Martin confirms Dany's coin lands good.

[Wall Flower]

On 1/4/2020 at 4:25 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  There is a difference between casualties as a result of bombing.  Robespierre removed the heads, a deliberate choice not an "opps I was aiming at someone else", of more than fifteen thousand people.  That's a tyrant. 

I'm certainly not defending Robespierre but bombing very often is a deliberate action chosen in the knowledge that casualties will result. Hence bombing of civilian targets during WW2 and other conflicts. It's just that those ordering the bombings believe it is necessary to win the war. Some leaders wrestle with that moral dilemma. Others, like Hitler, probably don't care. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Others think differently. Fortunately, in real life, there were people prepared to think like Daenerys.

Like Robert Mugabe. “From Liberation Hero to Brutal Dictator”

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I'm certainly not defending Robespierre but bombing very often is a deliberate action chosen in the knowledge that casualties will result. Hence bombing of civilian targets during WW2 and other conflicts. It's just that those ordering the bombings believe it is necessary to win the war. Some leaders wrestle with that moral dilemma. Others, like Hitler, probably don't care. 

Defending Robespierre is perfectly fine. He wasn't a dictator, merely one member of the Committee of Public Safety (at least one of his colleages also served Napoleon later on). The idea that a revolution can succeed without a bloodbath is ludicruous - at least in a scenario where the ruling powers are not willing to let go of power (and a in scenario where the ruling powers invite foreign powers they are related with to make war on their own country to overthrow the revolution).

[One can make a case that Robespierre was targeting the wrong people, causing his own downfall in the process of that, especially since politically he wasn't that much of a radical, but that's another issue.]

A revolution is a war between classes, and to win it you have to treat those in power like you do treat an enemy in a proper war. And there mercy isn't the first thing you think of - that's something you think about when the war is won and you can afford to be lenient.

The killing of innocents is always wrong - but it is definitely less wrong when you do it for the common good/to better the lives of people who are kept down. If you demand of revolutionaries to ask first and shoot later you can just as well ask them to hang themselves (that way there is no revolution in the first place).

Bombing people, using drones to take out civilians, etc. is not only cowardly but also the kind of thing we would consider indiscrimate murder and terrorism if civilians and not military people in a war (against terror) would do it. There is no moral difference between Hitler's bombings of Britain and Churchill paying back the Germans in kind - both were supposed to terrorize the civillian population and break their morale (in addition to also target important military targets if and when that was done). But the very idea that some guys flying in in the middle of the night could actually properly know where exactly they were dropping their load is ridiculous.

If you wrestle with that kind of 'moral dilemma' you cannot conduct a war. If you conduct a war and want to win it you cannot have any real issues with killing people, especially not innocent people, because that's what war is about.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Defending Robespierre is perfectly fine. He wasn't a dictator, merely one member of the Committee of Public Safety (at least one of his colleages also served Napoleon later on). The idea that a revolution can succeed without a bloodbath is ludicruous - at least in a scenario where the ruling powers are not willing to let go of power (and a in scenario where the ruling powers invite foreign powers they are related with to make war on their own country to overthrow the revolution).

[One can make a case that Robespierre was targeting the wrong people, causing his own downfall in the process of that, especially since politically he wasn't that much of a radical, but that's another issue.]

A revolution is a war between classes, and to win it you have to treat those in power like you do treat an enemy in a proper war. And there mercy isn't the first thing you think of - that's something you think about when the war is won and you can afford to be lenient.

The killing of innocents is always wrong - but it is definitely less wrong when you do it for the common good/to better the lives of people who are kept down. If you demand of revolutionaries to ask first and shoot later you can just as well ask them to hang themselves (that way there is no revolution in the first place).

Bombing people, using drones to take out civilians, etc. is not only cowardly but also the kind of thing we would consider indiscrimate murder and terrorism if civilians and not military people in a war (against terror) would do it. There is no moral difference between Hitler's bombings of Britain and Churchill paying back the Germans in kind - both were supposed to terrorize the civillian population and break their morale (in addition to also target important military targets if and when that was done). But the very idea that some guys flying in in the middle of the night could actually properly know where exactly they were dropping their load is ridiculous.

If you wrestle with that kind of 'moral dilemma' you cannot conduct a war. If you conduct a war and want to win it you cannot have any real issues with killing people, especially not innocent people, because that's what war is about.

Certainly when it comes to incendiary bombing, killing civilians is the whole point of the exercise.

