Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

They're opposite things, two extremes of a single spectrum. I'm not sure if you bungled that sentence or you're really not following what I'm saying hear.

Nope they are different things - you can be strong and ruthless but you don't have to be - you do seem obsessed by the idea that any kind of violence is a sign of "ruthlessness" which is a very emotive term - as is weakness which is why I used it in the context I did. This is the problem with pretending that anyone living in a quasi medieval world like GOT would have the same view and expectations about life, violence and suffering as we do.

Your question is still bad, as it narrows the terms to only instances of Dany being ruthless. But Dany's first instinct is to be kind, and so they're won't be examples of her being ruthless and then getting blowback, instead we see instances of her initial kindness producing either benefits or losses. She offers the Unsullied freedom, and in return they choose to be loyal, free soldiers. Then Dany marched on Yunkai not because it helped capture the Iron Throne, but because she wanted to free the slaves there, and this gained her their loyalty as well. Meereen then revolted upon her arrival, without her losing a single soldier in the initial capture of the city.

Why do you keep using the word Ruthless? She was Strong after having been exploited and weak - that's the whole point of Dany's character - she is repeatedly burnt by others and later her own actions but comes through stronger and able to enact vengeance /justice however you want to describe it. Her entire journey has been like this - since she was sold as a brood mare to her husband, betrayed by her trusted maid, to being captured by the sorcerers - all these things came from her being weak, and all of these things were set right by her being strong =- not Ruthless - STRONG. If she had been ruthless she would have crucified every member of a Masters family when she took the city - she did not - she enacted "Justice" on some following the Masters doing the same with children! We all know that many more would have died in the rebellion - we just did not see much of it - its is described a bit more in the books.

No I clarified my statements as you had expanded the discussion to other characters, as you say when Dany is kind - bad things happen. She freed the slaves by burning the Masters (strength) because that was the only way to get an army and also keep her Dragons. The fact that the Masters were deeply unpleasant people as was the brutal society that they maintained was a great bonus (in fact she was also following her ancestors who wiped out the empire that proceeded the Masters and whose colonies made up the cities in Slaver bay).

Again were are the examples of Dany being Strong that causes her any issues, ever?

Dany led her army to Mereem because she wanted a port and a fleet, and also to free the slaves but in her mind that's a legitimate justification for her war /crusade (and I am not saying it is not), because she was a Strong force that had galvanised her followers this spread to the slaves and resulted in the rebellion.

Whenever she is Weak, not Kind but Weak - she suffers.

Ruthless =

having or showing no pity or compassion for others

That's a good description of Ramsey and Joffrey but not Dany.
Weakness =

the state or quality of being weak; lack of strength, firmness, vigor, or the like; feebleness. 2. an inadequate or defective quality, as in a person's character; slight fault or defect.

Those are not pure opposites - you can be Weak and Ruthless or Strong and Ruthless - in fact many failed Tyrants are weak but ruthless.

Strength

refers especially to physical, mental, or moral robustness or vigor: "enough work to do, and strength enough to do the work" (Rudyard Kipling).

Not the same as Ruthless!!!!!

That's just word play. One character does a ruthless thing and it works, you call it ruthless and say it fits your theory, someone else does a ruthless thing and it fails and you call it weakness and remove it from your theory.

Nope - you are twisting things to fit your view of the show - anything that involves the slightest bit of violence is apparently "Ruthless" - I assume her Dragons burning the dead was "Ruthless"..... see above.

Ramsey playing with his enemy's wasn't a weakness, he never suffered from it. Ramsey lost because he ended up with too many enemies, and no friends interested in helping him. That's an result of being a ruthless sociopath

Nonsense - he had won - his enemies were about to be wiped out en masse, he had plenty of followers or those content to remain neutral - Sansa managed to summon a Deus Ex Machina of the Vale forces, but otherwise we would have a very different situation in the North now. Ramsey's own father tells him to control his needs - its too obvious - not don't do it - just don't be as flamboyant or it will cause trouble later. That - together with his brutal marriage to Sansa was one of the more realistic parts of the show for the world they live in.

