Jump to content

Why did George give daenerys everything


manchester_babe

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

During the first three books Jon has a very conventional black-and-white plot. There are some conflicts and uncertainties, but the boy isn't a ruler and doesn't have to make complicated decisions in a complex political setting. In ADwD he becomes a politician, like the others, and thus is pretty far removed from the path of a traditional hero. And I'm pretty sure being killed is going to close that door once and for all - whatever he is going to do now is not going to be even remotely like the things traditional heroes in traditional fantasy novels do. Not in this setting.

GRRM may subvert tropes to an extent but IMO he does not completely destroy the mythological/fantasy tropes. He still uses them a plenty. Ned may have seemed like the hero in AGOT to the readers, but to GRRM he was always meant to be the impetus for the rest of the story. He is the morally upright father figure who is killed unjusty and whose influence would define the lives of his kids — the real protagonists of the story. It was necessary for Ned to die for the story to progress, for his kids to have a growth projectory. Ned is again a classic trope — the dead noble father. 

In ADWD, Jon may have shown to be less naive and trusting than Ned but he still was a very traditional hero. Him being political does not lessen/negate his decency, and willingness to help others. Unlike you, I don’t think GRRM is going to suddenly break Jon’s narrative and turn him into Darth Jon after his death/near death experience. Jon will be changed but he isn’t going to turn all dark. In the hero’s journey, the hero has to face the “Belly of the Whale” stage where the hero undergoes a metamorphosis that is necessary for his future quest and for him to defeat the forces that threaten his world. This is an essential process in his journey and transformation, and Jon’s arc is following this traditional trajectory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

One can agree that Raff deserved to be punished (although not being executed since civilized societies no longer execute people) but most definitely not being murdered.

Last time I checked murderers killing murderers in prison are still accused of and condemned for, well, murder.

Did you also check prepubescent child offenders who had previously been orphaned (their fathers being killed in front of their eyes), left to their own resources in the streets, later attacked by armed gangs, kidnapped and made to experience abuse and unspeakable cruelty by groups of criminals?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that reading about an eleven-year-old girl luring a man into a death trap by pretending to be a child prostitute is just not something a normal person reads about and then cheers the girl on. This is a very powerful chapter but it is so because it is a very fucked-up and ugly situation that's been presented there, not because it depicting a situation that is in any way, shape, or form positive.

 

It's not about cheering. Of course, this is not how Arya should live, this is not what an eleven-year-old girl should be doing. The question is whether we are blaming the criminal or the victim.

If Raff hadn't been what he was, he could never have been lured anywhere by an eleven-year-old prostitute. Since you brought up our modern world, if the police today, in a civilised country, catch an adult man with an eleven-year-old prostitute, which of them do you think is more likely to end up in prison?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Raff is both a child murderer and rapist. You will not find most expressing horror at such a man was killed by Arya.

Though the murder of Daeron is dissapointing  imo.

She has no idea why Daeron deserted or why he was even at the wall in the first place(from Daeron's words a lord called the sex between his daughter and Daeron rape-making it so that if Daeron didn't sighn onto to the watch, he'd most certainly be castrated), it's as if all the talk the FM had of people not be so clear as good or evil slid right past her.

She has no right to condemn Daeron to death-they are not in Westeroes and Arya is not a legal authority.

Oh and the insurance salesman.

Sad to see her immediately latching onto to the idea of the man having cheated orphans and widows based on the ambiguous statement of a serial killer.

But she was trying to justify murderering the guy without being the "bad guy" from the beginning. 

To her credit she didn't act until a good excuse was brought up-but she also wasn't interested in actually checking if her assumption was right or she may be misinterpreting things.

And, he was willing to sacrifice his sisters for his war-effort, he never really saves anyone, and when his only stated reason for continuing the war(that has killed thousands as it is), is purely one of pride-the lanisters killed his daddy, thus no matter what they have to pay(even at the costs of loads more people suffering including possibly his remaining loved ones). 

He(indivually) is not built as a hero.

Nothing he really does is really heroic(even his younger Sansa I would say displays more heroic traits in ACOK-she risked a sever beatings and possibly from her POV her life to save a drunken knight who was all but a stranger). Hell even the "honoruble acts he does do, put his kingdom in jepordy(a lot of people lives are at risk), when not doing at worst would hurt one individual's honour/pride.

 

Easy with personal attacks.Not everyone is a sociopath because they don't share empathy with a particular fictional character. Though  feel some are taking the idea of having empathy for Cersi as absolving of any blame for anything. I and I think many others can empathize with Cersi in being frustrated in being denied the ability to be things because of her gender.

I can empathize with her wanting Rober(her rapist), dead. 

That doesn't mean I see all her actions as totally justified and downplay the atrocitious of all of them. 

 

I don't recall Robert raping Cersei.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Like Dany in Slaver's Bay, right? Such a smashing and triumphant success... :lol:

She sucks at ruling, too. Newsflash: Saying that Jon isn't a great ruler doesn't mean you think Dany is a great ruler.

But you would know that if you had actually read my lost postings on the subject, no? Because I already laid out why Dany sucks pretty hard.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also, @Lord Varys, you always argue how this society/universe is ruthless and nothing like our real world. But now, b/c it's convenient, you forget all that and bring up modern real world concepts of murder, and murders happening in prisons and all that. Flip, flop, flip, flop. 

Last time I looked 'murder' was a crime in Westeros, too. I could be wrong there, though. I was also under the impression that there are trials and such in this world, too, and there is no indication that the Free City of Braavos allows serial killer girls to kill people at will for crimes they committed in another country.

But perhaps I'm wrong there. I'm not a very intelligent or perceptive person, after all.

Nobody has a right of due procedure and a proper modern trial, of course, and it is clear that nobles and people of rank and title and wealth are treated 'more equal' in Westeros than commoners. But it is not that people do have a right to just butcher people on the street. That is murder in our world and murder in Martinworld.

And of course the values of a fantasy medieval nobility are not our modern values. People overlooking this, overlook the rules of the world. Robb didn't do 'the right thing' when he married Jeyne.

48 minutes ago, teej6 said:

In ADWD, Jon may have shown to be less naive and trusting than Ned but he still was a very traditional hero. Him being political does not lessen/negate his decency, and willingness to help others. Unlike you, I don’t think GRRM is going to suddenly break Jon’s narrative and turn him into Darth Jon after his death/near death experience. Jon will be changed but he isn’t going to turn all dark. In the hero’s journey, the hero has to face the “Belly of the Whale” stage where the hero undergoes a metamorphosis that is necessary for his future quest and for him to defeat the forces that threaten his world. This is an essential process in his journey and transformation, and Jon’s arc is following this traditional trajectory. 

In George's world there are no *heroes* in politics. There are people who are better at it, and there are people who are not so good at it. He writes a story where actions do have consequences and mistakes do kill you. If you make mistakes or act stupid (no matter why) you risk to fail or being killed. He even acknowledges this himself. Robb, Tywin, Lysa, Mormont, Ned, etc. aren't killed out of the blue. They all do make mistakes and give their killers both reason and opportunity to kill them. That is what makes the story so compelling - the characters behave to a very high degree like *real people*, not literal characters who just act as if they read the script and follow it despite the fact that the plot doesn't seem to make any sense.

And I'm pretty sure Jon will remain a very important hero of the story - just as Dany will be - after his resurrection. I just think that he'll finally get down in the dirt and play with the monsters a little bit. There are no white heroes in this story, and a guy who is killed and will be stuck afterwards in the body of a wolf (and has not been prepared for that fate in any way) is not going to just shrug this experience off.

Not to mention that summer and autumn are finally over and winter has come. Chivalry, niceties, honor, nobility, and all the the other crap will die. We are looking forward to that since ACoK. People will only survive if they are willing and capable to do what has to be done. And I definitely think Jon has that - or will acquire it in his zombie state.

In light of the fact how much George twisted Arya, I'm pretty sure Jon is not going to disappoint me. I like Arya's plot and what George is doing to her, and I really hope he makes TWoW as dark and twisted as he possibly can.

34 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Did you also check prepubescent child offenders who had previously been orphaned (their fathers being killed in front of their eyes), left to their own resources in the streets, later attacked by armed gangs, kidnapped and made to experience abuse and unspeakable cruelty by groups of criminals?

Nope, I don't care about those. I did check for children who join murderous assassin guilds despite their leaders actually trying to dissuade such children from such a career path. I also did check for children who really like being able to have the power over life and death after they had a prolonged experience of powerlessness.

Arya is not a victim at the House of Black and White. She doesn't have to be there. She wants to be there. She wants to kill people. And that's what she does.

34 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

If Raff hadn't been what he was, he could never have been lured anywhere by an eleven-year-old prostitute. Since you brought up our modern world, if the police today, in a civilised country, catch an adult man with an eleven-year-old prostitute, which of them do you think is more likely to end up in prison?  

Within the framework of the story Raff is Arya's victim there. If I committed criminals acts in a war zone in your presence and even mistreated you, personally, and you later lured me into a trap the way Arya did you would still commit a murder. Even in our modern world this would be murder, although in any civilized country an eleven-year-old girl would get proper treatment in a medical facility. She would not be tried and punished for such a murder.

Arya is in no way, shape, or form forced to murder Raff. Just as nobody forced her to murder the insurance guy, Dareon, or the Bolton soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

She sucks at ruling, too. Newsflash: Saying that Jon isn't a great ruler doesn't mean you think Dany is a great ruler.

She doesn't suck, neither does Jon. Both are learning important things about ruling, things that will come in handy in the future. 

As to your newsflash, I agree but sadly the forum is crawling w/ readers who believe if you like A you must hate B. Yeah, it's completely moronic and infantile, but there you go.

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Last time I looked 'murder' was a crime in Westeros, too. I could be wrong there, though. I was also under the impression that there are trials and such in this world, too, and there is no indication that the Free City of Braavos allows serial killer girls to kill people at will for crimes they committed in another country.

That was not the point, and you bloody well know it. It's the constant changing of stance depending on what suits whatever argument you are making at any given point.

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But perhaps I'm wrong there. I'm not a very intelligent or perceptive person, after all.

This passive-aggressivene bs doesn't suit you. At all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

She doesn't suck, neither does Jon. Both are learning important things about ruling, things that will come in handy in the future. 

Dany hasn't yet learned any lesson from the time in Meereen. She doesn't know yet to what degree she was fucked with. The whole 'dragon plants no trees' thing could be part of her lesson, but it doesn't seem to me that this is all of it. That's just the thing that she cannot afford to settle down at a place she doesn't belong, not what she actually should do or how she should do it.

39 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

As to your newsflash, I agree but sadly the forum is crawling w/ readers who believe if you like A you must hate B. Yeah, it's completely moronic and infantile, but there you go.

I never thought that makes much sense. If people care, I can make a thread about what I don't like about Daenerys. But then - I really don't like threads about why people don't like this or that.

39 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

That was not the point, and you bloody well know it. It's the constant changing of stance depending on what suits whatever argument you are making at any given point.

Then I didn't get the point. I don't intentionally change the stance all the time. I think I'm pretty consistent with my view as to I think the feudal society works and what's *right* in that context and where our world and Martinworld do overlap.

39 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

This passive-aggressivene bs doesn't suit you. At all. 

It was supposed to be irony (or sarcasm). I don't feel offended or hurt or anything of that sort, nor was this supposed to be personal gibe or anything.

But getting back to that 'heroes' thing - if 'Arya' were actually 'a hero' in this story in any meaningful sense of the word then 'hero' and 'serial killer child suffering from PTSD' are more or less equivalent in this context - and that doesn't make a lot of sense.

The 'good guys' actually have to do 'good things' - and Arya has stopped doing really good things since ACoK/ASoS, I thing (there is some overlap, to be sure, but it is around that time).

And when I say I can empathize with Cersei then this is not the same as saying 'I approve of all her actions' or 'She is great human being' or 'I cheer her on sending people to Qyburn'. It is just me acknowledging that I can understand why the character George is written does the things she does. 

People who throw around words like 'sociopath' and 'narcissist' usually use them as a way to not investigate the motivations of a certain character the way one could do that. I don't like Cersei very much, but this ridiculous 'Jaime love' and 'Cersei hate' many people seem to have espoused doesn't do justice to those characters - not to their relationship, and not to the feelings they have for each other, or the motivations each of them has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, El Guapo said:

Huh? When did this happen? He let them through the Wall (which was Stannis's idea) but there is no indication whatsoever that they have been successfully integrated into society.

I didn’t say “were” I said “was”. Let’s not twist my words here. Unless you read it wrong which is understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One can agree that Raff deserved to be punished (although not being executed since civilized societies no longer execute people) but most definitely not being murdered.

Last time I checked murderers killing murderers in prison are still accused of and condemned for, well, murder.

The idea that reading about an eleven-year-old girl luring a man into a death trap by pretending to be a child prostitute is just not something a normal person reads about and then cheers the girl on. This is a very powerful chapter but it is so because it is a very fucked-up and ugly situation that's been presented there, not because it depicting a situation that is in any way, shape, or form positive.

Man, a successful ruler doesn't suffer the fate Jon suffer. A successful ruler actually rules and succeeds at what he wants to do. Jon did not. That means he sucked, never mind how good his intentions were.

Dany also had good intentions when she took over Meereen. She sucked, too, The slavers broke her down one piece at a time until she was just a little Harpy puppet on a cake, ripe for the slaughter. Drogon saved her, else they would have eaten her alive. Ghost could have saved Jon, too, if the fool hadn't chained him. Not to mention fucking common sense. He knows the seer has prophetic powers, right?

If for you a great statesman is a person murdered by his own advisers you should seriously reassess the way how you judge statesmen.

So you’re telling me Ceaser wasn’t a successful ruler? You don’t “suck” at ruling just because some peoole don’t like you and try to kill you. I didn’t realize keeping Ghost in his room is “chaining”. Apparently Mel is a god send seer now whom everyone should listen to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2018 at 8:14 PM, manchester_babe said:

Why did Geroge give Dany everything in book 1, inhuman beauty, dragons, her becoming queen in the end. 

I find it in balance.  She lost her baby.  That is the hardest loss for a mother to take.  The price for the dragons have been paid.  She is the queen because she fought for the right to rule.  George took away her family's land and kingdom, killed all of her loved ones (Drogo, brothers, father, mother), and put her through a hellish childhood.  It is only fair to balance all that suffering.  She deserves to climb the ladder of success and reign as the ruling Queen of Westeros for the next fifty years.  

Would you feel better if George killed Arya before bringing Jon back to life?  You see, I would feel cheated if Jon came back to life and George did not kill his beloved sister as the price.   Many would feel the price has to be paid and paid dearly.  Merely killing Shireen is not an adequate price because she means nothing to Jon Snow.  The price has to be the love of his life, Arya Stark.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, El Guapo said:

Huh? When did this happen? He let them through the Wall (which was Stannis's idea) but there is no indication whatsoever that they have been successfully integrated into society.

:agree:

How very true.  What where they up to the last time we read about them?  They were getting ready to attack the Warden of the North.  That's not a successful integration.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Dany hasn't yet learned any lesson from the time in Meereen. She doesn't know yet to what degree she was fucked with. The whole 'dragon plants no trees' thing could be part of her lesson, but it doesn't seem to me that this is all of it. That's just the thing that she cannot afford to settle down at a place she doesn't belong, not what she actually should do or how she should do it.

I disagree... I think she has learned things. Especially when you consider that she was a child and super naive when we first met her. That and that brother of hers. She has come a long way, but yeah, she still has a ways to go. 

Must find the old "Learning to Lead" threads, so many interesting insights into both Dany and Jon's journeys.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I never thought that makes much sense. If people care, I can make a thread about what I don't like about Daenerys. But then - I really don't like threads about why people don't like this or that.

:agree:

It doesn't make any sense. And on top of that it's annoying and mostly dumb, since it requires one to ignore the text and facts as laid out by the author just to hate on fictional characters. Still, it's a thing and it's been getting worse lately. 

And hell no, don't. Those threads are ridiculous and idiotic, we do agree on this. 

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Then I didn't get the point. I don't intentionally change the stance all the time. I think I'm pretty consistent with my view as to I think the feudal society works and what's *right* in that context and where our world and Martinworld do overlap.

Ok, then we misunderstood each other. Happens. 

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It was supposed to be irony (or sarcasm). I don't feel offended or hurt or anything of that sort, nor was this supposed to be personal gibe or anything.

Cool, no worries.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But getting back to that 'heroes' thing - if 'Arya' were actually 'a hero' in this story in any meaningful sense of the word then 'hero' and 'serial killer child suffering from PTSD' are more or less equivalent in this context - and that doesn't make a lot of sense.

The 'good guys' actually have to do 'good things' - and Arya has stopped doing really good things since ACoK/ASoS, I thing (there is some overlap, to be sure, but it is around that time).

Here I don't necessarily agree. Arya is certainly on a dark path, but I don't think she's lost, so to speak. And I wouldn't describe the good guys in his story as you do. The good guys here are flawed, and sometimes deeply flawed. We'll have to wait and see how their journeys are going to end. 

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And when I say I can empathize with Cersei then this is not the same as saying 'I approve of all her actions' or 'She is great human being' or 'I cheer her on sending people to Qyburn'. It is just me acknowledging that I can understand why the character George is written does the things she does. 

I get what you're saying. I don't sympathise much w/ Cersei, tbh. Don't get me wrong, the whole WoS is horrific. Still, what Cersei does to others, innocent people and children... I guess I see it as a "karma is a bitch" type of thing.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

People who throw around words like 'sociopath' and 'narcissist' usually use them as a way to not investigate the motivations of a certain character the way one could do that. I don't like Cersei very much, but this ridiculous 'Jaime love' and 'Cersei hate' many people seem to have espoused doesn't do justice to those characters - not to their relationship, and not to the feelings they have for each other, or the motivations each of them has.

Indeed. But I'm confused... didn't you call Arya a psychopath a few pages back?

Also, this is something we disagree on and will never see eye-to-eye. Cersei doesn't love anyone but herself. She has some affection for her kids, I guess, but mostly as a means for her to grab power. And her "love" for Jaime is simply Cersei loving Cersei w/ a cock. IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wm Portnoy said:

:agree:

How very true.  What where they up to the last time we read about them?  They were getting ready to attack the Warden of the North.  That's not a successful integration.  

Let’s not misread what I said. I said “was” as in the Wildlings being integrated was an ongoing operation that was going successful. Are you referring to Mance or the Wildlings as a whole being ready to attack the Bolton’s after Jon said he was going to march south?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Starkz said:

Let’s not misread what I said. I said “was” as in the Wildlings being integrated was an ongoing operation that was going successful. Are you referring to Mance or the Wildlings as a whole being ready to attack the Bolton’s after Jon said he was going to march south?

I am saying the wildlings are not on track to get integrated into Westerosi society.  Intending to attack the Warden of the North is not a step towards integration.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wm Portnoy said:

I am saying the wildlings are not on track to get integrated into Westerosi society.  Intending to attack the Warden of the North is not a step towards integration.  

Sure it is if they win. Stannis the rightful king is fighting the Bolton’s and the suppose last son of Ned Stark is too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Starkz said:

So you’re telling me Ceaser wasn’t a successful ruler? You don’t “suck” at ruling just because some peoole don’t like you and try to kill you. I didn’t realize keeping Ghost in his room is “chaining”. Apparently Mel is a god send seer now whom everyone should listen to.

It is part of good ruling to actually have success. People who don't have success are not good rulers. Part of having success is actually being alive to do stuff. It is not that hard. Even if Jon had defeated his would-be assassins and escaped with his life - causing your closest advisers to try to kill you is no good ruling, either.

Not every assassination attempt is a sign of bad rule or incompetence (or rather: only insofar as the person in question has a shitty bodyguard), of course, but if your own government turns against you share a huge chunk of the blame. A good Lord Commander wouldn't be attacked by his Lord Steward. His Lord Steward would be a man he could trust. A man sharing his vision and helping him to implement his policies.

18 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I disagree... I think she has learned things. Especially when you consider that she was a child and super naive when we first met her. That and that brother of hers. She has come a long way, but yeah, she still has a ways to go. 

Oh, sure, of course she learned a lot since AGoT. I just meant she didn't learn much during her time in Meereen because she doesn't fully understand yet what was going on there. She has no idea about the Green Grace, Hizdahr, etc. She grasped that the locusts were/may have been poisoned, but she doesn't know yet what that means.

Dany/Jon's stint at 'trying to rule' both took place in ADwD and they both made many mistakes. Dany compromised way too much and Jon refused to compromise (or try to bring dissenters on board). Dany gradually gives up power despite the fact that she pretty much owns Meereen whereas Jon acts far too much as a sovereign ruler and not one who has to keep the men who elected him sweet. Modeling the position of Lord Commander on the Lord of Winterfell isn't the right thing - at least not when you try to introduce radical changes that threaten the survival of the Watch.

18 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Must find the old "Learning to Lead" threads, so many interesting insights into both Dany and Jon's journeys.

Oh, I remember those from before ADwD. Could be that reading and thinking too much about stuff like that sort of soured the experience for me (which it most likely also will the fans of Sansa turning from 'pawn into player' - because she cannot possibly fulfill all the things people expect her to do) when reading ADwD because, quite frankly, a lot of the things Dany and Jon do are neither very smart nor very interesting. The worst thing is that they mostly react to things others do rather than actually coming up with a proper plan of their own - like finding out about the Others, attacking the Yunkai'i, etc.

18 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And hell no, don't. Those threads are ridiculous and idiotic, we do agree on this. 

I only participate in such 'Jon threads' if there are interesting moral conundrums there. I don't like Bowen Marsh very much but he does have a point. He is not a villain. But that doesn't mean that *I wanted* Jon to be killed. Just that I understand it why he killed him. He gave them a very good reason.

We won't get any 'whoever tried to poison Dany was trying to do a good thing' threads because there is really no great motive there. Whoever tried to kill Dany was, most likely, some unsympathetic slaver who wanted to get her out of the way to restore the old order and, perhaps, to seize power him- or herself. There is nothing praiseworthy about that.

But it is different with the Watch.

