Who got the most screwed over

[Kajjo]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

She's made her point.  They're terrified of her.  She's got the fear she wants. So, why the leap to genocide?  

I believe I explained my view more than enough. About how the victory felt hollow, how she was all alone and how all that led to her breakdown and snapping. In addition, she realized before that she will have to rule by fear. Both came together.

I agree with you that the writing of DD is a lot worse than that of GRRM. S7 and S8 were too rushed and GoT could have easily had S8 and S9 with 10 episodes each. It's a pity.

But, it is possible to understand what they tried to depict. Yes, it is substandard compared to S1-5, but it is understandable and not entirely worthless. 

Daenerys was portrayed long enough as two-sided woman with good heart and intentions, but with a dragon side. From S1 onwards. Some people didn't understand it, some people worshipped the sweet wannabe-queen, but too many other it was clear what she was.

S8 might have been to rushed, but that doesn't mean that S1-S6 were not clear about it anyway. It was possible to get it. And if some got carried away by charisma, beauty and funniness of Emilia Clarke, then they should not whine about it.

[Apoplexy]

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I see HBO are promoting an awful poster that includes *the Sons of the Harpy* as among her victims on the road to the Iron Throne.

I thought you were kidding, but then I went back and saw that poster more closely.. Ffs! Why not put the khals there too, the ones who wanted to rape her to death, before she burnt them.

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I thought you were kidding, but then I went back and saw that poster more closely.. Ffs! Why not put the khals there too, the ones who wanted to rape her to death, before she burnt them.

Or the wine seller who tried to poison her and her unborn child, in Season 1.

After all, he was just trying to rid the world of a teenage monster.

Edit:  Oh, they've also got Viserys in the poster as another of her victims.

 

[Apoplexy]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Or the wine seller who tried to poison her and her unborn child, in Season 1.

After all, he was just trying to rid the world of a teenage monster.

 

That would not be completely far-fetched, as the show runners pointed to her not being moved by her brother's death as a sign of her impending madness. A brother who abused her growing up, sold her to a khal and wanted to kill her and her unborn child before he died.

[Ser Hedge]

4 hours ago, Kajjo said:

Come on, play fair.

Do you see the point of Daenerys wanting the mhysa-feeling instead of feeling rejected or ignored? Yes or no?

Nope. She hasn't even been to Westeros proper, the Reach and Vale with their high medieval chivalry, Stormlanders who were bannermen to House Baratheon descended from a Dragonspawn, houses across Westeros that fought for House Targaryen  at the Trident. We don't see her interaction with the Manderleys at White Harbour even though she passes through. Some Wildling clan chief and his buddies toast Jon while whatever few grumpy Northmen (probably all PTSDed) take their lead from High School Sandra and ignore her and we are supposed to feel Dany thinks Westeros doesn't like her 

Great writing!

4 hours ago, Kajjo said:

She started the "free all" motive back in Astapor, Yunkai, Meereen. Nothing new. Not inconsistent at all.

It is 100% inconsistent. She prolonged her stay in Essos to free slaves. She always wanted the Iron Throne because it was her birthright. Where do Sothyros, the Summer Islands and those cities in mainland Essos that do not have slavery come into the equation?

4 hours ago, Kajjo said:

She wanted to rules Westeros because baby-Dany was brainwashed into believing it was her right and people would actually want her. Now she realised its simply no true. Birthright gone. People don't want her. No mhysa in Westeros.

Please accept this point. It is so clear.

We don't know Westeros hasn't accepted her, because she hasn't actually been anywhere in Westeros except the thinly populated and very idiosyncratic (ethnically, religiously, culturally) North. She doesn't know what the people of KL feel because they have barely registered what has just happened. It's like visiting Manchuria for a week (where for some reason you got off on the wrong foot with the people you were staying with), flying to Beijing, get out of the airport and immediately declaring no one in China loves you.

If your thinking is indeed what the show tried to ram down our throats, well, Great Writing again!

 

4 hours ago, Kajjo said:

While Sansa was never my favorite in this show, what do you mean exactly? Because she doesn't bend her knee to a forein usurper? Because she speaks up for the North? 

