A Daenerys Character Arc Reread Thread III

[Alexia]

Continued from the second thread, as we launch into ADWD:

Patrick Stormborn,

And I'm sorry, but asking the leaders of the city to hand over 163 people is pretty much as fair a trial as Tyrion got.

No, it wasn’t. It really wasn’t. An excellent frame job was done on Tyrion; he had witnesses presented against him and the opportunity to present witnesses on his own behalf, and three judges to hear the evidence. He was not summarily executed at random. I would say that it was as fair of a trial as the Antler Men got.

I don't think there would be much evidence to prove if they were innocent or not, and it may instead have led to no one being executed for the murder of the children. I imagine that the only witnesses would have been the other Great Masters (who handed over the 163).

There assuredly would have been a great number of freed slaves who could testify against them.

views of fictional character performing fictional deeds in a fictional world in a fictional period of time are not "very telling".

Depends on the view, not on the fictional aspect.

Seuvemar,

I didn't say it never happens; I said that this case doesn't contain any indication that anything like this is occurring here. When Martin employs this particular technique, there's usually a sense that it's coming and that the omitted information is important and will be revealed in the future, usually the next chapter.

I have to agree with this. I don’t think there’s any indication that this sort of info was withheld from us and I daresay that Dany would feel less guilty if she had held one.

Brashcandy,

Frightened group of people? Are we supposed to feel sympathy for them now? Perhaps, but of course they're frightened! They've been conquered and now they have to answer for what was done. Yes Dany is reacting out of anger, and maybe she comes to regret her brutal measures, but that doesn't mean that she executed innocent men or that her principle wasn't correct.

The entire ruling class is not a monolith, and when it comes to collective punishment that way lies madness. The fact is that we know very little about these people. We know that the city is deeply involved in the slave trade and that some truly ghastly things happen there. But that doesn’t mean that every single person who was born in Meereen is involved in these things, or even agrees with them. As an example, what would happen if the entire upper class of Kings Landing was stripped naked in public to answer for the crimes of King Joffrey and Cersei? Sure, you’d get Joffrey and Cersei and Tyrion. You’d also get Sansa, Lollys, Tanda, Falyse. And if 163 people were handed over, I assure you that some of them were innocent and turned over to settle old scores.

It is probably inevitable that some innocent would be caught up in the net as she attempted to deliver justice to the slavers for what they did. My concern is the brutality in a moment of rage. I want to see her have an interest in attempting to ensure that they are being rightfully executed and not being handed over to protect the guilty.

[mediocre cheese]

I think there is a place for collective punishment. Look at Germany after World War II, it collectively had to pay reperations to the people whom it had wronged. At some level certain companies were targettted, because of specific wrongdoing, but Germany the country had to pay as well, reperations to jewish orginizations, industrial infrastructure was shipped to Warsaw block countries ect. The money came from all German taxpayers, not specifically out of the pocket of former SS members (although obviously they were more specifically targetted through denazification). The german state acts in x way, thus the german state must pay the consequences, which includes all German citizens. The same is true whenever the government messes up, if I get beaten up by the police, sue the city and win, that money is paid by the city to me, and the city's money comes from all its taxpayers. The money doesn't come from the cop in question who hit me.

The city of Meereen collectively chose to crucify 163 children. This wasn't an action done by a few rouge elements in Meereen it was a collective response to a slave uprising and a slave army. Yunkai did not do this, and as such none of its masters were harmed (in retrospect a mistake on Dany's part). Dany gave yunkai terms, they refused, she met them in battle, than they accept. Meereen did not ask for terms, they responded a different way. 163 children were crucified, on behalf of the city of mereen. The great masters run the city of mereen, they are responsible for its actions. If they don't agree with its actions, they can move/ resign their place. If not, they are allowing themselves to be held accountable for the actions undertaken by the city as a whole.

I would say the comparison to KL is off. Under KL it is well known that rule springs from joffrey, with advice from his small council. Falsye and Lollys are part of a general upper class, but they are in the same position when it comes to royalty as the common people. An oligarchy is not the same as a feudel monarchy, and assessing members of that oligarchy's guilt collectively for the actions undertaken by the government is not the same as the members of a landed aristocracy's collective guilt for the crimes of its monarch. All that said, if Dany launched a similar invasion of Westeros, and enacted some form of collective punishment on the westerosi ruling class I'd think it would be just. The westerosi ruling class has as whole enacted crimes against the common people. It hasn't specifically crucified 163 children, so any form of crucifixtion (or torturous murder as a whole) would be disproportionate. If however falsye and tanda had their lands stripped from them and given to their small folk, I wouldn't say that required a trial.

Edit:

Not to say I agree specifically with this form of torturous execution Dany chose to undertake. If However, Dany chose to seize the pyramids of the great masters, or even to banish them all collectively for their crimes, I don't think that would require a trial to see who did what. They all were collectively accountable for a society built on the torturous abuse of their fellow humans. They chose to go along with that society.

[PatrickStormborn]

No, it wasn’t. It really wasn’t. An excellent frame job was done on Tyrion; he had witnesses presented against him and the opportunity to present witnesses on his own behalf, and three judges to hear the evidence. He was not summarily executed at random. I would say that it was as fair of a trial as the Antler Men got.

The Great Masters who handed the 163 over to Daenerys count as witnesses, in my opinion. I'm sure the 163 who were crucified were willing to hand over others.

There's just no way to exact justice fairly in a newly sacked city. She had to act quickly, and she chose to make a symbolic gesture to show that the life of each slave child is worth the same as the life of the Great Masters. If Daenerys performed this execution after ruling in Meereen for a long time, THEN I'd be worried (which is why I'm more critical of the torture than the crucifixions). But I think that, as it was, it was an understandable gesture. I don't particularly agree with it, and it's very important to note that Daenerys doesn't either. She regrets it almost straight away.

There assuredly would have been a great number of freed slaves who could testify against them.

Yes, maybe there were. But what's Dany supposed to do? Try each Great Master? Each one would protests his/her innocence, and each one would have plenty of slaves who would be willing to testify against them.

Like I've said, she needed 163 Great Masters to make a symbolic gesture. A more ruthless conqueror would've just crucified them all (think "Field of Fire").

[SeanF]

I think there is a place for collective punishment. Look at Germany after World War II, it collectively had to pay reperations to the people whom it had wronged. At some level certain companies were targettted, because of specific wrongdoing, but Germany the country had to pay as well, reperations to jewish orginizations, industrial infrastructure was shipped to Warsaw block countries ect. The money came from all German taxpayers, not specifically out of the pocket of former SS members (although obviously they were more specifically targetted through denazification). The german state acts in x way, thus the german state must pay the consequences, which includes all German citizens. The same is true whenever the government messes up, if I get beaten up by the police, sue the city and win, that money is paid by the city to me, and the city's money comes from all its taxpayers. The money doesn't come from the cop in question who hit me.

The city of Meereen collectively chose to crucify 163 children. This wasn't an action done by a few rouge elements in Meereen it was a collective response to a slave uprising and a slave army. Yunkai did not do this, and as such none of its masters were harmed (in retrospect a mistake on Dany's part). Dany gave yunkai terms, they refused, she met them in battle, than they accept. Meereen did not ask for terms, they responded a different way. 163 children were crucified, on behalf of the city of mereen. The great masters run the city of mereen, they are responsible for its actions. If they don't agree with its actions, they can move/ resign their place. If not, they are allowing themselves to be held accountable for the actions undertaken by the city as a whole.

