• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight
  1. It's said in the books that direwolves actually exist in the north. Their numbers may have diminished in the southern areas where Winterfell is, but direwolf packs still roam in the north according to wildlings. If direwolves are predators of the Others as you say, then they would still be able to keep the WW in check in the northern regions. Dragons, on the other hand, are extinct, until Dany brings forth her three. The direwolves are wolves, except that they are a lot larger, somewhat smarter, and have warging capabilities. The direwolves are still warm-blooded creatures. The Others are these mystical type of creatures who are said to hate all things warm. They want to eliminate all warm-blooded creatures, so direwolves would be included in this group. I think there are direwolf wights mentioned in the story (but I'm not sure). Well, they are magic giant wolves. And Jon might warg into one to save his life. Ghost will play an important role in the coming books--maybe that's is why it was titled A Time for Wolves? The direwolf first appears in GRRM's urban-fantasy book The Skin Trade. In that story, the direwolves are apex predators, or so they think, until something white and mist-like starts to hunt the predators. The wildlings don't kill direwolves, they would be kind of stupid to do so. I think they mention direwolves seen beyond the Wall.
  2. From Ned's memories we know that Lyanna was a willful young lady, kind of like Arya. She rides horses, engages in swordplay and does things that would make Cat or Sansa cringe. So she was never someone whom we can consider conventional or gullible. She sees right through Bobby B, even when Ned can't. From what I got from Ned's chapters, Lyanna was never going to marry Robert, regardless of Rhaegar. But Robert being Robert never seems to accept the fact. So it's hard to believe that Lyanna was forced to do anything that she didn't want to do. She would have tried to fight off Rhaegar or tried to escape, like Arya, if she was actually kidnapped. In the story, Rhaegar is originally presented as the bad guy, some type of rapist-kidnapper. It's only gradually we learn that Robert's story may not be true. And she may not really have run away either. The war starts when Brandon, for some reason. goes to Aerys asking about Lyanna. Not sure why he would do that, given that we know Aerys by that time was suspicious of his own son. As a Targ, Rhaegar would have been able to marry her as his second wife. Everyone would have known that. They may not have actually run away, putting Lya's family in danger either. What danger would they really be in if Lyanna became Rhaegar's mistress? Absolutely nothing unless something like what Brandon did happened. I think Rhaegar thought that if there was any resistance to his marriage to Lyanna, it would come from Dorne, from the relatives of his first wife. It's probably why he takes her there seemingly in a rush, to make peace and tell Doran that Elia's children would be heirs. It seems like a cruel twist of fate that Brandon and Robert would go to war over it. I think by that time Lyanna was actually so over with Robert. It should be noted that Stockholm Syndrome isn't really without criticism. It occurs when there's actual physical captivity of some sort, and a constant presence of a kidnapper/hostage taker. Also, I think there should be like kindness from the captor for the victim feel an emotional connection, and also brainwashing. It's also very rare and not properly reported from what I remember from psych class a long time ago. That's doesn't happen.
  3. I know right! I would totally pick Jorah over Daario, and I really did think she should have done that. But I suspect she is a bit repulsed by Jorah's carnal attraction to her, given that she has so much regard for him as an older mentor. Is Daario really attractive physically? I didn't get that. When we first meet him, he has ridiculous hair and is kind of like a peacock in the mating season. And he seems a bit daft too. It was just so frustrating that she took up with him (what were you THINKING GRRM?!!!). In the show though, he is hawt (and also smart and loyal) so it seems kind of fine.
  4. Haha I think you just named all the pairs in the books. But is Ned and Ashara really a pair? He only saw her at a tourney and seemed to have had a crush on her. But that's not love. Possibly. But we don't really know if Elia loved Rhaegar or whether she even wanted to marry him. We can't really say that Rhaegar didn't love Elia either, just because he took up with Lyanna. Under Targ tradition, he could have married more than one wife. I don't think it's genuine love on Jorah's part, and Dany suspects as such. Jorah once tells her that Dany looks like his wife, the one he went bankrupt for. So he has a type and I think Dany gets it as lust, and not real love. That's probably why she stays away from him. Otherwise, even with the age gap, Jorah could have been a good match for her, a lot better than that Daario.
