Jump to content
Black Dragons

Why was Viserys mad and his "Sister" and "Brother" wasn't?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Sigella said:

Thats true, Aegon II wasn't really mad either but I listed the ones that might be considered interesting in regards to madness. Also we don't know a whole lot about any individual Targs before conquest either so what was up b.c  is hard to say anything about.

Aegon II and Aemond weren't mad, but they certainly were pretty cruel (especially Aemond) and they were clearly the dumbest Targaryens to ever mount a dragon.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I agree that we can read Viserys many different ways, but I would say that him wanting back the "jewels and silks" plus Dragonstone plus King's Landing plus everything while Dany just wants a house with a red door is an example of narcissism on Viserys' part in contrast to Dany's humble desires.

No, that's the difference in their upbringing. Viserys remembers what it means to be a royal prince. He wants what's his by right and he remembers and knows what he has lost, just as Brandon and Rickon want back what's theirs and remember what they had (and Sansa and Arya, too). Dany doesn't know what she has lost because she never lived at court and spent only days on Dragonstone. Dany basically is what Robb's son would be, if Jeyne gave birth to a posthumous son.

Viserys is more a tragic character. He suffered from becoming an impoverished exile, was not able/willing to adapt to Dothraki culture, and couldn't cope with the fact that the little sister he should have married (and who he had protected and care for since she was a small girl) suddenly was was more important than he was. He certainly wasn't nice to Dany, basically using her as a punching ball when he felt bad, but that in and of itself doesn't make him a monster.

Viserys is not his father, he is not his Aerion Brightflame or Maegor the Cruel, he is not even Aemond or Aegon II or Prince Daemon.

As a king he wouldn't have been great, but he wouldn't have been cruel, either. All he wanted was to wear a crown, he didn't want to kill people or enact his sadistic or cruel desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that's the difference in their upbringing. Viserys remembers what it means to be a royal prince. He wants what's his by right and he remembers and knows what he has lost, just as Brandon and Rickon want back what's theirs and remember what they had (and Sansa and Arya, too). Dany doesn't know what she has lost because she never lived at court and spent only days on Dragonstone. Dany basically is what Robb's son would be, if Jeyne gave birth to a posthumous son.

I really dont think wanting back his throne, of which he would be the King and supreme ruler of 7 kingdoms, is comparable to Bran and Rickon and Arya and Sansa wanting back their family home, or wishing their dad was still alive, which is more comparable to what Dany wants at the beginning. He's mixing up power with a home, which Dany later does after his death. The motive becomes "this is my legacy," "this is my destiny," "I am the seed of kings and conquerors."  The Starks have no grandiose ideas about what is owed to them after their family is killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As a king he wouldn't have been great, but he wouldn't have been cruel, either. All he wanted was to wear a crown, he didn't want to kill people or enact his sadistic or cruel desires.

I think its possible and reasonable to extract out from Barristan's comments about him as a child, and the way he treated Dany, that there is a significant chance we would have been as cruel and nasty as Aerys.

We can't know for sure, but its a lot more reasonable than outright stating that he wouldn't have been cruel, when that can't be known and the clues in the text certainly indicate he had that potential. In spades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon II and Aemond weren't mad, but they certainly were pretty cruel (especially Aemond) and they were clearly the dumbest Targaryens to ever mount a dragon.

No, that's the difference in their upbringing. Viserys remembers what it means to be a royal prince. He wants what's his by right and he remembers and knows what he has lost, just as Brandon and Rickon want back what's theirs and remember what they had (and Sansa and Arya, too). Dany doesn't know what she has lost because she never lived at court and spent only days on Dragonstone. Dany basically is what Robb's son would be, if Jeyne gave birth to a posthumous son.

Viserys is more a tragic character. He suffered from becoming an impoverished exile, was not able/willing to adapt to Dothraki culture, and couldn't cope with the fact that the little sister he should have married (and who he had protected and care for since she was a small girl) suddenly was was more important than he was. He certainly wasn't nice to Dany, basically using her as a punching ball when he felt bad, but that in and of itself doesn't make him a monster.

Viserys is not his father, he is not his Aerion Brightflame or Maegor the Cruel, he is not even Aemond or Aegon II or Prince Daemon.

