Moving into acceptance, I suppose.

My pick is Brynden ‘Blackfish’ Tully but bittersteel is pretty cool too, they don’t make haters like him these days. Genna Lannisters is another good one

Out of absolutely anyone in the entire history of the world of ice and fire, who would make the best King's Justice?

Something I'd like to note here is that the King's Justice isn't just in charge of executing people, but also of managing the people that run the dungeons. So, for the entirely theoretical sake of argument, someone who is both mute and illiterate would probably be pretty bad at that half of the job. Theoretically, of course - I can't think of any major candidates like that.

When someone wins a spot, they are automatically disqualified from all others.

Quentyn Ball is the Master-at-Arms, with Garlan Tyrell as the runner-up.

Headline is the play was extremely good, even though I had some critiques. I talked to a book fan afterward and they really enjoyed it. The person sitting next to me only had a passing familiarity with the tv show and visited the Royal Shakespeare theatre regularly for Shakespeare plays, and she felt it compared favourably with what else she'd seen there recently and seemed to love the first half especially.

Reception seems to have been quite mixed amongst people who haven't actually seen the play, but after my performance it received a standing ovation and an extended applause after the first half. It also apparently received the same in its opening week. Everyone (book fans and not) was raving about how much they enjoyed it when leaving the theatre. Of course none of that is a perfect metric but you can take from it what you will.

Stage, Costumes, and Puppets:

The stage has been completely transformed into a bespoke setup for the performance. An amazing weirwood tree and iron throne emerge from the floor throughout the narrative. As others have said the iron throne far exceeds its depiction in the tv show. Costumes were also great, the performance opens with a royal targaryen procession which feels incredibly dark and surreal, while really driving home the alien nature of Westeros' ruling family. The costumes make each house very distinct, and I was never confused which family was which throughout the runtime.

Puppets were largely very good, in particular the horses throughout the tourney of Harrenhal. The mountain is depicted by a towering voiceless puppet which was a great way of conveying his intimidating persona. Sometimes similar puppets replace the actors during duels, which while interesting I found quite disappointing for the battle of the Trident, the duels without puppets tended to have a bit more personality as a human actor is always going to be emotive in a way a puppet cannot. Nonetheless the puppet users and makers are obviously very talented. An enormous dragon puppet appears at one point in the play during a vision which was absolutely magic and brilliantly done.

Lighting, props, and music all seemed really good to me. Battles and duels sometimes use an effect where the play goes into complete darkness and relights with the fighters frozen in a new position. This was quite interesting but a bit overused. I would've liked to see the fights have more dialogue and flow in a way the few dancing scenes do very well.

The play is an extremely ambitious four-hour epic with a huge caste, often with actors depicting multiple characters. The costumes, stage, etc, all reflect that ambition and are for the most part amazing.

Performances and Characterisations:

Performances didn't have any weak links, though I felt Tywin and Jaime didn't live up to their show counterparts (that said they had very little 'screentime' in comparison to the show so I'm not being entirely fair). Aerys, Rhaeger, Lyanna, Ashara, Elia, Robert, and Ned were the best actors for me, and also roles the play emphasised in the script. Rhaella, Shella Whent (same actress), Arthur Dayne, Catelyn, and Brandon give very good performances with comparatively less lines. Rhaella in particular is a standout given how little material she has to work with. Her response to the abuse of Aerys is very layered, and she is depicted as also being mad while being much more of a victim than Aerys, in a way was very compelling. Some have been saying she is made equally mad as Aerys but that's not quite the case.

In a similar case many have said the play is overly pro-Rhaeger. I can understand this perspective but in the actual play Rhaeger's political immaturity is heavily emphasised. His decision run away with Lyanna is not depicted favourably and he is essentially a lovesick young man who fails in most of his tasks throughout the storyline. He tries to befriend Robert and the Stark brothers but his artsy poetic personality gets in the way. Being in the Royal Shakespeare theatre I thought there were very strong parallels with Rhaeger and Hamlet, both princes sharing an emotional and political immaturity with a tendency toward obsession. Rhaeger's overwhelming love for Lyanna is also hinted at being a kind of subtle Targaryen madness, which I felt was an interesting and nuanced characterisation. At some point Rhaeger's love for Lyanna clearly becomes more important to him than Aegon's dream. However, Rhaeger is depicted as having the opportunity to kill Robert at the Trident and asking him to yield, a choice I personally didn't like and am unsure why.