  5. Jaime is villain who starts to have regrets. Jaime at the start is a sort-of narcissist who watches out for his own self-interest only. But we later learn that he is not Cersei, he does have the capacity to do good. But Dany isn't necessarily that. Unlike Jaime, Dany is not obviously self-obsessed, pursuing just her self-interest. The character that most resembles her is actually Jon--they are both young people who unexpectedly find themselves in leadership positions, with world-changing repercussions. They are both primarily driven to do good, help others, but the decisions they make aren't always so clear cut. I think you are trying to say that Dany can sympathize with the slaves because she herself was nearly one. Her own brother sells her. And had it not been for her Targ title, she would have ended up being sold as a slave in that world anyway. She can empathize with oppressed people because she herself was oppressed like that, and could be once more if she loses. I think you are right about her wanting to conquer Westeros having to do something with Viserys. She does have this suppressed guilt about his death. And it's his mantra to go "back home" to KL. It could be Dany's way of sort of honoring his memory (not that he deserves it) to invade Westeros. Darrio really is a rebound and Dany really needs to get over herself. Actually, Dany is not just looking for a Drogo replacement, she is looking for a place to call home. Drogo and his khalasar was very briefly home to Dany. We know that Dany as a little girl was always travelling and never found a place to call home. Her true desire is to be in a loving home. Also, Rhaego may not have been the Stallion, as prophesied.
  6. No. When Dany "thinks" or "believes" something, it's presented as such. For example, when Dany sees the red comet in ACOK, the line goes "Dany told herself" the comet speaks of her coming, or something like that. So that's just her opinion. There are other instances of things that are clearly her opinion, or things she thinks about. They are separate from the things she sees or hears. If the POV chapters are all about opinion, then you could say Dany believes she has dragons, Jon believes he was stabbed, or Cat believes the Red Wedding happened. Lol. You are ignoring the very obvious fact that if Dany had any reason to suspect some other party than the GM for the murders, she would have done so. She wanted to punish the guilty party, and she does. We can debate about the manner of punishment, but you don't make a convincing argument that the GM that did get punished didn't deserve it so. You were given the opportunity to compare similar actions by other characters to justify your "mad tyrant" argument, but you just ignored it. You can't discard some facts as inconvenient. Huh? You are missing the point once more. Dany did have proof; she had witnesses, as the quote before shows. I don't know why you are doing these weird logic gymnastics when it's clear that your problem with Dany is not about crucifixion proof or evidence, or anything of the sort. You just want a lame excuse to cast her in a bad light, regardless of the fact that there's nothing to say that she is any worse than other main characters in similar positions. Jon does something parallel-y similar. Lol, you have absolutely zero idea what oppression means. Yes, because that's what leaders do, they order things. *sigh* If it turned to red, then sky would have obviously been some other color before, and the new color is an aberration. That's the takeaway, not that the sky would have necessarily been blue. I'm not sure how this applies to the GM though. Riiiight. Care to elaborate what her "awful rulings" are? You are going out of limb to cast Dany's actions in a bad light, such as by claiming that she somehow crucified an innocent party. What is your sense of "justice" I wonder. No. It was action by a few, the GM leadership, not a few GM leaders. If any of them were truly innocent, they could have said so. You are just taking the position that Dany somehow crucified "innocent slavers" despite having zero evidence to the contrary. Here's my suggestion: stop beating around in the bush and just come out and say what you really want to say about Dany. If you don't like her because she topples the slaver oligarchy in Mereen and rules against them, then just say so.
  7. When they are about to be besieged, no they don’t. They wouldn’t risk any punishment if they admitted that the child killings were wrong. Or get conquered if they abolished slavery. Nope, this is not my “interpretation.” It’s what’s actually written in the books; that the GM had the children nailed in Dany’s POV chapters. I don’t remember the issue coming up in any other Mereen POV chapters. If something occurred in a different manner than what a POV character thinks, then there would be hints in other POVs. The most prominent example of this is Lyanna’s “rape.” In Ned’s POV, Robert is insistent in his belief that Rhaegar raped Lyanna. But Ned personally doesn’t think that. Then with other POV chapters, we learn that maybe Lyanna ran off with Rhaegar. Similarly with Dany’s idea of her long dead father the deposed king. She only knows what Viserys tells her, but later learns from people like Jorah that Aerys was mad. In Jaime’s POV, we learn exactly how mad. Likewise, if GRRM wants to make a counterpoint, he does so. But there’s no such counterpoint with the GM. There are no instances where some GM are good, nice, or remorseful. If Dany is wrong in her belief that the GM nailed up the children, then GRRM would indicate it to us. There’s zero textual evidence for that. From what we learn of the GM, there’s really nothing to indicate that any of them would ever hesitate to do something like that. As @Skahaz mo Kandaq mentioned, this was a botched up attempt at psychological warfare on the part of GM that goes very wrong for them. The keyword here is “could.” You don’t’ have any textual evidence to support that claim, just your belief and speculation. In the books, Dany doesn’t just believe that maybe GM nailed up the kids. It’s presented as something the GM evidently did. And who takes action in a group? The leaders. Later, she only executes the leaders, the ones would be responsible for the atrocity. Here’s the passage from ASOS: The point is you can’t hold one character to one standard and another character to something else entirely. If you do, then that’s your bias. Bias has no reasonable basis. Do crazed tyrants second guess themselves and feel remorse as Dany does? It’s not like Dany doesn’t realize what she does is not exactly right: Oh really? Don’t care about intentions, context, only