Logically, I agree. However, Robb and Catelyn’s deaths were a shocker, and no one would have argued before it happened that their characters had been taken to their logical conclusion. If the writers wanted to show that Jaime was a double-crosser loyal only to his sister, killing Brienne would be an effective means.
I didn’t really expect it because it doesn’t fit Jaime’s redemption arc. But there was that small part of me fearful that the writers would say screw character development, let’s go for the shock.
I can see them drawing a direct parallel to her father and his “burn them all” quote, as the hordes of wights overrun Winterfell and she gives the order to burn everything, living or dead. They are definitely ramping up her power-seeking behavior this season, and that’s going to end poorly for someone.
I see this theory floated from time to time, but I don’t buy it. It undercuts the emotional weight of Tyrion killing his father if it wasn’t actually his father.
Also, it’s pretty late in the game now for a surprise Targaryen that wasn’t even hinted at. I mean, R+L=J was hinted at over and over from the very beginning. Also, there’s already a pretty major secret Targaryen, and introducing another, lesser one is just too many cooks spoiling the pot.
Mostly though, there’s no reason for it. The only hint we have that Tyrion might be a Targ is that his dad hated him. And there are valid reasons given in the story for Tywin to hate Tyrion. Jon being a Targaryen opens up some real suspense with Daenerys, and allows him to fulfill prophecies. Both are of huge importance to the end game. What does Tyrion being a Targ buy us, from a storytelling perspective?
I’m really not seeing how this is any significant ramping up of Dany’s aggressive powermongering. This is the woman who:
[ul]Concluded a business deal by using the promised payment for goods received to murder the vendor of said goods. Granted he was slaver scum and granted the ‘goods’ were human beings, but still. Ruthless.[/ul]
[ul]Wrapped up negotiations with the Khals over her position in Dothraki society by incinerating them (technically I supposed this doesn’t run afoul of the prohibition of shedding blood in Vaes Dothrak).[/ul]
[ul]Returned to Mereen with a plan for responding to the Masters’ uprising - “I will crucify the Masters. I will set their fleets afire, kill every last one of their soldiers, and return their cities to the dirt. That is my plan.”[/ul]
[ul]Refused to grant mercy to the Randall and Dickon Tarly. Woudn’t even consider imprisonment instead execution, despite Tyrion’s pleas.
[/ul]
She’s a hard-assed, my-way-or-a-pile-of-charred-bones autocrat. Well-intentioned, sure, but an autocrat through and through. I don’t see any significant shift in her character here at all.
He doesn’t mean Harrenhal, he means the Night King killed a dragon with hardly any effort and then raised it as undead. The dragons are basically out of the equation against the dead, whatever weapon NK had one shotted him like nothing.
She has always been ruthless, yes. But the first three items in your list could be seen as ruthless approaches to restoring power to the under-trodden, rather than grabbing power for herself. Or maybe those were intended to show that she wasn’t so kind, and I didn’t pick up on it.
Executing Randall and Dickon was the first act that seemed obviously designed to show she wasn’t a benevolent ruler concerned with those below her. And some of her actions this season, such as demanding that Sansa “show her respect,” have nothing to do with right and wrong; it’s solely about her power.
First and third, maybe, but murdering the Khals? The Dothraki were downtrodden? She was liberating them from tyranny so that they could graciously repay her benevolence by waging war on those who dare oppose her?
OK, fair point. I still stand by my assertion that this kind of behavior has become more common lately. Or maybe more accurately, the writers have gone from only showing her ruthlessness, to having other characters actively point it out for the audience.
You could be right that setting her up as a flawed leader like the rest of them (or even a villain) was intended from the start. Either way, I think it’s clear that her trajectory is now headed in that direction, and the writers are making more of an effort to show it.
For my money, her most ruthless act was when, after the assassination of Bariston Selmy by the Sons of the Harpy, she rounded up the heads of the great houses of Mereen, and without knowing if any of them were guilty picked one of them at random to be burned, torn apart, and eaten by the dragons. This was more in the interest of inspiring pure terror than of justice. (Then she turns around and offers to marry one of them, Hizdahr, the one who thought he was next).
Dany doesn’t see having her dragons burn people up as a regrettable necessity. She enjoys having an excuse to do so. In her own way, she’s as psychopathic as Arya. If Sansa was to resist her rule, she would be toast (literally).
