Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lyanna<3Rhaegar

Daenerys & Mirri Maaz Duur

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

:) For sure, Reread them & let me know what you think. Mirri was absolutely overcome with grief. 

I kind of have already decided, that you are right :) but if I change my mind I let you know.

Quote

It is one of my favorite chapters in the entire series. 

It's a great chapter, but it's to emotional for me to reread all the time.

Quote

I understand Mirri but I never really liked her. I never hated Drogo either. Drogo was a savage horselord but he was true to who he is. There was no malicious intent or falsehood about him, he lived how he died; violently. He certainly inflicted some abuse on Dany though. I do understand completely why Mirri wanted to harm Drogo though. My heart just breaks for Daenerys because she had made a place for herself, even though it was in this violent, savage society, she had grown to love Drogo, whether he was worthy of that love or not. 

IMO it was just Stockholm Syndrome though. And I agree with @Lord Varys depiction of their relationship in #34 of that of a master and a slave. And the slave is always better of without their master. Dany takes that position herself later on as well: Slavery is bad.

Tbh with all the horrible things Drogo did I don't care about falsehood anymore and I mean malicious intent... I think he got to have that to at least some extent with "all the evil he's done" (as Sansa would say LOL) 

I don't think he had malicious intent towards Dany, but he didn't see her as a human being like LV said, but as a thing, that belonged to him and with whom he could do as he pleased, which IMO is way worse. When someone has malicious intent towards you, you at least matter enough to them to provoke some kind of emotion, but nothing is worse than just being an object (just my personal opinion and of course there are limits, if malicious intent would have let him to abuse her even more, that might have been worse. But abused children f.e. often report, that being abused was sometimes preferable to being just ignored, because even if it is bad attention, it is at least some kind of attention- you matter enough to provoke some kind of emotion- which is of course very sad and horrifying)

Quote

I like how you look at Mirri setting Dany free - I had never thought of it that way but she did. I don't think that was her intention but without Mirri Dany would have been in that life for as long as Drogo lived & she certainly never would have hatched the dragons. 

She would have lived like a slave and died like one. She would have suffered, but might have never noticed it, because it was all she ever knew, first with her brother and then with Drogo. So IMO dragons and freedom was definitely better for her. Better live free and with no love at all (but the has the love of some ppl and certainly the love of her dragons), than unfree and with false love. If Dany stayed in that life she would have suffered greatly over time, it is easy to look back and romanticize her relationship with Drogo now that it's gone and nobody wants to see themselves as unloved and an abuse victim, especially, when we lack the tools to deal with it, our brain protects us from that. She did name one of her dragons after her clearly abusive brother after all, that really shows how limited her pool of important and influencive people really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Why should wanting the throne bear bad consequences? Aegon the conquerer wanted the throne, Robert wanted the throne, Renly & Stannis wanted the throne, Viserys wanted the throne. Wanting the throne in & of itself is not something inherently evil or bad. 

Well it kind of is, because it means death and destruction. Whatever Dany does to the Lhazareen is what she'd have to do to Westeros. There's no easy way out of that. 

Viserys is a warning for her future. She shares his goals and outlook, far too often.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, Daenerys has no power in universe to stop or sway the Dothraki in any manner. Any pseudo-power she may have derives solely from Drogo & whether or not he will agree with her. 

She is fine with that power though. It's effectively the same thing her dragons would do to Westeros. She wants the throne but she also wants to save people at the same time she's murdering them. It is contradictory. She won't be able to do that. 

"What is life worth when all the rest is gone." Mirri saw her life as pointless because the Dothraki destroyed her village. In turn, Dany lost her son and her husband but hardly even reflects on that. She must not have experienced the same depth of loss as Mirri did. In fact, she even rigged things to get a "reward" right after that to replace her lost husband/son.

Actions have consequences in this story. I don't think the author meant for us to interpret Dany as having no part in any actions at all. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


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

Well it kind of is, because it means death and destruction. Whatever Dany does to the Lhazareen is what she'd have to do to Westeros. There's no easy way out of that. 

Viserys is a warning for her future. She shares his goals and outlook, far too often.

She is fine with that power though. It's effectively the same thing her dragons would do to Westeros. She wants the throne but she also wants to save people at the same time she's murdering them. It is contradictory. She won't be able to do that. 

