Jump to content

Daenerys & Mirri Maaz Duur


Lyanna<3Rhaegar

Recommended Posts

2 hours 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

So then this is the message he is sending us irt Robb & Ned as well no? 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

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

I'm sure they discussed things but that doesn't mean much. I think D&D absolutely would take the story in that direction without having it come from Martin. The ending of the show means nothing irt the books & there really isn't anything we can say for certain until we get the books. 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

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?

This is your opinion of the two houses. Not mine, not Martin's. 

They are absolutely meant to be compared; this is the song of ice & fire. 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

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

The book is not full of bad things they have done but rather bad and good things they have done. You cannot compare present day Starks to all of the Targaryens ancestors & we don't have the information on Stark ancestors that we do on the Targaryens. The individuals are not the whole. 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

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'm not saying they are no different than each other. They are depicted as opposite poles in that one is ice & one is fire. But to say they are not comparable is false. 

Targaryens have a touch of magic & have dragons & some stronger immunity to illnesses; Starks have a touch a magic & have direwolves & are skin changers. 

Aerys died for his unjust ways & his madness; Ned died for his honor.

Rhaegar died fighting in a war over a woman; Robb died for breaking his vow over a woman. 

Dany stops on her trek to take the IT to free the slaves because that is more important; Jon realizes the threat of the Others is more important than the squabbles of the realm & let's the wildlings through. Both end up paying for their cause even though their cause is right & good. 

Viserys was a cruel, snot nosed brat who thought himself above the rest; Bran is using his magical ability to mind rape a simpleton 

The Targs have a history of incest & madness but they also have a history of doing great things.

Aegon united the realm & brought peace where there had no been for a long time.

Aerys was mad & still managed to bring the realm peace & prosperity. 

Compare that to what happened during Robert's reign - he beggared the realm & with Ned's help left a succession war in his wake. 

The Targs are also given great advantages - dragons, health immunity, in Dany's case some sort of fire resistance, at least long enough to hatch dragons. 

White & Black are the villains & the good guys in Disney stories, this is no Disney story. Besides the Starks are gray & the Targ's Red if we are assigning colors. Black is Jon's color definitely, even before he joined the NW. Is he a villain? 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

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

Maybe. Thankfully I've never encountered it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

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. 

We had Starks sacrificing people to weirwoods, raping the daughters of defeated kings, and massacring women and children in Essos.  The She Wolves of Winterfell were unlikely to be nice people.  The "wolf blood" of some Starks led to just as extreme behaviour as the "dragon blood" of the Targs.  Being a warg, and being a dragon Lord are not that different.  

Ned and Catelyn were simply two people who were unusually decent for their time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

We had Starks sacrificing people to weirwoods, raping the daughters of defeated kings, and massacring women and children in Essos.  The She Wolves of Winterfell were unlikely to be nice people.  The "wolf blood" of some Starks led to just as extreme behaviour as the "dragon blood" of the Targs.  Being a warg, and being a dragon Lord are not that different.  

Ned and Catelyn were simply two people who were unusually decent for their time.

 

So we have the entire history of the Targaryen house and know what Maegor ate for breakfast versus, what, a few throwaway sentences in the World of Ice and Fire? Plus, if it’s meant to be that bad, why is not being brought up in the text when such information would be relevant?. If the Hound wants to convince Sansa that the world is a cruel place why wouldn’t he point out where her stock and power comes from? Why do the Wildlings not talk about the atrocities committed by House Stark against their ancestors? 

Basically I think that’s anecdotal backstory. Whereas all the stuff with Maegor and the bad Targaryens is directly casting a shadow on Dany. You don’t hear people say “oh no Bran, you’re being like then evil Stark Kings”.  It’s inferred to be ancient history far removed from the events to the story.

George wrote it where the Dragons ate a child yet the Direwolves are easily controllable. Not one accident or slip up despite Ned warnings about this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So then this is the message he is sending us irt Robb & Ned as well no? 

