Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Tyrion1991

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,998 profile views
  1. I think he will massively condense the Battle of Mereen. It makes no sense having 9 plus chapters on an intro battle. There is no reason to put what was obviously intended to be the grand set piece battle to conclude ADWD with all its multiple POV chapters and complexity to what’s basically just an intro battle. I don’t think he could quite Battle of the Fist and just have the battle recollected by Sam. But that’s the sort of treatment it would have to get. You could tell from the preview chapters that he was rehashing information and setup to desperately claw back narrative tension and just explain what was going on. I think he has no choice and really he made that the moment he chose to cut the battle from Dance. They’re now basically dead weight since Dany has opted to leave for Westeros it only serves to tie up loose ends and can’t be the grand spectacle it was intended to be at the end of a very tense book in Dance. However there would be enormous pressure on him not to do that. Not only because these plots are significant cliffhangers people have waited a decade for but because he’s already read them out we know he has the material. I’ll say it right now. George is not writing Winds of Winter. He’s writing Dance with Dragons part 3. —
  2. That’s a false comparison. Jon and Rob inherits an existing institution. Dany starts from scratch. Compare setting up your own business to calling it in as a CEO of a company you bought shares in. The latter can just keep ticking over even if an idiots in charge. The former is a much taller order. You seem to be under a false impression about what being a ruler is. Which, to be fair, I think George subscribed to this view as well. That being a good ruler means being some kind of savant level intellect who can do everything. George does heap praise on that type of character at every opportunity and belittle their exclusion. But a rulers job is to set the agenda, to be the face of the state, handle the court and public relations. Then delegate to the various departments, functionaries and yes, as George likes to beat us over the head with, technical experts. There’s no reason Dany can’t do this. Do you think Catherine the Great did everything in Russia? Now, despite point 1 and the author himself not getting this as evidenced by King Bran. Dany should not have had any issues with this. The scenario is that you have this impossibly beautiful warrior queen blessed with three dragons who has defeated all set before her. If you’re an out of work book-keeper or jeweller or lawyer the dollar signs should be spinning in your eyes. Why wouldn’t those “technical experts” flock to her court? Why would Dany be randomly and ridiculously dependent on the previous regime (which retcon btw since it was clearly dismantled at end of ASOS) for this kind of support? You mention all the skilled slaves leaving. Well Dany can’t exactly force them and George completely ignores the concept that people might have a stake and vested interest in seeing Dany succeed. You know, because being re-enslaved or executed isn’t incentive enough; with the added bonus of getting an early seat at the table of the girl with all the dragons. The entire scenario George presents is dumb. You would never have three cities built around training slaves. They would have farms, mines and workshops at which they were put to work. The excuse that Mereen has always been a desolate land is a cheap cop out and so unrealistic that it crosses into contrived. So you can’t hold it against Dany for wrecking an economy based on slavery. Even the South could continue to farm after the civil war. - She wasn’t Queen of Astapor and left a council to rule it. A local strongman takes over because reasons. His army actually did pretty well all considered. Plus, he was relying on Dany coming with the Unsullied which she could have done. Plus it makes no sense for half the world to invade this extremely remote, difficult to access and inhospitable land. Apparently getting into it is far easier than leaving. - Well Yunkai should have been bankrupted after losing all of its slaves and warchest. They have to pay for those slaves you know. It wasn’t because...reasons. - Yunkai shouldn’t be a threat and shouldn’t be so stupid to attack Dany. Dragons. Army. Bad idea. - Nobody has given trials in this series. George has written a world in which the rule of law is nonexistent. Dany does not have the easy option of hand waving a few bureaucrats to handle the red tape. I mean we must sort out the paperwork for all these executions and I am sure the slavers would appreciate the formalities. They wouldn’t just deny the courts authority. Plus, she is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention and the principles you have to table to level that accusation do not exist in this world. - Why would there be “skilled slaves” in