The Parallel Journey of Daenerys Targaryen & ... Part I

[SeanF]

You mean in terms of revenge? Cause...the 4000 words I spent a week and half writing would disagree :-P

I take Parwan's point to be that it the crucifixion of the 163 was sufficient to alienate the Great Masters, while being quite insufficient to frighten them into submission. Then, when ADWD opens, Dany is relying on these people - in large measure - to run Meereen for her.

It doesn't quite work as justice (sure, every one of the 163 was probably guilty of something, but the implication of the act was that they were being executed in retaliation for crucifying the children. Even if 90% of them were guilty of that act, that still leaves 16 people suffering the most prolonged and painful death imaginable, for something they didn't do).

It doesn't quite work as an act of terror. The Great Masters and their immediate families probably number several thousand. When ADWD opens, they're still in charge of their pyramids and estates. They can cause a lot of trouble for Dany's regime, yet she's relying on people like Reznak, the Green Grace, and Skahaz to enforce her rule. (Skahaz may be committed to her for opportunistic reasons), but the loyalty of the others is open to question. Parwan's suggestion that a family be asset-stripped and their property transferred to someone more reliable at the slightest hint of disloyalty is the best one.

[BearQueen87]

It doesn't quite work as justice (sure, every one of the 163 was probably guilty of something, but the implication of the act was that they were being executed in retaliation for crucifying the children. Even if 90% of them were guilty of that act, that still leaves 16 people suffering the most prolonged and painful death imaginable, for something they didn't do).

This assumes that any of the leaders spoke out about crucifying the children in the first place. I've never understood where that came from. What evidence is there that anyone said, "hey, no. Let's not do this." Should Dany have taken the time to flush out the "real" perpetrators? Do we expect that the Leaders are going to be 100% honest and not lie to save their own hides? Should she just have killed them all?

Parwan's suggestion that a family be asset-stripped and their property transferred to someone more reliable at the slightest hint of disloyalty is the best one.

Probably but that doesn't mean that the former Leaders can't cause a world of trouble. The Green Grace, who is most likely the Harpy, could still secretly rally support of the now disposed Leaders and have them running around the city of Meereen killing people.

ETA: and to bring this back to Arya somehow since this isn't just a "Dany" re-read....was she wrong to kill the Tickler? Was she wrong to kill Daeron? The Insurance salesman? Is she wrong to have those name on a list?

The question I keep returning to, for both Dany and Arya is, given their own trauma, the context of this world they live in, and their theme of survival, what is the alternative?

[SeanF]

This assumes that any of the leaders spoke out about crucifying the children in the first place. I've never understood where that came from. What evidence is there that anyone said, "hey, no. Let's not do this." Should Dany have taken the time to flush out the "real" perpetrators? Do we expect that the Leaders are going to be 100% honest and not lie to save their own hides? Should she just have killed them all?

Probably but that doesn't mean that the former Leaders can't cause a world of trouble. The Green Grace, who is most likely the Harpy, could still secretly rally support of the now disposed Leaders and have them running around the city of Meereen killing people.

ETA: and to bring this back to Arya somehow since this isn't just a "Dany" re-read....was she wrong to kill the Tickler? Was she wrong to kill Daeron? The Insurance salesman? Is she wrong to have those name on a list?

The question I keep returning to, for both Dany and Arya is, given their own trauma, the context of this world they live in, and their theme of survival, what is the alternative?

In the case of the Tickler, that was fine. That was both justice and self-defence.

The insurance broker and Daeron are trickier. I can see pros and cons for each killing.

[Mladen]

BearQueen, nice analysis...

As harsh and cruel Planetos is, the deep notion of humanity persists in it. Martin is often accused of being too graphic in violence, people discuss whether some descriptions of seen monstrosities should actually been in the books. Let's face it, life is not pretty. The battles are not just "clashes of forces", they are endless fights that result in bloodbath. But, for all of that, we see deep beautiful moments of humanity. Whether that is Septon Meribald and his mission, Brienne on her journeys, Davos saving child, Sandor finding his way to Sansa's room during Blackwater battle, the humanity, the decency prevails. That is why some of us think that deep beneath all the gruesome realism of ASOIAF, there is a romantic soul in Martin.

I like the comparison between Arya's and Dany's journeys. Roaming through the Riverlands taught Arya as many things as journey through Red waste taught Daenerys. We see two girls trying to find home, but fundamentally, they are different paths. Arya knows what her home is. Dany simply doesn't. She is far more lost in Red waste than Arya ever was in Riverlands. Why? Because unlike Arya, Dany has no idea what her home is. Westeros, as much as she talks about it, simply isn't. Vaes Dothrak or Pentos are also out of option. So, "the journey home" which we could discuss while Viserys was alive, simply isn't anymore. Westeros has different meaning for Daenerys, and just as Riverlands and what happened there changed Arya's journey forever, Red waste and everything that happened there with episodes in Qarth and SB ultimately changed Dany's way. Simply, as Illyrio said, Dany was made Queen in Red waste. She got her khalassar, she started conquering, she became mhysa to the slaves. Dany wants to go to Westeros and conquer it, but that is that. The mission is not about "returning home", it is about Dany's assertion as a Queen, avenging those she loves (even though she doesn't know). So, just like Arya turned her back to WF after RW, Dany after Red waste was transformed into conqueror, a Queen who is not returning home, but who is conquering entire continent.

