#asoiaf endgame

[lemonhemlock]

i get what you’re saying but i get what dany stans are saying too, what is the difference between dany taking back kl and sansa taking back winterfell? at the end of the day, monarchy sucks and none of these characters are truly "worthy"

I approached this topic more in-depth here and here.

The difference between Dany taking back King's Landing and Sansa taking back Winterfell lies in the construction of legitimacy. When engaging with medieval fantasy, rejecting its political framework and ignoring its limitations in absorbing more egalitarian ideology (and the socio-technological constraints that inform those political/philosophical limitations) is going to prove a fruitless pursuit. Westeros is roughly based on feudal Europe and has a recognizable European political thought inheritance and recognizable medieval technology and means, so I think it would be reasonable to employ political philosophy that could be plausibly applied during the period from which it takes inspiration.

~unnecessarily long essay no one asked for below~

In this regard, what makes for a "worthy" ruler in medieval times might differ with the passage of centuries, as socio-political practices transform. Which is why I feel like the validity of monarchy as a form of government was never truly under question in this setting, even though it has certainly been criticised and points have been made about social injustices arising from wealth disparities and the segregation of social spheres (I hesitate to call them social classes as I don't think the Westerosi have developed class consciousness yet).

I think that this is ultimately an element of disappointment for some readers, who are trying to project onto the text something that is not there, instead of switching to progressive fiction that addresses their concerns and presents alternative political systems. What I mean to say is that dismissing all types of monarchy as illegitimate is not useful within the text, as it renders all differences between the characters null & ignores the entire historical evolution of the concept of legitimacy. So you end up with takes like "it doesn't really matter who sits the throne". It matters very much to Martin, because that is the type of story he is trying to tell, that's... the entire point of the series. He is a boomer writing about dragons and knights in the 90s, not a transformative political thinker who is going to smack us with a new social order at the end of the series. That doesn't mean he can't critique the system or the characters' approaches to ruling. That's why he keeps killing the unfit kings & punishing those who rely on wanton brutality.

Coming back to the question, Dany's family was deposed, meaning that, legally-speaking, she doesn't have any "birthright" to the throne of Westeros anymore, no matter what she tells herself. Is deposition legal? John Locke certainly thought so in his Second Treatise of Government, chapters "Of Tyranny" and "Of The Dissolution of Government". Below we have Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "Discourse on Inequality":

OK, these are Enlightenment thinkers, but the concept was not new. The Magna Carta of 1215 certainly has a provision for this. That's medieval enough, I feel.

(Ralph V. Turner, "Magna Carta Through the Ages", Harlow, Pearson Longman, 2003 - the original article was too long lol but anyone can look it up for themselves).

Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologica", 1274:

etc.

You will find these ideas under the term "right of revolution".

Many medieval kings IRL have been deposed or lost their crown. Richard II, anyone? There's an entire play about it. So, yes, Robert Baratheon is the legal king of Westeros at the start of AGOT and Viserys / Daenerys simply are not. There is no birthright to speak of, that is just Dany's entitlement that goes unchecked and unquestioned.

Of course, crowns can be won back by the right of conquest, which is what Dany is trying to do. GRRM's plan for her seems to either be rejected by the people of King's Landing for whatever reason (a la Rhaenyra maybe) or for her to commit such an atrocity on the city in her attempt to seize it that it disqualifies her as a potential ruler because she breaks the normal rules of engagement to a horrifying degree (i.e. dragonflame). Dany's entire plan is questionable from the start, since she intends to mount an invasion on a people brutalised by several years of war already, on the onset of winter - essentially extra suffering. The conditions are there so that the Westerosi might not interpret her actions as liberation, but merely as another pretender to the throne, who is only after her personal betterment - basically no different from what they've seen before, so no reason to join her cause or believe in her propaganda. She will bring fire-breathing monsters, Dothraki and Unsullied warriors to their lands, whom they fear and for whom they have no kinship. They have no particular attachment to the old Targaryen kings either. In short, Dany's father was deposed and she will end up deposed herself because of her own actions (or never recognised in the first place). I'm not saying this because I have beef with Daenerys, she is not a real person who did me wrong, she is a fictional character the author is using to illustrate a political idea.

Whereas the people of the North maintain a very favourable view of the Starks and of Ned Stark in particular. They are seen as the legitimate rulers of the North and their replacements (the Boltons) are almost universally hated. The text is littered with "the North remembers" and "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" and general Stark-fawning. The people of the North were very eager to name Ned Stark's son as their king. The people of the Night's Watch voted for Ned Stark's 15-year-old bastard as their leader. Ramsay Bolton pretends to marry Arya Stark to consolidate his legitimacy as the ruler of Winterfell and the North. Many other characters covet Sansa for the same reason. The Starks have not been deposed, unlike the Targaryens, they're just missing / presumed dead and Winterfell is up for grabs. None of our Northern characters think how lovely it would be if we had a Targaryen restauration. These things may seem like candy floss to the modern reader and they may not resonate, but they mattered a lot in the past. So when Sansa takes back Winterfell, it will be with the backing of the majority of the Northern population and with the help of the Knights of the Vale, who are seen as honourable and are of Andal descent, so will not be perceived as foreign invaders. No one in the North will be contemplating their right-to-revolution against the Starks, because they will be revolting alongside Sansa to free themselves from the abusive Bolton rule.

