Jump to content

Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

Members
  • Content count

    430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

  1. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    I'm not, you are. You are the one who tried to show what-if scenarios where the executed GM might not have been aware of the kids killed in their name. And you are doing that to portray Dany as a crazed tyrant. I've never seen anyone do this with any other major character, even if they do terrible things. I've never seen anyone pick on the violent acts Jon or Tyrion does to call them unhinged. We are supposed to question Dany's acts here, as she does, but why go out of your way to hold onto this one thing to show that Dany is too mad to be in power? In this case, it's obviously BOTH. That's the moral quandary here. Why is it always Dany? Why doesn't other "good" protags get the same treatment? There isn't a single pacifist character in the books. And just about everyone, except Bran so far, commit violet and sometimes jarring acts. Only Dany gets dragged through the mud for that, usually by portraying the things she did as far worse that what's actually shown in the books (she crucifies "random" people! she brings back slavery to her own profit! she burned everyone in the House of undying!) No one said she ends up a failed ruler in the books. That's not where the misogyny lies. lol The way GRRM writes Dany (so far) she's actually smart, survives impossible situations, and rules as best as she could given the circumstances. In contrast, kings like Bobby B couldn't do half that even in peaceful times. I don't agree that a hereditary monarchy in itself is bad. It all depends on the leader. A monarchy works when there's a good king, like Jeharys I for example in the books. While everyone these days claims democracy is the best form of government, it only works when people manage to elect a capable leader. In contemporary world, strong institutions are the best for keeping societies going, but that's a whole different thing not related to ASOIAF.
  2. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Yes, then why would you make up all these assumptions about them being innocent of killing kids and all? It was a wartime act they all committed together. Had it happened after Dany sacked the city, then they would have gone in front of her throne for a judgement. She was furious about dead kids, as any reasonable person would be, and knew what was responsible for it. So she went for vengeance. That, too, was done in a relatively reasonable manner, not her burning all the GM as she liked. How does that make Dany the evil baddie here? Considering she reflected on her actions, how does that portray her as someone on the path to be a mad queen, which was kind of the point of the argument here? You initially argued that Dany was totally unjustified and evil to execute 163 GM. So she was totally on her way to becoming the mad queen or something. Not quite what GRRM wrote. That brings to Dany's portrayal in the show, where she ends up a genocidal maniac, which doesn't have much backing from her chapters written so far. In the books, she's relatable in the moral quandaries she faces. But in the show, they make up all these deaths that don't exist in the books, or exists very differently from what's actually in the books. Like Hizdar's daddy getting "crucified" for "no reason." Hizdar I'm pretty sure is a sexual sadist in the books and his daddy isn't mentioned anywhere. That goes to the misogyny with which her character is portrayed on the show as the OP points out. People liked Dany's character because she wants to do right in pretty impossible situations. But in the show, she's just crazy, tyrannical in her own righteousness, and undeserving of the dragon power she earns (the dragons don't just fall on her lap). But the mostly male characters who do even worse get better conclusions to their arcs.
  3. I know right! Even if what we saw was the "broad strokes" of the ending GRRM has planned, I felt like what was really the point of it all? I mean, we can get the same drama just reading the news. And I feel that GRRM is going to give a vague ending to the gods/magic stuff in the books that have intrigued a lot of readers. I kinda feel like a gambling addict, waiting for a major payoff in the end, when all I've been doing is giving myself a mental illness. :'(
  4. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Isn't GRRM clear that Dany did it to avenge the dead kids? And then weren't you the one who wanted to say the executed people were random nobles? And I pointed out that no, they were GM, responsible for decisions made in the city. And as someone else here reminds, in ASOS, it was the GM themselves who decide which ones should get executed. Wouldn't they know better than anyone else who was guilty? Lol. I still don't see where you are going with this whole Dothraki thing. The Dothraki don't run slave cities. It's these GM in the Slaver's Bay cities who keep the system going. Dothraki khals sometimes sell their captives to these people. In any case, Dany isn't on a mission to punish people for their past behavior. She's here's to break the system of slavery. As with your ridiculous arguments about civilian casualties, and corporate boards getting sued, the examples were to show that collective guilt is not a thing of the past. Raketeering charges also come to mind. You seem to be lost in your train of thought. No, that's what get you arrested and then tried for a crime. And they were both charged in the same lawsuit and even had to appear in court together. You can't be a part of a criminal group and them pretend not to know what the group was doing all this time. In any case, all this just goes over the point I'm trying to make: Dany didn't randomly kill 163 innocent people. Uh huh. So under modern law, the GM would be responsible even if their goons went off on their own to kill children. There's responsibility even in non-direct action when you are a leader of something. The ultimate point is, Dany's actions in Meereen don't paint her as a murderous psycho. She rethinks her actions, has tremendous guilt, and realizes that stooping down to the level of GM may have made things worse. GRRM is clearly not painting her as a genocidal maniac or someone with a superiority complex who thinks she's always right. In this case, she's unwilling to bring fire and blood and that seems to be the whole problem.