Also, we should not run from the fact that both Dany and Arya has committed some wrongdoings during their paths. Like it or not, Dany wasn't just liberator, she got her hands dirty. The debate on the board about 163 is idiotic because both parties are being plainly dumb in their positions. The one condemning Dany puts to much emphasis on the action, where such emphasis doesn't exist in the books. The defenders are making arguments about other side using cheap tricks with "poor innocent slavers". Needless to say, I have my opinion on the matter, but I find so few people capable of having that debate without reaching for the usual stale material. But, to return to the point. The status Dany and Arya have as literary characters of ASOIAF allows leniency towards what they are doing. They are simply 2 out of 6 main characters. We see their actions as justice, as good guys taking a stand, even though we realize that things are not right. Do we care about dead John Does on their path when they are ending slavery or kicking some butts in Stark name? Absolutely not. We kinda close our eye when it comes to torture or killings, because it is "badass". And in that perspective, we sometimes fail to see how sad that is and ultimately that no matter how harsh and cruel they are towards bad guys, we have to see that it is taking its toll. Both Arya and Dany are going through a heavy process of dehumanization. Arya turning to no one, and Dany becoming Dragon Queen. Which is why their journeys in front of us will be so interesting. We will be able to see what happens when the walls they made to survive in harshest possible environments starts to crumble in front of their deep emotional nature. But at the same time, we should be aware that both of them are capable of doing this and even much worse.

Lastly, I find interesting that in comparison between these two situations, Dany understands how world functions far better than Arya. Simply put, Arya with Brotherhood attempts to be one of them, some regular Jane Do. But she is constantly pulled back out of that idea, where the commonfolk make her realize that she is not one of them, that she is Stark of Winterfell and when they treat her differently. She hates it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is true. Dany, on the other hand, doesn't identify with the slaves. She empathizes with them and helps them as she can. So, the interesting contrast is that Arya actually wants to fully embrace that she is one of them, while Dany embraces who she is and uses it for the benefit of those she feels sorry for.

As for the Magic part, Dany and Arya are considered opposites, because Dany metaphorically is a mother - creature that gives a life, while Arya is death. There are so many layers of that contrast, and I will try to discuss some of them without turning this into an essay.

1. First and most important layer is the gender issue. Both of them are women. I will refer to what has been said to Arya that no one can give both birth and death at the same time. Now, is that really true? As we have seen, one does not necessarily excludes the other. And while Dany accepted the role of mother, the giver of life, she also gives death left and right. Though, we can argue that in Dany's case we have to discuss the cyclic nature of life which as a theme persists in Dany's storyline - only death can pay for life. Rhaella for Dany, Drogo, Rhaego and MMD for three dragons, death of SB's practice and rise of new reign. So, Dany represents the antithesis of what Faceless Men are teaching.

2. The mother/death contrast between these two is also in the symbolism of the elements that represents them. We can argue that fire=life, and ice=death and that as Targaryen and Stark, these two represent two different things. But, again, we are pulled in dualistic view of life which Martin adores to break. Fire is no more life than ice is just as ice is as death as fire is. When we have in mind Aemon's words how "ice preserves" or have in mind how "fire consumes" and brings death, things get trickier. Look at Arya. If we would say that her warging power is symbolized with ice, we see that it actually preserves the life of Arya Stark which is currently in metaphorical coma. Same for Dany, her fire brought life, but the manifestation of that fire also brought countless deaths.

OK, I will end here with conclusion that this was interesting essay from BearQueen. I really loved it.

[BearQueen87]

BearQueen, nice analysis...

Thank you Mladen!

As harsh and cruel Planetos is, the deep notion of humanity persists in it. Martin is often accused of being too graphic in violence, people discuss whether some descriptions of seen monstrosities should actually been in the books. Let's face it, life is not pretty. The battles are not just "clashes of forces", they are endless fights that result in bloodbath. But, for all of that, we see deep beautiful moments of humanity. Whether that is Septon Meribald and his mission, Brienne on her journeys, Davos saving child, Sandor finding his way to Sansa's room during Blackwater battle, the humanity, the decency prevails. That is why some of us think that deep beneath all the gruesome realism of ASOIAF, there is a romantic soul in Martin.

Beautifully said and I totally agree. There is a romantic streak to GRRM and what I find interesting is that in those examples that you listed, those moments of poetic romanticism come during some of the more gruesome or violent plot lines.

Meribald gives that eloquent "broken man" speech while he and Brienne travel the Riverlands and, like Arya before, are surrounded by death and the cost of war. Meribald's entire speech, to me at least, has always felt like GRRM inserting himself more than he has previously to really try and tell us how war negatively affects not only the land but individual people.

Brienne's journey is full of rape threats, brigands, and canibalism. I've lost track of the number of times "rape" is tossed around in Brienne's AFFC chapters but through it all, she's the actual "white knight" of the series and come hell or high water she's going to live up to that promise she made to Cat.

Davos saving a child brings on his King's wrath and there is a good chance Davos will die, but in his own words the life of one child is "everything"

And with your lady Sansa, I am reminded of what you wrote in your "why I love Sansa" essay about the idea of goodness prevailing even in spite of all the torture and abuse.

GRRM is very realistic about how much life can suck on Earth Planetos but he's also trying to celebrate life too.

The mission is not about "returning home", it is about Dany's assertion as a Queen, avenging those she loves (even though she doesn't know). So, just like Arya turned her back to WF after RW, Dany after Red waste was transformed into conqueror, a Queen who is not returning home, but who is conquering entire continent.

