[TV/Books] Game of Thrones ***SPOILER Discussion***

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Cubby just trying so damn hard to convince everyone that GoT had a good ending...

[cubby]

Yes, mental illness definitions aside - I do agree with all of your points here.

To me, Dany's reactions throughout the novels (and so for most of the tv series) are far more "normal and expected" given the setting as written. (And Mental Illness always takes in societal norms and context.)

In all the inner monologues and thoughts we have privy to (in the books anyway), at no point did she ever strike me as "starting to get a little too out there" (for the setting) or "hrm...she's starting to slip here in her logic." This is what I would expect in GRRM's later books, if this was indeed the direction he was wanting to go - that we would start to see that "fair" logic slipping more and more into paranoia, over-reaction, etc. This just isn't there in the books yet; and for me, wasn't at all "flagged" in the show leading up to last Season.

I realize there may have been random comments I'm not remembering - only watched the show once and have yet to have any urge to watch it again. But at the same time random comments don't mean much. And are, in no way, a realistic/reliable way to foreshadow or "clearly" indicate someone's slip into paranoia-level logic/thought disorder.

Yes, multiple characters in the show are, in modern day terms, Psychopaths. I'd list them, but honestly I suck at names and I've forgotten most of them at this point as its been a couple of years since the show and the last book. Me, professionally, - I conceptualize this (as its not a diagnosis) as a trifecta of 3 personality disorders put together - Borderline, Narcissism, and Antisocial. For every other character in the book and show, their psychopathy is straight-up obvious - even if we don't have their inner thoughts. For Dany - it just isn't. It isn't there in the books (yet) and Its not there in the show before last Season. Yes, she kills and burns people, but it isn't with the same enjoyment, the same lack of guilt/concern/care, or with the same level of other manipulative behavior, as the OTHER characters. Yes, she has emotions, and emotional reactions - but they are far more "normal and expected" emotional reactions, that the viewer identifies and can have empathy with, than they would be if she was "slipping into madness." Heck, I could make the argument that Ayra show smore slippage into that 'madness' in her logic and actions (books and shows), than Dany does, at that last season start-point.

So to me, given whatever GRRM's understanding of mental illness is - if he was writing Dany to be just as psychopathic (or worse) as the handful of other characters who clearly are written as such (in thought and deed), he'd be showing that equally as "well" with Dany. And so far in the books, that "logic is slipping" is not there. Of course, I also acknowledge, GRRM may not be that strong of a writer anymore, and maybe it won't be well written out - but we will just have to wait/hope and see.

And I can get that other people feel it was forshadowed "just fine." Its just going to be an opinion we don't share. (And that is OK)

Really appreciate your points here - we disagree, but a nice mature discussion is very welcome. I wish others would take a queue and tone down the personal attacks.

- - - Updated - - -

Cubby just trying so damn hard to convince everyone that GoT had a good ending...

Just putting my position out there for discussion. Nothing wrong with a conversation - especially on a forum.

(please also keep in mind my point of view is not unique)

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Just putting my position out there for discussion. Nothing wrong with a conversation - especially on a forum.

(please also keep in mind my point of view is not unique)

The problem is you just keep on repeating the same points ad nauseum.

And yes, others share your point of view that GoT had a great ending. There are also people that claim Rise of Skywalker was a good movie... that won't change the fact that i think it was dogshit.

[cubby]

The problem is you just keep on repeating the same points ad nauseum.

And yes, others share your point of view that GoT had a great ending. There are also people that claim Rise of Skywalker was a good movie... that won't change the fact that i think it was dogshit.

Not at all, it's just people like you only see that, and miss the point entirely of having a conversation, even on a pervious subject. New material and ideas as well. It's nice to hear other points of view and get new perspectives on old ones.

Amazing to me the number of people who come here just to complain about people discussing a subject on a forum. The horror.

[Varodoc]

The problem is you just keep on repeating the same points ad nauseum.

And yes, others share your point of view that GoT had a great ending. There are also people that claim Rise of Skywalker was a good movie... that won't change the fact that i think it was dogshit.

Well, actually, The Phantom Menace used to be the worst movie ever, remember? Trash enough to bully an actual child.

Yet, now, Millennial Reddit would have us believe that the Prequels were underrated gems all along.

Point being: The Rise of Skywalker is a trash movie, until the nostalgia kicks in, then it will be an underrated gem. I give it only a few more years before you start seeing "Hot take: The Disney trilogy was good" threads.

[Adamas102]

However, if you'd "paid attention at all" you'd know that Dany's "claim" to the throne derived from her lineage...

