Jump to content
Lady Winter Rose

Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

There's nothing in the books that indicate Dany gave up her moral beliefs!

She firmly opposed to the fighting pits on moral grounds ("my answer is still no. For the sixth time”).

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Did you even read the part about the Daznak's pit? Her problem in Mereen is that she tries to appease the slavers and others in power in return for peace. She even imprisons her dragons for them. But in the end it all goes wrong. (Contrast this to Jon, who stands by his moral beliefs without trying to cave into pressure, but it all goes wrong for him as well. Typical GRRM). Stannis gave up his moral beliefs in many more ways than Dany but for some weird reason he has fans. 

So what of it? Stannis has fans, Dany has fans, almost every character minor or major has fans. Ser Boros Blount might be the sole exception so far. That proves what exactly?

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

What insincere promises? 

If you consider Hizdahr zo Loraq sincere and acting in good faith, then you might be in minority.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Uh, when did I say that people who don't like Dany are people who hate women?

Oh, that's going to be a tough one for me. Super tough.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

(But if the boot fits...) 

Oh. Less tough than I initially thought, it seems.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I said that her actions would be more scrutinized by nearly everyone.

That's what one gets for being a leading character in ASOIAF.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

She did free all those slaves and what happened?

Let me guess, peace, prosperity and universal happiness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Well, I never said "benevolent", but does one have to be a particularly good person to object to the crucifixion of 163 children? They weren't "harmed", they were murdered in an unreasonably horrific manner. There's a bit of a difference between disciplining a disobedient slave and crucifying someone.

What makes me think that some of the slavers weren't so bad is the fact that many of the slaves wanted to be their slaves again. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to work for someone who crucifies people on a whim. It seems unlikely that the 163 children were all going to be crucified anyway, so they were used to taunt Daenerys. Therefore, they must have been randomly chosen. If you were freed from someone who'd do that, you wouldn't want to go back.

As for condemning the murder of the freedmen, there's Hizdahr. Now, I'm not so sure that he's such a good guy, or that he doesn't have direct influence over the Harpy's Sons, but he did stop the murders. Should he be genuine, that's a direct condemnation of their actions, no? Admittedly, I don't really think he is genuine, but I've been wrong before.

You speak as if the re-enslaved had a choice, when they the likely only alternative option was to starve. Personally, I would rather sell myself back to the cruelest slaver than die on the streets, and I'm sure many people would do the same. Besides, no one sold themselves back to the Great Masters since slavery remained banned in Meereen, so no former slave went back to serving anyone who crucified the 163 children.

Hizdahr wasn't one of the Great Masters. Also, he offered to stop the murders in exchange for Dany's hand in marriage, not as a symbol of disapproval of the Sons of the Harpy's actions. Clearly, none of them have any issue with torturing and murdering (former) slaves.

Again, if GRRM had meant for there to be sympathetic Great Masters, he would have had one of them come forth to proclaim his innocence in the crucifixions or something similar. But they haven't been portrayed as anything but cruel and vile, just like the Good Masters of Astapor.

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

It's a lot easier to paint Daenerys's actions as morally grey as we see her thoughts, her reasoning, her motives. We don't have that for any of the slavers. I'm quite certain, however, that a proclamation of innocence would fall only on deaf ears, and I really don't think the 163 people she had crucified were given a trial and allowed to defend themselves.

It doesn't matter if a proclamation is acknowledged or not. If the author intended for us to see that there were "innocent" slavers, such a scene would have existed to convey that idea. There is no reason he could not have had one of the Great Masters, or one of their wives tell Dany that they didn't approve of the crucifixions. I mean, they were about to die horrifically. It would have been an opportune moment to defend themselves.

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Did you just accuse literally everybody in the world of being sexist?

In a sense, yes. No one here lives in a vacuum. As long as sexism exists, we'll all those certain biases with us, learnt from media, interactions with other people, etc. I often catch myself having sexist thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

You speak as if the re-enslaved had a choice, when they the likely only alternative option was to starve.

Not so. The example I'm thinking of is of a man who had a job digging ditches, who wanted to return to being a slave. I believe he was working for Daenerys, too, so he was surely being paid. Else, he'd be a slave, no?

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Personally, I would rather sell myself back to the cruelest slaver than die on the streets, and I'm sure many people would do the same.