  5. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Wrong. Here's what comes right before those sentences: What mob are you talking about? She asked the GM to give her 163 to avenge the deaths of the children they killed, so she wouldn't have to kill ALL of them. It's not mob justice where there isn't a MOB. If non-nobles of the city had dragged a bunch of GM and asked Dany to kill them, then that would be a type of mob justice. LMAO. Are you kidding? These are the GREAT MASTERS. They decided the horrible things done in the war. Some of them decide to spare themselves by offering a bunch of others. But the point it, if it hadn't been done, Dany would have had to kill them all. Instead, she avenges proportionately and tries to make peace with the rest. If it actually had been up to the mob, then none of these GM would have lived. Or, like in Astapor, they may have demanded them enslaved so they can get a taste of their own medicine. And your example of French rape victims doesn't make any sense in this context. They didn't hold any power and order a bunch of kids killed. Also, this: She does question if it was the right thing to do. We can all agree that the nature of the punishment was horrific. And later she realizes that it was wrong for other reasons as well. Meaning, the remaining GM are truly the worst and has no intention of giving up slavery. But was it wrong for her to kill only 163 as opposed to killing them all or letting the deaths of the children just pass? That's wrong too for both practical and moral reasons. You are seriously kidding. The GM chose which GM should die. And no one delivered her bloody prisoners to kill. You are imagining an angry mob that GRRM never wrote here. We don't know how GM thing works. So you can keep asking how these what-if scenarios played out. But they were all in it when it came to ruling Meereen. Where exactly does he do this? Dany is torn between whether it was a just action or not. But in the next book, Dany realizes that the GM are cunning and that she hasn't gone far enough in reining them in. The thing that she does wrong here is not punishing all the GM for the crimes that they commit, whether it's slavery or killing kids. If she had done that, then she wouldn't have the harpy problem. If GRRM is emphasizing anything here is that vengeful actions may feel just, and might be so under the circumstances, but it isn't always particularly smart. Also, they didn't "assassinate" anyone, they KILLED CHILDREN.
  6. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    I fail to see the point you are trying to make here. You seem to be under the impression that Dany has Dothraki under her command that enslaves people, and your original argument was that is she going to punish them? But in the books she doesn't actually have Dothraki khals that go raiding in her khalasar. Hers is made up of the undesirables that got left behind in the Red Waste before she led them to safety. She has two bloodriders sworn to her, and they don't go raiding. Her khalasar doesn't raid and enslave people. There are other khals out there, and Dany has sworn vengeance on one of them. And she certainly wouldn't tolerate what they do. Dany doesn't go around punishing people for slavery. Her job is liberating slaves in Slaver's Bay and dismantling the slavery-based ruling systems. She tells the aggrieved to placate them. She also gives them gold so they have some justice. The whole point of having POV chapters is that we can see the character's reasoning. Dany's reasoning here is clear: it's not that she thinks the master raping is slave was legal. She realizes that if she started punishing one slave master for what they used to do, she would have to do it for everyone. And considering all the slave masters were equally bad, it wouldn't leave much room for making peace. The prisons would literally overflow. The same with the GM. The whole point of her choosing 163 was so that she wouldn't have to execute all of them at once, which would have been far worse. Now everyone could see that that some justice was delivered for the dead children. People didn't even know it existed. Then people want it shut down, but the point is it wasn't. And a lot of newspapers and magazines have articles published on people who were imprisoned there. Not all were terrorists as claimed, but some people were just family members or associates with others who may have had stronger links to it. Civilian casualties may occur. But the point is these cities get firebombed because the whole group is believed to be guilty in a way. Why do whole groups of people come under strict surveillance? That's collectivist thinking in modern times, which you said doesn't happen. In Dany's case, it's the opposite. The GM were all guilty of horrific crimes, but she restraints herself in delivering justice. Now people act like she randomly picked 163 people out of nowhere because she was feeling vengeful. That's not what GRRM's text implies. If you were part of a corporate board that engaged in human trafficking, slavery, murder and whatnot, yes, you would definitely go down for the crime no matter how hard you plead ignorance. You