Clarification on Mirri Maz Durr

[Lord Cadwan]

The thing I do not get about this thread is why people thing it is so bad that Drogo died. Drogo is up there with Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Snow in terms of his moral standards and people love Oberyn Martell for at least semi killing Gregor. Mirri is totally justified in wanting revenge on Drogo and his loved ones by extension because of what he did to her village. However I also believe people are wrong when they say Danaerys is the personification of evil for killing Mirri, whilst this is an evil act it is justified in Danarys' mind just as killing Drogo would be for Mirri. It is not Danaerys fault for being married to Drogo and loving him and neither is it Mirri's fault that a Khalasar destroyed her life. In the end the only truly evil people that were not motivated by the passion of revenge are Drogo and his Khalasar and Mirri and Rhaego were just blameless victims.

[Mithras]

Ser Jorah frowned. “Princess, hear me. The Dothraki will not follow a suckling babe. Drogo’s strength was what they bowed to, and only that. When he is gone, Jhaqo and Pono and the other kos will fight for his place, and this khalasar will devour itself. The winner will want no more rivals. The boy will be taken from your breast the moment he is born. They will give him to the dogs…”

Dany hugged herself. “But why?” she cried plaintively. “Why should they kill a little baby?”

“He is Drogo’s son, and the crones say he will be the stallion who mounts the world. It was prophesied. Better to kill the child than to risk his fury when he grows to manhood.”

 

MMD DID NOT NEED TO KILL RHAEGO. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT IT?

[PatrickStormborn]

Snip

 

MMD DID NOT NEED TO KILL RHAEGO. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT IT?

 

Just because it's logical to assume that Rhaego would die after Drogo - and I agree, it was a logical conclusion - does not mean that Mirri Maz Duur thought Rhaego's death was a certainty. After all, he was the prophesised leader of the Dothraki. In that case, why not make it certain that he died? (Ironic, considering that she actually just made sure Daenerys would be the stallion that mounts the world.)

 

The discussion between MMD and Daenerys makes it clear that MMD knew that Rhaego was the sacrifice for Drogo's life, and she believes that Dany knew it too.

 

Ser Jorah had killed her son, Dany knew. He had done what he did for love and loyalty, yet he had carried her into a place no living man should go and fed her baby to the darkness. He knew it too; the grey face, the hollow eyes, the limp. “The shadows have touched you too, Ser Jorah,” she told him. The knight made no reply. Dany turned to the godswife. “You warned me that only death could pay for life. I thought you meant the horse.”

“No,” Mirri Maz Duur said. “That was a lie you told yourself. You knew the price.”

 

 

The sacrifice to keep Drogo alive was not Drogo's horse; nor was the sacrifice Dany or Jorah (if that was the case, they would have perished too). The price was clear, and the price was Rhaego.

 

Had Jorah not brought her into the tent, would Rhaego have lived? Possibly. But MMD surely knew that Daenerys would be brought into the tent, given that the Dothraki are completely superstitious. All Jorah did was deliver the sacrifice. Had he not brought Daenerys into the tent, the spell would not have been completed because the necessary sacrifice would not have been present.

 

Just to explain that with another example - imagine if Melisandre had tried to wake the stone dragon in ASoS and her spell required Edric. She starts the spell and then Edric is saved by Davos during the ceremony. He would still have been the intended sacrifice, but Melisandre would be unable to complete her spell without him.

 

For what it's worth, I tend to think Mirri Maz Duur initially tried to help Drogo. But once she knew he was dying and the chance presented itself, she made the decision to prevent Rhaego's birth.

 

And that's the whole point of ASOIAF, isn't it? Characters make choices. MMD chose to sacrifice Rhaego, Dany chose to risk using blood magic, and Jorah chose to bring Dany into the tent. If none of the characters are responsible, it would not be interesting or compelling as drama.

[Mithras]

...  But MMD surely knew that Daenerys would be brought into the tent, given that the Dothraki are completely superstitious ...

 

I fail to see the logic here.

[Shierak_qiya]

Threads like this won't lead anywhere.

Those who like Daenerys will defend her, those who despise her will bash her.

It's nearly impossible to find ubaised people on this board.