The difference is that Dany's first instinct is kindness, while Cersei's is ruthlessness. This is largely why you are wrong in thinking the show is just about how being kind gets you and yours hurt - because despite coming from opposite approaches both Dany and Cersei have grown vastly in power in influence. This is largely why you are wrong in thinking the show is just about how being kind gets you and yours hurt - because despite coming from opposite approaches both Dany and Cersei have grown vastly in power in influence.

Both were given to abusive/brutal husbands when young but only Cersei suffered for more than a decade which has turned her into someone bitter, alcoholic and vengeful whereas Dany grew to love her husband and vice versa . Cersei's actions are driven by these and the terrible things that have happened to her because she was weak and powerless. She has power now - when it matters less and less to her having lost all that she loves - if she has a child it will be interesting to see if she evolves - the show is much better than the book at this element but I doubt it.

This is wordplay again. You call it ruthlessness if it worked, but if burning your own child at the stake doesn't work you call it desperation.

No its the truth - you have become obsessed with the word ruthless - remember the story - Stanis was leading a freezing starving army to its doom, his men were deserting and the only thing he had left to cling to was the false words of a witch - never trust prophecy! His act was pure desperation - it was not an act of Strength which is what I keep coming back to - it was Weakness. Not sure how you miss the fact that burning your own child alive because you have nothing else you can do is not an act of man in control.

Now if he had done this when he left his island with his full army etc and in good order just because the witch said it might help - now that would have been pure ruthlessness but he didn't - it was the last gasp of a failed leader who had nothing else to try.

Huh? Two versions of sorts of democracy are explicitly mentioned to Dany as methods of rule to replace her when she's gone. That's not even subtext, it was actual text directly spoken

I have missed this - what was said?

Who said anything about successfully resist? You claimed that 'everyone bar fanatics will capitulate'. I showed you that actually whole armies got wiped by dragons on the field, surrender wasn't immediate or certain.

How long did it take to wipe out the armies, did they even get a chance to surrender? You are making my point - you burn some, the others surrender - job done. The world moves on and you will be judged by how you treat your enemies when you have won. This is exactly what happened at Meerem and the raid on the convoy. It works.

 welshhoppo wrote:
As long as Dany doesn't sit on the Iron Throne, I'll be happy.


All hail Davos Seaworth, King of the Seven Kingdoms and the First Men!

King gendry of house rowboat, first of his name and Queen Arya for a curve ball.?

I still like the bonkers and totally unsound theory that Gendry is actually Robert and Cersei's child that she gave away to spite Robert and replaced him with another body

Does anyone know the real background of Gendry beyond RB's bastard son? When was he born and to whom?

 MDSW wrote:
Does anyone know the real background of Gendry beyond RB's bastard son? When was he born and to whom?

All we know is that he's about the same age as Robb Stark and his mother was blond.

According to the asoiaf wiki.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
I still like the bonkers and totally unsound theory that Gendry is actually Robert and Cersei's child that she gave away to spite Robert and replaced him with another body

Wait a minute.....

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope they are different things - you can be strong and ruthless but you don't have to be - you do seem obsessed by the idea that any kind of violence is a sign of "ruthlessness" which is a very emotive term - as is weakness which is why I used it in the context I did.

No, you don't understand what a spectrum is or how it is being used in this case. It is an explanatory descriptor, it doesn't reduce everything down in to being purely about ruthlessness or weakness. Think of a line, on the far left you have weakness, on the far right you have ruthlessness. In between those two ends you have the full whole range of possible choices made by each character. Actions that edge to close to the left, to weakness, have had negative outcomes, and actions that have too far to the right, to ruthlessness, have had different negative outcomes. And again, this is more or less, and not an absolute law, because GoT isn't a dogmatic statement on morality.