"What is life worth when all the rest is gone." Mirri saw her life as pointless because the Dothraki destroyed her village. In turn, Dany lost her son and her husband but hardly even reflects on that. She must not have experienced the same depth of loss as Mirri did. In fact, she even rigged things to get a "reward" right after that to replace her lost husband/son.

Actions have consequences in this story. I don't think the author meant for us to interpret Dany as having no part in any actions at all. 

FWIW, I think the author expects us to sympathise with both of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a Targaryen family tree dating circa 1998 in which Alysanne was the daughter of Maegor. Then GRRM changed the family tree and Alysanne became daughter of Aenys and sister of Jaehaerys.

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Daenerys IX

"And I am Daenerys Stormborn, Daenerys of House Targaryen, of the blood of Aegon the Conqueror and Maegor the Cruel and old Valyria before them. I am the dragon's daughter, and I swear to you, these men will die screaming. Now bring me to Khal Drogo."

 

As a result, in the quote above, Dany meant that she was a direct descendant of Maegor and it was true at that time. This also has ramifications on the deformity of Rhaego. Before this retcon, Rhaego's deformity was a unique case, implied to be caused by MMD's magic. But later, GRRM created lots of deformed Targaryen babies and MMD's part in the condition of Rhaego is now dubious.

Share this post


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

Well it kind of is, because it means death and destruction.

Maybe, but if so she is no worse than anyone else wanting the throne right? 

21 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Whatever Dany does to the Lhazareen is what she'd have to do to Westeros. There's no easy way out of that. 

If that's true, then all she has to do in Westeros is save women from being raped because that's all she did in Lhazareen. 

21 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Viserys is a warning for her future. She shares his goals and outlook, far too often.

LOL! She shares his goal of sitting the IT, yes (although it wasn't "shared" at the same time because she had no thought of it until he died making her the heir) But when does she share his outlook? I think the author has tried very hard to show the difference between Dany & Viserys & in universe the characters who have known them both, know how different they are. 

23 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She is fine with that power though.

I don't understand this sentence? She is fine with the pseudo-power she holds through Drogo?

24 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

It's effectively the same thing her dragons would do to Westeros.

I don't think the dragons will be raping anyone & it's possible the sight of them will be enough to make people bend the knee. There wouldn't be a lot of reason for her to lay waste to the land with the dragons. (I do think that may be what happens though, just don't think it will be necessary) 

36 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She wants the throne but she also wants to save people at the same time she's murdering them. It is contradictory. She won't be able to do that. 

She didn't try to save anyone that she murdered? Her situation is no more contradictory than anyone attempting to conquer. Robert & Co during the rebellion had to kill some people, show mercy to some people, save some people, etc. I don't understand what is contradictory about that? 

37 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

"What is life worth when all the rest is gone." Mirri saw her life as pointless because the Dothraki destroyed her village. In turn, Dany lost her son and her husband but hardly even reflects on that. She must not have experienced the same depth of loss as Mirri did. In fact, she even rigged things to get a "reward" right after that to replace her lost husband/son.

She doesn't reflect on it because she believes "If I look back I am lost" Her coping mechanisms are to keep moving forward. Everyone grieves differently. She operated on instinct during Drogo's funeral pyre & came out with dragons, yes - I don't think any one would say they "replace" her lost husband/son. But why would she not want to find some silver lining in all of this? Why should she be expected to "grieve" in the same manner & Mirri? Why is it a bad thing for her to gain some power after being powerless for so long? Why does it make her bad for doing that for herself? 

41 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Actions have consequences in this story. I don't think the author meant for us to interpret Dany as having no part in any actions at all. 

Sure, actions have consequences & Dany has tons of her own actions to suffer consequences for, she doesn't need to suffer the consequences of Drogo's actions. She has suffered quite a bit before she had any real "action" of her own so maybe some of her consequences were suffered "pre-action". I presume she will face plenty of consequences for her own actions - & some of them will be bad but I don't see why she should or would suffer the consequences of Drogo & the khalasar raping & pillaging the Lhazareen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mithras said:

There was a Targaryen family tree dating circa 1998 in which Alysanne was the daughter of Maegor. Then GRRM changed the family tree and Alysanne became daughter of Aenys and sister of Jaehaerys.

As a result, in the quote above, Dany meant that she was a direct descendant of Maegor and it was true at that time. This also has ramifications on the deformity of Rhaego. Before this retcon, Rhaego's deformity was a unique case, implied to be caused by MMD's magic. But later, GRRM created lots of deformed Targaryen babies and MMD's part in the condition of Rhaego is now dubious.