Many Jon Snow fans think it was badass of him to chop off Janos Slynt's head for refusing to obey him, yet they consider Dany's punishment to Mirri Maz Duur for killing her husband and child unacceptable, even though in both instances we have people in a position of power punishing their servants.

And as a Dany fan and a Jon hater, I find what Dany did perfectly fine and what Jon did completely moronic.

It would take a lot of effort to be impartial and try and truly dissect the actions of the characters you hate or love and I've seen very few trying to do it so far.

[butterbumps!]

just for some clarification, is the idea behind why MMD would bother to involve herself in killing Drogo and Rhaego (despite the inevitability of their deaths if she took no action) a way for her to assert some semblance of ownership and agency in an otherwise powerless situation?

 

I mean, is the argument that MMD didn't know the two would invariably die (or that there would be a chance they wouldn't die without her involvement), or that she involved herself merely to put a stamp of ownership on it?    I think the argument that she involved herself in the already inevitable to regain a sense of agency might be a more compelling one.    

 

Which I think is more or less what the other side is arguing as the rationale for why she claimed ownership of the actions afterward, right?   

[wefollowthecomet]

just for some clarification, is the idea behind why MMD would bother to involve herself in killing Drogo and Rhaego (despite the inevitability of their deaths if she took no action) a way for her to assert some semblance of ownership and agency in an otherwise powerless situation?

 

I mean, is the argument that MMD didn't know the two would invariably die (or that there would be a chance they wouldn't die without her involvement), or that she involved herself merely to put a stamp of ownership on it?    I think the argument that she involved herself in the already inevitable to regain a sense of agency might be a more compelling one.    

 

Which I think is more or less what the other side is arguing as the rationale for why she claimed ownership of the actions afterward, right?   

 

Thats how I always read it.  

[JonCon's Red Beard]

just for some clarification, is the idea behind why MMD would bother to involve herself in killing Drogo and Rhaego (despite the inevitability of their deaths if she took no action) a way for her to assert some semblance of ownership and agency in an otherwise powerless situation?
 
I mean, is the argument that MMD didn't know the two would invariably die (or that there would be a chance they wouldn't die without her involvement), or that she involved herself merely to put a stamp of ownership on it?    I think the argument that she involved herself in the already inevitable to regain a sense of agency might be a more compelling one.    
 
Which I think is more or less what the other side is arguing as the rationale for why she claimed ownership of the actions afterward, right?

I kinda mentioned that in a previous post. To me, it matters little if she was involved or not. I personally don't care, nor I think it really matters. It matters the fact she claimed to be involved. My point was that both Dany and MMD were victims, yet, MMD chose to step out of victimhood by hurting and humiliating another victim. If you ever saw the show

[spoiler]
Something like this is played between Myranda and Sansa, and it's terrible. They both are victims, yet, they are portrayed in a way in which by attacking each other they claim power.
[/spoiler]

I think the main failure in this is the inability to see Dany as a victim. She was not different from MMD, as she was also sold without her consent. She was lucky that her slaver ended up falling for her, but she had zero control. Any little power she got was through Drogo and even Rhaego, and there is no way she lost both by in/direct actions of MMD as a coincidence.

I understand that many could see MMD's actions as a way for her to assert herself and claim some power of her own. I wouldn't discuss that little rebellious action in a different situation, but in this one specifically, her target was another victim. Maybe MMD didn't see it as such, but we, as readers, should know better because the books are targeted as us. Dany was not a SB slaver who shrugged at the idea of the killing of babies. Au contraire, MMD is a hero for the (alleged) murder of a baby that could or could have not become a slaver, but Dany gets questioned every day for her war against the already well established institution of slavery in SB that, at the moment, was already destroying people's lives. As someone who likes Dany, I think I have a lot of reasons to question the nature of this way or (illogic) thinking and these kind of threads.

[ConfusedCounselor]

Those who like Daenerys will defend her, those who despise her will bash her.

 

 

People can like characters and still disagree with some of their actions because of morality. People can even like characters for reasons other than morality.

 

And as a Dany fan and a Jon hater, I find what Dany did perfectly fine and what Jon did completely moronic.

 

 

Just because you base your judgement entirely on whether you are a fan or a hater does not mean everyone does.

 

 

Hater/fan bias as an argument is annoying and overplayed. 

