#I want to see a reality show based on the Greyjoys but it just gets more unhinged every season

[duchess-of-oldtown]

This Week on Keeping up with the Greyjoys...

Theon: I'm on a voyage of really finding myself again

Asha: Stannis is just really out here enforcing gender roles in a fucking crisis... anyway back to that asshole who flips his hair and left me walking in a fucking blizzard on a broken ankle

Victarion: WHAT DO YOU MEAN GRINDR ISN'T AN APP FOR SHARPENING MY WEAPONS *smashes phone*

Euron: *showing off his entire collection of villain costumes* It's all about dressing for the job you want not the one you have.

Aeron *tied to a bow of the Silence*: EEEEEERRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH

Balon: ☠️

[atopvisenyashill]

god that person is soooo full of brain worms or something because like even as a dany lover, i see everything you’re saying about her as great observations based on the text. She’s young, she’s traumatized, of course when she gets over to westeros it’s not going to end as well as she hopes. The only thing I can pray for is that George writes her end better than D&D did because it was atrocious how her most trusted advisors went from being her biggest supporters to acting like “no actually her grief from losing her best friend and two of her dragons who were as much like children to her as anything could be means she’s just as mad as her father”, especially when Tyrion never knew Aerys!! I would love to see her descent into madness, see how all of her losses stack and utterly break her, but the way those two switched up real quick was honestly disgusting to me

YEAH like I think the biggest issue with the show is that she’s surrounded by characters who are pale imitations of their book selves or characters she’s just NOT supposed to be interacting with like that. There’s no doubt in my mind that Tyrion is going to flip sides & it’s probably going to spell her doom, but the Tyrion in the books is in a vastly different, much darker place currently than the Tyrion she met in the show and that’s going impact their dynamic MASSIVELY. Varys is NOT some monarchial marxist aksjdj he’s a mad scientist trying to hand make the perfect king bc he’s seen the destruction caused by bad ones and he thinks he’s Above It All when in reality his traumas as a slave inform his bad behavior just as surely as they inform Melisandre’s. The show doesn’t want to engage with all of that though so Tyrion & Varys just kind of nonsensically flip on her for *checks notes* acting the exact same way she’s been acting for years when they never had a problem with her stupid behavior BEFORE s8.

And i go back and forth on what I think is going to happen but ultimately YEAH i do think george is going to write an ending that is much more fitting and also, despite what the targ nation people insist upon, TRAGIC than what we got. It’s going to hit harder, it’s going to be thematically interesting, it’s not going to be george going for the ~cool~ or wow shocking plot line the way those two idiots did!

But definitely the thing that hit my rage button on that one is this idea that like first of all, dany isn’t somehow mentally ill or that the presence of mental illness is a weakness or moral failing. I don’t know how you even exist on terros without developing something deeply unhinged in your brain, and dany meanwhile has a conga line of trauma and some ancient blood magic and incest cooking in HERS, i don’t think i’m saying anything out of pocket by saying “yeah i think she displays some patterns of behavior that are worrying when you essentially have a pet nuke.” but two it’s also like - ALL of these people are insane!!!! lannister, stark, tully, martell, baratheon, targaryen, greyjoy, on and on, they’ve all lived through at minimum one but some of them several wars that completely upended their lives and killed a lot of their family, and then got thrown into stressful situations that require a much more delicate hand than any of them are capable of. that’s the whole series!!! it’s just a bunch of insane people going “yeah exactly girl let’s do it” and “it” is usually war!!!

[selkiewife]

I know i’m late on this but I wanted to talk about The Dragon Demands videos based on the Game of Thrones Season 8 blue ray commentary and the original archived scripts for Game of Thrones, Season 8.

Basically, YouTuber, The Dragon Demands went to the Writer’s Guild Library where he was able to see the archived scripts of Season 8 of Game of Thrones. Both the archive scripts and commentary on the blue ray confirms that most of the destruction in King’s Landing was originally supposed to be caused by the caches of wild fire left by Aerys being accidentally set off by Drogon and not because Daenerys herself “went mad.” The script says that civilians being used as human shields are caught in the crossfire as Daenerys is targeting Lannister soldiers in a strategical maneuver right before she heads to the Red Keep to enact revenge on Cersei. However, Daenerys is never described as specifically targeting innocent civilians needlessly.

My thoughts under the cut:

I have to say, that this makes me feel slightly better in a strange way. I mean, it doesn’t erase the bad writing, the ridiculous way the war against the white walkers ended, the misogyny, the inconsistency, etc etc ETC... but this crucial plot point was the one I just couldn’t let go of because it was just baffling to me. With other controversial plot points, I would disagree with them, but I could at least understand what they were going for and what the motivations of the characters were. But Daenerys turning on innocent civilians was truly baffling to me because it comes out of nowhere, is entirely out of character, her motivations are incredibly unclear, and was not set up at all. But with all the fandom discourse, I had really started to think that maybe I am lacking comprehension skills or something. But no, there is actually a reason it made no sense. The “madness” plot line was added later. Emilia Clarke was never given the opportunity to portray Daenerys as mentally unstable. Emilia was portraying grief and revenge on Cersei (as the original script and directors told her to do) in contrast to D&D’s final editing which was portraying the “mad queen.” No wonder it came across as completely false and bewildering- before we even get into the discussion of whether or not this is in character or not.

I think this is definitely more than just a theory that the script was changed pretty late in development because of all the evidence- it is confirmed by Emilia’s commentary, the Visual Effects team member’s commentary, and also the original concept art. But even if there wasn’t all that evidence, there is also the fact that the original ending makes so many other confusing things in Season 8 suddenly make SENSE.

For example, when Jon confronts Daenerys in the throne room and he talks about the women and children that were burned, Daenerys responds with “She used their innocence as a weapon against me.” Which makes total sense for Daenerys to say if she thinks she is talking about civilians that were used as human shields that died in the crossfire. But it doesn’t make any sense if she carpet bombed the city- although it does make her seem delusional, which is probably why Dave and Dan kept those lines in- hoping it would make her appear “mad,” since Emilia was never actually given the opportunity to portray Daenerys as mentally unstable.