We deceive ourselves if we think we wage war in a much more civilised fashion than medieval commanders did (we do, to an extent).  Typically in modern wars, 90% of casualties are civilians.  A war like the Falklands War, where scarcely any civilians died, is atypical.

[BlackLightning]

On 1/3/2020 at 11:37 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How many people died in the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution"?  How much blood does a tyrant have to shed to be put into the "Bad guy" column?

I actually don't think Napoleon was a bad guy. I think he was unduly vilified by the British because they wanted to be the ones to rule/control the world.

Mao certainly was but you can't argue against the positive aspects of all that he has done. China rivals the United States and, in some ways, surpasses the United States. That wouldn't have been possible for Mao.

Robespierre wasn't wrong. Even though he was generally awful, his actions DID save France. France was falling apart at the time. Robespierre held it together long enough for Napoleon to actually fix it.

On 1/3/2020 at 8:51 PM, WolfOfWinter said:

This thread is doing a great job of illustrating just how dangerous charismatic leaders such as Daenerys are when they veil their ambition in good intentions and pretend to be fighting for some higher ideal. How far is Dany allowed to go before her actions become indefensible? The murder of 12-year-old Astapori boys or profiting from the slave trade outside Meereen wasn't enough for some book readers. Feeding a random man to her dragons before admitting she didn't care whether he was innocent or not (he was) before threatening to kill Hizdahr as well, imprisoning him, letting him believe he was dragon fodder and then forcing him to marry her, after randomly crucifying his father, wasn't enough for some show fans. Will her actions always be defensible to some people because she claims to have good intentions? Is there really no such thing as good or bad in her case because she freed slaves once? Going by some of the discourse I've seen on other sites such as reddit, some people are already preemptively justifying Dany nuking King's Landing in the books "for the greater good."

I want to point out the hilarity of singling out book!Dany as some great anti-slavery revolutionary who'll have to choose fire and blood to eliminate slavery, because that worked out so well in Astapor. The truth about slavery in Slaver's Bay is that it's so ingrained in the economic and cultural structures of the region that it'll take more than just violent interventionism to change its foundation. Even book!Dany finds herself partaking in slavery when she 1) allows a flourishing slave trade outside the gates of Meereen because the refugees are desperate, 2) profits from the aforementioned slave trade, and 3) enforces slave labor because it's "necessary" and justifies it because they're "paid" with food and shelter. Show!Dany allows former slaves to sell themselves back into slavery in season four because they're homeless, terrified and desperate.

I'm sure someone will do a perfunctory job of explaining how this isn't slavery, how Dany is very different from all the other slavers (in the books), how slavery was totally necessary for those situations, or how fire and blood over diplomacy will create more jobs, stability, homes, food sources, and economic stability. 

OP, D&D didn't have some secret vendetta against Daenerys. If they had, they wouldn't have turned her into some sort of empowered, feminist figure whose actions and consequences were significantly toned down (to the point of turning even Mirri into a more devious character to prop up Dany) to get the audience to root for her. After the allegations of misogyny following Sansa's storyline, do people really believe they'd turn their most popular feminist and female character into a villain against Martin's wishes just to spite a significant part of the audience? 

 

You know what's funny.

THIS sounds familiar. THIS sounds like the same type of stuff people said back in 18th and 19th century America to explain why slavery should not be abolished, why Africans were lesser than and therefore fit for slavery and cruelty, why the Civil War should not be fought and why Reconstruction is impossible. It actually became reality when Reconstruction was abandoned and Jim Crow, the Black Codes and a bunch of other foul stuff became accepted (or blithely ignored).

It was also the same type of logic that fueled the naysayers of the Civil Rights Movement in the '60s and '70s. And here go 'round again, in 2019 and 2020...because that same logic is used as a means of explaining why reparations to descendants of slaves are a bad idea. Oh and need I mention about the current sex trafficking. Jeffrey Epstein?

Oh yes, that's slavery. Kidnapping people so that they can sold off as commodities to be enjoyed and exploited sexually? It makes money but if it's viable economically, why do the authorities intervene often violently.

I think you're on the wrong side of this debate. Because, based on what you have written, slavery would still be legal

Back to the story: I think you have some form of selection bias. Because Daenerys does not want 

Oftentimes, history has shown us that you need to clean house so that you can have room for new things. In other words, fire and blood is absolutely necessary as far as progress goes.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, SeanF said:

Certainly when it comes to incendiary bombing, killing civilians is the whole point of the exercise.