cannot pretend to shirk responsibility at the same time benefiting from the same actions. Corporate boards can be found guilty of criminal violations. What about the case of Backpage? It didn't have a big board, but there were two guys (and I think several other executives) who got dragged in front of the courtrooms for on criminal charges of sex trafficking. They were not dumb enough to plead innocence saying 'oh I didn't know, it was this other's guy's idea" and then pocket millions in profit. And wasn't there's a case of the Japanese general during WWII who was found guilty of war crimes his troops committed, even when he was separated from them. As an individual, he wasn't guilty. But as a leader of the imperial army, he was. Anyway, the ultimate point it. Dany wasn't being a vengeful tyrant when she ordered the 163 executed. The nature of the punishment was horrible. But it was done to deliver justice after a fashion. The parents of the slave children would have expected it. And practically, only doing away with a few of the GM allows room for Dany to negotiate with the remaining.
  7. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    YET. She hasn't even engaged with the Dothraki khals yet. She'd defeat the Dothraki as the prophesy goes. But unlike the GM, the Dothraki probably won't try to pull dumb antics that only infuriate their enemy even further. Like I said, she swore vengeance by the gods way back in book 1. Maybe you need to read the news better. Ever heard of Gitmo (that imprisons people just for being associated with possible terrorists), drone killings, things that happen in places like Syria? That's a lot of people who have to suffer for action of a few. Also, we do have laws to punish groups of people. For example, a corporate board won't be able to get away with a crime like murder by pleading ignorance. (they may cut deals but that's a different matter). In modern times, the GM would be like the board of governors of a slave enterprise. And if the group killed kids to get back at an enemy, do you think there would be long and drawn out procedures to find out who was guilty or not? They would all go to jail (or get the death penalty depending the place). And some will point fingers and try to cut a deal. In the US, now there's this called corporate personhood, where essentially a whole bunch of executives and managers are considered one legal entity. Lol she's not following a legal precedent here, she's being very practical. Read the last sentence. If she did geld the one slaver, then she would have to do it for all. So she avoid setting a very problematic precedent here. Again, Dany's predicament in not wanting to punish all the slavers and trying to get them to assimilate to the new society. Why can't you understand that among a group of slaver MASTERS who decide en mass to enslave people and set laws in Meereen, that it would not be impossible for all of them to be guilty of the same crime?
  8. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    That's exactly what she does. Also, Dany doesn't execute the Great Masters for slavery. She executes them for child murder. Eye for an eye, and GM for a child. Then she tried to make nice with the former slavers and make them live alongside the former slaves as equals. But they don't want to. Hence her predicament. Dany does fault the Dothraki for slaving. Her khalasar breaks up in the Red Waste. It's only the women, the elderly, and the so on that she leads to slaver's bay. And also her bloodriders. At this point, she has sworn merciless vengeance on the other khals that broke away and took slaves with them. She swears by the gods to give Mago a cruel death for what he did to Eroeh. And we can safely speculate that the other khals that broke away from Drogo are not going to survive doing what they do. Dany's khalasar no longer slaves or rapes bc she doesn't tolerate these things. She doesn't really have a Dothraki fighting force at this moment. She only has the Unsullied. Quote it then. It's clear in the books that the Great Masters of Meereen are the ruling class of the city. It's an oligarchy. When leadership is centralized, it's easy to point at a one leader and blame him or her for it. Like a monarch. But in an oligarchy all the rulers are responsible for their actions. Now it would be very different if Dany randomly selects and kills 163 non-enslaved people of Meereen. That would be unjustified under all circumstances. In Dany's case, she's going for the eye-for-and-eye type of vengeance attack, where the punishment is proportionate to the action. I keep saying, all the GM are guilty, but Dany doesn't kill them all. She's not punishing all for the actions of a few. She's punishing a few for the actions of all. I don't know why you would ask me for my political affiliations, because what would that matter? In real world, all sorts of things go into decisions. In individual disputes, courts may consider things like context and individual guilt. But not so in war. Everyone in Aleppo, Baghdad, or Afghanistan gets bombed, even though they may never had had anything to do with violent militant organizations the US considers the enemy.
