A Simple Connection about Little Dornish Princesses

[The Green Bard]

14 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Maybe then Doran is the one who's got to die, to bring Arianne's story back into line.

Interesting analysis.  I might suggest that if Areo and Arys are parallel, that Areo might be more in line to die first, having failed to protect both little princesses.  Arys having failed similarly. 

Doran's failures seem to be from being too late from an overabundance of caution.  I would hope that Arianne breaks free from his control, and is able to avoid becoming victim to this like Q.  She is one of my favorite characters, and I hope to see her take on her own agency, similarly to how I see Sansa rising out of her situation in the Vale, but we shall see.  If she is able to assert control over her life, it would be a stark contract to Quentyn, whose desperate last act was fully in line with trying to please his father.  

[sweetsunray]

5 hours ago, The Green Bard said:

You and I will not agree on this. I certainly recall your analysis of MMD, and I am sympathetic to her character as well, but MMD implies that Dany willingly did this. Dany denies it.  Sure she agreed to a magical ritual, but never to sacrificing children.  That is collateral damage / unintended consequences, or specifically intended damage if you take MMD at her word.  Certainly it is not acknowledged by Dany.

Have you watched my vids on Dany in AGoT?  The third and 4th deal with this incident to some extent.

Does Dany deny it to herself and the reader? Her internal answer is - "If I look back, I'm lost," which is Dany's mental evasion trick to not check her potential personal accountability in shady stuff. 

Technically, it is true that Rhaego is collateral damage, both beyond MMDs and Dany's intentions. Jorah was the man who carried Dany into the tent. But she was warned it would mean someone's death and she agreed to it, when she was assured it wouldn't be her own life, before any horse was mentioned or brought in. And since you are into symbolism, one cannot completely ignore that before even meeting with MMD, Dany has moments of embracing one of the eggs while feeling a type of exchange with her unborn child. Not to mention the dream exchange. And she intuitively does use the sacrifices already made to revive the eggs. I'd say it's quite ambiguously written and on purpose. For a while she seemed to veer away from this in aSoS and aDwD, very much trying punish those who harmed children and compromising to make a better world for children, locking up dragons for children. But then she chose Drogon, the little girl killer, over Meereen and ends up a) forgetting Hazeah's name b ) having a miscarriage and c) embracing "being a dragon".  It doesn't seem to bode well for "the children" imho, especially considering that several of her perceived enemies are in fact children. 

Arianne is heading to a similar confrontation. All those who were involved in killing the little princess Rhaenys are dead - Tywin, Lorch and Gregor Clegane. Cersei's not a child anymore, and her own intentions to use Myrcella to get Trystane killed gives Dorne motivation to operate and work against the Lannisters, as it once motivated Ned Stark and Catelyn. Ned clearly drew the line at harming children, offered Cersei an escape for herself and her children. Catelyn freed the man who confessed to shoving her son out of a window so he could be with his children in return for her two little princesses. And now Arianne is heading into an alliance to oust the Lannisters, and in the thick of it are children - Myrcella, Trystane, Tommen and Lady Lance, and then all the children involved in Cersei's plot to bring down Margaery. And no doubt, some of them will perish by Cersei's command and Sand Snake actions - a paranoid woman and tit-for-that avengers make for a very deadly combo. Ultimately, it seems to me that Arianne will be tested on the veracity of Oberyn's claim: when it comes to Aegon taking King's Landing, will she offer Cersei an escape with Tommen/ Myrcella (depending on who dies first), as once Catelyn did for Jaime and Ned for Cersei? I'd say that yes, this is where Arianne's arc is heading towards, and that this time Cersei will flee, not for her children, but to wait out another opportunity. That opportunity imo will arise with Dany's arrival, setting Dany up to confront an enemy who's utterly willing to use and sacrifice children for power. 

Basically most of the arcs seem to revolve around - are they willing to lay down their life for children and allow their enemies to live for the sake of children OR are they willing to sacrifice the lives of children for their self preservation, power, revenge against their enemies (imagined or real). In the end, characters on both sides of the moral conundrum end up dead, and the Neds may lose the battle for power, but they win the moral battle.

No, I have not seen your vids. 

[Lord Lannister]

This seems like reaching more than a little too hard. As you say the Dorne and Targaryen princes were routinely referred to it. Seems a Westerosi thing more than a Dornish thing.

As for Myrcella and Shireen? I can see Cersei disliking the informal form of address for her daughter and snuffing that as it belittles her prestige. Needless to say Stannis isn't going to use a pet name for his daughter or tolerate it's use.

[Seams]

Understanding the "little princess" label might also benefit from a look at the word "little" in context.

