#got analysis

Let’s talk about the history of Jenny, the symbolic importance of her character and the actual song itself and what it could mean.

Who is Jenny of Oldstones exactly?

Jenny of Oldstones, by Rae Lavergne 

Jenny was the wife of Prince Duncan Targaryen, the first born son of King Aegon V (also known as Egg) and heir to the Iron Throne.

Duncan Targaryen, by Karla Ortiz

Duncan was originally betrothed to an unknown Baratheon daughter, but while in the Riverlands he fell in love with a “strange, lovely and mysterious” woman, aka Jenny of Oldstones.

Despite already being engaged and the fact that there was a severe class difference and protest from his family, the small council and others, the two nonetheless got married. Or I guess more accurately stayed married.

King Aegon V tried to break up the marriage, but to no avail. Duncan, in the end, was given a choice -- be the heir to the throne or stay married to Jenny of Oldstones. He chose the latter and became known as the Prince of Dragonflies.

Now this story is important for several reasons.

For one thing, the choice these two made impacted the existence of current characters and their own family lines. So, let’s get into the literal and historical implications of Jenny and her Prince of Dragonflies.

[No review for the series finale - I don't know if I want to write one - but suffice it to say I may be in the minority that was satisfied. For now I'm back to writing on interesting aspects I take out of the episode. This should be short. Shorter than my combined review of Episodes 3 and 5. I hope]

A lot has been said about the series finale. Most critics and most viewers have been left disappointed which was predictable. Jon as a character in particular was a big contentious point. The episode seemed to cement this idea that he really was a lovestruck fool in the end. That, all this time he really loved Daenerys. And yet the behaviour viewers have seen is at least as erratic as Dany's changes of mood. The previous episode seemed to point at the last of their relationship as news of his birthright spread and he couldn't return her affections, which was part of what set her on her path to her barbecue fiesta in King's Landing. So naturally what everyone expected was the final Dance of Dragons i.e. the final clash between the last two Targaryens. A bit late in the endgame but due nonetheless. The first part of the episode even seems to point in the right direction as Jon wearily witnesses Dany's speech to her armies and guesses nothing good is going to come out of it, especially when he hears her utter the name of Winterfell. He's again agitated when she sentences Tyrion, upset at the carnage, the useless slaughtering of prisoners and worried as she looks past him - with a look that carries nothing of love there, as the distorted version of Truth plays - and enters the ruins of the Red Keep. So in that first part of the finale, both Jon and Dany still seem to be consistent character-wise.

And then suddenly they don't. Jon visits Tyrion who has the greatest difficulties to swerve Jon into doing the right thing when the Jon viewers know would not hesitate and would absolutely know what to do. One could argue that the resurrected Jon is less certain, more doubtful of everything that's not White Walkers- related but come on. Is it love ? Fear ? We don't even know what it is that restrains him. He certainly doesn't seem to know either. And Dany is no better. The next time she sees Jon, she's all of a sudden all over him again. Bad writing ? Or maybe she feels so elated over her victory that she feels in a good mood ? Enough to forgive his betrayal ? He did betray her, per her own words. And she was angry with him. And as Arya pointed out, she knows her claim will be threatened as long as he lives. Well she seems to forgive him. But not the others. She goes on about wanting them to rule side by side and for a split second I thought ‘oh she's gonna off him’. That's the big twist. He's not killing her, she'll make an attempt. Except no she really was in love all over again. Consistency ? Think again.

How does Jon respond ? With his favorite sentence. ‘You are my queen’. Duty duty duty. But no ‘I love you’. Thank the Gods. Because that at least leaves room for interpretation and is a remnant of consistency carrying over from Jon's behaviour from Seasons 7 and 8. For those who cling onto the lovestruck fool theory, it works. The general audience stopped there. And for those who wish to find a way to tie all of this, it leaves just enough to try and understand Jon. As everyone pointed out, blocking his point of view was a huge mistake. Strangely the show tries to satisfy everyone but ends up frustrating everybody instead by relying too much on the fans' ability to figure everything out themselves and expecting them to find the truth. Sometimes just spelling it loud and clear works better. Anyway Jon protects himself by appealing to Dany's sense of entitlement. And proceeds to do the deed. His reaction to it and how he fares for the rest of the episode is thankfully consistent with who he is as character. Kit Harington really played it well. Once again, it works whether or not he really was in love with her. If he really loved Dany, the tears and the angst and the guilt all work themselves out on their own. If he didn't, it still works in terms of the man he is and what he has done - a man of honor who has committed the highest treason, a protector of the innocents (this plays into his final fate as he returns with the people he spent so many seasons trying to protect) who has murdered an unarmed woman (to save thousands of innocents but still...) Too bad Jaime isn't around anymore to give him a prep talk.

