Did GRRM really say Meereen would end like Iraq?

[Rose of Red Lake]

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

As per usual, you're making stuff up about Daenerys that is not actually mentioned in the text.  It's your wishful thinking.

As Lord Varys put it "I'll believe it when George Martin is writing it, not when you're saying it."

I believe what GRRM says in interviews. You have also denied his statements about dragons being nukes. Meanwhile, Lord Varys said GRRM is just talking “nonsense.” Who is being wishful here? You are trying to neatly fit this into a Civil War allegory, when the author has said he doesn’t write allegory. Dany isn’t Abraham Lincoln or GWB. She’s a foreign conqueror who is learning to control WMDs and will grow into a threat to Westeros, as one of two threats, ice and fire (also from interviews). The writing is on the wall and from the author’s mouth. 

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I believe what GRRM says in interviews. You have also denied his statements about dragons being nukes. Meanwhile, Lord Varys said GRRM is just talking “nonsense.” Who is being wishful here? You are trying to neatly fit this into a Civil War allegory, when the author has said he doesn’t write allegory. Dany isn’t Abraham Lincoln or GWB. She’s a foreign conqueror who is learning to control WMDs and will grow into a threat to Westeros, as one of two threats, ice and fire (also from interviews). The writing is on the wall and from the author’s mouth. 

This is what he says about "ice and fire"

"People say I was influenced by Robert Frost’s poem, and of course I was, I mean... Fire is love, fire is passion, fire is sexual ardor and all of these things. Ice is betrayal, ice is revenge, ice is… you know, that kind of cold inhumanity and all that stuff is being played out in the books"

So, the very opposite of what you are claiming,

[300 H&H Magnum]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I believe what GRRM says in interviews. You have also denied his statements about dragons being nukes. Meanwhile, Lord Varys said GRRM is just talking “nonsense.” Who is being wishful here? You are trying to neatly fit this into a Civil War allegory, when the author has said he doesn’t write allegory. Dany isn’t Abraham Lincoln or GWB. She’s a foreign conqueror who is learning to control WMDs and will grow into a threat to Westeros, as one of two threats, ice and fire (also from interviews). The writing is on the wall and from the author’s mouth. 

You're trying very hard to twist the story to paint a character which you do not like into a villain.  The truth is, Daenerys is the protagonists in A Song of Ice and Fire. The antagonists, the real threat to the lives of the people in the west is ice. The Starks represent ice.  Jon Snow has already jumped into the dark road of revenge and betrayal. Arya and Catelyn are already on that same road.  It is the Starks who are the real threat to survival.  

[The Young Maester]

1 hour ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

You're trying very hard to twist the story to paint a character which you do not like into a villain.  The truth is, Daenerys is the protagonists in A Song of Ice and Fire. The antagonists, the real threat to the lives of the people in the west is ice. The Starks represent ice.  Jon Snow has already jumped into the dark road of revenge and betrayal. Arya and Catelyn are already on that same road.  It is the Starks who are the real threat to survival.  

Although I agree that Rose of red lake is trying too hard to paint dany as an evil character. I don’t agree with people stating that the Starks or that dany are the main protagonists or the saviours of this story. In my eyes, I don’t see a protagonist in this fantasy. It’s not Lord of the rings or any other related books that have a clear protagonists. Its simply a medieval fantasy, attempting to be as realistic as possible. Whilst trying to avoid the good guy vs the bad guy scenario. 

People might say that the white walkers are the coming doom in the books. But we might see the opposite by the end of it. You never know.

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

This is what he says about "ice and fire"

"People say I was influenced by Robert Frost’s poem, and of course I was, I mean... Fire is love, fire is passion, fire is sexual ardor and all of these things. Ice is betrayal, ice is revenge, ice is… you know, that kind of cold inhumanity and all that stuff is being played out in the books"

So, the very opposite of what you are claiming,

The poem is about the world either ending in fire or ice. Too much love and passion is just as dangerous as too much revenge. That theme was played out with Targaryens who love fire, dragons, their lovers, or themselves so much that they put the whole realm (and their dynasty) at risk. This is basic thematics. Why would Dany forgetting the name of Hazzea mean she’s acting out of “love” of people now?! The text indicates that she loves and has passion for her dragons instead. She just wants to fly them around and not think about the consequences.
 

