Springwatch Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 7 hours ago, Lollygag said: But now that you mention it, I looked up the use of wench in A Search of Ice and Fire, and a vast majority of the uses refer to prostitution. It doesn't really work for Jaime and Brienne though, but now I'm wondering if we're supposed to read into Jaime using that word. Not so much that he was referring to Brienne as a prostitute, but more about Jaime's intent of insult and maybe his frame of mind after a year or so of forced celibacy. Hmmm.... I wouldn't agree that wenches are literally considered prostitutes. On the whole, households keep serving wenches to serve, and kitchen wenches to cook - respectable, if low-ranking jobs. But I do get that these women are seen as fair game by men looking for sex, casual or abusive. Theon tries for consensual sex with 'Esgred', and has exploitative sex with the captain's daughter, but he considers them both wenches. I don't know what Jaime thinks when he uses the word, but he gets totally obsessed with it, can't think of Brienne by any other word. It's the word she hates of course, but maybe also he can't stand the fact that she's currently stronger than him, and not charmed by his famous good looks. Not feminine enough, as he sees it. Anyway, there is something building up about whores, and serving women, and the whole weakness-of-women theme ('tears are the women's weapon'). The books already have wise fools, heroic cravens, truth-telling madmen - GRRM likes his inversions. The weakness of women could be the biggest inversion yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Sidious Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 On 4/13/2018 at 6:00 AM, ResidentHi11 said: I do have to say, it is another credit to Martin that he created a world with varied societies and norms (many of which parallel real world issues, past and present) that we can actually debate back and forth the moral ethics of the differing civilizations and the characters that act with or against said civilizations. The same author also mentioned that he is not a complete pacifists and would have suited up to fight the Nazis. There is no other war more justified within the pages than Dany's war against the slave masters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost+Nymeria4Eva Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Yeah, but she chose randomly from the group. It's not as if she judged each of the Great Masters and chose the 163 most distasteful to crucify. It was a random selection from within a group. That's how all random selections work, really. It's not as if she could randomly choose someone from Westeros or Asshai to crucify, could she? 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: I'm only saying that the Great Masters might not know the reason Daenerys crucified the 163. 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? On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: That's called vengeance. Vengeance is not justice. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: People don't have things stolen from them for being thieves, they don't get raped for being rapers, they don't get stabbed if they stab someone. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: I disagree. Take Melisandre's "executions". They're not like for like, but they were cruel, and many took issue with her burning people alive. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Yeah, she didn't execute them for murdering children. She crucified them because they could be the people who murdered children. Without any kind of proof. That's what makes someone a mad tyrant. If she just executed the right people, I wouldn't have a problem with it. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Sure, they're all shams, but why would they need to go through the farce, if they're not supposed to? 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: I completely disagree. There's no doubt that someone (or someones) within the Great Masters was responsible. Who actually was responsible is entirely in doubt. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: If the Great Masters were one person, that'd be fine. So crucifying 163 people is mas tyranny while doing the same to just one is meh okay? On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: It's entirely possible that Ned did learn about the Others. If someone spoke to me about mythical creatures truly existing (especially if these were their last moments), I'd think they were mad, too. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Perhaps it's hard for me to understand because it's not true. There are quite a few Great Masters (considering Daenerys found 163 to crucify, there must be more), spread all across Meereen (and presumably there are some outside of the city walls, lording over farms and such). I've never seen a compelling argument for why all of these Great Masters would have had to come together to plot the crucifixion of those children. If they didn't come together to plot the deaths of the children, some wouldn't have known about the plot. If they didn't know, how can they be guilty? 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? On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: If they were all guilty, Daenerys should have had them all punished. Why didn't she? Could it be that she didn't actually have any proof that any of them were guilty, and simply wanted vengeance? The number that she had crucified, and the fact that she had them crucified, speaks loudly to her desire for vengeance, not to a desire for justice. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Members of a group are often offered deals to testify against others, so that those who committed the most heinous crimes can be punished more fully by the law. If they were being punished collectively, they'd all get the same punishment, and nobody would turn. So, that's not true. 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? On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: The RICO Act allows, among other things, for leaders to be punished for giving orders to commit crimes. So if someone says "Go kill this guy", they're guilty of the murder. That doesn't mean that the equal of the guy giving the order, who was sitting in a bar across town at the time of the order, is also guilty. If they two guys conspired together, yes, they would both be equally guilty. That's what the act is for. The GM conspire together. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: The fact that they are slavers is proof that they've made the decision to be slavers. What's the proof they were complicit in the crucifixion of those children? "Being a slaver" isn't proof of that. You should probably just go back and read who the GM are. They are not just slavers they are the rulers of Mereen. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Fine, let's go with the Nazi analogy. Being a slaver is akin to being a Nazi. Sure. The crucifixion of the children, however (you know, the crime these people were crucified for), can be more likened to the atrocities committed by Josef Mengele and his ilk. Atrocities that were never placed at the feet of the individual Nazis, despite being Nazi atrocities. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Why would they defect? That's ridiculous. If one of your coworkers does something you don't like, not quitting doesn't mean you accept and approve of their actions. Not to mention, you might not even know what they're doing. Would you sit by if your coworkers decided to KILL children in the name of the organization? Banality of evil much? On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: So you've had 200 years to get used to it. Why not apply it to this situation? 