Or, Bronn is the guy who takes out Daeneris with Chekov’s Crossbow. Not because he’s a hero, but because she is going to execute Tyrion for treason and he needs Tyrion alive so he can have Highgarden.
Yeah, even if he survives I don’t think Tyrion is going to be in a position to be handing out castles.
Since he injured Drogon, I doubt he’ll get the chance to get close enough to make an offer to her.
You were responding to a quote of mine where I said she took at least one action that favored her sense of morality over achieving more power. You are continuing to dispute examples.
I think your arguments here are major stretches. She was literally weeping when she chained her dragons. She tried to give water to a crucified slave before anyone would have known and loved her for it, even tho doing so was quite probably against the law and could have caused her major trouble for no gain. You said she banked on the love of the people, but she went directly and publicly against the love of the people when she executed the freedman’s chosen representative on her small council, in favor of due process. That defense of due process, choosing to Do The Right Thing instead of pursuing power, lasted like five seconds, but it still happened. You can choose you own example at this point, I’m not going to keep offering up cases that are pretty clear to me, when you rationalize them all way to be seeeeecret maaaaachinations inside her head. If you can’t look at the entire Slaver’s Bay subplot yourself and see at least one tiny little example that suits you, then I’d say you’re in as much denial on this as the people who think Dany did literally nothing wrong until King’s Landing.
I’m not making some ridiculously large claim. I’m saying that at certain small, rare, temporary cases, she chose morality over power. Very very seldom, but it happened. Fill in the blank on that yourself, if you don’t like the examples that have been offered.
She would never have given up that quest. Never. She could’ve been alone and dragonless in the wastes, five thousand miles from the nearest other human, and she still would’ve been seeking that throne.
Nevertheless, if she’d known the Unsullied would walk away rather than serving her, I think (at that specific point in the story, not later) she would’ve still “bought” them, freed them, and let them go. Missandei seemed to think similarly for her personal case later on. You’re free to think that’s because losing one advisor wouldn’t threaten her power, but losing her army would. It’s still the case that Missandei absolutely and earnestly believed that Dany favored freedom over slavery for her people. It’s canonical that she snowed a lot of people (in her world, as well as in ours) but that doesn’t automatically mean Missandei was wrong.
So to split my answer to her question: yes, at an early point, I think she would have chosen “no army” over “slave army”. But I don’t believe at all that she would “given up her quest for the throne”. No fuckin way on that.
The Unsullied were getting murdered keeping order in Meereen, rather than staying alive for the conquest of Westeros.
She wasn’t the character who could use corpses for her conquering army. That was the other guy.
She was ABSOLUTELY sacrificing her most elite fighting force in order to keep the peace in a place she was never planning to stay. Raising a giant army of zealots who loved her increased her power. Sacrificing the lives of those zealots did not.
The Unsullied are canonically one of the most elite, if not the single most elite infantry, in that world. They were still slaves.
This is straight from the show.
I never said that was your specific position.
I said “some folks here” seemed to be saying that. It’s hard to separate who is saying what in a thread this long, so I kept this vague precisely because I didn’t want to put words in your mouth.
You replied to me. You objected to my statement, and so you seem to believe that Dany not once, not a single time, chose a moral action over an action that increased her power. I don’t think an honest viewing of the show would favor such an absolute belief. Sometimes we use hyperbole. I don’t want to hold anyone to a literal interpretation of an exaggerated absolute statement, especially because in this particular case, it’s only a very very slight exaggeration at worst. But again, you were the one who replied to me.
There’s a very important quote Dany gives when she’s giving water to the condemned man. Starting with Jorah: “If you want to sit on the throne your ancestors built, you must win it. That will mean blood on your hands before the thing is done.” Dany: “The blood of my enemies, not the blood of the innocent.” Her words. I still maintain that this latest episode would have been a major departure for her character if she had never once, not in 7 seasons, violated this rule. But she did. Cross the line once when things get tough, and you’re going to do it again. That entire Meereen subplot is a lot more clever in retrospect, even if the writers could’ve tried to make it a little more interesting.
Is this a joke?
“We have kidnapped you, and we are going to hold you prisoner in a silk cage for the rest of your life.”
I would have burned them, too.
This example and the rest are just repeating how the narrative “trick” worked. Yes, I can see now how the trick worked, thanks. I think most of us here can see that now.
I and others probably think Yara, and her fleet and the Dornish will show up and be aghast at Dany…but after some thought, they will probably support her even more firmly. There’s little love for KL.
No if Dany meets her end…I think it will be to Varys’ little bird via poison at Dragonstone.
That was my theory too. But then what about Drogon?
It’s so much better for a variety of reasons, I hope they use ISiddiqui’s rewrite in the Season 8 remake 
This is great, but ends saying “fiction and also in mass media nonfiction—remains stuck in the hero/antihero narrative” as if it’s just a matter of getting out the WD-40 and getting it unstuck. These narratives bolster undemocratic systems of power, and the trend is towards less turnover of power and draconian laws against lèse majesté and exposing secrets, not away from them.
