Who will detonate the wildfire, and why? Please stop and let this thread die...

[Tyrion1991]

OP

Also, just to add a bit of speculation. I don’t think George ever imagined Dany would be such an iconic and popular character. He thought this would be a short trilogy of fantasy books in the 90s with a fairly limited readership. Not millions of people buying your book and watching the TV show. In Game of Thrones although she has the final word she really is kind of a side story. However it turned out people really liked the direction he went with the character. I mean I stand by that no other female character has that kind of scope and role in any fantasy story. 

Plus, people’s attitudes changed. A character talking about conquering anything or using violent language would usually be telegraphing that “this is the villain” in a typical fantasy novel of the time. I think George assumed people would get that trope. Why he’s so blaze about listing Dany as one of two threats to Westeros; he sees her as the Sauron of the story. But people turned to liking dark or grey storytelling. It wasn’t unreasonable that Dany would talk about those things because we see characters in film and TV do and say far worse and have much viler intentions. So what was intended to be a very dark character ended being very tame until they do something like, shock, execute two men for treason. Such tyranny and abuse of power. I mean in Vikings the main characters blood eagle people, what Dany does is tame up until the Bells when the show descended into nonsense.

Id also add that, probably, the main reason the show has Dany burn down KL is because they wanted to provide the ultimate justification for the Starks launching what’s objectively a coup against Dany. They already had sufficient motivation, were planning this and Jon was faced with a clear choice long before the destruction of KL. Her burning the city down serves no actual function in the plot beyond shock value and because if the Starks had rebelled to seat Jon on the throne or he had stabbed her to prevent her attacking his family in retaliation it would have been too critical of the Starks. Are you really going to have them murder somebody who arguably saved the world and conveniently have them take over Westeros? Even if they presented that as a good thing or with no self awareness it would have been untenable. The show runners wanted to give the Starks an excuse. Does George want the same thing? Well making Jon a bastard Targaryen kind of bakes this conflict into the setting. I do think he is setting Dany up for a fall and I think that points to him throwing her under the bus rather than providing excuses. Also I am very doubtful George didn’t discuss his overall theme, moral message and stuff with DnD. It probably was along the lines of “Dany is warning against charismatic people with too much power; just like Paul from Dune.” If you want that then you can’t make it an accident that the city blows up.

[Rose of Red Lake]

16 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

A character talking about conquering anything or using violent language would usually be telegraphing that “this is the villain” in a typical fantasy novel of the time. I think George assumed people would get that trope. Why he’s so blaze about listing Dany as one of two threats to Westeros; he sees her as the Sauron of the story. But people turned to liking dark or grey storytelling. It wasn’t unreasonable that Dany would talk about those things because we see characters in film and TV do and say far worse and have much viler intentions. So what was intended to be a very dark character ended being very tame until they do something like, shock, execute two men for treason. Such tyranny and abuse of power. I mean in Vikings the main characters blood eagle people, what Dany does is tame up until the Bells when the show descended into nonsense.

Did the Vikings promise to bring justice to all and liberate people though? That makes it more complicated than any straightforward villain. If we're so conditioned to characters acting violently why would the author let us be comfortable with that? And to me it's unreasonable to expect that using the ultimate power to get a throne to so-called "help" people would never go astray.

[X-Buster]

Who will detonate the wildfire, and why?  Arya Stark, in my opinion.  She will go wild after hearing what happened to Jon.

[X-Buster]

On 1/12/2021 at 2:39 PM, Nathan Stark said:

That defence lawyer should probably check in with GRRM first to find out what he thinks Arya might do.

I think GRRM is playing with his fans' emotions.  He knows a lot of them like Arya.  He's pushing her ever deeper into the dark to see how far her fans will continue to like her. 

[Nathan Stark]

3 hours ago, Unit A2 said:

I think GRRM is playing with his fans' emotions.  He knows a lot of them like Arya.  He's pushing her ever deeper into the dark to see how far her fans will continue to like her. 