But what's interesting there - and I finally get to the main point of this - is the presence of Sansa despite her physical absence. If there are so many downsides to this way of making fans analyze and guess instead of simply telling it the way it is, it is still amusing and interesting to try decoding and admiring it when it's properly done. Per their own admission, Sansa is one of the producers' favorite characters and they have done her mostly right - certainly not perfectly, not even admirably, but she fares much better than the rest of the cast. The relationship between Jon and Sansa has been one of the most important on the show, ever since they reunited back in Season 6, retook their ancestral home as a team and ruled it as a team. The dynamics established between them has been an important part of Seasons 6 and 7 as it was shown that they were often at odds with each other as essentially two strangers rediscovering themselves but that the partnership could potentially lead to greatness if allowed the time to develop. Unfortunately it didn't achieve its potential. So much foreshadowing, so many Ned/Catelyn parallels... All wasted away. Or was it really ? Game of Thrones has always been about the be-careful-what-you-wish-for trope. And not fulfilling the potential of Jon and Sansa as a ruling team also works with the bittersweet ending which basically denies everybody their wishes. At best, the characters end up with satisfying situations but not perfect ones. Perhaps it was best to leave Jon and Sansa in this state rather than explicitly declare them in the end. We all saw what happened with explicit relationships. Sure it's frustrating but Jon and Sansa were always about the subtlety of subtext, analysis and interpretation. In that regard, if indeed the producers were trying to set up the pair during Seasons 6 and 7, then Season 8 did not destroy them - which is more than can be said for the show's flagship pairing - but it didn't exactly prepare the ground the way the two previous seasons did. Subtlety was still the keyword but it largely took a step back compared to the rest. Blame it on the shortened amount of episodes.

It was established clearly that Sansa plays an important part in Jon's life. Season 8 reminds viewers of this in the season premiere. Unfortunately, it does not seem to explicitly go anywhere. Except, once again, we are supposed to look deeper than what we see on screen. Astute fans have deduced that Jon's dismissive behaviour towards Sansa was really his own way of protecting her against Daenerys. That again is brought up in the series finale where both Arya and Tyrion mention Sansa as a potential dissident to her reign - the notion of how Jon will deal with protecting his sister from her. Dany has low-key threatened Sansa several times and certainly does not view her favorably - she blames her for Jon's treason, for Varys and she does not like her relationship with Tyrion, she knows Sansa wants the North to secede from the rest of the Kingdoms and she knows how much the North respects her. All of this points to Dany targeting Sansa next had she had the opportunity. This was a running theory throughout the entire season and even the potential snapping point for Jon, were he to choose between his family and Dany. None of it happens but the eventuality of it is adressed in the episode. Daenerys mentions Winterfell in her opening speech and tell me that your minds did not automatically switch to Sansa. Not Bran, not Arya. Sansa. Because Sansa is now representative of Winterfell and the North more than any other person still alive at this point. Even absent from the entirety of Episode 5 and the aftermath in King's Landing, Sansa's specter looms over Jon - and Jon in particular. He definitely thinks of her when he hears the name of Winterfell. The show established their relationship such as she's now closely associated with him in a way neither she and Arya or Jon and Arya are. That's not to diminish Arya's bond with her brother and sister but Seasons 7 and 8 have established that she is a changed woman, whose relationship with her sister and brother may be still loving but there's a melancholy to Arya that pushes her towards other horizons, to seek her purpose beyond mere revenge.

‘Try telling Sansa’, Arya says. To which Jon says nothing because he knows Sansa will never bow. Not after something like this. He himself knows as well but he is trapped. He's hopeless for himself but the main focus is Sansa. Not even Bran or Arya who's standing there in front of him and who's certainly not about to bow either but no, once again Sansa is the focal point. Sansa really permeates the first part of the episode while being absent. Too bad the recently released script [good thing this thing waited in my drafts for so long] does not make it explicit but it is not hard to connect the dots. Next, Tyrion resorts to mentioning Jon's family as a last attempt to sway him. Both 'sisters' are mentioned first before Tyrion zeroes in on Sansa - perhaps because he knows her best - but still it works. This time Jon plays the obedient subservient version of himself and says she doesn't get to choose. The switching between seemingly Political!Jon and Dumb!Jon makes it hard to keep tabs. Then finally the big moment between Dany and Jon. And again, Sansa is present without ever being physically there. Jon adopts a similar pattern to Tyrion in his attempt to appease Dany. First the question of the rightness of the massacre in King's Landing, the forgiveness to prove that she is not only fire and blood and finally, family. Jon does not explicitly mention his siblings but really, the 'everyone else who think they know what's good' is for Sansa mainly. It also works for Arya, for Bran, for Sam, all potential opponents to Dany, but really it's all about Sansa, who is the last ruler in Westeros competent and loved enough to hold the power necessary to pretend to know what's good. Dany implicitly targets Winterfell - and Sansa. Arya mentions Sansa. Then Tyrion. Finally Jon implicitly asks Dany ‘And what of my sister ? What about Sansa ?’ Her response ? She doesn't get to choose. No matter how competent she is, no matter how loved and respected she is, no matter that she's the Lady of Winterfell, commandant of the largest Kingdom in Westeros, allied to many Great Houses, no matter the fact that she is Jon's own family. If she dares oppose, she doesn't get to choose. She'll bow or she'll die. And that's finally the turning point for Jon. He kills Dany to protect those who also think they know good. On this, the script at least acknowledges the people whom Jon ‘loves the most’; perhaps - and most likely - an unintentional contrast but a contrast nonetheless between Dany, the woman he loves and Sansa, Arya and Bran, the people he loves the most.