I would say the comparison to KL is off. Under KL it is well known that rule springs from joffrey, with advice from his small council. Falsye and Lollys are part of a general upper class, but they are in the same position when it comes to royalty as the common people. An oligarchy is not the same as a feudel monarchy, and assessing members of that oligarchy's guilt collectively for the actions undertaken by the government is not the same as the members of a landed aristocracy's collective guilt for the crimes of its monarch. All that said, if Dany launched a similar invasion of Westeros, and enacted some form of collective punishment on the westerosi ruling class I'd think it would be just. The westerosi ruling class has as whole enacted crimes against the common people. It hasn't specifically crucified 163 children, so any form of crucifixtion (or torturous murder as a whole) would be disproportionate. If however falsye and tanda had their lands stripped from them and given to their small folk, I wouldn't say that required a trial.

Edit:

Not to say I agree specifically with this form of torturous execution Dany chose to undertake. If However, Dany chose to seize the pyramids of the great masters, or even to banish them all collectively for their crimes, I don't think that would require a trial to see who did what. They all were collectively accountable for a society built on the torturous abuse of their fellow humans. They chose to go along with that society.

There's a world of difference between fining the government of a State that has committed crimes, or companies that have profited from crimes, on the one hand, and choosing to randomly execute or expel people who belong to the upper echelons of that State, simply because they belong to its ruling caste, and regardless of their degree of guilt or innocence.

In fact, the more brutal form of collective punishment was visited on a lot of Germans towards the end of, and in the years after WWII. German civilians in Eastern Europe were killed, or deported on masse, and some German POW's were worked to death in France. It's perfectly understandable that people who'd suffered at German hands would want to pay them back in kind, and it's certainly not the case that there was moral equivalence between German and Allied crimes, but it would be wrong to deny that murdering people at random, and deporting entire populations are crimes, even when many members of those populations have committed crimes in turn.

WRT Mereen, it is entirely plausible that some of the 163 were guilty, and that some of the 163 were innocent. For all we know, there was a peace party in Mereen as well as a war party - it's unusual for any broad oligarchy to be in 100% agreement. The point is, Daenerys who was claiming humanitarian motives for her war, didn't trouble to find out whether any of the 163 were guilty or innocent, and doesn't appear to be someone who considers individual guilt or innocence to be of much importance.

I think if one is waging a war of aggression (which she was) and one is claiming humanitarian motives for doing so (which she did) one should be pretty careful to live up to the standards which one is claiming.

[mediocre cheese]

There's a world of difference between fining the government of a State that has committed crimes, or companies that have profited from crimes, on the one hand, and choosing to randomly execute or expel people who belong to the upper echelons of that State, simply because they belong to its ruling caste, and regardless of their degree of guilt or innocence.

The state is simply the apparatus of the people who live there. If Dany fines the "state of Mereen" for its crimes, that is simply a legalese way of saying she is fining its citizens. Its the same with Germany, the government of the state of Germany has no money beyond what it collects from its taxpayers. The difference is of course if Dany were to fine the state of Mereen 10 million dragons, that money would be paid out by all its citizens, not simply its ruling class, whereas if she fines the great masters specifically, she's targetting the ruling class solely (and as its oligarchic rulers, they deserve to be solely held accountable). When you fine a country for whatever reason, your randomly taking money away from its citizens, not based on their guilt, but based on the tax obligations they owe the state (ie, a poor german who was a staunch nazi will be far less hurt by paying reperations, than a rich german who was apolitical, as far more of the rich german's money will go to the coffers of the state and thus to the reperations funds). Your creating an artificial difference here, between a state and its citizens when none exists.

If she banishes the great masters collectively, fines them collectively or even executes them collectively, its the same collective punishment. As I said, I have reservations about this paticular punishment (because it was a paticularly tortorous form of execution), but I don't have reservations about the need to collectively punish the great masters for their misrule of the city. IMO, the problematic aspect is the nature of the punishment , not that it was collective.

WRT Mereen, it is entirely plausible that some of the 163 were guilty, and that some of the 163 were innocent. For all we know, there was a peace party in Mereen as well as a war party - it's unusual for any broad oligarchy to be in 100% agreement.

DId the peace party prevent these atrocities? Did the peace party do anything to Dany, or to their slaves to indicate they oppossed the war party? Did the peace party leave meereen or register their objections with the meereenese population as a whole, so that the slaves and lower classes knew that this crucifixition was something that was done not by the city of Meereen, but solely by this "war party". No. Registering your objections sotto voce, while continuing to enjoy the benefits of rule, doesn't absolve you from the consequences of the actions that are done when you rule. Ned recognized this when Robert orders Dany murdered, even if he objects to the murder, he as hand of the king bears some responsibility for the act. Hence he resigns rather than be a part of it (he later goes back, but whatever). Had he told Robert he disagreed with this murder plan, Robert overruled him and Ned than said "well I did my best", and fixed his seal to Robert's act he would have beared responsibility for the action.

[Sevumar]

The state is simply the apparatus of the people who live there. If Dany fines the "state of Mereen" for its crimes, that is simply a legalese way of saying she is fining its citizens.

This isn't true in the case of most Westerosi/Essosi polities. We can make this assumption with real world nation-states of the last century or so because the governments of those countries are the representatives of their people. But all indications are that Martin's world lacks the concepts of citizenship and nationalism as we know them. The state is not assumed to exist for the benefit of its people and most commoners have no sense of belonging to or being invested in the state.

There isn't a "state of Meereen" to punish for its crimes, as we're familiar with the term. We're never given any indication that there's some easily-identified, duly-constituted group of people who run Meereen. From the information we get in the books, the power structure seems to be rather nebulous and loose, residing in some capacity with the families of the Great Masters. The only official position referred to in the book is a captain of the guard, who happens to be a Pahl.

Its the same with Germany, the government of the state of Germany has no money beyond what it collects from its taxpayers. The difference is of course if Dany were to fine the state of Mereen 10 million dragons, that money would be paid out by all its citizens, not simply its ruling class, whereas if she fines the great masters specifically, she's targetting the ruling class solely (and as its oligarchic rulers, they deserve to be solely held accountable).

For many of the reasons explained above, the Germany analogy doesn't hold. Most of the Meereenese don't seem to have any say in how they're governed, in the legislative process, or in who is in charge. There isn't a body of citizenry in Meereen with the same characteristics as that in Germany.

I think there is a place for collective punishment.

I don't think that there is a good justification for the use of collective punishment, as you end up punishing people who are not guilty of the accusations. Any mature, reliable system of justice must hold individuals accountable for their own actions. In cases where a society is experiencing a monumental cultural or political transition (Meereen is in both in this case), you'll often find that punishment is not broadly applied to groups of people who benefited from the old system. A lot of lower-level wrongdoers will end up receiving amnesty, while the people calling the shots and directly committing acts of brutality or murder will be the ones brought to trial.

There's just no way to exact justice fairly in a newly sacked city. She had to act quickly, and she chose to make a symbolic gesture to show that the life of each slave child is worth the same as the life of the Great Masters.

I understand the sentiment and the values behind it, but that is the wrong way to go about making this point. I've recommended it before, but I suggest going to fora's website and looking up the ABC program entitled, "If You Want Peace, Forget Justice." It features an array of speakers both for and against that notion, and it helps to show how complicated these issues are, and how often, the best course of action is not brutality, but leniency for most people. Dany's choice to engage in this kind of vengeful cruelty places her clearly on the other end of that spectrum.