Why do you keep using the word Ruthless?

Because I'm describing GoT through a framework to analyse how the characters have acted and what those actions have caused, in an attempt to give some meaningful connection between decision and result.

She was Strong after having been exploited and weak - that's the whole point of Dany's character

Ok, so now you're catching up to things I was explaining to you weeks ago. Actual, literal weeks ago.

No I clarified my statements as you had expanded the discussion to other characters, as you say when Dany is kind - bad things happen.

What? Dany's kindness has had negative consequences, but also great benefits. Remember she captured Meereen through a slave revolt, simply because the people there heard of her kind actions elsewhere. But you are obsessed with this reading that Dany's kindness has only brought negative consequences, which is a strange invention and not consistent with the story we've been given.

Again were are the examples of Dany being Strong that causes her any issues, ever?

Please read what I'm fething saying. Here, I'll just repost it for you;

"Your question is still bad, as it narrows the terms to only instances of Dany being ruthless. But Dany's first instinct is to be kind, and so they're won't be examples of her being ruthless and then getting blowback, instead we see instances of her initial kindness producing either benefits or losses. She offers the Unsullied freedom, and in return they choose to be loyal, free soldiers. Then Dany marched on Yunkai not because it helped capture the Iron Throne, but because she wanted to free the slaves there, and this gained her their loyalty as well. Meereen then revolted upon her arrival, without her losing a single soldier in the initial capture of the city."

Those are not pure opposites - you can be Weak and Ruthless or Strong and Ruthless - in fact many failed Tyrants are weak but ruthless.

You're playing word games again. The exact words used don't matter. You could replace 'ruthless' with 'gabblepots' and 'weak' with 'ooplesnaps' and it wouldn't matter. What matters is the dynamic, that the extremes of at each of the scale have grave consequences.

Nope - you are twisting things to fit your view of the show - anything that involves the slightest bit of violence is apparently "Ruthless" - I assume her Dragons burning the dead was "Ruthless"..... see above.

No, that isn't how words work. This is ridiculous.

Nonsense - he had won - his enemies were about to be wiped out en masse, he had plenty of followers or those content to remain neutral - Sansa managed to summon a Deus Ex Machina of the Vale forces, but otherwise we would have a very different situation in the North now.

Okay, you don't know what a deus ex machina is. It isn't used to describe any time a character is saved by anyone or anything. To be a deus ex, it needs to come out of nowhere, unrelated to previous plot or character developments. So for instance the eagles saving Sam and Frodo in LotR was a deus ex, but Han saving Luke in Star Wars was not. Get it? Good.

In GoT the Knights of the Vale saving Jon from defeat was the next step in Sansa's development. It showed she had developed a wise, strategic mind, just as she rightly warned Jon about the mind games Ramsey would play, she also rightly assessed the knights as essential to Jon's victory. It also was the next step in her relationship with Littlefinger, she relied on his army, gave him another inroad in to her life and the politics of the North, and made it look for a time that she was still being played by him. But then as s7 developed it became clear she was playing him, she knew his character and his crimes, but used him as a temporary ally.

This is another thing you got arse about in GoT. What you saw as a story being written as the Knights coming to rescue to get Jon out of certain doom was actually Jon's certain doom being written so that the Knights could come to his rescue.

No its the truth - you have become obsessed with the word ruthless - remember the story - Stanis was leading a freezing starving army to its doom, his men were deserting and the only thing he had left to cling to was the false words of a witch - never trust prophecy! His act was pure desperation - it was not an act of Strength which is what I keep coming back to - it was Weakness. Not sure how you miss the fact that burning your own child alive because you have nothing else you can do is not an act of man in control.

You're simply wrong when you say never trust prophecy. GoT is steeped in prophecy. It is actually less pronounced on the tv show, the books are almost unreadable if you assume the constant prophesy elements are just meaningless, made up stuff. I think what's happened is a lot of people have gotten confused because so many characters have misinterpeted prophecy and been led down the wrong path, most notably but not limited to Melissandre and Stannis, but that doesn't mean never trust prophecy. Instead the lesson has been that it is a mistake to apply your own personal ambitions on to an existing prophecy.