  9. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    It's not me saying so, it's GRRM saying so. He's obviously pointing out the predicament she faces in outlawing something so ingrained in this society, based on real history from the US Civil War. On the Westerosi side, he uses history from old English Wars. It shouldn't be so hard to understand. I never said I'm a moral relativist. No one in their right mind says it's wrong to end slavery even if it exists in "another society." The modern world certainly doesn't think so. And you might need to wake up in the 21st century if you think slavery is justified under any circumstance, or if you think anti-slavery activists need justification for their activism. Keep going back to the slavery thing. As I said, you need to rethink what you think is right because it seems your problem with Dany in Meereen seems to stem from her going to war with slavers. What. are. you. talking. about? There are NO innocents among the slavers. You completely miss my point. The GM are ALL guilty. Dany knows this. But she only kills 163 of them, in revenge for the 163 children they ordered dead. That's proportionate and it avoids killing a lot more GM and destabilizing the ruling class. From a military perspective, Dany should have killed all the GM, and avoided the problems of the Harpies later. This is what she realizes in the Dothraki Sea.
  10. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Here's a repeat of what I told the other poster: I saw a surprising number of people complain about Dany in her Slaver's Bay arc, usually by pointing out things like the execution of the GM as proof that she's cruel and unhinged. If Dany was truly that, she would have just executed all of the Great Masters in Meereen. She only executed 163 of them, to match the number of dead children, because she wanted to AVOID unnecessary bloodshed. It would have only been politically convenient for her to execute all of the GM and their families in Slaver's Bay. That would have allowed Dany to genuinely outlaw slavery without problems like the Sons of the Harpy's. That's essentially the KKK in this world. And everyone knows it's the GM that pull their strings. Instead, Dany listens to her advisers and tries to accommodate the GM into her new rule, where the former slaves and the people who wronged them live side by side. Not all the former GM are punished for being slavers. She even married one of them and opens the fighting pits against her best judgement just to move "peace" forward. And Dany in her penultimate chapter in ADwD finally realizes that coddling the GM is exactly where she went wrong. She shouldn't have allowed their customs and beliefs to continue. She should have imprisoned or executed all of the former rulers of the city. Her guilt trip in the Dothraki Sea is about all that. She realizes she's fire and blood, not someone with "floppy ears" who needs to "make peace" with an obviously vile group like the slave masters of Essos.
  11. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Dany's actions in the books are justified in context. No one has to do it for her. The show logic just goes nowhere. Maybe you should really listen to your own logic and identify your own latent bias. You keep using references to modern laws (ex post facto, LMAO) and ultimately hollow ethical theories (that are supposed to be taken with a grain of salt anyway) to say Dany is on her way to becoming the Big Bad. As I said, the faux outrage and a lot of pretending to be arguing about morality to justify how yer arc ends nonsensically in the show. There are legitimate Dany detractors, of course, but at least they don't pretend to be moralists.
