Jump to content
Rose of Red Lake

Dany and child murder

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yeah it certainly gives me pause...to not fist pump my way through these chapters. I forgot! Dany had encountered Unsullied before Astapor. She had seen them in the Free Cities and knew that they were guards for magisters. No moral objections to the treatment of the Unsullied at that point when Jorah proposes she buy them, just an objection that the ones she had seen weren't manly enough. She thinks they're useless because they're fat and can't ride horses. If you look at the "servants" in Dany's first chapter, we are told: “They were slaves, a gift from one of the magister’s many Dothraki friends. There was no slavery in the free city of Pentos. Nonetheless, they were slaves." The Unsullied she saw were likely "nicely" treated slaves, which didn't bother her. Does that mean Dany turned the Unsullied into her nicely treated slaves? It's like the theme with sweetness being so sweet it turns sour/rotten. Some of these things sound too good to be true.

Yes! I forgot that also. I think Daenerys is naive & doesn't think too much about how the unsullied became unsullied when she first encounters them. She isn't in a position to do much for them but as you said it doesn't seem to bother her either. She has, in a sense, turned them into her "nicely" treated slaves. The only difference being she tells them they can go. But realistically where would they go? It's a nice gesture but ultimately empty. 

Maybe it's a sign of her maturity? A turning point in her character line? Because she is faced with such cruelty she cannot not think about it. It's very in your face at that point. 

Share this post


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

Follow-up question - if the slaves in Astapor had been treated relatively well, would Dany have cared? She arrived there to buy slaves. Would she have bought them if she could have paid for them, or if they were treated like the slaves she encountered with the Dothraki? Dany took her own slaves and even slapped one of them. Judgement day seems to only come on the whims of whatever Dany can afford or is offended by at that particular moment. 

Astapor was where she saw how the sausage was made, so to speak.  Kraznys took great delight in explaining the evil to Daenerys.

So, had she arrived, and seen well-treated, content, slaves, I doubt if she would have done anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a point that's often overlooked about Dany's anti-slavery campaign.  If it wasn't her, it would be someone else.

Essos is not a stable continent.  The Dothraki raid each other and neighbouring societies endlessly in the hunt for slaves to sell to the cities.  Pirates raid shipping and coastal areas for slaves.  Tens of thousands of free people get enslaved every year.  Cities like Volantis and Qarth are in decline, for all of their wealth.  Other cities now lie in ruins.  If and when this system goes, it will benefit free people as well as the slaves.  Essos is violent and unstable, and the violence and stability is fuelled by the endless hunt for slaves.  

Dany is simply a catalyst for change.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the crucifixion of the 163 Great Master, it was in response to the crucifixion of children.  Yes, she should have investigated each case, but let's not kid ourselves that anyone else would have let the Great Masters off with a beheading.

Share this post


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

Astapor was where she saw how the sausage was made, so to speak.  Kraznys took great delight in explaining the evil to Daenerys.

So, had she arrived, and seen well-treated, content, slaves, I doubt if she would have done anything.

Yeah if they were bedslaves or whatever I dont think she would care as much. So why not write a scene to "see how the sausage was made" in a scenario that didnt benefit her? Having it flip like a switch on the day she went to buy slaves is oddly fast and convenient. If the main focus was her evolving consciousness about the injustice of slavery it doesnt seem natural because she needed that army. 

Share this post


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

Yeah if they were bedslaves or whatever I dont think she would care as much. So why not write a scene to "see how the sausage was made" in a scenario that didnt benefit her? Having it flip like a switch on the day she went to buy slaves is oddly fast and convenient. If the main focus was her evolving consciousness about the injustice of slavery it doesnt seem natural because she needed that army. 

 

Because without the army she doesn’t have the power to do anything about slavery. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Because without the army she doesn’t have the power to do anything about slavery. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

Of course she does. She has 3 dragons. The point is she doesn't seem to think much about the treatment of the slaves until it's in her face. She went there to buy an army of slaves. Knowing they were slaves. Upon seeing their horrendous treatment she plots to free them. If she had arrived & the slaves were treated decent she most likely would not have thought twice about the fact that they were slaves - like she had done in the past. 

It has nothing to do with whether or not she has the power. We have her internal dialogue to know that previously she doesn't think much about the unsullied she comes in contact with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SeanF said:

There's a point that's often overlooked about Dany's anti-slavery campaign.  If it wasn't her, it would be someone else.

