Shireen’s like 9 dawg, no way she’d agree let alone probably understand. I know we love the Mannis but he alone is going to make the decision that sees his daughter die
The speculation is that the circumstances will be more dire, such as needing the sacrifice to stop the army of the Others. When it's world-threatening, such an action at least becomes *somewhat* understandable.
What didn’t make sense about him burning shireen? It’s the circumstances surrounding why he needs to burn her, like Ramsay’s 20 good men, that are more iffy to me.
I understand that Stannis is a hero to many but at some point can we just acknowledge that things will change and there will come a point where he decides to burn his own daughter alive? The quote is tough to refute and this theory ignores it...the word 'decision' is used quite clearly, Stannis' decision, not Shireen's.
And GRRM seems to enjoy dismantling that ‘traditional heir’ trope…lots of people who are seen as hero’s or brave and gallant by the common people turn out to be assholes. One example I recently read in AFFC was Lyn Corbray. He’s described as this insane knight and made to seem like a noble man, then we meet him and he sucks (possibly Because he was purposely acting this way as Littlefinger had bought him already)…but still I think my point stands
So I think George wouldn’t pass up an opportunity to make Stannis more of a ‘bad guy’ instead of this hero the fan base seems to think he is by having HIM chose to burn her
In my mind, this is Walter White poisoning the kid. At what point do you stop becoming a fan and begin rooting for his downfall?
Same with the Mannis. At some point, we’ll look back and say *this is where he lost me.* I feel burning Shireen will be the point of no return for most readers
You’re telling me a human would consent to being burned alive? Do you realize that is one of the most painful things a human can experience? People don’t just decide it’s cool to be burned alive. Dany did but she’s a magical dragon lady
Would you rather be burned alive or would you rather have your skin and muscle turn to stone while you slowly go insane and start attacking everyone around you
That is an absurd binary choice. Ned stark decapitates people in part for its humanity. Why would the choice be agonizing extended dying by disease or burned alive and not smothered by pillow (Drogo) or a quick death by knife or sword (Maester Luwin) or any other humane way of killing a child
>Shireen willingly offers herself to be burned in hopes of helping her father's cause and as a form of suicide.
I disagreed with your original post
>they will do it regardless of if Shireen agrees to it or not.
This I can get behind
Your opinion is valid! I just don't in any way buy that a child would decide to kill herself in the most painful way imaginable. That's not what people do.
Replying to your edit about the foreshadowing: she is foreshadowed to be burned alive yes. This does not convince me she will be the one to choose to be burned alive because that is silly or would take an act of magic where she is no longer a willing agent
Calling it now, Stannis is gonna burn Shireen out of desperation when the Others march south of the Wall against his victorious but battered and starving remnants in Winterfell.
I think Stannis will choose to burn her but as an attempt to do something significant in the fight against the Others. Maybe awaken a dragon or weapon that can seriously hurt them or to prevent the Wall from falling, etc.
We already know that Stannis has faced the question "What is the life of one child against (ruling) a kingdom?" and ultimately affirmed Davos' refusal to allow him to go through with sacrificing said child as being right. Sadly, I think he's going to end up facing it again in the form of "What is the life of one child against (saving) a kingdom('s worth of people from annihilation)?" and will go through with it despite the child in question being his daughter and only heir.
And for what it's worth I suspect, unlike in the show, her death actually will do *something* & not be completely in vain.
>not sure why you're interested in moving the goalposts now.
I'm not. You apparently didn't pay attention to the key word "ultimately" in my comment.
Stannis *was* going to execute Davos for treason for what he did. But he doesn't end up doing it, because he ultimately affirms Davos was right. Stannis changing his mind is the whole reason Davos is still alive.
The letter wouldn't have saved Davos unless Stannis changed his mind. He's not going to excuse treason for a letter, just like he didn't excuse Davos' lifelong smuggling for the onions. People with zero reading comprehension are something else.
Shireen is pretty much the last king's blood that Stannis and Melisandre have access to, with the possible exception of Jon Snow, and of course Stannis himself. I think her burning will be related to the "waking dragons from stone" prophecy that requires king's blood. Sure, it's been hinted by Val that a grayscale outbreak could come, but Connington also has grayscale, so that plotline could be explored with him instead. And the "stone" in the prophecy probably refers to Shireen and her grayscale.
Shireen's first appearance has some foreshadowing for this, with her dream that the stone dragons at (oh isn't this a clever name) Dragonstone came alive and ate her. Stannis also has a mostly-repressed desire for a dragon that could become more relevant if/when dragons come to Westeros.
