Dany won't save Westeros from the Others, the Others will save Westeros from Dany

[Black Crow]

"The Others bring with them a Long Night, a permanent winter and an army of ice zombies, so whilst they may not be "evil", they are certainly not going to "save Westeros" from Daenerys."

Do we have any source for this other than Old Nan's tales?

Yes, but... according to Sam Tarly the White Walkers first appeared during the Long Night, but he points out that the sources are ambiguous or contradictory as to whether they themselves bring the cold or whether they only appear when its cold (and dark)

[solarbear]

But that wouldn't be the Martin we know, the one who loves twists.

There are twists and then there is over complication. A lot of these reader theories seem pretty absurd.

[Great Other]

I can definitely see Jon being the balance. It doesn't really make any sense for him to be the King of Winter if R+L=J is true (which it almost certainly is). He's half fire himself.

Dany and Aegon would most probably be the champions of fire, but who on earth could champion ice? Of the Starks, Robb and Eddard are dead, Arya is off in Braavos, Sansa is in the Vale, Bran is a greenseer, and Rickon is four.

Perhaps the Others have a pair of commanders whom we haven't seen yet, but that would mean the story is slanted heavily in favour of fire.

Aegon is fake and most likely Cersei will send some army and defeat him while Dany is stupid.The Others don't need "a pair of commanders" to defeat Fire.They only need the only smart guy they can raise at the Wall:Jon Snow,the 998th Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.Now I was thinking if Jon could mount some Ballistae on the wall and shoot the dragons dead.When a simple spearman bled Drogon so much,what would hundreds of ballistae positioned on the Wall's perimeter do to 3 "poor" dragons?

Yes, but... according to Sam Tarly the White Walkers first appeared during the Long Night, but he points out that the sources are ambiguous or contradictory as to whether they themselves bring the cold or whether they only appear when its cold (and dark)

The White Walkers are natural creatures.I think they only appear when it's cold and dark,much like the snails appear after rain.

[Arland]

For all of Dany's good intentions (which pave the road to hell), I fail to see how she's brought anything but death and destruction to Slaver's Bay. People are diseased, starving and being murdered in the streets. Oh, she freed slaves, as if that's an end unto itself. As if people can eat, live in, or get protection from simply being "free".

I bet there were people telling just that in 1861.

[Wellspring]

I expect that in the end, North and South will stand against each other, and everyone has to choose a side. Then, in the end, before they go at it, I am sure there will be a moment of horrifying realization what they are doing here, and that they can understand the 'other', but still can't go against what they believe to be true. This will be the bittersweet moment GRRM has announced, not some sacrifice for love, or mounts to some beds, or some cheesy teenager's dream. We are talking politics here, and human beings who have to act them out and suffer for it. The more power you get, the more likely you are to suffer bad, or you have to make others do it. This has so far been GRRM's credo, why should he change that in the end? Fighting evil, otherworldly, not-human Others as ultimate goal is just too boring to be true.

In literature, I believe this is called "The Cop-out Neil Gaiman Ending" ;)

You do a build-up with traditionally inspired avatars of good and evil, dropping hints that the evil guys are more complicated than you thought and that the good guys are more grey than you'd like. In other words, you set up a Straw Man version of the conflict where the forces are equally undesirable. Eventually, it builds up to a colossal climax where there's supposed to be a battle of Good vs Evil, only you surprise your audience by having the Author Avatar main character who stands at the fulcrum of events decide that the right decision isn't good or evil, it's to choose to have a choice! Then, in a hasty resolution both sides vanish and the war never happens.

This is essentially the plot of American Gods, Good Omens, JMS's Babylon 5 and imitations in their subsequent genres. Not to denigrate these fantastic stories, incidentally: you can't hold an author responsible if their great ideas become silly cliches in the hands of lesser imitators.

Presenting the ancient conflict between good and evil as a false choice was very fashionable in the late 90's. The problem is (and I say this realizing that the internal moral conflict of good vs evil being presented metaphorically as an actual battle is an eons-old cliche), it's been done before. And it's hard to do well. The plot requires an epic build-up, but these stories have always had a problem with their resolutions seeming artificial and heavy-handed.

It would be like WWII ending on D-day with a cute, perky goth and her plucky sidekick standing on Omaha beach. The battle screeches to a halt and she declares that the world needs its Nazis and Soviets and Democracies, and that it's important for us to make a moral decision for ourselves. Then everyone scratches their heads, says "golly, she's got a point!" and goes home. The False Choice plot got old. Very, very fast.