As I have said before, without any plausible efforts to find those who committed the crucifixions of the children, Dany is not within her rights to order a group of 163 people surrendered for retaliatory massacre. If there is not a link establishing guilt and personal participation between the accusation and the accused, any "punishment" meted out is vengeance instead of justice.

[Parwan]

We are into some very heavy matters here. I don't think we are going to be able to resolve all of the disputes related to Dany's treatment of the Meereenese. There are lots of issues of law and morality. I'm going to start in on some comments that I originally meant to save for later. There will be some overlap between my thoughts and those of others. Sorry, but this is hard to avoid. Like everyone else, I have a life to live. It wold be just too time-consuming to respond point-by-point to all of the interesting things that different people have posted.

In ASoIaF, many people detest Daenerys Targaryen. They accuse her of all kinds of horrible things. No one, however, says, "she didn't make a reasonable attempt to find out exactly who was guilty of crucifying those children." I believe that, for the most part, people in Martin's world wouldn't make such an accusation. They don't think that way.

Most, probably all, slavers would reject the entire idea that anyone was "guilty." Slaves are chattel. The masters can do with them as they wish. Thus, for a conqueror to presume to establish "guilt" or "innocence" for a "crime" that didn't even happen would be considered preposterous. It is likely that this attitude would permeate the society. In slave societies, it is natural for slaves to be considered chattel, even by those who don't own slaves. Of course, I can't prove how common an attitude this would have been in Meereen. We can debate the matter; I doubt we'll come to any conclusion. The conquered definitely hate the conqueror; they hate her even more after she executes many of their relatives. As men die slowly in the plaza, some people might look at them and have fleeting thoughts along the lines of "that guy there wasn't even one of he ones who nailed the kids up." Such thoughts, if they even occurred, would not be very important to the thinkers themselves.

Such thoughts probably wouldn't be considered too important in most societies in Esos or Westeros. Our modern concepts of jurisprudence and criminal justice developed very slowly. Ideas of collective merit (of the family, the tribe, the society, etc.) and collective guilt are common among human beings. Certainly, belief in collective guilt is well established in Martin's world. This belief can be seen in many ways, one of the strongest being hostage-taking.

Say that my family loses a war to the lions. I am taken off to Casterly Rock as a hostage. Unfortunately for me, my great uncle Joe does something to piss off the Lannisters. My head comes off. Is there a trial? Does anyone even bring up the fact that I myself did nothing whatsoever to contribute to great uncle Joe's misbehavior? Nope. Neither of those things happens. The Lannisters become unhappy about actions taken by my family, and they cut off my head. Other groups on the two continents might be a bit slower to proceed with the beheading, but most would get to it eventually. I don't think that anyone (other than my relatives) would criticize the lions much. The punishment of hostages is just standard operating procedure. It probably doesn't happen too often, but that is because everyone knows that it remains a very real possibility. Those who have been forced to give hostages to others will not often "misbehave" too badly.

Many other things could be discussed here--questions of victor's justice, equality of all before the law, whipping boys...I have problems with the idea that crucifixion is ever a just punishment for anyone. Those problems come from my thoughts, my emotions, my feelings on what constitutes morality. Crucifixion is not a common form of punishment in ASoIaF. Thus, it's possible that people would condemn both Dany and the slavers, not for the killings but for the method of killing. The text, however, does not give us any examples of such condemnation.

In all, I'm not convinced that the actions Dany takes in this chapter separate her in any significant way from most leaders and potential leaders in Martin's world. If, in the relatively near future, some students are studying the early campaigns of the dragon queen and they come to the part about Meereen, they probably won't think that her execution of the 163 was a terrible thing. If we imagine some other anti-slavery leader, say a sealord of Braavos who becomes extremely powerful, taking a slave city under similar circumstances, would he behave very differently than Daenerys Targaryen? I doubt it.

[Sevumar]

In ASoIaF, many people detest Daenerys Targaryen. They accuse her of all kinds of horrible things. No one, however, says, "she didn't make a reasonable attempt to find out exactly who was guilty of crucifying those children." I believe that, for the most part, people in Martin's world wouldn't make such an accusation. They don't think that way.

It's easy to understand that the moral scope of most people who inhabit Martin's world is much smaller than those of many people in our world. There are a few characters who share values more in line with Martin's audience, but these characters and their insights are neither common nor consistent. Thus, the fact that few people within the story world do not raise the kinds of concerns that morally-minded readers do should not surprise anyone. There's good reason to believe that Martin wants his readers to be shocked and outraged by these actions. The fact that his world exists in this state does not imply justification of the brutality, dehumanization, marginalization, and discrimination we see in the books.

The characters of Martin's world are products of their times and of their societies. This kind of priming can be difficult to overcome, but it is not impossible, especially once a character has started down the path of progressive moral thought. Dany is one such character (as is Jon), although her attempts to implement her ideas have not been particularly successful and she has not shown much depth of thought.

Thus, for a conqueror to presume to establish "guilt" or "innocence" for a "crime" that didn't even happen would be considered preposterous. It is likely that this attitude would permeate the society.

In the previous thread, I brought up the issue of lawlessness at Meereen's fall and how it colors interpretations of Dany's choice to engage in the unjustified killings of 163 members of the Meereenese nobility. I have also discussed the challenges faced by societies undergoing social upheaval. The best thing for a conqueror and would-be ruler to do after the city is taken and peace is restored would be to promulgate a code of law and have it read and posted in public places throughout the city.

The people of Meereen have a right to know what will be changing and how criminal acts will be punished. Often, the best thing for societies in these situations is to go after the specific individuals who committed the worst acts and focus efforts on punishing them instead of drawing lots for retaliatory slaughter, or asking people to choose from among their peers.

Certainly, belief in collective guilt is well established in Martin's world. This belief can be seen in many ways, one of the strongest being hostage-taking.

Dany has the tools and experience to break free of this concept. She tells us that King Robert "did no justice" but she fails to show that she's any better prepared to give any serious thought and consideration to what justice entails. A justice system based on ad hoc decisions and rule by decree is little better than the system she replaced, and in many ways, it is worse than the current justice system of Westeros.

The idea of a codified body of law is not unknown in Martin's world, and it is to Dany's great disadvantage that she has not instituted one in Meereen.

Say that my family loses a war to the lions. I am taken off to Casterly Rock as a hostage. Unfortunately for me, my great uncle Joe does something to piss off the Lannisters. My head comes off. Is there a trial? Does anyone even bring up the fact that I myself did nothing whatsoever to contribute to great uncle Joe's misbehavior? Nope. Neither of those things happens.

As I've said above, readers are not expected to accept this as a fair system. But this is not a matter of justice. It is coercion by hostage-taking. It is an illustration of the profound brutality and savagery of life in Westeros.

I don't think that anyone (other than my relatives) would criticize the lions much. The punishment of hostages is just standard operating procedure. It probably doesn't happen too often, but that is because everyone knows that it remains a very real possibility. Those who have been forced to give hostages to others will not often "misbehave" too badly.

This is not a "punishment" in the sense of a sentence in the legal system. This is an entirely different set of behaviors, most closely resembling insurance, to compel the obedience of a vanquished foe. The situations that result in the taking of political hostages arise from war, not from criminal acts as they are conventionally understood. Treason and rebellion are crimes, but they are not "punished" by hostage taking. The keeping of a hostage is a political action to ensure the future good behavior of the surrendering leader.

In all, I'm not convinced that the actions Dany takes in this chapter separate her in any significant way from most leaders and potential leaders in Martin's world. If, in the relatively near future, some students are studying the early campaigns of the dragon queen and they come to the part about Meereen, they probably won't think that her execution of the 163 was a terrible thing.