There is also the scene where Jon asks Tyrion, “Was it right?” to assassinate Daenerys and Tyrion responds, “Ask me again in ten years.” There is really no reason for them to have that dialogue if Daenerys really did target and massacre innocent civilians. That is the kind of dialogue they would have if they were discussing someone who had done something more morally ambiguous.

Then there are the lines that are out of place in the final version but that would have made complete sense in the original wild fire version, such as Jon saying “now and always” as he stabs Daenerys. “Now and always” as any Theon fan will tell you, is a phrase that belongs to Theon and Robb and what they said to each other when Theon was pledging loyalty to Robb. Having Jon say this to Dany as he is killing Daenerys represents the ultimate betrayal but also calls back to Theon’s struggle and how difficult it is to chose between loyalties- between families. In this case, Jon is choosing the Starks over the Targaryens. Kit Harrington even says that this is motivation in an interview he gave with winteriscoming.net. But given the fact that in the final edit, Daenerys massacred innocent children and civilians on purpose, Kit’s motivation for Jon seems like a relic of an earlier script:

Kit Harrington: “Jon essentially sees it as Daenerys or Sansa and Arya, and that makes his mind up for him. He choose blood over, well, his other blood. But he chooses the people he has grown up with, the people his roots are with, the North. That’s where his loyalties lie in the end. That’s when he puts the knife in.”

And Yara Greyjoy’s lines. She surprisingly remains completely loyal to Daenerys, despite the fact that she massacred the entire city for no reason:

Yara Greyjoy: I swore to follow Daenerys Targaryen.

Sansa Stark: You swore to follow a tyrant.

Yara Greyjoy: She freed us from a tyrant. Cersei is gone because of her, and Jon Snow put a knife in her heart. Let the Unsullied give him what he deserves.

This kind of conversation only seems plausible if they are discussing Daenerys taking out Cersei after she had surrendered and killing human shields in the process, something I can see Yara completely defending- since she was always in favor of attacking King’s Landing as seen during her war counsel scenes in Season 7.

There is also the Emilia Clarke quote in the behind the scenes video HBO put out after the episode where she explains that Dany was targeting Cersei herself:

Emilia Clarke: “It’s just... grief. It’s hurt. And she has this ability to make that hurt a little bit less just for a minute. And here she is, sitting on this ridge and there’s the emotion and there’s the feeling and the feeling is to fucking kill her.”

Note that she does not say “the feeling is to fucking massacre the city,” or “the feeling is to target innocent civilians.” She says “the feeling is to kill her” as in Cersei Lannister- who is responsible for the death of her dragon and Missandei- and who massacred countless innocents herself when she blew up the goddamn sept lol.

Not to mention all of the set up lines between Cersei, Tyrion, and Varys about Cersei using “human shields” which never came to fruition in the final edit, now make complete sense:

Cersei: Keep the gates open. If she wants to take the castle she’ll have to murder thousands of innocents first.

Varys: Tens of thousands of innocents will die. That is why Cersei is bringing them into the Red Keep

And yet, lol, we never actually SEE Daenerys attacking the Red Keep. We never see innocent civilians inside the Red Keep. We only see civilians being massacred in the streets.

I also remember people who had seen the post Season 8 Game of Thrones Live Concert saying that Ramin switched to footage of the other wildfire scenes in past Game of Thrones seasons during his Bells sequence, instead of showing the massacre of innocent civilians by dragon fire. I use to think he did that because Daenerys was his favorite character. But given what we now know about the original ending, he probably chose to show the wildfire scenes because that was what he had specifically written music for before it was changed- the destruction of Kings Landing by wildfire.

I really wish they had kept the original script the way it was. It still would have been an incredibly controversial ending. Daenerys still goes after soldiers and a Queen who is surrendering- and that action unintentionally leads to the destruction of the entire city. Jon Snow still assassinates his lover and betrays one part of his family for the other. But, it would have at least made logical sense. People would have gone back and forth over whether it was in character or whether it was a good ending. But it would have been something people would be able to actually debate on an intellectual level- the way we debate Daenerys crucifying the slavers (who themselves crucified children) or Jon Snow executing Olly... It is a very grey and tragic ending with a lot of moral questions. It still might have gone over like a lead balloon. But... the ending we have is so much worst because it’s nonsensical.

The only reason I can think that they changed it was to make Jon and Tyrion appear less morally grey for plotting Daenerys’ assassination. They probably knew that the ending would be very problematic and were trying to smooth that over by turning Daenerys into a super villain. Yet they did this too late in the process after already showing Daenerys to be heroic in fighting with the north and then having Emilia Clarke finish her filming still believing she was playing a complex and at times ruthless character but not “mad” or “evil.” And then, there is also the intensely problematic issue with them conflating mental illness with mass murdering super villain. Even if it had been clear throughout the entire season that Daenerys was losing her grip on reality and becoming more and more mentally unstable, it still would have been incredibly controversial and I am not entirely sure it would have made the men look any better anyway.

Even though it is tragic af, at least with the original wildfire ending, all of the characters are incredibly complex and morally grey and you can understand the motivations for everything they do, even if you don’t agree with them. For example, if Daenerys attacks Cersei after she surrendered, it is wrong, but it is also completely understandable. And in my opinion, it’s even more understandable when you remember that Cersei cannot be trusted. She can’t be trusted to send her armies to the north- why should Daenerys trust her to surrender in good faith? This kind of ending would also have said something very powerful about unintended consequences. Even though Daenerys did not intend for so many people to die needlessly, they did because war is horrific. And that message becomes even more powerful if her motivations are understandable. But yeah, this kind of ending would have still been hated and debated but... at least the debates would have been more about the story itself rather than everyone trying (and failing) to make sense of what the story even is.

[transamorousnetwork]

The Most Important Story You Probably Missed in GOT

[There be spoilers ahead]

So Game of Thrones is over. What a finale. Danny dead. Jon Snow exiled. Arya off on adventure. The hound…Queen Cersei…well…you know.