The rest of the episode sets Sansa as indeed the last competent ruler of Westeros and I thought for a moment that she would get the Seven Kingdoms. But she settles for the North, the only Kingdom she cares about. Sansa makes it clear that she still stands by Jon; the implications of her short statement about the thousand of Northmen ready to fight if Jon were to be hurt are huge. Upon hearing her brother’s imprisonment, Sansa commandeered the remaining armies of the North (still amounting to thousands of men) and marched south, ready to start another war to save her brother. The girl who’d suffered so much in that city returned to a place full of traumatic memories for her brother, the girl who’d prayed for someone to do exactly that, when places were switched and who didn’t get her wish, decided to do the work herself. Of course, these implications are really just that and are glossed over by the final script but they are legitimate, interesting deductions we can make on the character. This again plays into the subtlety and underlines how strong Jon and Sansa’s relationship is. The guy has threatened and killed for the woman, waged war at her behest; and the woman has worked every way to protect the man, and she’s ready to start yet another war if it means saving him. Her sister is fully on board with the plan by the way.

Then the constrictions of the story call for Jon to go back to the Wall, never mind that the Wall is in the North, now an independant Kingdom under the rule of a Stark, his own kin, or that the Wall is under the jurisdiction of the Starks. Never mind thus that Sansa could legally do whatever she wants with Jon. The coronation scene was beautiful however and it really felt satisfying to watch Sansa be crowned and reflect on her harrowing journey. Sometimes, it is hard to believe when you see the writing and what they put the poor girl through that she is one of D.B. Weiss and David Benioff’s favorites; but I believe that whatever fault there was, it was either demanded by the story, or it wasn’t done with the full intention of hurting just for the sake of hurting. It was merely the result of biased views and opinions. But every one is entitled to that. In the end, Sansa comes up on top, crowned Queen in the North, [a big middle finger to the haters], the sole master of her own agency, and she has earned the respect of everyone, no longer a pawn, no longer a simple player, but a full-on force to be reckoned with on the board. Her hair and costume notably are the final steps to becoming her own person while also not losing this habit she has of incorporating the influence of those around her into her clothes. As such, for the first time, she lets down her hair completely, free from any braid and thus free from trying to emulate Cersei, her mother, her aunt, Margaery... She is Sansa Stark, First of her Name, Queen in the North. By contrast, her coronation gown pays homage to those who loved her and shaped her - Jon, Arya, her parents and deceased brothers, Bran... - and you can especially notice that finally, Sansa reverts to the blue-ish colors of the North and ditches the black dresses. How disappointing then that for a House that liked to hammer on us that the pack survives, they are all separated and no one we know is by Sansa’s side when she is crowned. But while I was personally upset about it at first, I’ve come to view it as a logical evolution of the story. ‘The pack survives’ was Ned’s motto and he imparted it to his children, who have tried to follow it as best as was possible. But this is not Ned’s story anymore, it’s his children’s and now, they are ready to properly live. Now that they have defeated their enemies, now that their world is ready for peace, they can let go of these words if they wish to do so. Each of them has gone on their own formative journey that has enabled them to be able to stand on their own. They don’t need one another to survive. Because the time is not for surviving anymore. Now is the time to live.

But where the open ending works in our favour is that nothing prevents us to imagine Jon and Sansa seeing each other in the future and indeed, it’s hard to imagine they won’t. While Arya is sure to come back at some point, once again, she and Bran are the farthest away and we are back to a similar situation to Seasons 5 and 6 with Sansa in Winterfell and Jon at/not far from the Wall. They are geographically the closest and Sansa being Queen, can indeed do as it pleases her regarding Jon. Jon seems content to peace out and settle down with boyfriend Tormund - another ginger - and it makes narrative sense that he would go North, the ‘real North’ that he has in his blood in Tormund’s words, and that he would go with the Wildlings, the only people who accepted him exactly for who he was and won’t even bother about his parentage, or about what atrocities he did in the South. For them, he will always stay the crow who saved them, the Lord Commander who opened the Wall for them, the only man who ever united the Wildlings and the Northmen to stand and fight together. He can be himself with them. But should he sometime want to come back to Winterfell, you can bet your money that Sansa is not going to forbid it. Keep also in mind that when the series ends, these characters are just beginning their life; they are in their bare twenties. They have their whole life ahead of them. Sansa, who was so focused on love and motherhood when she was younger, has her life before her now to think about it with all the freedom she wants. Jon can rest, enjoy life, fall in love again if he wishes (Tormund, hem...)

[Yes that is a very disturbing thought when you think about it. Westeros was torn over while the big boys and big girls played - the Eddards, Roberts, Tywins, Cerseis of the world - and then they were gone and it was up to the surviving children to face off the end of the world. Arya killed the Night King and she is only 18. Bran is King of the Six Kingdoms at 17. Sansa and Jon, the eldest, are 20 and 23 and have waged war and endured much trauma. One of them was raped, the other killed and resurrected. Daenerys conquered the world and saw her short life end in her 23rd year.]

And finally, we get to the last goodbye. Here again, there is lot to observe, especially in light of the released script which differs from the final screen version. First off, Jon stops and inhales a sharp breath when he sees his family. Interesting. Personally, when Sansa apologized, I also thought it was for spilling Jon’s secret. Thus the script “confirms” this and Kit Harington seems to play by it as he seemingly looks conflicted and still a bit resentful. A callback to their first reunion with a repeat of the ‘there’s nothing to forgive’ would have been lovely - I immediately thought of it when I first saw the scene - but I understand Jon’s point of view. Daenerys’ unraveling stemmed in part from the repercussions of Jon’s parentage spreading out. Again, the finale tries to appeal to everyone. Jon/Dany lovers can read into this as Jon being angry he had to kill the woman he loved. Another interpretation is Sansa apologizing for Jon’s exile to the Wall. It also works because the scene comes shortly after Tyrion explaining how Arya and Sansa tried and failed to fight the final decision.

