Jump to content

Rose of Red Lake

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rose of Red Lake

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,859 profile views
  1. Rose of Red Lake

    Did the Vale hate the Targaryens ?

    Hey that's unfair! Without the glorious reign of the blood of the dragon, Westeros wouldn't have such illustrious institutions like...the City Watch. J/k...I think you're spot on with this summary
  2. Rose of Red Lake

    Is the hound Sansa's 'new direwolf'?

    Psycho prince hired him to stalk her and he complies. Don't see how that improves his character? Doesn't really matter if he's tracking her whether for Joffrey or his own interests, it's still creepy stalking in my book. I know other people just ADORE the guy but the Hound gives me the creeps.
  3. “That doesn’t enable you to rule - it just enables you to destroy." Everything relates back to this theme of building vs. destroying, and you're ignoring it like most Targ stans. Something the author says he's trying to be EXPLICIT about. The goal is to make a city prosper without using nukes, and she had a window opportunity at the end of the novels. Hizdahr tells her to ignore the slavers outside her walls, they're just posturing and trying to get under her skin, and Dany lets them. The Shavepate says that the Yunkish leader was afraid of her using dragons, so she had the deterrent. She didn't actually have to use them. But she was the one who broke the treaty, because from their perspective she lured them there to burn them all with her dragon. Marriage alliances are soft power, dragons are hard power, and good diplomacy involves knowing when to use both--not throwing one away and using the other on a whim. It's clear, Dany has no idea what she wants. At first she wanted to feed her people and then she wanted the deaths to stop, but now she wants slavery to end everywhere? How is this realistic? Dany can’t stop every instance of the slave trade and feed her people at the same time. Using dragons will have consequences, per the theme of building vs. destroying.
  4. Rose of Red Lake

    Wow, I never noticed that. Vol. 18

    I never noticed that the Targaryens were lying when they called themselves rulers of the Seven Kingdoms. For 188 years, they only ruled six.
  5. Rose of Red Lake

    Did the Vale hate the Targaryens ?

    Aerys killing the heir to the Vale and a member of House Royce probably didn't win the next Targaryen claimant any favors. They're probably not going to be declaring for the next Targaryen any time soon, unless it's by coercion, and the Vale and the Riverlands are probably sick of all that.
  6. Rose of Red Lake

    Does Targaryen blood matter anymore?

    The magic is too much power in the hands of unstable people, who don't really learn from history, and who lust for power. So it may matter for Targaryens themselves to be seen as exceptional and powerful and pure, but do I care if their blood is diluted? No. In fact--it should be.
  7. Rose of Red Lake

    "characters who are perfectly nice"

    George RR Martin: "The other, of course, interesting thing is the negative reactions that you get to some characters who, to my mind, don't necessarily deserve such a strong negative reaction, particularly characters who are themselves perfectly nice. But I think if they're a threat to one of the characters that the people have already decided is their favorite, I don't know, you get some interesting reactions." (x) So who do you think he's talking about here?
  8. Rose of Red Lake

    What happened to the Targaryen slaves?