Sansa rebuilds Winterfell out of snow and thinks of it warmly as her home, feels kinship and connection with the place she grew up in, whereas Daenerys feels possessive over a land she's never seen and wants to take it with "fire and blood". True, these are not actions, not crimes for Dany and neither acts of benevolence for Sansa. They haven't done anything yet. But they are images. Framing. Hints. That's how literature works.

Could Dany be given a narrative of Westerosi restauration? Could GRRM write her as gaining popular support and as not breaking the social contract while installing herself back on the throne? Had only Book 1 been published, these questions would have had more validity. But after Book 5? Not when Martin frames her like that and literally kicks her out of the city she conquered.

[stormcloudrising]

I was wondering if you have any metas discussing the white walker threat. Or maybe know of any that you like? There’s so much content about Dany and the Fire threat and what GRRM is saying with it. But most of what I’ve seen about the Ice/white walkers is like “oh, it’s global warming” and then nothing deeper really.

Hi Nonny,

Thanks for the interesting ask. I tried to answer a couple of nights ago and accidentally deleted my response, which I think was much better than this one. I tried to remember everything I wrote but no doubt, I forgot some things and my second response is not as concise.

I have not written any in-depth metas on the White Walkers/Others yet. I add that caveat because the topic of the Others will play a big role in the final two parts of my Florian and Jonquil series.

The Others and their motivation are the great mystery that’s been hanging over the series since the opening prologue of AGOT. What do they want? Why are they back? Basically, what’s their motivation?

I will say that I don’t think it’s that they want to extinguish all known life to get rid of memory as was D&D’s BS explanation on the show. However, I do think that it’s possible they want to prevent humans from entering the weirwoods, and so on some level, their motivation maybe about wanting to get rid of the memory of the trees. It isn’t, as the show suggested to arbitrarily kill all living men. 

Nonetheless, even though D&D’s writing was atrocious once they moved past the books, and their explanation for the Others made no sense, I do think that they dropped many hints on the show about actual upcoming events in the books. This is what made their writing doubly horrible. They knew the actual outcome of the books but didn’t have the interest in putting in the effort and time to do the story justice simply because they wanted to move on to another project. 

I think that when TWOW comes out, fans will look back on the show and say, oh, that’s why D&D did that nonsense that made no sense. And yes, I do think that there is a very strong chance we get TWOW, but unless George is lying to us and he’s writing both books before making the publication announcement, I don’t think that we will ever get ADOS. 

However, there will likely be enough in TWOW to allow fans to extrapolate the ending of the series. The funny thing is that Dan and Dave may think and hope that fans may look more positively upon the things they did on the show, but, if possible, it will be even worse for them as fans will call them out even more for not following through on all the beats in George’s story.

George doesn’t write evil for evil’s sake ala Sauron and the Orcs. He also doesn’t write characters that are purely good like the Hobbits and the Elves who purpose is simply to oppose the evil villains. He, as he has said on multiple occasions, writes about the human heart in conflict. 

This says to me that there is much more to the story of the NK, the Others, and their motivation than is currently suggested on the page or from the mouths of characters. I suspect that their motivation will be more like that of Ineluki and the Sithi from Tad Williams’ Memory Sorrow and Thorn that George has said inspired him to write ASOIAF.

My other reason for thinking that there is more to the Others than meets the eyes is because their legend is closely connected to House Stark, and let’s face it, the Starks are the central protagonists of the story. 

This is not to say that past, current, and future Starks have not done, and will not do some arguably dark deeds that may surprise fans. They certainly will.  This is more obviously foreshadowed in Arya’s arc, but it’s there for Bran, and strongly for Jon and Sansa as well. Revenge is a dish best served cold after all.  

If you have read any of my essays, particularly my Florian and Jonquil series, you know that I’ve proposed that those two ancient characters were the NK and CQ and leader of the Others, and that the same will be true of Jon and Sansa. This may sound as sacrilegious to some as saying Dany will be the major villain at the end sounds to other parts of the fandom. Nevertheless, I think both will be the case.

I’ll be going into this idea in more detail in my last two chapters of the Florian and Jonquil series, but I propose that George has been setting up Jon and Sansa as the NK/CQ since the first book. Originally, I think the plan was for Jon and Arya to play those roles, but somewhere in the writing of AGOT, he switched it to be Jon and Sansa.

In my opinion, he’s been dropping clues since AGOT and has up the quotient in AFFC and ADWD, as well as the Alayne preview chapter from TWOW. These clues include Jon’s murder at the Wall; placing Sansa in the Vale; her coming up with the idea of Winged Knights to protect Sweet Robin to mirror the Kingsguard, and the little boy’s request that there be 8 instead of 7; the fact that Jon and Sansa are the only two starklings referred to as the Blood of Winterfell; Ghost and Shade; making them both bastards; and Harry asking for Sansa’s favor to name just a few.

George is an expert at wordplay as is the case with any good writer. He uses play on words throughout the text in most interesting ways where a sentence or passage can have double meaning. He does this in the Alayne preview chapter for TWOW when Harry the Heir asks Sansa for her favor the night before the Tourney begins.