I'm sure they discussed things but that doesn't mean much. I think D&D absolutely would take the story in that direction without having it come from Martin. The ending of the show means nothing irt the books & there really isn't anything we can say for certain until we get the books. 

This is your opinion of the two houses. Not mine, not Martin's. 

They are absolutely meant to be compared; this is the song of ice & fire. 

The book is not full of bad things they have done but rather bad and good things they have done. You cannot compare present day Starks to all of the Targaryens ancestors & we don't have the information on Stark ancestors that we do on the Targaryens. The individuals are not the whole. 

I'm not saying they are no different than each other. They are depicted as opposite poles in that one is ice & one is fire. But to say they are not comparable is false. 

Targaryens have a touch of magic & have dragons & some stronger immunity to illnesses; Starks have a touch a magic & have direwolves & are skin changers. 

Aerys died for his unjust ways & his madness; Ned died for his honor.

Rhaegar died fighting in a war over a woman; Robb died for breaking his vow over a woman. 

Dany stops on her trek to take the IT to free the slaves because that is more important; Jon realizes the threat of the Others is more important than the squabbles of the realm & let's the wildlings through. Both end up paying for their cause even though their cause is right & good. 

Viserys was a cruel, snot nosed brat who thought himself above the rest; Bran is using his magical ability to mind rape a simpleton 

The Targs have a history of incest & madness but they also have a history of doing great things.

Aegon united the realm & brought peace where there had no been for a long time.

Aerys was mad & still managed to bring the realm peace & prosperity. 

Compare that to what happened during Robert's reign - he beggared the realm & with Ned's help left a succession war in his wake. 

The Targs are also given great advantages - dragons, health immunity, in Dany's case some sort of fire resistance, at least long enough to hatch dragons. 

White & Black are the villains & the good guys in Disney stories, this is no Disney story. Besides the Starks are gray & the Targ's Red if we are assigning colors. Black is Jon's color definitely, even before he joined the NW. Is he a villain? 

Maybe. Thankfully I've never encountered it. 

 

Yeah and Ice is being depicted as much better than fire. In all circumstances. One is destructive and the other preserves. Bran wins, Dany loses. George really does want to put that reptile on the Throne.

The Targaryens might have examples of people doing great things but the Starks have that and no negative examples. That’s as good as saying they’re better.

I don’t think George intended Bran to be criticised to the extent that he was over that. That is a Darkstar moment. He misjudged how insensitive that scene was. I think Bran story is completely off the rails anyway especially given where he’s meant to be going. No other character has so obviously had their story dragged out.

Yeah but why would George not talk about the Starks history? Why go into all that details with the Targaryens? There are more Stark POV and it has a huge impact on how we perceive Dany. There’s hardly a lack of interest in this subject from the fandom. If Dany was, hell Ned and Asharas child that would massively change the way people view her because she wouldn’t be tainted by that association. Whereas it would diminish all of Neds children in the eyes of the North if they weren’t his children. You’re assuming this is just incidental that George says so little about the ancient Starks whereas I think it’s deliberate. We can only judge the Starks by a select clan and yet we are encouraged to look at Dany in light of her families history.

Jon saying his colour was black is a bad pun on one of the worst kept secrets in the story.

Again I don’t remotely see any shades being thrown at the Starks set against continuation undermining and demonisation of the Targaryens and specifically Dany.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Yeah and Ice is being depicted as much better than fire. In all circumstances. One is destructive and the other preserves. Bran wins, Dany loses. George really does want to put that reptile on the Throne.

The Targaryens might have examples of people doing great things but the Starks have that and no negative examples. That’s as good as saying they’re better.

I don’t think George intended Bran to be criticised to the extent that he was over that. That is a Darkstar moment. He misjudged how insensitive that scene was. I think Bran story is completely off the rails anyway especially given where he’s meant to be going. No other character has so obviously had their story dragged out.