And uh... the dragon.

BOTH of their claims derive from their Targaryen lineage, but the only reason the Targaryens even managed to conquer Westeros and create the Iron Throne to begin with was because they were the strongest military power (thanks to dragons). No one could seriously challenge Daenerys' claim as long as she has Drogon and an army to back her up, and she would know this.

Plus the only reason to see Jon's claim as more legitimate is if you ascribe to "only males can inherit the throne". That was obviously something that Dany ignored from the very beginning, so Jon's existence doesn't affect her claim from her perspective anyway.

No, mental illness is never a binary condition, as someone pointed out to you above. Let's just leave this issue at that.

And that other poster and I had a couple other posts clarifying things, with both of us agreeing at least on Dany's portrayal both in the books and in the show. You want to use their response in your favor, but I imagine you'll conveniently ignore their assessment of the character of Daenerys, right?

But really, still making a point of avoiding having to actually defend your position? No acknowledgement that Dany is never shown to harbor delusions and paranoia the way the Mad King did? No acknowledgement that all her reactions were legitimate reactions for a young and inexperienced conqueror trying to secure power? No acknowledgement that threatening an enemy with annihilation is VERY different that making secret plans to immolate your own people? No acknowledgement of the fact that unlike her father Dany is never shown to gleefully enjoy watching people put to death, or that she was very clearly shown (multiple times) to have no stomach for death as entertainment? No acknowledgement that all of these factors that gave the Mad King his name are completely absent from Daenerys?

Just putting my position out there for discussion.

It's not really a discussion if you merely make outrageous claims and then refuse to address any of the arguments against said claims.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, actually, The Phantom Menace used to be the worst movie ever, remember? Trash enough to bully an actual child.

Yet, now, Millennial Reddit would have us believe that the Prequels were underrated gems all along.

Point being: The Rise of Skywalker is a trash movie, until the nostalgia kicks in, then it will be an underrated gem. I give it only a few more years before you start seeing "Hot take: The Disney trilogy was good" threads.

Whatever Reddit millennials think is pretty irrelevant. There's also a big difference between something being popular (or in this case finding popularity later) vs actually being a quality movie/show. Movies with subpar acting, terrible writing, and uninspired plots can still be wildly popular and profitable, but that doesn't change the fact that they are "bad" movies. And hey, there's nothing wrong with enjoying "bad" movies/shows. Sometimes they can be a lot of fun to watch. To a certain extent art is subjective, but things like flat line delivery, nonsensical dialogue, and plot holes are objectively bad.

Whatever popularity the prequel trilogy has now when compared to the sequel trilogy still doesn't make it hold up to criticism. They are still not good movies. And regardless of whether GoT finds a resurgence in popularity many years from now (something I highly doubt will happen), that still won't change the fact that the later seasons saw a significant drop in quality of the characters and story.

[cubby]

And uh... the dragon.

BOTH of their claims derive from their Targaryen lineage, but the only reason the Targaryens even managed to conquer Westeros and create the Iron Throne to begin with was because they were the strongest military power (thanks to dragons). No one could seriously challenge Daenerys' claim as long as she has Drogon and an army to back her up, and she would know this.

Plus the only reason to see Jon's claim as more legitimate is if you ascribe to "only males can inherit the throne". That was obviously something that Dany ignored from the very beginning, so Jon's existence doesn't affect her claim from her perspective anyway.

I guess you forgot that part where she initially had her brother claiming the throne, eh? And then he was killed, and there was no male heir to ignore. I wish you would follow your own advice and pay attention to the details.

And that other poster and I had a couple other posts clarifying things, with both of us agreeing at least on Dany's portrayal both in the books and in the show.

You certainly did - and I'll get to that in a moment. But to be clear, you were categorically wrong about mental illness being binary. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

You want to use their response in your favor, but I imagine you'll conveniently ignore their assessment of the character of Daenerys, right?

No - because your claim was factually wrong while the portrayal of Dany is a subjective conclusion. Do you understand those differences or are you so blinded by your hate and outrage that anyone could hold a different opinion than you that you've lost complete sight of those things?

But really, still making a point of avoiding having to actually defend your position?

Oh my, you are just adorable. I've successfully defended my position (while mostly holding my tongue against your asinine and juvenile shitposting) throughout this thread. In case you missed it, or didn't bother to read it (Mr Who Cares About GOT Anymore), I've been posting continually and successfully my position and points about the ending and the lead up to Dany's fall to madness. Someday...we all hope sooner rather than later - you'll understand that it's ok to agree to disagree. I guess until then we'll just have to put up with you posting in threads you admit you don't care about.