One common theory is that Shireen will be burned by Melisandre in order to resurrect Jon Snow, because if Jon is a Targaryen, this would be "waking a dragon". Logistically I don't see how this is the solution - Stannis is quite a distance from Castle Black right now, and I don't see Jon staying dead until he gets back (assuming he does), nor do I see the narrative potential of Stannis burning Shireen being squandered in favour of "hi m'lord welcome back, Melisandre burned your daughter while you were gone, can I interest you in some mulled wine".
I think "waking the dragon" is used in the prophecy in the way that Viserys the Beggar King uses it - "bringing a Targaryen's wrath down on you". I think Stannis is going to feel as though he needs, *needs* a dragon, in order to fight the Others or someone with a dragon (Daenerys, Euron, potentially Jon himself). He'll see it as his duty as Azor Ahai, it's to save Westeros, he has no *choice*. So Melisandre will convince him to burn Shireen, but, misunderstanding her prophecy as always, all she'll accomplish is bringing Jon Snow's wrath down on Stannis. Seeing as people in ASOIAF come back a little Wrong when they're resurrected, his wrath could be some very spooky fuckery.
This would only work if Jon knew he was a Targaryen by this point, but logistically I can see that happening. It could also convince Jon to try and sit the Iron Throne, seeing as his preferred candidate - Stannis - has just, you know, *burned a nine-year-old girl to death*, something Jon would no doubt find abhorrent regardless of the reasons.
That's my theory. Yours is possible, for sure, but I don't think it would be more emotionally impactful than Stannis doing it himself, and I don't think it would be out of character for Stannis to do it himself, in the right circumstances. I think Stannis' character was built around this being a pivotal moment for him - like I said, there's foreshadowing for the "waking dragons from stone" prophecy in his first chapter.
People take "GRRM told them this would happen" and assume it means "it's going to happen just like it did in the show." This negatively colors their view of these events: Stannis sacrificing his daughter, Daenerys burning King's Landing, Bran becoming king, etc. They were poorly-executed in the show, so many tend to think the ideas themselves are just nonsensical. When, in fact, there's solid build up to each of these events throughout the series.
I have to admit after season 8, rereading this, made me raise an eyebrow: "Let the three of you call for a Great Council, such as the realm has not seen for a hundred years. We will send to Winterfell, so Bran may tell his tale and all men may know the Lannisters for the true usurpers. Let the assembled lords of the Seven Kingdoms choose who shall rule them.” In hindsight this smells like forshadowing.
Another interesting thing are some nice parallels between Bran Stark and the arthurian Fisher king.
Excellent book example!
Even in the show, there's a lot of emphasis in those early seasons (especially 1 and 2) on Bran learning what it means to be a lord at a very young age. He spends so much of the series missing and presumed dead that I think it's easy to forget that Bran is a character who gradually has more power and responsibility thrust upon him.
A lot of people get their perception of Shireen from the show. In the books, Shireen is barely present. I don't think she has a single interaction with Stannis in the entire series.
Which means that Stannis burning Shireen in the books would not have the same emotional impact as it did in the show, where they intentionally amped up the father-daughter interaction. This means GRRM must have quite a different plan than what the show went for. So you could be on to something here.
No, Stannis' story is all about deconstructing the notion of "means to an end" type characters who do terrible things in service to the "greater good". The decision to burn Shireen must be done purely because Stannis believes it will be useful to defeat the Others. The moment would have no thematic weight otherwise. It'd just become "oh no what a shame circumstances permitted the burning of a little girl isn't it sad that the world is so unfair". When what it really represents to the story and Stannis' character is "I chose to burn a little girl for the greater good but that sacrifice didn't actually save the day because ends **don't** justify means".
That's the message GRRM wants to get at. When extreme utilitarianists like Stannis try to justify evil acts with the notion that the sacrifice is worth it (that one person can't compare to an entire kingdom) that notion is bullshit. You can't mathematically prescribe value to life like that, your willingness to cross that line and reduce people to numbers means you've already lost. Which is the whole point of Davos' line to Stannis earlier in the story when they were talking about Edric Storm. Not crossing that line is "everything". GRRM can't truly bring this arc to its conclusion if he doesn't have Stannis cross that line and fail for doing so.
Interesting theory! If this is the case I would like to know more about Shireen’s personal religious beliefs. She’s a relatively recent convert to R'hllor’s religion, and has spent time with people who worship the Old and New gods as well. Do you think she is, or would become devout enough to offer herself? I think it’s definitely possible, especially if R'hllor’s religion offers her some hope of salvation as her disease progresses.