But producers hid the biggest GOT story right in plain sight. As much as it was a fantasy, Game of Thrones is faithful to reality. And if you got that, well, you walked away from season eight’s final episode as I did.

With a huge freaking grin and insanely inspired.

There’s Nothing Like A Story

In one of the show’s best monologues Tyrian Lannister tells the story of Bran the Broken. Soon to be chosen as king of the six realms, Bran began the show as what seemed like a minor character.

But that minor part became the major story. And this is the hidden gem. Namely: You can work your ass off and still not be king. Better put: Do nothing and you will be king.

That’s exactly what Bran did. After being pushed off a window ledge at Winterfell, it seemed Bran’s life was over. He ended up a coma. Then paralyzed. He got out of the coma. Only to learn he’d be forever in a wheel chair.

Which forced him to go spiritual. With nary a limb he could flex, he turned to flexing his consciousness. Then he began probing spiritual mysteries.

What he found helped him marshal forces of destiny. He used them, moving with All That Is as it used other people to do its bidding. Through that connection, Bran became not only Bran the Broken, king of the six realms. He also became Bran the Invincible.

Even facing the Night King, the most fearsome foe in the whole show, Bran prevailed.

Note how everyone moved in Bran’s favor while at the same time serving their own purposes. A assassin tried killing him but a massive hound rips his throat out. Wildlings tried killing him. Theon Greyjoy and Rob rush to his rescue. When Theon takes Winterfell, he survives thanks to Osha’s help.

In every adverse situation, Bran maintained connection with his larger self. His larger self giving insight into the next steps. His larger self directing others in Bran’s defense. Meanwhile Bran relied on inner knowing telling him where to be. Who to speak with. What to say.

All without lifting a finger, arm, leg or sword, Bran became leader of the realm.

GOT is great fantasy. It’s also excellent commentary on reality. GOT is allegory. You have Bran’s ability. I notice this ability unfolding in my own life. Me and my Inner Being write about such experiences throughout this blog.

Here we describe how I choose an outcome. Then I connect with the universe, All That Is and my Inner Being, all representing my larger self. I communicate my desire. Then watch as my personal trinity orchestrates the world around me. My job is telling stories consistent with the reality I want to see. Including people and events. All orchestrated in such a way that what I chose becomes my reality.

^^Artwork by the author

Action Is Overrated

Contrast Bran’s story with that of Jon Snow, or any other action-oriented GOT character. Jon, the best swordsman. Admired. A master strategist. Handsome. A courageous fighter. Death-defying…and legitimate and rightful heir to the Iron Throne.

All that action-based, work your ass off effort he was known for got him nothing. Nothing except cold days and nights in exile with the wildlings. Not so bad considering that hunk of a guy Tormund Giantsbane. And if there are more beauties like Ygritte there.

Far from becoming king though.

Sure he didn’t want it. But that’s not the point.

The point is, focus on connecting with your deeper self. That larger part of you remaining in the spiritual world. When you do, you’ll discover profound insights. Insights about yourself. Insights about the world and people around you.

When you do, you’ll discover just how much influence you have over the world around you. You become king. King of the largest realm there is. The realm of your subjective reality. Which includes all you’re capable of perceiving.

You’ll also perceive something else. That you are surrounded by messages encouragingi to look within. Especially movies and art.

Game of Thrones was a thrill ride. A great story. A wonderful character exploration. But if you missed what you just read, you just got entertained.

Instead of getting inspired.

[thelawyerthatwaspromised]

Why Does Jonsa Make Complete Political Sense?

Trying to make sense of the puzzle and how it could inform the endgame.

This is a long one.

*Spoiler* I think it is a Jon Snow / Sansa Stark marriage. Even if you don’t agree that the story has foreshadowed this or that the scenes between Jon and Sansa were written with a romantic subtext...it will be the only logical political solution for the story.

First, a quick refresher on the changes Westeros has already undergone.

Season 1 / Episode 1

Season 3 / Episode 9&10 (post-Red Wedding)

Season 6 / Episode 9&10 (post BoTB and Jon Snow named KiTN)

Season 7 / Episode 1 (colored by alliances. Light blue for the North, Red for the Lannisters, Gray for the Targaryens)

Season 7 / Episode 7

Season 7 / Episode 7 ASSUMING JON’S ALLEGIANCE IS TRULY WITH DANY

So right off the bat, we can make a few observations: 

1.) Daenerys and Tyrion horribly mismanaged their territorial and military advantage. Dany had a much stronger army. She had the allegiance of the breadbasket of Westeros, and she had an ally in Dorne that should have been completely geographically protected and resources that so far have been untouched by the other wars of Westeros. It’s hard for me to even count “capturing” Casterly Rock as it was a trap sprung by Jaime and the Unsullied were forced to abandon it anyway after the Greyjoy fleet hemmed them there.

2.) How does Daenerys not immediately secure the Stormlands to link the Reach and Dorne? It’s essentially leaderless and sandwiched between her two initial vassals. 

3.) How does Daenerys fail to try to ally with the Vale? What a no-brainer of an ally. The reality is that the Vale very likely would have said no, as the Vale is similar to the North as they will never trust a Targaryen, but how was the Vale not even a part of her strategy?

4.) What in the heck is Daenerys worried about Cersie “re-taking” again? She holds no territorial advantage. Highgarden’s resources went over the Lannisters. Dorne is leaderless, like the Stormlands, and cannot contribute to her cause (it’s also unclear whether they would even want to after how badly bungled that alliance worked out for Dorne). The Riverlands are still occupied by the Lannisters, another extremely useful ally tossed to the wayside.

5.) Is this because the show doesn’t care about these other territories? Maybe, but the show has made a point of showing these other places already and explaining their strategic importance. I see it more as a failure by Daenerys to care about anything other than capturing the Iron Throne, and a failure by Tyrion to think about anything else other than removing Cersei from power.

