Why did George give daenerys everything

[Morte]

10 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

And I don't want him to be king of Westeros, and if he never goes farther south than the Neck, I'll be very happy.

For me Jon's personal arc (his character development) in the first three books was very much about realising the names and families are not that important, but what you do it. And that there are things more important than family heritage. I always thought about Jon as becoming the Lord Commander under who's rule the Night's Watch found it's purpose again and fought the Others.

That's why I'm with @Lord Varys here and don't like the assassination plot very much, as for me the Jon's reaction to the Pink Letter was far out of the development he already achieved in the first three books. But then, all the people who helped him remember his vows are away, but still... I would have liked at least a little more inner (and outer) conflict on this matter, not just a "I'm going to save my sister! Hug!" [The way this plays out is not Jon's fault as an imaginary person and character, but because this all was written as a plot drive, and maybe wasn't mend to be written at all with the 5-year-gap in place. It's the same with Daenerys sitting in Mereen not solving any conflict, waiting for people to arrive who should have made most of their way offscreen.]

But then, now that this thing happened, I'm with @kissedby fire and hope he isn't dead dead, but only very severely wounded, having some wolf dreams while in his coma, etc.

If Jon has to come back as a fire zombie, I do hope he comes back focused on the Night's Watches vows, not as another vengeance-family-zombie, as we have that one already (frankly, if he becomes something with a mind set close to Stoneheart, I would prefer him staying dead, as this would go so much against his arc of becoming free from the thinking in clan-pattern and "us and them").

As for Daenerys:

9 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I'm no expert but I've always had a feeling that Dany will eventually realise that she doesn't want any of that. All the things she believes are her birthright and all that. But it's really just a gut feeling.  

My gut feeling is, that if/when she ends on the Iron Throne it will no longer be because she wanted it, and it will not be about being happy, as happiness in her life will at that moment have long ended [I think in this scenario all her three loves and a lot of people she did and could indeed trust will be dead, maybe she will loose another child, at least one of her dragons will not survive (and I think by treason), etc.] but about duty and things that must be done. It will be part of the bitter-sweet ending (more bitter then sweet). Her reign would start on the note of  "I'm married to England" and end on "Since well I've played my part, all clap your hands, And from the stage dismiss me with applause". A life for the realm, nothing else, as nothing else is left.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I've tossed that around a few times already. I really never liked the idea of Belwas being just a fat guy with no point but bad comic relief. And when he actually survived the poison in ADwD I really got suspicious. Groleo is dead now, but what has the fat guy done to stay at life? He may be a hidden dagger at Dany's throat, one Illyrio will use when he and Varys conclude that they don't need Dany anymore (in Westeros). It was always a mystery what purpose this guy had from the start, but very few people actually think about him a lot - which is actually the kind of assassin Illyrio would use if he wanted to kill somebody he cannot get close otherwise.

I expect such an attempt to come before Dany even sets foot on Westerosi soil, allowing things to take up steam instead of them actually doing negotiations before things escalate. Could even be that Aegon and Arianne send envoys to a Free City to treat with Dany there - and if things go sour then Belwas is making his move.

I, too, like this idea: Belwas had no purpose till now, as you point out. And concerning Illyrio, Dany switches between trust and a gut feeling, that he is too good to be real and has his own plans.

It would move thing forward the Dance - and the Tattered Prince would get his Pentos.

[Free Northman Reborn]

43 minutes ago, Morte said:

For me Jon's personal arc (his character development) in the first three books was very much about realising the names and families are not that important, but what you do it. And that there are things more important than family heritage. I always thought about Jon as becoming the Lord Commander under who's rule the Night's Watch found it's purpose again and fought the Others.

That's why I'm with @Lord Varys here and don't like the assassination plot very much, as for me the Jon's reaction to the Pink Letter was far out of the development he already achieved in the first three books. But then, all the people who helped him remember his vows are away, but still... I would have liked at least a little more inner (and outer) conflict on this matter, not just a "I'm going to save my sister! Hug!" [The way this plays out is not Jon's fault as an imaginary person and character, but because this all was written as a plot drive, and maybe wasn't mend to be written at all with the 5-year-gap in place. It's the same with Daenerys sitting in Mereen not solving any conflict, waiting for people to arrive who should have made most of their way offscreen.]

But then, now that this thing happened, I'm with @kissedby fire and hope he isn't dead dead, but only very severely wounded, having some wolf dreams while in his coma, etc.

If Jon has to come back as a fire zombie, I do hope he comes back focused on the Night's Watches vows, not as another vengeance-family-zombie, as we have that one already (frankly, if he becomes something with a mind set close to Stoneheart, I would prefer him staying dead, as this would go so much against his arc of becoming free from the thinking in clan-pattern his Pentos.

To me the message is that the Night's Watch in its current form is an abomination. You cannot fight for the world and humanity if you have to give up love, family and children because of some stupid vows.

Much of the vows likely crept in for political reasons, to avoid the Watch being perceived as a threat to the kingdoms of Westeros. But Martin's message has been quite consistent that blind adherence to vows mostly leads to bad things.

So Jon's journey was to find himself, not to cleanse himself of his family ties. Caring for Arya is not a weakness. It is a strength. Caring enough to give up is own honour merely shows that he had learnt the lesson much earlier than Eddard, who took until the end of his life to finally give up honour in exchange for saving Sansa's life.

The current Night's Watch has to be broken (much like the Seals in the Wheel of Time had to be broken) in order to craft the weapon necessary to defeat the Others in the coming War. Jon will help the Watch rediscover its original purpose, which was to fight for what it loves, rather than to fight for duty and honour. Much like the quote mentioned in another thread recently, where Martin equates fire to life, passion and love. But fire in the extreme is destructive. As is ice in the extreme.

Passion tempered with an appropriate amount of honour is the right balance. That's why it's the Song of Ice and Fire. You need both for life to exist.

[kissdbyfire]

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

To me the message is that the Night's Watch in its current form is an abomination. You cannot fight for the world and humanity if you have to give up love, family and children because of some stupid vows.

This, so very very much.

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Much of the vows likely crept in for political reasons, to avoid the Watch being perceived as a threat to the kingdoms of Westeros. But Martin's message has been quite consistent that blind adherence to vows mostly leads to bad things.

And this x 1,000. The good old "I didn't do anything wrong, I was just following orders/my vows" is not a point Martin is making in this story. 

