Jump to content

Jon killing Dany doesn’t work for me


Tyrion1991

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

Last I remembered the North was still at war with the Lannisters and Cersie, they were just losing(I suppose one could say they lost). It wasn't only a war for Dany, Sansa and the rest of the North had wanted it a long time.

Clearly if Jon was wanting to war for her he wouldn't have murdered her at the end when she talked about expanding their empire(and based upon what happened, he wasn't needed and the people gained from the north are probably way less than what Dany lost fighting the dead - basically it was a shit deal for her made out of her love for Jon).

We have different definitions of unreasonable or what's expected of someone.  

The North was in a war for independence. Not a conquest. They literally could have waited up North all winter. Nobody in the North wanted to march South anymore. Also Dany agreed to fight for the North before Jon and Dany every hooked up. It was beneficial for her as well. The White Walkers were a threat to her as well

We do have different definitions of unreasonable. Jon gave her an army for a fight that had nothing to do with him in excahange for her arny helping in a fight that threatened both her and the rest of the world. Jon wasn't making a claim for the throne and only wanted to tell the people he grew up with who he was. Lawfully, Jon could have pushed a claim and he had every right to do so. He didn't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

I agre e, the show handled the situation pretty badly.

Dany didn't care at all about Jon's identity crisis, which was weird considering she was portrayed as empathetic in prior seasons. And as for Jon, he didn't even try to reason with Dany. He just stabbed her. If he had tried (and failed) at convincing Dany to abandon her conquer the world idea, the stabbing would've been more justifiable.

Eh, I think it was handled badly on purpose. They're a match made in hell. Drogo wouldn't have killed Dany and that's why he was in her HotU vision, he's supposed to be her true partner over Jon.

Jon did try to reason with her - he basically asked, killing children - why is that necessary? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Jon did try to reason with her - he basically asked, killing children - why is that necessary? 

In the epilogue to Dance, Varys does some speechmaking right before a certain character is killed, saying that his motivations are all about being for the children's sake.

For years we've been trying to figure out whether that was true or a trick to tell a man who's about to die.

I think we now have our answer. It really is what this has been all about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Eh, I think it was handled badly on purpose. They're a match made in hell. Drogo wouldn't have killed Dany and that's why he was in her HotU vision, he's supposed to be her true partner over Jon.

Jon did try to reason with her - he basically asked, killing children - why is that necessary? 

No, Jons last interaction with Dany was terrible - there was no conversation, Jon didn't ask anything directly or confront her about anything she did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue I had with it wasn’t even that Dany died- it was how it was executed. By having snow kill her and for the script to treat him as a hero for it, made him her ‘superior’ which I could not accept. I have always seen Jon and Dany as equals* He was a representative of ice and she was fire. Their stories paralleled each other. I didn’t know how their relationship would go in the books. They could have been allies, they could have become enemies- it didn’t matter for as long as they were portrayed ad equals*, narratively speaking. If she was going to go crazy and die, I wanted it handled in a way that wasn’t so abrupt and illogical. If she was going to go out in disgrace, so would HE- but in a different, opposite kind of way...being a perfectly good character in this series isn’t always the ideal for a leader anyway (this was supposed to be THAT type of series that went against the norm and fantasy tropes) This has been stressed plenty of times. But to have jon righteously execute her and just retire...put him in too much of a high position narratively, which to me strikes me antithetical to GoT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, digiFemme said:

The issue I had with it wasn’t even that Dany died- it was how it was executed. By having snow kill her and for the script to treat him as a hero for it, made him her ‘superior’ which I could not accept. I have always seen Jon and Dany as equals* He was a representative of ice and she was fire. Their stories paralleled each other. I didn’t know how their relationship would go in the books. They could have been allies, they could have become enemies- it didn’t matter for as long as they were portrayed ad equals*, narratively speaking. If she was going to go crazy and die, I wanted it handled in a way that wasn’t so abrupt and illogical. If she was going to go out in disgrace, so would HE- but in a different, opposite kind of way...being a perfectly good character in this series isn’t always the ideal for a leader anyway (this was supposed to be THAT type of series that went against the norm and fantasy tropes) This has been stressed plenty of times. But to have jon righteously execute her and just retire...put him in too much of a high position narratively, which to me strikes me antithetical to GoT.