Because no one in a medieval or even any standard fantasy setting would behave like that to a visiting Queen with Dragons and a huge army. Well, it's not even a visiting Queen, but the Queen, as Jon was Sansa's King and he bent the knee. Sansa is Dany's subject. You don't talk in rude, snarky one liners unless you are suicidal. Clearly the idiots writing the show just threw that in as another reason to drive Dany over the edge, along with a 100 other things.

Great Writing!

4 hours ago, Kajjo said:

So what? She did not have ANY claim to Yunkai, Astapor or Meeren either. She just conquered and "freed" the cities. So, nothing new. 

The Nürnberg speech did not evolve organically. D&D have ended up writinging a disjointed Jekyll&Hyde character-but not on purpose either - because they flip flop between fan service and a sudden need to inject a darker element into the character, which appears out of nowhere and disappears for the rest of the season. Contrast that with George starting to get Dany to draw lessons from her attempt at reconciling former slavers and freedmen having gone wrong and concluding she needs to change, and the moment she is clear about that, she is able to summon Drogon. Clear progression in the character arc. 

4 hours ago, Kajjo said:

If you are so much against conquering "without claim" (isn't conquerin always without claim?) then why didn't you moan back then in early seasons?

That was not my point. She started negotiating with Kraznys to purchase the Unsullied. He repeatedly insulted her and she learnt how the slaves were trained. She was disgusted and freed the slaves. It was opportunistic and she adopted a new cause of freeing slaves. She didn't seek to rule Astapor or Yunkai. To free the slaves of Mereen, however, she had to actually take the city. After that, she was left with a large train of followers who works have died if she marched them on the road west. (In the books she clearly says to herself she didn't want a repeat of what happened in the Red Waste with the remnants of Drogo's khal that stayed loyal to her). Pretty logical. Yeah, sure, some moral ambivalence if you don't think ends justify means in a barbaric setting (this is not the 20th or 21st century). So that is why nobody moaned.

The Nürnberg speech is just a complete joke. Not just the content, the amateurish look and feel they gave it. If she said we have unfinished business in Essos, lets liberate the slaves of Volantis, Lys and Pentos, that would be different. Conquer the World, really? So because no Mhysa in Westeros, we are a complete lunatic now?

Great Writing.

[Apoplexy]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Edit:  Oh, they've also got Viserys in the poster as another of her victims.

Of course they do!

[kissdbyfire]

6 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

In E6, she gives a Nürnberg speech about conquering the entire world whether they have slaves or not, whether she has a claim on the territory or not. Just something completely mental from nowhere. Clearly, those visuals are to drive in to the most casual fan "Hey, Yo, she crazy gettit?"

So true, so fucking sad. And hilarious, because as w/ so much else, it comes w/ the Ds’ special brand of tone deafness. 

@Kajjo, I think you’re the last one standing? I applaud your commitment and the extreme mental gymnastics in trying to prove how things make sense n the show, and to each their own and all that, but no. In Dany’s case specifically, it was atrocious. And not only because she’d been portrayed as a flawed hero up to 5 secs before she “snapped”, but also because of what @SeanF said above. The way she razed KL and its civilian population just because was stupid, unearned, and extremely cruel and vicious. Hence the Nazi feel to the speech, “hey, yo, she crazy gettit?”, as @Ser Hedge brilliantly put. 

[Kajjo]

On 6/16/2019 at 12:35 AM, kissdbyfire said:

I think you’re the last one standing? I applaud your commitment and the extreme mental gymnastics

Commitment yes, mental gymnastics no. 

I see the shortcomings of season 8, much too rushed, too short in dialogues, emotions and development. No need to argue about that. And I see issues like the questionable king election or the ridiculous small council in the end. And yes, the story-telling lacked depth and sophistication since there was no book content to rely on. Absolutely agreed. 

However, I talk about whether Daenerys turning violent makes sense or not. Whether it was foreshadowed and whether a lot of scenes actually told about her two sides in earlier seasons. 

But people like shit storms nowadays. Black-and-white, insulting, offensive. That's simply not the proper way to do it. 

All the shallow arguments above are repeating itself over and over: First, people whine about Daenerys supposed personality turn and when confronted with a lot of arguments why the two sides of Daenerys have been clearly visible since S1, they return to whine about the bad season 8. This is unfair and destructive argumentation.