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So Jon's journey was to find himself, not to cleanse himself of his family ties. Caring for Arya is not a weakness. It is a strength. Caring enough to give up is own honour merely shows that he had learnt the lesson much earlier than Eddard, who took until the end of his life to finally give up honour in exchange for saving Sansa's life.

Wholeheartedly agree, it is a strength. The one thing I see differently here is I don't see these actions by Ned and Jon as giving up on honour, but rather giving up on duty and actually embracing true honour, regardless of how it will be seen by others. 

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The current Night's Watch has to be broken (much like the Seals in the Wheel of Time had to be broken) in order to craft the weapon necessary to defeat the Others in the coming War. Jon will help the Watch rediscover its original purpose, which was to fight for what it loves, rather than to fight for duty and honour. Much like the quote mentioned in another threat recently, where Martin equates life to passion and love.

Passion tempered with an appropriate amount of honour is the right balance. That's why it's the Song of Ice and Fire. You need both for life to exist.

Yes. And the Free Folk ("pure" FM) at the Wall are a part of getting the NW back on track. 

[Morte]

50 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

To me the message is that the Night's Watch in its current form is an abomination. You cannot fight for the world and humanity if you have to give up love, family and children because of some stupid vows.

Not love as in fraternity, but romantic and familiar love. In the Long Night you have to extend your "love" from your family to all people. If everybody is looking for the safety and survival of their relatives first and foremost, how will you as humanity stand against the Others and survive the Long Night? You will kill each other for food and temporary shelter even without seeing an Other.

So no, this part of the vow wasn't stupid and maybe is even one of the oldest parts: Make an organisation with the only purpose to save and guard humanity, without thinking about lovers and family.

It became an abomination in regard on the Wildlings ( @kissdbyfire is right here), as they were excluded from the mission and seen as enemies, while I do think that originally they were part of what the NW had to guard (maybe even more then the people living in the safety of the Wall; the NW was there to look out for the Others to come back and provide the people staying outside the Wall with a safeguard and retreat). And also because the NW forgot their original mission.

50 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But Martin's message has been quite consistent that blind adherence to vows mostly leads to bad things. 

Yes, blind adherence. That's the point. Not all the vows are stupid, nor is following them in their meaning and by understanding them, see Maester Aemon's and Mormont's interpretation of the vow in AGoT, for example.

In fact, in the books we see that both, blind adherence and careless discarding of vows, lead to destruction and bad things.

50 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Jon will help the Watch rediscover its original purpose, which was to fight for what it loves, rather than to fight for duty and honour. Much like the quote mentioned in another thread recently, where Martin equates fire to life, passion and love. But fire in the extreme is destructive. As is ice in the extreme.

Passion tempered with an appropriate amount of honour is the right balance. That's why it's the Song of Ice and Fire. You need both for life to exist.

Here we agree (even if we maybe will never agree about the Pink Letter and Jon's reaction to it ). It's about keeping the balance.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

I agree with @Lord Varys, Jon and Dany will be together at some point.  One of them will not survive, maybe both.  I think fAegon is a foil for Dany, in that his legitimacy will forever remain ambiguous, and her vision in the HotU will lead her to destroy him as a pretender.  Then, somehow Jon’s legitimacy will be outed and will be pretty much undeniable, and Dany will re-evaluate her years long crusade for what was hers by right.  More than that, though, Jon is a scarred up warrior guy that she’ll be attracted to.  

People have spent years debating who are the three heads of the dragon; I think it’s just Jon.  

Oh, I actually thing the 'true parentage' plot is far to interesting to not be used in the Aegon story? It would be very interesting to see how the man reacts when he finds out that he is not, in fact, Rhaegar's son and Illyrio is his true father (assuming that's the planned story). I always wondered why George didn't explore that particular plot with Joffrey - perhaps because he is going to do that with Aegon.

The Dany-Jon love story thing is so far in the future right now, that it is very difficult to speculate about it. But I personally would like the love story to start when Jon's true parentage is not yet publicly known. It might even be interesting if Jon and Dany first met not at a court or under official circumstances.

Jon's legitimacy is never going to be out in an undeniable fashion. You can deny everything, and he has such a ridiculously contrived back story that you really have to want to believe it. If you don't want to believe it he'll remain Ned Stark's bastard even if he rides a dragon (because one could always say his unknown mother may have had Targaryen blood).

Jon is only going to enter the 'Targaryen sphere' through Daenerys. He'll fall in love with her and they will work together and he'll become a part of the dragon family - both as Dany's nephew as well as (one of) her consort(s). There is a reason why he and Tyrion became friends all those years ago. This is going to help the author to bring them together.

3 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Very interesting. Do you think that's why Illyrio sent Barristan with Strong Belwas instead of possibly sending Barristan to (f)Aegon?

No, it is pretty obvious that Illyrio sent Belwas and Barristan to actually find Dany and the dragons and bring them back to Pentos. There she and Barristan would have met with Aegon and Connington in due time. Illyrio wanted to hide Dany there until the dragons were large enough to be properly used in war.

But since dragons can mean trouble and a queen hatching dragon eggs can be pretty willful, and especially since Illyrio is no fool, it makes sense to assume he doesn't plan for the case that Dany doesn't want to come to Pentos, ever, or that she might even turn against him and his interests. It is also clear he could not possibly use Barristan as such a hidden dagger.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

But then, now that this thing happened, I'm with @kissedby fire and hope he isn't dead dead, but only very severely wounded, having some wolf dreams while in his coma, etc.

That is a vain hope, in a world where people can actually be resurrected there is no reason to assume that people who seem to be dying are going to die. It would make for the more powerful story. Nobody hopes or cares whether Gregor Clegane truly died or not (most likely, since they claim he does not eat) - the important thing is that he is back, in one form or another.

Jon won't be a complete *undead* because his spirit is never going to pass beyond the veil, so to speak. But his body is just a vessel. He is a skinchanger, he can have multiple bodies - animal bodies and even human bodies, if he is strong enough - and thus it doesn't really matter how it looks or feels after it has been resurrected.

The idea that it does matter is mostly connected to people's personal wishes and hopes for a character and his arc. But at this point one should accept the fact that the author does not really share this idea. He thought it was a great idea to kill Jon Snow.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

If Jon has to come back as a fire zombie, I do hope he comes back focused on the Night's Watches vows, not as another vengeance-family-zombie, as we have that one already (frankly, if he becomes something with a mind set close to Stoneheart, I would prefer him staying dead, as this would go so much against his arc of becoming free from the thinking in clan-pattern and "us and them").

