moiaf
Mother of Dragons
@admin
Posts: 6,194
Likes: 6,494
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 4 Time Winner
#9618a9
1
0
1
Apr 29, 2020 17:41:53 GMT -5
6,494
moiaf
6,194
Jun 20, 2016 18:58:43 GMT -5
June 2016
admin
4 Time Winner
|
Post by moiaf on Aug 16, 2018 8:42:15 GMT -5
I wonder how the baby will (or won't) change Dany's ultimate goal. Will it make her even more determined to rule a peaceful Westeros or will her priorities change after an apocalyptic battle with the AOTD and then the arrival of a baby(and new found love)? I have been a Dany and Jon shipper from the very beginning and I get annoyed with any theory that detracts from them ultimately staying true to their love, but I don't always get my way lol, so figure we need to look at all the outside factors and influences to get a a better clue of where these two will end up. I'm with you, I want them to stay true to their love but I do realize they have other responsibilities. Maybe it's too hopeful of me but I think it would be great if they are able to find a middle-ground. Where they don't shrink away from their responsibilities but they don't give up what personally important to them (love, family) just so they can be leaders and rule.
Personally, I'd rather they be happy as people rather than ruling but that might be too hopeful as you say. I think the baby might really drive home the importance of family for Dany. I mean, it's already extremely important but a child is so much more than just her current dreams of family.
|
|
sercreighton
Silverwing
@sercreighton
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 2,439
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 3 Time Nominee
inherit
35
0
Sept 24, 2019 3:37:33 GMT -5
2,439
sercreighton
2,465
Jun 28, 2016 17:04:35 GMT -5
June 2016
sercreighton
3 Time Nominee
|
Post by sercreighton on Aug 23, 2018 21:37:48 GMT -5
I have a bit of a strange take on Jon and Dany, and I will throw Mel, Bran and Beric in. Seem strange? It's not really. Only death can pay for life. The show changed some things from the books but left the same basic ability on the field. Beric still alive but he can fill in for Cat. So two questions, why did Martin show us that people can be brought back? To get Jon out of the Watch? Seems a bit extensive, but also not hard to see him being revived with Mel standing right there.
Dany tried to bring back Drogo and that didn't exactly work. But she bought back the dragons. Death paid for life.
Night King has some baby issues, likes to turn them blue and collect them.
I think there is a deeper reason for Jon of the undead. Just as there is a reason they kept Beric around in place of Cat. We know how Beric dies, question is who's life does he bring back? And if Beric can do it, by all rights Jon should be able to do it, and we know Mel can do it.
Does the fact that Jon has the fire of life within him allow Dany to finally have a kid?
Bran can see the past, and Mel the future. Bran also has effected the past like with Hodor. There has to be a reason for Bran to have this gift. There is a dynamic here I am not sure what it is but these are the main players to take down the NK. I always thought the Night King wanted Dany, to make a new Night Queen the only woman worthy of him. Sound weird it's a strange quote from Euron about Dany and he does not refer to himself, he refers to something he has seen with his visions. Show Euron is ummm, not that Euron, though I suspect that Euron gives to much away.
I think Jon gives his life for the baby, and thus the baby is born with the fire of life. Or perhaps it has that naturally via just Jon being undead. I think we will see one of the players give their life for the baby, Jon, Mel, Beric, and I think this may sound strange, but Bran will have some connection with the child. Anyway Night King goes after pregnant Dany or perhaps the child after it is born. Tries to take baby, pokes baby, and melts. There is also the idea of what would happen to the NK if Mel gave him the last kiss. In the books the last kiss is the fire of life being breathed into you, magic cpr.
|
|
inherit
141
0
Mar 25, 2021 1:08:21 GMT -5
436
daeronthegood
551
Jul 4, 2017 5:54:31 GMT -5
July 2017
daeronthegood
|
Post by daeronthegood on Aug 26, 2018 14:43:57 GMT -5
I have a bit of a strange take on Jon and Dany, and I will throw Mel, Bran and Beric in. Seem strange? It's not really. Only death can pay for life. The show changed some things from the books but left the same basic ability on the field. Beric still alive but he can fill in for Cat. So two questions, why did Martin show us that people can be brought back? To get Jon out of the Watch? Seems a bit extensive, but also not hard to see him being revived with Mel standing right there. Dany tried to bring back Drogo and that didn't exactly work. But she bought back the dragons. Death paid for life. Night King has some baby issues, likes to turn them blue and collect them. I think there is a deeper reason for Jon of the undead. Just as there is a reason they kept Beric around in place of Cat. We know how Beric dies, question is who's life does he bring back? And if Beric can do it, by all rights Jon should be able to do it, and we know Mel can do it. Does the fact that Jon has the fire of life within him allow Dany to finally have a kid? Bran can see the past, and Mel the future. Bran also has effected the past like with Hodor. There has to be a reason for Bran to have this gift. There is a dynamic here I am not sure what it is but these are the main players to take down the NK. I always thought the Night King wanted Dany, to make a new Night Queen the only woman worthy of him. Sound weird it's a strange quote from Euron about Dany and he does not refer to himself, he refers to something he has seen with his visions. Show Euron is ummm, not that Euron, though I suspect that Euron gives to much away. I think Jon gives his life for the baby, and thus the baby is born with the fire of life. Or perhaps it has that naturally via just Jon being undead. I think we will see one of the players give their life for the baby, Jon, Mel, Beric, and I think this may sound strange, but Bran will have some connection with the child. Anyway Night King goes after pregnant Dany or perhaps the child after it is born. Tries to take baby, pokes baby, and melts. There is also the idea of what would happen to the NK if Mel gave him the last kiss. In the books the last kiss is the fire of life being breathed into you, magic cpr. People seemed to be obsessed with Dany dying, but somehow think that Jon is safe because he already died before and that inoculates him from future death. But in most stories of a hero being brought back to life to complete his destiny and fight an ancient evil, they usually die after fulfilling their destiny.
|
|
moiaf
Mother of Dragons
@admin
Posts: 6,194
Likes: 6,494
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 4 Time Winner
#9618a9
1
0
1
Apr 29, 2020 17:41:53 GMT -5
6,494
moiaf
6,194
Jun 20, 2016 18:58:43 GMT -5
June 2016
admin
4 Time Winner
|
Post by moiaf on Aug 26, 2018 20:30:18 GMT -5
I have a bit of a strange take on Jon and Dany, and I will throw Mel, Bran and Beric in. Seem strange? It's not really. Only death can pay for life. The show changed some things from the books but left the same basic ability on the field. Beric still alive but he can fill in for Cat. So two questions, why did Martin show us that people can be brought back? To get Jon out of the Watch? Seems a bit extensive, but also not hard to see him being revived with Mel standing right there. Dany tried to bring back Drogo and that didn't exactly work. But she bought back the dragons. Death paid for life. Night King has some baby issues, likes to turn them blue and collect them. I think there is a deeper reason for Jon of the undead. Just as there is a reason they kept Beric around in place of Cat. We know how Beric dies, question is who's life does he bring back? And if Beric can do it, by all rights Jon should be able to do it, and we know Mel can do it. Does the fact that Jon has the fire of life within him allow Dany to finally have a kid? Bran can see the past, and Mel the future. Bran also has effected the past like with Hodor. There has to be a reason for Bran to have this gift. There is a dynamic here I am not sure what it is but these are the main players to take down the NK. I always thought the Night King wanted Dany, to make a new Night Queen the only woman worthy of him. Sound weird it's a strange quote from Euron about Dany and he does not refer to himself, he refers to something he has seen with his visions. Show Euron is ummm, not that Euron, though I suspect that Euron gives to much away. I think Jon gives his life for the baby, and thus the baby is born with the fire of life. Or perhaps it has that naturally via just Jon being undead. I think we will see one of the players give their life for the baby, Jon, Mel, Beric, and I think this may sound strange, but Bran will have some connection with the child. Anyway Night King goes after pregnant Dany or perhaps the child after it is born. Tries to take baby, pokes baby, and melts. There is also the idea of what would happen to the NK if Mel gave him the last kiss. In the books the last kiss is the fire of life being breathed into you, magic cpr. I’m not sure that’s how it’ll play out but I’m with you, I do think there is more than one reason for Berric to be alive and to have the gift of bringing someone back from the dead. There’s something there but I just can’t put my finger on it. I always thought that the death of the dragons is what allows Dany to finally conceive/ have a child.
|
|
moiaf
Mother of Dragons
@admin
Posts: 6,194
Likes: 6,494
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 4 Time Winner
#9618a9
1
0
1
Apr 29, 2020 17:41:53 GMT -5
6,494
moiaf
6,194
Jun 20, 2016 18:58:43 GMT -5
June 2016
admin
4 Time Winner
|
Post by moiaf on Aug 26, 2018 20:33:50 GMT -5
I have a bit of a strange take on Jon and Dany, and I will throw Mel, Bran and Beric in. Seem strange? It's not really. Only death can pay for life. The show changed some things from the books but left the same basic ability on the field. Beric still alive but he can fill in for Cat. So two questions, why did Martin show us that people can be brought back? To get Jon out of the Watch? Seems a bit extensive, but also not hard to see him being revived with Mel standing right there. Dany tried to bring back Drogo and that didn't exactly work. But she bought back the dragons. Death paid for life. Night King has some baby issues, likes to turn them blue and collect them. I think there is a deeper reason for Jon of the undead. Just as there is a reason they kept Beric around in place of Cat. We know how Beric dies, question is who's life does he bring back? And if Beric can do it, by all rights Jon should be able to do it, and we know Mel can do it. Does the fact that Jon has the fire of life within him allow Dany to finally have a kid? Bran can see the past, and Mel the future. Bran also has effected the past like with Hodor. There has to be a reason for Bran to have this gift. There is a dynamic here I am not sure what it is but these are the main players to take down the NK. I always thought the Night King wanted Dany, to make a new Night Queen the only woman worthy of him. Sound weird it's a strange quote from Euron about Dany and he does not refer to himself, he refers to something he has seen with his visions. Show Euron is ummm, not that Euron, though I suspect that Euron gives to much away. I think Jon gives his life for the baby, and thus the baby is born with the fire of life. Or perhaps it has that naturally via just Jon being undead. I think we will see one of the players give their life for the baby, Jon, Mel, Beric, and I think this may sound strange, but Bran will have some connection with the child. Anyway Night King goes after pregnant Dany or perhaps the child after it is born. Tries to take baby, pokes baby, and melts. There is also the idea of what would happen to the NK if Mel gave him the last kiss. In the books the last kiss is the fire of life being breathed into you, magic cpr. People seemed to be obsessed with Dany dying, but somehow think that Jon is safe because he already died before and that inoculates him from future death. But in most stories of a hero being brought back to life to complete his destiny and fight an ancient evil, they usually die after fulfilling their destiny. Agreed. Now that I’m fairly certain Dany will live, if one of them “had” to die it would be Jon. I don’t think it’ll happen but he’s at more of a risk of dying than she is. Especially, because as you say he did already die and was brought back to life (to help defeat the Night’s King).
|
|
sercreighton
Silverwing
@sercreighton
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 2,439
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 3 Time Nominee
inherit
35
0
Sept 24, 2019 3:37:33 GMT -5
2,439
sercreighton
2,465
Jun 28, 2016 17:04:35 GMT -5
June 2016
sercreighton
3 Time Nominee
|
Post by sercreighton on Aug 26, 2018 22:37:29 GMT -5
D&D sort of glossed over the fact that Beric and Jon can sacrifice themselves to revive another. They never show it with Cat, Cat got cut out. But in the books Beric clearly does this. Thoros and Mel are red priests they can do it more than once, though this seems to depend on their strength, Beric got thinner and weaker over time, though Mel seemed to have no problem with it.