societies George tells us emphatically only train soldiers, pit fighters and sex slaves? I don’t think this is a scenario that can be taken seriously. Why would skilled slaves not want a salary, status and power in a free society? I think very little of George but I like to think he’s not such a reactionary to go there. - Because it’s an evil blood sport that’s repugnant and disgusting. Why should she indulge a barbaric practice encouraged by a disgraced and downcast gaggle of nobles? - Xaro did not provide her enough ships. Dany would have taken up the offer otherwise. In fact she would have left if George hadn’t put a Demon Road with 50 percent attrition as the only way out of Slavers Bay. But then again, George is writing against the character. - The Harpies should not be a threat. George completely ignores the presence of a million freed slaves who would probably object to being murdered. Dany should have no say in the matter. They would start murdering the masters and riots should ensue. They don’t either because reasons and well that would make things easy for Dany. Her wilful people kill the undesirable element in her city. In fact in Storm it never made sense that most of them survived and were herded into the city square to be spared invasion the first place. Never mind have all their property, titles and jobs restored. I suspect George in Winds wants Dany to explicitly order them to be wiped out in this manner. - Because George is making the ham fisted point that you shouldn’t have two extremes. So he demonised Danys appeasement in Dance and he’s going rivers demonise Dany going Fire and Blood in Winds. It’s all about that lovely nebulous middle ground. Personally I think that’s a trite and patronising argument. But there it is. I don’t think George is Considering this as a thought experiment on how this would all work out. He’s starting with that premise and building a world around it. So Dany has been set up as the character of extremes. - Well actually the joke is that Dany had already won through peace and got cold feet. She had achieved a peace and was about to be joined by a deluge of allies in the form of Vic, Tyrion and potentially the Volantine Fleet. Plus Marywn, Moqorro and all those “experts” you said she was lacking to make this gig work. Which would have swung the pendulum back in her direction. She’d have been too powerful to challenge (if she wasn’t already) and that would have been that. The slavers would have fizzled away, probably bankrupted by raising that stupidly huge army and fleet so far from home. For what was essentially a bluff. Instead, that old chestnut of being soooo impatient plays out and Dany made a hasty decision to embrace fire and blood. Tyrion saying that the slavers never wanted war and were always scared of Dany was utter rubbish. I couldn’t believe George would be that crass. But yeah apparently just wait and all your problems will go away. In all seriousness though. Dany has these doubts herself and she says them to Jorahs shade. How she’s still just a little girl and doesn’t know the way. So you’re really just adding a bit of rhetoric to the characters own view of herself that she’s a Dragon and not meant for planting trees. I just think that’s a false premise because nobody, especially not somebody like that, would need to carry the weight of the world alone. You should be able to play to your strengths and let others fill in the blanks.
  3. Well, ostensibly we the readers are supposed to think he’s just one of Danys allies and paving the way for her. George thinks he’s been really subtle with this Dance with Dragons 2.0. So shhhh, spoilers. They’re all on the same team. But against Dany? Lots of readers support him. The issue is that the characters they would root for like Stannis and Jon are too far away and removed from this plot. So there isn’t too much discussion about what may never happen. A bit like Stannis vs Dany. They’re so far removed I don’t think there’s going to be a conflict in the limited scope of the books. Really? What’s the blast radius of a dragon breath attack? Real convenient those Direwolves have never caused any bother and are so easy to control. It doesn’t at all. Any more than Dany having always been illegitimate on grounds of being a woman. Personally I don’t root for him because he’s very obviously a contrived excuse to make things difficult for Dany and push her into another impossible situation. On top of Dance this has crossed the line into the author actively writing against the character and having no regard for how things would play out in believable circumstances. Oh, Dany has to go Fire and Blood because fake Targaryen drops out the sky and takes Westeros in a day. Who’d have thought. All without Dany having had any decision making or agency going into it. Basically Aegon is a pawn in George’s game and I just roll my eyes at it. How can anyone make grand pronouncements on human nature and politics if you’re pulling out dumb scenarios like that?