Thanks for that. That explains some things certainly. GRRM likely added this in later in order for the readers to make the case that Rhaego was just born deformed because sometimes Targs are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

IMO it was just Stockholm Syndrome though. And I agree with @Lord Varys depiction of their relationship in #34 of that of a master and a slave. And the slave is always better of without their master. Dany takes that position herself later on as well: Slavery is bad.

Yeah, it most likely was. I still felt for her because even though it wasn't good for her, it still hurt her ya know? She still felt the pain of it. 

2 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Tbh with all the horrible things Drogo did I don't care about falsehood anymore and I mean malicious intent... I think he got to have that to at least some extent with "all the evil he's done" (as Sansa would say LOL) 

Oh sure, I understand. I think I'm just able to separate his culture from the "man" he is. 

2 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

don't think he had malicious intent towards Dany, but he didn't see her as a human being like LV said, but as a thing, that belonged to him and with whom he could do as he pleased, which IMO is way worse. When someone has malicious intent towards you, you at least matter enough to them to provoke some kind of emotion, but nothing is worse than just being an object (just my personal opinion and of course there are limits, if malicious intent would have let him to abuse her even more, that might have been worse. But abused children f.e. often report, that being abused was sometimes preferable to being just ignored, because even if it is bad attention, it is at least some kind of attention- you matter enough to provoke some kind of emotion- which is of course very sad and horrifying)

Right, that's what I meant by malicious intent - toward Dany. He certainly has some malicious intent toward the people he is pillaging & raping. It is worse to think you own someone or see them as an object for sure. I only meant that his thoughts & feelings on Daenerys are a direct result of his culture & the way he is raised & things he has been taught to believe. Still doesn't make them right of course, I'm just differentiating that from someone, like say, Ramsay, who just enjoys hurting people. 

2 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

She would have lived like a slave and died like one. She would have suffered, but might have never noticed it, because it was all she ever knew, first with her brother and then with Drogo. So IMO dragons and freedom was definitely better for her. Better live free and with no love at all (but the has the love of some ppl and certainly the love of her dragons), than unfree and with false love. If Dany stayed in that life she would have suffered greatly over time, it is easy to look back and romanticize her relationship with Drogo now that it's gone and nobody wants to see themselves as unloved and an abuse victim, especially, when we lack the tools to deal with it, our brain protects us from that. She did name one of her dragons after her clearly abusive brother after all, that really shows how limited her pool of important and influencive people really is.

Abolutely & tbh I'm glad you brought this up because it makes me feel better for her LOL Like I don't feel so much hurt for her knowing that in the end, it was better for her if that makes sense? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Maybe, but if so she is no worse than anyone else wanting the throne right? 

If that's true, then all she has to do in Westeros is save women from being raped because that's all she did in Lhazareen. 

LOL! She shares his goal of sitting the IT, yes (although it wasn't "shared" at the same time because she had no thought of it until he died making her the heir) But when does she share his outlook? I think the author has tried very hard to show the difference between Dany & Viserys & in universe the characters who have known them both, know how different they are. 

I don't understand this sentence? She is fine with the pseudo-power she holds through Drogo?

I don't think the dragons will be raping anyone & it's possible the sight of them will be enough to make people bend the knee. There wouldn't be a lot of reason for her to lay waste to the land with the dragons. (I do think that may be what happens though, just don't think it will be necessary) 

She didn't try to save anyone that she murdered? Her situation is no more contradictory than anyone attempting to conquer. Robert & Co during the rebellion had to kill some people, show mercy to some people, save some people, etc. I don't understand what is contradictory about that? 

She doesn't reflect on it because she believes "If I look back I am lost" Her coping mechanisms are to keep moving forward. Everyone grieves differently. She operated on instinct during Drogo's funeral pyre & came out with dragons, yes - I don't think any one would say they "replace" her lost husband/son. But why would she not want to find some silver lining in all of this? Why should she be expected to "grieve" in the same manner & Mirri? Why is it a bad thing for her to gain some power after being powerless for so long? Why does it make her bad for doing that for herself? 