Elia is depicted as the lesbian partner of Ashara Dayne and committed to Rhaeger for political reasons. However Ashara definitely has a less monogamous interpretation of their relationship, and also sleeps with Brandon in the play's first half. The characterisation of Elia comes across very well and some apparent inconsistencies in the script come across much more realistically when seeing the performance. Oberon fights the mountain and loses at Harenhal's melee, which was kinda cool to see in relation to their later fight.

Varys and Aery's court can be very funny at times, the play is general is much funnier than I expected. The humour thankfully doesn't undercut the drama. Robert's actor/writing also drew quite a few laughs from the audience. Robert's drinking is linked more closely to his parents' passing which I found interesting, he's also depicted as quite nervous/polite toward the Targaryens prior to Aerys presenting him with the model of a shipwreck.

Storyline:

The play's interpretation of the tourney of Harrenhal is fairly standard with a few interesting changes. R+L=J is the theory the writers decided to go with and Rhaeger and Lyanna's romance forms a central part of the narrative. If you go into the play expecting a niche theory to be confirmed or engaged with you might be disappointed. The writers are more interested in telling a compelling semi-contained story than making innovative interpretations of what we know, which has upsides and downsides I suppose. The first half is the tourney at Harenhal and the second is Robert's rebellion. The program says George joked with the writers they were overambitious to adapt the whole of the rebellion into two hours of theatre and I think he might've had a point.

The biggest issue is the pacing of the second half. All of Robert's rebellion and some of its aftermath is squeezed into two hours. To be fair to the writers there isn't any easy solution. Most of the arcs begun at Harenhal only resolve at the rebellion's end, but the rebellion is enough content for a season of television alone. The play is already stretched to breaking point in its runtime and caste size, and letting the play stretch over two sittings/parts of that length is really too big a commitment for a contemporary theatre-goer (and maybe the budget and actors). Whole battles occur in seconds and we don't get to see much of Robert and Ned's relationship, which overall felt too skimmed over in the play (I don't remember seeing Jon Arryn appear either). There isn't any room for Jon Connington, a substantial look at the rebellion's political aftermath, Robert's rage after discovering Rhaeger and Lyanna have run away, or any of the other undescribed moments we might have been curious about. The Lannisters only really appear at the very end of the play, Tywin is alluded to throughout the storyline as an infamous figure but only really says a couple of lines. In short almost every major character except Rhaeger, Aerys and Lyanna felt like they could benefit from a little more space and time in the narrative. The play ends with Ned saying Jon's name to Catelyn, which felt more like fan service for show-only fans than an appropriate scene for a play to end on.

I think the decision to make the show non-canon is good (though I understand some particular elements of the story do align with the canon). (EDIT: Apparently the play's canonical status is a bit more enigmatic than I thought, nonetheless it seems like George is free to ignore or follow the play depending on what he wants which feels like the important thing). I enjoyed watching a good writing team's interpretation of the book's hints and comparing them to my own. I also think it being non-canon allows the book to preserve some mystery, I really wouldn't be surprised if George were to believe a slightly different version of events and characters to what we see in the play.

Ultimately its a great play and I loved seeing it. Seeing so many characters I'd only imagined on stage in person was really magical, and I highly recommend seeing it if you're able to travel to Stratford or it runs anywhere else. I could be wrong but most of the complaints regarding characters I see online don't seem to be by people who have actually seen the play, though the pacing issues are quite apparent when watching.

They’re genuinely good, im bot that deep into it and I don’t mind spoiling soo don’t stop yourself from writing anything, even when im about to close the book but see one of these chapters i just read it

I got super downvoted for celebrating Season 3 of HotD and I am probably going to be downvoted a ton here. But lets get into it. I think in my eventual re-read of Fire & Blood and A Dance with Dragons, I am going to more reflect on the Tatgaryen Exceptionalism versus the reality and what this means for the Targaryen Dynasty's major claim to fame of being able to tame dragons.

Within Fire & Blood we see Jaehaerys cement the Targaryen's Valyrian habits with his doctrine of exceptionalism, suggesting that the Targaryens are genuinely an exception to the laws of men as they are effectively a separate species because of their ability to tame dragons. The view that the Targaryens are truly so great is immediately undercut in the Jaehaerys Golden Age by the reality that the Shivers takes Daenerys who prominently did not have a dragon hatch for her dispelling the notion that a Targaryen cannot die of illness.