  4. You think having the Bolton’s be naturally inclined towards sadism, torture and betrayal isn’t going to seriously colour the readers view of the conflict? If you demonise the other houses and nations it is irrelevant if there’s a paragraph discussing a minor Bolton character doing something nice. It’s like saying the Empire isn’t evil because that one pilot let some people go. Especially set against multiple POV Stark characters who don’t get off torturing innocent people. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. This is clear cut good versus evil and presented as such. For example George had the Bolton’s and Freys betray the Starks. So all the evil and repulsive factions end up on one side and all the nice wooly Reeds, Mormonts and Manderleys on the other. That’s not morally grey, it actually makes the distinction even clearer. If he wanted a grey story he should have written one. You would never have a Stark analogue to Tywin Lannister or the Mad King. You would never have a Northern character suggesting their entire society is wrong and needs to change like Asha with the Ironborn. You would never have a Stark be told that they should abandon this mad quest for vengeance like Doran Martel was told. You would never have the Stark bloodline be put under constant suspicion for being impure. You would never have the Northern warrior culture torn into like Knighthood and chivalry is by almost every character. In fact, the North being the only faction not to have Knights is kind of telling of itself here. George didn’t want to imply this was aimed at them. The criticism is only cutting one way. This implicitly frames the Starks and the North positively. George is literally all but saying that everyone is crap compared to the Starks and North. Which is George setting up the Starks as the force of reason that unites Westeros. You’re assuming the Starks won’t be set into that role by George to make them look good. That oh, they’ll be consumed by vengeance and take this dark turn everyone is convinced they’re on. Despite the whole series pointing out that all these problems exist in all the other houses except the Starks/North. Which, we’ve seen nothing of even going into the penultimate book. There might be some wrangling and soul searching but that’s how it’s going to play out.
  5. The Starks are the first family. A large chunk of the POV are Starks and most have some connection to the initial meeting at Winterfell. Dany is the outsider character. Being stupid enough to trust Littlefinger and Cersei is a character flaw; not proof that these are morally grey characters. Partially, as opposed to Dany who is depicted as entirely responsible. That question mark is non existent with the character. Thats your opinion that the Starks are bad. It’s not the authors intent to write them as dislikable. Hes a satirist and it’s easier to write that material with a crazy incest family rather than the stoic, duty-bound and humble Starks. A history of the Starks would just be a catalogue of a series of clones carved from ice that are destined to invariably conquer the North or sit in Winterfell brooding. He writes about the Targaryens so much because he wants to criticise them and what they represent. It’s not so he can stress their importance to the narrative. He doesn’t write about the Starks so much in the external books because there’s nothing to criticise or comment on.
  6. Northmen does not mean Starks. It’s left unclear how involved Rob is in issuing commands and his responsibility is left unaddressed. I never saw a Riverland peasant call Rob Stark out for bringing ruin on them. Plus, it’s mostly Bolton’s, Freys and Karstarks who turn out to be villains all along; essentially exonerating Rob. Her grandfather who she never knew, not father. By making it a character who is a non entity about which we know next to nothing beyond the Mad King killed him it makes this revelation toothless. Also it’s sanitised by not going into the same lurid detail George goes to when he’s counting how many entrails fell out of the crucified slavers in Meereen. The BWB opinion means little since they are depicted as worshipping the evil demonic religion. This signals the reader to question their bias with regard to it and clouds such an assertion about atrocities committed by Aryas family. Presented as a group of rogue soldiers not acting under a higher authority. You don’t have the insinuation made that this is a direct consequence of Rob Starks war. He is in the wrong for pursuing this war out of his families pride. Plus, given that Rob executes Karstark for killing prisoners that’s done to signal to the reader that this is being done behind his back. At best we re talking incompetence here. Cat has an opinion that Edmure is being naive. That’s a criticism of Edmure, not Cat. George is actually giving Cats pragmatism a fair hearing. Finally we’re talking about a non POV character in Rob Stark. Which means every Stark character has the defence that they’re an innocent flower in all of this. The difference with Dany is that we’re not talking inference and innuendo. We’re talking entire chapters that amount to a critique of her character. We’re not having to pick apart bits and pieces. You’re being told by the writer to question what this character is doing at every turn. Doxos is given a weighty chapter in which he manages to wrong foot Dany