Avatar image for turambar
#1051 Posted by Turambar (7996 posts) -

@zevvion: Let's be real here. Danny's name meant pretty much jack during the early parts of her story. Her status as Drogo's wife mattered a whole lot more by comparison. On the contrary, Jon's upbringing, despite lacking the Stark name, gave him a far greater advantage over every other Night's Watch initiate.

Avatar image for zevvion
#1052 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@turambar: No... it didn't. Everybody hated Jon when he got to the Wall. He gained favor because of his charisma, good nature and battle skill. For instance Grenn disliked him a whole bunch, even tried to threaten him and beat him up. They became best friends after a while.

Meanwhile Daenerys never had any true power, but she did have a name. That is the reason she was still alive, that was the reason she was protected by spies, that was the reason she was sold to Drogo and that is the reason she is going for Westeros. Pretty much from the start up until this point, her story has been about her name and what she is owed by it. For Jon it's the exact opposite. He never cared for his name and he made his own name on his actions. It all reached a pretty high point when people didn't care that his name didn't earn him the title of King, but his actions did.

That is the difference between the two I'm pointing out.

Avatar image for turambar
#1053 Edited by Turambar (7996 posts) -

@zevvion said:

@turambar: No... it didn't. Everybody hated Jon when he got to the Wall. He gained favor because of his charisma, good nature and battle skill. For instance Grenn disliked him a whole bunch, even tried to threaten him and beat him up. They became best friends after a while.

Meanwhile Daenerys never had any true power, but she did have a name. That is the reason she was still alive, that was the reason she was protected by spies, that was the reason she was sold to Drogo and that is the reason she is going for Westeros. Pretty much from the start up until this point, her story has been about her name and what she is owed by it. For Jon it's the exact opposite. He never cared for his name and he made his own name on his actions. It all reached a pretty high point when people didn't care that his name didn't earn him the title of King, but his actions did.

That is the difference between the two I'm pointing out.

Jon arrived at Castle Black already a head and shoulder above all the rest as a swordsman because he was a Stark bastard. He arrived there educated due to being a Stark bastard. He may not have been well liked, but he had resources none of the others had. Would he have been hand picked to be Mormont's personal steward if he had the upbringing of Grenn?

If Danny didn't have the Targaryan name, would she even have had to flee for her life? Would there have been any need for spies to protect her in the first place? All in all, you're placing too much importance in their name as a status symbol, and too little in what resources their name gave them.

Jon's actions might be a large part of why people are willing to follow him, but the resources that came with his name: an upbringing along side the highborns of Winterfell is a huge part of why he's capable of taking those actions in the first place. Jon Snow wouldn't be Jon Snow without the tutelage of Rodrick Cassel, and Rodrick wouldn't have taught him anything if he was a farmhand.

On the other hand, Danny's Targaryen name was responsible for gaining her the title of Khaleesi, but learning to exert power as one, elevate herself as something more akin to an equal partner to Drogo in their marriage as opposed to a glorified sex slave, and grabbing hold of and maintaining however small a khalasar after Drogo's passing was the result of her own actions. She certainly had the aid of new born Dragons and a resistance to fire, but to deny any of her efforts when comparing her to Jon in the early parts of their stories is absurd.

Avatar image for theht
#1054 Edited by TheHT (14303 posts) -

@zevvion: I obviously read her reaction differently. The timing of her modest look downard as Lyanna speaks of "whose name is Stark" after a season of it being made clear that she has the name and Jon doesn't. Again, she can be polite to him about them being siblings regardless of his status, but that doesn't wipe away the very pragmatic observation on her part that she's the one with the recognized Stark name. It isn't that she was necessarily consciously making a play for being Queen of the North, as that was at the time in service of recruiting allies to fight against Ramsey. I'm not entirely sure we've enough to know what she really wants at all now, post Battle of the Bastards.

But that reaction is as clear as day to me. Her expression becomes more active as she believes Lyanna's talking about her, humbly lowering her gaze and letting up a larger smile in anticipation of recognition, and then as the little Lady says "I don't care if he's a bastard" she looks back up and becomes steely. It's not even as subtle as Jaime and Cersei's exchange. She's also the focus of that shot, so paying extra attention to her expression and its timing with Lyanna's words is valid.