No acknowledgement that Dany is never shown to harbor delusions and paranoia the way the Mad King did? No acknowledgement that all her reactions were legitimate reactions for a young and inexperienced conqueror trying to secure power? No acknowledgement that threatening an enemy with annihilation is VERY different that making secret plans to immolate your own people? No acknowledgement of the fact that unlike her father Dany is never shown to gleefully enjoy watching people put to death, or that she was very clearly shown (multiple times) to have no stomach for death as entertainment? No acknowledgement that all of these factors that gave the Mad King his name are completely absent from Daenerys?

She harbored and exhibited smaller delusions (towards the end) and paranoia (again, towards the end), along with a number of times where she threated or did acts similar or exact to her father. As well as all the times I've pointed out where she does things in a small way similar to her father, all throughout the series. My point has never been that she was as mad or delusional as her father, even at the end where she descended. My position has always been that it was shown/foreshadowed throughout the series that she had some madness within her and that her descension into madness was justified. I've also agreed with differing opinions, that her madness was rushed a bit.

It's not really a discussion if you merely make outrageous claims and then refuse to address any of the arguments against said claims.

Agreed. Too bad that's not the case here. Or did you not read the things you responded to? Your choice - stupid or incompetent. We'll wait.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Not at all, it's just people like you only see that, and miss the point entirely of having a conversation, even on a pervious subject. New material and ideas as well. It's nice to hear other points of view and get new perspectives on old ones.

Amazing to me the number of people who come here just to complain about people discussing a subject on a forum. The horror.

I'm fine with discussing a subject. The issue is you bringing up all the same arguments over and over again. Your arguments don't get stronger through repetition.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, actually, The Phantom Menace used to be the worst movie ever, remember? Trash enough to bully an actual child.

Yet, now, Millennial Reddit would have us believe that the Prequels were underrated gems all along.

Point being: The Rise of Skywalker is a trash movie, until the nostalgia kicks in, then it will be an underrated gem. I give it only a few more years before you start seeing "Hot take: The Disney trilogy was good" threads.

Still wouldn't matter. I don't care what "Millenial Reddit" or anyone else says. If they think RoS is trash....I will agree. If they think RoS is brilliant...I will disagree.
Same with GoT. If in another 5 years the majority sentiment is "GoT had a great ending"... I will still say "no".



I don't care that Cubby or anyone else likes the ending. Good for them. It just annoys me when someone keeps repeating the same argument over and over again. Especially when he makes these passive aggressive digs about everyone that disagrees with him.

[cubby]

I'm fine with discussing a subject. The issue is you bringing up all the same arguments over and over again. Your arguments don't get stronger through repetition.

I don't care that Cubby or anyone else likes the ending. Good for them. It just annoys me when someone keeps repeating the same argument over and over again.

Weird that while everyone is "rehashing the same old arguments" you only point out me.

Especially when he makes these passive aggressive digs about everyone that disagrees with him.

(honest request - show me an example, that doesn't include a reply to the shitposter above - or was my response to you that dig?)
What about all the aggressive attacks on me when I'm just posting an opinion or throwing out something new (which, btw, is how this last tirade started)? You're ok with passive digs but not outright shitposting aggression? Because you agree with them and not me? Interesting....

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Weird that while everyone is "rehashing the same old arguments" you only point out me.

Sure, you got me there. They're all rehashing the same arguments to your rehashed arguments.

[Adamas102]

I guess you forgot that part where she initially had her brother claiming the throne, eh? And then he was killed, and there was no male heir to ignore. I wish you would follow your own advice and pay attention to the details.

Her brother Viserys was officially named heir to the throne after Rhaegar died, and Viserys named Daenerys "Princess of Dragonstone" which is a title held only be the heir apparent, so the legal line of succession from the point of view of the most recent Targaryen rulers puts Dany on the throne not by default but by having been named heir by the king. Rhaegar also couldn't annul his marriage to Elia (having already fathered two children with her) so the idea that his and Lyanna Stark's marriage producing a "rightful" heir is more of a show concoction than something that adheres to the rules of the setting. None of this matters anyway because no Targaryen has a LEGAL claim to the throne after Robert took it by conquest (and presumably Jon always considered Robert a "rightful" king). Viserys and Dany can SAY the throne is theirs by right of succession, but the only way a Targaryen regains the throne is by conquest.

