Jump to content
Sea Dragon

Martin confirms Dany's coin lands good.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Plato thought a tyrant would free slaves, in order to gain supporters, and oppress free citizens.  It's probably not an opinion that has aged well.

Yeah Plato's "On Tyranny" is irrelevant to understanding...tyranny. Throw it in the trash! 

Share this post


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

Because the discussion wasnt "criticize the dothraki for slavery" it was Dany's hypocrisy. She has her own superstitions too, like believing she cant get sick because she's a dragon and looking at comets to decide what to do. But these are of course real and the Dothraki's are just dumb savage talk?

LOL, those are actually not superstitions of the kind she is criticizing - every culture in Martinworld thought the comet meant something and was being a sign (and as per the prophecy it actually seems it heralded her rise and her hatching dragons from stone). She is right there, not wrong. This is a fantasy world where comets are not just rocks in the sky, entirely devoid of meaning.

Dothraki superstition actually seems to be just superstition since nobody in Westeros or anywhere in Martinworld seems to have had problems touching the corpses they hadn't put in that state.

And there is also an empirical background for Targaryen belief that Targaryen cannot get sick/don't get sick as often from 'common disease' than others. You might not like it, but they *are* different from other people in some regard. And it is not just their looks (which include a lot of variation).

But unlike your claims the Targaryens *never* justified their rule by being dragonlords or Valyrians or any of that - they merely used their otherness to justify their traditional incest. Their rule over Westeros was accomplished the same way all the other houses established their rule - by fighting and winning a war, with the losers eventually bending the knee and accepting Targaryen rule.

54 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Dany is arrogant and culturally insensitive, and has shades of her brother in these thoughts.

LOL again. Have you even read FaB? The people in this world who are actually savage racists and xenophobs and religious bigots are the Westerosi smallfolk, especially the Kingslanders, but also the lords. Just look how Larra Rogare and her brothers were treated by the people of her husband, not to mention Torrhen Manderly's blatantly racist justification for the conviction of Roggerio Rogare:

Quote

In the end, the banker Lotho was adjudged guilty of theft, for taking gold and gems and silver not his own, and failing to restore same on demand. Lord Manderly gave him the choice of taking the black, or having his right hand removed as if he were a common thief. “Then praise Yndros, I am left-handed,” Lotho said, choosing mutilation. Nothing at all could be proved against his brother Roggerio, but Lord Manderly sentenced him to seven lashes all the same. “For what?” Roggerio demanded of him, aghast. “For being a thrice-damned Lyseni,” Torrhen Manderly responded.

This is where the actual racism in this world shows. Daenerys Targaryen is leading a multi-ethnic movement of freed slaves, she is about as a racist as the founders of Braavos were - and light years less racist and bigoted than any of the insular Westerosi (most of who exotize Dorne).

Share this post


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

Yeah Plato's "On Tyranny" is irrelevant to understanding...tyranny. Throw it in the trash! 

Well the Ancient Greek philosophers said a lot of wise things that have aged well, but they also said things that havent aged well. Aristotle thought women should stay in the kitchen, and that slavery was okay 'cause certain men would born inferior and thus meant to serve.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL again. Have you even read FaB? The people in this world who are actually savage racists and xenophobs and religious bigots are the Westerosi smallfolk, especially the Kingslanders, but also the lords. Just look how Larra Rogare and her brothers were treated by the people of her husband, not to mention Torrhen Manderly's blatantly racist justification for the conviction of Roggerio Rogare:

 

A lot of Dany haters claim she "didn't understand the culture she was ruling, is acting like an American in Iraq etc" but personally I've got no problem with her being culturally insensitive to slavers. 

I am kind of uncomfortable with the idea that GRRM is foreshadowing her tyranny by having her be insensitive to the needs and traditions of slavers. I get D+D doing it in the show cause that's just the kind of half-brained stuff we'd expect them to cook up, but I expect better from GRRM.

Share this post


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

Sorry, I'm not really following what you're saying--are you making the argument that Dany thinks she's a young girl so this proves how much she respects the Dothraki? That's not really what is going on in this passage . .  . 

No, not all.

Again. Please don't take this the wrong way but you are not reading what is being written. You just aren't.

