Jump to content
My La Liz

Red Flags: Dany = Meereen Nobles

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Br16 said:

Even if not all the crucified Meereenese nobles were guilty of the 163 crucified children, they were surely guilty of a host of other evils. Slavers bay has been the center of Slavery since forever. They are the ones who buy off pirates, raiders etc. and then tortured the new slaves into pliant laborers ready for auction to free cities. . 

Off course, there could be kind slave owners or slave owner wives who treated those under them humanly. But these type of people probably existed in Free Cities not Slavers Bay.

This is something I've always argued for - that even if a specific slave owner was the most fair, evenhanded and kind master, he was still participating and profiting off a system that allows men to crucify children as a warning without any consequences. So Hizdar's father was one of the good ones and spoke out ... who cares? He actively promoted this system of slavery and every atrocity that can be blamed on the system, he shares equal responsibility and blame. He could have renounced it more strongly, taken actual steps to stop it, but let's face it - he was too comfortable to rock the boat much. His easy life would be less easy and his influence and power would be reduced. Let's also be honest and realize that if we happened to find ourselves born into this society in the master's class, we would probably be pretty ok with the way the world worked and benefitted us. If we felt any moral qualms, it would be pretty easy to rationalize it away and become one of the 'good' masters.

And, as an aside, I don't think Mirri Maz's actions were evil. Both of these situations are incredibly complex and there are no right or wrong answers on either side. The perspectives and motives of each actor in these events can be sympathized with to a degree. This is why Dany's descent in the books could be truly riveting as we see her perspective and reasoning through each step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gertrude said:

... Both of these situations are incredibly complex and there are no right or wrong answers on either side. The perspectives and motives of each actor in these events can be sympathized with to a degree. This is why Dany's descent in the books could be truly riveting as we see her perspective and reasoning through each step.

Quote

Character arc - If a story has a character arc, the character begins as one sort of person and gradually transforms into a different sort of person in response to changing developments in the story. Since the change is often substantive and leading from one personality trait to a diametrically opposite trait (for example, from greed to benevolence), the geometric term arc is often used to describe the sweeping change.

[Thank you Mister Wiki; emphasis mine.]

Television is a blunt instrument. At its best, a TV show will demonstrate how small decisions by any character will result in foreseen - or unintended! - consequences for other characters, near & far. It will also show how small choices reverberate up and down the power hierarchy. It will show how otherwise likeable characters will commit, with the best of intentions, acts that ultimately cause great suffering for themselves or others.

At its worst, TV falls back on visual shorthand, crude caricature, binary choices, zero-sum game theory. No subtlety, no nuance. Without great care, the depiction of injustice, and the response to injustice by people in that scenario, will suffer badly. Game of Thrones, the TV show, is evidence of how a story can start with great promise and devolve into caricature.

Slave labor as a basis for social organization is a contentious topic, bound to stir up strong feelings and controversy. It needs sensitive treatment. Dividing characters into uncomplicated binary categories is not sensitive treatment.

 

Share this post


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

This is something I've always argued for - that even if a specific slave owner was the most fair, evenhanded and kind master, he was still participating and profiting off a system that allows men to crucify children as a warning without any consequences. So Hizdar's father was one of the good ones and spoke out ... who cares? He actively promoted this system of slavery and every atrocity that can be blamed on the system, he shares equal responsibility and blame. He could have renounced it more strongly, taken actual steps to stop it, but let's face it - he was too comfortable to rock the boat much. His easy life would be less easy and his influence and power would be reduced. Let's also be honest and realize that if we happened to find ourselves born into this society in the master's class, we would probably be pretty ok with the way the world worked and benefitted us. If we felt any moral qualms, it would be pretty easy to rationalize it away and become one of the 'good' masters.

And, as an aside, I don't think Mirri Maz's actions were evil. Both of these situations are incredibly complex and there are no right or wrong answers on either side. The perspectives and motives of each actor in these events can be sympathized with to a degree. This is why Dany's descent in the books could be truly riveting as we see her perspective and reasoning through each step.

