Jump to content
Black Dragons

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

Recommended Posts

On 3/18/2019 at 10:12 AM, Penny's Got a Gun said:

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.  

Yup

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.

I agree.  I will even say some of Jon's decisions point towards insanity.  The mission to hardhome is one such.  We don't even need to mention the execution of Janos Slynt.  That was crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of Man said:

  We don't even need to mention the execution of Janos Slynt.  That was crazy.

The execution of Janos Slynt was the right thing to do. No one objected for a reason.  Slynt was a despicable piece of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think there are several hints that families marrying outside their own culture is a good thing, mostly in the melting pot idea with the Andals, Rhoynar, and First Men.

The Targaryens are relatively new to the "melting pot" idea with Dorne and Lyanna. So...Baby steps. 

Jon is symbolic of the line moving away from blood purity. He's also as far removed from Targ culture/mentality as possible. This is important. 

Fire + fire for blood purity is what makes people a bit...let's say..."off."

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Son of Man said:

We don't even need to mention the execution of Janos Slynt.  That was crazy.

"Crazy" is the absolute last thing that was.

In a military order, when a junior officer publicly refuses a direct order from his Lord Commander - rejects said order multiple times, in fact - and insults the LC personally as well, it would be crazy to let Slynt get away with that. Jon's executing Slynt was just, proper and correct. Not crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

The execution of Janos Slynt was the right thing to do. No one objected for a reason.  Slynt was a despicable piece of shit.

This is a off. Slynt had a significant following in the watch. He is not hated in story by the brotherhood as much as he is near universally hated by the fandom. To many brothers at least at Castleblack he wasn’t a despicable piece of shit. And many did have less than positive reactions towards Jon’s proclamation. It was a very tense situation because of that. 

There was clearly not a consensus of Jon’s action being right. Not to say if there was Jon’s action would be. Same if the opposite were true-that everyone thought Jon wasn’t acting Justly doesn’t mean he wasn’t.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 5:02 PM, Ygrain said:

Yes. And? 

Baby Jon and his wetnurse, actually. And? You are stating a known fact without making any argument. 

Cat also states that she didn't begrudge Ned any solace he might have found with someone else during the war, i.e. believes that Jon was conceived after their wedding, i.e. after Robb, and this is consistent with what Ned tells Robert, that he cheated on Cat while she was pregnant. That makes Jon officially slightly younger than Robb, when he could have  been of an age or slightly older. However, Jon couldn't have been older than 2-3 months, or else the difference in development would have been notable

 

Repeating something doesn't make it true.

Beliefs don't make for arguments.

Your English as well as your sentence structure, or rather lack of, makes it rather difficult to understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that Dany was born at ToJ and then, some 6-9 months old, was swapped for Rhaella's stillborn and no-one ever noticed? Seriously? This is crazy even by the lemongate usual standards.

Furthermore: if Dany was born at ToJ and we apply GRRM's statement about the age difference between Jon and Dany as 8-9 months, it means that Dany was conceived a couple months into the Rebellion, at around the time of Jon's birth. Jon's conception would thus be placed far earlier than the start of the Rebellion, definitely prior Brandon's time in the Black Cells, more like, Harrenhall. Which indeed makes Jon too old to be passed off as younger than Robb. Not to mention, it makes Ned a huge dick for taking a one-year old from his mother, just to drag him North as his own bastard when he could have left Jon in Dorne where bastards are not frowned upon so much.

 

And the truth in the books that Jon Snow was not the baby in the TOJ. Ned Stark travel back to Starfell to gave back the sword of Morning that is where is found that Ashara Dayne had marry Brandon Stark in secretly marriage. While Brandon Stark was in the Black Cells for threating the Prince, King Aerys in mean while had send for his father, that take few days if he gone by boat. During that time Jon Snow was conceive in the Black Cell before the start of the war. Ned Stark had lie about Jon Snow real age to cover up his true identity. That he is the true born of Brandon Stark and Ashara Dayne.  Dany is the baby in TOJ because of her white hair she couldn't never be pass off as Stark So Ned made a switch of babies.  Dany for Jon Snow. It is lot better than R+L=J and it one big joke.  Queen Rhaella's story was swap for Ashara Dayne's  she the one who gave birth healthy baby the stillborn was the Queen Baby.  Viserys knew this but keep quiet because he didn't want Robert's wrath on them more than really was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Sophia [email protected] said:

And the truth in the books that Jon Snow was not the baby in the TOJ. Ned Stark travel back to Starfell to gave back the sword of Morning that is where is found that Ashara Dayne had marry Brandon Stark in secretly marriage. While Brandon Stark was in the Black Cells for threating the Prince, King Aerys in mean while had send for his father, that take few days if he gone by boat. During that time Jon Snow was conceive in the Black Cell before the start of the war. Ned Stark had lie about Jon Snow real age to cover up his true identity. That he is the true born of Brandon Stark and Ashara Dayne.  Dany is the baby in TOJ because of her white hair she couldn't never be pass off as Stark So Ned made a switch of babies.  Dany for Jon Snow. It is lot better than R+L=J and it one big joke.  Queen Rhaella's story was swap for Ashara Dayne's  she the one who gave birth healthy baby the stillborn was the Queen Baby.  Viserys knew this but keep quiet because he didn't want Robert's wrath on them more than really was.