Nicely said. And it leads to the question of, "can they ever really return home again?" What happens when Dany gets to Westeors and realizes that this home she's imagined her whole life isn't really home. That it's never been home. And can Arya really ever go back to WF and be "Arya Stark" as she once was? Probably not. Identity is far more complicated than that. There is no going back. Arya might be able to live in WF again but she's always going to have that justice-seeking side to her now. Dany might live end up living in Westeros at series end, but never actually obtain that feeling she's associated with Westeros and the red door her whole life.

[Seams]

I stumbled on this thread yesterday and tried to read quickly, but I was a little bit slow. I hope I can throw in my two cents on some interesting points raised in your first Arya/Dany essay.

Meet Daenerys

In Dany I, we learn that Daenerys Targaryen is 13 years old and living in the Free City of Pentos with her brother, Viserys...

Meet Arya

In Arya I, we learn that Arya Stark is nine and has lived her whole life in Westeros at Winterfell, seat of the Family Stark, the principle house in the North. She has several brothers and sisters, though she is closest to her half-brother Jon and is the opposite of her only sister, Sansa...

In the beginning Dany and Arya come across as quite a bit different personality wise. Dany is meek and quiet, living in fear of her older brother Viserys...

...Arya has two non-parental companions who love her and treat her with kindness. The first is her direwolf Nymeria; Arya remarks in Arya I, The wolf pup loved her, even if no one else did. They went everywhere together, and Nymeria slept in her room, at the foot of her bed. The other person with whom Arya is particularly close is her bastard half-brother Jon.

It is the relationships with their brothers where I want to spend most of this introduction as I think GRRM is deliberately contrasting Dany/Viserys and Arya/Jon.

The first conversation between Viserys and Dany is uncomfortable. Viserys orders her around; he touches her inappropriately, and he hurts her.

(Dany I, AGOT)

To Viserys, Dany is a mount for Khal Drogo and she is not especially pleasing to him. She smells; she slouches; she doesnt show off her new womanly assets. And without her making any sort of protest, Viserys threatens and hurts her.

This is the first conversation we read between Jon and Arya, which is quite the contrast.

(Arya I, GOT)

This first interaction is one of comfort and affection. There is nothing awkward nor strange nor unnerving between Jon and Arya. Even though Jon knows Arya ought to be elsewhere, he invites her to join him. Continuing with Arya for the moment:

I am fascinated by GRRM's fabric and sewing and garment metaphors. Your essay opened my eyes to the way he uses these motifs in Dany and Arya's storylines: Dany's brother hands her a completed garment with the intention of making her sexy. Throughout the series, Dany is often given clothes or she is expected to dress like the people around her. It is only when she becomes comfortable with the Dothraki, their practical garments for riding horses and their lack of concern about open nudity (even having sex in public) that she starts to come into her own. Soon, as we know, she burns away her own hair and starts off as a newborn, along with her newly-hatched dragons. Viserys, on the other hand, proves to be a complete jerk when he insists on wearing impractical and culturally inappropriate garments for the long journey on horseback and he is soon put to death, in part for his inability to adapt, fit in and get along.

Arya's brother jokes with her about her lack of skill with needlework but then gives her a sword called needle, and tells her how to use it. She is not given a completed garment and Jon (and later, Ned) do not expect her to master the kind of needlework that Sansa does so well. They see that Arya is suited for another kind of needlework and help her by providing the tool (a sword) and lessons she will need to excel at it.

I haven't completely worked out GRRM's intentions behind the fabric and garment metaphors, but I think the overall idea is the fabric of society or peace. So I wonder whether the fabric motif offers us yet another compare/contrast opportunity with Dany and Arya: Dany is figuring out what to wear (or when to go naked) - sorting out her place in the world or in Westeros - while Arya appears to be figuring out how (symbolically) to make fabric or to repair it. There are some details that lead me to wonder whether my generalization is not quite accurate: The Hound tightly wraps Arya in a cloak at night to keep her from running away or killing him; in Meereen, Dany feels compelled to wrap herself in a Tokar which she finds completely impractical, immobilizing one hand and requiring small steps. While with the Brotherhood Without Banners (<-- another fabric motif) Arya is compelled to look "high born" by wearing a hand-me-down dress from Lady Smallwood's daughter. So there are definitely layers of the fabric/garment metaphor that require more analysis.

You did a great job with analysis of the similarities and differences in loss of family for both of the characters. I would point out one interesting similarity in their efforts to retain or remember family ties: Dany names her dragons after her lost brothers and husband (and her baby, whose intended name was derived in part from that of her brother); the name of Arya's sword links to the sewing motif but it is also a combination of the names Lyanna and Ned. So the "weapons" that Dany and Arya use for survival and offensive moves are both named for family members. The fact that Jon gave the sword to Arya makes the Lyanna connection stronger and more poignant.

Another little similarity I didn't pick up on until reading your first essay: Viserys tells Daenerys that she is to be a "mount" for her prospective husband; Arya is nicknamed "horseface" by people who know her around Winterfell. The horse motif is strong with Dany's character, especially during her Dothraki interlude, and comes up a few more times with Arya. The first person Arya kills, if I recall correctly, is the stable boy - a person tasked with tending to domesticated horses. So maybe this represents her escape from her symbolic status as a horse. Later, Arya rides and then sells a horse called Craven. I think this represents her ongoing determination to take to heart the "fear cuts deeper than swords" advice and to conquer her fears. In spite of Viserys' remarks, Dany finds that her new husband gives her a beautiful horse - she gets to mount a horse instead of being mounted - and it is the most beautiful gift she has ever had.