Yeah but why would George not talk about the Starks history? Why go into all that details with the Targaryens? There are more Stark POV and it has a huge impact on how we perceive Dany. There’s hardly a lack of interest in this subject from the fandom. If Dany was, hell Ned and Asharas child that would massively change the way people view her because she wouldn’t be tainted by that association. Whereas it would diminish all of Neds children in the eyes of the North if they weren’t his children. You’re assuming this is just incidental that George says so little about the ancient Starks whereas I think it’s deliberate. We can only judge the Starks by a select clan and yet we are encouraged to look at Dany in light of her families history.

Jon saying his colour was black is a bad pun on one of the worst kept secrets in the story.

Again I don’t remotely see any shades being thrown at the Starks set against continuation undermining and demonisation of the Targaryens and specifically Dany.

 

I don't see how to have a meaningful discussion when things are pointed out that contradict your claim & you dismiss them - that doesn't count because this, that is meant to show something else, or why isn't there more. 

I've seen your stance laid out repeatedly & I'm not convinced, sorry. 

How about we discuss the topic of the thread? What are your thoughts irt Dany & MMD? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Yeah and Ice is being depicted as much better than fire. In all circumstances. One is destructive and the other preserves. Bran wins, Dany loses. George really does want to put that reptile on the Throne.

The Targaryens might have examples of people doing great things but the Starks have that and no negative examples. That’s as good as saying they’re better.

I don’t think George intended Bran to be criticised to the extent that he was over that. That is a Darkstar moment. He misjudged how insensitive that scene was. I think Bran story is completely off the rails anyway especially given where he’s meant to be going. No other character has so obviously had their story dragged out.

Yeah but why would George not talk about the Starks history? Why go into all that details with the Targaryens? There are more Stark POV and it has a huge impact on how we perceive Dany. There’s hardly a lack of interest in this subject from the fandom. If Dany was, hell Ned and Asharas child that would massively change the way people view her because she wouldn’t be tainted by that association. Whereas it would diminish all of Neds children in the eyes of the North if they weren’t his children. You’re assuming this is just incidental that George says so little about the ancient Starks whereas I think it’s deliberate. We can only judge the Starks by a select clan and yet we are encouraged to look at Dany in light of her families history.

Jon saying his colour was black is a bad pun on one of the worst kept secrets in the story.

Again I don’t remotely see any shades being thrown at the Starks set against continuation undermining and demonisation of the Targaryens and specifically Dany.

 

Martin said ice is revenge, hate, and cold inhumanity.  Fire is passion and desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't see how to have a meaningful discussion when things are pointed out that contradict your claim & you dismiss them - that doesn't count because this, that is meant to show something else, or why isn't there more. 

I've seen your stance laid out repeatedly & I'm not convinced, sorry. 

How about we discuss the topic of the thread? What are your thoughts irt Dany & MMD? 

 

Miri is the authors vehicle to criticise Danys hero quest and how she’s trampling the little people. This is done by showing how her dream can be another woman’s nightmare. George also belittles the idea that she has any ability to control the terms of that because War is by definition bad. It doesn’t matter that Dany desires things to be different or change if the result is the same. 

If there is a problem with Miri it is that she is assuming for herself the right to make this decision. She doesn’t concern herself with what it could mean for the other women and Lhazareen. Her village and her life were ruined therefore she is going to spite the world. Basically she doesn’t care about the other women’s lives. The character thus perpetuates the suffering for petty revenge rather than considering the idea that things can be better. 

The issue is with how Dothraki society and economy is based around feuding warlords who trade in slaves. If you had one Khal ruling over everything and banned slavery then her people would not suffer. I mean, the Dothraki haven’t signed the Geneva Convention so there’s no legal expectation among the community of nations for them to not attack civilians. It should be for characters who want change like Dany to shunt people’s attitudes on this. Mirri ends that possibility out of bitterness.The character is thus reducing a complex social and economic problem into a trite act of personal vengeance that will achieve nothing. Especially against individuals who were not directly involved and were half way to backing out of the act. Indeed they fought against those who initially attacked the village and those who objected to Dany protecting the slaves.

