Jump to content
Black Dragons

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

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

If I could think of a Stark who actually parallels Viserys (apples to apples) I would criticize them in the same way, but lucky for me, a defensive Stark fan, GRRM hasn't written one. 

Many of the Starks are much worse than Viserys.  Arya, for example.  

Share this post


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

Many of the Starks are much worse than Viserys.  Arya, for example.  

You're right, Arya was completely unable to cope with her gigantic drop in class status so she lashes out and bullies her powerless siblings and seeks to invade the 7 kingdoms. Why did I not see this similarity before!

Arya has killed more people than Viserys. So I guess that's Viserys' redeeming quality, he didn't kill anyone (even though he really, really wanted to). Character X is just as BAD as Character Y is a funny way of defending characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, broken one said:

Psychopathy is not mental illness afaik. Moreover I do not think every murderer and rapist has to be a psychopath. Rhaegel was mentally ill... maybe. Or maybe he just had fun dancing naked.

I am not sure what to think about such real world phenomena in context of asoiaf. We know that genetics in the books is quite "specific". Are there bacteria in the world of the ice and fire at all?

 

Theoretically, yes there are bacteria. 

Genetics in asoiaf are kinda funny, to be honest. For example, Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen are said to all be Cersei and Jaime’s children because of their appearances and that they don’t look like Robert. But then we have Ned’s children who mostly resemble Catelyn, with the exception of Arya. So would that mean that Catelyn’s cheating on Ned? I hope not. Plus, Craster’s daughters look perfectly normal despite lots of inbreeding, as do Viserys and Daenerys.

Share this post


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

Many of the Starks are much worse than Viserys.  Arya, for example.  

Would Arya cut her unborn nephew from Sansa’s womb or say she’d have 40,000 men and their horses screw her? I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/21/2019 at 6:08 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

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.

You’ve literally put forth his instance of trading Daenerys for an army in contrast to the Starks as proof the Targyens are unhealthily obsessive. Yes, a house arranged a marriage that is in alighn with strengthening or maintaining it’s military/political  power-how weird. Honestly, though you’ve acted as if the Starks would/have never done this thing. You’ve also refused to acknowledge Robb basically selling his sisters to keep his army intact-just so he could pursue his war he’s primarily fighting for vegence.

You’re condemning them for yes, doing what everyone else in their caste has done.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

You’ve literally put forth his instance of trading Daenerys for an army in contrast to the Starks as proof the Targyens are unhealthily obsessive. Yes, a house arranged a marriage that is in alighn with strengthening or maintaining it’s military/political  power-how weird. Honestly, though you’ve acted as if the Starks would/have never done this thing. You’ve also refused to acknowledge Robb basically selling his sisters to keep his army intact-just so he could pursue his war he’s primarily fighting for vegence.

You’re condemning them for yes, doing what everyone else in their caste has done.

Yes, they are both trying to fight a war to avenge the deaths of their fathers and marriage alliances are made. The parallels end there. Then contrasts kick in. Robb was trying to free his father; Viserys was trying to put himself on the throne. Robb earned the support of his people, Viserys was unable to earn a single follower. One's murdered father was a moral, just man; the other was a raging pyromaniac. Robb's flaw is that he loved the wrong woman and in a moment of weakness wavered in his quest for vengeance. Viserys' flaw is that he loved nothing but the idea of vengeance. Does Robb pinch Arya's nipples and control what she has to wear so she can please Walder Frey's son? Is Robb even anywhere near Arya when he makes this marriage alliance? Don't you think if the author wanted to make a legitimate Viserys/Robb parallel he would have made the effort to write that in?

Robb apologizes to his mother, admitting to her that she was right, that he should have listened to her about his sisters. I could never in my life see Viserys doing that. Viserys, admitting to a woman in his family, that he should have listened to her?

Can you see Viserys saying this:

“I know,” her son said, stricken. “I’ve made a botch of everything but the battles, haven’t I? I thought the battles would be the hard part, but . . . if I had listened to you and kept Theon as my hostage, I’d still rule the north, and Bran and Rickon would be alive and safe in Winterfell.”