This kind of reasoning is not an excuse for Dany's actions. One of the reasons many readers are so bothered by it is because Dany represents an opportunity for a leader to move beyond the low level of moral development in the world. Nobody expects her to invent representative democracy or public defenders, but she is presented as a willing reformer, as someone whose experience fuels a resolve to change the system. Dany's failure to engage in any significant thought (or attempt to seek education) about justice, combined with her willingness to indulge her temper and her inexperience, produce a spectacular act of brutality which just cannot be justified.

[SeanF]

We are into some very heavy matters here. I don't think we are going to be able to resolve all of the disputes related to Dany's treatment of the Meereenese. There are lots of issues of law and morality. I'm going to start in on some comments that I originally meant to save for later. There will be some overlap between my thoughts and those of others. Sorry, but this is hard to avoid. Like everyone else, I have a life to live. It wold be just too time-consuming to respond point-by-point to all of the interesting things that different people have posted.

In ASoIaF, many people detest Daenerys Targaryen. They accuse her of all kinds of horrible things. No one, however, says, "she didn't make a reasonable attempt to find out exactly who was guilty of crucifying those children." I believe that, for the most part, people in Martin's world wouldn't make such an accusation. They don't think that way.

Most, probably all, slavers would reject the entire idea that anyone was "guilty." Slaves are chattel. The masters can do with them as they wish. Thus, for a conqueror to presume to establish "guilt" or "innocence" for a "crime" that didn't even happen would be considered preposterous. It is likely that this attitude would permeate the society. In slave societies, it is natural for slaves to be considered chattel, even by those who don't own slaves. Of course, I can't prove how common an attitude this would have been in Meereen. We can debate the matter; I doubt we'll come to any conclusion. The conquered definitely hate the conqueror; they hate her even more after she executes many of their relatives. As men die slowly in the plaza, some people might look at them and have fleeting thoughts along the lines of "that guy there wasn't even one of he ones who nailed the kids up." Such thoughts, if they even occurred, would not be very important to the thinkers themselves.

Such thoughts probably wouldn't be considered too important in most societies in Esos or Westeros. Our modern concepts of jurisprudence and criminal justice developed very slowly. Ideas of collective merit (of the family, the tribe, the society, etc.) and collective guilt are common among human beings. Certainly, belief in collective guilt is well established in Martin's world. This belief can be seen in many ways, one of the strongest being hostage-taking.

Say that my family loses a war to the lions. I am taken off to Casterly Rock as a hostage. Unfortunately for me, my great uncle Joe does something to piss off the Lannisters. My head comes off. Is there a trial? Does anyone even bring up the fact that I myself did nothing whatsoever to contribute to great uncle Joe's misbehavior? Nope. Neither of those things happens. The Lannisters become unhappy about actions taken by my family, and they cut off my head. Other groups on the two continents might be a bit slower to proceed with the beheading, but most would get to it eventually. I don't think that anyone (other than my relatives) would criticize the lions much. The punishment of hostages is just standard operating procedure. It probably doesn't happen too often, but that is because everyone knows that it remains a very real possibility. Those who have been forced to give hostages to others will not often "misbehave" too badly.

Many other things could be discussed here--questions of victor's justice, equality of all before the law, whipping boys...I have problems with the idea that crucifixion is ever a just punishment for anyone. Those problems come from my thoughts, my emotions, my feelings on what constitutes morality. Crucifixion is not a common form of punishment in ASoIaF. Thus, it's possible that people would condemn both Dany and the slavers, not for the killings but for the method of killing. The text, however, does not give us any examples of such condemnation.

In all, I'm not convinced that the actions Dany takes in this chapter separate her in any significant way from most leaders and potential leaders in Martin's world. If, in the relatively near future, some students are studying the early campaigns of the dragon queen and they come to the part about Meereen, they probably won't think that her execution of the 163 was a terrible thing. If we imagine some other anti-slavery leader, say a sealord of Braavos who becomes extremely powerful, taking a slave city under similar circumstances, would he behave very differently than Daenerys Targaryen? I doubt it.

Oh, I think that those are all good points. If Danerys saw herself as being just another warlord, who plundered Mereen, or slaughtered her opponents to secure her rule there, then I don't suppose her actions would be terribly controversial by the standards of her time and place.

It's because she considers herself to be morally superior to the people around her, that she gets criticised (by some readers) for the mass crucifixion, and other misdeeds.

[Parwan]

...

This kind of reasoning is not an excuse for Dany's actions. One of the reasons many readers are so bothered by it is because Dany represents an opportunity for a leader to move beyond the low level of moral development in the world. Nobody expects her to invent representative democracy or public defenders, but she is presented as a willing reformer, as someone whose experience fuels a resolve to change the system. Dany's failure to engage in any significant thought (or attempt to seek education) about justice, combined with her willingness to indulge her temper and her inexperience, produce a spectacular act of brutality which just cannot be justified.

This kind of reasoning can definitely be used as an excuse. The central questions: "Who is doing the reasoning?" And "Who might excuse her actions?" The answer to both questions is the same: Most of the slaves she has freed, the sellswords who follow her, Barristan the Bold, her kalasar…A good many people within the story approve of Dany's actions (at the very least by default--no criticism offered); others may even fault said actions for not being harsh enough. Some residents of Esos and Westeros might be uneasy with crucifixion (not with executions, and not with the lack of a trial). I don't see any clear evidence of this unease.

However Dany is presented, who does the presenting? A fellow named George RR Martin, a man she has never met. Daenerys Targaryen is not concerned with, cannot possibly be concerned with, ruling the writer or his readers. She is primarily, and appropriately, concerned with those she considers her people. Beyond that, she talks about bringing justice. Undoubtedly, this is her concept of justice, one which accords fairly well with the concepts of those she proposes to lead.

A central issue here is one I keep bringing up--the validity of relative moral judgements. There are a very large number of sub-issues. For example, can a leader be more just than the people she proposes to lead? How much more just? If the leader sees justice as one thing and the majority of the population sees it as something else, who says that the leader is right? (An outside group of readers perhaps, ones from an entirely different world?) These are just some examples of possible questions. As I said before, it's unlikely that we will achieve resolution on this thread. In most cases, the matters will not even be discussed.

I find myself repeating points in these posts. I think it is inevitable, but I try to put the same idea in slightly different ways to get my points across. Instead of saying that other leaders would have behaved much as Dany did, let's put her in their place(s).

Let's do an intellectual exercise in which we magically take the dragon queen and an appropriate group of advisers, then put them in the place of various Westerosi leaders and potential leaders (Robert, Joffrey, Stannis…). How would Dany and her team compare? Would they do better, worse, or just about the same as those replaced? My basic answer is--about as good as any, better than most. In many situations, improvement is the most one can reasonably hope for. We might want leaders who transcend their environment, but that doesn't mean we should expect such leaders. I do not believe that anything in the story of ASoIaF to this point justifies the assertion that Daenerys Targaryen should not be in charge of any group (perhaps not even a group of scouts). The only way such an assertion could possibly be justified is by saying that virtually no one in Esos or Westeros should be in charge of any group.

[Sevumar]

This kind of reasoning can definitely be used as an excuse. The central questions: "Who is doing the reasoning?" And "Who might excuse her actions?" The answer to both questions is the same: Most of the slaves she has freed, the sellswords who follow her, Barristan the Bold, her kalasar…A good many people within the story approve of Dany's actions (at the very least by default--no criticism offered); others may even fault said actions for not being harsh enough. Some residents of Esos and Westeros might be uneasy with crucifixion (not with executions, and not with the lack of a trial). I don't see any clear evidence of this unease.