One assumes that this experiences teaches him some truly important lessons - like that petty personal interests do not matter when the fate of mankind or the entire world is at stake. And usually people who survived a seemingly mortal illness get a new perspective on things - one can only hope that this is also the case for people who survive death.

Unlike Cat or Beric Jon is not going to be a twisted echo of his former personality - his spirit and personality will remain *intact*, more or less. His problem will become the stain of the animal and what a prolonged stay in Ghost's body is going to do to his humanity, his eating habits and preferences, etc. I imagine this is going to be reversible up to a point but it will leave its marks.

But that, too, is irrelevant when the survival of mankind/the world is at stake.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

My gut feeling is, that if/when she ends on the Iron Throne it will no longer be because she wanted it, and it will not be about being happy, as happiness in her life will at that moment have long ended [I think in this scenario all her three loves and a lot of people she did and could indeed trust will be dead, maybe she will loose another child, at least one of her dragons will not survive (and I think by treason), etc.] but about duty and things that must be done. It will be part of the bitter-sweet ending (more bitter then sweet). Her reign would start on the note of  "I'm married to England" and end on "Since well I've played my part, all clap your hands, And from the stage dismiss me with applause". A life for the realm, nothing else, as nothing else is left.

Such an idea sounds like barely realistic to me if we think about the overall context. We would be talking about 16-18-year-old girl there. Whatever she is going to suffer, her chances to enjoy her life are not yet over. If she survives she will meet people after the story is over, and she might more happiness in them than in any she met during the series.

We could leave her on down-beaten note, but there would be no guarantee that this is how her future life would be - just as there would be no guarantee that she would be always happy if the story ended on a happy note.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

I, too, like this idea: Belwas had no purpose till now, as you point out. And concerning Illyrio, Dany switches between trust and a gut feeling, that he is too good to be real and has his own plans.

It would move thing forward the Dance - and the Tattered Prince would get his Pentos.

There has to be something like that. At this point the Aegon's gang still hopes Dany eventually comes. And it is many steps from there to 'we are (mortal) enemies now'. Even if things were more tensed there would still be the possibility of an arranged marriage to straighten things out - even if they both already has spouses (due to the polygamy thing).

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

To me the message is that the Night's Watch in its current form is an abomination. You cannot fight for the world and humanity if you have to give up love, family and children because of some stupid vows.

Sure, that's what everybody does who gives over his life to a higher purpose than just fucking people and raising children. Men and women who give their lives to god also think in those categories.

And the only way to truly build and hold that Wall for as long as they did was to make it the only duty and mission those men had - especially in the feudal world they are living in where family actually has little to do with love but with aristocratic power and the means to control land and resources at the cost of the majority.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Much of the vows likely crept in for political reasons, to avoid the Watch being perceived as a threat to the kingdoms of Westeros. But Martin's message has been quite consistent that blind adherence to vows mostly leads to bad things.

The blind adherence to a vow to protect the innocent at all times is not going to lead to something bad. It depends on the vow. There is also nothing bad to come from a vow where you give up a lot of things in exchange for a sacred duty. There might be people too weak to stick to that - but that's their problem, not the problem of the vow.

Jon is actually a good positive example for the fact that you don't have to go to Mole's Town even if you are a young man in your prime years. You can make use of your hand instead.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So Jon's journey was to find himself, not to cleanse himself of his family ties. Caring for Arya is not a weakness. It is a strength. Caring enough to give up is own honour merely shows that he had learnt the lesson much earlier than Eddard, who took until the end of his life to finally give up honour in exchange for saving Sansa's life.

Where do you get the idea that the author approves of Ned's decision there? Or that this was 'the right thing'? It is understandable that a loving father would do that kind of thing - but it plunged the Seven Kingdoms into a terrible war, killing thousands, not to mention that it helped a cruel child and his somewhat unhinged mother to seize a throne they had no right to seize.

This is why a man of the Night's Watch shouldn't be a father, or give up/ignore any children or other kin he has by the time he takes the black - so that he cannot be torn between these two loyalties when push comes to shove.

A man like Ned as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch would likely sell his soul and mankind to the Others if they blackmailed him with the lives of his wife and children.

If I was a man of the Watch and I had a family I'd not give two cents for you, your children, or the world if my family was in danger - which is why I should not have one if I decide to take this duty upon myself.

Once the Wall is fallen, everybody can fight against the Others. But while the Wall still stands it needs an institution like the Watch, following exactly those rules. Because without those rules there wouldn't be a Wall and there would be no one manning it because nobody with a family would want to live with his family at that stupid Wall where there might all be in danger from the enemy beyond. If they all had families they would have long gone to greener pastures.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

And this x 1,000. The good old "I didn't do anything wrong, I was just following orders/my vows" is not a point Martin is making in this story. 

This is not something that comes up ever in relation to the Watch. It is not wrong the guard the realms of men, and it is not wrong to live a life in celibacy if one actually swears to do just that.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes. And the Free Folk ("pure" FM) at the Wall are a part of getting the NW back on track. 

The wildlings won't get anyone back on track because they never supported the NW and were their sworn enemy for thousands of years, trying to destroy both the Watch and the Wall under the command of their most recent king, Mance Rayder. Not to mention that there is no indication that anybody cares about 'pure' First Men one way or the other.

The wildlings apparently don't know anything of importance about the Others - else Mance or Val would have told that Stannis or Jon by now - nor do they have any meaningful relationship with the Children or the last greenseer. Why did Mance's people not ask the Children or Bloodraven for help? Why didn't Bloodraven reach out to them? He wouldn't have needed dreams to do that - just Coldhands as an envoy?

People in the North like to say 'The North remembers' but they have forgotten everything that really matters, especially the Starks. Eddard and Robb were the ones who should have remembered, and while Ned at least had the strong feeling he was fucking things up and doing exactly the wrong thing by going down to KL, Robb didn't even have such doubts (as far as we know).

Hell, Ned and Robb both ridiculed Old Nan and her stories. They don't remember anything.

I'm also at a loss what could possibly be gained if the Watch suddenly changed their most important rules. Is this going to lead to more recruits? The fact that you can't bring your wife or children isn't the main reason why you don't take the black. You don't want to live at that gods-forsaken place. There are whores up there, anyway, so the whole celibacy thing actually allows you to fuck more women than you would have if you were faithful to just some wife (with the additional benefit of not being forced to care for those women).