Please provide evidence, not just a story you like. The problem is, your story doesn't match much of what we read. You need to provide the textual quotes (or GRRM quotes - those are harder to find) that provide evidence for each part of your story.
https://asearchoficeandfire.com/ is a great resource that allows you to find quotes and cut and paste them here as needed.

 

When someone disagrees with you, answer their points with reasons, and textual support. Don't just state what you think again and again, ignoring the points others have to make, or the questions they ask. The point of being here is to engage with others, learn things, discuss them, hear ideas of others you might not have thought of and give people a chance to assess your ideas. You only seem to repeat your ideas without actually defending them in any way. Why would anyone bother to engage with you if you won't engage with them?
What you think is true is not an argument for it being true. Show why you think its true. Please.

Edited by corbon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Targaryen madness is overrated imo. The saying the “gods flip a coin” is just an embellishment since the Targaryens that were mad/bad were so reknown. I think legitimately their was about 5 or less that could be qualified as “mad”. Being a shit person also doesn’t make you mad which is what Viserys was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 11:14 PM, 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.

:agree:

On 3/18/2019 at 3:32 AM, 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.

I’m not sure... And actually, none of us can be sure. 

But from what little info we have, Aerys was much more agreeable and less nasty than Viserys when he was young. 

TWoIaF, Aerys II

“AERYS TARGARYEN, the Second of His Name, was but eighteen years of age when he ascended the Iron Throne in 262 AC, upon the death of his father, Jaehaerys, after little more than three years of rule. A handsome youth, Aerys had fought gallantly in the Stepstones during the War of the Ninepenny Kings. Though not the most diligent of princes, nor the most intelligent, he had an undeniable charm that won him many friends. He was also vain, proud, and changeable, traits that made him easy prey for flatterers and lickspittles, but these flaws were not immediately apparent to most at the time of his ascension.”

When Viserys died he was 22 yrs old or thereabouts. And from what we’ve seen, he was very much his father’s son, sharing some of Aerys’s worst traits:  changeable, vain, proud. At the same time, he didn’t really show any of the more positive traits his father seems to have had as a young man.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 2:26 PM, Sophia [email protected] said:

He had serious blow to his head I believe that gave him brain damage when he kill whole House Farwosy  his second wife House.

Or maybe he's just a really mean guy. 

Share this post


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

I think there are several hints that families marrying outside their own culture is a good thing, mostly in the melting pot idea with the Andals, Rhoynar, and First Men.

The Targaryens are relatively new to the "melting pot" idea with Dorne and Lyanna. So...Baby steps. 

Jon is symbolic of the line moving away from blood purity. He's also as far removed from Targ culture/mentality as possible. This is important. 

Fire + fire for blood purity is what makes people a bit...let's say..."off."

Not really.  Jon has the same chances as any other Targaryen of going mad.  If he is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna to begin with.  Heaven knows, Lyanna had her own issues.  Having the wolfblood is not a positive thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Great Oshiro said:

Not really.  Jon has the same chances as any other Targaryen of going mad.  If he is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna to begin with.  Heaven knows, Lyanna had her own issues.  Having the wolfblood is not a positive thing. 

"I like his sense of realism" - GRRM on Jon

That's a core trait of his personality. It's not going away. He may get hot-headed and defy people though, which is more or less what the wolfblood is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 9:51 AM, Morte said:

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.

 

To be fair Robb did care for his sisters a lot. He would certainly have saved them barring giving up his vegence and he could reasonably expect they wouldn’t be killed-the girls could after all be married off to some good lions. 

But yes, he would sacrifice them for his vegence.

As he as Ned Stark’s son, and ruler of the North was expected to do.

 

Share this post


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

rys died he was 22 yrs old or thereabouts. And from what we’ve seen, he was very much his father’s son, sharing some of Aerys’s worst traits:  changeable, vain, proud. At the same time, he didn’t really show any of the more positive traits his father seems to have had as a young man

Yes, he a Prince of 22, was vain, proud, and changeable. Quite honestly man those traits, far from being atypical, to noblemen in general are pretty common to find. You could probably say this of most of the nobles we see-especially when looking at the youths-have those traits in spades. Kinda natural to develop when you’re raised being told you’re apart/the top of a special caste in your society. Which shows Viserys would probably be as other said-a mediocre king.