I have missed this - what was said?

In the Beyond the Wall episode, Tyrion and Dany discuss 'breaking the wheel', again. Tyrion then raises the question of succession, who will replace Dany, mentioning her infertility. He mentions the Night's Watch electing their Lord Commander, and the Iron Men electing their ruler. Dany says she will not consider anything like that until she wears the crown.

How long did it take to wipe out the armies, did they even get a chance to surrender? You are making my point - you burn some, the others surrender - job done. The world moves on and you will be judged by how you treat your enemies when you have won. This is exactly what happened at Meerem and the raid on the convoy. It works.

If that was yoru point, you should have said 'you burn some, the others surrender'. Instead you said ' just demonstrate your overwhelming power and everyone bar fanatics will capitulate'. So you've now moved from claiming overwhelming power can force surrender without having to kill anyone but fanatics, to a new position that overwhelming power must be used to kill a lot of people and then you get the rest to surrender. The difference in those two claims is massive.

And your claim that using overwhelming power always works is still just completely fething wrong. It sounds more and more like you're applying your own strange worldview on to a story and you just don't care how the events of that story have actually played out. To believe your claim, we would have to believe that all the characters who've shown no hesitation in their use of force, like Ramsey or Cersei, have done nothing but go from strength to strength. Obviously this is absolutely false. And it would mean that a story like Dany's, where she has not just shown kindness but often too much kindness, would be languishing & powerless, which is also completely false.

The great beast arises from its slumber

I'm absolutely going to watch this, and I'm absolutely sure I care a lot less than I used to.

So nothing new in the trailer - ah well

A few characters I like still going = hopefully they will win through - especially Dany (Jon can burn with the Walkers)

Tormund Giantsbane and Sansa I also want to surive.

Trailer needed more Hodor.

 Necros wrote:
Trailer needed more Hodor.

Can an undead Hodor still Hodor?

Not even convinced that’s a proper trailer.

Debuts in April, according to Den of Geek. Which isn’t long at all. And in theory, should start around the time Walking Dead finishes up its current season.

Of course it's a real trailer.

The purpose of which is to reveal/confirm the Apr '19 premiere, so why you need to quote DoG to confirm something that's in the trailer already is because...?

I am 100% ready to see this season and have it be over. For me the show has dragged on just a bit much. Some of the changes from the books served to stream line and speed things up, but it also dulled down and made bits way less interesting. Dorne being the primary example. Ready for it to be done.

I’ve really enjoyed the show but this long wait has killed a lot of my interest. That trailer doesn’t help. Was all ready for it to rebuild some of that excitement, but instead it’s pure rehashed stuff with zero new scenes, and then tells me I still have to wait nearly half a year yet for the new season. ::yawn::

Pacing is an art and the books definitely never figured out how to pace the back half of the story. The shows have done better, but really suffers from the first half not leaving characters in a place to transition to the finale without a lot of pointless stage setting. I think more than anything though, all of the angst over whether or not the story will even get a proper conclusion has people mentally ready for it to be over.

Im sure it will have a proper conclusion. Just, all the surprises are gone. They telegraphed everything too far in advance and this season is like the 3rd hobit movie in that its basically 1 big fight.

So obvious predictions. Jon and danny get the throne. Jamie will betray cersi as cersi betrays everyone. The ice dragon will die. One of the other dragons will die. Only 1 dragon will be left. Danny and jon will take a more hands off approach to ruling and tyrion will get gak done.

Maybe it wont be that? But i would be shocked if more than 25% of that is wrong.

That trailer looks like it was hacked together by an over enthusiastic youtuber looking for more subs.
Way not to drum up any excitement.....