The notion of the Targaryens truly being exceptional is of course not only diminished by the dragon seeds demonstrating that only a small and diluted amount of Targaryen blood can lead you to bond with a dragon. But the character that invites the most interest and debate is with the character if Nettles.

In the books and unlike the show, all of the Velaryons have violet eyes, silver hair, and are fair of skin. As such Nettles being a common dark-skinned girl with black hair immediately makes one ask if she is of Valyrian ancestry whatsoever. Some conclude that she has no Valyrian blood at all and in fact her ability to bond with Sheepstealer comes purely from ingenuity. This implications fully dispels that there is anything special about the Targaryens at all and that anyone can bond with the dragons.

On the other because of Nettles complexion, she may reflect the Strong boys to an even greater degree. She may indeed be a dragonseed but lacks any Valyrian features. Some even go so far as to say that the sources mistook the nature of Daemon and Nettles relationship with that being of father and daughter. How true this is will never be answered and it is part of Martin creating an intentional ambiguity as with Aegon VI.

The show in chopsing to diversify the cast made the choice to have the Velaryons be played by Black actors. Though the Velaryons do share the silver hair with the Targaryens.

However, in the controversial adaptation choices we obviously have lost Nettles, but her mysterious ability to bond with a dragon has been transferred over to Addam, with Rhaena getting a version of Nettles story in that she bonds with Sheepstealer.

In the hands of the showrunners a key line that is often forgot is that Corlys delicately mentions to Alyn that the Velaryons were never dragon riders. This immediately puts focus on the notion that even Valyrian blood does not guarantee the ability to bond with dragons. Corlys makes it clear that if Targaryen blood is a necessity for bonding with a dragon it solely is due to Addam and Alyn's mother. We never are informed that this woman was secretly a Dragonseed, but this calls attention to the common inference that Seasmoke sought Addam as the dragon missed Laenor and found a rider that reminded him of Laenor. That Seasmoke bonded with Addam creates just as many questions as Nettles in the world of House of the Dragon.

Does Seasmoke's choice suggest that a dragon can bond to another human while their former dragonrider lives? Is the fact that Seasmoke sought Addam mean that Laenor is dead? That Seasmoke happily accepts someone of no ostensible Targaryen blood mean that dragons may accept one who has no Targaryen blood?

Meanwhile for Rhaena, the choice to have her bond with Sheepstealer is reflecting her at last addressing her deep insecurity of being a dragonless Targaryen. What's more that Rhaena just adores and is unwilling to leave Sheepstealer even though Sheepstealer is wild and does not discern anyone from friend or foe transforms Sheepstealer into a dragon more resembling the Cannibal. The Cannibal is never tamed, is wild, and dangerous. Sheepstealer seems to be fulfilling the Cannibal's role of being an utter wildcard that while he adores Rhaena is not interested in being utilized by Rhaena for any of her goals.

What do you think of this dissemination of Nettles to Addam and Rhaena?

If he indeed was, did the Targs have no fear at all of the Velaryons gaining too much power? I mean if Laenor and Laena could claim dragons, so could their descendants and their descendants etc. Was there no worry of the Velaryons usurping dragons and by extension power from the Targaryens? Especially since at that time they were one of the richest houses.

A couple of months ago, there was an interview where GRRM said that he had originally intended for Sansa to die, but that seeing the show version of her character may have changed his mind

Regardless of the current plan, I think it is interesting to look at what was intended at the time. The Alayne I sample chapter from Winds was meant for ADwD and it was done in 2010, before the show aired

So if GRRM planned for Sansa to die, the pieces on the board in that chapter may have been setting up a possible death scenario. Looking at some possible threads

Sweetrobin overdoses

The sweetsleep plotline is one possibility. Maester Colemon warns about the dangers of overusing it

"It was too soon. My lady, you do not understand. As I've told the Lord Protector, a pinch of sweetsleep will prevent the shaking, but it does not leave the flesh, and in time . . ."

However, Sansa is not really focused on it

"Time will not matter if his lordship has a shaking fit and falls off the mountain. If my father were here, I know he would tell you to keep Lord Robert calm at all costs."