Discuss one point at a time. Reply to individual points. Accept and reject. Get forward with a discussion. But don't ignore a good argument from S1-S6 and repeat the bad story telling of S8. We can easily discuss all arguments, but mixing them up, leads to nothing.

So again: There were more than enough scenes in S1-S6 and in the books, too, to make us expect Daenerys might turn violent without good advisers to moderate her. And even though S8 was much too rushed there definitely was a build-up to her breakdown. 

And yes, the details were done suboptimal, call it outright bad if you think so. Bad story telling and bad writing. Somehow agreed. Decide whether you want to talk about the writing competence in S7-S8 or talk about Daenerys' character in ALL seasons. Either or. Not mixed up.

The books will depict it better but with the same overall ending. Daenerys' two sides are there, have been there all the time. Maybe you don't like how they did it in S8 but it's there anyway. That's all I'm saying. Myself and many other have been able to see it since S1. In every single season. It's there.

[Dragons Are Real]

All this debate over Danny is this thread reminds me of a few of my unsullied friends that actually cheered during Danny's burnination of Kings Landing.  Talking with them after the episode they were legitimately PUMPED about it, all excited talking about how "KAHLEESI FINALLY DID IT!  HELL YEAH!"

These are the same folks that still insist this is the greatest television show of all time.  One of them I've tried to get to watch Breaking Bad and he never can get more than three episodes into it before he says it's a pile of trash and needs to be purged from humanity's collective memory.  I feel bad for his brain cells.

[Beardy the Wildling]

15 minutes ago, Dragons Are Real said:

All this debate over Danny is this thread reminds me of a few of my unsullied friends that actually cheered during Danny's burnination of Kings Landing.  Talking with them after the episode they were legitimately PUMPED about it, all excited talking about how "KAHLEESI FINALLY DID IT!  HELL YEAH!"

These are the same folks that still insist this is the greatest television show of all time.  One of them I've tried to get to watch Breaking Bad and he never can get more than three episodes into it before he says it's a pile of trash and needs to be purged from humanity's collective memory.  I feel bad for his brain cells.

See, this is the issue D&D has. For ages, they conditioned the audience to cheer on wanton violence and vengeance as long as the 'good guy' did it. Arya is the worst offender for this, naturally; sadistic murders of entire families is just cool vengeance that can even be made into funny one-liners about making pies later. Heck, her threatening to slit Yara's throat is supposed to make you get a hardon, and that's after she allegedly set aside revenge.

So of course there'd be idiots who actually cheer on Daenerys torching innocents; to them, the show has never cared about the peasants and when they do, they're cheap devices to make more violence happen (see: Sandor's return to vengeance). When your main target audience are easily impressionable lemmings watching in a bar... you're only gonna have idiots to cater to.

Then they expect these same idiots to suddenly not cheer on violence? Yeah, not gonna fucking happen.

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

See, this is the issue D&D has. For ages, they conditioned the audience to cheer on wanton violence and vengeance as long as the 'good guy' did it. Arya is the worst offender for this, naturally; sadistic murders of entire families is just cool vengeance that can even be made into funny one-liners about making pies later. Heck, her threatening to slit Yara's throat is supposed to make you get a hardon, and that's after she allegedly set aside revenge.

So of course there'd be idiots who actually cheer on Daenerys torching innocents; to them, the show has never cared about the peasants and when they do, they're cheap devices to make more violence happen (see: Sandor's return to vengeance). When your main target audience are easily impressionable lemmings watching in a bar... you're only gonna have idiots to cater to.

Then they expect these same idiots to suddenly not cheer on violence? Yeah, not gonna fucking happen.

Yes.  Brutal violence towards enemies showed that you were a badass, whether you were Tormund, Cersei, Tyrion, Arya, Jon, Sansa or Dany, until suddenly, it became wrong. Honour, OTOH, "gets you killed."

This was a show that absolutely glorified cruelty for the first six  and a bit seasons.

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

Wellp, if instead of a whole lot of 'average' people thrown into a blender with magics, feudal politics and a level of 'not my department' morals only achievable in systems with such a degree of priviledge=power, show viewers were guided to picking sides on a basis of !hero! and !villain!? To cheer on violence mindlessly unless some shadowy stage assistant came along with a banner saying 'boo' instead of 'clap'?

