Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Centurion Piso

The Tyrion of Fevre Dream (spoiler)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

That is pretty much what York says to Marsh.  And perhaps GRRM intends the reader to buy it.  But York has forgotten (and perhaps GRRM has forgotten as well) that York has already admitted to Marsh that he is prepared to kill, without compulsion, in order to preserve vampire secrecy.  York has already admitted he is every bit as evil as the average human killer, even if one excludes the killings that are done by compulsion.

He proves that he means this when he kidnaps the survivors of Damon Julian's massacre, to prevent them from revealing what they know.  Logically, this can only end in their deaths, and predictably it does.  Legally and morally, this is the mass murder of 30 people, and it was done without compulsion.

Also the "compulsion" excuse only applies to York's first killing, as an adolescent, when he did not know what he was.  After that, he could have ended his killings at any time by turning himself in.  

 

That may be so but the fact that York worked to develop his chemical and tried to convert Damon is weight on the side of the good.  If you can picture his life in the form of a balance scale.  He is willing to do violence to protect his kind, which is not the highest form of morality, but it is not any worse than the humans who butcher livestock and fight wars to protect their beliefs.  Humans do much worse for much less.  We murder animals and it's not even needed.  We can live satisfactorily without consuming meat.  The human is more similar to Damon.  There is a limit to what somebody can tolerate before they give in to the destructiveness inside.  The better that somebody the higher this threshold is.  Damon's threshold is very low because his morals are low.  York's morality is higher because he at least tried to move their kind to a morally better path. 

Share this post


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

That may be so but the fact that York worked to develop his chemical and tried to convert Damon is weight on the side of the good.  If you can picture his life in the form of a balance scale.  He is willing to do violence to protect his kind, which is not the highest form of morality, but it is not any worse than the humans who butcher livestock and fight wars to protect their beliefs.  Humans do much worse for much less.  We murder animals and it's not even needed.  We can live satisfactorily without consuming meat.  The human is more similar to Damon.  There is a limit to what somebody can tolerate before they give in to the destructiveness inside.  The better that somebody the higher this threshold is.  Damon's threshold is very low because his morals are low.  York's morality is higher because he at least tried to move their kind to a morally better path. 

I'm not down with the equal rights for bunnies movement.  When people pretend to argue that the life of a mouse is as valuable as the life of a man, what they are really arguing is that a man's life is worth as little as that of a mouse.  Which is exactly how you are using it here.  You are here to justify and defend the murder of human beings. 

Argue all you want for vegetarianism and the humane treatment of animals.  But when you equate human life with animal life, you've lost me.

The "cattle" analogy is useful, of course, as an analogy to understand the alien perspective of Joshua York.  But York is not down with the equal rights for bunnies idea either.  He just thinks of us as the bunnies.

But the "cattle" analogy does not explain Marsh's perspective.  Marsh ought to be more horrified than he is by York.  And logically, Marsh ought to have been murdered by York for the crime of knowing too much.  York is driven by race loyalty, and ought to anticipate that Marsh might also have some vestigial loyalty to his own kind.

Edited by Platypus Rex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2019 at 9:17 AM, The Fattest Leech said:

Correct. And during the heat of it all, Abner claims he wants to take what is his with "fire and blood", and then asks for a blade (sword, knife, etc). It is later, through first hand experience, that Abner realizes what he thought he wanted wasn't worth it. The ship Eclipse that runs in the background of this story is the reflection of the main, personal, struggles the protagonists face.

Clarifying, this next part is "in general", not to you directly Coonster...

The term fire and blood was not invented by GRRM for ASOIAF, and we know what it means when he has a character use this phrase, and all if it points to what can be summed up as absolutely no frickin' good for anyone involved, from the smallfolk up to the elite. Same with the red thirst, which is the desire to rule from the iron throne... Ozymandias. GRRM has talked about this by name before = no frickin' good.

And I find it interesting those in in this thread are completely missing that Sour Billy Tipton is literally a reekified human working for a fire "god", and just like Janos Slynt, he is a racists bigot that also has a (false) superiority complex. Sour Billy is the second "Reek" that existed in this story that Damon made. This is yet another heaping dallop of author insight that Janos Slynt was a treacherous (secondary) villain type, that's it.

Fire and blood is a rather generic term.  GRRM recycles terms just as he recycles names.  There is no connection in most cases.  Abner was proven right when the country had to experience the Civil War, the fire and blood in the context of Fevre Dream, in order to make the slaves in the south free.  Fire and blood can generically mean "by force" within the context of Fevre Dream.  We don't want people to be misled into thinking all acts of force is bad.  GRRM would fight the Nazis to help the jews.  Standing around while others are forced into slavery is not and never will be the answer.  A diplomatic solution that will accomplish the same goals is better if it is possible but if it is not and the cause is worthy enough then bloodshed is justified.  Going to war for the sake of saving Ned Stark and finding Bran's attacker was not justified.  Attacking Meereen to help the slaves within is a justified use of force. 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×