496 replies to this topic

[butterbumps!]

BlueDragon, on 18 May 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

I am a native New Yorker and had three relatives in jeopardy at the Towers in various ways at various times.

"Terms like "Infidels," the notion of cultural and moral superiority, and the assertion to bring down the ungodly lifestyle and ideology of a nation were used."

Precisely, these terms and assertions had nothing to do with race.  They had to do with the clash of empires historically and the grinding down of the Middle East after WWI and into the age of Oil.  They have nothing to do with race.  There is a difference between antimosity between groups that has to do with the power struggles between those groups and racial prejudice.

Since you know the OED inside and out , then you certainly must be familiar with race, noun⁶ (the first that pertains to the use of the word relating to people):

I. A group of people, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin.
In its widest sense the term includes all descendants from an original stock, but may also be limited to a single line of descent or to the group as it exists at a particular period.
1.
a. A group of people belonging to the same family and descended from a common ancestor; a house, family, kindred. Cf. kin n.1 1a.
b. A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock. In early use freq. with modifying adjective, asBritish race, Roman race, etc.
c. A group of several tribes or peoples, regarded as forming a distinct ethnic set.
d. According to various more or less formal systems of classification: any of the major groupings of mankind, having in common distinct physical features or having a similar ethnic background.

So I suppose I include culture and ethnicity as part of this "ism."   I understand it's not pertaining to biological race in the strictest sense, but on the notion of "several groups regarded as forming a distinct ethnic set."

I think calling a group of people "infidels" or "barbarians" or the like based on nationality is racist, as it implies a qualitative judgement on the other.  I see what you are saying about this being an issue of a "clash of civilizations/ empires," and don't disagree, but I think there is an ethnic/ racist component to it as well.  It wasn't just about oil or the sphere of American influence in the Middle East- it was condemnation of our perceived cultural sins.   I think I have to accept this as ethnic/ racial imperialism, just as I accept that "Orientalism" is a racist phenomena.

It seems like you're well read on the subject though.  Are there any texts you'd recommend or were influential to you?

[danm_999]

QuaitheTheShadow, on 18 May 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

But what is Dany supposed to do with that advice? It's as useless as John's warning to 'look out!

A good leader trusts no one anyway, right?

Personally I'd cheat and take Moqorro for that nifty volcano arm.

Oh Dany wouldn't do anything. She's not very good at listening to what she doesn't want to hear.

But the question was, who would I prefer to be advised by, and I said the one who gives me a clear course.

[PatrickStormborn]

Jon could have asked Melisandre for names. Instead he thought he didn't need her help so he ignored her. In contrast, Dany wanted Quaithe to give her more information but she simply wouldn't. So I know which one I'd prefer to have around!

Fantôme, on 18 May 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Yeah they were. And Jon had absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever and neither could he have prevented it so, if you want to make a point ,you should check your sources first.

My point, since you haven't figured it out yet, is that Jon preventing the wildlings from passing through the Wall led to the events at Hardhome.

[Apple Martini]

PatrickStormborn, on 18 May 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

The people at Hardhome were enslaved (from what I can recall). That was my point.

And that's Jon's fault, how?

Quote

Melisandre did not say, "If you follow my instructions, you won't be assassinated". She told him that he was in danger and to keep his wolf close. He didn't, so he was assassinated.

And of course they couldn't have also just killed Ghost before stabbing Jon, right? Ghost is catch-all protector?

Quote

From what I recall, he was allowed to return to Winterfell to do that and to see his family. I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

He came to the feast at Winterfell because Robert was there. And him seeing his family, as I recall, never extended to declaring war for them or fighting other lords over them. Maege seems to have visited Jeor at times, does that piss you off, too?

Quote

You're focusing on the wrong part of my argument, although that doesn't surprise me. Jon had already broken a sacred NW tradition by helping Stannis. I did not pass judgement on this, so you're beating a "strawman", as you like to say. If he'd already broken a sacred NW tradition, how much worse could it be to send a rescue party to infiltrate Winterfell and save who he believed to be his sister?

He did that because he had no choice — Stannis saved the Watch's bacon and was offering aid and men to man the Wall. Jon telling him no would be like cutting off his nose to spite his face. And Jon helping Stannis is not the same as giving his own sister preferential treatment that he wouldn't give the sister of any other man there.

Quote

And I've got better things to do than waste my time posting about things I'm not interested in.

Oh yes you're just so cosmopolitan and above it all.

Quote

Why do you think they were killing NW men? So that they would not be turned into wights. Jon proved himself to be short-sighted, as far as I'm concerned, but he never seems to get called out on it.