When the show usually has something from the books that gives away to much of the end game, they cut it out so it doesn't act as a spoiler.
Blue rose in a wall of ice became, Dusk rose, good for reducing fevers. The entire house of the undying scene from the books was replaced. Euron was essentially cut and replaced with... Someone.
Then you have BloodBranRavenPossiblyBrantheBuilder, long name. Pretty sure he can't Warg the Night King, he appears outclassed on the power spectrum. He can see an astral projection and physically hurt it rather easily. Makes spying on him rather hard. Mel has a lot of ancient lore knowledge, I wonder if she can direct Bran to something important. Like what the Night King wants, he didn't get all dressed up for nothing. We know he is vengeful, couldn't wait to kill the Children. Also really badly wants to move south. Also as powerful as he is, what is to stop the Night King from taking a second life? Maybe that's why he wants the baby. Then again what if Bloodraven wants the baby for that purpose as well? It better be good, I like battle scenes and all that, but I want some solid explination sto this hot mess.
|
|
inherit
141
0
Mar 25, 2021 1:08:21 GMT -5
436
daeronthegood
551
Jul 4, 2017 5:54:31 GMT -5
July 2017
daeronthegood
|
Post by daeronthegood on Aug 27, 2018 10:13:34 GMT -5
People seemed to be obsessed with Dany dying, but somehow think that Jon is safe because he already died before and that inoculates him from future death. But in most stories of a hero being brought back to life to complete his destiny and fight an ancient evil, they usually die after fulfilling their destiny. Agreed. Now that I’m fairly certain Dany will live, if one of them “had” to die it would be Jon. I don’t think it’ll happen but he’s at more of a risk of dying than she is. Especially, because as you say he did already die and was brought back to life (to help defeat the Night’s King). Sometimes this obsession and certainty with Dany's death messes with my thoughts and I do worry about it, until I realize it just doesn't make sense. A huge part of her story is becoming leader of disparate peoples, learning their language and culture and learning to rule them. All the while keeping an eye to Westeros and taking back what she believes is hers-another land and culture she has limited understanding of. Why spend all the time learning to rule the Dotharki as a woman, learning to rule Mereen-and more importantly in both instances making much needed cultural and institutional change sometimes with disastrous results when she will implement nothing she has learned to Westeros? This raging desire to her die, is another manifestation of wanting to bring her down a peg; but I'm not gonna lie, the certainty of the fandom really does get it to me.
|
|
moiaf
Mother of Dragons
@admin
Posts: 6,194
Likes: 6,494
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 4 Time Winner
#9618a9
1
0
1
Apr 29, 2020 17:41:53 GMT -5
6,494
moiaf
6,194
Jun 20, 2016 18:58:43 GMT -5
June 2016
admin
4 Time Winner
|
Post by moiaf on Aug 28, 2018 7:01:56 GMT -5
Agreed. Now that I’m fairly certain Dany will live, if one of them “had” to die it would be Jon. I don’t think it’ll happen but he’s at more of a risk of dying than she is. Especially, because as you say he did already die and was brought back to life (to help defeat the Night’s King). Sometimes this obsession and certainty with Dany's death messes with my thoughts and I do worry about it, until I realize it just doesn't make sense. A huge part of her story is becoming leader of disparate peoples, learning their language and culture and learning to rule them. All the while keeping an eye to Westeros and taking back what she believes is hers-another land and culture she has limited understanding of. Why spend all the time learning to rule the Dotharki as a woman, learning to rule Mereen-and more importantly in both instances making much needed cultural and institutional change sometimes with disastrous results when she will implement nothing she has learned to Westeros? This raging desire to her die, is another manifestation of wanting to bring her down a peg; but I'm not gonna lie, the certainty of the fandom really does get it to me. It use to get to me. As you may recall I was always the one that would say, she might die, and you would be the one to say, but it doesn't make sense. Now, I'm the one reminding you that it doesn't make sense for all the reasons you listed and more. Her entire story is about learning and growing, if that's what GRRM wanted her to do than why kill her off. What would be the purpose of her struggles. It can't just be about saving the world. While Dany certainly has messianic symbolism surrounding her, she is also symbolized by motherhood and as a united of people. She eventually wins most people over, why then give her this, clearly she's meant to be someone who brings people together. That YouTube discussion I translated (I'll post it here too) is enlightening because they discuss Dany's character arc and trajectory both the good and the bad and try to figure out what it all means. Jordi is someone who has a film background and music background and if he's as astute about this as he was about "Truth" then I think people should listen. The more I think of it, the least sense it makes to me. When you step away from all the death fetish you see that it makes no sense to lose character who have been through a learning arc. It's much more likely that someone like Tyrion will die, I think.
|
|
moiaf
Mother of Dragons
@admin
Posts: 6,194
Likes: 6,494
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 4 Time Winner
#9618a9
1
0
1
Apr 29, 2020 17:41:53 GMT -5
6,494
moiaf
6,194
Jun 20, 2016 18:58:43 GMT -5
June 2016
admin
4 Time Winner
|
Post by moiaf on Aug 28, 2018 7:05:49 GMT -5
Here is the video analyzing Dany's arc. I suggest you watch it because it has some really neat Daenerys art. You can read the translation below. JD: Hello friend, how’s it going! I’m Jag Duran and I’m here today with a new video about Game of Thrones. Today we are going to analyze whether Daenerys could be a great ruler. This is a very special occasion because for the first time I’m being joined by a great friend, Game of Thrones scholar, and someone who I admire, my dear [friend] Jordi Machiavello. Jordi, from Spain, how are you?
JM: Very well and hello to everyone. Please, you are too effusive with you compliments [laughs].
JD: [Laughs] That’s how it is. Well, let’s talk about the Mother of Dragon. How about we start with her origin story, how she developed from a docile and submissive person to someone who has taken the reigns of her destiny.
JM: Perfect, I think that’s wonderful
JD: To understand Daenerys we must bear in mind that she was born in Dragonstone, the daughter of Rhaella Targaryen and Aerys, the Mad King. The parents she never knew and in fact she grew up a refugee alongside her brother Viserys, whom they called the Beggar King. After the death of their protector Ser Willem Darry they went from door to door trying to find someone who would champion their cause. In fact, they struggled a great deal, they lacked many things and if we add to that the fact that Viserys was an angry person and there was a certain intransigence to his character towards Daenerys. She was abused by her brother, which lowered her self-esteem, we can deduce then why she had such a docile/submissive personality.
JM: Yes, in fact I’m surprised that the series hasn’t delved into these traumas Daenerys’ must have from her time living with her brother. Because in the first season the transition from a week Daenerys, a submissive Daenerys, to someone with an extremely strong character was rather quick, in barely four episodes. When she’s with Drogo you can see her character strengthening and having a lot of authority, a very noticeable transition. In the series, there is no exploration of this and so the change is almost invisible.
JD: Exactly. Because we need to establish at what point this metamorphoses takes place. I think it starts when one of her handmaidens tells her to take the reins when she’s intimate with khal Drogo. There is a phrase that goes, it doesn’t matter what happens to you or what affects you, what matters is how you react to it. I think that after Viserys’ death the negative influence he had over Daenerys ends, with respect to the physical abuses, which were not sexual or at least that’s not spelled out in the books. Anyhow, she went being a trapped girl, to a new, stronger, more resilient, woman with the determination, strength, and the ability to surpass any obstacle that got in her way. But yeah, Viserys use to say to her, “you don’t want to wake the dragon, do you” like a threat and he would pinch her, she was treated like an object. I think had her husband khal Drog, or her son Rhaego, or her borther Viserys, not died I don’t think she would have this transformation that has enabled her to take the Iron Throne. What do you think?
JM: Yes, I think that was an incredibly important moment for Daenerys’ character, when Viserys dies and especially when she says, “He was no dragon. Fire can’t kill a dragon”. Add to that the deaths of Drogo and her son and those moments that could have caused sadness or disappointment in her, she takes them and internalizes them, turning them into strength. We see this when she gives her speech right before walking into the pyre. At her lowest point when things are most complicated when anyone else would fall apart, she takes this all in and turns it into a strength. So, I think that this is one of the strongest attributes of Daenerys personality and character.
JD: Yes, and as Nietzsche says, what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.
JM: Exactly!
JD: Daenerys is an unconventional heroine, she wears many differences faces and this is precisely what we are going analyses, these facets of her character that are not typical of a conventional protagonist. In fact, she has many grey areas / chiaroscuro, sort of strange [for a protagonist] …
JM: Yes, and I think she’s the character with the most chiaroscuro. In the series, there are a lot of villains but also a lot of quote/unquote heroes. The series has tried to explore the greyness of its characters with some having their lights and shadows. I think what sets Daenerys apart from Jon, is that Daenerys has her chiaroscuros and Jon appears to be a character that is incorruptible, that is to say, a character that is wholly white and who carries his honor on his sleeves. This doesn’t diminish him as a character, but I believe that Daenerys’ character is much more interesting because she has those laps of character, that authoritarian lean that make her an interesting and unpredictable character for me. Jon, on the other hand, seems to me to be one of the blandest character at least among the blandest of the protagonists.
JD: In fact, we can describe Daenerys as a real human being in a sense, with virtues and defects like all of us. A young scare girl who eventually overcame her fears. The clearest example of this, is how she was born in the midst of a storm, so in the midst of adversity she lifted herself up and all this can be seen in how each transition affects her. She has suffered throughout all these obstacles as she tells Jon Snow in season 7.