This points to a possible ending that keeps with GRRM's moral ambiguity without turning into a hack job. WWII was morally ambiguous. To defeat a horrible evil (Nazis), it was necessary to do many evil things along the way. And to make alliances with groups that were just as evil as the Nazis. Also, many unnecessary and evil things were done in the name of the Good Side, because good is a standard of behavior, not an affiliation. Preventing a succession crisis required that Ned do some pretty ruthless things, things he didn't have the stomach for. Robb lost the war, at the cost of countless lives, including his own and his mother's, because of decisions that were morally right but strategically wrong. Tywin makes a case for the Red Wedding to Tyrion that's actually pretty defensible.

So the battle isn't strictly good vs evil, it's Better vs Worse... and winning requires that the main characters swallow some pretty bitter pills in the evils they have to commit in the name of the Greater Good. What makes the Neil Gaiman ending a problem is that it's so clearly a cop-out. In "choosing to decide", the characters are spared from actually making a decision. The author then clears away the aftermath. In the real world we have to make decisions, and live with the consequences.

It's possible that GRRM might be going in the direction you're talking about. Certainly, he forged his story during the period when Gaiman endings were all the rage. But I suspect that the alternative I propose is more in keeping with his plot so far, and his stated views in interviews and letters.

[idiotking]

What's wrong with an "everyone loses" sort of ending, though? There seem to be so many hints about this story, like LOTR, being about the end of an age, and the end of "magic" in the world... which would sweep up The Others, the Dragons, Red Priests and Warlocks alike. I could see an endgame in which everyone continues pursuing either their own selfish goals, or what they genuinely believe to be the best course for humanity, and end up, as a result of how all those plots and paths tangle, losing what they have, and destroying what they desire. Fire and Ice will clash, and leave us with a puddle of lukewarm water... a world safe for man, but bereft of magic and heroes.

[Boromir-Bloodstorm]

Secondly, there's nothing to suggest that Dany (or Jon or Tyrion or any potential Azor Ahai) is a bad guy. These characters are by no means perfect saints, but to be evil on a global scale, you almost invariably must have evil intent.

Dany is evil. She's arrogant to a fault. Worst kind of evil is the one who believes they're doing good.

[Boromir-Bloodstorm]

On the contrary, everything up to this point suggests that Dany is a very compassionate and good character and queen. She locked up her own dragons just because one might have attacked a single innocent child. You really see her allowing them to (or anyone) to ravage an entire populace? Same goes for Jon; he's the very model of selflessness and duty and compassion- disgustingly so, at times.

And the fact that her arrogance led her to sack three cities, destroying them, and the aftermath that followed was devestation - something that follows Dany around like a bad smell. This has nothing to do with her character? She has damned thousands of people. Her arrogance was what killed Drogo, in that she thought she'd play the compassionate Princess, and her naiveness let the snakes into her bed. She's immature, and lacks any understanding of real world matters, the situation of Jorah, how to run a city. She made a mess of everything and people suffered. If she does not learn that she is not always right, and does not learn how to take other people and other ways of life seriously, then she will remain a very dangerous person. Frankly, I see little difference between her and Cersei.

[flame7926]

And it wasnt worse in the cites before? You cant change their culture overnight, it takes time. She freed the slaves, which was a good thing in the long run, what was she supposed to do, leave them? And the Harpies killing people and causing chaos, she couldn't really do anything against them. So, she had to appease them, in the short term. It would have been worse if she had let her dragons loose on the temple or pyramid or whatever they were staying at. I dont believe the dragons killed a child, she shouldnt have chained them, but they cant be loose either.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I bet there were people telling just that in 1861.

Cute, but I stand by my point. There's a right way and a wrong way to do it, and she did it the wrong way, as evidenced by the region-wide clusterfuck she created. But hey, keep thinking that because I think Dany's a twit, I must think that slavery's OK. It's cool.

And it wasnt worse in the cites before? You cant change their culture overnight, it takes time. She freed the slaves, which was a good thing in the long run, what was she supposed to do, leave them? And the Harpies killing people and causing chaos, she couldn't really do anything against them. So, she had to appease them, in the short term. It would have been worse if she had let her dragons loose on the temple or pyramid or whatever they were staying at. I dont believe the dragons killed a child, she shouldnt have chained them, but they cant be loose either.