and leave the character speechless. That’s done to show that Dany is ignorant and blundered into the mess of Mereen. It doesn’t really matter if he’s a slimy dude and his arguments self serving. By having the character so wrong footed it’s being done to sow doubt in the readers mind. Considering Dany isn’t even on the same continent as most of the characters it’s perplexing that there has been so much of it. Arriane is actually one of the first Westerosi POV to hold an opinion on Dany and it turns out to be highly negative. Davos and Sam were just indifferent for the most part but then she’s a very distant character about which they know next to nothing. Plus it’s not just other characters criticising Dany. You have her criticising herself. Other characters in Westeros like Jamie, Ned and Robert going on about how bad the Targaryens are. Having full accounts of how high the bodies were outside of Mereens gates and all the violence resulting from Danys conquests. There just isn’t a comparison to be made here. Rob and the Stark characters are never so strongly or harshly criticised for what they are doing. I am not seeing this deep meta criticism of House Stark. You mean that little segment in Danys first book where George decides to set up this martyr to talk truth to power? This is the subtlety of a bulldozer. George having the Smallfolk hold positive views of the Targaryens is just him showing how fickle the mob is. It’s a grass is always greener attitude. The fact that they think the Mad King has his good points is more to do with how bad things are. They also quite liked Robert. So I think George isn’t making the point that the smallfolk like the Targaryens. He’s saying how ignorant they are. The spin off books have a handful of passable Targaryens that are set against a gaggle of cravens, madmen and megalomaniacs. Set against a family that has never had any of its House go insane, or drink magic juice to try and turn into a Direwolf, or went on ill advised trips to Valyria that got them killed. You would never have a Stark character, or ancestor, depicted as a fool or weak. One house is being shown to be strong and the other flawed and weak. Thats kind of unfair on Harry Potter. The lines are much more sharply drawn between the Starks and Targaryens.
  7. If George wanted to have that conversation then he wouldn’t have brought the element of madness into the equation at all. By making it so central to the character it’s impossible to separate from any judgement of what she’s doing. Oh, Dany does not have a problem with letting her brother die. She must be a crazy Targaryen. Oh, Dany crucifies the masters. She must be a crazy Targaryen. Oh, Dany starts seeing Quiarhe. She must be a crazy Targaryen. Oh, Dany has visions in the Dothraki Sea. She must be a crazy Targaryen. Oh, Dany believes she’s the messiah and chosen one. She must be a crazy Targaryen. Oh, Dany kills a good character like Arriane who calls her out. She must be a crazy Targaryen. Oh, Dany starts burning cities down. She must be a crazy Targaryen. Its going to shut any conversation down. There’s such an unavoidable shadow over Danys actions and motivations that you can’t neatly separate the two from her sanity. He has framed this as a superficial discussion over is she, isn’t she. Which tells me as the reader that a character without Targaryen madness would easily avoid such temptations or issues. Also, if you’re going to have the Starks overcome all of these problems it won’t really challenge the reader. If they assume positions of power and authority. Have Bran or Jon revealed as the true chosen one and messiah. Have one of them able to control a dragon without going Fire and Blood. Basically the Starks would be tyrannical leaders with absolute power. But to George, they have the personal qualities to be what Dany is pretending to be. George is setting Dany up as a false messiah. He’s not saying the messiah would be bad. I think DND had the basics of George’s story but told it poorly. Hence why crazy Dany is depicted as Hitler. Why Bran ends up as King because he’s robotman. The whole Burkean conservatism that’s being advocated. George probably told them these were the points he wanted to get across. Charismatic and powerful leaders should come with a warning label. Change is dangerous. I imagine with the books he is going to obscure this much better. The sort of “ambivalence” in the rest of the novels regarding Dany and the Starks. For example he’s probably going to have Bran be really powerful like the main guy from Dune. That might explain why a council would pick him, but it would undercut any criticism he makes of an all powerful messiah saving us from ourselves. If you’ve already got a barebones narrative, it’s not really in the telling that it’s at fault. As to the last point. No. Why would you want the responsibility of ruling others? You underestimate my laziness. Being in that position gives other people a hold over you. You’d be surrounded by men wanting you to kill to satisfy their goals and interests. You would actually lose the ability to choose. I’d probably just enjoy being a celebrity and make loads of money on my terms with disregard and disdain for the powers that be. Why would you want some snivelling bureaucrat asking you to napalm children without so much as an explanation? People seem to forget that Dany has this option of walking away.
