Jon killing Dany doesn’t work for me

[Cas Stark]

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The thing is, if we get TWOW, I think she will do some atrocious things in Essos.  In ADWD, she's spent an entire book trying to conciliate the upper classes of Meereen, and she concludes at the end it's all been a waste of time.  She remembers her house words, Fire and Blood.  

But, in the show, we're left having to fill in the blanks. 

I agree, I was always mystified as to why GRRM had her rule of Meereen turn into such a mess, believing she was still going to be one of the heroes of the story.  Now that I know her path is tragic, GRRM doesn't have to pull a rabbit out of the hat and find a way to 'fix' Meereen before she leaves.  She won't fix Meereen, she will torch it, and tell herself that it was beyond saving, but Westeros will be different......but she will have learned all the wrong lessons and things will go badly in Westeros from the beginning.

 

 

[King Jon Snow Stark]

On 5/21/2019 at 7:44 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

Since this is the direction GRRM is going this is a massive problem because I really do not like Jon Snow. Which, given that he kills my favourite character is adding insult to injury. Yet, in the show you are very much being put in Jon Snows shoes and the show assumes that you like him. To make his grief your grief. 

But if you don’t care for Jon that’s very difficult to do. I didn’t buy that Jon cared about Daenerys. They hadn’t shared much time together at all. He hadn’t been on a journey with her. So I didn’t feel his pain and frankly I wanted Drogon to kill him. Which is clearly not the writers intent.

Which means in the books Danys arc will rely on her loving a character I despise. Never mind foreknowledge that this guys gonna kill her.

Its actually is worse that Dany is killed by Jon. Because he represents everything I don’t like about the series. It means that GRRM considers Jon the protagonist and ultimately the story hinges on him making his decision to murder Daenerys. Then focus on his emo feelings on the matter. Which is very difficult if you’ve never liked Jon Snow.

Dany was my second fav after Jon. But then became she became the big bad. The moment she torched the city I was fine with Jon (or Arya) killing her even it meant he was killed after.

[King Jon Snow Stark]

6 hours ago, Ilissa said:

You guys, who didn't accept Jon's actions, just never understood this character. He was always a man of duty. His duty is to protect humanity. Jon just could not do otherwise.

 

He is the shield that guards the realm of men. I loved his ending. 

[Tyrion1991]

44 minutes ago, RFL said:

This is a joke right?  The execution of Ned did not work for me.  The Red Wedding did not work for me.  The Game of Thrones story is special because it does not simply pay fan service to the reader with clearly defined good and evil and good always winning in the end.  

 

Ned and Robbs deaths work because you sympathise and relate to the various POV. We like Arya and Cat so we’re sad when they see the people they love die.

My point is that I do not feel any empathy with Jon as a character and have always disliked him. If I am not sold on his love for Daenerys and if I don’t share that pain then I wouldn’t buy into this being a tragedy. Had the story been just about him I would never have picked up the show and so him becoming so central creates a serious problem.

If you’re going to repackage the Dark Phoenix storyline then you need to like Cyclops. 

[RFL]

One could easily argue that Jon was solely the tool that Tyrion used to kill Dany.  Or that Sansa was vital in orchestrating the events in not keeping her vow of silence to Jon.  I'm not sure anyone is really the central character.  Some have bigger roles because of how the story unfolds or because they have immense power like dragons but in the end it is just a story told about a time and those in it.  

[Kajjo]

1 hour ago, Lord Stackspear said:

With all respect, I think you’re connecting the dots that the show did not connect.

Thank you. The dots were there. They are supposed to be connected.

1 hour ago, Lord Stackspear said:

The questionable/debatable moral decisions Dany made over the seasons are no more brutal, ruthless, or megalomaniacal

Yes, they are more of all that. When Jon sentences to death, he is pained but it is in sync with all moral standards of that world. Jon also has never any megalomaniac tendencies, he becomes Lord Commander and King in the North more or less involuntarily. Arya kills people for wronging her family and avoids killing the insurance guy or Lady Crane. Sansa dosn't kill anyway beside Ramsay Bolton (more than justified) and the death sentence to Littlefinger.

1 hour ago, Lord Stackspear said:

been tempted to commit anything close to being considered mass genocide of thousands of innocent people

(By the way, please avoid the word genocide, which ia about whole people and about ethnicity, religion or nations just like Hitler against Jews or Turks against Armenians. Daenerys just killed thousands of civilists of a city and this has nothing at all to do with their religion or ethnicity.)