That's what we're trying to say. She thinks she can knock over thousands of years of society easily and with minimal effort, and the people in those cities should bend over and say, "Thank you, Your Grace, may we have another?"

She couldn't do anything against the Harpy because the population that she's trying to rule is in collusion with said Harpy. No one is giving her tips and intelligence or working with her because they're siding with the Harpy over her.

[idiotking]

GRRM is just showing the shades of grey that reality takes -- Slavery may be a bad thing, but that doesn't mean eliminating it is without consequences. Since some folks are bringing in Civil War analogies, remember that it took a heavy military presence during reconstruction to preserve ANY semblance of rights for freed slaves... and even so, there was massive economic disruption, and rebellion both open and concealed from those who lost out by the fall of slavery. When reconstruction ended, Jim Crow became the law of the land, and while slavery was gone, many of its institutions remained in different form.

Dany wants to do the right thing, but she's imagining -- like some abolitionists in antebellum US -- that by simply decreeing an end to slavery, that will solve the problems slavery causes. She's discovering the hard way that while it may solve some of those problems, it creates whole new ones... you can't tear down a whole society and expect a good one to organically pop up overnight in its place. She's also learning that sometimes the only thing a foe will understand is force... and that some foes will remain a danger and a threat to all you're working for unless they're eliminated entirely.

[Whorehammer]

Could it be possible that the White Walkers are actually dark elfs or some type? It's the only thing that's missing in this fantasy.

[PatrickStormborn]

The people that Dany freed still adore her in ADWD, even those who stayed behind in Astapor. So no, she is in no way a villain. Slavery is immoral, and she is making an effort to wipe it out. Yes, her actions have led to conflict and bloodshed, but her method was far better than the War of the Five Kings.

[Revan Baratheon]

dany wont save mereen from the yunkai,the yunkai will save mereen from dany...

[FanTasy]

The people that Dany freed still adore her in ADWD, even those who stayed behind in Astapor. So no, she is in no way a villain. Slavery is immoral, and she is making an effort to wipe it out. Yes, her actions have led to conflict and bloodshed, but her method was far better than the War of the Five Kings.

I agree that Dany could be seen as an enlightened ruler. She wants to be just and hates slavery. Because she herself experienced what it was to be sold she can emphasize.

I fully support her for trying to end slavery.

But I don't know if the majority of the people she freed still adore her.

The pit fighters were not grateful and were glad to fight again, to make a living.

Other freed slaves had to sell themselves to their former owners or to new ones, to perform the same work they did as slave but now for meagre earnings and without former benefits.

[PatrickStormborn]

The pit fighters were not grateful and were glad to fight again, to make a living.

Other freed slaves had to sell themselves to their former owners or to new ones, to perform the same work they did as slave but now for meagre earnings and without former benefits.

The pit fighter thing I agree with, but she opened the pits anyway (although I don't think she should have).

I don't think it was ex-slaves who were selling themselves, but rather ex-slavers.

[Francis Buck]

I think people get too worked up over the "Dany is actually the bad guy" thing. It was poorly worded in my original post and it got taken the wrong way. What I really mean by is, at the end of the series, both Dany and her whole army, and the Starks and their whole army, could both be looked at as the "bad guys" or the "good guys"...it all depends on your perspective. Both the Starks and the Targaryens had their Houses destroyed (and it's debatable that is was without good reason in either case). Large portions of the audience want to see BOTH of them return. The obvious connections of Fire and Ice between the two houses also factor into the thematic nature of their respective "resurgences" (just as their association with different mythological creatures: dragons for the Targs, the undead for the Starks).

I also agree with the people that say the ending will be more of an "everybody loses" type of thing. Certain characters will make it through, but I kind of doubt that any one major faction (in particular, Starks and Targs) will still exist in the same way they did before.

[Fred Baratheon]

If the Starks aren't connected to the Others they will have gotten the short end of stick with mythical creature connections. What good is a direwolf against a dragon?

[kissdbyfire]

And it wasnt worse in the cites before? You cant change their culture overnight, it takes time.

