429 replies to this topic

[jarl the climber]

Let me be serious in this post for those who codemn Dany for crucifying the Slavers. It was not Dany who started crucifying people, by what criteria did they crucify these children. Did they try to escape to Dany and freedom, did they misspeak and say that the Dragon Queen was coming to free them? What Dany was trying to do was to show the masters that they were no longer masters and that their lives now had the same value as these slave children they had butchered. She was troubled by it and it was a rough form of justice and maybe it was unwise if she intended to be the ruler of Mereen but it was the right message to send to the freedmen who support her. How much compassion is there for the Masters, do you think the Unsullied were shocked by it after what they had to go through, or how about the hell the freedmen went through when they were slaves or how about the parents of the kids who were crucified were they offended do you think?

Slavers Bay seems to be a fairly brutal place and I do think that this is rubbing off on Dany and I hope she gets out of there soon. I actually hope that this part of the story is told better on the TV show.

My impression was that she gathered the Masters in a plaza and informed them that they had to present her 162 of their own to crucify and I supposed it was up to them to choose which family members to sacrifice.

[Apple Martini]

PatrickStormborn, on 20 March 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

I don't understand the idea that only someone altruistic can save the world. Martin is deconstructing this view.

I think there's probably a fertile middle ground between someone who's completely altruistic and someone who's a murdering, torturing, pillaging egomaniac. It ain't one or the other.

[Euphail]

Lyanna Stark, on 20 March 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

If that is your idea of sleeping around, I really have to wonder how you came by that opinion, unless you think all sex outside of marriage = "sleeping around".

I corrected my word choice in the next post, and appologized. I did honestly mean to characterize sex outside of marriage as sleeping around - though I gues smost don't.

Quote

But aside that in the middle of talking about femine women who are smart, no one mentions margarey, or Olenna. Neither is a tomboy, yet they managed to assassinate Joff, in a way that no one suspecting them and managed to put all the blame on tyrion. They are badass.

I did. I mentioned that Olenna is the most badass character out there, and how excited I am to see her in a scene because I know stuff is going to happen. That sly woman can do anything! I'm not completely sold on margarey yet, I'm not entirely sure if she's as crafty as Olenna, or if she's just riding on the dress tails.

[Apple Martini]

jarl the climber, on 20 March 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

My impression was that she gathered the Masters in a plaza and informed them that they had to present her 162 of their own to crucify and I supposed it was up to them to choose which family members to sacrifice.

That's just it, there's nothing to base it on but an impression. I don't know if it's Martin's writing or he was being deliberately obtuse or what, but it goes from Dany telling a woman she wants 163 of their people, and the very next instance, the crucifixions are described. No evidence of a trial or effort to ascertain guilt. For all she knows, Hizdahr was one of the people nailing kids up. But we never see her make an effort to truly determine who actually crucified the children. The only "evidence" she uses is, "You're a Master, you must be guilty."

Tze put it in these terms before. Say that Dany goes into the Westerlands and says that she wants three Lannister bannermen to be murdered in exchange for the deaths of Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon. Gregor Clegane and Vargo Hoat are the guilty parties, but she doesn't ask for them specifically or make any effort to find out exactly who it was who committed the murders. The Lannisters end up forking over Addam Marbrand, Gawen Westerling and Lyle Crakehall. Three Lannister bannermen in exchange for Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon. Is justice served?

Edited by Apple Martini, 20 March 2012 - 03:06 PM.

[eyeheartsansa]

Quote

But I think it's silly to heap praise on her for being so victimized, when that isn't exactly the case.

I wouldn't call it 'praise' so much as 'taking her circumstances into consideration'

Quote

She wanted to follow the comet into the Red Waste because she egotistically believed that it was an omen for her and she had to follow it.

Spending the night in one's husband's funeral pyre and waking up with 3 newly hatched dragons can do funny things to one's sense of what a blazing red comet may or may not mean.

Quote

Her confidantes told her that there was nothing there but desert but she went in anyway. Should I give her kudos for surviving a red desert wasteland, when entering said wasteland was her own free choice, made for no other reason than ego (thinking the comet was "hers")? Maybe you think so, I don't know.

she doesn't get 'kudos' or a gold sticker; but she does get some empathy.

[Silverin]

jarl the climber, on 20 March 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Let me be serious in this post for those who codemn Dany for crucifying the Slavers. It was not Dany who started crucifying people, by what criteria did they crucify these children. Did they try to escape to Dany and freedom, did they misspeak and say that the Dragon Queen was coming to free them? What Dany was trying to do was to show the masters that they were no longer masters and that their lives now had the same value as these slave children they had butchered. She was troubled by it and it was a rough form of justice and maybe it was unwise if she intended to be the ruler of Mereen but it was the right message to send to the freedmen who support her. How much compassion is there for the Masters, do you think the Unsullied were shocked by it after what they had to go through, or how about the hell the freedmen went through when they were slaves or how about the parents of the kids who were crucified were they offended do you think?