There is a character like that. And that is Tyrion Lannister. GRRM is not pushing Arya towards the dark just for nihalistic shits and giggles. He's exploring themes of vengeance and justice and how far you can go for the sake of vengeance before you become like those you fight. The Faceless Men offer a temptation that Arya must ultimately overcome. Lady Stoneheart may also function to remind Arya of the need to let her justified rage go lest she become like her undead mother. There is nothing in Arya's nature that would cause her to blow up Kings Landing. 

[Jaak]

On 1/15/2021 at 7:30 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

I don’t believe the entire city can blow up accidentally.  Somebody with knowledge, like the pyromancer and the FM, would have to rig the barrels to create a chain reaction.  Besides those groups, only Jaime would have a clue as to the whereabouts of the cache.  Jaquen was searching when he got caught.  

But they may or may not have done so.

The original plan had a maximum of 3 pyromancers (Rossart, Garigus and Belis) to ignite their caches.

The number of caches mentioned was more than 3.

What was the original plan for the caches other than the 3 ignited first? Was the plan for the pyromancer to escape ahead of the fire he started, and personally go ignite next cache? Or were the caches rigged so that the fire from first cache could be expected to itself spread to next cache and ignite it?

If the caches were rigged for a chain reaction, they may still be so. Or no longer. Note that out of the many caches, two that are expressly defused were on Baelor´s Sept and Dragonpit.

Which are two major hilltops of the city.

If the chain reaction was to rely on burning wildfire flowing down from Sept and Dragonpit and igniting next cache then removing those caches may have created firebreaks. Such that igniting one of the remaining caches burns down its own surroundings and may ignite some nearby ones, but no longer all the other caches and the whole city.

[Rondo]

21 hours ago, Unit A2 said:

Who will detonate the wildfire, and why?  Arya Stark, in my opinion.  She will go wild after hearing what happened to Jon.

Arya Stark or Euron Greyjoy will do it.  Euron will do it for a large sacrificial offering.  Arya will do it for revenge.   I could see the pyromancers lighting the wf to burn the wights if the city gets taken over by the Others.  

[Rondo]

9 hours ago, Jaak said:

But they may or may not have done so.

The original plan had a maximum of 3 pyromancers (Rossart, Garigus and Belis) to ignite their caches.

The number of caches mentioned was more than 3.

What was the original plan for the caches other than the 3 ignited first? Was the plan for the pyromancer to escape ahead of the fire he started, and personally go ignite next cache? Or were the caches rigged so that the fire from first cache could be expected to itself spread to next cache and ignite it?

If the caches were rigged for a chain reaction, they may still be so. Or no longer. Note that out of the many caches, two that are expressly defused were on Baelor´s Sept and Dragonpit.

Which are two major hilltops of the city.

If the chain reaction was to rely on burning wildfire flowing down from Sept and Dragonpit and igniting next cache then removing those caches may have created firebreaks. Such that igniting one of the remaining caches burns down its own surroundings and may ignite some nearby ones, but no longer all the other caches and the whole city.

I think the pyromancers were willing to go down with the city and the king.  

[Shi Qiang]

Arya's act is like an aria.  She's a solo operator.  It will be for revenge over the killing of her favorite brother if she blows up the capital city of Westeros.  She ignores orders from the faceless men when it is in conflict with her personal goals of what she thinks is justice.  It will be a very personal decision made in anger.  She appears calm on the outside but there is a storm of hate going on inside.   

 

[Nathan Stark]

1 hour ago, Allardyce said:

Arya's act is like an aria.  She's a solo operator.  It will be for revenge over the killing of her favorite brother if she blows up the capital city of Westeros.  She ignores orders from the faceless men when it is in conflict with her personal goals of what she thinks is justice.  It will be a very personal decision made in anger.  She appears calm on the outside but there is a storm of hate going on inside.   

 

This theory requires that Arya be stupid as well as hateful. Kings Landing is a little over 300 leagues south of where Jon was assasinated and has nothing to do with his death anyway. Arya has literally zero reason to blow up Kings Landing, whereas other characters like Tyrion, Cersei, Jon Connington or the Sand Snakes have much more relevent motivations to do so.

[TheLastWolf]

@Alyn Oakenfist, the title edit was too subtle a hint for some people to take.

Is posting the same thing in a different way in the same thread after long hoping people would forget earlier post, spam or not? 