Fair enough. I can't speak for everyone, but it's a relatively common saying that there are worse things than death. I'd be happy (well, happy might be a stretch) with pretty much anything, if I were getting away from someone who crucified people on a whim.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Besides, no one sold themselves back to the Great Masters since slavery remained banned in Meereen, so no former slave went back to serving anyone who crucified the 163 children.

That's completely irrelevant. They wanted to, regardless of whether or not they could.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Hizdahr wasn't one of the Great Masters.

I'm pretty sure he is. Unless I'm mistaken, the Great Masters are just the ruling class of the city. The nobles. I mean, after Daenerys took the city, they stopped being Masters, great or otherwise, but before she came along, I'm quite sure he was one of the Great Masters.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Also, he offered to stop the murders in exchange for Dany's hand in marriage, not as a symbol of disapproval of the Sons of the Harpy's actions.

Wasn't the marriage to solidify the peace? The implication was that unless she married someone from the Meereenese nobility, she could never hope to have peace, and she had Hizdahr stop the killings first, to prove it'd be possible. It wasn't that it was Hizdahr's offer, so much as it was Daenerys's price.

As I've said, I'm not really sure that Hizdahr is genuine (I don't really think he is), but if he is, then it's true he wanted peace. If not, he's one of the Harpy's Sons. But it's not impossible that he is genuine.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Clearly, none of them have any issue with torturing and murdering (former) slaves.

Clearly. Except for the fact that we don't hear from all of them, so it's impossible to say for certain that "none of them x". The fact is that we are presented with the opinions of some of the former slaves, who want to go back to being current slaves. They evidently don't think they'll be tortured, or they wouldn't want to go back.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Again, if GRRM had meant for there to be sympathetic Great Masters, he would have had one of them come forth to proclaim his innocence in the crucifixions or something similar.

That'd be like going into your local police station and telling them, unprompted, that you had no part in some recent murders. All that's likely to accomplish is to draw attention. If the police had recently crucified some people, you don't want their attention.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

It doesn't matter if a proclamation is acknowledged or not. If the author intended for us to see that there were "innocent" slavers, such a scene would have existed to convey that idea.

Or perhaps we were supposed to use common sense, and realise that with the amount of slaves in the city, it doesn't take 163 slave owners to come up with 163 child slaves. Next, any who weren't supplying slaves to the 163 didn't need to be in on it. It stands to reason, therefore, that not all 163 people Daenerys had crucified were part of the plot to crucify the children, and therefore that they are innocent of the crime they're being crucified for.

They don't need to be benevolent paragons of goodness to not be a part of someone else's crimes. Hell, they don't even have to disapprove to not be a part of it. Punishing people for the way they think is proper tyrant sort of stuff.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

There is no reason he could not have had one of the Great Masters, or one of their wives tell Dany that they didn't approve of the crucifixions.

He had their former slaves tell the story. That they wanted to be enslaved. Nobody wants to be crucified. I don't want to keep coming back to this same point, but I really do think it speaks volumes.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I mean, they were about to die horrifically. It would have been an opportune moment to defend themselves.

She didn't really give them an opportunity to defend themselves. One line she's saying that she wants 163 people to crucify, the next she's thinking about how good she felt, how righteous she felt crucifying them. It feels like a quick change, from one part to the next, and I think it's supposed to feel that way, to portray the way she had it done. No trial, no defense, only crucifixion.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

In a sense, yes.

Wow.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I often catch myself having sexist thoughts.

Right, so because you're a sexist, that means everyone else must be sexist too? That's some ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, reason i don't enjoy reading Dany's chapters as much is because her adversary's seem less the sub-par for me, at least that's how i feel. She's a poor girl against insane odds, but her foe's own idiocy normally beat's them not her own tactical thinking. I mean, how would you feel if you where reading history, and instead of Fred the great, being a pretty fantastic commander and such, instead just have half of the world walk into the sea, instead of provide great battles. As for Arya, I loved her first read, though i'm not a fan of the whole assassin training, it was great for the first read, but now it's not as enjoyable the second of 4th time aroumd. But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rikkisix said:

Honestly, reason i don't enjoy reading Dany's chapters as much is because her adversary's seem less the sub-par for me, at least that's how i feel. She's a poor girl against insane odds, but her foe's own idiocy normally beat's them not her own tactical thinking. I mean, how would you feel if you where reading history, and instead of Fred the great, being a pretty fantastic commander and such, instead just have half of the world walk into the sea, instead of provide great battles. As for Arya, I loved her first read, though i'm not a fan of the whole assassin training, it was great for the first read, but now it's not as enjoyable the second of 4th time aroumd. But that's just me.

I agree with this assessment.  I like Dany, but I'm not a fan of her chapters.  I also do not enjoy Tyrion's or Arya's chapters in Essos that much either.  I can't wait until all of them are in Westeros.  I did like Arya's Riverlands chapters even though a lot of it is misery for smallfolk.  I think I like the characters there better.  We have the Hound, the Brotherhood Without Borders, The Boltons, Hot Pie, Gendry, Yoren, Lady Smallwood, Edric Dayne, etc.  It might be that the Westeros characters have more complexity then the Essos characters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 5:18 PM, Lady Winter Rose said:

Just because one is feminine smart ruler, and another is adventurous tomboy assassin, doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading both of them. But to be honest, Dany is more realistic than Arya. There are RL princesses, no matter how much some readers hated idea of princesses in the novel, while Arya is stereotypical rogue of any fantasy novel/game.

You will find that every character has his or her share of critics.  No exceptions.  Dany is my fave.  I just love her.  She's the main character when I read those pages.  Dany is the reason why I read those long novels.

I don't have much against Arya herself but I do find her story very boring and her character is really ridiculous.  A pint-sized assassin going around rubbing off her family's enemies!  She's too much like an anime character and I don't enjoy her chapters.  

On 4/5/2018 at 5:25 PM, Kandrax said:

Yet none calls Robb war criminal for scourching Westernlands.

I call Robb a failure.  He's a hypocrite who punishes people (but not his mommy) for going out of line and yet he is the one who screwed up more than anyone on his team.  Robb was a rebel and by that, he is a war criminal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 867-5309 said:

You will find that every character has his or her share of critics.  No exceptions.  Dany is my fave.  I just love her.  She's the main character when I read those pages.  Dany is the reason why I read those long novels.

I don't have much against Arya herself but I do find her story very boring and her character is really ridiculous.  A pint-sized assassin going around rubbing off her family's enemies!  She's too much like an anime character and I don't enjoy her chapters. 

I think I'm the opposite.  Arya's my fave and i find a lot of Dany's storyline boring and ridiculous (even though I do like Dany).  I mean she is the most beautiful woman in the world where ever man wants to bed her and she happens to have magical dragons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, goldenmaps said:

I think I'm the opposite.  Arya's my fave and i find a lot of Dany's storyline boring and ridiculous (even though I do like Dany).  I mean she is the most beautiful woman in the world where ever man wants to bed her and she happens to have magical dragons. 

Hey, to each his own.  Like what and who you like.  It's all good.  :)

Dany is the reason why I read those plus-sized volumes.  I will myself to endure a Jon, Sam, Arya, Sansa, and Cersei chapter just to get to Dany's.  I read a Sansa chapter even though I don't enjoy them because I don't want to take a chance on missing what could be an important detail.  Fortunately, there's not that many that interests me in Sansa's chapters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

Hey, to each his own.  Like what and who you like.  It's all good.  :)

Dany is the reason why I read those plus-sized volumes.  I will myself to endure a Jon, Sam, Arya, Sansa, and Cersei chapter just to get to Dany's.  I read a Sansa chapter even though I don't enjoy them because I don't want to take a chance on missing what could be an important detail.  Fortunately, there's not that many that interests me in Sansa's chapters.  

I agree.  We all identify and like different characters for different reasons.  And I want Dany to come to Westeros soon.  I think that it would be a very interesting and entertaining read once she gets to interact with people in Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Not so. The example I'm thinking of is of a man who had a job digging ditches, who wanted to return to being a slave. I believe he was working for Daenerys, too, so he was surely being paid. Else, he'd be a slave, no?

[...]

He had their former slaves tell the story. That they wanted to be enslaved. Nobody wants to be crucified. I don't want to keep coming back to this same point, but I really do think it speaks volumes.

That man was never slave. He was formerly a rich merchant. Of course he'd prefer to be sold to his "friend" and go back to living in a manse over digging ditches. Actually, now that I think on it, I don't think there was ever a mention of freedmen wanting to sell themselves back to slavery. The Meereenese begging to be bought were described as "gently born" i.e. they were ex-slavers.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I'm pretty sure he is. Unless I'm mistaken, the Great Masters are just the ruling class of the city. The nobles. I mean, after Daenerys took the city, they stopped being Masters, great or otherwise, but before she came along, I'm quite sure he was one of the Great Masters.

Wasn't the marriage to solidify the peace? The implication was that unless she married someone from the Meereenese nobility, she could never hope to have peace, and she had Hizdahr stop the killings first, to prove it'd be possible. It wasn't that it was Hizdahr's offer, so much as it was Daenerys's price.

As I've said, I'm not really sure that Hizdahr is genuine (I don't really think he is), but if he is, then it's true he wanted peace. If not, he's one of the Harpy's Sons. But it's not impossible that he is genuine.

Hizdahr was a merchant. I will concede that it is possible he was a Great Master as he was noble, but that's not the impression I got while reading. It was certainly never mentioned.

In any case, Hizdahr stopping the murders was not because he objected to them. That much is clear. He explicitly states his reason for wanting peace was because he wanted to protect his own people. Hence, it is not an example of a Great Master condemning the actions of the Sons

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

She didn't really give them an opportunity to defend themselves. One line she's saying that she wants 163 people to crucify, the next she's thinking about how good she felt, how righteous she felt crucifying them. It feels like a quick change, from one part to the next, and I think it's supposed to feel that way, to portray the way she had it done. No trial, no defense, only crucifixion.

Once again, you're arguing from an in-story perspective when what I asked was, what was stopping the author from having one of the men about to be crucified to plead for his life, being that he was innocent? It would have fit perfectly in that scene, which was about Dany reflecting on the harshness of her punishment. What was stopping him from having Xaro or another of Dany's critics mention that not all the GM agreed to the crucifixions? You're free to imagine the Great Masters as "innocent" but there is no textual evidence for it, as far as I can see.

Also, having re-read the scene, it's worth noting that Dany specifically asks them to hand over their leaders.

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Wow.

Right, so because you're a sexist, that means everyone else must be sexist too? That's some ego.

If you're going to be disingenuous and pretend I didn't write anything between those two sentences explaining my statements, then this conversion is over. And you think you're immune to bias, then it's your own ego that needs checking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/04/2018 at 11:35 PM, Kandrax said:

I don't hate Robb.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting you did. I was pointing out that we, and many others, have debated his character and actions repeatedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Dany.  A lot.  Dany is the best character created by GRRM.  I have read just about all of his short stories and Khaleesi is definitely his best character.  I would not be reading aSoIaF if I didn't like the main protagonists.  

I don't like the Starks.  Well, Bran and Rickon are ok up to this point, but Arya, Jon, Robb, and Sansa turn me off.  All of them are dingbats and bungholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2018 at 6:44 AM, Bloodraven's Spider said:

I enjoy both of their chapters very much but Dany is a dumb wench while Arya is just a lost little girl. Both will die neither will win the game but can the co exist if/once their storylines meet? That will be the interesting part.

Dany is actually one of the smartest people in the novels.  Certainly she is much, much smarter than Jon Snow.  Look for the topic thread titled "Daenerys Targaryen's Power Plays" and if you have any reading comprehension at all, you will find strong proof of Dany's high level of intelligence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

That man was never slave. He was formerly a rich merchant. Of course he'd prefer to be sold to his "friend" and go back to living in a manse over digging ditches. Actually, now that I think on it, I don't think there was ever a mention of freedmen wanting to sell themselves back to slavery. The Meereenese begging to be bought were described as "gently born" i.e. they were ex-slavers.

Yep, I think I was mistaken. I think I may have been conflating a few different scenarios together. Tyrion's musings about how easy it is to become accustomed to the chains, the Pit Fighters wanting to fight for themselves, and the fact that people wanted to sell themselves into slavery. I'd thought that there were freedmen trying to sell themselves into slavery, on page, but it does seem I'm wrong about that. My bad.

That said, I don't think it necessarily undermines my argument. The fact remains that people still wanted to sell themselves into slavery. Of course, maybe they thought that they'd get better treatment than the other slaves, but that seems a foolish hope. A slave is a slave, and of course while the owner decides the treatment, the fact remains that any slave, no matter how well born, has at least the potential to be treated as cruelly as any other.