6.) Even if they had captured the Iron Throne in season 7, there is absolutely no chance of a united Westeros because of how they played the game. Dorne is leaderless, killed almost immediately after allying with the new Queen. The Stormlands remain leaderless. The Riverlands are held by the Lannisters and weren’t relieved by the Targaryen forces - why exactly would they be loyal to her? The North is only allied with Daenerys to fight the Night King. The same with the Vale. There’s no interest in the politics of the South. The main point is that at this current moment, Daenerys has absolutely no political influence beyond Jon Snow allying with her to fight the Night King. She only has a strong army. She doesn’t have the loyalty of the people of Westeros.

7.) Dany’s only real political support is from Jon. She is entirely dependent on the North and the Vale for her political power now. That also means she is entirely dependent on Sansa Stark...both before RLJ is revealed but most definitely after RLJ is revealed.

This is where it gets really tricky for Daenerys. She had a great opportunity to win some influence with the other houses of Westeros to back her claim as the Queen.

R+L=J becoming known will prevent that from ever happening.

Could she ever be looked to politically after season 7? She aided no allies. She hasn’t gained any territorial advantage. Cersei Lannister, the most hated person in Westeros by the time she was crowned, has gained more allies since Daenerys landed.

Now the idea of her legitimacy, which was the biggest talking point that she and Tyrion had in her “campaign” is gone. Not only that, but the only person to swear allegiance to her that still has any political power actually supersedes her for the throne.

That covers the territorial game. What about the prominent characters? Who actually holds political influence now?

The Lannister allies

Cersei LannisterThe MountainQyburnEuron Greyjoy Golden Company / Iron Bank

The Northern/Targaryen Alliance

Jon Snow

Daenerys Targaryen

Sansa Stark

Arya Stark

Bran Stark

The Brotherhood (Hound, Beric, etc.)

Gendry

Tormund

Brienne

Tyrion

Jaime

Edmure Tully

Yohn Royce / Robin Arryn

Theon Greyjoy / Yara Greyjoy

Davos 

Varys

The Unsullied

Missandei

Melissandre / Kinvara / the Red Priestesses

So pretty much anyone can see from a CHARACTER perspective that this is not a storytelling fight that Cersei is likely to win. Easy win from a storytelling perspective on who will triumph.

We have the Night King coming and a completely overmatched adversary that only has allies that we don’t emotionally care about or haven’t even been introduced yet. So you’re telling me those are the big finale conflicts? An enemy in the Night King who has no narrative nuance and a few humans that no one cares about?

So I looked at where another conflict could develop. We have the two characters that are widely viewed as the two “heroes” of the story: Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen.

I looked at the Northern/Targaryen Alliance and this pops out: 

There aren’t any characters with political power that are loyal to Daenerys other than Jon Snow right now.

Sansa - loyal to Jon Tormund - loyal to Jon Jaime - loyalties changing. Tried to kill Daenerys. Much more like to fight for Sansa/Jon Edmure Tully - loyal to the Starks, most likely his sister’s daughter Sansa Yohn Royce - wanted to name Sansa Queen in the North. Loyal to Sansa. Theon - asked Jon about saving Yara. Didn’t consult Daenerys. Special bond with Sansa. Loyal to Jon and Sansa. Tyrion, Varys, the Unsullied, Missandei, and the Red Priestesses have no political power.

Why would it matter anyway? Jon and Daenerys will just unite them and it’ll all work out!

R+L=J explodes all of Daenerys’ relevant Westerosi support and shifts the game dramatically to Sansa.

“Oh c’mon, that’s just shipping goggles talking.”

Reasons why thinking this is based on shipping shows your inherent inability to understand narratives and story themes:

The North does not want a Southern ruler

Jon’s claim as KiTN is based on being the son of Ned Stark

The North especially does not trust Targaryens

The is a story of the political fracture of the North and South amidst an existential threat

This is not a story of how the best killers become the best rulers

Jon Snow’s hold on the North will be tenuous after RLJ is revealed

Sansa Stark becomes the most powerful political Northerner due to RLJ and the only way this doesn’t happen is if Bran decides to becomes a political figure

Daenerys’ political stature with every potential Westerosi subject goes down dramatically

THE GAME HAS SHIFTED COMPLETELY

Let’s refer back to the season 7 / episode 7 political map:

The shaded blue area loyal to Jon becomes ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON SANSA STARK to remain loyal to Jon.

If Cersei Lannister falls...it gets even uglier for Daenerys.

It’s entirely plausible that:

Riverlands return to the Tully’s - loyal to Sansa, possibly Jon, not Daenerys

The Reach goes to Samwell - (assuming he is done with the Night’s Watch) he would be the rightful heir. Loyal to Jon. Father and brother burned to death by Daenerys.

Stormlands - could go to Gendry. It’s at least plausible. It wouldn’t make sense for any other character to serve in that role in the present time anyway. Loyal to Jon, pre-existing relationship with Arya, son of Robert Baratheon. No loyalty to Daenerys.

Iron Islands - returned to either Theon or Yara. “You’re a Greyjoy, and you’re a Stark.” Loyal to the Starks. Maayyyyybe lingering loyalty to Daenerys...but why would they?

Westerlands - good chance only one of Tyrion or Jaime survive. If it’s Jaime, loyal to anyone but Daenerys. Most likely loyal to Sansa through Brienne and Cat. If Tyrion, maybe he remains loyal to Daenerys - even though there were layers and layers of seeds of doubt shown between Daenerys and Tyrion...but this remains her best shot for support long-term.

These are all plausible because, as yet, the show has presented no other realistic options for rulers of these different regions and it’s unlikely that the show will strip them all of political power in the “breaking the wheel” sense.

Where is Daenerys’ claim as Queen? Where is her support? She’s not the heir and she doesn’t command the loyalties of these different houses.

Let’s look at another version of the map...this time assuming Cersei falls, the houses that control those regions, and their primary loyalties.

Jon as the Targ sigil, Sansa as the Stark sigil (I know it’s the white wolf version, shut up), and Dany as....herself.