actions? Then is Tyrion a psycho murderer for killing Tysha abruptly, seemingly on a whim? Is Jon a despot for trying to change the NW for the better against the wishes of the watchmen? Is Ned another psycho killer for executing the maddened NW deserter, or worse, Lady, whom he knows is innocent? Is LF good because he saved Sansa from Joff? Subversion or sedition charges. Lords may burn whole villages if one person seems to have stepped out of line. That would be the charge for trying to kill a noble lord; it would be considered a sign of rebellion, among other things. Yes. But sometimes it’s important to make a show of hanging a murderer of a lord than to spend time and resources actually finding the killer. But this is something else entirely. If the evidence was compelling, as I said, Tyrion would not be on trial. Of course, if Tyrion somehow did present compelling evidence exonerating him of the crime, then he would be let go. Lysa would have no reason to punish him. Slavery is common in Slaver’s bay, but in most parts of the world, it is not so. And the Essoi do seem to be aware of this fact. You could say that slavery in the southern states weren’t criminal until Lincoln made it so with the Emancipation Proclamation. So in this light, Lincoln would be a “mad tyrant” as you say. But that is definitely not how tyranny is actually defined. Oppression is a fundamental aspect of tyranny and dictatorship. You can’t say that the GM are being “oppressed” by Dany because they can no longer kidnap, torture, and enslave other people. Well, if you say so, there are “nice” ways to crucify people too. Like killing them before nailing them. Making them numb. But the GM nail the children alive, also while disemboweled, which makes the atrocity even more horrendous. That’s exactly why Dany goes to crucify the GM in the same manner. After all, she had the city. She didn’t need to do it if she didn’t care. She does try, as quoted above. She makes sure she executes the leaders, who cannot be ignorant of what happened. They are the ones who give the orders. It’s like the Nazi officers can’t say, oh no we didn’t know the prisoners were being gassed at the concentration camps. Of course they knew; they gave the orders. I was being sarcastic. Yes they were. They were the leaders. Even if one looked the other way, they would be complicit in an atrocity. You seem to misunderstand the difference between collective guilt and individual guilt. In the example I gave, if your coworker were a serial killer unbeknownst to all, then no one would accuse you of any crime. But if the coworker killed children in the name of the organization, as part of some warfare like the GM do, then you would share collective guilt. If you were, say, an executive at the organization that was part of the plot, you would be guilty as hell. If you directly benefited from the crime, you would be complicit. If you are part of an enterprise that kills children, you wouldn’t have to quit your job, you would end up on the execution table with the rest of your coworkers. The GM are the executives of the company that give the order to kill the children. That’s why Dany retaliate eye for an eye. You cannot benefit from serious crimes, even if others commit it in your name without your direct knowledge. If you do benefit from a serious crime, you would share the guilt and repercussions whether you like to or not. The victims would be within their right to extract retaliatory justice against you. If the victims were murdered, their relatives can ask for blood money, for example. Or in the past, actual death. In modern times, you could get sued for money, and possibly face jail time as well. No one can claim ignorance while at the same time reaping any sort of benefit or advantage from a serious crime. It’s psychological warfare, like seriously. Saying we can do whatever we want is a form of that. But it refers to systematic injustice, doesn’t it? But in this case, the GM do not hide the fact that it is them who are responsible for the crime. They want Dany to know. That was the whole point of the atrocity. As you said, the GM wanted her to know what they can do, and were willing to do, to withstand her efforts. You are totally missing my point with that one. You are seriously going out of limb here to defend the GM. It is very explicitly stated in the books that GM did it. Not that they may have done it, but it was them. They are the guilty party. The question that you should be asking is, ‘is it actually okay to retaliate against them in that manner even if they did that horrible atrocity?’ That’s what Dany momentarily asks herself. The moral conundrum here is not that the people Dany nailed may have been innocent, but whether it’s okay to commit atrocities even if the reasoning is righteous. Like, Nazis are bad without a doubt, but should you carpet bomb Dresden? Is it okay to kill all the slaver families to wipe out slavery once and for all from Mereen? Ultimately, does the end justify the means? That’s what Dany has to decide for herself. Only within reason. There should be contradictory evidence, other statements, or other perspectives to make us doubt that a POV character might be wrong. Otherwise, there’s no basis to think that what a POV character sees, hears, or thinks is anyhow wrong. That would just be baseless speculation. Ugh. They obviously use the slaves to do whatever, no matter how horrific. When war comes, it’s their way to use the slaves as soldiers, shields, or in this case, a tool of psychological warfare. If that wasn’t the case, then this wouldn’t have happened. Huh? Here’s the passage from the DwD: Of course they are trying to send a message. The GM want to show that slavery is somehow good for everyone because it’s “good” for the economy. They refuse to pay liveable wages for work, so the former slaves are just forced back into bondage labor. The GM want to make liberation unsustainable economically speaking. They do so later by telling Dany of people who sell themselves back to their masters, etc. This is very much what happened following Emancipation in real life. Dany thinks that if she works with the slavers, they would no longer need to be up to tricks like this, that they would somehow willingly pay the workers. Do tell me how Dany is oppressing the great masters, or how she is horribly wielding her absolute dictatorial power over the former slavers by negotiating with them and even marrying one of the psychos who actually gets aroused by gore. No you didn’t. Yes, wanting to free slaves, stop wartime rape, save innocent people from being murdered, recognizing oppression…all that doesn’t give Dany a keen sense of justice I suppose.