More specific to the plot here regarding ice and fire:

(Interviewer asks about the Wall, Daenerys, and Kings Landing, Why those three main plot lines?)

GRRM: Well, of course, the two outlying ones — the things going on north of the Wall, and then there is Targaryen on the other continent with her dragons — are of course the ice and fire of the title, “A Song of Ice and Fire.” The central stuff — the stuff that’s happening in the middle, in King’s Landing, the capital of the seven kingdoms — is much more based on historical events, historical fiction. It’s loosely drawn from the Wars of the Roses and some of the other conflicts around the 100 Years’ War, although, of course, with a fantasy twist. You know, one of the dynamics I started with, there was the sense of people being so consumed by their petty struggles for power within the seven kingdoms, within King’s Landing — who’s going to be king? Who’s going to be on the Small Council? Who’s going to determine the policies? — that they’re blind to the much greater and more dangerous threats that are happening far away on the periphery of their kingdoms. And of course, you can see that all through history. It’s a common dynamic that takes place in history. You know, the Greek city-states, before the birth of Christ, you know, and fighting with each other, squabbling with each other, even as Philip of Macedon built up his armies to conquer them all. But you even see it in modern times, you know — the political struggles of France, under the Third Republic, while the Nazi threat is rising.”

Philip of Macedon, Third Reich...conquest, threats (plural) rising on the periphery. He just gave away the whole plot.

 

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think there will be a time when she becomes the most powerful person in the world, but we're certainly not yet at that point of the story.

Perhaps. But we'll never get a confirmation for that, considering we have no idea how large the world is and how powerful individuals on the other side of the globe is. I'd say, though, that anyone wasting power and resources to conquer Westeros would be stupid. Daenerys should not bother with that savage backwater and rather try to conquer Essos west and east of the Bones.

That said, I'd say that anyone ruling all the Dothraki does likely count as the most powerful person in Essos west of the Bones. How powerful certain princes of Yi Ti are (or how powerful a God-Emperor of Yi Ti who does rule all of Yi Ti in truth rather than in name could be) we don't know at this point.

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

How are you disagreeing with the author here?

If Dany did not have those Dragons, if she was not given those eggs by Illyrio do you, in your opinion, think she would have conquered Meereen and Astapor?

I think the ploy with the dragons could have just as well worked with a shitload of money instead of one dragon as a price. And then you have the same story as in ASoS and ADwD since the dragons do not really in the story on a political level.

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The people of Essos know what Dragons can do, they know she has Dragons. She is seen as a threat because of her Dragons. Stories from Slaver's Bay have reached Westeros because of her Dragons.

They would have reached Westeros without her dragons just the same. Then she would be just the mad warrior-queen with the eunuch soldiers. I'm not saying the mere thought of dragons does not put a very real fear in the heart of some people - but that's just an irrational fear, a fear many of the smarter people do not have.

And I really don't expect Dany's dragons to ever become a war-deciding weapon - especially not in battle. Perhaps the dragonriders will help to execute complicated battle strategies - coordinated attacks over vast distances, very clear information on enemy movements, and advantages that way.

But those little creatures will never burn castles or cities, and they will never burn/defeat entire armies, especially not winter when they fire is going to be pretty much useless, and they will have to get very close to the enemy (making them very vulnerable) to make use of their fire. Perhaps a dragonrider - or three dragonriders combined - can intimidate an enemy army enough to put them to rout. But they won't kill many people - and we can say that a disciplined army with enough archers and crossbowmen and scorpions could easily bring down all the dragons, especially if they were equipped with enough goldenheart or dragonbone bows.

Dany's dragons will never be powerful enough to develop a hard enough armor to be impervious to mundane weapons. Meraxes could effectively be only be brought down with that scorpion bolt in the eye. Dany's dragons can still be hacked to pieces with common swords and axes - like most of the dragons in the Dragonpit during the Dance.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

Did GRRM really say Meereen would end like Iraq?