Jon's certainly not immune to (or has a high tolerance for) fire. That's already open and shut since season one, unless you think somehow dying and coming back made him immune to fire. It was presumably a fire god's magic that brought him back after all. If we see Berric immune to flames I'll entertain the possibility, but right now we've got clear evidence that Snow can, in fact, get burned.

I think recognizing Dany's skills as a leader while criticizing her for only leading is incongruous. In that sense, Jon's leadership accomplishments would be null as well, leaving his biggest accomplishment having killed a White Walker (putting him squarely beside Sam and Meera). Arbitrarily invalidating Danys command over her armies and her dragons leaves only her fists as a means for actions of note (and indeed acts that would only pertain to how she could use them), and that's obviously grossly unfair. Many characters in the series have accomplished feats of note without personally raising a sword.

Jon having the blood of all sides would fit within my expectation of him being a bridge of sorts between the forces of the living (led by Dany, his aunt) and the forces of the dead (led by the Night King). The two polar opposites in that scenario would be Dany and the Night King, which is what I've been saying. Jon's the one to introduce the conflict to Dany, and Dany brings her forces to bear on the Night King. Narratively it would be odd to have the young Targaryen exile that finally raises a very impressive army with which to conquer Westeros arrive only to then take a knee to the King in the North. Again, I fully expect Jon to more closely exhibit signs of being the "prince that was promised," and indeed be the one to kill the Night King, but I don't see Dany's entire arc just completely deflating the moment she meets Jon.

But yeah, I'm definitely excited to see what's in store. The one thing I learned early on in Game of Thrones is to not grow too attached to anyone's expectations.

Avatar image for bollard
#1055 Posted by Bollard (7557 posts) -

I'm sure someone has asked this already, but for those who have read the books, Benjen is Coldhands, right?

Avatar image for theht
#1056 Posted by TheHT (14303 posts) -

@bollard: In the show he is, but apparently not in the books.

Avatar image for odinsmana
#1057 Edited by odinsmana (484 posts) -

@bollard: That was the most popular theory and it seemed the most plausible solution, but it has been debunked.

From a LA times story "A reddit user discovered some handwritten notes on an original manuscript of “A Dance with Dragons” which is housed in the Cushing Library of Texas A&M. The margin notes were between Martin and his editor Anne Groell. In one note, Groell asks if Coldhands was Benjen, and Martin responded with a definitive, "No.""

Avatar image for zevvion
#1058 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@turambar: Playing 'what ifs' doesn't matter whole bunch though. 'If' Jon was born a Stark he probably wouldn't have gone to the Wall because he wouldn't have felt singled out anyway. That chain of thought gets us nowhere.

The fact of the matter is Daenerys' quest has been by her name. Jon's is built on a focus of the real fight. Since the first episode of season 1 this has been the case and it has remained the case throughout every season and we're going into season 7 with that core concept staying the same. Given what every character has been through and where they started, it wouldn't make any sense if Daenerys ends up being the one big hero to defeat the series' true anticipated evil. That's all I was trying to say. That has Jon written all over it. In collaboration with Daenerys, sure. But it won't be a thing where it all falls on her to do it. At the very least it's going to be a joined effort where Jon lands the killing blow.

Avatar image for bollard
#1059 Posted by Bollard (7557 posts) -
Avatar image for theht
#1060 Posted by TheHT (14303 posts) -

I've been thinking about Arya and the Faceless Men a bunch. What if they're just full of shit? Like not with their face-magic. Obviously that stuff's legit. But about being no one.

I kinda read their whole "no one" thing as them almost being this sort of amorphous mass of no ones serving the Many-Faced God (primarily thanks to that weird-ass scene where Arya goes blind). Almost like some creepy death-cult hive mind. But Jaqen clearly has something that approaches a personality (he's smirky and talks in riddles). And Arya actually called his name for execution back in Harrenhal, which clearly gave him pause. So he's definitely literally an individual, which leads me to believe all their mumbo jumbo about him not being Jaqen H'gar is just a combination of Faceless Men philosophy and (as was already pretty obvious) theatrics.