The North - the Starks

The Iron Islands - Jon or Sansa, highly unlikely Dany

Riverlands - Sansa

Vale - Sansa

The Reach - Jon

Stormlands - Jon

Dorne - unknown. Generously saying maybe Dany.

Westerlands - unknown. Generously saying maybe Dany but only if both Tyrion survives and her relationship with Tyrion survives.

So a union which two characters would automatically make the most political sense?

Assuming a combined Targ/Stark sigil...here’s how the map looks.

Before, the Reach and Stormlands would be most likely for Jon --  the Riverlands and Vale would be most likely for Sansa, the Iron Islands would be potentially for both while Dorne and the Westerlands would be unclear.

Now, you have the North, the Iron Islands, the Riverlands, the Vale, the Crownlands, the Reach, the Stormlands solidly united with the Westerlands and Dorne still to be determined.

So, if you still think this is based strictly on shipping goggles, this is a definitive theory that logically reconnects Westeros and repairs the fractured relationship of the North and the South. If you are unable to see why this makes sense and how it could happen, it’s more of an indication that you are not willing to look at the political groundwork the series has put forward so far. 

This is logical, this is plausible. This is NOT irrational shipping. This is why Jonsa makes complete sense.

[sheikah]

No one has to like Daenerys, (I do for the record), but how in the world can someone say with a straight face that she is a fascist??? Way to throw around a term with zero understanding. Also, why is she being bashed for wanting the kingdoms, yet other characters are being praised or encouraged to break off and form their own kingdoms?

I think that a lot of people have a kind of warped understanding of what the Seven Kingdoms really mean, and see the entire Targaryen dynasty as some sort of negative allegory for the worst aspects of an absolute monarchy. But that simply isn’t the case. 

Aegon I’s conquest was, indeed, a violent one. And the following Dornish wars and wars with the Iron Islands were bloody. Despite that, Aegon himself was not in his time widely viewed as some sort of bloody tyrant or dictator, and there was some reasoning to his goal of uniting Westeros that goes beyond a simple, selfish desire for power. 

Aegon was actually approached first by the Storm King Argilac Durrandon. He proposed an alliance based on a marriage between Aegon and Durrandon’s daughter, Argella. A huge piece of land from around the Trident to Blackwater Rush would be given to Aegon as Argella’s dowry. Argilac was not actually the lord of this land in the first place, but he made the offer in the interest of creating a manned border between his own lands and Harren Hoare’s–essentially trying to buy a shield in the form of the Targaryens. 

However, Aegon was faithful to his two sister-wives, Rhaenys and Visenya, and responded that he had no desire for a third wife. Instead, he offered his friend, Orys Baratheon, as an alternative for the alliance. But it was rumored that Orys was Aegon’s bastard half-brother, so Argilac was angry and took the offer as a personal slight. He responded by chopping off the hands of Aegon’s envoy and delivering them to Dragonstone. How barbaric!

The painted table at Dragonstone did not yet include strict borders between the Seven Kingdoms but Aegon knew that they were un-united and–based on encounters like this one with Argilac–ungoverned. He called together his council, and after many days of deliberation they settled on the conquest of Westeros. 

So Aegon was born on Dragonstone and only came to the decision to conquer the rest of Westeros after provocation and discussion. 

His actual reign, as stated above, had its problems; but there were also many years of peace. He established his capitol at King’s Landing, and at that time it was so peaceful that for awhile there were not even walls around it. He wasn’t worried about being attacked. 

Every year as king, Aegon made a progress around Westeros observing his country and making sure that everything was proceeding peacefully and efficiently. For him to personally oversee his kingdom this way is, as you probably know, a much more engaged and accountable ruling style than we’ve seen from kings like Robert Baratheon. 

Aegon was also careful to respect the Faith of the Seven and was crowned by a septon. 

All in all, I think there is a very exaggerated view of Aegon’s conquest and subsequent rule in the fandom that contributes to a lot of anti-Dany discourse. But, again, in reality his conquest and rule were not so bad.

I personally think it is meant to parallel the real-world Norman conquest that solidified the union of the warring Anglo Saxon, Celtic, and Viking people in Britain in the 10th century. Sometime in the early 900s AD, Alfred the Great established an infrastructure and influence throughout the warring kingdoms that lead to unification under his grandson, Eadred in 955 AD. So when William the Conqueror landed in 1066 the groundwork was already in place for him to rule, and while conquest in still conquest, this unification (even under a monarch instead of a democracy) was still a good thing in the interest of peace and shared resources. Because after the fall of the Roman Empire there, there was a lack of order and a series of violent conflicts that ended with unification.

So, similarly, Aegon’s Conquest can be viewed positively for its unification of the warring and sometimes lawless state of Westeros prior to his reign. 

After Aegon’s death, of course, not all ensuing rulers were good. In particular Maegor the Cruel comes to mind as a failure. But there were also good kings, most notably Jaehaerys I, also called “the Wise” and well-loved by his people. Taken from AWOIAF Wiki: 

“Jaehaerys was the longest-ruling Targaryen monarch, having ruled for fifty-five years. Because of this, he is referred to as the ‘Old King.’ His reign is remembered as the most prosperous period in the history of the Targaryen monarchy. His reign brought peace, stability, and justice to the Seven Kingdoms. Jaehaerys is possibly the best king that Westeros ever saw, and is regarded as such by many historians and laymen.”

So I don’t think that there is much basis for these arguments in the fandom for the independence of various kingdoms, or that the Targaryens were universally horrible or exploitative tyrants. On the contrary, having a unified kingdom has been a good thing when done right. 

So, how can it be done right?

Well, I think that Dany represents that in her eagerness to “Break the Wheel,” and her willingness to allow individual kingdoms conditional independence. 

We know that Dany was willing to let Yara Greyjoy rule the Iron Islands as its queen, and that Dany told Tyrion that other kingdoms could have their independence, too, so long as they “asked” like Yara did. The implication is that so long as these kingdoms agree to abide by Dany’s laws (no more “raping and reaving,” no slavery, etc) and to be her ally in any potential conflicts, they can be independent for all intents and purposes. But there is still a loose union happening, which is good. This allows the kingdoms autonomy while still sharing resources and protection with one another. 