Like I said, at that IMMEDIATE MOMENT, the Watch was more in danger from wildlings than from the Others.

Quote

If he had caused it? That's wrong -- he did cause it. Oh, and because assassinating a pregnant 14 year old is such a wonderful thing. The same 14 year old who would eventually fight a moral crusade against slavery -- something that causes all ex-slaves to love her. Bad economy and no slavery is better than a good economy with slavery, in my opinion.

In your opinion. Free people starve and die of disease, too.

[tze]

Faint, on 18 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

You've completely mischaracterized the scene. Melisandre offered to get into specifics, even offered to give Jon their names, but he didn't want to hear it. She then warned him that his enemies were those he thought his allies but, again, Jon didn't want to hear it.

That's the thing, though. Did Melisandre ever really know their names? Did she really know anything specific other than what she'd already told Jon? I don't think the text bears up that assumption at all. Looking at what happens in ADWD, her whole "shall I tell you their names" spiel comes across, to me, as her bluffing (as she so frequently does).

In her own POV, she witnesses Bowen Marsh and Jon interacting, yet never gives any indication---externally or internally---that she considers Bowen Marsh to be a threat to Jon. She ponders the whole "enemies, daggers in the dark" issue at her fires, and she never thinks to herself that she knows those enemies' identities. And presumably the three guys Jon sees standing with Marsh in the Shieldhall are, with Marsh, the guys who stabbed Jon----yet notice how one of those guys, Alf of Runnymudd, is described by Melisandre approvingly in her POV, as "the queen’s man she knew as Alf of Runnymudd, one of the first to exchange his seven false gods for the truth of R’hllor." There's no indication whatsoever that she ever realizes he'll be part of those "daggers in the dark".

If Jon had said to Mel "yes, give me their names, I'll go ahead and write them all down" . . . would Melisandre have started rattling off the names of the conspirators? Those names that her private thoughts never indicate she actually has? Or would she have started prevaricating, trying to buy herself time to look for that information in her fires, because she never actually had it in the first place, and she was pretending to have way more information that she had to 1) make herself look wise and mysterious while 2) believing that Jon wouldn't actually call her bluff by pressing her for more information? I think the latter is far more likely than the former.

danm_999, on 18 May 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Jon's aware he has enemies amongst his brothers, and he does try to keep Ghost by his side (should have done it the day he was stabbed though!)

And Jon, unlike Melisandre, actually makes a connection between Marsh and the "daggers in the dark"!  Look at the chapter in which Jon gathers Marsh, Cellador, Old Flint, The Norrey, etc. atop the Wall and informs him of his plans to bring Tormund past the Wall. That scene ends with him looking at Marsh and thinking about the "daggers in the dark". He makes a clearer connection to Marsh than Melisandre ever does. Not to mention, if he'd had Ghost by his side, would he have avoided being stabbed? Or would Ghost have been stabbed right along with him, ruining his chances for a Second Life and perhaps even for eventual resurrection?

Edited by tze, 18 May 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[Apple Martini]

PatrickStormborn, on 18 May 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

My point, since you haven't figured it out yet, is that Jon preventing the wildlings from passing through the Wall led to the events at Hardhome.

So Jon forced all those wildlings specifically to march to Hardhome with Mother Mole? Hardhome, a place that everyone already knew had seriously bad vibes and was probably cursed? Wow, he has more power than I realized!

[Dragonstar]

Apple Martini, on 18 May 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

And yet Dany keeps Barristan by her side and makes him her Hand, and only dismisses Jorah when she finds out he betrayed her. If they're weak counselors, what does that say about the person who keeps their counsel?



Fair enough. Dany seems to take it to heart though, so again, if it's dubious advice, what does that say about the person who listens to it?

Sorry, but if not Jorah and Barristan, we who would you have chosen as counselor from among her crew? Irri?

Although, to quote your opening reply to this post, this topic has been discussed way too many times, and therefore is way beneath an exalted board elder such as yourself. Most likely you've already made the above point clear in your other posts.

Edited by Dragonstar, 18 May 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[Fantôme]

PatrickStormborn, on 18 May 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Jon could have asked Melisandre for names. Instead he thought he didn't need her help so he ignored her. In contrast, Dany wanted Quaithe to give her more information but she simply wouldn't. So I know which one I'd prefer to have around!



My point, since you haven't figured it out yet, is that Jon preventing the wildlings from passing through the Wall led to the events at Hardhome.

