Is Dany becoming a megalomaniac? Is Bran?

[House Cambodia]

^ Well that's just wrong. Valyria was preceded by Old Ghis, "a city built upon slavery", and that was recorded as "the first civilization".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tormund's beard]

12 minutes ago, DragonDreamer said:

This is a lot of supposition on your part which does not take into account the actual history of Essos. As we know slavery began with the Valyrians and their use of dragon to enslave people. So, we should get that straight. 

You also don't take into account all the other places in Essos were slavery isn't practice such as Braavos and the other free cities. And while we know some merchants do use slaves in these free cities, that is a very small portion of the population and has nothing to do with what is happening in Slaver's Bay. 

I'm not saying that slavery will go away completely away when Dany give it an almost killing blow but it will never recover, not to the extent it exist today. And like Braavos it will eventually die at the hands by those former slaves that wish to destroy for good. 

slavery started with the ghiscari empire (or even before but we don't know) > empire got rekt by the valyrians > valyrians got rekt by the faceless man > cities of essos, all condone slavery (sans bravos who was founded by escaped slaves from valyria)

[DragonDreamer]

2 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

^ Well that's just wrong. Valyria was preceded by Old Ghis, "a city built upon slavery", and that was recorded as "the first civilization"

 

1 minute ago, tormund's beard said:

slavery started with the ghiscari empire (or even before but we don't know) > empire got rekt by the valyrians > valyrians got rekt by the faceless man > cities of essos, all condone slavery (sans bravos who was founded by escaped slaves from valyria)

I stand corrected. 

However, condoned or not they are free cities and if freed slaver go there, they would be free. Braavos is an excellent example of free slaving building a free city and forcing other to do the same the way they did with Pentos. 

Volantis will fall by the hands of the soon to be former slaves. So whatever happens to Dany the seeds of freedom have been planted. I would also think that Braavos would be very much in favor of having these slave revolts succeed and assist them in this. 

[Greg B]

Two thoughts:

1. I wonder if D&D have been reading their Adam Smith. "The great power of the clergy thus concurring with that of the king set the slaves at liberty. But it was absolutely necessary both that the authority of the king and of the clergy should be great. Where ever any one of these was wanting, slavery still continues.."

2. It's somewhat hard (for me, at least) to figure out the economics of Essos (or Westeros, for that matter). In many respects, the economy of Essos seems quite advanced, with thriving industries in finished goods, extensive trade and a sophisticated banking system. You'd think in this kind of economy that free labor (i.e. non-slave; not "free" as in "don't have to pay!") would be more efficient than slave labor + enforcement. Slave labor may be more efficient for an agricultural economy where there is relatively low population and lots of land, but which of the nations in Essos is based on this kind of large-scale, plantation-style agriculture?

Essos seems ripe for a more modern, mercantile economy. If true, that still doesn't make slavery go away overnight. But if you remove from power those with an immediate commercial interest in it, compensate them for their economic loss, and enable them to participate in what is already an advanced international economy, it's not unreasonable to expect that chattel slavery might wither away (within seven years, I don't know.)

[SamuelVimes]

17 minutes ago, Greg B said:

Two thoughts:

1. I wonder if D&D have been reading their Adam Smith. "The great power of the clergy thus concurring with that of the king set the slaves at liberty. But it was absolutely necessary both that the authority of the king and of the clergy should be great. Where ever any one of these was wanting, slavery still continues.."

2. It's somewhat hard (for me, at least) to figure out the economics of Essos (or Westeros, for that matter). In many respects, the economy of Essos seems quite advanced, with thriving industries in finished goods, extensive trade and a sophisticated banking system. You'd think in this kind of economy that free labor (i.e. non-slave; not "free" as in "don't have to pay!") would be more efficient than slave labor + enforcement. Slave labor may be more efficient for an agricultural economy where there is relatively low population and lots of land, but which of the nations in Essos is based on this kind of large-scale, plantation-style agriculture?

