#add in the fact Aemond is a kinslayer and that definitely contributes to the way people see him in that world

[almostbeabeauty]

Daemon has a completely innocent child killed and he's ..morally grey.

Aemond kills a teenager that maimed him for life and he's a ..villian.

[fortunatelylori]

I think if people really understood the concept of "the villain is the hero of the other side" then they would have a much clearer grasp on what's going on. Even though D&D are clearly not GRMM it's clear to me they are setting this up too. A key pt to this storytelling is POVs. Making both sides at some point rootable. Dany has been questionable since s1 but there always is some kind of justification behind her actions. Even when coming to Westeros and her actions became harder to (tbc)

justify they used a “villain,” Tarly. She was still excused and still rootable. No matter her further actions, matter what she does or who she does them to she will always have supporters in her stans and the GA. Hers is a villain origin story but in GRRMS sense of the word. We’ve gotten to see her whole story and her motivations. Same with Jon. This is not a WW story. That will not be the final battle. That is a clear hero vs villain battle. Nobody is rooting for the NK. (Tbc)

This is between Dany and Jon. DotD. Between the kind of power they think is good for the Kingdom. Where both sides will have supporters. Obv she will get to a pt where she looks like what we typically view as the villain and people will root for Jon based on that. But she will have people who see her side and see why she does what she does. Jon betraying her probably contributes in someway. I’m sure he will lose a few fans for his methods. Dany will be a hero to some. Thoughts? Thx!

Hey, nonnie!

GRRM: I have always been fascinated with the villain is the hero of the other side.The great fight in the Illiad between Achilles and Hector is in some ways my model more so than fights between a hero and villain traditionally are. What constitutes a hero?Is a hero always a hero?

(source)

This is, in essence, what I think. GRRM is not interested in telling a traditional hero vs. villain type story, as per his own admission. And that’s exactly what a Jon/D*ny vs. Night King endgame is. The NK, even by traditional villain standards, is bland. He’s not really even a character, he’s a tool of destruction.

He’s also already given us the precursor to his ultimate Hector vs. Achilles battle, during the first Dance of Dragons, with the fight between Prince Daemon and Prince Aemond. Neither one of those two men were heroes or villains. They had both done reprehensible things and they were both fighting not for the destruction of the human race but because of their own motives and ambitions. And that’s far more fascinating than a fight between the good people and the zombies. 

Also, I’d argue that the Ds are interested in telling the same kind of story. Not least because David Benioff wrote this: 

He actually wrote Hector fighting against Achilles. Whateverqualms you might have about the way Troy (2004) goes about retelling the storyof the Iliad, one thing is patently clear: neither Hector nor Achilles arebrutes. Neither one is evil, or a monster. 

And when they end up fightingoutside the gates of Troy, they both have deeply personal and empatheticreasons to be there: Hector has his honor and his love for his home and people.Achilles has his overwhelming rage at the death of his cousin and his ultimatedestiny as the greatest warrior that ever lived. 

Aside from the brilliantfighting choreography, what makes this fight compelling, interesting and deeplytragic, are the characters and the seemingly impossible choice you, as aviewer, have in picking between the two of them. Because you can’t help butlook at how they ended up there and think that if things had been just slightlydifferent, they wouldn’t be trying to kill each other. They might have beenfriends, comrades and considering Achilles relationship with Briseis, evenfamily.  

So I’d say David Benioff, andby extension David Weiss as well, know a thing or two about how towrite “the human heart in conflict with itself”. And ultimately that’sthat a Dance of Dragons between Jon Snow and Daenerys Targareyen is. 

On the one hand, you have JonSnow, bastard of Winterfell, the shield that guards the realms of men, the mancommitted to his home and his family fighting to protect the people he lovesand ensure the independence of his country. 

On the other hand you haveDaenerys Targareyen, the exiled princess who endured abuse, rape, starvationand humiliation only to rise up as the Mother of Dragons, Breaker of Chains,the most powerful, almost God-like figure in the world, fighting for the resurrectionof her House, for her glory and ambition and for her own deep seethed desire tofind home. 

Neither one of these twocharacters will come out looking white as snow (no pun intended). 

Jon would have betrayed D*ny,in a sense, by going against the last member of his father’s family and, ifthings go the way I suspect, also by having stolen one of her dragons, acreature she regards as her child. Not to mention that by the end of thisstory, he might end up a kinslayer, a heavy price to pay in this universe. Hewould have also gone back on his word to support her claim to the throne andfight her wars. His reasons for fighting her are valid but his actions will,most definitely, be less than honorable. 

For her part, D*ny will allowher violent impulses to lead to more and more destruction. She will effectivelybring fire and blood to Westeros because she cannot give up her desire for theIron Throne. She will have gone from the Breaker of Chains to a conqueror hellbent on subduing a continent through any means necessary. Because power issometimes terrible. 

Add to that the fact that they,at one time, were involved in a romantic relationship, and you have the makingsof a tragedy worthy of Homer himself. 

Thanks for the ask!