Shaera in Aerys´ rule

[Lord Varys]

55 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry Varys, usually your analyses are pretty good, but I think you are way off on this. The Stark children look up to and admire both their parents, and, with the exception of Arya, try to live up to their moral standards.

Robb and Bran do look up to Ned, in a sense, and Robb is old enough to be taken under Ned's wing as his heir. But none of the parents cares for Rickon, nor is there any evidence for a strong emotional bond between the daughters and their parents.

Bran's ride to the execution is a very special execution. He doesn't spend time with his father all that often.

And I never said the children don't try to emulate their parents. Just that royal and noble parents have better things to do than to personally oversee the education of their children.

Quote

Joffrey, it is clearly shown, is completely under his mother's spell. From the riverside feast we can see how she uses him in her schemes. From his wailing after cutting himself on the throne we can see that he turns to her for emotional succor. He's a total mama's boy. But even if they did receive outsized influence from tutors, maesters and the like, these people could very well be equally responsible for the personalities that they eventually developed.

Joff knows how to get what he wants from his mother, but from what we know they are not close. Joff isn't spending most of the day in Cersei's company. He isn't her page or cupbearer, for instance (like Rhaenyra was for her father or Aegon the Younger for her). And Cersei doesn't really know firsthand what Joff is. She gets reports on him and takes his side, but she isn't around when bad things happen - just as Maekar isn't around when Aerion shows his true face, etc.

Joff doesn't play a part in Cersei's schemes, either. He handles his future wife - something that's expected from him. He has no idea what Cersei is planning.

Quote

What you're saying is not scientifically sound. Physical defects in the brain can cause mental impairments, loss of focus, even bouts of anger or schizophrenia, but cruelty, sadism, joy at other's pain, these are all the products of nurturing. Joffrey, Aerys, even Maegor were not born tyrants and sadists, they learned these behaviors, most likely through abusive relationships, starting at a young age.

I know that this is how things are in reality, but we are talking fiction here. And George seems to have a less complex view psychopathic sadists then real world psychology has.

Else we wouldn't have gotten men like Ramsay, Roose, Gregor, Maegor, and Aerion who are, more or less, born evil. There is no internal explanation given as to why Joff or Maegor (and Gregor, too) did the things they did at the early ages that they acted. There are no signs of strong traumas, nor any indication that these people saw and were subjected to a lot of cruelty at early ages.

And there is no need for the author to do stuff like that. Those are novels, not case studies of fictional characters.

Quote

Sorry, but no on the death matches. Never once does anyone mention having seen one. No one is lamenting poor Ser Somebody who was a noble knight and a valued fighter and jouster but lost his life for Joffrey's amusement. Joffrey dispenses justice, but like the singer, it is usually done through Ser Illyn. If you have text where somebody is saying these fights are actually happening, please post.

It is summarized that this kind of thing happened. Those books don't depict every detail. I mean you can look it up, I've not the time right now to search for it. Two knights have a quarrel over land, and Joff commands them to settle the issue by fighting to the death.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

Robb and Bran do look up to Ned, in a sense, and Robb is old enough to be taken under Ned's wing as his heir. But none of the parents cares for Rickon, nor is there any evidence for a strong emotional bond between the daughters and their parents.

Bran's ride to the execution is a very special execution. He doesn't spend time with his father all that often.

And I never said the children don't try to emulate their parents. Just that royal and noble parents have better things to do than to personally oversee the education of their children.

Sorry, you must be reading a completely different book that I am. All of the Stark kids show complete devotion to their parents, even Rickon, and vice versa:

Robb raises a host and goes to war to rescue his father. He swears to keep his mother's secrets about the letter to his grave.

Sansa tries to be the good girl that her parents expect of her. When she does go behind Ned's back, she is amazed at how willful she is because she's never done that before. She tries everything in her power to save Ned's life, and is despondent when it fails.

Arya tries to fight her way through the crowd to single-handedly rescue her father before she is taken by Yoren. Before that, she has several heartfelt conversations with Ned when she literally cries on his shoulder.

Bran is despondent when he wakes from his coma and finds his parents gone. When Robb tells him a raven has come from KL, his first though is "Was the bird from Mother? Is she coming home?"

When Bran has his dream of Ned in the crypts, he wants to go and see. Who do they find there? Rickon, who also had the same dream and was disturbed by it. All the while, Rickon has been getting more temperamental and unruly because his parents are gone.

Ned wonders out loud what he would do if he ever had to make a choice between his children, or Jon. Catelyn stays with Robb and acts as his envoy multiple times before declaring that she wants to go home and see her other children. She is despondent that she is losing her girls and Bran, her favorite, when Ned goes south.

No strong emotional bonds between the Starks? You must be joking.

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

Joff knows how to get what he wants from his mother, but from what we know they are not close. Joff isn't spending most of the day in Cersei's company. He isn't her page or cupbearer, for instance (like Rhaenyra was for her father or Aegon the Younger for her). And Cersei doesn't really know firsthand what Joff is. She gets reports on him and takes his side, but she isn't around when bad things happen - just as Maekar isn't around when Aerion shows his true face, etc.

Joff doesn't play a part in Cersei's schemes, either. He handles his future wife - something that's expected from him. He has no idea what Cersei is planning.

Joffrey looks to his mother repeatedly for safety and emotional support. We see virtually no interaction between Joffrey and Robert. Joffrey's job at the riverside feast was to reconnect with Sansa, which in turn proved crucial when it came time to learn of the Stark's plans to leave King's Landing -- again, something that Ned did for the girl's safety, because he cares about them. Once Robert smacked Cersei and she left, Joffrey immediately dumped Sansa into the tender arms of the Hound so he could go be with his mother.

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

I know that this is how things are in reality, but we are talking fiction here. And George seems to have a less complex view psychopathic sadists then real world psychology has.

Else we wouldn't have gotten men like Ramsay, Roose, Gregor, Maegor, and Aerion who are, more or less, born evil. There is no internal explanation given as to why Joff or Maegor (and Gregor, too) did the things they did at the early ages that they acted. There are no signs of strong traumas, nor any indication that these people saw and were subjected to a lot of cruelty at early ages.

And there is no need for the author to do stuff like that. Those are novels, not case studies of fictional characters.

So, you are arguing that Martin has chucked real-world facts to the wind so he could create completely unrealistic characters with physical brain defects to explain their cruelty rather than the physical and emotional abuse that is usually the cause of such traits? And he has shared this fact with you personally, or are you just assuming this despite any and all evidence confirming it?

Sorry, none of Martin's characters are "born evil." That's one of the most basic fantasy tropes he wants to get away from. Again, I think you need to re-evaluate your own basic assumptions before saying that Martin has decided to write characters in exactly the same way he says he does not want to write them.

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

It is summarized that this kind of thing happened. Those books don't depict every detail. I mean you can look it up, I've not the time right now to search for it. Two knights have a quarrel over land, and Joff commands them to settle the issue by fighting to the death.

Quote

GoT, Sansa VI

She stood with her head bowed, fighting to hold back her tears, while below Joffrey sat on his Iron Throne and dispensed what it pleased him to call justice. Nine cases out of ten seemed to bore him, those he allowed his council to handle, squirming restlessly while Lord Baelish, Grand Maester Pycelle, or Queen Cersei resolved the matter. When he did choose to make a ruling, though, not even his queen mother could sway him.

A thief was brought before him and he had Ser Illyn chop his hand off, right there in court. Two knights cam to him with a dispute about some land, and he decreed that they should duel for it on the morrow. "To the death, he added.

Again, here we have Joffrey saying it, but it doesn't happen. It's never mentioned again, and you can bet your boots that these two knights suddenly found a reasonable compromise to their dispute rather than enter into a death match over some land. Cersei is not going to overrule Joffrey at court, but she can easily settle it without bloodshed behind the scenes.

[Paxter Redwyne]

On 6/10/2018 at 9:48 PM, The Pink Letter said:

We are not told what happened to her.  I hope for her sake she didn't live to see her son and grandson squander away their kingdom to the Baratheon schmuck.  If she had she needed to beat Aerys and Rhaegar with a long lash.  The Targaryen boys were not good leaders.  Thankfully, their little sister Dany is extremely capable and I'm counting on her to get Westeros back from the usurpers.

Dany is surely extremely capable of ordering torture of innocent daughters in front of their father and crucifying random people.

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Robb raises a host and goes to war to rescue his father. He swears to keep his mother's secrets about the letter to his grave.

That is the kind of public piety/dutifulness a son is expected to show his lord father in this world. In and of itself this is not a sign for deep personal affection. Visenya Targaryen also publicly declared Aegon the Conqueror 'her love' before the Trial of Seven - never mind, that they loathed and resented each other in the years before Aegon's death.

I'm not saying Robb didn't look up to his father (he did), I'm saying the Stark children (like all noble children in this world) have stronger emotional bonds with the servants that raise them than they have with their own parents.

I never said the children didn't like their parents, I just said that there are other people they have closer connection with. You seem imagine their relationship between noble parents and children we somewhat like in modern families. But that's not what's in the books.

Noble and royal parents meet with their children at formal occasions, and they employ servants to nurse, clothe, tutor, train, and entertain them.

I'm with you that the Starks had a pretty strong bond with their children on those terms, but they are not close on a emotional level the way parents are close to their children who spent a significant portion of the day with them alone, in proper privacy.

How close do you think Ned and his siblings were? Or Ned and his parents (especially the mother he never even thinks about in the books)? Do you think 'love' and 'his emotional connection with his family' motivated him to join Robert - his true brother, the man he actually grew up with - and Jon Arryn, his foster father, in rebellion?

11 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Arya tries to fight her way through the crowd to single-handedly rescue her father before she is taken by Yoren. Before that, she has several heartfelt conversations with Ned when she literally cries on his shoulder.

Arya is a very strong example for the kind of thing I'm talking about. She spends most of the day with Mordane and the other young girls, she doesn't spend any time with her parents (or her brothers - to have quality time alone with Jon she has to run away). And her parents only show up and talk to her when they discipline her - which they only do after the servants in charge of the education of their children tell them that they misbehaved.

By our modern standards this is a very unhealthy and dysfunctional family setup, where children are closer to the servants who raised them than their actual parents. That they still love their parents isn't really the result of them being great parents but it just happened anyway.

This doesn't change the fact that Ned and Arya have a kind and intimate moment when they talk - but there is no indication that this kind of thing happens all that often.

11 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Ned wonders out loud what he would do if he ever had to make a choice between his children, or Jon. Catelyn stays with Robb and acts as his envoy multiple times before declaring that she wants to go home and see her other children. She is despondent that she is losing her girls and Bran, her favorite, when Ned goes south.

Ned loves his children, sure, but does the man actually knows them? Does he know what they want want, what they dream about? Does Arya go to him and ask him for a sword? Does he understand the feelings Sansa has for Joffrey? Does Jon approach Ned with his wish to take the black?

Nope.

And Cat only ends up wanting to go back home after Robb has taken her political power away from her. When she has to choose between her children and House Stark in the abstract sense (politics, ambition, war) she chooses the latter, not the former. The only child she is very close to is Bran - and that seems to be a rather unhealthy affection if you ask me (considering her mad breakdown).

11 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Joffrey looks to his mother repeatedly for safety and emotional support.

There are some moments of that, but that isn't evidence that they are *very close* or spend a lot of time together. Joff knows he can play his mother, and she knows she cares about him. Robert doesn't.

11 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Joffrey's job at the riverside feast was to reconnect with Sansa, which in turn proved crucial when it came time to learn of the Stark's plans to leave King's Landing -- again, something that Ned did for the girl's safety, because he cares about them. Once Robert smacked Cersei and she left, Joffrey immediately dumped Sansa into the tender arms of the Hound so he could go be with his mother.

We don't know the reason behind Joff's actions there, because we never see why he did what he did. I, for one, always thought he was more intrigued by Renly talking to Robert after he quarreled with Cersei. Why on earth should Cersei care that Joff reconcile with Sansa? She never actively planned to make Sansa her creature and was actually surprised when she showed up to talk about Ned's plans.

11 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

So, you are arguing that Martin has chucked real-world facts to the wind so he could create completely unrealistic characters with physical brain defects to explain their cruelty rather than the physical and emotional abuse that is usually the cause of such traits? And he has shared this fact with you personally, or are you just assuming this despite any and all evidence confirming it?

Can you explain why Gregor does what he does? There is no evidence for a trauma or violence in the boy's life, and the only *explanation* for his behavior we get is that he is suffering from headaches.

What made Ramsay what he is? Was he abused by his mother, the person he lived with for most of his life? There is no evidence for that.

George has a lot of three-dimensional characters in his books but there are monsters in there, too. He didn't bother hinting at a complex humanizing back story for the likes of Ramsay and Gregor (or Maegor and Aerion) despite the fact that he sure as hell could have done that.

With Joff things are more black-and-white considering that he was living a life a complete privilege, giving him a lot of power a boy like him shouldn't have. But there are no traumas we know of which could explain the extent of his animal cruelty in the case of the cat. That just happens, and a realistically depicted boy would do a thing like that only under very special circumstances which don't seem to be there.

One can also stress the fact that Westeros is a much more violent world, where children are subjected to sexual and violent acts from a very early age on, but apparently cutting a cat open to check out she looks inside (or rather: her kittens) is apparently not something that's acceptable in this world - by man who essentially enjoy killing people in combat and live for that kind of thing.

11 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Again, here we have Joffrey saying it, but it doesn't happen. It's never mentioned again, and you can bet your boots that these two knights suddenly found a reasonable compromise to their dispute rather than enter into a death match over some land. Cersei is not going to overrule Joffrey at court, but she can easily settle it without bloodshed behind the scenes.

Well, you can believe it didn't happen, if you want to, but you have no reason to believe it did not happen. The Queen Regent couldn't prevent Eddard Stark's execution, making it not exactly likely she cared to prevent stuff like that. If Cersei had treated her son like a puppet, arranging a charade where he thought his public declarations and commands were obeyed while in truth they were not one would expect nobody would have followed Joff's command when he went as much off script as he did at the Great Sept.

Instead, it seems to me Ned could only be executed because everybody at court had been told (repeatedly) to obey the king in all things.

[John Suburbs]

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is the kind of public piety/dutifulness a son is expected to show his lord father in this world. In and of itself this is not a sign for deep personal affection. Visenya Targaryen also publicly declared Aegon the Conqueror 'her love' before the Trial of Seven - never mind, that they loathed and resented each other in the years before Aegon's death.

I'm not saying Robb didn't look up to his father (he did), I'm saying the Stark children (like all noble children in this world) have stronger emotional bonds with the servants that raise them than they have with their own parents.

I never said the children didn't like their parents, I just said that there are other people they have closer connection with. You seem imagine their relationship between noble parents and children we somewhat like in modern families. But that's not what's in the books.

Noble and royal parents meet with their children at formal occasions, and they employ servants to nurse, clothe, tutor, train, and entertain them.

I'm with you that the Starks had a pretty strong bond with their children on those terms, but they are not close on a emotional level the way parents are close to their children who spent a significant portion of the day with them alone, in proper privacy.

How close do you think Ned and his siblings were? Or Ned and his parents (especially the mother he never even thinks about in the books)? Do you think 'love' and 'his emotional connection with his family' motivated him to join Robert - his true brother, the man he actually grew up with - and Jon Arryn, his foster father, in rebellion?

Arya is a very strong example for the kind of thing I'm talking about. She spends most of the day with Mordane and the other young girls, she doesn't spend any time with her parents (or her brothers - to have quality time alone with Jon she has to run away). And her parents only show up and talk to her when they discipline her - which they only do after the servants in charge of the education of their children tell them that they misbehaved.

By our modern standards this is a very unhealthy and dysfunctional family setup, where children are closer to the servants who raised them than their actual parents. That they still love their parents isn't really the result of them being great parents but it just happened anyway.

This doesn't change the fact that Ned and Arya have a kind and intimate moment when they talk - but there is no indication that this kind of thing happens all that often.

Ned loves his children, sure, but does the man actually knows them? Does he know what they want want, what they dream about? Does Arya go to him and ask him for a sword? Does he understand the feelings Sansa has for Joffrey? Does Jon approach Ned with his wish to take the black?

Nope.

And Cat only ends up wanting to go back home after Robb has taken her political power away from her. When she has to choose between her children and House Stark in the abstract sense (politics, ambition, war) she chooses the latter, not the former. The only child she is very close to is Bran - and that seems to be a rather unhealthy affection if you ask me (considering her mad breakdown).

There are some moments of that, but that isn't evidence that they are *very close* or spend a lot of time together. Joff knows he can play his mother, and she knows she cares about him. Robert doesn't.

We don't know the reason behind Joff's actions there, because we never see why he did what he did. I, for one, always thought he was more intrigued by Renly talking to Robert after he quarreled with Cersei. Why on earth should Cersei care that Joff reconcile with Sansa? She never actively planned to make Sansa her creature and was actually surprised when she showed up to talk about Ned's plans.

Can you explain why Gregor does what he does? There is no evidence for a trauma or violence in the boy's life, and the only *explanation* for his behavior we get is that he is suffering from headaches.

What made Ramsay what he is? Was he abused by his mother, the person he lived with for most of his life? There is no evidence for that.

George has a lot of three-dimensional characters in his books but there are monsters in there, too. He didn't bother hinting at a complex humanizing back story for the likes of Ramsay and Gregor (or Maegor and Aerion) despite the fact that he sure as hell could have done that.

With Joff things are more black-and-white considering that he was living a life a complete privilege, giving him a lot of power a boy like him shouldn't have. But there are no traumas we know of which could explain the extent of his animal cruelty in the case of the cat. That just happens, and a realistically depicted boy would do a thing like that only under very special circumstances which don't seem to be there.

One can also stress the fact that Westeros is a much more violent world, where children are subjected to sexual and violent acts from a very early age on, but apparently cutting a cat open to check out she looks inside (or rather: her kittens) is apparently not something that's acceptable in this world - by man who essentially enjoy killing people in combat and live for that kind of thing.

Well, you can believe it didn't happen, if you want to, but you have no reason to believe it did not happen. The Queen Regent couldn't prevent Eddard Stark's execution, making it not exactly likely she cared to prevent stuff like that. If Cersei had treated her son like a puppet, arranging a charade where he thought his public declarations and commands were obeyed while in truth they were not one would expect nobody would have followed Joff's command when he went as much off script as he did at the Great Sept.

Instead, it seems to me Ned could only be executed because everybody at court had been told (repeatedly) to obey the king in all things.

Sorry, no to all of this. The Stark children have deep emotional connections with their parents, as well as their servants. Favored servants are regularly invited to dinner where they talk about their jobs, and all the Starks are there as often as possible. You're thinking of the Lannisters, who had formal, distant relationships with their lord father, with the predictable results.

Hard to say what Ned's family life was, but if he formed familial bonds with Jon A and Robert B, then these would be the relationships that formed his personality. He would not have become a cruel, sadistic monster in spite of this because of a brain defect.

The moment Robert slapped Cersei and she stormed off, Joff suddenly turned cold and dropped Sansa like a hot potato. He was playing the mummer's farce because he was told to, and he immediately chased after his mother as soon as she left. This was no accident.

Very large people often have pain, quite often headaches. To say that Gregor was brought up in a caring, loving household but he was hard-wired for cruelty and sadism is bunk. The man was clearly heavily abused as a boy. Ramsey would also have been abused as well, not necessarily by his mother but a step-father, step-brother, local bully -- probably heavy sexual abuse. He is probably not going to get into their humanizing back stories, but that doesn't mean they are not there. He is very clear: he doesn't believe in inherently good or evil in any human character. That's what differentiates his fantasy from pretty much everyone else.

Joffrey and Robert both grew up when animals of all kinds are butchered right out in the open. The difference with the cat was that a) it was pregnant, which no honorable hunter like Robert would take down, and b ) it was done for no purpose. Cats are very useful around castles because they keep the rodent population in check. Also, Joffrey did not kill the cat out of sadism or cruelty, but curiosity.

Sorry, but it did not happen. Cersei cannot overrule Joffrey on the steps of Baelor any more than she can overrule him on the throne. Ned's execution happened right away, so she was powerless. A duel on the morrow affords plenty of time for her to intervene, and that's if the two knights don't suddenly come to terms. It's actually a pretty good strategy on Joffrey's part because it pretty much ensures that he won't be bothered by pesky land disputes.

 

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, no to all of this. The Stark children have deep emotional connections with their parents, as well as their servants. Favored servants are regularly invited to dinner where they talk about their jobs, and all the Starks are there as often as possible. You're thinking of the Lannisters, who had formal, distant relationships with their lord father, with the predictable results.

Well, you don't seem to care about the actual nature of their relationship. There is love there, but not the kind of love that is common among functional modern families.

And this isn't the place to continue this discussion - my point is (and stands) that noble and royal children are not primarily cuddled and cared for by their biological parents. They outsource this kind of thing. And that was my original point when I made clear that a royal child as privileged and cared for as Prince Aerys (second in line to the Iron Throne) wouldn't have spent much time with his princely (and later royal) mother.

There are cases to be made that the Starks are a family with closer real emotional ties in comparison to others, but they, too, are a noble family and raise their children the way noble families do.

I mean, just take Cat - her mother died in her childhood but her main memories about her father Hoster are about him being absent - not about her hanging out with him. The trusted Tully adult the children could go was the Blackfish, not Catelyn's father. Cressen (and Luwin, too, to an extent) thinks of as a father about the noble children in his care, etc.

10 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

The moment Robert slapped Cersei and she stormed off, Joff suddenly turned cold and dropped Sansa like a hot potato. He was playing the mummer's farce because he was told to, and he immediately chased after his mother as soon as she left. This was no accident.

Do we know he went after Cersei? I don't recall that. Even if he did - perhaps he was intrigued by the whole quarrel his parents had and wanted to know what this was about?

10 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Very large people often have pain, quite often headaches. To say that Gregor was brought up in a caring, loving household but he was hard-wired for cruelty and sadism is bunk. The man was clearly heavily abused as a boy. Ramsey would also have been abused as well, not necessarily by his mother but a step-father, step-brother, local bully -- probably heavy sexual abuse. He is probably not going to get into their humanizing back stories, but that doesn't mean they are not there. He is very clear: he doesn't believe in inherently good or evil in any human character. That's what differentiates his fantasy from pretty much everyone else.

I don't allow George to get away with stuff he says outside his work and then project imagined humanizing back stories on characters we don't (yet) have any. I judge the characters by the way the author portrays them. If they don't have back stories, they don't have back stories (yet).

And if he wanted us to see Gregor, Ramsay, Aerion, etc. in a positive/humane light he would have given us such back stories (or at least hinted at those). Aerion, for instance, is often discussed and seen in THK (and even later) yet the only reason we are given as to why he is how he is because of an innate cruelty and because a madness causes him to think of himself as a dragon in human form.

Ideas that Aerion may have been abused by people at Summerhall we know nothing about is beyond the sphere of things we can reasonably entertain. And it is the same with Gregor and Ramsay, really. Or take Roose. There is no indication whatsoever that Roose was abused.

10 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Joffrey and Robert both grew up when animals of all kinds are butchered right out in the open. The difference with the cat was that a) it was pregnant, which no honorable hunter like Robert would take down, and b ) it was done for no purpose. Cats are very useful around castles because they keep the rodent population in check. Also, Joffrey did not kill the cat out of sadism or cruelty, but curiosity.

Honestly, I would not speculate about Robert's reason there - because we don't know his reasons. What we do know, though, is that his culture's sense of right and wrong considered that kind of behavior completely unacceptable - presumably, I think, because cats are (also) used as pets in a castle, even by members of the royal family.

I know that Joff's motivation there was curiosity, but even that shows that the boy is lacking in empathy. And there is simply no explanation given for that.

10 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, but it did not happen. Cersei cannot overrule Joffrey on the steps of Baelor any more than she can overrule him on the throne.

Why not? She rules the Seven Kingdoms, not the child. She is the Queen Regent, and in the minority of a king the regent rules, not the king. That's why there is a regent in the first place.

She is the ultimate authority, not the boy. Having him participate in decisions was always a charade and a mummer's farce. That it had bad consequences is because she failed to stop it in time - but that's because of her inaction/stupidity, not due to lack of authority.

10 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Ned's execution happened right away, so she was powerless. A duel on the morrow affords plenty of time for her to intervene, and that's if the two knights don't suddenly come to terms. It's actually a pretty good strategy on Joffrey's part because it pretty much ensures that he won't be bothered by pesky land disputes.

There is no reason to believe that King Joffrey's sentence allowed those knights to come to terms peacefully. He decreed that they would fight to the death - not that they should only do that under certain circumstances.

And again - your personal ideas what happened afterwards aren't really relevant. There is no indication that anyone (Cersei included) wanted to prevent this thing, and the author does emphasize that the boy king never changed his mind on the matter.

Cersei certainly could have kept Joff out of everything - but that she chose to include him in his own government, even giving him authority to decree things, indicates that she stood by his judgments.

And in the end she even accepted Ned's execution. There is no indication that Joff was chastised for his disobedience afterwards - which Cersei, as his mother, certainly could have done.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

You'd think that most young nobles would spend the majority of their time as children and young adults with the maester of the house. The maester is their main teacher and doctor.

[The hairy bear]

On 6/11/2018 at 9:34 PM, John Suburbs said:

The World Book (not an unbiased source by any means), described young Aerys as neither diligent nor intelligent but a good dancer with an undeniable charm, which is Joffrey to a T, and he was also "vain, proud and changeable" and was "easy prey for flatterers and lickspittles," again, a lot like Joffrey.

The World Book is very biaised, but it is biaised against Aerys II. It is written as a present for the king that overthrew him, so maester Yendel would put every effort to justify the rebellion and depict the Mad King in the worst possible light.

Yandel's main source on what happened in the court was Maester Pycelle, a Tywin fanboy that also has every interest to bash the old dynasty. If there was any incident in Aerys youth that showed any sign of early madness or sadism, Pycelle would ceirtanly know it and would contribute to spread it. If Aerys had been a "Joffrey", Pycelle would know it, Yandel would know it, and the World of Ice and Fire would delve pages on the matter.

[Jaehaerys Tyrell]

On 6/11/2018 at 10:39 PM, Lord Varys said:

Queen Shaera is pretty much a footnote in history. I'm inclined to believe that theirs was some sort deep incestuous love story but aside from that we really know nothing about her. If she was some sort of mad sadist one should expect that this would have been mentioned in passing.

My gut feeling is that it is going to turn out she predeceased her brother-husband (or died shortly after Aerys II took the throne). Else she should have been mentioned at least in passing during the rather long and detailed account on the reign of her son.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. GRRM has omitted a number of details to be included within the D&E series to culminate at Summerhall, at which time Shaera was 33 years old. He may be reserving details to reveal more about her character when the time comes, especially if her unpleasantness is part of a plot twist (such as manipulating Jaehaerys so she could be Queen, or being a dodgy mother to Aerys). It’s perfectly likely of course that she is a mere footnote in history, but I wouldn’t rule out something.

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, Jaehaerys Tyrell said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. GRRM has omitted a number of details to be included within the D&E series to culminate at Summerhall, at which time Shaera was 33 years old. He may be reserving details to reveal more about her character when the time comes, especially if her unpleasantness is part of a plot twist (such as manipulating Jaehaerys so she could be Queen, or being a dodgy mother to Aerys). It’s perfectly likely of course that she is a mere footnote in history, but I wouldn’t rule out something.

The Dunk & Egg stories won't cover the reign of King Jaehaerys II, though. I never said that Princess Shaera is not going to feature in some (important) way in the Dunk & Egg stories (she definitely should show up if such stories cover court life during the reign of Aegon V). But she is still a footnote in history because there is no (good) reason to believe George is ever going to turn back to write a more detailed history of the reigns of Jaehaerys II and Aerys II.

And she clearly is not important enough to feature as a character in TWoIaF or as a memory of significance in the main books. Selmy knew both Jaehaerys II and Queen Shaera, but at this point he only remembered Jaehaerys, not his sister-wife.

There certainly is potential there - or would be, if George thought about using it, but at this point I'm not holding my breath.

I mean, there is also a lot of potential in the story of Rickard Stark and Lyarra Stark (who is as of yet completely absent from the main series and TWoIaF - the family three aside), yet chances are very low that this story is ever going to be told. If I had to guess Lyarra Stark died in childbirth giving birth to Benjen - and Queen Shaera died in childbirth, too, during the reign of her brother-husband, trying to give Aerys and Rhaella a little sibling.