Essos seems ripe for a more modern, mercantile economy. If true, that still doesn't make slavery go away overnight. But if you remove from power those with an immediate commercial interest in it, compensate them for their economic loss, and enable them to participate in what is already an advanced international economy, it's not unreasonable to expect that chattel slavery might wither away (within seven years, I don't know.)

Interesting thoughts! 

As far as the Essos economy and slavery, I think of it more like the Roman Empire or ancient Greece than the American South's plantation-style economy. Rome especially had a very complex trade system, and a lot of very specialized production centers where slaves were used as skilled labor or as artisans, giving them mobile (i.e., non-land-based) sets of skills comparable to those of non-slaves. They also frequently earned their own money and participated in the economy as consumers rather than just as laborers. 

That would also mean that, in these circumstances, a transition to a non-slaveowning society would be far less painful for everyone involved than it would be in a primarily agricultural plantation economy. 

[Greg B]

51 minutes ago, SamuelVimes said:

Interesting thoughts! 

As far as the Essos economy and slavery, I think of it more like the Roman Empire or ancient Greece than the American South's plantation-style economy. Rome especially had a very complex trade system, and a lot of very specialized production centers where slaves were used as skilled labor or as artisans, giving them mobile (i.e., non-land-based) sets of skills comparable to those of non-slaves. They also frequently earned their own money and participated in the economy as consumers rather than just as laborers. 

That would also mean that, in these circumstances, a transition to a non-slaveowning society would be far less painful for everyone involved than it would be in a primarily agricultural plantation economy. 

I agree with you that it looks a lot more like the ancient world. And quickly googling some numbers, I can see how it might work. The population of the Roman Empire during Augustus's reign was about 45 million (8-10% slaves). His slave tax revenue implied about 250,000 annual sales. Of course, the empire had large-scale, plantation-style agriculture (latifundia). Does Essos have 45 million people? Is Slaver's Bay trafficking a quarter-million people a year? Who is buying them, and what for? How much income does that actually amount to?

Beyond its roots in culture and social tradition, I guess I just have a hard time seeing how the slave trade in Essos makes a lot of economic sense in the first place.

ETA: More numbers! We know from Kraznys Mo Nakloz that a ship is worth 333 Unsullied. If Slaver's Bay is doing 250,000 sales per year -- and they were all Unsullied -- that means their annual income from the entire slave trade would be roughly equivalent to 750 ships. Of course, we know the Unsullied are far more valuable than the average slave. What is the average slave worth -- 10% of an Unsullied? Even that seems high, but let's go with it. So that would mean the annual economic value of the entire slave trade is roughly equivalent to about 75 ships.

That's...small potatoes. I'm sure it seems very important to the masters, but it's not. Compensate them, let them invest the capital in more lucrative industries, and move on. Hell, maybe Daenerys can give them her thousand ships when she's done with them. That should get them up and running as merchant-princes.

[pablonohablo]

On 5/30/2016 at 5:20 AM, Woman of War said:

Here she is not the breaker of chains but the conqueror of a continent. Westeros has as much use for her as for any High Lord or Lady or for any High House, be it Lannister, Targaeryen, Stark or Tyrell. She brings war to people who have not waited for her nor any other ruler but who care about their children surviving, about harvest, rain and sun, paraphrasing Jorah.

This is true, but is that a bad thing?  I mean, we think it's bad.  But is it bad for Dany?  She is, at heart, a conqueror.  She has run from this aspect of her nature for a while.  Now, she seems to have embraced it.  As I read them, this is the meaning of the delirious visions Dany has at the end of ADWD: voices from her past scolding her for not accepting that she is a dragon from a house whose words are Fire and Blood.  Fish gotta swim.  Scorpions gotta sting.  And dragons gotta conquer.  Call that megalomaniacal if you like, but IMO it's her being who she is.  That doesn't make her nice or kind or even right.  It does make her herself, though.