18 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Here I don't necessarily agree. Arya is certainly on a dark path, but I don't think she's lost, so to speak. And I wouldn't describe the good guys in his story as you do. The good guys here are flawed, and sometimes deeply flawed. We'll have to wait and see how their journeys are going to end. 

I think we are talking past each other here. I don't think Arya is *lost* just because I describe her as a serial killer. I'm not even sure what *being lost* means in this context - that she doesn't survive, that she is going to kill good guys? I'm sure she will continue to be a main character up until the end of the series. Should she die it wouldn't be because she was lost, but because it made for a good story. But I actually don't think she will die - she is not stupid and not likely to make many mistakes (although she might kill herself, now that I think of that).

I don't think the story will suddenly take a turn and all *the main character good guys* will live and all the *villains* will die. Especially with the Others coming many villainous deeds might become irrelevant, allowing mortal enemies to fight side by side. And that experience might affect and teach important lessons to both good guys and villains.

18 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I get what you're saying. I don't sympathise much w/ Cersei, tbh. Don't get me wrong, the whole WoS is horrific. Still, what Cersei does to others, innocent people and children... I guess I see it as a "karma is a bitch" type of thing.

She is a vapid creature, to be sure, but one can understand some of her actions if one tries to take on her shoes, especially the whole twincest love thing. It is very difficult to do that - and even more to try to understand how Maggy's prophecies affected her - but if one does that, much of what she does makes sense. Not all of it, of course, but the AGoT-ASoS Cersei makes a lot of sense to me, actually.

She knows what will happen to her, her children, her brother-lover, and her family and kin if gives any ground to her enemies. Sure, she and Jaime are to blame for the conundrum they are in - they are utter morons - but if one accepts that they are in this position then what they do makes a lot of sense.

18 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Indeed. But I'm confused... didn't you call Arya a psychopath a few pages back?

In Arya's case this actually seems to be textbook case of real psychopathy. I've read a couple of books on the subject, and it really is that traumas such as Arya suffers can cause you to process emotions in this distant and detached manner Arya does it when she kills. Not to mention that she has the whole obsession with the power over life and death back from Harrenhal. That's what drives her, that's why she went to Braavos.

The usual way to deal with those words is to just throw them out there, and to use the label to make those people 'monsters'. Which they are not.

18 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also, this is something we disagree on and will never see eye-to-eye. Cersei doesn't love anyone but herself. She has some affection for her kids, I guess, but mostly as a means for her to grab power. And her "love" for Jaime is simply Cersei loving Cersei w/ a cock. IMO. 

Oh, but there are signs that she loves them all very much. She is very distraught after Jaime is captured (it is why she allows Tyrion to become Acting Hand), she most definitely loves her children, and she is also very aware that she needs help from her family to master her challenges - it is Jaime and Kevan who push back her, not the other way around.

As the inferior female Lannister twin Cersei is very aware how differently she is treated as a girl. She is much more aware of that injustice because she could, in her childhood, actually be Jaime up until a certain age.

Cersei is the one who can compromise. She knows she has a duty to her father and her family. Jaime is the one who does just what he wants. And even now he does the things he does because he wants to, not because of a moral compass or anything. Jaime rediscovered his career wish of being a great knight - but there is no internal motivation as to why he wanted to be that. He was just a great natural swordsman. A boy prodigy. He is no Dunk who actually believes knights should do this or that. He just wanted the fame and the praise that comes with being like Ser Arthur Dayne.

I mean, even Genna doesn't know how rotten he truly is. She thinks him wearing the white cloak tells us something about his character. But it doesn't. He just joined the KG to be able to fuck Cersei more often. That was his motivation for their commitment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, I don't care about those. I did check for children who join murderous assassin guilds despite their leaders actually trying to dissuade such children from such a career path. I also did check for children who really like being able to have the power over life and death after they had a prolonged experience of powerlessness.

OK, you don't care about abused orphans. You care about the kind of murderers like Cersei with her paranoia and Gregor with his headache and self-made man rapist Varamyr.  

Dissuade her? They explained to her the job as a sort of "service", as something good and necessary. She has seen murders left, right and centre (including the murder of her own father and other people she cared about), and now she is learning that there is a god who looks after these things. There is an overall explanation! Of course, she wants to understand. What alternative "studies" are offered to her, half as relevant to her experience?

Quote

Arya is not a victim at the House of Black and White. She doesn't have to be there. She wants to be there. She wants to kill people. And that's what she does.

So where else could she go? She didn't originally want to go to the House of Black and White. She wanted to go home. But war prevented her and now her home doesn't even exist. She has no family members to turn to. She could choose to live the life of a homeless, helpless orphan who has no one in the world, and she knows how dangerous that can be. She has chosen a life where she could learn to protect herself. BTW, she mainly wants to kill a certain set of people. 

As I've repeatedly said, it is not a good thing, this is not the right way to live for her. But she ended up there through no fault of her own, and, being a child, she is a victim.

Quote

Within the framework of the story Raff is Arya's victim there. If I committed criminals acts in a war zone in your presence and even mistreated you, personally, and you later lured me into a trap the way Arya did you would still commit a murder. Even in our modern world this would be murder, although in any civilized country an eleven-year-old girl would get proper treatment in a medical facility. She would not be tried and punished for such a murder.

If you look at one chapter, yes. But we have five books before that and we know how and why Arya became an assassin and what part Raff played in it all.

Sure, it's murder. Yet, Arya is a victim. 

In our modern world, perhaps I wouldn't need to lure you into a trap because there would be an official authority that would do it instead of me, that would arrest you and arrange for a proper trial. In Arya's world there is no authority to mete out justice for her or for the other civilian victims of war. Life has taught her either she does it or it will not happen. That's one of the results of the war. 

Quote

Arya is in no way, shape, or form forced to murder Raff. Just as nobody forced her to murder the insurance guy, Dareon, or the Bolton soldier.

The Bolton soldier's case IIRC was a pre-emptive strike in a situation where her immediate survival was at stake. She didn't have the time to read and reread the novels a thousand times, she had to make a decision instantly, and she couldn't make a mistake. It is quite possible that this decision saved her life. At least she didn't make the mistake you chastise Ned for: She thought of herself and her friends before thinking of the interest of the enemy.

The insurance guy was part of her training. She was sent out by the adults who had taken her in and given her a sort of home. 

Dareon: There she was trying to uphold the law as her father had done. Dareon was a Night's Watch deserter. Of course, it wasn't her job to do justice, but she does not trust the justice of the world any more, besides this was an expression of her Stark identity. Not the right way to express her identity, but that's what has remained for her. Obviously, she didn't give Dareon a fair trial, she didn't try to explore his motivation. But she is only a child. If she had a parent by her side, she wouldn't be allowed to take justice into her own hands. Without appropriate guidance (and with what she has learned in the House of Black and White), she thinks she is doing the right thing. But she is still learning the world, and at the age of eleven, her story, her personal development is not finished.  

I don't think Arya's fate is as cool in its darkness as you seem to think. Unlike Cersei, she was shown to be a caring and intelligent child, whose life was ruined by war and by the twisted and dark people she met. I don't understand how anyone who claims to be able to empathize with Cersei (who was a murderer already as a privileged and protected young girl, without suffering any of the traumatic events Arya had been made to suffer) can't see Arya as a child victim of the adults' game and can't understand why she resorts to murder.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Starkz said:

Let’s not misread what I said. I said “was” as in the Wildlings being integrated was an ongoing operation that was going successful. Are you referring to Mance or the Wildlings as a whole being ready to attack the Bolton’s after Jon said he was going to march south?

How is it going successfully?  As far as I can tell the vast majority of them are still ling in holes in Moles Town?  I mean Jon did marry one of them off to Alys it will be interesting to see how the northerners react to that/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kissdbyfire Hope I’m not overstepping here, but I happened to have the Learning to Lead IV thread bookmarked on my phone. (I sometimes peek back in to them from time to time). 

This one is LtL 4, but the links for the first three threads are right at the beginning of the first post. 

A good read at how Jon and Dany are both still learning. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

OK, you don't care about abused orphans. You care about the kind of murderers like Cersei with her paranoia and Gregor with his headache and self-made man rapist Varamyr.  

Varamyr seems to claim just his version of the First Night. He is 'a lord of sorts', is he not? And the First Men do like to do this kind of thing - not to mention that what he does is pretty much the same as 'stealing women'. Unlike others, he doesn't keep them and allow them to return to their families.

5 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Dissuade her? They explained to her the job as a sort of "service", as something good and necessary. She has seen murders left, right and centre (including the murder of her own father and other people she cared about), and now she is learning that there is a god who looks after these things. There is an overall explanation! Of course, she wants to understand. What alternative "studies" are offered to her, half as relevant to her experience?

She goes there because she wants to learn how to change her face and kill people the way Jaqen did at Harrenhal.

5 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

So where else could she go? She didn't originally want to go to the House of Black and White. She wanted to go home. But war prevented her and now her home doesn't even exist. She has no family members to turn to. She could choose to live the life of a homeless, helpless orphan who has no one in the world, and she knows how dangerous that can be. She has chosen a life where she could learn to protect herself. BTW, she mainly wants to kill a certain set of people. 