But they do have some sort of magic, as the faces are definitely more than just nasty-ass masks. It's mostly why Arya was able to wear a face to kill Walder Frey without going blind that made me think about all of this. My thoughts tend to go back to becoming "no one" basically requiring just the opposite. That you need to know with absolute certainty who and what you are before you can safely step beyond yourself into becoming someone else, an ability that would ostensibly make you no one, as it seemed to do for Jaqen. Arya's consistently been reprimanded for not being true to her self and circumstance, being called out for her true feelings and whether or not she has a genuine desire to become "no one."

Her actions I think sufficiently speak to her having thought she just could use their resources to execute her own red vendetta, without fully understanding or adopting their ways. I'd say all of that is what was behind her blindness after having used a face to kill Meryn Trant. She tried to wear the face of another without first having a firm grasp of own, and as a result lost sight of the world around her. You can't become someone else if you're uncertain of who it is you're supposed to go back to; not without complications on the return.

When she accepts that she's Arya Stark by not killing Lady Crane, she tries to run from the consequences. But when she's forced to face the Waif (no pun intended) and emerges victorious, she settles her debt with the Red God herself. No more running, no more doubting. She knows exactly who she is, where she is, and what she's going to do. At that moment, Jaqen says she's finally no one. I thought initially it was a test to see if she'd lie, but she affirms her identity as Arya and he approves. I also thought maybe that was an agreement to part amicably, but now I suspect it was that and then some.

My thinking now is that by knowing exactly who Arya Stark is, she's able to actually handle fully becoming someone else, and has consequently technically already become a "no one," though unaffiliated with the Faceless Men. So basically exactly what people hoped for when Jaqen made her that initial offer to join him: she became a mystical assassin without actually being bound to their group.

And now she's back in Westeros cutting throats. Preeeeeeeeeeeeettty cool. Fuckin Nymeria's still out there too.

@zevvion said:

@turambar: Playing 'what ifs' doesn't matter whole bunch though. 'If' Jon was born a Stark he probably wouldn't have gone to the Wall because he wouldn't have felt singled out anyway. That chain of thought gets us nowhere.

The fact of the matter is Daenerys' quest has been by her name. Jon's is built on a focus of the real fight. Since the first episode of season 1 this has been the case and it has remained the case throughout every season and we're going into season 7 with that core concept staying the same. Given what every character has been through and where they started, it wouldn't make any sense if Daenerys ends up being the one big hero to defeat the series' true anticipated evil. That's all I was trying to say. That has Jon written all over it. In collaboration with Daenerys, sure. But it won't be a thing where it all falls on her to do it. At the very least it's going to be a joined effort where Jon lands the killing blow.

Oh, that's not what I was saying at all. I tried to clarify it a few times by saying I expect Jon to be closer to fitting the description of the "prince who was promised," and to be the one to kill the Night King (if that's even how things go down, this being Game of Thrones and all).

I just consider Dany and her forces to be the big counterpoint to the White Walkers and their forces. The literal fire to their literal ice. You know, dragons and fireproof woman at the helm versus ice demons.

Avatar image for zevvion
#1061 Edited by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@theht: That's the thing though, I don't think she'll be 'at the helm'. She'll supply forces, no doubt about that. I just think that Jon as the true son of Rhaegar will be the dude at the helm. He'll convince Daenareys to contribute, I think Daenereys herself will not have that much to do with it when it comes to the battle. She'll ride Drogon and do some stuff, but I more consider that Drogon doing stuff than her.

Avatar image for theht
#1062 Posted by TheHT (14303 posts) -

@zevvion: At the helm of her dragons? Of course she is. Though, again, I expect Bran to eventually warg into one, and hopefully we'll get someone else to ride the third at some point as well. But make no mistake, they're her dragons. Well, as much as they could ever be hers anyways.

I suppose I'm not communicating it well. I'm not looking at "the battle," I'm looking at the big picture. Narratively she's the fire and the Night King's the ice. Song of Ice and Fire. East and west, yin and yang, cookies and cream. Get me?

About her being leader, like I said, I think it'd be odd narratively to have Dany completely lay down her desire to rule Westeros at the drop of a hat, and additionally have her entire storyline amount to her becoming nothing more than a glorified supply line. We'll see if Rhaegar and Lyanna were ever wed, because that would obviously strengthen Jon's claim to the Iron Throne (if he even wants it, and if anyone even genuinely gives a serious fuck about claimant strength anymore), but I don't see Dany dropping into such obscurity.