Where did I argue or even say that "Dany thinks she's a young girl so this proves how much she respects the Dothraki"? Where was that conclusion drawn?

Where?! I believe I was abundantly clear so I am seriously wanting you to point it out to me.

16 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Dany thinks they are superstitious fools (this isn't the only example), she thinks about their different facial features in the same breath when she thinks they're dumb and immature. Then she thinks they were "given to her," to remind herself what is hers by rights (because that's another phrase that comes up constantly). Later, she chides them that Rhakaro is hers as well--she's always talking about what is owed to her. I really can't in good faith make excuses for her. It's racism. She consistently treats Dothraki like shit on her shoes. Lurking in the background is also Targaryens' obsession with racial blood purity and supremacy as the "best" people to ever rule Westeros (an ideology which also characterized one of the most murderous regimes in our own recent history). Dany's supremacist thoughts about her Dothraki bloodriders and handmaidens illustrates how she can easily make anyone inferior to her. These thoughts are what lead to violence and in the worst case scenario, genocide. These ideologies about the Dothraki inform the tyrant she became. She was an abuse victim with a very sad backstory, who did not break through the cycle of abuse, and inflicted it on others.

So what do I have against Dany? Probably the fact that I knew she'd always turn Westeros into a new Summerhall. Again, I don't like tyrants, whether fictional or in real life, or their crypto-fascist supporters. 

Again.

First of all, Daenerys does not think they are superstitious fools. Daenerys thinks that they can be superstitious fools. Let's go back to the text that you yourself originally quoted:

On 1/14/2020 at 3:39 PM, BlackLightning said:

“Khaleesi,” whispered Irri, “you must not touch the dead man. It is bad luck to touch the dead.”
“Unless you killed them yourself.” Jhiqui was bigger-boned than Irri, with wide hips and heavy breasts. “That is known.”
“It is known,” Irri agreed.
 Dothraki were wise where horses were concerned, BUT COULD BE utter fools about much else.

They are only girls, besides. Her handmaids were of an age with her—women grown to look at them, with their black hair, copper skin, and almond-shaped eyes, but girls all the same. They had been given to her when she wed Khal Drogo.” - Daenerys, ADWD

Could be... is a conditional statement. Meaning that Daenerys knows that it is not always true but it is true often enough that it merits acknowledgement.

How does she treat the Dothraki like they were shit? Where does that come from. Let's, again, go back to the text.

Every khal had his bloodriders. At first Dany had thought of them as a kind of Dothraki Kingsguard, sworn to protect their lord, but it went further than that. Jhiqui had taught her that a bloodrider was more than a guard; they were the khal's brothers, his shadows, his fiercest friends. "Blood of my blood," Drogo called them, and so it was; they shared a single life. The ancient traditions of the horselords demanded that when the khal died, his bloodriders died with him, to ride at his side in the night lands. If the khal died at the hands of some enemy, they lived only long enough to avenge him, and then followed him joyfully into the grave.

In some khalasars, Jhiqui said, the bloodriders shared the khal's wine, his tent, and even his wives, though never his horses. A man's mount was his own.

Daenerys was glad that Khal Drogo did not hold to those ancient ways. She should not have liked being shared. And while old Cohollo treated her kindly enough, the others frightened her; Haggo, huge and silent, often glowered as if he had forgotten who she was, and Qotho had cruel eyes and quick hands that liked to hurt. He left bruises on Doreah's soft white skin whenever he touched her, and sometimes made Irri sob in the night. Even his horses seemed to fear him.

Yet they were bound to Drogo for life and death, so Daenerys had no choice but to accept them. And sometimes she found herself wishing her father had been protected by such men. In the songs, the white knights of the Kingsguard were ever noble, valiant, and true, and yet King Aerys had been murdered by one of them, the handsome boy they now called the Kingslayer, and a second, Ser Barristan the Bold, had gone over to the Usurper. She wondered if all men were as false in the Seven Kingdoms. When her son sat the Iron Throne, she would see that he had bloodriders of his own to protect him against treachery in his Kingsguard.