Most leaders have a coterie of followers who will tend to approve of their actions, both through their close association with this leader, and through the benefits that this patronage brings. This does not imbue the leader's actions with legitimacy or morality. The fact that Dany's close associates might forgive her excesses and her atrocities is unsurprising precisely because they are so closely bound up with her. Barristan the "Bold" has made a career of standing by while kings and queens murder, maim, exterminate, and hand down unjust edicts. Why we should put any stock in whether he and his cohorts approve of Dany's decisions is beyond me. We, as readers, are not intended to view these events in the same light as Dany's lackeys. We know better.

However Dany is presented, who does the presenting? A fellow named George RR Martin, a man she has never met. Daenerys Targaryen is not concerned with, cannot possibly be concerned with, ruling the writer or his readers. She is primarily, and appropriately, concerned with those she considers her people. Beyond that, she talks about bringing justice. Undoubtedly, this is her concept of justice, one which accords fairly well with the concepts of those she proposes to lead.

George R.R. Martin is not Dany's biographer, he is her creator. In creating and presenting his story to readers, Martin does an outstanding job of characterization. He's one of the best in the business. But ultimately, Dany does what she does because Martin intends for her to do those things. This piece (http://www.commentar...y-read-fiction/) speaks a bit to that point. Of course, Dany as a character is not aware of readers, but the entire experience was created for the purpose of entertaining readers who inhabit this world. It invites them to think about the terrible choices undertaken even by those who tell us they care about justice. Good intentions simply aren't enough.

A central issue here is one I keep bringing up--the validity of relative moral judgements. There are a very large number of sub-issues. For example, can a leader be more just than the people she proposes to lead? How much more just? If the leader sees justice as one thing and the majority of the population sees it as something else, who says that the leader is right?

I have not said that relative morality is not useful in treating several of these issues, but some things are always beyond the pale. For many of us, one example is the rape and the oppression of women. Of course it is possible for leaders to be more moral than the people they lead. Without that being true, several key changes in American society would not have occurred when they did. The morality of the mob is a low standard, indeed, and it is not one that justifies the atrocious behavior of a leader. No, social reinforcement from a cadre of dedicated followers drawing patronage from a leader is not a powerful statement about the validity of that leader's choices.

I find myself repeating points in these posts. I think it is inevitable, but I try to put the same idea in slightly different ways to get my points across. Instead of saying that other leaders would have behaved much as Dany did, let's put her in their place(s).

Let's do an intellectual exercise in which we magically take the dragon queen and an appropriate group of advisers, then put them in the place of various Westerosi leaders and potential leaders (Robert, Joffrey, Stannis…).

I don't find this a useful comparison for many reasons. First, none of the leaders you have listed would have put themselves in the position in which Dany found herself. Further, the concept of, "well, others would probably do the same thing in her position" offers no support to your attempted justification of Dany's actions. Readers should disapprove just as thoroughly of any other character in Westeros (or Essos) who behaved in the manner that Dany has in Meereen. We are not meant to laud her murders of 163 people selected by their peers without any attempt to verify their guilt. I don't think it's possible to be any clearer on this point.

As I have said before, if you are serious about having a discussion concerning morality and the actions/motivations of characters in ASOIAF, I strongly suggest going to Boiled Leather (http://boiledleather.com/) and listening to the podcasts that Sean Collins and Stefan Sasse have posted over the past month or so.

I do not believe that anything in the story of ASoIaF to this point justifies the assertion that Daenerys Targaryen should not be in charge of any group (perhaps not even a group of scouts). The only way such an assertion could possibly be justified is by saying that virtually no one in Esos or Westeros should be in charge of any group.

Most of Dany's experience (along with that of Robb and others) should suggest very strongly that teenagers, even adaptable, intelligent, and resilient ones, should not be in charge of anything resembling an army or a state. Their age and inexperience lead them to make poor decisions, even leaving their other weak points out of the discussion for a moment. Dany's personal story of survival and the development of her moral ideas is to be commended, but as a leader, she has not shown herself particularly able nor willing to do what it takes to improve. She has not done well at translating her vision into reality.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Aaand the moment you've all been dreading waiting for...

A Dance With Dragons, Daenerys I

Daenerys awaits the arrival of a dead man in her audience chamber. Another of her Unsullied has been assassinated by the rebel group calling themselves The Sons of the Harpy. This man was killed while using a brothel by at least six attackers and goat testicles put into his mouth. Dany wonders why an Unsullied would be at a brothel.

Even those who lack a man’s parts may still have a man’s heart, Your Grace. This one has been told that your servant Stalward Shield sometimes gave coin to the women of the brothels to lie with him and hold him.

:(

Dany tells her Unsullied to inquire into the murder. Barristan wonders if the Unsullied are the best men for the job. Dany asks him who else she should send? Knights? Dothraki? Sellswords? Dany has sent her Dothraki and Sellswords away in any case. The Dothraki have been sent off to subdue Meereen’s sphere of influence and to gather food. Brown Ben and the second sons were posted south to guard against the Yunkish. Finally, Daario and his men had been sent to woo the Lhazarene to her cause.

Dany encounters Viserion atop her pyramid. Her dragons are now nearly large enough to ride. We learn that they have become wilder. She worries that her busy schedule has kept her away from her children.

She dresses for court. She had been opposed to wearing the tokar and had wanted to ban it, but her new Mereenese advisers insisted that she “must don the tokar or be forever hated.” As she dons her crown she thinks how uncomfortable it is, and this reminds her of the phrase, “A crown should not sit easy on the head,” said by one Aegon or another… she thinks of her murdered nephew Aegon, and how she might have wed him were he alive.

She thinks of the 163 murdered children and the 163 masters she nailed up in turn. At this point she wonders if that punishment was severe enough. The Meereenese nobles have put her freedmen into indentured servitude in many cases while plotting against her all the while. Yet she thinks she must have them on her side.

We meet Dany’s foremost advisers from the Meereenese nobility, Reznek and Shakaz. Reznek is a simpering toady and sympathetic to the nobles, Skahaz blunt, brutal, and vengeful, hating all other nobles. Skahaz suggests as punishment for the Unsullied deaths she should murder one man from each noble house chosen at random. Reznek protests, saying they should find the murderers and punish them, and surely they will be baseborn filth, not nobles. Dany tells Reznek to make public the announcement of a bounty for information on Sons of the Harpy. She thinks of how she rather loathes Reznek and trusts him not at all.

In court, her freedmen fill half the hall, the Meereenese slavers in their Tokars the other. “King” Cleon sends a gift and an offer of marriage. Cleon is about to march his new unsullied against Yunkai and wants her to help him conquer the city. Dany is disgusted by The Butcher King’s creation of new Unsullied and while she has come to regret leaving Yunkai untouched, she cannot ally with such a man in good conscience.

Next the noble Hizdar zo Loraq approaches, wanting her to open the fighting pits, which she closed. She refuses him outright, and summarizes his arguments for reopening them having heard them before. They flirt somewhat as they debate. Dismissing Hizdar, she thinks he is a handsome man – and the Meereenese think she should take a husband from among the nobles. She thinks at least Hizdar isn’t so bad as Skahaz would be…

Another noble – a cousin of the Green Grace - approaches and asks for compensation for the value of weavings produced by former slaves he’d owned. Since he owned the woman who trained these weavers he ought to have some of their earnings. Dany asks him what the woman’s name is. When he cannot answer, she tells him that in addition to getting nothing from the girls, he should give them a loom for forgetting the name of their mentor.