But what’s really interesting is the final goodbye. Jon doesn’t respond to the apology but Harington makes a slight - perhaps involontary - movement of the head which can be read as a nod. A comforting thought for those who wish Jon and Sansa to part on good terms. But then Harington graces us with just that and more. He instead tries to change the subject and finally, openly validates her as the best leader the North can hope for. Sansa spins this back to him and makes it clear she still considers Jon as the King in the North. The script does not dwell long on Sansa and Jon’s goodbyes, instead focusing on Arya, Jon’s favorite sibling. While explicitly stating that Jon knows Sansa loves him, it then just reads ‘Jon and Sansa embrace’. The final screen version gave us much more as we see Sansa embrace Jon, and Jon’s initial resistance to the hug crumble as he gives in and fiercely hugs her back, burying his head in her shoulder in the process. It’s very interesting that in every hug they share we get to see both Jon and Sansa's faces. It really allows us to see the full range of emotions on Sophie Turner and Harington’s faces. This particular part was not scripted and is either the choice of Harington or the choice of the directors, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss themselves. In any case, they kept it. Another interesting thing to note : the cue Winterfell that starts roughly as Jon and Sansa hug also played during their most emotional scene in the sixth season finale The Winds of Winter.

The writers of Game of Thrones have been the target of much scrutiny following the backlash of the final season and I’m not going to argue that the writing was sometimes sloppy. However, I will give credit where credit is due and for all its faults, the episode was not that bad. Benioff and Weiss were thrust in an impossible situation where they became the scapegoats of every single default singled out in this final season; but it could have been much worse and we need to remember that screenwriters and authors do not have to answer to fans. They write the story they want to tell, we’re just here for the ride. Whether we’re satisfied or not is ultimately not their main concern. Back to Jon and Sansa, Benioff and Weiss have in my opinion written the pair beautifully and kept them consistent to the end. If indeed they were subtly trying to create an item out of the two or to point them as a potential couple, they did it properly during the sixth and seventh seasons; come Season 8, it was about following G.R.R. Martin’s guidelines. Maybe in the end, it was really the tragedy of Jon and Dany. But still, Benioff and Weiss wrote Jon and Sansa well, exploiting the chemistry between Harington and Turner to give us all too rare but important scenes full of subtext. I’ve written about the season premiere Winterfell about how much could be read into Jon and Sansa’s interactions. I personally think that The Iron Throne is perhaps the second most-charged episode this season in terms of analysis regarding to Jon and Sansa. The subtlety of the relationship is kept until the end and we’re still left satisfied and unsatisfied at the same time. Jon and Sansa love each other as siblings ? Of course. This scene establishes it. Jon and Sansa maybe love each other as more than siblings ? Well... not explicit but the scene does nothing to deny it or the possibility of it in the future. Especially when Kit and Benioff and Weiss include yet another unscripted tidbit. After Jon has finished his goodbyes, the script just states that he steps on the boat as his family watches him go. In the final episode, we see a shoulder-shot of Jon looking back one last time, distraught. Who is he looking at ? Well of course, you guessed it. He’s looking at Sansa, whose right shoulder was framed into that shot. Then he looks in the direction of Arya and Bran and then, one last time, back to Sansa. And as if to confirm it, as we move on to the next shot of the Starks watching him go, who appears first ? Well of course, you guessed it. Sansa, who’s also looking very distraught.

And of course, the lingering look Jon glances even as Sansa is framed in the shot is a well-known storytelling device. The trope of people looking back to their loved ones, whether with an established love or one still in the making, is a very common trope that has been used several times in the show, and even once already for Jon and Sansa. So yes, I will still support Benioff and Weiss at least on this; they might have ruined Jon’s character in surface; they might have written the story better; perhaps they could have done even better by Sansa. But they have done her right and they did write Jon and Sansa well. I would not also exclude Martin still hiding some final aspects in the books or asking them not to explicitly show everything to keep some kind of secrecy on the last books despite the show being completed. He has said that the show would end like the books. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all will be shown; that is pretty much a given when you see all the substories and deviations from books to show. How much of a stretch is it then to suppose that Martin told Benioff and Weiss to subtly prepare Jon and Sansa - thus explaining and validating all the foreshadowing in the books and why they have said that their relationship was ‘crucial to watch’, all the ‘they skirt around the true tension between them’, ‘all is subtext’ and why the relationship was explored over three seasons - but in the end, told them to just commit to subtlety instead of a full-on reveal, so as to keep that secret amongst others for the books as part of the full story?

...handed comment to a stranger in Essos? And Bran, who's motives and POV have been non-existent for SEASONS is made king by a group of people who don't know him or what he is capable of at roughly 17 years old when there are other, better, candidates in the Dragon Pit and elsewhere. And Sansa, who's whole arc has been about her status as the Key to the North and how she only wants the love and safety her parents had is entirely alone at the end of the show? All of the Starks should be together.

Hi there!

One of the things I'm still trying to wrap my mind around is the Starklings ending. LBR, season 8 was a mess and it didn't make much sense narratively, especially if compared to previous seasons. It's as if D&D discarded seasons-worth of character growth and development in favor of shocking twists *pretends to be shocked*

But you asked about the Starks and their ending.