If the North were to break away from the Seven Kingdoms as an independent kingdom, yes–they would be alright for awhile. They have the most land and the most people of any of the individual kingdoms. But in Winter, I have to wonder how well they could get along with no alliances. We know that The Reach produces most of the food. Presumably there are Winter crops to sustain the North, but is that really enough for the Northern population? Or, considering that the Northern population took a hit in the War of the Five Kings, is there enough manpower to farm enough crops to feed the entire kingdom through a whole Winter? And what about issues like the White Walkers? The Northerners absolutely cannot face that threat without the help of others. So I think it’s clear that independence is not all it’s cracked up to be by some arguments I’ve seen here. 

So, back to Dany. I do think that there have been points in Dany’s arc where her motives could be viewed as questionable to the audience (speaking mostly about show!Dany here). But we can see that has all been resolved now. Dany was tempted by extreme violence and the possibility of attacking and taking King’s Landing by force. We were told more than once in season 7 that Dany could have easily succeeded in doing this. Instead, she chose a better way. Additionally, while Dany started the season adamant on obtaining fealty from Jon with the assurance of keeping the North under her rule in the future, she ended the season with only the will to “save” the Northerners, only the will to fight alongside Jon as an ally, not to dominate the North or strip Jon of his power. 

She explicitly stated in her small council meeting back at Dragonstone in 7.07 that she was not going to conquer the North, she was going to save it. I think this is setting things up for Dany to allow Sansa to rule the North as Queen in the North, just like Yara wanted to do with the Iron Islands, down the line. 

So this places Dany as a happy medium between the disorganized chaos of several independent nations vying for power over one another, and the stricter rule of Aegon I. 

Again, we can turn to historical precedence to confirm this. Dany sails to Westeros from Essos, an exiled royal seeking to take back the throne she feels is her birthright. In the process of doing so, she has helped to halt hostilities between two long-warring families: the Starks and the Lannisters. 

We know that the Starks and the Lannisters represent the Yorks and the Lancasters from the Wars of the Roses in British history and that those wars were ended when Henry Tudor (a royal with a claim to the English throne) traveled to England and married Elizabeth of York, establishing the Tudor dynasty.

So Dany can be seen as a representation of Henry who will marry a Stark/York (Jon), unifying warring houses (the Targaryens, Starks, and Lannisters) and establishing a lasting dynasty. 

The Tudor dynasty was by no means perfect and peaceful. But under Henry Tudor’s son, Henry VIII, the Laws in Wales Act was passed in 1535 that began the process of establishing what is now the United Kingdom. 

For all these reasons, we can conclude that Dany is not a fascist but actually a unifying ruler who will represent a positive shift for Westeros. She has Essos under her power as well, where she abolished slavery and established a tenuous peace. If she is able to rally the whole of Westeros under her banners, there will be something close to world peace on Planetos. Additionally, we know that she will allow autonomous rulers in individual kingdoms, and respect kingdom borders, so long as they abide by her reasonable rules. In doing this, she will be creating a sort of United Kingdom of her own. And all of that will be made possible with a Stark alliance, thereby bolstering the political value of Jonerys as a ship, too.

Anyway, the antis have been saying this sort of stuff about Dany for years now, always insisting that with the next book or season, she’s going to become some evil tyrant and commit some genocide. But she never does, and she never will. We’ve got precedent and context to prove that. (And all of this without even scratching the surface of Dany’s character/behavior and interest in equality and personal freedom.)

[gawaine]

okay so a quick meta post on the last episode of GoT

I was going to make a list of bullet points, but it got long, so there’s this.

under the cut - Dany, get it Missandei, why everyone needs to stfu about Sansa accepting her role as Regent of the North being snakey when in reality it’s just because she’s not fucking stupid, my theory on Jonerys + Syrion (?) potentially being A Thing

Dany not sold on her current leadership choices. I think she needs to decide who to trust - herself (as Olenna says) or the likes of Tyrion and Varys. Personally, I think it should be something in the middle... but I’m wary of Olenna’s advice because even without the aid of Westerosi lords, her house’s prominence is over, her family is dead, and her lineage is dead with them. I also think she’s getting a bit... Viserys-y? Demanding for Jon to bend the knee (a man she immediately respects. a great warrior. someone with mutual experiences, and a glowing record from her Small Council) is... arrogant. She accuses Varys of whispering the same lies Viserys was told, but then acts as if they’re true. I’m also super paranoid we’re going to get Mad!Dany though, because of Cersei’s propaganda and the fact that, with the show’s end looming (and the writers reminding us once more of the Stark x Lannister feud - which makes sense for the show’s narrative, but not for the politics of the show), someone has to go. I’m worried after Dany. I loved the Council scene though, and seeing all of those different relationships working out! extra good bits: Tyrion rooting for Jon 5ever, Tyrion and Varys... ok basically Tyrion this episode (as with most) slightly sucky bits: Dany’s arrogance bonus round: get it, Missandei (though I feel like for sure either Grey Worm or Missandei are going to die, ffs)

Sam Sam is awesome, Jorah doesn’t deserve him. Worried Sam may get kicked out of the Citadel but I reckon he’d be a badass, self-taught Maester anyway which... isn’t that different from what he’s already doing, so w/e

The Lannisters Sam’s dad is such a dick. Jaime, pls stop rooting for the wrong time. Cersei (retching noises). That new weapon is giving me anxiety (see above)

