Nictarion Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 And while they're at it, wouldn't it make even more sense to tell the public, especially if they want to provoke a reaction from Dany? Also, I doubt they would have expected her to simply lock up her dragons at that stage. She was the evil foreign Queen who uses dragons to attack peaceful envoys, as far as they were concerned. Which scenario would likely result in more people willing to join the Sons of the Harpy, one where Dany's symbols of power are flying around as a constant reminder of her might, or one where they're not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Seriously I'm no Dany hater but why is it so hard for some to believe a dangerous untamed animal acted like an dangerous untamed animal? If you can't deal with the prospect of a dragon munching out on an innocent kid maybe A Song of Ice and Fire isn't the series for you. Even IRL, wild animals don't go and attack people without reason. They do it, except rare occasions, because they feel threatened or because they're hungry. I doubt a dragon feels threatened by a little girl, and as much, they would try to keep away from humans, and it looks like Drogon can feed himself quite well from sheep and goats. He has no reasons to attack people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brute of Bracken Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Which scenario would likely result in more people willing to join the Sons of the Harpy, one where Dany's symbols of power are flying around as a constant reminder of her might, or one where they're not? I'm not sure how your post addresses the points I raised above. Sure, they would prefer if Dany locked up her dragons. But could they have expected her to? And even if they did, why not spread the tale? Spreading the tale would only make their plan even more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon rhaegar stark Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 He had deliberately waited until the audience hall was empty to come forward. Not only that, it is quite easy to create a scene and spread the the, if the Harpies so desired. only because they were ordered to clear remember he cant go and straight away claim that her dragon killed his girl ...he must be given the chance to spoken first then only he can speak ...he not waited ...he just lingered as the others were filling out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brute of Bracken Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 only because they were ordered to clear remember he cant go and straight away claim that her dragon killed his girl ...he must be given the chance to spoken first then only he can speak ...he not waited ...he just lingered as the others were filling out Dany states that he deliberately waited for the hall to empty. why had Hazzea’s father waited until the audience hall was almost empty to come forward? Further, the question still remains - why did the sons of the Harpy not spread the tale? It is not even necessary to come to court to do it. Also, this quote suggests he had a chance to speak out earlier: If his purpose had been to inflame the Meereenese against her, he would have told his tale when the hall was full of ears to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I'm not sure how your post addresses the points I raised above. Sure, they would prefer if Dany locked up her dragons. But could they have expected her to? And even if they did, why not spread the tale? Spreading the tale would only make their plan even more effective. Spreading the tale would likely be their next move if Daenerys didn't lock them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brute of Bracken Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Spreading the tale would likely be their next move if Daenerys didn't lock them up. 1. Why not spread the tale even after Dany locks the dragons up? It is still anti Dany and anti dragon propaganda. 2. Remember Drogon was still loose - so there is every reason to still spread the tale 3. All this is assuming they expected Dany to lock up her dragons, which I think is unlikely. Dany had just killed 163 slavers - why would they expect her to care about the death of some peasant child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Meris Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 This reminds me of a conversation I had with a show-only friend of mine: Unsullied: So, are the dragons good or bad? Me: Is a tiger good or bad? Neither, it's just scary. There's no morality involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon rhaegar stark Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 1. Why not spread the tale even after Dany locks the dragons up? 2. Remember Drogon was still loose - so there is every reason to still spread the tale 3. All this is assuming they expected Dany to lock up her dragons, which I think is unlikely. Dany had just killed 163 slavers - why would they expect her to care about the death of some peasant child? it may not be about the locking up of the dragons they know that she likes children and her people ...and by the claim that one of her dragon killed the one who she thought as her people they made danny doubt herself and her dragons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 1. Why not spread the tale even after Dany locks the dragons up? It is still anti Dany and anti dragon propaganda. 2. Remember Drogon was still loose - so there is every reason to still spread the tale 3. All this is assuming they expected Dany to lock up her dragons, which I think is unlikely. Dany had just killed 163 slavers - why would they expect her to care about the death of some peasant child? All fair questions, but I think it was left ambiguous for a reason. Why not just have it happen "on screen" if it wasn't supposed to make us question it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brute of Bracken Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I think it is important to keep in mind the mentality of the Slavers at this stage. as far as Dany is concerned, Dany is outright evil, who has come to destroy their ancient culture - just like the Valyrians of old. She crucifies 163 slavers and burns peaceful envoys. She forecefully strips people of their property, and kills those who oppose her. In their mind, she is as cruel and evil as you can get. Would they really expect Dany to lock up her dragons just because of some peasant child's death? Sure, it would give bad propaganda for Dany, yes. But Dany's action of locking up her dragons is likely unexpected by the Harpies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brute of Bracken Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 it may not be about the locking up of the dragons they know that she likes children and her people ...and by the claim that one of her dragon killed the one who she thought as her people they made danny doubt herself and her dragons They have no reason to assume Dany likes children at that stage. That comes later. At that point, they just see Dany as evil. And whatever they thougt, surely it made sense