The thing about the Starklings is that they’re deeply connected to the idea of home, but more specifically, going back to that home. Some left by choice, others by force or circumstance. But the thing is that all the Starklings have been uprooted from their home early on. Their journey (and I’m simplifying the hell out of it) is about going back home. All the characters have their distinctive aspects to their journeys to set them apart. But if we were to say what their journey is about in just a few words, it’s that: it’s about coming home. But there’s also another factor: family. All of them had to be stripped of their identity as a Stark in one point (or more than once) of the story. (*) Since the moment they’re stripped from their home and identity, they start their journey on regaining both (we could make an exception with Bran since he’s tied with magic and is in pursuit of a higher calling) (**). But the themes of identity, present in their arcs trough their home and their family name, are there. 

(*) I just realized that all the surviving Starks had to renounce to/hide their identity in order to survive. All those who didn’t (Ned, Robb, Cat and Rickon) ended up dead.

(**) Bran’s journey can be identified with two archetypes: the Sage and the Magician. Both archetypes are connected to the sense of self. The Sage is about knowledge and a yearning of paradise (which is connected to his fight against the Night King and the Others). Basically, his journey is to bring back Summer through knowledge and an understanding of his powers. The Magician is about power and wanting to leave a mark in the world. We can see this with him when he’s north of the Wall with the TER.

Jon

D&D screwed up Jon's character and his development, reducing him to a mere mouthpiece to justify Dany's actions. The problem with Jon in S8 (which started in S7) is that. He was no longer treated as a protagonist but as a plot device, which can be said about all of the Starks.

Jon has huge identity issues, mainly because of his bastard status. He’s automatically set apart, even if his siblings and father did accept him and treated him as a trueborn son. The fact that he’s a bastard is a huge cross he carries, and it’s because of this he makes the choice to leave his home. For him, going to the Wall is a way to prove himself, to make others see that even a bastard can be honorable, but also to escape from the name “Snow”. At the Wall, all men are equal: it doesn’t matter where they come from or who they were before. At the Wall, they’re all equal. Or at least, that’s what he thought. 

Of course, he found a place where he belonged, people that made him feel like home. But all of those always ended up being taken from him. So, there was only thing for him to do: to go back to his real home, Winterfell, and be Jon Snow again. Because in the Night’s Watch he was “Lord Snow” and a brother of the NW, later Lord Commander. With the Wildlings he was “a crow” and later a traitor. But he really found himself in S6, when he took back Winterfell with Sansa and when she “made” him a Stark (by cloaking him). Of course, that came crushing down in the S8 premiere, when he finds out he’s the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. And that’s it. We don’t see how the RLJ reveal affected him, how much of an impact it had on his identity, which already was complicated, how it changed his family dynamics or his relationships with certain characters. The reveal, along with his character, were used as plot devices for another character. We never saw the conflict of his true identity and home be resolved, not explicitly.

Jon's ending (him being sent to the Wall as "punishment" for killing Daenerys) makes little sense. As you said, he’s punished for killing Daenerys, instead of, IDK, punishing him for participating in the Sack of King’s Landing. That was a war crime, and punishing him for said war crime would’ve made more sense (since GOT and ASOIAF are basically politics with ice zombies and dragons). I could understand if the lords (and Greyworm, for some inexplicable reason) wanted to punish him for kinslaying. We know it’s bad and that it’s frowned upon in Westerosi culture. If that were the reason for his exile, I could understand it (and this is what D&D went with). But they completely undermine this by basically awarding Tyrion with everything he ever wanted for doing the same and admitting to killing his father in front of the nobility of Westeros five minutes earlier. It doesn’t matter if Tyrion suddenly sees these things as burdens. It doesn’t change the fact that these are the very things he was after when the show started. If the punishment for kinslaying is exile, then exile every person that committed that crime, which is both Jon and Tyrion. If the punishment for enabling and participating in the Sack of King’s Landing is exile, then exile every person that took part in it, that means Jon, Tyrion and Dany’s remaining army. You can’t punish some and award others when they did the same thing. That’s bad writing. But it’s known D&D are huge Tyrion fans (to the point of making him a completely different character), so...

The fact that he was made to leave his home and spend his life at the Wall (even if there were people that respected him there) is underwhelming. He yearned for a home, for a family, for an identity. And what better way to give him all that than to have the people he loves to accept him for who he is, not the name he carries? If it were up to me, Jon would’ve ended up in Winterfell, stripped from all titles, both from his Targaryen and Stark lineage. I would’ve made him remain, Jon Snow because that’s who he is. Because, ultimately, it doesn’t matter who fathered him. His loyalties always were with the Starks. But in the end, he would’ve had a chance to show it, a chance to defend and fight for his family and House. All while remaining a Snow. But for that to happen Jon needed a POV; the Starklings needed their POV; their dynamics needed to be shown, not hinted at; Jon needed to be shown interacting with other characters, not just Daenerys; the RLJ needed to be centered around him, not Daenerys.

Because, ultimately, that’s why the final season failed to deliver a satisfactory end to the story: it was centered around the wrong character. Because D&D chose not to comment in-universe on Dany’s morally gray actions, they had to double down in the last two seasons, so the GA wouldn’t be caught off guard with her “turn to darkness”. And because they centered S7 and 8 around her, all of the plot points that were established in previous seasons were used as a means to explain her “turn”, even when they shouldn’t have. RLJ was never about her. RLJ would’ve served as a perfect explanation of why Jon did what he did if it had been used from his POV. But it wasn’t. It was used as a plot device for the Dark!Dany arc. And we ended up with an unsatisfactory S8 that felt off.