We deceive ourselves if we think we wage war in a much more civilised fashion than medieval commanders did (we do, to an extent).  Typically in modern wars, 90% of casualties are civilians.  A war like the Falklands War, where scarcely any civilians died, is atypical.

I'd say that we conduct actually much more bloody wars in our day and age, simply because the increase of overall population and the problems of getting troops from point A to point B in the middle ages. Just compare Napoleon's Grand Army to Hitler's attack on Russia. Or most of the 19th century wars (American Civil War excluded, to a point) and World War I & II.

[This doesn't mean that there wasn't much regional conflict, of course, but you weren't pulling something like Vietnam with your immediate neighborhood.]

The kind of indiscriminate killing that was done and is possible in modern wars - add the Korean War and Vietnam, the Iraq Wars, etc. - simply by throwing bombs and shooting rockets is completely unheard of in earlier eras of human history.

Back in the day they could and did also brutalize and murder the civilian population, but you had to do that kind of thing personally, or by means of physically destroying/removing food and provisions so the people starved to death, etc. Today we can and do kill people and destroy infrastructure without endangering ourselves to a high degree.

2 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

I actually don't think Napoleon was a bad guy. I think he was unduly vilified by the British because they wanted to be the ones to rule/control the world.

Napoleon did turn France into a dictatorship again (calling his regime a proper monarchy doesn't really fit all that well, especially compared to the ancien regime, considering he actually gave France - and other parts of Europe - things like the code civil, etc.) and it that sense he killed the revolution, but it was still a vast improvement to the ancien regime.

Still, one wonders what would have happened if Robespierre hadn't been killed - perhaps he and Napoleon would have cleansed Europe of feudalism and monarchy for good. That would have given us a different world history and likely a much more pleasant 19th century.

2 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Mao certainly was but you can't argue against the positive aspects of all that he has done. China rivals the United States and, in some ways, surpasses the United States. That wouldn't have been possible for Mao.

The overall issues here is that both China and Russia were singularly ill-equipped to become (sort of) socialist states. One has to differentiate between deaths caused by Stalinist cleansings and deaths caused by bad planning.

To what degree life under Mao was better than life before I cannot really assess, but the point is that China really started to change too late. They were nearly crushed by the Japanese (who are a joke population-wise) simply because the Japanese had the sense to modernize before they were colonized (and for all the colonial terror they spread in their expansionist wars, they did do develop the countries the occupied to some extent - unlike many European powers).

We can be pretty sure that if China had taken the Japanese route back in the early- or mid-19th century that the US would have never dominated the 20th century the way they did. China still has a long way to go to become a second US - at this point they are just barely where they were in the late 18th century - but they certainly do have the natural resources. A crucial crippling aspect likely is going to be the fact that the regime has to control its people - an authoritarian regime that has to waste a lot of resources of keeping people in line cannot really dominate the world as easily as the US.

2 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

You know what's funny.

THIS sounds familiar. THIS sounds like the same type of stuff people said back in 18th and 19th century America to explain why slavery should not be abolished, why Africans were lesser than and therefore fit for slavery and cruelty, why the Civil War should not be fought and why Reconstruction is impossible. It actually became reality when Reconstruction was abandoned and Jim Crow, the Black Codes and a bunch of other foul stuff became accepted (or blithely ignored).

It was also the same type of logic that fueled the naysayers of the Civil Rights Movement in the '60s and '70s. And here go 'round again, in 2019 and 2020...because that same logic is used as a means of explaining why reparations to descendants of slaves are a bad idea. Oh and need I mention about the current sex trafficking. Jeffrey Epstein?

Oh yes, that's slavery. Kidnapping people so that they can sold off as commodities to be enjoyed and exploited sexually? It makes money but if it's viable economically, why do the authorities intervene often violently.

I think you're on the wrong side of this debate. Because, based on what you have written, slavery would still be legal

Back to the story: I think you have some form of selection bias. Because Daenerys does not want 

Oftentimes, history has shown us that you need to clean house so that you can have room for new things. In other words, fire and blood is absolutely necessary as far as progress goes.

Pretty much that. In this slavery discussion quite a few people voluntarily or involuntarily reveal where they (sort of) stand on real world issues.

In the books it is quite clear that people like Xaro Xhoan Daxos are the villains - his slavery apology is ludicrous, and only something a privileged, degraded prick could ever take seriously.