Next she grants a noble lady whose house had been lost in the sack, her jewels but not her home back. A former slave asks for redress for a noble’s impregnating a freedwoman the slave had now married – gelding and gold to raise the child. Dany rules the noble should pay, but remain intact because his actions were legal prior to the sack. A noble boy appears and asks for redress for slaves having raped and murdered his family during the sack. She refuses him because of a former decree to pardon all crimes that occurred during the sack. The boy tries to attack her but trips on his tokar, she tells him he should be grateful he tripped, and she’ll overlook what happened. A variety of people try to give her gifts, she accepts some and denies others. Increasingly weary, she jokes with Ser Barristan that what a king needs most are cheeks like iron. He suggests she should allow her councilors to shoulder her burdens more.

Next many have come looking for money to pay for the deaths of farm animals – eaten by the dragons. She says to pay all henceforth, and not to worry if some are false claims. However all claimants are to swear a holy oath in the future before coming to make a claim.

As Dany stands one man remains. She is puzzled and asks if he would speak with her. The man’s eyes are red. He spills his sack of burnt bones on the floor.

“It were the black one… the winged shadow… he came form the sky and…”

As Dany is horrified to realize, they are the bones of a child.

Thoughts

This chapter must take place some months after the last. Dany has established relationships with many of the Nobles of Meereen and has established a sort of court comprised of members of the nobility. She is also facing an violent insurgency opposed to her rule. She is attempting to court the goodwill of the noble class, spending much more time on them both in and out of court. However, the fact that she feels she has to do this seems to disgust her. She hates the nobles and is disgusted by most of them, including her advisers.

I agree with Dany's original sentiment that she should ban the tokar, and disagree with her ultimate decision to embrace it. By allowing the tokar to be worn by the nobles, the noble and freedmen retain their previous class structure. I think Dany should have banned the tokar and I don't find the Green Grace's argument that she "must be a lady of Old Ghis" to win them over to be at all convincing. If all the nobles are forbidden to wear the tokar then they will get used to people of power wearing other garments. This garment symbolizes to all the people of Meereen "I have the right to own other human beings." As such it has no place in Dany's Meereen.

We are beginning to see that Dany is taking on too many responsabilities and has no one she feels she can trust with her, save Ser Barristan who provides no useful help in this chapter. At this point she is so busy that she has literally sent away all her captains on other tasks. Her meereenese advisers are slimy and bloodthirsty nobles, respectively. What I don't understand is why Dany does not raise up any of her freedmen from any of the Slaver's Bay cities to positions of high advisers, and have them stand equally next to her for all of the court to see? Surely some of them are well-educated former scholars or priests, like the freedmen she put in charge of Astapor. Surely such people would be much more trustworthy and loyal than former members of a class that she feels is uniformly evil and that is mostly against her. It seems like her desire to cater to the Nobles has prevented her from raising up baseborn men. Already, IMO, she is giving too much up. And she is doing it against her better judgement, having been convinced already that acquiescence is the only way forward.

And as we see, leaving the dragons to their own devices (again, against her own desires) was a mistake. I do feel that this was kind of dropped out of nowhere in the narrative, though. The dragons have given absolutely no sign until this chapter that they might be violent except upon Dany's express command. Then suddenly they are burning and biting people, and Drogon eats a kid. The idea that dragons were not generally tame has never been brought up in the asoiaf universe until this very moment, indeed quite the opposite.

I think what I see Dany's narrative in adwd as, is mostly a lesson in what ignoring your principles and natural inclinations can lead to. Then again I'm not sure, either, that GRRM is going to be as trite as to say "Follow your heart and all will be well!" I don't actually know that acquiescing less to the nobles here would actually have helped Dany succeed. Indeed it may truely be the quagmire was inevitable after she left Astapor as some have suggested in this thread.

So much pain coming up... ugh. Dany's chapters break my heart in this book.

[brashcandy]

I think Dany's acquiescence to a lot of the Meereenese demands might be her way of atoning for her excesses during the sack, particularly with the crucifixion of the 163. She's obviously conflicted about it and I think she's now set on a hard path of compromise and temperance at all costs.

Still, she's very impressive in this first chapter. I agreed with most of her decisions, the only troubling one was with the little boy, but it's understandable given her prior decree. I specifically admired the decision concerning the weavers and the man wanting to be compensated. She doesn't base her decision on right or wrong so much as principle, and the man's request was a classic example of the arrogance of the upper class that believes their former "investments" owe them something, when they do not even consider them as people, or bother to learn their names.

You make a good point about the tokars and what they symbolize. The chapter really highlighted the complexities of ruling - how much to give in to the old ways, and how much do you seek to establish your own codes and customs. A little of Dany's naivete is clear in this too: she's very good at making big, grand gestures: ending slavery, closing the fighting pits (all good and necessary), but she misses the mark in letting a very divisive symbol like the tokar continue to be worn.

I don't agree on the point about the dragons. I think we do get earlier suggestions that Drogon in particular will be the most difficult to control and that these are dangerous beasts, and obviously by now all of them have grown much bigger, so it wasn't a surprise that they would become harder to control and supervise. I pitied Dany at the end here though, and of course later on with the choice she makes to lock them up.

[Sevumar]

Dany has sent her Dothraki and Sellswords away in any case. The Dothraki have been sent off to subdue Meereen’s sphere of influence and to gather food.

I've always wondered, realistically, how effective her thirty-ish Dothraki warriors would be at this task? There doesn't seem to be any concern that they could be attacked by a larger group of enemies, or a mob sympathetic to the old rulers of Meereen, but it is a pretty small group of people to assign this task.

Finally, Daario and his men had been sent to woo the Lhazarene to her cause.

I was a bit disappointed that she didn't get to face the Lhazareen in person. It's smart to send someone else, but a part of me is interested in what she would say to them and how she would account for her past actions.

She dresses for court. She had been opposed to wearing the tokar and had wanted to ban it, but her new Mereenese advisers insisted that she “must don the tokar or be forever hated.”

I'll address this a bit more below, but the battle over the tokar is not one she should fight. It was good she decided to avoid it. In fact, her attitude toward this small concession shows us that her contempt toward the Meereenese probably goes a bit too far and starts to hurt her.

As she dons her crown she thinks how uncomfortable it is, and this reminds her of the phrase, “A crown should not sit easy on the head,” said by one Aegon or another… she thinks of her murdered nephew Aegon, and how she might have wed him were he alive.

Perhaps that's some not-so-subtle foreshadowing about Dany's future lack of success as a ruler or a sign that she will not make a good ruler. I do like the little mention of Aegon with all the other things going on in this book, it's a nice tie-in by Martin.

She thinks of the 163 murdered children and the 163 masters she nailed up in turn. At this point she wonders if that punishment was severe enough.

It's too bad that she's gone down the wrong road in her reflection on this, and refused to learn the lesson, but that's also her theme this book -- drawing the wrong conclusions from her failures. Her brutal, unjustified killing of the 163 was not a "punishment" so much as an unnecessary atrocity. Going further would simply have accelerated her degeneration and the crumbling of any moral edge she might have once possessed.

Another noble – a cousin of the Green Grace - approaches and asks for compensation for the value of weavings produced by former slaves he’d owned. Since he owned the woman who trained these weavers he ought to have some of their earnings. Dany asks him what the woman’s name is. When he cannot answer, she tells him that in addition to getting nothing from the girls, he should give them a loom for forgetting the name of their mentor.