He has good teeth, she thought, straight and white. And when he smiles, he has the nicest dimples. She ran one finger down his cheek. "Should we ever wed, you'll have to send Saffron back to her father. I'll be all the spice you'll want."

He grinned. "I will hold you to that promise, my lady. Until that day, may I wear your favor in the tourney?"

"You may not. It is promised to...another." She was not sure who as yet, but she knew she would find someone. —TWOW, Alayne I

George loves to use ellipses to indicate information is missing and to make the reader wonder what he might be hiding. Sansa tells Harry that her favor and all that implies is promised to another, or in other words…pun fully intended, her favor is promised to *an Other. *

There is another bit of wordplay in the same chapter that tips to Sansa being the CQ as well and this time it comes from Petyr.  Sansa the Chthonic Persephone character of the story descends to the underground granary, a symbolic underworld where the wheat is being stored for the winter. Here she meets with the pseudo-Hades and we get this dialogue.

“Yes," she said, "but he thinks that I'm a bastard."

"A beautiful bastard, and the Lord Protector's daughter." Petyr drew her close and kissed her on both cheeks. "The night belongs to you, sweetling, Remember that, always."—TWOW, Alayne I

The night belongs to Sansa. Interesting wordplay when you consider the tale Old Nan told the kids about the Night King. More importantly for this brief analysis is a certain part of her tale Bran remembers when at the Nightfort.

No, Bran thought, but he walked in this castle, where we'll sleep tonight. He did not like that notion very much at all. Night's King was only a man by light of day, Old Nan would always say, but the night was his to rule. And it's getting dark. —ASOS, Bran IV

When you consider all the clues tying Sansa to the CQ, one can see how the comment by Petyr, just as the new Long Night is about to fall mirrors the one Old Nan told to Bran. The NK was a man by day, but the night was his to rule…suggesting as LML and others have proposed, the night he ruled was the Long Night. And he did not rule alone, he had a queen by his side.

So, the night belongs to Sansa, and the night is also destined to be ruled by the NK who was also the Lord Commander of the Nights Watch, and the brother of the man who brought him down. See where I’m going.

Old Nan is right. It is getting dark, because winter is coming and the king and queen of the Long Night shall rule.

Regarding other metas about the Others, LML has a few theories, which you can find on his YouTube channel here. Sweetsunray is another person who has put forth some interesting hypothesis on her blog. LML’s theories are based on mythological symbolism, while Sweetsunray is partially centered around George’s previous writings in his Thousand World universe. I don’t necessarily agree with all their theories, but they are certainly thought provoking and worth a listen and or read.

Again, thanks for the ask.

[la-pheacienne]

I relate so much to this. I used to get the appeal of a very heroic character dying but leaving behind the legacy of the world they created for millions of people, of course it is a very popular trope, it's not new. And yes stories like this tend to end in a bittersweet way (bittersweet, not nihilistic). But I just don't see Dany dying for the reasons you mention. People that want Dany to sacrifice herself and dienare probably confused by all their faves and want to write her off to simplify the endgame.

Hey! So I'm from the Jaime/Lannister side of the fandom but wanted to ask your opinion on where you think GRRM is going with Dany. I don't mean spell out her endgame or anything, but what messages do you think he is trying to impart through her character? I see so much Dark!Dany! theory shaped by the show that has just never really resonated with how I read her in the books. I see her more as a figure who will try to be Queen of Westeros, but will ultimately end up abdicating or even sacrificing herself during the LN because finding "home" is more important to her than ruling... but that is not based on much other than gut feeling. What do you think?

yeah idrgaf about the show tbh. i think it fundamentally misunderstood key themes that the books were exploring. corrupted/mad dany feels so deeply cynical to me. people have been reiterating this: she is a subversive messiah figure & she is given a narrative that is so often reserved for the “male hero”. the gender commentary in that would fall flat on its face to me if she becomes mad fascist female ruler like bffr. yeah, she will get darker come winds, like everyone else she will have to make choices and will face moral dilemmas because she is resolved to continue combatting the institution of slavery. she knows she will not be able to do it without dirtying her hands in some way. i think grrm is gonna explore the concept of necessary force and when it is more moral to take a stand and draw blood: when it is justified to cut off and burn something at the root, especially if the alternative is allowing the cancer to exist and continue to spread. the institution of slavery is a wound that cannot just be covered up with a bandaid. like this is a very important aspect of abolition. the only way i can see the idea of “madness” be relevant is in a more subversive john brown paralleling way with how people thought that man was insane bc he wanted to end slavery lmfao. like if terrible people think you are mad for attempting to make radical changes that harm them that is a good sign. also would hate her becoming an aerys parallel like in the show like that is cringe bio essentialism territory, again, antithetical to the themes prevalent in these books. d&d’s #subversive #dark #unexpected ending was unironically the equivalent of:

