Anyone else rooting against Dany?

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, JonisHenryTudor said:

<snip>

If Robert Baratheon had managed to establish a stable monarchy, that more or less wasn't terrible, I'd be absolutely opposed to Dany trying to re-take the throne for the Targaryens. I'd be about as sympathetic to Dany's attempts to re-take the the throne as I would be to Imelda Marcos trying to become the dictator of the Phillipines after her husband was ousted from power.

But, as things stand now, things are a mess in Westeros and Robert Baratheon was not successful in establishing a stable dynasty that didn't produce tyrants. The upshot, accordingly, is that I'm willing to entertain or live with Dany taking the IT or becoming queen of Westeros. Cersei's regime clearly needs to go.

I'm willing to give her some leeway her. I think she might be able to pull off becoming queen, while dealing honestly and forthrightly with the legacy of RR.

[readingworm]

I’m not completely rooting against Dany, but having the Dothrakis invade Westeros is a monumental mistake.  There is no way she will be able to control them, she should know by everything that has happened in Slaver’s Bay that you can’t change a culture that quickly (if ever completely).  Look how the people of Westeros feel about the Wildlings and they are from Westeros.  I can see the Unsullied being eventually accepted, they would be more of a “Queen’s Army”, probably permanently and wouldn’t be installed as any type of power. But what the hell is she going to do with the Dothrakis once Westeros is “conquered”?  Even during Aegon’s Conquest he wasn’t trying destroy the noble houses, most of them (if they bent the knee) retained their land (titles changed).  Can you imagine if they brought people like the Dothrakis with them, how much harder do you think they would have fought? Talk about going backwards. How well do you think they would fair against an actual army?  Right now they raid villages and use intimidation tactics, put them against an army like the Lannister’s and see how well they do. 

Someone should also inform her of the Blackfyre Rebellions and how well an army composed of sell swords do.  None of the people she is creating an army from are invested in the land they are trying to conquer.

“She stared into the flames and all she sees is SNOW”  lets hope.

[OldGimletEye]

On 5/30/2016 at 5:59 PM, Orphalesion said:

Bottom-line, the story pretty much illustrates how much feudalism sucks.

Well feudalism certainly isn't as good as liberal democracy with universal suffrage and all that.
But, compared to other forms of government at the time, perhaps it doesn't come off that badly. Certainly there some evidence that after 1000 AD or so, feudalism produced more stable regimes than some other more autocratic systems.
Also, having had some interest in the state development literature, one gets the suspicion that liberal democracy had it's origins in the feudal system and that wasn't just something that just appeared out of the blue during the 18th Century.

The point here, I think, is that there might be a case for feudalism as opposed to some completely autocratic system backed by dragons and a big ol' Khalassar.

[JonisHenryTudor]

32 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Cersei's regime clearly needs to go.

 

Yes, yes it does. 

[the trees have eyes]

2 hours ago, JonisHenryTudor said:

You missed my point, which is why I avoid these arguments as much as possible. Not everyone sees people the same way period. We may meet the same person in public at the same time, and you may think the person is acting snobbish but I suggest well no this person said/did this for this reason. Perspective is everything, and from my perspective I simply do not like her character. 

I also clearly stated that this was just one example. So no, it is not the only thing I have against her character. 

Henry Tudor's role, and that of his family's, in the Wars of the Roses was a little more complex than that....  I am really not sure what that has to do with anything. 

No, I got your point but the reasons you give for holding your opinion just beg a lot of questions about why you don't have a similar disdain for Aegon or think that Stannis, the Starks or Tyrion or the entire Golden Company should accept their disinheritance.  It just seems a special slide rule is brought out to measure and criticise Dany.  And for someone who wants to avoid debates about Dany you sure have a lot to say!

Surely you understand the irony of your airing the view that Dany "is a spoiled child who is willing to create nothing but chaos to take something that no longer belongs to her" while having Henry Tudor as an avatar.  The guy literally lived in exile in France during his childhood and launched an invasion of England using French and Scottish troops to help secure the throne! Apparently this sort of thing is ok unless you're Dany in which case it's to be bitterly condemned.

[Neolaina]

10 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

That would mean that children who just happen to inherit their family's business had to die. 

==

Genocide is killing someone for who they are not for what they have done. She tortured 163 people as an example without knowing or even caring if they had killed those children which means that she basically killed them because of who they were, she ordered the deaths of 12+ years old people without actually being sure how old those who had died were because they were wearing tokars and not about what they had done. She committed genocide.