The Greyjoys OK, so, Theon has PTSD. That’s pretty clear. I get that. I understand why he jumps and it’s sad, but the reason I also want to wring his neck, is that just moments before, he swears to protect Yara. Yes, tactically, him surviving is the best option. But he doesn’t jump ship because he’s thinking of Yara (her single tear almost killed me), he does it because he’s scared and is still trying to avoid facing his trauma (which ofc isn’t easy, but you see my point). It’s a matter of intent. Theon temporarily snapped out of his BS long enough to save Sansa, arguably out of guilt, but not his sister? Yes, it raises q’s about his real family being the Starks, but seeing as the writers have shut that shit down pretty quickly... oh, idk, dude, this whole scene screwed with me extra good bits: the sisterly teasing between the Sand Snakes that was actually relatable for a change. cool fighting, too slightly sucky bits: the Sand Snakes otherwise. killing them as they become likeable? really? bonus round: get it, Yara

Arya OHMYGOD. OH WOW. So Arya didn’t know. I had a feeling. I felt so vindicated. Hot Pie. Maisie’s acting. Anyone saying Arya doesn’t act friendly towards Hot Pie needs to remember that she’s now a trained assassin who still misses Gendry who is pretending to be her old self and that Arya’s default kindness setting is not killing people now.  extra good bits: “you’ve been making pies?” “a few” slightly sucky bits: how that bread was just irritating her face bonus round: STARK REUNION STARK REUNION STARK REUNION added bonus round: not talking about Nymeria, it hurts too much. Good to know homegirl is alive though and s/o to those in the meta tag who pointed out how Nymeria’s new pack resembles the Stark direwolves added added bonus round: STARK SISTER REUNION SIGN ME U P

The Starks // The North saved the best until last. let’s get something very clear: Sansa does NOT do a 360 on Jon when he names her (essentially) interim Ruler of the North. here’s why: - Sansa questions him, yes, but not in the same way as before. They’ve discussed it. They’re supposed to discuss it more. Also, Sansa is softer and the Northerners take it as sisterly concern. Can you blame her? She thinks every other brother is dead, ffs - but Jon is going to go, because Jon is Jon - to undermine Jon when he names her Regent of the North would be to undermine her own power as ruler. She knows that from her time in King’s Landing. of course she’s terrified for his safety but also, on a sibling/relationship one... Jon is finally putting his trust in her. That’s all she’s wanted for quite a while. she’s not going to slap him in the face by rejecting it in front of their bannermen - she’s also not fucking stupid - she’s being acknowledged as a Lady of Winterfell, alongside Jon’s own power. she’s entitled to it ffs - she also knows Littlefinger is being a weird little fuck and she’s more in control if she wields the power in the North, than Jon - also, HAS EVERYONE FORGOTTEN THAT JON IS A TARGARYEN??

I also want to point out that one of my theories is becoming more solid - Jonerys + Syrion (?). Given the opportunity, Sansa immediately speaks kindly of Tyrion, despite the fact her marriage was forced and... He’s a Lannister. Despite the fact she’s in Winterfell. Despite the fact she’s safe and allowed to speak freely about how much she could have hated him. She doesn’t. She recognises Tyrion as a good, kind man - and not because it serves her to be politically correct. Plus, Dany was basically giving Jon’s name heart eyes.

I don’t know practically how it would work, but it would serve the alliance greatly for Sansa and Tyrion’s marriage to be reinstated (particularly if Jonsa falls through). Lyanna has reminded us that their marriage is amongst the most binding (as the people see it) before. Tyrion + Sansa in King’s Landing as emissaries, with Jon + Dany ruling elsehwere/fighting/idk - the point is, the couples work. It covers enough bases. Plus, as much as Dinklage is saying it’s fun to play Tyrion being Hand and kind of fancying Dany... no thank u. happy, stable, equal relationships for all pls

there was more but basically I want Jon with a badass female and Sansa to take Winterfell and the Starks to be happy and Tyrion to be happy and Martin is going to kill me for it, I can tell

[selkiewife]

I know i’m late on this but I wanted to talk about The Dragon Demands videos based on the Game of Thrones Season 8 blue ray commentary and the original archived scripts for Game of Thrones, Season 8. 

Basically, YouTuber, The Dragon Demands went to the Writer’s Guild Library where he was able to see the archived scripts of Season 8 of Game of Thrones. Both the archive scripts and commentary on the blue ray confirms that most of the destruction in King’s Landing was originally supposed to be caused by the caches of wild fire left by Aerys being accidentally set off by Drogon and not because Daenerys herself “went mad.” The script says that civilians being used as human shields are caught in the crossfire as Daenerys is targeting Lannister soldiers in a strategical maneuver right before she heads to the Red Keep to enact revenge on Cersei. However, Daenerys is never described as specifically targeting innocent civilians needlessly. 

My thoughts under the cut:

I have to say, that this makes me feel slightly better in a strange way. I mean, it doesn’t erase the bad writing, the ridiculous way the war against the white walkers ended, the misogyny, the inconsistency, etc etc ETC... but this crucial plot point was the one I just couldn’t let go of because it was just baffling to me. With other controversial plot points, I would disagree with them, but I could at least understand what they were going for and what the motivations of the characters were. But Daenerys turning on innocent civilians was truly baffling to me because it comes out of nowhere, is entirely out of character, her motivations are incredibly unclear, and was not set up at all. But with all the fandom discourse, I had really started to think that maybe I am lacking comprehension skills or something. But no, there is actually a reason it made no sense. The “madness” plot line was added later. Emilia Clarke was never given the opportunity to portray Daenerys as mentally unstable. Emilia was portraying grief and revenge on Cersei (as the original script and directors told her to do) in contrast to D&D’s final editing which was portraying the “mad queen.” No wonder it came across as completely false and bewildering- before we even get into the discussion of whether or not this is in character or not.

I think this is definitely more than just a theory that the script was changed pretty late in development because of all the evidence- it is confirmed by Emilia’s commentary, the Visual Effects team member’s commentary, and also the original concept art. But even if there wasn’t all that evidence, there is also the fact that the original ending makes so many other confusing things in Season 8 suddenly make SENSE. 

For example, when Jon confronts Daenerys in the throne room and he talks about the women and children that were burned, Daenerys responds with “She used their innocence as a weapon against me.” Which makes total sense for Daenerys to say if she thinks she is talking about civilians that were used as human shields that died in the crossfire. But it doesn’t make any sense if she carpet bombed the city- although it does make her seem delusional, which is probably why Dave and Dan kept those lines in- hoping it would make her appear “mad,” since Emilia was never actually given the opportunity to portray Daenerys as mentally unstable.

