ManyFacedOne, on 11 April 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:
I don't remember the lamb people solving anything. It was a start but they're too small to help sustain so large a city.
Well we're never given much of an indication as to that so we can't argue that.
Quote
Doubtful. It would only serve to enrage the remaining family members, driving their plots further underground.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, I think it might have worked.
PatrickStormborn, on 11 April 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can easily identify with both male and female characters.
Again, you're just not reading what I wrote. I said that I find it
more difficult to identify with characters that I can't relate to, not impossible.
Quote
1. As you know the difference, you'll realise that Dany has every right to see Robert as a usurper -- because he is.
2. Robert ... saving Lyanna? So THAT'S why he was out whoring during the war. THAT'S why he went looking for her as soon as he took his throne. Oh, wait...
1. I never said he wasn't a usurper, please
read what I write. I said that it annoys me that she has full knowledge of how Aegon got his throne but never sees the parralels between him and Robert. My problem is that Dany is blind to the wrongs the Targs have done, not that Robert is painted as a Usurper.
2. Well you ignored the other points I made which were more important reasons for his uprising but yes, it was pretty clear to me that that was part of his uprising. It's nothing new in ASOIAF that a character sleeps with someone else.
Quote
Daenerys is the Queen of Meereen. All of Hizdahr's power derives from her. She does not need to show him any courtesy.
Please, for the love of god,
READ. I, me, myself, personally, feel that it is discourteous to sleep someone else when you are promised, regardless of whether or not it was a loveless, means to an end marriage. I don't see why her having all the power affects how rude that is?
Quote
If that's a reason to dislike Dany, you surely dislike every POV character in the series (apart from Davos)? If you read AGOT you'll see that Dany's sense of entitlement comes from the fact that she, you know, actually earns her titles.
No, no, no, no. I'm sick of having to respond to your posts when you won't consider what I have written. It's not only her sense of entitlement that annoys me, it's just one of the many things that contribute to me disliking her. It alone isn't enough. If you had read my above posts you would see that I don't like the entire system of birthright monarchies. It doesn't make me dislike every character in the series but it is a feature of their characters that I don't like. Most of all it stems directly from the "Aegon is totally different to Robert" point I made above.
Noimporta, on 11 April 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:
Let's not get silly. Of course usurping is usurping, the point they are making is that there's really no meaningful moral difference with conquering.
Apple Martini, on 11 April 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:
I agree with this. While there may be a technical difference between conquering and usurpation, I think the Targ apologists' mental gymnastics to paint one as morally superior to the other is pretty ridiculous. Aegon was a warlord with dragons who took what didn't belong to him and set his family up to exploit and subjugate a bunch of previously independent regions. 300 years later, his family eventually reaped what it sowed and paid for its abuses of power. Call a spade a spade.
Thank you for seeing this.
brashcandy, on 12 April 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:
This is a pretty romantic view of Westerosi history. Ultimately there were good Targs and bad Targs, with Aerys being one of the crazier batshit rulers. 300 yrs later a totally inept drunkard and womanizer sat on the throne, and a fragile peace barely lasted for 15 yrs. Now Westeros is down the shit toilet again, with every other boy king and fanatic vying for a piece. Are the Baratheons, Lannisters, Starks et al, reaping what they sowed as well? And no one is trying to assert that Aegon was morally superior to Robert (who had good cause to rebel), but it's still a fact that he's a usurper to the throne and Dany has all right to consider him as such, and herself as a legitimate contender.
Read above where I explain this, thank you at least for admitting that Robert has justification. The Baratheons are probably getting just desserts, a preferable result would have simply been to replace Aerys with Rhaegar but that would probably never would have worked. The Starks and the others who had their lords killed I think have more justification than most.but I can't definitively say that what they did was right.
PatrickStormborn, on 12 April 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:
I can't speak for other posters, of course, but I find Dany's story to be one of the most interesting in the series. Personally I'm not invested in the Night's Watch or the Iron Islands, both of which make the story drag for me. That doesn't mean I hate every character at the Night's Watch just because I don't enjoy the story; it just means I'm much more interested in the political story in Westeros, and Daenerys is part of that. Her adventures in Essos have completely altered the political structure of the continent, and this is beginning to affect the story in Westeros.
I don't find the NW that bad because at least I know they're dealing with the real problem. As for the Iron Islanders I agree with you, I find their chapters boring almost exclusively though Theon is improving for me. Dany has altered no political structures in Essos. She has indirectly destroyed Astapor and we are yet to see what will happen with Meereen, other than that she has had no effect on the continent, let alone Westeros. In what way has she affected Westeros?
Quote
No. Robert had no justification to take the throne, and 14 years later he reaped what he sowed and was killed by his wife before the kingdoms spiralled into another civil war.
We don't know why Aegon conquered Westeros, although it is my belief that he thought he was the prince who was promised.
And why must you insist on calling me a "Targ apologist"? I'm not. I just hate Robert Baratheon, who usurped the throne because Rhaegar eloped with Lyanna.
Aerys was a horrible king, he thought someone raped and kidnapped the person he loved, when they tried to rescue her they were murdered, people who he had close ties with. I see those as fair reasons to overthrow the king.
So what if he was the PTWP? That doesn't justify him conquering, there's nowhere in the prophecy that says you have to rule the Seven Kingdoms to save the world. Most likely he conquered the Seven Kingdoms because Valyria was gone and he wanted somewhere to rule over. And are you saying that Aegon can justify it but Robert can't? That's bias.
1
This topic is locked