[SamuelVimes]

59 minutes ago, Greg B said:

ETA: More numbers! We know from Kraznys Mo Nakloz that a ship is worth 333 Unsullied. If Slaver's Bay is doing 250,000 sales per year -- and they were all Unsullied -- that means their annual income from the entire slave trade would be roughly equivalent to 750 ships. Of course, we know the Unsullied are far more valuable than the average slave. What is the average slave worth -- 10% of an Unsullied? Even that seems high, but let's go with it. So that would mean the annual economic value of the entire slave trade is roughly equivalent to about 75 ships.

That's...small potatoes. I'm sure it seems very important to the masters, but it's not. Compensate them, let them invest the capital in more lucrative industries, and move on. Hell, maybe Daenerys can give them her thousand ships when she's done with them. That should get them up and running as merchant-princes.

Fantastic--love that you're calculating this out! Of course, economies don't just run on what makes sense--I'm sure the Essene think they're making rational choices, but they're determined as much by tradition and belief as by actual common-sense monetary policy. Compare it, maybe, to the way women were/are kept from working outside the home in various times and places. That's an economic decision that's determined much more by tradition and belief than by any kind of rational argument about economics. Or compare it to current conversations about immigrants (documented and undocumented, refugees, etc). A lot of folks insist that an influx of immigrants is going to mean that Very Bad Things Will Happen. Historically, at least, this hasn't been true, and studies are pretty clear that the myth of immigrants taking the jobs of citizens is precisely that: a myth. Nonetheless, that myth has a great deal of power, and there are plenty of pseudo-economic arguments out there about immigration that aren't really about rational financial policy. My guess is that this analogy works well for the slavers. You can show them all the numbers you want that show that the end of slavery will not result in total collapse, show them how things have historically worked just fine for Braavos and how Valyria bit it even with slaves, and so on, but they will still continue to believe that freeing the slaves will mean that Very Bad Things Will Happen. 

Also, the value of slaves isn't just about the slave trade--it's an entire slave economy. Most people probably aren't making their money buying and selling them, but instead are bringing in consistent money by utilizing slave labor. Totally making up a currency here, let's say you can buy a slave for 80 gold pieces, and that slave is a skilled weaver whose work brings in about 30 gold pieces a year above what you pay for room & board. That slave's value on the market may be 80 gold pieces, but in three years you've made more than that already, and you're going to continue to draw in a profit every year. Buying and selling slaves is undoubtedly lucrative, but even aside from that we're talking about an entire economy where a lot of people's wealth relies on the labor of slaves. You own thirty weavers, you're looking at 900 gold pieces a year in pure profit. So when Tyrion comes in and says "hey, we'll compensate you 80 gold pieces per slave," you're thinking "OK, but how am I going to make up all the lost income that slave would've had? Am I going to have to [gasp] WORK for my money??" 

Also, of course, the use of slave labor means that the price of goods is probably kept artificially low, to where, say, a free weaver will have trouble competing in the free market. Stop the slavery, and you're upsetting the entire structure of the economy. Obviously, you'd be upsetting it in a way that makes it more fair, but that argument isn't going to be exactly palatable to the people at the top of the pyramid, who are definitely going to be taking losses. 

So, you're probably completely correct, and yet I bet your argument wouldn't do a damn thing to convince the masters. (Plus, of course, there's always the powerful-yet-illogical argument "BUT THIS IS HOW WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT!") What do you bet that Tyrion would make those exact calculations himself... and then realize that he'd still have to forcibly impose an end to slavery? Combine the rational argument with threats, make clear that you, too, will make sure that Very Bad Things Will Happen if you don't outlaw slavery, and hope that your threat forces change, and maintains it for long enough for everyone to realize, oh, wait, those Very Bad Things...didn't happen? 

[Meera of Tarth]

On 29/5/2016 at 11:12 AM, Liuko said:

(Please forgive the dramatic title.)

SUMMARY: Dany and Bran are both riding the "If I can, I should" train, and because 1. They're super-powered, 2. They keep "winning", and 3. They have no living mentors, there's no one to check their ambitions. Are both cruising for a bruising? Is the world?

LONG POST:

"You're a conqueror, Daenerys Stormborn." "I take what is mine."