 

1) That it would.

2) In my eyes, I tend to opt for the definition of genocide as put forth by the UN, as opposed to the more general definition you've put forth:

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part 1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I don't consider the slavers as being a different nationality, ethnicity, race or religious group that differs from the slave class in Astapor. I also don't recognize the caste system that separates the slaveowners from the slaves as being an element of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. What she committed was mass murder. Which, while it may be unjust and repugnant for the reasons you've given - "killing someone for who they are, not for what they have done." -, does not constitute genocide.

I also happen to believe too many people conflate the definitions of the two, as the word genocide carries a heavier, more damning weight. I've studied too many genocides in history to wantonly throw the word around.

We don't need to agree on this, but at least you'll get a chance to understand why I see things the way I do.

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, khal drogon said:

1) No I said two different things. That smallfolk are already bad under the current nobles. It is against the argument that Dany would be worse for the small folk than current lords.

2) Second thing I don't care for those nobles as I don't like how they treat smallfolk.

3) And I said I don't care if Dany killed them and that I am actually apathetic. 

I don't see how do you imply that I said it is appropriate for her to kill them or that they deserve to die. I specifically used the term "I don't care if they die" not they "should die" for point #2. Maybe the way I sentenced that is a problem as I am not very good with this language. 

Okay here is what you wrote:

Quote

It is not like the smallfolk are happy under the present rulers. I don't care if she burned all the nobles of Westeros. They are already bad to the smallfolk that Dany can't be worse. I don't care what Westerosi thinks about her because it looks she is going to save them all from the bigger threat. At this point I am convinced the Throne is not her end game. There is no point to root against her unless one believes she will be a bigger threat than the ice demons. But that is so fan-ficy nothing like George would write.

First, I don't think your assertion here is exactly accurate. While its true that large segments are understandably unhappy with the current state of affairs, I don't not think its the case that all the small folk are unhappy with their current leaders. For instances, we get some hints that in Dorne, the Martells have a broad degree of support from the small folk. And I think that is likely true in the North as well.

Also, if your going to say, you don't like the system of aristocracy in Westeros, well that's fine by me. I really don't like it either. But, whatever my opinion of it may be, that's how things work in their society. As GRRM has said I believe, it would be a bit ridiculous to expect these people to have our modern attitudes. If your going to crap on all the nobles in Westeros for believing in "the system", then well you might as well crap on Dany too, because she believes in it too evidently.

Also, I think trying to split hairs here. Just because your now claiming that you're not saying that Dany should kill all the nobles, but only you don't care if she does doesn't make your statement that much better. The reckless disregard of the murder and death of others is a problem. Particularly if it leads to deaths of nobles, who considering all things, are fairly decent to their small folk. And it's a problem if Dany just flagrantly and recklessly starts killing the nobility, when she has no real viable plan in place to actually govern Westeros with the nobility gone. And it's a problem if Dany just recklessly and flagrantly starts wiping out the nobility and it's justified by the notion that all the nobility is bad, but yet basically Dany holds the same political and ideological views as the nobility that she is allegedly entitled to exterminate in "the name of the people" of Westeros.

But, hey understand there is always going to be that subset of the fandom that's always looking for a an extremely broad justification for Dany to commit mass killings in Westeros whether that justification be Khaleesi Just War Theory or the idea that Dany is going to be the bringer social or liberal democracy in Westeros, while somehow still claiming to be the "rightful" Queen.

Although, I guess I agree with your statement that it's kind of hard to say whether Dany would be worse for the small folk, given how messed up everything is, at least in the long run. Depends I guess on how Dany handles matters in Westeros.

 

[khal drogon]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay heris what you wrote:

First, I don't think your assertion here is exactly accurate. While its true that large segments are understandably unhappy with the current state of affairs, I don't not think its the case that all the small folk are unhappy with their current leaders. For instances, we get some hints that in Dorne, the Martells have a broad degree of support from the small folk. And I think that is likely true in the North as well.

Also, if your going to say, you don't like the system of aristocracy in Westeros, well that's fine by me. I really don't like it either. But, whatever my opinion of it may be, that's how things work in their society. As GRRM has said I believe, it would be a bit ridiculous to expect these people to have our modern attitudes. If your going to crap on all the nobles in Westeros for believing in "the system", then well you might as well crap on Dany too, because she believes in it too evidently.

