Dracul's Daughter Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 Sorry if this has been asked or the topic does not fit here.I'm new and it's my first post.I've seen many praising this essay and saying that Martin gave it credit to Adam Feldman.I've read it and it didn't quite make sense to me.He stated that the peace was real but without text support and his interpretations about Daenerys character didn't seemed quite right.He sort of thinks of her like she's having double personality or that the fact she decides to end slavery with war (and to be honest,peace didn't quite work out well for the slaved didn't it?) it means she won't reason in Westeros.I think she will be capable to see the difference between Westeros and Essos.And what kind of disturbes me is that this essay implies that fighting to free slaves is bad.Don't get me wrong,war is war no matter the cause and it ain't pretty but I'm sure as hell I would like to fight for a cause that matters than to bow the head and look away when I can make a difference for the better.I know Martin is not pro war all the way but I saw interviews where he sayed that we also don't have to turn a blind eye to the injustice. Finally,my question is : how much credit did Martin really gave to this essay?Edit : to prove my point why I think this essay got Daenerys Targaryen wrong,saying she can only choose between being either Mysha or Mother of Dragons I found this quote : "Tyrion: If Daenerys is no more than a sweet young girl, the Iron Throne will cut her into sweet young pieces. Illyrio: Fear not, my little friend. The blood of Aegon the Dragon flows in her veins." A Dance with Dragons, Chapter 5, Tyrion II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, Oana Becherescu said: Sorry if this has been asked or the topic dos not fit here.I'm new and it's my first post.I've seen many praising this essay and saying that Martin gave it credit to Adam Feldman.I've read it and it didn't quite made sense to me.He stated that the peace was read but without text support and his interpretations about Daenerys character didn't seemed quite right.He sort of thinks of her like she's having double personality or that the fact she decides to end slavery with war (and to be honest,peace didn't quite work out well for the slaved didn't it?) it means she won't reason in Westeros.I think she will be capable to see the difference between Westeros and Essos.And what kind of disturbes me is that this essay implies that fighting to free slaves is bad.Don't get me worng,war is war no the cause and it ain't pretty but I'm sure as hell I would like to fight for a cause that matters than to bow the head and look a way when I can make a difference for the better.I know Martin is not pro war all the way but I saw interviews where he sayed that we also don't have to turn a blind eye to the injustice. Finally,my question is : how much credit did Martin really gave to this essay? Martin praised the essay for understanding what he was trying to achieve in showing Daenerys being torn between her role as Mhysa and her role as Dragon (I would say a good Queen should be both). He never said that Adam Feldman had called the plot correctly. FWIW, I think it was never possible for the peace to hold because the Yunkish had already summoned Volantene aid, and their navy is on its way. Feldman himself concedes that if the Yunkish lords knew the Volantenes were on their way, it casts grave doubt on the sincerity of their peace-making. Tyrion's own POV suggests most of them do know that the Volantenes are on their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracul's Daughter Posted September 21, 2020 Author Share Posted September 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, SeanF said: Martin praised the essay for understanding what he was trying to achieve in showing Daenerys being torn between her role as Mhysa and her role as Dragon (I would say a good Queen should be both). He never said that Adam Feldman had called the plot correctly. FWIW, I think it was never possible for the peace to hold because the Yunkish had already summoned Volantene aid, and their navy is on its way. Feldman himself concedes that if the Yunkish lords knew the Volantenes were on their way, it casts grave doubt on the sincerity of their peace-making. Tyrion's own POV suggests most of them do know that the Volantenes are on their way. Thx for answering.I also see the struggles that characters have,not just Daenerys and I agree with you that she should be both and that the peace could not be sustained.It seemed odd to me how Adam percived her as if she has personality disorder and many say he is right,that Martin gave him right,that's why I questioned what Martin praised in his essay.She is torned between her Mysha and Dragon role but they are one.It's not either Mysha or Dragon,they can both coexist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodor the Articulate Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 I wonder if "ADWD is the smartest, most complex, and most thought-provoking book in the series [...] the Meereen plotline is quite ingeniously constructed by Martin" is what George thought Feldman got right lol. In all seriousness, I doubt GRRM read the whole thing - not the part about Daenerys' dual identity at least, because the text just does not support that. Mother of Dragons and Mhysa are always paired; Daenerys is mother to dragons and freedmen. If dragons represent war, then it is because war is necessary to win freedoms for the slaves. Don't let anybody try to convince you GRRM is against all war. The plot predictions we can't take as fact, and I really wish people could stop doing that. George isn't going to confirm or deny theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracul's Daughter Posted September 21, 2020 Author Share Posted September 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said: I wonder if "ADWD is the smartest, most complex, and most thought-provoking book in the series [...] the Meereen plotline is quite ingeniously constructed by Martin" is what George thought Feldman got right lol. In all seriousness, I doubt GRRM read the whole thing - not the part about Daenerys' dual identity at least, because the text just does not support that. Mother of Dragons and Mhysa are always paired; Daenerys is mother to dragons and freedmen. If dragons represent war, then it is because war is necessary to win