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Why do you think that is? It's because, for those cases, there's no doubt. The only reason there'd be no doubt is when there's a confession, or when the defendant was caught red-handed. Neither of those apply to those Daenerys had crucified. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Yeah, except the war ended. You used the Nazi analogy, so I'll go with it. The Nazis had trials, as you're well aware. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Right, so collective punishment is only okay when you want it to be? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't? Yeah, that, uh, doesn't make sense. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: But how do you know? How can you possibly be so damnably certain? I must have missed the passage when the Great Masters were all sitting together, saying "Muahaha, let's crucify these children. She won't know what hit her", at which point they raised a toast, to pure evil. Seriously, what is it that makes you so certain? Here's the passage from ASOS: Quote The Great Masters of Meereen had withdrawn before Dany’s advance, harvesting all they could and burning what they could not harvest. Scorched fields and poisoned wells had greeted her at every hand. Worst of all, they had nailed a slave child up on every milepost along the coast road from Yunkai, nailed them up still living with their entrails hanging out and one arm always outstretched to point the way to Meereen. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: You keep bringing up the Nuremberg trials. It's worth noting, I think, that they were the trials of 22 Nazis, and only 12 of them were sentenced to death. So... they weren't even punished collectively. 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. On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Nonsense. The group could be two people, and one could still hide things from the other. Like "hiding" children nailed up on a road for everyone to see? On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Did they? I daresay that the vast majority of the Great Masters were within the walls of Meereen when those children were being crucified. Daenerys was on her way, after all. 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! On 4/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: I still don't see why they'd want to defect, but there really wasn't that much time, even if they did. The crucifixions started when Daenerys was 164 miles out from Meereen. A few days. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost+Nymeria4Eva Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 21 hours ago, Agent Orange said: The same author also mentioned that he is not a complete pacifists and would have suited up to fight the Nazis. There is no other war more justified within the pages than Dany's war against the slave masters. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sunland Lord Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1. Daenerys has a messiah complex. She thinks she is this great leader and liberator. But she handled things poorly. She didn't get rid of the slavers entirely, didn't entirely free the slaves. She achieved nothing. Many people died instead. 2. Her delusion of grandeur over being a Targaryen, interestingly enough (probably some psychiatrist would think it is) is based on her birthright to the Iron Throne. She constantly says and thinks that it belongs to her. What does she do to take it back? Yes, that's right, she does nothing. 3. She sits voluntarily in this foreign land because her children (another delusion, they are not her children) need her. They need their freedom, not her. She came there to free them. They don't care for her delusions and dragon blood. I hope she learns this. She was never able to get this through her head. A decent and humble leader knows this. Doesn't learn it after thousands of people die for his own amusement, revenge and lack of realpolitik skills, or lack of focus on the reality itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoodedCrow Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Dany, as far as we know, IS a Targaryen with a fairly convincing pedigree for the right to rule in Westeros. She is not deluded about her birthright, unless you think Barriston Selmy and others are deluded as well. On her own she woke real world dragons...she is not imagining these flying reptilian pets and is actually concerned about their eating habits. At the tender age of 16 or so, Dany has a lot of followers because she has a penchant for empowering underdogs. You may think that is crazy, especially if you own a few slaves, or have a slave heavy business that you would like to protect. She did become a ruling khaleesi, and has the potential to become The Khaleesi, and it will be about guile, charisma and magic, not insanity that she shows no signs of. If you want a great portrait of insanity, have a gander at Cersei’s chapters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H Wadsworth Longfellow Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 On 4/5/2018 at 5:18 PM, Lady Winter Rose said: Just because one is feminine smart ruler, and another is adventurous tomboy assassin, doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading both of them. But to be honest, Dany is more realistic than Arya. There are RL princesses, no matter how much some readers hated idea of princesses in the novel, while Arya is stereotypical rogue of any fantasy novel/game. You're ignoring the many people who like Dany. Your blanket statement is wildly inaccurate. I loath Arya and I like Dany. I know, you were hoping to start a Dany hate thread and you were not expecting a response like mine. But I gave it to your anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H Wadsworth Longfellow Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1 hour ago, HoodedCrow said: If you want a great portrait of insanity, have a gander at Cersei’s chapters. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H Wadsworth Longfellow Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 On 4/9/2018 at 4:00 PM, Tai Pan said: No, the OP is trying to generate a lot of Dany hate comments. It is up to us, the Arya critics to reply in kind. That is how I see the intentions of the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H Wadsworth Longfellow Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 On 4/9/2018 at 5:05 PM, Damsel in Distress said: The fans are really divided on these two characters. They both have their share of adoring fans. But you can't have adoring fans without the critics. That means both are well-written characters. Daenerys Targaryen is my favorite person. I want her to win the game and take back the Iron Throne and rule for the next 80 years. I just love her. I am not a fan of Arya though. There are many reasons that I can think of. This is the best fan site. The site owners co-authored one of the books. I suppose many people are trying very hard to influence the direction the author may take the story. In other words, they want the author to write an ending that favors the characters they love. I see this mostly in the fans who like Jon Snow. They are worried right now because George is more than likely going to keep Jon dead. They are doing what they can to sway George. I have said above that I am a fan of Daenerys Targaryen. She is the "most beautiful woman in the world," the Mother of Dragons, Azor Ahai, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, the Mhysa, the Unburnt, an honest-to-goodness princess, heir to Westeros. Daenerys is very intelligent, slim, athletic, astute, brave, and charismatic. Personally, those