Also, I think trying to split hairs here. Just because your now claiming that you're not saying that Dany should kill all the nobles, but only you don't care if she does doesn't make your statement that much better. The reckless disregard of the murder and death of others is a problem. Particularly if it leads to deaths of nobles, who considering all things, are fairly decent to their small folk. And it's a problem if Dany just flagrantly and recklessly starts killing the nobility, when she has no real viable plan in place to actually govern Westeros with the nobility gone. And it's a problem if Dany just recklessly and flagrantly starts wiping out the nobility and it's justified by the notion that all the nobility is bad, but yet basically Dany holds the same political and ideological views as the nobility that she is allegedly entitled to exterminate in "the name of the people" of Westeros.

But, hey understand there is always going to be that subset of the fandom that's always looking for a an extremely broad justification for Dany to commit mass killings in Westeros whether that justification be Khaleesi Just War Theory or the idea that Dany is going to be the bringer social or liberal democracy in Westeros, while somehow still claiming to be the "rightful" Queen.

Although, I guess I agree with your statement that it's kind of hard to say whether Dany would be worse for the small folk, given how messed up everything is, at least in the long run. Depends I guess on how Dany handles matters in Westeros.

 

Now you are nitpicking my post, twisting my words and postulating a theory about a part of the fandom. While all I have said is disjointed things that I felt. Well done. Now I regret making that post.

[JonisHenryTudor]

5 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

No, I got your point but the reasons you give for holding your opinion just beg a lot of questions about why you don't have a similar disdain for Aegon or think that Stannis, the Starks or Tyrion or the entire Golden Company should accept their disinheritance.  It just seems a special slide rule is brought out to measure and criticise Dany.  And for someone who wants to avoid debates about Dany you sure have a lot to say!

Surely you understand the irony of your airing the view that Dany "is a spoiled child who is willing to create nothing but chaos to take something that no longer belongs to her" while having Henry Tudor as an avatar.  The guy literally lived in exile in France during his childhood and launched an invasion of England using French and Scottish troops to help secure the throne! Apparently this sort of thing is ok unless you're Dany in which case it's to be bitterly condemned.

The avatar is of Jon Snow and Ghost. Again what does Henry Tudor have to do with anything. I only chose the handle (name) because of certain similarities between him and Jon. Other characters such as fAegon and even Dany have characteristics of Henry. I also think you are simplifying Henry's story, and are missing far too much; but it really is beside the point. I am a phd student in history, so I tend to lean on historical figures because they interest me, and that is the only reason I have created a handle with Henry in it. I never said I was a fan of Henry, and the Tudors as a ruling dynasty quite frankly irritate me even if they are interesting. 

 

The Starks want their home back from a psychopath who "unlawfully" took Winterfell. They are not aiming to strip the entire continent from the rightful king. 

 

Stannis - Is the rightful king based on medieval politics. The IT was held by a Baratheon, and since Bobby's children are illegitimate, the throne legally should go to Stannis. So Stannis' cause is actually just whether you like his character or not. I don't like Mel, and it is one aspect of Stannis' narrative that I dislike. Happy now? 

 

The GC - I don't like anything that has to do with Essos, so...Take that as you will. fAegon just popped into the story, so I really have very little opinion of him. 

 

Dany - Thinks the 7 Kingdoms belong to her, but never really questions why her family lost it in the first place. She refuses advice on the matter. 

 

Yes. I do have a lot to say, and I have barely attempted to lay it all out. If you would like, I could go through all five (four) books and draw up a very lengthy and proper composition laying down several reasons for why I dislike her and cite hundreds of things? But what good would that do? You will still defend her and I will still dislike her?

Again, I return to my previous comment. Why is it that Dany fans feel the absurd compulsion to defend a character instead of accepting that some people simply do not like her? I don't go out of my way to confront every fan who hates Jon and wants him to die. Something about Jon rubbed them the wrong way, and they don't connect with his character. It really is that simple. Are you telling me that every single person that you have come into contact with, you like? Nobody has ever rubbed you the wrong way? Bothered you in any sort of way? Seriously? Get over it, people dislike her just as people dislike Jon. Some people love Cersei. Some love Roose. Others the Freys. I think they are repulsive, but those people have every right to like those characters for whatever reason. I think she is spoiled, self-entitled, and has a highly distorted view of herself and her family and it shows in some of her decisions and statements about the families of Westeros among other things. If you do not think that, fine more power to you. But that does not mean that your perspective is one-size fits all. 