That consolidation of power, ownership, and destiny into a single logic of entitlement made me ill-at-ease. Of course Dany can claim the Iron Throne is rightfully hers: the Targaryens were the royal family and the Baratheons the usurpers. But Astapor, Yunkai and Meereen were not hers to interfere with: bottom line, she took them because she could.

This is very like the Ned/Littlefinger logic of "That's treason/Only if we lose". Has she lost at Astapor, Dany would have been known as another greedy invader, but she keeps winning. And because she keeps winning, the sense that she is supposed to win, that conquering everything in her reach is as it's supposed to be, keeps growing. Might and right become cyclical, reinforcing each other out of proportion.

Bran isn't conquering countries, but he's developing the same sort of relationship between his greensight/skinchanging/telepathy abilities and the amount he can control the world. The fact that he has powers communicates that he's important, more important (apparently) than Hodor (:( ) and now there's no one with greater powers or greater authority who can prod him to think about how to use them responsibly. "I can force Hodor to make sure Meera and I escape safely, so I will." That got me - that's the moment in Greek drama when Oedipus realizes the tragedy is entirely his fault and sets about atoning. No such response from Bran. 

Bran wasn't warging Hodor at that moment considering the interviews to Kristian Nairn. As for what exactly happened, they don't say anything, but in the interview and in the Inside the episodes they state several times that Hodor sacrificed for him.

As for the megalomaniac issue, Bran hasn't chosen his supposed destiny. So I think it's very unfair to say he has all the power. In fact, many people didn't care about Bran until now that we are starting to know that he will hold a bigger responsaibility (not saying power as perse).

I think he has Meera and Benjen to tell him about responsibilities, in case he needs them.

[Greg B]

37 minutes ago, SamuelVimes said:

So, you're probably completely correct, and yet I bet your argument wouldn't do a damn thing to convince the masters. (Plus, of course, there's always the powerful-yet-illogical argument "BUT THIS IS HOW WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT!") What do you bet that Tyrion would make those exact calculations himself... and then realize that he'd still have to forcibly impose an end to slavery? Combine the rational argument with threats, make clear that you, too, will make sure that Very Bad Things Will Happen if you don't outlaw slavery, and hope that your threat forces change, and maintains it for long enough for everyone to realize, oh, wait, those Very Bad Things...didn't happen? 

I agree with this -- that's why you also have to remove the masters from power and bring in the Red Priests. You have to change the political and cultural institutions, as well as the economic system. I just wanted to think through what it would take to actually change the economic system, assuming you can do the other two things. People always talk about how Daenerys is "destroying the economy." My back-of-the-napkin calculations suggest slaves can't be that big a share of the economy, so you should be able to compensate the masters and let them invest their capital in more productive enterprises.

Also, as an aside, Unsullied are a really bad business. We also know from the same source that 333 of them are worth one ship cargo. Fifteen years, give or take, to train, maintain and equip, and that's all your "product" is worth? Great branding, though (no pun intended).

[Florina Laufeyson]

7 hours ago, DragonDreamer said:

This! But there is more to it.

She has her great triumphant Fire and Blood moment in Astapor through Dracarys but then turns around and goes almost completely non-violent and has one of her ultimate Mhysa moments in Yunkai,  Then she is greeted on her way to Mareen by the crucified children, then she goes ahead and crucifies the Great Master, then she turns around and basically gives everything away in her desire for peace and of course that blows up in her face with the Sons of Harpy. 

Dany is constantly battling between her Dragon side and her Mother sides, it's what makes her, who she is. She can be cruel at times and violent but she is also one of the most empathetic characters in the entire series. She risked her own life to save the Unsullied, had her gambit failed she and all her supporter would have been slaughtered at best. She puts her own self interest aside to govern over Meereen and to protect her people. 