Can you see Robb saying this:

“Illyrio is no fool,” Viserys said. He was a gaunt young man with nervous hands and a feverish look in his pale lilac eyes. “The magister knows that I will not forget my friends when I come into my throne." ...Dany listened to the talk in the streets, and she heard these things, but she knew better than to question her brother when he wove his webs of dream. His anger was a terrible thing when roused. Viserys called it “waking the dragon.”

Can you see Robb causing so much fear in his family members they have to stay silent around him? Dany says that Viserys' loss of status drove him mad in the end. He was obsessed with his lost possessions, he couldn't let it go. Selling his mother's crown was the last straw, it seems. Robb does not have a parallel here. 

So how are they similar again?

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


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

Yes, they are both trying to fight a war to avenge the deaths of their fathers and marriage alliances are made. The parallels end there. Then contrasts kick in. Robb was trying to free his father; 

Yeah  Robb started fighting to free his father. Then Ned died, and his main priority became avenging his father. To which he was willing to sacrifice his sacrifice his sisters for.

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Robb earned the support of his people, Viserys was unable to earn a single follower.

Point other than Robb is so much more  awesome than Viserys? How does this specifically relate to Robb’s decision to abandon his sisters to keep his rebellion alive?

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

One's murdered father was a moral, just man; the other was a raging pyromaniac.

To Viserys his doteful father, wasn’t raging pyromaniac anymore than Ned Stark was a traitor to Robb. To Viserys he wouldn’t be avenging an evil man, but a morally just man, who was a good father. 

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Robb's flaw is that he loved the wrong woman and in a moment of weakness wavered in his quest for vengeance. Viserys' flaw is that he loved nothing but the idea of vengeance.

Robb’s major  flaw is he never truly wavered in his desire for vegence. It doesn’t really what evidence the enemies that killed them presented their view would never change. The difference is that Robb so happens to be right about his father. 

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Does Robb pinch Arya's nipples and control what she has to wear so she can please Walder Frey's son?

No, he simply refuses to trade Jaimie for her and Sansa as it seemed to be the end of his quest for vegence. For all he knows, pinched nipples is a type of abuse she would endure at the Redkeep. Though, just Sansa was beaten, and publicly stripped while in Lannister captivity. 

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Is Robb even anywhere near Arya when he makes this marriage alliance?

No? He doesn’t need her to be, nor does he pretend, her input is a major factor in the decision of who she marries. 

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Don't you think if the author wanted to make a legitimate Viserys/Robb parallel he would have made the effort to write that in?

Don’t you think it’s a little ridiculous to pretend abandoning your sisters to keep your army and trading your sister to get an army are so different morally? Don’t you think if the author wanted to portray the act of selling family members for political/military strength an act only done by really bad guys, we wouldn’t see decent guys like Robb do it and instead just scumbags like Viserys?

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Robb apologizes to his mother, admitting to her that she was right, that he should have listened to her about his sisters. I could never in my life see Viserys doing that. Viserys, admitting to a woman in his family, that he should have listened to her?

You specifically cut off what reason he gives for why he’s wrong: "I should have traded the Kingslayer for Sansa when you first urged it," Robb said as they walked the gallery. "If I'd offered to wed her to the Knight of Flowers, the Tyrellsmight be ours instead of Joffrey's. I should have thought of that."

He’s admitting he’s wrong because he could have sold off Sansa to get an army. Not because now regrets he would probably never see his sister again. He loves them but he says he’s regretting his action decision because they were really useful bargaining chips.

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Can you see Robb saying this:

I can’t see Robb doing a lot things Viserys did; but I did see him sell out his sisters for the blood-feud just as Viserys did. You take Viserys’ doing so, as solid proof that the Targyens are so unreasonabley obsseuvive, but when Robb sells his sisters out for his blood-feud, that doesn’t matter to you.

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

So how are they similar again?

In that they’ve both basically sold out their sisters in their quest for vegence. Most of your points are just in support of the idea of Robb being a better guy than Viserys. Something I wasn’t disputing, but it’s apparently far easier to argue against this  straw man, than to explain how Robb didn’t sell out his sisters for his war-effort, or why you’re only condemn House Targyen for literally doing what literally everyone else in their caste(including the Starks) have done/do-which is basically sell their members through marrying them off to families that could secure/increase their military/political power. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

In that they’ve both basically sold out their sisters in their quest for vegence. Most of your points are just in support of the idea of Robb being a better guy than Viserys. Something I wasn’t disputing, but it’s apparently far easier to argue against that straw man, than to explain how Robb didn’t sell out his sisters for his war-effort.