  8. Because a lot of people seem to think this is an amazing idea. It’s a great way to show the dangers of a charismatic leader. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It’s just like Dune. Etc etc However that coin landing the wrong way actually isn’t a deep and profound story. George has gone out of his way to stress that the taint of Targaryen madness is due to incest between brother and sister. This is not a problem in the real world. It is not a weakness shared by most human beings. So in effect George would be implying that any character would succeed in Danys place. Its not really a statement on corruption and power. He’s explicitly saying it’s all in the blood. Get some honest Northern blood on the throne and everything will be good with the world. Short of some silly plot twist like Dany going bad and then it turning out she wasn’t even a Targaryen there’s no way around this. It’s not any kind of trauma or wrong decision; it’s the weak blood. Also, George is not a subtle man. He has had basically every character talk about how the Targaryens were insane nutters who brought ruin on the realm. Even characters like Barristan are wary and suspicious of Dany. She is openly accused of being insane by several characters throughout the novels. She wonders if she’s crazy and has the taint. So her taking a heel turn isn’t going to be particularly surprising. It would only be surprising because of how stupid and irrelevant it would be. It’s just as well people in the real world don’t have these insurmountable Daemons of incest blood to overcome. Plus, unlike in Dune, Dany is not the central protagonist. Having the main protagonist turn to the dark side is profound because that’s the hero’s journey and that’s the person you are rooting for. It’s pulling the rug from under you. However, Dany is a side character. The Starks are the main POV characters by far. So if Dany takes the fall but our Stark characters have a classic heroes journey then it won’t actually have challenged the reader or tropes. George would simply have done a villains origin for a side character. One who is already highly divisive among fans. A lot of people actually want this character to fail to make way for the Starks. As an aside, this also demolishes any idea of her downfall being tragic. If Dany fails and the Starks succeed what does that actually prove?
  9. George is not being subtle. You’re reading into the text looking for it to be grim dark and morally grey. Assuming nuance and complexity and seeing it everywhere. Oh, the Freys had some passable motivation for the Red Wedding which must mean George wants to cast a shadow over Robs cause. I really don’t buy this. The rest are basically foibles and part of the tragedy of their house. The Starks are depicted as innocent victims of external aggression. They are given a moral blank cheque by George via Northern nationalism. He goes out of of his way to separate the Starks from any negative consequences (Bolton’s and Karstarks do bad things before backstabbing the Starks) and obscures their involvement. Contrast this to the conga line of characters who accuse Dany of being insane to her face. Lecture her on her motivations. Not one character criticises Rob Stark for his one war which implicitly devastated the Riverlands. Yet one village where Dany objects to the whole enterprise is considered to be a big deal? That’s not the writer showing nuance, that’s a double standard. Entire chapters and entire novels dedicated towards how her family were bad news for Westeros and evil. How every Targaryen was a repugnant genocidal monster because of their weak blood. Whilst the Starks are depicted as these proud Kings of Winter who have never known defeat and can endure the harshest Winter. You’d never have the Stark equivalent of The Mad King or Maegor. George is not being subtle here. The Starks are given favourable treatment in the story. I recently watched some reviewer of Dune make the point about the main character initially being set up as the hero in book one. But then by book two of the trilogy he’s slowly revealed to be not all he was cracked up to be. Well, we’re on the penultimate book in a monster seven novel series. George would have to have left it extremely late in the day for this dark turn by the Starks. Dany, he’s been saying she’s a monster and insane since the first novel. People didn’t expect it because it’s a stupid and pointless direction to take the character. Thank God there’s no such thing as weak Targaryen incest blood in the real world. A normal person would never make those mistakes. But if that was his intent to subvert the hero trope with the Starks he would have to have left a clear trail. Have a character start doubting the motivations of the Starks. Question why they are doing what they are doing. This has not happened.