Picking sides?! On what? Which unprotected, molested or victimised child came out on top?!

Again, somewhere along the way it started feeling like a cliché by trying to drop kick clichés, but underneath it was a fairytale.

And before someone comes along and tries to 'J'accuse!'? There's no end to how many Shakespeare adaptations have been bad enough to warrant voluntary amnesia, but I still love some of the original plays. As a paying costumer I have the right to say 'I didn't like it, it was boring'.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Kajjo said:

Commitment yes, mental gymnastics no. 

I see the shortcomings of season 8, much too rushed, too short in dialogues, emotions and development. No need to argue about that. And I see issues like the questionable king election or the ridiculous small council in the end. And yes, the story-telling lacked depth and sophistication since there was no book content to rely on. Absolutely agreed. 

However, I talk about whether Daenerys turning violent makes sense or not. Whether it was foreshadowed and whether a lot of scenes actually told about her two sides in earlier seasons. 

But people like shit storms nowadays. Black-and-white, insulting, offensive. That's simply not the proper way to do it. 

All the shallow arguments above are repeating itself over and over: First, people whine about Daenerys supposed personality turn and when confronted with a lot of arguments why the two sides of Daenerys have been clearly visible since S1, they return to whine about the bad season 8. This is unfair and destructive argumentation.

Discuss one point at a time. Reply to individual points. Accept and reject. Get forward with a discussion. But don't ignore a good argument from S1-S6 and repeat the bad story telling of S8. We can easily discuss all arguments, but mixing them up, leads to nothing.

So again: There were more than enough scenes in S1-S6 and in the books, too, to make us expect Daenerys might turn violent without good advisers to moderate her. And even though S8 was much too rushed there definitely was a build-up to her breakdown. 

And yes, the details were done suboptimal, call it outright bad if you think so. Bad story telling and bad writing. Somehow agreed. Decide whether you want to talk about the writing competence in S7-S8 or talk about Daenerys' character in ALL seasons. Either or. Not mixed up.

The books will depict it better but with the same overall ending. Daenerys' two sides are there, have been there all the time. Maybe you don't like how they did it in S8 but it's there anyway. That's all I'm saying. Myself and many other have been able to see it since S1. In every single season. It's there.

I agree with a fair amount of that.

I think that in Book 6, Daenery's story will take a very dark turn.  I think that her invasion of Western Essos will be like Genghis Khan in Central Asia (minus ordering mass rape as a terror tactic.  I think that's one moral threshold Daenerys would never cross).  She's torn between her idealistic goals and her selfish goals, and between not wanting to harm innocents, and her realisation that innocents will die to fulfil  her ambitions.

The problem is that it's not the story we got in the series. The show runners wanted to shock us by jumping from Saviour of the World, in Episode 3, to mass murderer of innocents in Episode 5.

[Kajjo]

38 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I agree with a fair amount of that.

That's good -- because that is what I try to argue for all the time.

39 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think that in Book 6, Daenery's story will take a very dark turn. [...] She's torn between her idealistic goals and her selfish goals, and between not wanting to harm innocents, and her realisation that innocents will die to fulfil  her ambitions.

Yes, I agree and expect the same.

39 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The problem is that it's not the story we got in the series. The show runners wanted to shock us by jumping from Saviour of the World, in Episode 3, to mass murderer of innocents in Episode 5.

I never felt she was portrayed as "saviour" in E3. She contributed, but she was not the hailed saviour. After the revelation of her parentage she already was somehow frustrated in E2 and in E4 she felt very lonely and was not celebrated. I really don't see the over-positive saviour part here. And again, in prior seasons both sides of her were portrayed, too.

However, I agree that the whole season was too rushed and the build-up of the breakdown was hastened, somehow exaggerated, and the "let it be fear"-turn told to briefly and without depth of emotions. 

So we can agree on bad story-telling in S8 but I surely will not agree on "completely unexpected turn of character". Her character didn't change. Charatcer is quite a stabile property in humans. She always had two sides and while the better side was dominant in early seasons and encouraged by her advisers, her worse side dominates the endgame, due to lack of advisers, due to realizing it has to be fear and partly due to breakdown/snapping/awakening the dragon inside.