This is why I used the literary phrase "mirror characters" upthread to explain how similar situations =/= similar characters. You were forcing me to admit they had similar situations when I already admitted that. 

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I can’t see Robb doing a lot things Viserys did; but I did see him sell out his sisters for the blood-feud just as Viserys did. You take Viserys’ doing so, as solid proof that the Targyens are so unreasonabley obsseuvive, but when Robb sells his sisters out for his blood-feud, that doesn’t matter to you.

Personally, I was hoping Robb could rescue his Dad at that point, so I was like "wow Arya will hate this but I guess that's the price they gotta pay." In contrast, I didn't cheer for Viserys to win by using Dany.

I also didn't feel like "oh my gosh this is so contradictory on my part, but Viserys is doing the exact same thing! I shouldn't judge Viserys!" 

Maybe this is because the author didn't frame Viserys as sympathetically as he did Robb/The Starks? The books appear to have an inherent Stark bias...not my fault. And using Viserys to reveal Stark greyness isn't very effective, there are other characters that do this better.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You specifically cut off what reason he gives for why he’s wrong: "I should have traded the Kingslayer for Sansa when you first urged it," Robb said as they walked the gallery. "If I'd offered to wed her to the Knight of Flowers, the Tyrellsmight be ours instead of Joffrey's. I should have thought of that."

He’s admitting he’s wrong because he could have sold off Sansa to get an army. Not because now regrets he would probably never see his sister again. 

He's admitting he should have played the game smarter. The whole context of the quote is that he's admitting his faults which is something Viserys is incapable of. Another instance of mirror characters

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Don’t you think it’s a little ridiculous to pretend abandoning your sisters to keep your army and trading your sister to get an army are so different morally? Don’t you think if the author wanted to portray the act of selling family members for political/military strength an act only done by really bad guys, we wouldn’t see decent guys like Robb like Robb do it and instead just scumbags like Viserys?

Sansa being sold to the Tyrells is something she would want, considering her desires later. So if its something Sansa wants, I'm fine with it morally. It would also help the Starks' cause, something Sansa might want. Dany doesn't want to be sold off to a barbarian horselord AT ALL. But since Robb/Viserys are mirror characters there's not really much to dispute since this term explains how they are still characterized differently despite the similar situations they're in. 

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Robb’s major  flaw is he never truly wavered in his desire for vegence. It doesn’t really what evidence the enemies that killed them presented their view would never change. The difference is that Robb so happens to be right about his father. 

He kind of did waver, when he decided to march back home to Winterfell.

I don't understand the rest of what you're saying. 

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

To Viserys his doteful father, wasn’t raging pyromaniac anymore than Ned Stark was a traitor to Robb. To Viserys he wouldn’t be avenging an evil man, but a morally just man, who was a good father. 

Yes, and this is why, perhaps some readers are led to sympathize more with Robb. I'm not sure what you want readers to do? Recognize that they're caught in a contradiction for judging Viserys wrongly in comparison to Robb? As I said before, I don't feel contradictory about that. 

He was a real brother to Dany when he helped her survive in Essos. But he was also a manic, obsessed creep who couldn't adapt to living like a commoner and I can't sympathize with that. 

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No, he simply refuses to trade Jaimie for her and Sansa as it seemed to be the end of his quest for vegence. For all he knows, pinched nipples is a type of abuse she would endure at the Redkeep. Though, just Sansa was beaten, and publicly stripped. 

Keep it apples to apples here. Robb vs. Viserys and how they treat their sisters when they are in their presence. It's not remotely the same to directly abuse your sister vs. make the politically difficult choice not to rescue her. Of course Robb looks like an asshole here. But still not as flawed as Viserys. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


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

Sansa being sold to the Tyrells is something she would want, considering her desires later. So if its something Sansa wants, I'm fine with it morally. It would also help the Starks' cause. Dany doesn't want to be sold off to a barbarian horselord AT ALL. But since Robb/Viserys are mirror characters there's not really much to dispute since this term explains how they are still characterized differently despite the similar situations they're in

Sansa’s and Daenerys desires for marriage isn’t really presented as a factor in either of their brothers decision on the topic of who they should marry.  Robb did not once even imply he thought the marriage would have made his sister happy-that isn’t really more important to him than it was when he agreed to Marry Arya off to a Frey-something he knows she wouldn’t like at all.