[Ser Knute]

 

Threads like this won't lead anywhere.

Those who like Daenerys will defend her, those who despise her will bash her.

It's nearly impossible to find ubaised people on this board.

Many Jon Snow fans think it was badass of him to chop off Janos Slynt's head for refusing to obey him, yet they consider Dany's punishment to Mirri Maz Duur for killing her husband and child unacceptable, even though in both instances we have people in a position of power punishing their servants.

And as a Dany fan and a Jon hater, I find what Dany did perfectly fine and what Jon did completely moronic.

It would take a lot of effort to be impartial and try and truly dissect the actions of the characters you hate or love and I've seen very few trying to do it so far.

 

Janos Slynt is not Jon's servant.  This isn't an owner-slave relationship.  These are two men of a military order, with a rank structure.  Subordinates yes, servants, no.

 

It's not too hard to realize why Jon chose to do what he did, execute Slynt.  He gave an order and in a military institution if orders are not followed, people die and could result in the entire mission failing.  It's that simple.  You can argue how Jon might've had a bias towards Slynt and he may very well have, but he at least gave Slynt the choice (difficult as it might be, it was a better proposition than to refuse the order) to which Slynt refused.  In this moment Jon has few choices, if he does not discipline Slynt, Jon faces even more defiance and refusals to follow orders and just how is that beneficial to the Watch?  Add to that the previous LC was betrayed by his own men and it's clear to me at least why Jon had to set a harsh example.  Now, even if you don't agree with what he did it's not as if it should be hard to arrive at why and if you can grasp that then it's not hard to come to the conclusion that he did the right thing.

 

Oh and guess what?  The Night's Watch's mission is in peril of failing.  As a Jon hater, you'll probably chalk that up to his command, but in reality it's a result of the men who took issue with the orders they were given.  Not that I necessarily blame them for having reservations, but uhhh, let's just look at the situation: They were doomed to fall to the Wildlings if they went un-relieved; well Stannis relieved them.  Now that might appear to be all on Stannis, but hey guess what, WHO sent the raven to Stannis asking for men/relief?  I'll give you a hint: it's not Slynt, nor was it anyone involved in stabbing their LC.

 

Next, when Stannis leaves the Wall and Jon is again left with too-few men on the Wall and he devises a completely practical plan to have the Wildlings aid in a fair exchange.  He sees that plan into action and it is showing promise.  Meanwhile, what 'plans' were these mutineers coming up with?  What pleas were they making with other Lords of the Realm?  Nadda.  What exactly is their plan now that they've committed mutiny for the second time in what... a year, two tops?  Send the Wildlings back north of the Wall?  What else?  Oh that's right they didn't have any plan, don't forget about Jon hammering out a deal with the I.B. either.  Where were the mutineers in coming up with that plan?  

 

Jon was completely justified to execute Janos and probably should've executed more.  While the Wall may be a place for criminals and other undesirables, it doesn't mean that it's without any sort of rules or laws or expectations.  When that wall falls, or the Others get through, how might that have been averted had they followed Jon's orders?  I'll say that the chance of success with Jon was higher than the chance they're going to have without him.

 

Hate the character all you want, the logic here is easy for this decision.  You might argue with so few men a loss of any is too many, but I'll counter-argue that one bad apple sowing the seeds of dissension has far greater potential for disastrous consequences than ridding the group of that bad apple.  Moronic would have been to not execute Slynt after his open defiance.  Officers in the military will tell you over and over that the one thing you never do is question orders in front of the men, you take it to a private discussion because it undermines authority and once that happens it's damn near impossible to change course.

[Mithras]

just for some clarification, is the idea behind why MMD would bother to involve herself in killing Drogo and Rhaego (despite the inevitability of their deaths if she took no action) a way for her to assert some semblance of ownership and agency in an otherwise powerless situation?

 

I mean, is the argument that MMD didn't know the two would invariably die (or that there would be a chance they wouldn't die without her involvement), or that she involved herself merely to put a stamp of ownership on it?    I think the argument that she involved herself in the already inevitable to regain a sense of agency might be a more compelling one.    

 

Which I think is more or less what the other side is arguing as the rationale for why she claimed ownership of the actions afterward, right?   