are some of the reasons why I love Daenerys. Those blessings are also enough to shake the self-confidence of a lot of insecure boys and girls among the fans. That is the not the case with me. I am not as beautiful, as athletic, nor as smart as Daenerys but I have never lacked in those qualities. Reading the text that describes Daenerys as an almost goddess-like figure does not shake my confidence in the least. It just makes me admire her more. Arya is not attractive. She does not possess charm and elegance. I suppose that appeals to some of the fans out there. I do not find Arya interesting. Haha, you said what needed to be said. Thank you. You have among the readers people who were teased as children and they can empathize with an Arya better than they can with beautiful Daenerys. But they're also ignoring the fact that Daenerys spent years of her childhood on the streets and under the care of an abusive brother. Through ingenuity, creative thinking, and courage she rose above all of that and became the most powerful person in the known world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard of Banefort Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 The idea of Dany's beauty and power making readers feel insecure is an interesting one, but one thing that undermines it a bit is that the majority of women in ASOIAF are described as exceptionally attractive: Sansa, Cat, Cersei, Margaery, Val, Arianne, Tyene, Nymeria, Asha, Ashara, and Melisandre, among others. Even women such as Ygritte, Shae, young Lysa, Elia, and Ellaria are described in ways that make their physical appearance, however peculiar, seem enticing. The only times women are ever described as ugly is when it's fundamental to their character, such as with Brienne. Every female character has fans and haters. But Dany does seem to be unique in how much people appear to dislike her. Perhaps it's because she's the most powerful female character that we have, but I think there also might be a Cool Girl factor at work here, as well. I've noticed that a lot of times female characters who are built up to be beloved by the audience but aren't tend to fall under the Cool Girl umbrella. It's something that usually only appears when the writer is male, and Dany fits the archetype pretty well: she's exceptionally hot without trying to be. She looks great both in a gown and in boiled leather. She eats raw horse meet without ever gaining weight. Every man desires her, and women fall to her feet. She's down for any sex act, any time, any place. She demolishes entire cities without breaking a sweat. She has the ancient royal pedigree down, but also grew up on the run, so she's not spoiled. She sits on a throne above half of Essos, but will get down in the dirt when she chooses to. Cool Girls have a bit of an uncanny valley feeling to them--something about them just doesn't feel right. And that's because Cool Girls aren't real. They exist only in the imagination, and regardless of how fictional something is, people want to find characters relatable to one degree or another. I'm not a huge fan of Arya, but she doesn't fit the Cool Girl mold: she's a tomboy who can't sew or curtsy or fake her way through a ceremony. She doesn't look hot with her hair shorn. She talks back to the men and they laugh at her. George is a terrific writer, and a lot of men who fall into this trope are still talented themselves. But I think one reason why many people want to see Dany go mad is because it would break the Cool Girl mold and make her character more interesting than it is now. Sansa and Cersei and Melisandre are all hot, but the fact that they frequently screw up, make mistakes that have lasting impacts, and have POV characters who hate them is part of what makes them interesting. If the same thing starts happening for Dany, I think her popularity will improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenmaps Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 Just now, The Bard of Banefort said: The idea of Dany's beauty and power making readers feel insecure is an interesting one, but one thing that undermines it a bit is that the majority of women in ASOIAF are described as exceptionally attractive: Sansa, Cat, Cersei, Margaery, Val, Arianne, Tyene, Nymeria, Asha, Ashara, and Melisandre, among others. Even women such as Ygritte, Shae, young Lysa, Elia, and Ellaria are described in ways that make their physical appearance, however peculiar, seem enticing. The only times women are ever described as ugly is when it's fundamental to their character, such as with Brienne. Every female character has fans and haters. But Dany does seem to be unique in how much people appear to dislike her. Perhaps it's because she's the most powerful female character that we have, but I think there also might be a Cool Girl factor at work here, as well. I've noticed that a lot of times female characters who are built up to be beloved by the audience but aren't tend to fall under the Cool Girl umbrella. It's something that usually only appears when the writer is male, and Dany fits the archetype pretty well: she's exceptionally hot without trying to be. She looks great both in a gown and in boiled leather. She eats raw horse meet without ever gaining weight. Every man desires her, and women fall to her feet. She's down for any sex act, any time, any place. She demolishes entire cities without breaking a sweat.She has the ancient royal pedigree down, but also grew up on the run, so she's not spoiled. She sits on a throne above half of Essos, but will get down in the dirt when she chooses to. Cool Girls have a bit of an uncanny valley feeling to them--something about them just doesn't feel right. And that's because Cool Girls aren't real. They exist only in the imagination, and regardless of how fictional something is, people want to find characters relatable to one degree or another. I'm not a huge fan of Arya, but she doesn't fit the Cool Girl mold: she's a tomboy who can't sew or curtsy or fake her way through a ceremony. She doesn't look hot with her hair shorn. She talks back to the men and they laugh at her. George is a terrific writer, and a lot of men who fall into this trope are still talented themselves. But I think one reason why many people want to see Dany go mad is because it would break the Cool Girl mold and make her character more interesting than it is now. Sansa and Cersei and Melisandre are all hot, but the fact that they frequently screw up, make mistakes that have lasting impacts, and have POV characters who hate them is part of what makes them interesting. If the same thing starts happening for Dany, I think her popularity will improve. I think you summed up a lot of people's feelings about Dany, whether they like her or hate her. And no, people aren't insecure about themselves if they don't like Dany. I think comments like that are aimed at women thinking that they are jealous of Dany. And I think Dany also has male critics who aren't jealous of her and there are women who like Dany which has nothing to do with her beauty and power. And I like her because she wants to get rid of slavery and sees it as wrong. And I think its funny that the Valyrian Empire benefited from slavery and a Dany who is of Valyrian descent wants to abolish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberdirectorfreedom Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Because those who crucify children are more deserving of crucifixion themselves than those who don't? 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: Why in the world would she need to randomly choose people from an entire continent to crucify? She wouldn't, that's my point. When people say "random people", they don't tend to mean completely random, chosen from the entire population of the world. "Random people" is to mean people randomly chosen from among a select group. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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? If they don't know about the crucifixion of the children, yes, they wouldn't know why Daenerys crucified those men. I know you believe that they all know, but it's a simple hypothetical: if they didn't all know about the crucifixion of the children, would they know why Daenerys had 163 Great Masters crucified. The answer is no. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Alester Florent, I think, was burned for treason. The point is, people take issue with her method of execution. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: She did execute the right people--the Grand Masters. They are the guilty party, all of them. You can't know that. Daenerys couldn't know that. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: You just want an excuse to portray Dany as the bad guy no matter what. No, I don't. Why would I? That sounds awfully unreasonable. It's not like I benefit from Daenerys being a bad person. I just think she kind of is one. I could put it back on you. You just want to believe that Daenerys is the good guy, no matter what. Except, you know what, I don't think that. I don't think you're being unreasonable, I just think we've interpreted things differently. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. I understand her reasoning for it, I just think she didn't really think it through. She wanted to give those slavers a taste of their own medicine, but didn't stop to think who actually deserved it, nor how it would affect her ability to rule over the rest of them. She wanted bad people to suffer a bad fate, which is not necessarily bad, but damn did she go about it the wrong way. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: Because the Lannisters are powerful. Lysa is covering her backside with a sham trial. Do you see commoners getting trials? Right, she's covering herself. Because if there was no trial, the Lannisters could easily, and truthfully, proclaim it murder. I'm sure commoners get trials, if one is needed. For instance, if a commoner is accused of killing a nobleman, they'd want to be sure that the right person is punished, and so wouldn't just have the commoner executed immediately. Admittedly, there are probably no trials for "trivial things", such as a commoner murdering another commoner. Regardless, the Great Masters aren't commoners. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Yeah, exactly. If Tyrion had evidence that exonerated him of the crime, somehow, and there was no trial by combat, Lysa still would have had to let Tyrion go. It would have defied tradition in that case, too, to murder him. The tradition of not murdering those who are obviously innocent. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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? I've never said that they necessarily had any qualms about killing children, just that they had no part in the crime. Still, enslaving someone is different from crucifying them. You can treat your slaves well, for instance, but you can't... crucify someone nicely. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: There's nothing in the books to indicate that only some GM partook in it. Yes, and there's nothing in the books to indicate that all of the Great Masters partook in it. All that's confirmed in the books is that at least some of the Great Masters partook in it. I just don't see any reason why it'd take all of them to plot this. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: So crucifying 163 people is mas tyranny while doing the same to just one is meh okay? No. If the Great Masters were all one person, there'd be no doubt about that persons guilt in this matter. She would definitely have crucified the correct person. That's not the case with the 163. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: You do know that the kids were propped up on Dany's way to Mereen? How could only some of them know? Well, they were propped up on the way to Meereen. Most of the Great Masters were in Meereen. I think it'd be easy for them not to know. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: She does. She sacks Mereen and abolishes slavery. Right. That's their punishment for slavery. But she doesn't punish them for the crucifixion of the children. Why not? Because she only wanted 163? If they were all a part of it, why should she stop at 163? It definitely sounds to me as if she wasn't interested in justice, but in vengeance. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: You keep talking about vengeance. The murdered children weren't her own. She's not avenging anything she's lost. No, she's not avenging anything she lost. It's because she had to witness it. Mind you, in her own words, she felt like an avenging dragon. Not to mention, she's taken on all of the slaves as "her children", for reasons that elude me. So, in her mind, they were her children. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: You are explaining how the modern justice system is broken. Some cut deals and get away with murder. It's rare for a murderer to be offered a deal. It's usually the more petty criminals that are offered deals to turn on the murderers. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: Why would Dany offer the same for obviously guilty GM? Because they aren't obviously guilty. It's obvious that at least some of them are guilty, no more than that. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: If they two guys conspired together, yes, they would both be equally guilty. That's what the act is for. Yeah, I agree. But people can conspire separately, even if they're part of the same group. 8 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: The GM conspire together. Sure. But did they conspire together on this? Maybe. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not an obvious conclusion. It's entirely possible that it wasn't a collective decision. Also, side note, what would a "collective decision" entail? It'd just be a majority, right? So, if 51% of the Great Masters were for it, it'd still happen. Sure, the 49% would be complicit, they didn't try to stop it, but it'd be possible that the 163 Daenerys crucified were entirely from that 49%. Which would mean that, of the left over former Great Masters, there would now be a larger percentage of people who are for crucifying children. I don't think that's what happened, though, I think it was the actions of a few of them, acting independently, entirely within their power. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: You should probably just go back and read who the GM are. They are not just slavers they are the rulers of Mereen. Yes, well aware. Let me rephrase my question, then. What's the proof they were complicit in the crucifixion of those children? "Being a Great Master" isn't proof of that. Seriously, I do want some proof, if there is some. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: Would you sit by if your coworkers decided to KILL children in the name of the organization? Yes. What my coworkers do has nothing to do with the organization as a whole, and doesn't say anything about me. The actions of my coworkers are the actions of my coworkers, nothing more. I don't have to approve of their actions to keep my job. I have no problem with my coworkers getting punished for their actions. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. That's not how a confession works. I admit that it leaves no doubt that it was done by some among the Great Masters. I've never denied that. But that doesn't mean that they're all guilty. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Okay, so if the Great Masters punished those among them who crucified those children, then you'd think that they weren't all complicit? It's not like they had time to do that, though, even if they wanted to (it's not like they committed any crimes, by Meereenese law), considering immediately after the crucifixions of those children, Meereen was sacked and they lost their power. So, did they need to actually take action to distance themselves from the guilt of the others? They could have been in a position to take action (by which I mean, not complicit in the crime), but didn't take action. Does that somehow make them complicit, in the sense that they plotted the crime? That makes no sense. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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, Yeah, good. We're on the same page. I couldn't agree more, that wouldn't be justice. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: However, that is not the case with the GM. One or two GM don't decide to kill the children. No? How can you be certain? They easily have the power to do what was done. There are a lot of slaves in Meereen, and they only needed 163. Could easily be acquired by a few Great Masters. It's not as if the crucifixion itself would require more Great Masters. They'd just use their soldiers or their other slaves. There's no compelling reason that they all had to be complicit in the crime, for the crime to happen. So, the fact that the crime happened doesn't mean that they're all guilty. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: Does that sound like the actions of one or two people? Yes. One or two very powerful people, with hundreds of slaves and soldiers at their beck and call. All that passage "proves" is that Daenerys believes that the Great Masters are all guilty. It's entirely possible that she's wrong, of course. Ned went through all of A Game of Thrones believing the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn, with nothing to say otherwise, but that wasn't true. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: Like "hiding" children nailed up on a road for everyone to see? Yes. How often do you think the Great Masters were travelling that road, after the children were crucified? I'm thinking not at all. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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? You're kidding. The closest crucifixion was a mile out from the city! The next closest two miles, the furthest 164 miles. One mile is a long enough way. It's hard to make out things that are a mile away. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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? Of course not. That's what you do when you're being besieged. You make it difficult for your besieger. Crucifying children is a first, I think. After all, this is the first anti-slaver crusade that's come to the walls of Meereen, if I'm not mistaken. If the Good Masters of Astapor were besieging Meereen, they wouldn't have crucified any children. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: They make these policies! Yeah, I really don't think there's a "crucify slave children when under siege" policy. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. All they know of Daenerys is that she's killing slavers. Why would they defect to her? To make it easier for her to kill them? She set their envoy on fire, after all. Wait... that may have been a Yunkish envoy. Definitely Yunkish, I checked. Regardless, they don't know much about Daenerys other than she kills slavers. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: And the mistreatment of former slaves continue even after the conquest when the GM cast the unwanted ones into the streets. You think they're obliged to house them? Why? This'll sound crass, but that would be as if your fridge got repossessed, but you had to store it at your house, without using it. Indefinitely. Absolutely not. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: If any of the GM wanted to stop the child killings, they would have, or proclaimed so after Dany overtakes the city. Unless they didn't know about it. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Her later actions don't change what she did here. Her first act as Queen of Meereen, the crucifixion, was the act of an absolute tyrant. Her later action are not those of a tyrant, but of a benevolent dictator. This is not a good thing. Her back and forth about her leadership style is the root cause of her inability to rule over the Meereenese. If she had chosen one from the beginning, absolute tyrant or benevolent dictator, she'd have been able to rule peacefully. She didn't, and she made a right mess of things. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Well, there's no doubt there. She wouldn't have had to deal with the Sons of the Harpy if she simply had all of the Great Masters killed. 9 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: But she should have probably abolished the Grand Mastering institution along with slavery and started over with a new batch of local rulers. I don't disagree. This is what she did with Astapor, which didn't work out, of course. But if she stayed, it would've been alright. She took the lesson from Astapor. Don't leave. But for some reason, she took a different approach with the Meereenese, before staying. Which didn't work at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kandrax Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 2 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said: absolute tyrant Stannis burned people for treachery and canibalism. Is that tyrany? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberdirectorfreedom Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Kandrax said: Stannis burned people for treachery and canibalism. Is that tyrany? Yes. Not sure why you're bringing up Stannis, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skahaz mo Kandaq Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 11 hours ago, The Chains of Heaven said: Haha, you said what needed to be said. Thank you. You have among the readers people who were teased as children and they can empathize with an Arya better than they can with beautiful Daenerys. But they're also ignoring the fact that Daenerys spent years of her childhood on the streets and under the care of an abusive brother. Through ingenuity, creative thinking, and courage she rose above all of that and became the most powerful person in the known world. And you have males who have a bit of the sexists in them. Don't forget those. Here we have a lovely young girl in Dany who grew up under a foster parent, lived on the mean streets of the Free Cities, burdened by Viserys, and married off to an alien culture. Despite all of that, the young girl became khaleesi and rescued millions of people from slavery. That is a hero for you. You win wars by killing your opponents. The masters were the enemies who nailed innocent children in a lame attempt at psychological warfare. This is a war crime and those masters deserved execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skahaz mo Kandaq Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 On 4/12/2018 at 2:56 PM, Widowmaker 811 said: You and I see the situation differently and that is a tribute to Martin. This is war. Make no mistake that what happened and what is happening there in Meereen is war. Let's look at wars that have been conducted within the novels. Arrogant Robb Stark declared rebellion. Do you think the fact that the vast majority of the people who will get killed are innocent? Did it stop him from going to war to obtain justice for his family and his