[Spoilers] Episode 104 Discussion

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

8 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I think that misses that HOTD fans are, by nature, fans of fantasy.

A portion of them, sure. But there are many who are in it just for the drama and political intrigue. I've seen many people like that and know some of them personally.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

A portion of them, sure. But there are many who are in it just for the drama and political intrigue. I've seen many people like that and know some of them personally.

Yeah, I mean that by being fans of GOT/HOTD, they're fans of a fantasy series.

It's just they're fans of Low Fantasy and not High Fantasy.

[TheValonqarThatWasAzorAhai]

22 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

It seems like the knowledge got lost at some point, maybe even after the Dance.

Maybe it was lost with Rhaenyra, Aegon II wouldn’t have known because he was not the designated heir.  Also Rhaenyra would not have told Aegon III until her reign was secured and she officially named him as heir.  Or, she decided not to reveal it to anyone as a F you to the realm for betraying her and not wholeheartedly siding with her in the Dance.

Edited September 14, 2022 by TheValonqarThatWasAzorAhai

[WolfgangII]

On 9/11/2022 at 9:20 PM, C.T. Phipps said:

Daemon almost certainly will never put 2+2 together to realize Mysaria betrayed him. Which is a shame as it doesn't show him as very smart.

I wouldn't be surprised if Otto and Mysaria's deal falls through and she's the person who sends Blood and Cheese after his great-grandsons.

I fear you may be right. The Blood and Cheese episode is one of the most atrocious acts in the war (at least when taling about Targ vs Targ in-fighting) and I will be dissapointed if Daemon is not the one responsible for that, I read him as someone who has no qualms in getting revenge or what he wants. But I think you may be into something, definitely Mysaria will have a more prominent role in the show than the books.

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It really doesn't look like Daemon knew Mysaria still existed before he woke up, so that's just not very likely.

I think you should watch that scene again.  Daemon is dismissive of her, sure, but that's clearly because he's hungover.  He also asks if he's her prisoner and she responds she's his protector which could just refer to her taking care of him while he's wasted but is still a..weird exchange.  And the messenger kid who brings word to Otto comes back with Mysaria's payment right in front of Daemon.  Again, the whole thing is weird.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

On 9/12/2022 at 6:20 AM, C.T. Phipps said:

Daemon almost certainly will never put 2+2 together to realize Mysaria betrayed him. Which is a shame as it doesn't show him as very smart.

It doesn't matter how smart you are, it's impossible to think straight when you're as drunk as Daemon was. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

The good thing is, there’s finally some fanart, although it’s mostly just of Rhaenyra so far.

Personally, I like the fact that the fandom is smaller than it was for GOT. It’s more fun that way.

 

On a side note, it occurred to me that Criston Cole bears a certain resemblance to Jon Snow. So you could view the sex scene with him and Rhaenyra as sort of a do-over of Jon and Dany’s awkward romance lol. 

[EggBlue]

19 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The good thing is, there’s finally some fanart, although it’s mostly just of Rhaenyra so far.

go ahead and update fanart thread!

[The Bard of Banefort]

35 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

go ahead and update fanart thread!

As soon as I get the chance, I will 

[The Bard of Banefort]

Regarding the monarchy, I actually think this is, surprisingly, one of the areas where George’s American-ness comes out. The Conquest is pretty vile, and comes across as awfully imperialistic, but having one united realm is clearly depicted as preferable to 7-9 separate kingdoms. In the US, especially in the northeast, Abraham Lincoln is arguably the most revered and beloved American who ever lived, even today. (There’s a reason why Dany stans love to compare her to him). George, like the rest of us, would have been taught that anything short of one united nation was a failure and a disgrace. Breaking away from an unworthy monarch is one thing, but breaking away from the neighbors you share land, language, and history with is quite another. I fully expect Westeros to once again be a united realm by the end of the series (and no, the North will not be independent).