The more than once talked about burning cities down. Jorah talked her out it, Tyrion did. Remember her pep-talk to the newly united Dothraki. Her threat against the Thirteen in front of Qarth. This all included civilians. Qarth was not a military target at all. Watch her monolgue and decide what she was willing to do early as that. Burning down Yunkai because there was slavery again would not have excepted the slaves.  Jorah talked her out of it.

Oh yes, if you are willing to see it, then it was all there. I reocmmend to re-watch the whole show and now that we know the outcome to interpret all the scenes with the necessary vigor. Not seeing the sweet, charismatic Emilia Clarke, but the Daenerys Stormborn and her ruthless, callous and vicious ideas.

GRRM's trick of disguise was that all her enemies in early seasons were evil themselves and we somehow liked the slave master being burned by a dragon or we somehow hated the arrogant Thirteen. But threatening a whole city? Really? That was bad even then and several watchers noticed it back then. It was possible to see. She was ruthless and drastic back then. It was all or nothing, bend or die, all the time.

58 minutes ago, RFL said:

The execution of Ned did not work for me.  The Red Wedding did not work for me.  The Game of Thrones story is special because it does not simply pay fan service to the reader with clearly defined good and evil and good always winning in the end.

You have a point here. GoT was never ofg "working for me", but about real-life. Good not always wins, people are grey-nuanced, and sometime ist's just bad luck that someone dies or good luck he survives. That's how life is.

[JagLover]

1 hour ago, RFL said:

This is a joke right?  The execution of Ned did not work for me.  The Red Wedding did not work for me.  The Game of Thrones story is special because it does not simply pay fan service to the reader with clearly defined good and evil and good always winning in the end.  

Both of those were earned by the characters actions.

This wasn't earned as Dany was killed by someone she had every right to trust. Someone who had sworn fealty to her, who she had fought for and saved the life of twice. In the world as created it made little sense and the audience were manipulated to make this seem the right and just decision.

[Lord Stackspear]

6 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

Thank you. The dots were there. They are supposed to be connected.

Yes, they are more of all that. When Jon sentences to death, he is pained but it is in sync with all moral standards of that world. Jon also has never any megalomaniac tendencies, he becomes Lord Commander and King in the North more or less involuntarily. Arya kills people for wronging her family and avoids killing the insurance guy or Lady Crane. Sansa dosn't kill anyway beside Ramsay Bolton (more than justified) and the death sentence to Littlefinger.

(By the way, please avoid the word genocide, which ia about whole people and about ethnicity, religion or nations just like Hitler against Jews or Turks against Armenians. Daenerys just killed thousands of civilists of a city and this has nothing at all to do with their religion or ethnicity.)

The more than once talked about burning cities down. Jorah talked her out it, Tyrion did. Remember her pep-talk to the newly united Dothraki. Her threat against the Thirteen in front of Qarth. This all included civilians. Qarth was not a military target at all. Watch her monolgue and decide what she was willing to do early as that. Burning down Yunkai because there was slavery again would not have excepted the slaves.  Jorah talked her out of it.

Oh yes, if you are willing to see it, then it was all there. I reocmmend to re-watch the whole show and now that we know the outcome to interpret all the scenes with the necessary vigor. Not seeing the sweet, charismatic Emilia Clarke, but the Daenerys Stormborn and her ruthless, callous and vicious ideas.

GRRM's trick of disguise was that all her enemies in early seasons were evil themselves and we somehow liked the slave master being burned by a dragon or we somehow hated the arrogant Thirteen. But threatening a whole city? Really? That was bad even then and several watchers noticed it back then. It was possible to see. She was ruthless and drastic back then. It was all or nothing, bend or die, all the time.

You have not named a single decision Dany ever made that was more brutal or evil than the ones you have mentioned for Jon, Arya, and Sansa.  You’ve mentioned some things she said in moments of anger, but not a single thing she ever did to demonstrate she was capable of acting on that anger to murder thousands of innocents (fair point on the word genocide, I will stop using it).    

[Kajjo]

Just now, JagLover said:

Both of those were earned by the characters actions.

Were they? Did we now Freys and Lannister were on the same side? Was there any shitstorm about "Walder Frey cannot break the guestright of salt and bread"? Nowadays there would. People are such a hypocrites. 

The Red Wedding was absolutely unexpected. A wedding! A nice bride, the guest right offered, the feast enjoyed.