Their desires don’t matter. It’s their duty to marry the man who bring him and by extension House Stark the most power. 

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yes, and this is why, perhaps some readers are led to sympathize more with Robb. I'm not sure what you want readers to do? Recognize that they're caught in a contradiction for judging Viserys wrongly in comparison to Robb? As I said before, I don't feel contradictory about that. 

I would like you specifically to stop needlessly falsely framing  a characters’ basic action , as being so much worse  than another character’s action you like more who does basically the same thing.

 

You keep doing this thing where you condemn House Targyen as acting like a typical noble house would. To selling members through marriage, to procure/maintain power to simply waging a blood-feud in response to perceived slights done to their family. 

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Keep it apples to apples here. Robb vs. Viserys and how they treat their sisters when they are in their presence. It's not remotely the same to directly abuse your sister vs. make the politically difficult choice not to rescue her. Of course Robb looks like an asshole here. But still not as flawed as Viserys. 

There’s really not much difference in abusing your sister in pursuit of your vegence vs allowing them to be abused in pursuit of your vegence. Robb’s motivations for his decision to let his sisters be kept by the Lannister  aren’t really better than Viserys’ decision to sell Daenerys to Drogo. That being power and revenge. The result is the same with a little girl being beaten by a grown man and terrorized. Robb simply feels bad for doing it and only began to regret it once he realized he could’ve sold his sisters to get even more power than he’d lose by foresaking them to remain captive. . Please explain why beating your sister to do something to increase your power, so you could wage a blood feud, is much better than allowing your sisters to be beaten and sexually abused so you can maintain your power so are able to wage a bloodfeud.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

This is why I used the literary phrase "mirror characters" upthread to explain how similar situations =/= similar characters. You were forcing me to admit they had similar situations when I already admitted that. 

It’s not just them being in similar situations. Their actions in these situations aren’t really different in any meaningful way. Robb in a situation where had to choose their political power and revenge or their sister, Robb like Viserys chose the former. And his pursuit of fulfilling his finial duties-that is to avenge his father. He became so singulary obsess with duty in the end of his life, his only response Cat explaining he basically lost the war, and the best thing for him, his wife and his future children is too submit, is simply stating the Lannisters killed Ned. He was far from accepting his loss and valuing what he has. I’m forcing to explain why you’re holding the Targyens to a much higher standard than other houses in story. When a Targyen does what most Houses your quick to condemn them.  Most of your last response was basically Viserys is a worse man than Robb was.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

I wouldn't say the books are written to be biased towards the Starks.  The HBO show is shamelessly biased towards the Starks.  And I canceled my HBO for it.  The books are not.  George lets the chips fall where they may and the readers decide for themselves.  So the books are not written with a Stark biased but rather the Starks fans refuse to acknowledge their sins.  

Actually no, the HBO show is shamelessly biased towards the Lannisters not the Starks.

Share this post


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

 The HBO show is shamelessly biased towards the Starks.  And I canceled my HBO for it.  

:lmao::lol: :drunk: :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/22/2019 at 7:01 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I would like you specifically to stop needlessly falsely framing  a characters’ basic action , as being so much worse  than another character’s action you like more who does basically the same thing.

 

You keep doing this thing where you condemn House Targyen as acting like a typical noble house would. To selling members through marriage, to procure/maintain power to simply waging a blood-feud in response to perceived slights done to their family. 

I don't believe everyone who plays the game of thrones have all crossed the same moral event horizon and should be viewed the same way in terms of personal morality. Viserys crossed it further than Robb by being directly abusive. His abuse of Dany wasnt just a personal trait independent of politics, he harmed her directly to get her to do what he needed. 