My mother once had a friend who thought to teach her children good behavior and the value of charity by setting their Christmas presents under the tree well before the holiday. Each time one child misbehaved, his "punishment" was to select a present, which he would then be forced to donate to a charity toy drive. I understand her disgust at the man for the audacity of his request and for forgetting the name of the weaving teacher, but there's no reason here to compel him to give the girls a loom. This order has nothing to do with justice and it is one of many illustrations of why Meereen is ill-served without a fixed code of laws and punishments. The man has committed no crime except having the bag judgment to bring his request before Dany in the first place and he does not deserve punishment.

Next she grants a noble lady whose house had been lost in the sack, her jewels but not her home back.

This also makes no sense.

Increasingly weary, she jokes with Ser Barristan that what a king needs most are cheeks like iron. He suggests she should allow her councilors to shoulder her burdens more.

What Barristan should have suggested was the immediate creation of a law code and judiciary to oversee its application.

I agree with Dany's original sentiment that she should ban the tokar, and disagree with her ultimate decision to embrace it. By allowing the tokar to be worn by the nobles, the noble and freedmen retain their previous class structure. I think Dany should have banned the tokar and I don't find the Green Grace's argument that she "must be a lady of Old Ghis" to win them over to be at all convincing. If all the nobles are forbidden to wear the tokar then they will get used to people of power wearing other garments. This garment symbolizes to all the people of Meereen "I have the right to own other human beings." As such it has no place in Dany's Meereen.

The tokar battle is one Dany is best not fighting. She gains nothing by banning the garment, except heaping yet more fuel onto the fire of those who oppose her rule. I understand the symbolism, but she has far more important things to do than micromanage the clothing of the citizens of Meereen. People will always divide themselves by economic class and they will always try to signal their class membership through dress, whether in a tokar or some other way.

We are beginning to see that Dany is taking on too many responsabilities and has no one she feels she can trust with her, save Ser Barristan who provides no useful help in this chapter. At this point she is so busy that she has literally sent away all her captains on other tasks. Her meereenese advisers are slimy and bloodthirsty nobles, respectively.

I can't help but notice that at this point in ADWD, Dany's situation parallels that in which Jon will find himself later in the book. Both send away all the people they believe they can trust, assigning them missions of great importance, but leaving them both without the help of people they've long depended on for counsel and support. Neither really makes an attempt to communicate their vision to the people they most need to win over, and end up suffering for it as a result.

What I don't understand is why Dany does not raise up any of her freedmen from any of the Slaver's Bay cities to positions of high advisers, and have them stand equally next to her for all of the court to see? Surely some of them are well-educated former scholars or priests, like the freedmen she put in charge of Astapor. Surely such people would be much more trustworthy and loyal than former members of a class that she feels is uniformly evil and that is mostly against her.

If Missandei is any indicaiton, there are surely former slaves who were scholars, librarians, or tutors. These men would certainly have something to offer to her court, not just in advice, but in familiarity with the culture and history of the city.

And as we see, leaving the dragons to their own devices (again, against her own desires) was a mistake. I do feel that this was kind of dropped out of nowhere in the narrative, though. The dragons have given absolutely no sign until this chapter that they might be violent except upon Dany's express command. Then suddenly they are burning and biting people, and Drogon eats a kid. The idea that dragons were not generally tame has never been brought up in the asoiaf universe until this very moment, indeed quite the opposite.

I agree and I would have liked to see more of Dany interacting with the dragons and trying to figure out why these changes occurred.

I think what I see Dany's narrative in adwd as, is mostly a lesson in what ignoring your principles and natural inclinations can lead to. Then again I'm not sure, either, that GRRM is going to be as trite as to say "Follow your heart and all will be well!" I don't actually know that acquiescing less to the nobles here would actually have helped Dany succeed. Indeed it may truely be the quagmire was inevitable after she left Astapor as some have suggested in this thread.

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways here. I characerized it as drawing all the wrong conclusions about her failures, you say the peril of ignoring her principles and inclinations. I think there's more pain ahead for Dany. Honestly, I'd like to see her finally learn that there's little merit in pursuing vengeance, blood, and fire until you feel content. Dany's too smart to be a one-trick dragons, and burning the world down isn't going to get her very far. It's not how one matures as a ruler. Then again, I'm hoping she doesn't end up as a ruler.

[Sevumar]

It's interesting that both brashcandy and I were posting nearly opposite things at the same time. It's a good illustration of how liking a character can blind you to the awfulness of some of the things they do.

Still, she's very impressive in this first chapter. I agreed with most of her decisions, the only troubling one was with the little boy, but it's understandable given her prior decree. I specifically admired the decision concerning the weavers and the man wanting to be compensated. She doesn't base her decision on right or wrong so much as principle, and the man's request was a classic example of the arrogance of the upper class that believes their former "investments" owe them something, when they do not even consider them as people, or bother to learn their names.

I'm troubled by the fact that you think the administration of law should not be based on "right or wrong." If subjects have the right to petition the monarch with a concern about something they think they're owed, they shouldn't have to worry about the ruler arbitrarily ordering them to buy things for other people. Yes, his request was a silly one, and she should have simply rejected it out of hand, explaining the error in his reasoning (that owning the slave who trained these weavers does not entitle him to any portion of their earnings). But punishing him for presenting a request is nonsensical.

You make a good point about the tokars and what they symbolize. The chapter really highlighted the complexities of ruling - how much to give in to the old ways, and how much do you seek to establish your own codes and customs. A little of Dany's naivete is clear in this too: she's very good at making big, grand gestures: ending slavery, closing the fighting pits (all good and necessary), but she misses the mark in letting a very divisive symbol like the tokar continue to be worn.

While banning the tokar might make Dany and readers feel good on a symbolic level, it wouldn't be a very practical decision. I think a lot of people forget that the stability of Meereen isn't going to be won or lost on symbolism, but on the real policies pursued by the city's leaders. Banning the tokar would show the same kind of misunderstanding that plagued American efforts to quell opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is something she actually does right, although she does it grudgingly.

[brashcandy]

It's interesting that both brashcandy and I were posting nearly opposite things at the same time. It's a good illustration of how liking a character can blind you to the awfulness of some of the things they do.

:rolleyes:

I'm troubled by the fact that you think the administration of law should not be based on "right or wrong." If subjects have the right to petition the monarch with a concern about something they think they're owed, they shouldn't have to worry about the ruler arbitrarily ordering them to buy things for other people. Yes, his request was a silly one, and she should have simply rejected it out of hand, explaining the error in his reasoning (that owning the slave who trained these weavers does not entitle him to any portion of their earnings). But punishing him for presenting a request is nonsensical.

Sigh... As I said, her decision was not so much about right or wrong but principle. She did more than simply tell the man no, you won't be able to get money back from these women. She taught him a lesson, one that hopefully some others in the court learnt that day as well. You may not place much faith in symbolic gestures, Sevumar, but I absolutely do, and I think they have a place in the court of law, just as much as anywhere else. This man was a member of the upper class, and he was trying to continue to enrich himself from the profits of former slaves. It wasn't enough to say slavery was over, when the attitudes, the very mindset of the former masters was that they were still entitled to earnings from the freedmen. This mindset needed to be corrected, and I applaud Dany's decision towards such change.