No, no, people just talked themselves into all this shitstorm for nothing. Daenerys' arc was better foreshadowed and her character and nature more than clearly enough depicted since season 1. We were shown her nature. It's not a drastic change.

[Pacala]

6 hours ago, Ilissa said:

You guys, who didn't accept Jon's actions, just never understood this character. He was always a man of duty. His duty is to protect humanity. Jon just could not do otherwise.

 

Jon Snow : "I am the shield who guard the realm of man" and Stannis saved the day.

Then he dies and goes into Sandor state of mind, fck humanity, "My watch has ended"

And he goes to protect his family but sadly fails again. Sansa saved the day.

In case you got bored, he become leader of living against The Great Doom. And guess what, he fails again. He pass leadership to Danny and Arya saved the day. But nwm he rode the dragon and now "that is a madman or a king"

Wait there is more, once again he is found in this quest to protect the mankind from Cercei the Evil and guess what, he fails again. Danny saved the day.

Finally, the last boss The Mad Queen, the mother of all evil, his true love and guess what, he fails again. His queen is dead.

Now back again from where we start: "I am the shield who guard the realm of men"

Oh i forgot to tell you, he is the true heir of the throne. What throne, there is no throne you ask me ? Exactly.

His inner fight is 0, his motivation is not present or how Jon said it to Beric "You don`t understand."

[Kajjo]

3 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

You have not named a single decision Dany ever made that was more brutal or evil

Threats, not actions. The threats were seriously meant and they were drastic and against civilians. Her threat against the Thirteen in Qarth? If she not gets what she wants?

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

Thank you. The dots were there. They are supposed to be connected.

Yes, they are more of all that. When Jon sentences to death, he is pained but it is in sync with all moral standards of that world. Jon also has never any megalomaniac tendencies, he becomes Lord Commander and King in the North more or less involuntarily. Arya kills people for wronging her family and avoids killing the insurance guy or Lady Crane. Sansa dosn't kill anyway beside Ramsay Bolton (more than justified) and the death sentence to Littlefinger.

(By the way, please avoid the word genocide, which ia about whole people and about ethnicity, religion or nations just like Hitler against Jews or Turks against Armenians. Daenerys just killed thousands of civilists of a city and this has nothing at all to do with their religion or ethnicity.)

The more than once talked about burning cities down. Jorah talked her out it, Tyrion did. Remember her pep-talk to the newly united Dothraki. Her threat against the Thirteen in front of Qarth. This all included civilians. Qarth was not a military target at all. Watch her monolgue and decide what she was willing to do early as that. Burning down Yunkai because there was slavery again would not have excepted the slaves.  Jorah talked her out of it.

Oh yes, if you are willing to see it, then it was all there. I reocmmend to re-watch the whole show and now that we know the outcome to interpret all the scenes with the necessary vigor. Not seeing the sweet, charismatic Emilia Clarke, but the Daenerys Stormborn and her ruthless, callous and vicious ideas.

GRRM's trick of disguise was that all her enemies in early seasons were evil themselves and we somehow liked the slave master being burned by a dragon or we somehow hated the arrogant Thirteen. But threatening a whole city? Really? That was bad even then and several watchers noticed it back then. It was possible to see. She was ruthless and drastic back then. It was all or nothing, bend or die, all the time.

You have a point here. GoT was never ofg "working for me", but about real-life. Good not always wins, people are grey-nuanced, and sometime ist's just bad luck that someone dies or good luck he survives. That's how life is.

Sure, but there's quite a lot of counter-evidence that you have to ignore:, to conclude that her actions in Essos led naturally and inevitably to what happened in Kings Landing-

1. Specifically ordering the Unsullied at Astapor not to kill children, and (so far as was shown) not trying to kill civilians (one can assume that some civilians were killed, but she was not targeting them)

2. Leaving Astapor intact, as she marched out, rather than torching it

3. Refraining from sacking Meereen, after it fell

4. Exiling, not executing Ser Jorah

5. Executing Mossador for murder of Meereenese

6. Attempting to conciliate the Great Masters in Meereen, rather than just ruling by force

She made a number of blood-curdling speeches, but she never actually walked the walk, until the penultimate episode.  And, the blood-curdling speeches were usually made under great stress (eg when the Yunkish were lobbing incendiaries into the Great Pyramid).

If she was really was going to be Genghis Khan, this should have been made plain at an earlier stage of the series.