--Daenerys IV, A Game of Thrones

Based on the text, I believe that the people of Westeros - and in real life - would say that Daenerys has a deep respect for not only the Dothraki bloodrider as a concept but also Drogo's specific Dothraki bloodriders. And that she honors them by even thinking that bloodriders are more fit to serve the king than the actual Kingsguard. Now people in Westeros would call such a thought sacrilegious and beyond foolish but Daenerys is technically right. Bloodriders would actually be a better fit for a feudal king in a land where alliances go where the wind blows, war is a constant concern, financial stability is uncertain and where the king's vassals can be and often are more powerful than the king himself. 

In that text, Daenerys not only shows that she honors the Dothraki but that she is deeply inspired by them. It also provides a key lens into Dany's wisdom and impartiality in that she can overlook her own personal concerns about Drogo's individual bloodriders (which are legitimate and marked in blue) and/or aspects about the institutional reality of the Dothraki bloodrider (which are even more legitimate and marked in green) in favor of taking a look at the whole and then appreciating said whole.

So tell me, where in this particular passage or any passage in which Daenerys thinks of or treats the Dothraki like "shit on her shoes." Where?

These are not the thoughts of an ethnic supremacist. An ethnic supremacist would not want to tether the very lives of their child to that of someone they consider fundamentally lesser and inferior. That's the whole reason why interracial marriages (aka miscegenation) or even partnerships was such a big no-no for a long time in certain countries.

Edited by BlackLightning

Share this post


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

Well the Ancient Greek philosophers said a lot of wise things that have aged well, but they also said things that havent aged well. Aristotle thought women should stay in the kitchen, and that slavery was okay 'cause certain men would born inferior and thus meant to serve.

And Lovecraft was a proud racist. Asimov molested women. Jack Vance wrote women horribly. The sexist Greeks wrote tragedy and comedy. Do you think GRRM participated in cancel culture and said "nah screw those guys nothing useful here."

This strain of discourse is anti-intellectual, and seems only to be motivated by a desire to make sure Dany is never compared to tyrants. 

C.S. Lewis said a tyranny by moral busybodies would be hell on earth, Tolkien said if Gandalf had the One Ring he would be even worse than Sauron. But let's not discuss that because...there might be a parallel to Dany in there and she might look bad. 

Share this post


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

And Lovecraft was a proud racist. Asimov molested women. Jack Vance wrote women horribly. The sexist Greeks wrote tragedy and comedy. Do you think GRRM participated in cancel culture and said "nah screw those guys nothing useful here."

This strain of discourse is anti-intellectual, and seems only to be motivated by a desire to make sure Dany is never compared to tyrants. 

C.S. Lewis said a tyranny by moral busybodies would be hell on earth, Tolkien said if Gandalf had the One Ring he would be even worse than Sauron. But let's not discuss that because...there might be a parallel to Dany in there and she might look bad. 

Such a type of tyrant would be disturbing, but I don't think Daenerys gives a damn about other peoples' religious beliefs or personal morals.  She seems pretty agnostic, and  has no qualms about what people do in bed.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


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

Such a type of tyrant would be disturbing, but I don't think Daenerys gives a damn about other peoples' religious beliefs or personal morals.

Well she does care about their personal morals, she's trying to make the Dothraki more humane bloodthirsty conquerors. And if a king is a religious figure whose sovereignty derived from god, I'm sure she'll be fine with folks preferring to bow to another god-diety-king who isn't her. She's also trying to rid the world of tyrants in the show, and becomes one herself. That's interesting.

Share this post


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

A lot of Dany haters claim she "didn't understand the culture she was ruling, is acting like an American in Iraq etc" but personally I've got no problem with her being culturally insensitive to slavers.

Pretty much no educated modern person should have such problems. And as I said above - it casts a bad light on you when you understand or side with the slavery apology of Xaro Xhoan Daxos or care more about the sufferings of a couple of slavers, especially in relation to the slavery question in the United States.

1 hour ago, Darryk said:

I am kind of uncomfortable with the idea that GRRM is foreshadowing her tyranny by having her be insensitive to the needs and traditions of slavers. I get D+D doing it in the show cause that's just the kind of half-brained stuff we'd expect them to cook up, but I expect better from GRRM.