do not want her ‘idealism’ to be completely robbed from her at any point either really. again, so cynical. i dont think this series is cynical and nihilistic. this series is about earned romanticism. its heroes are the dreamers yada yada. it is about a dream of spring. i always thought she represented hope. like she is gonna be the flame during TLN, literally and metaphorically imo. i do think there are thematic and more abstract aspects to lightbringer, like yeah humanity uniting over an ideal for a better future & it can be about hope or whatever, which is why multiple characters have some kind of flaming sword foreshadowing, but the main one is gonna be dany and her dragons. like on top of all the pretty overt foreshadowing, like let us think about the logistics here, like what is gonna do more damage to the others?? three magic nukes or some convenient dues ex machina magical flaming toothpick we forge out of murdering a woman? personally, this theory by my mutual @sunny12th is my favorite regarding how the winter will be defeated: link. i also do not want to instantly write her off as a doomed martyr either though. i see the appeal in the tragedy of the kind girl who wanted a home dying without ever getting to live in the one she created but still leaving it for millions upon millions of people present and future. but also idk i am just not crazy about martyrdom as a trope unless it is executed very well. i like when characters survive for a cause rather than die for it. dany always kept persevering, not just for herself, but others: her children and her people, so i like when altruism is framed in that way. also idk i might be a little bitter if she is the only one to die from the new generation or whatever like in the show

[arte072]

In the godswood she found her broomstick sword where she had left it, and carried it to the heart tree. There she knelt. Red leaves rustled. Red eyes peered inside her. The eyes of the gods. "Tell me what to do, you gods," she prayed. For a long moment there was no sound but the wind and the water and the creak of leaf and limb. And then, far far off, beyond the godswood and the haunted towers and the immense stone walls of Harrenhal, from somewhere out in the world, came the long lonely howl of a wolf. Gooseprickles rose on Arya's skin, and for an instant she felt dizzy. Then, so faintly, it seemed as if she heard her father's voice. "When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives," he said. "But there is no pack," she whispered to the weirwood. Bran and Rickon were dead, the Lannisters had Sansa, Jon had gone to the Wall. "I'm not even me now, I'm Nan." "You are Arya of Winterfell, daughter of the north. You told me you could be strong. You have the wolf blood in you." "The wolf blood." Arya remembered now. "I'll be as strong as Robb. I said I would." She took a deep breath, then lifted the broomstick in both hands and brought it down across her knee. It broke with a loud crack, and she threw the pieces aside. I am a direwolf, and done with wooden teeth. - Arya X, ACoK

Arya is so rarely associated with faith and prayer in this fandom, yet when she prays to the Old Gods for guidance, they respond and restrengthen her sense of self. Arya of Winterfell! Daughter of the North! She is a direwolf and done with wooden teeth! ✨🤍🩶🐺✨

[hylialeia]

I've really soured on the whole "if these female characters end up in any position other than one of feudal power and influence it means GRRM is perpetuating the harmful idea that women should be punished for their ambition" because while I am aware that is a rather disappointing and common takeaway in fantasy (and other) series in general, I am ALSO aware the strongest most consistent hammer-you-over-the-head-with-it motif across asoiaf thus far has been "FEUDALISM BAD" which is sort of hard to keep impactful when your endgame is "and then they ruled happily ever after and were so good at it nothing bad ever happened again". y'know.

[stormcloudrising]

And no matter how far the dragon flew each day, come nightfall some instinct drew him home to Dragonstone. His home, not mine. Her home was back in Meereen, with her husband and her lover. That was where she belonged, surely. ADWD, Daenerys X

Her home is not back in Meereen and she doesn't think it is as emphasized by her question to herself. Her home is with Drogon and the quote strongly suggests that she remains in the South...primarily Dragonstone area when the Long Night Falls.

I don't think that she goes any further north than the Trident for the final battle between the Wolf and the Dragon. The Trident will be where the final Dance with Dragons occurs.

Well dragons are also needed to help defeat The Others so they can’t be all evil.

Are they, though? Are they needed? Is that their purpose in the story?

Or is it that you think they must be, or else they would truly by nothing but a tool of oppression in Dany's hands?

If GRRM were to make the solution to the ancient magical ice threat a simple case of massive fire power or air travel, I would be immensely surprised.

Some characters might think they are needed. But I sincerely doubt they will be.

(The dragons themselves aren't evil, btw, they are simply very dangerous animals, but the circumstances of their creation and their use as weapons of war very much qualify as monstrous.)

[melrosing]

If the kingdoms at the end go all independent. Who ends up king in the north? I assume Sansa is queen in the vale with Harold hardying but is bran really ok for king in the north? Will it go to Rickon?

talked about this a little before but basically I don't really see the seven kingdoms each becoming independent: I think whatever becomes of the Targaryen legacy, Aegon's ice & fire dream (or whatever it was called lol) was clear that there was strength in unity and I think that echoes throughout asoiaf generally.

I think it's likely Sansa will govern the North (I agree that her arc in preparing her for that role is incomplete, but at least she has that arc where compared to Rickon). Arya's a charismatic character and a strong leader besides, you could certainly say she'd be as good at governing as Sansa. but I just don't really feel like a governing role resonates in her story regardless, so that does leave Sansa (who I personally really doubt will just marry Harold Hardyng and settle down in the Vale for all of time)

and I fully buy into the Bran as a fisher king theory - I don't think he'll govern exactly but will become a figurehead of westeros, uniting the people and the land. doubt he'll be based in King's Landing as that's likely to be a pile of ash and in any case was always very much part of the political plot, divorced from the supernatural and the struggles of the rest of Westeros. you constantly get a sense of KL as a corrupted seat where the monarchs and their court are entirely removed from the smallfolk on their very doorstep, so I don't see it having a place in Bran's reign, whatever that ends up looking like