And I send you back to my answer about "Jon preventing the wildlings from passing through the Wall". Was he supposed to let an armed enemy army ,who from all evidence wanted to invade the north and kill them ,through the wall? You don't think you're being just a little absurd here?

Edited by Fantôme, 18 May 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[butterbumps!]

Faint, on 18 May 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

I'm curious to know, if Daenerys proves to be the hero of the story, are those here who hate her going to seriously devalue the series in consequence? Because, right now, a lot of people are banking on, or even hoping, that this will not prove to be the case, but if it does turn out that way, will the entire story be ruined for you guys?

I think it depends on what being the "hero" means, and how being said hero will happen.   I have reasons that have little to do with Dany for not wanting dragons to be the unique weapon against the Others, and further, that there is this purely evil one-sided presence that all of humanity must fight against.  I'd be disappointed if she sits the throne at the end still with the mindset of a conqueror and literally rules over charred bones and ash because she razed the kingdom.   But if she becomes a good queen, or gets rid of the dragons, I will have no problem if she succeeds at the end.  I just don't think it's going to happen quite that way.

[Apple Martini]

Faint, on 18 May 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

I think that's what I mean. Is the character still salvageable for those that can't stand her right now?

Anything is possible. I still think she's more fascinating as a villain than as a hero, and honestly that's where I see it going. Martin subverts characters all the time. Bran's the innocent little boy, until he violates Hodor. Jaime's the evil Kingslayer until he comes around and starts trying to act with honor. Theon's a strutting peacock struck down as low as a human being can go. Cersei's the grand villainess who ends up a pathetic person, walking naked through the streets. Sansa's the naive little bird who's now learning to play the political game. Catelyn is the epitome of the nurturing mother and now she's a literal embodiment of Nemesis. No one is the same type of person, really, as when they started. So why do people assume that Dany is going to remain a heroic figure?

Dragonstar, on 18 May 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

Sorry, but if not Jorah and Barristan, we who would you have chosen as counselor from among her crew? Irri?

I actually think both Jorah and Barristan are decent advisers. The person I was responding to said they were weak, so that's how I answered, in that context.

Quote

Although, to quote your opening reply to this post, this topic has been discussed way too many times, and therefore is way beneath an exalted board elder such as yourself. Most likely you've already made the above point clear in your other posts.

Way to get that edit in there, you really showed me.

Edited by Apple Martini, 18 May 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Faint]

tze, on 18 May 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

That's the thing, though. Did Melisandre ever really know their names? . . .

Well, thanks to Jon, we'll never know, will we? My own guess, no, she didn't. If I had to take a stab at it, she might have known he would be assassinated by his own men. She seemed to know his assassins would come from his own allies and, even amongst them, they wouldn't be the obvious suspects.

Edited by Faint, 18 May 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[Apple Martini]

Faint, on 18 May 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Well, thanks to Jon, we'll never know, will we? My own guess, no, she didn't. If I had to take a stab at it, she might have known he would be assassinated by his own men. She seemed to know his assassins would come from his own allies and, even amongst them, they wouldn't be the obvious suspects.

And like Tze says, Jon pieces that together just fine, doesn't he?

Edited by Apple Martini, 18 May 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[QuaitheTheShadow]

Apple Martini, on 18 May 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

I actually think both Jorah and Barristan are decent advisers.

Barristan wants the Green Grace to sit on his Queen's counsel and squandered an opportunity to hit Yunkai with a surprise attack - so I wouldn't say he's  that good of an adviser. Jorah has made many poor decisions as well.

[Apple Martini]

QuaitheTheShadow, on 18 May 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

Barristan wants the Green Grace to sit on his Queen's counsel and squandered an opportunity to hit Yunkai with a surprise attack - so I wouldn't say he's  that good of an adviser. Jorah has made many poor decisions as well.

Then she's fooled Barristan just as much as she's fooled Dany. Barristan's in over his head, but he's still better than her alternatives and I think he generally acts with common sense, even if he is a yes man.

[Faint]

Apple Martini, on 18 May 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Anything is possible. I still think she's more fascinating as a villain than as a hero, and honestly that's where I see it going. Martin subverts characters all the time. Bran's the innocent little boy, until he violates Hodor. Jaime's the evil Kingslayer until he comes around and starts trying to act with honor. Theon's a strutting peacock struck down as low as a human being can go. Cersei's the grand villainess who ends up a pathetic person, walking naked through the streets. Sansa's the naive little bird who's now learning to play the political game. Catelyn is the epitome of the nurturing mother and now she's a literal embodiment of Nemesis. No one is the same type of person, really, as when they started. So why do people assume that Dany is going to remain a heroic figure?