JM: Yes, the speech she gives to Jon about being raped, being sold, been used and betrayed. In that speech, she basically condenses everything that’s happened to her throughout Game of Thrones. This is a good starting point to see how Daenerys has transformed, because sometimes we don’t take that into account because she’s one of the most powerful characters in the series in my estimation. She has two dragons now, but she has as large army and a lot of people who follow her and she’s achieved the biggest conquests and garnered the most achievements in the series. Her character came from nothing and now has almost everything and is going for everything. She’s a very charismatic character that a lot of people like.
JD: I think the betrayals have especially determined how her personality has been forged because these people have influenced her life. This has given Daenerys the ability to determine what to keep and what to let go. I think that your life experiences influence how you react to different things. I think that Daenerys has taken her experiences and has learned to strike first because she’s been hurt in the past, and I think she’s become a bit resentful.
JM: I think that’s because of all the betrayals that she’s suffered throughout the story. Like the conflicts she suffered in Meereen with the Harpy as well as the betrayal she suffered in Qarth. So, I think these are small obstacles that are placed in her way that enrich Daenerys’ character and have been spun well into t story.
JD: Yes, because they’ve wanted to take advantage, literally, of her political position, of the fact that she has dragons, and a lot of people don’t know that in the books she’s 13 years old. Imagine, that how she starts.
JM: Yes, yes
JD: A young naive and innocent girl in a sense and throughout her interactions she’s has she’s forged her character. I feel like she’s a complex character but I wanted to ask you, do you think they’ve tried to wrap Daenerys in a flag of female empowerment. What do you think?
JM: Yes, I think Daenerys is the perfect character to represent female empowerment because she doesn’t have masculine characteristics.
JD: Of course, of course
JM: That is to say, many times when trying to empower a female character, I’ve seen in plays, video games, films, and including in literature, that when they are trying to empower a female character she’s given masculine traits, like Brienne for example. In Daenerys’ case, it’s completely different because she’s a character that has definite female traits within society, however, in her case these traits are empowered. She’s a character with a sensitive side and an authoritarian side as well being a liberator and a conqueror. She’s a well-constructed empowered character.
JD: Of course. Now Jordi, lets analyze what have been the personal and political successes and failures Daenerys has had throughout the saga A Song of Ice and Fire as well as the series because there are variations in terms of temperament that can perhaps provide an alternative [view]. For example, she’s a person with a good heart, according to Jon Snow, although he might have been looking at other things, like her figure. Anyway, ever sense she saw the khals raping the women of the village [they were raiding in season 1] she defended many of the woman because she knew how unjust it was and she took them under her protection. In a sense, she doesn’t want others to suffer the same abuses of power she suffered. She liberated the slaves of Meereen, Yunkai, and Astapor. She’s willing to negotiate, because she’s not too intransigent, although she could be [at times] because she’s proud, but she’s also an idealist. But she’ll give you options because she understands people, she’s learned how to read them, and this is complemented by the people who advise her, who are wise people, in a sense.
JM: I think Daenerys is following a path, that I don’t believe is the ideal one for her, because her character is constructed in the mold of the character postulated by Machiavelli, Nicolas Machiavelli in The Prince, which is a well-known play. From that play comes the phrase “the means justify the ends” and she’s following perfectly in the mold of the character in The Prince. However, I don’t know what’s going to happen with the path the series is taken with her union to Jon and the upcoming war against the Wight Walkers. I don’t know what’s going to how and how it’ s going to play out. If she continued in the same path she had been up until now [prior to season 7], Daenerys would have to end up ruling on her own, not with another person, not with Jon. Because in that case…
JD: What they had been building with her character[ would collapsed…
JM: Exactly, it would collapse. Especially it would take away from all the power that they continuously associate with Daenerys’ character. {This new direction} Is taking away from that authority [they had been building]. The important thing between the battle of wills is that we need to keep in mind is that it’s two different things to take the Iron Throne and to consolidating power. So, what will Daenerys’ do when she takes the Iron Throne? I think that’s the most important issue we have to deal with right now, because when Game of Thrones ends there won’t probably won’t be much left, that is to say, we’ll have the finally with everyone and the Iron Throne, but we don’t know what will happen afterwards. There could be a rebellion. Will there be a democracy? Are the going to continue with the same system as before? Will they break the wheel, as Daenerys’ said?
JD: We need to focus on the negative in a sense for example when she makes political decision they go against the already established system, traditions, costumes and norms that have been practice in any one geographical region or society. For example, she wants to impose her will in these cities but not only does she does she not give continuity to the former government, setting aside things that don’t work, imposing things that do without any follow through. We have, for example, it backfires when she arrives in Meereen we know she run across some children that were crucified along the way, if you remember.
JM: Yes, I believe there were quite a few kilometers with crucified children that Daenerys came across. It was terrible.
JD: Of course, and what Daenerys does in retaliation is take the slavers and crucify them as punishment. However, among them there were good slavers who treated their slaves well and who were also against sacrificing the children to send a message to Daenerys to dissuade her from coming to Meereen and imposing her rule of law. So, it has it’s disadvantages that Daenerys doesn’t think and just wants to get even, seeing things as black and white.
JM: The thing is that in politics it’s difficult to distinguish grey between black and white. It has to be completely clear cut. I think in respect to Daenerys attitude when it came to her punishment of the slaver it was obviously was wrong because some might have been against crucifying the children or they might have been good, or they might have been very cruel. Daenerys behavior is the perfect model that Machiavelli spoke of. He postulated that a good ruler had to be as much loved and he was feared and that’s why I love Daenerys. She is loved by many of her followers because she liberated the slaves, because she’s a compassionate queen but she’s also feared. She has 3 dragons and if you go against her you’ll be burned to death and if you’re a slaver you’ll be crucified. So, I like this because I think the death of the Tarly’s was justified because what Machiavelli said was it would be perfect to be loved and feared in equal parts however it’s preferable to be feared. In times of rebellion the people forget about the love they once had, however, fear will always follow them. So, the decision of Daenerys to burn the Tarly’s alive in front of the survivors is cruel, but like Machiavelli said the Prince should know of morality they should only care about the common good and the power of their rule, and Daenerys follows these parameters to perfection. She makes black and white decisions because you can’t make a grey choice, it’s impossible.
JD: Yes, it’s a thin line without a doubt with which to work with and balance, because going back to the slavers/slave Daenerys left many without a livelihood or ability to make a living. Many of the slaves were in charge of educating the slavers children or carrying for them, they lived well and had a bed to sleep on but many of them were left without that and living on the streets. What other negative things can we delineate regarding from her personality. For me, she’s too temperamental, too radical but at times she’s also too merciful which encapsulates a perfect parallel with her ancestor Aegon Targaryen which the producers of the show have tried to show. She has three dragons, like he {Aegon the Conqueror] did, to conquer Westeros but with a following who have contradictory costumes and values to those of the Westerosi people. She comes with the Dothraki and the Unsullied and how does she deal with the conflict between the Westerosi and the foeigners if there are violations/rape, sacking, death and destruction. You can’t just put a chip on someone and change their values. So how is Daenerys deal with the consequences of her actions. We have the man who confronted her with the bones of his daughter who Drogo burned, showing her the consequences of leaving her children to roam free. Because of this Daenerys decides to lock two of her dragons in the dungeons.
JM: Viserion and Rhaegal.
JD: Exactly!
JM: Regarding the foreign culture and the foreign army which she’ll use to invade Westeros it’s worth repeating that her characterization gets lost and it looks like the model of the Prince they’ve tried to create gets lost, because this breaks with the Machiavelli politics and philosophy because her army is comprised solely of foreigner, the Dothraki savages and Unsullied. This is something that Machiavelli advised against, the conquest of taking of principalities, with only foreigner because then it’s not a conquest, it’s an invasion. You would have to judge the merit of the conqueror, in this case Daenerys, which she isn’t doing so well and it wouldn’t be that good from that point of view.
JD: Exactly! Also, where are they going to live, which of the Seven Kingdoms are they going to establish their homeland, their society or whatever. So, I sort of understand the Tarly’s point of view of opposing and turning their back on the Tyrell and joining Cersei. They don’t ‘want to be the victims of what’s going to happen with this invasion, their homes could be sacked, their women raped, their children killed and it could be an end to their way of life and position in society. So, of course I’d be on the side of defend my country, my territory, and I think it was a bit unjust for Daenerys to end the Tarlys. However, we must see what’s established, that if they need the knee before her, thigs could have turned out much better, she would have had mercy. But it was the Tarlys pride, especially Randyl who refused to bend the knee. His son’s behavior was just stupid because he would have continued the legacy but now it’ll be Sam. But anyway, I think Daenerys learns from her mistakes and has created a certain sense of justice, she helps the downtrodden and the vulnerable areas, she doesn’t hesitate and she create a haven for them. However, sometimes she ignores advice when citations are ambiguous, especially when Tyrion’s brings up question of morality. She says this is how it is and does it. So, that’s also very, no holds bar.
JM: I think Daenerys attitude towards her advisors is completely justified and I’ll once again go back to Machiavelli who’s very useful model in these conversations. He said there are two ways to rules in certain political situations, you either had absolute rule or you ruled in conjunction with a council of noblemen. This group of councilors reminds me of the advisors Daenerys currently has. AS a last result Machiavelli advises to choose the first option, if you had to choose, that is absolute rule because with the second option Daenerys would have less power and would have to put down internal rebellions. So, I think this is the reason why at times Daenerys is authoritarian with her advisors because she tells herself, “I am the leader, I’m the one who has to make the final decision”. I think and understand why Daenerys was upset at Tyrion when he was judging her in front of the survivors of the battle, she was telling them either bend the knee or die while Tyrion would not stop yapping and questioning he saying “but Daenerys, but Daenerys”. So, I completely understand Daenerys attitude in saying “No” in this instance. I think a leader must be authoritative at times and in this case her decision was the correct one. As you say, the error here was the Tarly for not bending the knee for their foolish pride when they served the Targaryen’s during Robert’s Rebellion. So then why, it doesn’t ‘make sense.
JD: Exactly! At this point we could establish if Daenerys would be an apt person for a position of power, to rule the Seven Kingdoms, yes or no? She’s better than Cersei because Cersei is a completely irrational person who makes very poor decisions and we’ve seen from the start how all her plans fail. Daenerys has also her failures, but they’re there for the purpose of having her learn from them. She takes the lead and decides to destroy the Harpy, but at the time she did not realize the consequence of her actions and what repercussion they would bring, the murder of the Unsullied and other citizens. She has learned to take these negative experiences and turn them into a lesson, she’s not going to make the same mistake twice. I feel that Daenerys is a person who despite her prepatent, her fury, her intransigence and maybe a touch or a glimpse of her father, the mad king, who many have been compared to her. I believe she can be flexible and can balance reason with the heart and her character has evolved throughout these experiences.