In fact, our shitty script writers did that, too, when they twisted Dany's Meereenese arc, no? George doesn't have any good slavers in his story, does he? Hizdahr's dad isn't some kind of abolitionists Dany has cruelly murdered, etc. And those guys tried to make this shitty 'Confederate' thing, right?

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

In the books it is quite clear that people like Xaro Xhoan Daxos are the villains - his slavery apology is ludicrous, and only something a privileged, degraded prick could ever take seriously.

In fact, our shitty script writers did that, too, when they twisted Dany's Meereenese arc, no? George doesn't have any good slavers in his story, does he? Hizdahr's dad isn't some kind of abolitionists Dany has cruelly murdered, etc. And those guys tried to make this shitty 'Confederate' thing, right?

Well, you can understand why nobody wants to touch "Confederate".

The thing is, peaceful change is always preferable to violent change.  But, intelligent Conservatives can only make the argument to reactionaries that you must "change to preserve" if they can point to examples of what occurred when reactionary regimes failed to reform.  I think it's quite clear that what happened in Haiti in the 1790's had a very big impact on British thinking about slavery in our West Indian colonies, firstly in terms of bringing in reforms in the treatment of slaves;  then in terms of abolishing the trade, and finally in terms of abolishing the institution.

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

I actually don't think Napoleon was a bad guy. I think he was unduly vilified by the British because they wanted to be the ones to rule/control the world.

Mao certainly was but you can't argue against the positive aspects of all that he has done. China rivals the United States and, in some ways, surpasses the United States. That wouldn't have been possible for Mao.

Robespierre wasn't wrong. Even though he was generally awful, his actions DID save France. France was falling apart at the time. Robespierre held it together long enough for Napoleon to actually fix it.

You know what's funny.

THIS sounds familiar. THIS sounds like the same type of stuff people said back in 18th and 19th century America to explain why slavery should not be abolished, why Africans were lesser than and therefore fit for slavery and cruelty, why the Civil War should not be fought and why Reconstruction is impossible. It actually became reality when Reconstruction was abandoned and Jim Crow, the Black Codes and a bunch of other foul stuff became accepted (or blithely ignored).

It was also the same type of logic that fueled the naysayers of the Civil Rights Movement in the '60s and '70s. And here go 'round again, in 2019 and 2020...because that same logic is used as a means of explaining why reparations to descendants of slaves are a bad idea. Oh and need I mention about the current sex trafficking. Jeffrey Epstein?

Oh yes, that's slavery. Kidnapping people so that they can sold off as commodities to be enjoyed and exploited sexually? It makes money but if it's viable economically, why do the authorities intervene often violently.

I think you're on the wrong side of this debate. Because, based on what you have written, slavery would still be legal

Back to the story: I think you have some form of selection bias. Because Daenerys does not want 

Oftentimes, history has shown us that you need to clean house so that you can have room for new things. In other words, fire and blood is absolutely necessary as far as progress goes.

Hey I think you might have misread? No one is supporting slavery or mourning their loss. There's simply skepticism that Dany can end it by flying around on her dragon, burning people, and ending slavery all over the world in a few days. D&D did her a favor that we know would be ridiculous for the books. Show!Daario holding down all of Slavers Bay was the same poor decision like putting the ruling council at Astapor. She left no governing institutions or infrastructure or laws for all we know. This really should be her life's work and its so obviously not, otherwise she'd be ruling there at the end. Since GRRM has said dragons cant reform, improve, or build, its doubtful that Dany can achieve this lofty goal with her methods--not that she shouldn't try in the first place. 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

 

THIS sounds familiar. THIS sounds like the same type of stuff people said back in 18th and 19th century America to explain why slavery should not be abolished, why Africans were lesser than and therefore fit for slavery and cruelty, why the Civil War should not be fought and why Reconstruction is impossible. It actually became reality when Reconstruction was abandoned and Jim Crow, the Black Codes and a bunch of other foul stuff became accepted (or blithely ignored).

It was also the same type of logic that fueled the naysayers of the Civil Rights Movement in the '60s and '70s. And here go 'round again, in 2019 and 2020...because that same logic is used as a means of explaining why reparations to descendants of slaves are a bad idea. Oh and need I mention about the current sex trafficking. Jeffrey Epstein?

Oh yes, that's slavery. Kidnapping people so that they can sold off as commodities to be enjoyed and exploited sexually? It makes money but if it's viable economically, why do the authorities intervene often violently.

I think you're on the wrong side of this debate. Because, based on what you have written, slavery would still be legal

Back to the story: I think you have some form of selection bias. Because Daenerys does not want 

Oftentimes, history has shown us that you need to clean house so that you can have room for new things. In other words, fire and blood is absolutely necessary as far as progress goes.

I think it's easy to see oneself being killed in the Plaza of Punishment, at Astapor, or nailed up to a cross in Meereen.

Very few people could imagine themselves as slave traders.  But, a lot of people can imagine themselves as accountants, lawyers, bankers, etc. to  slave traders, and so the natural reaction is to ask "why do I deserve to die, when all I do is audit the books, draw up contracts, make loans?"

I think Daenerys' story is (in part) intended to make people uncomfortable.

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Hizdahr's dad isn't some kind of abolitionists Dany has cruelly murdered, etc.

His dad was not an abolitionist in the show. His dad opposed the crucifixion of the slave children, which Dany crucified him for. Considering some slavers are shown to fear her and are willing to work with her and aquiesed to her terms in the books, the show addition isnt completely off the mark. And considering Dany's first impulse is to burn cities to the ground, Essos on the whole was just a stepping stone to Dany thinking she can "liberate"  the whole world with mass violence. 

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

His dad was not an abolitionist in the show. His dad opposed the crucifixion of the slave children, which Dany crucified him for. Considering some slavers are shown to fear her and are willing to work with her and aquiesed to her terms in the books, the show addition isnt completely off the mark. And considering Dany's first impulse is to burn cities to the ground, Essos on the whole was just a stepping stone to Dany thinking she can "liberate"  the whole world with mass violence. 

In the books (as opposed to the show) she had no desire to burn cities to the ground.

[Lord Varys]

17 minutes ago, SeanF said:

In the books (as opposed to the show) she had no desire to burn cities to the ground.

Not only that, but there weren't even any slavers in the books that made common cause with her - Skahaz and Reznak and Hizdahr and the Green Grace give up slavery and join Daenerys (or at least pretend to do so).

I mean, if you look at the story in the books we do have Dany being overall very nuanced. First she merely destroys the regime of Astapor and frees the slaves there and then hands over the city to their rule. Allegedly, the guys she left in charge wanted to restore slavery (but we don't know if that's accurate), were overthrown by Cleon, who then restored slavery but with the former slaves in charge. That doesn't really overcome injustice (although it certainly is gradual improvement considering that people are now enslaved who, in a sense, deserved it) and Dany does not condone that policy. She wants slavery gone, not slaves enslaving slavers (which is also part of the reason why she did not help Cleon when the Yunkai'i declared war on Astapor).

At Yunkai she merely demanded the liberation of the slaves with them being compensated for their years in bondage. The social order in Yunkai wasn't changed at all, which is the reason why the Yunkai'i could restore slavery immediately after Dany left. These people were not willing to change.

In Meereen she and George tried to bring about a change over time (with the five year gap) which didn't work. As ADwD turned out the problem clearly is Dany's lenience with the slavers, not her cruelty or drastic measures. The way to deal with the situation was to completely dispossess or destroy the old elite, and transfer the wealth and assets for the city to the freed slaves and the Meereenese working class.

It is still the way to deal with Yunkai and Meereen if the cities are to survive - the reason why I don't think that will happen is that Dany is going to become a religious icon/savior for her people, meaning that nobody is going to want to stay behind when she leaves. Nymeria burned her ships, Dany's people will burn their cities to make it clear that they will/can never turn back.

Dany is clearly a liberator and a savior in Slaver's Bay. There are essentially no unprovoked cruelties on her part - and those that she does are overall unsystematic. I mean, she is weak enough to not even consider her hostages hostages - she is a joke as a monarch, and if she doesn't grow harder soon she is not going to stand a chance against any Westerosi lord (much less another pretender to the Iron Throne). Murdering hostages if their kin misbehave is the bread and butter of the Westerosi nobleman.

58 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

His dad was not an abolitionist in the show. His dad opposed the crucifixion of the slave children, which Dany crucified him for. Considering some slavers are shown to fear her and are willing to work with her and aquiesed to her terms in the books, the show addition isnt completely off the mark. And considering Dany's first impulse is to burn cities to the ground, Essos on the whole was just a stepping stone to Dany thinking she can "liberate"  the whole world with mass violence. 

It certainly is completely off the mark because nobody in the books did oppose the crucifixion of the slave children as far as we know - and if such people had existed, Dany would have never crucified them.

The show nonsense includes 'good slavers' in their story - but there aren't any good slavers in George R. R. Martin's story. Even Illyrio's Pentoshi slavery is depicted as ugly early on in ADwD as is Dothraki slavery in AGoT.

And by the way - are you aware of George's other works? He does like his idealists and (would-be) revolutionists - Jaan Vikary from Dying of the Light and Annelyn from 'In the House of the Worm', Joshua York from Fevre Dream, the girl Maris from Windhaven - whenever a character tries to change injustices, overcome obsolete social restrictions, or look beyond the horizon to discover new things (be they places or ideas) they are the people George likes. Even whiny idealists and dreamers or such who fail (like the astronaut from 'Slide Show' or the billionaire's son from 'Patrick Henry') do have his sympathy. The point of many of his stories is to create compassion in the reader because we feel and understand the desire of the protagonists and thus are sad when they fail because circumstances and shitty people are against them (or, in many of the romances going bad, the people themselves cannot make things work).

Even if Daenerys were to fail in the end with whatever she is going to do - you can still be very sure that she would have George's sympathy in everything she does.

Just like Dunk and Egg do - they are set up to be a pair of rulers whose reforms eventually fail, but that doesn't mean the message is that they shouldn't have tried. For to the contrary - it is quite clear that George already thinks that Egg's upbringing is basically the ideal way to mold the ideal ruler whose reign that focuses on the right priorities and policies. It is the simple thing that a ruler has to rule for his people, and not just the ruling class or his own family, ensuring that they get the most out of the exploited rabble.

And Daenerys is basically the only ruler in the books who understands that duty to a point. She knows that she has to live for her people, not they for her. Stannis eventually also understood that to a point, and it is also the guiding principle of the Princes of Dorne since another Daenerys Targaryen (hardly a coincidence) instilled it in her son.

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not only that, but there weren't even any slavers in the books that made common cause with her - Skahaz and Reznak and Hizdahr and the Green Grace give up slavery and join Daenerys (or at least pretend to do so).

I mean, if you look at the story in the books we do have Dany being overall very nuanced. First she merely destroys the regime of Astapor and frees the slaves there and then hands over the city to their rule. Allegedly, the guys she left in charge wanted to restore slavery (but we don't know if that's accurate), were overthrown by Cleon, who then restored slavery but with the former slaves in charge. That doesn't really overcome injustice (although it certainly is gradual improvement considering that people are now enslaved who, in a sense, deserved it) and Dany does not condone that policy. She wants slavery gone, not slaves enslaving slavers (which is also part of the reason why she did not help Cleon when the Yunkai'i declared war on Astapor).

At Yunkai she merely demanded the liberation of the slaves with them being compensated for their years in bondage. The social order in Yunkai wasn't changed at all, which is the reason why the Yunkai'i could restore slavery immediately after Dany left. These people were not willing to change.

In Meereen she and George tried to bring about a change over time (with the five year gap) which didn't work. As ADwD turned out the problem clearly is Dany's lenience with the slavers, not her cruelty or drastic measures. The way to deal with the situation was to completely dispossess or destroy the old elite, and transfer the wealth and assets for the city to the freed slaves and the Meereenese working class.

It is still the way to deal with Yunkai and Meereen if the cities are to survive - the reason why I don't think that will happen is that Dany is going to become a religious icon/savior for her people, meaning that nobody is going to want to stay behind when she leaves. Nymeria burned her ships, Dany's people will burn their cities to make it clear that they will/can never turn back.

Dany is clearly a liberator and a savior in Slaver's Bay. There are essentially no unprovoked cruelties on her part - and those that she does are overall unsystematic. I mean, she is weak enough to not even consider her hostages hostages - she is a joke as a monarch, and if she doesn't grow harder soon she is not going to stand a chance against any Westerosi lord (much less another pretender to the Iron Throne). Murdering hostages if their kin misbehave is the bread and butter of the Westerosi nobleman.

It certainly is completely off the mark because nobody in the books did oppose the crucifixion of the slave children as far as we know - and if such people had existed, Dany would have never crucified them.

The show nonsense includes 'good slavers' in their story - but there aren't any good slavers in George R. R. Martin's story. Even Illyrio's Pentoshi slavery is depicted as ugly early on in ADwD as is Dothraki slavery in AGoT.

And by the way - are you aware of George's other works? He does like his idealists and (would-be) revolutionists - Jaan Vikary from Dying of the Light and Annelyn from 'In the House of the Worm', Joshua York from Fevre Dream, the girl Maris from Windhaven - whenever a character tries to change injustices, overcome obsolete social restrictions, or look beyond the horizon to discover new things (be they places or ideas) they are the people George likes. Even whiny idealists and dreamers or such who fail (like the astronaut from 'Slide Show' or the billionaire's son from 'Patrick Henry') do have his sympathy. The point of many of his stories is to create compassion in the reader because we feel and understand the desire of the protagonists and thus are sad when they fail because circumstances and shitty people are against them (or, in many of the romances going bad, the people themselves cannot make things work).

Even if Daenerys were to fail in the end with whatever she is going to do - you can still be very sure that she would have George's sympathy in everything she does.

Just like Dunk and Egg do - they are set up to be a pair of rulers whose reforms eventually fail, but that doesn't mean the message is that they shouldn't have tried. For to the contrary - it is quite clear that George already thinks that Egg's upbringing is basically the ideal way to mold the ideal ruler whose reign that focuses on the right priorities and policies. It is the simple thing that a ruler has to rule for his people, and not just the ruling class or his own family, ensuring that they get the most out of the exploited rabble.

And Daenerys is basically the only ruler in the books who understands that duty to a point. She knows that she has to live for her people, not they for her. Stannis eventually also understood that to a point, and it is also the guiding principle of the Princes of Dorne since another Daenerys Targaryen (hardly a coincidence) instilled it in her son.

I think that Dany will in the end be a heroic failure.   I think the odds are so heavily weighted against her, that she cannot be anything else.   But, I think she will end as a heroine.

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

In the books (as opposed to the show) she had no desire to burn cities to the ground.

So far she has burned cities to conquer them, "...the girl turns up on Slaver's Bay and leaves a string of burning cities in her wake" (Tristan Rivers). Who knows what's next? Probably something bigger. It seems like she could return with the Dothraki in the books and do even more damage, since burning cities are the Dothraki's forte, and she's sick of the people there. Since ya'll have been having orgasms about Dany being even more violent, I thought you'd be cheering her on in that scene. Either way the show was always more blunt while the books are more subtle, by using the two together many folks were able to accurately predict what Dany would do.

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

So far she has burned cities to conquer them, "...the girl turns up on Slaver's Bay and leaves a string of burning cities in her wake" (Tristan Rivers). Who knows what's next? Probably something bigger. It seems like she could return with the Dothraki in the books and do even more damage, since burning cities are the Dothraki's forte, and she's sick of the people there. Since ya'll have been having orgasms about Dany being even more violent, I thought you'd be cheering her on in that scene. Either way the show was always more blunt while the books are more subtle, by using the two together many folks were able to accurately predict what Dany would do.

That was Tyrion talking about her, in order to play Aegon.   It's not what she did.  No cities burned in her wake.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think that Dany will in the end be a heroic failure.   I think the odds are so heavily weighted against her, that she cannot be anything else.   But, I think she will end as a heroine.

I rather think she might go down while fighting the Others if she dies - I don't think she will ever have a project or mission for Westeros that could go wrong, considering she is going to arrive there at a time when everything will go to hell even without her doing anything.

I don't think the structure/framework of this story can stomach some sort of idealistic heroine character who turns bad. If there were no Others I could see such a story happening - but with the Others being there and being a threat to all of mankind - not a chance.

I mean, I'd even go as far as to say that even if Dany had Euron- or Ramsay-like personality right now (and had had such a personality since AGoT) then I still think she would realize she has to defeat the Others once she lands in Westeros, since she cannot possibly rule a continent full of zombies (and I also expect most of people in Westeros to eventually realize that they have to work together if they want to survive). But our Dany isn't Euron or Ramsay. She is a completely different person. She is never going to become some sort of monstrous serial killer.,

It is not really conceivable that we get some kind of brutal war of conquest on Dany's which turns the entire continent against her while the ice demons are waiting in the wings. If there is a Second Dance and the like, and if she were to put down Aegon, that certainly could cost her some sympathies (assuming Aegon is going to be a good king, not a madman himself). But she dealing with Cersei and Euron and Littlefinger and whoever else might be left when she shows up (assuming she does that) is certainly going to make her look good rather than bad.