  12. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    I think I get what's going on here. You can just go ahead and say that you didn't like Dany liberating the slaves because of your real-life beliefs. I saw a surprising number of people complain about Dany in her Slaver's Bay arc, usually by pointing out things like the execution of the GM as proof that she's cruel and unhinged. If Dany was truly that, she would have just executed all of the Great Masters in Meereen. She only executed 163 of them, to match the number of dead children, because she wanted to AVOID unnecessary bloodshed. It would have only been politically convenient for her to execute all of the GM and their families in Slaver's Bay. That would have allowed Dany to genuinely outlaw slavery without problems like the Sons of the Harpy's. That's essentially the KKK in this world. And everyone knows it's the GM that pull their strings. Instead, Dany listens to her advisers and tries to accommodate the GM into her new rule, where the former slaves and the people who wronged them live side by side. Not all the former GM are punished for being slavers. She even married one of them and opens the fighting pits against her best judgement just to move "peace" forward. And Dany in her penultimate chapter in ADwD finally realizes that coddling the GM is exactly where she went wrong. She shouldn't have allowed their customs and beliefs to continue. She should have imprisoned or executed all of the former rulers of the city. Her guilt trip in the Dothraki Sea is about all that. She realizes she's fire and blood, not someone with "floppy ears" who needs to "make peace" with an obviously vile group like the slave masters of Essos. And those people who want to say that proportionately killing GM or sacking of a slaver city is "evil" can just shove it with the faux outrage. Tyrion kills Shae, tramples the fingers of a bard, just because he felt either mad or betrayed. It doesn't make him an unhinged evil person ready to burn down everything. Jon takes in wildling refugees even when his men clearly hate them. His action ends up with him dead. Was he unfit to rule then? But for some reason, Jon is still the main hero oh-so fit to rule. But somehow Dany is bad because she doesn't want to be a leader like Tywin, who doesn't think twice about unleashing violence to gain all the political advantage he could (he raids the Riverlands, kills Rhaegar's children, orders Tyrion's first wife gang-raped just so his son would get rid of her, and the very idea of employing the Mountain)? That's what makes her prone to be the mad queen? Oh just ef off. That's why people liked Dany. Because contrasted to the other, mostly male rulers of the world, she wanted to do the right thing. She could have just taken her dragons and enjoyed a lifelong vacation on the Dothraki sea. Or as Jorah initially suggested, sold all her dragon eggs and lived a very comfortable life to the end. But she doesn't abandon her people in the Red Waste, doesn't turn a blind eye to the horrors in Slaver's Bay. She gets revenge for things most of us would also seek revenge for (albeit less in a medieval manner). That's book Dany. The show just decided to spit on all that for no reason whatsoever.
  13. Oh wow, I guess people who are victimized don't have a choice but to end up with a "flawed personality"? Inbreeding really? So my point is right? Viserys doesn't sexually abuse her. And there's no point in books or the show that Dany is told that Targs are gods. She was literally in exile because she is a Targ.
  14. No. That would mean Gendry is fated to become a drunken whoremonger, Tormund will revert to being a mindless violent thug, Yara a merciless reaver. But isn't that already happening? Gendry is rejected by Arya and ends up with a lordship he doesn't want, much like his daddy. Tormund is back in the north by himself. And there's nothing to say that the ironborne wouldn't just go back to the way they were when all this war business is done.
  15. Could the theme be that you are your DNA? Your genetics is your destiny. I mean modern fantasy has kind of been about rising above your circumstances. Like, the hero may have bad parents or something like that, but (mostly) he is not his parents or birth. But one way to subvert expectations is to say that, nah, you have always been what you inherited. I mean, Dany knows her dad went mad. She learns about the extent of his madness and cruelty from Jorah. But in the end, despite her good intentions, she can't overcome her bloodline. She succumbs like it's how she's programmed. And contrast that to the Starks, who are always good. All Targs are violent or mad, but some were good. But all Starks are good, except for some bad apples. Other houses have these traits too. Lannisters have always been greedy and conniving, starting with Lann the clever. I mean, Dany and Jon have similar goals, both personal and political. They both want to feel accepted, loved, and fit in. They both want to save the world. But it's Dany who somehow goes mad like her father before her.
  16. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    Thank you GRRM for the forensic deconstruction of Dany

    Yes. That's the point I was making. Also, I read in Vanity Fair that GRRM told D&D the ending to the show between seasons 3 and 4. That would be about the time the show started outpacing the books. But Dany is portrayed as bad even back in season 2. I mean her locking up Xaro and Doreah in that locker and ordering her dragons to burn Pyat Pree (scenes missing in the books). The snowgate has returned. In Dany's visions at the House of Undying in the show shows the Iron Throne room with the roof blasted off and white powder falling down. Fans debated whether the white powder is snow or ash. Post the penultimate episode, one of the previous episode directors tweeted that it was ash. But the show scripts published in Vanity Fair clearly states that the it's snow on the throne (get it, snow on the throne?) So they must have come up with bad Dany "twist" later after her Meereen arc. Now the ultimate point of the story seems like DNA is destiny.
  17. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    The third twist

    I think book fans knew about it, but not the people who watched the show. It was only during like mid seasons that a lot of articles about it were published. When GRRM discussed plot points with D&D way back in Season 1 or so, it would still have been a big mystery, except for a handful of book fans. So it's one of the big twists (at least the one that goes with canon).