Slavers Bay seems to be a fairly brutal place and I do think that this is rubbing off on Dany and I hope she gets out of there soon. I actually hope that this part of the story is told better on the TV show.

My impression was that she gathered the Masters in a plaza and informed them that they had to present her 162 of their own to crucify and I supposed it was up to them to choose which family members to sacrifice.

The problem with that she didn't try to learn who were actually responsible for the slave children and who were not. It is entirely possible that for example Hizdar (or someone else who is still alive) was the one behind the idea, but since he has power among the Maesters they of course didn't sent him, and they sent insted someone who maybe was actually against it, and they sent him, because he maybe would have even supported Dany. It is entirely possible that some who are actually responsible for it are still alive and powerful, and some who were not at all, maybe could have even be a possible ally were killed by such a horrible way.
Collective random punishment is never justice.

EDIT: To see what I mean  there is another character who did something similar. Rickard Karstark killed two Lannister for the two son Jaime killed. He didn't care whether they were guilty or not. For him it was two Lannister had to die for his two son (even though only one Lannister was responsible for their deths). Dany did the same. It can be that only 54 Maester was responsible we probably never know. I don't think many people think that what Karstark did was OK.

Edited by Silverin, 20 March 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[PatrickStormborn]

Apple Martini, on 20 March 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I think there's probably a fertile middle ground between someone who's completely altruistic and someone who's a murdering, torturing, pillaging egomaniac. It ain't one or the other.

Anyone can save the world. It doesn't matter what their actions are; if they have the power and the desire to do so, then they can. Dany has both.

1. Her only use of murder has been "lawful" (i.e. not Tyrion killing Shae/Cersei killing Robert, etc. etc.)
2. Use of torture is bad, we can both agree on that. But it doesn't affect her ability to save the world. Just like I'm sure Tyrion will be one of the three heads of the dragon despite being a rapist, kinslaying murderer.
3. Pillaging? Very bad. However, she ended the sack of Meereen as quickly as possible and punished anyone who continued to pillage.
4. Egomaniac? Eh, I'm not sure I'd call her that. Renly and Stannis are egomaniacs. Dany is very proud, yes. But, as Tyrion said, "what else was left to her but pride?"

I'm glad you left out her good qualities. This is a woman who used all the power she had to try and stop women from being raped. When she developed her own independent power supply and saw the cruelty that was the creation of the Unsullied, she used her power to stop it. She was also willing to forgive Jorah Mormont, a traitor who put her and her son in danger. She also put herself in danger to save Drogon and everyone else in the Fighting Pits.

Daenerys is a flawed character, but she's not without positive traits.

[Apple Martini]

Silverin, on 20 March 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

The problem with that she didn't try to learn who were actually responsible for the slave children and who were not. It is entirely possible that for example Hizdar (or someone else who is still alive) was the one behind the idea, but since he has power among the Maesters they of course didn't sent him, and they sent insted someone who maybe was actually against it, and they sent him, because he maybe would have even supported Dany. It is entirely possible that some who are actually responsible for it are still alive and powerful, and some who were not at all, maybe could have even be a possible ally were killed by such a horrible way.
Collective random punishment is never justice.

A thousand times this. Being completely ignorant of that society, not only did she have no clue who was actually responsible, she also had no clue as to what actual methods the Masters used for selection. Older, more powerful families could have put forward upstarts from newer, weaker families who were still noble but had nothing to do with crucifixions. And how would she know? Would she or the freedmen have actually believed someone who said, "No, I didn't do it"? It's pretty obvious that the nucleus of Meereenese power survived the crucifixions, given the strength of the insurgency going on in the fifth book.

Edited by Apple Martini, 20 March 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[eyeheartsansa]

They crucified innocent slave children to send a message; in her eyes they were all equally guilty.  You could just as easily say she was showing mercy to the nobles who weren't crucified.

Edited by eyeheartsansa, 20 March 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[Lyanna Stark]

Apple Martini, on 20 March 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I think there's probably a fertile middle ground between someone who's completely altruistic and someone who's a murdering, torturing, pillaging egomaniac. It ain't one or the other.

If you leave out the obviously underaged, who would that be and what would be the middle ground?

Tyrion? Robb Stark? Stannis? Jamie?

Tyrion is a kinslaying rapist
Robb Stark technically bossed over the Bloody mummers and Roose Bolton and we saw how nice they were
Stannis wants to murder Edric Storm and has no qualms about doling out "justice" left right and centre. Also, shadowbabies to kill his own brother.
Jamie is a Kinglayer guilty of incest who couldn't be bothered to even be sad about his own son's death.