Two different conflicts over two very different reasons. They cannot end the same because the reasons are not the same.  The situation in Meereen is a rescue operation to free the slaves from the shackles of slavery.  A better example for comparative purposes comes from the bible.  Moses is playing the role of Daenerys when he took the slaves out of Egypt.  I can also refer you to the Civil War to end slavery in the south.  The confederacy is the Meereenese who supported slavery.  We know which side was right in the Civil War just as we know which side is right in the battle for Meereen.  Daenerys and her troops are on the side of right while the slavers are obviously not.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

6 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

You're trying very hard to twist the story to paint a character which you do not like into a villain.  The truth is, Daenerys is the protagonists in A Song of Ice and Fire. The antagonists, the real threat to the lives of the people in the west is ice. The Starks represent ice.  Jon Snow has already jumped into the dark road of revenge and betrayal. Arya and Catelyn are already on that same road.  It is the Starks who are the real threat to survival.  

And Rose of Red Lake failed. 

[Aline de Gavrillac]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

This is what he says about "ice and fire"

"People say I was influenced by Robert Frost’s poem, and of course I was, I mean... Fire is love, fire is passion, fire is sexual ardor and all of these things. Ice is betrayal, ice is revenge, ice is… you know, that kind of cold inhumanity and all that stuff is being played out in the books"

So, the very opposite of what you are claiming,

Ice is the existential threat to life.  Fire is warmth, the light.  It is the giver of life.  Ice is death.  So if we go with the theme, yes, the Starks are on the elemental side of the antagonists. 

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The poem is about the world either ending in fire or ice. Too much love and passion is just as dangerous as too much revenge. That theme was played out with Targaryens who love fire, dragons, their lovers, or themselves so much that they put the whole realm (and their dynasty) at risk. This is basic thematics. Why would Dany forgetting the name of Hazzea mean she’s acting out of “love” of people now?! The text indicates that she loves and has passion for her dragons instead. She just wants to fly them around and not think about the consequences.
 

More specific to the plot here regarding ice and fire:

(Interviewer asks about the Wall, Daenerys, and Kings Landing, Why those three main plot lines?)

GRRM: Well, of course, the two outlying ones — the things going on north of the Wall, and then there is Targaryen on the other continent with her dragons — are of course the ice and fire of the title, “A Song of Ice and Fire.” The central stuff — the stuff that’s happening in the middle, in King’s Landing, the capital of the seven kingdoms — is much more based on historical events, historical fiction. It’s loosely drawn from the Wars of the Roses and some of the other conflicts around the 100 Years’ War, although, of course, with a fantasy twist. You know, one of the dynamics I started with, there was the sense of people being so consumed by their petty struggles for power within the seven kingdoms, within King’s Landing — who’s going to be king? Who’s going to be on the Small Council? Who’s going to determine the policies? — that they’re blind to the much greater and more dangerous threats that are happening far away on the periphery of their kingdoms. And of course, you can see that all through history. It’s a common dynamic that takes place in history. You know, the Greek city-states, before the birth of Christ, you know, and fighting with each other, squabbling with each other, even as Philip of Macedon built up his armies to conquer them all. But you even see it in modern times, you know — the political struggles of France, under the Third Republic, while the Nazi threat is rising.”

Philip of Macedon, Third Reich...conquest, threats (plural) rising on the periphery. He just gave away the whole plot.

 

To spell it out, fire is good (but potentially destructive) ice is always bad.  Martin thinks of love, passion, and sexual ardour as being good things.  Not for the first time, you're trying to twist his words into something he's not saying.  Martin likes the Targaryens, as you do not.

And yes, sure.  Daenerys will be a threat to her rivals at Kings Landing.   That much is obvious.   Philip of Macedon ( a fine ruler, by the way) is a good parallel.  But, Martin is not spoiling his story by giving the whole plot away.

[300 H&H Magnum]

5 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Although I agree that Rose of red lake is trying too hard to paint dany as an evil character. I don’t agree with people stating that the Starks or that dany are the main protagonists or the saviours of this story. In my eyes, I don’t see a protagonist in this fantasy. It’s not Lord of the rings or any other related books that have a clear protagonists. Its simply a medieval fantasy, attempting to be as realistic as possible. Whilst trying to avoid the good guy vs the bad guy scenario. 