JM: I think here’s where we can discuss Daenerys’ ambition. I don’t think a ruler, in medieval times especially, shouldn’t have their actions judged for what they had to do to reach the top because from ambition to action there are many steps. When reaching for the top you will regularly do unpleasant things. For me Daenerys is the most complete leader in Game of Thrones. From those who also seek to rule she’s the one with the best chance of ruling, without a doubt. That is, she’s a trusted leader, with character, who knows how to listen and is more than sufficiently capable. Without a doubt the most important thing is that I believe is, that in politics, you must be a leader with credibility, which is something most lack. She knows she can reach her goals and she knows how to go about it. If she’s going to do something, she’s not going to deceive anyone about it, she’ll do it, and she’ll take it and that is something that no other ruler of leader has in Game of Thrones. No even Sansa, who many are talking about. She [Daenerys] has total credibility in her power and her word and I think if she took control of Westeros after the war with the Wight Walkers and once her enemies are defeated she can establish a government that is completely prosperous. Especially if democracy is established, which would be something very complicated to accept for the citizens of Westeros, because it’ll be something new. You have all the extended regions, places like Dorn, which is a place far from the capital and the North that some say is ungovernable, it would be something complicated. But I believe that Daenerys with her credibility and her all the nuances she has as a leader can rule the seven kingdoms in an absolute immaculately manner.
JD: I was remembering a meme on the internet where it was implied… there is a person that’s sitting behind (and above) a line of men and they have a whip and are yelling to go forward, this person is described as a boss and then you have the person described as a leader who puts himself at the forefront leading the men, serving as an example to follow. There are many who critique Daenerys because she only gives orders, saying what she wants done and what is her will to carry out a good government but if she didn’t have her dragons her power wouldn’t be so palpable, her influence wouldn’t be so strong. Do you believe in this statement?
JM: I believe that Daenerys without her dragons would still carve out the same path she’s carved for herself in the series obviously with more complications. There’s a lot said about Daenerys being strong because of her dragons and that the dragons are the ones that have given her power. I say no, that is to say she’s used her dragons as a means to an end. In the end, the dragons aren’t her, they’re just a means. So, a good leader knows what resources to use to achieve their goals and if it’s not the dragons than its X. That is, Daenerys would have been a great leader without dragons, with dragons or with a dragon and a half. That is, Daenerys is a natural leader.
JD: What worries me is that those means to an end can be transitory and afterwards she won’t care about the problem and will walk away like she did in Meereen leaving someone like Daario Naharios in charge who is a mercenary. This can lead to chaos returning eventually and so I think that not being consistent when she’s had these hurdles we haven’t been able to see or haven’t seen a successful case in the true sense. Daenerys has been good for the Dothraki and she’s been good for the Unsullied, who still follow orders blindly, although they are free quote /unquote. In many ways, the people she has freed have suffered the consequences because she hasn’t learned how to carry out the radical liberation. Because it takes time, it takes years to successfully carry out a positive transition where you change costumes and those people who she helped don’t suffer the consequences of her actions. So, I think here she still needs to learn from what’s happened to her so that it doesn’t repeat.
JM: In the example of success that you mention the only successes she’s had are as a conqueror and not as a ruler. It’s complicated trying to figure out how she could be a good ruler but I think the problems that has arisen is how Daenerys character has been written in the last two seasons. Up until the fifth season Daenerys character seemed to me to be optimum, a very well-constructed character whose actions were coherent. However, in the last two season, which have had weak scripts in general, that Daenerys character has acted incoherently at times or things are taken for granted and the time lapses have been enormous. You don’t know how much time has passed between Dany taking the khalasar until she finds Drogon and giving her speech where they agree to go to the ends of the world with her. So, all these things are taken for granted or ignored and I think a lot of this, in the scripts, has harmed Daenerys character in the last couple of seasons. Even so, she’s still and incredibly strong character, the top character to rule, the number one character. But it is true what you say that she has not had a successful rule as of yet and this gives us pause for thought.
JD: We also have to take into account these processionary measure and decision have been taken in light of a completely different culture for Essos. How can you think to change what has been the law of the land for years? Now, she’s coming to Westeros where effectively all her ideals and way of life are congruent with those there. Everything could be better once she’s settled, the food resources, developing economic ties/treaties, developing relations with the different Houses/ powerful Lords, how to establish commerce. I think she can learn a lot from her ancestors, and I think under those circumstances of the game she could eventually have a true case of success. On the other hand, I think it’s been established that Jon Snow would not {be successful} because he’s made decision that are too impulsive bad decisions. In fact, when he returns to be King in the North, after the Battle of the Bastards, the first thing he does is to go beg the help of Daenerys Targaryen. He doesn’t preoccupy himself with the management of resources but conversely Sansa does worry about these things.
JM: Also, Jon’s character is lamentable because he tells Sansa that she’s going to govern, while everyone is present in the hall right before he leaves. It’s like Jon doesn’t bother planning anything and would make a poor ruler for the Seven Kingdoms because he’s too honorable. A ruler doesn’t have to be honorable, they have to be cohesive with his actions, they have to be just and they have to be authoritative, at least in medieval times. If you’re not, you’ll get eaten alive. Jon’s a character has been created to be a warrior, always.
JD: Yes, I think he’s a person with a good hart, he’s just, and he doesn’t have any vices, like Robert was. Perhaps he’s addicted to violence but not consciously. He wants the best for his people and would do anything to save them including giving his own life. In a sense, we could say there are advantages in contrast to Daenerys. But without a doubt Daenerys is much more apt and would be more apt if she didn’t have her dragons because they represent a danger and a nuclear weapon…
JM: Absolutely.
JD: …that could bring her a lot of problems subsequently and that is very latent. We have kings that were feared but not loved at all and who were not very good at politics.
JM: In response to what you were saying before about the politics that Daenerys wanted to restore in Essos I want to once again bring up Machiavelli because he postulated that when conducting a conquest of a foreign nation you have three options: Destroy the existing laws, settle within them [work within the system], or keep them all without change. Machiavelli postulated that the best option was to destroy the, because if you settle within them or keep them all together, in time, the people can easily rebel. So, even if it’s painful and it’s complicated to make this decision you must do it because a conquest is not just about arriving with dragons, destroy everything, and keep everything the way it is politically and that’s it. There has to be an afterwards and Daenerys know this is the only option. I think destroying the establish laws and creating new laws would be a breath of fresh air. In short working within the establish laws or just keeping them all together is more of the same but with an invader which gives the people more motive to rebel. So, I think those were good decision Daenerys took after her conquests.
JD: Yes, definitely. There needs to be an evolution when it comes to ruling. I don’t know if eventually the monarchy will prevail. We’ll eventually see what happens with this type of evolution. I think Daenerys should look into the past. We have for example the case of Jaehaerys I, the Conciliator. He was a pacifist and a diplomat who established many reforms and laws. With his intelligence and wisdom, he was able to achieve a long reign that would last 60 years. Imagine that. I think she can take advice from history. But we can compare her best, because more than anything Daenerys represents a renewed version of her ancestor Aegon the Conqueror. He also had a long reign but there was a lot of conflict and rebellions and there will be conflict and rebellions if Daenerys stays on the Iron Throne. Believe you me. Because she brought the savages, the Unsullied, and the dragons and this generate problems, it generates problems and conflict. How many Houses have been destroyed because of the conflict between her and Cersei, it’s too many. You tell me if there’s not going to be more bloodshed with time. So, I think Daenerys can achieve that balance but she has to be very careful but I think there’ll be a lot of conflict if it’s the later.
JM: But those are the trappings of power. These are things that would happen anyways, if Jon took the throne or anyone else did. In the end, they’ll always be rebellion because not everyone will agree with every decided made by whoever is on the throne, never. They’ll never be 100 percent agreement. What you have to do is know how to smother them[rebellion] and know how to handle them and I think Daenerys would be the ideal leader to smother any possible rebellions.
JD: How would you rank Daenerys as a potential ruler of Westeros?
JM: From 1 to 10 I think Daenerys would score, I’m very demanding, I would give her a 7. And it’s because she has the potential to be a very powerful leader but she’ll have to deal with a lot of problems. That’s way I took away a couple of points. I’ll tell you, those who are behind her don’t even reach 5. I think Daenerys is a person with vitality with the perfect personality to rule and I think the other characters who aspire to the throne couldn’t handle the weight of power. On the other hand, Daenerys has the experience and she can handle it stupendously and it’s her ambition.
JD: Taking what you’ve said as a prediction of season 8 can we assume that Daenerys, according to your taste, or according to what you believe will happen, can she take the Iron Throne or will she take the Iron Throne? What do you believe?
JM: According to how the series is developing, because they are preparing us for it, for in fact the Disney ending that everyone is talking about, for the last two seasons there has been a lot pointing at there be a happy ending quote/ unquote for what Game of Thrones is. Of course, many fans won’t like this, it’s very clear to me that a lot of people won’t like that ending but I think that’ll be the ending with Jon and Daenerys on the Iron Throne and with Tyrion dead because one of the three of them has to die for sure and I think it’ll be Tyrion who will die in the end. But we’ll see how it all ends, I think it’ll be the a Disney ending which I personally do not like. I’ve said it on many occasion I would prefer for Littlefinger or the Wight Walkers winning or conversely because I like Daenerys very much, and every time I say this people jump down my throat saying “how can you like Daenerys”, well I would like for Daenerys to reign alone
JD: Of course, there are many with poor taste and you can’t please everyone, it’s a complicated subject. If Tyrion does it’ll of course be a completely bittersweet ending. But for example, if Daenerys wins the Iron Throne they’ll be reaffirming the character they’ve been trying to portray/project throughout the last seven seasons, the figure of female empowerment. So, if Daenerys dies than all the time spent creating such a complex character would have been for nothing.
JM: Exactly!
JD: Definitely, I believe the Daenerys, as it stands now, will survive. She won’t die, many say she’ll die in childbirth, no she will not die giving birth. I can’t be [that way].
JM: That can’t be.
JD: That can’t be because it’ll be stupid. She comes from a mother, Rhaella Targaryen. who died in childbirth. Jon Snow comes from a mother, Lyanna Stark, who died in childbirth. And now you create such a powerful character only to have her die in childbirth, without any justification without having accomplish any real change as you’ve highlighted throughout the seven season, I don’t believe it.
JM: It would be a very obvious ending.
JD: But also, I have in mind what’s going to happen with Jon Snow. Jon Snow was resurrected for one reason; he was resurrected for what! To end the Long Night, that’s very clear. He’s the one who will defeat the Night’s King, the Wight Walker and will bring peace once again to end this time of darkness. This is extremely clear. Nonetheless is he’s going to die having accomplished this, that’s what we don’t know. However, why would they clearly announce, by having Bran say it, that Jon is the legitimate heir to the Seven Kingdoms.