As far as who would be better though, I think Dany's proven herself at this point to be a strong figurehead, while Jon's strengths lie in his focus on the true fight, and generally just being a righteous fella. Their personalities and experiences thus far make him being a commander and vanguard of the "War for the Dawn" a much better fit, rather than someone to be the head of all of Westeros, which is better suited towards her.

Of course a lot of this is looking at things at their most obvious (and narrow, as there are a ton of characters with roles to consider). Game of Thrones is at its strongest when it subverts expectations, and right now I expect Jon to be the prophesized hero that will kill the Night King. Prophecies are most interesting when they're not so cut and dry (or even true at all), but then I'm not overly fond of fate as a narrative device. You can disagree of course. Most of all I certainly don't expect a straightforward neat and tidy fairy tale ending with this thing.

I dunno why you seem to not like Daenerys so much though. Why you dismiss everything she does as a leader as somehow her not doing stuff.

Avatar image for zevvion
#1063 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@theht said:

@zevvion: At the helm of her dragons? Of course she is. Though, again, I expect Bran to eventually warg into one, and hopefully we'll get someone else to ride the third at some point as well. But make no mistake, they're her dragons. Well, as much as they could ever be hers anyways.

I suppose I'm not communicating it well. I'm not looking at "the battle," I'm looking at the big picture. Narratively she's the fire and the Night King's the ice. Song of Ice and Fire. East and west, yin and yang, cookies and cream. Get me?

About her being leader, like I said, I think it'd be odd narratively to have Dany completely lay down her desire to rule Westeros at the drop of a hat, and additionally have her entire storyline amount to her becoming nothing more than a glorified supply line. We'll see if Rhaegar and Lyanna were ever wed, because that would obviously strengthen Jon's claim to the Iron Throne (if he even wants it, and if anyone even genuinely gives a serious fuck about claimant strength anymore), but I don't see Dany dropping into such obscurity.

As far as who would be better though, I think Dany's proven herself at this point to be a strong figurehead, while Jon's strengths lie in his focus on the true fight, and generally just being a righteous fella. Their personalities and experiences thus far make him being a commander and vanguard of the "War for the Dawn" a much better fit, rather than someone to be the head of all of Westeros, which is better suited towards her.

Of course a lot of this is looking at things at their most obvious (and narrow, as there are a ton of characters with roles to consider). Game of Thrones is at its strongest when it subverts expectations, and right now I expect Jon to be the prophesized hero that will kill the Night King. Prophecies are most interesting when they're not so cut and dry (or even true at all), but then I'm not overly fond of fate as a narrative device. You can disagree of course. Most of all I certainly don't expect a straightforward neat and tidy fairy tale ending with this thing.

I dunno why you seem to not like Daenerys so much though. Why you dismiss everything she does as a leader as somehow her not doing stuff.

No, I understand you perfectly. But you seem to forget that Jon is the son of Rheagar. He is the true kin of Rheagar, just as much as Daenerys is. You calling Daenerys 'the fire' like she's the only one. But there is Jon too. I suppose people have said he can be burned still, but he has Rheagar's blood nevertheless and he has Stark blood, which is what I theorize to be the Night King's blood as well. You're talking about fire versus ice, I'm saying Jon is the fire and ice himself.

I don't dislike Daenerys, though I do think she's being portrayed like a dumb girl in the series right now. I'm not trying to dismiss anyone on the basis of them not fighting themselves, if I would do that I would've dismissed Tyrion a long time ago. But I do have more respect for true fighters and it just so happens that Jon is that and Daenerys is not. When you couple that with how Daenerys is being portrayed in the series, like an entitled child at times, it is easy for me to choose Jon over her.

Avatar image for infantpipoc
#1064 Posted by infantpipoc (259 posts) -

Guess Giant Throne is not back any time soon, not that I'm looking forward to it.

Avatar image for theht
#1065 Posted by TheHT (14303 posts) -
@zevvion said:

You're talking about fire versus ice, I'm saying Jon is the fire and ice himself.

Exactly! Of course he's ice and fire. The Night King is the ice, Dany is the fire, and Jon is the bridge between them. That's exactly what I've been saying since you first responded to me.

I think you might've gotten ahead of yourself duder.