You can keep going. How about Cersei? Varys? The Hound? Or add Arya in it, too. After all, she killed a man for grabbing her arm at the inn with the Tickler and Polliver. Is that justice?

[Apple Martini]

eyeheartsansa, on 20 March 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

They crucified innocent slave children to send a message; in her eyes they were probably all equally guilty.  You could just as easily say she was showing mercy to the nobles who weren't crucified.

Frankly I'd rather she crucified them all than have the Masters themselves decide who would be nailed up, which all but guarantees that at least a few patsies got thrown under the bus. Seeing as she had no interest in determining individual guilt, a mass wipeout would be the only way to definitively punish every guilty party. Not a moral solution either by any means.

Lyanna Stark, on 20 March 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

If you leave out the obviously underaged, who would that be and what would be the middle ground?

At the risk of further setting off a flame war, I consider people like Jon and Davos to be in the middle ground.

Edited by Apple Martini, 20 March 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[eyeheartsansa]

Quote

Seeing as she had no interest in determining individual guilt, a mass wipeout would be the only way to definitively punish every guilty party.

How would she have gone about determining individual guilt, exactly?  Whom would she summon for jury duty?  Who are the prosecuting and defense attourneys and how can we be sure they aren't bought and paid for as well?  There is no concept of a modern judiciary system; no 'innocent until proven guilty' and no beuracracy to ensure due process.

This is a very 'Old Testament' scenario we're talking bout here.  Fire and blood.  An eye for an eye.

It certainly wasn't her finest hour, I'll give you that much.  It is, however, totally badass.

Edited by eyeheartsansa, 20 March 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[PatrickStormborn]

Dany never intended to stay in Meereen when she crucified the Great Masters. It's likely that her intention was to weaken the Great Masters in an attempt to discourage them from restarting slavery once she left.

Apple Martini, on 20 March 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

At the risk of further setting off a flame war, I consider people like Jon and Davos to be in the middle ground.

Neither Jon or Davos have as much power as Dany, so it's hard to see what they would do in similar circumstances. However, Jon betrayed the Wildlings instead of allowing them to cross the Wall, meaning that thousands were left in danger. He also showed no care that Sansa had been married off to Tyrion. He is definitely a good person, but he's not without his flaws. Just like Dany.

[Apple Martini]

eyeheartsansa, on 20 March 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

How would she have gone about determining individual guilt, exactly?  Whom would she summon for jury duty?  Who are the prosecuting and defense attourneys and how can we be sure they aren't bought and paid for as well?  There is no concept of a modern judiciary system; no 'innocent until proven guilty.'  This is a very 'Old Testament' scenario we're talking bout here.  Fire and blood.

She probably would have had difficulty determining individual guilt, yes. All the better reason to just go whole hog and wipe the whole thing out. Either way she would have killed innocent people, but the way she did it, she probably killed at least some innocent people while guilty parties went free and went on to become Sons of the Harpy. Her spotty application of force baffles me. She underhandedly destroys the Astapori nobility in a business deal, then in the next city, Yunkai, decides to keep on going without dismantling that city's nobility, meaning that they're free and intact to hire sellswords and march up behind her back. She kills 163 people in Meereen who may or may not be guilty, but leaves alive most of the other nobles who promptly start an insurgency war with her. She tells the Green Grace, aka the Harpy, that she'll never hurt her hostages, so the Sons of the Harpy know from the horse's mouth that they can do whatever they want without impunity. Then when she turns around and decides that she does want to "awaken the dragon," she does so by having a wineseller's daughters tortured, knowing it will do no good. In other words, her uses of force are too little, too late, or downright cruel for no good reason. But when she decides to be lenient, like with Yunkai and the child hostages, it only causes more trouble. In either direction, she screws up repeatedly.

Quote

It certainly wasn't her finest hour, I'll give you that much.

Good, we agree on something.

[jarl the climber]

Apple Martini, on 20 March 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

A thousand times this. Being completely ignorant of that society, not only did she have no clue who was actually responsible, she also had no clue as to what actual methods the Masters used for selection. Older, more powerful families could have put forward upstarts from newer, weaker families who were still noble but had nothing to do with crucifixions. And how would she know? Would she or the freedmen have actually believed someone who said, "No, I didn't do it"? It's pretty obvious that the nucleus of Meereenese power survived the crucifixions, given the strength of the insurgency going on in the fifth book.

I live in DC and I used to know the son of a congressman named Dornan who was from California. His son helped run his last campaign which he lost, the mistake they made was by trying to win over people from the other side instead of energizing their base. They traded hundreds of votes for thousands. Dany will never be loved by the Masters, she might win over a few but only by alienating thousands of her own. The crucifictions served a purpose in showing her supporters that things had changed and that she would give them justice. It also invigorated her enemies but they would have remained enemies in any event. This a society in which children are covered in fish, honey and blood and people bet which one the bear will eat first. The only thing shocking about it is who she did it to.