As you argue we would be just the same if it benefited us. We, I presume, are Westerners. We live in a very wealthy society but how many people live in poverty? We let that happen as a society. Sure, we give to charity and speak out about it but as a culture we don't really do as much as we can. Aliens turn up tomorrow and they see that contrast in our world, we'd be monsters. Daenerys is an outside perspective on their normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 3:14 PM, My La Liz said:

And before anyone says Mirri killed an innocent, unborn child, that’s not what we were shown on screen. Mirri may have deliberately worsened Khal Drogo’s infection, but Drogo straight up deserved anything she did to him. As Mirri began the magic to “save” Drogo, she very clearly and specifically told Dany to leave and that no one could enter the tent after it began because the dead would walk inside. Jorah flatly ignored this after Dany collapsed and he carried Dany right inside the tent. You want to blame someone for the death of Dany’s child? Put the blame where it belongs.

You're wrong. The series clearly shows that Mirri KNEW that Dany’s baby would die to “save” Khal. "I warned you that only death can pay for life. You knew the price".

Share this post


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

You're wrong. The series clearly shows that Mirri KNEW that Dany’s baby would die to “save” Khal. "I warned you that only death can pay for life. You knew the price".

You're saying that Dany's child would've died whether Jorah took her inside the tent or not?  So what was the point of Mirri forcing Dany to leave the tent and saying that no one could enter the tent after it began because the dead would walk inside, which we saw and heard evidence of? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 11:36 AM, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

She could have had him imprisoned and shipped back to Illyrio in Pentos but she didn't, she let him die because he stood between her, her child and power. 

Drogo is Khal, she is merely Khaleesi, a position of no power at all.  He wears the trousers.  Once Viserys breaks Dothraki law threatens his unborn child he's toast and it's not in Dany's power to decide what to do with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

Drogo is Khal, she is merely Khaleesi, a position of no power at all.  He wears the trousers.  Once Viserys breaks Dothraki law threatens his unborn child he's toast and it's not in Dany's power to decide what to do with him.

Dany has Drogo wrapped around her finger by this point. If she didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

Dany has Drogo wrapped around her finger by this point. If she didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen. 

I'm not sure if you're serious.  Drogo is Khal, an undefeated warlord and the ultimate alpha male in an uber macho culture.  Dany is his 14 year old bride.  Viserys breaks Dothraki sacred law by drawing a blade in Vaes Dothrak and threatens Drogo's unborn child by pointing that sword at Dany's womb. 

At no point does Drogo defer to Dany and to do so in any way would be an enormous loss of face in his culture.  At no point does Dany have any control over the situation (over either Viserys or Drogo) or even any say in what happens.  Her power comes with the dragons and from walking into and out of a funeral pyre.  It's not as if Dany just has to snap her fingers for Drogo to come to heel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, My La Liz said:

You're saying that Dany's child would've died whether Jorah took her inside the tent or not?  So what was the point of Mirri forcing Dany to leave the tent and saying that no one could enter the tent after it began because the dead would walk inside, which we saw and heard evidence of? 

I know that Mirri told Dani to leave the tent and that Jorah carried her in but I can’t help but wonder if Mirri’s chant had a specific target like Stannis’ shadow baby?  Maybe that is the real reason Dany began going into labor and miscarried?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/7/2019 at 6:57 AM, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

As you argue we would be just the same if it benefited us. We, I presume, are Westerners. We live in a very wealthy society but how many people live in poverty? We let that happen as a society. Sure, we give to charity and speak out about it but as a culture we don't really do as much as we can. Aliens turn up tomorrow and they see that contrast in our world, we'd be monsters. Daenerys is an outside perspective on their normal.

I'd argue that there is an important qualifier - that of people who have power and those who don't. A slave owner in Mereen was part of the ruling class. They are the ones who benefitted from the status quo. Dany didn't crucify simple merchants or laborers. Extending that example, the multi-millionaires and billionaires are our ruling class. 