Avatar image for zevvion
#1066 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@theht: No, I'm not haha. I understand you clearly, I just see things differently. Daenerys is currently a very uninteresting character in the series with barely any character development (in fact, I'd argue she is getting less experienced as time goes on) and she is 'just' fire. She cannot defeat the Night King. It is all Jon, 100% Jon. She will just be an interchangeable face with an army to supply and that is all. If she dies and Tyrion took over her army for some reason, nothing would be different. If Jon dies, the Night King wins.

That's what I've been saying. And you've been saying Daenerys is super important.

Avatar image for theht
#1067 Posted by TheHT (14303 posts) -

@zevvion said:

@theht: No, I'm not haha. I understand you clearly, I just see things differently. Daenerys is currently a very uninteresting character in the series with barely any character development (in fact, I'd argue she is getting less experienced as time goes on) and she is 'just' fire. She cannot defeat the Night King. It is all Jon, 100% Jon. She will just be an interchangeable face with an army to supply and that is all. If she dies and Tyrion took over her army for some reason, nothing would be different. If Jon dies, the Night King wins.

That's what I've been saying. And you've been saying Daenerys is super important.

I dunno how many times I'm supposed say "I expect Jon to kill the Night King" in order for it to register. Not sure who you're arguing against on that point, but it ain't me.

And suggesting Dany's had barely any character development and is somehow getting less experienced as she experiences more is crazy talk. Just nonsense.

Avatar image for zevvion
#1068 Edited by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@theht: Yes, no, I know we are on the same page as far as Jon goes. I'm talking about Daenereys. Unless I haven't been understanding you like I thought, you've been saying she is the hero of the story right? I'm saying she is not. She doesn't matter as much. She is important in the sense that she will believe Jon where no one else does. But after that it doesn't matter what she does. She can die, it won't change the outcome of the fight.

I should clarify I didn't mean Daenereys didn't have any character development at all, I mean she's not having any right now. Ever since she took Mereen, she's been stuck. And what I meant by 'losing experience' was badly worded; I meant it seems like from season 1 to the taking of Mereen she has been maturing as a person and as a conqueror. But after that, it seems like she's becoming less and less mature about things. I suppose her character technically still develops, but it's going in the opposite direction now. Which I don't really enjoy. I admit some of that may have to do with how she's being portrayed. For example, her eye-squinting stare at the masters in episode 9 was so out of character for what she is supposed to be.

Avatar image for theht
#1069 Posted by TheHT (14303 posts) -

@zevvion: No, I've been saying she's the direct opposite to the Night King. She's the one that's bringing the living together, and also the one that has a bunch of fancy fire shit going on around her like the White Walkers have fancy ice shit around them. In the big picture there's the Night King on one end, and Dany on the other. Jon would be in the middle.

I'm not saying that she's the only hero, or the one to kill the Night King. I expect she'll encounter the King in the North after dealing with Cersei and then commit all of Westeros (and elements of Essos) to the War for the Dawn, using her authority as Queen of Westeros. The alliance and the dragons all revolve around her, a Targaryen exile on an entirely different continent from the rest of the show that's yet been built up since the very first episode, and is also immune to fire. She'd be the big hero that brings the entire weight of the living together and to bear upon the dead.

Jon will bridge the "ice" (White Walkers) and the "fire" (Dany's alliance) together in a conflict at last, but I don't see him vying for the mantle of King of Westeros. He's a fighter focused on the true fight, and that's exactly what he'll stay. He'll advise Dany and be vanguard to the War for the Dawn.

I figured you got tripped up on the "big hero" part, which is why I clarified what I meant by that in an earlier post. But I suspect now where we really disagree is I think this is a series with many heroes with many important parts to play, whereas you seem to think there's only one hero. I look at this more as something like The Lord of the Rings: a massive story with a massive cast of characters. Compared to something like Harry Potter where it's very clearly all about Harry. Not to disparage Harry Potter or suggest it doesn't have very many characters or anything, I fuckin love that series. I just don't see it as a sprawling epic in the same way that The Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones are.

Avatar image for zevvion
#1070 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@theht: Yeah, I do think there is only one hero. I'm not saying others don't have a part to play, but their importance is based on their presence, not who they are. To put it bluntly, if Jon would die, the Night King would win. If Daenerys would die, Jon would still stop the Night King. That's not to say Daenereys is unimportant, but the role she plays is because of her following. If she dies, another will take over. If Jon dies, people will scatter and on top of that they won't be able to stop him because they lack his blood (this last part is obviously speculation, but I choose to believe that right now).