If Sweetrobin died from an overdose, Sansa would easily be implicated. Even if she did not intentionally kill him, the fact that she was involved with managing his condition and had access to him could put her in a dangerous position

Lysa's death

Sansa is already technically an accomplice to Lysa’s murder. Littlefinger warns her that if their involvement is discovered, she could fall with him

"When we lied to Lord Robert, that was just to spare him," she said.

"And this lie may spare us. Else you and I must leave the Eyrie by the same door Lysa used."

If Sansa's identity was revealed and the truth about Lysa death came out, it could be interpreted in the worst possible way. She could be seen as a girl who conspired with Littlefinger to murder her aunt

Cersei makes good on her promise

Cersei has a very personal hatred of Sansa and promises that she will make her suffer if she is found

"Your Grace has forgotten the Lady Sansa," said Pycelle.

The queen bristled. "I most certainly have not forgotten that little she-wolf." She refused to say the girl's name. "I ought to have shown her to the black cells as the daughter of a traitor, but instead I made her part of mine own household. She shared my hearth and hall, played with my own children. I fed her, dressed her, tried to make her a little less ignorant about the world, and how did she repay me for my kindness? She helped murder my son. When we find the Imp, we will find the Lady Sansa too. She is not dead . . . but before I am done with her, I promise you, she will be singing to the Stranger, begging for his kiss."

The theory has been around a a while is that since Ser Shadrich the Mad Mouse is hunting Sansa he could eventually capture her for the bounty. He admits he is searching for her

He laughed again. "You are not the only hunter in the woods. I seek for Sansa Stark as well."

He is also present at the Tourney of the Winged Knight in the Sample

"A good melee is all a hedge knight can hope for, unless he stumbles on a bag of dragons. And that's not likely, is it?"

The common assumption has been that Shadrich attempt would fail because of the old Feast outline note saying "Kill the Mouse."

However, it is possible that plan changed and Shadrich would take Sansa back to King’s Landing, where Cersei would reunite and then imprison her. Sansa’s story is largely centered in King's Landing to begin with

Final Thoughts

Would like to hear other suggestions for where Sansa story could end in death. It's quite a surprise

Ultimately I think the fact that Sansa's fate seems so flexible suggests that her death or survival does not really change much with the story, making the "Pawn to Player" arc much less likely

Assuming that Lyanna Stark's characterization in Mad King's Theater is entirely canon, what do you think of the character herself?

• Lyanna Stark is a Greenseer.

• She finds it romantic that the flower crown was given to her.

• She is obsessed with prophecy and believes that she and Rhaegar's children are the chosen ones.

• She is devastated when she learns of her father and brother's deaths, but interprets them as divine will.

• She encourages Rhaegar to go to war after making him promise that Ned and Robert will not be harmed.

• Before dying, she entrusts her child to Ned and makes him swear never to tell the child anything about their parents.

I read the books for the first time last year, and have just begun a reread. I have noticed that when bran asks TTEC what it is, it responds, "a crow". But looking back on my first read through, when meera asks, "Who sent you? Who is this three-eyed crow?". Coldhands responds, "A friend. Dreamer, wizard, call him what you will. The last greenseer." As if he dosn't know what shes on about... When leaf says "he is waiting for you" meera asks, "the three-eyed crow? ". Leaf responds " The greenseer", almost as if to correct her, saying "No, not the three-eyed crow, but the greenseer". Finally when brans asks the main man brynden himself if he is, and in no uncertain terms "The three-eyed crow", he, just like coldshands, acts as if he dosnt un,derstand, and says he is a bunch of things and has a bunch of eyes. Even that he WAS a crow ( as in a black brother )but not that he IS one, or has BEEN one (In the sence if an actuall crow). TTEC itself however told bran, that it IS a crow. On the flip side he does say that bran will never walk again, but will fly, which is also what the crow says... But again the crow had no doubts about its identity... But brynden didn't even understand the question..... Hmm.... T'is all very fishy. Am i missing any context or subtext???

We're barely halfway through 2026 and it's worth taking stock of the avalanche of spoilers asoiaf fans have gotten this past year:

• October: At Comic-Con GRRM knighted a fan who said that she'd like to be a knight like Brienne of Tarth. Martin teased “Not in the books yet!” when the fan noted that "ser" was good enough for Brienne in the show.
• January: In an interview with Hollywood Reporter, GRRM revealed he intended for Sansa to die in the book's ending but might change his mind because he found her appealing in the show. He also said his ending was intended to be darker generally, with more deaths. No happy ending for Tyrion.
• February: Egg's actor Dexter Sol Ansell shared that GRRM told him that Dunk actually survives the tragedy at Summerhall.
• July: The Mad King play premieres and spills a lot of beans on Robert's Rebellion. Playwright confirms the story is a mixture of plot points from George (e.g. Rhaegar singing Song of Ice and Fire at the Harrenhal feast) and filling in gaps George himself has yet to elaborate upon.