Fundamentally its criticising what might be a reasonable assumption that Dany can use her power for good. That she would raise up the people with her and she wouldn’t need to choose between these two things. But George is communicating that if she wants to be Queen that means people suffering. Dany does reflect on this in Qaarth and how Drogo promised to do very bad things to Westeros. So it is a recurring theme in her story.

The whole episode is intended to raise enormous questions over the legitimacy of Danys goals. I can’t think of that many characters who have such prominent and direct criticisms of their motivations. I disagree with this depiction because I think George is holding Dany and the consequences of her invading Westeros to a different standard. How would this be any different than what’s occurring in the Riverlands, Reach or North? The absence criticism implies that the Starks are presumed to fighting a just war that is beyond reproach. 

 

On a side note. I think it’s bizarre that Dany trusts the creepy woman who at the end of one chapter is all but ominously whispering that she will take care of things. This is kind of stupid. 

I also don’t like the dues ex machina aspect of George’s magic “system”. Of course there’s a curse that makes Drogo a vegetable and leads to poetic justice for Dany. When other characters can barely manipulate magic and it’s unpredictable she’s able to use whatever it is in such a specific way. It’s far too convenient. Especially when, yeah, you can raise people from the dead. It’s just very random and seems to be whatever the story needs it to be.

I also don’t like how it’s used as a plot device to keep Dany in Essos. So many characters have died in Westeros or are slated to die that most of the interesting opponent are dead. Now George is having to big up Aegon and Euron whilst nobody from the Rebellion will be left to oppose Dany.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Martin said ice is revenge, hate, and cold inhumanity.  Fire is passion and desire.

 

The Starks embody those traits but in a very safe and toned down way. Oh yeah Arya wants revenge on all the bad men and she’s going to get the tools and training to do just that without collateral. Plus all the people that revenge, hate and cold immunity is directed against are all one dimensional villains so it doesn’t matter. 

George depicts love as a destructive emotion that has been the cause of almost every war and ill in the series. That’s not a compliment towards fire embodying those aspects. If every romance ends in a war being started, madness or betraying the common good then I don’t see how this is intended to be a good thing. I mean it’s past satirical that he has twin siblings in a romance and incest be so prominent. That’s done to state in a very vulgar way how lust and love is blind to the morality of wider society and destructive. Hell the most successful guys in Westeros have either sworn off girls, have had it cut off, not remarried after they died or thrown themselves into their work and are only going to be undone by the hots for the daughter. You never see the counterpoint to this bombardment. Somebody like Justinian and Theodora just wouldn’t fit into this narrative. Aside a handful of exceptions in the wider lore there are very few cases where it’s unambivalently a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not reading this in the story.

I think it's true that in popular culture generally, it's easier to accept killing to avenge wrongs done to oneself or one's family, than it is to accept killing in the name of a good cause.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Miri is the authors vehicle to criticise Danys hero quest and how she’s trampling the little people. This is done by showing how her dream can be another woman’s nightmare. George also belittles the idea that she has any ability to control the terms of that because War is by definition bad. It doesn’t matter that Dany desires things to be different or change if the result is the same. 

If there is a problem with Miri it is that she is assuming for herself the right to make this decision. She doesn’t concern herself with what it could mean for the other women and Lhazareen. Her village and her life were ruined therefore she is going to spite the world. Basically she doesn’t care about the other women’s lives. The character thus perpetuates the suffering for petty revenge rather than considering the idea that things can be better. 

The issue is with how Dothraki society and economy is based around feuding warlords who trade in slaves. If you had one Khal ruling over everything and banned slavery then her people would not suffer. I mean, the Dothraki haven’t signed the Geneva Convention so there’s no legal expectation among the community of nations for them to not attack civilians. It should be for characters who want change like Dany to shunt people’s attitudes on this. Mirri ends that possibility out of bitterness.The character is thus reducing a complex social and economic problem into a trite act of personal vengeance that will achieve nothing. Especially against individuals who were not directly involved and were half way to backing out of the act. Indeed they fought against those who initially attacked the village and those who objected to Dany protecting the slaves.

Fundamentally its criticising what might be a reasonable assumption that Dany can use her power for good. That she would raise up the people with her and she wouldn’t need to choose between these two things. But George is communicating that if she wants to be Queen that means people suffering. Dany does reflect on this in Qaarth and how Drogo promised to do very bad things to Westeros. So it is a recurring theme in her story.

The whole episode is intended to raise enormous questions over the legitimacy of Danys goals. I can’t think of that many characters who have such prominent and direct criticisms of their motivations. I disagree with this depiction because I think George is holding Dany and the consequences of her invading Westeros to a different standard. How would this be any different than what’s occurring in the Riverlands, Reach or North? The absence criticism implies that the Starks are presumed to fighting a just war that is beyond reproach. 

 

On a side note. I think it’s bizarre that Dany trusts the creepy woman who at the end of one chapter is all but ominously whispering that she will take care of things. This is kind of stupid. 

I also don’t like the dues ex machina aspect of George’s magic “system”. Of course there’s a curse that makes Drogo a vegetable and leads to poetic justice for Dany. When other characters can barely manipulate magic and it’s unpredictable she’s able to use whatever it is in such a specific way. It’s far too convenient. Especially when, yeah, you can raise people from the dead. It’s just very random and seems to be whatever the story needs it to be.

I also don’t like how it’s used as a plot device to keep Dany in Essos. So many characters have died in Westeros or are slated to die that most of the interesting opponent are dead. Now George is having to big up Aegon and Euron whilst nobody from the Rebellion will be left to oppose Dany.

 

I think it serves to teach Daenerys a couple lessons. Firstly, not to trust so blindly, but most importantly that war is an ugly business; it is bad even when the cause is good. This is a lesson the author gives across the board. 

Mirri doesn't take anyone else into consideration & lashes out at whoever she can take hold of. She is bitter & grief stricken but in her revenge makes herself no better than the people who did this to her. I don't think it serves to show one woman's dream is another's nightmare; Mirri's village was being attacked before Drogo's khalasar came along. With or without Dany's dream, Mirri was losing everything. 

We may indeed get one Khaleesi ruling them all & banning slavery. Her journey isn't over yet & we have much reason to believe she will rule over every khalasar. Her 'son' is the stallion who mounts the world after all. 

I don't think it's if she wants to be Queen there will be suffering, it's if she wants to wage war there will be suffering & that's just the truth of the matter. You cannot wage war without suffering & while she is blundering now she is learning. Her ruling in Mereen is serving to teach her the aftermath of changing the world & peoples way of life. War is war & it matters not if the cause is righteous when considering pain & suffering - it will be there either way. Dany had to learn this, she could not traipse into Westeros assuming she was going to be hailed as the new Queen & all would bow before her with no fighting. It was Viserys who believed such ignorant things & Dany is not ignorant. 

I don't see anyway the legitimacy of Dany's goals can be questioned. She wants to end slavery. The vehicle by which to get there is being questioned but not the goal itself. 

Mirri isn't the only person to use magic against death (I don't think she brought a dead Drogo to life, she healed a dying Drogo) she isn't even the one that does it the best. Beric comes back to life numerous times, losing bits of himself as he goes, but other wise mentally intact. Whether or not Mirri did this on purpose is unclear. 

Trusting Mirri was naive. Dany believed, as some would, that because she stopped Mirri's rape & further abuse Mirri would have no cause to harm her. 