Essos is not a stable continent.  The Dothraki raid each other and neighbouring societies endlessly in the hunt for slaves to sell to the cities.  Pirates raid shipping and coastal areas for slaves.  Tens of thousands of free people get enslaved every year.  Cities like Volantis and Qarth are in decline, for all of their wealth.  Other cities now lie in ruins.  If and when this system goes, it will benefit free people as well as the slaves.  Essos is violent and unstable, and the violence and stability is fuelled by the endless hunt for slaves.  

Dany is simply a catalyst for change.  

I think not.  Because most rulers would be interested more in profits than being moral.  She is the only one who could delay her plans, very important plans, in order to help the slaves.  Most leaders would shake their heads and cut a deal with the wise masters to further their plans.  It did Daenerys no good to stop and help the slaves.  It was a humanitarian move that prove she's the right person to put in power.

Share this post


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

Yeah if they were bedslaves or whatever I dont think she would care as much. So why not write a scene to "see how the sausage was made" in a scenario that didnt benefit her? Having it flip like a switch on the day she went to buy slaves is oddly fast and convenient. If the main focus was her evolving consciousness about the injustice of slavery it doesnt seem natural because she needed that army. 

We get that in the books, with Kraznys gleefully describing his evil,and in the show, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Of course she does. She has 3 dragons. The point is she doesn't seem to think much about the treatment of the slaves until it's in her face. She went there to buy an army of slaves. Knowing they were slaves. Upon seeing their horrendous treatment she plots to free them. If she had arrived & the slaves were treated decent she most likely would not have thought twice about the fact that they were slaves - like she had done in the past. 

It has nothing to do with whether or not she has the power. We have her internal dialogue to know that previously she doesn't think much about the unsullied she comes in contact with. 

 

Three very small dragons.

The Starks don’t dwell on the fact they’re parasites existing off the backs of their peasants. The fact Dany does start to click that this is wrong is a good thing and a point in her favour. 

Sure, George does not criticise the Starks for supporting feudalism and holding peasants as chattel. He doesn’t even call them peasants to cloak their status. Why is it “normal” to do that? Why does the author imply that “oh but with nice parental Lords the system works”? But the character who tries to change things is demonised as a fool, causing more harm than good and that things would be better if she did nothing? I am sorry I don’t buy that. Either George is ignoring the deep moral problems of partaking in that system (extreme violence and oppression) because it would make the Starks look bad or he genuinely doesn’t consider it that big a deal. George is ignoring the problem that maintaining the status quo can and often did require enormous violence.

Lets make a hypothetical situation. A Stark faces a peasants revolt because they need to raise taxes to pay for that big war with 20,000 men. How do the noble Starks deal with that? Either they stop their selfish war, or they use violence to crush the revolt; with all the killing and violence that entails. This doesn’t happen because, magically, the Northern army has no upkeep apparently and can fight for years on end without problems. So George circumvents the issue of the economic consequences of Robs war entirely and the burdens that should have placed on his people. 

But with Dany, whole chapters are dedicated to why abolishing slavery is bad for the economy (well if the only trade is training slaves then of course it would but that’s because SB makes no sense). That her war has wrecked the economy and caused suffering for her people. That is a double standard. The Stark wars should have caused massive hardship for the people of Westeros and that blame should be placed on their shoulders by the text. Instead you have this double standard. Rob isn’t accused of impoverishing the North with his wars and that leading to really tough moral decisions. Do I repress my own people to win a “just” war. George totally circumvents this question but for another character makes it a massive topic of discussion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Three very small dragons

But they won't be small forever & one was big enough to roast the slaver. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Starks don’t dwell on the fact they’re parasites existing off the backs of their peasants. The fact Dany does start to click that this is wrong is a good thing and a point in her favour

What? Lol 

1. I didn't say anything about any of this. 

2. The Starks don't live like parasites off of the peasants.

3. What does Dany think is wrong?

4. You completely avoided the reason this conversation started. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

George does not criticise the Starks for supporting feudalism and holding peasants as chattel. He doesn’t even call them peasants to cloak their status. Why is it “normal” to do that? Why does the author imply that “oh but with nice parental Lords the system works”? But the character who tries to change things is demonised as a fool, causing more harm than good and that things would be better if she did nothing? I am sorry I don’t buy that. Either George is ignoring the deep moral problems of partaking in that system (extreme violence and oppression) because it would make the Starks look bad or he genuinely doesn’t consider it that big a deal. George is ignoring the problem that maintaining the status quo can and often did require enormous violence

George doesn't criticize anyone. He just wrote the story. Are you talking about the readers demonizing Daenerys? Because some do, although I've rarely seen her demonized to the extent that you demonize the Starks. Every conversation, in every thread that you post on is some how made into how terrible the Starks are & that George white washes them. 

No one believes the Starks are perfect nor do they believe George is trying to present that "with nice parental Lord's the system works" that is something you believe, not what most of us have got from the books. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Lets make a hypothetical situation. A Stark faces a peasants revolt because they need to raise taxes to pay for that big war with 20,000 men. How do the noble Starks deal with that? Either they stop their selfish war, or they use violence to crush the revolt; with all the killing and violence that entails. This doesn’t happen because, magically, the Northern army has no upkeep apparently and can fight for years on end without problems. So George circumvents the issue of the economic consequences of Robs war entirely and the burdens that should have placed on his people.

Well George didn't circumvent anything in your hypothetical situation because it didn't happen in the books. 

The Northern Army doesn't fight for years. So I'm not sure what issue you think George circumvented magically. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

But with Dany, whole chapters are dedicated to why abolishing slavery is bad for the economy (well if the only trade is training slaves then of course it would but that’s because SB makes no sense). That her war has wrecked the economy and caused suffering for her people. That is a double standard. The Stark wars should have caused massive hardship for the people of Westeros and that blame should be placed on their shoulders by the text. Instead you have this double standard. Rob isn’t accused of impoverishing the North with his wars and that leading to really tough moral decisions. Do I repress my own people to win a “just” war. George totally circumvents this question but for another character makes it a massive topic of discussion

What chapters are these? I must've missed them. 

So wait your issue isn't with the economic issues that arrive after Daenerys frees the slaves but with the "Stark wars" not showing the same? Or is it that Slavers Bay makes no sense to you? 

1. It doesn't have to make perfect sense, it's a fantasy book. I personally don't see what doesn't make sense about it 

2. It isn't the "Stark wars" nor does all of the blame lies with them. There is plenty of people suffering because of tWot5K. Granted we haven't had a Northern POV to give us the details of the effects on them. How would you like George to lay the blame on the Starks? By killing them? Oh wait... They were already killed. 

3. I never said one word about the Starks or Robb but, as you do in every post, you have ranted about nonsense in some effort to bait someone into a nonsensical argument about the the evil Starks vs the Golden Daenerys. It's ridiculous. I happen to like Daenerys & the Starks & agree they both have their strong points & their flaws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 1:47 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

To me, there is always something slightly "off" and contradictory in Dany's POV chapters.

I'm pretty sure that's by design, but yours is an astute observation nevertheless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But they won't be small forever & one was big enough to roast the slaver. 

What? Lol 

1. I didn't say anything about any of this. 

2. The Starks don't live like parasites off of the peasants.

3. What does Dany think is wrong?

4. You completely avoided the reason this conversation started. 

George doesn't criticize anyone. He just wrote the story. Are you talking about the readers demonizing Daenerys? Because some do, although I've rarely seen her demonized to the extent that you demonize the Starks. Every conversation, in every thread that you post on is some how made into how terrible the Starks are & that George white washes them. 

No one believes the Starks are perfect nor do they believe George is trying to present that "with nice parental Lord's the system works" that is something you believe, not what most of us have got from the books. 

Well George didn't circumvent anything in your hypothetical situation because it didn't happen in the books. 

The Northern Army doesn't fight for years. So I'm not sure what issue you think George circumvented magically. 

What chapters are these? I must've missed them. 

So wait your issue isn't with the economic issues that arrive after Daenerys frees the slaves but with the "Stark wars" not showing the same? Or is it that Slavers Bay makes no sense to you? 

1. It doesn't have to make perfect sense, it's a fantasy book. I personally don't see what doesn't make sense about it 

2. It isn't the "Stark wars" nor does all of the blame lies with them. There is plenty of people suffering because of tWot5K. Granted we haven't had a Northern POV to give us the details of the effects on them. How would you like George to lay the blame on the Starks? By killing them? Oh wait... They were already killed. 

3. I never said one word about the Starks or Robb but, as you do in every post, you have ranted about nonsense in some effort to bait someone into a nonsensical argument about the the evil Starks vs the Golden Daenerys. It's ridiculous. I happen to like Daenerys & the Starks & agree they both have their strong points & their flaws. 

 

So Dany decides to do something about slavery now. Which means she needed to get the Unsullied. Otherwise she would need to wait another few decades for her dragons to fully grow.

You’re singling Dany out. Iam saying that’s because the text circumvents criticism of the other factions; specifically the Starks. So it is relevant to bring them into the discussion. How many kids must and should have died as a result of Robs war and the Stark wars to come?

Do they have Smallfolk? Are they allowed to extort produce and money from them? Are they the arbitrators of the law? How is that system different from real world feudalism, a system rightly demonised in later centuries. This makes them parasites. You can’t condemn Dany for being kinda okay with slavery for some of the early books but have no issue with the Starks keeping peasants. Either these are people of their times or you apply modern morality. 