No, Jon is not ice. Jon is the balance, for his is the song of ice and fire.

Plus Jon is Frodo, not Aragorn. He passed the test. Try watching this, it helps things make sense.  EW video link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

No, Jon is not ice. Jon is the balance, for his is the song of ice and fire.

 

Ice = Night King

Fire = Queen of the Ashes

Jon is the balance, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Techmaester said:

No, Jons last interaction with Dany was terrible - there was no conversation, Jon didn't ask anything directly or confront her about anything she did. 

J: “I saw them executing Lannister prisoners in the street.
They said they were acting on your orders.”

D: “It was necessary.”

J: “Necessary? Have you been down there? Have you seen? Children, little children, burned!”

D: “I tried to make peace with Cersei.
She used their innocence as a weapon against me. She thought it would cripple me.”

Yeah, its not very forceful, but he doesn't just stab her and that's it. Dany's justifications tell him all he needs to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

J: “I saw them executing Lannister prisoners in the street.
They said they were acting on your orders.”

D: “It was necessary.”

J: “Necessary? Have you been down there? Have you seen? Children, little children, burned!”

D: “I tried to make peace with Cersei.
She used their innocence as a weapon against me. She thought it would cripple me.”

Yeah, its not very forceful, but he doesn't just stab her and that's it. Dany's justifications tell him all he needs to know.

Well, we have a philosophical disagreement when it comes to the conversation you need to have with your gf/aunt prior to killing her regardless of what she did during the prior battle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

No, Jon is not ice. Jon is the balance, for his is the song of ice and fire.

Plus Jon is Frodo, not Aragorn. He passed the test. Try watching this, it helps things make sense.  EW video link

Regardless, I saw them as equals. To have him be the protagonist of the series strikes me as a bit cliche. “Unwilling mistreated all good hero saves the day” is found in a lot of fantasies already. Star wars, harry potter, LOTR... I can just watch those if I wanted to see that. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

No, Jon is not ice. Jon is the balance, for his is the song of ice and fire.

Plus Jon is Frodo, not Aragorn. He passed the test. Try watching this, it helps things make sense.  EW video link

Sometimes I refer to Jon as Aragorn!Light because Kit spent most of the time prancing about looking pretty with his curls and his sword but without any nutritious value.

Not out of some deeper meaning to the character's core value or motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

 

Plus Jon is Frodo, not Aragorn. He passed the test. Try watching this, it helps things make sense.  EW video link

Although I agree Jon is the balance, but Frodo still not suits him imo.

Jon was the leader of a great faction during the conflict; he was the KitN, and before that they choose him as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, and he even lead the Wildlings during battle against the Boltons. Frodo had no ability to lead the other people, only the hobbits, and he wasn't a skilled fighter like Jon was.

So yeah, Jon gave up on the IT like Frodo did with the ring (although Frodo failed until Gollum cut off his finger), but anything other than that doesn't suit for Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RYShh said:

Although I agree Jon is the balance, but Frodo still not suits him imo.

Jon was the leader of a great faction during the conflict; he was the KitN, and before that they choose him as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, and he even lead the Wildlings during battle against the Boltons. Frodo had no ability to lead the other people, only the hobbits, and he wasn't a skilled fighter like Jon was.

So yeah, Jon gave up on the IT like Frodo did with the ring (although Frodo failed until Gollum cut off his finger), but anything other than that doesn't suit for Jon.

I also want to add that, where Frodo had no power against his fate, Jon does. 

Frodo has to bear the ring to save the world.

Jon can be king and save the world, but he doesn't WANT it.

Frodo becomes selfless, he has to do it. Jon is selfish, he has the responsibility of the realm, yet he refuses it and only wants an easy life in the north with his friends and big dog. 

