Jump to content
Black Dragons

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

You know, Sansa sold her own family for a chance to be with Prince Charming Joffrey.  She did it twice.  An innocent Micah and Lady died to pay for that act of over the top selfishness.  She later runs to Cersei to tell of Ned's plans to sneak out of the city.  

Sansa is just like Viserys! You got me there. Sansa's desire for a romantic ideal is JUST as selfish as Viserys' desire to take back what is his with fire and blood. They're practically twins! Look:

“We go home with an army, sweet sister. With Khal Drogo’s army, that is how we go home. And if you must wed him and bed him for that, you will.” He smiled at her. “I’d let his whole khalasar fuck you if need be, sweet sister, all forty thousand men, and their horses too if that was what it took to get my army. Be grateful it is only Drogo. In time you may even learn to like him. Now dry your eyes. Illyrio is bringing him over, and he will not see you crying.”

Sounds JUST like Sansa doesnt it?

“Oh, yes,” Viserys said darkly. “He has tried, Illyrio, I promise you that. His hired knives follow us everywhere. I am the last dragon, and he will not sleep easy while I live.”

Sansa, is that you? I'm sorry it's just so hard to tell them apart.

That's why Sansa is the MOST selfish character in the series. She is actively trying to secure sellswords and barbarian horse lords so she can crush all opposition to take back what is hers. With fire and blood of course. "Fire and blood" is basically her house words after all. Which means cooking people in their armor just like the Conqueror! Yup. That's Sansa to a T.

44 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

King Viserys III has as much reason to want Westeros back as the Starks do who want Winterfell back.  The Targaryens built Westeros and its capital.  The land belongs to them.  Viserys has as much right to Westeros as Bran and his kin does to Winterfell.

Mirror characters. Look it up.

It's how they adapt to a major loss/set-back that is key.

Do they obsess over what they've lost or appreciate what they had?

Do they find new meaning in their lives and try to survive as best they can or do they hang on to the past beyond all reason or sense?

Do they keep up the illusions for many years or do they lower their expectations?

Do they practice restraint or excess?

What is the scale of revenge: individuals who harmed them directly or the masses who had nothing to do with them? 

How much power do they want: enough to keep themselves safe or enough to destroy to armies and burn castles?

And as my quotes illustrated, none of the Starks are at Viserys' level about what they have lost. 

The Targaryens are not the same as the Starks; there are some MAJOR differences in the text that people just ignore for some strange reason. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours 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. 

Robb was unwillingly to save his sisters if it meant bending the knee, relinquishing his kingdom  and/or giving up his want for revenge  against the people who killed his father.  Even when it looks like, he would die, or get everyone he loves killed, he refuses to surrender-not really because he thinks he could or that the north needs it’s own king-or because he thinks less suffering would happen should continue to fight-not even because he thinks he had a strong chance of winning. He does it because he as the son of Ned Stark should.  Yeah, we don’t know how Bran will turn out in a few years. He could turn into a worse(I would think this), or better man than Viserys was. 

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 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:

Bran has just took a treck to see a Dark wizard in hopes of regaining the use of his legs. Which is his primary worry, given without them there is very little chance for him to have the glorious life he wants.

Arya has joined a guild of Assasains, and clearly hoped to use those skills to kill people who’ve wronged her family.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Sansa is just like Viserys! You got me there. Sansa's desire for a romantic ideal is JUST as selfish as Viserys' desire to take back what is his with fire and blood. They're practically twins! Look:

“We go home with an army, sweet sister. With Khal Drogo’s army, that is how we go home. And if you must wed him and bed him for that, you will.” He smiled at her. “I’d let his whole khalasar fuck you if need be, sweet sister, all forty thousand men, and their horses too if that was what it took to get my army. Be grateful it is only Drogo. In time you may even learn to like him. Now dry your eyes. Illyrio is bringing him over, and he will not see you crying.”

Sounds JUST like Sansa doesnt it?

“Oh, yes,” Viserys said darkly. “He has tried, Illyrio, I promise you that. His hired knives follow us everywhere. I am the last dragon, and he will not sleep easy while I live.”

Sansa, is that you? I'm sorry it's just so hard to tell them apart.

:blink: :ack: That is probably one of the most biased, distorted and insane post I've ever read on this forum…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The Targaryens are not the same as the Starks; there are some MAJOR differences in the text that people just ignore for some strange reason. 

You treat each family as if they’re monolithic. They’re not. Literally you’re just taking Viserys’ conduct and generaling an entire house that has been around for centuries. Viserys shared little in common with Aegon III who was seldom, reserved, not particularly obsessed with destroying the houses that fought against his immediate family in the civil war.

Aenys I wasn’t even as ready to spill blood as his sire or brother.

Viserys shares little in common with a lot of Targyen we see throughout their history. He also shares a lot in common with some as well-he also shares a lot in common with noble characters who are in no way related to him.  