to spread the tale in any case. All fair questions, but I think it was left ambiguous for a reason. Why not just have it happen "on screen" if it wasn't supposed to make us question it? GRRM doesn't necessarily spell everything out to us. Sometimes we have to make our own judgements. Given the unanswered questions if we assume the Harpies did it, and the appearance of the old man in particular, I think GRRM wants us to figure out that the Harpies - the "villains" of this story, are actually not behind this act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon rhaegar stark Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I think it is important to keep in mind the mentality of the Slavers at this stage. s far as Dany is concerned, Dany is outright evil, who has come to destroy their ancient culture - just like the Valyrians of old. She crucifies 163 slavers and burns peaceful envoys. She forecefully strips people of their property, and kills those who oppose her. In their mind, she is as cruel and evil as you can get. Would they really expect Dany to ock up her dragons just because of some peasant child's death? Sure, it would give bad propaganda for Dany, yes. But Dany's action of locking up her dragons is likely unexpected by the Harpies. like i said it may be they wanted to make danny doubt about her and her dragons i agree with all u said but u say like she captured a new city and give 163 slaves as a sacrifice or something ...they had murdered 163 girls in the first place to warn her so she crucified them the exact number of girls the slavers crucified iam not backing her in this crucification she could have shown mercy but she did what she thought was justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brute of Bracken Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 like i said it may be they wanted to make danny doubt about her and her dragons i agree with all u said but u say like she captured a new city and give 163 slaves as a sacrifice or something ...they had murdered 163 girls in the first place to warn her so she crucified them the exact number of girls the slavers crucified iam not backing her in this crucification she could have shown mercy but she did what she thought was justice I said it from the slaver's point of view. They are not likely to see the justice in Dany's actions, especially when many of us aren't able to. Once again, I don't see how they would kill Hazzea and (1) Expect evil Queen Dany to have self doubt / lock up her dragons. (2) Not spread the tale. It just doesn't make sense if the Harpies did it. Dany figures this out, and she is right. Drogon is capable of killing children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
league of blooDraven Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 All fair questions, but I think it was left ambiguous for a reason. Why not just have it happen "on screen" if it wasn't supposed to make us question it? Well in the books there was no POV around so George couldn't really put it "on-stage." And I doubt the show would actually film a small girl being roasted and eaten by Drogon, it would make it impossible for people to side with Dany, and even harder for the audience to view the dragons as a force for good if they ever help in the battle for Dawn or conquering westeros. As for the Harpies plotting... It's possible that the Harpy just killed the girl and then burnt the bones to make it look like Drogon. That would explain why the guy waited and was so distraught, his actions didn't really seem like he was the Harpies toady so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon rhaegar stark Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I said it from the slaver's point of view. They are not likely to see the justice in Dany's actions, especially when many of us aren't able to. Once again, I don't see how they would kill Hazzea and (1) Expect evil Queen Dany to have self doubt / lock up her dragons. (2) Not spread the tale. It just doesn't make sense if the Harpies did it. Dany figures this out, and she is right. Drogon is capable of killing children. yes dragon are capable of killing children but that does not men they will its similar to the direwolves can kill but they dont ... if they can kill 163 young girls and crucify them to just warn danny ..i dont see y they cant kill this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brute of Bracken Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 As for the Harpies plotting... It's possible that the Harpy just killed the girl and then burnt the bones to make it look like Drogon. That would explain why the guy waited and was so distraught, his actions didn't really seem like he was the Harpies toady so to speak. If that were the case, why didn't the Harpies spread the tale? What was the whole point of this exercise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 It just doesn't make sense if the Harpies did it. Dany figures this out, and she is right. Drogon is capable of killing children. The fact that Dany thinks this Harpy plot through and then discards it (as opposed to automatically assuming one side or the other without reflection) makes me think that yes, it was the dragon, and people are in denial because 1. they don't want to admit that she fucked up by not training them (I think even she can admit it at that point) and 2. they want to see the dragons as something other than what they are: predators that don't act based on any sort of moral compass. As I said before, making it nothing but a Harpy plot cheapens the issue, that she hasn't been training them and that they are now out of control and dangerous. It's a direct consequence of her inability to train them, and saying, "Oh it's OK it was just the Harpy lying about it" undermines the conflict of it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChildoftheTropicalForest Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 This is possible. Then it's also possible that he moved on to bigger prey (Dothraki, horses). His final lair was deep in Dothraki lands. I still think the burnt child was a ploy by the Sons of the Harpy to rein in Daenerys and her dragons prior to the Yunkish siege. Having grown up around humans and having had a human 'mother,' I think they were not interested in eating them and only burnt them when commanded by their mama. :agree: A four year old human wouldn't be a worthwhile meal. We saw in ADwD that Drogon was large enough to hunt and take down a horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brute of Bracken Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 yes dragon are capable of killing children but that does not men they will its similar to the direwolves can kill but they dont ... We know dragons can kill children. I also argue that it doesn't make sense if the Harpies killed Hazzea. Then the only logical alternative is that Drogon killed Hazzea. if they can kill 163 young girls and crucify them to just warn danny ..i dont see y they cant kill this one The Harpies can kill Hazzea, But if they did, they would have spread the tale. Why didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.