I'm not saying she won't deserve praise for entering the fight, but she won't bring anything to it that another can't. Her character has been thoroughly immature for a while now. Every decision she makes that affect people at all, are based on her advisers. If she'd die, Tyrion could take over and form a council with Grey Worm and the like, and nothing would really be different. The dragons can be controlled through other means, and the decision making would still be at its best to fight the Night King.

That said, I should also probably clarify I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I view things differently.

Avatar image for rasrimra
#1071 Edited by Rasrimra (296 posts) -

I have a love hate relationship with this series. Overall I like it. And I like the first season and the latest seasons the best. But it is taking too long to simply conclude now. If the series wants to keep drawing my attention it will have to escalate.

I do want to give props to GoT for the excellent battle scenes in the Battle of the Bastards. The camera work and choriography were excellent. May be the best battle scenes I have ever seen.

Also I came to the conclusion that the first time I view an episode or a movie I miss out on a lot of the foreshadowing and details that apparently are noticed effortlessly by others. I did not notice the dragon's approach in the scene with the 3 masters. I did not notice the shield J. Snow picked up to be a shield of the Mormonts. I did not notice the endless foreshadowing of the final event, even though in hindsight they pretty much told us word for word what was about to happen. It's weird how I miss all these hints, even though I am paying close attention to the play. A weird condition. I'd like to learn more about how that is even possible. Maybe someone recognises this. During a second viewing I catch on to most of these things and is therefore a very different experience. So much so that I am contemplating watching every movie henceforth twice, just to know what I am talking about.

Avatar image for zevvion
#1072 Edited by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@rasrimra: Eh, it really isn't you I don't think. The books have illustrations on the houses' sigils. I didn't notice the shield and I still don't because I have no idea what that stuff looks like. If there was a flag of a country on it you knew, you would've noticed it.

Avatar image for theht
#1073 Posted by TheHT (14303 posts) -

@zevvion: I think we understand each other now. I've no qualms considering other characters "heroes" in their own regard, and certainly opt to go with the characterization we've seen of Daenerys thus far (which staunchly contradicts the immature and expendable role you view her as).

Let's see: she raised herself to be an equal to Drogo, took over what remains of his khalasar, got three dragons to hatch, robbed Qarth and threw it into disarray, stole and then freed the Unsullied, sacked Slavery's Bay, wrested control of the entire Dothraki horde, and finally stopped the siege of Mereen. That's just the big shit she's done. With character development, she started as a little girl under heel of a shitty brother, loved and lost, stole and slaughtered, waged a difficult idealistic war. She's changed a great deal, and we've seen her get to the point she has of being the strong Queen she is. We've seen the failures and the challenges that she's learned from, whether it's locking her dragons away to try and keep her people safe or learning that very bitter lesson from Xaro Xhoan Daxos.

She's now a Queen that accepts things like it probably being a good idea to leave her concubine behind, and also has the self-control to let her advisors advise but still make decisions for herself. She's a leader, and that's what she's done. Far be it from being the puppet you make her out to be; being pulled about every which way by her advisors. That was her in the very beginning of season one dude, when she was being sold off so Viserys could get his army. It's fine if you just don't like her, but trying to sell her short as some useless petulant child who serves no narrative purpose (exhibited by her somehow being so easily replacable) is absurdly untenable, especially at this point in the series. It'd be like someone saying all the Starks are idiots, or that the High Sparrow was a good guy.

Avatar image for zevvion
#1074 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@theht: I agree that she has been through a lot and matured a lot. From season one to the taking of Mereen her story has been an interesting one with plenty of development for her character. I'm also not suggesting anyone else could have or would have pulled off what she did during that time. She has indeed changed a whole lot in this time, I agree with you on that as well.

But, right now, since she entered Mereen, her story has been uninteresting and I don't think her character developed at all specifically from that point. We saw her learn politics and bureaucracy, valuing people's lives. All of them. No 'us' versus 'them'. But ever since Mereen she has been acting all immature which is very out of character for what she has been. She's using 'us' versus 'them', she wants to slay anyone who opposes her, and seriously I cannot get that eye-squinting scene out of my head. Every important decision she made was not necessarily made by her. It's wise of her to make Tyrion Hand of the Queen, I'll give her that, because he can do what she should be doing a lot better. To clarify, I'm not suggesting she has been a puppet ever, but if she did what she thought was right, her reign would have ended already.