Aenys I wasn’t even as ready to spill blood as his sire or brother.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You treat each family as if they’re monolithic. They’re not. Literally you’re just taking Viserys’ conduct and generaling an entire house that has been around for centuries. Viserys shared little in common with Aegon III who was seldom, reserved, not particularly obsessed with destroying the houses that fought against his immediate family in the civil war.

Aenys I wasn’t even as ready to spill blood as his sire or brother.

Viserys shares little in common with a lot of Targyen we see throughout their history. He also shares a lot in common with some as well-he also shares a lot in common with noble characters who are in no way related to him.  

Aenys I wasn’t even as ready to spill blood as his sire or brother.

House simply means family.

We are reading a series about competing families and you think a person can't use "family" as the unit of analysis? Of course family members are unique and differ from their other family members. But there are differences between families too, just like there are in real life. Have you ever said "wow that's a fucked up family?" Because that's what I think about the Targaryens, on the whole. Aenys is like a drop in the bucket. Doesn't change my view at all, which is that most Targaryens are weirdos either obsessed with prophecy, their specialness as shown in prophecy, their war machines, or keeping power. 

There's nothing worse than a power-neutral interpretation of a family that is obsessed with power. I guess we can't criticize the dynasties like the Bushes or the Trumps? Gosh...so much for making the series relevant to political issues of the day.

And I do think that a parallel family to the Targaryens are the Ironborn: "This obsession with kingship is a madness in our blood." 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

And when we heard about Arriane's secret betrothal, did people think "too bad, what a missed opportunity" or "whew girl dodged a bullet..."? haha

Ha, most people were screaming about retcons and in arms about why Dany and Vis weren't looked after...

I don't think Viserys would make a good king, he's a very very flawed character.

However, the mental illness terms (psychopath, sociopath) and "madness" aren't terms we can just slap on characters and call it good. Just like in real life, people with no mental illnesses have done very despicable acts in this series (looking at you Chiswyk).

I will speak briefly of "madness", since it is the only term Westeros has for this type of thing. My personal belief about madness in the context of the story is honestly a question:

"Can ["mad" person] reasonably function in Westerosi societal norms?"

Obviously a lot of wiggle room and subjectivity in that question, and my criteria has more requirements but that's the summary.

Since we can't ask a maester the Westerosi definition of "madness" there is some leeway in how we can define the diagnosis. Although if we could refrain from using the term so often that would be ideal...

Edited by The Fresh PtwP
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Nobleman Referring to themselves as their House’s animal really isn’t unique to Viserys. Hell its so common Illaryio makes fun it when Tyrion refers to himself as a lion. And far as I know Aerys never adopted referring to himself as a dragon to an excessive degree.

You've completely missed the point. It's not about referring to themselves by their sigil animal but the way it is done - that they are something unique and better and entitled and whatever, putting an unhealthy emphasis on a sense of ego. I don't know if Aerys used the dragon thing excessively or not but we do have an example of this trend when he turned down Tywin - dragon doesn't mate with beasts of the field (paraphrasing). 

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And, people being terrible can precipitated without them being mentally ill. 

That’s just flat-out insulting to both the mentally ill.

Please, tell me in which country sexual violence counts as sane behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You treat each family as if they’re monolithic. They’re not. Literally you’re just taking Viserys’ conduct and generaling an entire house that has been around for centuries. Viserys shared little in common with Aegon III who was seldom, reserved, not particularly obsessed with destroying the houses that fought against his immediate family in the civil war.

Aenys I wasn’t even as ready to spill blood as his sire or brother.

Viserys shares little in common with a lot of Targyen we see throughout their history. He also shares a lot in common with some as well-he also shares a lot in common with noble characters who are in no way related to him.  

Aenys I wasn’t even as ready to spill blood as his sire or brother.

 

That's a point that Martin was careful to make.  Members within a given family are not homogeneous outside the fact that they're all human.  Most of the Targaryens are average in terms of temperament.  Which is good considering they had the power to get what they wanted.   The representative of the family that we know best, Daenerys Targaryen, is a very special person blessed with courage, compassion, intelligence, beauty, and charisma.  For sure she is not representative of every member of the family and she is rather exceptional.  But, the rest of the Targaryens were quite the average lot.  No better, no worse than the rest of the nobility.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 2:18 PM, 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.

 

Both Dany and Viserys want the comforts of their early childhood environment back:  Viserys wants to be a recognized Targaryen prince, waited on, respected, luxuriously fed and clothed.  Dany was raised by the loyal and kindly Ser Willem until she was seven or eight, in the house with the red door; she would be happy going back to that simpler, happier time; when she felt secure and loved.  I don't see Viserys as a madman; he had to shoulder the burden, at 14, of keeping himself and his little sister alive in a world gone suddenly hostile; and I don't think he was emotionally strong enough for it.  Viserys' personality was a volatile combination of extreme emotional insecurity, not entirely unjustified paranoia, a very inflated sense of Targaryen pride (and frustration over his inability to properly express it) and a cruel streak.  He probably would have eventually gone the way of his father; but his actions are all sane, though foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Starks cannot claim the moral high ground when compared to the Targaryens.  Those northern sheep heads supported and practiced the lord's right to the first night.  Read F&B and they give the impression of being more sexists than the south.  Bran's dream showed an ancestor cutting a man's throat to nourish that bloody tree in Winterfell.

