Jump to content

The One Who Kneels

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The One Who Kneels

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Logically it would've substantially bolstered her position and caused mass defections to her side. She had just crushed Cersei's army and demonstrated the power of dragons, showed that those lords serving Cersei could bend the knee to her and maintain their positions and that those who persisted in defiance would lose at a minimum their titles and possibly everything. It didn't only because the entire Cersei vs. Daenerys conflict is a poorly written farce. Another question to pose is what would Daenerys lose by not doing it? Jailing a lord who insults you and rejects your offers of mercy until he reconsiders would've led to a perception that Daenerys is a very weak ruler who can be defied and ignored without serious consequences.
  2. Sure but if the Tyrells were going extinct why weren't the Tarlys fishing to see what Daenerys would offer them before committing? That would've been sensible and it would've been a good start to Daenery's downfall where she refuses the practical solution (just promise the Tarlys control of the Reach once Olenna dies) because she doesn't want to reward and elevate another noble asshole like Randyll Tarly who's only concerned with increasing his own power but this idealism creates a big headache for her in the Reach since none of the nobility is now particularly inclined to declare for her. Now you would've had a political situation that at least tries to make sense and you've laid the seeds for Mad Queen Daenerys. Instead we got absolute nonsense where a bunch of nobles willingly travel to King's Landing and volunteer to join Cersei. She killed her uncle and cousin when she blew up the Sept of Baelor. Also everyone in Westeros would suspect her of having Tommen murdered so she could steal his throne. Didn't mean to put you on the defensive. It's just the way you responded made it sound like unless I was interested in supplying ideas as to how what the show did made sense I shouldn't have been talking. Sorry if I misinterpreted that. I too can see what the showrunners wanted to communicate. But I don't think the overarching story holds up at all because they didn't really attempt to tell one. In Queen Cersei we literally don't know anything about how she holds the throne except that the writers gave it to her and had people act like she had authority when she should've had none and somehow Daenerys isn't immeasurably more popular than her because the writers say so. In King Bran we just have Tyrion give a speech about stories that convinces a bunch of nobles to unanimously elect a weird foreign teenager in a wheelchair as King of Westeros. There's not really anything there and a lot more missing than the details. And here's the thing again though based on what the show actually gave the viewers how are we supposed to consider King Bran or Queen Cersei as anything other than profoundly stupid? It throws out everything we were told about how politics in this world previously operated in order to elevate characters into positions they shouldn't be able to aspire to or hold. We can see this again in a minor fashion with Bronn, Sam, and to an extent Gendry. Now you or I can come up with our own reasoning as to how all of this could make sense but the show didn't and I can only judge the show based on what the show actually did. In the show Bran wasn't truly the best possible choice to rule. He was a terrible choice and no one should've ever chosen him.
  3. Yes I should've said the Iron Throne rather than the Seven Kingdoms. My bad. Sure that but that doesn't mean that three centuries later the Targaryens, the creators of Westeros as a unified political entity, would be perceived as foreign invaders by the nobility when one of them comes to take the throne from a murderous usurper. She never talks about breaking the wheel to anyone in Westeros besides Tyrion. She also mentions it in a speech to prisoners after the battle with the Tarly/Lannister army (i.e. after the nobles have already picked Cersei over her). This is far from anything any Westerosi noble would probably ever hear about let alone be worried about. She certainly never implements or tries to implement anything that could actually make the nobility concerned for what her rule might represent for their power. At least not much more than they should be concerned about what Queen Cersei Lannister (usurper, kinslayer, killer of most important religious figure in Westeros and so on) represents to their established social order. If the show wanted for Daenerys to alienate the Westerosi nobility through "breaking the wheel" then they should've shown that. Yep. But why did she do manage to do that? I guess Tarly just really hates foreigners to the point of being willing to march against dragons for a kinslaying usurper and every other lord in Westeros just falls into line once he does. That's not very convincing for a show that used to pride itself on its sophisticated and intelligent treatment of politics and power relationships in a feudal society. I didn't realize this forum was limited solely to discussions aimed at patching up the problems with the show. Here's the thing if your opinion is "this didn't make sense in the show but here's how it could've made sense" then we have nothing to disagree about . I too think it didn't make sense in the show and there are many things I would do to have it make sense (starting with no Queen Cersei because that's absurd). But if your opinion is "it made sense in the show" then that is where we disagree. No I didn't like what I saw. I thought it was profoundly stupid. And the point is none of the ideas you have offered, good though they might have been, was actually part of the show. But she's the only option because the show made her the only option. The writers could have done whatever they wanted to create a plausible conflict between a relatively unpopular Daenerys and someone on the Iron Throne. They didn't. They just plugged in Cersei. That's terrible writing.
