9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Indeed. But the absolute bestest part of this lunatic “interpretation” of the story is that these diehard Targ fans aka TARGAs/Stark haters is that they think Dany of all people would condone the actions of Walder Frey, Tywin Lannister, Roose Bolton and other villains just b/c these nasty arseholes took action against the Starks. And what makes this so fucking hilarious is that these readers claim to be Dany fans but they don’t get the character at all!

Especially, given it's the Lannisters, not the Starks, who bear the blame for what befell her and her family.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Unfortunately, not really. There is nothing believable about the Slaver's Bay states, except perhaps for cruelty, but even that is far more excessive than in real-life antiquity.

Main problem I think is that George misunderstands the main issue of slavery: slavery is not the product of cruelty. Rather, slavery is a product of cold calculus of profit... cruelty then comes as an effect of slavery, not its cause, because dehumanization always produces cruelty.

Not in the least. While you may find cases where serfs were treated as badly as slaves were - early modern Russia, for example - by and large, serfdom was far more humane than slavery was. It was also far more humane than many things that had followed it (just look at urban workforce during and after the Industrial Revolution!). And the reason is simply that it is nothing like slavery, mostly due to one fundamental detail: serf was personally free. Serfdom was, in fact, a negotiated contract between the serf and the lord: usually however a village would negotiate as a collective, in order to have the weight behind it.

And from that followed a slew of other rights, such as a right to sue in court. What you (and most other people here, I suspect) probably don't know is that it was possible for a serf to sue his lord in a cour of law. Sure, it was unlikely to succeed, but it was technically possible - besides, try suing state in a court of law, you probably won't end well either unless you are a large corporation. And if suing at manorial court failed, it was (legally at least) possible for a serf to go to a higher court, such as land court and ultimately all the way to the king. Usually however, when a serf sued in the court, it was to sue his neighbour for minor offenses.

Mostly I agree.  But, I think the masters’ commitment to slavery (in this world and real life), goes beyond economics (important though that is).

In order to justify to oneself, treating people as chattels, one has to get into the mentality of thinking of them as subhuman.  Hence you got the South Carolina master replying “slaves ain’t horses”, when asked why he beat his slaves, but never his horses.  To him, they were lesser than horses.

Feudalism is the economics of  the Mafia.  Income flows upwards (and in this world, income often means personal service), in return for protection from above.  The Boss acknowledges that those below him need to wet their beaks a little.  Their prosperity is in his interest.

Chattel slavery is more like the economics of a labour camp.  Other than a minority of overseers, and privileged household slaves, the slaves are worked to death, then replaced with fresh slaves.

Outside of Braavos (and possibly Lorath and Ibben and the Summer Islands), Westeros has more social mobility and is less violent than Western Essos and Slavers Bay.

The social pyramid in Myr, Pentos, Qarth, Lys, Tyrosh, Volantis and of course, Slavers Bay, is a very steep one. 75-85% of people are chattels.  The 15-25% who are free, range from poor to middling, who own a slave or two, to the super-rich, who own vast numbers of slaves.  As in Rome, among the free people, the definition of poverty likely means inability to afford even a single slave.

Life for many household slaves, or skilled artisans, soldiers, or overseers, may be tolerable.  Their skills mean it makes sense for their masters to treat them with some humanity, as well as using them to oppress the majority.  Some of them may be set free.  For the majority, fieldhands, millworkers, dung collectors, miners, prostitutes, quarrymen, life will be horrendous.  They’re just worked to death, and replaced with fresh stock.

The free cities generally seem to have a technological edge over the West.  But, Slavers Bay produces nothing culturally or technologically.

“Sansa stared coldly down at the Lord of the Crossing;

“I’ve killed women and children.  I’ve killed everything that walks or crawls at some point.  And I’m here to kill you, Walder Frey, for what you did to Robb.”

3 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

I don't know if sending him to the ice cells wouldn;t have been the better move, because he looks like he's executing Slynt for personal reasons, and Slynt has no insignificant support in the Wall.

But I'm not judging him for executing Slynt, I cheered the first time I read it, I'm just saying he's less desserving of an execution than the slavers.

 

I agree, by that point it would've been a really bad idea to spare him. I just mention it to prove that Slynt didn't expect to die because of this, and you seem to agree.

 

Marsh wasn't in Castle Black when that happened and you're right, I had forgotten about that. Anyways, I think they are both sincere in their oposition to Jon executing Slynt, and shocked by Jon's desition.

The slavers’ deaths were much worse than Slynt’s (but so of course, were the slavers’ own actions).  