JM: Because they’re preparing us for the Disney ending.
JD: Because they’re preparing us for the Disney ending and because it’s the perfect mix of Ice and Fire.
JM: And I don’t like that because it diminishes Daenerys’ character.
JD: I like it, because I like happy ending. But I understand where you are coming from and I agree with you that it takes away from the things Daenerys has tried to accomplished. Who’s going to be the real ruler, is it going to be Jon, is it going to be Daenerys. Obviously, Jon doesn’t want power and I feel like he’ll resign from it.
JM: Jon can’t be king. Jon can’t be king and I’ll repeat it as often as needed. He does not have the attitude to rule, to be king. He has the skills to be a warrior, a kingssguard, including the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, that’s what he has the skills for but not to be king, he just doesn’t have them at all He doesn’t know how to rule, he has not clue and we see that his character, from the first season, is a character that is meant to be a warrior but not a king.
JD: He has had some success, we’ve seen him as Lord a Commander of the Nights Watch, he takes care of everyone at Castle Black, he looks for resources, he asked the Iron Bank for a loan, he bring the Wildlings through because he has a good hear but like with Daenerys he creates collateral damage that he doesn’t anticipate but I think if Jon put away the fury and the fighting and he focused more he could learn some important lessons
JM: Of course, with season 8 with the leaks that have come across recently they’re saying they’ll be lots of time jumps throughout the season so perhaps Jon does learn but as things stand right now Jon can’t be king.
JD: Of course, because as you say Daenerys has gone through an evolution from a submissive and weak person to someone capable of taking the reins of their own destiny in the transition of four episode and we could see this with Jon Snow with these time jumps and decision making but things are sort of pointing in a different direction because out of all the actors that were filing Jon Snow is the one who spent the most time filing battles so tell me where in all this does he learn diplomacy. Trying to figure out how things will end from a logical point of view and from a conventional cinematography standpoint how things end satisfactory or not. I fell it’ll be more satisfactory than unsatisfactory. I feel like 70 to 75 percent are going to be happy about how it ends because the other way would be very lamentable for HBO obviously and for everyone. There’s anything you want to add Jordi.
JM: Nothing, I just want to thank you very much for inviting me and time has just flown by .
JD: Same
|
|
inherit
141
0
Mar 25, 2021 1:08:21 GMT -5
436
daeronthegood
551
Jul 4, 2017 5:54:31 GMT -5
July 2017
daeronthegood
|
Post by daeronthegood on Aug 30, 2018 19:14:28 GMT -5
Here is the video analyzing Dany's arc. I suggest you watch it because it has some really neat Daenerys art. You can read the translation below. JD: Hello friend, how’s it going! I’m Jag Duran and I’m here today with a new video about Game of Thrones. Today we are going to analyze whether Daenerys could be a great ruler. This is a very special occasion because for the first time I’m being joined by a great friend, Game of Thrones scholar, and someone who I admire, my dear [friend] Jordi Machiavello. Jordi, from Spain, how are you?
JM: Very well and hello to everyone. Please, you are too effusive with you compliments [laughs].
JD: [Laughs] That’s how it is. Well, let’s talk about the Mother of Dragon. How about we start with her origin story, how she developed from a docile and submissive person to someone who has taken the reigns of her destiny.
JM: Perfect, I think that’s wonderful
JD: To understand Daenerys we must bear in mind that she was born in Dragonstone, the daughter of Rhaella Targaryen and Aerys, the Mad King. The parents she never knew and in fact she grew up a refugee alongside her brother Viserys, whom they called the Beggar King. After the death of their protector Ser Willem Darry they went from door to door trying to find someone who would champion their cause. In fact, they struggled a great deal, they lacked many things and if we add to that the fact that Viserys was an angry person and there was a certain intransigence to his character towards Daenerys. She was abused by her brother, which lowered her self-esteem, we can deduce then why she had such a docile/submissive personality.
JM: Yes, in fact I’m surprised that the series hasn’t delved into these traumas Daenerys’ must have from her time living with her brother. Because in the first season the transition from a week Daenerys, a submissive Daenerys, to someone with an extremely strong character was rather quick, in barely four episodes. When she’s with Drogo you can see her character strengthening and having a lot of authority, a very noticeable transition. In the series, there is no exploration of this and so the change is almost invisible.
JD: Exactly. Because we need to establish at what point this metamorphoses takes place. I think it starts when one of her handmaidens tells her to take the reins when she’s intimate with khal Drogo. There is a phrase that goes, it doesn’t matter what happens to you or what affects you, what matters is how you react to it. I think that after Viserys’ death the negative influence he had over Daenerys ends, with respect to the physical abuses, which were not sexual or at least that’s not spelled out in the books. Anyhow, she went being a trapped girl, to a new, stronger, more resilient, woman with the determination, strength, and the ability to surpass any obstacle that got in her way. But yeah, Viserys use to say to her, “you don’t want to wake the dragon, do you” like a threat and he would pinch her, she was treated like an object. I think had her husband khal Drog, or her son Rhaego, or her borther Viserys, not died I don’t think she would have this transformation that has enabled her to take the Iron Throne. What do you think?
JM: Yes, I think that was an incredibly important moment for Daenerys’ character, when Viserys dies and especially when she says, “He was no dragon. Fire can’t kill a dragon”. Add to that the deaths of Drogo and her son and those moments that could have caused sadness or disappointment in her, she takes them and internalizes them, turning them into strength. We see this when she gives her speech right before walking into the pyre. At her lowest point when things are most complicated when anyone else would fall apart, she takes this all in and turns it into a strength. So, I think that this is one of the strongest attributes of Daenerys personality and character.
JD: Yes, and as Nietzsche says, what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.
JM: Exactly!
JD: Daenerys is an unconventional heroine, she wears many differences faces and this is precisely what we are going analyses, these facets of her character that are not typical of a conventional protagonist. In fact, she has many grey areas / chiaroscuro, sort of strange [for a protagonist] …
JM: Yes, and I think she’s the character with the most chiaroscuro. In the series, there are a lot of villains but also a lot of quote/unquote heroes. The series has tried to explore the greyness of its characters with some having their lights and shadows. I think what sets Daenerys apart from Jon, is that Daenerys has her chiaroscuros and Jon appears to be a character that is incorruptible, that is to say, a character that is wholly white and who carries his honor on his sleeves. This doesn’t diminish him as a character, but I believe that Daenerys’ character is much more interesting because she has those laps of character, that authoritarian lean that make her an interesting and unpredictable character for me. Jon, on the other hand, seems to me to be one of the blandest character at least among the blandest of the protagonists.
JD: In fact, we can describe Daenerys as a real human being in a sense, with virtues and defects like all of us. A young scare girl who eventually overcame her fears. The clearest example of this, is how she was born in the midst of a storm, so in the midst of adversity she lifted herself up and all this can be seen in how each transition affects her. She has suffered throughout all these obstacles as she tells Jon Snow in season 7.
JM: Yes, the speech she gives to Jon about being raped, being sold, been used and betrayed. In that speech, she basically condenses everything that’s happened to her throughout Game of Thrones. This is a good starting point to see how Daenerys has transformed, because sometimes we don’t take that into account because she’s one of the most powerful characters in the series in my estimation. She has two dragons now, but she has as large army and a lot of people who follow her and she’s achieved the biggest conquests and garnered the most achievements in the series. Her character came from nothing and now has almost everything and is going for everything. She’s a very charismatic character that a lot of people like.
JD: I think the betrayals have especially determined how her personality has been forged because these people have influenced her life. This has given Daenerys the ability to determine what to keep and what to let go. I think that your life experiences influence how you react to different things. I think that Daenerys has taken her experiences and has learned to strike first because she’s been hurt in the past, and I think she’s become a bit resentful.
JM: I think that’s because of all the betrayals that she’s suffered throughout the story. Like the conflicts she suffered in Meereen with the Harpy as well as the betrayal she suffered in Qarth. So, I think these are small obstacles that are placed in her way that enrich Daenerys’ character and have been spun well into t story.
JD: Yes, because they’ve wanted to take advantage, literally, of her political position, of the fact that she has dragons, and a lot of people don’t know that in the books she’s 13 years old. Imagine, that how she starts.
JM: Yes, yes
JD: A young naive and innocent girl in a sense and throughout her interactions she’s has she’s forged her character. I feel like she’s a complex character but I wanted to ask you, do you think they’ve tried to wrap Daenerys in a flag of female empowerment. What do you think?
JM: Yes, I think Daenerys is the perfect character to represent female empowerment because she doesn’t have masculine characteristics.
JD: Of course, of course
JM: That is to say, many times when trying to empower a female character, I’ve seen in plays, video games, films, and including in literature, that when they are trying to empower a female character she’s given masculine traits, like Brienne for example. In Daenerys’ case, it’s completely different because she’s a character that has definite female traits within society, however, in her case these traits are empowered. She’s a character with a sensitive side and an authoritarian side as well being a liberator and a conqueror. She’s a well-constructed empowered character.
JD: Of course. Now Jordi, lets analyze what have been the personal and political successes and failures Daenerys has had throughout the saga A Song of Ice and Fire as well as the series because there are variations in terms of temperament that can perhaps provide an alternative [view]. For example, she’s a person with a good heart, according to Jon Snow, although he might have been looking at other things, like her figure. Anyway, ever sense she saw the khals raping the women of the village [they were raiding in season 1] she defended many of the woman because she knew how unjust it was and she took them under her protection. In a sense, she doesn’t want others to suffer the same abuses of power she suffered. She liberated the slaves of Meereen, Yunkai, and Astapor. She’s willing to negotiate, because she’s not too intransigent, although she could be [at times] because she’s proud, but she’s also an idealist. But she’ll give you options because she understands people, she’s learned how to read them, and this is complemented by the people who advise her, who are wise people, in a sense.
JM: I think Daenerys is following a path, that I don’t believe is the ideal one for her, because her character is constructed in the mold of the character postulated by Machiavelli, Nicolas Machiavelli in The Prince, which is a well-known play. From that play comes the phrase “the means justify the ends” and she’s following perfectly in the mold of the character in The Prince. However, I don’t know what’s going to happen with the path the series is taken with her union to Jon and the upcoming war against the Wight Walkers. I don’t know what’s going to how and how it’ s going to play out. If she continued in the same path she had been up until now [prior to season 7], Daenerys would have to end up ruling on her own, not with another person, not with Jon. Because in that case…
JD: What they had been building with her character[ would collapsed…
JM: Exactly, it would collapse. Especially it would take away from all the power that they continuously associate with Daenerys’ character. {This new direction} Is taking away from that authority [they had been building]. The important thing between the battle of wills is that we need to keep in mind is that it’s two different things to take the Iron Throne and to consolidating power. So, what will Daenerys’ do when she takes the Iron Throne? I think that’s the most important issue we have to deal with right now, because when Game of Thrones ends there won’t probably won’t be much left, that is to say, we’ll have the finally with everyone and the Iron Throne, but we don’t know what will happen afterwards. There could be a rebellion. Will there be a democracy? Are the going to continue with the same system as before? Will they break the wheel, as Daenerys’ said?