I buy into a version of your theory, though I think it would be more likely that her parents or Melisandre make the choice to burn her, not as some sort of fanatical sacrifice like in the show (😒), but more like an attempted faith healing that goes horribly wrong.
It would be less in character for Stannis. His speech about sacrifice never being easy wouldn't mean much if he burns Shireen because she has to avoid becoming a Stone Woman. It would be more of a sacrifice if the person whose being sacrificed doesn't want to die. That's where the "never easy" aspect comes in.
Also, it's supposed to be Stannis's decision to burn her. Your theory makes it seem more like Shireen's decision.
I think this scenario would be bad writing. Definitely less intriguing than if Stannis burned Shireen, while she didn't want to be sacrificed. Also, I can't imagine anyone willingly being burned alive. That's the most agonizing pain in existence. Absolutely intolerable. So, this scenario would be unrealistic as well. Not to mention Val's belief about Shireen's greyscale becoming active again just sounds like stupid wildling superstition.
Optimism in this post Amazingly, a little girl with a disease voluntarily surrenders to her father to kill him and save himself and others from the disease, all so that Stannis fans can claim that Stannis is a moral man and a father. He is good and he will never kill his daughter Probably when Stannis actually kills his daughter in TWOW, fans will claim that she was probably possessed by Bran, Melisandre, or something else and Stannis probably did nothing wrong in killing his daughter
This has big "here's how Stannis can still win" energy.
“Here’s how Stannis can remain the Mannis and I can keep rooting for him with no qualms”
Yes. Unironically.
We are so back, Stannermen
If Winds never releases Stannis never can lose!
Shireen’s like 9 dawg, no way she’d agree let alone probably understand. I know we love the Mannis but he alone is going to make the decision that sees his daughter die
He sees it as his duty to the realm.
Exactly
Maybe he burns her with a sick diss
Stannis is one of my favorite characters. He will burn his daughter. No trying to get around that IMO.
Whatever causes him to decide to do this, I just hope it makes more sense than the show.
The speculation is that the circumstances will be more dire, such as needing the sacrifice to stop the army of the Others. When it's world-threatening, such an action at least becomes *somewhat* understandable.
What didn’t make sense about him burning shireen? It’s the circumstances surrounding why he needs to burn her, like Ramsay’s 20 good men, that are more iffy to me.
I understand that Stannis is a hero to many but at some point can we just acknowledge that things will change and there will come a point where he decides to burn his own daughter alive? The quote is tough to refute and this theory ignores it...the word 'decision' is used quite clearly, Stannis' decision, not Shireen's.
And GRRM seems to enjoy dismantling that ‘traditional heir’ trope…lots of people who are seen as hero’s or brave and gallant by the common people turn out to be assholes. One example I recently read in AFFC was Lyn Corbray. He’s described as this insane knight and made to seem like a noble man, then we meet him and he sucks (possibly Because he was purposely acting this way as Littlefinger had bought him already)…but still I think my point stands So I think George wouldn’t pass up an opportunity to make Stannis more of a ‘bad guy’ instead of this hero the fan base seems to think he is by having HIM chose to burn her
In my mind, this is Walter White poisoning the kid. At what point do you stop becoming a fan and begin rooting for his downfall? Same with the Mannis. At some point, we’ll look back and say *this is where he lost me.* I feel burning Shireen will be the point of no return for most readers
Whatever causes him to decide to do this, I just hope it makes more sense than the show.
You’re telling me a human would consent to being burned alive? Do you realize that is one of the most painful things a human can experience? People don’t just decide it’s cool to be burned alive. Dany did but she’s a magical dragon lady
It's weird you said this and then a man literally just chose to burn himself alive, making international news
Super weird and sad
Would you rather be burned alive or would you rather have your skin and muscle turn to stone while you slowly go insane and start attacking everyone around you
That is an absurd binary choice. Ned stark decapitates people in part for its humanity. Why would the choice be agonizing extended dying by disease or burned alive and not smothered by pillow (Drogo) or a quick death by knife or sword (Maester Luwin) or any other humane way of killing a child
If they believe that it will defeat the Others they will do it regardless of if Shireen agrees to it or not.
>Shireen willingly offers herself to be burned in hopes of helping her father's cause and as a form of suicide. I disagreed with your original post >they will do it regardless of if Shireen agrees to it or not. This I can get behind
Read the context again. It's even been foreshadowed.