 

Which brings us to the question: Did Tyrion confess murdering Joffrey to Jaime for the same reason, although we perfectly knew that he did not do it? 

[JonCon's Red Beard]

^Why is Tyrion even a comparable point? Just because he saw someone something hurtful doesn't mean the situations the same: we're stripping them from context.

Tyrion's actions were never in order to make a bigger good, which is why MMD claims to have done (allegedly). Tyrion's actions for hurting Jaime with his words were meant to hurt him and get even after he confessed. And we know, as we have his PoV during Dance, that he feels terrible for have lost Jaime's love.

Also, Jaime kept the lie because he was either too coward to fight his father or due to love and not wanting to hurt him more. Jaime, despite he also grew with the toxic influence of Tywin, was not a victim in this position. There are a lot of situations in which Jaime can be seen as a victim, but this is not one of those cases: he was a grown man who took a choice.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

Rhaegos death was BY NO MEANS inevitable at the time Mirri began her spell wih Danys consent (which was when Rhaegos fate was sealed).

Quite the contrary. The quote by Jorah that Mithras posted is in context a plea for Dany to flee with Jorah - so that Rhaego might LIVE and avoid having his brains bashed in, to return some day in the future. By acting as she did, Mirri ensured that TStMtW would definitely die... Of course ironically she ensured that she would actually be (re)born.

[Mithras]

^Why is Tyrion even a comparable point? Just because he saw someone something hurtful doesn't mean the situations the same: we're stripping them from context.

 

Tyrion wanted to HURT Jaime for asking a stupid question like “Did you really kill Joffrey?” at that precise moment. He buried the dagger into Jaime’s belly and twisted it. The outcome of those last words was a Jaime who would keep obsessing about that famous sentence (she’s been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and Moon Boy for all I know).

 

Compare that to Dany who thought "If I look back I am lost" after her exchange with MMD and kept doing that up to and including her last chapter in ADwD.

 

Therefore, it is clear that MMD wanted to HURT Dany for the rest of her life and she succeeded in that.

 

Tyrion and MMD snapped at those closest to them in both cases.

[idio]

MMD talks in hindsight. She would know it would come at a high price, but not exactly which. She's not a spirit or demon. But she probably knows that those demons and spirits may draw in people. That's why she explicitly warned Dany not to come into the tent for anything. And she didn't say it for reverse-psychology reasons either.
 
MMD didn't say that she used Rhaego as a sacrifice. Nor does MMD say that MMD knew. She said that Dany knew.

incorrect. it is implied MMD knew exactly what would happen:

Daenerys Targaryen:
[furious] You knew what I was buying, and you knew the price!

Mirri Maz Duur:
[unrepentant] It was wrong of them to burn my temple. It angered the Great Shepherd...

Daenerys Targaryen:
This is not God's work. My child was innocent!

Mirri Maz Duur:
Innocent? He would have been the stallion who mounts the world. Now he will burn no cities, now his Khalasar will trample no nations into dust.

[PatrickStormborn]

 

I fail to see the logic here.

 

Mirri Maz Duur would surely have suspected that the Dothraki would turn their backs on Dany once Drogo fell, no? The Dothraki are notoriously superstitious and fear sorcery ... which MMD would know, considering that she was literally living amongst the Dothraki and was treated badly for being a maegi.

 

But my overall point is that MMD was gambling. She used Rhaego as the sacrifice to keep Drogo alive, but that was dependent on Jorah bringing Dany into the tent - and it only worked because Dany was willing to make whatever sacrifice she had to.

 

just for some clarification, is the idea behind why MMD would bother to involve herself in killing Drogo and Rhaego (despite the inevitability of their deaths if she took no action) a way for her to assert some semblance of ownership and agency in an otherwise powerless situation?

 

I mean, is the argument that MMD didn't know the two would invariably die (or that there would be a chance they wouldn't die without her involvement), or that she involved herself merely to put a stamp of ownership on it?    I think the argument that she involved herself in the already inevitable to regain a sense of agency might be a more compelling one.    

 

Which I think is more or less what the other side is arguing as the rationale for why she claimed ownership of the actions afterward, right?   