Arya

Arya’s complete arc was about family and how revenge and justice can blur a little bit. When she’s forced to hide her true identity, she embarks on a journey that’s related to defining herself as a person: she’s Arya Stark, then she’s Arry, then she’s No One and finally, she’s Arya Stark again. It’s a turbulent journey in which she deals with revenge and justice, and she manages to fight for justice once she reclaims her identity as Arya Stark of Winterfell. Her journey has always been about that: identity. We meet her as an outsider in her own family group, an outcast. It would’ve been reasonable to go full circle, and show Arya to the audience being with her family, show her being accepted just as she is (things that made her an outsider in the beginning). Arya’s journey is a typical Heroine’s Journey.

She starts the series with a separation of the femenine. We see her dislike for feminine things and her desire to do what her brothers do. And taking her ending to Winterfell would’ve displayed perfectly the integration of the masculine (her being a water dancer and a faceless man) with the femenine (her new relationship with her sister and playing a role in Sansa’s court). She’d be right where she started, but different. She’d be accepted and valued for who she is. But we know GRRM is going for the bittersweet ending, and that ending is too sweet an ending for George’s liking, I imagine. But in my opinion, you can always bring a bittersweet sense to the ending by showing how hard it is to rebuild their world. Because that’s what they’ll all have to do: rebuild. These characters started the series are children or teenagers, and by the end they have the responsability to rebuild what other people have destroyed. Give the audience a glimpse of the hardships to come, show them that once it ends it won’t be sunshine and rainbows, but actual hard work. But then again, that’s just my opinion.

Bran

It’s a bit complicated for me when it comes to disscussing Bran’s ending. The thing is, D&D never understood Bran’s character. That’s why his connection to magical elements are downplayed a lot. That’s why he was missing a whole season. Because D&D didn’t understand his character and ultimately treated him as a plot device, mainly for the RLJ reveal. That’s why so many people have problems accepting him ending up as King, I think. Because it feels out of nowhere.

TBH, I’m on the fence regarding his ending. Not because I can’t see him as King, but because of D&D’s inconsistent writing. From S1 he’s linked to the magical aspects of the story but D&D downplayed those aspects so hard that ultimately Bran’s story fell generic. Then you have the season in which he was missing, explained as “him training to be the TER”. But then he’s brought back because he’s important again. We see him train with the TER, understand his powers of greenseeing a bit more and his link to the Night King. But then again, his character does a one-eighty, and by the end of S6 and the entirety of S7 he turns out to be a soulless, omnipresent God rather than the boy that wanted to fly. Sure, it can be “justified” if you go with the “Bran died in the TER cave” way of thinking. But what bugs me the most of D&D’s writing of Bran is that he stated that he wasn’t capable of being Lord of Winterfell, simply because he wasn’t Bran Stark anymore. He did that twice: once in S7 when Sansa gave him the title back (his claim surpasses Sansa’s since he’s a man) and once again in S8 when Tyrion offers him the chance to be Lord and Warden if he wants to (to ensure little to no resistance from the North respecting Daenerys). He declines both times, he gives his reasons. But in the series finale, when Tyrion proposes him as King, he’s suddenly Bran Stark again and able to rule? It doesn’t make sense. The thing is that D&D fucked up when it came to Bran, and the story overall suffered for it.

Sansa

Sansa’s arc has been defined by family and belonging, as all of the Starklings. But what differentiates her arc to those of her siblings is the fact that time and time again, she was referenced as “The Key to the North” aka the future of House Stark. The fact that she starts the series as a dreamer, a feminine girl that yearns for a family of her own and a valiant husband that loves and respects her, only for those dreams to be beaten out of her almost immediately, leads you to believe her arc will come full circle in a way in the end. But since GRRM is going for the bittersweet ending, maybe it was never in Sansa’s cards for her to end up married and having the family she always wanted, but at least she could be surrounded by her remaining family or those she considers family.

Yes, in the end, she “won”. She’s home and she’s Queen in her own right. But her journey feels inconclusive. Her arc is the only one tied to the themes of marriage and family (in the sense of having her own children) in a romantic way. She was defined as a character through her womanhood, as @esther-dot said. But not once she has had a romantic partner. Which really leaves you thinking, since minor characters like Bronn and Pod had “romantic” partners. But not Sansa. She was punished by the narrative for wanting to be a wife and a mother.

She was married off twice, she was groomed and raped. We see her go from a girl with dreams to a suffering woman, all because of her name and her being “the Key to the North”. She has basically been put through all that suffering and pain because of her identity. And even after all that, she ended up alone. She has not known what a consensual relationship is, what a healthy romantic relationship is like.

Even if we abstain from talking about romantic relationships, ever since leaving King’s Landing, all she wanted was to go home and rebuild it for her family. Since reuniting with her siblings, all she wanted was to take care of her family, for all of them to be a pack. After having her isolated and surrounded by enemies, it would’ve been satisfying to know that at least she was now surrounded by family and/or friends. But no, she ends up alone, after just finding Jon, Bran and Arya, after feeling safe with Brienne.