[Val the Wildling Princess]

eyeheartsansa, on 20 March 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

This is a very 'Old Testament' scenario we're talking bout here.  Fire and blood.  An eye for an eye.

It certainly wasn't her finest hour, I'll give you that much. It is, however, totally badass.

For you. For me makes her absolutely unlikeable and not better than the people who crucified the children. An eye for an eye is not justice.

[Apple Martini]

jarl the climber, on 20 March 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

This a society in which children are covered in fish, honey and blood and people bet which one the bear will eat first. The only thing shocking about it is who she did it to.

You highlight another thing I find distasteful about Essos: ridiculously over the top villainy, to the point of absurdity. They have kids strangle puppies! They eat puppies! They throw children to bears! They have the icky combination of being both incompetent and evil. No wonder Dany looks so good to people, against them.

Val the Wildling Princess, on 20 March 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

For you. For me makes her absolutely unlikeable and not better than the people who crucified the children. An eye for an eye is not justice.

Didn't you know? That's how we're determining merit these days. Based on badassness. How pathetic.

Edited by Apple Martini, 20 March 2012 - 03:42 PM.

[Silverin]

eyeheartsansa, on 20 March 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

How would she have gone about determining individual guilt, exactly?  Whom would she summon for jury duty?  Who are the prosecuting and defense attourneys and how can we be sure they aren't bought and paid for as well?  There is no concept of a modern judiciary system; no 'innocent until proven guilty' and no beuracracy to ensure due process.

This is a very 'Old Testament' scenario we're talking bout here.  Fire and blood.  An eye for an eye.


It certainly wasn't her finest hour, I'll give you that much.  It is, however, totally badass.

Well if you never try of course you can't do it. She didn't even think that some guilty ones won'T be killed and some innocent ones will be. She even said that what she did was justice.

As I said again Karstark did the same Dany did. He was executed for it, since it is again not justice!
And it happened in the very same book by the way, I think it was deliberate to make us think that just how much is Dany in the right (since in Essos she is the only POV and she is obviously biased about her own decisions).

Oh an eye for an eye is not justice especially not if you take someone else's eyes and not the one's who took yours.

And I didn't see it as badass. I saw it Dany becomming similar to the Great Maesters.

Edited by Silverin, 20 March 2012 - 03:47 PM.

[eyeheartsansa]

Apple Martini, on 20 March 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

She probably would have had difficulty determining individual guilt, yes. All the better reason to just go whole hog and wipe the whole thing out. Either way she would have killed innocent people, but the way she did it, she probably killed at least some innocent people while guilty parties went free and went on to become Sons of the Harpy. Her spotty application of force baffles me. She underhandedly destroys the Astapori nobility in a business deal, then in the next city, Yunkai, decides to keep on going without dismantling that city's nobility, meaning that they're free and intact to hire sellswords and march up behind her back. She kills 163 people in Meereen who may or may not be guilty, but leaves alive most of the other nobles who promptly start an insurgency war with her. She tells the Green Grace, aka the Harpy, that she'll never hurt her hostages, so the Sons of the Harpy know from the horse's mouth that they can do whatever they want without impunity. Then when she turns around and decides that she does want to "awaken the dragon," she does so by having a wineseller's daughters tortured, knowing it will do no good. In other words, her uses of force are too little, too late, or downright cruel for no good reason. But when she decides to be lenient, like with Yunkai and the child hostages, it only causes more trouble. In either direction, she screws up repeatedly.



Good, we agree on something.

so she's damned for killing all those nobles, damned for not killing enough nobles, damned for not being perfectly consisistent and logical in her killing tactics, or not being a brilliant war tactitian. She can't win!

Quote

I live in DC and I used to know the son of a congressman named Dornan who was from California. His son helped run his last campaign which he lost, the mistake they made was by trying to win over people from the other side instead of energizing their base. They traded hundreds of votes for thousands. Dany will never be loved by the Masters, she might win over a few but only by alienating thousands of her own. The crucifictions served a purpose in showing her supporters that things had changed and that she would give them justice. It also invigorated her enemies but they would have remained enemies in any event. This a society in which children are covered in fish, honey and blood and people bet which one the bear will eat first. The only thing shocking about it is who she did it to.

great post.

[eyeheartsansa]

Quote

Didn't you know? That's how we're determining merit these days. Based on badassness. How pathetic.

It's more the merit of the story itself, than the merit of every little decision Dany makes.  Are you not entertained?

Quote

For you. For me makes her absolutely unlikeable and not better than the people who crucified the children. An eye for an eye is not justice.

There is no Western concept of justice in this ancient setting.  'Eye for an eye'  is/was a very real concept in ancient history, not a phrase I'm throwing around because it sounds badass.

Edited by eyeheartsansa, 20 March 2012 - 03:52 PM.