JD: We need to focus on the negative in a sense for example when she makes political decision they go against the already established system, traditions, costumes and norms that have been practice in any one geographical region or society. For example, she wants to impose her will in these cities but not only does she does she not give continuity to the former government, setting aside things that don’t work, imposing things that do without any follow through. We have, for example, it backfires when she arrives in Meereen we know she run across some children that were crucified along the way, if you remember.
JM: Yes, I believe there were quite a few kilometers with crucified children that Daenerys came across. It was terrible.
JD: Of course, and what Daenerys does in retaliation is take the slavers and crucify them as punishment. However, among them there were good slavers who treated their slaves well and who were also against sacrificing the children to send a message to Daenerys to dissuade her from coming to Meereen and imposing her rule of law. So, it has it’s disadvantages that Daenerys doesn’t think and just wants to get even, seeing things as black and white.
JM: The thing is that in politics it’s difficult to distinguish grey between black and white. It has to be completely clear cut. I think in respect to Daenerys attitude when it came to her punishment of the slaver it was obviously was wrong because some might have been against crucifying the children or they might have been good, or they might have been very cruel. Daenerys behavior is the perfect model that Machiavelli spoke of. He postulated that a good ruler had to be as much loved and he was feared and that’s why I love Daenerys. She is loved by many of her followers because she liberated the slaves, because she’s a compassionate queen but she’s also feared. She has 3 dragons and if you go against her you’ll be burned to death and if you’re a slaver you’ll be crucified. So, I like this because I think the death of the Tarly’s was justified because what Machiavelli said was it would be perfect to be loved and feared in equal parts however it’s preferable to be feared. In times of rebellion the people forget about the love they once had, however, fear will always follow them. So, the decision of Daenerys to burn the Tarly’s alive in front of the survivors is cruel, but like Machiavelli said the Prince should know of morality they should only care about the common good and the power of their rule, and Daenerys follows these parameters to perfection. She makes black and white decisions because you can’t make a grey choice, it’s impossible.
JD: Yes, it’s a thin line without a doubt with which to work with and balance, because going back to the slavers/slave Daenerys left many without a livelihood or ability to make a living. Many of the slaves were in charge of educating the slavers children or carrying for them, they lived well and had a bed to sleep on but many of them were left without that and living on the streets. What other negative things can we delineate regarding from her personality. For me, she’s too temperamental, too radical but at times she’s also too merciful which encapsulates a perfect parallel with her ancestor Aegon Targaryen which the producers of the show have tried to show. She has three dragons, like he {Aegon the Conqueror] did, to conquer Westeros but with a following who have contradictory costumes and values to those of the Westerosi people. She comes with the Dothraki and the Unsullied and how does she deal with the conflict between the Westerosi and the foeigners if there are violations/rape, sacking, death and destruction. You can’t just put a chip on someone and change their values. So how is Daenerys deal with the consequences of her actions. We have the man who confronted her with the bones of his daughter who Drogo burned, showing her the consequences of leaving her children to roam free. Because of this Daenerys decides to lock two of her dragons in the dungeons.
JM: Viserion and Rhaegal.
JD: Exactly!
JM: Regarding the foreign culture and the foreign army which she’ll use to invade Westeros it’s worth repeating that her characterization gets lost and it looks like the model of the Prince they’ve tried to create gets lost, because this breaks with the Machiavelli politics and philosophy because her army is comprised solely of foreigner, the Dothraki savages and Unsullied. This is something that Machiavelli advised against, the conquest of taking of principalities, with only foreigner because then it’s not a conquest, it’s an invasion. You would have to judge the merit of the conqueror, in this case Daenerys, which she isn’t doing so well and it wouldn’t be that good from that point of view.
JD: Exactly! Also, where are they going to live, which of the Seven Kingdoms are they going to establish their homeland, their society or whatever. So, I sort of understand the Tarly’s point of view of opposing and turning their back on the Tyrell and joining Cersei. They don’t ‘want to be the victims of what’s going to happen with this invasion, their homes could be sacked, their women raped, their children killed and it could be an end to their way of life and position in society. So, of course I’d be on the side of defend my country, my territory, and I think it was a bit unjust for Daenerys to end the Tarlys. However, we must see what’s established, that if they need the knee before her, thigs could have turned out much better, she would have had mercy. But it was the Tarlys pride, especially Randyl who refused to bend the knee. His son’s behavior was just stupid because he would have continued the legacy but now it’ll be Sam. But anyway, I think Daenerys learns from her mistakes and has created a certain sense of justice, she helps the downtrodden and the vulnerable areas, she doesn’t hesitate and she create a haven for them. However, sometimes she ignores advice when citations are ambiguous, especially when Tyrion’s brings up question of morality. She says this is how it is and does it. So, that’s also very, no holds bar.
JM: I think Daenerys attitude towards her advisors is completely justified and I’ll once again go back to Machiavelli who’s very useful model in these conversations. He said there are two ways to rules in certain political situations, you either had absolute rule or you ruled in conjunction with a council of noblemen. This group of councilors reminds me of the advisors Daenerys currently has. AS a last result Machiavelli advises to choose the first option, if you had to choose, that is absolute rule because with the second option Daenerys would have less power and would have to put down internal rebellions. So, I think this is the reason why at times Daenerys is authoritarian with her advisors because she tells herself, “I am the leader, I’m the one who has to make the final decision”. I think and understand why Daenerys was upset at Tyrion when he was judging her in front of the survivors of the battle, she was telling them either bend the knee or die while Tyrion would not stop yapping and questioning he saying “but Daenerys, but Daenerys”. So, I completely understand Daenerys attitude in saying “No” in this instance. I think a leader must be authoritative at times and in this case her decision was the correct one. As you say, the error here was the Tarly for not bending the knee for their foolish pride when they served the Targaryen’s during Robert’s Rebellion. So then why, it doesn’t ‘make sense.
JD: Exactly! At this point we could establish if Daenerys would be an apt person for a position of power, to rule the Seven Kingdoms, yes or no? She’s better than Cersei because Cersei is a completely irrational person who makes very poor decisions and we’ve seen from the start how all her plans fail. Daenerys has also her failures, but they’re there for the purpose of having her learn from them. She takes the lead and decides to destroy the Harpy, but at the time she did not realize the consequence of her actions and what repercussion they would bring, the murder of the Unsullied and other citizens. She has learned to take these negative experiences and turn them into a lesson, she’s not going to make the same mistake twice. I feel that Daenerys is a person who despite her prepatent, her fury, her intransigence and maybe a touch or a glimpse of her father, the mad king, who many have been compared to her. I believe she can be flexible and can balance reason with the heart and her character has evolved throughout these experiences.
JM: I think here’s where we can discuss Daenerys’ ambition. I don’t think a ruler, in medieval times especially, shouldn’t have their actions judged for what they had to do to reach the top because from ambition to action there are many steps. When reaching for the top you will regularly do unpleasant things. For me Daenerys is the most complete leader in Game of Thrones. From those who also seek to rule she’s the one with the best chance of ruling, without a doubt. That is, she’s a trusted leader, with character, who knows how to listen and is more than sufficiently capable. Without a doubt the most important thing is that I believe is, that in politics, you must be a leader with credibility, which is something most lack. She knows she can reach her goals and she knows how to go about it. If she’s going to do something, she’s not going to deceive anyone about it, she’ll do it, and she’ll take it and that is something that no other ruler of leader has in Game of Thrones. No even Sansa, who many are talking about. She [Daenerys] has total credibility in her power and her word and I think if she took control of Westeros after the war with the Wight Walkers and once her enemies are defeated she can establish a government that is completely prosperous. Especially if democracy is established, which would be something very complicated to accept for the citizens of Westeros, because it’ll be something new. You have all the extended regions, places like Dorn, which is a place far from the capital and the North that some say is ungovernable, it would be something complicated. But I believe that Daenerys with her credibility and her all the nuances she has as a leader can rule the seven kingdoms in an absolute immaculately manner.
JD: I was remembering a meme on the internet where it was implied… there is a person that’s sitting behind (and above) a line of men and they have a whip and are yelling to go forward, this person is described as a boss and then you have the person described as a leader who puts himself at the forefront leading the men, serving as an example to follow. There are many who critique Daenerys because she only gives orders, saying what she wants done and what is her will to carry out a good government but if she didn’t have her dragons her power wouldn’t be so palpable, her influence wouldn’t be so strong. Do you believe in this statement?
JM: I believe that Daenerys without her dragons would still carve out the same path she’s carved for herself in the series obviously with more complications. There’s a lot said about Daenerys being strong because of her dragons and that the dragons are the ones that have given her power. I say no, that is to say she’s used her dragons as a means to an end. In the end, the dragons aren’t her, they’re just a means. So, a good leader knows what resources to use to achieve their goals and if it’s not the dragons than its X. That is, Daenerys would have been a great leader without dragons, with dragons or with a dragon and a half. That is, Daenerys is a natural leader.
JD: What worries me is that those means to an end can be transitory and afterwards she won’t care about the problem and will walk away like she did in Meereen leaving someone like Daario Naharios in charge who is a mercenary. This can lead to chaos returning eventually and so I think that not being consistent when she’s had these hurdles we haven’t been able to see or haven’t seen a successful case in the true sense. Daenerys has been good for the Dothraki and she’s been good for the Unsullied, who still follow orders blindly, although they are free quote /unquote. In many ways, the people she has freed have suffered the consequences because she hasn’t learned how to carry out the radical liberation. Because it takes time, it takes years to successfully carry out a positive transition where you change costumes and those people who she helped don’t suffer the consequences of her actions. So, I think here she still needs to learn from what’s happened to her so that it doesn’t repeat.
JM: In the example of success that you mention the only successes she’s had are as a conqueror and not as a ruler. It’s complicated trying to figure out how she could be a good ruler but I think the problems that has arisen is how Daenerys character has been written in the last two seasons. Up until the fifth season Daenerys character seemed to me to be optimum, a very well-constructed character whose actions were coherent. However, in the last two season, which have had weak scripts in general, that Daenerys character has acted incoherently at times or things are taken for granted and the time lapses have been enormous. You don’t know how much time has passed between Dany taking the khalasar until she finds Drogon and giving her speech where they agree to go to the ends of the world with her. So, all these things are taken for granted or ignored and I think a lot of this, in the scripts, has harmed Daenerys character in the last couple of seasons. Even so, she’s still and incredibly strong character, the top character to rule, the number one character. But it is true what you say that she has not had a successful rule as of yet and this gives us pause for thought.