  4. Sure and what would letting a conquered city reimpose slavery in violation of your will or refusing to execute traitorous lords who openly defy you and reject offers of mercy do to Daenerys rule? Yet both of these have been cited as actions that prove that Daenerys is uniquely mad or evil. If you don't hold that position then we have no disagreement here. This entire Ned Stark digression started as a claim that characters like Ned, Jon, Robb, Tyrion and others would never do what Daenerys did. I would say there is in fact a world of difference between failing to make a genuine effort to sympathize with a society and killing people for the crime of being born into said society. If you want to say her plan for ending slavery isn't very well thought out I don't disagree. But again "didn't come up with a good enough plan to abolish slavery" is a far cry from foreshadowing mass murder or representing another step on the road to a genocidal tyranny isn't it? And if the show had mapped out how Daenerys went from kind-hearted person to genocidal in the name of kindness I wouldn't have an issue with it. But the show never did. Daenerys just went from being a more or less reasonable ruler who has always been concerned with the welfare of the commoner and the downtrodden to genocidal tyrant who slaughters common people by the thousands when some bells started ringing.
  5. Of course Ned was justified to execute Jorah. It was other people who apparently felt Ned would never execute anyone with the capacity for good unlike that crazy evil Daenerys. Daenerys never executed anyone for being born into a slaving society. The masters of Meereen were crucified for murdering slave children not for being masters. The masters of Yunkai were left alone until they reimposed slavery after Daenerys had conquered their city abolished slavery and left at which point she considered executing them all but ultimately decided against it. But I'm fine with the moral hazard of killing being the point. The trouble is the show never treated it as such except suddenly with Daenerys in Episode 5. Again how many people did Arya murder? Yet it would still have been quite stupid and come out of nowhere to see her running down unarmed peasants in King's Landing and slitting their throats. Tyrion murdered his defenseless father with a crossbow but he still gets to be the voice of mercy and reason at the end of the show. Jon doesn't chuck Janos Slynt into an ice cell to let him rethink his disobedience he executes him (even as Janos cries, apologizes and begs for forgiveness) yet it's proof that Daenerys is mad or a monster when she executes the Tarlys? The only one being dishonest was you in your repeated claims that Ned showed Jorah mercy and that this was EXPLICITLY stated in the show.
  6. You're the one who brought up Ned Stark as an example of a character who would never do the things Daenerys did in Episode 5. Then when I pointed out that we could find "foreshadowing" for Ned (and many of the other characters you cited) acting similarly by his execution of Jorah you insisted he showed Jorah mercy when he didn't. Jorah just escaped before Ned could cut his head off. I dunno. Three times. Four maybe? Much foreshadowing. I would also argue that no other character ended up conquering entire regions full of horrid slavers so to take how often her advisers urged actions on her as proof that Daenerys was uniquely bloodthirsty or mad is pretty silly. In S7 she was also urged to attack King's Landing and to be a dragon by Olenna and she rejected that in favor of trying to make her invasion as least harmful as possible. That's why this whole "it was there all along" is so dumb. If Daenerys hadn't burned hundreds of thousands of people in King's Landing and had ruled as a queen who tries to improve the lot of the common people there would have been plenty of "foreshadowing" for that too and it would've been perfectly congruent with her character up to that point. I don't care about her actions in Episode 5 in terms of this discussion. The whole point is whether her actions in Episode 5 and 6 were part of a gradual descent of the character and they plainly weren't. She had never demonstrated a capacity or desire for mass murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent commoners up until that point. Being a conqueror does not inherently translate to personally butchering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Of course it can but the point is that is definitely not how the show has treated conquest and killings up to this point. If Arya had suddenly gone on a killing spree and started slitting the throats of women and children in King's Landing in Episode 5 that would be fucking stupid. But hey since she murdered every male Frey (good slavers but no good Freys I guess) and brutally tortured and executed a pedophile clearly her turn to mass murdering common people for no reason would be well foreshadowed.
