Jump to content
Rose of Red Lake

Dany and child murder

Recommended Posts

Ah, what a neutral, unloaded set of questions.

9 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I might be okay with her taking over slaver's bay to remake it, and making whatever mistakes a person with little to no experience in ruling would make....if she had been willing to stick with it, but we know she won't.  She wants to be the 'mother' and good guy abolitionist while also still laying claim to Westeros as her birthright.  So, I assume, that she is going to learn all the wrong lessons from Meereen, she will not learn that ruling is especially hard w/no allies and no understanding of the culture [which applies to both Slaver's Bay and Westeros], instead she will, I assume again, learn that compromise with your enemies is the problem, and so she will go full fire and blood dracarys.  Doing basically the same mistakes in Westeros she made in Meereen only bigger and more deadly and against a much, much less evil set of adversaries.  So, she dooms herself to fail because she will never question the 'rightness' of her plans to rule all these strangers who she knows nothing of their histories, cultures, wants or needs, beyond in SB, the baseliness 'slavery is bad'. 

From now on, I'm going to ask this to everyone who says something similar to the bolded: in which ways is Dany ignorant to Westerosi culture, and what culture do you think she does understand?

She was born in Westeros, raised by a Westerosi knight and then by her Westerosi brother, and has spent all her time with two other Westerosi knights since the age of 13. Most importantly, we can see inside her head. She holds no beliefs particularly different to that of the other pov characters, except when she's interacting with people of other cultures (e.g. performing Dothraki funereal customs for Drogo).

If the narrative criticises Dany for not questioning her right to claim the throne, then George has written a story with thematic inconsistencies, since none of our other noble characters are asked to think about the (un)fairness of their inherited positions. So rather than "people shouldn't inherit power" the message becomes "this particular person shouldn't inherit power". Not only is that shallow, it's a not a great road to go down for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Annalee said:

The unsullied had a choice.  100% better than the choice their masters ever gave them which was 0%.  Giving them that chance was not a stunt.  It was an honest offer.  They chose to follow the woman who gave them their freedom.  I see nothing wrong with that.  They are now men with a purpose.

Meereen is in the middle of a social and economic reform.  It is way too premature to judge the outcome.  Millions of slaves are free because of Daenerys and her armies.  The only problem are the masters are still alive and opposing progress.  She is the best of the leaders we have come across within the time frame of the story.

Dany is trying to compromise between the Great Masters and the freed slaves, and the free people who were not Great Masters, at Meereen.

Like most attempts to compromise, it ends up leaving lots of people unhappy.

But, it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of Meereen's problems are due to being subject to foreign aggression, not because of Daenerys.

And, Essos is ripe for social and religious revolution, in any case.  Dany is just the spark who lit the bonfire.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


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

I don't think Daenerys would have harmed Irri had she said No, or any Unsullied who wanted to leave.  But, I accept the Unsullied don't have a huge deal of choice, and Irri is besotted with Daenerys, like most of her followers. 

Dany's enjoyment of the violence and killing at Astapor, is a disturbing part of her chapter, even though she was right to turn against the Good Masters.

Irri had nowhere else to go either. She and Jhiqui started off as slaves and that's what they've known. When Drogo died, the rival khals would have brutalized them. They probably went with the least worst option, and there is so much war and conflict that Dany starts anyway, how could they start a life? Irri does not seem in awe of dragons or of Dany. She calls them terrible evil beasts and gets bitten by one. Jhiqui thinks Dany has slaves, as late as ADWD. They are unlikely to refuse to pleasure her, and "just helping a friend out with her orgasm" would not have been realistic for this society (or any society really except college co-ed porn). This isn't a case of Irri just being a "good friend." Her kisses "tasted of duty". Something is amiss and its not fully consensual (as is with most sex in this series).

Share this post


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

Irri had nowhere else to go either. She and Jhiqui started off as slaves and that's what they've known. When Drogo died, the rival khals would have brutalized them. They probably went with the least worst option, and there is so much war and conflict that Dany starts anyway, how could they start a life? Irri does not seem in awe of dragons or of Dany. She calls them terrible evil beasts and gets bitten by one. Jhiqui thinks Dany has slaves, as late as ADWD. They are unlikely to refuse to pleasure her, and "just helping a friend out with her orgasm" would not have been realistic for this society (or any society really except college co-ed porn). This isn't a case of Irri just being a "good friend." Her kisses "tasted of duty". Something is amiss and its not fully consensual (as is with most sex in this series).

I don't doubt that this is a world in which servants (whether slaves, or free servants) would generally be expected to provide sexual services to their masters and mistresses if asked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Irri had nowhere else to go either. She and Jhiqui started off as slaves and that's what they've known. When Drogo died, the rival khals would have brutalized them. They probably went with the least worst option, and there is so much war and conflict that Dany starts anyway, how could they start a life? Irri does not seem in awe of dragons or of Dany. She calls them terrible evil beasts and gets bitten by one. Jhiqui thinks Dany has slaves, as late as ADWD. They are unlikely to refuse to pleasure her, and "just helping a friend out with her orgasm" would not have been realistic for this society (or any society really except college co-ed porn). This isn't a case of Irri just being a "good friend." Her kisses "tasted of duty". Something is amiss and its not fully consensual (as is with most sex in this series).

In the same scene we learn Drogon bit Irri, she also compared dragons to horses. Are we to assume she doesn't like horses too?

There's no reason to question Irri and Jhiqui's loyalty or eagerness to serve Dany. The Dothraki follow strength and Irri and Jhiqui are both stubbornly Dothraki. And far from "the least worst option", handmaid to a Targ Queen and Khal(eesi) sounds like a pretty sweet position to have. If Irri is not "truly" free, then neither are any of the other people in this world, in which case you've rendered the word/concept useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hodor the Articulate said:

In the same scene we learn Drogon bit Irri, she also compared dragons to horses. Are we to assume she doesn't like horses too?

There's no reason to question Irri and Jhiqui's loyalty or eagerness to serve Dany. The Dothraki follow strength and Irri and Jhiqui are both stubbornly Dothraki. And far from "the least worst option", handmaid to a Targ Queen and Khal(eesi) sounds like a pretty sweet position to have. If Irri is not "truly" free, then neither are any of the other people in this world, in which case you've rendered the word/concept useless.

Being a personal servant to Dany is probably about as good as it gets for servants in this world.  They eat as well as she does, enjoy a high standard of comfort, and have a kind mistress.  Few mistresses would hold Doreah in their arms as she was dying, rather than just leaving her and moving on.

Share this post


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

Being a personal servant to Dany is probably about as good as it gets for servants in this world.  They eat as well as she does, enjoy a high standard of comfort, and have a kind mistress.  Few mistresses would hold Doreah in their arms as she was dying, rather than just leaving her and moving on.

I mean, even being a handmaid to someone like Maegor was probably a good gig. Better than slumming it as a peasant, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Ah, what a neutral, unloaded set of questions.

From now on, I'm going to ask this to everyone who says something similar to the bolded: in which ways is Dany ignorant to Westerosi culture, and what culture do you think she does understand?

She was born in Westeros, raised by a Westerosi knight and then by her Westerosi brother, and has spent all her time with two other Westerosi knights since the age of 13. Most importantly, we can see inside her head. She holds no beliefs particularly different to that of the other pov characters, except when she's interacting with people of other cultures (e.g. performing Dothraki funereal customs for Drogo).

If the narrative criticises Dany for not questioning her right to claim the throne, then George has written a story with thematic inconsistencies, since none of our other noble characters are asked to think about the (un)fairness of their inherited positions. So rather than "people shouldn't inherit power" the message becomes "this particular person shouldn't inherit power". Not only is that shallow, it's a not a great road to go down for obvious reasons.

Daenerys knows more about Westeros than the average noblewoman there.  How much traveling had Fat Walda done before moving north?  For that matter, how much travelling has the average lady done.  Daenerys knows more than they about Westeros.  I will confidently say she knows more about Westeros than Jon Snow, who has never been south of Winterfell.  

Share this post


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

Jon betrayed the people he was leading.  That is why they killed him.  

No sir. The people he was leading betrayed him by killing him. A fact that has been discussed to death but one which I'm usually obliged to discuss further. But we would have to do it on a thread pertaining to it, not this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 2:04 PM, SeanF said:

I don't think Daenerys would have harmed Irri had she said No, or any Unsullied who wanted to leave.  But, I accept the Unsullied don't have a huge deal of choice, and Irri is besotted with Daenerys, like most of her followers. 

Dany's enjoyment of the violence and killing at Astapor, is a disturbing part of her chapter, even though she was right to turn against the Good Masters.

Knights enjoy battle.  Oh sure they couch it like it's honor and a sport but they love the thrill of the kill.  One who gets no emotional reaction from killing is the weird one like Arya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Victor Newman said:

Jon betrayed them repeatedly.  One of the worst of his betrayals involved Janos Slynt and Mance Rayder.  He killed a sworn night's watch brother over a trivial offense.  It was revenge for Ned's death.  Mance Rayder broke every damn rule of the night's watch and murdered people but Jon lets him escape punishment because he liked him better and needed him to break Arya out of Winterfell.  

*Sigh* not even close to facts. Again, I would be happy to discuss this in detail with you on a thread that pertains to Jon/betrayal/NW etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/22/2019 at 12:04 PM, John Suburbs said:

 

At what age are people in our society responsible for poverty? Slavery was simply an accepted aspect of their culture, just like poverty is in ours. Who is responsible? Everyone? No one?

 

 

 

I really don't think those are the same thing. Those who are enslaved are not given a choice. They have no civil rights. Those who are in poverty are not enslaved. They have civil rights. 

Edited by trazayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Victor Newman said:

Knights enjoy battle.  Oh sure they couch it like it's honor and a sport but they love the thrill of the kill.  One who gets no emotional reaction from killing is the weird one like Arya.

I think there's truth in that.  Far more people enjoy fighting than is generally supposed.  Dany imagines herself as a knight riding into battle, as she rides into Astapor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, trazayn said:

I really don't think those are the same thing. Those who are enslaved are not given a choice. They have no civil rights. Those who are in poverty are not enslaved. They have civil rights. 

A further point about slavery is that it isn't just "their culture".  It's an extremely violent imposition of their culture on other people who don't want to be a part of it, but who get enslaved anyway.

Share this post


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

A further point about slavery is that it isn't just "their culture".  It's an extremely violent imposition of their culture on other people who don't want to be a part of it, but who get enslaved anyway.

Yes. And I agree with a few other posters with respect to Dany's wars being more morally justifiable than those of Tywin or Robb. Though I think it's little a matter of justification: with respect to the overall asoif narrative it is more about how wars, even justifiable wars are bloodbaths. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, trazayn said:

Yes. And I agree with a few other posters with respect to Dany's wars being more morally justifiable than those of Tywin or Robb. Though I think it's little a matter of justification: with respect to the overall asoif narrative it is more about how wars, even justifiable wars are bloodbaths. 

 

My own view is that in this world, war is simply the Ultimate Argument of Kings.  I don't get too bothered about characters waging wars, more about how they wage them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 10:55 PM, Bullrout said:

Ofcourse George levels criticism at the Starks.  You just have to read carefully and open your eyes.  That stunt at the wall that Jon Snow pulled, that was not heroic and it was never meant to be such.  George is playing games with his fans.  He wants the reader to think things through and think about what happened.  It's not flattering to Jon and only proved how incapable he is at rulingIt's not George who tries to make excuses for the Starks It's the readers who like that family who invent one excuse after another

I do very much agree that Martin wants readers to think and question things. 

That said, I don't really agree w/ anything else you've said. And I find it slightly amusing that you are basically claiming to know what Martin's intentions are, and that you know what he thinks about these issues; basically, you think Martin thinks exactly as you do. News flash: he doesn't. And no, I am not saying he thinks just like me. I am simply basing this on the actual text, and on many interviews Martin has given over the years. Here, a fairly recent one where he is as clear as he can be on the topic:

"He won’t go so far as to relate the events in his books to today’s politics, but he hopes that Westeros offers us lessons, including the ways that power can corrupt. “Maybe some kid who is reading it now…will be a president or senator, and the lessons of Westeros will have been incorporated into his worldview and affect some decision he makes 20 or 30 years from now.” Then he pauses to think. “It depends on who he models himself on, Jon Snow or a new Joffrey,” citing a noble hero and a sadistic boy king. “We don’t need anyone modeling themselves after Joffrey.”

Here's another one... not that it will make any difference.

"The point that Trump and Ser Thorne are missing, but that Martin and Snow express so eloquently, is that the refugees aren't the real enemies. The real enemies are the merciless forces that the refugees are fleeing. 

 

On 8/23/2019 at 10:55 PM, Bullrout said:

There are many Stark haters and Dany fans on this website.  

Indeed. And the real big issue is not who is recipient of the hatred, but hatred itself. IMO. 

Share this post


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

I do very much agree that Martin wants readers to think and question things. 

That said, I don't really agree w/ anything else you've said. And I find it slightly amusing that you are basically claiming to know what Martin's intentions are, and that you know what he thinks about these issues; basically, you think Martin thinks exactly as you do. News flash: he doesn't. And no, I am not saying he thinks just like me. I am simply basing this on the actual text, and on many interviews Martin has given over the years. Here, a fairly recent one where he is as clear as he can be on the topic:

"He won’t go so far as to relate the events in his books to today’s politics, but he hopes that Westeros offers us lessons, including the ways that power can corrupt. “Maybe some kid who is reading it now…will be a president or senator, and the lessons of Westeros will have been incorporated into his worldview and affect some decision he makes 20 or 30 years from now.” Then he pauses to think. “It depends on who he models himself on, Jon Snow or a new Joffrey,” citing a noble hero and a sadistic boy king. “We don’t need anyone modeling themselves after Joffrey.”

Here's another one... not that it will make any difference.

"The point that Trump and Ser Thorne are missing, but that Martin and Snow express so eloquently, is that the refugees aren't the real enemies. The real enemies are the merciless forces that the refugees are fleeing. 

 

Indeed. And the real big issue is not who is recipient of the hatred, but hatred itself. IMO. 

So much of this. I really would like to open a thread where people can be civil & factual & discuss the Jon vs Bowen argument but it always turns into a Jon hate thread & blinded by their anger they post things that are either twisted or completely false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jon is portrayed as making a huge Bowen-like mistake because he trusts Dany, what will Dany fans who hate Jon do then? Their heads would explode.

13 hours ago, SeanF said:

My own view is that in this world, war is simply the Ultimate Argument of Kings.  I don't get too bothered about characters waging wars, more about how they wage them.

The text often undercuts the arguments for kings waging wars for crowns, they get lines like, “This dream of kingship is a madness in our blood.” Kings chosen by acclamation who try to compromise to prevent constant war and who know the limitations of force as a strategy, probably come out on top.

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

×