  10. Its pretty self evident that Dany is wrestling between appeasement and her violent impulses. It’s not very insightful. The Mereenese Blot is an apologia for George not finishing A Dance with Dragons which consigned the natural conclusion of that novel into the Winds of Winter. A beautiful statue with its head cut off isn’t a masterpiece. Plus, I am not impressed by a contrived situation in which Dany is pushed into making this dark turn. The situation isn’t realistic. Whole economy based on training slaves that Dany can’t leave because of its geography. Actors whose motivations are flimsy and make no sense. Let’s bluff Daenerys into concessions when we know we can’t win a fight against her and she has dragons so should crush as easily as those ants she finds in the Dothraki Sea. George is not a subtle man FYI. Let’s have Dany learn about Jorah before this all happens so she feels all alone and paranoid. The character has no agency so it’s obvious that if you keep tugging on Superman’s cape it won’t end well. To be frank it’s basically exactly what happens in the show in seasons 7 and 8. Youre right. It’s very uncomfortable that George spends so long elaborating on the deaths of these slavers and how Dany in her own mind left a desert of the land. Even more so when he acts like a the few million freed slaves brought with her to Mereen don’t exist or aren’t going to be an issue for the Ghiscari. He also has Xaro Zoan Doxos lecture and outwit Dany on the merits of slavery to make her look ill informed on the matter. Just because Dany didn’t have an army of lawyers and judges to go through the paperwork of executing or imprisoning people doesn’t have any bearing on the justness of the cause.
  11. Of course this is George’s intent. He wants to advocate that a quiet spoken technocrat without human emotion and compassion would make the perfect ruler. So by his reasoning Joseph Stalin was a perfect ruler because he was a quiet spoken back office man. That’s what Bran is. Some cold blooded reptile who George thinks would be good because he has cast aside his own ego and embraced knowledge. Whereas Dany is thrown under the bus as representing the ultimate fate of passion as self destructive. I am fully aware that’s his intent; which is why I disagree with it. You can’t take the authors assertions at face value because he can control his examples. Of course, people loving each other is bad because it means twincest would happen! That means love must be the death of duty! It’s absurd. So when the author tells me that Jon is being so so smart because he makes suggestions at the same level as a Dungeons and Dragons player I don’t buy it. Stannis could easily get this information from any number of sources. I think the author felt he had to show Jon achieve something in his own right precisely for the purpose of impressing the reader. I mean hell Benjen literally tells Jon on remarks to the Kings Arrival that “wow you’re so smart Jon!”. George is not a subtle man. The dude bringing everyone together to face the greater threat has been done many many times. Again, your typical D&D party would be trying to negotiate with the Wildlings. You can’t give the character praise and credit for this. George contrived a ridiculous situation to make this idiot look good. The Nights Watch and Northerners are barely racist towards the Wildlings. It’s tame. A false conflict that George is going to hand wave to make it easy for Jon to unite both cultures. In fact George has to produce some Andals to play the racist fools to make Jon look good and avoid insinuating the Northerners could be bad. My point is that you are giving him credit where credit is not due. Is he a bad man for playing diplomat and wanting to make peace. No. But it’s not worth praise and not worth my time because it’s so contrived and generic it offends me. Well actually Jon is using might makes right here. He could not compel the diplomatic option without demanding everyone respect his authority as Lord Commander. In fact he kind of chops a mans head off. Totally had nothing to do with his Dad of course. So he is using violence and it’s threat to get what he wants. I mean it’s 4D chess move to cut a mans head off who back talks to you. You don’t think it’s pretentious to make yourself out to be the stoic man of dignity? To me that’s just as insincere and a demand for attention as throwing on all the glam and being a braggart. It’s an act. It’s a way of selling