freedoms for the slaves. Don't let anybody try to convince you GRRM is against all war. The plot predictions we can't take as fact, and I really wish people could stop doing that. George isn't going to confirm or deny theories. Oh,I know Martin is not saying peace must be mantained at all cost.He wants to make us think when it should be peace or war.At least that's what I saw from Dany's chapters from "A Dance with Dragons".First,she advocaded for peace and when she realised she was becoming a harpy she remembered who she is and for what she started fighting : for the slaves,not for the masters.It also struck me as odd that so many think that if she goes at war in Essos she will be awaful in Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 4 hours ago, Oana Becherescu said: Don't get me wrong,war is war no matter the cause and it ain't pretty but I'm sure as hell I would like to fight for a cause that matters than to bow the head and look away when I can make a difference for the better.I know Martin is not pro war all the way but I saw interviews where he sayed that we also don't have to turn a blind eye to the injustice. This... This is what makes me disagree with GRRM and most us hippies. The point that war is fair and mostly correct, yet I think I recall George saying something like "WW2 was one of the only wars worth fighting for" but most wars are worth fighting for, from the point of view of one side. WW2 was worth fighting for if you're one of the allies, but for the Axis it was a needless war. Same thing with the Vietnam war, most anti-war people called it to end and claim that both sides where evil for fighting a war, but the Vietnamese where defending their home from invaders, that seems just enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracul's Daughter Posted September 21, 2020 Author Share Posted September 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, CamiloRP said: "WW2 was one of the only wars worth fighting for" I also remember him saying something like that.That's why I don't think he considers himself a fully pacifist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 5 hours ago, Oana Becherescu said: She is torned between her Mysha and Dragon role but they are one.It's not either Mysha or Dragon,they can both coexist Mhysa being the one to build a brave new world for the destitute people of Slavers Bay, and the conquering Dragon can coexist, but they don't harmonize together very well. All she really accomplished as Mhysa was to upset the balance of power and cause the counterreaction of the slavers returning to Mereen. The Mhysa would need to invest a lifetime to properly set the foundation for a societal change in Slaver's Bay rather than just trade one set of masters for another. The Dragon, while it could temporarily solve the situation with fire and blood(which is what I think will happen), it isn't destined to remain in Slaver's Bay but to fly to Westeros. So she's going to have to abandon those people to the power vacuum she's created sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracul's Daughter Posted September 21, 2020 Author Share Posted September 21, 2020 23 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said: Mhysa being the one to build a brave new world for the destitute people of Slavers Bay, and the conquering Dragon can coexist, but they don't harmonize together very well. The mere definition of cohexisting implyes a harmony like ying and yang,light and dark,fire and ice,life and death.They are opposites but they do have an harmony.Remove one and will end in disaster. 23 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said: The Mhysa would need to invest a lifetime to properly set the foundation for a societal change in Slaver's Bay rather than just trade one set of masters for another. The Dragon, while it could temporarily solve the situation with fire and blood(which is what I think will happen), it isn't destined to remain in Slaver's Bay but to fly to Westeros. So she's going to have to abandon those people to the power vacuum she's created sooner or later. I think you presume that the peace was real,while war ships are on Meereen's doors and the Yunkish had already summoned Volantene aid as @SeanF mentioned we see from Tyrion's POV.It's most likely that war will start before Dany retuns to Meereen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Oana Becherescu said: The mere definition of cohexisting implyes a harmony like ying and yang,light and dark,fire and ice,life and death.They are opposites but they do have an harmony.Remove one and will end in disaster. I think you presume that the peace was real,while war ships are on the Meereen's doors and the Yunkish had already summoned Volantene aid as @SeanF mentioned we see from Tyrion's POV.It's most likely that war will start before Dany retuns to Meereen I mean, you cut out the one sentence of my prior quote that rebutted you putting words in my mouth about my so called presumption that peace returned while the war ships were on the way. About all Dany accomplished was to upset the balance of power in the region and causing the counterreaction of the slavers returning. So not sure what you're trying to argue with that. I don't agree that the definition of coexisting automatically dictates a yin/yang kind of co-dependence and harmony as you're describing. The core of the differences between the dragon and mhysa are that of conqueror and ruler. Conquering and ruling are two different things. The books, much less history in general, are full of examples that good conquerors don't always make good rulers and good rulers don't always make good conquerors. That's the essence of Dany's role as mhysa and the dragon. She's done quite well at one and very poorly at the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracul's Daughter Posted September 21, 2020 Author Share Posted September 21, 2020 @Lord Lannister I forgot to adress this issue : 35 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said: So she's going to have to abandon those people to the power vacuum she's created sooner or later. We really don't know how she will solve this problem and what she will find at her return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracul's Daughter Posted September 21, 2020 Author Share Posted September 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said: I mean, you cut out the one sentence of my prior quote that rebutted you putting words in my mouth about my so called presumption that peace returned while the war ships were on the way. About all Dany accomplished was to upset the balance of power in the region and causing the counterreaction of the slavers returning. So not sure what you're trying to argue with that. My bad then.Sorry. 