 

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

11 hours ago, Neolaina said:

1) That it would.

So the children are to blame about their family's crimes? Are you serious.

11 hours ago, Neolaina said:

2) In my eyes, I tend to opt for the definition of genocide as put forth by the UN, as opposed to the more general definition you've put forth:

[...]

I don't consider the slavers as being a different nationality, ethnicity, race or religious group that differs from the slave class in Astapor. I also don't recognize the caste system that separates the slaveowners from the slaves as being an element of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. What she committed was mass murder. Which, while it may be unjust and repugnant for the reasons you've given - "killing someone for who they are, not for what they have done." -, does not constitute genocide.

The fact that you don't recognize the genocide doesn't mean that isn't. In a place which is called Slaver's Bay slavery it’s pretty damn obvious that slavery was a cultural attitude, a really horrendous cultural aspect but still a part of their cultures.  They were born and raised the have lived their whole lives in that culture, someone killing them for that is a genocide.

11 hours ago, Neolaina said:

. I've studied too many genocides in history to wantonly throw the word around.

I love this part; I have read about it so I know more about it that you do. 

11 hours ago, Neolaina said:

We don't need to agree on this, but at least you'll get a chance to understand why I see things the way I do.

I understand, you are a Dany fan and cannot see that she has done something horrendous to some people, even if they were terrible human beings, what she did was horrendous.

[Delete Please]

I am. I won't get into detail like some. 

 

Ill just say say that I'm tired of Dany's arc. I hated Sansa at the start, but now I am loving her character. 

On the flip side, I liked Dany at the start, but now I hate her  

 

she seems too perfect, yet the show is trying to make me like her, when I don't like a thing she is doing or who she is anymore  

 

You have dragons ? Great ! You have an army of super loyal soldiers and a hot merc commander BF? Cool.  So go back to Westeros and make alliances and get back your throne .

Inatead she keeps doing dumb things that only bog her down. If she wants Westeros , she has no business trying to run Essos. She should stay her butt in Mereen and rule there. Stop trying to be the "mother of dragons" and 9 thousand other titles she has, and bow out of the story .

 

Her character feels like the they want her to be the stereotypical fantasy hero here,  but she is literally in her own story and has no impact on the main plot . Remove her, and the story would be much better (my opinion ) 

The only way her arc will interest me is if it turns out she is really crazy and a villain, and this perception we have of her is how she sees herself.

 

 

 

[the trees have eyes]

6 hours ago, JonisHenryTudor said:

The avatar is of Jon Snow and Ghost. Again what does Henry Tudor have to do with anything. I only chose the handle (name) because of certain similarities between him and Jon. Other characters such as fAegon and even Dany have characteristics of Henry. I also think you are simplifying Henry's story, and are missing far too much; but it really is beside the point. I am a phd student in history, so I tend to lean on historical figures because they interest me, and that is the only reason I have created a handle with Henry in it. I never said I was a fan of Henry, and the Tudors as a ruling dynasty quite frankly irritate me even if they are interesting. 

 

The Starks want their home back from a psychopath who "unlawfully" took Winterfell. They are not aiming to strip the entire continent from the rightful king. 

 

Stannis - Is the rightful king based on medieval politics. The IT was held by a Baratheon, and since Bobby's children are illegitimate, the throne legally should go to Stannis. So Stannis' cause is actually just whether you like his character or not. I don't like Mel, and it is one aspect of Stannis' narrative that I dislike. Happy now? 

 

The GC - I don't like anything that has to do with Essos, so...Take that as you will. fAegon just popped into the story, so I really have very little opinion of him. 

 

Dany - Thinks the 7 Kingdoms belong to her, but never really questions why her family lost it in the first place. She refuses advice on the matter. 

 

Yes. I do have a lot to say, and I have barely attempted to lay it all out. If you would like, I could go through all five (four) books and draw up a very lengthy and proper composition laying down several reasons for why I dislike her and cite hundreds of things? But what good would that do? You will still defend her and I will still dislike her?

Again, I return to my previous comment. Why is it that Dany fans feel the absurd compulsion to defend a character instead of accepting that some people simply do not like her? I don't go out of my way to confront every fan who hates Jon and wants him to die. Something about Jon rubbed them the wrong way, and they don't connect with his character. It really is that simple. Are you telling me that every single person that you have come into contact with, you like? Nobody has ever rubbed you the wrong way? Bothered you in any sort of way? Seriously? Get over it, people dislike her just as people dislike Jon. Some people love Cersei. Some love Roose. Others the Freys. I think they are repulsive, but those people have every right to like those characters for whatever reason. I think she is spoiled, self-entitled, and has a highly distorted view of herself and her family and it shows in some of her decisions and statements about the families of Westeros among other things. If you do not think that, fine more power to you. But that does not mean that your perspective is one-size fits all. 