  7. Except that he clearly talks about roots growing through him. Daenery's unpopularity in Westeros was part of the reason Varys turned against her in favor of Jon. It kinda had to be since she had done literally nothing else that would make her worse in comparison. There would be no Seven Kingdoms without the Targaryens. They were apart from the general population but this idea that the founding and ruling dynasty of Westeros for centuries were always considered foreign invaders is nonsense. Daenerys never offered any revolutionary rhetoric to the nobility that we're aware of let alone put it into practice. You're doing this thing where instead of looking at what was actually offered in the show you're trying to fill in the gaps to make sense of it. You're welcome to do that but you can't offer it as a defense of what was actually put on screen. It could've made sense for Daenerys to become unpopular through trying to implement radical reforms, But the show never did that. It just treats Queen Cersei like a legitimate monarch who could actually rally support against the last surviving Targaryen with her allies, powerful armies, and three dragons. It's laughable.
  8. No he didn't. The quote is "I wouldn't be here to help you if Ned Stark had done to me what you want to do to the masters of Yunkai." Ned Stark didn't get to execute Jorah because Jorah managed to flee before Ned caught him. So the Night's Watch deserter who understandably panicked when confronted with Others and got his head hacked off by Ned Stark for desertion had no good within him? Jorah Mormont who Ned also wanted to execute had no good within him? The guy just playing lookout while Karstark did his murders couldn't have had good within him? Theon had no good within him? Or are you suggesting that Robb wouldn't have executed Theon if he had caught him after he seized Winterfell? You're singling out Daenerys for taking harsh measures against people who might potentially be good as proof o her being mad or potentially a mass murdered all along when every character in the setting engages in these sorts of things. Neither did Daenerys. Point out where she did. All you can actually say is "she thought about doing it." I remember Tyrion thinking some harsh words about the inhabitants of King's Landing at his trial. Guess he was a mass murderer all along too. So because I can tell the difference between an animal that is a carnivorous predator and human beings I'm saying it's okay for the carnivorous predator to kill little girls? No of course its not okay and that's why Daenerys took action (at great personal cost to herself) to try and prevent it from happening again. But you don't try animals for murder or expect them to obey laws or have any sense of ethics. Because they're animals.
  9. He never said that. He explicitly mentions in S1 that Ned Stark wants his head. Who are these people? Of course we're all capable of both good and evil. But if you're going to interpret that as meaning "any character can commit mass murder without any reasonable buildup and it's not stupid because we're all capable of good and evil" then I think you're missing the point a bit. I don't know why you need to remind me. You're the one who's singling out Daenerys for probably having good people among her enemies. Ned, Robb, Jon, Tyrion etc. all of the enemies they fought and killed were even likelier to include good people who were just in service to a bad cause. Somehow that didn't count as foreshadowing them leading a mass murder of unarmed civilians. It does? A carnivorous animal hunts and kills by nature. It has no conception of law or what's right. You're literally asking "why does Daenerys treat human beings and animals differently." Are you sure she's the mad one?
  10. When you don't let your two pit bulls roam the streets are you doing it to punish them or as a reasonable precaution? Particularly when there is reason to believe that another one of your dogs may have mauled a child to death? I don't think I've been arguing that Dany isn't capable of bad judgment. There's a lot of space between bad judgment and "of course she was always mad and/or the sort of person who would slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent commoners for no reason."
  11. Ned didn't show Jorah mercy. He was going to execute Jorah but Jorah fled before Ned caught him. So the masters who ultimately sat by and watched while other masters crucified children are completely innocent but a random guy who gets pressed by his lord into being a lookout is thoroughly culpable of murder? And again why did you ignore my example of vassals and their men-at-arms who are forced to follow bad causes? If you're born a vassal of Tywin Lannister what excuse do you have when he (and the rightful King as far as you know) order you to round up your men and come fight for him against Robb? People who don't deserve it always die in war. I'm perfectly willing to concede that some innocent people were probably unnecessarily killed at Meereen but you're the one who claimed she slaughtered innocents by the thousands. Please point out where she did prior to King's Landing.
  12. Sure. Only a madwoman would scream threats at people who are about to leave her and her followers to die in a desert.
  13. She never sacks Qarth in book or show. I think in the show she robs Xaro and leaves after sealing him in the vault. In the book she gets kicked out after she burns down the House of the Undying.
×
×
  • Create New...