[John Suburbs]

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, you don't seem to care about the actual nature of their relationship. There is love there, but not the kind of love that is common among functional modern families.

And this isn't the place to continue this discussion - my point is (and stands) that noble and royal children are not primarily cuddled and cared for by their biological parents. They outsource this kind of thing. And that was my original point when I made clear that a royal child as privileged and cared for as Prince Aerys (second in line to the Iron Throne) wouldn't have spent much time with his princely (and later royal) mother.

There are cases to be made that the Starks are a family with closer real emotional ties in comparison to others, but they, too, are a noble family and raise their children the way noble families do.

I mean, just take Cat - her mother died in her childhood but her main memories about her father Hoster are about him being absent - not about her hanging out with him. The trusted Tully adult the children could go was the Blackfish, not Catelyn's father. Cressen (and Luwin, too, to an extent) thinks of as a father about the noble children in his care, etc.

Do we know he went after Cersei? I don't recall that. Even if he did - perhaps he was intrigued by the whole quarrel his parents had and wanted to know what this was about?

I don't allow George to get away with stuff he says outside his work and then project imagined humanizing back stories on characters we don't (yet) have any. I judge the characters by the way the author portrays them. If they don't have back stories, they don't have back stories (yet).

And if he wanted us to see Gregor, Ramsay, Aerion, etc. in a positive/humane light he would have given us such back stories (or at least hinted at those). Aerion, for instance, is often discussed and seen in THK (and even later) yet the only reason we are given as to why he is how he is because of an innate cruelty and because a madness causes him to think of himself as a dragon in human form.

Ideas that Aerion may have been abused by people at Summerhall we know nothing about is beyond the sphere of things we can reasonably entertain. And it is the same with Gregor and Ramsay, really. Or take Roose. There is no indication whatsoever that Roose was abused.

Honestly, I would not speculate about Robert's reason there - because we don't know his reasons. What we do know, though, is that his culture's sense of right and wrong considered that kind of behavior completely unacceptable - presumably, I think, because cats are (also) used as pets in a castle, even by members of the royal family.

I know that Joff's motivation there was curiosity, but even that shows that the boy is lacking in empathy. And there is simply no explanation given for that.

Why not? She rules the Seven Kingdoms, not the child. She is the Queen Regent, and in the minority of a king the regent rules, not the king. That's why there is a regent in the first place.

She is the ultimate authority, not the boy. Having him participate in decisions was always a charade and a mummer's farce. That it had bad consequences is because she failed to stop it in time - but that's because of her inaction/stupidity, not due to lack of authority.

There is no reason to believe that King Joffrey's sentence allowed those knights to come to terms peacefully. He decreed that they would fight to the death - not that they should only do that under certain circumstances.

And again - your personal ideas what happened afterwards aren't really relevant. There is no indication that anyone (Cersei included) wanted to prevent this thing, and the author does emphasize that the boy king never changed his mind on the matter.

Cersei certainly could have kept Joff out of everything - but that she chose to include him in his own government, even giving him authority to decree things, indicates that she stood by his judgments.

And in the end she even accepted Ned's execution. There is no indication that Joff was chastised for his disobedience afterwards - which Cersei, as his mother, certainly could have done.

The Starks did not "outsource" any of their children. Very strange that they didn't, actually.

I agree that medieval families as a rule did not function the way modern families do today, but this in no way supports the idea that people like Joffrey or Aerys or Gregor Clegane are cruel and sadistic by birth. No matter who plays the primary role in the child's development, it is that relationship that produces later cruelty, not a congenital mis-wiring in the brain.

Read the scene again. Joffrey is kind and courteous to Sansa throughout the evening, and then literally the second Robert tears her a new one and she storms off:

Quote

Sansa started as Joffrey laid his hand on her arm. "It grows late," the prince said. He had a queer look on his face, as if he were not seeing her at all. "Do you need an escort back to the castle?"

snip, as Sansa first says no but then sees Septa Mordane snoring on the table, then she says yes.

Joffrey called out, "Dog!"

Clearly, Joffrey is far more concerned about his mother than the girl he is to marry.

Everybody has a back story, it's just a question of whether it's relevant to the plot. Just because their story is not laid out in its entirety in the text (there are hundreds of characters, after all) does not mean Martin has simply tossed away the method with which he develops all of his characters. Part of the key to reading Martin is to see into these hidden backstories and the subtext to get to the truth of what is going on. Jon's backstory is that he is Ned Stark's bastard by some washer woman. That's how he has been portrayed over and over again in the text. Do we just accept this until Martin says otherwise? I say no, we use our noggins to puzzle out the truth for ourselves.

He doesn't want us to see Gregor, Ramsey et al in a positive light, but that doesn't mean he went ahead and did exactly what he says he does not do by making them innately evil from birth. Sorry, but that's fanfic.

Lacking in empathy is not the same thing as sadistic cruelty and taking delight in others' pain and misery. Cats were considered useful around the castle, but they were not beloved pets. If you want to take this as a sign of the sadistic cruelty that Joffrey would exhibit later, that just proves my point: this behavior is learned, not inborn.

She could overrule him in open court if she wanted, but that would be unwise, particularly over such trivial issues as minor land disputes and when his ruling could easily be circumvented later, quietly and behind the scenes. Joffrey is still king, and it would do more harm than good to have the realm laughing at him as a puppet of his mother. Sorry, but since there is no evidence that these fights are actually taking place, I'll consider this matter closed, unless you can come up with something other than an insecure 13yo boy puffing up his own ego by shooting his mouth off.

 

[John Suburbs]

10 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

The World Book is very biaised, but it is biaised against Aerys II. It is written as a present for the king that overthrew him, so maester Yendel would put every effort to justify the rebellion and depict the Mad King in the worst possible light.

Yandel's main source on what happened in the court was Maester Pycelle, a Tywin fanboy that also has every interest to bash the old dynasty. If there was any incident in Aerys youth that showed any sign of early madness or sadism, Pycelle would ceirtanly know it and would contribute to spread it. If Aerys had been a "Joffrey", Pycelle would know it, Yandel would know it, and the World of Ice and Fire would delve pages on the matter.

It would be perfectly logical for Pycelle to hide Aerys' true nature from the history books because it would have made is paragon, Tywin, look like one of the "flatterers and lickspittles" by befriending him. But I'm not saying that there were any incidences in Aerys' boyhood. Maybe there were, maybe there weren't. Later, however, it was clear that Aerys lacked the intestinal fortitude to cope with the pressures of ruling a kingdom and he delved into paranoia and cruelty.

Obviously, these traits were not readily apparent in the youthful Aerys so they evolved over time. All I'm suggesting is that Aerys' mother may have had just as much influence over his character as Cersei had over Joffrey. This is supported by the many ways in which Aerys and Joffrey were similar: charming, good dancer but also vain and easily manipulated. Since we know virtually nothing about Shaera and she was with Aerys at least mid-way through his teens, and possibly later, there is no reason to summarily dismiss the idea that she was a bad mother and scheming biotch simply because it doesn't say so in the books.

