SeanF

I suppose if one lives in North Korea or Saudi Arabia then someone like Arya would be horribly punished, but I doubt if those are models to emulate.

I think Dany ought to held to the same standard as the rest. But, that inclines me towards sympathy, in each case, rather than condemnation.

Charities try to rehabilitate African child soldiers. They don’t put out their eyes, and chop off their limbs. in our world, Arya would not be punished, but sent for fostering, and counselled for her traumas.

Dark-hearted Arya is Arya of the show, not the books. Show Arya was a sadist who appeared to be receiving orgasm as she watched Walder Frey die. Arya of the books is generally sympathetic, but horribly traumatised.

I think Dany and the Starks are related through the Blackwoods, but I know of no Targaryen ancestors.

Rafford is a rapist and common murderer. He took part in the gang rape of the innkeep’s daughter and the murder of her brother. A special place in hell awaits him. The problem with revenge, in this tale as real life, is it’s often disproportionate or targeted at the wrong people. But Raff, like the Tickler, got exactly what he deserved.

That was performing a public service.

By definition, to kill in self-defence, or in defence of others, is no murder. And, the world is definitely a better place, without the likes of Chiswick, the Tickler, and Raff the Sweetling. Ideally, these people would all be brought to trial: in practice, they acted with impunity. Justice came for them. The killings of Daeron and the insurance broker are more dubious. Neither, however, can be considered the “most heinous” of the series.

Had the Blacks opted for complete extermination of their opponents, at the end of the War, there was nothing to stop them. They had won completely. Complete extermination was never an option for Robert, as the power of the Reach was far too great, and Dorne was far too inaccessible. So, as you say, it’s strange that Robert should win the propaganda battle (although a Targaryen restoration may make that a temporary victory) but the Blacks did not. Hence my reference to the Lost Cause, upthread, where the losers had success in persuading others that they were righteous.

I could see the sense of offering a general pardon to the Greens, but the side that’s triumphed has no reason to place itself in the wrong. The narrative that Rhaenyra was no Queen seems to me like the Westerosi version of the Lost Cause, a false account of history that many people bought into.

Denying Rhaenyra’s queenship seems to me like claiming that Henry VII’s reign started in 1483 (something that Tudor propagandists tried to argue). No serious historian ought to accept it. A pretender is Lady Jane Grey, or Charles Stuart, or Edgar Atheling. Not a crown Prince/Princess who takes the capital, has a coronation, and whose bloodline prevails.

At this point in the tale, Sansa is a little snot, stupid and stuck up. Ned and Arya are disgusted about Mycah’s death. Sansa was bothered about his smell, and told Arya she should have been killed, rather than Lady. Sansa will later develop empathy and compassion, which is part of her growth as a character, but she doesn’t possess it at this point.

Yes. Aegon II’s bloodline was destroyed. Rhaenyra’s triumphed, and every future king is her descendant. The Greens were crushed and their leaders sent to the Wall or executed. It makes no sense for the victors to beg the losers for pardon, or to say they fought for a usurper. Rhaenyra is the posthumous victim of people trying to rewrite history. But, a good historian should see through the fabrications of partisans.

Honestly, it’s a stretch to view her as a pretender. She took the capital, and was crowned, and took her enemies captive, and reigned. She’s not Edgar Atheling or Bonnie Prince Charlie.

That’s not the same as betraying her family. I’d agree that Sansa’s comment to Arya and her attitude towards Mycah are both horrible. Ned and Arya are the only two present who actually view Mycah as a human being. Sansa does not.

I think most readers would applaud.

Does it matter, if Sansa kills Sweetrobin?

I like the Cossack who’s smoking a pipe, during the Battle of Yellow Water. Sidney Smith, like Cochrane, is one of those people whose lives read like fiction.

WRT the Trilogy, this Polish miniseries comes highly recommended.

There are children and children. No one sheds any tears for Joffrey or would shed tears for Sweetrobin. But, they’re a pair of little snots.

Well, this ties back to the discussion about the meaning of The Game of Thones. The Lannisters threw the first punches. Tywin and his family always ratcheted up the violence, with a bit of sexual sadism too. But the Starks were willing to respond quite brutally. They don’t want to make the smallfolk suffer, but they will do, if that’s what it takes to hit back. Sansa does what she has to, to survive, eg lying on behalf of LF to the Vale lords. That may ultimately involve looking the other way, as Sweetrobin perishes.

There is something wonderful about the belief that defeat is no refutation, that it’s better to die defiant, than live in shame, like Ragnar Lothbrok. That appeals across ages, classes, ethnic groups. ”Will shall be the sterner, heart the greater, spirit the bolder, even as our strength lessens.”

Back in the day, I imagine tales about the Vikings would focus on their skills as navigators and fighters, with the occasional reference to a bit of pillage. That was their version of "woke", as opposed to the modern version which focuses on the Vikings' sexual equality and skills as craftsmen. Slave-taking, head-hunting, and r*pe would not feature heavily in either set of literature for boys and girls. Or at any rate, they would only be practised by evil Vikings, not by the good Vikings. Overall, I'd say the Vikings have had an incredibly good press, really since historical novels started. Ask the average person how a Viking lived, and they'd view it as one long stag party.

The Trilogy is on my to-read list. I've had a number of people recommend it to me.