The Night’s Cast Episode 13: Recapping ‘Eastwatch’ with special guests Maester Monthly!

Caption

“Eastwatch” isn’t perfect, but this heartfelt goodbye between Dany and Jorah is a nice moment.

Dragonflame and charging Dothraki hordes are a tough act to follow — and Season 7 had its share of ups and downs — but Episode 5, “Eastwatch,” filled the bill nicely. Or at least that’s the conclusion we came to on this week’s episode of The Night’s Cast, the official podcast of Watchers on the Wall.

Join Vanessa, Bex, Samantha and special guests Michael and Matt (also known as Watchers’ very own JoeMagician) of Maester Monthly as we talk Episode 5 and somehow find a way to fit in more than one reference to Limp Bizkit!

The Night’s Cast is available on iTunes and SoundCloud, and you can follow us on Twitter as well. Happy listening!

9 responses

Jump to (and Always Support) the Bottom

    1. My….third time on the Night’s Cast I think? Really great fun and I had a blast talking about this great episode with them all. And for some reason Limp Bizkit?

        Quote  Reply

    2. “Eastwatch” isn’t perfect, but this heartfelt goodbye between Dany and Jorah is a nice moment.

      I preferred the goodbye between Jon & Daenerys more.
      “If I don’t return at least you won’t have to deal with the King in the North anymore.”
      “I’ve grown used to him.” (*kiss me eye flutter*)
      🙂
      …..
      The show may have Iain for Jorah, but as far as the storylines go I still picture a greasy middle-aged balding guy pining over a teenager.

        Quote  Reply

    3. I took Randyll Tarlys description of Dany being a foreigner invader more in the sense she brought the Dothraki to Westeros. And technically the Targaryens were foreign invaders who conquered Westeros. Contrary Dany was born on Dragonstone, which is Westeros making her a Westerosi native. I have spent way too much of my day on this lol. God I love GOT!!!

        Quote  Reply

    4. Ironprice112: description of Dany being a foreigner invader

      Yeah, I mumble and swear at characters when they call her foreign (whore). Technically she’s a Westerosi citizen whose family lived there for over 400 years but had to run or be killed. I may be nearly 100% Scandinavian by blood but my family has been in the US for about four generations, so unless I were to renounce my citizenship I’m from here no matter where I go. On the other hand, I’m a foreigner when walking into Oslo. 🙂

        Quote  Reply

    5. Ironprice112,

      Being born on Dragonstone does not automatically make her a Westerosi citizen or culturally a Westerosi – I think that is the Tarly’s point.

      Citizenship is granted by the rules of the country/current citizens. There are 2 ways – by birth and by descent/blood.

      The majority of countries require that your ancestors (by descent or by blood) ) are citizens for you to become a citizen. (Particularly common in Europe.) The minority of countries, citizenship is by your birthplace (by soil). (Particularly common in Americas).

      Daenerys’ problem is that her ancestors were invaders that were repelled after 400 years – they were never citizens. Conquering invaders rarely are. The Targs ensured that they avoided merging blood with the local Westerosi anyway and avoided the full integration. Even if they gave themselves citizenship when they conquered Westeros, that would be ended when the rebellion happened. And they would be thrown out and killed on sight if they returned.

      Daenerys also left Westeros as a baby. This also makes her non-native in sense that she is not culturally Westerosi. This the same issue that the DACA young folks have in the USA. They were brought to the US as children and now are not culturally native to the countries that their parents left when they took them to the USA.

        Quote  Reply

    6. I really like listening to this podcast, it always makes me think and refine my own standpoints 🙂 

      Thank you for referring to the inside the episode clip it made Daenerys reasoning more understandable. She does not deserve being called mad or evil. What I get from Benioffs explanation is that Daenerys has learned throughout the years that strength and ruthlessness are necessary (or even the only way) to win so she lets go of the moral standard and relies on these two qualities in the war against Cersei. This is a rational and, given her history, understandable decision. That does not mean, as Benioff indicates, that everyone has to agree with all her actions. Her perspective is but one perspective and viewers are allowed and even urged make up their own minds.

      With regard to using dragon fire for the execution, Daenerys has every right to do so I just think was a bad idea on a strategic level because it plays right into her enemy’s hands. It is very easy to use this action in anti-Daenerys rhetoric.

      I think you go a bit far when you talk about Dickon, you say that she gave them a choice, he chose to die, although ‘there was no need to throw his life away’ and you conclude: ‘HE just obliterated their family’. I probably misunderstood but it seemed to me that you blamed the victim for his own death.

      The Catelyn thing is ridiculous! I don’t understand it at all!!! Maybe people are irrational about her because a child was involved? But even then it is ludricous.

      I like the climate change analogy.

      That Cersei is on the throne makes absolutely no sense, if you blow up the most important place of worship and the leader of your state religion along with half of the aristocracy both the people and the aristocracy would revolt, that plotline is absurd! As is the Littlefinger, Arya, Sansa one.

        Quote  Reply

    7. Clob,

      Not to pry, but may about I ask how the FirstClobs settled in the US;
      (A) Did your ancestors arrive as immigrants or refugees seeking a home, requesting to join the nation as fellow citizens?
      (B) Did your ancestors arrive as conquering invaders that used superior technology and war to dominate, colonize and rule the US? Or as a military occupation force?
      (C) Did your ancestors arrive as diplomatic representatives of another country?

      How your citizenship evolves in a new country depends on how to you arrived and how you chose to integrate. In the above list, only the (A) group are likely to get citizenship for the long term.

      (B) The colonial, invade and ruler groups rarely become citizens – or even want it. The French conquered and ruled North Africa. Their children born in Algeria etc. under colonial times had French citizenship. British and India, the same. Born in India but British citizens. Citizenship by descent/blood. I do not think either group cared about local citizenship.

      Even if the invaders gave themselves citizenship, when the successful rebellion occurs and they are often driven out – the self-appointed citizenship is stripped away.

      (C) Children of diplomats born in the USA are not American citizens. They are citizens of the country that their parents represent. It is a myth that you are a citizen simply by where you are born.

      So you see, how you got into the country matters even 400 years later. Especially for invading conquerors.

        Quote  Reply

    Jump to the Top

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *