Daenerys & Mirri Maaz Duur

[frenin]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

I think the worry is not so much that Martin wants us to agree with slavery (he doesn't) but to conclude that fighting against slavery (or other evils) only makes things worse for everyone.

I don't think that's the correct interpretation of the story, but I can see why some readers would view the story in that light.

I don't think that for a moment, sure Martin is saying that every revolution is dirty and demands its toll of lives but at any rate, at any, he's saying that the war isn't worth the fight.

There is a reason why Dany fails so spectacularly by trying to do the peaceful things, it only makes things worse for everyone, and people who have those ideologies and are in power and have wealth will fuck with you in a ton of  different ways, Dany's campaign take a lot of references of the Reconstruction Era, no Martin is not making us believe that embracing and marrying with the KKK is the best option and fuck with the slaves/blacks. That's just ludicrous and it's especially ludicrous when the same people somehow think that the Stark cause is worth a damn  somehow... because the northeners believe so.

[SeanF]

28 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't think that for a moment, sure Martin is saying that every revolution is dirty and demands its toll of lives but at any rate, at any, he's saying that the war isn't worth the fight.

There is a reason why Dany fails so spectacularly by trying to do the peaceful things, it only makes things worse for everyone, and people who have those ideologies and are in power and have wealth will fuck with you in a ton of  different ways, Dany's campaign take a lot of references of the Reconstruction Era, no Martin is not making us believe that embracing and marrying with the KKK is the best option and fuck with the slaves/blacks. That's just ludicrous and it's especially ludicrous when the same people somehow think that the Stark cause is worth a damn  somehow... because the northeners believe so.

That is how I interpret the story,

In a sense, the Old Blood of Volantis are correct, to see that free and unfree cannot co-exist. People would always be trying to escape to a free Meereen, and it would be outrageous to expect the Meereenese to return fugitive slaves, or enforce contracts for the sale and purchase of slaves.  It's why I ultimately reject Adam Feldman's analysis.  Even if there are slavers who do want peace (and one has to question the price of peace) the example of the USA suggests either freedom must prevail, or slavery must prevail. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

48 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I don’t see how this can’t be George’s view given how the show ended. He must have told the show makers enough of the ending and even in broad strokes or a different context it only points one way. I don’t subscribe to the notion that it’ll be somehow a vastly different story if he’s writing it. That was his ending told poorly.

I don't disagree that she may end up that way, only that she isn't there yet. The journey doesn't start out as this otherwise she would be a villain from beginning to end right? 

I'm not sold this is or isn't his ending. It could be that was his ending & now it has changed, it could be it never was his ending & D&D took liberties where they shouldn't have, it could be, as you say, his ending but told poorly. 

She has an 'arc' just like any other character - it isn't a flat plain. Where she starts out is not where she ends up, regardless of where that may be. 

51 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

It is is relevant to talk about the Starks because, their way of doing things is being put on a pedestal and depicted as the balanced or rational way of doing things. We are asked to contrast them. Dany is being depicted as an extreme. In the books he had not firmly nailed his colours to the mast. So it was easy to rationalise away whenever the text raises a question over Dany, or you could assume that he won’t go there because it would be a contrived and vacuous point to make. It’s not my view of Dany at all and I think it’s a horrendously out of touch direction to  take the character in.

It may be a productive conversation if I shared your views on the Starks, but I don't. I don't agree that they are depicted as balanced & put on a pedestal nor do I agree Dany is being depicted as an extreme. I find Dany & the Starks very much in line with each other, with Danys cause being much more righteous than Robb or even Neds. 

I think if Dany ends the way the show has done it will make much more sense & flow much easier than the way they told it - & if it doesn't, it's a poorly written story. 

54 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

If you want to critique the “power fantasy” archetype or the road to hell being paved with good intentions it does not make sense to do that through a female character. It’s too easy for guys to distance it from themselves and say “bitches be crazy”. Especially if you have a sorcerer Lord character assume absolute power and be the real deal. 

I would argue that the 'men' that cannot see this for what it is because a character is female are idiots & if they cannot understand the sense behind the road to hell being paved with good intentions because it is shown through a female character, they should probably go back to school & lose their stereo types & wrongful opinions about "bitches being crazy" 

 

[frenin]

6 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would argue that the 'men' that cannot see this for what it is because a character is female are idiots & if they cannot understand the sense behind the road to hell being paved with good intentions because it is shown through a female character, they should probably go back to school & lose their stereo types & wrongful opinions about "bitches being crazy" 

 

Tbf. A lot of people who started the Dany is the mad queen nonsense, were men who actually had that same reaction, bitches be crazy lmao. You can tell because the same people who tend to bash on Dany, tend to kiss Tywin's lucky ass.

Is a theme in the fandom that women exercising power, that doesn't mean Cersei, and doing awful things in war are tend to be seen worse than their male counterparts.

While Aegon's stupid war with Dorne  for nothing more than pride is ignored we have to listen that Dany kills slavers for impalling children... and that's bad i believe. 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Tbf. A lot of people who started the Dany is the mad queen nonsense, were men who actually had that same reaction, bitches be crazy lmao. You can tell because the same people who tend to bash on Dany, tend to kiss Tywin's lucky ass.

Is a theme in the fandom that women exercising power, that doesn't mean Cersei, and doing awful things in war are tend to be seen worse than their male counterparts.

While Aegon's stupid war with Dorne  for nothing more than pride is ignored we have to listen that Dany kills slavers for impalling children... and that's bad i believe. 

Brynden Fish (who is not a great fan of Daenerys) makes that point.  It is somehow seen as a unnatural for a woman to be a war leader , and I won't deny I share that prejudice.  But it is a prejudice, and not a rational belief.

No one would bat an eyelid if a forty year old man killed the Good or Great Masters.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

32 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Brynden Fish (who is not a great fan of Daenerys) makes that point.  It is somehow seen as a unnatural for a woman to be a war leader , and I won't deny I share that prejudice.  But it is a prejudice, and not a rational belief.

No one would bat an eyelid if a forty year old man killed the Good or Great Masters.

I don't take any issue with it being seen as unnatural. It's unorthodox to say the least. Men & women are different - there isn't anything wrong with that. Women are gentler & approach issues in a different manner, generally speaking. 

What I take issue with is a man (or a woman) not being able to grasp a concept or the moral of a story merely because it is being told from a female in an unorthodox position. 

I also take issue with someone not batting an eyelid if it were a 40 year old man killing the masters but being outraged over Dany doing it. Not because its sexist (although it is) but because that really should have the opposite effect. If it's true that women are the gentler sex & also true that a particular person would be ok with the killing of the masters had it come from a man then I would deduce, if I were that person, that Dany had even more reason to kill them - being a woman, wouldn't it make sense that she would need to be pushed farther in order to command this sort of violence than a man would? 

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

On 2/16/2020 at 8:23 PM, Narsil4 said:

It looks like Rhaego was being turned into a dragon. 

Which seems more like the Mother of Dragon's area of expertise.. 

MMD's plan just seemed to be to sacrifice a horse to animate Drogo's mindless body. 

So she might very well be innocent. 

That is hearsay.  Daenerys never actually saw little Rhaego. 

MMD admitted rather to the deed.  She taunted Daenerys even.  Anybody would consider her guilty.  MMD's own words convicted her. 

[Wolf's Bane]

On 1/29/2020 at 9:11 PM, Unit A2 said:

MMD had somewhat justifiable reason to hate Drogo.  She had absolutely no justification to hate Daenerys and Rhaego.  It matters not who Daenerys is.  That Daenerys showed compassion towards MMD should have excluded her from the witch's hate.  It is unfortunate, MMD is human and while she appears calm and collected, she is not above grief.  Grief made her indiscriminate.  MMD was mad with grief.  She let the hate come out and hurt the one person who showed her compassion.  MMD and Stoneheart have a lot in common.  Both may think it's justice they do but in the end, it was nothing but hate and revenge. 

MMD took responsibility for what happened to Drogo.  She confessed to murdering Rhaego.  That is an admission of guilt.  A confession, delivered with venom and spite.  MMD was a hateful woman.  She deserved her punishment.  Most of the powerful people in this story would have done worse to her if she had killed their favorite child.  Think of what Tywin, Stannis, Robert, Balon, Manderly, and Doran would do if this witch had killed their favorite child.  They would have tortured her for days and months before letting her die in agony.  Manderly would have eaten her remains.  MMD deserved to burn.  I agree with Daenerys in burning MMD. 

Stannis Baratheon sent people to his firepits for much less than this.  Dany handles justice a whole lot better than any of the other leaders in this series.  Which is remarkable given her age.  Ned beheads a man who was suffering from emotional distress.  Jon murders a fellow watchman who was begging for mercy and for a minor misbehavior.  

[Wolf's Bane]

Mirri Maaz Duur and Arya Stark have a lot of similarities.  Both women are or were hellbent on vengeance.  Mirri M D took hers on Rhaego while Arya took hers on the old man at the bar.  It may be Arya's destiny to also die by fire.  It would be poetic.  Cersei catches her in the act and burns her for the murder of Tommen.  Walder puts her over the coals for murdering one of his children.  

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't take any issue with it being seen as unnatural. It's unorthodox to say the least. Men & women are different - there isn't anything wrong with that. Women are gentler & approach issues in a different manner, generally speaking. 

What I take issue with is a man (or a woman) not being able to grasp a concept or the moral of a story merely because it is being told from a female in an unorthodox position. 

