though, I have to say, one bit in this interview with Emilia Clarke made me feel somewhere between bemused and aghast, i.e., David Benioff and D.B. Weiss told her that Danaerys basically was Lawrence of Arabia. (Movie version.) Guys, to paraphrase a politician from a long campaign ago, I've read Robert Bolt, I've watched Robert Bolt. (Who wrote the script to David Lean's movie.) You, no offense, are no Robert Bolts. Spoiler: Aquaba happens mid-movie, just before the break if you watch it in the cinema, meaning the entire second half is devoted to the "fall" part of "rise and fall", there's a rich variety of factors which contribute, all of which the audience gets to see, and then there's the not unimportant fact that the Arab characters, Ali, Feisal and Auda, all get to fulfill their own respective agendas. From what I hear, most people's problem with Dany's decline and ending seems to be the speed in which it did more than the fact it happened at all, and the lack of agenda and story for Grey Worm and the Dothraki.)

My thoughts exactly. I read it and I thought, okay, guys, you aren't remembering Lawrence of Arabia the same way that I do. (I've seen it five times, including in the movie theater -- which is actually the best place to see it.) And a lot of people forget the second half of it. Or how all the characters had agency, and did various things.

Lawrence of Arabia was a textured, ambiguous, and fully fledged character narrative. Game of Thrones stopped being that a while back, unfortunately.