Right now she has embraced her Fire and Blood side but once she sees her "children" the people of Westeros suffering from the plague that is the White Walkers she will once again embrace her Mother side and do whatever it takes to save them. It's like Tyrion said:

ETA:

Because this is the show forum we should also include the vision of the House of the Undying Dany get at the end of season 2. When she is in the throne room, literally a hand reach away from the throne and is pulled back by the cries of her children and then she is making her way to the heart of winter pass the Wall gates. She will come close to the Iron Throne but she will give it up to save her children. 

 

I think you have the right of it. Eventually, Dany will see the direct consequences of her deeds and it will affect her. She will want to rescue and protect those in the path of the White Walkers. She will want to protect and fight for those being persecuted. But she will also have to rescue and protect people from herself. Thats what it means to be a conqueror, to conquer, and people die during conquest. 

[TickTak7]

39 minutes ago, Florina Laufeyson said:

I think you have the right of it. Eventually, Dany will see the direct consequences of her deeds and it will affect her. She will want to rescue and protect those in the path of the White Walkers. She will want to protect and fight for those being persecuted. But she will also have to rescue and protect people from herself. Thats what it means to be a conqueror, to conquer, and people die during conquest. 

This sounds so much more interesting and intriguing than anything the show has given us from Dany for almost 2 seasons now. 

Her character has regressed so badly that it's disappointing. 

[sj4iy]

On 5/30/2016 at 8:08 AM, RoamingRonin said:

First reply invokes Godwin's Law. That escalated quickly.

The director of the episode invoked Godwin's law when talking about that particular scene:

“At the end of the scene, you should be somewhat roused by her…and a little horrified.  She’s not Hitler at Nuremberg, but she’s got the power.”

(speaking, of course, about Hitler's speeches to the youth at Nuremberg, just to clear that up)

If even the director is making an indirect comparison, then there's probably some truth to the sentiment.

[House Cambodia]

3 hours ago, SamuelVimes said:

Fantastic--love that you're calculating this out! Of course, economies don't just run on what makes sense--I'm sure the Essene think they're making rational choices, but they're determined as much by tradition and belief as by actual common-sense monetary policy. Compare it, maybe, to the way women were/are kept from working outside the home in various times and places. That's an economic decision that's determined much more by tradition and belief than by any kind of rational argument about economics. Or compare it to current conversations about immigrants (documented and undocumented, refugees, etc). A lot of folks insist that an influx of immigrants is going to mean that Very Bad Things Will Happen. Historically, at least, this hasn't been true, and studies are pretty clear that the myth of immigrants taking the jobs of citizens is precisely that: a myth. Nonetheless, that myth has a great deal of power, and there are plenty of pseudo-economic arguments out there about immigration that aren't really about rational financial policy. My guess is that this analogy works well for the slavers. You can show them all the numbers you want that show that the end of slavery will not result in total collapse, show them how things have historically worked just fine for Braavos and how Valyria bit it even with slaves, and so on, but they will still continue to believe that freeing the slaves will mean that Very Bad Things Will Happen. 

Also, the value of slaves isn't just about the slave trade--it's an entire slave economy. Most people probably aren't making their money buying and selling them, but instead are bringing in consistent money by utilizing slave labor. Totally making up a currency here, let's say you can buy a slave for 80 gold pieces, and that slave is a skilled weaver whose work brings in about 30 gold pieces a year above what you pay for room & board. That slave's value on the market may be 80 gold pieces, but in three years you've made more than that already, and you're going to continue to draw in a profit every year. Buying and selling slaves is undoubtedly lucrative, but even aside from that we're talking about an entire economy where a lot of people's wealth relies on the labor of slaves. You own thirty weavers, you're looking at 900 gold pieces a year in pure profit. So when Tyrion comes in and says "hey, we'll compensate you 80 gold pieces per slave," you're thinking "OK, but how am I going to make up all the lost income that slave would've had? Am I going to have to [gasp] WORK for my money??" 

Also, of course, the use of slave labor means that the price of goods is probably kept artificially low, to where, say, a free weaver will have trouble competing in the free market. Stop the slavery, and you're upsetting the entire structure of the economy. Obviously, you'd be upsetting it in a way that makes it more fair, but that argument isn't going to be exactly palatable to the people at the top of the pyramid, who are definitely going to be taking losses. 