As I've repeatedly said, it is not a good thing, this is not the right way to live for her. But she ended up there through no fault of her own, and, being a child, she is a victim.

No, they offer her again and again whatever life she wants in Braavos. And if she took a privileged life there she would quickly have the coin necessary to go to the Wall if that's what she wanted. But she no longer does - at least not right now - while she is there. She wants to learn at the House of Black and White.

5 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

If you look at one chapter, yes. But we have five books before that and we know how and why Arya became an assassin and what part Raff played in it all.

Sure, it's murder. Yet, Arya is a victim. 

And Raff, too, because he is the one actually being murdered there. This is not self-defense or anything of that sort. It is cold-blooded murder and the girl enjoys it very much.

5 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

In our modern world, perhaps I wouldn't need to lure you into a trap because there would be an official authority that would do it instead of me, that would arrest you and arrange for a proper trial. In Arya's world there is no authority to mete out justice for her or for the other civilian victims of war. Life has taught her either she does it or it will not happen. That's one of the results of the war. 

Oh, there would be complicated ways to get Raff convicted in Westeros or Braavos, too. 

5 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The Bolton soldier's case IIRC was a pre-emptive strike in a situation where her immediate survival was at stake. She didn't have the time to read and reread the novels a thousand times, she had to make a decision instantly, and she couldn't make a mistake. It is quite possible that this decision saved her life. At least she didn't make the mistake you chastise Ned for: She thought of herself and her friends before thinking of the interest of the enemy.

She actually endangered the lives of her friends with that thing (if not for Nymeria and her pack they would have caught them and killed them all) and she was in no immediate danger at this point, nor was the man she killed in any way, shape, or form.

I mean, do you think I'm justified harming or killing you just because I think your boss might put me in a situation where life might be more dangerous/unpleasant? I don't think so.

Private people do not do 'preemptive strikes'. That's military speech and while Arya could be seen as a one-girl-army she actually is not.

5 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The insurance guy was part of her training. She was sent out by the adults who had taken her in and given her a sort of home. 

She still understands what murder is, and decided to murder him. It was her call. Children can be murderers, too, and in this series they are, very much, treated as adults.

5 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Dareon: There she was trying to uphold the law as her father had done. Dareon was a Night's Watch deserter. Of course, it wasn't her job to do justice, but she does not trust the justice of the world any more, besides this was an expression of her Stark identity. Not the right way to express her identity, but that's what has remained for her. Obviously, she didn't give Dareon a fair trial, she didn't try to explore his motivation. But she is only a child. If she had a parent by her side, she wouldn't be allowed to take justice into her own hands. Without appropriate guidance (and with what she has learned in the House of Black and White), she thinks she is doing the right thing. But she is still learning the world, and at the age of eleven, her story, her personal development is not finished.  

That doesn't change the fact that this was murder and wrong.

5 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I don't think Arya's fate it as cool in its darkness as you seem to think. Unlike Cersei, she was shown to be a caring and intelligent child, whose life was ruined by war and by the twisted and dark people she met. I don't understand how anyone who claims to be able to empathize with Cersei (who was a murderer already as a privileged and protected young girl, without suffering any of the traumatic events Arya had been made to suffer) can't see Arya as a child victim of the adults' game and can't understand why she resorts to murder.

We don't know yet whether Cersei actually pushed Melara into the well. It could be. It might just be she led her die after she had fallen in. In both cases Cersei would be her death. But this actually the only murder Cersei commits with her own hands. People who kill people are at very different places emotionally and mentally than people who tell other people to kill people or such who just sign death warrants.

Unlike you, I actually do understand why Arya does what she does. But I don't justify it. I don't try to explain it away or make it sound less ugly. People are judged for their deeds, not their intentions or motivations. Both in real life and properly written literature.

But even within the framework of the murders she commits there is a spectrum - the killing of stableboy is self-defense and panic, the Bolton soldier is cruel and premeditated, the stabbing of Gregor's men at the inn are, at times, cruel but okay considering the context. Dareon, the insurance guy, and Raff are on different levels very wrong because murder becomes part of her day-to-day life now. It is a means to solve problems, to entertain herself, and to show the world what she - the girl who holds the power over life and death again in her hands - can do. She is not twisted into an assassin by evil adults, she is there of her own free will. She wants to learn what they have to offer. And she enjoys making use of it, not caring about the limits the Faceless Men actually have given themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...