Jump to content
James Steller

Who was the Biggest Villain of the Dance?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think this is because the smart thing is to not use your dragons and only keep them around as an implied threat. Barth states this and you can tell its in line with GRRM's own viewpoint on use of dragons. When dragons are used, more problems are caused later or they arrive at a stalemate. 

Nah, I was referring to the obvious differences between the genders here. The guy who prefers to show off his dragon rather than use it - Jaehaerys I - also does use it in war when he has to. But he never takes Alysanne/Silverwing or Alyssa/Meleys with him to war - just as Prince Aemon later doesn't take his daughter Rhaenys on Meleys with him to war, or Corlys Velaryon his wife Rhaenys when he wars on the Stepstones.

That's just stupidity and makes the concept of female dragonriders - of who there are quite a few, actually - quite pointless. What was the point of giving Laena Velaryon or Helaena Targaryen a dragon?

7 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I had no issues with how Targaryens were portrayed in Fire and Blood. It made the majority of them look ridiculous and at times the author appeared to be mocking them. 

LOL, right. The author invented all those characters - nobody invents fictional characters to mock them. George is also not mocking Victarion - who doesn't exist - by making him stupid. That's just how he is. It is fun to see how stupid he is but the author didn't make him so 'to mock him'.

Not to mention that it seems rather weird to me to actually swallow that nonsensical noble family stuff as a reader and judging characters on the basis of what family they belong to. They are all individuals and presented as such. And while many traits in the Targaryen bloodline are recurring due to their inbreeding, they are still all unique individuals.

Share this post


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

Hmmm, in a war you have to use them, especially if the other side is also using them. There is no threat if war has already started.

I do like your dislike for the Targs tho, there're too many Targ sucker around here.

"Targ suckers" ha! :) 

I think the goal is to avoid turning a cold war into a hot one...but I guess they didnt care about mutual destruction. 

A civil war with dragons ended in the destruction of dragons, the basis for Targaryen power, so it seems like they lose in the long run, no matter what they do.

Share this post


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

Nah, I was referring to the obvious differences between the genders here. The guy who prefers to show off his dragon rather than use it - Jaehaerys I - also does use it in war when he has to. But he never takes Alysanne/Silverwing or Alyssa/Meleys with him to war - just as Prince Aemon later doesn't take his daughter Rhaenys on Meleys with him to war, or Corlys Velaryon his wife Rhaenys when he wars on the Stepstones.

 That's just stupidity and makes the concept of female dragonriders - of who there are quite a few, actually - quite pointless. What was the point of giving Laena Velaryon or Helaena Targaryen a dragon?

Your critique is that not enough women went on dragon riding mass murder rides like the men? Seems...odd...but ok.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, right. The author invented all those characters - nobody invents fictional characters to mock them. George is also not mocking Victarion - who doesn't exist - by making him stupid. That's just how he is. It is fun to see how stupid he is but the author didn't make him so 'to mock him'.

Would you prefer the word critique? It arrives at the same idea, that people with god-complexes and supremacist ideas will get checked on it. And it's normal to talk about individuals and groups (houses) at the same time. 

Share this post


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

Your critique is that not enough women went on dragon riding mass murder rides like the men? Seems...odd...but ok.

Why should I care when fictional people die in war? Seriously, we read this series because its only proper theme is war and bloodshed. That's what the series is about if you describe it in broad strokes. And, yes, I'm annoyed that people get powerful weapons only to not use them. I'd be equally annoyed if all of the Stark direwolves were to play no role whatsoever in the novels (and those roles will likely involve the ripping apart of human beings in a number of cases, especially in Nymeria's case) or if Bran and Arya's powers to control/kill people would not come into play in future books.

38 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Would you prefer the word critique? It arrives at the same idea, that people with god-complexes and supremacist ideas will get checked on it. And it's normal to talk about individuals and groups (houses) at the same time. 

It actually shows that you see people as racial or family collectives rather than individuals. Aegon V didn't have a god-complex, nor did many other members of his family. You are reproducing the same kind racist stereotypes you pretend to critize.

Not to mention that you overlook that there is basically no difference in presumption or lust for power in the Targaryens or any other royal or noble dynasty. They all think in primitive feudal/aristocratic mindset and make innocents suffer and die over real or imagined slights to their petty honor.

This is a shitty world overall - there are no people there who are collectively worse than others. The only individuals who deserve a little bit of recognition are those who try to change the shithole of a world they live in - and who try to use whatever power their sick society grants them by bettering the lives of those whose voices are not heard.

And there are precious few of those - although historical quite a few of them were Targaryens (Queen Rhaenys, Jaehaerys I, Good Queen Alysanne, even Aegon III to a point, it seems ... and then of course later on Aegon V).

There are no progressive/reformist Starks, Lannisters, Baratheons, etc. anywhere to be seen in this series. None who try to better the lives of their people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2019 at 10:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

Why should I care when fictional people die in war? Seriously, we read this series because its only proper theme is war and bloodshed. That's what the series is about if you describe it in broad strokes. And, yes, I'm annoyed that people get powerful weapons only to not use them. I'd be equally annoyed if all of the Stark direwolves were to play no role whatsoever in the novels (and those roles will likely involve the ripping apart of human beings in a number of cases, especially in Nymeria's case) or if Bran and Arya's powers to control/kill people would not come into play in future books.

It actually shows that you see people as racial or family collectives rather than individuals. Aegon V didn't have a god-complex, nor did many other members of his family. You are reproducing the same kind racist stereotypes you pretend to critize.

Not to mention that you overlook that there is basically no difference in presumption or lust for power in the Targaryens or any other royal or noble dynasty. They all think in primitive feudal/aristocratic mindset and make innocents suffer and die over real or imagined slights to their petty honor.

This is a shitty world overall - there are no people there who are collectively worse than others. The only individuals who deserve a little bit of recognition are those who try to change the shithole of a world they live in - and who try to use whatever power their sick society grants them by bettering the lives of those whose voices are not heard.

And there are precious few of those - although historical quite a few of them were Targaryens (Queen Rhaenys, Jaehaerys I, Good Queen Alysanne, even Aegon III to a point, it seems ... and then of course later on Aegon V).

There are no progressive/reformist Starks, Lannisters, Baratheons, etc. anywhere to be seen in this series. None who try to better the lives of their people.

The Starks represent stability, permanence, and normality to the Targaryens, who in comparison were dysfunctional egomaniacs, fraudulent revolutionaries, and crazy conquistadores. Aegon V starts out a bright kid and ends in fire and blood just like Maester Aemon starts out a wise maester and ends raving about glory and dragons because Targaryens just be irrational like that. It's like living in a country where Trump is your king every few years. Maybe you'll get his insipid but mentally passable offspring after him, but then they'll produce more manic kings with OCD about fire, dragons, ect. No wonder Fire and Blood reads like the fall of the Roman/U.S. empire. We dont have a novel exclusive to the fuck ups and failures of the Stark kings. GRRM has a favorite house and its the ones who can actually keep their buildings standing for longer than the lifespan of a tortoise.

Share this post


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

The Starks represent stability, permanence, and normality to the Targaryens, who in comparison were dysfunctional egomaniacs, fraudulent revolutionaries, and crazy conquistadores. Aegon V starts out a bright kid and ends in fire and blood just like Maester Aemon starts out a wise maester and ends raving about glory and dragons because Targaryens just be irrational like that. It's like living in a country where Trump is your king every few years. Maybe you'll get his insipid but mentally passable offspring after him, but then they'll produce more manic kings with OCD about fire, dragons, ect. No wonder Fire and Blood reads like the fall of the Roman/U.S. empire. We dont have a novel exclusive to the fuck ups and failures of the Stark kings. GRRM has a favorite house and its the ones who can actually keep their buildings standing for longer than the lifespan of a tortoise.

LOL, right. The Starks are utterly loose cannons, completely incapable/unwilling to compromise or put the common good before their precious aristocratic honor - which is the very definition of putting yourself before everyone else.

Brandon, Rickard, Ned, and especially Robb are responsible to a large degree for both the Rebellion and the War of the Five Kings - and none of them has to excuse of being clinically insane to shift the blame to somebody else.

Dragons are tools, they are living, breathing animals, not evil by default. Aegon V wanted to use his dragons to better the lives of his subjects, not to kill people by the thousands. I'm not sure you understand - but the shitty world is the problem, not the people trying to make it better.

If George had a favorite house (which is ridiculous considering he created them all, and would likely not have created any fictional characters he actually did not like - because then he would have to write about people he did not like, which makes really not much sense, does it?) then it would be the Targaryens considering he wrote a pretty big book about them - and that's only half of their history.

A history of the Starks, he says, would actually be rather boring considering it wouldn't have any dragons in it (and I actually agree there).

But the idea that the Starks would actually be more stable and more capable or nicer than the Targaryens is utterly ridiculous. Just look at the Starks from TWoIaF - they are hard, cruel, and about as capable or incapable as the Lannister, Arryn, Gardener, Durrandon, etc. kings.

The idea that some houses are supposed to be better than others is just nonsense. And you see that, for instance, with FaB and TWoIaF when a Frey lord shows up and turns out to be a loyal and noble fellow, a Bolton maiden comes forth and is a decent and wise young woman, etc.

Share this post


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

LOL, right. The Starks are utterly loose cannons, completely incapable/unwilling to compromise or put the common good before their precious aristocratic honor - which is the very definition of putting yourself before everyone else.

Brandon, Rickard, Ned, and especially Robb are responsible to a large degree for both the Rebellion and the War of the Five Kings - and none of them has to excuse of being clinically insane to shift the blame to somebody else.

Why is Rickard to blame for the Robellion?? Why is Ned to blame for the Robellion??

Ned did conpromise and  put something before the common good by giving Cersei and  her innocent children a chance to run away from Robert's rage, it costed  him everything.

It's rather ironic  however the fact that you  say that stereotype a House is something bad when you never miss  a chance to talk about the self destructive  traits of the Baratheons.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

A history of the Starks, he says, would actually be rather boring considering it wouldn't have any dragons in it (and I actually agree there).

I don't agree, this is one of the reasons why i can't wait for FaB2, the dragons make everything boring, even the huge civil war like the Dance is minimal compared  to the War of the 5 Kings, a setting where there are no dragons makes things far more interesting for me.

Share this post


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

Why is Rickard to blame for the Robellion?? Why is Ned to blame for the Robellion??

Because they failed to get a proper understanding with Rhaegar and the king. Especially Ned could have tried to reach out to Lyanna and Rhaegar, but that goes for Lord Rickard, too.

But Ned is, of course, much more to blame for helping to lay the groundwork for the War of the Five Kings.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Ned did conpromise and  put something before the common good by giving Cersei and  her innocent children a chance to run away from Robert's rage, it costed  him everything.

Trying to save Cersei's children had nothing to do with the common good. The common good is the welfare of the Realm and its people, not the lives of pompous aristocrats and their children.

Ned did nothing to prevent the outbreak of a civil war - he did everything in his power to sure there would be a war when he insisted that Stannis must succeed Robert.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

It's rather ironic  however the fact that you  say that stereotype a House is something bad when you never miss  a chance to talk about the self destructive  traits of the Baratheons.

Because there are actual parallels there - but it is of course just a recurring trait, not a complete generalization - Orys Baratheon, Boremund Baratheon, Ormund Baratheon, and Steffon Baratheon all seem to have been very decent fellows with little to no self-destructive tendencies (although Orys took the loss of his hand apparently with ill grace).

The Targaryens also have recurring traits - but those are not all problematic. In fact, there are many Targaryens who were exemplatory rulers and others who essentially embodied core values of their society.

The more we learn about historical Starks indicate that they were, for the most part, a troublesome lot, prickly and pompous aristocrats who do like to blame others for their own shortcomings. Lord Alaric should have blamed his own stupid brother for getting himself killed beyond the Wall - not the king who had nothing to do with him stumbling on some giants and being stupid enough to attack them -, Lord Cregan lashed out at men who did not sit out the Dance of the Dragons but actually fought and bled during that war and finally saw sense and put down the madman that was Aegon II instead of kissing their feet for saving the Realm further bloodshed. The man behaves like a child who comes too late to the party and then insist that it continue despite everybody is getting ready to go home.

And if you go back farther the Stark rule should consist mostly of rebellion after rebellion, infighting among various branches of House Stark and very cruel campaigns to put the quarrelsome houses like the Boltons back into place. The Starks are the noble house which condoned blood sacrifices to weirwood trees as early as a couple of centuries back.

Share this post


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

Because they failed to get a proper understanding with Rhaegar and the king. Especially Ned could have tried to reach out to Lyanna and Rhaegar, but that goes for Lord Rickard, too.

But Ned is, of course, much more to blame for helping to lay the groundwork for the War of the Five Kings.

How could they possibly be at fault there??

Rhaegar never explained himself and  later on he just abducted/eloped Lyanna, what are the Starks supposed to do with that?? How the hell could Ned reach  out to Lyanna and Rhaegar?? It's not that they were going to tell him their plan if they actually were in cahoots, after that Lyanna and  Rhaegar are simply awol and  by the time of Stony Sept, things had festered so much Rhaegar and  his father had to go, that's all because of the Targs, especially old Rickard who before he could ever understand what was going on he's summoned to answer for his son's crimes  and  is brutally murdered, how can't anyone fácil to get a proper understanding with delusional son and  mad father in that setting?? How can be at fault for that??

Well, Ned could just told Robert what he knew and  smash the Lannisters but that would've meant killing three  innocent kids.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Trying to save Cersei's children had nothing to do with the common good. The common good is the welfare of the Realm and its people, not the lives of pompous aristocrats and their children.

Ned did nothing to prevent the outbreak of a civil war - he did everything in his power to sure there would be a war when he insisted that Stannis must succeed Robert.

Well, I'm all for realpolitik but allowing three  kids dying for a crime of being born is beyond horrible, Ned made a great mistake there but it's a very understanble one.

What he should've done?? Stannis was the rightful King and  there would've been war anyway, Renly was not on the mood on letting Cersei or the Lannisters to stay in power, Stannis was not in the mood  of letting a bastard seat on his Throne and  Tywin and  the Riverlords were daring each other to throw the first stone. 

Do you want him to just let Joffrey stay in power?? Why?? Joffrey is not even the best choice.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Because there are actual parallels there - but it is of course just a recurring trait, not a complete generalization - Orys Baratheon, Boremund Baratheon, Ormund Baratheon, and Steffon Baratheon all seem to have been very decent fellows with little to no self-destructive tendencies (although Orys took the loss of his hand apparently with ill grace).

 

Are they?? Borys resembled Stannis in his ambition, that's for sure but Stannis, for all his faults, would've never usurped Robert's kids, Rogar brothers were all loyal to him until Borys went rogue, there is no really no parallel to draw from Renly.

Rogar and  Robert are both proud, lustful men but whereas  Rogar does humble himself and  had actually a good mind for rule, Robert's "real" abilities are hard to judge because the man never cared  enough to do much, Robert was a very depressed man for a good part of his life and  only find hoy in a very self destructive hedonism, the hedonism and  depression  don't seem to be a trait of the Baratheons.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryens also have recurring traits - but those are not all problematic. In fact, there are many Targaryens who were exemplatory rulers and others who essentially embodied core values of their society.

Are all the Baratheon traits problematic?? The Targs suffer in lesser or higher degree of craziness. At the end, you don't like other people just saying stereotypes to the Targs but you have no problems using them to qualify other Houses, every stereotype you want to use on the Baratheons or Starks is not different that those used against the Targs. Because just as they are exemplary Targs, they are exemplary Baratheons, Starks etc, drawing a parallel  to Rogar and  Robert to stereotype the whole House or the Starks but at the same time, trying to judge each Targ as their own individual is rather unfair.

You're using hindsight here, only one Baratheon had sit on the Throne.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The more we learn about historical Starks indicate that they were, for the most part, a troublesome lot, prickly and pompous aristocrats who do like to blame others for their own shortcomings. Lord Alaric should have blamed his own stupid brother for getting himself killed beyond the Wall - not the king who had nothing to do with him stumbling on some giants and being stupid enough to attack them -, Lord Cregan lashed out at men who did not sit out the Dance of the Dragons but actually fought and bled during that war and finally saw sense and put down the madman that was Aegon II instead of kissing their feet for saving the Realm further bloodshed. The man behaves like a child who comes too late to the party and then insist that it continue despite everybody is getting ready to go home.

See again?? There is no difference, between these and  @Rose of Red Lake picking just some tidbits to shit over the Targs. The more we learn about Targs, the more we see they have all in higher or lesser degree a very strong good complex  etc etc. 

Alaric had every reason to be mad, Jaeharys sent him a problem it was not his and  a ticking bomb, his stupid brother was ambushed by the giants, he didn't have a room there to act.

The war wasn't done by then, not until Jaehara  was within the Blacks reach, the Realm would be a far better place without Larrys Strong and  the rest, killing Corlys was a stupid move anyway and punishing kingslaying must be done so it can't become the habit it later would become during the Wot5k, especially with a King like Aegon 3.

 

 

Quote

And if you go back farther the Stark rule should consist mostly of rebellion after rebellion, infighting among various branches of House Stark and very cruel campaigns to put the quarrelsome houses like the Boltons back into place. The Starks are the noble house which condoned blood sacrifices to weirwood trees as early as a couple of centuries back.

The difference between the Starks, Jaeharys had zero problems with keeping the First Might either, and  tbf Targs, or every other Great House, is??

The Stark rule didn't consit only in rebellion after rebelión, the Starks don't seem like the for giving nature and  they are not above of ending lines, so major rebellions must actually been rather odd, it's a mystery Why the Boltons were spared twice tho. The only rebellion the Starks faced in 300 hundreds until Roose made his move was the Skagosi one.

Edited by frenin

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

×