Slavery.

Because you’re critiquing Dany when the text whitewashes the Starks. So it’s very relevant.

Really? The text absolutely is weighted towards criticising Daenerys. If you have characters constantly telling Dany that pursuing her destiny is bad and that “the realm will bleed” if she lives then that’s not accidental. You don’t have her being constantly reproached in ADWD for no cause. George clearly wanted to create a satire of the heroic saviour archtype, specifically the one with an evil ancestry who must overcome it (Rand, Aragon etc). 

Dany absolutely is demonised by the readers. They act all smug and as if this is some secret that only they are aware of when really they are being beaten over the head by it in the text. 

Calling the Starks out is a colourful way of parodying the way people talk about Dany and I genuinely don’t like them. The whole lost cause mentality, ramming down my throat how they’re the sainted and beloved, having this untainted legacy; but at the same time having this wolf fetish that would make a Space Wolf blush and stressing that they’re all Uber Man warriors. 

Because what the writer chooses to show you influences how you perceive these characters. The first time we see Ned he’s the loving father and he then has to chop the head off a NW deserter. Harsh but fair. The good man who reluctantly does what’s necessary. If, however, he’s a feudal Lord, that means you aren’t being shown peasants starving to death because all their surplus gets taken by the Lord, you don’t see peasants being hanged or branded, you don’t see the integral violence that this sort of society requires. Not showing that means the reader sees the Starks very differently. So it’s not neutral that he avoids showing any nasty business with the Starks that might be inferred from the social rank.

Most medieval campaigns only lasted through the summer. Robs in the Riverlands for a few years between Neds arrest and the Red wedding. You’re telling me he can raise 20k without raising taxes or extorting goods from his beloved people? When, as these doe eyed and long faced creeps constantly remind us that Winter is coming? George is pulling his punches on this point.

Both. The Starks are not criticised for what would have happened if Rob raised 20k men from an impoverished nation and took them into a medieval war. This should have resulted in famine and disease in both regions. Slavers Bay is stupid. There’s never been an entire society built entirely around training slaves. It’s a form of labour in which people are held as property. That means they are needed for work, in fields, mines and as servants. George obviously knew that if this was like Roman Italy with the latifundia and mines that Dany wouldn’t have these problems. He deliberately created a ridiculous society where there was no other economy past slavery itself. That is the author rigging the situation.

By showing the consequences of their actions. Have Arya see Northern soldiers robbing, raping, looting and cutting peasants to pieces because Rob orders them to raid Lords loyal to Tywin. Have one of them try to kill Arya. Have a peasant whose wife and daughter and village was slaughtered by Stark men ask for justice against them from Rob. Have Theon realise that the Ironborn invasion has benefited from the famine caused by Rob taking all the stored grain and leaving the peasants with nothing for the winter. Have malnourished peasants who poach and steal hanged or branded by the Starks minions. Have the Northern army militarily defeated in a straight fight because they arrogantly believe “the Kings if the North beat armies ten times that size”. These shouldn’t be Uber men with golden wolfsblood. Have Jon go on a raid to a Wildling village where the NW start butchering and hacking apart the women and children. They tell him to take part. Have him face an actual tough situation.

George is never going to kill the Uber wolf lords who have snow in their veins and icicles running from their noses.

Daenerys isn’t depicted as a golden character and I never said Dany was a golden character. Again, Jorah point blank tells Dany the people don’t care who is King; that applies to her as well. Robs never told people dont care that he’s King of the North. Yet I am asked to weep for the Lost Cause of the Starks. I despise hypocrisy in a book. The way I see it, you can’t really like Dany as written because you’re being constantly told that the Starks and North represent this idealised Germanic warrior civilisation uncorrupted by blood and the vile legacy of the Targaryens. That is heavily weighting any comparison. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

So Dany decides to do something about slavery now. Which means she needed to get the Unsullied. Otherwise she would need to wait another few decades for her dragons to fully grow

Maybe. Or maybe she finds another way to get them. Either way not the point I was making. 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

You’re singling Dany out. Iam saying that’s because the text circumvents criticism of the other factions; specifically the Starks. So it is relevant to bring them into the discussion. How many kids must and should have died as a result of Robs war and the Stark wars to come

Show me where I was singling Dany out. I can show you where you have singled Robb out numerous times so you shouldn't have an issue showing me where I've singled her out. I'll wait. 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Do they have Smallfolk? Are they allowed to extort produce and money from them? Are they the arbitrators of the law? How is that system different from real world feudalism, a system rightly demonised in later centuries. This makes them parasites. 

If it makes them parasites then every single noble family in Westeros are parasites. Again, you singling someone out, not me. 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

You can’t condemn Dany for being kinda okay with slavery for some of the early books but have no issue with the Starks keeping peasants. Either these are people of their times or you apply modern morality. 

Well, I can do whatever I want but it just so happens I wasn't condemning Dany nor did I say she was "kinda ok" with slavery. Maybe you should reread my posts & get back with me.

Slaves do not = peasants so again you are twisting things to fit your agenda. You do understand that there are peasants across the land right? Not just in the North? 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Because you’re critiquing Dany when the text whitewashes the Starks. So it’s very relevant

I'm discussing Daenerys's decisions in a thread made to discuss Daenerys's decisions. To draw parallels or contrasts with the Starks in order to aid your argument about Daenerys is fine. Constantly berating people for any judgement made toward Daenerys with "But Robb is the devil!!" Is not. 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Really? The text absolutely is weighted towards criticising Daenerys. If you have characters constantly telling Dany that pursuing her destiny is bad and that “the realm will bleed” if she lives then that’s not accidental. You don’t have her being constantly reproached in ADWD for no cause. George clearly wanted to create a satire of the heroic saviour archtype, specifically the one with an evil ancestry who must overcome it (Rand, Aragon etc). 

I don't recall anyone telling Dany the realm will bleed if she lives but I've been wrong before. Dany's council are bringing the issues to hand that she is trying to correct. She has freed a nation of slavery, there are going to be issues to address. That's not the text criticizing her. In contrast Robb's reign was very short lived so while he did have issues brought to him they were fewer. 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Dany absolutely is demonised by the readers. They act all smug and as if this is some secret that only they are aware of when really they are being beaten over the head by it in the text

Some do yes. But I haven't. Also how is that not exactly what you are doing but with the Starks? 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Calling the Starks out is a colourful way of parodying the way people talk about Dany and I genuinely don’t like them. The whole lost cause mentality, ramming down my throat how they’re the sainted and beloved, having this untainted legacy; but at the same time having this wolf fetish that would make a Space Wolf blush and stressing that they’re all Uber Man warriors. 

You should save this nonsense for the people that criticize Dany's every move. I believe you all would have a real productive argument, albeit a ridiculous one. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Because what the writer chooses to show you influences how you perceive these characters. The first time we see Ned he’s the loving father and he then has to chop the head off a NW deserter. Harsh but fair. The good man who reluctantly does what’s necessary. If, however, he’s a feudal Lord, that means you aren’t being shown peasants starving to death because all their surplus gets taken by the Lord, you don’t see peasants being hanged or branded, you don’t see the integral violence that this sort of society requires. Not showing that means the reader sees the Starks very differently. So it’s not neutral that he avoids showing any nasty business with the Starks that might be inferred from the social rank.

He's the loving father? No. We first see him taking his 8 year old son along to watch the beheading of a man, that we the readers know, has not done anything wrong. So maybe the issue is what you grasp from what you are reading & not what is actually being written. 

We don't see these kinds of things with any of the Lord's & peasants. It's not as if every other kingdom is starving & branding their peasants except Ned the great. 

Maybe that's just not what George chose to focus on. These novels are huge & extremely detailed, the line had to be drawn somewhere. 

Or maybe the norm is not to starve, brand, & hang their peasants. While I'm sure it happened IRL history it cannot have been what always happened or there would not have been any peasants left to rule. I hardly believe every Lord in history was a cruel sadist out hanging people Willy nilly. It doesn't whitewash Ned to not show him doing these things. Besides we get very little of Ned's interaction with his subjects because he quickly goes south to get beheaded. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Most medieval campaigns only lasted through the summer. Robs in the Riverlands for a few years between Neds arrest and the Red wedding. You’re telling me he can raise 20k without raising taxes or extorting goods from his beloved people? When, as these doe eyed and long faced creeps constantly remind us that Winter is coming? George is pulling his punches on this poin

No I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you if these things happened George chose not to detail them in the books - not only with the Starks but with any army during the war. I assume because it would probably be a very boring read but maybe it's because he just didn't want to. They are his books after all. 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Both. The Starks are not criticised for what would have happened if Rob raised 20k men from an impoverished nation and took them into a medieval war. This should have resulted in famine and disease in both regions. Slavers Bay is stupid. There’s never been an entire society built entirely around training slaves. It’s a form of labour in which people are held as property. That means they are needed for work, in fields, mines and as servants. George obviously knew that if this was like Roman Italy with the latifundia and mines that Dany wouldn’t have these problems. He deliberately created a ridiculous society where there was no other economy past slavery itself. That is the author rigging the situation.

LOL he rigs EVERY situation, they are his books!! He isn't writing history. He is telling a fictional story. I understand you would have liked a story where Dany walked over the water to Westeros to regain her rightful place on the IT but most of us wouldn't have. 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

showing the consequences of their actions. Have Arya see Northern soldiers robbing, raping, looting and cutting peasants to pieces because Rob orders them to raid Lords loyal to Tywin. Have one of them try to kill Arya. Have a peasant whose wife and daughter and village was slaughtered by Stark men ask for justice against them from Rob. Have Theon realise that the Ironborn invasion has benefited from the famine caused by Rob taking all the stored grain and leaving the peasants with nothing for the winter. Have malnourished peasants who poach and steal hanged or branded by the Starks minions. Have the Northern army militarily defeated in a straight fight because they arrogantly believe “the Kings if the North beat armies ten times that size”. These shouldn’t be Uber men with golden wolfsblood. Have Jon go on a raid to a Wildling village where the NW start butchering and hacking apart the women and children. They tell him to take part. Have him face an actual tough situation.

George is never going to kill the Uber wolf lords who have snow in their veins and icicles running from their noses.

Again, maybe he didn't show these things because they DIDN'T happen. If every army & Lord behave like Gregor & Co under Tywin's command it takes the shock value away from what Gregor is doing. 

George chose to show them facing the consequences of their actions with their lives. 

As to the bolded are you serious? To date we have 3 Stark 'Lords' murdered in cold blood. Another is well on his way to becoming a zombie tree & the last is MIA. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Daenerys isn’t depicted as a golden character and I never said Dany was a golden character. Again, Jorah point blank tells Dany the people don’t care who is King; that applies to her as well. Robs never told people dont care that he’s King of the North. Yet I am asked to weep for the Lost Cause of the Starks. I despise hypocrisy in a book. The way I see it, you can’t really like Dany as written because you’re being constantly told that the Starks and North represent this idealised Germanic warrior civilisation uncorrupted by blood and the vile legacy of the Targaryens. That is heavily weighting any comparison. 

No she isn't written as a Golden character, I was referring to how you see her or rather how you would have liked her to be written. 

The small folk of the realm don't care who is King or Queen - why would they? Robb isn't told this because he isn't dealing with the entire realm but with people who know him personally. It's no different than the American people as a whole not caring who is president but that potential presidents friends, neighbors, co-workers, family etc are rooting for him to win. Dany's circle wants her to be Queen just like Robb's. The people as a whole could care less. 

Listen we have derailed this thread enough but the point I'm trying to make is that you are the minority in believing George has went out of his way to paint the Starks as hero gods & Daenerys as the evil queen. Just out of curiosity is there any part of the books you do like? 

Edited by Lyanna<3Rhaegar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lyanna<3Rhaegar

There’s a lot to like about the books. Dany is one of the best fantasy characters ever. It’s a story about having a dark legacy and the problems with wielding power; but with this amazing mythology woven into it. Theon and Jamie have really nuanced and morally challenging character arcs. The whole plot of the Game of Thrones. The intrigue surrounding the nature of the magic and how far it goes. It’s a very solid world with great world building and character into it.

Some of the Starks have good character moments in Arya and Sansa’s arcs. But, those are characters without any real power and their chief concern is survival rather than the Lost Cause. They don’t keep peasants and sending armies rampaging through the Riverlands. Arya’s reaction to the RW for example in its aftermath is a very strong few chapters. It’s a very, very slow burn getting there and IMO I don’t really care for rogue.

So it’s good despite the Starks and the North.

He made Ned and Rob martyrs. Cat isn’t dead. Bran is on his way to becoming the corpse emperor upon his weir wood throne. The news of Jon’s demise is premature. I doubt Jon is going to lose his chiselled good looks. Arya and Sansa are still live and kicking. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Because without the army she doesn’t have the power to do anything about slavery. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

"Doing something about slavery" wasnt even her goal, it flipped like a light switch. What slavery abolitionist decides to fight slavery on the day they couldn't afford to buy slaves? Its not bad per se, it's just weird. The biggest selling point for her is that she "has some dogs she needs to kill" in Westeros and that Unsullied wont kill children (lmaooo). There other things that are strange in that chapter too. Dany's response to Barristan's concerns about a slave army is a non-sequitur, the way Kraznyz is so over the top evil, the way the Plaza explodes into "blood and chaos" (alternative Targaryen House words?), how the chapter immediately following Dany's cry of "freedom!" is Sansa being forcibly married. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

@Lyanna<3Rhaegar

There’s a lot to like about the books. Dany is one of the best fantasy characters ever. It’s a story about having a dark legacy and the problems with wielding power; but with this amazing mythology woven into it. Theon and Jamie have really nuanced and morally challenging character arcs. The whole plot of the Game of Thrones. The intrigue surrounding the nature of the magic and how far it goes. It’s a very solid world with great world building and character into it.