4 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said: I don't agree that the definition of coexisting automatically dictates a yin/yang kind of co-dependence and harmony as you're describing. The core of the differences between the dragon and mhysa are that of conqueror and ruler. Conquering and ruling are two different things. The books, much less history in general, are full of examples that good conquerors don't always make good rulers and good rulers don't always make good conquerors. That's the essence of Dany's role as mhysa and the dragon. She's done quite well at one and very poorly at the other. You said that her both sides don't harmonize together very well.I only stated what I was thinking.Both sides make her whole.They are 2 sides of the coin.I can't see why she can't find a good balancing between them.I remember not all Targaryens were bad rulers.To my knowledge Aegon I did quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion1991 Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 6 hours ago, Oana Becherescu said: Sorry if this has been asked or the topic dos not fit here.I'm new and it's my first post.I've seen many praising this essay and saying that Martin gave it credit to Adam Feldman.I've read it and it didn't quite make sense to me.He stated that the peace was real but without text support and his interpretations about Daenerys character didn't seemed quite right.He sort of thinks of her like she's having double personality or that the fact she decides to end slavery with war (and to be honest,peace didn't quite work out well for the slaved didn't it?) it means she won't reason in Westeros.I think she will be capable to see the difference between Westeros and Essos.And what kind of disturbes me is that this essay implies that fighting to free slaves is bad.Don't get me wrong,war is war no matter the cause and it ain't pretty but I'm sure as hell I would like to fight for a cause that matters than to bow the head and look away when I can make a difference for the better.I know Martin is not pro war all the way but I saw interviews where he sayed that we also don't have to turn a blind eye to the injustice. Finally,my question is : how much credit did Martin really gave to this essay? Its pretty self evident that Dany is wrestling between appeasement and her violent impulses. It’s not very insightful. The Mereenese Blot is an apologia for George not finishing A Dance with Dragons which consigned the natural conclusion of that novel into the Winds of Winter. A beautiful statue with its head cut off isn’t a masterpiece. Plus, I am not impressed by a contrived situation in which Dany is pushed into making this dark turn. The situation isn’t realistic. Whole economy based on training slaves that Dany can’t leave because of its geography. Actors whose motivations are flimsy and make no sense. Let’s bluff Daenerys into concessions when we know we can’t win a fight against her and she has dragons so should crush as easily as those ants she finds in the Dothraki Sea. George is not a subtle man FYI. Let’s have Dany learn about Jorah before this all happens so she feels all alone and paranoid. The character has no agency so it’s obvious that if you keep tugging on Superman’s cape it won’t end well. To be frank it’s basically exactly what happens in the show in seasons 7 and 8. Youre right. It’s very uncomfortable that George spends so long elaborating on the deaths of these slavers and how Dany in her own mind left a desert of the land. Even more so when he acts like a the few million freed slaves brought with her to Mereen don’t exist or aren’t going to be an issue for the Ghiscari. He also has Xaro Zoan Doxos lecture and outwit Dany on the merits of slavery to make her look ill informed on the matter. Just because Dany didn’t have an army of lawyers and judges to go through the paperwork of executing or imprisoning people doesn’t have any bearing on the justness of the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Oana Becherescu said: I also remember him saying something like that.That's why I don't think he considers himself a fully pacifist. I think it's impossible for anyone to be fully anything. But he's reeeally pacifist still. And I think he doesn't consider stuff like the Vietnam war being a war worth fighting for for the Vietnamese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracul's Daughter Posted September 21, 2020 Author Share Posted September 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, CamiloRP said: I think it's impossible for anyone to be fully anything. But he's reeeally pacifist still. And I think he doesn't consider stuff like the Vietnam war being a war worth fighting for for the Vietnamese He also stated that Meereen isn't an allegory for Vietnam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 24 minutes ago, Oana Becherescu said: He also stated that Meereen isn't an allegory for Vietnam. I didn't know he stated that, but I still knew it wasn't, it's pretty obviously supposed to be the US invasion of Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 I don't know why or how but I send the same comment twice, how do I delete it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracul's Daughter Posted September 21, 2020 Author Share Posted September 21, 2020 @CamiloRP Here is the link to the discussion about his Meereen allegory I found in the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 @Oana Becherescu Just to clarfy, I agree with most of your points in the OP, I was just venting :/ Tho I do seem to agree with the essay more than you, but that's fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracul's Daughter Posted September 21, 2020 Author Share Posted September 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, CamiloRP said: @Oana Becherescu Just to clarfy, I agree with most of your points in the OP, I was just venting :/ Tho I do seem to agree with the essay more than you, but that's fine No problem.We all see these characters in our own way and the story is still going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.