Dany is shown subsequently agonising over their deaths, whereas Jon does not.  Dany’s tendency to beat herself up over her decisions is (a) an indicator that she is not a villain (Tywin Lannister loses no sleep over ordering killings) (b) a weakness in a leader, perhaps a fatal flaw.

3 hours ago, Mithras said:

Abner Marsh lived at a time where most of the civilized world had already abolished slavery. Essos with all its shallow, anachronistic worldbuilding and moustache twirling villains do not equal to the US in 1850s. If GRRM wants to make a direct connection between the two instances, than I would say his history minor is terribly minor.

I think the slavers of Astapor and Yunkai are cartoonishly degenerate and evil, like Jabba the Hutt.

But there’s rather more depth to those of Meereen, and Xaro.  They’re more intelligently evil.

4 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

 

What George does so well is make it clear (to me anyway) that there are no easy solutions or even easy compromises. There's no question that George is 'against slavery', but how does he deal with it, narratively-speaking? He admits himself it turned out trickier than he anticipated, and is well-encapsulated by the phrase 'The Meereenese Knot'. This very issue has made me sympathise with him in delaying the completion of TWOW so long. There just isn't a solution that will satisfy the majority of the fanbase.

Agreed.

There is no government in real life that has done a truly good job at ending slavery.

You can have the planters replaced by local tyrants - like Dessalines in Haiti.  You can have the slaves freed, but their ex-masters retaining great power, as in the post-Bellum South, Jamaica, and Brazil.

Ideally, masters should be required to make restitution to their slaves - but only Thaddeus Steven’s and a small number of radicals could conceive of such a thing.

8 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

Robb and Karstark. There were problems with that.  Karstark was an important contributor to the rebellion. It was dumb to kill him. Robb should have pardoned Karstark.  Jon made a bigger mistake when he killed Slynt. It was wrong ethically and even more wrong politically. Dany can execute the slavers because of their past crimes against humanity. She conquered them and not bound to accept their old laws. The wine bearing kids should be spared. And she did. The Meerenese lost. They have to accept Dany’s laws. She gets to set the rules. 

Karstark murdered prisoners, and murdered Tully soldiers.  He had earned death.

Slynt repeatedly defied a reasonable order, given by his commander.  At the Wall, that earns an execution.

Mainly, Dany does not punish the Meereenese elite for slaving, or rape, prior to her arrival.  She gives an amnesty for crimes committed by masters and slaves.

The exception is the 163 elite, crucified in retaliation for the crucifixion of 163 children, which demonstrates that the life of a Great Master is worth the same as the life of a slave child.

1 hour ago, Alden Rothack said:

Karstark and Slynt knew very well that they were committing crimes that were punishable by death when they chose those actions, the slavers regardless of how deplorable we find them did not

The slavers would have known well enough what the slaves would do to them, if they lost control.  They certainly understand that they are doing harm to others - as Kraznys and Xaro make plain, in their discussions with Dany.

4 hours ago, KingoftheRiversandtheHills said:

I firmly believe that every Frey will die, maybe except for Olyvar and a few others. What do you think will happen to the bodies? It would be awesome if they impale them on spears, Vlad style, and display them on the path to the Kingsroad from the Twins. 

I think the Freys will be treated with great cruelty, by their enemies.

I suspect the triangle will be Tyrion, Daenerys, Jon.

6 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Never read this, it's amazing.

 

Yes, and somethimes for George aswell. The conclusion I come up with is the following: George is obviously anti-war, he's also anti-slvery, but he doesn't feel as strongly about that, sometimes he doesn't realize how awful that is. I'm not saying he's pro slavery in any way, just that being anti-war is a big part of him, and being anti-slavery may not be something he thinks too much about. Not thinking too much about slavery leads him to write weird, unbelieveable bits in which the former slaves pay back their former masters for property they stole, instead of demanding their former masters to pay them for all the work they did. And being more anti-war than anti-slavery leads him to oppose a violent solution to slavery, even tho it would be considered justice by his world's morality and by a lot of people in this world too, and it would be one of the most just acts in the series.

I find that plausible.  But if the argument from the author is that it is immoral to use violence to oppose slavery, it must follow that every other war in the tale is immoral.  It was immoral to use violence to defy Aerys.  It was immoral to use violence to suppress the Greyjoy revolt.  It is immoral for Jon and Stannis to fight the Boltons.   It is immoral for Robb to lead an army South.

The argument that “thou shalt not kill” must apply to everyone.

It is an argument that I reject.