Please request a mod to lock this up Alyn. I'm tired. Weary. And I know you are too 

[The Commentator]

On 1/24/2021 at 4:52 AM, Jaak said:

But they may or may not have done so.

The original plan had a maximum of 3 pyromancers (Rossart, Garigus and Belis) to ignite their caches.

The number of caches mentioned was more than 3.

What was the original plan for the caches other than the 3 ignited first? Was the plan for the pyromancer to escape ahead of the fire he started, and personally go ignite next cache? Or were the caches rigged so that the fire from first cache could be expected to itself spread to next cache and ignite it?

If the caches were rigged for a chain reaction, they may still be so. Or no longer. Note that out of the many caches, two that are expressly defused were on Baelor´s Sept and Dragonpit.

Which are two major hilltops of the city.

If the chain reaction was to rely on burning wildfire flowing down from Sept and Dragonpit and igniting next cache then removing those caches may have created firebreaks. Such that igniting one of the remaining caches burns down its own surroundings and may ignite some nearby ones, but no longer all the other caches and the whole city.

An alley, street or a vacant lot can serve as a fire break.  The pyros had to run string fuses underground to get the fire to jump the breaks.  

[BlackLightning]

On 12/19/2020 at 3:58 PM, Rondo said:

It doesn't mean she won't.  The truth is, Arya is more likely to do something as awful as the burning of a whole town than any person on your list.  Jon Connington will have no motivation to do that.  Daenerys Targaryen will have even less.  Now, Jon Snow is a different animal altogether.  The boy attacked his commanding officer over a verbal insult.  Arya too has a temper.  Now that little Stark has been trained to murder.  Arya will go level 11 stark raving mad when she hears what happened to Jon.  

Yeah okay. A town is one thing. I can see Arya destroying an entire town or village. A city however? That is completely different.

On 1/22/2021 at 6:16 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

OP

Also, just to add a bit of speculation. I don’t think George ever imagined Dany would be such an iconic and popular character. He thought this would be a short trilogy of fantasy books in the 90s with a fairly limited readership. Not millions of people buying your book and watching the TV show. In Game of Thrones although she has the final word she really is kind of a side story. However it turned out people really liked the direction he went with the character. I mean I stand by that no other female character has that kind of scope and role in any fantasy story. 

Plus, people’s attitudes changed. A character talking about conquering anything or using violent language would usually be telegraphing that “this is the villain” in a typical fantasy novel of the time. I think George assumed people would get that trope. Why he’s so blaze about listing Dany as one of two threats to Westeros; he sees her as the Sauron of the story. But people turned to liking dark or grey storytelling. It wasn’t unreasonable that Dany would talk about those things because we see characters in film and TV do and say far worse and have much viler intentions. So what was intended to be a very dark character ended being very tame until they do something like, shock, execute two men for treason. Such tyranny and abuse of power. I mean in Vikings the main characters blood eagle people, what Dany does is tame up until the Bells when the show descended into nonsense.

Id also add that, probably, the main reason the show has Dany burn down KL is because they wanted to provide the ultimate justification for the Starks launching what’s objectively a coup against Dany. They already had sufficient motivation, were planning this and Jon was faced with a clear choice long before the destruction of KL. Her burning the city down serves no actual function in the plot beyond shock value and because if the Starks had rebelled to seat Jon on the throne or he had stabbed her to prevent her attacking his family in retaliation it would have been too critical of the Starks. Are you really going to have them murder somebody who arguably saved the world and conveniently have them take over Westeros? Even if they presented that as a good thing or with no self awareness it would have been untenable. The show runners wanted to give the Starks an excuse. Does George want the same thing? Well making Jon a bastard Targaryen kind of bakes this conflict into the setting. I do think he is setting Dany up for a fall and I think that points to him throwing her under the bus rather than providing excuses. Also I am very doubtful George didn’t discuss his overall theme, moral message and stuff with DnD. It probably was along the lines of “Dany is warning against charismatic people with too much power; just like Paul from Dune.” If you want that then you can’t make it an accident that the city blows up.

See that's good and all but your argument falls completely apart when you look at the original outline.