TL;DR: D&D fucked up big time by forgetting that the Starks always were the heart of the story. They used them as plot devices to reach their ending, which is why the Starks’ endings feel hollow because it was not driven by the characters themselves but by the writers’ need to reach the finish line. So, even if they ended the Game alive and well and in places of power, it feels unearned in some ways, nonsensical in others.

??????????????????

Okay. Okay okay okay. 

I’m not defending Dany’s actions, I’m criticising the show’s portrayal of Dany. 

What I don’t like: 

D&D’s awful writing, their complete and utter inability to write interesting and complex female characters, their inability to do foreshadowing in a logical and consistent way that would build up to an ending which makes sense, even if it wasn’t what people wanted. They fail the basic principle of ‘show, don’t tell’. 

Examples of this are everywhere! We’re told that Sansa’s the smartest person ever, but we’re not shown any of that development. We’re told that Arya is the best at fighting, but we’re not shown any of how she learned to fight like that. We’re told that Jon is making googily-eyes at Dany in season seven, but I saw none of it. We’re told that Dany is becoming mad, but we saw none of it.

This isn’t me hating any of the characters above. It’s looking at the writing and going, wow this is a poorly written piece of television. 

Above all, this is my problem with D&D’s portrayal of Dany:

You don’t get to present Dany’s storyline in a way that the audience is clearly meant to root for her for 6 seasons, and then in the last 3 episodes have her do the same things she’s always done but now suddenly it’s meant to viewed in a negative light. 

look at the difference between 6x09 vs 8x05:

6x09: We see Dany the entire time she’s flying on Drogon, and burning the Master’s fleet. There’s no lingering shots of people burning, or shots of other’s characters faces when they see the carnage. Because this was a victorious moment, and that was how it was shot. 

8x05: We’re specifically shown from the ground up, and then multiple shots of other main characters as they watch this unfold. A lot of lingering shots on people screaming as they burned. And then we never see Dany’s face after this scene begins. 

Stuff like ‘ooooh but she’s always been mad, remember when she locked those people in the vault? Remember when Viserys died? Remember when she burned all the Khals??’ Well the show itself framed all of those as super cool awesome moments where Dany overcame her enemies instead. We’re meant to cheer for her. We’re meant to feel satisfaction. But if that was meant to be foreshadowing of her becoming bad, then the show needs to communicate that through framing, through writing, GRADUALLY. Otherwise, it’s what they did for the last three episodes: slap us in the face with all of these ‘good moments for Dany’ and then go ‘OOPS yeah that was meant to show how mad she is’. 

anyway this is just me getting very angry that people are ignoring the bad writing because they like the idea of Dany being a Mad Queen. 

It’s over. The final episode of Game of Thrones aired last night and we can finally put a close on the series. It was a weird feeling watching it. The episode itself was more of the same that we’ve been getting all season, all the leaks where correct so there were really no surprises, and some things were so bad they were anger-inducing. Thus, it was basically the usual Thrones experience of the last four seasons.

... Destroying Euron's ships and their weapons, flying over the town, scaring Cersei's soldiers. With 3 dragons, the fight would have been over in 10 minutes, the bells would have rung, she would have crowned queen, Missandei would still be alive, the series would have ended with an epic fight against the Night King, and everyone would have been happy.

SPOILER warning for Season 8, Episode 1-3 and more of a SPOILER WATCH for Season 8, Episode 4 (no plot related details, but . . . a teaspoon of character and tone vibes from the episode).

Now I know we are still wrapping our heads around what we witnessed last night on Game of Thrones. But there was one discussion that caught my attention – Daenerys character development (or lack thereof) and how women are represented on the show:  

i hate that ambition in women is always used as a bad trait.

All her hard work and talk of breaking the wheel for nothing. All this talk of her being different and just and “see you for who you are” for absolutely nothing.

They should rename season 8 to “the tale of how we trashed a character’s development, made her an army of haters, just so we could make Jon Snow a hero: A study on Daenerys Targaryen.”

they really are setting up “Mad Queen” Dany and I’ll be honest, I don’t blame her at this point.

If a man acted that way it would be perfectly fine.

every single woman on game of thrones deserves better.

Ever since Game of Thrones graced the stage seven years ago, a number of fans, critics and activists have voiced concerns about the way the show portrays violence (especially sexual violence) towards female characters. However, those concerns have slowly evolved into larger conversations about the way these heroines are portrayed in comparison to power. Westeros – and most of the known world in the show – are under a patriarchal system. Men have inheritance rights, new wives join their husbands’ families and male children are given precedent over their older sisters and female relations in the line of succession (they call this primogeniture). Attempts at female rule are rare and even more rarely achieved without a healthy dose of fire and blood (search The Princess and the Queen on YouTube for more context and a juicy history lesson!).

Suspicion and hesitancy towards female rule is common in our real world (i.e. 2016 election) and is, unfortunately, not a new phenomenon. Prominent theologian, wrote in his 1558 piece, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women, that, “To promote a woman to beare rule, superioritie, dominion or empire aboue any realme, nation, or citie, is repugnant to nature, contumelie to God, a thing most contrarious to his reueled will and approued ordinance, and finallie it is the subuersion of good order, of all equitie and iustice”(Knox).  Across Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism there exist exclusionary mindsets in regards to women in power dating back to antiquity. However, there are also examples of women overcoming the restrictions and barriers of their societies, such as the prominence and elevation of women within certain patriarchal systems (including Egypt, the Tang Dynasty of China, the Mongolian Empire and beyond) . Even today, within many Native American and West African communities, femaleness is connected to spiritualism – unseen forces are often defined as female, such as goddesses and masked spirits, and are often interpreted by priestesses, prophetesses, healers, fortune tellers, and female shamans. However, the dominant culture that defines our 21st century world is, largely, patriarchal and continues to prosper through the oppression of women – and, to an extent, men. 