5 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

 

I think you get where I'm going SeanF.  I am saying the battle against the slave masters is much easier to justify than it is to do the same for the people back in Westeros killing people for revenge.

I think it is the war with the most just cause, along with Jon/Stannis’ war against the Boltons, of any that we see in this tale.

Everyone else is fighting for gain/revenge.

That’s not to say Dany is a pure altruist.  She does get an army and a city state out of it, but there’s no such thing as a purely altruistic leader in this tale.

1 minute ago, Son of Man said:

There is a passage in Fevre Dream where the main character says something like slavery must end even if it means using fire and blood to do so.  That should tell you what George thinks.  Slavery is so bad that it is one of the things which justifies war and bloodshed to stop.  That is the reason why Dany is a hero even if she chooses to drop fire on the slave masters. 

It’s hard to think that Abner Marsh was not speaking for the author.

4 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

 

 

- Killing people is wrong, obviously, and the story often makes a point that executions aren't justice, but not all executions are presented equally in the text. Robb executing Karstark, or Jon executing Slynt aren't portrayed as misdeeds by the story, you can even make the argument that both executions are protrayed as the right move, then there's Dnay in Slaver's Bay. What she has to do is make peace with the slavers, not only that but marry one of them. These are people who treat people like cattle, like property, people who frequently rape, murder and torture other humans, but Dany is protrayed as wise and good for making peace with them and marrying Hizdar, while the two characters who advice executing the slavers are the bloodthisty Skahas and Daario. So again, it seems like the text (and therefore George) approves Dany making peace with so heineous people. And yes, I get it, slavery was legal when they did those things, but the point still stands, slavery is inherently wrong, no matter the law, is fundamentally unjust and heinous, so the law shouldn't matter in this case. Would any of you think less of Dnay if she would've executed all of the slavers? I wouldn't.

 

Anyway, what do you think?

Dany is not a professional soldier, whereas Robb, Stannis, Jon are.  When she orders killings, her feelings are often running high, and quite often she'll agonise, subsequently, over whether she made the right choice.

Robb, Stannis, Jon are far more dispassionate about killing, so to the reader, it comes over as much less of a big deal.  Killing is just the way things are, a soldier's duty.   And, much of the killing that is ordered by Robb and Stannis takes place off stage.  Robb's soldiers hang peasant women, burn towns and villages, pillage crops and livestock, and rape widely.  Roose Bolton turns Harrenhall into a concentration camp, but because he's a traitor, Robb gets exonerated from Roose's actions.  The peasants are quite clear, through Arya's POV, that wolves are almost as bad as lions, but we never get to see the Northern army rolling up at some luckless village, the way we get to see the Dothraki at work in Lhazar.  We never get to see a POV where Robb orders the hanging of young women, whereas we do get Dany's POV when she recalls crucifying the 163 Great Masters.

Likewise Stannis, who certainly does well to prevent rape of prisoners, and protect Asha.  Yet, Tyrion sees that his soldiers are burning villages as they march through the Kingswood;  he employs men who torture young women (Ser Clayton Suggs likes to join in), but again, it's all taking place off stage.  The one and only time we get to see Stannis do something horrible is when he has the four soldiers burned.  Even then, it is ususally defended as harsh, but necessary, to maintain discipline.  

So, Daenerys can seem less justified when she kills, because of her emotional state, her habit of beating herself up over the decisions she's made, and because we see them upfront.  Whereas killing that is dispassionate, and which takes place off stage, seems less bad.  But, one ought not really to see much ethical distinction between these forms of killing.

5 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

I read Feldman's point and liked it, I just seen your for the first time and I like it way more. It makes a ton of sense. Bravo.

 

Twain's quote applies very well to the use of violence against the slave lords of Essos, IMHO.

"THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.” 

I should add that for some of the fandom, the Terror inflicted on the slave owning class makes them "shudder" far more than the Terror inflicted by the slave owning class.

To my mind, there are characters who are unambiguously depraved.  Ser Gregor, Walder Frey, Ramsay Bolton, Varamyr Sixskins, Vargo Hoat, are vile men, without redeeming features of any kind.  There are no shades of grey there.

To my mind, most of the slavers fall into the same category.  It’s not just that they own slaves.  They revel in their cruelty towards them.  They institutionalise what Ramsay does at an individual level.

But, I get what you saying.  Adam Feldman makes the argument that the peace with the slavers was real, and just.  And that thematically, Hizdahr represents peace to Dany, whereas Daario represents violence.

IMHO, Daario represents terror wrought in hot blood, whereas Hizdahr and his class represent terror wrought in cold blood, lasting centuries (adopting Mark Twain’s analysis of the French Revolution).