Aside from Jon *getting out of his vows* there is no reason for any of that - which is why this whole idea is pretty silly. Jon can just break those vows again and take Val or Melisandre or Satin or whoever he wants as a paramour, or they can become meaningless when the Wall falls and the NW as an institution no longer exists. We don't need some reform within the institution.

[Rufus Snow]

On 8/30/2018 at 12:30 AM, Lord Varys said:

@teej6

Please do some research on psychopathy before commenting on it. This is not the right place to discuss this.

<<snip>>

On 8/30/2018 at 12:30 AM, Lord Varys said:

A sense of justice doesn't have anything to do with whether you are psychopath or not. You can only kill people who you think are a danger to yourself or your family. In fact, that's what most psychopaths who kill do - they are detached from their own emotions and are thus able to commit violent acts more easily than 'normal people'. Psychopaths don't have to have weird sadistic fantasies involving around hurting or killing people (against their will). But those who are psychopaths and have such fantasies very often become serial killers - for obvious reasons.

Arya Stark doesn't have sadistic fantasies but she often resorts to murder and violence to remove obstacles in her path or solve problems. That is a textbook case of psychopathic behavior.

Sometimes you seem to lack all sense of irony.....

[Lord Varys]

17 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

<<snip>>

Sometimes you seem to lack all sense of irony.....

And you find that noteworthy or relevant for what reason exactly?

[Rufus Snow]

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And you find that noteworthy or relevant for what reason exactly?

because it does nothing for the credibility of your case when you try to shut one person down by saying 'this isn't the place to discuss X', then proceeding in the very same post to give the longest lecture on X in the entire thread.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

because it does nothing for the credibility of your case when you try to shut one person down by saying 'this isn't the place to discuss X', then proceeding in the very same post to give the longest lecture on X in the entire thread.

And you pointing that out is helping to get the thread back on topic how? We are having a pretty productive discussion right now, one that actually has a little bit to do with the topic at hand.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Sure, that's what everybody does who gives over his life to a higher purpose than just fucking people and raising children. Men and women who give their lives to god also think in those categories.

And the only way to truly build and hold that Wall for as long as they did was to make it the only duty and mission those men had - especially in the feudal world they are living in where family actually has little to do with love but with aristocratic power and the means to control land and resources at the cost of the majority.

The blind adherence to a vow to protect the innocent at all times is not going to lead to something bad. It depends on the vow. There is also nothing bad to come from a vow where you give up a lot of things in exchange for a sacred duty. There might be people too weak to stick to that - but that's their problem, not the problem of the vow.

Jon is actually a good positive example for the fact that you don't have to go to Mole's Town even if you are a young man in your prime years. You can make use of your hand instead.

Where do you get the idea that the author approves of Ned's decision there? Or that this was 'the right thing'? It is understandable that a loving father would do that kind of thing - but it plunged the Seven Kingdoms into a terrible war, killing thousands, not to mention that it helped a cruel child and his somewhat unhinged mother to seize a throne they had no right to seize.

This is why a man of the Night's Watch shouldn't be a father, or give up/ignore any children or other kin he has by the time he takes the black - so that he cannot be torn between these two loyalties when push comes to shove.

A man like Ned as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch would likely sell his soul and mankind to the Others if they blackmailed him with the lives of his wife and children.

If I was a man of the Watch and I had a family I'd not give two cents for you, your children, or the world if my family was in danger - which is why I should not have one if I decide to take this duty upon myself.

Once the Wall is fallen, everybody can fight against the Others. But while the Wall still stands it needs an institution like the Watch, following exactly those rules. Because without those rules there wouldn't be a Wall and there would be no one manning it because nobody with a family would want to live with his family at that stupid Wall where there might all be in danger from the enemy beyond. If they all had families they would have long gone to greener pastures.

This is not something that comes up ever in relation to the Watch. It is not wrong the guard the realms of men, and it is not wrong to live a life in celibacy if one actually swears to do just that.

The wildlings won't get anyone back on track because they never supported the NW and were their sworn enemy for thousands of years, trying to destroy both the Watch and the Wall under the command of their most recent king, Mance Rayder. Not to mention that there is no indication that anybody cares about 'pure' First Men one way or the other.

The wildlings apparently don't know anything of importance about the Others - else Mance or Val would have told that Stannis or Jon by now - nor do they have any meaningful relationship with the Children or the last greenseer. Why did Mance's people not ask the Children or Bloodraven for help? Why didn't Bloodraven reach out to them? He wouldn't have needed dreams to do that - just Coldhands as an envoy?

People in the North like to say 'The North remembers' but they have forgotten everything that really matters, especially the Starks. Eddard and Robb were the ones who should have remembered, and while Ned at least had the strong feeling he was fucking things up and doing exactly the wrong thing by going down to KL, Robb didn't even have such doubts (as far as we know).

Hell, Ned and Robb both ridiculed Old Nan and her stories. They don't remember anything.

I'm also at a loss what could possibly be gained if the Watch suddenly changed their most important rules. Is this going to lead to more recruits? The fact that you can't bring your wife or children isn't the main reason why you don't take the black. You don't want to live at that gods-forsaken place. There are whores up there, anyway, so the whole celibacy thing actually allows you to fuck more women than you would have if you were faithful to just some wife (with the additional benefit of not being forced to care for those women).

Aside from Jon *getting out of his vows* there is no reason for any of that - which is why this whole idea is pretty silly. Jon can just break those vows again and take Val or Melisandre or Satin or whoever he wants as a paramour, or they can become meaningless when the Wall falls and the NW as an institution no longer exists. We don't need some reform within the institution.

Here you go with your blanket statements of opinion masquerading as fact again.

Who says you can't fight to save the world if you love your family, have kids, a wife and a home to protect? How has almost every army in history managed to get its soldiers to retain discipline and even fight to the death for causes great and small? Because almost all those men had families they loved and cared for.

Lord Varys says you can't be a husband and a soldier, and therefore it is so? Nonsense.

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Who says you can't fight to save the world if you love your family, have kids, a wife and a home to protect? How has almost every army in history managed to get its soldiers to retain discipline and even fight to the death for causes great and small? Because almost all those men had families they loved and cared for.

Maester Aemon thinks that, and I agree with him. The men of the Watch are not common soldiers fighting for some warlord or king or nation - they protect all people of Westeros (south of their Wall) from ice demons. That's why they were founded, that's their purpose.

George very obviously and consciously connects Jon's false belief about his 'father' that he would do the right thing when being forced to choose between 'the right thing' (sticking to the truth about Cersei's children, the succession of the Iron Throne, and the loyalty to his dead friend, King Robert) and the well-being of his daughters. Eddard Stark wouldn't have been a good man of the Watch if he had thought and felt the way he felt in KL up at the Wall - especially not when dealing with the Others.

It is obvious that the men founding and setting up the NW did realize that conundrum - both with the Others employing such a tactic (taking family members of Watchmen hostage) as well as with the fact that men being with their families would always first and foremost fear for those families - not their fellow brothers at the Wall. After all, the Wall and the Watch and mankind shrink to nothing if you are holding your infant child in your arms. You want to keep it safe, not all the other people who are nothing to you in comparison.

And the Watch is an institution founded for the day the Others come back. It is not a sunshine club. Perhaps the black brothers could have lived like everybody else for the last couple of thousand years - but if they had done so the Watch would be gone and then nobody would have had the strength to actually do the right thing when they finally come. The Others are not going to be defeated by people who think first about their families and themselves - they will be defeated by people who know how to make sacrifices - both in relation to themselves and to others. They will not just live shitty lives and win no glory they will also have who and what to sacrifice when they lack the strength to protect all. If you want to defeat such an enemy you have, like every general, see the big picture rather than focus on irrelevant details. A general fighting a hopeless/dangerous war will sacrifice his own men and as many civilians and innocents and territory as he has to implement a plan of victory - he'll even sacrifice himself if he has to. And that's not something the average father is going to do. 

What decision would have Jon made if Styr had taken Ygritte (or his child by her) hostage and had demanded of him to lure his brothers into a trap or see him watch dismembering her piece by piece?

But indulge me, how would to Watch work better if they could all fuck and marry and hold lands and titles and wear crowns all day long? How would that help them achieving their purpose in any way, shape, or form?

If you want to have a family you don't take the black. It is that easy.

And you are aware that soldiers usually don't take their families with them into war, right? Part of why they can do what they do is the knowledge that their loved ones are safely back home. If they don't know that - if they know the enemy has invaded their homes while they were away on a nonsensical mission - then discipline quickly breaks down.

[Free Northman Reborn]

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Maester Aemon thinks that, and I agree with him. The men of the Watch are not common soldiers fighting for some warlord or king or nation - they protect all people of Westeros (south of their Wall) from ice demons. That's why they were founded, that's their purpose.

George very obviously and consciously connects Jon's false belief about his 'father' that he would do the right thing when being forced to choose between 'the right thing' (sticking to the truth about Cersei's children, the succession of the Iron Throne, and the loyalty to his dead friend, King Robert) and the well-being of his daughters. Eddard Stark wouldn't have been a good man of the Watch if he had thought and felt the way he felt in KL up at the Wall - especially not when dealing with the Others.

It is obvious that the men founding and setting up the NW did realize that conundrum - both with the Others employing such a tactic (taking family members of Watchmen hostage) as well as with the fact that men being with their families would always first and foremost fear for those families - not their fellow brothers at the Wall. After all, the Wall and the Watch and mankind shrink to nothing if you are holding your infant child in your arms. You want to keep it safe, not all the other people who are nothing to you in comparison.

And the Watch is an institution founded for the day the Others come back. It is not a sunshine club. Perhaps the black brothers could have lived like everybody else for the last couple of thousand years - but if they had done so the Watch would be gone and then nobody would have had the strength to actually do the right thing when they finally come. The Others are not going to be defeated by people who think first about their families and themselves - they will be defeated by people who know how to make sacrifices - both in relation to themselves and to others. They will not just live shitty lives and win no glory they will also have who and what to sacrifice when they lack the strength to protect all. If you want to defeat such an enemy you have, like every general, see the big picture rather than focus on irrelevant details. A general fighting a hopeless/dangerous war will sacrifice his own men and as many civilians and innocents and territory as he has to implement a plan of victory - he'll even sacrifice himself if he has to. And that's not something the average father is going to do. 

What decision would have Jon made if Styr had taken Ygritte (or his child by her) hostage and had demanded of him to lure his brothers into a trap or see him watch dismembering her piece by piece?

But indulge me, how would to Watch work better if they could all fuck and marry and hold lands and titles and wear crowns all day long? How would that help them achieving their purpose in any way, shape, or form?

If you want to have a family you don't take the black. It is that easy.

And you are aware that soldiers usually don't take their families with them into war, right? Part of why they can do what they do is the knowledge that their loved ones are safely back home. If they don't know that - if they know the enemy has invaded their homes while they were away on a nonsensical mission - then discipline quickly breaks down.

Sorry, that was all over the place. And again, based on opinion almost casually stated as fact.

"Eddard Stark wouldn't have been a good man of the Watch if he had thought and felt the way he felt in KL up at the Wall - especially not when dealing with the Others."

What nonsense. How is this different from any other general in any other war where the lives of his men depend on him?

"But indulge me, how would to Watch work better if they could all fuck and marry and hold lands and titles and wear crowns all day long? How would that help them achieving their purpose in any way, shape, or form?"

Again, what a nonsensical argument. How has forcing them to give up a wife, kids and family worked out for them so far? They are now down to getting the dregs of the dungeons and prisons of Westeros forcibly sent to the Wall.

By contrast, a normal military system with men sent for say 2 year stints, before rotating back to their families could have had them manning the Wall with 10,000 men or however many their resources could support. And in the case of a war with the Others, you just send all your levies up there and you have 100,000 men to face the Others.

Men fighting for their loved ones will fight much harder than a bunch of criminals serving out a sentence at the frozen end of the earth. See Chett and his merry band of mutineers for examples of the folly of the current system.

[Morte]

42 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Again, what a nonsensical argument. How has forcing them to give up a wife, kids and family worked out for them so far? They are now down to getting the dregs of the dungeons and prisons of Westeros forcibly sent to the Wall. 

The NW's problem in this state is not their vow, but forgetting about the Others and the whole purpose of the Watch. That's why nobody wants to go there anymore, because nobody remembers (just as @Lord Varys pointed out just a few posts above yours).

42 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

By contrast, a normal military system with men sent for say 2 year stints, before rotating back to their families could have had them manning the Wall with 10,000 men or however many their resources could support. And in the case of a war with the Others, you just send all your levies up there and you have 100,000 men to face the Others.

 Men fighting for their loved ones will fight much harder than a bunch of criminals serving out a sentence at the frozen end of the earth. See Chett and his merry band of mutineers of examples of the folly of the current system.

This only works with an actual military system in place, with a strong state administration and citizens. Which you don't have in this feudal society, expect for military orders (like the NW).

We are not talking about Athenian Democracy, Roman Republic, Revolutionary France, the Soviet Union or any other modern state here, we are talking about a feudal and by far pre-modern society, the people are not citizens, they are subjects, and are not only threatened as such, but also think in the way subjects thought about their lords.

The "best" thing you could get in such a world as standing army would be lansquenets - if you want to know how "nice" the lansquenet-system worked for anybody but the people paying them, read about the Thirty Years' War.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What nonsense. How is this different from any other general in any other war where the lives of his men depend on him?

When dealing with the Others he wouldn't have just sold out his dead friend and the truth but all of mankind if he had made the same kind of 'deal' with the Others than he made with Cersei.

Quote

Again, what a nonsensical argument. How has forcing them to give up a wife, kids and family worked out for them so far? They are now down to getting the dregs of the dungeons and prisons of Westeros forcibly sent to the Wall.

It allowed the institution to survive for millennia, unlike so many kingdoms and houses that were around back in the distant past and are now dead and gone.

Quote

By contrast, a normal military system with men sent for say 2 year stints, before rotating back to their families could have had them manning the Wall with 10,000 men or however many their resources could support. And in the case of a war with the Others, you just send all your levies up there and you have 100,000 men to face the Others.

Men fighting for their loved ones will fight much harder than a bunch of criminals serving out a sentence at the frozen end of the earth. See Chett and his merry band of mutineers for examples of the folly of the current system.

LOL, a system like that wouldn't survive an actual Others attack. Who on earth would fight against ice demons if he is forced to do that by the feudal system? People don't fight for their lords because they like to kill their neighbors, either.

Even a standing military couldn't maintain that when things turn bad because men fighting for coin have other options - they can leave, find new employers.

The Watch works because it is a military order you join voluntarily - it has declined but the order structure still exists. You swear a vow and you join a camaraderie of sworn brothers. There is an esprit de corps there, unlike anywhere else in the Seven Kingdoms.

[teej6]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Here you go with your blanket statements of opinion masquerading as fact again.

Who says you can't fight to save the world if you love your family, have kids, a wife and a home to protect? How has almost every army in history managed to get its soldiers to retain discipline and even fight to the death for causes great and small? Because almost all those men had families they loved and cared for.

Lord Varys says you can't be a husband and a soldier, and therefore it is so? Nonsense.

I agree. IMO, the point GRRM makes in the books is that blind adherence to some ancient vows without having any humanity or compassion is not the right thing to do. The likes of Marsh and Selyse could not see the wildlings (including women and children) as humans or see the big picture. They are constraint by their narrow and bigoted views of the world. Marsh conveniently uses the Night’s Watch vows to defend his bigotry and racism, and GRRM clearly shows how Jon counters that argument. Jon has the right of it. His compassion and ability to see the humanity in the Wildlings is what makes him such a wonderful character. And unlike Ned, Jon is not shown to be naive or trusting. His failure was in underestimating the hate in men like Marsh and continued belief in the brotherhood/fraternity of the NW, something that was broken with the murder of Mormont. 

Aemon’s words on honor and duty are interesting, and by saying love is the bane of honor and duty, I don’t think the author is implying that to be a NW man one must abandon one’s humanity. He just means that choosing duty over the things we hold dear is a hard choice, a choice not everyone can easily make. And no one is tested more in these choices than Jon. We know this from his POV chapters. His love for his family (even though he was never fully part of it) is perhaps his most endearing quality and I for one don’t think GRRM means for this to be a flaw in Jon’s character. 

And I discount most of @Lord Varys arguments for the disingenuity of them. He will argue that Cersei's (someone who I suspect will be diagnosed as a sociopath) actions are less deplorable than Arya's since she does not kill with her own hands and does not relish killing or hurting others, while we clearly see from the text that Cersei does enjoy hurting her enemies (why she even enjoyed hurting her infant brother). He will in the same breath argue that Arya's actions are deplorable while advocating that Dany should indiscriminately bring down fire and blood on her enemies. Go figure. 

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I agree. IMO, the point GRRM makes in the books is that blind adherence to some ancient vows without having any humanity or compassion is not the right thing to do.

The vow of the NW is not problematic as such. You can be compassionate after you swear it, you just can't do whatever the hell you want. George says he likes to write about 'the human heart in conflict with itself' - for that to work you have to have a human heart in conflict. Conflicting loyalties, conflicting desires, conflicting commitments, conflicting feelings, etc. Duty vs. love is an important part of that whole setting.

The idea that it can just be resolved by fusing these two things and ignoring/explaining away the (potential) conflict there makes no sense at all. It would literally pull the rug out from under the story, so to speak. We would suddenly have a world where the human heart was in harmony with itself, where there was a textbook solution for every problem.

That is not going to happen. And there will also not be any 'solutions' to such problems in any such ways. We get individual solutions for individual problems, and some work pretty well, some work not that good, and other don't work at all.

30 minutes ago, teej6 said:

The likes of Marsh and Selyse could not see the wildlings (including women and children) as humans or see the big picture. They are constraint by their narrow and bigoted views of the world. Marsh conveniently uses the Night’s Watch vows to defend his bigotry and racism, and GRRM clearly shows how Jon counters that argument. Jon has the right of it. His compassion and ability to see the humanity in the Wildlings is what makes him such a wonderful character. And unlike Ned, Jon is not shown to be naive or trusting. His failure was in underestimating the hate in men like Marsh and continued belief in the brotherhood/fraternity of the NW, something that was broken with the murder of Mormont. 

Selyse is in no way obligated to give a fig about people who are not part of her husband's Seven Kingdoms. And she is in the right. Jon's rangers would all come back with blue eyes, just as Cotter Pyke and his people will. They are already lost. It is a good idea to save them but it is too late. Jon should have come up with that idea earlier. One can only hope for the Wall and all the people there that Tormund doesn't go on that ranging now.