Consider her Schrodinger's Queen: she exists in two contradictory states, good and bad. We won't know the truth until the box is opened for us to find out.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

The Starks did not "outsource" any of their children. Very strange that they didn't, actually.

Sure, they did. They handed them to servants and tutors and masters-at-arms while they lived their own lives, fulfilling the duties that come with being a great lord and the lady of a castle.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I agree that medieval families as a rule did not function the way modern families do today, but this in no way supports the idea that people like Joffrey or Aerys or Gregor Clegane are cruel and sadistic by birth. No matter who plays the primary role in the child's development, it is that relationship that produces later cruelty, not a congenital mis-wiring in the brain.

There are different layers or concept in this story. There are arcs and characters who get an explanation as to why they are what they are and do what they do and there are also characters who are described in a manner that imply they had certain traits since birth, and never had a chance to be any different.

That is especially true with the Targaryens - with the geniuses and great guys just as well as with the foul apples, implying that the author thinks that breeding is as important (or more important) than nurture in those cases.

And the same is there with the story of a considerable number of sadists and murderers in the books. There is no indication whatsoever that Ramsay or Gregor have a similar sad back story as, say, Sandor.

Just declaring they must have had such a story goes against the text as we have it.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Read the scene again. Joffrey is kind and courteous to Sansa throughout the evening, and then literally the second Robert tears her a new one and she storms off:

Clearly, Joffrey is far more concerned about his mother than the girl he is to marry.

I never doubted that, but you have given us no evidence that Joff was nice to Sansa because his mother was there or that he reacted the way he did because she left and not, as I put forth, because of the quarrel between his royal parents and the implications. Joff's mind is somewhere else after the quarrel. He has forgotten Sansa, and he rushes off because of the quarrel, but we don't know what he thinks or why he does this.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Everybody has a back story, it's just a question of whether it's relevant to the plot. Just because their story is not laid out in its entirety in the text (there are hundreds of characters, after all) does not mean Martin has simply tossed away the method with which he develops all of his characters. Part of the key to reading Martin is to see into these hidden backstories and the subtext to get to the truth of what is going on. Jon's backstory is that he is Ned Stark's bastard by some washer woman. That's how he has been portrayed over and over again in the text. Do we just accept this until Martin says otherwise? I say no, we use our noggins to puzzle out the truth for ourselves.

If George wanted to create characters exclusively the way you claim he does create them then he should give especially all his mad/cruel characters a proper back story explaining their motivations to hammer home the point you think he tries to make - that all people have a back story explaining why they do what they do.

But he didn't do that. The characters we talk about are not, in fact, extras or insignificant characters. Gregor and Ramsay and Roose and Aerys II and Joffrey and even Aerion are pretty important characters in the frame of the stories they show up.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

He doesn't want us to see Gregor, Ramsey et al in a positive light, but that doesn't mean he went ahead and did exactly what he says he does not do by making them innately evil from birth. Sorry, but that's fanfic.

Don't overplay this. I never said 'innately evil from birth'. I said there is no sign for trauma and no sign of abuse for the characters I mentioned while there are sign that some of them had cruel and sadistic tendencies even as small children. Now, does this mean they have to become criminals? Not necessarily. They still have to make choices and are shaped by the people around them.

But creatures like Gregor and Ramsay and Aerion were not, as far as we know, shaped by the people around them to become the people they are. They had a very strong tendency in that direction. Sure, Aerion the baseborn bastard of Aegon IV, not knowing who his father was, wouldn't have had the means to abuse as many people the way he did, but if it is the blood of the dragon that makes him think he is dragon in human form then this delusion isn't something that was fed to him by his elders.

If Gregor hadn't been his father's son he would never have become a knight, but then - the way he is described he would have still hurt and killed people.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Lacking in empathy is not the same thing as sadistic cruelty and taking delight in others' pain and misery.

It is a part of the bundle of qualities that allows you to become a psychopath(ic) killer. And it is not something for which we are given an explanation. Joff's lack of empathy seems to be something that was there from birth, not something that he acquired (like Arya) along the way, due to traumas he suffered.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Cats were considered useful around the castle, but they were not beloved pets. If you want to take this as a sign of the sadistic cruelty that Joffrey would exhibit later, that just proves my point: this behavior is learned, not inborn.

Sure, there are beloved cats in the castle. Tommen has kittens, Princess Rhaenys had a kitten, other princes had pets. Pets are a thing in this world, at least among the nobility.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

She could overrule him in open court if she wanted, but that would be unwise, particularly over such trivial issues as minor land disputes and when his ruling could easily be circumvented later, quietly and behind the scenes.

It could, but again - where the hell is your proof that it was?

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Joffrey is still king, and it would do more harm than good to have the realm laughing at him as a puppet of his mother.

I understand why Cersei included Joff in his own government. I just argued against your point that Joffrey as a minor king had any legal authority in his own government. He did not. That is why he has a regent. Cersei could have had the heads of the all the people involved in Ned's execution because those men did either knowingly or unknowingly (because they didn't double-check with her) execute a command she did not approve of.

It is that simple. If it was different, minor kings in Westeros wouldn't have regents but just a council of advisers like grown-up kings do.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, but since there is no evidence that these fights are actually taking place, I'll consider this matter closed, unless you can come up with something other than an insecure 13yo boy puffing up his own ego by shooting his mouth off.

If you don't accept things that are actually described in the text as evidence we are literally not on the same page. You are talking about things that are not there.

What is even your reason why you don't believe shouldn't have happened? We know Joff commanded it, and we know Cersei didn't even chastise her son after he had Ned Stark executed. She arranged for him to attaint pretty much all the great lords in the Realm during the first court session of her boy. There is no reason why she should intervene in a matter as trivial as the forced duel to the death of some insignificant knights.

If Cersei cared about making her son look popular and loved she shouldn't have arranged for him to attaint the Baratheons, Arryns, Tullys, Starks, Tyrells, Martells, etc. long before various pretenders and rebels raised their ugly heads.

Any smart person would have tried to secure the loyalty of some of these people before publicly denouncing them as traitors.

[John Suburbs]

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, they did. They handed them to servants and tutors and masters-at-arms while they lived their own lives, fulfilling the duties that come with being a great lord and the lady of a castle.

Sorry, thought you were talking about fostering. Of course they used maesters, masters-at-arms, etc., but there is no reason to consider this "outsourcing" or think it would break the bond between child and parent any more than sending your own kid off to school.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are different layers or concept in this story. There are arcs and characters who get an explanation as to why they are what they are and do what they do and there are also characters who are described in a manner that imply they had certain traits since birth, and never had a chance to be any different.

That is especially true with the Targaryens - with the geniuses and great guys just as well as with the foul apples, implying that the author thinks that breeding is as important (or more important) than nurture in those cases.

And the same is there with the story of a considerable number of sadists and murderers in the books. There is no indication whatsoever that Ramsay or Gregor have a similar sad back story as, say, Sandor.

Just declaring they must have had such a story goes against the text as we have it.

Sorry Varys, but no. Just because we don't have a backstory does not mean Martin is using the very character tropes that he has vowed never to use. It simply means we don't fully understand why they do the things they do. Saying otherwise is going against the very clear and unambiguous statements that Martin has repeatedly made on this very subject.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I never doubted that, but you have given us no evidence that Joff was nice to Sansa because his mother was there or that he reacted the way he did because she left and not, as I put forth, because of the quarrel between his royal parents and the implications. Joff's mind is somewhere else after the quarrel. He has forgotten Sansa, and he rushes off because of the quarrel, but we don't know what he thinks or why he does this.