George would never do such a thing. In fact, we can be damned sure Dany is not going to be another Mad Queen nutcase/tyrant, because we already have one such in the making with Cersei. If both these women became mad tyrants it would be somewhat of an overkill. The question whether Dany is going to survive the series is separate from that, of course, but the idea that George is writing Dany to be seen as a tyrant in the making is not very likely. All her values and intentions and goals have basically nothing to do with something like that. One can see how out of context and twisted @Rose of Red Lake interprets whatever 'examples' she focuses on - we get events and statements out of context and, and that's the important issue, disconnected from the voice and thoughts of the POV character Daenerys herself.

A cruel nutcase in the making is Cersei in her paranoia, her surrounding herself with flatterers, fools, and sorcerers, her using the vilest tactics and means to destroy her enemies rather than fight with an open visor, etc. Dany does pretty much nothing of that - and her mind is sound.

This doesn't mean Dany is not going to command cruel acts in a still somewhat hypothetical Second Dance of the Dragons. Euron is not going to back down because she gives a speech. Aegon is likely going to fight to, as might others. But then - I'd not be bothered if she were to randomly round up lords to crucify or burn them if she were to reinforce the reforms of Aegon V. If she came actually as a force of societal change to Westeros - less feudalism more absolutist rule with the goal freeing the smallfolk from the arbitrary rule of the lords - then everything necessary to enforce such changes would have my full support -and likely also the support of all decent folk. The latter would, of course, also include the decent Westerosi people themselves, especially our more enlightened POVs.

This fantasy that Daenerys must be seen as an evil foreign conqueror by a majority of the people is, at this point, without any basis. We can expect that those people who are going to oppose her will paint her in such a fashion, but how bad could Dany look compared to book Cersei and book Euron? How successful will this slander and propaganda be when Dany will also come with dragons - the supreme symbol of Westerosi kingship everybody else lacks - and stories how she freed all the slaves of Essos from bondage and shackles reach them long before she sets a foot on Westerosi soil?

59 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She's also trying to rid the world of tyrants in the show, and becomes one herself. That's interesting.

No, that's not interesting. That's just a shitty plot that makes no sense, not even in the show.

Share this post


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

George would never do such a thing. In fact, we can be damned sure Dany is not going to be another Mad Queen nutcase/tyrant, because we already have one such in the making with Cersei. If both these women became mad tyrants it would be somewhat of an overkill. The question whether Dany is going to survive the series is separate from that, of course, but the idea that George is writing Dany to be seen as a tyrant in the making is not very likely. All her values and intentions and goals have basically nothing to do with something like that. One can see how out of context and twisted @Rose of Red Lake interprets whatever 'examples' she focuses on - we get events and statements out of context and, and that's the important issue, disconnected from the voice and thoughts of the POV character Daenerys herself.

 

I always figured she'd go the same way as Jon; ie. doing things that have noble intentions but are so against the norms of Westeros culture that she's perceived by the mostly primitive medieval population as tyrannical. Jon letting the Wildlings across the Wall for example, we know he's doing the right thing but the Nights Watch think he's crazy. It will be something similar for Dany.

She's certainly not gonna burn down a whole city because she hears a bell ringing. Her character transition on the show was laughably absurd and possibly misogynist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Darryk said:

I always figured she'd go the same way as Jon; ie. doing things that have noble intentions but are so against the norms of Westeros culture that she's perceived by the mostly primitive medieval population as tyrannical. Jon letting the Wildlings across the Wall for example, we know he's doing the right thing but the Nights Watch think he's crazy. It will be something similar for Dany.

She's certainly not gonna burn down a whole city because she hears a bell ringing. Her character transition on the show was laughably absurd and possibly misogynist.

What's a tyrant?  Many nobles regarded Aegon V as a tyrant, because he wanted to give rights to the Smallfolk.  Dany is a tyrant in the eyes of the Ghiscari upper classes, but a heroine to the Freedmen.

Or one sad real world example I recently read about.  The Shah's minister of education, Mrs. Parsa,  was executed by firing squad, because she opposed the mandatory veiling of women.  An act of tyranny to the clergy, but not to most of us.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2019 at 9:21 PM, Sea Dragon said:

How can it not be the case when the author himself says it is true? This is clearly the direction he has been moving Dany in since from the beginning. It just really makes me happy to see this now. 

The link you posted doesn't actually quote or link to GRRM. Merely claiming that he said this isn't enough. But even if Daenerys isn't mad, that doesn't make her incapable of mass cruelty or atrocity.

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

×