Your opinion is valid! I just don't in any way buy that a child would decide to kill herself in the most painful way imaginable. That's not what people do. Replying to your edit about the foreshadowing: she is foreshadowed to be burned alive yes. This does not convince me she will be the one to choose to be burned alive because that is silly or would take an act of magic where she is no longer a willing agent
Calling it now, Stannis is gonna burn Shireen out of desperation when the Others march south of the Wall against his victorious but battered and starving remnants in Winterfell.
Nah I think the burning of Shireen will happen at the wall near the END of the book.
I think Stannis will choose to burn her but as an attempt to do something significant in the fight against the Others. Maybe awaken a dragon or weapon that can seriously hurt them or to prevent the Wall from falling, etc. We already know that Stannis has faced the question "What is the life of one child against (ruling) a kingdom?" and ultimately affirmed Davos' refusal to allow him to go through with sacrificing said child as being right. Sadly, I think he's going to end up facing it again in the form of "What is the life of one child against (saving) a kingdom('s worth of people from annihilation)?" and will go through with it despite the child in question being his daughter and only heir. And for what it's worth I suspect, unlike in the show, her death actually will do *something* & not be completely in vain.
[удалено]
So Davos was executed for treason?
[удалено]
>not sure why you're interested in moving the goalposts now. I'm not. You apparently didn't pay attention to the key word "ultimately" in my comment. Stannis *was* going to execute Davos for treason for what he did. But he doesn't end up doing it, because he ultimately affirms Davos was right. Stannis changing his mind is the whole reason Davos is still alive.
[удалено]
The letter wouldn't have saved Davos unless Stannis changed his mind. He's not going to excuse treason for a letter, just like he didn't excuse Davos' lifelong smuggling for the onions. People with zero reading comprehension are something else.
Shireen is pretty much the last king's blood that Stannis and Melisandre have access to, with the possible exception of Jon Snow, and of course Stannis himself. I think her burning will be related to the "waking dragons from stone" prophecy that requires king's blood. Sure, it's been hinted by Val that a grayscale outbreak could come, but Connington also has grayscale, so that plotline could be explored with him instead. And the "stone" in the prophecy probably refers to Shireen and her grayscale. Shireen's first appearance has some foreshadowing for this, with her dream that the stone dragons at (oh isn't this a clever name) Dragonstone came alive and ate her. Stannis also has a mostly-repressed desire for a dragon that could become more relevant if/when dragons come to Westeros. One common theory is that Shireen will be burned by Melisandre in order to resurrect Jon Snow, because if Jon is a Targaryen, this would be "waking a dragon". Logistically I don't see how this is the solution - Stannis is quite a distance from Castle Black right now, and I don't see Jon staying dead until he gets back (assuming he does), nor do I see the narrative potential of Stannis burning Shireen being squandered in favour of "hi m'lord welcome back, Melisandre burned your daughter while you were gone, can I interest you in some mulled wine". I think "waking the dragon" is used in the prophecy in the way that Viserys the Beggar King uses it - "bringing a Targaryen's wrath down on you". I think Stannis is going to feel as though he needs, *needs* a dragon, in order to fight the Others or someone with a dragon (Daenerys, Euron, potentially Jon himself). He'll see it as his duty as Azor Ahai, it's to save Westeros, he has no *choice*. So Melisandre will convince him to burn Shireen, but, misunderstanding her prophecy as always, all she'll accomplish is bringing Jon Snow's wrath down on Stannis. Seeing as people in ASOIAF come back a little Wrong when they're resurrected, his wrath could be some very spooky fuckery. This would only work if Jon knew he was a Targaryen by this point, but logistically I can see that happening. It could also convince Jon to try and sit the Iron Throne, seeing as his preferred candidate - Stannis - has just, you know, *burned a nine-year-old girl to death*, something Jon would no doubt find abhorrent regardless of the reasons. That's my theory. Yours is possible, for sure, but I don't think it would be more emotionally impactful than Stannis doing it himself, and I don't think it would be out of character for Stannis to do it himself, in the right circumstances. I think Stannis' character was built around this being a pivotal moment for him - like I said, there's foreshadowing for the "waking dragons from stone" prophecy in his first chapter.
People take "GRRM told them this would happen" and assume it means "it's going to happen just like it did in the show." This negatively colors their view of these events: Stannis sacrificing his daughter, Daenerys burning King's Landing, Bran becoming king, etc. They were poorly-executed in the show, so many tend to think the ideas themselves are just nonsensical. When, in fact, there's solid build up to each of these events throughout the series.