On 3/22/2019 at 7:11 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s not just them being in similar situations. Their actions in these situations aren’t really different in any meaningful way. Robb in a situation where had to choose their political power and revenge or their sister, Robb like Viserys chose the former. And his pursuit of fulfilling his finial duties-that is to avenge his father. He became so singulary obsess with duty in the end of his life, his only response Cat explaining he basically lost the war, and the best thing for him, his wife and his future children is too submit, is simply stating the Lannisters killed Ned. He was far from accepting his loss and valuing what he has. I’m forcing to explain why you’re holding the Targyens to a much higher standard than other houses in story. When a Targyen does what most Houses your quick to condemn them.  Most of your last response was basically Viserys is a worse man than Robb was.

Their ambitions aren't the same at all in terms of sizeable egos. Did Robb want all 7 kingdoms? He only wanted the kingdoms who declared for him. He was fighting to protect the borders of his kingdom. He was retreating to go home to Winterfell because he realized he had bitten off more than he could chew and needed to protect his own castle. I'm just saying...Viserys would have never done that. I think the main difference between Robb and Viserys is that Robb was trying to free his father and seek justice for their men who were wrongly killed while Viserys was trying to reclaim all 7 kingdoms that his family lost through a justified rebellion.

I do hold Targaryens to a higher standard because overall, they have the most power. And once dragons are grown Dany will be the most powerful person in the world. People with the MOST power should be scrutinized MORE because how they wield it affects the MOST people. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Actually no, the HBO show is shamelessly biased towards the Lannisters not the Starks.

Right? They are way more sympathetic on the show than in the books. 

Share this post


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

don't believe everyone who plays the game of thrones have all crossed the same moral event horizon and should be viewed the same way in terms of personal morality. Viserys crossed it further than Robb by being directly abusive. His abuse of Dany wasnt just a personal trait independent of politics, he harmed her directly to get her to do what he needed. 

Here I was just criticizing you about condemning Viserys seeking revenge of his father, yet not doing the same thing to Robb who sought the same thing. The only real difference you gave is that one father was a decent guy-as if Viserys knew/thought his beloved father evil.

I did not mention abuse here.

But I will however say you’ve failed explain why allowing your sisters to be beaten and sexually abused, to get power to wage a blood feud is so much better than directly abusing your sister to get power to wage a blood feud.

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Their ambitions aren't the same at all in terms of sizeable egos. Did Robb want all 7 kingdoms?

No, he just wanted his northern kingdom. Such a humble desire.

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

He only wanted the kingdoms who declared for him.

You know the majority of his vassals were not actually there at the meeting to declare him King right? He demanded fealty from them, he did not simply accept a consensus of thought around the north that he should be king.

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

He was fighting to protect the borders of his kingdom.

He was mostly fighting for revenge. As shown when that literally is the only reason he gives to Catelyn for why he cannot bend the knee to the Lannisters.

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

He was retreating to go home to Winterfell because he realized he had bitten off more than he could chew and needed to protect his own castle.

I believe he also needed to you know destroy the Ironborn invading his lands but you know.

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I'm just saying...Viserys would have never done that.

Meh Viserys  probably would have  fell back to a more defensive position if his life at stake. 

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think the main difference between Robb and Viserys is that Robb was trying to free his father and seek justice for their men who were wrongly killed while Viserys was trying to reclaim all 7 kingdoms that his family lost through a justified rebellion.

Robb had no more idea of Ned being wrongly killed than Viserys did. They’re both operating off of the assumption whatever excuse their fathers’ killers give merely is a lie. Robb would just happen to be right. 

 

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

I do hold Targaryens to a higher standard because overall, they have the most power. And once dragons are grown Dany will be the most powerful person in the world. People with the MOST power should be scrutinized MORE because how they wield it affects the MOST people. 

This is ridiculous. Viserys did not have the most power. In anything by the end of his life. Yet you’re categorized his actions that are on par with typical noblemen as being so wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 2:24 PM, Sophia [email protected] said:

Stannis in the books didn't burn followers of faith that is show version.  I think what you are talk about House Blank (I forget their name) were piss off at Stannis about the burning of Faith statues.  His brother law was burn for being traitor and not for taking down his Faith statues. Viserys in the show version was 4 years old yes he had emotional issued due to his upbringing and the constant stress of living in the street also a 300 years dynasty to maintain and try to bring back yes, but his treated of Dany was terrible and his ignorance of Horse people that they must bow down to him because of his blood.  The real world doesn't work like that he should learn that from the streets.  He wanted to live in his fantasy world.