  18. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    dragonriding ability

    Valyria was an empire, and some illegitimate Valyrian bastards have shown the ability to ride dragons. Nettles is a primary example. She's a dragonseed on Dragonstone, so a half-Targ with distinctly non-Targ features. And yet she managed to ride a dragon. It seems obvious that the dragonriding ability has to be inherited in some manner considering what we see in the books. And yet, how it appears is kind of inconsistent. It's possible GRRM made a mistake. Understandable as he started writing these books a long time ago and our understanding of genetics has vastly improved since then. It's also very possible that there's more than one trait that need to get passed down the generations to get the dragon riding ability. That might be why some descendants inherit physical Valyrian features, but can't ride dragons, while other descendants don't physically look Valyrian, but can ride dragons. Maybe the Targs practiced incest because marrying one another increases the chance of offspring inheriting multiple traits at once that makes it possible to ride dragons. My pet theory is that blood magic and sacrifice also plays a big role here. The Targs since Aegon I have dragons, but they don't seem to know much about magic. They don't offer any sacrifices to the fire or anything. And eventually overtime, the dragons they have dwindle in number, and physically gets weaker and smaller. And the family starts the war with itself too. It's possible the overall disappearance of magic from the world is the cause here or the maester conspiracy as some people say. Or it's possible that the Valyrians in exile have forgotten their ways and they lose dragons. Dany ultimately gets her dragons in a fire magic, blood sacrifice ritual. Her kin go into the fire, dragons come out, and she can ride one without getting burnt to death. GRRM has yet to reveal how a dragonrider can control a dragon as well. In ADwD, Dany realizes that riding a dragon isn't anything like riding a horse. Drogon doesn't necessarily follow her command. But there are some vague hints that it's her will that Drogon follows. Even if blood sacrifice is necessary to make or hatch dragons, how it gives the dragon affinity is still really confusing. I mean, Dany makes the sacrifice, but how does it pass down to her children (if she could have any)? I suppose there are magical blood ties that aren't really related to genetics, but the type of blood bonds that appear in magical fantasy worlds. You know like curses that pass down the generations. But in this case, dragons. Also, Dany in ADwD says that Drogon is fire made flesh, but so is she. The blood of old Valyria is human as far as we know. But they do have distinctive features, like pale skin, purple eyes, and silver hair no other people on earth have. These same features, especially the paleness, is associated with certain magic things, the White Walkers, the pale gods, and pale things that Septon Barth pulls out of Princess Aerea. So the genetics for them work differently because the Valyrians themselves aren't exactly human?
  19. I'm not sure if they were necessarily hallucinations. She is delirious because she is sick. But there are other stuff like Quaithe's voice, and all those stars she keeps seeing, the "whispering" grass, that kind of seem like prophetic hints. I don't think we can say it's a "spirit quest" because she doesn't willingly go on it. More like fever dream. But remember, Dany's fever dreams are magical/prophetic in nature. In Book 1, after she miscarries, she gets a fever and starts dreaming very tell-tale dreams.
  20. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    Thank you GRRM for the forensic deconstruction of Dany

    I thought they changed it to add more drama to the show. Dany's CoTK arc is boring from a TV/movie point of view. It's all about her exploring a city, looking at things, and talking to Xaro and other characters. That doesn't really make good television. The most important part of her arc is the House of Undying prophesies. I think this was when the showrunners decided to completely forgo the mystical elements in the show. They completely changed her visions, the Undying are different, and the pale creature thing is missing. The show version has a city coup, betrayal, which were more in line with the Game of Thrones brand popularized by season 1. I'm not sure if they made these changes to to line with GRRM's vision. Because I think this was when the two parties started arguing about such differences. GRRM was even irritated by a very minor change they made to one of Dany's bloodriders (he died). If the show was going to deliver "fan service," wouldn't they have made Dany's arc a lot nicer? I mean incorporated more compassionate acts she does in the books, but are kinda missing from the show? Her kindness toward the diseased people in Meereen comes to mind. But that whole part was missing, probably bc the showrunners didn't want to go into her getting the Pale Mare and all that.