father? People who have nothing to do with the Lannisters or the Starks will die. Did it stop Robb? Dany's cause is way more important than that of Stark wanting to avenge the family patriarch. Stannis Baratheon attacked King's Landing to support his claim to the throne. Did the fact that many innocent people, the very people that he wants to rule over, will die stop him from going forward to support what he sees as his entitlement to the throne? Dany's cause, to help slaves become free men and women, is more important from a moral perspective than Stannis Baratheon's fight to support his claim. Catelyn Stark knew how Lord Tywin would react if she takes Tyrion Lannister into custody. Did it stop Catelyn from pursuing justice for her son even though it would result in the deaths of the truly innocent? It did not. Is Catelyn's cause to pursue justice for one little boy more important than a hero's quest to help slaves become free? I don't think so. Jon Snow tried to get his sister away from Ramsay Bolton even when he knew it could result in the deaths of many people. He knew that if found out, the Boltons would attack the wall and put his innocent Crow brothers in danger. Not to mention disrupt their mission to fight the Others. It didn't stop Jon. Do you believe Dany's mission to help put an end to the slave trade that has taken away the lives of millions of people and will continue to do so until stopped is less important than Jon's mission to help one little sister? It is not. Dany's mission is clearly more important. Listen, is it possible that some of those masters who were crucified were innocent? I don't think so. They were willing participants in the trading and owning of slaves. They signed off on nailing those kids to the cross in an attempt to demoralize a war opponent. But very well, for our discussion, let us assume that a few of those who were executed were innocent of the specific act of nailing those kids to the cross. That is a very narrow window, but let's roll with it for now. Are these men less deserving of death than the small folk that died from Robb's Rebellion? I don't think so. Who is more innocent, the Crow brothers who will face the wrath of the skin doctor because of Jon's meddling in Bolton affairs or these men who have been slavers during their entire lives? The Crow brothers who will die and the Bolton servants who died because of Jon's choices are more deserving of mercy than these masters. Ramsay is an amateur compared to these masters. Are these slave masters who were executed more deserving of the finer points of justice than the men, women, and children who died during Stannis Baratheon's attack on King's Landing? Many who are truly innocent, who have no stake at all in who puts their rump on the throne, died that day. All I am saying is, the finer points of determining guilt or innocence for a very specific, very narrowly-defined act, is far from normal in those primitive times. Daenerys Targaryen was actually very reasonable with her judgment. Think how Stannis punished his own men for cannibalism on the already dead. Mind you, it was his ambition that put them in that predicament in the first place. You don't see too many fans bashing Stannis for that decision. How did Jon Snow punish a sworn brother, a brother who was cleansed of his past crimes when he took his vows, because the man was disrespectful. The Old Bear gave Jon a break for a crime that he could have taken the young wolf's head for. Like Ned took Gared's. Why couldn't Jon show the same forgiveness to Slynt, when he himself was the beneficiary of mercy? I am not condemning Robb, Catelyn, Stannis, and Jon. I am only saying that compared to those people, Daenerys Targaryen's decisions have been more responsible and her cause to help people become free is a very good one. It is alright to criticize a character's actions, but we have to put their actions in context with those of the other characters. Comparing Dany's decisions to the ones made by Robb, Jon, Catelyn, and Stannis makes her look very reasonable. Peace man, and let's keep the discussion civil. It's fine to reach different opinions. We are all biased towards one character. I know I am. Remember that the problems in the Bay are due to the masters trying to hold on to slavery. All they need do is give up the practice for good, not try to bring it back and everything will greatly improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost+Nymeria4Eva Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 3 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said: If they don't know about the crucifixion of the children, yes, they wouldn't know why Daenerys crucified those men. I know you believe that they all know, but it's a simple hypothetical: if they didn't all know about the crucifixion of the children, would they know why Daenerys had 163 Great Masters crucified. The answer is no. 5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said: You can't know that. Daenerys couldn't know that. 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. Quote No, I don't. Why would I? That sounds awfully unreasonable. It's not like I benefit from Daenerys being a bad person. I just think she kind of is one. I could put it back on you. You just want to believe that Daenerys is the good guy, no matter what. Except, you know what, I don't think that. I don't think you're being unreasonable, I just think we've interpreted things differently. 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. Quote I'm sure commoners get trials, if one is needed. For instance, if a commoner is accused of killing a nobleman, they'd want to be sure that the right person is punished, and so wouldn't just have the commoner executed immediately. Admittedly, there are probably no trials for "trivial things", such as a commoner murdering another commoner. 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. Quote Yeah, exactly. If Tyrion had evidence that exonerated him of the crime, somehow, and there was no trial by combat, Lysa still would have had to let Tyrion go. It would have defied tradition in that case, too, to murder him. The tradition of not murdering those who are obviously innocent. 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. Quote I've never said that they necessarily had any qualms about killing children, just that they had no part in the crime. Still, enslaving someone is different from crucifying them. You can treat your slaves well, for instance, but you can't... crucify someone nicely. 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. Quote Yes, and there's nothing in the books to indicate that all of the Great Masters partook in it. All that's confirmed in the books is that at least some of the Great Masters partook in it. I just don't see any reason why it'd take all of them to plot this. Ahahahahahaha… absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Quote Well, they were propped up on the way to Meereen. Most of the Great Masters were in Meereen. I think it'd be easy for them not to know. *facepalm* Quote Right. That's their punishment for slavery. But she doesn't punish them for the crucifixion of the children. Why not? Because she only wanted 163? If they were all a part of it, why should she stop at 163? It definitely sounds to me as if she wasn't interested in justice, but in vengeance. 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? Quote No, she's not avenging anything she lost. It's because she had to witness it. Mind you, in her own words, she felt like an avenging dragon. Not to mention, she's taken on all of the slaves as "her children", for reasons that elude me. So, in her mind, they were her children. You are kidding. Quote It's rare for a murderer to be offered a deal. It's usually the more petty criminals that are offered deals to turn on the murderers. 