While banning the tokar might make Dany and readers feel good on a symbolic level, it wouldn't be a very practical decision. I think a lot of people forget that the stability of Meereen isn't going to be won or lost on symbolism, but on the real policies pursued by the city's leaders. Banning the tokar would show the same kind of misunderstanding that plagued American efforts to quell opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is something she actually does right, although she does it grudgingly.

Again, symbolic gestures are significant. These are often the things that can undermine a war effort whilst the conqueror focuses on "real pollcies". It reminds me of the Algerian war of independence, and the role played by women in donning the veil, and being able to circumvent the French authorities because the French viewed these veiled women as non-militants and safe. The women therefore were able to take on roles as spies, militants etc. Clothing, and what it symbolizes and how it can be misconstrued and misread by different groups, matters.

[Sevumar]

Sigh... As I said, her decision was not so much about right or wrong but principle. She did more than simply tell the man no, you won't be able to get a money back from these women. She taught him a lesson, one that hopefully some others in the court learnt that day as well. You may not place much faith in symbolic gestures, Sevumar, but I absolutely do, and I think they have a place in the court of law, just as much as anywhere else.

The only principle she communicated with that decision was that there's an additional "Dany dislikes you tax" to be paid for daring to bring a matter before the monarch if she doesn't like you or what you say. The ability to petition the monarch is the only way inhabitants of Meereen can access the leadership, and if people have to fear that Dany will arbitrarily take something from them instead of just ruling "yes" or "no" on a request like this, it has a chilling effect. The worst somebody should have to fear about a ruling in a case like this is being told, "no, I won't give you what you want."

What she does here does not "correct" him, nor evoke any great symbolism. All he knows is that he's being punished for something that is no crime. She probably does need a chamberlain to weed out silly requests like this, but a written code of law and a dedicated judiciary would be the best thing to do here.

Again, symbolic gestures are significant. These are often the things that can undermine a war effort whilst the conqueror focuses on "real pollcies".

And undertaking this "symbolic gesture" would send exactly the wrong message. It would simply inspire others to join the opposition and give them another tool with which to recruit potential members, and for what? So that Dany could enjoy the satisfaction of micromanaging the fashion of Meereen? What happens when the opposition rallies around a new piece of clothing or a new color? Just keep banning things in hopes that they'll eventually give up? It's a petty way to go about trying to make real changes in the city.

Wearing a tokar wasn't something done by just the worst people in the city, as goodly number of normal people and lesser nobles probably also wore them on special occasions. By banning it, she alienates more than just the most extreme people, and she can't afford that. Like I said in one of my previous posts, people have always divided themselves by class, and they have always used clothing to signal their class affiliations. If not tokars, then something else, and no legislation will stop it.

[brashcandy]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree Sev:

1. I don't see how that one ruling would deter any others from coming to her with legitimate complaints. It's good that she's set her standards early and indicates clearly that such prejudiced appeals will not only be denied, but the seeker could find themselves paying something out of pocket.

2. The tokar, and it's very real association with the former slavers is too steeped in a history of violence and abuse, and I don't think Dany should have worn it. This wasn't about her involving herself in the "fashion of Meereen" but making a point that such garments had no place in the free city. If you think this would have caused an uproar, then surely you're only proving my point: Clothing, and people's attachment to them as reflecting their prejudices and class divisions is important. I'm not one to advocate for someone to impose their views on what people should wear, but in this particular case I do think she needed to make a point.

[Sevumar]

1. I don't see how that one ruling would deter any others from coming to her with legitimate complaints. It's good that she's set her standards early and indicates clearly that such prejudiced appeals will not only be denied, but the seeker could find themselves paying something out of pocket.

The idea that the monarch could arbitrarily decide to deprive someone of his money or property simply because she doesn't like his attitude doesn't sit well with me. It's an incredibly petty thing to do and it doesn't set any "standard" whatsoever. All it does is communicate that someone with a grievance is better off pursuing it some other way because he could find himself having things taken from him for no reason.

The Meereenese ought to be able to expect that, in a civil claim like this, the ruling will be "yes, you get what you're asking for," "no, I can't grant that," or some kind of partial award.

2. The tokar, and it's very real association with the former slavers is too steeped in a history of violence and abuse, and I don't think Dany should have worn it. This wasn't about her involving herself in the "fashion of Meereen" but making a point that such garments had no place in the free city. If you think this would have caused an uproar, then surely you're only proving my point: Clothing, and people's attachment to them as reflecting their prejudices and class divisions is important. I'm not one to advocate for someone to impose their views on what people should wear, but in this particular case I do think she needed to make a point.

Why should a leader concern herself with telling people what kind of garb they should wear? Efforts like this are doomed to end in failure, as they have in the real world. There's no real gain for such a gesture. Simply declaring the end of slavery and enforcing laws against slavery will achieve the same thing without alienating the moderate people she needs to win if she's to outmaneuver the opposition. The most interesting change in how people use their clothing and grooming to indicate their attitudes is a homegrown one, in that some Meereenese have abandoned their old hairstyles and shaved their heads.

[brashcandy]

The idea that the monarch could arbitrarily decide to deprive someone of his money or property simply because she doesn't like his attitude doesn't sit well with me. It's an incredibly petty thing to do and it doesn't set any "standard" whatsoever. All it does is communicate that someone with a grievance is better off pursuing it some other way because he could find himself having things taken from him for no reason.

The Meereenese ought to be able to expect that, in a civil claim like this, the ruling will be "yes, you get what you're asking for," "no, I can't grant that," or some kind of partial award.

What you're doing here is suggesting that Dany would be making all kinds of excessive judgements in cases like these which is not supported by the actual order which is really pretty minor. She told the man to buy a loom, not give up his house and land to the women. Do you really think the man will be upset at having to buy the loom, or the larger fact that he didn't get what he came for? The money isn't the issue, but yes, he'll be pissed that Dany didn't grant his request, but she sent a valuable message to him that day.

Why should a leader concern herself with telling people what kind of garb they should wear? Efforts like this are doomed to end in failure, as they have in the real world. There's no real gain for such a gesture. Simply declaring the end of slavery and enforcing laws against slavery will achieve the same thing without alienating the moderate people she needs to win if she's to outmaneuver the opposition. The most interesting change in how people use their clothing and grooming to indicate their attitudes is a homegrown one, in that some Meereenese have abandoned their old hairstyles and shaved their heads.

They might be doomed to end in failure, but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be against it. When she bought the Unsullied, she told them that they all could take new names to be known by going forward. Now some of them chose to keep their old ones (most recent that is) or to give themselves new ones for their new lives. Was this necessary really? Did it matter at the end of the day what these men called themselves? But Dany was making a point that their identities matter, and that names are to be respected and cherished. Symbolic really, but critical nevertheless. If you come in and say you're ending something as terrible as slavery, but when you're done and you look around, everyone still acts the same, and looks the same, have you really achieved the substantive change you wanted? I think there's a parallel here with the fighting pits and the fighters. Now Dany outlaws the pits as brutal and inhumane, but when Hizdahr comes to convince her, he brings some fighters who tell her of all the "glory" they find there. Dany is of course conflicted. She wants to recognize the principle because what the fighting pits represent is abhorrent to her, but here stand these people telling her they want to be allowed to fight. Ultimately it's very hard to change the mindsets of people when they've long been accustomed to subjugation and dehumanization (this is precisely why "big" efforts can be ineffective), but you still must make the effort, just as she makes the effort with the Green Grace's cousin. My point is that outlawing the tokar would have gone a long way in contributing to visible change, especially in a society that practiced slavery and where the divisions between slaves and slavers is often defined by conspicuous means relating to dress and labour.