Some of the Starks have good character moments in Arya and Sansa’s arcs. But, those are characters without any real power and their chief concern is survival rather than the Lost Cause. They don’t keep peasants and sending armies rampaging through the Riverlands. Arya’s reaction to the RW for example in its aftermath is a very strong few chapters. It’s a very, very slow burn getting there and IMO I don’t really care for rogue.

So it’s good despite the Starks and the North.

He made Ned and Rob martyrs. Cat isn’t dead. Bran is on his way to becoming the corpse emperor upon his weir wood throne. The news of Jon’s demise is premature. I doubt Jon is going to lose his chiselled good looks. Arya and Sansa are still live and kicking. 

 

They are hardly martyrs. Have you read some of the criticism on this forum about them? 

I didn't say anything about Cat. I said Stark Lords & Catelyn may not be dead but she is hardly living. She has suffered a fate worse than death. 

Ned lost his head in front of his daughters. Robb lost his head after being brutally murdered, along with his men, in front of his mother. The jury is still out on Jon but where it stands he has been stabbed either to death or near to death by his own men. 

This whole conversation started because we were trying to make the point that Daenerys may have not given a shit about the slaves being slaves if they weren't treated so poorly. No one was unfairly criticizing her, just making an observation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Because what the writer chooses to show you influences how you perceive these characters. The first time we see Ned he’s the loving father and he then has to chop the head off a NW deserter. Harsh but fair. The good man who reluctantly does what’s necessary. If, however, he’s a feudal Lord, that means you aren’t being shown peasants starving to death because all their surplus gets taken by the Lord, you don’t see peasants being hanged or branded, you don’t see the integral violence that this sort of society requires. Not showing that means the reader sees the Starks very differently. So it’s not neutral that he avoids showing any nasty business with the Starks that might be inferred from the social rank.

Maybe we're not shown mistreatment of peasants because it didn't happen.  I recall that Roose Bolton commented that he had to cover up his misdeeds for fear that Rickard Stark, Ned's father, would find out.  I doubt Ned was any different.  Come to think on it, Bolton is the only Lord we see mistreating his peasantry.  Given that they are perfectly capable of moving away if things are bad enough for them, it would be stupid to do so.  The Lord might find himself with a depopulated demesne.  

11 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Most medieval campaigns only lasted through the summer. Robs in the Riverlands for a few years between Neds arrest and the Red wedding. You’re telling me he can raise 20k without raising taxes or extorting goods from his beloved people? When, as these doe eyed and long faced creeps constantly remind us that Winter is coming? George is pulling his punches on this point.

Robb is in the Riverlands for less than a year.  Thanks to the wonky seasons, it was summer the entire time.

11 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

By showing the consequences of their actions. Have Arya see Northern soldiers robbing, raping, looting and cutting peasants to pieces because Rob orders them to raid Lords loyal to Tywin. Have one of them try to kill Arya. Have a peasant whose wife and daughter and village was slaughtered by Stark men ask for justice against them from Rob. Have Theon realise that the Ironborn invasion has benefited from the famine caused by Rob taking all the stored grain and leaving the peasants with nothing for the winter. Have malnourished peasants who poach and steal hanged or branded by the Starks minions. Have the Northern army militarily defeated in a straight fight because they arrogantly believe “the Kings if the North beat armies ten times that size”. These shouldn’t be Uber men with golden wolfsblood. Have Jon go on a raid to a Wildling village where the NW start butchering and hacking apart the women and children. They tell him to take part. Have him face an actual tough situation.

And you are convinced that all these events happen on a regular basis?  Because I'm not.  One of the reasons Gregor Clegane's actions and the actions of the mutineers at Craster's are so shocking is that it isn't the norm.  I realize you wish, or somehow believe, differently.  I, however, take the story as it is written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 1:38 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Quote 1: “Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.” - Daenerys, ASOS

The meaning of what our young heroine said is this:  Kill the Slave Owners, their paid Soldiers, but only if they are twelve and above.  This is perfectly reasonable to me.  It's more justice than Rickard Karstark, Ned Stark, Janos Slynt, and the butcher's boy got.