I also take issue with someone not batting an eyelid if it were a 40 year old man killing the masters but being outraged over Dany doing it. Not because its sexist (although it is) but because that really should have the opposite effect. If it's true that women are the gentler sex & also true that a particular person would be ok with the killing of the masters had it come from a man then I would deduce, if I were that person, that Dany had even more reason to kill them - being a woman, wouldn't it make sense that she would need to be pushed farther in order to command this sort of violence than a man would? 

I would agree with all of that.  

[Targaryen Restoration]

6 hours ago, Wolf's Bane said:

Mirri Maaz Duur and Arya Stark have a lot of similarities.  Both women are or were hellbent on vengeance.  Mirri M D took hers on Rhaego while Arya took hers on the old man at the bar.  It may be Arya's destiny to also die by fire.  It would be poetic.  Cersei catches her in the act and burns her for the murder of Tommen.  Walder puts her over the coals for murdering one of his children.  

Cersei is the most cruel of all.  Arya will be kept alive for years.  Think of her on the same level of sadism as Ramsay Bolton.  Walder is not the torturing person.  Yes he will kill Arya and transplant Nymeria's head but there won't be torture involved.  The Freys are not really cruel.  They're practical in their methods.  Cat was killed swiftly even after what she did to Aegon.

[teej6]

5 hours ago, Wolf's Bane said:

Mirri Maaz Duur and Arya Stark have a lot of similarities.  Both women are or were hellbent on vengeance.  Mirri M D took hers on Rhaego while Arya took hers on the old man at the bar.  It may be Arya's destiny to also die by fire.  It would be poetic.  Cersei catches her in the act and burns her for the murder of Tommen.  Walder puts her over the coals for murdering one of his children.  

Which “old man at the bar” are you talking about? The only old man Arya has killed was the insurance agent in Braavos. If you are implying him, Arya did not kill him for revenge. As for your desire to see Arya (an eleven year-old) burn, good luck with that pipe dream/ fanfic. Anyway, I thought this thread was about MMD’s dealings with Dany and not a Stark-bashing thread. Some posters are so predictable and always sing the same song.

[teej6]

2 minutes ago, Targaryen Restoration said:

Cersei is the most cruel of all.  Arya will be kept alive for years.  Think of her on the same level of sadism as Ramsay Bolton.  Walder is not the torturing person.  Yes he will kill Arya and transplant Nymeria's head but there won't be torture involved.  The Freys are not really cruel.  They're practical in their methods.  Cat was killed swiftly even after what she did to Aegon.

I can’t believe we are discussing ways Arya will die now on this unrelated thread. 

[Targaryen Restoration]

Just now, teej6 said:

I can’t believe we are discussing ways Arya will die now on this unrelated thread. 

I didn't start it but it is an interesting thought to ponder.  I'm not fond of the girl.  I also do not think fire is the method of the Freys.  The blade is.

[teej6]

4 minutes ago, Targaryen Restoration said:

I didn't start it but it is an interesting thought to ponder.  

Perhaps then you should start another thread for this unrelated discussion. 

[mormont]

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

Perhaps then you should start another thread for this unrelated discussion. 

[mod] This is correct - please stick to topic. If you want to discuss something unrelated, start a new thread. [/mod]

[Tyrion1991]

19 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't disagree that she may end up that way, only that she isn't there yet. The journey doesn't start out as this otherwise she would be a villain from beginning to end right? 

I'm not sold this is or isn't his ending. It could be that was his ending & now it has changed, it could be it never was his ending & D&D took liberties where they shouldn't have, it could be, as you say, his ending but told poorly. 

She has an 'arc' just like any other character - it isn't a flat plain. Where she starts out is not where she ends up, regardless of where that may be. 

It may be a productive conversation if I shared your views on the Starks, but I don't. I don't agree that they are depicted as balanced & put on a pedestal nor do I agree Dany is being depicted as an extreme. I find Dany & the Starks very much in line with each other, with Danys cause being much more righteous than Robb or even Neds. 

I think if Dany ends the way the show has done it will make much more sense & flow much easier than the way they told it - & if it doesn't, it's a poorly written story. 

I would argue that the 'men' that cannot see this for what it is because a character is female are idiots & if they cannot understand the sense behind the road to hell being paved with good intentions because it is shown through a female character, they should probably go back to school & lose their stereo types & wrongful opinions about "bitches being crazy" 

 

 

The ending casts a long shadow over her previous actions. If you set a character on a journey and say that this ends in “the revolution devouring its own children” that has bearing on how the author intended us to view that journey. So it is a single narrative and that’s going to be the overall message. 

I doubt that they would not have discussed themes and what the overall message of Danys story was. I don’t think DND would have took the story in that direction unless they were reassured by the fact the ending came from Martin.