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

Something rubbed against his leg beneath the table. Jon saw red eyes staring up at him. “Hungry again?” he asked. There was still half a honeyed chicken in the center of the table. Jon reached out to tear off a leg, then had a better idea. He knifed the bird whole and let the carcass slide to the floor between his legs. Ghost ripped into it in savage silence. His brothers and sisters had not been permitted to bring their wolves to the banquet, but there were more curs than Jon could count at this end of the hall, and no one had said a word about his pup. He told himself he was fortunate in that too. His eyes stung. Jon rubbed at them savagely, cursing the smoke. He swallowed another gulp of wine and watched his direwolf devour the chicken. Dogs moved between the tables, trailing after the serving girls. One of them, a black mongrel bitch with long yellow eyes, caught a scent of the chicken. She stopped and edged under the bench to get a share. Jon watched the confrontation. The bitch growled low in her throat and moved closer. Ghost looked up, silent, and fixed the dog with those hot red eyes. The bitch snapped an angry challenge. She was three times the size of the direwolf pup. Ghost did not move. He stood over his prize and opened his mouth, baring his fangs. The bitch tensed, barked again, then thought better of this fight. She turned and slunk away, with one last defiant snap to save her pride. Ghost went back to his meal. Jon grinned and reached under the table to ruffle the shaggy white fur. The direwolf looked up at him, nipped gently at his hand, then went back to eating.

Jon I, AGOT

It's interesting that GRRM would dedicate several paragraphs to a seemingly unimportant exchange between a boy, his wolf, and an unfriendly third party. But there's just something about this passage that has continued to nag at me for years since I first read it because, considering how heavy handed GRRM was with the foreshadowing in AGOT, this feels important.

Jon is sitting at table full of squires - aka would be knights. We don't really know who they are or what families they belong to, but it's safe to assume that they come from a certain level of privilege; this is considering the fact that it cannot be financially easy to be a squire. And these boys already have a slew of tales detailing all their previous knightly exploits regarding "battle and bedding and the hunt" which suggests that they have some capital. So you have boys who will soon be men. And they will, presumably, become men of some power.

These lads eat their fill of the chicken until only half remains, which Jon then gives to Ghost. The direwolf's name is not so important here but what he represents is. Throughout the series, we're told that Ghost is reminiscent of the weirwood trees (because of his red eyes and white fur). He's stated to be of and from the Old Gods and since he's a personification of the weirwoods, he might as well be one of them. It's almost as if Jon is presenting whatever is left on the table to the Old Gods (Ghost). He lets them devour his offerings while he silently watches. And the motif of watching is so interesting here because it's kind of like Jon takes on a stewardship role - to watch over land/people/etc. He oversees Ghost eating the chicken, so he's overseeing whatever has been given to the Old Gods. This is not new imagery to his arc. As a brother of the Night's Watch and eventually its leader, we have several instances where he leads people to adopting the Old Gods in some fashion. In ADWD, several recruits swear their vows to the Old Gods while he watches on as their Lord Commander. The Old Gods are also primarily of the North and we're told that Jon has more of the north in him than his brothers; interesting that this also includes Bran. So perhaps whatever is being offered to the Old Gods relates to the North.

We must also note that Jon initially thinks to give only a small portion, a leg, before pivoting and providing the entire thing. It feels to me a bit like the process of carving up a kingdom or something similar. The lords (represented by the squires) take what they want and leave aside what they don't; or perhaps they have eaten to their fill and can take no more. Then when his time comes, Jon first considers a small piece of land/group of people before eventually absorbing all of whatever is left behind. The concept of carving up a kingdom rings harder considering that we have several callbacks to the ideals of kingship in this chapter. Robert, Jaime, Tyrion, and even Mance though we don't know it yet, all play into this. And then there's the aspect of Jon letting the chicken slip between his legs which evokes birth/fatherhood, a very curious choice when GRRM could've just had Jon place the chicken on the floor. So land/people are carved up and Jon then uses whatever is left to birth his own type of kingdom. And this kingdom is one for the Old Gods.

This also touches on something that has been quite prevalent throughout Jon's arc. It's the concept of accepting the "others" or "those left over" who live apart from the accepted social norms. Arya (a tomboy), Sam (a gender non-confirming boy), the Night's Watch (criminals, extra sons, and men who have no future left or place to go), and even the wildlings are all examples of this. And Jon takes on a leadership/paternal role to every single one of them. He looks after them as a leader would/should. Sometimes, in the case of Arya and the wildlings, he's equated to a king. He's a steward/shepherd/king. There's messianic undertones to this:

Come unto me, all you who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30).

If you're familiar with Judeo-Christian tradition, you'll know that Jesus is often personified as one who spent the majority his time among the outcasts. The idea is that he came to save them too and that anew kingdom (or new earth depending on your translation) would spring up after the end of the world where he would forever rule as king; which presents the idea of a final king after the earthly ones are done away with. Now GRRM isn't so heavy handed with Christian allusions as other authors out there, but he does have a Catholic background and Jon is so overtly a Jesus figure. And in Revelation, Jesus is king and god at the very end....

