn't smart anymore because the show writers weren't capable of writing smart without the books' guidance.  Logically it would make sense that Tyrion's flailing incompetence as Dany's Hand was a subvert way to help his family, but no... he was just an idiot.  But everyone else was an idiot too, so it didn't matter.

I find book Tyrion to be like Harry Flashman.  A monster, but still a great read.

Stannis, yes, was another mess.  I’ve never thought of him as The Mannis, but there’s a lot more to him than being a ambitious villain (in reality, he’s somewhere between hero and villain.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Much as I like Dany, I accept that he’ll probably be her evil genius, in the books.  He’ll be urging her to act like his father.  He’ll be insisting that “it’s better to be feared than to be loved”, and “mercy is just another word for cowardice.”  And, I do expect her path to the throne to be a brutal one, ( I don’t expect her to deliberately burn the capital, but I could envisage terrible street fighting between her forces and her enemies, with both sides murdering and raping civilians) as against which, I think she’ll play a major role in the battle against the Others.

I agree with all of that.

I always thought of Barristan as her angel on her shoulder, and Daario as her devil.  I think she took a turn for worse when she began her affair with Daario and afterwards adopted Daario's condescending nickname "Ser Grandfather" toward Barristan, symbolically choosing her devil over her angel.  I don't think either Daario or Barristan will make it to Westeros, so all she'll have left is her new devil: Tyrion.

I assume her "fire for life" was the fire that hatched the dragons.  Based on the vision she saw, I assume Dany will burn the khals and unite the Dothraki as "the stallion who mounts the world", and that might be the fire for death?  Maybe her fire for love will have something to do with the Others?  I think she will take Kings Landing (and well before the very end of the story), but she won't burn it down.  Kings Landing will likely burn, but either by Cersei or Jon Connington... not Dany.

The Others have appeared in a total of two chapters.  We know nothing about them, and I don't think the show is the tiniest bit reliable about their nature.  I don't think they were extinct and recreated, or that they were "asleep".  The first Long Night (according to the "Last Hero" legend) did not end by war.  The Others have a language, they laugh, and they can be negotiated with (demonstrated by Craster).  They certainly aren't "good guys"; they apparently wiped out entire Wildling villages, but so far their known actions haven't been worse than the Lannisters in the War of the Five Kings.  I don't think the entire race of Others are soulless monsters because I don't think George's story is about annihilating an evil race.  I think the Others would have done a lot more damage than they have done so far if their goal is extinction of all living beings.  They massacred the soldiers of the Night's Watch, but the Wildlings have survived moderately well so far.

White Walkers on the show were immune to fire- even dragon fire- and I think that is bogus.  If they are creatures made of ice and it is assumed that dragonglass can kill them because it is solidified fire, I think it is safe to assume that dragons can easily kill the Others (and wights too).  If the story is just about defeating the Others and all it takes is the dragons swooping in for a quick victory, I don't think there would have been seven very complex, very lengthy books leading up to it.

I think it's possible that it is really is that easy to kill the Others, but if they are defeated just like that, the Others were never the main threat in the story at all.  Since the story focuses more and more on dragons, and the Others have been a mystery in the background this whole time, I think the dragons are likely to be the real threat to Westeros.  Ultimately I think the story is telling us that prophecies are not trustworthy, and assumptions about other cultures we don't understand are dangerous.  Defeating the Others, if "defeating" them means destroying them all, might not be a heroic act after all.

Edited by StarkTullies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

I agree with all of that.

I always thought of Barristan as her angel on her shoulder, and Daario as her devil.  I think she took a turn for worse when she began her affair with Daario and afterwards adopted Daario's condescending nickname "Ser Grandfather" toward Barristan, symbolically choosing her devil over her angel.  I don't think either Daario or Barristan will make it to Westeros, so all she'll have left is her new devil: Tyrion.

I assume her "fire for life" was the fire that hatched the dragons.  Based on the vision she saw, I assume Dany will burn the khals and unite the Dothraki as "the stallion who mounts the world", and that might be the fire for death?  Maybe her fire for love will have something to do with the Others?  I think she will take Kings Landing (and well before the very end of the story), but she won't burn it down.  Kings Landing will likely burn, but either by Cersei or Jon Connington... not Dany.

The Others have appeared in a total of two chapters.  We know nothing about them, and I don't think the show is the tiniest bit reliable about their nature.  I don't think they were extinct and recreated, or that they were "asleep".  The first Long Night (according to the "Last Hero" legend) did not end by war.  The Others have a language, they laugh, and they can be negotiated with (demonstrated by Craster).  They certainly aren't "good guys"; they apparently wiped out entire Wildling villages, but so far their known actions haven't been worse than the Lannisters in the War of the Five Kings.  I don't think the entire race of Others are soulless monsters because I don't think George's story is about annihilating an evil race.  I think the Others would have done a lot more damage than they have done so far if their goal is extinction of all living beings.  They massacred the soldiers of the Night's Watch, but the Wildlings have survived moderately well so far.