Maester Aemon called Tyrion a giant, but we know that (literally) Tyrion is a dwarf.

The Ghost of High Heart, Old Nan and Olenna Tyrell are physically very small.

Brienne is considered to be freakishly tall.

Gregor and Sandor Clegane are large men.

Maybe the author wants us to see certain characters as symbolically little, even if they are not physically little for their age / gender.

At one point, I remember thinking that Myrcella was an echo of Tyrion - the obsession with cyvasse was part of it but I think there were other details I can no longer recall. Calling her "little" might be a way of underscoring the comparison to Tyrion. If this is correct, though, we would have to figure out why other princesses are also called little.

[The Green Bard]

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Does Dany deny it to herself and the reader? Her internal answer is - "If I look back, I'm lost," which is Dany's mental evasion trick to not check her potential personal accountability in shady stuff. 

She doesn't accept it.  I think further delineation is splitting hairs and not really fruitful.

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

But then she chose Drogon, the little girl killer, over Meereen and ends up a) forgetting Hazeah's name b ) having a miscarriage and c) embracing "being a dragon".  It doesn't seem to bode well for "the children" imho, especially considering that several of her perceived enemies are in fact children. 

I think you are drawing a more black and white scenario than the reality.  As we know, our author writes in shades of grey.  She'll remember Hazeah's name later would be my bet.  Certainly I agree that forgetting it at that point is symbolic.  I don't really think that we have enough information to guess that the miscarriage has a negative meaning for children in general or for Dany's future actions, rather only that it implies that her fertility is returning.  Certainly I agree with c), but embracing being a dragon, to me, doesn't necessarily have to foretell negative future outcomes either.  Jaehaerys was a dragon, as was Alysanne.  They gave the realm years of peace.  Viserys I, bonded to Balerion, was also very much about keeping the peace.  Dany still fits these characters much more than Maegor or Daemon. She does have a lot of symbolic connection to the original Aegon as well, who brought war, but also peace and compromise, though the Dornish history is very bloody. 

By way of an alternative interpretation, I would say that in being more dragon-ish, she will be less apt for the types of disastrous compromises she made earlier in ADwD (which were not better for children, either, leading to the current war in Meereen), but I certainly would not guess (and would bet against) that she has fully embraced "Fire and Blood" a la Maegor.

As to Drogon being a "little girl killer" ... that he went AWOL does indicate to me consciousness of guilt, be it from sensing Daenerys's mental reaction or knowing right at the time that it was wrong, I couldn't say.  Either way, I think he does now know it was wrong.  This is further evidenced by the fact that there were no repeat incidents.  There is also a pretty good chance that the incident an accident. 

[The Fattest Leech]

Drogon eating Hazzea in Dany's first ADWD chapter, an event that she thinks about even until her last chapter (the one where she accepts she is a dragon and accepts the Targ words of fire & blood) is just as that, it is a constant and growing reminder who Dany is- a dragon. This is the whisperjewel scenario of GRRM's body of works that he as (minorly) reworked for ASOIAF.

GRRM has pretty much confirmed/stated that dragons aren't quite that *smart witty. They act on basic animal behaviors (such as shown in Dany X). Drogon did what he did because he's a dragon.

Editing to clarify that GRRM used the term *witty. I confused the terms in memory, but found and pasted the source below.

[The Green Bard]

5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

GRRM has pretty much confirmed/stated that dragons aren't quite that smart. They act on basic animal behaviors (such as shown in Dany X). Drogon did what he did because he's a dragon.

I'd be interested to know if you can point to an SSM regarding this.  I am always interested in knowing more about the bond.  

[sweetsunray]

28 minutes ago, The Green Bard said:

I think you are drawing a more black and white scenario than the reality.  As we know, our author writes in shades of grey.  

Hmmm, so "she's a child saviour" is grey? Doesn't grey mean a mix of good aspects and some disturbing aspects? I see "grey" as the latter, and then it isn't black and white to point out the aspects that are meant to make you pause, rather than wave it off as accidental, or too "black and white". BTW Dany compares herself to Maegor, and that also is supposed to make us "pause". Personally I don't have that high an opinion of Alysanne. She's a mixed bag of trying to do good, but having a part to play in the weakening of the NW.

[kissdbyfire]

E. His dragons have no front limbs -- just rear legs and wings. He said that although the traditional depiction of dragons as six limbed creatures has become a staple of fantasy -- the fact that no animal in nature has ever evolved in such a way always bothered him. As a sci-fi writer originally, he insists on the depiction of the dragons with just four limbs. I never heard that before and though it was pretty neat.. In addition, he said that although AsoIaF dragons are intelligent, they cannot speak and will never evolve into the sort of dragons we see in Tolkien or Le Guin. Specifically he said’ Drogon is never going to share witty aphorisms with Dany. The Targaryens rule by Fire and Blood and that is what the dragons represent in the story". I guess the power icon is more Nedly for them than some of us thought when they were first rolled out back in AfoD.

X

[The Green Bard]

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Personally I don't have that high an opinion of Alysanne. She's a mixed bag of trying to do good, but having a part to play in the weakening of the NW.

She literally fought to end the historical acceptance of rape and child sacrifice ... and somehow this is a bad thing?  If that caused the "pact" to fall apart, then it needed to be renegotiated anyway.   No, the things she did were not grey.  They were directionally correct, very close to white, unintended consequences aside. 

The night's watch also had and still has completely forgotten their charter.  Their racism and endless war against wildlings is obviously problematic, and it is ultimately that conflict that causes the gift to be abandoned, weakening the watch more financially and leading to the scenario Jon inherited.  More than anything else, the watch was weakened by decreasing numbers, something that was brought about by the peace brought by... the dragons.

7 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

so "she's a child saviour" is grey?

I said nothing of that.  

8 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Doesn't grey mean a mix of good aspects and some disturbing aspects? I see "grey" as the latter

Yes.  I can agree with this characterization.  It's just that sometimes there is not always an all white outcome possible in some scenarios.  For instance, for Dany to have accepted that Drogo was not savable, she would have had to accept that she brought it about by trusting Mirri Maz Duur.  She was not yet ready to believe the worst in MMD, nor in herself.  Not having history in the (sword without a hilt aspect of) magic, she had hoped that the cost was not as bad as the alternatives. She wanted to fix things, because in that scenario, the entire world changes for all involved (an inevitability in hindsight).  In the end, the dragons hatching was a positive thing for her remaining khalasar because it gave them hope for their future and reason to believe in Daenerys. But it is grey in that dragons certainly have their dark aspects, some of which you have focused on.

[The Green Bard]

24 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

he said that although AsoIaF dragons are intelligent, they cannot speak and will never evolve into the sort of dragons we see in Tolkien or Le Guin. Specifically he said’ Drogon is never going to share witty aphorisms with Dany. The Targaryens rule by Fire and Blood and that is what the dragons represent in the story".

Thanks.  Too bad this is a paraphrasing and not a transcript, but I'll take what I can get!  

What you have bolded can have a wide variety of outcomes, so it certainly won't answer the existential question of the dragons in the story.  On one end, it could end up being the stick in "speak softly but carry a big stick," basically Jaehaerys and Alysanne.  On the other extreme we have Maegor or S8E5. Either way, I will be very happy to see it play out on the page. 

I also notice the "although AsoIaF dragons are intelligent" qualifier.  This is mitigating versus the summation from @The Fattest Leech that "dragons aren't quite that smart."

[The Green Bard]

1 minute ago, The Green Bard said:

they cannot speak and will never evolve into the sort of dragons we see in Tolkien or Le Guin. Specifically he said’ Drogon is never going to share witty aphorisms with Dany

@The Fattest Leech @kissdbyfire As to this part, I'll point out that ADwD was not completed at this point, let alone F&B or TWoW, so he certainly could pivot / change his mind and give the dragons more personality than originally intended. 

[sweetsunray]

16 minutes ago, The Green Bard said:

She literally fought to end the historical acceptance of rape and child sacrifice ... and somehow this is a bad thing?  If that caused the "pact" to fall apart, then it needed to be renegotiated anyway.   No, the things she did were not grey.  They were directionally correct, very close to white, unintended consequences aside. 

The night's watch also had and still has completely forgotten their charter.  Their racism and endless war against wildlings is obviously problematic, and it is ultimately that conflict that causes the gift to be abandoned, weakening the watch more financially and leading to the scenario Jon inherited.  More than anything else, the watch was weakened by decreasing numbers, something that was brought about by the peace brought by... the dragons.

The "child sacrifice" for a pact between NW/FM/North and the Others is just a Prester Jacobs theory full of holes, but nothing canon.

Alysanne ended the First Night custom and ensured that widows had the right to continue to live in their deceased husband's home, which is a good thing. However, this is also why Lady Hornwood remained Lady Hornwood after her husband and his heirs died, and how Ramsay managed to acquire Hornwood lands.

The NW always had their eyes north of the Wall. That was their job. They're not farmers, nor are they knights at castles nearby farmer villages. The Starks protested against the New Gift and predicted what would happen. Even maester Yandel must agree that was a wrong move.

[The Fattest Leech]

23 minutes ago, The Green Bard said:

Thanks.  Too bad this is a paraphrasing and not a transcript, but I'll take what I can get!  