I was also interested to note that the beautiful garment Viserys presents to Dany "seemed to run through her fingers like water." Arya is a waterdancer. Dany crosses the Dothraki Sea. On the other hand, we often see Dany bathed by her handmaids while Arya is usually very dirty. I think the dirtiness relates to another important motif that could link and differentiate Dany and Arya, but I will save that for another post because this one is getting too long and because I think it somewhat links into your second essay.

Thanks for launching an interesting thread and for providing so much good food for thought.

[BearQueen87]

I stumbled on this thread yesterday and tried to read quickly, but I was a little bit slow. I hope I can throw in my two cents on some interesting points raised in your first Arya/Dany essay.

Feel free to comment on anything!

I am fascinated by GRRM's fabric and sewing and garment metaphors.

So am I. In fact, clothing and identity play a rather large role in Essay #3 so I hope you come back to discuss all this again! If we think about clothing as costumes then the way Arya and Dany change when they "put on the costume" is something I think GRRM is really playing with. Dany rarely chooses her own clothing and so when she dons her various costumes--Qartheen gowns, the tokar, the gown Viserys gives her--she is just playing the part. Arya, on the other hand, is given new costumes (clothing and other stuff) pretty much every single time she takes a new name. I'll save more for the actual essay but for a sneak peek: Arya embodies, while Dany plays.

the name of Arya's sword links to the sewing motif but it is also a combination of the names Lyanna and Ned.

I've never thought of Needle that way, but it's very interesting. Goodness know that Arya has a bit more than a shade of Lyanna in her.

Another little similarity I didn't pick up on until reading your first essay: Viserys tells Daenerys that she is to be a "mount" for her prospective husband; Arya is nicknamed "horseface" by people who know her around Winterfell.

Well spotted!

[Franziska]

...has been said to Arya that no one can give both birth and death at the same time. Now, is that really true?

These words the kindly man told Arya, always sound wrong to me. A friend of mine works in a zoo and he told me, that females with cubs are more dangerous than males can ever be. They defend their cubs to the death (especially predators).

IIRC Dacey Mormont mentions in ASOS the picture of the female warrior on Bear Island. She's clad in a bear pelt and holds an axe in one hand and a babe in her arm. I think it is a beautiful picture, which also fits for Dany as mother of dragons or Arya the faceless direwolf. If only death can pay for life, who's better for the kill than someone, who actually can bear new life?

[Parwan]

2. You are saying there is something wrong in the magical world where people believe gods needs their do? Where slavery is at an extreme, there is blood magic, Dragons, zombies, Ice Monsters, dead tree dudes, war, and in general things seem unfair? Yes Parwan something is wrong sort of like our world but with magic.

3. Only death can pay for life. In some cases this is very true, now you have sacrifices and you have sacrifices. What Halfhand did for Jon, saved Jon's life, only death can pay for life. Mirri took a life, Dany took one back. But it does no always work like that.

4. Parwan do you think the many gods of death actually speak to the FM and tell them what to do? They don't, they have a religious belief and they follow it. There actually have been several cults like this.

5. It's not the magic that is evil or the dragons, it's who weilds it, what they choose to do with it. This is about humans, the gods are not making any choices they are. And lets face the human race has a very curious track record of both brilliance and crazy. The conflict of the human heart is one of the main themes, we are capable of both good and evil, love and hate etc. It's not about the magic, it is about what someone is willing to do to get it, and what they will do with it. Those are the questions a chracter has to ask themselves.

1. Dany should of taken control but she took revenge? She did take control, what would you have her do? Nothing? How about everyone do nothing then we can have a series about nothing and discuss the philosophy of nothing. Would you have her apply some philosophy that you read about, that doesn't exist in her world?

1. The Daenerys POVs in ADwD do not present us with a picture of a government that is in control of its city. See SeanF's post and my reply below.

2. Yes, there are clear similarities to our world. However, the existence of magic in Martin's world is scarcely trivial. The difference between this world and ours is significant, though the exact nature of the difference can be debated. In my opinion, gods, demons, and magic do not exist in our world. Magic does exist in the world of ASoIaF; gods and demons may also exist.

3. Very important points that I believe you are missing: Who or what determines what "pays for life"? To whom or to what is the payment made? MMD was not talking about the kind of self sacrifice you bring up--the kind of thing one Ranger does for another. She was talking about spiritual, magical, or metaphysical reality. There are rules in this alternate universe. Quite possibly, there are beings who make the rules. Some of these rules seem badly skewered; I think it quite plausible to maintain that the rules are evil. Those involved in magic should look hard at these facts. I maintain that Dany and Arya don't do such hard looking. However, my criticism is not too severe; it certainly isn't aimed at just these two characters. The fault is pretty general. Some people do a worse job than the two young women we are talking about in this thread. I'll have more to say on this subject in later "parallel" threads.