 

 

Well if you don't see the irony of having Henry Tudor as your forum name and giving Dany's intention to return to Westeros and take the throne as "self-entitled" and "causing chaos to recover something that no longer belongs to her" then I think you are missing something obvious.  And, yes, I would say that the parallels between Dany and Henry are stonger than between Jon and Henry (at least at this point in the story).

So its ok for Stannis to cause as much chaos as he likes to try and take the throne or the Starks to try and take Winterfell back from the "rightful owners" / psycopath but not for Dany to take her inheritance back from the "usurper's dogs" who took it from her.  It's ok for Aegon and the GC to invade to restore their inheritances but not Dany to even think about how she might regain the throne.

I suppose I am looking for the reasons you don't like her to stack up rather than sound like attempts to rationalise an instinctive dislike for a character, particularly as you rationalise those things in a positive way for other characters in the series or for historical figures.

For what its worth my degree was in history and I studied the Tudor period back in the day so I'm pretty comfortable talking about Henry VII.

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Well if you don't see the irony of having Henry Tudor as your forum name and giving Dany's intention to return to Westeros and take the throne as "self-entitled" and "causing chaos to recover something that no longer belongs to her" then I think you are missing something obvious.  And, yes, I would say that the parallels between Dany and Henry are stonger than between Jon and Henry (at least at this point in the story).

So its ok for Stannis to cause as much chaos as he likes to try and take the throne or the Starks to try and take Winterfell back from the "rightful owners" / psycopath but not for Dany to take her inheritance back from the "usurper's dogs" who took it from her.  It's ok for Aegon and the GC to invade to restore their inheritances but not Dany to even think about how she might regain the throne.

I suppose I am looking for the reasons you don't like her to stack up rather than sound like attempts to rationalise an instinctive dislike for a character, particularly as you rationalise those things in a positive way for other characters in the series or for historical figures.

For what its worth my degree was in history and I studied the Tudor period back in the day so I'm pretty comfortable talking about Henry VII.

Dany has a legitimate grievance.  Not just because her family lost the Iron Throne, but because Robert and Tywin wanted to wipe out her family, and years later,  Robert attempted to murder her.  If she'd been captured as a baby at Dragonstone, in all likelihood, she'd have just had her head smashed against the wall.

But, even if she has a legitimate grievance, it's still fair to ask whether any good she'll achieve by asserting her rights will outweigh the harm.  We don't know at this stage.  Dany (in the Show) is becoming a megalomaniac, but that's not necessarily how her story will progress in the books.

[Neolaina]

29 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

So the children are to blame about their family's crimes? Are you serious.

The fact that you don't recognize the genocide doesn't mean that isn't. In a place which is called Slaver's Bay slavery it’s pretty damn obvious that slavery was a cultural attitude, a really horrendous cultural aspect but still a part of their cultures.  They were born and raised the have lived their whole lives in that culture, someone killing them for that is a genocide.

 

I love this part; I have read about it so I know more about it that you do. 

I understand, you are a Dany fan and cannot see that she has done something horrendous to some people, even if they were terrible human beings, what she did was horrendous.

 

1) Yes, though it does make me wonder what roll children 12 and above play in the trade. Why 12, why not 10, or 9, or 8? When do Astapori youth start working in the trade? Are they culpable? Are they innocent? I'm not sure we have any actual material to use to play this out. Who's to say the children 12 and older aren't complicit?

2) The fact that you call something genocide doesn't mean it is. While it is obvious that slavery is part of their culture, I would argue that this is the only instance wherein such a method is used, and it's not used against their cultural choice of slavery. It's directly tied to the crucifixion of the 163 children they see on the walk to Astapor. The target of the punishment is the slaver class, yes, but not because of their cultures, not because they're slavers. People were unfairly chosen to suffer for the crime, assumed to be guilty, that can't be denied. And the terms of the punishment were unduly harsh. She held these people responsible, albeit as a whole, for this particular crime.