  8. That's why I said that these "gods" may not exactly be what the people believe them to be. However, I would say it's a stretch to say that the god-like powers don't have an intelligence behind it. In GRRMverse, being man-like is not the threshold for intelligence. Some things are just beyond the comprehension of people. That's probably where these god things are going. If there is no sentient type of intelligence behind the flames, then how do the flames respond to Mel, or any other type of calling? I wouldn't say we have proof per se, but we do get hints. Patchface for starters, who sing of the underwater world. People with foresight like Mel, who seem to get it from the flames. The inexplicable resurrections of Cat and Beric. The face changing in the House of Black and White. It's clear that neither Bloodraven or the Undying are the sources of magical power, but only vessels or users of that power. Bloodraven doesn't have any powers to give others the ability of greensight, for example. The Undying are in service to something else, the floating blue heart or the worm-like thing that Dany sees. These incomprehensible powers, or rather the source of these powers, is what gets called a god.
  9. GRRM was raised Catholic, and for someone who is supposedly atheist, gods and religion plays a major role in most of his stories. He even wrote a story called the Way of Cross and Dragon about the Catholic church in space! I think he has lost faith, but his worldview is still shaped by it. And you are right, religions in AWOIAF is not based on mere belief. They seem to have a very real basis, though the people may not understand exactly what that is. GRRM wrote Mel's POV chapter just to clear up some major misconceptions readers have about her character. Mainly the fact that she might be a total fraud pretending to be a seer or whatever to gain influence over Stannis. In her POV chapter, we know that she does actually get visions in the fire, but her interpretation is not always right and can actually be dead wrong. She overestimates herself and is uncertain at the same time. We can say for certain that she is not making up R'hllor's power. And it's also the first time we see what these fire priests see in the fire. Yes but the magic isn't coming out of nowhere. It's not a force of its own, like in Harry Potter universe. The magical powers are derived from the gods. As in, different powers come from different gods. The weirwoods are associated with greenseeing, R'hllor with fire resurrection, the Many Faced God with face changing assassinations, and so on. R'hllor and Drowned God seem to be similar in their power of resurrection. And all the known gods, except the Seven, are associated with blood sacrifices. As I said in the earlier posts, the gods do exist, but they may not be gods in exactly the same way people believe them to be. There is an undeniable supernatural presence. It could be divine, or just alien. And at least one god mentioned in the story, like the Pale Child, appear in GRRM's other stories as a god. That's how religion works in real world, to a certain extent. In AWOIAF, religions seem to be built around things that are real or at least were real once upon a time. Most people in this world have forgotten a fundamental part of their history, and with it the religious understanding seem to have changed too. I think GRRM is showing a major shift or a contradiction between religious belief and religious truth. Mel is the main example. The red god is not made up, it exists. But what Mel does in the name of the red god, like burning people, are problematic. Is this really what the god wants her to do? Not exactly. She makes up her own belief system around the power of R'hllor. Plus, it's highly questionable whether some rituals built around the religion are actually necessary, like burning random things in the name of R'hllor. He doesn't really seem to care. However, the red god does respond to complete devotion and sacrifice. The same goes with the Seven. We don't know if the Seven have powers like the red god or the weirwoods. (The Seven however do appear in another GRRM story called the Lonely Songs of Larren Dorr. In it, they are more vengeful than benevolent). But there's this very organized religion around it. And the actual divine truth may be lost to the belief system made up around it. Sounds like a criticism of the Catholic church, all to prone to human folly, which could at times be too engrossed in dogma and doctrine to the extent of missing the point of Christianity.