Dany succeeds where the Starks fail. In the second part of the trilogy, she invades Westeros, destroys the Lannisters and their allies and wins the support of the smallfolk.

And then in the last part of the trilogy, Dany is ruling over Westeros when the Others invade. Any rival claimants would pop up either in the second one or the third one.

GRRM didn't held fast to that trilogy plan until towards the end of the writing process for A Clash of Kings.

GRRM kept some things in. Like I think Dany's story in Meereen with what her shadow war against the Meereenese pro-slavery nobility, the pale mare epidemic, the looming threats of Qarth and Volantis and the plethora of men with secret agendas who wish to marry her was supposed to be Dany's story in Book 3 of the original trilogy. The Meereense nobility replaced the lords and knights of Westeros and the threats of Qarth and Volantis as well as the pale mare being stand-ins for the Others.

So of course, she is one of the two threats of Westeros. The series, after all, is called A Song of ICE and FIRE. The Starks are clearly the lead characters of the series: if Dany conquers the continent and enacts policies that -- no matter how good and sensible they are -- are disruptive and queer around the same time the Others are besieging the Wall, then yes. She is one of the two existential threats to both the Stark family and the Westerosi way of life.

It doesn't make her the big bad. It just means she is an enemy of the heroes...which makes her either an anti-villain or an anti-hero.

TVTropes says that there are four types of anti-villains. Yes, I know, it's TVTropes but they are absolutely right on this as this is a concept that has been talked and written about for decades. Four types:

• Noble Demon: The type of anti-villain who either embraces their reputation or doesn't care at all. Either the Noble Demon type is 1) legitimately evil with evil intentions but his actual actions and/or methods are often good if not heroic (i.e. you have two days to prepare for your demise), 2) their villainy is their job which makes their fierce opposition to the heroes a matter of business, law or science and thus impersonal and transactional or 3) they are non-human (animal, alien, demon, plant, sickness, etc.) or 100% foreign which makes them almost exempt from standards of morality and behavior. Even so, they have a code of ethics and there is a line that they will never ever cross. They may be genuinely polite and respectful and may even treat enemies like old friends.
• Well-Intentioned Extremist: The type of anti-villain either believes in the same things that the heroes do or they believe in the things that the heroes SHOULD but don't believe in. The thing here is that they are absolutely ruthless when it comes to making their goals and dreams reality, often going to extremes and getting their hands very dirty. They often fumble because their methods and their conscience are clashing with each other and they have to not only fight the heroes but they have to also fight against their bad reputation. Why? Because they feel like it's the only way: they are right and the heroes are wrong. Alternatively, they might not even be aware that they are really making things worse not better. They could even be failing miserably.
• The Woobie: I still don't understand why it is called "the Woobie" but these are the anti-villains that make both the audience and the heroes feel bad for them. They don't "want" to be evil nor do they have any evil goals or intentions; they are evil because of their actions pose a great danger or disruption. Their actions are the result of tragedies and misfortunes they experience before the story or during the story. The key with them is that most of the tragedies and misfortunes they experience that make them do evil cannot be self-inflicted; other people and their surroundings have to do it to them. They are victims of their own evil and the evil of other people and so they are often sad, hurt, angry or mentally ill. If they are all self-inflicted, they'd be tragic heroes (a type of anti-hero), a full-fledged hero experiencing consequences of human error or full-fledged villains. The Woobie could also be overreacting and their overreaction emphasizes the villain half of the anti-villain.
• The Villain in Name Only: Also the true anti-villain. These types of anti-villains are NEVER actively malevolent. They are only considered villains because they are positioned opposite of the heroes. They can have very good reasons for opposing the heroes and will use legitimate, good methods to do so. Or alternatively, they not even know that the heroes even exist, much less what the heroes are up to and how their own actions are stopping the heroes from doing what they have to do. TVTropes says that these anti-villains can basically be the hero antagonist to the villain protagonists...which is true. They are also held to be very competent and have exceptional skills, talents, intelligence or resources that make up for their lack of villainy, which are true. These types of anti-villains cause the heroes to experience a major moral dilemma which can create a richer story with richer character development.