JD: We also have to take into account these processionary measure and decision have been taken in light of a completely different culture for Essos. How can you think to change what has been the law of the land for years? Now, she’s coming to Westeros where effectively all her ideals and way of life are congruent with those there. Everything could be better once she’s settled, the food resources, developing economic ties/treaties, developing relations with the different Houses/ powerful Lords, how to establish commerce. I think she can learn a lot from her ancestors, and I think under those circumstances of the game she could eventually have a true case of success. On the other hand, I think it’s been established that Jon Snow would not {be successful} because he’s made decision that are too impulsive bad decisions. In fact, when he returns to be King in the North, after the Battle of the Bastards, the first thing he does is to go beg the help of Daenerys Targaryen. He doesn’t preoccupy himself with the management of resources but conversely Sansa does worry about these things.
JM: Also, Jon’s character is lamentable because he tells Sansa that she’s going to govern, while everyone is present in the hall right before he leaves. It’s like Jon doesn’t bother planning anything and would make a poor ruler for the Seven Kingdoms because he’s too honorable. A ruler doesn’t have to be honorable, they have to be cohesive with his actions, they have to be just and they have to be authoritative, at least in medieval times. If you’re not, you’ll get eaten alive. Jon’s a character has been created to be a warrior, always.
JD: Yes, I think he’s a person with a good hart, he’s just, and he doesn’t have any vices, like Robert was. Perhaps he’s addicted to violence but not consciously. He wants the best for his people and would do anything to save them including giving his own life. In a sense, we could say there are advantages in contrast to Daenerys. But without a doubt Daenerys is much more apt and would be more apt if she didn’t have her dragons because they represent a danger and a nuclear weapon…
JM: Absolutely.
JD: …that could bring her a lot of problems subsequently and that is very latent. We have kings that were feared but not loved at all and who were not very good at politics.
JM: In response to what you were saying before about the politics that Daenerys wanted to restore in Essos I want to once again bring up Machiavelli because he postulated that when conducting a conquest of a foreign nation you have three options: Destroy the existing laws, settle within them [work within the system], or keep them all without change. Machiavelli postulated that the best option was to destroy the, because if you settle within them or keep them all together, in time, the people can easily rebel. So, even if it’s painful and it’s complicated to make this decision you must do it because a conquest is not just about arriving with dragons, destroy everything, and keep everything the way it is politically and that’s it. There has to be an afterwards and Daenerys know this is the only option. I think destroying the establish laws and creating new laws would be a breath of fresh air. In short working within the establish laws or just keeping them all together is more of the same but with an invader which gives the people more motive to rebel. So, I think those were good decision Daenerys took after her conquests.
JD: Yes, definitely. There needs to be an evolution when it comes to ruling. I don’t know if eventually the monarchy will prevail. We’ll eventually see what happens with this type of evolution. I think Daenerys should look into the past. We have for example the case of Jaehaerys I, the Conciliator. He was a pacifist and a diplomat who established many reforms and laws. With his intelligence and wisdom, he was able to achieve a long reign that would last 60 years. Imagine that. I think she can take advice from history. But we can compare her best, because more than anything Daenerys represents a renewed version of her ancestor Aegon the Conqueror. He also had a long reign but there was a lot of conflict and rebellions and there will be conflict and rebellions if Daenerys stays on the Iron Throne. Believe you me. Because she brought the savages, the Unsullied, and the dragons and this generate problems, it generates problems and conflict. How many Houses have been destroyed because of the conflict between her and Cersei, it’s too many. You tell me if there’s not going to be more bloodshed with time. So, I think Daenerys can achieve that balance but she has to be very careful but I think there’ll be a lot of conflict if it’s the later.
JM: But those are the trappings of power. These are things that would happen anyways, if Jon took the throne or anyone else did. In the end, they’ll always be rebellion because not everyone will agree with every decided made by whoever is on the throne, never. They’ll never be 100 percent agreement. What you have to do is know how to smother them[rebellion] and know how to handle them and I think Daenerys would be the ideal leader to smother any possible rebellions.
JD: How would you rank Daenerys as a potential ruler of Westeros?
JM: From 1 to 10 I think Daenerys would score, I’m very demanding, I would give her a 7. And it’s because she has the potential to be a very powerful leader but she’ll have to deal with a lot of problems. That’s way I took away a couple of points. I’ll tell you, those who are behind her don’t even reach 5. I think Daenerys is a person with vitality with the perfect personality to rule and I think the other characters who aspire to the throne couldn’t handle the weight of power. On the other hand, Daenerys has the experience and she can handle it stupendously and it’s her ambition.
JD: Taking what you’ve said as a prediction of season 8 can we assume that Daenerys, according to your taste, or according to what you believe will happen, can she take the Iron Throne or will she take the Iron Throne? What do you believe?
JM: According to how the series is developing, because they are preparing us for it, for in fact the Disney ending that everyone is talking about, for the last two seasons there has been a lot pointing at there be a happy ending quote/ unquote for what Game of Thrones is. Of course, many fans won’t like this, it’s very clear to me that a lot of people won’t like that ending but I think that’ll be the ending with Jon and Daenerys on the Iron Throne and with Tyrion dead because one of the three of them has to die for sure and I think it’ll be Tyrion who will die in the end. But we’ll see how it all ends, I think it’ll be the a Disney ending which I personally do not like. I’ve said it on many occasion I would prefer for Littlefinger or the Wight Walkers winning or conversely because I like Daenerys very much, and every time I say this people jump down my throat saying “how can you like Daenerys”, well I would like for Daenerys to reign alone
JD: Of course, there are many with poor taste and you can’t please everyone, it’s a complicated subject. If Tyrion does it’ll of course be a completely bittersweet ending. But for example, if Daenerys wins the Iron Throne they’ll be reaffirming the character they’ve been trying to portray/project throughout the last seven seasons, the figure of female empowerment. So, if Daenerys dies than all the time spent creating such a complex character would have been for nothing.
JM: Exactly!
JD: Definitely, I believe the Daenerys, as it stands now, will survive. She won’t die, many say she’ll die in childbirth, no she will not die giving birth. I can’t be [that way].
JM: That can’t be.
JD: That can’t be because it’ll be stupid. She comes from a mother, Rhaella Targaryen. who died in childbirth. Jon Snow comes from a mother, Lyanna Stark, who died in childbirth. And now you create such a powerful character only to have her die in childbirth, without any justification without having accomplish any real change as you’ve highlighted throughout the seven season, I don’t believe it.
JM: It would be a very obvious ending.
JD: But also, I have in mind what’s going to happen with Jon Snow. Jon Snow was resurrected for one reason; he was resurrected for what! To end the Long Night, that’s very clear. He’s the one who will defeat the Night’s King, the Wight Walker and will bring peace once again to end this time of darkness. This is extremely clear. Nonetheless is he’s going to die having accomplished this, that’s what we don’t know. However, why would they clearly announce, by having Bran say it, that Jon is the legitimate heir to the Seven Kingdoms.
JM: Because they’re preparing us for the Disney ending.
JD: Because they’re preparing us for the Disney ending and because it’s the perfect mix of Ice and Fire.
JM: And I don’t like that because it diminishes Daenerys’ character.
JD: I like it, because I like happy ending. But I understand where you are coming from and I agree with you that it takes away from the things Daenerys has tried to accomplished. Who’s going to be the real ruler, is it going to be Jon, is it going to be Daenerys. Obviously, Jon doesn’t want power and I feel like he’ll resign from it.
JM: Jon can’t be king. Jon can’t be king and I’ll repeat it as often as needed. He does not have the attitude to rule, to be king. He has the skills to be a warrior, a kingssguard, including the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, that’s what he has the skills for but not to be king, he just doesn’t have them at all He doesn’t know how to rule, he has not clue and we see that his character, from the first season, is a character that is meant to be a warrior but not a king.
JD: He has had some success, we’ve seen him as Lord a Commander of the Nights Watch, he takes care of everyone at Castle Black, he looks for resources, he asked the Iron Bank for a loan, he bring the Wildlings through because he has a good hear but like with Daenerys he creates collateral damage that he doesn’t anticipate but I think if Jon put away the fury and the fighting and he focused more he could learn some important lessons
JM: Of course, with season 8 with the leaks that have come across recently they’re saying they’ll be lots of time jumps throughout the season so perhaps Jon does learn but as things stand right now Jon can’t be king.
JD: Of course, because as you say Daenerys has gone through an evolution from a submissive and weak person to someone capable of taking the reins of their own destiny in the transition of four episode and we could see this with Jon Snow with these time jumps and decision making but things are sort of pointing in a different direction because out of all the actors that were filing Jon Snow is the one who spent the most time filing battles so tell me where in all this does he learn diplomacy. Trying to figure out how things will end from a logical point of view and from a conventional cinematography standpoint how things end satisfactory or not. I fell it’ll be more satisfactory than unsatisfactory. I feel like 70 to 75 percent are going to be happy about how it ends because the other way would be very lamentable for HBO obviously and for everyone. There’s anything you want to add Jordi.
JM: Nothing, I just want to thank you very much for inviting me and time has just flown by .
JD: Same Loved that discussion! And those pictures are soo pretty.
|
|
moiaf
Mother of Dragons
@admin
Posts: 6,194
Likes: 6,494
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 4 Time Winner
#9618a9
1
0
1
Apr 29, 2020 17:41:53 GMT -5
6,494
moiaf
6,194
Jun 20, 2016 18:58:43 GMT -5
June 2016
admin
4 Time Winner
|
Post by moiaf on Sept 5, 2018 10:00:02 GMT -5
Here's another video analysis. This time Jordi analyses the radio version of Truth that Ramin recorded last winter. The translation is under the spoiler tag.
0:31 Since this appeared about Ramin Djawadi’s appearance in KCRW many of you have asked that I do an analysis of his composition and I think it gives us some important information regarding season 8. If we look back at the theme of “Truth” which appeared in season 7 of Game if Thrones, it was built in phases, just like the romance Jon and Daenerys. This theme became viral and contributed to Ramin’s Djawadi getting a Grammy nomination. By the way Ramin (mumbles something) the nomination.
1:00 The truth is that this composition as well as Jon and Daenerys’ romance gives us pause as to how it [their relationship] will affect the war against the Wight Walkers. Especially if when we were to examine the past romances of the series. However, the question I was asked the most when I analyzed and explored the theme was if it sounded too dramatic or if things would end badly because of the tone of the song because it was to sad or melancholy. Honestly, I’ve never felt it to have a tinge of sadness, it was simply romanticist. No theme in the series has happy sound to it, exactly.