  21. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    Queries about dragons

    @asimetrikal Right, I think you are making the mistake of applying real-world genetics to GRRM's magical fantasy series. Of course, if the dragon-riding ability was genuinely genetic, then there would be a lot of people around the world who can ride dragons, especially given the fact that Valyria was an empire. You do make an interesting point a about circular logic. But I'd say you might be able to ride a dragon if you have Valyrian blood, but if you can ride a dragon, then you do have Valyrian blood. The ability to have dragons is also affected by certain actions like kinslaying. In Dance, Targs kill other Targs, and the dragons that are born afterwards are weaker. Eventually, all the dragons die out as Targ infighting intensifies and they increasingly marry outside their family. (There's also a conspiracy theory that people who hate magic--maesters-- might be cursing them). Rather than genes, this whole thing is probably governed by sacrificial blood magic. The dragonlords marry their kin, but they also sacrifice their kin (not killing them, but offering them to the fire). Dany's dragons are born after she sacrifices her son to that magic spell. The miscarriages show signs of blood sacrifices like the one Dany experiences with Rhaego. Now if a Targ marry a Baratheon, a beloved relative from the latter's family doesn't go into the fire as a sacrifice. That may play a role in how the magic ability "gets diluted." I wouldn't worry too much about how genetics carry the blood magic gene. GRRM might have intended genes to play a role, but some thirty years ago he might have gotten the science wrong. After all, he came up with the idea that Cersei's children couldn't possibly be Baratheons simply because they don't have black hair, and that all Baratheon bastards absolutely must have black hair. Some ADwD quotes: This one is from the scene where Dany has had it with the fighting pits and wants to go away and close the pits: Some quotes. It may seem like I'm cherry picking but during re-reads I thought Dany's connection to Drogon was more of a will thing. At first, it seems like Drogon shows up at the fighting pit to feast on the flesh, drawn by the blood (apparently the noises don't deter him?). And then at the Dothraki sea, Dany seemingly has a hard time commanding Drogon to go where she wants to go because he is a dragon and not a horse. But on re-reads I thought, it could have been Dany's desperation that drives Drogon to the pit, considering that on the Dothraki sea, there's plenty of food. He isn't drawn to the city because of meat any time before. Also, Dany keeps telling herself she has to go back to Meereen, though she really hates it. What if it's her uncertainty that prevents getting Drogon there? And her true desire keeps her in the Dothraki sea, a place that's she's always loved to be at (on dragonback she loves it even more so). Read the last two chapters for Dany and see if you can discern a connection of this sort. Of course, I might be completely wrong. it's just a hunch that I got during re-reads. In AWOIAF, The Rise of Valyria chapter I think has a bunch of stuff about dragons. The info is scattered all over the place so that's the problem. If you can search your ebook for Nettles, it would take you to the description about dragonseeds. I don't have Fire&Blood. Try to search for Septon Barth, he offers dragon tidbits here and there. Most people get their info about sacrificial magic reading the AWOIAF chapters on places like Asshai, Qohor, etc. There's info about how blood sacrifices are done and how sorcerers try to make hybrid creatures in Bones and Beyond and Beyond the Free Cities chapters. The info is sparse and all over the place, so it's more of a connect the dots game. Links to old threads about the magical origins/creation of dragons: Off topic, are you using a mobile device or something to reply? because I can't quote your posts and it's got this weird formatting.