I think this is a false premise. I don’t believe you can make a people or a person change their culture/ideology/religion. Either they change it willingly – over time – or the ‘change’ it’s doomed from the get-go. In a way, similar to how it works with AA, NA, etc.; if the person who needs help doesn’t acknowledge the need and isn’t fully on-board with whatever ‘therapy’, it won’t work. It also makes me think about the whole ‘politically correct’ thing: telling people they are not allowed to say certain things is not going to change their inner selves.

So, Dany thinking she will ‘end slavery’ is just a silly notion, at best.

[fassreiter]

In literature, I believe this is called "The Cop-out Neil Gaiman Ending" ;)

You do a build-up with traditionally inspired avatars of good and evil, dropping hints that the evil guys are more complicated than you thought and that the good guys are more grey than you'd like. In other words, you set up a Straw Man version of the conflict where the forces are equally undesirable. Eventually, it builds up to a colossal climax where there's supposed to be a battle of Good vs Evil, only you surprise your audience by having the Author Avatar main character who stands at the fulcrum of events decide that the right decision isn't good or evil, it's to choose to have a choice! Then, in a hasty resolution both sides vanish and the war never happens.

This is essentially the plot of American Gods, Good Omens, JMS's Babylon 5 and imitations in their subsequent genres. Not to denigrate these fantastic stories, incidentally: you can't hold an author responsible if their great ideas become silly cliches in the hands of lesser imitators.

Presenting the ancient conflict between good and evil as a false choice was very fashionable in the late 90's. The problem is (and I say this realizing that the internal moral conflict of good vs evil being presented metaphorically as an actual battle is an eons-old cliche), it's been done before. And it's hard to do well. The plot requires an epic build-up, but these stories have always had a problem with their resolutions seeming artificial and heavy-handed.

It would be like WWII ending on D-day with a cute, perky goth and her plucky sidekick standing on Omaha beach. The battle screeches to a halt and she declares that the world needs its Nazis and Soviets and Democracies, and that it's important for us to make a moral decision for ourselves. Then everyone scratches their heads, says "golly, she's got a point!" and goes home. The False Choice plot got old. Very, very fast.

This points to a possible ending that keeps with GRRM's moral ambiguity without turning into a hack job. WWII was morally ambiguous. To defeat a horrible evil (Nazis), it was necessary to do many evil things along the way. And to make alliances with groups that were just as evil as the Nazis. Also, many unnecessary and evil things were done in the name of the Good Side, because good is a standard of behavior, not an affiliation. Preventing a succession crisis required that Ned do some pretty ruthless things, things he didn't have the stomach for. Robb lost the war, at the cost of countless lives, including his own and his mother's, because of decisions that were morally right but strategically wrong. Tywin makes a case for the Red Wedding to Tyrion that's actually pretty defensible.

So the battle isn't strictly good vs evil, it's Better vs Worse... and winning requires that the main characters swallow some pretty bitter pills in the evils they have to commit in the name of the Greater Good. What makes the Neil Gaiman ending a problem is that it's so clearly a cop-out. In "choosing to decide", the characters are spared from actually making a decision. The author then clears away the aftermath. In the real world we have to make decisions, and live with the consequences.

It's possible that GRRM might be going in the direction you're talking about. Certainly, he forged his story during the period when Gaiman endings were all the rage. But I suspect that the alternative I propose is more in keeping with his plot so far, and his stated views in interviews and letters.

Yeah, I should read more Neil Gaiman in order to know about things like that. I totally loved Good Omens, by the way, but it's a totally different thing than ASOIAF. And even the title gave away that there would NOT be an apocalypse. I don't know about the rest of Gaiman's work, I kind of stopped reading American Gods after some pages (and you don't make it sound worth reading either). I really liked Neverwhere, by the way. Where there are pretty evil guys. But it's more a children's book.

But I don't think you got my meaning. I didn't mean that they should stop fighting in the end. In fact, I will be very disappointed if I don't get to see Jon chop off Dany's head with his Valyrian show-off sword. I think the moment of bittersweetness will be the one in which they all realize that they could as easily have stood on the other side of this battlefield - but then they go and hack each other into pieces nonetheless. This is what we do all the time in so many ways, right?

I don't want to be cheated from a big battle in the end, to be sure. Only I don't want it to be human vs. inhuman forces, that's boring. I want to see humanity fight itself, that's so much more worth telling a story about. And as a personal favour, I want to see the north kick some dragon's ass, to be sure. "Let's go to work"-style. Only a bit more elaborate.