I actually think GRRM subverts a whole lot less than people give him credit for. When I read the first book, way back when, I instantly realized that Jon, Tyrion and Daenerys were the three heroes of the story and the main protagonists. Nothing that has happened since has changed my mind. If anything, there have only been reinforcements along the way.

Besides, who is there for Daenerys to be a villain to? The Tyrells? The Lannisters? The Stark children? What, is she going to join forces with the Others and take on her nephew?

Aren't there villains enough, already? (i.e, the Others, the Boltons, the Lannisters, Varys, the Freys, etc.)

Apple Martini, on 18 May 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

And like Tze says, Jon pieces that together just fine, doesn't he?

Look, he couldn't avert his death or there would be no story otherwise. Much in the same way if he confronted a pack of twelve wolves by himself, he'd either survive or get resurrected. He's got plot armor until the last book. That doesn't mean it was smart to confront a pack of twelve wolves by himself, though.

The same, really, applies to Daenerys, Tyrion, Sansa, Bran, and Arya. They can be stupid but they can't die -- not yet anyway.

Edited by Faint, 18 May 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[butterbumps!]

Faint, on 18 May 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Besides, who is there for Daenerys to be a villain to?  

The existence of humanity?

[Apple Martini]

Faint, on 18 May 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

I actually think GRRM subverts a whole lot less than people give him credit for. When I read the first book, way back when, I instantly realized that Jon, Tyrion and Daenerys were the three heroes of the story and the main protagonists. Nothing that has happened since has changed my mind. If anything, there have only been reinforcements along the way.

He subverts Tyrion, too, doesn't he? Can you imagine the Tyrion in Game of Thrones raping slaves?

Quote

Besides, who is there for Daenerys to be a villain to? The Tyrells? The Lannisters? The Stark children? What, is she going to join forces with the Others and take on her nephew? Aren't there villains enough, already? (i.e, the Others, the Boltons, the Lannisters, Varys, the Freys, etc.) .

She could be a villain to anyone, really. And I think the most tragic villains are the ones who start out good. The Others, Freys, Boltons and Varys are such obvious boogeymen. Someone who does villainy while attempting to do good is much more interesting to me.

Quote

Look, he couldn't avert his death or there would be no story otherwise. Much in the same way if he confronted a pack of twelve wolves by himself, he'd either survive or get resurrected. He's got plot armor until the last book. That doesn't mean it was smart to confront a pack of twelve wolves by himself, though. The same, really, applies to Daenerys, Tyrion, Sansa, Bran, and Arya. They can be stupid but they can't die, not yet anyway.

Then what the hell are we even arguing about with the assassination?

[QuaitheTheShadow]

Apple Martini, on 18 May 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Then she's fooled Barristan just as much as she's fooled Dany. Barristan's in over his head, but he's still better than her alternatives and I think he generally acts with common sense, even if he is a yes man.

That's why Dany should have listened to the Shavepat. . .he's more clever than Selmy and Jorah combined.

Edited by QuaitheTheShadow, 18 May 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[Apple Martini]

QuaitheTheShadow, on 18 May 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

That's why she should have listened to the Shavepat. . .

The Shavepate who wanted Dany to destroy her leverage? And if you're talking about the Green Grace, the Shavepate never specifically says he thinks she's the Harpy, to my knowledge.

Edited by Apple Martini, 18 May 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[Faint]

Apple Martini, on 18 May 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

He subverts Tyrion, too, doesn't he? Can you imagine the Tyrion in Game of Thrones raping slaves

Tyrion is the one exception, the unique one, as it were. But even there, a lot of it is cosmetic. Oh, look, he's a dwarf! He's ugly! What have you.

Point is, GRRM would never have Tyrion, say, rape Sansa or kill Tommen and Myrcella.

Apple Martini, on 18 May 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

She could be a villain to anyone, really. And I think the most tragic villains are the ones who start out good. The Others, Freys, Boltons and Varys are such obvious boogeymen.

I'm interested to see how you think this would work out. Daenerys finally arrives in Westeros and Jon has to combat her and the Others both? And what of the Boltons, Lannisters, Freys, Varys, etc.? They all get taken out in one paragraph?

I mean, I guess we'll just have to sit and wait but I think you are terribly mistaken about Daenerys' role in the story and are somewhat blinded by your dislike of her and her dragons.

Apple Martini, on 18 May 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Then what the hell are we even arguing about with the assassination?

I believe the argument was that it was stupid of Jon not to have listened to Melisandre. Which, it was. That he was fated not to listen to her? Yes, that's true too.