 Lance845 wrote:
Im sure it will have a proper conclusion. Just, all the surprises are gone. They telegraphed everything too far in advance and this season is like the 3rd hobit movie in that its basically 1 big fight.

So obvious predictions. Jon and danny get the throne. Jamie will betray cersi as cersi betrays everyone. The ice dragon will die. One of the other dragons will die. Only 1 dragon will be left. Danny and jon will take a more hands off approach to ruling and tyrion will get gak done.

Maybe it wont be that? But i would be shocked if more than 25% of that is wrong.

Why do we need surprises? Can be good or bad but if its done just because "oh i think people might have thought that" then so what. Not everything has to pretend to be edgy.

We all knew what exactly was going to happen in the LOTR films - it will be the exection of the plot and characters that will help us measure (to each their own standard) how good or bad the show is. Having Borimeer get the Ring would have been a surpirse but not necesarily a good one. The Books have however degenerated into turgid nonsense and I doubt we will see any more of them anyway so not worries there.

I agree that they could have been more interesting with the end of the Cersei story - having her continue as an active ally would have made her interactions far better ratehr than the obvious betrayal.

I think probably right re predictions - although hoping zombie Jon dies and we have more dragons by the end...

I also would not be surprised if they leave some plot threads for possible spin offs.

Yeah, I am not really saying we NEED twists and turns. More that one of the big appeals of the show WAS the twists and turns.

Like I said, this whole season is like the 3rd hobbit movie. Except instead of 2 hours it's going to be 7-8. It's a whole season about one big fight. Not the big fight thats coming. The big fight thats there. It's difficult to keep the enthusiasm up for an audience when there are no more valleys to dip into or peaks to build towards. If this was the conclusion of last season we would have all been pumped. Now I just look at how many more hours I have to get through to see the end and I am watching the clock.

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, I am not really saying we NEED twists and turns. More that one of the big appeals of the show WAS the twists and turns.

Like I said, this whole season is like the 3rd hobbit movie. Except instead of 2 hours it's going to be 7-8. It's a whole season about one big fight. Not the big fight thats coming. The big fight thats there. It's difficult to keep the enthusiasm up for an audience when there are no more valleys to dip into or peaks to build towards. If this was the conclusion of last season we would have all been pumped. Now I just look at how many more hours I have to get through to see the end and I am watching the clock.

Maybe, the shows shock horror twists / killings was really quite rare - the memorable ones being Daddy Stark getting killed and the Red Wedding.- Hell ,Shanara and Into the Badlands tv show was more brutal with its supporting cast.

I thnk there will be a series of encounters and betrayals and counter betrayals leading to a big fight - then hopefully a messy aftermath with Queen Dany and Tyrio trying to sort it all out. Not just "Horrah all is good in da lands"...

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, I am not really saying we NEED twists and turns. More that one of the big appeals of the show WAS the twists and turns.

Like I said, this whole season is like the 3rd hobbit movie. Except instead of 2 hours it's going to be 7-8. It's a whole season about one big fight. Not the big fight thats coming. The big fight thats there. It's difficult to keep the enthusiasm up for an audience when there are no more valleys to dip into or peaks to build towards. If this was the conclusion of last season we would have all been pumped. Now I just look at how many more hours I have to get through to see the end and I am watching the clock.

Eh, it's been said quite a few times now that the reality is GoT was always in fact the story we're seeing now, Martin was just adept at hiding that fact in the earlier books by making you think other characters were going to become the protagonists, and then murdering them. Thing is, that means that once you do establish what the "real" story is, you pretty much have to play it straight from that point on.

I mean who knows, maybe he was always planning one more big twist, and it'll turn out that Bronn was the "real" main character all along or something, but I suspect things are a bit more wysiwyg than that now.

Which is fine, I think the difference between how you're viewing it and how a lot of other folk are viewing it is you see an 8 hour slog to get to "the end", while others(myself included) see the whole final season as "the end" and are fine with that if it's done well, especially considering how rushed and compressed the last season felt.