 

Well I'm making the argument that MMD deliberately sacrificed Rhaego because I believe that's clearly what we're shown in the text. If Rhaego had not died, what would have been the result of her magic on Drogo? Clearly Rhaego was a key factor as a sacrifice - after all, MMD states that "only death can pay for life", and then states that the horse was not enough. When she argues that Dany knew the price all along, we can infer that Mirri herself obviously knew what the price was.

 

My take on it is that MMD genuinely tried to help Drogo but he didn't take her advice; when she saw that he was dying and Dany was willing to make any sacrifice(*), she saw an opportunity to prevent the birth of the prophesised Dothraki saviour - and she took that opportunity, knowing that her fate was tied to Drogo's anyway.

 

(*) I think the most telling part of the chapter - for me, anyway - is when Dany asks if her life is needed to save Drogo, and Mirri tells her that it isn't. Not only does this quite obviously suggest that Rhaego is the sacrifice, it also ties neatly into how sacrifice is explored throughout the series.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Tyrion wanted to HURT Jaime for asking a stupid question like “Did you really kill Joffrey?” at that precise moment. He buried the dagger into Jaime’s belly and twisted it. The outcome of those last words was a Jaime who would keep obsessing about that famous sentence (she’s been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and Moon Boy for all I know).
 
Compare that to Dany who thought "If I look back I am lost" after her exchange with MMD and kept doing that up to and including her last chapter in ADwD.
 
Therefore, it is clear that MMD wanted to HURT Dany for the rest of her life and she succeeded in that.
 
Tyrion and MMD snapped at those closest to them in both cases.

I still don't see what's the point you try to make or how it helps the argumentation. Two characters might be doing similar actions but if they have different motivations, the scenario is not the same.

MMD had two main reasons for doing what he did: 1. She, in fact, thought she was saving the world from a future slaver/rapist and 2. her personal revenge. And that's assuming she was involved at all. If she was not, she only wanted to hurt Dany in the best way she could. Tyrion had no selfless reasons for doing what he did. He plainly wanted to hurt Jaime and he wanted to harm others after that (he ended up killing his father at the end).

If you're using this comparison to prove that MMD was not involved, again, that is not what matters in this discussion. Whether she did it or not, it was HER CHOICE to claim responsibility in order to hurt Dany. Tyrion could have also use words in which he didn't claim be the murdered of Joffrey and still could have messed up with Jaime's head. That was his choice. MMD's choice was to hurt Dany.

And if she was not involved at all, it was, imo, worst. Because a tragedy happened to a woman that indeed tried to help her and she used that tragedy to "teach her a lesson", put her on her place and assert herself by gloating in the misfortune of someone who was not, at the end, different from her :dunno:

[Mithras]

incorrect. it is implied MMD knew exactly what would happen:

Daenerys Targaryen:
[furious] You knew what I was buying, and you knew the price!

Mirri Maz Duur:
[unrepentant] It was wrong of them to burn my temple. It angered the Great Shepherd...

Daenerys Targaryen:
This is not God's work. My child was innocent!

Mirri Maz Duur:
Innocent? He would have been the stallion who mounts the world. Now he will burn no cities, now his Khalasar will trample no nations into dust.

 

“Technically speaking”, MMD never admitted killing Rhaego and Drogo, not in this case nor anywhere else. She just let Dany make her own conclusions.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

incorrect. it is implied MMD knew exactly what would happen:

Daenerys Targaryen:
[furious] You knew what I was buying, and you knew the price!

Mirri Maz Duur:
[unrepentant] It was wrong of them to burn my temple. It angered the Great Shepherd...

Daenerys Targaryen:
This is not God's work. My child was innocent!

Mirri Maz Duur:
Innocent? He would have been the stallion who mounts the world. Now he will burn no cities, now his Khalasar will trample no nations into dust.

 

Incorrect, how? The dialogue that you've quote below is a product of hindsight, for both characters involved. Mirri can claim knowledge all she wants now that everything is said and done. It doesn't matter at all in regards to proving what knowledge she had (or did not have) a priori.

[SeanF]

Patrick,

 

That's pretty much how I read it.  And, you're right to point out that Mirri brought about fulfilment of the prophecy, while trying to avert it.

 

I do wonder if Dany's vision of Rhaego in the H O T U is in some sense, a vision of herself.  That is a conqueror who is part Targaryen/part Dothraki (not Dothraki ethnically, but culturally).