    With no evidence whatsoever about temperament or motives, people jump right into the white savior narrative again. Of course it can't be that he just wanted to keep his slaves. He has to be a benevolent master. Jesus christ the fellacio for House Targaryen is ridiculous...
  9. The connection between infertility and incest can always be offered as an explanation since there is always a cost to magic.
  10. Do you want to stay willfully ignorant? Deterrence theory usually works when other powers have nukes and both parties don't want MAD. This was explored when Dany was working toward peace in Meereen, but if she uses them, that theory goes out the window. That's why paying attention to what's going on in Dany's head is important. And if King's Landing has wildfire and Dany learns about this, it won't matter if she stops caring about loss of life altogether. That "wars are worth fighting" quote is vague as hell, it could be about any war in fiction or in real life, and isn't explicit like the Atomic Scientists one is. And you keep trying to characterize me as a pacifist, but that's not what my argument is at all. My take is that if you must oppose slavery, try to vary your tactics for christ sake. Like perhaps, after conquering people, try to show how a free city can actually prosper. Using other tactics besides a flying flamethrower all the time might be helpful because the story clearly snaps back at the idea that using dragons solves problems! We constantly see how things are destroyed with them, not built. That's why narratively, Dany had to destroy KL because it goes back to this theme. Dany can either make a dead city bloom (Vaes Tolerro, Meereen, King’s Landing) and settle for an imperfect victory, or she can “kill the Sons of the Harpy and their sons and their sons” but she won’t be able to feed people or build something that lasts long-term. It's clear that all this writing about House Targaryen is exploring the limitations of what ruling through nuclear power can achieve.
  11. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs the public about threats to the survival and development of humanity from nuclear weapons, climate change, and technology. It was established in 1945 with the Manhattan Project. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they started to warn the public about the consequences of these weapons. These scientists, who are still on that mission today, asked him a serious question about the meaning of dragon power in his work, and he gave them one. And you just don't want to engage with it at all?
  12. All of these quotes are showing the bind she is in. You are ignoring a lot of the dilemmas of hard vs. soft power and focusing on her emotions. And she does treat war trivially in the end. She gave into a destructive dragon flight and decides to choose fire and blood, which is what she was trying to avoid the whole time. Now Meereen won't be getting any food because she broke the peace. We can predict how this will go: Dany storms in to stop slave trade, but people in Meereen starve to death anyway. Using dragons means nothing gets accomplished, it's hardwired into the story. I mean maybe take that up with the author? What do you think the author is talking about when he says that dragons can't reform, improve, or build? You can contemplate that, or ignore that. She can't reform, improve, or build a city by using nuclear weapons. She can conquer people but she can't "save" them. She'll end up right back where she started, which is kind of the whole theme of House Targaryen. They spectacularly failed on both continents.
  13. The Targaryens have a specific theme going on with JUST THEM. I didnt say anything about genetic determinism. I'm talking about this: which is illustrated in this passage: which is a callback to this opportunity to do something other than destroy, which she turns down: And is related back to what Mirri told her, that she can't save people and destroy at the same time: which also relates back to this foreshadowing for what she will do to King's Landing, because she will not be able to make her kingdom beautiful by being a terrible conquering Dothraki horselord/dragonlord: and this one, when she realizes conquests can't feed people, and how it just continues the cycle of death: and here again when she realizes she can't save them from disease, which was a chain reaction from her conquests: And similarly again, to the point where people hoped for her to be a gentle queen who feeds them, but instead cannibalism has set in: She know she needs to use soft power, even though she detests her subjects: but she doesn't know how to use soft power, until the Green Grace informs her of how she's perceived: And that is why the progress she made in marrying Hizdahr was real because she TRIED to do something other than roasting slavers. The peace means that she can now receive food by sea trade. She has to accept the terms of that for now because she can't stop all slave trade everywhere and still expect to feed her people. Stop slavery outside her walls by using her dragons vs. feeding her people. That's the choice, she can't do both. The more she uses her dragons, the less she'll be able to solve real problems later, because, as she says above, using dragons is a metaphor for quicksand. Her chapters are full of examples of this theme - there's even one where she talks about how she can't fight hunger because it's an invisible foe (but I can't find it). I didn't even touch on Fire and Blood, this post is too long, but the theme repeats over and over.
  14. Of course dragons can be killed, but that doesnt mean Daenerys isnt the most powerful person in the world. Every villain and their weapon of choice has to be taken out eventually, it doesnt mean the Deathstar+Emperor is any less dangerous. I guess you dont understand the themes the author is working with here. Targaryens will always be shown to be limited to one form of power, which is efficiently killing lots of people, and the story will always come back to the idea that this method is insufficient to rule effectively.
  15. Rose of Red Lake

    Sansa's betrayal consequences partly overestimated?

    I was talking about the poster not understanding her age or experience, by saying its unrealistic. The "solely" comment was directed at other arguments on the thread. Sorry if that wasnt clear. I have no problems saying Sansa made a serious error in judgement but I think its an understandable one for an 11 year old in such a high stakes game.