1:28 This takes us to the second question, well, what is so special about Ramin Djawadi’s radio version of the song. Simple, not only does it turn the [original] composition of the song upside down and add bits of other themes, it also gives us some serious spoilers for season 8. I repeat, this is a theory, based on music analysis, but it’s well grounded.
1:46 However, we need to review past materials. The theme of “Truth” fussed together the romantic themes of Jon and Ygritte and Dany and Drogo. The composition did this because Jon like Daenerys had not fallen in love again since those two previous romances. Thus, the theme established a point of melancholy in the use of its influences. Additionally, the theme includes a third part, that would be considered their actual theme, which is not influenced by anything else. Therefore, the last thing we had in the series of this theme was this:
[Plays soundtrack version of a Truth.]
2:10 -First Part of the theme (Dany and Drogo)-
2:20 -Second Part of the theme. (Jon and Ygritte)-
2:30 -Third Part of the theme (both themes combined)-
2:40 -Fourth Part of the theme (their own theme)-
3:08 -Fifth Part of the theme (final crescendo)
3:35 Well, after the final look on Tyrion’s face and the Jonerys haters many asked themselves, is this [romance] the right thing? Will this turn out well? Will love be the death of duty once again? Well, I’ve already done a video explaining why Jon and Dany’s theme is unlike any other themes/ It’s because it makes use of the cello, in a way in which the other romantic themes of the series never do, and because both represent fire and ice, A Song of Ice and Fire, like the original title of the series of novels in which the show Game of Thrones s based on.
4:00 Additionally, throughout the series these two words are referenced together. This is [the reason] why I believe this is the definitive romance of the series. And Ramin Djawadi makes this even clearer with his interpretation [of the song during his appearance] at KCRW. The filming of the 8th season of Game of Thrones began on October 2017. So, by then all the cast and crew should have had access to the script for season 8. This tells us that by that time Ramin Djawadi’s obtained a copy of the script by that time and began working on the soundtrack for the season 8.
4:29 So, by now he should have made good progress. This interpretation of “Truth” [that appears] in the US radio station was prompted by Ramin Djawadi’s snd his trusted team of musicians on the 13 of December of 2017, two months after the start of filing of season 8. So, what this Ramin do, this is a theory, he presented the world with what the version of “Truth” will be during season 8.
4:51 Let me tell you all, it disappoints me. Not as a composition, Ramin Djawadi’s is a genius, and all his compositions are a pleasure to listen to. I’m disappointed me from discussion level. You all know that I’m pro Jonerys and all that but my preferred endings for Game of Thrones were Littlefinger or the Wight Walkers on the throne. Why, what can I say, I love chaos.
5:10 Seriously, Game of Thrones is not a Disney movie where everything will end well, as we’ve seen in multiple instances.
[Montage of GoT deaths]
5:34 But no, George RR Martin has talked about the ending of a Game of Thrones on many occasions and has said that the ending will be bittersweet like the ending of Lord of the Rings.
[Interview with GRRM]
6:04 This sounds familiar to me…
[Scenes from the end of LotR “The Return of the King]
6:07 -King’s Landing-
6:14 -Jon-
6:19 -Daenerys-
6:25 -This is a bittersweet ending? -
6:45 The Lord of the Rings, as a trilogy is the best thing that has been made in the history of cinema and no one doubts it, but it has a happy ending. Despite Frodo and Gandalf’s departure, which could make it a bittersweet ending, the rest end up happy as clams. Will the same thing happen on Game of Thrones?
7:00 Well, let’s analyze the version of “Truth” the Ramin Djawadi plays on KRCW which will be [the version] that will appear in season 8. The las evolution of Jon and Daenerys theme.
7:10 Many have said [asked] if the fact that there is a vocalist means anything, as the royal themes of Game of Thrones usually use vocal. To clear this up, no. In the final version of “Truth” there will not be any vocals and if Ramin introduced vocals here it’s because the singer is a trusted collaborator who accompanies him to all the concerts and sings many themes that don’t have vocals. For example, the main theme.
[Shows video of the main theme with vocals]
7:38 Unlike in the series, where he uses an orchestra, in this version Ramin uses a piano to substitute the violins and this is an important detail. As I’ve already explained what the instruments mean to the composer. Ramin wouldn’t have had any issues bringing 3 or 4 violins to the radio recoding but instead he chose to bring a piano because it was more comfortable, and this means the violins won’t important to the final version of “Truth”.
8:01 What does this tell us? Total freedom for the cello which eliminates the conflict between love and duty that had us so worried. For which the last evolution of “Truth” proposes a pure love, without worries about duty or anything else, simply love. Let’s look at how the cello ends in the first part of the theme.
[Cello being played]
8:28 Contrary to how it ends in the original theme, this [version] ends in a major note. If we remember, the original theme ended in a minor note because we see Tyrion preoccupied.
[Plays scene showing Tyrion preoccupied]
8:42 Once again, we eliminate another problem. And now, another part of the theme begins with an accelerated tempo, contrary/ strangely different to the originally theme, which had opted for a, let’s say, more bittersweet sound and over major chords. Perhaps this is foreshadowing something, I don’t was to give spoilers, but this sounds to me to be like...
9:03 [Plays that section of “Truth”]
-Preparations for an event? –
[Scenes from the coronation in “The Return of the King]
9:26 Now we get into the special part of the song, the theme of Game of Thrones. We’ve already studied this theme thoroughly and it’s clear it represents power, it represents victory. But why introduce the opening theme of Game of Thrones in a romantic theme song? Because it’s [the romance] the one destined to happen, it’s the one that represents the Song of Ice and Fire. It’s the culmination [where it has brought us] after so many seasons. The victory over the Wight Walkers represented in Jon and Daenerys.
9:52 [Plays section in “Truth” where the main theme plays]
-“Truth” movement major + the theme of Game of Thrones [played] in an acceding scale-
[Scenes from the coronation in “The Return of the King]
10:10 Once again, there is a pause over sharp chords, which can represent something else ...
10:18 [Continues to play music]
-This melody so soft and playful in Doric mode could be in reference to the son or daughter of Jon and Daenerys-
10:32 The theme begins to grow, once again over major chords, joined by once again the theme of Game of Thrones is added and song ends in a climax that combines both compositions.
10:40 [Continues to play music]
-Will this be the theme that plays during Jon and Daenerys coronation? –
11:08 -I BET YOU AMYTHING YOU WANT-
11:56 I am one hundred percent sure that this is the theme that will play during Jon and Daenerys coronation after their victory over the Wight Walkers. This composition is revealing to us the ending of Game of Thrones. Truthfully, I really didn’t want it to end this way, but seeing the evidences and the proofs that the music gives us, which are many as we’ve already seen, I think it’s pretty clear what this means. I repeat, this is a theory, but well-grounded and not conjured from thin air. I’ve based this on proof and sources that you all can easily corroborate but in the end it’s still a theory. There is still a long way to go until 2019 and the last result of the composition of “Truth” but we have a clue of what it will be.
12:34 I hope you’ve liked this.
|
|
milyagaryen
Viserion
@milyagaryen
Posts: 154
Likes: 254
inherit
106
0
Nov 12, 2016 23:47:12 GMT -5
254
milyagaryen
154
Nov 12, 2016 22:25:09 GMT -5
November 2016
milyagaryen
|
Post by milyagaryen on Feb 7, 2019 6:49:11 GMT -5
Just posting this here because it is so beautiful and we deserve it
|
|
sercreighton
Silverwing
@sercreighton
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 2,439
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 3 Time Nominee
inherit
35
0
Sept 24, 2019 3:37:33 GMT -5
2,439
sercreighton
2,465
Jun 28, 2016 17:04:35 GMT -5
June 2016
sercreighton
3 Time Nominee
|
Post by sercreighton on Feb 8, 2019 4:33:53 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more I think they either both make it or they both vanish like Nettle and Daemon.
I can't see them dying, people talk about bittersweet and the series is already plenty bitter with tons of deaths and we are sure to see more. In terms of balance neither dying really restores any balance because they already have a natural balance. They may be special to an extent but they are human and they will die no matter what. The dragons may die they are magical and sort of create some imbalance but it's a magic world and magic existed long before them. They seem to effect magic around them, much like when Mel felt the magic from the wall.
But still there is only one true imbalance and that is the NK. The weather was wonkie long before the dragons returned. And did they really return, I mean extended universe indicates there is a lot of magic still in Essos including other dragons. But there is nothing else like the NK, he's an immortal Demi God who can control the weather, a Greenseer with no peer, and can raise 10,000 dead with the wave of his hand.
Maybe Mel when near the dragons can raise a handful but that's not the same level. The only real imbalance I can think of is the NK and while he draws some parallels to Jon and Darrio, Euron and Bloodraven is ridiculously more powerful then all of them combined.
My argument against them just vanishing is, they would probably need a dragon, so that would be cool if a dragon made it, and their child could not be born cause there is zero chance Dany just leaves her baby.
|
|
moiaf
Mother of Dragons
@admin
Posts: 6,194
Likes: 6,494
2017 Golden Dragon Awards: 4 Time Winner
#9618a9
1
0
1
Apr 29, 2020 17:41:53 GMT -5
6,494
moiaf
6,194
Jun 20, 2016 18:58:43 GMT -5
June 2016
admin
4 Time Winner
|
Post by moiaf on Mar 6, 2019 9:23:41 GMT -5
|
|
Maesteress
Drogon
@maesteress
Posts: 500
Likes: 712
inherit
49
0
May 31, 2019 10:42:39 GMT -5
712
Maesteress
500
Jul 10, 2016 19:05:51 GMT -5
July 2016
maesteress
|
Post by Maesteress on Mar 6, 2019 10:11:16 GMT -5
I know that the general fandom has been clinging to the word "bittersweet" for ages now, and many of them assuming that this means there really can't be a happy ending for Dany and/or Jon. To me, these are the two characters who have suffered the most through this story - while consistently working for the betterment of others, not themselves. They are the most selfless of all the characters. For this reason alone, I am convinced they both will live in the end and remain together. Killing off one or the other is literally "overkill"....at this point, having one or both make the ultimate sacrifice (one of whom already has) when they've already sacrificed so much cheapens this story. I think they will be the sweet, not the bitter - which will be that so many of those around them will be the ones to sacrifice themselves for them to bring hope to the future. Yesterdays trailer only reinforced my feelings on this.
And every time I hear one of the actors say something like "some will hate it some will love it" with the ending, I think of all the people who can't get past the incest (it's fiction ding dongs) as the ones who will hate it and I just laugh to myself.
|
|