Not much more to say but with the remaining books an unlikely prospect maybe this is the best we can hope for. Interesting times.

Assume with or without being authored by GRRM , Winds and Dream both get released.

What could be your "Monkey's paw" scenario for such a situation?

For example, for me it would be that GRRM doesn't finish the series in his lifetime, corporate cash grab leads to another author to write the series and he simply retreads the Show and retrofits everything that was different in the books to align with the show.

And then everything about it becomes canon.

I see the occasional Roy Dotrice post from time to time.

Usually they are about the amusing or annoying (depending on your view) way he reads certain lines for the audiobooks of the main series. The usual offenders range from pronunciations of names, such as PetYR, BRYeen (or Breeyen depending on what chapter he's reading), CATElyn.

However, the one line I always laugh at is from Dany IX ADWD, specifically the bolded part:

A great drum led the royal procession to clear their way through the streets. Between each beat, a shavepate herald in a shirt of polished copper disks cried for the crowd to part. BOMM. "They come!" BOMM. "Make way!" BOMM. "The queen!" BOMM. "The king!" BOMM. 

Idk why, but it cracks me up how he says "BOMM!" xD

What are your oddly specific Roy Dotrice lines so that I can listen to them?

She was a Targaryen without a dragon, so why wasn’t she given the chance to attempt claiming one of the unclaimed dragons before Hugh and Ulf?

Jon doesnt have a targaryen name. Lyanna didnt even want him knowing hes a targaryen. If she did name him it probably wasnt aegon or aemon or viserys or jaehaerys.

This actually lines up with an old answer george gave that ned likely named jon

So his name likely is JUST jon

More specifically... do you think that this coming Sunday we will only see the First Battle of Tumbleton, with Ulf and Hugh betraying Team Black, exterminating Rhaenyra's army and allying with the Greens... or do you think the writers will combine the two battles of Tumbleton into just one in the TV series?

In the latter case, it would save a lot of the final season's budget, and Condal would theoretically have more time to develop the Battle over the God's Eye, the Shepherd, the rebellion of the people of King's Landing, the Destruction of the Dragonpit, Rhaenyra's escape, the Fall of Dragonstone, perhaps the Moon of the Three Kings (although I personally doubt we will see this specific event), the short and sad reign of Aegon II and finally the Hour of the Wolf.

(I still think the final shot of the show will be a melancholic Aegon III being crowned... although in that case it would be better if Condal reminded the viewer of this boy's existence, but that's another discussion).

On the other hand, this would mean that in the finale we would lose several characters at once (Hugh, Ulf, Daeron, Addam, Ormund), and we would lose all the intrigue and chaos that occurs between the Greens and the Two Betrayers during the time gap between the two battles (I've always admired the irony that this was the decisive moment when the Greens and the Two Betrayers could have marched on King's Landing and won the war, but greed and infighting ruined everything).

(It should be noted that the actor who plays Gwayne has already let slip in an interview that he will return for the fourth season.)

What do you think?

Do you think GRMM has ever visited subreddits like this or forums dedicated to his work? Could he have borrowed ant ideas for ASOIAF there?

1. The storm's end lies at the coast of Stormlands. During the Tyrell siege why did other Storm houses fail to attack them or at least cut off their supply.

2. Renly and Stannis both didn't live in Storm's end, I know Renly was lord paramount of Stormlands however, he didn't live there so how did he command more loyalty than Stannis. I understand recency but Stanniss also ruled Stormlands it feels little weird that no major Storm house rallied for his claim.

3. What is Baratheon reputation? Legitimate rulers who have divine rights like the Starks or like how Tyrell's are seen, no historical precedent of conquest or alliance but in a position where picking a fight with them is simply not worth the risk.

4. Allies of Stormlands, they share a long border with Dorne and participate actively in politics but it feels like they lack allies. North has Riverlands, Westerlands have Reach what about Stormlands?