3) I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Ever. That helps no one. What I said was "I've studied too many genocides in history to wantonly throw the word around." In no way did this remark on what anyone else knows regarding the topic. It's a personal preference regarding word choice, based on what I consider to be genocide, based on what I've studied. I've already said you don't have to agree nor have I disparaged your point of view regarding the use of the word genocide in a way that might differ from mine. Our definitions need not line up to keep this civil. 

4) And, no, I'm not a Dany fan.

We can keep going back and forth, but at this point, I don't really care to. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

26 minutes ago, Neolaina said:

1) Yes, though it does make me wonder what roll children 12 and above play in the trade. Why 12, why not 10, or 9, or 8? When do Astapori youth start working in the trade? Are they culpable? Are they innocent? I'm not sure we have any actual material to use to play this out. Who's to say the children 12 and older aren't complicit?

So Rhaenys, Aegon, Viserys and Dany were to blame for what their family have done and should had been killed? 

34 minutes ago, Neolaina said:

2) The fact that you call something genocide doesn't mean it is. While it is obvious that slavery is part of their culture, I would argue that this is the only instance wherein such a method is used, and it's not used against their cultural choice of slavery. It's directly tied to the crucifixion of the 163 children they see on the walk to Astapor. The target of the punishment is the slaver class, yes, but not because of their cultures, not because they're slavers. People were unfairly chosen to suffer for the crime, assumed to be guilty, that can't be denied. And the terms of the punishment were unduly harsh. She held these people responsible, albeit as a whole, for this particular crime.

She killed them by torture them because of whom they were; she killed them without knowing if they were those who killed that children, which means that she killed them for who they were and not about what they had or they hadn't done. That is why she committed genocide against a group of people who were part of a certain culture. If she had killed just the killers she would had committed a mass murder but she chose to kill people who may not be guilty.

39 minutes ago, Neolaina said:

3) I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Ever. That helps no one. What I said was "I've studied too many genocides in history to wantonly throw the word around." In no way did this remark on what anyone else knows regarding the topic. It's a personal preference regarding word choice, based on what I consider to be genocide, based on what I've studied. I've already said you don't have to agree nor have I disparaged your point of view regarding the use of the word genocide in a way that might differ from mine. Our definitions need not line up to keep this civil. 

It seemed like you said that you studied genocides to prove that you are right. 

45 minutes ago, Neolaina said:

4) And, no, I'm not a Dany fan.

Sure.

46 minutes ago, Neolaina said:

We can keep going back and forth, but at this point, I don't really care to. 

Cool. I am not interesting to discuss with someone who defends a sordid person.

[OuttaOldtown]

Sure, I might eventually but I don't hate her, I hate house Baratheon & hope every single stag in Westeros is killed in brutal fashion..

[Clegane'sPup]

I’m kinda indifferent about this character. I can’t figure out why Martin didn’t just let her go with Barristan & Belwas back to Pentos on the ships Illyrio provided.  It would have cut out all of the Slaver Bay stuff.

[Nissa]

On 6/1/2016 at 7:15 PM, Writhen said:

I'm rooting for her. She can be King Rickon's queen.

I'm just sitting back and enjoying this thread. I particularly liked the above. Points for creativity.

 

I'm 50/50 on the dany topic. I think it's a little odd that everyone is up in arms about her being entitled and 'brat-y' I mean she's a Targaryan with dragons. She's also the only one on the planet who has dragons. She should feel a little entitled. I think the reason she has been delaying her trip to westeros other than a lack of resources is that she knows she needs to learn how to rule. That should get her some credit to her character. That all being said her story line has dragged like no other. I totally understand the negative feelings about her relationship with khal drogo. I feel like she has some crimes she should be accountable for. I think her character knows that however and has an inner conflict about it on a regular basis. And I also agree that she has madness in her. Wasn't there a line somewhere from Aemon mentioning that the dragons caused madness in his family? I don't mean literally but I feel like he was referring to an obsession rooted in their psyche that drove them either over the edge or right up to the edge of madness. Unless I made that up. 

[OldGimletEye]

45 minutes ago, Nissa said:

She's also the only one on the planet who has dragons. She should feel a little entitled. 

Yeah, well, that's kind of like somebody saying, "I'm 6'6" 300 lbs and I can beat you up because I'm bigger than you. Thanks for the beer nerd. Now get yourself one."

Just because you might be bigger and stronger than someone else doesn't mean you should start fucking with them, just because you can.

[Nissa]

so @OldGimletEye are you anti-dragon? not accusing just curious