4. I'm not sure how many gods there are. Maybe there aren't any. However, the FM aren't just making stuff up as they go. Someone or something is "speaking to them." Clearly, this something or someone is bestowing great power on the FM, allowing them to change their faces, to strike with incredible accuracy and with apparent impunity, etc. I can't express this much better than I have before--using a hypothetical mature, objective observer. This person listens to someone like the kindly man saying things along the lines of "We don't make judgements. We just kill the people the gods tell us to kill." My observer would say, "Man, something is badly messed up here. These entities you're 'talking to,' are you sure they're 'gods'? I think they might be something else."

Once again, our two characters don't do the kind of job that my hypothetical observer would do. This is not surprising, but it is important.

5. Nope, it is about the magic, at least in considerable part. It is not just a matter of the human heart. That goes back to the sort of arguments I've had on other threads with those who maintain that evil is only a human construct. This may be true in our world (though I'm not convinced). In the universe that Martin has given us, things are quite different. Beings, forces, principles, etc. exist which are not in any way "constructed" by people. Said beings, forces, etc. have their own agency. Some of them are transcendent; they can do things beyond human ken. it just doesn't work to say "It's all about how people use magic." Some characters (e.g. the Dothraki) maintain that certain forms of magic should not be used at all. These people have a strong point, probably based on unpleasant experiences.

1. I take Parwan's point to be that it the crucifixion of the 163 was sufficient to alienate the Great Masters, while being quite insufficient to frighten them into submission. Then, when ADWD opens, Dany is relying on these people - in large measure - to run Meereen for her.

2. It doesn't quite work as justice (sure, every one of the 163 was probably guilty of something, but the implication of the act was that they were being executed in retaliation for crucifying the children. Even if 90% of them were guilty of that act, that still leaves 16 people suffering the most prolonged and painful death imaginable, for something they didn't do).

3. It doesn't quite work as an act of terror. The Great Masters and their immediate families probably number several thousand. When ADWD opens, they're still in charge of their pyramids and estates. They can cause a lot of trouble for Dany's regime, yet she's relying on people like Reznak, the Green Grace, and Skahaz to enforce her rule. (Skahaz may be committed to her for opportunistic reasons), but the loyalty of the others is open to question. Parwan's suggestion that a family be asset-stripped and their property transferred to someone more reliable at the slightest hint of disloyalty is the best one.

1. Yeah, that's about right.

2. The concept of justice is not well developed anywhere in Planetos. In my opinion, Dany and Arya fit into the general scheme of things pretty well.

3. The Green Grace and others would be able to cause far less trouble if they had less power. The reason they still have so much power is because of bad moves by Queen Daenerys, and also by her lieutenants and advisers.

I'll have a lot more to say about 1 and 3 in later threads. In this thread, I may have more to say about justice, revenge, and emotional reactions.

In the case of the Tickler, that was fine. That was both justice and self-defence.

The insurance broker and Daeron are trickier. I can see pros and cons for each killing.

The Tickler was killed in a fight, wasn't he? That's hardly the same thing as sitting in judgement on wrongdoers or picking out three people to be assassinated.

A lot of people, in our world and in Martin's, think that "getting those bastards for what they did" is a fine example of justice. Is it? What distinction should we make between revenge and justice? What distinction do our two characters make?

[BearQueen87]

The Tickler was killed in a fight, wasn't he? That's hardly the same thing as sitting in judgement on wrongdoers or picking out three people to be assassinated.

A lot of people, in our world and in Martin's, think that "getting those bastards for what they did" is a fine example of justice. Is it? What distinction should we make between revenge and justice? What distinction do our two characters make?

And the 163 were killed in a war. Captives die in war, especially a conquering war. I don't like it, but I understand that is how Martin's world works. And Arya isn't just killing someone in a fight. She's a highly traumatized young girl who literally starts screaming the Tickler's own words back at him while she stabs him over and over and over. Dany is a traumatized woman who literally uses the same punishment the Slaver's used against them in her mind bringing justice to the children. They aren't just signaling out people and killing them for sport. And as far as picking out the people, the Slavers offered up the 163. Dany just told them to fork over 163 leaders and the rest could live. She did not ride through them and point and say, "you and you and you"

For both Arya and Dany they both thin their two moments--the Tickler and the 163--were justice, for the children in Meereen and for the people Arya watched the Tickler "tickler" (she talks quite seriously about what the Tickler was doing in ASOS to the BwB). We, the readers, recognize that it's also revenge. FWIW, I think Dany does too, hence why afterwards she's trying to reassure herself.

[MoIaF]

I stumbled on this thread yesterday and tried to read quickly, but I was a little bit slow. I hope I can throw in my two cents on some interesting points raised in your first Arya/Dany essay.

Welcome!

Hope you can stick along for the rest of the re-read. :d

I am fascinated by GRRM's fabric and sewing and garment metaphors. Your essay opened my eyes to the way he uses these motifs in Dany and Arya's storylines: Dany's brother hands her a completed garment with the intention of making her sexy. Throughout the series, Dany is often given clothes or she is expected to dress like the people around her. It is only when she becomes comfortable with the Dothraki, their practical garments for riding horses and their lack of concern about open nudity (even having sex in public) that she starts to come into her own. Soon, as we know, she burns away her own hair and starts off as a newborn, along with her newly-hatched dragons. Viserys, on the other hand, proves to be a complete jerk when he insists on wearing impractical and culturally inappropriate garments for the long journey on horseback and he is soon put to death, in part for his inability to adapt, fit in and get along.

We did a Daenerys re-read and the subject of clotting and fabric came up quite a few times. I won't get into it because BearQueen87 will be discussing it in her next essay. However, it is interesting to see how GRRM uses these descriptions to show the inner feelings and thoughts of his characters.