As a king he wouldn't have been great, but he wouldn't have been cruel, either. All he wanted was to wear a crown, he didn't want to kill people or enact his sadistic or cruel desires.

This is one of the most accurate assessments of a long-time favorite character.

It's difficult to be normal when your earliest memories are of the fall of your House...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, corbon said:

I think its possible and reasonable to extract out from Barristan's comments about him as a child, and the way he treated Dany, that there is a significant chance we would have been as cruel and nasty as Aerys.

We can't know for sure, but its a lot more reasonable than outright stating that he wouldn't have been cruel, when that can't be known and the clues in the text certainly indicate he had that potential. In spades.

I'd say that pinching and twisting his sister's nipple is a pretty explicit indicator of something deeply unhealthy in Viserys, and his ramblings about being a dragon and what not are pretty much in the line with both Aerys and Aerion, and neither of those had a troubled childhood. An inflated ego, a complete disregard for other people's feelings, mistreating a sibling, sexual or sexualized abuse (Aerys raping Rhaella, Aerion threatening to castrate egg, Viserys twisting Dany's nipple) - now, if that is not a picture of a mental issue running in the family, I don't know what else it might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I really dont think wanting back his throne, of which he would be the King and supreme ruler of 7 kingdoms, is comparable to Bran and Rickon and Arya and Sansa wanting back their family home, or wishing their dad was still alive, which is more comparable to what Dany wants at the beginning. He's mixing up power with a home, which Dany later does after his death. The motive becomes "this is my legacy," "this is my destiny," "I am the seed of kings and conquerors."  The Starks have no grandiose ideas about what is owed to them after their family is killed.

Bran has delusions about returning to Winterfell and all. Sure neither he and Rickon have any plans to retake what's theirs, but Arya and Sansa do have such desires, and they all are still too young to make any proper plans. But it would be their duty to try to take back what was once theirs. That's part of what constitutes nobility and royalty. You are born with a great legacy and you have to live up to it. And if somebody wrongs your father or your family or even your more distant ancestors you have avenge them. That's how this goes.

But there is no difference there, is there? Viserys was a young and innocent child when evil people stole what was his and his family's, murdering them all in the process of it. Bran and Rickon (and Sansa and Arya) suffered the same fate, and they all get twisted and warped by the events they live through, too. Just as Viserys was. I mean, we know Bran and Arya intimately, that's why many people don't see them as monsters, but if you were not in their heads when they were killing or mind-raping other people.

Now, Viserys is still an ass but he is no murderer nor mind-rapist. Abusing your little sister and using her as a pawn in your game is not nice, but no great crime, either. In fact, the latter usually is the fate of royal women in this world, so by the standards of the world Viserys didn't exactly do much wrong. He certainly was a lousy parent/elder brother, but that's hardly surprising considering what he went through. Dany had at least Viserys - but Viserys had no one from the day Willem Darry died.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

I think its possible and reasonable to extract out from Barristan's comments about him as a child, and the way he treated Dany, that there is a significant chance we would have been as cruel and nasty as Aerys.

Barristan compares Viserys to his father, but he actually never knew the boy Aerys II intimately. And Aerys II was not particularly mad in his youth or young adulthood. Not to mention that his 'madness' wasn't of the cruel sort. He was eccentric, changeable, and not very bright - and an ass in his personal relationships, but he was no Aerion, no Maegor, not even an Aemond or Aegon II. He only became overly paranoid and did only develop cruel tendencies in the justice department after Duskendale - prior to that he only saw red when another of his children died in infancy. That certainly wasn't great but not exactly something to brand him as a particularly worse king or very cruel person.

Aerys II ended were he was after a long history of a declining mental illness in combination with considerable stress and trauma. And even then he by far wasn't the worst Targaryen king or even among the worst ugly thugs George has invented for this series (Joffrey is much worse even as a 13-year-old, Ramsay and Roose are far beyond that territory, as are Gregor Clegane, Qyburn, and most of Gregor's thugs).

Viserys III may not have depicted signs that he was another Rhaegar, but whatever 'diagnosis' Barristan attests the boy later, after he knows what his father eventually became, clearly cannot have been even remotely in the same league as what Joffrey did. Because the man Viserys III we meet in the series is no sadist. He is a pitiful creature who is basically afraid of his own shadow, who can be lead around by the nose by all the people around him (Illyrio, Jorah), and who obviously and clearly only to be acknowledged as 'the king' he thinks he is - or has to be. You can see that in his last moments. The man wasn't mad when he got killed, he was just drunk - and he wanted to show Drogo that he was a great and manly man, too. He clearly didn't understand how to properly do that, but he tried, in his way.

2 hours ago, corbon said:

We can't know for sure, but its a lot more reasonable than outright stating that he wouldn't have been cruel, when that can't be known and the clues in the text certainly indicate he had that potential. In spades.

Can you point such things out? Viserys III never butchers cats, never plans to murder children, never actually does more to Dany to physically chastise her - which is clearly no big issue in this world. He never indicates he would murder entire families - like his father. He wants to be loved and respected. He is the kind of king who would likely not even execute a murderer if the man were properly sucking up to him.

One can make a case that Viserys III would have even been a better king than Robert. Chances are that he would have attended his council session, and if only to bask in the fact that he was king now and could actually rule. Robert never even wanted to rule.

56 minutes ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

This is one of the most accurate assessments of a long-time favorite character.

It's difficult to be normal when your earliest memories are of the fall of your House...

Well, the guy is clearly not my favorite character, but he is tragic character nonetheless. And certainly not a character who should be compared to his father's mad exploits or Joffrey. Joffrey certainly is also craven but he clearly shows some problematic traits in the sadism department - with the cat and his later behavior - that is completely absent in Viserys.

And in the young Aerys II, too. That guy didn't show much promise but he wasn't like Maegor or Aerion. If he had been, Aegon V would have likely cut him out of the succession favoring Duncan's children instead (assuming he had any), never mind the fact that their mother was a commoner, or even his Baratheon grandson, Steffon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

I'd say that pinching and twisting his sister's nipple is a pretty explicit indicator of something deeply unhealthy in Viserys, and his ramblings about being a dragon and what not are pretty much in the line with both Aerys and Aerion, and neither of those had a troubled childhood. An inflated ego, a complete disregard for other people's feelings, mistreating a sibling, sexual or sexualized abuse (Aerys raping Rhaella, Aerion threatening to castrate egg, Viserys twisting Dany's nipple) - now, if that is not a picture of a mental issue running in the family, I don't know what else it might be.

A lot of people in those books like to things to nipples... And seeing your sister as your property and your sexual partner is part of growing up as a Targaryen, especially if your are the head of the family. Your sister is not just your sister but also your future wife. This doesn't mean that sexualized violence is good or anything, but it means that he didn't exactly cross any (meaningful) boundaries in the world and the family he grew up in.

There is no indication that Viserys doesn't understand other people's feelings or stuff like that. We hardly see him interact with anyone but Dany - and his relationship with her is actually complex. He loves and hates her, and the reason why he hates is not that unreasonable. She killed her mother in birth, and she fails to understand what they have lost and what their family history destines them to be. She actually adjusts to life in exile. When Viserys looks at his sister he sees the end royalty and nobility, a girl who wants to be a sailor, a girl who is happy when playing with the rabble on the streets. And when she suddenly turns the table and makes her adapting skills a strength he cannot suffer that - like pretty much any man in this world couldn't suffer it if his little sister (or wife) were suddenly calling the shots.

But even Dany herself doesn't remember her brother as being a monster or anything of that sort. She actually misses him, just as she misses the savage husband who actually raped her and did not only mistreat her nipples.

But all of that has nothing to do with sanity or the quality of Viserys III as a king. He could have had private issues like a lot of kings had and still rule reasonable well. Even his father could do that. Because you can actually have the sanity to surround yourself with competent men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, corbon said:

I think its possible and reasonable to extract out from Barristan's comments about him as a child, and the way he treated Dany, that there is a significant chance we would have been as cruel and nasty as Aerys.

We can't know for sure, but its a lot more reasonable than outright stating that he wouldn't have been cruel, when that can't be known and the clues in the text certainly indicate he had that potential. In spades.

I think he had partly inherited his father emotional instability. But I wouldn't bet on him becoming another Aerys just out of the blue, and it also needed Duskendale to make Aerys into the monster he became.

However Viserys seems much more stable than his father to me, as it takes a lot to let him go over the edge: Dany remembers her brother as kind and loving for a long time, it took many years and blows to make him change, the last one was the selling of their mother's crown.

And even then he is not even remotely comparable to Joff or his father.

So I think @Lord Varys is right here: Had Viserys III inherited the throne, he would have been a mediocre king, maybe with family issues and quiet guidable, but not per se mad or particularly cruel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dany IS mad - we just haven't seen it manifest yet. Just wait, when she arrives in Westeros and sees the smallfolk want nothing to do with her, she'll snap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As a king he wouldn't have been great, but he wouldn't have been cruel, either. All he wanted was to wear a crown, he didn't want to kill people or enact his sadistic or cruel desires.

Didn't stop him from trying to rape Daenerys the night before her wedding to Khal Drogo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Didn't stop him from trying to rape Daenerys the night before her wedding to Khal Drogo.

And lets not forget the purple nurple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

I've sometimes speculated that Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen are Robert's kids

That's absolutely impossible. It was mentioned in Jaime's chapter, that shortly after Cersei's wedding, she became pregnant from Robert, so Jaime went with her to wood's witch and they aborted that baby, and from then on, whenever Cersei had sex with Robert, she was using "contraception", not to get pregnant from him. So when she did got pregnant, it was definitely Jaime's child, because with him Cersei wasn't using whatever that contraception was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Morte said:

I think he had partly inherited his father emotional instability. But I wouldn't bet on him becoming another Aerys just out of the blue, and it also needed Duskendale to make Aerys into the monster he became.

However Viserys seems much more stable than his father to me, as it takes a lot to let him go over the edge: Dany remembers her brother as kind and loving for a long time, it took many years and blows to make him change, the last one was the selling of their mother's crown.

And even then he is not even remotely comparable to Joff or his father.

So I think @Lord Varys is right here: Had Viserys III inherited the throne, he would have been a mediocre king, maybe with family issues and quiet guidable, but not per se mad or particularly cruel.

I'm surprised at how people give Arya the breaks or excuses but do not extend the same consideration to Viserys.  Viserys has lost more than the Starks.  He lost a kingdom.  And Viserys has never murdered anybody, to the best of my knowledge.

There is nothing wrong with Viserys to want to take back what was his.  Not in that world.  He is no different from Stannis and the Starks who all want what they believe is theirs.  He is better than Renly who wanted a kingdom that never was his.  

Viserys was an asshole.  No excuses there.  It's a sign of weakness.  I would not put it on the level of madness though.  The boy was stable enough to survive in the free cities with no coin.  He could not have been that far off in the head.   Ser Willem might be argued could have disciplined him better but that's not how kings are treated in feudalism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 1:29 PM, Sophia [email protected] said:

Gods flip the coin to see if a Targaryen or maddness or greatness.

If you look the family tree of Targaryens you will series of incest: I am going tell you that Rheagar and Dany are not product of incest.

Aegon the Unlikely marry a Blackwood, Jaeherys his son marry his sister then have Aerys and a daughter Rhaella. Jaeherys force them to wed, this is where I think that Rhaella is had affair with Bonifer Hasty (Knight) which produces Rheagar (Greatness). Rheagar marry Lyanna a second wife and have a baby girl baby in the Tower of Joy this baby girl is Dany.  Where Viserys had two generations of incest which poison his mind also his father.   Rheagar and Dany are products of different blood line introduction gene pool.

 

I still think Brandon Stark and Ashara Dayne are the parents of Jon Snow he is older than Robb by 8 months because he conceive in the Black Cells of the Red Keep.

 

To go further Aegon the Unlikely parents are Markker Targaryen and a Dayne before it Dareon the Good and his Dorne Princess/Queen.

The incidence of madness in the family is higher than what is believed to be regular but the chance is still low.  Fire And Blood is proof that the incidence was exaggerated.  It's not prevalent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 5:29 PM, Sophia [email protected] said:

Gods flip the coin to see if a Targaryen or maddness or greatness.

If you look the family tree of Targaryens you will series of incest: I am going tell you that Rheagar and Dany are not product of incest.

Aegon the Unlikely marry a Blackwood, Jaeherys his son marry his sister then have Aerys and a daughter Rhaella. Jaeherys force them to wed, this is where I think that Rhaella is had affair with Bonifer Hasty (Knight) which produces Rheagar (Greatness). Rheagar marry Lyanna a second wife and have a baby girl baby in the Tower of Joy this baby girl is Dany.  Where Viserys had two generations of incest which poison his mind also his father.   Rheagar and Dany are products of different blood line introduction gene pool.

Barristan's comments shout the Gods flipping a coin makes sense, as there is no clear correlation between incest and madness in the story. 

 

The maddest Targaryen of all, Aerion Brightflame had a Dayne mother and a Martell granny on his father's side.  Not much incest there. 

 

Jaeherys's  sons Baelon and Aemon were products of incest, both seemed to be of sound mind.  Baelon's sons Viserys and Daemon character flaws can't be traced to incest. Plenty families have one lazy son and one "wild" son. 

Tommen and Myrcella both seemed to be normal kids, both products of Incest.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 11:27 PM, Great Oshiro said:

Possibly.  The incidence of insanity did not really occur until long after the conquest, when the Targaryen brought the blood of the ordinary people into theirs.  Maegor was just cruel.  It doesn't mean he was crazy.  He chose a brutal way to deal with his enemies. 

They had dragons early on.  A dragon would detect the emotional turmoil within the person and refuse to bond.  Maybe they did have some with emotional instability back then but they got burned when they attempted to bond with the dragon.  It is said that intelligent animals like dogs and horses can detect instability in people.  A lot of dog and horse experts say this.  You cannot lie to a horse is an example because they will know you.  A dragon is at least the equal of dogs and dragons in intelligence.  Yeah so the dragons were culling the nuts from the family tree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, Ser Uncle P said:

Barristan's comments shout the Gods flipping a coin makes sense, as there is no clear correlation between incest and madness in the story. 

 

The maddest Targaryen of all, Aerion Brightflame had a Dayne mother and a Martell granny on his father's side.  Not much incest there. 

 

Jaeherys's  sons Baelon and Aemon were products of incest, both seemed to be of sound mind.  Baelon's sons Viserys and Daemon character flaws can't be traced to incest. Plenty families have one lazy son and one "wild" son. 

Tommen and Myrcella both seemed to be normal kids, both products of Incest.  

 

 

 

This is why the Targ haters out there should be careful what they wish for because their sweetheart, Jon Snowball, has as much chances as Aerion Brightflame of going mad.  More, actually, because fire and ice do not mix.

Edited by Penny's Got a Gun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Bran has delusions about returning to Winterfell and all. Sure neither he and Rickon have any plans to retake what's theirs, but Arya and Sansa do have such desires, and they all are still too young to make any proper plans. But it would be their duty to try to take back what was once theirs. That's part of what constitutes nobility and royalty. You are born with a great legacy and you have to live up to it. And if somebody wrongs your father or your family or even your more distant ancestors you have avenge them. That's how this goes.

When the Starks become so singularly obsessed with reclaiming their birthright they attempt to sell one of their own family members in exchange for an army then I would agree, but its shallow analysis to collapse characters into a single motive. Dany and Viserys are MIRROR characters to the Starks. It's a good literary term to use when analyzing these books. That doesn't mean they are the same. They may be involved in parallel plots, sometimes to achieve the same goals, but their differences in response to similar situations are highlighted. 

It's also important to consider age. Bran is 9 years old. Viserys is 22 years old. Saying they both have "delusions" as if they're comparable is weak.

Viserys has an unhealthy obsession with what he lost. The Starks do not. They aren't constantly thinking of their "birthright" or their "possessions" or even their "duty" at this point in the story, they've accepted that Winterfell is gone and that they've been displaced. Just a few examples:

“Winterfell is burned and fallen, Arya reminded herself. Old Nan and Maester Luwin were both dead, most like, and Sansa too. It did no good to think of them. All men must die.” - Arya

“There is no place here for Arya of House Stark, she was thinking. Arya’s place was Winterfell, only Winterfell was gone. When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives. She had no pack, though.” - Arya

“She considered throwing herself at his feet to beg for his protection. He never fought for Robb, why should he fight for me? The war is finished and Winterfell is fallen.” - Sansa

They're all adapting to their new environments, even if it's with unease. Now there might come a point when they realize they have to take back Winterfell, but I doubt we'll see one of the Stark children act like Viserys:

“Our land,” he called it. The words were like a prayer with him. If he said them enough, the gods were sure to hear. “Ours by blood right, taken from us by treachery, but ours still, ours forever. You do not steal from the dragon, oh, no. The dragon remembers...We will have it all back someday, sweet sister." Sometimes his hands shook when he talked about it. “The jewels and the silks, Dragonstone and King’s Landing, the Iron Throne and the Seven Kingdoms, all they have taken from us, we will have it back.” Viserys lived for that day. 