So, you're probably completely correct, and yet I bet your argument wouldn't do a damn thing to convince the masters. (Plus, of course, there's always the powerful-yet-illogical argument "BUT THIS IS HOW WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT!") What do you bet that Tyrion would make those exact calculations himself... and then realize that he'd still have to forcibly impose an end to slavery? Combine the rational argument with threats, make clear that you, too, will make sure that Very Bad Things Will Happen if you don't outlaw slavery, and hope that your threat forces change, and maintains it for long enough for everyone to realize, oh, wait, those Very Bad Things...didn't happen? 

That's a terrific conversation you and gregb are having. That's the point I was making in showing that in Essos civilization itself was built on slavery - it's a mindset, not a rational economic calculation. All but a tiny minority of Essosi outside of Braavos lack the imagination to see how a society could function without slavery, and that includes the slaves themselves as we saw in Meereen.

I can actually draw a modern analogy from my home here in Cambodia. We had a civil war in the 1970s in which the genocidal Khmer Rouge took power. They were a peasant army massively jealous of those who were educated and monied. They killed them all (or tried to). Subsequently we got a government - which still rules with an iron hand - where the leaders come from that uneducated, unrefined stock. In taking power their behaviour is to violently suppress any democratic opposition and ravage the nation's resources for themselves; there is no sense of feeling affinity for the poor or downtrodden. It's pure Animal Farm.

[SamuelVimes]

9 hours ago, DragonDreamer said:

I'm not denying that raping and pillagining will not take place but this is no different than all the other Westerosi armies, Not an excuse but to think Dany a villain for this is ridiculous when the armies of Robb Stark were hanging women for laying with "lions". Of course like I said this isn't an excuss and will be detrimental to Westeros, but I think the Long Winter will stop most of the damage they can do from happening and that those armies will then be used to fight the WW. So, while Dany will cause destruction in Westeros (like the other wanabe kings) she will also be of great assistance along with her armies in the battle for Dawn.

I don't know about this. I think that rapes certainly take place in both situations, and in both situations women tend to be viewed as chattel. (Except for the most part among the Wildlings, where women have considerably higher social status (although there is obv still rape there as well).) The distinction that I see is that in most of Westeros rape is a side effect of war, whereas with the Dothraki rape is an essential part of war. The fact that Dothraki will be selling their captives into slavery is not incidental; I think it leads them to see their captives not as people, but as objects, and they can do whatever they want to these objects. Until Dany comes along, it seems like no one among the Dothraki has ever even objected to rape as a part of war, or even said "hey, rape is bad." In fact, they don't really even seem to understand what her objection is. (This plays into the hugely problematic white savior narrative that both GRRM and even more so D&D seem to love--and also makes clear that the Dothraki are based not on the Mongols but on the European view of the Mongols, because medieval Mongol society was very complex, had a lot of innovations in terms of law and civility, and was certainly a place in which women held a great deal of power--but all of that is another topic entirely so I'll stop there!)

Compare that to Westeros, where rape is a seen as a lamentable side effect of war, but not as something that's generally acceptable. When Tyrion tells Bronn that his sellswords ideally oughtn't rape the folks of Kings Landing, he gets it. He says it's going to be difficult, but he's well aware that rape is frowned upon. To most of Westeros, rape is a bad, if unavoidable, thing. And when they're at war, their enemies are not going to become slaves; they stay subjects, people, instead of objects. (There are clearly exceptions to this; I don't think Ramsay or Euron sees anyone but themselves as human and worthy of dignity.) I mean, think about show-Littlefinger's reaction to Sansa forcing him to talk about her rape. Even someone like Littlefinger cringes and is uncomfortable acknowledging the reality of rape in polite company. If he were Dothraki, it wouldn't matter at all to him. 

So while all the armies in Planetos rape and pillage, I do think that Dothraki raping and pillaging is much more extreme than what you tend to see in Westeros. 