yourself. Oh, he must be intelligent because he’s introverted and soulfully reflecting on life. So deep and brooding. To me, if you make the effort that shows that you care what other people think; that’s the virtuous behaviour. George is also talking about a non issue. The technocrats and bureaucrats run every country on this planet. If you’ve ever seen the TV show Yes Minister then you’d know what I mean. Doesn’t matter who the front man is. It’s absurd to complain that as a society we aren’t putting smart people into positions of power or placing value in them. I d rather have somebody with fire in their heart and compassion for their fellow humans than a robot who wouldn’t think twice about killing you if it served its calculations. If power has to exist in the world then what matters is how it’s wielded and power isn’t going anywhere. Also his reasoning invariably leads to status quo Burkean conservatism. War is bad so whoever is the incumbent ruler must be in the right and the person at fault is the trouble maker trying to overthrow the natural order.
  12. The Northern army eating all the food you mean? Drape yourself in a rebel flag as an excuse to kill and steal indeed. They got exactly what they deserved. Why should I mourn an army of rapists and thieves who prattle on about their honour and how they’re the wolves of the North? So wait, you’re saying Robs war had been so violent and devastating that there isn’t a single peasant for Aryas Pack to eat? Even I haven’t accused him of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Very odd defence to Arya not killing innocents with her wolf and enjoying it. So it’s okay for her to kill her countrymen if they, as conscripts, decide to desert the army? Who made her judge jury and executioner here? Maybe Rob should have fed and paid his men instead expecting them to offer their lives up for his blood feud. Arya doesn’t have any right to hunt them down with a Direwolf for the crime of deserting her dead brother. The more likely explanation is either that Arya is lying to herself to justify what her precious wolf is doing. Of course they’re bad people iam killing. Or, George is sanitising it. Lord forbid one of the Direwolves harm an innocent person. Obviously the Starks can’t have that besmirching their good names.
  13. Should I keep reading the series in general having already read to Dance. The series hasn’t been finished. There’s a limit to how long you can make a title. I have for my sins read their silly chapters. I was exaggerating. If I reread the novels I would skim past them since they’re boring and there’s nothing I care about there. I did not initially despise them because I took George at his word and I didn’t think he was going to throw Dany under the bus to make them look good. That it became increasingly obvious that he was using a double standard and the show removes any lingering doubts here. Those are the main reasons people cite when they criticise Daenerys. Stuff like she gives herself loads of titles and calls herself the Dragon, Jon would never do that ergo; Jon is a good person. My point is that they’re basically comparing them to the Starks and George has written the story in such a way to make the reader criticise these things. So it’s not surprising and the fact he gave Dany those traits is to provoke precisely this reaction. From the very first chapter. He isn’t making a balanced or nuanced comparison between two extremes of ice and fire. It’s pretty clear which way the wind is blowing.
  14. Pretty sure that’s not a proud moment in Greek history.
  15. Danys body count is not very high when you consider what she’s trying to do. How many millions of slaves do you think have died and would continue to die if that trade continued for a few thousand years? The greatest damage is being done by the reactionary coalition that committed genocide at Astapor. Again, a thousand Tyrants or one. If you killed Genghis then there’d still be an entire society of nomads raiding each other. It’s hubris to think killing one man, much less a baby can solve this problem. The Dothraki aren’t going anywhere. Her people are still going to die. Still going to be enslaved. Nothing has changed. There’s no other perspective here. Her goal was to stop the killing. It’s not stopped. So she’s failed and like a coward starts making excuses to paint herself as a martyr. There’s no need to entertain the idea this characters a hero.
  • Create New...