Do you agree?

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Kajjo said:

That's good -- because that is what I try to argue for all the time.

Yes, I agree and expect the same.

I never felt she was portrayed as "saviour" in E3. She contributed, but she was not the hailed saviour. After the revelation of her parentage she already was somehow frustrated in E2 and in E4 she felt very lonely and was not celebrated. I really don't see the over-positive saviour part here. And again, in prior seasons both sides of her were portrayed, too.

However, I agree that the whole season was too rushed and the build-up of the breakdown was hastened, somehow exaggerated, and the "let it be fear"-turn told to briefly and without depth of emotions. 

So we can agree on bad story-telling in S8 but I surely will not agree on "completely unexpected turn of character". Her character didn't change. Charatcer is quite a stabile property in humans. She always had two sides and while the better side was dominant in early seasons and encouraged by her advisers, her worse side dominates the endgame, due to lack of advisers, due to realizing it has to be fear and partly due to breakdown/snapping/awakening the dragon inside.

Do you agree?

In the end not, because if she's going to channel Macchiavelli, "It is better to be feared than to be loved....." then she needs to be shown acting like Macchiavelli's Prince, who would deal very brutally with his enemies, but not to his own detriment.  The total destruction of one's own capital is completely counterproductive/

[Ser Hedge]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think that in Book 6, Daenery's story will take a very dark turn.  I think that her invasion of Western Essos will be like Genghis Khan in Central Asia (minus ordering mass rape as a terror tactic.  I think that's one moral threshold Daenerys would never cross).  She's torn between her idealistic goals and her selfish goals, and between not wanting to harm innocents, and her realisation that innocents will die to fulfil  her ambitions.

Yes, I think this is the direction her arc takes, especially if she's not leaving Essos until late in TWOW. 

In addition I think misinformation is going to play a big role in Westerosi perceptions.  We see Arianne's speculation in the sample chapters and Drinkwater's twisted memory of Dany's rejection of Quent's proposal in the Barristan ADWD chapter where he strikes a deal with Drink and Archie to release them from the dungeons. In addition, the slavers have floated all kinds of fake news out there.

So, likely most of Westeros will never know Dany's true story to start with and any subsequent conflict with fAegon and Arianne, plus an alliance with Victarion/Euron, not to mention the presence of the Dothraki, Stormcrows, Second Sons, the Windblown and Red Priests and she will be viewed as a scary heathen Barbarian from the beginning. Oh yeah and she's the Mad King's daughter and the Beggar King's sister. Really not going to go well, when you have a very acceptable Aegon (Septa in tow and all) as an opponent. And maybe it all becomes self-fulfilling in the end.

The show had her reach Westeros with House Tyrell, 'Dorne' and the 'nicer' Greyjoys already on board (the Riverlands and Crownlands not being a thing any more, and the Vale being Sansa's personal guard) with a Cersei who had just blown up Baelor's Sept in an alliance with the reaving Greyjoys against her. That was completely the wrong set-up to get to the ending required. Cue elaborate gimmicks to first artificially neutralise the advantage, and then to accelerate her 'descent' at warp speed, even while she was doing the right thing in between by fighting the Others (in the last episode but two of the entire series!) 

Could only end in a train wreck.

[SeanF]

40 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Yes, I think this is the direction her arc takes, especially if she's not leaving Essos until late in TWOW. 

In addition I think misinformation is going to play a big role in Westerosi perceptions.  We see Arianne's speculation in the sample chapters and Drinkwater's twisted memory of Dany's rejection of Quent's proposal in the Barristan ADWD chapter where he strikes a deal with Drink and Archie to release them from the dungeons. In addition, the slavers have floated all kinds of fake news out there.

So, likely most of Westeros will never know Dany's true story to start with and any subsequent conflict with fAegon and Arianne, plus an alliance with Victarion/Euron, not to mention the presence of the Dothraki, Stormcrows, Second Sons, the Windblown and Red Priests and she will be viewed as a scary heathen Barbarian from the beginning. Oh yeah and she's the Mad King's daughter and the Beggar King's sister. Really not going to go well, when you have a very acceptable Aegon (Septa in tow and all) as an opponent. And maybe it all becomes self-fulfilling in the end.