There is also the scene where Jon asks Tyrion, “Was it right?” to assassinate Daenerys and Tyrion responds, “Ask me again in ten years.” There is really no reason for them to have that dialogue if Daenerys really did target and massacre innocent civilians. That is the kind of dialogue they would have if they were discussing someone who had done something more morally ambiguous. 

Then there are the lines that are out of place in the final version but that would have made complete sense in the original wild fire version, such as Jon saying “now and always” as he stabs Daenerys. “Now and always” as any Theon fan will tell you, is a phrase that belongs to Theon and Robb and what they said to each other when Theon was pledging loyalty to Robb. Having Jon say this to Dany as he is killing Daenerys represents the ultimate betrayal but also calls back to Theon’s struggle and how difficult it is to chose between loyalties- between families. In this case, Jon is choosing the Starks over the Targaryens. Kit Harrington even says that this is motivation in an interview he gave with winteriscoming.net. But given the fact that in the final edit, Daenerys massacred innocent children and civilians on purpose, Kit’s motivation for Jon seems like a relic of an earlier script: 

Kit Harrington: “Jon essentially sees it as Daenerys or Sansa and Arya, and that makes his mind up for him. He choose blood over, well, his other blood. But he chooses the people he has grown up with, the people his roots are with, the North. That’s where his loyalties lie in the end. That’s when he puts the knife in.”

And Yara Greyjoy’s lines. She surprisingly remains completely loyal to Daenerys, despite the fact that she massacred the entire city for no reason:

Yara Greyjoy: I swore to follow Daenerys Targaryen. 

Sansa Stark: You swore to follow a tyrant. 

Yara Greyjoy: She freed us from a tyrant. Cersei is gone because of her, and Jon Snow put a knife in her heart. Let the Unsullied give him what he deserves. 

This kind of conversation only seems plausible if they are discussing Daenerys taking out Cersei after she had surrendered and killing human shields in the process, something I can see Yara completely defending- since she was always in favor of attacking King’s Landing as seen during her war counsel scenes in Season 7. 

There is also the Emilia Clarke quote in the behind the scenes video HBO put out after the episode where she explains that Dany was targeting Cersei herself:

Emilia Clarke: “It’s just... grief. It’s hurt. And she has this ability to make that hurt a little bit less just for a minute. And here she is, sitting on this ridge and there’s the emotion and there’s the feeling and the feeling is to fucking kill her.”

Note that she does not say “the feeling is to fucking massacre the city,” or “the feeling is to target innocent civilians.” She says “the feeling is to kill her” as in Cersei Lannister- who is responsible for the death of her dragon and Missandei- and who massacred countless innocents herself when she blew up the goddamn sept lol. 

Not to mention all of the set up lines between Cersei, Tyrion, and Varys about Cersei using “human shields” which never came to fruition in the final edit, now make complete sense:

Cersei: Keep the gates open. If she wants to take the castle she’ll have to murder thousands of innocents first.

Varys: Tens of thousands of innocents will die. That is why Cersei is bringing them into the Red Keep

And yet, lol, we never actually SEE Daenerys attacking the Red Keep. We never see innocent civilians inside the Red Keep. We only see civilians being massacred in the streets. 

I also remember people who had seen the post Season 8 Game of Thrones Live Concert saying that Ramin switched to footage of the other wildfire scenes in past Game of Thrones seasons during his Bells sequence, instead of showing the massacre of innocent civilians by dragon fire. I use to think he did that because Daenerys was his favorite character. But given what we now know about the original ending, he probably chose to show the wildfire scenes because that was what he had specifically written music for before it was changed- the destruction of Kings Landing by wildfire.

I really wish they had kept the original script the way it was. It still would have been an incredibly controversial ending. Daenerys still goes after soldiers and a Queen who is surrendering- and that action unintentionally leads to the destruction of the entire city. Jon Snow still assassinates his lover and betrays one part of his family for the other. But, it would have at least made logical sense. People would have gone back and forth over whether it was in character or whether it was a good ending. But it would have been something people would be able to actually debate on an intellectual level- the way we debate Daenerys crucifying the slavers (who themselves crucified children) or Jon Snow executing Olly... It is a very grey and tragic ending with a lot of moral questions. It still might have gone over like a lead balloon. But... the ending we have is so much worst because it’s nonsensical.

The only reason I can think that they changed it was to make Jon and Tyrion appear less morally grey for plotting Daenerys’ assassination. They probably knew that the ending would be very problematic and were trying to smooth that over by turning Daenerys into a super villain. Yet they did this too late in the process after already showing Daenerys to be heroic in fighting with the north and then having Emilia Clarke finish her filming still believing she was playing a complex and at times ruthless character but not “mad” or “evil.” And then, there is also the intensely problematic issue with them conflating mental illness with mass murdering super villain. Even if it had been clear throughout the entire season that Daenerys was losing her grip on reality and becoming more and more mentally unstable, it still would have been incredibly controversial and I am not entirely sure it would have made the men look any better anyway.

Even though it is tragic as fuck, at least with the original wildfire ending, all of the characters are incredibly complex and morally grey and you can understand the motivations for everything they do, even if you don’t agree with them. For example, if Daenerys attacks Cersei after she surrendered, it is wrong, but it is also completely understandable. And in my opinion, it’s even more understandable when you remember that Cersei cannot be trusted. She can’t be trusted to send her armies to the north- why should Daenerys trust her to surrender in good faith? This kind of ending would also have said something very powerful about unintended consequences. Even though Daenerys did not intend for so many people to die needlessly, they did because war is horrific. And that message becomes even more powerful if her motivations are understandable. But yeah, this kind of ending would have still been hated and debated but... at least the debates would have been more about the story itself rather than everyone trying (and failing) to make sense of what the fuck the story even is.