Sure, actions have consequences & Dany has tons of her own actions to suffer consequences for, she doesn't need to suffer the consequences of Drogo's actions. She has suffered quite a bit before she had any real "action" of her own so maybe some of her consequences were suffered "pre-action". I presume she will face plenty of consequences for her own actions - & some of them will be bad but I don't see why she should or would suffer the consequences of Drogo & the khalasar raping & pillaging the Lhazareen. 

One can fight a war without enslaving people or engaging in indiscriminate murder and rape.  Aegon and his sister managed it.

Share this post


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

FWIW, I think the author expects us to sympathise with both of them.

I think readers can have sympathy but also recognize that Dany is going down a dark path, of her own doing. 

Share this post


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

One can fight a war without enslaving people or engaging in indiscriminate murder and rape.  Aegon and his sister managed it.

Not really, all conquest results in indiscriminate destruction of homes and people. I don't see why Dany's road would be easier or the same, since it's the second time that Westeros would face a dragonlord, her army wouldn't follow the norms of Westeros in wartime, and her family was kicked off the throne for a very good reason.

Slapping an "I'm saving you label" on it doesn't change anything, as Mirri illustrates. I do wonder if Dany will continue to be convinced she's helping people while destroying lives- because that's the little story with Mirri in a nutshell. 

Share this post


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

I think readers can have sympathy but also recognize that Dany is going down a dark path, of her own doing. 

So, I agree with this, I just don't think that path had begun to take action as early as the attack on the Lhazareen. 

5 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Slapping an "I'm saving you label" on it doesn't change anything, as Mirri illustrates. I do wonder if Dany will continue to be convinced she's helping people while destroying lives- because that's the little story with Mirri in a nutshell. 

I think this will be exactly it. She will believe she is "saving" everyone, only now instead of saving them from being further raped she will be "saving" them from themselves. She will believe she knows better whats good for them than they know. 

Share this post


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

Not really, all conquest results in indiscriminate destruction of homes and people. I don't see why Dany's road would be easier or the same, since it's the second time that Westeros would face a dragonlord, her army wouldn't follow the norms of Westeros in wartime, and her family was kicked off the throne for a very good reason.

Slapping an "I'm saving you label" on it doesn't change anything, as Mirri illustrates. I do wonder if Dany will continue to be convinced she's helping people while destroying lives- because that's the little story with Mirri in a nutshell. 

It would at the very least, make her no worse than players like Robb Stark, Stannis, Arianne and Aegon, each of whom is to varying degrees, sympathetic.  The chivalry of Westeros is no better behaved than Daenerys' soldiers are.  

Perhaps the moral of the story is that Daenerys should have left Mirri to her fate, rather than get involved.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


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

Perhaps the moral of the story is that Daenerys should have left Mirri to her fate, rather than get involved.

Mirri's attitude is, I was already raped four times. What's one more. She has nothing else to live for after the destruction of her village. The moral of the story is actions have consequences, and Dany is complicit. Also, don't expect survivors of conquests to be grateful supplicants because you spared them. Theon also expected something similar of the Stark household when he attacked Winterfell. 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

It would at the very least, make her no worse than players like Robb Stark, Stannis, Arianne and Aegon, each of whom is to varying degrees, sympathetic.  The chivalry of Westeros is no better behaved than Daenerys' soldiers are.

She is worse because she can destroy cities. We've been over this. Thousands of lives depends on her whims.

I think she could be worse than the Dothraki. The Dothraki at least leave a city alone if it pays tribute. Would Dany just do the same? I think not. 

Dany is fighting over the highest prized possession in the story, she's the most powerful, she's had multiple opportunities to find a home elsewhere, and she still wants the same thing she wanted in Book 1 - to not forget how she's the "blood of the dragon" like Viserys taught her. The consequences/price she'll have to pay for the IT will be steep. 

Share this post


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

Mirri's attitude is, I was already raped four times. What's one more. She has nothing else to live for after the destruction of her village. The moral of the story is actions have consequences, and Dany is complicit. Also, don't expect survivors of conquests to be grateful supplicants because you spared them. Theon also expected something similar of the Stark household when he attacked Winterfell. 

She is worse because she can destroy cities. We've been over this. Thousands of lives depends on her whims.

I think she could be worse than the Dothraki. The Dothraki at least leave a city alone if it pays tribute. Would Dany just do the same? I think not. 