And after the Others thing I also cannot really see some sort of civil war breaking out - I could see some of the survivors of a previous war who were pushed aside by Dany try to get their revenge in some sort of assassination attempt or final petty evil revenge plot, but no proper war. And regardless what Dany does in the Second Dance of the Dragons or during the War for the Dawn - if it works and she saves mankind or great contributes to the survival of mankind the majority of the people are going to forgive her whatever she did to accomplish this.

In fact, if she were to be 'a heroic failure' then this, in a very real sense is going to mean that they Others will win. And I don't expect that.

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I rather think she might go down while fighting the Others if she dies - I don't think she will ever have a project or mission for Westeros that could go wrong, considering she is going to arrive there at a time when everything will go to hell even without her doing anything.

I don't think the structure/framework of this story can stomach some sort of idealistic heroine character who turns bad. If there were no Others I could see such a story happening - but with the Others being there and being a threat to all of mankind - not a chance.

I mean, I'd even go as far as to say that even if Dany had Euron- or Ramsay-like personality right now (and had had such a personality since AGoT) then I still think she would realize she has to defeat the Others once she lands in Westeros, since she cannot possibly rule a continent full of zombies (and I also expect most of people in Westeros to eventually realize that they have to work together if they want to survive). But our Dany isn't Euron or Ramsay. She is a completely different person. She is never going to become some sort of monstrous serial killer.,

It is not really conceivable that we get some kind of brutal war of conquest on Dany's which turns the entire continent against her while the ice demons are waiting in the wings. If there is a Second Dance and the like, and if she were to put down Aegon, that certainly could cost her some sympathies (assuming Aegon is going to be a good king, not a madman himself). But she dealing with Cersei and Euron and Littlefinger and whoever else might be left when she shows up (assuming she does that) is certainly going to make her look good rather than bad.

And after the Others thing I also cannot really see some sort of civil war breaking out - I could see some of the survivors of a previous war who were pushed aside by Dany try to get their revenge in some sort of assassination attempt or final petty evil revenge plot, but no proper war. And regardless what Dany does in the Second Dance of the Dragons or during the War for the Dawn - if it works and she saves mankind or great contributes to the survival of mankind the majority of the people are going to forgive her whatever she did to accomplish this.

In fact, if she were to be 'a heroic failure' then this, in a very real sense is going to mean that they Others will win. And I don't expect that.

By heroic failure, I mean someone who achieves great things, but gets cut down for petty reasons.

[Rose of Red Lake]

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

That was Tyrion talking about her, in order to play Aegon.   It's not what she did.  No cities burned in her wake.

Of course there was burning involved, she passes burned houses in the sack Meereen, this is conquering. The dead are piled so high they have to make a path for her. She brings death and destruction wherever she goes, in both book and show. Dany returning wanting to burn Meerreen to the ground isnt a stretch, she really hates everyone there.

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Of course there was burning involved, she passes burned houses in the sack Meereen, this is conquering. The dead are piled so high they have to make a path for her. She brings death and destruction wherever she goes, in both book and show. Dany returning wanting to burn Meerreen to the ground isnt a stretch, she really hates everyone there.

Meereen was not burned down.  Of course, the slaves took very cruel revenge on their Meereenese Masters, when they rose up against them.

I trust no one is suggesting that the slaves should have remained passive.

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

By heroic failure, I mean someone who achieves great things, but gets cut down for petty reasons.

That might happen. But that's something that can happen to any character in this series - and already has - so this wouldn't be some kind of surprise. I mean, I never really thought all of the main characters would make it, precisely because this is a story where those risking/accomplishing the most are going to pay the ultimate price.

I could see some sort of ugly betrayal/backstabbing in the very end, or some kind of heroic exit during the War for the Dawn (or a combination of both).

A likely variation of the latter could be her dying an unnecessary death because some sort of betrayal during the last battle forces her into a position where she has to sacrifice herself in order to save everybody else.

If George wanted to make Dany into this kind of villain strange people want her to be she would have had about the mental stability of Cersei had in AFfC in ADwD. Cersei is set up to eventually become sort of mad monster who does truly horrible things. And many other characters are already there, and are going to make great progress in TWoW in that direction. George told us that this is going to be a very dark book ... but that's not going to be because of Daenerys who is likely going to hang out in the Dothraki Sea and Vaes Dothrak for most, if not all, of TWoW.