Marsh is a First Man himself. This has nothing to do with 'racism', just with one side finding it hard to forgive the other side for an unjustified and unprovoked war of aggression. The wildlings attacked the NW. Mance and his goons tried to kill them all. I don't fault a man for his mistrust in people who yesterday tried to kill him. It is naiveté to trust all the wildlings like Jon wants to trust Tormund. It is madness to trust a man like the Weeper.

Nobody doubts that the wildlings are 'people'. They just doubt whether they can trust them or whether they have the food to feed so many of them. The Watch isn't a rich country refusing to allow some poor refugees in, the Watch is running short on food already and winter has just begun. This is not a world where you can afford to be nice to your neighbor - at least not in winter.

The idea to take in Tormund and company was pretty good. He can work with them. And with others, too. The Weeper not so much. And risking his own men in a doomed attempt to find other wildlings hundreds of leagues away at Hardhome is about as great an idea as declaring war on the Seven Kingdoms.

30 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Aemon’s words on honor and duty are interesting, and by saying love is the bane of honor and duty, I don’t think the author is implying that to be a NW man one must abandon one’s humanity. He just means that choosing duty over the things we hold dear is a hard choice, a choice not everyone can easily make. And no one is tested more in these choices than Jon. We know this from his POV chapters. His love for his family (even though he was never fully part of it) is perhaps his most endearing quality and I for one don’t think GRRM means for this to be a flaw in Jon’s character.

Nobody is talking about abandoning humanity. There is a pragmatic view to that. What use is one one man when there an army to protect your family? None. What use is one old, blind man when a king and his family are in jeopardy? None. 

Jon never faces a true test of love vs. duty. He doesn't really think he is fulfilling a proper duty and only cares about his father and brother when he deserts the first time. He doesn't understand what the NW is about at that time. Later on, he never faces the decision duty vs. love with Ygritte. He doesn't have to kill her or allow her to be killed in order to do his duty. He gets out easy.

With Arya, it is clearly that he does the wrong thing - he endangers both himself and his men and his mission by allowing Mance to go. You don't need Spock to tell you that the life of one girl doesn't outweigh the safety of the people who defend mankind against the ice demons, right? He brings the Pink Letter upon himself, and the Pink Letter means that a lot of his people - wildlings or black brothers or Northmen - will have to die in another pointless war. A war that would have never taken place if Jon hadn't allowed Mance to go down south.

Just as the North wouldn't have been invaded by Ironborn and Robb hadn't got 15,000 men and himself and his mother killed if he hadn't ridden down south - or at least had given command of that army to somebody else.

30 minutes ago, teej6 said:

And I discount most of @Lord Varys arguments for the disinegnuous of them. He will argue that Cersei's (someone who I suspect will be diagnosed as a sociopath) actions are less deplorable than Arya's since she does not kill with her own hands and does not relish killing or hurting others, while we clearly see from the text that Cersei does enjoy hurting her enemies (why she even enjoyed hurting her infant brother).

There is little reason to assume Cersei would be diagnosed as a sociopath/psychopath (those terms are used interchangeable with the former referring to the social aspects of the phenomenon whereas the latter refers to the psychological aspects of it - but again, it is a spectrum not every person behaving in an antisocial way is actually a psychopath) simply because there are very few indicators that she actually depicts many of those traits - and if she were, we would have to conclude that Arya depicts the same traits.

Therapists cannot read your minds or your POV chapters. They diagnose you on the basis of the facts as they find them in file reports - crime scene reports, interviews with you, your victims, people who know you intimately, etc. - and the view they get of you when they talk with you directly.

And everything about the way Arya Stark conducts her murders indicates she feels no remorse about what she does nor that she has any problems or second thoughts about killing people. She isn't in a moral dilemma over that Bolton fellow. He was in her way and he had to go. Forever. That's why she killed him.

Any sane therapist would categorize this as psychopathic behavior because a normal person like you or I would never be able to do that. Especially not at the age of ten. And the entire Raff episode shows that she was not only acting as a very efficient murderess but did also quite enjoy herself doing what she did.

Cersei, on the other hand, doesn't relish in her 'killings' (if we can call them that). She constantly pushes them away, ignores them, doesn't want to face them. That indicates that she very much knows that she is doing wrong things there. She does have a very active conscience - in fact, one could even argue that she starts to drink as heavily as she does to silence that conscience.

Arya never acts in a manner that indicates she cares about the Bolton fellow, the men she killed at the inn, Dareon, or the insurance guy. The only guy she cares about is her first one, and that's why she was still pretty normal and not yet traumatized.

There is also the very troubling fact with Arya that she always plays roles when she interacts with people. She is never herself but somebody else. And somebody else has feelings for the people she interacts with, not she, Arya Stark. That way she distances herself to an incredible degree from all the people she interacts with since AFfC, and the trend already started in ACoK and ASoS.

One has also to keep in mind that those characters live all in world of shitty morals and a shitty justice system. Commoners are less important than nobility and royalty, which is very much reflected in the fact that nobody gives a rat's ass about Cersei commanding the murders of Gendry and Barra. In this world the people at the top are, for the most part, not nice people. They are trained to witness, command, and do cruel things.

That means people in power (ab)using that power to physically destroy their enemies is something that is done and accepted if it happens within the overall framework of the society. What is not tolerated is murder among people who don't have the right to do that. People running around murdering people like Arya does are not tolerated in this society. Lords and kings warring against each other in just or unjust wars/rebellions/feuds is a completely different matter. Just as atrocities committed in war are completely different from atrocities committed in peace time. It is in accord with the social norms of war to kill people in war - but in peace time you are not allowed to do that.

Cersei wish to see Bran dead (not that Jaime kill him, just that he not save him), her arranging the death of Robert, her desire to see Stannis and Renly ruined, her plot to topple and arrest Ned, her removing the High Septon, ruining Margaery, etc. are all more or less understandable from the position she finds herself in - a position in which only the physical destruction of your enemies means survival of yourself and your loved ones.

Cersei and Jaime's heads - and the heads of their children - are on the block since the first page of the series. That they are still alive (at least for the most part) is due to the fact that Cersei did everything she could to kill or ruin her enemies. She overreacts, she antagonizes people she doesn't have to antagonize, she kills innocents, she acts irrational and paranoid, etc. - but the underlying motivation is always clear. Protect your family and protect yourself.

Cersei doesn't go out there and arbitrarily kills people who broke some rules in another country that do not concern you or the people here (like Arya did with Dareon). Cersei also doesn't kill people because some assassin guild tells her to. She usually has a very good reason (in her mind) when she kills someone (Arya has, too, with Raff and the Tickler, but not with the others).