Dany is fighting over the highest prized possession in the story, she's the most powerful, she's had multiple opportunities to find a home elsewhere, and she still wants the same thing she wanted in Book 1 - to not forget how she's the "blood of the dragon" like Viserys taught her. The consequences/price she'll have to pay for the IT will be steep. 

She's complicit, to the extent that she was forced to marry a brutal warlord, is pregnant with his child, would like him to invade Westeros, and enjoys some privileges that other Dothraki wives don't enjoy. That is very small beer, in terms of her level of responsibility for what took place in the village, even if it is quite sufficient reason for Mirri to hate her and injure her.  It is no greater than the level of culpability that any Westerosi noblewoman shares, if her husband wages war.

When she tried to mitigate Drogo's excesses, it blew up in her face.  

The rest is just speculation on your part.  

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Mirri's attitude is, I was already raped four times. What's one more

I imagine had she been left to her fate she might have changed her mind. Being raped 4 times is horrendous. Any one, given the choice between being raped 4 times or 8 though would understand 4 is less. It's silly to say what's 1 more. It's 1 more. 1 more rape, 1 more trauma, 1 more abuse. I imagine Tysha, given the choice, would have rathered someone stop the rape at man #99 rather than all 100. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The view of @Rose of Red Lake is without substance in this context. Blaming Dany for the ways the Dothraki conduct their business and their wars is just stupid. It is akin to say Robb is responsible for the Brave Companions terrorize the Rivermen in his name, Tyrion being responsible for the attempts on Bran because he sort of suspected for a long time that Cersei and Jaime might fuck and be the parents of Cersei's children, Bran and Jon and Robb and Theon being responsible for the execution of Gared because they were forced to attend it on Ned's command, that Cat being at Robb's proclamation to king means she wanted him to be king, Dalla being responsible for how Mance conducted his war, etc.

And the idea that having dragons changes your ability to destroy cities or kill people indiscriminately is bogus, too. Just look at the Red Wedding which, without any dragons, killed more people than anyone ever killed with a dragon in Westeros in a single battle as far as we know.

Share this post


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

The view of @Rose of Red Lake is without substance in this context. Blaming Dany for the ways the Dothraki conduct their business and their wars is just stupid. It is akin to say Robb is responsible for the Brave Companions terrorize the Rivermen in his name, Tyrion being responsible for the attempts on Bran because he sort of suspected for a long time that Cersei and Jaime might fuck and be the parents of Cersei's children, Bran and Jon and Robb and Theon being responsible for the execution of Gared because they were forced to attend it on Ned's command, that Cat being at Robb's proclamation to king means she wanted him to be king, Dalla being responsible for how Mance conducted his war, etc.

And the idea that having dragons changes your ability to destroy cities or kill people indiscriminately is bogus, too. Just look at the Red Wedding which, without any dragons, killed more people than anyone ever killed with a dragon in Westeros in a single battle as far as we know.

Quite.  Timur the Lame, Genghis Khan, and Attila did fine without dragons.

In fact, I'd go further.  It's like blaming Jeyne Westerling for the behaviour of the Brave Companions

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


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

And the idea that having dragons changes your ability to destroy cities or kill people indiscriminately is bogus, too

You're being dense as always. It absolutely changes her ability, in fact we're supposed to pay attention to how it also changes HER as a person: "With Dany I'm particularly looking at the... what effect great power has upon a person. She's the mother of dragons, and she controls what is in effect the only three nuclear weapons in the entire world that I've created. What does it do to you when you control the only three nuclear weapons in the world and you can destroy entire cities or cultures if you choose to? Should you choose to, should you not choose to?" - GRRM 2014 (x). There he goes, talking about Dany having ultimate power to destroy cities for what is it? Oh probably the billionth time. 

Share this post


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

Blaming Dany for the ways the Dothraki conduct their business and their wars is just stupid.

I argued that Dany would be worse than the Dothraki, actually, because she will expect them to change their customs for her. Those customs being, not going across the water, not launching direct atracks on walled cities, and staying destruction through tribute. Dany doesn't want tribute. The throne is non-negotiable and it won't be given up that easily, so she would have to encourage their worst tendencies - terror and fear. Whereas rape and pillaging is usually the actions of smallfolk/broken men in the Westerosi armies, she would potentially bring over 50k Dothraki warriors who specialize in it. At least a native Westerosi soldier would be willing to defend his own home/village, the Dothraki just wouldn't care because they don't have one. Dany would be complicit in all of this.

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...