It's one of those connect-the-dots things. Some people can do this more effectively than others, I guess.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If George wanted to create characters exclusively the way you claim he does create them then he should give especially all his mad/cruel characters a proper back story explaining their motivations to hammer home the point you think he tries to make - that all people have a back story explaining why they do what they do.

But he didn't do that. The characters we talk about are not, in fact, extras or insignificant characters. Gregor and Ramsay and Roose and Aerys II and Joffrey and even Aerion are pretty important characters in the frame of the stories they show up.

Take it up with George. He does not create characters that are purely good or purely evil. There are reasons for why they do what they do. Not good reasons, perhaps, but reasons nonetheless.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Don't overplay this. I never said 'innately evil from birth'. I said there is no sign for trauma and no sign of abuse for the characters I mentioned while there are sign that some of them had cruel and sadistic tendencies even as small children. Now, does this mean they have to become criminals? Not necessarily. They still have to make choices and are shaped by the people around them.

But creatures like Gregor and Ramsay and Aerion were not, as far as we know, shaped by the people around them to become the people they are. They had a very strong tendency in that direction. Sure, Aerion the baseborn bastard of Aegon IV, not knowing who his father was, wouldn't have had the means to abuse as many people the way he did, but if it is the blood of the dragon that makes him think he is dragon in human form then this delusion isn't something that was fed to him by his elders.

If Gregor hadn't been his father's son he would never have become a knight, but then - the way he is described he would have still hurt and killed people.

OK, so these cruel behaviors are, in fact, learned. Nobody is born with them. From there, we can logically conclude that all these people you mentioned, even if they did have an underlying defect affecting mood or cognition, became the cruel people they are because of the environments they were exposed to throughout their lives. Some people may succumb to torture and abuse sooner than others, but the fact remains it is their experiences that shape their behaviors, not their heritage.

Aerion was not born with a chip on his shoulder but he grew up with one, and he had a status that protected him from the consequences of abusing commoners. Having blood of the dragon may produce the mania we see in him, but it does not compel him to think that he is a dragon. That delusion was the product of what his elders taught him.

You'd be surprised at how different an adult Gregor might have been if he'd had a proper upbringing. History is rife with cruel, sadistic men and women, and virtually every one of them endured cruel, sadistic childhoods. Conversely, many angry, violent children nowadays are removed from their abusive environments and, with proper guidance and a lot of patience, grow up to be peaceful, fully functional adults.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is a part of the bundle of qualities that allows you to become a psychopath(ic) killer. And it is not something for which we are given an explanation. Joff's lack of empathy seems to be something that was there from birth, not something that he acquired (like Arya) along the way, due to traumas he suffered.

It is one of a bundle of qualities that allows you to become a psychopathic killer, provided it is mixed with the right environmental stimuli. Some people without empathy grow up to be serial killers. Others grow up to be president.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, there are beloved cats in the castle. Tommen has kittens, Princess Rhaenys had a kitten, other princes had pets. Pets are a thing in this world, at least among the nobility.

True, I stand corrected. What I meant was that, for people like Robert, cats are not pets. They serve a useful purpose, like pigs and sheep and horses. So he wasn't upset because his heart was broken over the death of a cat, but that it was a senseless, needless death just to satisfy a curiosity. And he was probably drunk at the time anyway.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It could, but again - where the hell is your proof that it was?

I understand why Cersei included Joff in his own government. I just argued against your point that Joffrey as a minor king had any legal authority in his own government. He did not. That is why he has a regent. Cersei could have had the heads of the all the people involved in Ned's execution because those men did either knowingly or unknowingly (because they didn't double-check with her) execute a command she did not approve of.

It is that simple. If it was different, minor kings in Westeros wouldn't have regents but just a council of advisers like grown-up kings do.

Absence of evidence is no proof, but surely if blood matches were taking place in the Red Keep someone ought to have mentioned it. And we have multiple examples of Joffrey ordering things that don't happen. He was going to serve Robb's head to Sansa at his wedding. Didn't happen. He ordered all the bread rioters to be executed. Didn't happen.

And we can see how Cersei (and Tyrion and Tywin) exerts clear control of his actions: Joffrey declared his nameday joust at an end, but Tommen rode anyway because "Mother said I could." Cersei pulls him back to his chambers during the Blackwater, where he was having a grand old time playing with the Three Whores. Tywin sends him to bed.

So, no, Joffrey is not omnipotent at this stage, nor will he every be. But that is a far cry from countermanding him in open court. It's not that she cannot do this, just that it would be unwise.

Minor kings in Westeros did have councils of advisors. Aegon III had a council of seven, which included lords, knights and a maester. It all depends on who wields political power at the time the new king is crowned.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you don't accept things that are actually described in the text as evidence we are literally not on the same page. You are talking about things that are not there.

What is even your reason why you don't believe shouldn't have happened? We know Joff commanded it, and we know Cersei didn't even chastise her son after he had Ned Stark executed. She arranged for him to attaint pretty much all the great lords in the Realm during the first court session of her boy. There is no reason why she should intervene in a matter as trivial as the forced duel to the death of some insignificant knights.

If Cersei cared about making her son look popular and loved she shouldn't have arranged for him to attaint the Baratheons, Arryns, Tullys, Starks, Tyrells, Martells, etc. long before various pretenders and rebels raised their ugly heads.

Any smart person would have tried to secure the loyalty of some of these people before publicly denouncing them as traitors.

I accept the text, and I accept what Martin has to say about the way he developers his characters. We can square what I am saying perfectly well with both, while your take only makes sense if we assume that all answers are to be found on the surface of the text and nowhere else. And the text has proven to be false over and over again as the story unfolds.

I'm not saying she intervened. It's just as likely that the two knights decided it wasn't worth dying for and settled it between them. Honestly, would you risk your life over a patch of land?

It's not about making her son popular or loved, but feared and respected. Joffrey did not attaint any of these houses. He commanded them to appear in court and bend the knee, or else be attainted as traitors.

 

[Big P]

On 6/18/2018 at 4:44 PM, Paxter Redwyne said:

Dany is surely extremely capable of ordering torture of innocent daughters in front of their father and crucifying random people.

Those were not random perps.  The slavers were crucified for their war crimes when they nailed the innocent children on the cross.  Those were war crimes.  Dany was perfectly justified in executing those masters.

[Paxter Redwyne]

1 hour ago, The Pink Letter said:

Those were not random perps.  The slavers were crucified for their war crimes when they nailed the innocent children on the cross.  Those were war crimes.  Dany was perfectly justified in executing those masters.

She let slavers decide whom to execute. She didn't personally chose guilty ones. We don't know whom exactly did they chose. I just don't like the way she handled punishment, not punishing them itself.

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

She let slavers decide whom to execute. She didn't personally chose guilty ones. We don't know whom exactly did they chose. I just don't like the way she handled punishment, not punishing them itself.

They were all guilty since they are the ones who ruled the city. And forcing them to choose the ones to be killed is making it a worse punishment because it means the surviving slavers are complicit in the deaths of their kin and peers. There is no indication whatsoever about factionalism among them, implying that there were no masters in the city who did oppose the idea of sending Dany a message.