Aerys lived a life of pure luxury and for much of his life he didn’t actually have a care in the world. Honestly, if Viserys was of the same mental state of his father, or looked to already have his psyche crumbling by age seven he’d be stark raving mad by the time we see him in AGOT(as his father was)  given the intense pressure that’s been placed upon him at a young age.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Barristan’s frank willingness to work for Joffery, who was worse than Viserys with little  of the man’s problems, shows something. 

I suspect Barristan’s view of Viserys was tainted by Aerys’ doting of the boy.

It’s clear Aerys could be seen naming Rheagar his heir, even while Rheagar is alive.

Rheagar should be King, thus, the one who seemingly posed the most risk of taking what should be Rheagar was demonized. 

I think Selmy didn’t demonize Robert because  Robert was able to win Selmy over through sparing the knight’s life, at the risk of Robert’s own health. 

Honestly, out of the two, Rheagar does appear the most mad.

I mean a man who thinks he’s the messiah, or will sire the messiahs, probably isn’t all there in terms of sanity. I mean he may be right, but he appears to have accepted this notion way too quickly and was willing to risk a lot in pursuing it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 7:47 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

House simply means family.

I’ve literally used the words “House” and “family” interchangeably in the very post your quoting. 

You might as well have gone “words mean things”. You wouldn’t be wrong-but it’s a point you’d be making apropos to nothing.

On 3/18/2019 at 7:47 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

We are reading a series about competing families and you think a person can't use "family" as the unit of analysis? 

I think when examining a House that spans centuries it’s irrational to take one male at the latest generation as a basis to generalize the House. 

 

On 3/18/2019 at 7:47 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

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?"

The supposed differences you’ve highlighted between the Starks and Targyens are absurd. I have no problem recognizing differences between different groups-it’d be insane to suggest House Martell is as patriarchal as House Stark- But not all differences brought up are valid. Portraying the Targyens as instriscily nobler than everyone else even when they’re acting like a typical house would is bad, but the exact opposite-portraying them as demons incarnate is also bad.

 

On 3/18/2019 at 6:36 PM, Varysblackfyre321 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,

Again Robb did basically sell the girls out for his blood-feud. He would not trade Jaimie for the girls because he thought it would be the end of or at the very least really his war-effort. And to be clear he’s not really acting particularly callous. As lord, he’d eventually marry them off to those who’d better secure, or advance House Stark’s power. This is the main reason he gives for why he eventually regrets not trading Jaimie for the girls-they could have been used to secure the alliance of Great houses such as the Tyrells. 

On 3/18/2019 at 7:47 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

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. 

And you’ve provided little evidence for your line of thinking. Aenys is one example out of literally dozens we see throughout series we see that that don’t fit the type of being particularly more obsessed with their specialness, or keeping power, or even their dragons. Seriously, I you’ve read F&B you could have missed all those descriptions of various members of House Targyen, who deviated substantially from these stereotypes as much as Aenys did.  And wasn’t the only person I named. I pointed to  Aegon III was from Viserys’ character. Aegon II was so revenged obsessed he would have never have allowed the bethrothal to commence between his daughter, Aegon II. 

On 3/18/2019 at 7:47 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

There's nothing worse than a power-neutral interpretation of a family that is obsessed with power.

I would say in terms of fantasy writing, a house that consists of mostly of members who follow a really dense  negative or positive stereotypes.

 

On 3/18/2019 at 7:47 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

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.

Yes, if the Targyens aren’t understood to be particularly more obsessive than other houses then we could not criticize political dynasties all together.  Because obviously simply not thinking a single member is particularly strong evidence of a trend, means all criticisms or praises of certain groups can’t be done.

 

Share this post


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

I think when examining a House that spans centuries it’s irrational to take one male at the latest generation as a basis to generalize the House. 

I didn't just read Viserys' lines and conclude "gosh this entire House really isn't that great." I've got my share of criticisms for the reigning kings in Fire and Blood, but that's an essay in itself.

43 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Seriously, I you’ve read F&B you could have missed all those descriptions of various members of House Targyen, who deviated substantially from these stereotypes as much as Aenys did.  

I read the book and thought "I'm supposed to be impressed?" They really don't live up to their own hype. The only good part was the blacksmith's son who had tell them what the fuck to do. I can't wait for Part 2 when they start a succession of civil wars because one guy had less silvery hair and the other had more silvery hair and looked more Targaryen. 