Power is power – and there is power in subjugation.

(Sidney Note: The glass ceiling metaphor should be viewed with some context – as should my statement above ^^ While times have changed and we now have female executives, college presidents, directors, governors, ambassadors and presidential candidates there are still inequities that exist. The metaphor implies that women and men have equal access to entry- and mid-level positions (Eagly and Carli). They do not. Rather than a ceiling to break through, women often have to struggle through a labyrinth, a maze filled with dead ends, false leads and towering walls. The labyrinth is even more suffocating for minority and marginalized women.

But back to the Game of Thrones universe . . . While most of the main characters have divided the fan base at some point in time (remember how we used to hate Cersei and then we felt bad and now . . . we kind of hate her again?) the discourse around Daenerys has been relatively consistent. While some see the Dragon Queen as an entitled, power-hungry tyrant slowly turning into the Mad Queen, others view her in a more sympathetic light. Daenerys – like many women – exist within a labyrinth. At the end is the Iron Throne. But the roads, for much of her life, were determined for her. Her (thankfully) deceased brother Viserys sold her in exchange for military support. Even after his golden death, Dany was still trapped in the maze, struggling to navigate the seemingly endless corridors. She has been raped, abandoned, deceived and . . . perhaps, most damning of all, she has been wrong.

Dany has made some questionable choices throughout her reign and while this is nothing new when it comes to GOT characters, what is new is that she is in a position of considerable power. Besides Cersei and, at one time, Grandma Olenna, Daenerys is one of the most powerful women in the series. Her dragons carry the weight of nuclear weapons and, after taking several fiery walks, hatching (or incubating) three ancient creatures an liberating a city from the chains of slavery . . . well, you can see why she thinks her destiny is to sit upon the Iron Throne.

Recently, the discourse about the portrayal of women in cinema has lit a fuse within the feminist movement. While I will say that some people tend to over analyze the actions of every character - relating them back to contemporary issues, it’s no state secret that female characters are often held to a very unhealthy set of standards:

Be strong, but not emasculating.

Be desirable, but not whorish.

Be charming, but not condescending.

Be ambitious, but not too ambitious.

The criticism about her representation in the show I think comes from a place of genuine concern. These fans want her to succeed because, seven hells, this woman has been through A LOT. And while there is a dose of sexism in the discourse, I do think that some of the backlash towards the show and creative team is unwarranted.

Daenerys Stormborn is NOT the protagonist in the traditional sense. She is a principle character who is heavily featured in both the books and Martin’s 5 novels. If you look at the charts below, people (who are more tech savvy than me) created comparison charts to help determine principle characters:

You may not like that Jon is painted as the hero or that Tyrion is featured prominently, but EVERY character has faced failures and loss in this series.

The freedom to lead is not freedom from failure.

No character is entirely good or entirely bad – Dany included. From white savior to female icon, Daenerys has been a polarizing character since season 1. She has made choices that, even when justifiable, were not . . . the most diplomatic solutions. She has a temper. She can be impulsive. But she is also affectionate with her friends. She is nurturing towards her dragons (in the books, her ancestors used whips to direct their dragons). She is also a queen . . . living in a patriarchal system that Aegon Targaryen established almost 300 years prior. She is single handedly trying to undo 300 years of patriarchal feudalism. That’s a pretty ambitious goal!

While Westerosi politics are similar to our own, they do not have cemented democratic institutions. The Night’s Watch is probably the closest example we have of a meritocracy (rule by merit or ability). The majority of the kingdom falls under the rule of one monarch who distributes semiautonomous authority through bonds of vassalage.

Change requires sacrifice . . . and compromise.

When was the last time you saw a high fantasy where, at one point, there were 5 women in positions of power? The closest moment in European history where that was a thing was when Catherine the Great of Russia, Madame de Pompadour, the Mistress of the King of France, and Empress Maria Theresa of the Holy Roman Empire combined their forces to fight against Fredrick II of Prussia during the 7 Years War (Fred was kinda a misogynist and coined the phrase The League of the Three Petticoats to describe the three women). Even in early English history, women who fought for power, like Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou, were dubbed as she-wolves or reckless, power-hungry queens. Hmmm . . . sound familiar?

Now Dany does have a temper. But so did Robert Baratheon. She can be impulsive. She has a sense of entitlement, as do most monarchs and presidents. She is compassionate, loyal to her friends and nurturing towards her dragons (in the books, her ancestors used whips to direct their dragons). She likes to be in control, but she is also willing to listen to others. But she does get angry and she does have insecurities. She is also a human and – like most humans – she is a bundle of idiosyncrasies, conflicting ideas, blinding anxieties and soaring dreams.

Are there problems with the series? Yes.

Have female (and male) characters been portrayed in ways that are questionable? Yeah.

Would a more socially conscious director craft a different narrative or create a more dynamic story? Maybe.

Are you still gonna watch the next episode this Sunday? Most likely.

If you look for flaws, you will find flaws – because, this story was not created by you. So write your own story, whip up a fanfic or make a headcannon!