People might say that the white walkers are the coming doom in the books. But we might see the opposite by the end of it. You never know.

It's true that we don't know for sure.  I suppose Martin can make a case for the WWs and give them justification for doing what they do.  Like maybe they were bastards throw out in the snow shortly after birth and they simply want to stake a claim.

[Mystical]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

To spell it out, fire is good (but potentially destructive) ice is always bad.

You will think differently about ice the next time you need to bring a swelling down due to, for example, an injury. Or make your drink cooler in summer. Or eat ice. Ice is not always bad, just like fire is not always good.

 

To the topic at hand. I can see it ending up like Iraq, in very broad strokes, if Dany leaves Essos entirely. And we know she will. Ending slavery permanently, in a place like Essos, is a lifetime commitment. Considering that one has to also get society to change their ways of life and thinking in general, we are talking several lifetimes. If Dany just up and leaves, then what was it all for? That's when the Iraq parallel would kick in.

In very broad strokes, Dany (US) had her own selfish reasons for conquering Slaver's Bay. She used what some would consider morally right excuses (ending slavery vs WMDs/9-11 for example). She uprooted the entire area for the good of the people (despite never asking the people beforehand, similar to how the US used the excuse of freeing them from oppression). When she got what she needed out of it, she will withdraw completely to elsewhere. And leaving behind an unstable situation and power vacuum (no army or dragons to enforce rule and law) to be filled by yet another awful person.

GRRM had best be sure to end this story with some taste, considering Dany already has the 'white savior' moniker attached to her. If she just peaces out, that won't look good.

[SeanF]

57 minutes ago, Mystical said:

You will think differently about ice the next time you need to bring a swelling down due to, for example, an injury. Or make your drink cooler in summer. Or eat ice. Ice is not always bad, just like fire is not always good.

 

To the topic at hand. I can see it ending up like Iraq, in very broad strokes, if Dany leaves Essos entirely. And we know she will. Ending slavery permanently, in a place like Essos, is a lifetime commitment. Considering that one has to also get society to change their ways of life and thinking in general, we are talking several lifetimes. If Dany just up and leaves, then what was it all for? That's when the Iraq parallel would kick in.

In very broad strokes, Dany (US) had her own selfish reasons for conquering Slaver's Bay. She used what some would consider morally right excuses (ending slavery vs WMDs/9-11 for example). She uprooted the entire area for the good of the people (despite never asking the people beforehand, similar to how the US used the excuse of freeing them from oppression). When she got what she needed out of it, she will withdraw completely to elsewhere. And leaving behind an unstable situation and power vacuum (no army or dragons to enforce rule and law) to be filled by yet another awful person.

GRRM had best be sure to end this story with some taste, considering Dany already has the 'white savior' moniker attached to her. If she just peaces out, that won't look good.

It's plain, though, that the slave majority don't like being slaves.  Otherwise, they'd be fighting against Daenerys, rather than fighting against their former masters.  The Old Blood of Volantis would have nothing to fear, because their slaves would be content with their lot, if indeed, the situation in the East was benign.  There would be no need to employ massive violence against the slaves to keep them in their place, were there not constant danger of rebellion.  Before Daenerys, Volantis and Slavers Bay were good places to live in for only a small proportion of the population, and even for them, it would be like living in a luxury gated community in a violent society.

IMHO, Daenerys has been the catalyst for a revolution across the East that will take decades to work itself out.  But, if it wasn't her it would be someone else.  The slave masters of the East have been heaping up their own funeral pyre over the course of centuries.  She's simply the spark to that funeral pyre.

[DMC]

Maybe it's just because I haven't been up in these parts for a while, but the tonnage of cognitive dissonance going on in this thread is astounding to me.  I mean, not for LV, he'll justify why eating a shit sandwich was gourmet cooking - in excruciating detail at that.  But for everybody else, if you take the quote from the OP as legit (which, again, I don't know), then the inferences are pretty fucking plain:

Dany is having difficulty ruling a part of the world whose "culture and ethos" is "alien" to her after conquering it with overwhelming force.  NOTE!!  "...she conquered it."  As in it already happened in the narrative.  As in how she streamlined her way through Astapor to Yunkai to Meereen with nary a scratch before attempting to actually rule.  And now she's having "difficulty" ruling a land she doesn't understand, just as GWB, because she broke the Pottery Barn rule.  So that will have adverse consequences - as we've already seen in ADWD.  

I have zero interest in this weird fight on character-hate and/or worship that seems to be underlying this discussion, but the OP quote itself isn't really revealing anything new.  Dany got in over her head.  So did Dubya.  Under similar circumstances.  Will that continue to play out?  Sure, the end of the quote suggests so.  But in what way?  Who knows?  There's a lot of ways things may and almost certainly will go wrong for Dany in the future - especially vis-a-vis the stabilization of Slaver's Bay.  And when that does happen, it's just confirmation bias.  The quote is vague enough to encapsulate anything and everything negative that happens to Dany from now on.  

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Maybe it's just because I haven't been up in these parts for a while, but the tonnage of cognitive dissonance going on in this thread is astounding to me.  I mean, not for LV, he'll justify why eating a shit sandwich was gourmet cooking - in excruciating detail at that.  But for everybody else, if you take the quote from the OP as legit (which, again, I don't know), then the inferences are pretty fucking plain:

Dany is having difficulty ruling a part of the world whose "culture and ethos" is "alien" to her after conquering it with overwhelming force.  NOTE!!  "...she conquered it."  As in it already happened in the narrative.  As in how she streamlined her way through Astapor to Yunkai to Meereen with nary a scratch before attempting to actually rule.  And now she's having "difficulty" ruling a land she doesn't understand, just as GWB, because she broke the Pottery Barn rule.  So that will have adverse consequences - as we've already seen in ADWD.  

I have zero interest in this weird fight on character-hate and/or worship that seems to be underlying this discussion, but the OP quote itself isn't really revealing anything new.  Dany got in over her head.  So did Dubya.  Under similar circumstances.  Will that continue to play out?  Sure, the end of the quote suggests so.  But in what way?  Who knows?  There's a lot of ways things may and almost certainly will go wrong for Dany in the future - especially vis-a-vis the stabilization of Slaver's Bay.  And when that does happen, it's just confirmation bias.  The quote is vague enough to encapsulate anything and everything negative that happens to Dany from now on.  

Well, yes, ruling a place is difficult, a point that Martin has often made.  Even Bismarck and Napoleon would find Slavers Bay hard going.  Dany could have saved herself a load of trouble by just looting Meereen and sailing away.

[Victor Newman]

On 12/31/2019 at 11:05 PM, Lord Varys said:

Oh, the US definitely did accomplish their goals in Iraq. Not to goals the government publicly declared they had, but those were not the reason why they were doing it.

But Dany isn't thinking geostrategically like the guys in the State Department, so she definitely did create more of a mess. But unlike those goons, Dany actually tries to do something good for the majority of the people in Slaver's Bay. And for them it is likely going to be better than anything they had under the Ghiscari slavers.

George Bush wasn't clear on what he wanted to do with Irag afterwards.  He publicly said the Husseins were hiding weapons of mass destruction and acted to protect America from that threat.  The goal expanded to the removal of the Husseins from power.  There were no weapons found.  Saddam was removed.  Unfortunately, there were extreme radicals in the country that Saddam had kept in check.  The removal of the strong but brutal dictator opened the way for these radicals to operate.  In other words, the US removed a man who had once been its ally, who kept peace in his volatile country, and opened the way for the more dangerous radicals to act.  This to me is fairly similar to Robert's Rebellion and not in any way comparable to the War For Freedom in Slaver's Bay.  The War For Freedom is most comparable to the American Civil War, the war that ended slavery in the South.  The Iraq War was a preemptive strike to remove a possible future threat.  It was justified on the basis of the other guy having the ability to hurt America.  It was mostly political.  The War For Freedom in Slaver's Bay is the fight to free millions of people from the oppression of the master classes.  It is not about politics but a war conducted for humane reasons.  