One last thing: the mention of the mongrel who challenges Jon has always been rather interesting but confusing to me. A mongrel doesn't really relate to one specific type of dog. But it's interesting that Jon notes several roaming about where he is. They follow the serving girls who carry the food to be offered. Mongrels are used to describe antagonist/villainous groups in ASOIAF. Sometimes, they're used to describe slavers in Essos. But what's interesting is that most of the time, they're used to describe Euron's Ironborn especially in Victorian's POV. So I don't think the mongrel who challenges Ghost is a supernatural threat of death (i.e., the Others) but rather a human one. They represent those who are called to the scene once the lords have finished playing their games. It almost feels like a feast for (carrion) crows....

But it doesn't really matter because this mongrel isn't much of a challenge for Ghost. Though the mongrel is much larger, the direwolf is able to fend her off very effortlessly. Given that "mongrel" is used to describe Ironborn raiders, could this exchange between Ghost and the mongrel point to reavers or sea raiders who rise and fail challenge Jon kingdom? There is a historical King Jon Stark who did this....

When sea raiders landed in the east, Jon drove them out and built a castle, the Wolf's Den, at the mouth of the White Knife, so as to be able to defend the mouth of the river.[1][2] His son, Rickard, followed him on the throne and annexed the Neck to the north.

ref.

So this might shed some light not only on Jon's already published arc, but also on what we can expect in the future. We have some foreshadowing through Jon's ADWD dream that he will not only rise with the dawn (thereby live through the Long Night), but will be in a position to lead people (wildings in that chapter) to a new peace after a hard fought war. Also remember that the wildlings, rather enthusiastically, swear oaths to him as if swearing oaths to their king. In this instance, the supernatural (a dream of the war for the dawn) is followed by the natural/human. So perhaps this particular passage (and Jon's dream) can be used to predict that Jon comes out on top, and quite effortlessly too, as a leader. And he becomes a leader who rules by association with the Old Gods; or rules a kingdom for them.

To end, I think it's of note that this passage immediately precedes Jon's conversation with Benjen where he voices his desire to go out on his own - the hero's call to action. This is the adventure that's going to kickstart his growth as a man, warrior and most importantly, a leader. So it looks like before we even began, GRRM telegraphed how it would all end in just three short paragraphs.

[fromtheseventhhell]

How it feels knowing I'll enjoy Arya's arc whether my theories are right or not because I'm a fan of what's written in the books, not what I projected onto her character

[ride-thedragon]

THE POSSIBILITY OF NETTLES NOT BEING IN HOTD.

I'm still not buying it. I don't think they'll go out of their way to cast Silver Denys who's most notable feat is dying because of Sheepstealer and the Cannibal, Alyn of Hull, who's purpose in the narrative at this point is to be burned by Sheepstealer and not include Nettles.

I know a lot of people are trying to say that maybe Baela has taken her place, but I don't think so. They are sending Rhaena away to the Vale for her storyline. Baela has a bigger part in the fighting, but I don't think that after House Velayron loses Rhaenys, Corlys will allow Baela to fight. I think she'll be placed on Driftmark to pacify Corlys and allow for some sort of representation of his loyalty to Rhaenyra to be at her side. At that point, they would have three new dragon riders so she could sit it out. I think that Baela would be a better person to introduce the idea of Addam (and Alyn) as Heirs to house Velayron because she's more politically savvy in this adaptation.

This is also the season where they set up the Battle Nettles participates in, and she was always the last Dragonseed to claim her dragon, and her process seemed to take the longest.

Basically I'm not worried until we know that Jace is gonna die.

Also, if they choose to bring her in season 3, I genuinely believe it's because they are not going to let her be a Dragonseed in the actual sense. She will not be of Valyrian descent because thematically, she'd be removed from the sowing.

Don't get sad if you're anticipating her, and don't get happy if you want her to be removed. It seems very deliberate that she hasn't been announced, but the feat she achieves is being set up.

STAN THE DRAGON AND RIDER MARKED AND NAMED THIEVES FOR CLEAR SKIN.

[owlsinathens]

Theon "Sherlock" Greyjoy...

There had to be two or more, he decided. While the woman was entertaining Drennan, the others freed the wolves. Theon called for a torch and led them up the steps to the wallwalk. He swept the flame low before him, looking for … there. On the inside of the rampart and in the wide crenel between two upthrust merlons. “Blood,” he announced, “clumsily mopped up. At a guess, the woman killed Drennan and lowered the drawbridge. Squint heard the clank of chains, came to have a look, and got this far. They pushed the corpse through the crenel into the moat so he wouldn’t be found by another sentry.”

ACOK, Theon VI

...and Theon Poirot

“A drunk,” Ryswell declared. “Pissing off the wall, I’ll wager. He slipped and fell.” No one disagreed. But Theon Greyjoy found himself wondering why any man would climb the snow-slick steps to the battlements in the black of night just to take a piss.

[...]

Then, before the day was done, a crossbowman sworn to the Flints turned up in the stables with a broken skull. Kicked by a horse, Lord Ramsay declared. A club, more like, Theon decided.

ADWD, A Ghost in Winterfell

Unlike the corpse/head kicking this doesn't feel performative to me, so I'm guessing it's a trait of Theon's to play private eye. He's clever in many ways (and utterly stupid in some), and his curious mind is never, ever repressed no matter what happens to him - is there anything equivalent to detectives or investigators in Westeros?