And of course we haven't even touched on the idiocy of the showrunners having Daenerys legitimize Gendry which gives him the best legal claim to the throne via the Baratheon line.

But to be clear, you were categorically wrong about mental illness being binary. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

On the contrary, and @Koriani can step in again if I'm wrong here, but it was more a misunderstanding.

Mental illness is binary in the sense that since it cannot be cured (treated, but not cured) a person either has a mental illness or they do not. One who doesn't have an illness can develop one, but a person who has one essentially has it for life. That is what was meant by "binary". I also specified (in the sentence immediately after the binary one), that perhaps you were referring instead to how a mental illness may manifest, because I'm well aware that mental illness isn't a static condition that affects everyone the same way. Moreover, what we're talking about is fictional characters, not actual people. Generally, if an author is going to write a character that suffers from a mental illness they are going to have that character exhibit clear signs that the audience can see. Having a main POV character go through five books without exhibiting ANY signs of mental illness (not just from their perspective, but also from the perspective of other POV characters around them) should be a pretty clear indication that the character is not intended to be viewed as having a mental illness, latent or otherwise.

Within the setting of the series, "madness" is fairly clearly defined. The Mad King got his moniker because he exhibited various, very clear signs of mental illness; delusions, paranoia, a strong phobia of physical touch, erratic mood swings, a gleeful delight in inflicting pain. It's not very nuanced, but the point is that this is the baseline that GRRM sets for what passes for "madness". He also has characters like Barristan note that Aerys' condition, while exacerbated by trauma later in life, was something that he had throughout his life. It's also why Varys' whole "flip a coin" thing can be dismissed as propaganda because we as the audience know that Daenerys, having not exhibited clear signs of mental illness throughout her life, does not share her father's condition.

No - because your claim was factually wrong while the portrayal of Dany is a subjective conclusion. Do you understand those differences or are you so blinded by your hate and outrage that anyone could hold a different opinion than you that you've lost complete sight of those things?

No, the portrayal of Dany is NOT subjective. The argument is that it's very clear that GRRM had no intention of Dany being portrayed as "mad", and at no point does he foreshadow some sort of inherited "madness" that likens her to her father or sets up a future "madness". It's not a matter of opinion for you to say "Dany showed signs of madness throughout the early seasons" because with the early seasons adhering closely to the source material there was no such "capacity for madness" on display. What you're saying is simply incorrect.

She harbored and exhibited smaller delusions (towards the end) and paranoia (again, towards the end), along with a number of times where she threated or did acts similar or exact to her father. As well as all the times I've pointed out where she does things in a small way similar to her father, all throughout the series. My point has never been that she was as mad or delusional as her father, even at the end where she descended. My position has always been that it was shown/foreshadowed throughout the series that she had some madness within her and that her descension into madness was justified. I've also agreed with differing opinions, that her madness was rushed a bit.

FINALLY we're getting somewhere...

1. "She harbored and exhibited smaller delusions (towards the end) and paranoia (again, towards the end)" - "Smaller" delusions? Either she believes something that doesn't fit with reality despite clear evidence or she doesn't. What are these "small" delusions or examples of paranoia you're talking about?
2. "times where she threated or did acts similar or exact to her father" - Such as? We've covered most of the notable things that Aerys did and none of them match what Daenerys did so what are these threats and acts that were similar (much less exactly the same)? We've covered the whole "burning fathers/sons" thing and how what Dany did and what Aerys did are COMPLETELY different. It seems your argument rests only on the words "burn", "father", and "son" being in the same sentence while ignoring the details.
3. "My point has never been that she was as mad or delusional as her father, even at the end where she descended" - Massacring the people of King's Landing for no reason at all is WELL beyond anything her father ever did. She went from doing nothing similar to what her father did to doing ONE thing that was WAY worse than anything her father did. You see how jarring that is, right? Even if you thought it was foreshadowed, going from 0 to 100 at the last 2 out of 73 episodes isn't indicative of a well written character arc.
4. "shown/foreshadowed throughout the series that she had some madness within her" - And which scenes were those? We know you've pointed to several scenes of Daenerys being angry about something she SHOULD be angry about or threatening/killing enemies who wish her harm. How do those scenes indicate "madness"? Why do you consider it "mad" to threaten an enemy? Or to execute an enemy combatant that refuses to yield?
5. "I've also agreed with differing opinions, that her madness was rushed a bit" - Yes, it was indeed rushed. As in they fit the entire "Mad Queen" arc into the final two episodes. How can you agree that it was rushed AND say that it was foreshadowed throughout the earliest seasons?