To sum up, she has indeed been through a lot that I'm certainly not dismissing, but from Mereen forward her role has blurred to the point where she is no longer that important. She has done what she needs to do to build an army for the real fight. If she were to die now, the others would still continue, possibly in her name and I think they would do just as well, if not better.

Lastly, is it 'advisors'? That's what I thought how you would write it but my browser tells me it's not a word and I'm not a native English speaker so I honestly don't know.

Avatar image for theht
#1075 Posted by TheHT (14303 posts) -

@zevvion: Yeah, "adviser" and "advisor" are both apparently acceptable spellings. Wouldn't have thought "adviser" myself.

Of those big things I listed though, many were done in spite of her council, and all were ultimate done by her will alone. When you say it somehow wasn't her making decisions, that's completely disregarding that fact. Her advisors can only advise, they haven't the actual authority or means to execute. Ultimately she always does what she feels is best, and that cannot be understated. She's certainly no Tommen. They are absolutely her decisions.

Her time in Meereen has been rough as she tries to maintain her ideological stance on slavery while coming to terms with the deeply rooted culture of Slaver's Bay. She thought she could brute force change the way she brute force took and freed the Unsullied, but she by the end she learns that ruling and establishing change requires a defter hand than one that simply crucifies slavers and tells everyone to be better, or worse reducing the Masters and their Sons of the Harpy to ash.

By the time she leaves she's made her mark upon the Masters, whose response to peaceful diplomacy was as Greyworm expected. Tyrion failed in his dealing with the Masters, and had to alter his council to what other advisors already knew. She has a loyal and capable court, but they aren't infallible, and nor is she. Yet it's her at the head of it that's the ultimate judge of course of action. While they rely on each other, she's the core that keeps them all together.

If she had ignored what she thought was right and sailed for Westeros with the Unsullied alone, she wouldn't have taken the Dothraki horde, she wouldn't have left the Second Sons at Dragon's Bay, she wouldn't have with her the Iron Fleet or Dorne or High Garden, she wouldn't have Tyrion Lannister as her Hand, and her reign would never have started. Whether you personally like her or not is besides all of that. She's proven herself to have become a good leader, both when it comes to listening and when it comes to following her own. To be clear, that's what I'm primarily addressing with this post: the idea that every single important decision she's made wasn't really made by her. That's what I mean when I say you're suggesting she's a puppet. If it's not her making these decisions, then it must be another through her. That would make her a puppet. A thing that's manipulated, and without its voice. That isn't Daenerys.

And let's be real here, the story could self-correct if literally anyone died, going forward or looking backwards. It would just be different.

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
#1076 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (3006 posts) -

I wonder if Daenerys has realized that during her little sabbatical she's just destabilized an entire region.

Avatar image for zevvion
#1077 Edited by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@theht: I don't think someone who listens to and acknowledges good advice is a puppet though. A puppet is someone who is manipulated into doing what someone else wants, regardless of what they want. Daenereys would want the masters to lay down arms if possible, but she doesn't see a solution to that so her reaction is a pretty immature: I'll just kill them all, and destroy everything they own while I'm at it. When Tyrion tells her the solution she accepts it. Not because she's being manipulated, but because that is what she wanted from the start but just didn't know how.

I do see the point you're making, I might be a bit harsh on her. But I'm also looking at this pretty black and white, life and death don't respect grey anyway. As I've been saying, she was an amazing leader, but I think she's not as key as she once was.

Avatar image for ezekiel
#1080 Edited by Ezekiel (1692 posts) -

I finished season 6 early this week. I found it funny that from the end of the previous season and the first two episodes from this season, there are four betrayals, including patricide. This kind of writing has bothered me throughout the show. Overall, I enjoyed the season more than season 5. I'm glad the show just has fourteen episodes left and am looking forward to owning the whole boxset, so I can rewatch it without trying to remember events.

Avatar image for fredchuckdave
#1081 Edited by Fredchuckdave (10205 posts) -

Booo August