What you have bolded can have a wide variety of outcomes, so it certainly won't answer the existential question of the dragons in the story.  On one end, it could end up being the stick in "speak softly but carry a big stick," basically Jaehaerys and Alysanne.  On the other extreme we have Maegor or S8E5. Either way, I will be very happy to see it play out on the page. 

I also notice the "although AsoIaF dragons are intelligent" qualifier.  This is mitigating versus the summation from @The Fattest Leech that "dragons aren't quite that smart."

The dragons are not that witty. I don't have every variation of GRRM discussing this at hand, but here is one, and it is fun to watch regardless.

https://youtu.be/kAR8H7x8wac

Adding text:

Martin recalled a recent email about an online argument over whether Drogon, one of Daenerys Targaryen’s dragons, could beat Smaug, the beast from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, in a fight, and offered a highly rational answer: “Basically, no. Drogon is a very young dragon and still barely large enough to get Dany into the sky… Smaug is gigantic, not to mention that Smaug talks and would probably have an intellectual advantage. But Balerion could give Smaug some trouble; they’re more equivalent in the size and ferocity department.”

 

[The Fattest Leech]

1 minute ago, The Green Bard said:

@The Fattest Leech @kissdbyfire As to this part, I'll point out that ADwD was not completed at this point, let alone F&B or TWoW, so he certainly could pivot / change his mind and give the dragons more personality than originally intended. 

He isn't going to change a major detail like this for his series. He is still set to write the story he started in 91. Back then he wasn't even going to have animal dragons. Instead the "dragons" were going to be Dragons which was the Targaryens and their pyrokenisis fire powers and Dany (still has) the ability to "bend people to her will" as GRRM planned. This was always planned as a magical/mental battle, a Game of Mind as it is called in Martinworld.

When he added animal dragons, he upped the out of balance firepower game:

Question by Adam Pasick of Vulture.com: When civilizations clash in your books, instead of Guns, Germs, and Steel, maybe it’s more like Dragons, Magic, and Steel (and also Germs).

GRRM: There is magic in my universe, but it’s pretty low magic compared to other fantasies. 

Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only Dany has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world. But is that sufficient? These are the kind of issues I’m trying to explore. The United States right now has the ability to destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but that doesn’t mean we can achieve specific geopolitical goals. Power is more subtle than that. You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn’t give you the power to reform, or improve, or build. Source.

***

“I have tried to make it explicit in the novels that the dragons are destructive forces, and Dany (Daenerys Targaryen) has found that out as she tried to rule the city of Meereen and be queen there. She has the power to destroy, she can wipe out entire cities, and we certainly see that in Fire and Blood, we see the dragons wiping out entire armies, wiping out towns and cities, destroying them, but that doesn’t necessarily enable you to rule — it just enables you to destroy.” George R.R. Martin, November 21, 2018. Source.

***

Q: That seems to apply as well to your fantasy or magic elements: If there’s a God of Light, he seems awful. Are the walking dead out of the north beyond any reclaim? And then there’s Daenerys’s dragons: They seem kind of promising, like they could be a force of justice or good.
GRRM: Yes, that’s the way they seem. I hope. [Laughs] I don’t necessarily want to tell you what I’m thinking but to return to what I pointed at earlier, I like people that ask these questions, not necessarily provide them with the answers. So as the books unfold, there will be more and more to think about in these regards. George R.R. Martin, 2014. Source.

[The Green Bard]

7 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

“Basically, no. Drogon is a very young dragon and still barely large enough to get Dany into the sky… Smaug is gigantic, not to mention that Smaug talks and would probably have an intellectual advantage. But Balerion could give Smaug some trouble; they’re more equivalent in the size and ferocity department.”

Yes  I've seen that particular one several time and it is a bit funny.  But there is a large gap between full on talking and influence through a mind-meld which decidedly is not eliminated with any of these SSMs..  That is what I see some evidence of in our story.  For instance Ghost's "Knowing" look when he outs Jon to his brothers who chased him during his desertion attempt).  I am not ready to publicly discuss any similar evidence I may see or not see like that with Drogon.  

I read each of the other quotes as well and they are equally as intriguing.  Thanks for that.  I do want to clarify that I am only suggesting a very minor variation on what he had said in my earlier comment, not changing something fundamental.  Having relatively intelligent beasts (though still beasts) with some very low level of personality and "opinions" is more like what I meant in this case.  Certainly Drogon has been in Dany's head a lot, so both may be influencing the other in minor ways, without speech, which is the line I certainly see him drawing in this vid.  I just think tiptoeing closer to it is not out of the question.