There would also, surely, have been former slaves who knew how to read and write, and those were the types of people Daario was describing (he says that they'll be, among other things, scribes and tutors), though he also describes them as gently born (though how would he know, for certain?). Also, after Daenerys concedes that any man or woman is allowed to sell themselves into slavery, it doesn't need to come up again (no freedman would come to Daenerys asking to sell themselves, they could just do so), so we cannot say for certain that no freedman sold themselves back into slavery, though of course we cannot say the opposite, that they did.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Hizdahr was a merchant. I will concede that it is possible he was a Great Master as he was noble, but that's not the impression I got while reading. It was certainly never mentioned.

The impression I got was that all of the nobility were the Great Masters; that it was just their fancy, self-aggrandizing way of saying noble. Which is to say, Reznak and Skahaz, for example, were former Great Masters, along with everyone who lived, freely, in the pyramids, and many more besides. Though I've been looking, and I cannot really say for certain that this is so, but it was my impression.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

In any case, Hizdahr stopping the murders was not because he objected to them. That much is clear. He explicitly states his reason for wanting peace was because he wanted to protect his own people. Hence, it is not an example of a Great Master condemning the actions of the Sons

Sure, but if he supported their actions (once again, this is assuming he's genuine) he wouldn't want them to stop. Perhaps it's not a direct condemnation, but it certainly implies disapproval. If Hizdahr thinks he needs to stop the Harpy's Sons in order to protect his own people, it obviously follows that he thinks that they're endangering his own people, which he thinks is bad. That's certainly not approval of their actions.

Though I find it much more likely that he's simply using the situation, whether or not he is one of the Harpy's Sons, in order to become King. In which case, he certainly doesn't care that they're killing freedmen. But once again, it's possible that Hizdahr is genuine.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Once again, you're arguing from an in-story perspective when what I asked was, what was stopping the author from having one of the men about to be crucified to plead for his life, being that he was innocent?

Oh. Right. I only ever really argue anything from an in-story perspective. There is a story, after all, and it needs to be cohesive. If there's no plausible reason for something to happen in-story, I feel that it shouldn't be in the story.

From an out of universe perspective, however, it may simply be that GRRM felt that Daenerys would be swayed by their pleading, their reasonable arguments that they're innocent, and that he wanted Daenerys to crucify them. We all know how much trouble GRRM had with writing Meereen, and without this scene, a lot of what happens wouldn't make much sense. Much of the reason that Daenerys's diplomacy fails in Meereen is that her first act was that of a tyrant. She immediately, permanently, turned a great deal of the noble class against her by her rash action. It needed to happen, and it's possible that she'd have been swayed if she'd listened.

That makes a certain amount of sense in-story, too. She had wanted to feel like an "avenging dragon" (the way she phrases it), and she didn't want to be swayed away from what she felt was "just", so she didn't choose to listen. She feels a bit bad, afterwards (though she quickly puts the thought out of her mind), when she hears and smells them dying, which lends credence to the idea that she thinks she could've been swayed.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

It would have fit perfectly in that scene, which was about Dany reflecting on the harshness of her punishment. What was stopping him from having Xaro or another of Dany's critics mention that not all the GM agreed to the crucifixions?

I don't really think it would've fit, honestly. Trying to force things just so that they're there, despite perhaps not really fitting is the way you get "creatively it made sense to us, because we wanted it to happen." Sometimes, if it doesn't fit, or you can't make it fit, it's fine to drop it.

Don't get me wrong, GRRM is a fantastic author, and I'm certain that, if he really wanted it, he could've somehow worked it in, and it would've been good. But considering the trouble he had writing a lot of the Meereenese stuff, and the fact that it doesn't need to be said outright (well, I don't think it does, at least), it didn't need to be put in.

Also, side note, GRRM had intended for some of the Winds chapters to be in Dance, no? Perhaps what you're looking for would've been in one of those chapters. The formerly Great Masters appealing not to Daenerys, but to Barristan. There, I think it could fit.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

You're free to imagine the Great Masters as "innocent" but there is no textual evidence for it, as far as I can see.

I'll counter that with the fact that there's no textual evidence that all of the Great Masters came together and plotted to crucify those children, as far as I can see.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Also, having re-read the scene, it's worth noting that Dany specifically asks them to hand over their leaders.

Just so. But that's in the same paragraph as this:

In the plaza before the Great Pyramid, the Meereenese huddled forlorn. The Great Masters had looked anything but great in the morning light. Stripped of their jewels and their fringed tokars, they were contemptible...