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Even Bismarck and Napoleon would find Slavers Bay hard going.

Yep.  I think Dubya's a more recent example and overlapped, is what the quote is getting at.  But those two did have their times...

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

It's plain, though, that the slave majority don't like being slaves.  Otherwise, they'd be fighting against Daenerys, rather than fighting against their former masters.  The Old Blood of Volantis would have nothing to fear, because their slaves would be content with their lot, if indeed, the situation in the East was benign.  There would be no need to employ massive violence against the slaves to keep them in their place, were there not constant danger of rebellion.  Before Daenerys, Volantis and Slavers Bay were good places to live in for only a small proportion of the population, and even for them, it would be like living in a luxury gated community in a violent society.

IMHO, Daenerys has been the catalyst for a revolution across the East that will take decades to work itself out.  But, if it wasn't her it would be someone else.  The slave masters of the East have been heaping up their own funeral pyre over the course of centuries.  She's simply the spark to that funeral pyre.

She is a cult leader and thrives on the power they give her, in fact the whole thing could be a story in how easily people fall for a tyrant, not just a story of Daenerys, Glorious Female Revolutionary End Of Story. I would expect it from GRRM. They also have no idea who she is, that she intended to buy them but couldn’t afford them. They also don’t know how Dany has treated conquered slaves in the past—she slapped one for speaking the truth she refused to see (slapping the help? Always a bad sign). Dany is contradictory, from wanting to help people but being the cause of their suffering at the same time. She also has cult army who thinks in lockstep—“anyone who is against mommy is an enemy—and therefore they are my enemies too.” Bad news for Westeros and for the people who follow her. If she forces the Dothraki to break a sacred custom by crossing the poisoned water, it’s even worse. When she thinks “I crossed your sea, now you’ll cross mine” she is thinking like a vindictive conqueror without cultural sensitivity. I don’t trust her and giving up critical faculties to her absolute control is dumb and dangerous.

[SeanF]

46 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She is a cult leader and thrives on the power they give her, in fact the whole thing could be a story in how easily people fall for a tyrant, not just a story of Daenerys, Glorious Female Revolutionary End Of Story. I would expect it from GRRM. They also have no idea who she is, that she intended to buy them but couldn’t afford them. They also don’t know how Dany has treated conquered slaves in the past—she slapped one for speaking the truth she refused to see (slapping the help? Always a bad sign). Dany is contradictory, from wanting to help people but being the cause of their suffering at the same time. She also has cult army who thinks in lockstep—“anyone who is against mommy is an enemy—and therefore they are my enemies too.” Bad news for Westeros and for the people who follow her. If she forces the Dothraki to break a sacred custom by crossing the poisoned water, it’s even worse. When she thinks “I crossed your sea, now you’ll cross mine” she is thinking like a vindictive conqueror without cultural sensitivity. I don’t trust her and giving up critical faculties to her absolute control is dumb and dangerous.

If Grey Worm said "thanks for freeing us, but now we're hiring ourselves out to the highest bidder as a free company" (and there would be lots of people bidding for the services of the Unsullied ) or decided to rule Astapor for themselves,  I don't think there is very much Daenerys could do about it.  Given that they elected their own officers, chose their own names, and went on strike when Hizdahr briefly took over Meereen, I'd say it's pretty clear that the Unsullied have minds and wills of their own, just as Janissaries and Mamelukes did.

[Wall Flower]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If Grey Worm said "thanks for freeing us, but now we're hiring ourselves out to the highest bidder as a free company" (and there would be lots of people bidding for the services of the Unsullied ) I don't think there is very much she could do about it.  Given that they elected their own officers, chose their own names, and went on strike when Hizdahr briefly took over Meereen, I'd say it's pretty clear that the Unsullied have minds and wills of their own. 

Dany gave the Unsullied the chance to turn on their Masters and they took it. Of course, if only they'd known that Dany slapped a slave girl once, I'm sure they would have totally remained loyal to the Masters who enslaved them, mutilated them and forced them to kill babies and puppies.