 

[Kajjo]

2 minutes ago, Pacala said:

on Snow : "I am the shield who guard the realm of man"

All your explanations are correct, insofar as Jon is the tragic hero and he tries the good, but he is tragic. He is not that successful. No one claims so. 

Jon really wants to do the right thing. In many cases he ends up with a fail or pure luck or other save his ass. 

[Lord Stackspear]

I will just add that foreshadowing is not the same as telling a story and a believable turn.  A perfect example from a another universe is Luke Skywalker in ROTJ.  It was foreshadowed that Luke might turn to the dark side and a believable story was also told - if Luke had decided to kill Darth Vader and take his place next to the Emperor, it would have been a believable story that was told (albeit tragic).  If, instead, Darth Vader kills the Emperor, and as Luke is looking at his dying father, Luke just loses it, finished his father off, takes control of the Death Star, and kills the rebel fleet, it would have been more akin to a sudden psychotic break.  

IMO, Dany’s turn is more like the latter.  Sure, she had some tendencies toward fire and blood, but had never acted on them.  Her support system is broken, and she might not listen to her remaining advisors.  Then, she takes the city, the bells ring, and she has won! (And she has the fear she said it had to be.)  No reason to even consider evil any more because it isn’t needed.  But, no, she needs to make it personal and she’s a Targaryen - that’s the only explanation we’re given for murdering thousands of innocents.  Had there been one last thing to push her over the edge (such as Rhaegal/Missandei being killed after the bells ring), I could have believed it - although I don’t think it would have been the best told story, I can at least make sense of it being something other than a psychotic break.    

[Kajjo]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

She made a number of blood-curdling speeches, but she never actually walked the walk, until the penultimate episode. 

And this is because her advisors talked her out of it each time, not because she was so level-headed.

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

to conclude that her actions in Essos led naturally and inevitably to what happened in Kings Landing

Well, it didn't. If Westeros' people had adored her, if the Northern hailed and thanked her, if Jon had reciprocated her affections, if Sansa had not been such a bitchy Lady of Winterfell. If she had not lost two dragons. Not lossed Jorah, Missandei, Varys, Tyrion by war or betrayal, she might not have snapped. If she had had good advisors before the battle, she might have conquered just the Red Keep and killed Cersei. But she was on her own, lonel,y not loved, not adored, all the brainwash from her childhood not coming true. Reality being bitter compared to dreams. No advisor to talk her out of it like Jorah in his best days.

Nothing in life really in inevitable. But it was all there, all the time. It's Daenerys character, personality and nature.  From season 1 to 8.

Her spontaneous solution to opposition was always her threat to destroy and burn down. Without advisors, she did just that.

[Kajjo]

2 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

I will just add that foreshadowing is not the same as telling a story and a believable turn

Her personality and nature was shown, not only foreshadowed. See above all the examples of Qarth, Yunkai, pep-talk to Dothraki and so on.

[Forlong the Fat]

7 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

All your explanations are correct, insofar as Jon is the tragic hero and he tries the good, but he is tragic. He is not that successful. No one claims so. 

Jon really wants to do the right thing. In many cases he ends up with a fail or pure luck or other save his ass. 

This is true but his  ultimate decision was to do the thing his father would not have done—become the queen slayer. Thus he avoids disaster by bending his honor. 

[Pacala]

2 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

All your explanations are correct, insofar as Jon is the tragic hero and he tries the good, but he is tragic. He is not that successful. No one claims so. 

Jon really wants to do the right thing. In many cases he ends up with a fail or pure luck or other save his ass. 

Or someone revive him. Because hi is Christ and he must sacrifice for the greater good.

As Martin said "I hate this war against great evil, i like to do different things". No Heroes, No Villains.

Well i guess we have to wait for Martin ending now.

[sweetsunray]

7 hours ago, Sheiraseastar23 said:

That could have worked if she was the sole central character to this story, she wasn't tho.

Exactly. There's a reason why George refused all those adaption proposals who only wanted to focus on Dany.

[Lord Stackspear]

Just now, Kajjo said:

Her spontaneous solution to opposition was always her threat to destroy and burn down. Without advisors, she did just that.

But, she was no longer being opposed when she decided to burn KL. The bells had rung, she had won, she was feared.  Had the battle gone another way or had the bells not rung, ok, sure, I see it.  It was clear that she was ready to do that if needed to win, not just for “personal” kicks after she had won.