There is a lot of overlap but Dany probably might end up being a fusion between Well-Intentioned Extremist and Villain-in-Name-Only with some elements of Woobie. Arya is almost all Woobie with a touch of Noble Demon. Tyrion started off as Noble Demon but now he's probably in Woobie territory.

 

[Kierria]

Arya is nothing like Noble.  I would say she is partly Woobie, per your description of the categories, and downright traditional villain.  If anybody will detonate the wildfire and destroy the city it will be Arya.  Jon is a Woobie in part because his actions pose the greatest danger to people.  He got the Night's Watch involved in a quarrel which it should have never been into.  Jon is Tragic-Woobie, the one person who had a chance to mount the defense against the white walkers.  He instead caused disorder at the wall by starting a family feud with Ramsay. 

[Jaak]

On 1/25/2021 at 4:25 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

An alley, street or a vacant lot can serve as a fire break.  The pyros had to run string fuses underground to get the fire to jump the breaks.  

Underground? Don´t need to be string fuses. Wildfire is a liquid. Two attested caches were in cellars. Cellars need drains - otherwise they´d fill up with rainwater!

The pyromancers could have considered where drains go and picked caches to get ignited by burning wildfire in a drain.

In order to "detonate" the wildfire intentionally, as a chain reaction, the lighter would need to know that there is a chain reaction rigged, and where the upstream end/s is/are.

Only Jaime knows that. Maybe Varys.

Alternatively, the chain reaction might start unintentionally - set off by either unintentional fire, or by arson by someone who expects the fire to be restricted to target building and is unaware of wildfire cache hid in cellar, and other caches rigged in chain.

[The Commentator]

10 hours ago, Jaak said:

Underground? Don´t need to be string fuses. Wildfire is a liquid. Two attested caches were in cellars. Cellars need drains - otherwise they´d fill up with rainwater!

The pyromancers could have considered where drains go and picked caches to get ignited by burning wildfire in a drain.

In order to "detonate" the wildfire intentionally, as a chain reaction, the lighter would need to know that there is a chain reaction rigged, and where the upstream end/s is/are.

Only Jaime knows that. Maybe Varys.

Alternatively, the chain reaction might start unintentionally - set off by either unintentional fire, or by arson by someone who expects the fire to be restricted to target building and is unaware of wildfire cache hid in cellar, and other caches rigged in chain.

Varys and Jaquen are the ones who would know. Jaime and Hallene also know.  

[Alyn Oakenfist]

15 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Varys and Jaquen are the ones who would know. Jaime and Hallene also know.  

Why on Earth would Jaqen know. Sure, he's a faceless man, but the wildfire is one of the best kept secret in the world, likely only known to Varys and Jaime (as all the pyromancers who knew are dead). So how would he know?

[BlackLightning]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Why on Earth would Jaqen know. Sure, he's a faceless man, but the wildfire is one of the best kept secret in the world, likely only known to Varys and Jaime (as all the pyromancers who knew are dead). So how would he know?

I don't think Jaqen knows. I think Jaqen was looking for them; that's why he got arrested.

The question is though is who arrested Jaqen and how did they know he'd be that dangerous. Does that person or persons know that there is a chain of wildfire caches beneath the city that are too dangerous to move.

[BlackLightning]

You know, the more I think about it, the more feasible it is for Arya to destroy King's Landing or another highly populated castle.

And she could survive it by skinchanging Balerion and using that mischievous old devil to do the deed.

Honestly but I still don't see Arya destroying all of King's Landing on purpose. The Red Keep yeah. Definitely on purpse. But the entire city? Meh.

I do see her completely obliterating the Twins or the Dreadfort and as both revenge and as a dedication/sacrifice the dead inhabitants to the old gods and/or the Many-Faced God

(I do believe that there is serious carry-over between the Many-Faced God and the old gods of the trees)

Besides the whole MO of the Faceless Men is to make their assassinations look like natural occurrences, sicknesses, accidents or complete mysteries

[Rose of Red Lake]

The person with the most power in the world is never corrupted by it, while Arya who can kill one or two people at a time and whose power is much more limited, kills 500,000 people at once.

Arya may have a "dark heart" but Dany has a "corrupt" one.