Jump to content
Black Dragons

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

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Wrong place

You’re not specifically quoting or referring to anyone so it’s pretty hard to gleam what you’re talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 7:49 PM, Jabar of House Titan said:

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

It's very biased towards the Starks.  That's my problem with the show. Because I don't like the Starks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, at least with Targaryens, insanity depends largely on how one reacts to dragon dreams and the outside perception of those that surround the individual. For instance, when Dany enters Drogo's funeral pyre, it probably seemed to people who were watching that that she'd had some sort of mental breakdown. But then dragons were born, so everyone assumed she was actually the most smart. 

And yet, other Targaryens did things that seem crazy believing that it would bring dragons back based on their dragon dreams. But they didn't. So everyone thinks they're crazy even though it was likely that the conditions simply weren't right for dragons to be reborn as they were with Dany, but the basic premise was correct. 

Share this post


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

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,

Robb didn’t directly abuse his sisters in pursuit of his blood feud. That has been established. I’m asking you to explain why allowing his sister to beaten, sexually degraded and terrorized because he wants revenge and power, is better than Viserys directly abusing Daenerys in his pursuit of revenge and power. 

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

that he could pursue an unjustified war. That's the difference.

Viserys has much justification for pursuing his war than Robb. Far as he knows the usurpers murdered the majority of his family. The Lannisters killed Robb’s father.  Neither really is shown to care to see if the allegations by their father’s enemies had merit. It doesn’t really matter what reason the Lannisters gave for why they took Ned’s head-it could have been because he raped Joffery, or because he saved a cat Joffery wanted to torture. The thing that matters is that his father was killed. We see the same thing with his beheading of Rickard Karstark-it doesn’t really matter that Robb was justified in taking the man’s lifeThe issue is him having done it all together. 

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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

As has been pointed out he only regrets because he could have sold to the Tyrells.

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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 characteriza

And if Viserys didn’t sell Daenerys to Drogo her character arc would have never progressed. What’s your point?

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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

12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh my god really? I thought GRRM was simply put under a spell and typed the series. Honestly man, what’s your rebuttal?

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yes

Glad it’s been established he wasn’t just showing he realized he bit off more than he could chew.

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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.

Not really sure which betrayals you’re talking about here.

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Rescuing Ned is the origin of Robb's war. The origin of Viserys' war is revenge.

Again the only reason Robb gives for why he’s fighting the war post-AGOT is revenge. 

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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,

Yeah Wars to save mankind(such as we see with Jon and Stannis are currently waging), and wars to end a gross atrocity for example  slavery in a place(what Daenerys has waged), seem to be at least slightly better than Wars primarily fought for revenge. 

I don’t think we’re supposed to see this interaction: 

“y face the fires.”
“Did Aegon kill King Torrhen’s father?” He pulled his hand from hers. “Never, I said.”
He is playing the boy now, not the king. “The Lannisters do not need the north. They will require homage and hostages, no more … and the Imp will keep Sansa no matter what we do, so they have their hostage. The ironmen will prove a more implacable enemy, I promise you. To have any hope of holding the north, the Greyjoys must leave no single sprig of House Stark alive to dispute their right. Theon’s murdered Bran and Rickon, so now all they need do is kill you … and Jeyne, yes. Do you think Lord Balon can afford to let her live to bear you heirs?”
Robb’s face was cold. “Is that why you freed the Kingslayer? To make a peace with the Lannisters?”
“I freed Jaime for Sansa 

“and Arya’s, if she still lives. You know that.”

“Do you think I have forgotten that?”
“I don’t know. Have you?”

And take  Robb’s rebellion is motivated by good intent. That this war is noble. That Robb is doing the right thing in waging it even when it’s clear he’s lost.

 

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

So that the readers can be surprised when they actually end up the antagonists in Westeros at the end of the story. 

And now this is pure speculation on how you think Martin will write the final books. 

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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.

Typical noblemen, routinely sell family members, through marriage  to bolster their house’s power either to maintain what is theirs by blood right or obtain what they think is there’s by blood right.  That was the nature of your complaint-that Viserys sold Daenerys for an army just to get the throne.  Something most lords do in regards to their kin, for a lot less..

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

It's very biased towards the Starks.  That's my problem with the show. Because I don't like the Starks.

I completely disagree.

The Starks have been completely nerfed. In the books, all of them are proven or heavily implied to having the magical power of skinchanging. Bran is even more powerful in the books, able to speak through ravens and weirwoods. And the Lady Stoneheart story seems to have been completely forgotten and omitted.

The North does not remember because they just let the Starks hang out to dry. A lot of the lords knew Sansa was being held against her will and tortured in Winterfell and did nothing. Sansa and Jon asked several lords to help them save Rickon, their rightful Stark overlord. They said no and Rickon died.

Arya's post-season 4 storyline got very messy at the end. Sansa's post-season 4 storyline was a purposeless horror-show that shipwrecked several other character arcs not only Sansa's. Bran's post-season 4 storyline doesn't exist because he's become a one-note robot. Rickon was forgotten and ignored up until season six and only brought back for the purpose of making Ramsay look even more of a threat (aka overkill)...so Rickon was an afterthought.

The show is not biased towards the Starks.

Share this post


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

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.

That's why I think he reinterpreted "things" he saw/remembered from the end, and he's not at all specific. Maybe Viserys was suffering from one or two seizures as a child (a friend of mine had two while he was in primary school, but never again since, he's thirty now), and now, with the knowledge of what became of him, Barristan is over-interpreting this things. :dunno:

Maybe he will be more specific in one of the next books, until then I stay by my opinion: Viserys was an asshole, but not mad.

Share this post


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

I completely disagree.

The Starks have been completely nerfed. In the books, all of them are proven or heavily implied to having the magical power of skinchanging. Bran is even more powerful in the books, able to speak through ravens and weirwoods. And the Lady Stoneheart story seems to have been completely forgotten and omitted.

The North does not remember because they just let the Starks hang out to dry. A lot of the lords knew Sansa was being held against her will and tortured in Winterfell and did nothing. Sansa and Jon asked several lords to help them save Rickon, their rightful Stark overlord. They said no and Rickon died.

Arya's post-season 4 storyline got very messy at the end. Sansa's post-season 4 storyline was a purposeless horror-show that shipwrecked several other character arcs not only Sansa's. Bran's post-season 4 storyline doesn't exist because he's become a one-note robot. Rickon was forgotten and ignored up until season six and only brought back for the purpose of making Ramsay look even more of a threat (aka overkill)...so Rickon was an afterthought.

The show is not biased towards the Starks.

Meh sort of. I think they were the north and Starks were handled poorly. Honestly, I thought show Jon got the worst of it. I felt he was in fact the sentimental fool Marsh thinks Book Jon is.I could see show whining about Book Jon daring to take on children as hostages to insure their kin’s good behavior. And that’s hopefully the only thing I’ll say on this topic forever.

Share this post


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

That's why I think he reinterpreted "things" he saw/remembered from the end, and he's not at all specific. Maybe Viserys was suffering from one or two seizures as a child (a friend of mine had two while he was in primary school, but never again since, he's thirty now), and now, with the knowledge of what became of him, Barristan is over-interpreting this things. :dunno:

Maybe he will be more specific in one of the next books, until then I stay by my opinion: Viserys was an asshole, but not mad.

Fair enough. Though I do think this is the right estimate. Another thing to consider is that Barristan who seems to be the only one around Viserys’ life at that point to have called him mad that early. If he was so clearly not all there why wouldn’t Jaimie, or Tywin, remember Viserys being especially queer that age? It could have been useful propaganda against him no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 8:32 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.

Yeah, Aerys II simply is not even remotely as bad as those Targaryens who were sadists from childhood or youth - Maegor, Daemon, Aegon II, Aemond, Aerion, etc. all show much worse tendencies than Aerys II for most of his life. And what makes Aerys II cruel is just his paranoia - which is clearly part of an actual mental illness worsened by Duskendale - not a natural tendencies or obsession with violence.

Granted, the paranoia angle certainly makes Aerys II more unpredictable and, in scale, perhaps worse than Aerion (who never ruled) or Daemon (who softened in later life and was able to use cruelty in small doses rather than an all-out mad fit of rage) but the thing is just that madness of the type of Aerys II isn't even remotely 'destined' to transform somebody who may or may not have inherited that trait into a cruel monster. For that Aerys II had - unlike Maegor or Aerion or Aemond - to actually live through certain traumas and go through certain experiences.

And Viserys III didn't make any of those.

On 3/18/2019 at 8:32 AM, Morte said:

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.

Yes, Viserys III is about completely different things as his father. He wants back what he once had, he doesn't want to crush imagined or real rebellions, and he doesn't really think everybody is out to get him (just Robert, and he has actually a reason to believe that).

Dany clearly loves her brother more than she hates him. Her own emancipation process from him - which also results in her getting far too attached to her new role as a Dothraki khaleesi from which she only later starts to free herself - causes her to distance herself to a very strong degree from him - which is inevitable when you realize that the parent you always have looked up to is actually a pitiful and rather impotent creature you never had any reason to fear. And, certainly, his threats to her unborn child really cause he to burn all bridges to that guy in that moment - but this doesn't last. She remembers him later on as her brother and he actually comes back in a rather unexpected manner in ADwD, helping her to remember who she truly is.

On 3/18/2019 at 8:32 AM, Morte said:

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

The way he is willing to basically give Illyrio half his kingdom's wealth in exchange for his rather meager support very much shows where Viserys' priorities as a king would have been - to reward his friends, not eradicate invented enemies. Avenging his father and brother, nephew and niece, on the other hand, is his duty. There is nothing wrong with killing the Usurper's Dogs. Not by the rules of this society.

But I really don't see Viserys III ever executing innocent children.

On 3/18/2019 at 8:32 AM, Morte said:

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.

His reign would have depended greatly on the men around him. If he had married Arianne Martell things could have turned out pretty well, actually.

On 3/18/2019 at 1:03 PM, Angel Eyes said:

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

It is true that he wanted to sleep with her, but we can safely say that this wouldn't have been 'a rape' at this point. Daenerys Targaryen grew up expecting to wed her brother, and she sure as hell would have preferred Viserys in her bed then and there to Khal Drogo who she was terrified of. This thing is clearly a part of the Targaryen incest mindset. Dany had been Viserys III's from her birth. Both his daughter (since he was the only parent she ever knew), his sister, and his future queen. It is quite obvious that using her as coin to buy an army from a savage the blood of the dragon would *never* marry under normal circumstances must have been a very hard thing for him to do.

That is rather evident in his cruel words to Dany - about him allowing his entire army to fuck her, etc. He blames her for what he has to do, but he doesn't really want that to do. And he also blames her for being able to cope with the fact that they lost everything. He knows what they lost, but she doesn't. She is not unhappy with the kind of life they have, and willing and able to consider being nothing but a commoner.

This is a rather common phenomenon in people who lost their homes and people who descended from them. The latter have a new home and no emotional attachment whatsoever to the ruins of their parents and grandparents. The older generation may never feel *at home* in the new country or house they have, but the younger generation do. In a sense, Dany shows Viserys III the future of House Targaryen if he fails - a generation of Targaryens to who the Iron Throne is just a name in a distant land, not their birthright.

Dany only understands her brother's burden when he is dead. When she realizes that all that was his is now hers, and she has to continue his quest.

On 3/18/2019 at 6:02 PM, 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. 

No, they are not. The Stark children are far too young to make such decisions, but they, too, make very ugly decisions. Arya springs to mind immediately, a girl that only because of her noble upbringing in combination with her experiences in war decided to become a magical assassin. We don't really know what she plans to do with her skill set, but it is quite clear it is not to make peace with her enemies - or the enemies of House Stark.

On 3/18/2019 at 6:02 PM, 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:

Viserys III is not a main character. His story is only about the political aspect of his story - what he thinks about in his spare time we don't know. The Starks are not yet in the position to reclaim what they lost, but Arya and Sansa are approaching that level. And Jon Snow most definitely didn't shrug off the Red Wedding or Ramsay's wedding to his 'sister', never mind what he should have done. He privately admits that he actually wants to destroy House Lannister for what they did.

On 3/18/2019 at 6:02 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

“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. 

We can be sure that the Starks will also consider the Boltons 'traitors' when they finally destroy that house - assuming they will be the ones to do it and not Stannis. And they will sure as hell point out that 'the North remembers', no?

On 3/18/2019 at 6:02 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

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.

Nobody here said things are only good or possible when the Targaryens do them. In fact, this is not so much about house names but people, and it is quite clear that Viserys III has the same 'right' to reclaim his birthright than Bran and Rickon and Arya and Sansa and Jon have to reclaim their birthright. Because, you know, neither of them cares that Robb Stark actually warred against King Joffrey. No Stark thinks they lost their right to Winterfell because their brother was a false king and a traitor and that Theon Greyjoy taking Winterfell from them forever ousted them from the North or their castle.

If Viserys III and Dany have a right to reclaim what their kin lost, then the Starks have that right, too, and vice versa. And that is certainly a main point in the story. One cannot cite sympathy here or claim that you have to behave a certain way, to be a certain way, to have a right to demand the restoration of your birthright in such setting. 

Share this post


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

Meh sort of. I think they were the north and Starks were handled poorly. Honestly, I thought show Jon got the worst of it. I felt he was in fact the sentimental fool Marsh thinks Book Jon is.I could see show whining about Book Jon daring to take on children as hostages to insure their kin’s good behavior. And that’s hopefully the only thing I’ll say on this topic forever.

Jon did get the worst of it. I just decided to focus on the trueborn Starks.

But yeah: the plight of the Targaryens is actually one in the same as the plight of the Starks. In fact, the domains of the Starks and the Targaryens (the North and all of the Seven Kingdoms) would have been much more stable if those families had never been brutalized and displaced.

The only difference between the two families are their value systems and how they process their displacement. The current generation of Starks are honor-bound dreamers overflowing with goodwill -- with the youngest girl, Arya, being the exception. The current generation of Targaryens are ardent, prideful warriors and go-getters with a strong sense of self -- Daenerys, as the youngest girl, being the exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, sometimes I wonder why Robb didn't just send in a crack team to King's Landing to get Sansa (and Arya) out. He could have put Theon in charge of that, keep him well away from the Iron Islands. He could have also crunched his way south to King's Landing like Darth Vader in Rogue One to demand their release.

Still, I think he's better than Viserys, who would have cut out his unborn nephew from Daenerys' womb and tried to rape her before her wedding. After the former, Daenerys no longer considered him family.

Share this post


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

You know, sometimes I wonder why Robb didn't just send in a crack team to King's Landing to get Sansa (and Arya) out. He could have put Theon in charge of that, keep him well away from the Iron Islands. He could have also crunched his way south to King's Landing like Darth Vader in Rogue One to demand their release.

Robb was justified in his actions ... until he madly crowned himself and fought a pointless and doomed war to keep his crown and 'his kingdom' (the core of which he had already lost) rather than protect his family and subjects.

Robb never wanted to do the smart thing or the cautious thing. He insisted on being another Young Dragon. And he died just like Daeron I. 

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Still, I think he's better than Viserys, who would have cut out his unborn nephew from Daenerys' womb and tried to rape her before her wedding. After the former, Daenerys no longer considered him family.

Dany only momentarily does not consider Viserys family as I laid out above. She wouldn't have named one of her dragons after him, had thought about what she learned from him in later books, nor seen his apparition in ADwD, reminding her of crucial things if he had not been her family. He was the only parent he ever had, and she most definitely wouldn't have thought of him trying to sleep with her as 'rape', considering she grew up expecting Viserys to marry her, not some cruel savage who actually did rape her repeatedly and who nearly killed her in the process of that.

Share this post


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

Nobody here said things are only good or possible when the Targaryens do them. In fact, this is not so much about house names but people, and it is quite clear that Viserys III has the same 'right' to reclaim his birthright than Bran and Rickon and Arya and Sansa and Jon have to reclaim their birthright. Because, you know, neither of them cares that Robb Stark actually warred against King Joffrey. No Stark thinks they lost their right to Winterfell because their brother was a false king and a traitor and that Theon Greyjoy taking Winterfell from them forever ousted them from the North or their castle.

If Viserys III and Dany have a right to reclaim what their kin lost, then the Starks have that right, too, and vice versa. And that is certainly a main point in the story. One cannot cite sympathy here or claim that you have to behave a certain way, to be a certain way, to have a right to demand the restoration of your birthright in such setting. 

Don't really care about rights. I can just look at the writing choices and tell where this is going. House Stark and Targaryen are portrayed as foils in every way. "They're just doing what every other character in their class is doing" is lazy analysis. There's nothing of substance there. 

Why is it that the Houses Stark's rights are shown to antagonize a trash character like Ramsay Bolton whereas Dany and Viserys would have to conquer everyone, Starks included. This is predictive but I'm fairly certain that whatever the Starks take back won't involve denying the sovereignty of an entire kingdom. Which is why Northern Independence matters to the story and will continue to matter. The Targaryens think they own the North because they made Torrhen kneel. Nope. 

The Robb/Daeron comparison is another example of this. Both died as kings in their war and were betrayed. They had some skill with tactics. Not very profound. The more interesting stuff is in the contrasts. Robb isn't conquering a kingdom that obviously doesn't want him to be their overlord. He also didn't write his own book about his exploits so he could make himself look better.  

The majority of Targaryens are shown to have H U B R I S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 6:38 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Fair enough. Though I do think this is the right estimate. Another thing to consider is that Barristan who seems to be the only one around Viserys’ life at that point to have called him mad that early. If he was so clearly not all there why wouldn’t Jaimie, or Tywin, remember Viserys being especially queer that age? It could have been useful propaganda against him no?

Unless he gives us some more (much! more) specifics as to why Viserys would have been like his father back in his youth, I don't think this is something Barristan DID even think back then; it's something he is interpreting into the past because of what he heard about Viserys. That's what I mean with "Barristan is reinterpreting".

There might not even have been a tantrum over pees or one or two seizures, it's just the same thing other people are doing with Dany: Viserys=son of the mad king=mad.

 

On 3/26/2019 at 2:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

A lot of prudent and thoughtful things.

But I want to focus on two aspects of one of those:

On 3/26/2019 at 2:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

Dany clearly loves her brother more than she hates him. Her own emancipation process from him - which also results in her getting far too attached to her new role as a Dothraki khaleesi from which she only later starts to free herself - causes her to distance herself to a very strong degree from him - which is inevitable when you realize that the parent you always have looked up to is actually a pitiful and rather impotent creature you never had any reason to fear.

 

On 3/26/2019 at 2:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

This is a rather common phenomenon in people who lost their homes and people who descended from them. The latter have a new home and no emotional attachment whatsoever to the ruins of their parents and grandparents. The older generation may never feel *at home* in the new country or house they have, but the younger generation do. In a sense, Dany shows Viserys III the future of House Targaryen if he fails - a generation of Targaryens to who the Iron Throne is just a name in a distant land, not their birthright. 

Dany only understands her brother's burden when he is dead. When she realizes that all that was his is now hers, and she has to continue his quest.

Your analysis of Dany's emotions here reminds me a lot of Didier Eribons feelings toward his family in "Return to Reims". And yes, it's very common: One separates themselves from their pitiful and powerless upbringing and embraces the new environment, it takes some time to realise what made ones parents (or brother, in Dany's case) the way they were, and while one still doesn't think they were (completely or even remotely) right, one learns to understand them and what has driven them.

Share this post


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

Don't really care about rights. I can just look at the writing choices and tell where this is going. House Stark and Targaryen are portrayed as foils in every way. "They're just doing what every other character in their class is doing" is lazy analysis. There's nothing of substance there. 

Who is saying there is supposed to be anything of substance there? The only substance the Starks get is that their leaders are (in the main series, at least) well-intentioned fools. Ned is a great guy, but there is a reason why he loses his head - he made a series of crucial mistakes.

There are no Targaryen foils for any Stark characters. Aerys II was a tragic guy suffering from a mental affliction. The guy deserves all the compassion you can muster for the average paranoid schizophrenic. Aerys II isn't a foil for anyone. Neither is Rhaegar, who is mostly a mystery as a character. Viserys III is just a secondary character who is at the point Rickon or Sansa Stark may have ended up if they had spent 15 years of exile in the Free Cities.

And Dany basically has her own story, completely disconnected from any of the other characters, and facing, for the most part, singular challenges. She has a lot in common with Ned and Catelyn and Sansa insofar as certain situations she finds herself in are concerned, but unlike those characters she usually makes the right call - or at least has the luck to survive if she makes a mistake that should have killed her.

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Why is it that the Houses Stark's rights are shown to antagonize a trash character like Ramsay Bolton whereas Dany and Viserys would have to conquer everyone, Starks included. This is predictive but I'm fairly certain that whatever the Starks take back won't involve denying the sovereignty of an entire kingdom. Which is why Northern Independence matters to the story and will continue to matter. The Targaryens think they own the North because they made Torrhen kneel. Nope. 

The Starks would not just have to deal with the Boltons to restore Robb's kingdom. They would have to retake the Riverlands and they would have to force the rest of Westeros to accept an independent Stark kingdom consisting of the North and the Riverlands. Chances are not that great that anyone in Westeros will accept it if Jon or Rickon or Sansa, etc. were to declare him or herself independent monarch yet again. Especially not at a time when they literally no longer have the strength to even try to defend the borders of such a kingdom.

House Targaryen is worshiped and loved as the rightful royal dynasty of Westeros from Dorne to the Wall - we get a glimpse of the Targaryen fans in White Harbor in ADwD. They should not face much trouble retaking what is theirs, especially now that the great houses have shown what they do to the Seven Kingdoms Aegon the Conqueror united and pacified when the dragons are not at home. They got their chance and they messed it up, basically.

The Starks are worshiped and loved as the rightful rulers of the North, too. Which is why they will return. But they won't do that by continuing the 'independence bid' - because that was stupid and the smarter Starks will realize this (especially Jon, considering the Others are knocking at the door) - but as close allies of the Targaryens (Aegon and/or Dany).

After all, it is quite clear that the Starks and the Targaryens both have common enemies.

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The Robb/Daeron comparison is another example of this. Both died as kings in their war and were betrayed. They had some skill with tactics. Not very profound. The more interesting stuff is in the contrasts. Robb isn't conquering a kingdom that obviously doesn't want him to be their overlord. He also didn't write his own book about his exploits so he could make himself look better.  

Robb's war was justified until he overreached himself. And that started with him presuming to be a king. Sure, he didn't want to conquer the West or the Iron Throne (which was actually stupid, in a sense, because his only chance at success would have been to actually seize the Iron Throne and eradicate the entire Baratheon dynasty), but he insisted on doing his own glorious warrior-king thing without realizing that his crown was the reason he was losing the war, and nothing else. He could have easily enough made common cause with both Stannis or Renly had he just had the brains to not crown himself - or at least offer to abdicate again when he was sending Catelyn as an envoy to Renly.

You can see how the youth we liked in AGoT has grown in a haughty and self-absorbed monarch by the time we meet him again in ASoS. Robb Stark was able to listen to advice (especially his mother's, who basically ensured that he got down south to actually win his first victories), but King Robb effectively behaves like a sovereign. He does as he pleases, and that is why he fails. He does not care to listen to the advice of others, he doesn't even think. He realizes that things are going very wrong, but he fails to actually admit that it was, for the most part, his fault.

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The majority of Targaryens are shown to have H U B R I S.

Can you name any of those? There are basically only two Targaryens in the story. But I certainly would agree that the royals tend to be arrogant and haughty - that comes with the job description and can be seen in Robb, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have only been two crazy Targaryens.  Aerys and Baelor.  Hot temper is not madness.  It's a character flaw that normal people can have.  Viserys had the misfortune to also have a mercurial personality along with his temper and that can make him appear crazy.  

Share this post


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

There might not even have been a tantrum over pees or one or two seizures, it's just the same thing other people are doing with Dany: Viserys=son of the mad king=mad.

That basically seems to be Barristan's conclusion. But as Aerys II's biography shows, Targaryen madness as such isn't necessarily a reason for great concern. Even if Viserys III was basically a clone of his dad and behaving exactly the same way as he did, then this kind of 'madness' does not have to lead to tyrannical or cruel behavior. Aerys II had his lapses even before Duskendale but those were pretty minor affairs compared to the sadistic tendencies of Maegor, Aerion, Aegon II, Aemond, or, one assumes, Aegon IV (I'm thinking of the downfall of the Brackens and the Toyne affair).

But as things stand Viserys III doesn't really look like a Aerys II, rather as a pretty normal and unimpressive exiled royal who greatly overestimates his own importance and capabilities. There is some instability in him, to be sure, but that really seems to be less because of his 'mad personality' and more due to the strain of continuous exile and poverty, combined with the real or imagined fear that Robert was out there to get him. And there was nothing 'mad' about that fear - after the fate his father, brother, nephew, and niece suffered Viserys would have to be completely mad to expect that Robert would allow him to live out the remainder of his life in peace.

And the funny thing with his end is that if you actually ignore the fact that drawing steel in Vaes Dothrak was an unforgivable breach of protocol then Viserys challenging Drogo was, most likely, the bravest thing he ever did and likely something that could have actually helped him to regain/win Drogo's respect if it happened in another context and with no threat to Dany and/or her unborn child.

After all, you cannot win the respect of a Dothraki khal by just meekly asking him. Drogo also starts to cherish Dany more when she actually starts to show initiative and fire.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

Your analysis of Dany's emotions here reminds me a lot of Didier Eribons feelings toward his family in "Return to Reims". And yes, it's very common: One separates themselves from their pitiful and powerless upbringing and embraces the new environment, it takes some time to realise what made ones parents (or brother, in Dany's case) the way they were, and while one still doesn't think they were (completely or even remotely) right, one learns to understand them and what has driven them.

I'm not familiar with that, but people have been pointing out that George's own family history reflects Dany's story in no small degree, with his family having been better off in the past, and only hearing about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PTSD can crack even the strongest person if the severity of the trauma is sufficient.  Reek is a fine example.  I know, I know, you say Theon is weak.  He does have weaknesses.  But Gared was a strong man and the ww did a number on him.  Catelyn was a sane woman and the red wedding messed her up badly.  One fellow who can stand a lot of trauma and still come out the same is Aeron.  I'm not into the Euron story line but Aeron would make a very interesting antagonists for him.  The man of evil versus the Man of Faith.  I like it.  

Share this post


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

PTSD can crack even the strongest person if the severity of the trauma is sufficient.  Reek is a fine example.  I know, I know, you say Theon is weak.  He does have weaknesses.  But Gared was a strong man and the ww did a number on him.  Catelyn was a sane woman and the red wedding messed her up badly.  One fellow who can stand a lot of trauma and still come out the same is Aeron.  I'm not into the Euron story line but Aeron would make a very interesting antagonists for him.  The man of evil versus the Man of Faith.  I like it.  

In Catelyn’s case, she was dead for three days. That can’t be good for mental health.

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

×