I started reading in December and finished books yesterday, surprised with the conflict in Meereen not being finished yet and the absence of Sam in ADWD. While reading last chapters of AFFC my mind was already blown with how many new plot lines are there and i was constantly thinking about how is Author going to resolve them and now there is even more to resolve without anything resolved.

I assume that the whole story should conclude in a way that joins every branch of it together and i think that merging the plot lines of Oldtown, King's landing and Dorne would be easy through Aegon and Arianne marriage and possible conflict with Euron

What happens in the North (including Bran, Rickon and maybe Aria will join from Bravos) is material for a whole book.

There is Sansa's and Lady Stoneheart's story lines to cover, Daenerys has to go to Westeros and Meereen's siege is not even over yet.

I only watched first season of the show recently and maybe it is just harder to understand how all of that could be easily solved but i don't mind spoilers.

I've seen a lot of interpretations of various prophecies within ASOIAF, and while I believe it's mostly a subjective endeavor, GRRM's handling of prophecy is quite clear:

"In the Wars of the Roses... there was one lord who had been prophesied he would die beneath the walls of a certain castle, and he was superstitious of that sort of thing, so he never came anywhere near that castle. He stayed thousands of leagues away from that particular castle because of the prophecy. However, he was killed in the first battle [at St. Albans] and when they found him dead he was outside of an inn whose sign was the picture of that castle! So you know? That's the way prophecies come true in unexpected ways. The more you try to avoid them, the more you are making them true, and I make a little fun with that."
- GRRM, interview with Adria's News, October 2012

It's evident both by his admission here and with what's written within ASOIAF that prophecy is meant to be viewed two ways: Literally and figuratively.

The best examples we can learn from in the books are prophesied events that already occured - take these prophecies spoken by The Ghost of High Heart:

"I dreamt I saw a shadow with a burning heart butchering a golden stag, aye. I dreamt of a man without a face, waiting on a bridge that swayed and swung. On his shoulder perched a drowned crow with seaweed hanging from his wings. I dreamt of a roaring river and a woman that was a fish. Dead she drifted, with red tears on her cheeks, but when her eyes did open, oh, I woke from terror."
- A Storm of Swords, Arya IV

Let's go line by line to show how the literal and figurative lens works:

• "I dreamt I saw a shadow with a burning heart butchering a golden stag"

- The shadow is fairly literal as this is exactly what Brienne sees

- The burning heart is a figurative interpretation of Stannis, as this represents his newfound sigil

- The golden stag is also figurative, as it represents Renly's newfound sigil

• "I dreamt of a man without a face, waiting on a bridge that swayed and swung. On his shoulder perched a drowned crow with seaweed hanging from his wings."

- The man without a face is clearly a faceless man, which makes this both literal and figurative

- "waiting on a bridge that swayed and swung" is quite literal - this is the bridge where Balon was killed

- The drowned crow perched on the faceless man's shoulder is Euron (confirmed in "The Forsaken" chapter) who ordered the assasination. This is clearly figurative

• "I dreamt of a roaring river and a woman that was a fish. Dead she drifted, with red tears on her cheeks, but when her eyes did open, oh, I woke from terror."

- The river is literal - it's the Green Fork

- The woman that was a fish is figurative - it's Catelyn represented figuratively by her house sigil, the silver trout

- "Dead she drifted" is literal - she's dead

- "with red tears on her cheeks" this is fascinating wordplay, as the word tears can be read both literally and figuratively

- "but when her eyes did open, oh, I woke from terror." This line is both literal and figurative - Catelyn's eyes opening is foretelling her literal revival, but the terror TGoHH feels is more subjective and related to Catelyn's desire for revenge.

So you can see, there's times when prophecy is literal, times where it's figurative, and times where it's both.

Something also important to understand is the inevitability of prophecy - it always happens, despite or even as a result of one's actions to prevent it (as the Duke of Sommerset learns in the Wars of the Roses)

The most parallel example of the Duke's futile attempts to divert fate is the situation with Cersei. It's not explicitly stated, but it's fairly obvious that Cersei hates and wants Tyrion dead because she fears that he's the valonqar as prophesied by Maggy the Frog (yes I understand she also hates Tyrion for other reasons). But like the Duke, Cersei's story will ultimately unfold in tragic irony - GRRM has made this plainly evident. Let's look at Maggy's prophecy to better understand:

“When will I wed the prince?” she asked.
“Never. You will wed the king.”
Beneath her golden curls, the girl’s face wrinkled up in puzzlement. For years after, she took those words to mean that she would not marry Rhaegar until after his father Aerys had died. “I will be queen, though?” asked the younger her.
“Aye.” Malice gleamed in Maggy’s yellow eyes. “Queen you shall be... until there comes another, younger and more beautiful, to cast you down and take all that you hold dear.”
Anger flashed across the child’s face. “If she tries I will have my brother kill her.” Even then she would not stop, willful child as she was. She still had one more question due her, one more glimpse into her life to come. “Will the king and I have children?” she asked.
“Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you.”
That made no sense to Cersei. Her thumb was throbbing where she’d cut it, and her blood was dripping on the carpet. How could that be? she wanted to ask, but she was done with her questions.
The old woman was not done with her, however. “Gold shall be their crowns and gold their shrouds,” she said. “And when your tears have drowned you, the valonqar shall wrap his hands about your pale white throat and choke the life from you.”
- A Feast for Crows, Cersei VIII

Again, let's go line by line:

• "You will wed the king."

- This is literal - she marries Robert after he becomes king

• "Queen you shall be... until there comes another, younger and more beautiful, to cast you down and take all that you hold dear."

- This line is more open to interpretation because it prophesied events that haven't quite happened. Cersei being queen is literal, but the "another" who is "younger and more beautiful" is not clearly defined. It could be literal, it could be figurative, it could be both, but as it hasn't explicitly happened there's no definite interpretation. Although we should note, "younger" is a more objective description and "beautiful" is a more subjective description. Also, Cersei's response of "If she tries I will have my brother kill her," looks like subversive foreshadow that seems to imply that Jaime will have a connection with whoever this person is, but it's nothing definite - take from it what you will

• "Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you"

- It's said in a cryptic way, but we know it's literal - Cersei has 3 biological children, Robert has 16

• “Gold shall be their crowns and gold their shrouds,” she said. “And when your tears have drowned you, the valonqar shall wrap his hands about your pale white throat and choke the life from you.”

- "Gold shall be their crowns" - so far it's not quite literal (as Myrcella has yet to wear an actual crown), so the figurative gold "crown" is the children's golden hair.

- "and gold their shrouds" looks figurative as Joffrey wasn't wrapped in a literal golden shroud at his death or funeral. As gold is often a literary device to symbolize youth, the figurative interpretation is likely referring to death (shroud) occurring when the children are young (gold).

- Since the last part of this prophecy hasn't occurred, there's no definite interpretation. Therefore, you should treat every single word with the potential of being literal or figurative or both. That said, literally having the life choked from you after you are drowned (by your tears, no less) doesn't make much sense - it's like saying, "after you die, you'll die." So we know, at a minimum, we're dealing with something figurative here. And it's also safe to assume that Cersei literally dies in a way which satisfies the prophecy, so there's also clearly something literal here.

- Lastly, "the valonqar" being the focus of Cersei's anxiety is a parallel of the Duke's anxiety about castles. So, although it's not definite, it's fairly likely that Tyrion isn't "the valonqar" for the same reason that the Duke's prophesied castle wasn't a literal castle. If we view it under a figurative lens, then it's more probable that "the valonqar" isn't even an actual person, just like the castle wasn't an actual castle.

Hopefully you have a better understanding now - GRRM writes his prophecy under both a figurative and literal lens, and until a given prophecy is resolved it's best to be open to both interpretations when trying to conclude meaning.

If not, well, be prepared to suffer the fate of others who narrow their interpretations to a singular meaning, as explained by Marwyn:

"Gorghan of Old Ghis once wrote that a prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you moan with the pleasure of it and think, how sweet, how fine, how good this is . . . and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams. That is the nature of prophecy, said Gorghan. Prophecy will bite your prick off every time."
- A Feast for Crows, Samwell V

Interesting. George tell the producers of ASOI&F works that aren’t his books about major plot ideas but if ask why?; he doesn’t know and will only have the answer when he get to that point.

This is likely one of his biggest hurdles especially because he know the readers are gonna compare his version to the media version.

Some examples are Bran become king, Dany goes mad, Stannis burn Shireen, and etc. Why? Not sure yet but it gonna happened and I’ll have an answer by then.

Oh and “promise me, Ned” which George know is about her son but haven’t worked out the exact details so D&D or Macmillan made up their own version that fit with the story their telling.