These words the kindly man told Arya, always sound wrong to me. A friend of mine works in a zoo and he told me, that females with cubs are more dangerous than males can ever be. They defend their cubs to the death (especially predators).

IIRC Dacey Mormont mentions in ASOS the picture of the female warrior on Bear Island. She's clad in a bear pelt and holds an axe in one hand and a babe in her arm. I think it is a beautiful picture, which also fits for Dany as mother of dragons or Arya the faceless direwolf. If only death can pay for life, who's better for the kill than someone, who actually can bear new life?

First, welcome to the thread! :D

Throughout the story the idea of balance becomes very important, the title of the series itself denotes the search for balance.

I think what the Kindly Man was referring to is that it's much harder for someone who brigs life into the world to take life away. If we look at our own society Men are much more likely to kill than woman. Self-defense and defense of your children is a different matter.

What the FM do is very different than what Dany and Arya are trying to do. Dany and Arya are dolling out justice as they believe it while the FM are assassins with no skin in the game. I think this is where Arya will break with the FM, there is a purpose in killing the people she has killed and she can't let go of that.

[MoIaF]

Double Post. :dunno:

[Mladen]

And the 163 were killed in a war. Captives die in war, especially a conquering war.

And we call it war crime. Killing POW is war crime. Like it or not. If you want to go that route, than correct terminology is also required.

I don't like it, but I understand that is how Martin's world works.

I feel like some people put too much emphasis on Martin's world. Although Martin indeed created a world where rules are different from where we stand at this point, thing is that his world is our world. ASOIAF, beside being fantasy genre, is also social critique novel and in many storylines we see certain things challenged.

For both Arya and Dany they both thin their two moments--the Tickler and the 163--were justice, for the children in Meereen and for the people Arya watched the Tickler "tickler" (she talks quite seriously about what the Tickler was doing in ASOS to the BwB). We, the readers, recognize that it's also revenge. FWIW, I think Dany does too, hence why afterwards she's trying to reassure herself.

Not also, it was a revenge, not justice. Dany went literally quid pro quo, life for life. That wasn't justice, that was revenge. Plain, simple revenge. Justice looks differently. Completely differently.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

(sorry that this is a day early. I'll be out of my house for most of tomorrow and don't want you all waiting)

The Last Dragon and The Lone Wolf: Daenerys Targaryen and Arya Stark

Essay Number Two:

Blood, War, and Magic

Wonderful Essay BQ, you give women everywhere something to be proud of :)

Another great essay.

The treatment that's meted out to the Unsullied and the slave children on the road to Meereen is grotesque, even by the standards of this world.

More typical is the violence that Dany witnesses in the Lhazareen village, which is similar to the violence that Arya experiences in the Riverlands. Men and boys are killed for sport. Women are repeatedly raped. The survivors are rounded up as slaves (slavery is illegal in Westeros, but the treatment of the captives is much the same). Dany and Arya are both horrified by what they witness, but also brutalised by it. They both have huge empathy for the victims, but neither turns her back on violence as a means to achieve her goals. Dany does what she can to mitigate the suffering, but still comments (correctly) that "this is the price of the Iron Throne". Shortly afterwards, she'll burn her enemy alive, in order to hatch her dragons, rather than following Ser Jorah's suggestion that she sells them, and live in comfortable obscurity. Once the dragons have been hatched, she's chosen a violent path. Arya, of course, becomes an increasingly hardened killer as the story progresses.

Dany and Arya both have mixed feelings towards violence. In part, they're repelled by it (the suffering of innocents). In part, they enjoy it and are good at it (dealing out death to the wicked). Mostly, their victims thoroughly deserve what happens to them. No one will shed any tears for Kraznys, Grazdan, The Tickler, Chiswick, Raff the Sweetling, or the majority of the Masters of Astapor and Meereen. But, I think a lot of readers will find cases to query. Was Mirri Maz Duur more sinned against than sinning? Did Daeron and the insurance broker really deserve to die? Can we be sure that every one of the 163 Masters who were crucified was responsible for the murder of the slave children? Did the ordinary free population of Meereen deserve to be on the receiving end of murder, rape, and pillage?

BQ said

For both Arya and Dany they both thin their two moments--the Tickler and the 163--were justice, for the children in Meereen and for the people Arya watched the Tickler "tickler" (she talks quite seriously about what the Tickler was doing in ASOS to the BwB). We, the readers, recognize that it's also revenge. FWIW, I think Dany does too, hence why afterwards she's trying to reassure herself.

Eh, who cares why Dany and Arya did it, I was just happy they did. Ya know thank gods that someone is finally in power in SB who has any kind of soul at all. Obviously they were missing that for many centuries. It is possible that they had gone unchallenged and unopposed so long that they completely lost all sense of what monsters they actually are, the masters in Astapor for sure and the 'Great' Masters in Meereen to a lesser extent, at least they were not growing the Unsullied. But still, even though they were not growing Unsullied like the Monsters in Astapor they may be even stupider. At least in Astapor they used the death of puppies and babies as a tool to teach the Unsullied with. The 'Great' Morons in Meereen just killed 163 children for no reason at all. NO matter what their goal was it was idiotic, If they were trying to piss Dany off then they got what was coming and if they were trying to scare her they still got what was coming. Either they are too stupid or too evil (#foxnewsfacts).