  10. You know, all this time, I never thought of Dany as the "cool girl." She's the embattled girl. She's a sort of a rags-to-riches, survivor type of character. She starts out with nothing, an abused child sold off to marriage, and she ends up with dragons. And I didn't pay particular attention to how beautiful she is, because all the Targs are said to be beautiful. Even Viserys is so I didn't take it as such a unique trait. I always thought the cool character is Arya, because, though young, she is smart, resourceful, talented, and takes crap from no one. GRRM has a cool, brunette trope, as seen with Arya, Lyanna, Nettles (to some extent), and brunettes in his other stories as well (Interestingly in The Glass Flower, there is a mix of a Dany-Arya character). Ikr! I don't think this is just an ironic coincidence either. Dany's anti-slavery stance fundamentally changes the political reality with Valyria's mortal enemy, the Faceless Men. They have always been against Valyrians and very likely Targs as well, mainly because of the slavery problem. Now there's a Valyrian in the world once more with dragons but she is against slavery, so what is the FM to do?
  11. Yes, we DO know that! It would require a stunning amount of ignorance for some of the GM to not know that kids were crucified to get back at Daenerys. There’s nothing in the books that indicate that. When Dany is in Mereen, some GM don’t come up to her or her advisors and say we didn’t support that. It’s all in your head. You have made up this convoluted theory to prematurely and illogically portray Dany as a crazed tyrant randomly crucify slave masters because they are oh so innocent of child murder. I don’t have to believe Dany is either good or bad. My understanding of her character is based on what’s actually in the books, not what might have happened. Dany never actually does anything that can be considered unreasonably cruel, like Joffery or Cersei. Her actions can exist in a sort of gray area as seen with MMZ and the GM lot. While she has very good reasons to take action against these actors who do her wrong in one way or another, her retaliatory form of justice can seem cruel. And she knows better too. But we can say the same for other “good” characters in the books as well, especially Jon and Tyrion. Tryion lashes out when he is angry (kills Shae, crushes Merillion’s fingers, etc), but do you call him a mad tyrant? Jon also enacts cruel-type of punishments against his subordinates; I don’t see you call him a mad tyrant. But you do use this one thing, based on mere theorizing, to call Dany a crazed tyrant. Why do you think that is? In the books, characters are considered good or bad based on their ability to empathize. That’s why we consider characters like Dany, Arya, Jon, Tyrion, and Sam, as good characters, and others like Cersei, Joff, the Mountain, or Tywin as bad characters. The main characters like Dany are young and are thrust into a cruel, harsh world. Her sense of justice, sense right and wrong are seriously put to the test. We are seeing this character as she grows and develops through these things. She never starts out as a bad guy and she isn’t one where she is currently either. You could say from the slave masters’ POV she is a bad guy but let’s face it; they don’t care about right and wrong. If that happened, the commoner would get executed. Everyone she or he knew might also get the axe. The suspicion would be enough to garner punishment. No one is going to go out of their way to prove a mere commoner innocent. Besides, the nobles can’t keep an murder investigation ongoing for months on end, as it can happen in modern times. Swift punishment is necessary to keep everyone in line. Huh? If Tyrion did have evidence to exonerate him, first it would need to be acceptable to Lysa. At that point I highly doubt she would have accepted any. In a scenario like this, the outcome of the trial is largely based on the judge’s opinion. And Lysa was a very biased judge. If someone was obviously innocent, there wouldn’t really be a trial. They would just drag some other poor sod to the kangaroo court for “justice.” In this world, justice really depends on who’s holding the sword. When the judge is someone like Rhaenys or Ned, as seen when he was king’s hand, then people can expect some sort of justice. It’s the same with Dany when she holds court, but I don’t remember her having to solve murder problems. In some cases the lords just make up crimes just to hang people, like what Roose Bolton did to Ramsey’s mother’s husband. Dany doesn’t do anything like that with the GM. No, just no. There is no “nice” way to enslave people. And these GM were never nice to anyone except themselves, as it is blatantly obvious from all the Mereen chapters. Ahahahahahaha… absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. *facepalm* Okay, let’s dial back. Say Dany is only interested in vengeance and not justice. If so, why would she be offended that the GM crucified kids in the first place? They are not her kids. They aren’t even Dothraki. Why would Dany want to avenge random slave children then if she doesn’t care about justice? You are kidding. Lolz, loads of murderers cut deals for reduced sentences and parole or whatever for things like ratting out an accomplice, a mob boss, or naming victims. I think, but I’m not a legal researcher. I suppose only some of them wanted to defend the city too then. More *facepalm*. Let’s say that a coworker is secretly a serial killer. In that case, then it would have nothing to do with you, of course. However, if you stood by and watched your coworker murder children in the name of the organization, or if you had any knowledge of their actions in any way, then you would be complicit in the crime. Saying that ‘it