And I understand what brought him to that point; he even has a more valid reason to want these things than Dany, who has no memory of the things she's lost.

Somehow whenever we get into discussions the same arguments are deployed. Whenever Targaryens look negative, they're just doing the same things any other noble family would do. Whenever Targaryens do something good this of course means that no other noble family could do it, and proves why they're special. I find this tedious.

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

When the Starks become so singularly obsessed with reclaiming their birthright they attempt to sell one of their own family members in exchange for an army then I would agree, but its shallow analysis to collapse characters into a single motive. Dany and Viserys are MIRROR characters to the Starks. It's a good literary term to use when analyzing these books. That doesn't mean they are the same. They may be involved in parallel plots, sometimes to achieve the same goals, but their differences in response to similar situations are highlighted. 

It's also important to consider age. Bran is 9 years old. Viserys is 22 years old. Saying they both have "delusions" as if they're comparable is weak.

Viserys has an unhealthy obsession with what he lost. The Starks do not. They aren't constantly thinking of their "birthright" or their "possessions" or even their "duty" at this point in the story, they've accepted that Winterfell is gone and that they've been displaced. Just a few examples:

“Winterfell is burned and fallen, Arya reminded herself. Old Nan and Maester Luwin were both dead, most like, and Sansa too. It did no good to think of them. All men must die.” - Arya

“There is no place here for Arya of House Stark, she was thinking. Arya’s place was Winterfell, only Winterfell was gone. When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives. She had no pack, though.” - Arya

“She considered throwing herself at his feet to beg for his protection. He never fought for Robb, why should he fight for me? The war is finished and Winterfell is fallen.” - Sansa

They're all adapting to their new environments, even if it's with unease. Now there might come a point when they realize they have to take back Winterfell, but I doubt we'll see one of the Stark children act like Viserys:

“Our land,” he called it. The words were like a prayer with him. If he said them enough, the gods were sure to hear. “Ours by blood right, taken from us by treachery, but ours still, ours forever. You do not steal from the dragon, oh, no. The dragon remembers...We will have it all back someday, sweet sister." Sometimes his hands shook when he talked about it. “The jewels and the silks, Dragonstone and King’s Landing, the Iron Throne and the Seven Kingdoms, all they have taken from us, we will have it back.” Viserys lived for that day. 

 

Not sure if Viserys obsession with "Our land" is attributable to his incest. He was around 8 when the dynasty fell, he had crap parenting, and probably had his head filled with bullshit by Willem Darry or Queen Rhaele in the few months between the fall of KL and the taking of Dragonstone. 

In contrast the Stark kids are the products of a healthy family environment, a major factor in giving one the coping skills to overcome adversity. 

The Ned's kids all found "allies" of sorts in their exile, eg Arya to the FM, Sansa with LF, but what example had Viserys ever seen of cultivating alliances? 

Nurture > Nature in this case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ser Uncle P said:

Not sure if Viserys obsession with "Our land" is attributable to his incest. He was around 8 when the dynasty fell, he had crap parenting, and probably had his head filled with bullshit by Willem Darry or Queen Rhaele in the few months between the fall of KL and the taking of Dragonstone. 

In contrast the Stark kids are the products of a healthy family environment, a major factor in giving one the coping skills to overcome adversity. 

The Ned's kids all found "allies" of sorts in their exile, eg Arya to the FM, Sansa with LF, but what example had Viserys ever seen of cultivating alliances? 

 Nurture > Nature in this case...

That's why I called it obsession, not necessarily madness.

Still somewhere there must be consequences to incest with this House, if he's being realistic. GRRM has compared it to horse breeding, where there are real effects. If he says the flaws are accentuated, the obsessions become stronger. It could be perceived as madness at that point. 

Of course this wouldn't show up as much in Fire and Blood because the incest coefficient wouldn't have multiplied as much as it has now, with Viserys' generation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×