Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote:Why do people have such an issue with Jon bending the knee? I don't get it.

1. Daenarys will be the worst thing that can happen to Westeros. 2. He is the king of the north, but I very much doubt it will be respected up north if he does. 3. He has a better claim than her to the throne in every way. 4. It would not make sense for the story for him to do so now. If Dany wins the south and they defeat the white walkers, whether I would like it or not, it would be the correct time to bend the knee and make some sort of peace in Westeros.

Anders wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Why do people have such an issue with Jon bending the knee? I don't get it.

1. Daenarys will be the worst thing that can happen to Westeros. 2. He is the king of the north, but I very much doubt it will be respected up north if he does. 3. He has a better claim than her to the throne in every way. 4. It would not make sense for the story for him to do so now. If Dany wins the south and they defeat the white walkers, whether I would like it or not, it would be the correct time to bend the knee and make some sort of peace in Westeros.

1. Disagree.
2. King in the North is pretty meaningless and those in the North will get the fuck over it pretty quickly. Besides, if they're as fickle and house-ist as so many seem to think then they sure won't give a fuck about Jon Snow here in a few minutes when they find out where he really came from.
3. So what. It makes ZERO sense for Jon to sit on the Iron Throne.
4. I think it makes perfect sense in the story for him to do so now if he thinks it's the best way to sure up a strong ally.

I don't understand how you can even like Daenarys like that. Emilia Clarke is amazing. A wonderful actor, and dare I say a beautiful woman. But the character is just a crazy warmongering dictator narcissist.

I see the character 100% differently. I'm actually kinda blown away that you see her that way.

durdencommatyler wrote:I see the character 100% differently. I'm actually kinda blown away that you see her that way.

I agree. I haven't interpreted her as malevolent as the words anders used described. I look at the character as having grown into the role of strong leader that has to keep herself in check with her own standards of what it means to be queen or ruler instead of thinking with her heart. I think once drogo died in the manner he did, she was determined to not make mistakes in her reign over people for fear of bringing that kind of bad outcome to the populace based on her own emotions. Which, imo, is why the mad king was mad from the perspective of the series, because i don't know how he's portrayed in the books, but he did what his madness demanded, which was a reactive and emotion based action at any opportunity.

Maybe she does turn into another mad king but i wouldn't want to see her end that way if that's supposed to be the indication.

malice wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I see the character 100% differently. I'm actually kinda blown away that you see her that way.

I agree. I haven't interpreted her as malevolent as the words anders used described. I look at the character as having grown into the role of strong leader that has to keep herself in check with her own standards of what it means to be queen or ruler instead of thinking with her heart. I think once drogo died in the manner he did, she was determined to not make mistakes in her reign over people for fear of bringing that kind of bad outcome to the populace based on her own emotions. Which, imo, is why the mad king was mad from the perspective of the series, because i don't know how he's portrayed in the books, but he did what his madness demanded, which was a reactive and emotion based action at any opportunity.

Maybe she does turn into another mad king but i wouldn't want to see her end that way if that's supposed to be the indication.

See, malice gets it.

And I really don't think George has any intention of turning her into a mad ruler. The show? ... It's harder to tell what they're thinking/doing sometimes. But ultimately I don't think that's where they're gonna take the character either. It would be a pretty major and unjustified 180.

You may think Trump is bad now, but imagine if Julie Nixon Eisenhower came invading your country with all Mexican, Dominican and Texan troops, as well as terrible attack dogs and huge tanks. Troops known for massacres and raping women.

Julie Nixon Eisenhower: ""When my tanks are finished and my attack dogs are grown, we will take back what was stolen from me and destroy those who wronged me! We will lay waste to armies and burn cities to the ground!"

"Dominicans! Slay the politicians, slay the soldiers, slay the police, slay every man who holds a gun, but harm no child."

"I will take what is mine with fire and blood."

"My brother was no dragon. Fire cannot kill a dragon."

"I am Julie Nixon Eisenhower of House Nixon, of the blood of the old South. I am the dragon's daughter, and I swear to you that those who would harm you will die screaming."

"I am no ordinary woman. My dreams come true."

"I am the blood of the dragon Richard Nixon."

lmfao

Is Anders high?

durdencommatyler wrote:Is Anders high?

Maybe, but he's not wrong.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Is Anders high?

Maybe, but he's not wrong.

I'm not sure what he's trying to say, so I can't comment on the rightness or wrongness thereof.

Barry sees no taint of madness in her and that's good enough for me.

These people are too young to remember nixon, and tge analogy is flawed anyway. The U.S. war machine doesn't behave like a group of medieval lords and royals, and trump isn't allowed to declare war, congress is, not that any of that matters anyway because it's a largely unsuccessful bid at trying to use more modern day names to fit into a fictional world set in roughly Arthurian timeframes with add on magic and dragons.

Its a grossly imperfect match up

This reminds me of Tolkien constantly being irritated by people trying to wedge lotr into a wwii allegory. It's not the same thing it's apples and umbrellas.
Also, for the sake of argument, grand gestures a grand sweeping statements and grand actions are what got is all about. Why should danys comments and actions be taken as "crazy ass bitch" and everyone else is rational well behavd westeros? How the hell do you think they revolted against the mad king? Elections, maybe?

It's funny because had Robert not rebelled violently Rhaegar was prepared to rebel diplomatically and call a Great Council.

cutuphalfdead wrote:It's funny because had Robert not rebelled violently Rhaegar was prepared to rebel diplomatically and call a Great Council.

Yup. Rhaegar was by all accounts, the shit.

cutuphalfdead wrote:It's funny because had Robert not rebelled violently Rhaegar was prepared to rebel diplomatically and call a Great Council.

Yeah but that's not put forth in the series, or if it has, ive completely missed it over the last 4 years of watching all seasons

malice wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It's funny because had Robert not rebelled violently Rhaegar was prepared to rebel diplomatically and call a Great Council.

Yeah but that's not put forth in the series, or if it has, ive completely missed it over the last 4 years of watching all seasons

There was flashback last season (?) to Rhaegar talking to Jaime before he rides out to battle Robert and says "don't worry, we're changing things around here when I'm done dealing with this" or something like that.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

malice wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It's funny because had Robert not rebelled violently Rhaegar was prepared to rebel diplomatically and call a Great Council.

Yeah but that's not put forth in the series, or if it has, ive completely missed it over the last 4 years of watching all seasons

There was flashback last season (?) to Rhaegar talking to Jaime before he rides out to battle Robert and says "don't worry, we're changing things around here when I'm done dealing with this" or something like that.

So from one line of dialogue I'm supposed to infer that rhaegar is going to start a round table of truth and justice? Pfffft

malice wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

malice wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It's funny because had Robert not rebelled violently Rhaegar was prepared to rebel diplomatically and call a Great Council.

Yeah but that's not put forth in the series, or if it has, ive completely missed it over the last 4 years of watching all seasons

There was flashback last season (?) to Rhaegar talking to Jaime before he rides out to battle Robert and says "don't worry, we're changing things around here when I'm done dealing with this" or something like that.

So from one line of dialogue I'm supposed to infer that rhaegar is going to start a round table of truth and justice? Pfffft

He basically was saying I'm going to get rid of this madman who keeps burning people alive.

Yeah, I wasn't alive, but I certainly understand about and have studied the Presidency of Richard Nixon. What Anders posted, though, is so flawed and incomparable and meaningless that it borders on lunacy. It's completely absurd. As malice said, apples and umbrellas. If that's what he was getting at, and I'm still not certain that it is.