had nothing to do with me’ is not a defense in this case. It’s possible that you had zero knowledge of the crime, but you would seriously need to prove it, especially if the crime benefits you in any manner. In the case of the GM, the murder of the children benefits the group as a whole. It’s part of their defense strategy as I mentioned before. A wayward GM don’t kill the kids for sick personal benefit. Therefore, each and every GM is complicit in that crime. That’s why Dany has 163 of them nailed. If anyone asks who nailed up these children? The answer would be simple: the Grand Masters. It’s not one GM, some, GM, it’s the GM. Yes, of course, If the GM did that, then they would admit that a crime has occurred. It would indicate that child murder is unacceptable within this society. Then Dany wouldn’t have had to nail anyone. But that’s NOT what happens. The GM don’t consider the murder of slave children to be a crime. They probably don’t even consider the children people. Just chattel to do as they please. This is why Dany does what she does. Now the GM know, under the new rule, there is no chattel anywhere, only people. Yes. They do. These are the most powerful people in Mereen, some of the most powerful in all of Slaver’s Bay. But somehow they were powerless to stop over hundred children being nailed to the posts? Oh puh leeze. And how come no one afterwards came to Dany seeking justice for the children? Lol. Because that’s what’s actually written in the books! The GM act as one. They are horrible, terrible slavers who think it’s perfectly fine to nail slave children alive. They don’t consider atrocities like that to even be crimes. They don’t show any inclination towards being any better after the conquest even when Dany gives them the chance. If they wanted to, they could have. But they don’t. This isn’t exactly true. Ned initially thinks this because Lysa says so in that letter. But he still investigates the matter and LF dupes him into believing Cersei is responsible for Arryn’s death. But there are actually clues that it wasn’t true, starting with the the fostering dispute with Sweetrobin. Ned talks to Cersei and she never verbally admits to it (but I think this is just GRRM playing dirty tricks to mislead the reader deliberately). There were enough clues, Ned just doesn't comprehend them. Then he gets his head chopped off before the mystery can be fully solved. Are you suggesting that there’s a GM like LF who is blaming everyone else for the nailing of hundreds of children and Dany just believes it? Hahahahahahahaha. It’s the road to Mereen so I’d say they travel on this road all the time. Especially when they have to retreat behind city walls. Once again, just no. As in, you have no idea how wrong you are here. Yes there is one and they just did that. You mean she is against slavery. The GM know that they would be left alive if they abolished slavery on their own. And Dany doesn’t just kill slavers. She wouldn’t have killed those 163 had they not nailed those children. The slaves are not fridges. They are human beings. The GM has no obligation to shelter freed slaves and Dany doesn’t make them either. They rehire former slaves on meager wages. Then they deliberately throw elderly and infirm former slaves to the streets to create more problems for Dany. They want to show that the reason for all the homeless in the streets is Dany and her anti-slavery stance. Being anti-slavery is bad for the economy is the point here I think. But I’m not sure whom they are trying to convince. The slavers would always be pro-slavery, and the enslaved would never be. I don’t think you know what the word “tyrant” means. Or dictator for that matter. If Dany had been an absolute tyrant, she would have killed all the slave masters and their families. She would have taken everything they had to do with as she pleased. But that's NOT what she does here. The mistake she makes in Mereen is trying to rule with the slavers. It was never going to happen because the slavers have zero intention of not being slavers. She should have stripped them of their ranks, repossessed all the wealth, and reset the economy to paid labor where no one is a slave. You could call that tyranny, but without it, the GM would have continued to enslave millions of people for years to come. It’s the same Union government did with the Confederate states after the Civil War was won. It’s clear that GRRM is basing the slavery and liberation in Essos on American history. In Mereen, the slaves are liberated, but they seem to be in the sharecropping stage where the former slave masters continue to exploit of them. The Sons of the Harpy are like the KKK. And without Dany, Jim Crow laws would prop up, unless the GM manage to enslave everyone once more. She was too accommodating with the Mereneese. That was the problem. Her arc is GRRM's critique of the "good king" narrative. He has said that in books like LOTR, there's a hero, whom, after winning a war, just goes onto become a good king. GRRM took issue with that because how does one just be a good king? Can a good king make mistakes? Dany has a noble journey to abolish slavery, but once the fighting is done, all the slaves are not completely free and the slave masters don't throw up their hands and accept defeat. The Slaver's Bay arc reflects what's happened in real history with Emancipation. The cause is noble, but the results aren't always so neat. The challenge for Dany would be to tackle all of this as queen. Can she balance her sense of justice, which is quite keen, with the reality of ruling, which requires making nasty compromises with unsavory characters? How she overcomes these challenges would determine whether she is a hero or not, or something in between, when the story finally concludes.