[crimsoncold]

have you ever thought about the snow queen fairytale in connection to jonsa? it might be a reach but i can see elements of them in there

Hi asoiastarks! Please forgive my very delayed and rambly response to this ask

I hadn't really considered this fairytale before but when I thought about it in depth I ended up having way more to say about the connection between Jon and Sansa's stories (and Jonsa as a romantic pairing) and fairytales in general than I expected so I'm putting my response below...

While I wouldn't say that there is one specific fairytale that jonsa (or jon and sansa individually) clearly and directly follows I would totally agree with the opinion that Jon and Sansa (two of asoiaf's comparatively most traditionally romantic characters) definitely seem to draw from or echo several common aspects found with protagonists of traditional fairy tales- both as individual characters and as a potential romantic pairing.

I've definitely seen people describe Sansa as a romantic heroine that has tragically been "misplaced" into a brutal world like westeros- and I think that description holds up and that ultimately her gentle and romantic nature will result in an end that is not simply having all her happiness and hope being destroyed by consistent trauma and narrative punishment but rather will have to involve her life flourishing into something beautiful but still grounded providing a more satisfying end for someone who maintains much of the sort of traditional kindness/goodness found with the typical fairytale princess despite the horrors around her- otherwise asoiaf would seem little more than an outright bitter and nihilistic story

I also think we shouldn't sleep on Jon who underneath his wonderfully bitchy sarcastic grumpy or occasionally ruthless exterior holds similarly romantic values and thoughts

Generally speaking it wouldn't surprise me that someone could find commonalities between a fairytale and Jon and Sansa, I feel that many common tropes that are found in a great number of fairytales can correspond to aspects of Jon's or Sansa's individual story and personalities or to Jonsa as a pairing by itself.

Just listing a few off the top of my head ...Having and reclaiming some secret identity that they may or may not have know about, young members of nobility/royalty raised or living in hiding due to their lives being in peril- typically in a position of lower class than they might actually belong to; being the target of the machinations wrath or cruelty of evil kings/queens/or some type of sorcerer or spellcaster, having notable interactions with or a special connection to animals or some type of mythical creature, the concept of being resurrected from some form of permanent sleep or even death

.... and of course in the case of a possible romantic relationship forming- them being character's who after experiencing incredible hardship, tragedy, or sorrow are ultimately awarded for exhibiting, maintaining, or gaining traits such as kindness/compassion/bravery/dutifulness/or selflessness, the possibility of either of them occupying the role of a hero or saviour for the other from either literal physical threats/enemies or more metaphorical ones like their loneliness or emotional trauma, as well as having a completed and happy story arc that ultimately cumulates in them forming a deeply intimate and loving partnership or marriage.

When it comes to the Snow Queen specifically I'm only passingly familiar with this fairytale (so please forgive me in advance if I miss something obvious or get any details wrong) but based on my very basic knowledge of this fairytale I can definitely think of a number of interesting commonalities/parallels this fairytale could have to Jonsa.

Firstly, because so much of Jon, Sansa, and the Stark family's storyline is rooted in a snowy and cold environment (the north, winterfell, the wall, etc.) and because one major threat in the overall story comes in the form of "ice" (i.e. the Long Night and the Others coming from beyond the wall) it doesn't surprise me that one could find a number of (at least surface leve)l commonalities to a story like the snow queen with its similarly icy setting and villain, as well as find a number of common basic story elements/imagery that occur in both- though not always in the same type of context or role (e.g. the appearance of or focus on ice/snow/snowflakes, roses, crows, doves, and a girl traveling and reuniting with someone in the north, the emphasis put on the sweetness or goodness of a character, and the unexpected effect or power that a character's faith/prayers/love/or inherent goodness can have on the world or people around them)

Most of all i can definitely see the potential for some more direct similarities between the snow queen and a hypothetical (but very possible) jonsa endgame for asoiaf....

First in the form of a character like jon being healed and changed from his own altered state (e.g. some form of strangeness, purposelessness, distantness, coldness, harshness, forgetfulness, or trauma that occurs in the aftermath of his time with the night's watch and his subsequent assassination and resurrection) after he is reunited and touched by the sweetness and affection- the love, tears, or even kiss- of a distantly regarded (or even forgotten post resurrection?) but once beloved part of his childhood- in the form of a girl he was raised with who has made a dangerous and long trek north to be reunited with him,

Secondly I could see strong paralelles occuring regarding the ending, i.e. one that centers around two individuals returning to their common home, grown and deeply changed by their experiences but with a hopeful and happier future promised or symbolized in the form of the changing season (with the upcoming one promising to be a time of warmth and renewal after the comparatively harsh or treacherous winter).

Side Note:

Given got/asoiaf's efforts towards exemplifying a far more corrupt, harsh, cruel, senseless and unjust world than what is typically seen in fantasy works I'm not exactly expecting an ending chock-full of sunshine and rainbows....

However I find it notable that Sansa, and to some extent Jon, exist as somewhat of an outlier in an explicity harsh and grim setting (and are further flanked by a number of characters that are a great deal less romantic and more pragmatic, if not outrightly more selfish, cruel, or even brutal and psychotic)

As a result there is something quite striking about the way many of Jon and Sansa's experiences, core personality traits, and their supposedly hopeless or rejected- yet still deeply idolized- dreams end up resembling eachother in so many ways.