 

ps yes Stannis did assassinating his brother.

Stannis burned his men for the crime of cannibalism.  He made them march, couldn't provide food, and they ate the dead.  He burned them for it.  

Share this post


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

But I will however say you’ve failed explain why allowing your sisters to be beaten and sexually abused, to get power to wage a blood feud is so much better than directly abusing your sister to get power to wage a blood feud.

Robb didn't directly violate his sister's bodily autonomy by grabbing her, pinching her breasts, unnecessarily controlling what she had to wear/say/do around her betrothed, so that he could pursue an unjustified war. That's the difference.

And Robb admitted he made a mistake with Sansa, so I'm good with his characterization in this regard. It makes Robb look more human. The author chose that brush to paint him with.  

Yes, I'm mad at Robb for abandoning Sansa, but as someone who is also interested in the other Starks, I also understand that Sansa has her own story independent of Robb's, and if he had rescued her, it would have stunted her characterization.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Robb had no more idea of Ned being wrongly killed than Viserys did. They’re both operating off of the assumption whatever excuse their fathers’ killers give merely is a lie. Robb would just happen to be right. 

That he happens to be right is because the author chose to write it that way. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh Viserys  probably would have  fell back to a more defensive position if his life at stake. 

He had many chances to "retreat" in Book 1 but he kept pushing it, not realizing the danger he was in so...I doubt it. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I believe he also needed to you know destroy the Ironborn invading his lands but you know.

Yes. And we directly witness these betrayals in real time, which is why it's much easier to have sympathy for Robb returning to Winterfell than Viserys returning to Westeros. There's a reason Viserys gets the flashback treatment--we're not supposed to care what he thinks. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He was mostly fighting for revenge. As shown when that literally is the only reason he gives to Catelyn for why he cannot bend the knee to the Lannisters.

Rescuing Ned is the origin of Robb's war. The origin of Viserys' war is revenge. These are written differently to evoke different emotions in the reader. And, the idea that every single war must be held as morally equivalent isn't even in the author's own politics. GRRM is a critic of unjust war, and while he's said he thinks certain wars are more "noble" than others, from a writer's perspective he needs to make it seem like every war in the story is equivalent, so as not to make it very blatantly obvious that the Targaryens are aggressive conquerors hellbent on dominating all the other Houses. So that the readers can be surprised when they actually end up the antagonists in Westeros at the end of the story. 

"I’m forcing to explain why you’re holding the Targyens to a much higher standard than other houses in story." 

I gave you my answer. In general, they have had - and will have - the most power. That's why I hold them to a higher standard, collectively, as a House.

No "typical nobleman" is invading Westeros from across the narrow sea with a Dothraki horde, expecting them to violate their own customs of never crossing the sea, and constantly disrespecting them by calling them filthy savage horselords. That's just, so...extra. And hey, don't Targaryens do exceptional things? Madness/greatness and all. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

I must say the HBO show is very sympathetic towards a character that I absolutely do not like, Jaime Lannister.  

Jaime's always been the most sympathetic of the main Lannisters to me. He's just been twisted by his father and sister. He tried to act honorably for much of his life, but it just screwed him over, again and again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wrong forum

Edited by kissdbyfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/21/2019 at 9:29 AM, Morte said:

I also agree that Barristan is anachronistic in his analysis of Viserys: His fathers doting on him and what Viserys became (or better: what he heard about Viserys) made Barristan think he inherited his fathers madness.

You know I can’t help but picture Selmy just looking at 6 or 5 year old Viserys deciding not to eat something and then changing his mind immediately. Totally normal for a 6 year old to do, but I just giggle at the prospect of Barristan looking at such an instance with horror and categoling it as proof the boy is going to go mad like good ole dad.

Honestly, he really is vague on what exactly he saw in Viserys that was so peculiar.

It really couldn’t have been much given there really hasn’t been any tales that we know of Viserys being queer during that time in his life.

Also, you’re right in the controversy centered around Daenerys marriage being that she married a “savage”. If it had been a good proper nobleman who’d prove to be a worse husband than Drogo, there wouldn’t be any criticism.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

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

×