I just saw the episode and I guess my main reaction is that at least it worked as spectacle unlike the Winterfell episode. Otherwise I am very much in the camp that Dany’s actions were completely insane apart from any humanitarian considerations. She destroyed the palace from where she was going to rule. She destroyed the tax base which would have funded her rule. It goes way beyond any “better to be feared than loved” rationale and beyond the occasional rage she has displayed in the past.
Presumably the last episode is going to focus on the plot to kill her, which I am guessing will succeed probably through Arya. What will make it interesting is that they will have to figure out a way to kill the dragon too pretty much simultaneously, otherwise it could easily destroy the seven kingdoms on its own.
Her actions were totally rational. The whole kingdom is about to find out that Jon Snow is the true king.
She can’t rule through a claim of legitimacy, she needs to rule through terror. And in order for them to truly fear her, she needs to show she’s ruthless.
What lord is gonna successfully rebel when his peasants know they’re gonna die too? Not just the fighters, but their kids.
Seriously, in that moment, what are her options?
-
Accept the surrender, and everyone finds out Jon is the true king, and her rule is a lifetime lame duck, and uprisings are around every corner.
-
Rule through terror.
-
Give up the throne.
What she did was evil, it wasn’t stupid or irrational.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to kill Jon Snow, then?
Well, no? At the moment she’s only ruling because she has a dragon. The dragon will still ensure that she rules with or without fear.
Rulers without dragons in Westeros, up until her, ruled through fealty. Meaning, a Monarch has Lords and their armies serving under them- That has worked for centuries until Daenerys father went way too far and some Lords rebelled.
Now, you could say that she doesn’t need to fear any rebellion as long as she has her dragon. But that’d still be true whether she murders most of King’s Landing or not.
Maybe more than before, maybe less. It’s irrelevant, in both cases all she has is her magical superweapon to keep them in line, and without it she’s toast. All she’s done is rule out the possibility of having peaceful allies.
She had already won the war and her dragon had showed what it was capable of. Destroying her own capital city and palace and probably parts of her own army made no sense whatsoever. And yes, it would not have been that difficult to quietly kill off Jon Snow and blamed Cersei.
[edit: wrong thread]
…
Staight for from the horses mouth:
Turned it into a spontaneous moment? There aren’t enough rolleyes in the world. I thought the showrunners were just incompetent without the source material to fall back on but now I’m convinced they really are dull. I’m fully expecting the last episode to be even more painful to watch. Like Drogon kills Daenerys and fucks off level of bad. Jon doesn’t want it and prefers to walk the earth with the Dothraki horde as hunter-gatherers. Tyrion sits on the throne with Arya as his concubine.
I suspect that in a few hours, we’ll be wishing for Pedro’s finale instead of whatever we’ll actually get.
Honestly, I think I’m enjoying all the global hate-watching more than any actual GoT episode since the Red Wedding.
Yeah, I definitely get the sense that some of us are here for the story, and others are here for the recreational outrage.
That’s great for them as enjoy it. Me, if there’s an interpretation that leads to an interesting story, I’ll take that any day over the one-up attempts to show how terrible the story could be, given less interesting interpretations.
OK, that’s weird. When I was a kid, Scientific American was a serious science magazine. (In actuality, most of the articles were beyond my understanding.) It’s a little weird to see it running something about a TV show, even if it’s just a blog posting.
Dale Sams mentioned this theory upthread in post #277, and it’s what I think as well: Bran will warg into Drogon and fly the dragon on a suicide mission. Or perhaps allow it to be killed by a slew of arrows and spears.
I never wanted children, but I’ve changed my mind. I’m going to adopt a boy just so I can name him Grey Worm.
It’s not legitimate to prefer creative, convincing writing to lazy, unconvincing writing?
A lot of us look at the resources invested in this show, and the talent attached to it, and wish that the executives in charge of funding the production could have been more forceful in calling for writing that pleased more than just those two guys (Benioff and Weiss–or three guys, if we assume Martin was on board).
It’s not dissimilar to the reactions many have to the career of M. Night Shyamalan, or to Prometheus, or to the ending of Lost. All major projects to which many looked forward, marred by implausible/idiotic/lazy screenwriting.
Sure, many love every teleplay that’s made up Game of Thrones and will defend them up one side and down the other, with passionate, lengthy rationalizations of every element to which others object.
And that’s fine. All people have a right to their own opinions.
But that’s true for those who are disappointed by the writing, too. We have a right to our opinions.
It all goes back to their decision to wrap up the series in 13 episodes. Once that was locked in, they were doomed.
Cosigned. (Although I will stan for the very underrated “Prometheus”.)