It is not modern justice, but no one in Westeros follows modern standards of justice. Core principles in the justice system of Martinworld are both vengeance and collective punishment.

Dany isn't more extreme in this regard than any of the other people - the better people keep the children out of blood feuds, but that isn't a given and certainly doesn't save them from the monstrous consequences of the hostage system (a field were Dany is far too soft in ADwD).

Not to mention that this wasn't a ruling done in peace time but rather as part of conquest. Dany could just as well have decreed the deaths of all the Meereenese or all the masters or subjected the city to a sack as severe and bloody as the Sack of Tumbleton.

There is a difference between justice in peace times and justice during war.

[Paxter Redwyne]

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They were all guilty since they are the ones who ruled the city. And forcing them to choose the ones to be killed is making it a worse punishment because it means the surviving slavers are complicit in the deaths of their kin and peers. There is no indication whatsoever about factionalism among them, implying that there were no masters in the city who did oppose the idea of sending Dany a message.

It is not modern justice, but no one in Westeros follows modern standards of justice. Core principles in the justice system of Martinworld are both vengeance and collective punishment.

Dany isn't more extreme in this regard than any of the other people - the better people keep the children out of blood feuds, but that isn't a given and certainly doesn't save them from the monstrous consequences of the hostage system (a field were Dany is far too soft in ADwD).

Not to mention that this wasn't a ruling done in peace time but rather as part of conquest. Dany could just as well have decreed the deaths of all the Meereenese or all the masters or subjected the city to a sack as severe and bloody as the Sack of Tumbleton.

There is a difference between justice in peace times and justice during war.

Collective punishment and torture are hardly just. It indeed fits in GRRM world, but it just makes Dany the same in this regard as for example Tywin. I just think it's funny how she is supposed to be better than other rulers but does same things as them.

We still don't know if she executed main perpetrators of crucifying those children. We have no clue about how they chose whom to die, but factionalism is inevitable in situation like this. Also executing them in such long and gruesome way wasn't best idea considering she wanted(not sure if she already decided it at that point) to rule Meereen.

I don't think there are different types of justice. Justice is supposed to be one. Of course during war, brutal actions are more common and more acceptable, but it doesn't make them just out of nowhere.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Collective punishment and torture are hardly just. It indeed fits in GRRM world, but it just makes Dany the same in this regard as for example Tywin. I just think it's funny how she is supposed to be better than other rulers but does same things as them.

Does anybody say Dany is a better ruler than Tywin? This series isn't about good rulers vs. bad rulers, it is about what it takes to rule and survive. You can certainly be a milder, more forgiving, less cruel ruler, etc. but you cannot rule in this world without getting your hands bloody.

Nobody in the series complains about the crucified slavers - that was neither extreme nor particularly cruel by the standards of the world they are all living in. No one implies that this ruling is the reason for the Sons of the Harpy killings, etc. 

What makes Dany a bad ruler is that she is more like her ancestor King Aenys in ADwD. She wants to be loved by her new subjects, and doesn't have it in her (yet) to use her dragons or punish the children of the slavers she is using as hostages. That's what causes her power to erode, not so much the fact that she can be pretty harsh at times - this is a harsh world, people who want to be nice are dismissed and attacked as weak and quickly lose their power.

5 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

We still don't know if she executed main perpetrators of crucifying those children. We have no clue about how they chose whom to die, but factionalism is inevitable in situation like this. Also executing them in such long and gruesome way wasn't best idea considering she wanted(not sure if she already decided it at that point) to rule Meereen.

Again, this isn't really relevant. There is no reason why a foreign power conquering another power should treat her enemies the way she would treat people accused of a crime in peace time. There it is necessary, even in Martinworld, to have some trial thing (which is a charade in comparison to modern justice standards) but when you are talking about something you deem to be abominable war crimes then you can, of course, collectively accuse the leaders of the enemy to be complicit in that. We know that the Meereenese didn't have a supreme leader or anything, meaning that the Masters are indeed collectively the ruling body of the city. If there were men opposing the idea to crucify slave children then such men apparently failed to prevent it - and are thus technically still responsible for the atrocities, although to a lesser degree.

But the way the Meereenese are portrayed makes it extremely unlikely that such an opposition did exist. These people do not care about their slaves at all. They don't see them as people.

What Tywin did to the Reynes was a cruel thing, but they brought it on themselves. They defied their liege lord, and rose in treason and rebellion. This was war, and in war the rules do change.

Not to mention that no-name people like commoners and slaves don't really count in this world as legal subjects. Daenerys (and Tywin) is not as harsh as she is because these people killed children, but because they rubbed it in her face, because they made her feel powerless and weak. These people are royalty and nobility in a medieval setting. They care about offenses and insults done to them, personally, and to people they count among their own (family, vassals, subjects, etc.). They only matter insofar as they are part of yourself, not as individual people with rights, etc.

That is why Lady Rohanne Webber rejects Eustace's offer to pay her for the insult committed out of hand. The aggrieved party is not the peasant whose cheek has been cut (who, as Dunk points out, would likely prefer to get some money), it is Lady Rohanne Webber. And she decides what to do about this offense, not the man who has actually been hurt.

5 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

I don't think there are different types of justice. Justice is supposed to be one. Of course during war, brutal actions are more common and more acceptable, but it doesn't make them just out of nowhere.

That is a fantasy idea. Justice is most definitely not one in Martinworld. The glaring differences between life in peace times and war times are obvious, and even 'justice' in peace times is a travesty compared to our standards in the real world. Just look at the ridiculously stupid execution of Gared in the very first chapter of the series. 

[SeanF]

On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 11:33 AM, Lord Varys said:

They were all guilty since they are the ones who ruled the city. And forcing them to choose the ones to be killed is making it a worse punishment because it means the surviving slavers are complicit in the deaths of their kin and peers. There is no indication whatsoever about factionalism among them, implying that there were no masters in the city who did oppose the idea of sending Dany a message.

It is not modern justice, but no one in Westeros follows modern standards of justice. Core principles in the justice system of Martinworld are both vengeance and collective punishment.

Dany isn't more extreme in this regard than any of the other people - the better people keep the children out of blood feuds, but that isn't a given and certainly doesn't save them from the monstrous consequences of the hostage system (a field were Dany is far too soft in ADwD).

Not to mention that this wasn't a ruling done in peace time but rather as part of conquest. Dany could just as well have decreed the deaths of all the Meereenese or all the masters or subjected the city to a sack as severe and bloody as the Sack of Tumbleton.

There is a difference between justice in peace times and justice during war.

Actually, it bears out Macchiavelli's view that a new ruler must either conciliate potential enemies, or punish them so harshly that they can never threaten her again.

The mass crucifixion was cruel enough to infuriate the Great Masters, but not cruel enough to break them.

Edit:  While Dany does inhabit a very harsh world, and generally comes over as compassionate by the standards of her time and place (if brutal by our standards) , and the leading Great Masters merit very little sympathy, I think it will be harder to be sympathetic to her if she leads the Dothraki on the rampage though Western Essos, and starts burning and nailing up her enemies in Westeros, some of whom will be people that readers have grown to like.