White Walkers on the show were immune to fire- even dragon fire- and I think that is bogus.  If they are creatures made of ice and it is assumed that dragonglass can kill them because it is solidified fire, I think it is safe to assume that dragons can easily kill the Others (and wights too).  If the story is just about defeating the Others and all it takes is the dragons swooping in for a quick victory, I don't think there would have been seven very complex, very lengthy books leading up to it.

I think it's possible that it is really is that easy to kill the Others, but if they are defeated just like that, the Others were never the main threat in the story at all.  Since the story focuses more and more on dragons, and the Others have been a mystery in the background this whole time, I think the dragons are likely to be the real threat to Westeros.  Ultimately I think the story is telling us that prophecies are not trustworthy, and assumptions about other cultures we don't understand are dangerous.  Defeating the Others, if "defeating" them means destroying them all, might not be a heroic act after all.

I find Daario a bit of a jerk, (I'm not sure if the author intended that) but I'm not sure if he's a devil.  His advice is harsh, but pragmatic.  With Tyrion, there's real malice.  

I think Jhaqo and his riders (and Mago) will burn.  I don't expect her to burn the khals, but rather to bargain with them.  And, there's an obvious bargain to be struck.  Military aid, in return for the lands and possessions of the slaver elite in Western Essos.  The slaves will be freed, which can be sold to the Dothraki in pragmatic terms.  75-85% of the population of the Free Cities are slaves.  They're a huge fifth column, who can be turned against their masters. For the Dothraki, it's a chance to grow rich on an unheard of scale, as the new ruling class of Essos.

Martin borrows hugely from Tad Williams' Osten Ard stories.  The Others are almost identical to the Norns in those stories.  Pale, very beautiful, adored by some humans who serve them willingly, able to raise the dead as their slaves, but in the main, very dangerous to humanity.  They keep thousands of humans as slaves, raping them to produce mixed-race soldiers (pretty much what Saruman was doing at Isengard) .  Their society is seriously messed up - but they do also have very real grievances against humans as well. They are extremely long-lived, so for them, the wrongs they have suffered at human hands are very much present wrongs.  For humans, it's all ancient history. They're antagonists, but at the same time, they do have reasons for their antagonism. 

I'd say that the Others do wish to extinguish humanity, and from their point of view, they have good reasons for doing so.  However, humans will disagree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SeanF said:

I find Daario a bit of a jerk, (I'm not sure if the author intended that) but I'm not sure if he's a devil.  His advice is harsh, but pragmatic.  With Tyrion, there's real malice.

I'm biased because I think Daario is the most annoying character in the series (not worst by any means, but most annoying), and I think it speaks very poorly of Dany's judgment that she finds him so irresistible.  But I think he's more than just a jerk, seeing as how his first act in the story was decapitating his two partners' heads.  Sure they were terrible... but he killed them because he likes killing, not because they were terrible or because he was "enchanted by Dany's beauty".  His advice to hold "red wedding" events to kill all the noble class is also diabolical.

Dany herself thinks of Daario as a monster:

Quote

What have I done? she thought, huddled in her empty bed. I have waited so long for him to come back, and I send him away.  "He would make a monster of me," she whispered, "a butcher queen." But then she thought of Drogon far away, and the dragons in the pit. There is blood on my hands too, and on my heart. We are not so different, Daario and I. We are both monsters.

That said, I really appreciate Dany here for her self-reflection and fighting her inner demons.  Which is another reason why when she stops resisting Daario, I think it is another step toward her embracing her "monstrous" side.  I guess it is hard for me to grasp why George Martin created such an insipidly annoying (in my opinion) character, if Daario doesn't serve a symbolic purpose other than being Dany's booty call.

15 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think Jhaqo and his riders (and Mago) will burn.  I don't expect her to burn the khals, but rather to bargain with them.  And, there's an obvious bargain to be struck.

You're right.  I looked up the House of the Undying prophecies, and I misremembered.  I blurred the image of Mirri burning with the image of the "old crones" bowing down to her in front of the Mother of Mountains as one event, but the crones bowing down to her doesn't mention a fire.  So I don't think she will burn the khals.  Jhago and Mago, definitely (and for the record, I feel no sorrow for them and would hold no contempt toward Dany for killing them).

As far as the Others go, I do think they hate all of humanity (in the same way that humanity hates all of the Others... for the few who believe they exist), but I think that is more about the bias of war and always hating the "other side".  I think I read somewhere that George Martin named them "Others" to demonstrate the misunderstanding and villainizing of other cultures... though I couldn't tell you where that came from.  We'll see where the story goes, but if they are fully annihilated, I think it will be realized afterward that it was a terrible mistake to do so.  Again, so far the Others don't seem any worse than Tywin Lannister's Bloody Mummers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...