Jump to content
Damon_Tor

GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

Recommended Posts

On 5/18/2019 at 12:43 PM, Demetri said:

@Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

Pierce Brown

Rothfuss

Scalzi

I managed to read all of Lock In by John Scalzi without noticing that his protagonist, Chris Shane, is not revealed to be either male or female.

John Varley's short-story collections and other writing (up to late 1980s) have believable female characters. He has too many nymphets hooking up with middle-aged men for my comfort, and everybody in the Gaea trilogy is a total root rat hypersexualized, :) but his police detective Anna-Louise Bach helps to make up for it.

Ian McDonald's Luna series. Dallas on the moon!

William Gibson: Pattern Recognition, Spook Country, Zero History.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gendelsdottir said:

I managed to read all of Lock In by John Scalzi without noticing that his protagonist, Chris Shane, is not revealed to be either male or female.

I think it is really impressive how little Scalzi relies on physical descriptions and gender. Oftentimes those things become crutches when describing minor characters, but I've literally scanned several books to find a physical description of a character I found attractive and there wasn't one in the entire series.

Hopefully, that's what everyone who is looking at gender issues is hoping: that a character's form/function and that character's agency derives from something rather than just their gender. I kinda boggled at the proposition that NO male authors are capable of writing good female characters so thank you for making a much better list than I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its necessarily ruthlessness he objects to, it's the idea of doing it in the name of "protecting" people that really appears to gall him. Didn't Hitler claim to be protecting Germany from semitic influence?

I thought Theon ruling at WF in the books, saying he's the only one who can protect them from Reek,  and therefore they should obey him, is SO Dany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jon Snow is a loser said:

This is probably hard to accept for some portion of ASOIAF & GoT fandom, as the books & the show seems to attract people who idolize Machiavellian thinking &  like to watch cutthroat power play & think being good or being honorable is being dumb. Just look at the people in this forum who will argue to their last breath to defend Tywin or defending Dany's action in the last episode as something that is out of necessity.  Unfortunately for them, ASOIAF is not the series that they think  it is. GRRM is a 1970s "make love not war" hippy. If he ever come to end the series, he will not end it with an ending that proves that this kind of thinking is right. 

I wouldn't say that most think that being honourable is dumb. Being honourable is a set of rules after all and if you abandon rules you might suffer as well as anyone else. Many would think that many characters are too soft though, like Ned, and this got them killed not excessive honour.

Reading the books I got the feeling that GRRM favours ruthlessness tempered by mercy and compassion. To not fight unnecessary wars, but if in a necessary war to win quickly and decisively.  Quite where Dany would end up will hopefully be revealed, but I would be a little surprised if GRRM's underlying message is "be weak".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 13, 2019 at 9:29 AM, Damon_Tor said:

So I feel like GoT has built up a considerable feminist fanbase, much of that because of Daenerys.

So what happens now?

Martin writes winds of winter and makes it very clear that Danaerys is the hero of the story because it is obvious that in the book she is. He will come down with fire and blood to make sure this mad queen Danaerys doesn't happen in his books. This is a modern audience he has to appeal to now. 

On May 13, 2019 at 9:29 AM, Damon_Tor said:

This episode reinforces the worst stereotype of women as leaders: that they're prone to emotional, irrational decisionmaking with potentially ruinous consequences. The idea that a female President or Prime Minister would order a nuclear strike because she's "on her period" is a very real problem with how we see women as a society, and here we have Daenerys, ordering the Westerosi equivalent of a nuclear strike because she's having an irrational emotional response.

Also, Brienne breaking down sobbing when Jaime left her. WTF was that? Is that the last we see of Brienne? Is that the conclusion of her character arc, getting pumped and dumped by a Chad and weeping about it? REALLY?

Brienne crying was fine because that is normal in her situation. She was knighted and survived a deadly battle and slept with the man she has loved for ages and he left her because he said he was evil inside. That was terrible. 

What wasn't right is how Gendry did not cry when Arya refused him and to marry him. Same situation as Brienne (mostly) but he didn't cry and I think he would have because he is a rare nice character in the story and he also has loved Arya for a long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon Snow is a loser said:

This is probably hard to accept for some portion of ASOIAF & GoT fandom, as the books & the show seems to attract people who idolize Machiavellian thinking &  like to watch cutthroat power play & think being good or being honorable is being dumb.

I think rigid honor is a bad thing, such as with Ned Stark. Honor in itself isn't bad. Jamie honored the definition of what a knight is supposed to do (protect the innocent) when he killed the Mad King. Unfortunately thanks to Ned Stark with his rigid honor, Jamie was stigmatized as a dishonorable Kingslayer.

I for one was done with Ned Stark when he killed Lady, Sansa's direwolf. There is no honor in killing an innocent just because you were ordered to. What followed was just more of the same. His rigid sense of honor prevented him from doing the right thing. The War of the 5 Kings and the fate that befell his daughters and eventually his sons and wife could have been prevented if Ned was more flexible in his honor. Instead of doing the right thing for the realm and his family's safety, he stuck to societal norms and the established rules because honor compelled him to do so.

Share this post


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

Brienne crying was fine because that is normal in her situation. She was knighted and survived a deadly battle and slept with the man she has loved for ages and he left her because he said he was evil inside. That was terrible. 

What wasn't right is how Gendry did not cry when Arya refused him and to marry him. Same situation as Brienne (mostly) but he didn't cry and I think he would have because he is a rare nice character in the story and he also has loved Arya for a long time. 

I agree, it was a normal and expected reaction from Brienne. Crying (or expressing sadness) is not a sign of weakness.

Along the same lines, not crying is also not a sign that one does not feel sad. In Gendry's case, his disappointment was pretty evident in his expression. He just didn't cry when it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/18/2019 at 8:29 PM, ummester said:
On 5/18/2019 at 5:53 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

All I need to reference is the definition, which I have. If you do not agree with the definition then you are not using the word correctly.

 

“The Dictionary said this is right therefore it’s right.” Seriously, if you’re sum total of research in regards to religion or philosophy, or atheism  is just looking at dictionary definitions, I cannot take you seriously. Dictionary definitions are descriptions for how words are used. And yes they can be imperfect. If the actual description of the word does not match how it is is it faulty.

You could’ve tried to give a real argument for  why your description of  Atheism is valid.  We could have a real debate. But alas you’re not interested in such. 

I get the feeling you’re the type to not say you’re a feminist-and then spout how you’re for gender equality regardless of the dictionary definition of it. If so I just want you to know you’re being inconsistent.

On 5/18/2019 at 8:29 PM, ummester said:

So where does agnosticism end and atheism begins? You cannot deny the following definitions are true.

 

Weird to use a double quote. But to your question it doesn’t really have to “end” anywhere. It’s not either or situation. A person could be an agnostic-Atheists, or an agnostic-theist given Agnosticism focuses on answering a different different question then pure belief in a deity. “Do I believe there’s a god” “yes/no” would be a matter between theism v atheism in its answer “do/can you know there’s a god” “yes/no” would be a matter of Agnosticism.  It has always be an answer to knowledge regarding a god or gods.

On 5/18/2019 at 8:29 PM, ummester said:

theism = belief in a god or gods (some divine higher power)

 agnosticism = neither belief or disbelief  in a god or gods (basically an open mindedness)

Really? But it’s listed as a synonym for nihilism. How could that be, clearly Agnosticism needs to actively disbelieve in the idea of god altogether given its a synonym for it! Jk. But seriously I hope you’d avoid using “Atheism is a synonym for nihilism” in actual discussions of it in the future. It makes it seem you understand neither. To your position-not really. Agnosticism focuses answering a very specific question; in regards knowledge not belief. 

On 5/18/2019 at 8:29 PM, ummester said:

atheism = it is literally the opposite to theism, that is what the 'a' at the front denotes. It is the disbelief in a god or gods (some divine higher power)

Not really. “a” as a Greek prefix literally  translates “without” not “opposite of” An important difference. A more appropriate stand-in for those who would have a disbelieve in a god or gods would be anti-theists-given the prefix of the word anti literally means against or opposite of-which is a more distinct form of atheism. Seriously, it’s not “achrist” feared in many denominations of Christianity“ “it’s “anti-Christ” 

This is what the words mean, you cannot change that with anything you write.

You know if we took your view the definition of rape would have never been modified to include married couples, and men in Dictionaries or law and forced to conclude before the modification any talk of such sexual abuse being “rape” would be should lambasted.

On 5/18/2019 at 8:29 PM, ummester said:

I am sure you are not so stupid as to know there is a difference between feeling pain, hunger, thirst, tiredness and those types of responses to physical stimulus and feeling love, hope, fear and similar that manifest more because of the cognition of those that feel them. 

I’m sure you’re not really so stupid as to think animals incapable of fear, or cognition in it of itself proof of the supernatural. You value love, and hope, in a spiritual sense, that’s fine. But, please no one whose able to value them is doing it wrongly.

On 5/18/2019 at 8:29 PM, ummester said:

I never said emotions are beliefs. I said love and hope are beliefs. You said love and hope are emotions. You are confusing my statements with whatever is in your own head.

Oh my mistake-you’ve only taken some emotions as beliefs. 

.

On 5/18/2019 at 8:29 PM, ummester said:

Sure, emotions and belief can cross over. Perhaps you are confusing some instances where I use belief with the way you use feel - you can both believe in and feel some emotions, such as love and hope, but neither belief nor emotional feeling makes something tangibly real in an undeniable physical sense.

 Truth be told you haven’t actually given an explanation on what you think “love” or hope even is in terms of belief and how they are intrinsically spiritual. 

On 5/18/2019 at 8:29 PM, ummester said:

You just do not want the conversation to lead to a place where you may have to change your POV - that is known as delusion

Oh no I just disagree with you. Also this accusation coming from the man who insists all ideas including ideas such as it’d be ok to genocide or ethnically cleanse a region shouldn’t be found offensive and has yet to actually give an argument for why they shouldn’t be. I’ve called you to do so multiple times and you’ve refused at every turn to even try. And whose refused to address, non-theistic/atheistic religion, religions that don’t place human at the epicenter and the concept there being a god and it not particularly caring much for humanity altogether or that much more than any other creation, after saying one can’t logically treat people good without a god or being. 

Oh you’d want  a society where’d you’d treated fairly so it behooves you to treat others fairly to make them more inclined to do so. That’s literally all the logic you’d really need to treat other’s well.

On 5/18/2019 at 8:29 PM, ummester said:

So why bother responding to me? After this, I am done with responding to you. It is not worth my time.

Because I disagreed with you on things, and desired to tell you such, and why.  

I’m pretty sure you think you sound mature saying this but really you sound more like this. “I’m taking my b-ball and going home!” :rolleyes: 

Listen man, if you want to end a conversation on the internet then just end it by not responding all together. You don’t need to precipitate it with saying you’re going to end it as if your taking some grand stand in leaving an internet argument with a stranger. If you truly feel strongly fine-stick to your gums and ignore my posts from here on. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/18/2019 at 7:41 AM, OldGimletEye said:

The distinction your trying to draw here is unpersuasive. Fact is that the notion of collective guilt can turn into much of the same kind of nastiness that occurs under collective punishment. The difference is pretty immaterial.

I think I get what's going on here. You can just go ahead and say that you didn't like Dany liberating the slaves because of your real-life beliefs. I saw a surprising number of people complain about Dany in her Slaver's Bay arc, usually by pointing out things like the execution of the GM as proof that she's cruel and unhinged. If Dany was truly that, she would have just executed all of the Great Masters in Meereen. She only executed 163 of them, to match the number of dead children, because she wanted to AVOID unnecessary bloodshed

It would have only been politically convenient for her to execute all of the GM and their families in Slaver's Bay. That would have allowed Dany to genuinely outlaw slavery without problems like the Sons of the Harpy's. That's essentially the KKK in this world. And everyone knows it's the GM that pull their strings. 

Instead, Dany listens to her advisers and tries to accommodate the GM into her new rule, where the former slaves and the people who wronged them live side by side. Not all the former GM are punished for being slavers. She even married one of them and opens the fighting pits against her best judgement just to move "peace" forward. 

And Dany in her penultimate chapter in ADwD finally realizes that coddling the GM is exactly where she went wrong. She shouldn't have allowed their customs and beliefs to continue. She should have imprisoned or executed all of the former rulers of the city. Her guilt trip in the Dothraki Sea is about all that. She realizes she's fire and blood, not someone with "floppy ears" who needs to "make peace" with an obviously vile group like the slave masters of Essos. 

And those people who want to say that proportionately killing GM or sacking of a slaver city is "evil" can just shove it with the faux outrage. Tyrion kills Shae, tramples the fingers of a bard, just because he felt either mad or betrayed. It doesn't make him an unhinged evil person ready to burn down everything. Jon takes in wildling refugees even when his men clearly hate them. His action ends up with him dead. Was he unfit to rule then? But for some reason, Jon is still the main hero oh-so fit to rule. 

But somehow Dany is bad because she doesn't want to be a leader like Tywin, who doesn't think twice about unleashing violence to gain all the political advantage he could (he raids the Riverlands, kills Rhaegar's children, orders Tyrion's first wife gang-raped just so his son would get rid of her, and the very idea of employing the Mountain)? That's what makes her prone to be the mad queen? Oh just ef off. 

That's why people liked Dany. Because contrasted to the other, mostly male rulers of the world, she wanted to do the right thing. She could have just taken her dragons and enjoyed a lifelong vacation on the Dothraki sea. Or as Jorah initially suggested, sold all her dragon eggs and lived a very comfortable life to the end. But she doesn't abandon her people in the Red Waste, doesn't turn a blind eye to the horrors in Slaver's Bay. She gets revenge for things most of us would also seek revenge for (albeit less in a medieval manner). That's book Dany. The show just decided to spit on all that for no reason whatsoever. 

 

Edited by Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You can just go ahead and say that you didn't like Dany liberating the slaves because of your real-life beliefs. 

I never objected to her liberating slaves from an ethical perspective.

57 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

 If Dany was truly that, she would have just executed all of the Great Masters in Meereen.

Then she should execute the Dothraki for the same crimes and under the same logic.

Should she hold mass executions for the Dothraki for their past behavior? I don't think so.   Though punishing them for future conduct, once she has made the laws clear, is fine.

57 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

She only executed 163 of them, to match the number of dead children, because she wanted to AVOID unnecessary bloodshed

Do you have a problem with ex post facto criminal laws?

57 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

And those people who want to say that proportionately killing GM or sacking of a slaver city is "evil" can just shove it with the faux outrage.

You can shove it  with your blood thirsty love of mass executions.

And I don't have a particular problem with her conquering Mereen

57 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

And those people who want to say that proportionately killing GM or sacking of a slaver city is "evil" can just shove it with the faux outrage. Tyrion kills Shae, tramples the fingers of a bard, just because he felt either mad or betrayed. It doesn't make him an unhinged evil person ready to burn down everything. Jon takes in wildling refugees even when his men clearly hate them. His action ends up with him dead. Was he unfit to rule then? But for some reason, Jon is still the main hero oh-so fit to rule. 

.First I never argued that Dany was completely evil because of her execution of the 163. It was wrong of  her to do that, but I never argued it made her completely evil. And certainly, Tyrion was wrong to kill Shae. In fact, Tyrion does a lot of crummy stuff.

57 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

 But somehow Dany is bad because she doesn't want to be a leader like Tywin, who doesn't think twice about unleashing violence to gain all the political advantage he could (he raids the Riverlands,

And nobody should want to be like Tywin. He is a monster.

Yet, you seem to like Tywin's methods. Maybe you have some fondness for him?

57 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

That's why people liked Dany.

Sure, I get people will justify all types of nonsense just because they really really like Dany.

 

57 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

 That's book Dany. The show just decided to spit on all that for no reason whatsoever. 

I don't disagree that Dany's atrocious behavior in the show wasn't built up very well in the show.

If she does something similar in the books, I expect it will be better built up. But, I have a feeling that certain sorts of people will just turn a blind eye when the warning signs start to manifest themselves more clearly in the books because they already have a real bad habit of justifying everything else Dany does.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 9:34 PM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Here's the quote from ADwD:

The Great Masters are the rulers of the city. They own the pyramids and run the slave business and the city. There's apparently a whole lot of them. They make up an oligarchy that makes decisions for Mereen like the Council does for Westeros. So the GM are not random nobles. 

The point is GM came up with the idea to kill slave children to make Dany fearful of them. It was their war defense strategy that backfires on them. When Dany overtakes Mereen, she wants justice and vengeance for the dead kids. The GM killed 163 of them, so she kills 163 GM. This is called eye-for-an-eye justice, as in it's proportionate to the crime committed in the medieval sense. 

She doesn't nail a bunch of rich people in the city just cause she's feeling mad. And no one in the books anywhere calls GM innocent of this particular crime. You can show me the quotes if I'm wrong. 

This only confirms they are random nobles. Random Great Masters. There are more GM than 163. 163 is just a random selection of their total number. Necessarily there were innocents among the 163. It is impossible they all were guilty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Sure, I get people will justify all types of nonsense just because they really really like Dany.

Dany's actions in the books are justified in context. No one has to do it for her. The show logic just goes nowhere. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

If she does something similar in the books, I expect it will be better built up. But, I have a feeling that certain sorts of people will just turn a blind eye when the warning signs start to manifest themselves more clearly in the books because they already have a real bad habit of justifying everything else Dany does.

Maybe you should really listen to your own logic and identify your own latent bias. You keep using references to modern laws (ex post facto, LMAO) and ultimately hollow ethical theories (that are supposed to be taken with a grain of salt anyway) to say Dany is on her way to becoming the Big Bad. As I said, the faux outrage and a lot of pretending to be arguing about morality to justify how yer arc ends nonsensically in the show. There are legitimate Dany detractors, of course, but at least they don't pretend to be moralists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about it. If all of them, as a caste, are guilty of the crime then why only punish 163? Dany had no way to find the truth, so she had no way to deliver justice. That's kinda the theme of this little arc: that sometimes there is no possible way to make justice and any option will be unjust to someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saturno said:

This only confirms they are random nobles. Random Great Masters. There are more GM than 163. 163 is just a random selection of their total number. Necessarily there were innocents among the 163. It is impossible they all were guilty. 

Here's a repeat of what I told the other poster:

I saw a surprising number of people complain about Dany in her Slaver's Bay arc, usually by pointing out things like the execution of the GM as proof that she's cruel and unhinged. If Dany was truly that, she would have just executed all of the Great Masters in Meereen. She only executed 163 of them, to match the number of dead children, because she wanted to AVOID unnecessary bloodshed

It would have only been politically convenient for her to execute all of the GM and their families in Slaver's Bay. That would have allowed Dany to genuinely outlaw slavery without problems like the Sons of the Harpy's. That's essentially the KKK in this world. And everyone knows it's the GM that pull their strings. 

Instead, Dany listens to her advisers and tries to accommodate the GM into her new rule, where the former slaves and the people who wronged them live side by side. Not all the former GM are punished for being slavers. She even married one of them and opens the fighting pits against her best judgement just to move "peace" forward. 

And Dany in her penultimate chapter in ADwD finally realizes that coddling the GM is exactly where she went wrong. She shouldn't have allowed their customs and beliefs to continue. She should have imprisoned or executed all of the former rulers of the city. Her guilt trip in the Dothraki Sea is about all that. She realizes she's fire and blood, not someone with "floppy ears" who needs to "make peace" with an obviously vile group like the slave masters of Essos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Dany's actions in the books are justified in context. No one has to do it for her. The show logic just goes nowhere. 

Just because you say so, doesn't make it so.

And if you are a complete moral relativist, your justification for Dany intervening into another society to end slavery is what again?

4 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You keep using references to modern laws (ex post facto, LMAO) and 

Except, in one of her cases that she rules on in Mereen, Dany recognizes the principle, and that is the ground on which she makes her decision. Are you still laughing?

You thought were slick. But, apparently not.

 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are simultaneously arguing that the bloodshed was necessary and unnecessary. That can't be.

If the 163 are guilty the bloodshed is necessary. If there are innocents among them it was unnecessary. In this example guilty/innocent and necessary/unnecessary are linked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote you gave me confirms she selected 163 random Great Masters. It is the only logical conclusion as GRRM does not provide the means for her selection. She could have grabbed the first 163 GM her soldiers found, she could have arrested 300 and then selected from this number, etc. We can think of many ways, but the aim of her move was just to reach 163 GM, disregarding everything else, there was no principle for selection beyond being a GM. 

Share this post


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

Just because you say so, doesn't make it so.

And if you are a complete moral relativist, your justification for Dany intervening into another society to end slavery is what again?

It's not me saying so, it's GRRM saying so. He's obviously pointing out the predicament she faces in outlawing something so ingrained in this society, based on real history from the US Civil War. On the Westerosi side, he uses history from old English Wars. It shouldn't be so hard to understand. 

I never said I'm a moral relativist. No one in their right mind says it's wrong to end slavery even if it exists in "another society." The modern world certainly doesn't think so. And you might need to wake up in the 21st century if you think slavery is justified under any circumstance, or if you think anti-slavery activists need justification for their activism. 

Keep going back to the slavery thing. As I said, you need to rethink what you think is right because it seems your problem with Dany in Meereen seems to stem from her going to war with slavers. 

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Except, in one of her cases that she rules on in Mereen, Dany recognizes the principle. Are you still laughing?

What. are. you. talking. about?

8 minutes ago, Saturno said:

You are simultaneously arguing that the bloodshed was necessary and unnecessary. That can't be.

If the 163 are guilty the bloodshed is necessary. If there are innocents among them it was unnecessary. In this example guilty/innocent and necessary/unnecessary are linked.

There are NO innocents among the slavers. You completely miss my point. The GM are ALL guilty. Dany knows this. But she only kills 163 of them, in revenge for the 163 children they ordered dead. That's proportionate and it avoids killing a lot more GM and destabilizing the ruling class. 

From a military perspective, Dany should have killed all the GM, and avoided the problems of the Harpies later. This is what she realizes in the Dothraki Sea. 

Edited by Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very leery of fiction trying to satisfy the political aspirations of identity politics, it strikes me as a recipe for sterile totalitarian art where characters are just motifs for types, or situations that encourage the writing of Mary Sues to satisfy  identity quotas, and any character flaws are scrutinised mercilessly for the possibility that they reflect some or other ideological shortcoming on the part of the writer - misogyny, racism or homophobia. 

All that said Dany as a character was so thoroughly vandalised and so stupidly it becomes really hard not see a certain malevolence behind it. But never attrribute to malice etc. Dany was almost certainly heading for a tragic hero arc, it would be out of keeping with everything we know about the storytelling of GRRM for hers to be in the end a simple tale of triumph and Disney ending. And there was plenty of material to be build such a narrative on , her sense of destiny beyond just claiming her birthright would only have been sharpened with the knowledge that it is not really her birthright after all. And from what we learned in Mereen, as well as from the High Sparrow and Brothers without Banners there was plenty of material to ignite a vicious social conflict which she could have set off. Such an arc, with her attempts to reshape society becoming ever more autocratic, could have satisfyingly led to a tragic end similar to what we saw in Ep 6 without completely trashing the character.

But when instead a character just goes genocidally crazy after 8 seasons of being really resilient to the point that her death is just euthanising someone who is incurably insane , and this transformation occurs in what seems to be a single morning, and is attributed to genetic susceptibility you are on shaky ground as far as tropes about women wielding power being especially susceptible to insanity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

" The modern world certainly doesn't think so, and you mind need to wake up in the 21st century if you think slavery is justified under any circumstance, 

I have never said slavery was justified or good or wasn't evil. Don't be a bullshit artist by implying otherwise. 

I have made clear that I have no problem with her outlawing the practice and giving punishment for people that violate those laws.

The issue is what to do with people that have practiced it before it became outlawed. I mean do you think Dany should start having mass executions of the Dothraki for having engaged in the practice? I suspect many a Dan fan would say no because they really like Dany and Dany really likes the Dothraki. But, you know, that doesn't seem to be a very good reason.

9 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

As I said, you need to rethink what you think is right because it seems your problem with Dany in Meereen seems to stem from her going to war with slavers. 

I had specific issue with the execution of the 163 and the way it was handled.

 

9 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

What. are. you. talking. about? 

Read Dany's Mereen chapters where she adjudicates legal cases. It's in there.

 

Edited by OldGimletEye

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

×