Their desires and motives may (for lack of a better word) be comparatively "simpler" and more straightforward than those of many other characters yet they also correspond to an underlying shared sense of duty and desire for family, and are simultaneously deeply meaningful to the character's personally while also exemplifying an appropriate blend of the series realism/pragmatism with jon and sansa's trademark romanticism.

I do believe that a bittersweet but hopeful and affectionate end for these characters and this epic fantasy tale can definitely (at least in part) take the form of not just a reunion of the surviving starks but also in a sort of slightly twisted and bastardized fairytale end for the series via Jon and Sansa having their dreams (of winterfell, marriage, and family) being fulfilled by a respectful, willing, and even loving marriage to one another.

(a love and relationship that would initially be appropriately fraught and seemingly forbidden or obscene but ultimately would be allowed to blossom giving these two characters the closest a story like asoiaf will ever get to a traditionally "happy" fairytale ending)

A Jonsa endgame would also offer a thematically appropriate foil to several other notable romantic relationships in the series...

Like seriously there is way too much sibling incest in this series for GRRM not to be building up to something/coming full circle in the end with a very different but still pseudo-incestuous relationship in the form of Jonsa

... like I swear to god he's gonna be like "here have a bunch of current, recent, and long past tragic, ruinous, and/or deeply unhealthy and harmful incestuous marriages and relationships...isn't this obviously always such a terrible thing to occur?" only to go against typical expectations of readers and once again reject the simplicity of an obviously black and white story with a strong and consistent divide between the "heroes" and the "villains" and instead sucker punch the audience by offering up an emotionally and thematically fulfilling but somewhat unusual (even uncomfortable for a number of readers) and bittersweet end that once again involves an incestuous (of sorts) relationship only this time amongst the "good" characters in the story, in the form of a marriage between cousins and psuedo siblings Jon and Sansa.

[la-pheacienne]

So true. In a series such as this, I really can't say there is one character whose death would absolutely horrify me. Maybe I don't feel strongly enough for any character (??), I honestly don't know, but I'm open to possibilities, and I don't necessarily think death on its own means that the character's arc didn't matter. It depends on the death and what led to it, it depends on the vision of the author, on the literary text that narrates the death, the impact of it, it depends on so many things honestly cause this right here is literature. It is not a football game. I think that fandom experience has polarised people so much over the years and they start treating characters like their personal football team, if they survive and become leaders then they win, if they die or don't become leaders they loose. That's not what literature is about.

Apart from the winning/losing part, I think that fans generally have become obsessed with a certain a very specific ending for their faves which is normal and it's not even their fault, this is what happens when a series is left unfinished for over a decade, people start substituting their headcanons to the actual narrative and filling the void with their speculations, which is normal and expected. But it is also a problem cause we don't have a text, we just have people's theories that are limitless and every single one has a different speculation they get super attached to and can't shake it. And then they fight with other people who have opposed speculations and this never ends. Some people are better than this than others though, and it's usually the ones that 1) actually focus on the literary text and 2) speculate mainly about their personal faves cause they simply have thought this through much more and keep their diverting opinions on others to themselves.

Of course I am biased personally, there are certain characters whose death I do not wish. I do not wish for Jon or Dany to die for example. I think it will be more powerful if they lived. But I am not horrified at the prospect of them dying. Maybe GRRM will kill them or one of them off and maybe it will make sense and maybe it will be beautiful. I honestly don't know, and if it happens I will keep an open mind as to how it is given to us and the impact it has, instead of crying in despair that the other side of the fandom "won". It is not about that. Death doesn't annihilate an arc. It is essential imo to keep a certain distance from a character you stan. No, this character is not your child, nothing will happen to you personally if they die (I am talking mainly about Dany and Jon here, your case not wanting Jaime to die is different cause the reasons are different).

I mean yeah you need to be kind of at peace with death as an outcome in a series that has so strong romantic elements as this one, excluding of course, as you said:

shock value deaths (example : Dany becoming a mad kweeeen and getting killed by her lover)

deaths that narratively don't make sense/appear random/lazy (example : jaime x cersei dying by bricks)

deaths that come as punishment for a perceived "fatal flaw" of a character that is just pure bias (example : Dany being symbolically punished for essentially being a proactive character and Jon being punished for abandoning the Watch (the theory of Bran decapitating Jon for deserting the NW lmao yeah still mad about that one and the popularity it got).

Apart from these, I am pretty okay with death as a concept and a possible outcome, as long as it is not presented as THE absolute PEAK of the arc. All men must die, but first we'll live.

to be fair with the death thing and martin i do think that ygritte quote is so relevant:

like maybe eventually some of these characters that we feel it would be more powerful to have live do fall. and it can be during the series but not before they “live” and fulfill certain “possibilities”. like yeah death is terribly final and life is full of possibilities etc. and it will continue to be full of them until the day you fall. and every action in itself has meaning, despite eventual final result. that is kind of the thesis of the series and its brand of romanticism.

[nymerias-heart]

Do ye remember when 2 years ago I made a 28 minute long video and posted it but then never made any other YouTube content for asoiaf?

I have most of January off from college so I was wondering if during this break I should make some more videos? And is yes, what should they be about?

[riocat01]