So the people she's speaking to are identified as Great Masters. Though of course it's worth noting that it may simply be that Daenerys considers all of the Meereenese nobility to be Great Masters, not distinguishing between potential class levels within the nobility. That's possible. But I think it's simply that all of the nobility are Great Masters.

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

If you're going to be disingenuous and pretend I didn't write anything between those two sentences explaining my statements, then this conversion is over.

I wasn't being disingenuous, your comment was on the same page as mine. I wasn't trying to trick anyone. I'd have said the same thing, regardless. I also didn't pretend you didn't write anything, I just didn't wish to comment on it. If you insist, however, I will:

21 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

No one here lives in a vacuum. As long as sexism exists, we'll all those certain biases with us, learnt from media, interactions with other people, etc.

I disagree. I feel the whole "bias" argument really falls flat. Our early interactions with people, primarily parents and teachers, go a long way to shape a person, but saying that people are biased by everything they hear completely undermines the idea that anyone can think critically.

An example not related to sexism: I don't like pears. No matter how many people tell me pears are great, that I must like pears, the fact that I dislike pears isn't going to change. The media can say it, advertisements can be tailored to present pears as fantastically delicious, it's still not going to change anything. I. Don't. Like. Pears. End of story. No matter how much people try to push the idea that pears are great.

On that same note, some people aren't sexist, and when they hear sexist things, they don't start to believe them. Another, more sexist example. If someone says "all women are sluts", or "men are all horny pigs", or even something as light as "men always leave the toilet seat up", my first reaction is the same. Some women are sluts, sure. Some men are horny pigs, sure. Some men leave the toilet seat up, sure. I've heard all of those claims before, sometimes said outright, sometimes implied by poorly written shows or books, whatever. I could hear it once, I could hear it a million times, the fact remains that I disagree, and I'm not going to start believing it just because it's said.

Now, I think that most people feel the same way. I could be wrong. I'm quite certain that most people aren't unapologetic sexists. But it could be that most people are more like you. You said you "catch yourself" having sexist thoughts, which obviously implies shame at the fact that you have them. I don't "catch myself" enjoying Taylor Swift's music. I just like her music.

So with that said, if we return to the original point, that people are unconsciously biased towards female characters, I think it's ridiculous. If most people think the way I've portrayed in the example, there's no bias. If most people think the way you do, their unconscious bias would be destroyed if they thought critically about why they don't like x character. So all you're saying, when you say someone is just being sexist, is that they haven't bothered to think. Which you can't know to be true, it's just a baseless accusation. Of course, there are some who won't have thought it through, and there are some who are just unapologetically sexist, but I seriously doubt that they're the majority, or even that they're a large minority, on these forums.

Now, with all that said, I stand by what I said earlier. Just because you have sexist thoughts that you don't want, that doesn't mean that everyone else does, and you must have some ego to believe it's so.

This is why I didn't comment on what you said. All I had to say was, by necessity, long winded and significantly off topic, and it didn't really have any influence over what I did choose to say.

8 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

And you think you're immune to bias, then it's your own ego that needs checking.

You're saying that you have knowledge of how all people think. I'm saying that not all people think that way, though obviously some do. Compared to you, at least, I think my ego is well in check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

Arya, Jon, Robb, and Sansa turn me off.  All of them are dingbats and bungholes.

Always a pleasure to read such well-thought, intelligent and insightful analysis. /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I'll counter that with the fact that there's no textual evidence that all of the Great Masters came together and plotted to crucify those children, as far as I can see.

I've seen this debate quite a few times, and it is ultimately not resolvable because essentially everyone is right.

Dany, on conquering the city, visited collective punishment on its rulers, symbolically based upon the punishment they meted out on slaves. The capturing of a city and the killing of its leaders would be pretty standard for any victor. We of course have high standards for Dany. When she originally did it, it made her feel vengeful and powerful, which is a bit of a red flag for me, but then she felt bad afterwards, which is a hopeful sign. 

In a sense, you could argue that all the slave owners were responsible for slavery, and not having taken part in one particular atrocity doesn't absolve them for centuries of profiting from and enforcing slavery. Does that mean I would crucify 163 people chosen at random? No probably not, but bemoaning their deaths seems a bit strange to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

I like Dany.  A lot.  Dany is the best character created by GRRM.  I have read just about all of his short stories and Khaleesi is definitely his best character.  I would not be reading aSoIaF if I didn't like the main protagonists.  