[SamuelVimes]

38 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

I can actually draw a modern analogy from my home here in Cambodia. We had a civil war in the 1970s in which the genocidal Khmer Rouge took power. They were a peasant army massively jealous of those who were educated and monied. They killed them all (or tried to). Subsequently we got a government - which still rules with an iron hand - where the leaders come from that uneducated, unrefined stock. In taking power their behaviour is to violently suppress any democratic opposition and ravage the nation's resources for themselves; there is no sense of feeling affinity for the poor or downtrodden. It's pure Animal Farm.

The Khmer Rouge were terrifying. And they were all about saying they were liberating people, and then turning around and killing them by the hundreds of thousands... It's an episode in history more people ought to know about, regardless of what we think about fictional worlds. 

...and now back to our regularly scheduled discussion of dragons... 

[Tywinelle]

On 30 May 2016 at 7:07 PM, ummester said:

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

And that seems to be the theme of Dany's entire arc.  It's tiresome and repetitive.

[ummester]

22 minutes ago, Tywinelle said:

And that seems to be the theme of Dany's entire arc.  It's tiresome and repetitive.

Yes, well, ASoIaF/GoTs has really dragged on a bit too long. 3 books, to 5 books, to 7 books - why? Dorne, FAegon - why?

The core story is good and interesting and Dany is a fundamental part of that - but, so long as things are dragged on (whether that is because GRRM is waiting for the Stark kids to age or because HBO wants to extend the franchise) Dany will feel like she is treading water repetitively.

[RoamingRonin]

3 hours ago, sj4iy said:

The director of the episode invoked Godwin's law when talking about that particular scene:

“At the end of the scene, you should be somewhat roused by her…and a little horrified.  She’s not Hitler at Nuremberg, but she’s got the power.”

(speaking, of course, about Hitler's speeches to the youth at Nuremberg, just to clear that up)

If even the director is making an indirect comparison, then there's probably some truth to the sentiment.

I was talking about the first reply to this thread, not what the director said. Godwin's law applies to internet arguments.

As a Dany-fan, if I wasn't horrified at all the other stuff she's done... why would I be horrified now? To be honest: I was a little let down she didn't reclaim Astapor or Yunkai. I wanted to see fire and blood. This wasn't like when she claimed the Unsullied.  This was the promise of action, not action.

But I get it: This is proof that Dany is going to break bad soon and turn evil.

I know what a Targaryen dragonlord is capable of. I'm excited to see what she does next. She's done nothing to sway my opinion of her just yet.

Quote

Yes, well, ASoIaF/GoTs has really dragged on a bit too long. 3 books, to 5 books, to 7 books - why? Dorne, FAegon - why?

The core story is good and interesting and Dany is a fundamental part of that - but, so long as things are dragged on (whether that is because GRRM is waiting for the Stark kids to age or because HBO wants to extend the franchise) Dany will feel like she is treading water repetitively.

@ummester

I agree with this. This scene was pretty much her speech in Astapor except replace the Unsullied with the Dothraki. It even ended with a close up Drogon just like the scene in Astapor did.

[House Cambodia]

2 hours ago, SamuelVimes said:

The distinction that I see is that in most of Westeros rape is a side effect of war, whereas with the Dothraki rape is an essential part of war. The fact that Dothraki will be selling their captives into slavery is not incidental; I think it leads them to see their captives not as people, but as objects, and they can do whatever they want to these objects. Until Dany comes along, it seems like no one among the Dothraki has ever even objected to rape as a part of war, or even said "hey, rape is bad." In fact, they don't really even seem to understand what her objection is. 

I see this as merely part of a deeper distinction between Dothraki and other societies (Westerosi and Essosi) - it's not actually directly connected to war - we see in the Dothraki celebrations, even at Vaes Dothrak, that they copulate in public with people randomly pulled out of the group. Even at the wedding ceremony and as married couples they copulate in public. The Dothraki are portrayed as totally bestial in their sexual behaviour. Trying to reform their attitudes would be like trying to train your dogs to restrict their copulating to the kennel!