The Shavepate and Daario are not good people, but they are right that the master class needs to be purged.  Not because of past crimes, but because they are incorrigible.  Each concession to them fuels more demands.  They hold a slave market outside the city, and Hizdahr tries to feed Penny to lions, both in breach of their promises.  And, they never tell Dany about the bargain their envoys struck with Volantis.

30 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

Hundreds of chunks of oily-black comet-fragments with meteorite tails hurtling towards Planetos would look to people like dragons flying down. That's the 'science'. If there is any connection to the actual creation of literal dragons, that would be 'magic'.

I'm open to the idea of Old Ghis doing biological experiments on crossing wyverns with fire worms to create dragons, which, therefore, would likely be a completely separate matter and prior to the cataclysmic astronomical event.

They probably mated slaves to them, too, as in Gorgossos.

Bad fanfiction.

It’s light years removed from Christopher Tolkien/Guy Gavriel Kay producing The Silmarillion.

31 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Please, everyone knows Benjen is Daario .  But, seriously, nice post and welcome!

The only areas I would differ is that 1) I think Tyrion being romantically involved with Penny is the best thing that could happen to him (so it won't) as it would allow him a meaningful relationship instead of pursuing an obsession over a traumatised Tysha, a bitter enmity against Cersei or lusting after teen Dany (likely his next development) and 2) although I don't subscribe to it I think there is a smidgeon of a possibility that Sansa poisoned Joffrey.

I think every culture would have myths and legends about a second moon if there really had been one in the timeframe of human memory. IIRC the in world evidence for the second moon is an argument between Dany's handmaids which boils down to "strawhead" slave Doreah saying the second moon hatched the dragons while the Dothraki pair Irri and Jiqhui laugh at her ignorance and say the sun and moon are husband and wife.  I don't think we're meant to give either story any credence.  If GRRM has added more in his published pseudo-histories and mythos then there might be something to it but if not it feels like an intelligent but unsupported hypothesis.

I’d thoroughly approve if Sansa had poisoned Joffrey.  Poisoning him was performing a public service.

The one who must have had nerves of steel was Margaery, marrying a man who she knew would die at the feast, and then putting in an Oscar-winning performance as grieving wife.

4 hours ago, House Cambodia said:

If we're naming names, I've only recently come across the YouTube feud between Phoenix Ashes and Hills Alive, with Kevin Pendragon piling in. It puts me off all 3 creators and I've unsubscribed from the lot (and OOTGH).

Generally, any theory that pushes Dany, Sansa or whoever as totally evil (never mind they're flippin' children!) is so insensitive to GRRM's literary style of creating nuance and ambiguity that I can say I 'hate' it.

Parts of the fandom are completely toxic.  Dany's one of my favourite characters, but I'll happily acknowledge she has a vindictive streak, and makes some terrible mistakes.  Sansa is a less favourite character, but I still like her, and attempts to portray her as a monster in training are absurd.

1 hour ago, StarkTullies said:

Yes, the dragons are being used as weapons, and that's my point.  A "good guy with nukes" may cause "bad guys" to submit or surrender, but saying that a weapon of mass destruction "gives hope", makes "beautiful music", cause the land to "bloom again" is just silly, and those were the claims used in the original post.

I agree the dragons in themselves are neutral... but I don't think they will be used neutrally.  Dragons can be used for evil, or they can be neutral, but they have never been used for good.

How do we know the freedmen spit at his name?  Barristan Selmy is hardly an unbiased viewpoint character.  He militantly denied that Daenerys publicly laughed at Quentyn, which she did do, so I take none of his worshipful perceptions of Dany as truth.  This is the man who had blind loyalty to Mad King Aerys and would have continued his blind loyalty to King Joffrey had Joffrey not fired him.

Drogon killed 214 people flying out of the fighting pit after eating Barsena in front of everyone, to the horror of all.  Drogon didn't discriminate between elite or freedmen, and he burned or maimed 3x as many people as he killed.  Now Rhaegal is setting fire to Meereen as well.  Of course the people who hate Dany also hate her dragons, but I find it extremely likely that a huge portion of the freedmen don't hate the dragons as well.  The father of Hazzea, at the very least, considers Harghaz a hero.

Comparing wild wolves to wild dragons is a fair comparison.  Comparing wild wolves to a weaponized dragon who will burn down entire castles or villages if their rider commands them to is not a fair comparison.  If Nymeria is actively warged by Arya and Nymeria leads an army of wolves into battle, which I think is a likely possibility, that is a better comparison.  So far that hasn't happened.