Pffff… I doubt you ever read the books. You call Daenerys "Khaleesi" exactly like a casual “tits and dragons” show fan, in a comment box of a decerebrated GoT YouTube channel…

Khaleesi is a TITLE, not her name. There are dozens of khaleesis in the Dosh Khaleen…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

Dany is actually one of the smartest people in the novels.  Certainly she is much, much smarter than Jon Snow.  Look for the topic thread titled "Daenerys Targaryen's Power Plays" and if you have any reading comprehension at all, you will find strong proof of Dany's high level of intelligence.  

The troll who names Daenerys "Khaleesi" talks about "reading comprehension". :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I've seen this debate quite a few times, and it is ultimately not resolvable because essentially everyone is right.

One of the many, many great things about the books, really. That people can read the same thing, and without missing any information directly relayed, can have completely differing opinions, with neither truly being incorrect.

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

We of course have high standards for Dany.

The reason we have high standards for her is that she portrays herself as the hero. She thinks of herself as the hero. When she crucifies people based on the crimes of their peers, it's particularly egregious because it's a direct contradiction.

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

In a sense, you could argue that all the slave owners were responsible for slavery, and not having taken part in one particular atrocity doesn't absolve them for centuries of profiting from and enforcing slavery.

Sure, and if they were punished for being slavers, that'd be a different issue. They were punished, cruelly, for a specific crime, that most of them likely had no part in. It's nonsensical. It's unjust.

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Does that mean I would crucify 163 people chosen at random? No probably not, but bemoaning their deaths seems a bit strange to me.

I'm scarcely grieving for them. It's not their deaths that I take issue with, it's how they were killed, and why they were killed. There's a difference between just killing someone and crucifying them. The only reason I brought it up was because someone asked what "Mad Queen" sorts of things Daenerys had done. This one act, in particular, reminds me of Aerys. Cruel. Misplaced. Idiotic. Very evocative of Aerys.

If she just had them all killed, fine. Even if she had them all crucified, fine. I wouldn't approve, but I wouldn't disapprove quite so much. It'd be a strong opening move, that would solidify her rule over the Meereenese (because the vast majority of her detractors would be dead). Daenerys's problem is that she opened as an absolute tyrant, but then danced between tyrant and benevolent dictator. Foolish. It really is no wonder that so many of the Meereenese wanted her gone.

I dislike Daenerys for a great many reasons, but this is her cruelest act, that's all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

The reason we have high standards for her is that she portrays herself as the hero. She thinks of herself as the hero.

Yes, and we have seen her grow up over the last few years, and therefore many of us are sympathetic. 

2 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

When she crucifies people based on the crimes of their peers, it's particularly egregious because it's a direct contradiction.

Well, it does and it doesn't. We may want our favourite characters to punish those that we dislike. She was avenging murdered children, which could be seen as heroic. Still, I take your point.

4 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Sure, and if they were punished for being slavers, that'd be a different issue. They were punished, cruelly, for a specific crime, that most of them likely had no part in.

This is where we disagree I think. Yes, it was in response to the crucifixion of children, but it was also a symbolic punishment for slavery as a whole.

5 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

The only reason I brought it up was because someone asked what "Mad Queen" sorts of things Daenerys had done. This one act, in particular, reminds me of Aerys. Cruel. Misplaced. Idiotic. Very evocative of Aerys.

I think it was a sign that Dany can go one way or another. I actually do think she's going to go a bit mad before the end of the series, so there's no disagreement from me on that one.

6 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

If she just had them all killed, fine. Even if she had them all crucified, fine. I wouldn't approve, but I wouldn't disapprove quite so much. It'd be a strong opening move, that would solidify her rule over the Meereenese (because the vast majority of her detractors would be dead). Daenerys's problem is that she opened as an absolute tyrant, but then danced between tyrant and benevolent dictator. Foolish. It really is no wonder that so many of the Meereenese wanted her gone.

I actually agree with all of that. I thought her staying on was madness, but then her leaving didn't exactly help Astapor, so she was really stuffed either way. Still, in my opinion granting people freedom, and them screwing it up for themselves, such as in Astapor, is in my opinion more justifiable than you trying to rule them afterwards, and screwing it up on their behalf. 

8 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

One of the many, many great things about the books, really. That people can read the same thing, and without missing any information directly relayed, can have completely differing opinions, with neither truly being incorrect.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×