Dany crucified one master for each slave. If the aliens were to hold to that eye for an eye type justice, then confiscating wealth and redistributing it would be the appropriate punishment. Think Trading Places and I can't say I would blame the aliens for thinking that was justice. Perhaps not super constructive, but it is a perspective that I can understand them having. Dany's justice was also not super constructive, but it makes a certain type of sense.

I admit, it's easier to condemn the slave owners, even the good ones, because slavery is a special kind of horrible. It's playing god over people's lives in a more direct and obvious way than wealth inequality.

Edited by Gertrude

Share this post


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

I'd argue that there is an important qualifier - that of people who have power and those who don't. A slave owner in Mereen was part of the ruling class. They are the ones who benefitted from the status quo. Dany didn't crucify simple merchants or laborers. Extending that example, the multi-millionaires and billionaires are our ruling class. 

Dany crucified one master for each slave. If the aliens were to hold to that eye for an eye type justice, then confiscating wealth and redistributing it would be the appropriate punishment. Think Trading Places and I can't say I would blame the aliens for thinking that was justice. Perhaps not super constructive, but it is a perspective that I can understand them having. Dany's justice was also not super constructive, but it makes a certain type of sense.

I admit, it's easier to condemn the slave owners, even the good ones, because slavery is a special kind of horrible. It's playing god over people's lives in a more direct and obvious way than wealth inequality.

This is where the show completely lost me when it tried to introduce shades of grey into Dany's story with a kind of 'not all slavers' narrative. I think there are shades of grey but it comes from the brutality of some of Dany's actions and whether they represent justice or vengeance. Those in power in the Slaver's Bay cities are not just slave owners (bad as that is) but slave traders, actively perpetuating the slave trade. That is more than just complicity or looking the other way (again, bad as those things may be).

Slaver's Bay had a good thing going on, where traders supplied the human goods, the cities processed them and then sold them to willing buyers who knew the score. Dany isn't an alien from outer space, she is a direct challenge to the status quo that allowed the slave trade to flourish. I don't think the books fall into the trap of asking us to sympathise with slave owners or traders but to ask whether falling to their level of cruelty and brutality is the right response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

This is where the show completely lost me when it tried to introduce shades of grey into Dany's story with a kind of 'not all slavers' narrative. I think there are shades of grey but it comes from the brutality of some of Dany's actions and whether they represent justice or vengeance. Those in power in the Slaver's Bay cities are not just slave owners (bad as that is) but slave traders, actively perpetuating the slave trade. That is more than just complicity or looking the other way (again, bad as those things may be).

Slaver's Bay had a good thing going on, where traders supplied the human goods, the cities processed them and then sold them to willing buyers who knew the score. Dany isn't an alien from outer space, she is a direct challenge to the status quo that allowed the slave trade to flourish. I don't think the books fall into the trap of asking us to sympathise with slave owners or traders but to ask whether falling to their level of cruelty and brutality is the right response.

I agree, remember that scene where the guy who was selling Dany the Unsullied (also each Unsullied means 3 other persons had died during training) casually maimed one of them to demonstrate their obedience, and gloated about giving each new Unsullied a silver coin to kill a newborn slave?

These were the type of people Dany punished. As you say, these weren't slave owners, they were slavers. They directly engaged in violence, torture and kidnapping on an industrial level and crucified people for kicks (i.e. Missandei mentions how those on the walk of punishment were crucified for offenses less than lying). 

Thus, I agree the "not all slavers narrative" simply doesn't work out. Even if the guy's father were overruled by the others, he was still one of the greatest slavers in the greatest slaver city in slaver's bay. I can't see how his hands could be clean of all kinds of violence. 

If Dany had taken Volantis and started to punish some shop owner who had a shop assistant slave he treats well, then that would fit into the grey narrative. However, I don't think any slaver in slaver's bay is innocent. Sure they might have slaves such as the old tutor or a concubine that is treated well, but that could not cancel out the millions they have tortured or killed as part of their business. 

Thus I agree that the moral dilemma is not whether some slavers were okay, but more to whether to answer cruelty with forgiveness. 

Edited by Br16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Br16 said:

I agree, remember that scene where the guy who was selling Dany the Unsullied (also each Unsullied means 3 other persons had died during training) casually maimed one of them to demonstrate their obedience, and gloated about giving each new Unsullied a silver coin to kill a newborn slave?

These were the type of people Dany punished. As you say, these weren't slave owners, they were slavers. They directly engaged in violence, torture and kidnapping on an industrial level and crucified people for kicks (i.e. Missandei mentions how those on the walk of punishment were crucified for offenses less than lying). 

Thus, I agree the "not all slavers narrative" simply doesn't work out. Even if the guy's father were overruled by the others, he was still one of the greatest slavers in the greatest slaver city in slaver's bay. I can't see how his hands could be clean of all kinds of violence. 

If Dany had taken Volantis and started to punish some shop owner who had a shop assistant slave he treats well, then that would fit into the grey narrative. However, I don't think any slaver in slaver's bay is innocent. Sure they might have slaves such as the old tutor or a concubine that is treated well, but that could not cancel out the millions they have tortured or killed as part of their business. 

Thus I agree that the moral dilemma is not whether some slavers were okay, but more to whether to answer cruelty with forgiveness. 

Yeah, I really, seriously disliked Tyrion's speech where he effectively equated Dany coming for slavers and rapists with the Nazis coming for completely innocent Jews, Roma, Gays, political opponents, etc. The whole Dany = Hitler was just lazy imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 10:02 PM, My La Liz said:

You're saying that Dany's child would've died whether Jorah took her inside the tent or not?  So what was the point of Mirri forcing Dany to leave the tent and saying that no one could enter the tent after it began because the dead would walk inside, which we saw and heard evidence of? 

I think Mirri is a witch and she just knew the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 4:46 AM, Br16 said:

 I agree, remember that scene where the guy who was selling Dany the Unsullied (also each Unsullied means 3 other persons had died during training) casually maimed one of them to demonstrate their obedience, and gloated about giving each new Unsullied a silver coin to kill a newborn slave?

These were the type of people Dany punished. As you say, these weren't slave owners, they were slavers. They directly engaged in violence, torture and kidnapping on an industrial level and crucified people for kicks (i.e. Missandei mentions how those on the walk of punishment were crucified for offenses less than lying). 

Thus, I agree the "not all slavers narrative" simply doesn't work out. Even if the guy's father were overruled by the others, he was still one of the greatest slavers in the greatest slaver city in slaver's bay. I can't see how his hands could be clean of all kinds of violence. 

If Dany had taken Volantis and started to punish some shop owner who had a shop assistant slave he treats well, then that would fit into the grey narrative. However, I don't think any slaver in slaver's bay is innocent. Sure they might have slaves such as the old tutor or a concubine that is treated well, but that could not cancel out the millions they have tortured or killed as part of their business. 

 Thus I agree that the moral dilemma is not whether some slavers were okay, but more to whether to answer cruelty with forgiveness. 

If you answer cruelty with forgiveness, you basically promote cruelty. So yeah, "not all slavers" doesn't work out, they choose to become slavers and they directly profited from the system of slavery. The only potential red flag is in the act of crucifixion itself - she basically went "eye for an eye" there - but even that was not exactly unjustified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/3/2019 at 10:13 PM, beeeeeen said:

There were a lot of other red flags actually. In season one she watches her brother being killed without batting an eye.. yes he was a bad person, but he was her brother, she grew up with him, she could have at least shed a tear, show an emotion, but not, she had that stare, the same stare she had everytime she killed someone, no emotion, and a slight fascination toward what was happening before her.