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. Quote I don't think that's what happened, though, I think it was the actions of a few of them, acting independently, entirely within their power. I suppose only some of them wanted to defend the city too then. Quote Yes, well aware. Let me rephrase my question, then. What's the proof they were complicit in the crucifixion of those children? "Being a Great Master" isn't proof of that. Seriously, I do want some proof, if there is some. More *facepalm*. Quote Yes. What my coworkers do has nothing to do with the organization as a whole, and doesn't say anything about me. The actions of my coworkers are the actions of my coworkers, nothing more. I don't have to approve of their actions to keep my job. I have no problem with my coworkers getting punished for their actions. 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. Quote Okay, so if the Great Masters punished those among them who crucified those children, then you'd think that they weren't all complicit? It's not like they had time to do that, though, even if they wanted to (it's not like they committed any crimes, by Meereenese law), considering immediately after the crucifixions of those children, Meereen was sacked and they lost their power. 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. Quote So, did they need to actually take action to distance themselves from the guilt of the others? They could have been in a position to take action (by which I mean, not complicit in the crime), but didn't take action. Does that somehow make them complicit, in the sense that they plotted the crime? That makes no sense. 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. Quote No? How can you be certain? 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. Quote Yes. One or two very powerful people, with hundreds of slaves and soldiers at their beck and call. All that passage "proves" is that Daenerys believes that the Great Masters are all guilty. It's entirely possible that she's wrong, of course. Ned went through all of A Game of Thrones believing the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn, with nothing to say otherwise, but that wasn't true. 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. Quote Yes. How often do you think the Great Masters were travelling that road, after the children were crucified? I'm thinking not at all. 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. Quote You're kidding. The closest crucifixion was a mile out from the city! The next closest two miles, the furthest 164 miles. One mile is a long enough way. It's hard to make out things that are a mile away. Once again, just no. As in, you have no idea how wrong you are here. Quote Yeah, I really don't think there's a "crucify slave children when under siege" policy. Yes there is one and they just did that. Quote All they know of Daenerys is that she's killing slavers. Why would they defect to her? To make it easier for her to kill them? She set their envoy on fire, after all. Wait... that may have been a Yunkish envoy. Definitely Yunkish, I checked. Regardless, they don't know much about Daenerys other than she kills slavers. 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. Quote You think they're obliged to house them? Why? This'll sound crass, but that would be as if your fridge got repossessed, but you had to store it at your house, without using it. Indefinitely. Absolutely not. 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. Quote Her later actions don't change what she did here. Her first act as Queen of Meereen, the crucifixion, was the act of an absolute tyrant. Her later action are not those of a tyrant, but of a benevolent dictator. This is not a good thing. Her back and forth about her leadership style is the root cause of her inability to rule over the Meereenese. If she had chosen one from the beginning, absolute tyrant or benevolent dictator, she'd have been able to rule peacefully. She didn't, and she made a right mess of things. 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. Quote I don't disagree. This is what she did with Astapor, which didn't work out, of course. But if she stayed, it would've been alright. She took the lesson from Astapor. Don't leave. But for some reason, she took a different approach with the Meereenese, before staying. Which didn't work at all. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost+Nymeria4Eva Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 11 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said: Every female character has fans and haters. But Dany does seem to be unique in how much people appear to dislike her. Perhaps it's because she's the most powerful female character that we have, but I think there also might be a Cool Girl factor at work here, as well. 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). 11 hours ago, goldenmaps said: And I think its funny that the Valyrian Empire benefited from slavery and a Dany who is of Valyrian descent wants to abolish it. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberdirectorfreedom Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. No, it wouldn't. It's not a stretch to believe that the Great Masters have other things on their mind, besides keeping tabs on the others. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: When Dany is in Mereen, some GM don’t come up to her or her advisors and say we didn’t support that. Why would they bother? It's done, now. No point bringing it back up, and risking punishment. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: It’s all in your head. Sure, I suppose it is. Just as your interpretation, which is equally unsupported by the text, is in your head. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: You have made up this convoluted theory Convoluted? There's nothing convoluted about it. Daenerys could have been wrong in her belief that all of the Great Masters were complicit in the crucifixion of the children, and she didn't even try to confirm her belief, she just crucified a like number of Great Masters. Seriously, what's convoluted about that? 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: to prematurely and illogically portray Dany as a crazed tyrant randomly crucify slave masters because they are oh so innocent of child murder. No. I didn't want her to be a crazed tyrant, and go looking for support in the text. I read the text, and came away with the impression that she's a crazed tyrant (in this, at least). 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. A large part of why I'm not calling Tyrion or Jon tyrants is because we're not talking about Tyrion or Jon. We're talking about Daenerys. Regardless of how I feel about Jon or Tyrion, they simply aren't the topic of conversation, so why would I bring them up? Also, why would you? It's not as if I referred to them favourably. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: But you do use this one thing, based on mere theorizing, to call Dany a crazed tyrant. Why do you think that is? I think it's probably because I think those are the actions of a crazed tyrant. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: In the books, characters are considered good or bad based on their ability to empathize. Oh? Here I am, judging people on their actions... 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: If that happened, the commoner would get executed. Everyone she or he knew might also get the axe. Everyone they know? That makes no sense. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: The suspicion would be enough to garner punishment. No one is going to go out of their way to prove a mere commoner innocent. Sure, they don't care to exonerate the commoner, but they do want to ensure that nobody can get away with murdering a nobleman. They'd want the right person. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Yeah, I don't think so. It's not like it's a one on one trial. There was a room full of people. If there was some evidence that was compelling enough to sway the opinion of everyone in the room, there's no way Lysa could get away with killing Tyrion, regardless. At least, not without everyone there knowing that she decided to disregard the evidence, and completely abuse her power to murder him. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Strictly speaking, that's exactly what she does. Slavery wasn't a crime when the Great Masters were doing it, nor was the crucifixion of those children. She did come along and make up crimes to kill people. Don't get me wrong, though, she was within her rights, as Queen, to create her own laws. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: No, just no. There is no “nice” way to enslave people. I never said there's a nice way. But there are certainly ways to have slaves that are comparatively nice, compared to other slaves. There are no ways to crucify someone that is comparatively nice to other crucifixions. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: Ahahahahahaha… absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yeah, that's actually my point. No proof isn't proof that something didn't happen, but it's certainly not proof that it did happen. There's no proof either way, but the burden of proof is not on the accused. Daenerys was supposed to provide the proof that the people she crucified were the ones who were guilty of the crime they were accused of. She didn't even try. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: *facepalm* You have wowed me with your impeccable logic and reasoned arguments. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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? What kind of sense does that make? It has to be about justice, because she cares about the fate of those children? If she didn't care about the fate of those children, she wouldn't want vengeance. 1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: You are kidding. No, really. She considers the slaves her children. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: More *facepalm*. You continue to amaze and astound with your detailed arguments, refuting my points at every turn. Seriously, that's twice now you've ignored that question, despite directly quoting it. I know why, it's because there is no proof they were all complicit. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. How was I to stop my coworker? Ask them to please stop murdering children? I never said I wouldn't go to the police if I had proof or if I witnessed murder. But I'd definitely not quit my job. But no, I wouldn't need to prove anything. The burden of proof wouldn't be on me. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: In the case of the GM, the murder of the children benefits the group as a whole. So? You can do things that benefit others, without them being a part of it. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: It’s part of their defense strategy as I mentioned before. A wayward GM don’t kill the kids for sick personal benefit. I don't think that's true. It's not much of a defense strategy, all it serves to do is piss Daenerys off. It strikes me less as a defensive move, and more of a "we can do what we want" statement. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Right, so because it's "common knowledge", it must be true? There's no way they could be wrong? Just because "the Great Masters" did something, that doesn't mean that they all did it. For instance, say a Great Master had their men destroy someones shop. This person could say that the Great Masters destroyed his shop, despite it being the action of one person (and their goods). The same way people might say that "the cops" did something. That doesn't imply that every police officer did that thing. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Oh, so it's not that they were directly involved with the crime, but that they don't think there was a crime that earned them crucifixion? I... see. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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? Uh huh. So, they possibly didn't know, and definitely didn't care. Why does that mean that they were part of it? Seriously, I don't get it. I'm not saying they were good people, but that doesn't mean they're guilty of this crime. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: Because that’s what’s actually written in the books! The GM act as one. Really? The Great Master Hive Mind is in the books, is it? I don't think so. They're individuals, who make individual decisions. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Okay, they don't think it's a crime. That doesn't mean they partake in these not-crimes. Do you do everything that's legal? I doubt it. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. No, and I never implied that. I'm suggesting that the opinion of POV characters can be wrong. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: Once again, just no. As in, you have no idea how wrong you are here. Enlighten me. You're right, I have no idea how wrong I am. Just saying that isn't very helpful. How wrong am I? Is it easy to see what's happening a mile away? Are the Great Masters themselves watching what's happening from the walls, to see the crucified children? "You're wrong" is the most worthless statement anyone can make. It's not going to change anybody's mind. Why am I wrong? 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: Yes there is one and they just did that. Really? You believe there's a "crucify slaves" policy when being besieged by an anti-slaver opponent, despite the fact that this is the first anti-slaver opponent Meereen has ever had? 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: The slaves are not fridges. They are human beings. Yeah, I told you it'd sound crass. The point stands, though. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: The GM has no obligation to shelter freed slaves and Dany doesn’t make them either. No, she doesn't make them shelter the slaves, but you make it sound as if they're doing the wrong thing. Mistreatment is the word you used. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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 there's any message being sent. They just don't want to house and feed people who aren't working for them. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: I don’t think you know what the word “tyrant” means. Or dictator for that matter. A tyrant is a cruel and oppressive ruler. Definitely fits with my usage. A dictator is a ruler who has total power, typically obtained by force. Also fits my usage. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. Tyrants don't necessarily just murder everyone, and I already stated that Daenerys dances between tyrant and benevolent dictator. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: 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. I agree, she should have. 2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said: She was too accommodating with the Mereneese. That was the problem. ... 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. I agree. Well, not with Daenerys having a keen sense of justice. But regarding whether or not she's a hero, I feel she's got villain and hero within her, fighting for dominance. When she makes a decision, either way, things will go much better for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.