43 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

but the exact opposite-portraying them as demons incarnate is also bad.

This is so typical of any tiny criticism of Targaryens, like I said in general, they are "weirdos either obsessed with prophecy, their specialness as shown in prophecy, their war machines, or keeping power." This isn't a family of Saurons, but fantasy novels often have a Dark House, like Dark Numenoreans in Tolkien who were HUMANS eventually corrupted by power. And this specialness - only we can ride dragons - reinforces their views to justify their actions - only we can fuck our sisters, conquer you, cook you in your castle, burn you alive from above. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


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

"I like his sense of realism" - GRRM on Jon

That's a core trait of his personality. It's not going away. He may get hot-headed and defy people though, which is more or less what the wolfblood is. 

Care to provide us with a link to this interview?  

18 hours ago, Son of Man said:

I agree.  I will even say some of Jon's decisions point towards insanity.  The mission to hardhome is one such.  We don't even need to mention the execution of Janos Slynt.  That was crazy.

Killing Slynt was not necessarily crazy but it is proof of why Jon is not fit to lead.  

15 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think there are several hints that families marrying outside their own culture is a good thing, mostly in the melting pot idea with the Andals, Rhoynar, and First Men.

The Targaryens are relatively new to the "melting pot" idea with Dorne and Lyanna. So...Baby steps. 

Jon is symbolic of the line moving away from blood purity. He's also as far removed from Targ culture/mentality as possible. This is important. 

Fire + fire for blood purity is what makes people a bit...let's say..."off."

Jon is symbolic of somebody like Rhaegar and Brandon.  Extremely flawed people with a fatal weakness that kept them from doing their duties.  The wall will fall because Jon can't keep to his job.  

15 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

"Crazy" is the absolute last thing that was.

In a military order, when a junior officer publicly refuses a direct order from his Lord Commander - rejects said order multiple times, in fact - and insults the LC personally as well, it would be crazy to let Slynt get away with that. Jon's executing Slynt was just, proper and correct. Not crazy.

I will agree it wasn't crazy but it is proof for why Jon is not fit to lead people.  He can lead the Stark wolf pack when they are on their second lives as direwolves.  He's fit for that.  But to lead people, no way.  

14 hours ago, Starkz said:

The Targaryen madness is overrated imo. The saying the “gods flip a coin” is just an embellishment since the Targaryens that were mad/bad were so reknown. I think legitimately their was about 5 or less that could be qualified as “mad”. Being a shit person also doesn’t make you mad which is what Viserys was. 

It is wildly exaggerated.  I read Fire and Blood and it proved the scarcity of madness in the family.  It was an exaggeration because the history that we have been reading in the main books were coming from the perspective of Baratheon-Stark supporters.  FB is revealing.  Well, as much as George ever reveals.  

15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This is a off. Slynt had a significant following in the watch. He is not hated in story by the brotherhood as much as he is near universally hated by the fandom. To many brothers at least at Castleblack he wasn’t a despicable piece of shit. And many did have less than positive reactions towards Jon’s proclamation. It was a very tense situation because of that. 

There was clearly not a consensus of Jon’s action being right. Not to say if there was Jon’s action would be. Same if the opposite were true-that everyone thought Jon wasn’t acting Justly doesn’t mean he wasn’t.

Slynt was a popular guy.  He indeed had a following.  Jon wasted an opportunity to win them over for the sake of revenge.  I don't think Jon was crazy at that moment but he is not emotionally balanced.  His judgment was and is very poor.  Jon is totally not qualified nor fit to lead.  

13 hours ago, Great Oshiro said:

Not really.  Jon has the same chances as any other Targaryen of going mad.  If he is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna to begin with.  Heaven knows, Lyanna had her own issues.  Having the wolfblood is not a positive thing. 

He has the same chances.  I agree.  No more, no less.  

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes, he a Prince of 22, was vain, proud, and changeable. Quite honestly man those traits, far from being atypical, to noblemen in general are pretty common to find. You could probably say this of most of the nobles we see-especially when looking at the youths-have those traits in spades. Kinda natural to develop when you’re raised being told you’re apart/the top of a special caste in your society. Which shows Viserys would probably be as other said-a mediocre king.

Aerys lived a life of pure luxury and for much of his life he didn’t actually have a care in the world. Honestly, if Viserys was of the same mental state of his father, or looked to already have his psyche crumbling by age seven he’d be stark raving mad by the time we see him in AGOT(as his father was)  given the intense pressure that’s been placed upon him at a young age.

Jaime is like that.  And lumpy stumpy wouldn't even make a mediocre king.  He'd be terrible.

 

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

×