On 8/21/2019 at 1:38 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Quote 2: “In death he looked even younger than he had with blade in hand. “A boy,” said Dany. “He was only a boy.”
“Six-and-ten,” Hizdahr insisted. “A man grown, who freely chose to risk his life for gold and glory. No children die today in Daznak’s, as my gentle queen in her wisdom has decreed.” - Daenerys, ADWD

Quote 3: "A boy came, younger than Dany, slight and scarred, dressed up in a frayed grey tokar trailing silver fringe. His voice broke when he told of how two of his father's household slaves had risen up the night the gate broke. One had slain his father, the other his elder brother. Both had raped his mother before killing her as well. The boy had escaped with no more than the scar upon his face, but one of the murderers was still living in his father's house, and the other had joined the queen's soldiers as one of the Mother's Men. He wanted them both hanged. I am queen over a city built on dust and death. Dany had no choice but to deny him. She had declared a blanket pardon for all crimes committed during the sack. Nor would she punish slaves for rising up against their masters."- Daenerys, ADWD

Look here, nobody ever said every enslaved person was a good person.  But understand this, slavery is still wrong.  Those ex-slaves who perpetrated this are no worse than the Lannister soldiers who sacked King's Landing during Robert's Rebellion and the Stark bannermen who wreaked havoc in the south during the War of the Five Kings.  The Wildlings would have done much worse than this to people who enslaved, humiliated, and made them suffer.  Tywin Lannister did worse than this to a woman whose only crime was loving his ugly son.

What happened to this young man can be blamed on his culture.  They made a practice of slavery.  What did he think would happen if the slaves ever got the upper hand?  And the parents.  How many slaves suffered and died because of the parents.  

On 8/21/2019 at 1:38 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Several questions here - 

First, is everyone who wears a tokar a slave master? Or, is the tokar the garment worn by free people, some of which are slave owners, some are not?

The tokar is the garment of the slave-owning master class.  To wear one is to be a member of that class.  Any posing fool who is not a slave owner who chooses to wear one aspire to be a member of that class, support the owning of slaves, and rightly can be considered one of them.  The idiot chose to join this elite group of slavers.  He gets what they get.  

On 8/21/2019 at 1:38 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Second, at what age is a person in Slavers Bay responsible for slavery?

Irrelevant question, because in a slaving system, a five-year-old master can order his slaves to commit murder.  Stop thinking of these youngsters as modern kids.  Modern kids do not have the power to order a death nor do they sit in a coliseum and cheer on the spectacle of slaves killing each other.  

On 8/21/2019 at 1:38 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Third, would a person wearing a tokar, who is 12 years old, have been killed in the sack? If so, did Dany sanction child murder? (quotes 1, 2, 3)

A 12 year old wearing a tokar is a slave owner, not a child.  That "child" has the authority from birth to order his slaves to commit murder, suicide, or fight in the arenas for his pleasure.  These are not innocent people.  It's not murder, it's liberation.  

On 8/21/2019 at 1:38 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Fourth, if she thinks 16 is a child, where did she come up with the number 12 before this? (referring to quote 1 and 2)

Finally, would you consider Mirri Maz Duur a slave who rose up against her master? (referring to Quote 3)

Again, irrelevant questions.  MMD was never going to become free.  She's surrounded by 100 K Dothraki.  She herself had given up on life.  So what she did was done only out of spite and vengeance.  She took out her anger on the only person among the Dothraki who showed her any kindness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 4:28 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Follow-up question - if the slaves in Astapor had been treated relatively well, would Dany have cared? She arrived there to buy slaves. Would she have bought them if she could have paid for them, or if they were treated like the slaves she encountered with the Dothraki? Dany took her own slaves and even slapped one of them. Judgement day seems to only come on the whims of whatever Dany can afford or is offended by at that particular moment. 

Treated well!  How can they be!  They're slaves.  Maybe there is a relative scale with the Plaza of Punishment being the worst and skilled household servant being the best with regards to treatment.  I don't know.  What I do know is these slaves are at the mercy of their owners and have no choice.  

Yes she came to Astapor to seriously consider the purchase of slaves.  The Unsullied do not rape, steal, nor sack conquered cities.  That was one factor in their favor and what made them attractive.  An intelligent young woman comes to Astapor and her eyes are opened to the suffering of these slave soldiers.  It became a rescue mission.  

Let us get back to your earlier question to me.  It was never murder.  Murder is a legal term.  There was nothing illegal here unless you consider all wars illegal.   She is a khaleesi, heir to the lands of Westeros, and arguably monarch of the lands once belonging to the Valyrians.  She has the authority to judge.  

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

×