You think the House with the woolly loving family and adoring hardy people are meant to be compared to the House with a history of insanity and incest who conquered Westeros with Fire and Blood? One has a two volume lore book on all the bad things they’ve done whilst the other is praised as solemn guardians of the North throughout the text; even their supposed enemies hold them in high regard. If George had wanted to make the Starks and the Targaryens no different than each other then he wouldn’t be writing them this way. They are being depicted as poles apart. One is playing to romanticised ideals that George assumes his readers have and the other is pointing what a villain looks like. I mean, one wears white and the other black like it’s a Western or something.

I never said it was right, but I think that’s a common view. You do not need to look very far to see this opinion spoken directly and unspoken I think it informs a lot of people’s  views. 

[SeanF]

55 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

The ending casts a long shadow over her previous actions. If you set a character on a journey and say that this ends in “the revolution devouring its own children” that has bearing on how the author intended us to view that journey. So it is a single narrative and that’s going to be the overall message. 

I doubt that they would not have discussed themes and what the overall message of Danys story was. I don’t think DND would have took the story in that direction unless they were reassured by the fact the ending came from Martin.

You think the House with the woolly loving family and adoring hardy people are meant to be compared to the House with a history of insanity and incest who conquered Westeros with Fire and Blood? One has a two volume lore book on all the bad things they’ve done whilst the other is praised as solemn guardians of the North throughout the text; even their supposed enemies hold them in high regard. If George had wanted to make the Starks and the Targaryens no different than each other then he wouldn’t be writing them this way. They are being depicted as poles apart. One is playing to romanticised ideals that George assumes his readers have and the other is pointing what a villain looks like. I mean, one wears white and the other black like it’s a Western or something.

I never said it was right, but I think that’s a common view. You do not need to look very far to see this opinion spoken directly and unspoken I think it informs a lot of people’s  views. 

The only way I interpret Martin's story, and his pseudo-histories, is that both Targaryens and Starks comprise the good, bad, and indifferent.  They aren't Gryffindor and Slytherin.   Morally, there's no difference between conquering a continent, and conquering half a continent.

I think that if Dark Daenerys is a thing, she'd be a Dessalines, Bolivar, or Robespierre-type figure. Turning her into Hitler/Satan as the show did, was blatantly absurd.

[Tyrion1991]

55 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The only way I interpret Martin's story, and his pseudo-histories, is that both Targaryens and Starks comprise the good, bad, and indifferent.  They aren't Gryffindor and Slytherin.   Morally, there's no difference between conquering a continent, and conquering half a continent.

I think that if Dark Daenerys is a thing, she'd be a Dessalines, Bolivar, or Robespierre-type figure. Turning her into Hitler/Satan as the show did, was blatantly absurd.

 

That the point, you’re bringing a criticism to the text that is neither directly or indirectly made by the author. You can’t believe that George is genuinely casting the Starks this way so he must be making some kind of deep subtle meta critique of them. But why doesn’t, for example, the Hound when he’s trying to say that Neds a bad man not make this exact point? That his ancestors are nothing but robbers holding their lands through threat of violence. Why doesn’t Jamie make a more substantial and direct case that the Starks are hypocrites when he’s talking to Briene? Why doesn’t Theon point out that the Starks took the North by force so the Ironborn aren’t doing anything different? Never mind that all three are not credible voices due to their actions. He doesn’t because he doesn’t want to cast those shadows on the Starks or the North. The text does not ask you to question the Starks or the North. It validates then at every opportunity.

Name one example of an insane, repulsive or incompetent Stark in his histories and backstory? Name one Stark that is the equivalent of a Maegor the Cruel or Aegon the Unworthy? Could you ever imagine a Stark being like Robert Baratheon and becoming fat and indolent? Could one ever be as repulsive as Walter Frey? Why give Dany so many terrible ancestors if not to colour the readers perception of her cause? Why give almost no examples of evil or repugnant Starks if not to validate that families role in the story? I never heard Tyrion being worried about how “oh Jon’s heirs include the Bad Wolf, the Stinky Wolf and Fat Wolf; he might be a nutter”. Yet he does this with Dany. It’s one rule for the Starks and another for Dany.

The issue is that Dany is not being criticised in isolation. It is not a coincidence that Bran becomes King and Dany goes down in flames. That’s no longer just a tragedy from which you can draw your own conclusions. That’s advocating what a perfect King should be and that is far more open to criticism. You have a passionless and cold blooded “reasonable” technocrat being held up as a beacon of rational leadership contrasted to the insane fiery idealism and self destructiveness of Dany . Even if George tones Dany down he would still be making the same point. 

[frenin]

Here we going again.

It's not Martin's fault you admire the Starks so much that.

Hell, we're in the Riverlands and see the spoils of Robb's war. And yet you keep believing he is validated because characters don't act in a very very specifical way.