Good for Dany and Arya to take their revenge out on such deserving clients. I know that it can be seen as hubris or pretentious behavior for someone to decide who 'deserves' life and death, but the Tickler did deserve it, the world is better without him, same thing with the monsters in Astapor and Meereen. Given that these are fictional characters and we judge them in every other aspect I think it is also ok for us to judge if they deserve to die or not, since it is just an opinion anyway. The Meereneese have no value for anything except their own greedy selves, and they refuse to change, Dany tried and failed to change them. They much prefer the way they have been doing things as opposed to any form of change at all..... 'and if someone does try to change us we will kill her men every night, in the dark, like little baby cowards, then hide in a pyramid all day.'

I understand what Parwan was saying upthread that Dany made a mistake, she should have either killed all of them or killed none of them. After she killed the 163 she then had to go into the city and depend on the pissed off family members of the people she just killed. So she has made mistakes, but only by not unleashing fire and blood in a stronger way, which would have won her no praise on this forum (maybe in this thread by the Dany fans, but not the forum in general).BY sticking to the exact number of 163 she is really making a statement though. Sure she could have killed them all but this is where her revenge is mixed with a lesson for these Monsters, "Eye for an Eye", and not even previous eyes, she is only punishing them for these 163 deaths, I think we can safely assume that tens of thousands more innocent children have died at the hands of the 'Great' masters of Meereen. I still think what she did was reasonable, and all the discussion about whether she killed the right 163 or not is pointless as there is basically no text about it, but the 163 children were also chosen with the same lack of prejudice so she literally was returning to them exactly what they had done to the children, cold indifference, which, as I said earlier, thank gods someone is finally in SB who can do this, just as all the Ghiscari have been doing for centuries. It sucks when karma finally comes back to you, and that is all this is.

And if people feel bad, or sympathize with the slavers, then that is exactly what they are doing, sympathizing with slavers.

[Seams]

I don't think we have to applaud, defend or justify either character's killings. In fact, a huge message from the author is: Violence. Is. Awful. Within that larger theme, GRRM plays with us to tease out thoughts about whether violence or killing are sometimes necessary or justified. Each of us might draw the line at a different place and then the author will challenge us with a new event or series of developments and we have to figure out where to draw the line again.

One of the similarities/differences I hoped to see discussed here is whether both Arya and Dany open a "Pandora's Box" that puts them deeper into a world of violence. Arya provides an axe to Jaqen H'ghar, knowing she is freeing him and two other caged men, Rorge and Biter. Has she already started to wonder whether Rorge and Biter are monsters that Jaqen has conjured from hell, or does that come later? As far as I'm concerned, these two are at the farthest extreme of the nastiness continuum, even further than The Tickler. (And what does that tell us about Jaqen, who is part of their group?) As soon as Arya hands the axe through the bars of the cage where the three men are held, she falls into a hole where she is safe from the attackers (with Gendry and Weasel). She also tastes the dirt in her mouth and says she likes the taste.

Note: I will be very interested to see whether Arya changes for the better now that Brienne And Gendry have killed Rorge and Biter. But maybe Jaqen has to die, too, to set Arya free.

Dany's Pandora's Box, if she has one, might be the hatching of the dragons. These are violent monsters that are used as weapons. They kill sheep but also kill a child in Meereen. We know from the exchange between Ned and King Robert that killing children is bad and wrong in Westeros, if not Planetos as a whole. After the killing of the child, Dany tries to confine the dragons in a hole (although she takes up residence at the top of a pyramid).

Or maybe Dany's Pandora's Box is the release of the manticore that almost kills her? That is similar to Arya's handing over the axe to Jaqen, as it is done innocently.

Are these turning points when the two women (girls, really) turn to killing as a tool? Arya had already killed the stable boy in order to escape King's Landing. Dany had already stood by while her brother was crowned/killed by molten gold. But it seems to me that each character developed a stronger dark side after these events.

I also wonder whether GRRM is showing us that some characters take on some of the traits of the people they kill - Dany suffocates Khal Drogo and burns Mirri Maz Duur and then becomes more of a warrior and a magical person. Does Arya's murder of The Tickler cause her to take on some of his characteristics, making her more willing to kill?

[BearQueen87]

The Pandora's Box question is a very interesting one. And there is something Pandora-y about Dany's "if I look back I am lost" mantra. The ills of the box have been unleashed, you can shut the lid all you want, but it's not going to put said ills back in said box.

There is one question you asked that I think is intriguing:

Does Arya's murder of The Tickler cause her to take on some of his characteristics, making her more willing to kill?

I think it's situational. Right after she kills the Tickler, Arya kills the squire that was with the Tickler and Polliver. The squire himself has done nothing wrong to Arya nor to her former companions when they traveled the Riverlands. He is just in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong company. But Arya doesn't hesitate, she stabs him through the heart.

"Mercy," he wept, "please. Don't kill me. Mother have mercy."

"Do I look like your bloody mother?" The Hound looked like nothing human. "You killed this one too," he told Arya. "Pricked him in his bowels, that's the end of him. He'll be a long time dying, though."

The boy didn't seemed to hear him. "I came for the girls," he whimpered. " . . . make me a man, Polly said . . . oh, gods, please, take me to a castle . . . a maester, take me to a maester, my father's got gold . . . it was only for the girls . . . mercy, ser."

The Hound gave him a crack across the face that made him scream again. "Don't call me ser." He turned back to Arya. "This one is yours, she-wolf. You do it."