  12. The Great Other is a god associated with the cold, stated as something that hates all things warm. So how can it and the fire god be the same thing?
  13. We do know that R'hllor exists. In Mel's chapter she is shown signs in the flames, and R'hllor is a fire god. And Beric is brought back to life from the flames. Dany sees a flaming heart consuming her unborn son in GoT. The existence of the Drowned God isn't blatantly obvious, but we know it's not completely made up because of Patchface. The Drowned God brings him back to life. The only gods not to make an appearance are the Seven. It's possible that the Seven is just another term for other gods we have heard of. I think we can say that whatever the people in AWOIAF believe to be gods do exist in some way. These things may not necessarily turn out to be divine creatures in the same way that people believe the gods to be. But there is something out there. But GRRM has said that there will be no divine intervention in the story. So the gods don't appear to save the say.
  14. Great that you pointed this out. Most people think that GRRM is an absolute pacifist so the story would end in a peace pact or something with the others. GRRM was only against wars like Vietnam that he considered useless and unjustified. But he was all for fighting wholly justified wars, like against the Nazis (at least in retrospect). The books do show some just wars, like Dany's anti-slavery conquest, and whole lotta unjust wars, like the War of the Five Kings. With the Others, it would fall into the category of a fight for ultimate survival, which is something that goes beyond a just or unjust classification.
  15. Why would she need to find the most distasteful? They are all distasteful as they are all slavers who decided to kill children to teach Dany a lesson. Why in the world would she need to randomly choose people from an entire continent to crucify? She kills the GM for a reason. I think you are confusing her with the Mountain. They can count, duh. Do you really think that after crucifying children to make a point that they would be all confused as to why Dany crucifies 163 GM? No it's not. Eye for an eye is an actual legal principle often attributed to the Babylonians. It's seen in the early texts for the Abrahamic religions. What we now call criminal justice originates from this early concept. Even today, eye for an eye is practiced to a certain extent, as seen with executions. People have hands chopped off for being thieves, privates chopped off for being rapists, and killed for murdering others. So, yea, the eye for an eye type of justice is what we see here. The only difference is that the people carrying out these sentences don't seem to be emotionally invested in it. Randall Tarly, for example, is not horrified that bread got stolen before he orders someone's hand chopped off. Same with Ned. When lords are personally offended, the punishments are even harsher. Eg: the singer who is caught in bed with a lord's daughter can gets sent to the wall. Jon's execution of Janos Slynt for example. If you are trying to say that Dany just goes off randomly committing murder like a tyrant, it doesn't really hold water. She is one of the handful of characters who do have a sense of justice. She later even holds court to actually listen to the people. That's because Mel was burning people for being infidels. She even burned statues of the seven, which greatly offended people, even people like Davos who are not particularly religious. She did execute the right people--the Grand Masters. They are the guilty party, all of them. You just want an excuse to portray Dany as the bad guy no matter what. This is one flimsy excuse. While no one in their right mind would say that crucifying GM for what they did is perfectly fine, what Dany did is perfectly understandable and also reasonable in context. She does the wrong thing for the right reasons. And Dany's arc is full of such examples. Take Mirri Maaz Duur, who curses Drogo and kills Dany's baby. What she did was wrong. but her reasons were understandable. When Dany imprisons her dragons, it is wrong, but her reasoning is understandable. GRRM is saying that righteous justice doesn't always look right. Because the Lannisters are powerful. Lysa is covering her backside with a sham trial. Do you see commoners getting trials? You don't. Also, the reason Tyrion is let go is because he wins the trial by combat. If Lysa were to kill him, she would have defied tradition, which would have been the end of her. You seem to hold on to the idea that some GM are somehow innocent in killing children. Why? Why in the world do you think that people who enslave children for labor and prostitution would have qualms killing them as well? There's nothing in the books to indicate that only some GM partook in it. So crucifying 163 people is mas tyranny while doing the same to just one is meh okay? I had forgotten that part. I don't think Ned knew of the Others because if he had, then he would have said the man spoke of the Others. but he decides to execute the terrified half-mad man anyway. Would you call that mad tyranny? Lol. What in the world are you talking about? The GM are the ones in power in a very wealthy city. It's an oligarchy where they collectively take action. When there is a conqueror on the warpath heading their way to put an end to how they make money, they would have naturally congregated to discuss defense. There are possibly like several hundred GM, out of millions in the city. Even if there are thousands of them, which I doubt, they would have a way of congregating to discuss matters of utmost importance. It's possible that Dany did away with the majority of GM. If there are like ruling GM that lord over other lesser