 

On 6/4/2019 at 1:36 PM, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

She could have had him imprisoned and shipped back to Illyrio in Pentos but she didn't, she let him die because he stood between her, her child and power. Then Drogo has that speech about terrorising Westeros and taking the throne and she is visibly turned on by his brutality. Its not coincidence she gives her own version of that speech to the Dothraki and repeats it after the sack of Kings Landing. Drogo would be proud and he was a monster

On 6/4/2019 at 4:18 PM, beeeeeen said:

Yes, but to be honest, it's not that she let him die the big red flag to me, it's the look on her face when it happends. She looks like she's either feeling nothing, or worse, like you said about Drogo's speech, she's turned on.
For comparaison, we can see Tyrion's reaction to discovering Cersei and Jaime's bodies in the rumbles, he cries... Cersei hated him his whole life, tried to have him killed, and yet, not only he tries to save her life, but he's overflown with sadness when he realises his big sister (and of course his big brother toot) is dead.

I agree. Viserys even begged her later to stop it, yet she just stood there and watched while they were killing her brother in a cruel way. Then she says ''he was no a dragon, fire cannot kill a dragon'' , this exactly sounds like a mad person talking.

We don't even know if there is another Targaryen who is immune to fire other than Daenerys. So, Aegon the Conquerer must be immune to fire otherwise he isn't a dragon.

Edited by RYShh

Share this post


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

 

I agree. Viserys even begged her later to stop it, yet she just stood there and watched while they were killing her brother in a cruel way. Then she says ''he was no a dragon, fire cannot kill a dragon'' , this exactly sounds like a mad person talking.

We don't even know if there is another Targaryen who is immune to fire other than Daenerys. So, Aegon the Conquerer must be immune to fire otherwise he isn't a dragon.

Not to mention in the books even Dany isn’t immune to fire beyond that one time only thing with the dragons. In that scene had Khal Drogo poured that onto her head she would have died as well. It’s a pure show creation that she is immune to fire and GRRM expressed his frustration at this in caps by saying Targs aren’t immune to fire including Dany. 

Edited by Kaapstad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:
Spoiler

Not to mention in the books even Dany isn’t immune to fire beyond that one time only thing with the dragons. In that scene had Khal Drogo poured that onto her head she would have died as well. It’s a pure show creation that she is immune to fire and GRRM expressed his frustration at this in caps by saying Targs aren’t immune to fire including Dany. 

 

I know, I didn't mention it since it could be a spoiler for the people who didn't read the books. ;)

Edited by RYShh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 9:17 PM, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

Dany has Drogo wrapped around her finger by this point. If she didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen. 

Dany is a sex slave at that point.  A privileged sex slave, but that's all she is.  The idea that she could have saved Viserys is for the birds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
2
On 6/4/2019 at 1:18 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

The books always said that Mirri is responsible, but all of those dragon babies that Targaryens had were stillborn or didn't survive anyway. It's very sketchy to me. Mirri in the show doesnt actually say she did it. She just basically said "I'm glad your kid is dead." 

On the contrary, Mirri, Jorah and Dany all acknowledge that Mirri didn't deliberately kill her kid but was a victim of Jorah carrying her into the tent.
 

Quote

Ser Jorah had killed her son, Dany knew. He had done what he did for love and loyalty, yet he had carried her into a place no living man should go and fed her baby to the darkness. He knew it too.

So Dany knows that Mirri, a slave Dany commanded to perform the ritual to begin with, didn't actually kill her kid, and yet she burned her alive anyway because it was easier to direct her anger at a stranger than her beloved Jorah, and because she needed to wake dragons from stone. 

For someone who calls herself the Breaker of Chains, burning a slave alive and continuing to vilify her sure comes easy to Dany. Dany is very good at vilifying her opponents and seeing herself as the ultimate hero. That's been the point of her entire journey, and something they sacrificed in the show in favor of turning her into a feminist warrior instead. 

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

×