 

He could have found a lot of different ways to deal with Daenerys, and proclaim himself king. And everybody would have followed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Targaryen Peas said:

I also want to add that, where Frodo had no power against his fate, Jon does. 

Frodo has to bear the ring to save the world.

Jon can be king and save the world, but he doesn't WANT it.

Frodo becomes selfless, he has to do it. Jon is selfish, he has the responsibility of the realm, yet he refuses it and only wants an easy life in the north with his friends and big dog. 

He could have found a lot of different ways to deal with Daenerys, and proclaim himself king. And everybody would have followed. 

I don't know about the "only wants an easy life etc" part, but your last paragraph seems possible. It’s ironic then that the same person who talked him into his final act was the same one who had once said "Death is so terribly final, while life is full of possibilities."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Targaryen Peas said:

I also want to add that, where Frodo had no power against his fate, Jon does. 

Frodo has to bear the ring to save the world.

Jon can be king and save the world, but he doesn't WANT it.

Frodo becomes selfless, he has to do it. Jon is selfish, he has the responsibility of the realm, yet he refuses it and only wants an easy life in the north with his friends and big dog. 

 

He could have found a lot of different ways to deal with Daenerys, and proclaim himself king. And everybody would have followed. 

I agree,

After all, we can't limit ASOIAF with any story, Grrm inspired from many things like he inspired from Lotr, he also inspired from french history, scottish history, conflict between lancaster and york, dragons, zombies etc. It's not a similar version of LotR, it's a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Techmaester said:

Well, we have a philosophical disagreement when it comes to the conversation you need to have with your gf/aunt prior to killing her regardless of what she did during the prior battle.  

What is a conversation actually going to achieve when a person refuses to accept responsibility for wiping out a city of innocent people and instead blames it on Cersei?

Daeny’s fate was sealed when she torched KL. There was no way she was coming back from that or being allowed to live. Jon or someone else would have done the deed. Heck, Davos even, we all know how he feels about people who burn children...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

WRT the Frodo character that must also be Daenerys' story ie you can't fight fate (or bad genes) but in her case, there is no Deity to redeem her.

 

Lol, how about this?

That'd be, she took the ring, used it and it fucked her over?

In that case, she'd be Gollum, and Jon was Frodo with poor impulse control and no Gandalf to plead for mercy.

Just Tyrion telling him: shank that bitch, bro!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Charles Stuart said:

What is a conversation actually going to achieve when a person refuses to accept responsibility for wiping out a city of innocent people and instead blames it on Cersei?

Daeny’s fate was sealed when she torched KL. There was no way she was coming back from that or being allowed to live. Jon or someone else would have done the deed. Heck, Davos even, we all know how he feels about people who burn children...

She said it was necessary, not that she didn't do it and her statement about Cersie isn't wrong.... Obviously the question to ask is why? And point out alternatives. Show her the damage personally. Give her time to process and come down from a possible mental breakdown. Dany didn't torch the city for fun, there was a sequence of events leading to it. 

Regardless of who else would have killed her I think the only way Jon could have justified his action is if she was moments from torching Winterfell. Even then he could have clearly stood  in strong direct opposition instead. A hero dies with honor is better than living shanking a girl you're kissing.

I obviously feel Jon had a greater obligation to his queen/aunt/gf than to a population he had no connection to being used as human shields by an enemy that died during the conflict, we may just have to disagree on values. Ultimately Dany was always going to go on a campaign of conquest, the question should have been how to get her to reduce causalities. In retrospect her speech was perfectly reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Techmaester said:

I agree also, I mean I would say Jon shanking her is way worse on the spectrum of things you can do to someone you're in a relationship with but she should have immediately said they should marry solving both. But Jon was already not into it at that point(guess that's an expectation D&D couldn't subvert). 

He did shank her after she massacred an entire city. I'm not saying that was the ideal way to deal with the situation, but the show did have dany behaving pretty erratically. Working under the assumption that dany was indeed on the rampage and was going to murder civilians all across westeros to achieve her goal, I dont blame Jon for doing what he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...