Dany's biggest hurdle has always been the small folk; ruling. She was always going to be able to defeat the opposition, she has 3 dragons, & while only one is big enough to ride, the mere vision of them flying over the realm will be enough to get many Lord's to bend the knee. Where her issue arises is in holding the realm, ruling the realm, making the realm prosperous etc, something, as of yet, has only been done by Targaryens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The Targaryens having health immunity is most likely unreliable narrator.

“I have been sick,” Dany said. - AGOT, Daenerys IX

"She could remember being cold and hungry and afraid, but never sick.” - ADWD, Daenerys VI

 

She wasn't truly "sick" when she said that though. She was talking about being sad, depressed, saddle sore, & having a rough time living among the Dothraki. She tells her handmaidens she was sick but now is better. No true sickness though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2020 at 8:01 PM, Wolf's Bane said:

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.  

Stannis is one of the villains in the story.  He didn't set out to be but he is becoming one.  Knowing what he knows, he should cut a deal with the Boltons to give up his questionable claims to the throne in exchange for their help in defending the Wall against the white walkers.  That is actually what Jon Snow should do too.  Forget about Arya and think of the bigger goal here.  Give up trying to get Arya away from the Boltons in exchange for their help at the Wall.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/29/2020 at 6:16 AM, 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.

I have little regard for the show.  I suspect they warped the story to please the Stark fans out there.  Which I am not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2020 at 8:14 PM, 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.  

Revenge and its consequences is a recurring theme in this series.   The futility of revenge and the disaster it brings.  Warped characters like jon, Cat and Arya can no longer differentiate between justice and revenge.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/29/2020 at 2:48 AM, Targaryen Restoration said:

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.

Yes, she will be found with her puny sword in her dead hands.  As much as we would like for Arya to get recycled into dragon feces.  It's not her fate.  Arya will die a cold death and her soul will live on.  Either in the trees or the wolf.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SeanF said:

I'm not reading this in the story.

I think it's true that in popular culture generally, it's easier to accept killing to avenge wrongs done to oneself or one's family, than it is to accept killing in the name of a good cause.  

The latter is more correct.  The author even said something similar.  He would have fought the Nazis in WWII.  Killing to avenge a loved one, such as what some of the Starks, Martells, and Freys are doing, is wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

The latter is more correct.  The author even said something similar.  He would have fought the Nazis in WWII.  Killing to avenge a loved one, such as what some of the Starks, Martells, and Freys are doing, is wrong.  

I don't think it's wrong to do so.  It would be wrong to drench the world in blood to avenge a loved one, though.

I never had a problem (in the show) with the Starks avenging themselves on the Boltons, or Freys.  It just seems odd to me that a section of the fandom thought that the slaver elite of Essos were entitled to greater consideration than Boltons or Freys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

She wasn't truly "sick" when she said that though. She was talking about being sad, depressed, saddle sore, & having a rough time living among the Dothraki. She tells her handmaidens she was sick but now is better. No true sickness though. 

The quote is from Dany chapter 9. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

Stannis is one of the villains in the story.  He didn't set out to be but he is becoming one.  Knowing what he knows, he should cut a deal with the Boltons to give up his questionable claims to the throne in exchange for their help in defending the Wall against the white walkers.  That is actually what Jon Snow should do too.  Forget about Arya and think of the bigger goal here.  Give up trying to get Arya away from the Boltons in exchange for their help at the Wall.  

Ok so Jon Snow should say "Hey Roose & Ramsay. I know fArya is already gone because you sent me a letter telling me so. I don't have her, nor do I know where she is, nor am I willing or able to meet any of the demands in your letter but I'll tell you what I'll do: I'll stop trying to take fArya away from you, even though I never tried to take her away from you & she is already gone, in exchange you guys come help me fight at the wall, deal?" Preposterous. 

Let's try Stannis: "Hey Roose & Ramsay. I'll give up my claim to the throne, that means fuck all to you, and in exchange you come fight with me at the wall, deal?" Um... Nope. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...