She knew what he meant. Arya went to Polliver and knelt in his blood long enough to undo his swordbelt. Hanging beside his dagger was a slimmer blade, too long to be a dirk, too short to be a man's sword . . . but it felt just right in her hand.

"You remember where the heart is?" the Hound asked.

She nodded. The squire rolled his eyes. "Mercy."

Needle slipped between his ribs and gave it to him.

However, after this incident at the Inn of the Crossroads, Arya's current traveling companion, Sandor, falls pretty ill due to his own wounds. He too asks for the gift of mercy. The relationship between the two has pretty radically changed to the point where she's questioning if The Hound should even be on her prayer list anymore. And when he asks for the gift, she denies him, but later on her way to Braavos she wonders if she should have done it.

So to answer your question I think she is both willing and unwilling to kill.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Another great essay BQ.

I found the life and death contrast between Dany and Arya very interesting.

When we also look at both organizations as whole, the Undying see life as a good thing since they live forever and want Dany's life force and the HOBW see death as a "gift" and not necessarily bad.

What I also find interesting is that despite both organizations having different motives, they both have the motif of "black and white" which goes back to the idea of balance.

The concept of evil interests me. I maintain that the "no such thing as evil" argument usually relies on a naturalist, i.e. a non-theistic and non-magical, view of reality. Thus, it is very hard to apply to fantasies like ASoIaF. In Martin's work, there are transcendent powers. There may or may not be individual entities like the Great Other; there definitely are characters who can access knowledge, energy, etc. which cannot be considered "natural." Trying to explain all of this in terms of human constructs is difficult. I say that it misses important points. Some of the powers in question do seem to be malignant, perhaps malevolent. Why not call them evil? This is certainly not a matter of a group of people just placing a bad label on something they don't like.

These issues have wide applicability. Of relevance to the current thread: Both Arya and Daenerys believe in evil, and both of them encounter things they consider evil. Neither of them do well in thinking through important questions about magic and evil. This isn't surprising. Neither young woman is an intellectual, and both of them have practical worries that don't touch on philosophy and theology. However, the matter is important.

Bringing forth dragons from stone is a remarkable accomplishment. But one shouldn't ignore the fact that this was done through blood magic. The principle that "only death can pay for life" is troublesome. Who or what requires this? Someone or something demands a human life (and possibly considerable human suffering) in order for desired results to be produced. It's hard to see how this could be good. It's also hard to see how it is purely a thing constructed by human beings. Striking back against people who have harmed you is a natural response. If some guy you saved from a fire will help you to strike back, then most people would probably elect to work with the guy. However, he says, "The Red God has his due" and "This girl must give three in their places." We have the same problem here, though it is more specific. Jaqen H'ghar is stating basic principles, and they are quite troubling. A thoughtful, objective observer would say, "Man, there has to be something badly screwed up about this Red God. Three people were saved, therefore three people must be killed? What the hell kind of rule is that?" Also, no limits are placed on Arya's request. If she names Sansa, Hodor, and Septon Meribald, then the rule is fulfilled. Of course, she isn't going to do this. That is not the point. Something is fundamentally wrong here, and this fact is not properly grasped.

I disagree with the bolded. We can't call a force of nature evil unless it has sentience.

Even if the force of nature requires death for life, it's not like the force of nature is killing people forcefully, the ultimate decision of sacrifice will still be made by man.

I don't think we have to applaud, defend or justify either character's killings. In fact, a huge message from the author is: Violence. Is. Awful. Within that larger theme, GRRM plays with us to tease out thoughts about whether violence or killing are sometimes necessary or justified. Each of us might draw the line at a different place and then the author will challenge us with a new event or series of developments and we have to figure out where to draw the line again.

I agree

[Dragon's Daughter]

I read most of the other Dany thread and this one and have been nodding along. I'm new though, so I feel like I have little to say but I do appreciate all the work you all have put into this.

[BearQueen87]

Another great essay BQ.

I found the life and death contrast between Dany and Arya very interesting.

When we also look at both organizations as whole, the Undying see life as a good thing since they live forever and want Dany's life force and the HOBW see death as a "gift" and not necessarily bad.

What I also find interesting is that despite both organizations having different motives, they both have the motif of "black and white" which goes back to the idea of balance.

Thanks QA!

What I also find interesting: the Undying find life to be a good thing, yet I would call them the more menacing of the two...so far. The FM are still a big ol' mystery to me, but the Kindly Man vs Pyat Pree for example, I know who I would chose to spend an afternoon with.

Also, I was re-reading some Arya today and the KM calls death/death's avatar a "dark angel" which I feel is a bit of a contrast and contradiction, at least from popular conceptions of angels--with the exception perhaps of Lucifer, particularly in Milton where Lucifer is the ruler of Hell, but you never forget that he was an angel first.

I read most of the other Dany thread and this one and have been nodding along. I'm new though, so I feel like I have little to say but I do appreciate all the work you all have put into this.

Welcome to the Re-Read! Feel free to speak up :)

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Also, I was re-reading some Arya today and the KM calls death a "dark angel" which I feel is a bit of a contrast and contradiction, at least from popular conceptions of angels--with the exception perhaps of Lucifer, particularly in Milton where Lucifer is the ruler of Hell, but you never forget that he was an angel first.

That's interesting I don't think I've come across it before, I probably missed it, which chapter was it?