Sansa does not hold the moral high ground on Viserys.  Viserys, for all of his faults, took care of his little sister.  We can all agree on the hardship those two siblings had to face.  Viserys was a bad brother in many respects but he took care of his little sister.  Sansa takes care of Sansa.  I would not at all be surprised if she murders little Robin Arryn to impress Hardyng.  Arya is going around murdering people who have nothing to do with her family's troubles all with the goal of getting even.  Their half-brother is at the wall causing problems because he wants to avenge the Starks.  Robb is an oathbreaker.  Lyanna broke her engagement, which can be seen as a form of oathbreaking.  Late uncle Brandon is no better than Robert when it comes to their treatment of women and children.  

I'm not bashing on the Starks.  Not this evening.  I'm just saying they do not hold the moral high ground on the Targaryens.  

5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Please, tell me in which country sexual violence counts as sane behaviou

Jesus Christ, you’re basically arguing every rapist, is mentally ill by virtue of them being a rapist. Simply doing evil stuff isn’t proof of mental illness. Quite honestly, this line of reasoning just stigmatizes an already vulnerable group. You’re better than this. You’re not naive enough to not know there has been  plenty societies that glorify/normalize sexual violence. The plantation owners in the slave states of the US who raped their slaves, weren’t seen as mentally ill-they were still respected pillars in their communities.  In the US alone marital rape wasn’t really began to be criminalized in the 70s. Were the majority of citizen just mentally ill by virtue them not recognizing this sexual abuse as wrong? Of course not. 

19 hours ago, Ygrain said:

You've completely missed the point. It's not about referring to themselves by their sigil animal but the way it is done - that they are something unique and better and entitled and whatever, putting an unhealthy emphasis on a sense of ego.

 No I really didn’t, and yeah it’s an ego thing with the whole referring themselves as dragons. Same as literally everyone else in regards to referring themselves as their House’s animal. The Lannister don’t refer to themselves as lions, to showcase how humble they are-they like lions, are proud, majestic, and royal, skilled  ferocious creatures. 

19 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I don't know if Aerys used the dragon thing excessively or not but we do have an example of this trend when he turned down Tywin - dragon doesn't mate with beasts of the field (paraphrasing). 

No we don’t. Aerys simply hated Tywin at this point. He did have Rheagar bethrothed to Ellia Martel.  I’m sure he thought Targyen were the best(as much every other major house sees themselves as the best), but you specifically insinuated Aerys like Viserys reveres to himself as the dragon. He did not.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Would Robb have beaten his sisters or tried to rape them the night before their weddings?

Would Robb cut out an unborn nephew from his sister's womb? 

I think not.

Edited by Angel Eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How dare you judge the dragon!"

Thats what these replies to my posts read like. :lmao:

Guys, chill. Its just Viserys. You have 4654655 other Targaryens you can wank over. Hunting for nonsensical Viserys parallels to Robb, Bran, and Sansa is really desperate.

Share this post


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

"How dare you judge the dragon!"

Thats what these replies to my posts read like. :lmao:

Guys, chill. Its just Viserys. You have 4654655 other Targaryens you can wank over. Hunting for nonsensical Viserys parallels to Robb, Bran, and Sansa is really desperate.

That's my point. They don't really parallel.

Share this post


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

That's my point. They don't really parallel.

Yeah, they don't. Plus saying X character is just as bad isn't exactly the sharpest defense. Not only has it been inaccurate with these wild comparisons, its a weird way to defend a character. "He's just as shitty as someone else." that's supposed to change my opinion now?

Share this post


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

Would Robb have beaten his sisters or tried to rape them the night before their weddings?

Would Robb cut out an unborn nephew from his sister's womb? 

I think not.

I agree, also don't think Robb would do it.

I know however, that he did not care a lot whether they were raped or killed by others as long as he could keep his precious kingdom and get his vengeance.

So is Robb also "mad"?

On Viserys again, because this seems to be misunderstood here: Nobody says that Viserys is a kind and good character. In the end he's an abusive and unhealthy brother, but that's not an equivalent to mad (please be so kind and stop insulting insane people). And while he would probably not have become a very nice and gentle person without the exile, one has to wonder if he would have turned out as he did, had he lived an uneventful secure life in the Red Keep. Remember: Dany also has nice memories about him, he wasn't always this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure Rhaegar had his issues....

We don’t know what awaits Daenaerys 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 10:25 AM, Penny's Got a Gun said:

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.

There it is.  Get to the heart of the matter.  I like it.  

He might already be.  A walking Snowman with a grudge.  Not that he didn't already carry a big grudge before.   Things could finally get interesting at the wall.  The Snowman comes back as an insane wight.  His mind an amalgamation of jon, wolf, and wight.  

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

×