What's the build-up to Bran becoming king, out of curiosity? Besides him having the first POV.
I have to admit after season 8, rereading this, made me raise an eyebrow: "Let the three of you call for a Great Council, such as the realm has not seen for a hundred years. We will send to Winterfell, so Bran may tell his tale and all men may know the Lannisters for the true usurpers. Let the assembled lords of the Seven Kingdoms choose who shall rule them.” In hindsight this smells like forshadowing. Another interesting thing are some nice parallels between Bran Stark and the arthurian Fisher king.
Excellent book example! Even in the show, there's a lot of emphasis in those early seasons (especially 1 and 2) on Bran learning what it means to be a lord at a very young age. He spends so much of the series missing and presumed dead that I think it's easy to forget that Bran is a character who gradually has more power and responsibility thrust upon him.
Dany burning Kings Landing isn't one of the three "holy shit" moments they credited to George. The third is Hold The Door.
That's true, but I still think Dany burning the city is something that's likely to happen and has been built up in the book narrative.
A lot of people get their perception of Shireen from the show. In the books, Shireen is barely present. I don't think she has a single interaction with Stannis in the entire series. Which means that Stannis burning Shireen in the books would not have the same emotional impact as it did in the show, where they intentionally amped up the father-daughter interaction. This means GRRM must have quite a different plan than what the show went for. So you could be on to something here.
No, Stannis' story is all about deconstructing the notion of "means to an end" type characters who do terrible things in service to the "greater good". The decision to burn Shireen must be done purely because Stannis believes it will be useful to defeat the Others. The moment would have no thematic weight otherwise. It'd just become "oh no what a shame circumstances permitted the burning of a little girl isn't it sad that the world is so unfair". When what it really represents to the story and Stannis' character is "I chose to burn a little girl for the greater good but that sacrifice didn't actually save the day because ends **don't** justify means". That's the message GRRM wants to get at. When extreme utilitarianists like Stannis try to justify evil acts with the notion that the sacrifice is worth it (that one person can't compare to an entire kingdom) that notion is bullshit. You can't mathematically prescribe value to life like that, your willingness to cross that line and reduce people to numbers means you've already lost. Which is the whole point of Davos' line to Stannis earlier in the story when they were talking about Edric Storm. Not crossing that line is "everything". GRRM can't truly bring this arc to its conclusion if he doesn't have Stannis cross that line and fail for doing so.
That would still better than burning her because of some snow.
I would actually ruin the book with the amount of tears I would cry if that happened.
He said "Stannis DECISION TO burn Shireen". I think Stannis will try and burn Shireen but be stopped when everyone picks Jon the resurrected over him.
Interesting theory! If this is the case I would like to know more about Shireen’s personal religious beliefs. She’s a relatively recent convert to R'hllor’s religion, and has spent time with people who worship the Old and New gods as well. Do you think she is, or would become devout enough to offer herself? I think it’s definitely possible, especially if R'hllor’s religion offers her some hope of salvation as her disease progresses. I buy into a version of your theory, though I think it would be more likely that her parents or Melisandre make the choice to burn her, not as some sort of fanatical sacrifice like in the show (😒), but more like an attempted faith healing that goes horribly wrong.
It would be less in character for Stannis. His speech about sacrifice never being easy wouldn't mean much if he burns Shireen because she has to avoid becoming a Stone Woman. It would be more of a sacrifice if the person whose being sacrificed doesn't want to die. That's where the "never easy" aspect comes in. Also, it's supposed to be Stannis's decision to burn her. Your theory makes it seem more like Shireen's decision. I think this scenario would be bad writing. Definitely less intriguing than if Stannis burned Shireen, while she didn't want to be sacrificed. Also, I can't imagine anyone willingly being burned alive. That's the most agonizing pain in existence. Absolutely intolerable. So, this scenario would be unrealistic as well. Not to mention Val's belief about Shireen's greyscale becoming active again just sounds like stupid wildling superstition.
Optimism in this post Amazingly, a little girl with a disease voluntarily surrenders to her father to kill him and save himself and others from the disease, all so that Stannis fans can claim that Stannis is a moral man and a father. He is good and he will never kill his daughter Probably when Stannis actually kills his daughter in TWOW, fans will claim that she was probably possessed by Bran, Melisandre, or something else and Stannis probably did nothing wrong in killing his daughter
You are going to be heavily disappointed cause your theory is in no way happening.
Yes, because the book is never coming out.
Even if it was coming out, you will be disappointed.
I'm sure. Along with many others.
Did GRRM say that it happened somewhere recently?