  22. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    Queries about dragons

    I think this was something that was discussed at length on this forum--whether non-Targs could ride dragons. So blood of Old Valyria means those who descend from the old dragonlords of Valyria. After the Doom happened, only one dragonlord family is left: the Targs on Dragonstone. There is no cultural taboo or anything regarding who could ride dragons. In AWOIAF, it's shown that there were wild (non claimed) dragons on Dragonstone. No one tries to claim them. There's some type of contest that a Targ prince commissions to find riders for these dragons during the Dance. At the time, both dragons and Targs were dying. Only one baseborn rider manages to tame one of the dragons. Some people have taken this as proof non Targs could ride dragons. But GRRM pointedly mentions that on Dragonstone there's all these "dragonseed"-- essentially illegitimate children fathered by Targ princes. It's mentioned that many of them can rightfully claim Targ heritage. Nettles, the dragonseed, doesn't have the telltale Valyrian looks either. She kind of looks like Arya. This is probably a big hint regarding Jon's heritage, before it was officially outed, that Jon is a half Targ who just looks a lot like his mother. When dragons did exist, we never see anyone without Valyrian heritage riding one. Valyrians get into all these wars with other powerful groups. No one ever captures or rides these dragons. Back in Westeros, when dragons are in the pit, you don't have anyone like handlers riding or training the dragons. You know, like horses. Only the Valyrians can do so. I've seen early theories as you say that Targs imposed cultural taboos that prevented others from riding a dragon. But it's hard to maintain considering how desirable dragons are. It doesn't explain how rich Essosi merchants didn't pay people to steal baby dragons so they could ride them. I mean some literally grew in the wild, unguarded, on Dragonstone, so grabbing one wouldn't have been that difficult. When Dany goes to Qarth, Xaro really wants one of her dragons. But he doesn't steal one, and only asks Dany to willingly give him one. First, he tries to marry Dany and get a dragon as a wedding gift. Then there's poor Quentyn Martell, who dies trying to tame Viserion or Rhaegal. He thinks he does everything right but the dragons only listen to Dany. GRRM strongly hints a magical reason for this. Targs say dragons are their kin. So there are lots of fan theories out there about how dragons and humans could have "magically melded." Valyrian sphinxes are another hint. Regular sphinxes are normal showing features of three creatures. But Valyrian ones show head of a human and a body of a dragon. And it goes further in Fire&Blood. There's this story about a Targ princess who takes off on Balerion. No one knows where she went, but she returns incredibly sickly. Septon Barth tends to her, but he is horrified by her weird illness. Her body temperature gets so hot as to cook her skin. And the septon sees these creatures in her belly: worm-like things with human faces. And remember Dany's baby, who has lizard skin and bat wings. There are similar miscarriages down the Targ line, where babies are born with wyrm-human features and never survive. Anyway, all this points to blood magic that makes it possible to ride dragons. They are not normal, rideable creatures like horses. They are significantly magical, much like direwolves who can warg with Starks and greenseers. So these two families have some type of magical blood that makes these fantastic skills possible. It's a personal theory from Dany's ADwD chapters. When Dany rides Drogon, she realizes that usual tricks used with horses, like whips and nudging, don't work with Drogon. Dany is an expert horserider so she knows her stuff here. She doesn't really know how to control him. However, Drogon manages to get her where she wants to go. He comes to her when she needs him, like in Daznak's pit, where Dany really doesn't want to stay and actually says take me away. I don't have the quotes right now, I'd have to re-read and attach. I thought it indicated that the dragon follows the rider's will. That's why we don't really see dragonriders use equipment like horse riders do. Fun fact: Dany remembers dragon horns out of nowhere in ADwD, which supposedly controlled dragons. The book introduces the Dragonbinder, a magic horn Euron says can bind a dragon to him. However, dragon horns are not mentioned anywhere else in the series or the supplement books. It's never mentioned that dragonlords of old Valyria used horns or whips to control dragons. The Targs never do either (otherwise their family would have possessed several of these). Technically, non-Targs can ride dragons as long as they have the blood of Old Valyria. Of course, as these bloodlines get diluted, not everyone gets the ability to ride a dragon. The rule so far as we can discern goes like this: being a Targ doesn't guarantee that you can be a dragonrider, but you can never be a dragonrider without the blood of Old Valyria. I tried to find the old threads, but don't know how to search the forums. They were here before the site got a revamp. Here's the link to the princess with human wyrms in her: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Aerea_Targaryen This is a theory video about the origin of dragons, which may explain how only the blood of Old Valyria can ride them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Ae4yvEHrE
  23. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Hahahahahahahaha. How is sibling rivalry between brothers sexist against males? So Stannis is a character GRRM wrote based on sexist male tropes? I love this!
  24. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    @OldGimletEye @Demetri Are you using two accounts to reply to my posts? Wow this just got really pathetic.
  25. Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    That's definitely not what I said. Taming of the Shrew is infamous for it's terrible portrayal of women. That's why I pointed it out when that other poster mentioned Shakespeare as a male author who can write complex, non-sexist women. For the record, that doesn't mean Shakespeare is a bad writer. It doesn't mean Shakespeare's women should not be considered. It doesn't mean we should stop reading Shakespeare. It doesn't mean I think Shakespeare should be ignored in modern times. Ron doesn't have a "little brother complex"? What in the world is that anyway? How is that some sexist male trope? If it's such a major man trope, what are other famous characters with that problem?
×