GM, they would have their own term. You are forgetting that nailing the children was just one part of the GM strategy against Dany. They also do things like scorching the earth around the walls of the city. The lives of the children were obviously nothing to them. Dany takes particular offence because of that. You are now just going around in circles to wildly speculate only some GM knew about the child killings. You do know that the kids were propped up on Dany's way to Mereen? How could only some of them know? She does. She sacks Mereen and abolishes slavery. You keep talking about vengeance. The murdered children weren't her own. She's not avenging anything she's lost. You are explaining how the modern justice system is broken. Some cut deals and get away with murder. Why would Dany offer the same for obviously guilty GM? If they two guys conspired together, yes, they would both be equally guilty. That's what the act is for. The GM conspire together. You should probably just go back and read who the GM are. They are not just slavers they are the rulers of Mereen. I'm using the Nazi analogy because can you really think of anything better? Actually, the crucifixion of the children cannot be considered as an atrocity committed on an individual capacity, like Mengele, because it was part of GM's defense strategy against Dany. So GM can't really say, oh it was only that one psycho who did it and the rest of us are innocent. Would you sit by if your coworkers decided to KILL children in the name of the organization? Banality of evil much? Innocent until proven guilty is something that is new in real life. It's a relatively new concept in the Western world's justice system. It sprang out of the French Revolution I think. The world in AWOIAF is still in the medieval stages. Not exactly. But you can say the GM "confess" by nailing the children along the road leaving no doubt as to who did it and what the message is. They are responsible, even if they are not the ones who did the nailing themselves, or getting caught red handed as you say. The remaining ones after the war ended. And also mostly because Nazi atrocities came to light only after the end of the war. The allies didn't actually know about horrors of death camps before seeing the records for real. In the case of GM, they are making the atrocities clear early on. If an individual commits a crime within a group, and the group takes action against the individual, then there's no need for collective punishment. It simply doesn't apply to in-group situations. Of course, collective punishment isn't always right because sometimes crimes attributed to groups are actions bya handful of individuals within the group. In that case punishing everyone in a group is not justice, such as punishing an entire ethnic group for actions of a handful of criminals from the same group. However, that is not the case with the GM. One or two GM don't decide to kill the children. Here's the passage from ASOS: Does that sound like the actions of one or two people? As I said before, the child murder is part of GM's way of defeating Dany. They are trying to intimidate Dany. After all, she can't liberate anyone if all the slaves are dead. So yes, the GM may very well have gathered in one of their pyramids, made a toast and said let's nail up the children to show the wench what's coming to her. For different crimes, not the same crime. For example, one would be on trial for being a Nazi judge while the other for being a Nazi prison guard. The GM are all the same, equally in power, similarly rich, and equally responsible for the single crime. The Nazis were collectively guilty of the Holocaust, anyway. Like "hiding" children nailed up on a road for everyone to see? They retreat behind the city walls. What do you mean they couldn't see the nailed up children? They were nailed for everyone to see! They couldn't hear the screams? Didn't hear slave children were being disemboweled alive? They were somehow oh-so ignorant of what their fellow officers were doing to defend the city? Were they similarly not aware of the burned farms and poisoned wells? If some GM were this ignorant, then they certainly would not be GM. These people are like a combination of the Congress and military generals. It's their job to know what's going on, as members of Congress and high-ranking army officers would know what the government is doing to defend the country from an enemy. They make these policies! When Dany did arrive, they could have defected to her. But none of the GM do, because they are slavers and are not willing to give up their property and way of life. No one apparently has qualms regarding the killing of children. And the mistreatment of former slaves continue even after the conquest when the GM cast the unwanted ones into the streets. If any of the GM wanted to stop the child killings, they would have, or proclaimed so after Dany overtakes the city. That certainly doesn't happen. So your argument as only some of the GM being guilty of the child murder, as I said, doesn't hold water. Dany does have very good reason to retaliate against the GM for that, though we can disagree on the manner of punishment. It certainly doesn't make Dany some type of tyrant because, even after that, she tries to make amends and rule the city with them, but this time without slavery. And Dany thinks she hasn't gone far enough in her punishment of the GM. It turns out to be right, with the Sons of the Harpy rising against her. No, I'm not saying she should have done something terrible to all of the Grand Masters. But she should have probably abolished the Grand Mastering institution along with slavery and started over with a new batch of local rulers. I think this is what she realizes in the final chapter.