The show had her reach Westeros with House Tyrell, 'Dorne' and the 'nicer' Greyjoys already on board (the Riverlands and Crownlands not being a thing any more, and the Vale being Sansa's personal guard) with a Cersei who had just blown up Baelor's Sept in an alliance with the reaving Greyjoys against her. That was completely the wrong set-up to get to the ending required. Cue elaborate gimmicks to first artificially neutralise the advantage, and then to accelerate her 'descent' at warp speed, even while she was doing the right thing in between by fighting the Others (in the last episode but two of the entire series!) 

Could only end in a train wreck.

Yes.

Westeros will view Daenerys as a monster, in the books, regardless of anything she does.

[Daemon of the Blacks]

Easily Varys.

Other characters have been handled controversially but at least there was a certain method or logic behind it. Making Stannis more of a villain wasn't a very good decision but there were at least reason why D&D would decide on it. There have always been certain unpleasant traits of Stannis that can be exaggerated into villainy. He does have his brother killed, he does have a witch burning people at his side and his rigid nature can easily be seen as ruthless. 

Daenary's descent into madness wasn't particularly well executed but the traits required for Dany's fall were always there. Its the execution and not the idea that was the mistake. 

But with Varys its different. Rather than a deliberate decision to take his character in a certain direction Varys suffered from the writers just scrapping the point behind his character and genuinely being at a loss on what to do with him and very clumsily keep him around to lose his importance and competency. 

With Young Griff being absence Varys has no real master plan anymore and the writers don't really replace Griff with anything. Instead Varys master plan is just repeatedly shifting kings until he finally gets the right one. And this trait isn't even consistent since he honestly thought Visarys would be the correct choice despite him wanting a king ''for the people''. After the point where it becomes obvious Griff is scrapped Varys role just....stops. It completely stops. He doesn't do anything meaningfully for the rest of the series, doesn't use his spy network for anything and then gets killed for betraying Dany in the most clumsy way possible. The earlier seasons do set Varys up as a man with a plan and great ambition but because young Griff is scrapped this plan of Varys never emerges. He's being set up as a mastermind but the plot simply forgets about it. And the purge of Kings Landing, easily book Varys' most iconic moment is taken away from him and given to two less competent characters. 

[WeDoNotKneel_HailMance]

On 6/6/2019 at 10:55 PM, Plain, Simple Tailor said:

In comparison to the books, who did the show most heinously misinterpret? 

We did. The readers and fans got the most screwed over. 

[SeanF]

48 minutes ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

Easily Varys.

Other characters have been handled controversially but at least there was a certain method or logic behind it. Making Stannis more of a villain wasn't a very good decision but there were at least reason why D&D would decide on it. There have always been certain unpleasant traits of Stannis that can be exaggerated into villainy. He does have his brother killed, he does have a witch burning people at his side and his rigid nature can easily be seen as ruthless. 

Daenary's descent into madness wasn't particularly well executed but the traits required for Dany's fall were always there. Its the execution and not the idea that was the mistake. 

But with Varys its different. Rather than a deliberate decision to take his character in a certain direction Varys suffered from the writers just scrapping the point behind his character and genuinely being at a loss on what to do with him and very clumsily keep him around to lose his importance and competency. 

With Young Griff being absence Varys has no real master plan anymore and the writers don't really replace Griff with anything. Instead Varys master plan is just repeatedly shifting kings until he finally gets the right one. And this trait isn't even consistent since he honestly thought Visarys would be the correct choice despite him wanting a king ''for the people''. After the point where it becomes obvious Griff is scrapped Varys role just....stops. It completely stops. He doesn't do anything meaningfully for the rest of the series, doesn't use his spy network for anything and then gets killed for betraying Dany in the most clumsy way possible. The earlier seasons do set Varys up as a man with a plan and great ambition but because young Griff is scrapped this plan of Varys never emerges. He's being set up as a mastermind but the plot simply forgets about it. And the purge of Kings Landing, easily book Varys' most iconic moment is taken away from him and given to two less competent characters. 

Not only incompetent, but wholly despicable by the end - trying to poison the Queen who had  forgiven his earilier attempt to poison her and her unborn child.