Regardless, my response about the dragon's fires (not dragons themselves) leading to nothing but death and destruction is a response to the repeated claim that "ice is death but fire is life".  No, both are death: try walking into a burning house while making a claim that "fire gives life".

I don't hate dragons as living creatures.  I liked Grey Ghost who minded his own business and ate fish, and so far I like Viserion who rather hang out with his "mother" than fly around eating small children like Dany's favorite child.  But in this story dragons are weapons, and so far the wolves are not.  Ghost has done many good deeds: the dragons do nothing but kill or induce submission from their ability to kill.

Chaining up the dragons emboldened the slavers, and led the Second Sons to switch sides..  Those who are demanding their deaths are 200 Great Masters, the Yunkish, and the Green Grace. A freedman knocks a master to the floor, when he calls Harghaz a hero.   I’ve no reason to believe that Barristan is lying to himself about the state of affairs in Mereen. (Dany was not mocking Quentyn.  She was laughing at the coincidence between his being called Frog, but actually being a Prince, and the fairy tale.  Gerris chose to treat it as mockery, and Barristan was right to correct him).

As for the Pit, it’s worth noting that Drogon was not the aggressor.  He was attacked by Harghaz, and other guards, egged on by Hizdahr.  It may have disgusted them to see Barsena being eaten, but they were perfectly content to see her being gutted by a boar, and perfectly happy to get off on seeing dwarves being chased and eaten by lions, so my sympathy is limited.

The old slave who talked to Tyrion was clear that it was the masters who gave him “a show”, as he and other slaves looked down from the upper tier.  The elite aficionados were in the front rows, closest to the action.

51 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

I disagree with almost everything in the original post.  Starks aren't the villains, and Dany is not a bringer of hope.

The only thing I agree with is that the first and last chapters of A Game of Thrones are introductions of two main elements of the story.  The actual first chapter in the book (not Bran, but the Prologue) introduces the ice threat of the Others, and the last chapter introduces the fire threat of the dragons.

Dragons aren't hope.  Their deadly fires can't be used for anything but death and destruction.  Ice and fire may be opposites, but opposites can both be deadly.  Here are two quotes from "pro-fire" characters warning of its dangers.

"Fire consumes.  It consumes, and when it is done there is nothing left. Nothing." - Beric Dondarrion, worshipper of the "fire god"

"I should not have left the Wall. Lord Snow could not have known, but I should have seen it. Fire consumes, but cold preserves."  - Aemon Targaryen, from the "House of Fire"

Dragons can be used to burn peasants - or to burn an invading pirate fleet to the waterline, or a tyrant in his castle at Harrenhall.

Hargaz is a “hero” to the elite of Meereen, for his attempt to kill Drogon.  The freedmen spit at the mention of his name.

I see dragons as neutral, like any other weapon.  A war can be unjust or it can be just, but either way, you prosecute it to the best of your ability.

Warfare is not made gentler, by the absence of dragons.  The War of the Five Kings is as brutal as the Thirty Years War or the Deluge.  Every army, Lannister, Stark, Greyjoy, Tyrell, Baratheon perpetrates atrocities - with edged and pointed weapons.

And the worst atrocity of all is inflicting death by starvation.

By way of comparison are direwolves symbols of death and destruction, given that Nymeria and her pack, and Summer, kill and eat people?

I likewise disagree with the O/P that the Starks are villains.  But I see no ethical distinction between them and Daenerys, or between House Stark and House Targaryen, in general.  One House conquered a continent, the other conquered half of it.  The similarities between the families outweigh the differences.

Se7en, Threads, or The Wargame.

On 3/26/2024 at 4:33 PM, Maithanet said:

I also thought that the ending left me a little confused.  The fremen pile onto spaceships to attack the forces of the great houses.  Do the fremen have any experience with space battles?  They have a few ornithopter pilots, but I can't imagine that is the same as piloting a starship in combat.  Wouldn't they just get wiped out?  

I know that the fremen being supersoldiers is basically part of the worldbuilding of dune.  I can accept given the weird technological limits they've described that fremen could indeed be exceptional fighters on Arrakis.  But that doesn't translate to being great pilots, or how to fight in other areas.  Fighting in a cramped spaceship or a jungle planet is gonna be very different and require tactics the fremen have never used or encountered.  

AIUI, space travel is purely about transportation.  There is no fighting in space.

With space travel now, effectively, under Paul’s control, presumably they can isolate each enemy planet in turn, and destroy its forces.