30 minutes ago, teej6 said:

He will in the same breath argue that Arya's actions are deplorable while advocating that Dany should indiscriminately bring down fire and blood on her enemies. Go figure. 

See above. War and peace. If Arya Stark fights with an open visor I'll have less problems with her actions. I'm pretty sure both Jon Snow and Eddard Stark would be horrified if they knew what 'Mercy' did in Braavos - not just that she did those things, but also how she did them (and the fact that she did them as a girl in the manner she did them, but that would be a patriarchal issue).

You also don't seem to understand that I don't cheer Dany to kill her all her enemies. I say she has to destroy all the Ghiscari slaver cities - Meereen, Yunkai, New Ghis, Mantarys, Tolos, Elyria, etc. - and even Qarth - to ensure that slavery is not restored after she leaves. Whether that is a good thing is a separate matter, as is the question whether the abolishing of slavery in western Essos is a good thing (I think it is). I don't think people is a good thing, be it in peace or in war, but if you want to abolish slavery in those regions it is not going to happen if you allow the slavers to live. That was the big lesson of ADwD. You cannot compromise with these people if you want something they most definitely don't want to see enacted.

I don't care whether this is just or anything. Daenerys Targaryen is never going to face any sort of trial - just as Arya most likely never will. Me calling her a murderess doesn't mean I want her dead. Far to the contrary, actually.

If I say something will happen in the books then I express my opinion that this will likely happen. That doesn't mean I want those things to happen. I don't come here to discuss my wishes for the series. In fact, often enough the things I expect to happen are not actually the things I'd like to happen - but I see no reason to always add an 'I think that will happen but I actually don't want to happen' to any scenario I put forth.

It is evident with the Shireen thing, though. Prior to a certain point I was pretty sure that Stannis would not sacrifice his own child - especially after the Theon chapter - and I argued in favor of that idea. But that did change after a certain point. If she Shireen is to burn then it should be in a manner that works best - and that's if Stannis kills her. Anything else doesn't have the same emotional impact. But I sure as hell don't want Shireen to die.

[Big P]

On 8/23/2018 at 2:26 PM, Starkz said:

So taking them prisoner against their will  threatening to kill them is a good thing because Daenerys knows better than their parents? The children being prisoners of Daenerys isn’t going to teach them that slavery is “right” or “wrong”. In this world, it’s their way of life. Their generation might be different but only because slavery will be forcefully banned. 

Do you expect them to volunteer?  Taking them against their will is the only way to remove them from the depraved life they would have under their slave-owning parents.  Changing them for the better will be an impossible task without taking them away from the influence of their slaver parents.  

Slavery is not going to end unless it is forcefully ended.  And yeah, Daenerys knows better because she knows slavery is wrong and she willing to do something about it.  These children may know it's wrong deep down inside but they will never be allowed to think outside the box of slaving unless removed from that hellish mentality that their parents live by.  

Taking the children from their parents is a good strategy.  I believe we will see the positive fruits of the decision to spare their lives in the future.  Part of the benefits of fostering is exposing the children to a different way of life.  A life without slavery in this scenario.  Sparing their lives shows a respect for life.  It was an act of mercy.  One day in the future these children of the slave owners may come to the same respect and realize how wrong their parents were.  There are no certainties and some of the children may not buy into the spirit of freedom-for-all but at least they were given a chance to embrace the positive change of freedom.  If they should grow up to support slavery then they have chosen to become the enemies of freedom and will have to be dealt with accordingly.  But at least they were given a chance to change.

[Big P]

On 8/23/2018 at 6:46 AM, 300 H&H Magnum said:

That could have been one of the deciding factors for Robert.  Sending Balon's heir to be raised away from the ironborn might change their culture for the better.  

 

On 8/23/2018 at 7:40 PM, Sire de Maletroit said:

Taking them away from their parents is a necessary step in order to change the mentality of the future Ghiscari.  These children can be the start of a new Ghiscari people.  Educate them that slavery is a great wrong committed by their parents and their ancestors.  That is giving them the opportunity to change and become better people.  I am sure there will be a few who will resist this and they will join the harpy when they get the chance.  But we don't know ahead of time who can be saved.   Do not kill them until they prove they can't be saved.  If they can't be changed then they are the enemies of freedom and there is nothing to do but fight them like the rest of the harpies.  

 

On 8/23/2018 at 3:25 PM, Sigella said:

Well, to be fair their parents thinks slavery is great. They think Unsullied-training is great. Or forcing children to learn of the way of the seven sighs. 

Shielding children from such isn't bad.

Can you give one valid reason why they should be allowed access to children? Any old pedophile might argue just like you, you know "We've always done this in our family". Is that really where you are at?

A boy and a girl from every pyramid. How many pyramids? 

-SoS Dany VI

So forty hostages. Two from every family.

I will be the first and the second to admit, there are no means to be certain they can be changed.  But I am one of the many  ones on this discussion board who will say it is worth the effort to give these children from the slave-owning families a chance to reform and make things right.  Their families have a lot to answer for for a thousand years of slaving.  

The Starks failed to change Theon but that does not mean somebody else may not succeed in changing their foster children.  Daenerys, in my opinion, is a lot more resourceful than Eddard and Catelyn.  Maybe some of the slaver's children are stronger emotionally than Theon Greyjoy.  Having these children serve as pages and cup bearers beside the children of former slaves can help build a better perspective on human relationship.  There are no 100% guarantees but it is worth a try.   

[Firefae]

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 2:14 AM, manchester_babe said:

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

Being beautiful isn't always a good thing in this story, it can lead to women being objected and getting unwanted attention from creeps.

And he hasn't made her queen in the end( y'know, because he hasn't written te ending yet). Dany has struggled a lot to get to where she is now. She has earned her leadership, it hasn't been handed to her on a silver platter. To dismiss it as Martin just giving her everything  ignores a lot of what her arc is about.

[Big P]

1 minute ago, Firefae said:

Being beautiful isn't always a good thing in this story, it can lead to women being objected and getting unwanted attention from creeps.

And he hasn't made her queen in the end( y'know, because he hasn't written te ending yet). Dany has struggled a lot to get to where she is now. She has earned her leadership, it hasn't been handed to her on a silver platter. To dismiss it as Martin just giving her everything  ignores a lot of what her arc is about.