[DMC]

I find this discussion on trying to divine Martin's feelings on systems of government..odd.  Just because the wildings and the Ironborn have particularly barbaric cultures, that's hardly a comment concerning the author's feelings on democracy - in this world or his own universe.  And btw, the wildings' method of choosing does not resemble participatory democracy even in its infancy/at its most limited.  I'm also surprised there hasn't been any mention of Volantis' elections either - whose depiction was quite a bit of fun in ADWD and interestingly included the closest thing to actual political parties.

But, again, I really wouldn't read too much into any of that.  And I agree as mentioned that Martin's only real comments on feudalism are highlighted by Sandor's insightful take - just as Meribald's speech is Martin's clear statement on war.

[Lord Varys]

George is no monarchist.

ASoIaF shows how sick a legal/government system feudalism is or can be, with hundreds of little kings sitting in their castles, brutalizing and exploiting the common people. Modern states and absolutism is preferrable to that shitshow. That's especially prominent in Dunk & Egg but also in the main series. The entire War of the Five Kings setting works in part only because Westeros is a fucked-up feudal system.

In turn, though, (absolutist) monarchy sucks, too, especially hereditary monarchy.

I'd say that Jaehaerys I comes pretty close to what a good king in Westeros would be, but he also has his flaws (Barth and Alysanne are both smarter than he is), although they basically never affected the common people. But that is not a statement for monarchy as system of government.

We could actually do a little thought experiment here. Let us compare Rhaenyra to Jaehaerys. Both kind of face the same problems early in their reign - a lack of cash - and they resolve them differently. Is the young Jaehaerys smarter than his great-granddaughter? I don't think so, but since he had the luxury to not being forced to wage a civil war he could afford a trial-and-error approach to his advisers and ministers. First he has a Master of Coin in Lord Celtigar - the same family from which Rhaenyra chose hers - who implemented problematic taxes and measures. He could rectify that later on. Same with Prentys Tully as Master of Laws and Myles Smallwood as Hand.

Rhaenyra didn't have that luxury, she had to fight a civil war with an empty treasury. Jaehaerys could afford to interrupt the building of the Dragonpit for a time.

Rhaenyra also didn't have the luxury to look for the men best suited for a particular government job (although that, in turn, is an unpleasant modernism in ASoIaF since no medieval or early modern monarch would grant offices to people on the basis of whether they 'were qualified for the job' - being a member of the aristocracy was the way how you decided whether you were eligible to get a high court office or not). She had to work with what she had, and the most important part there was to appoint people of proven loyalty to high office.

She couldn't afford to appoint some foreign moneylender or baseborn septon and risk to alienate or antagonize any of her loyal highborn supporters.

In that context ... let's imagine King Maegor hadn't died childless but with a, say, 20-year-old trueborn son from his first wife Ceryse who took up his mantle and challenged the reign of Jaehaerys I in his first years. In this setting the great Conciliator could have easily ended up like Rhaenyra. Because when pushed the guy actually did have the temper for excesses. The way he dealt with the murderers of Rego Draz shows this, and the Forth Dornish War as well. If he had been forced to wage a civil war with an empty treasury he wouldn't have been able to win the love of his people with niceties and grand gestures.

His big advantage was that Maegor had no heirs, that Westeros longed for peace, that he had a great sense for good propaganda ... and that he had the time and ability to pick good advisers and listen to them (many of his great accomplishments weren't his ideas but stuff Alysanne and Barth suggested he do).

Viserys I wasn't a particularly impressive king, either - but he kept the peace as well, and the Realm prospered under his reign, presumably because he had nearly as good a hand as his grandfather in appointing the right people for the right jobs. Rhaenyra could have done the same thing easily enough ... just as Jaehaerys could have failed if his rule had been challenged by a powerful pretender.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I mean, obviously he’s not a monarchist lol. Very few people are in real life. But in the context of this fantasy world, he clearly enjoys writing about monarchies more than the other systems. If he didn’t, he’d be writing about them instead.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Regarding the monarchy, I actually think this is, surprisingly, one of the areas where George’s American-ness comes out. The Conquest is pretty vile, and comes across as awfully imperialistic, but having one united realm is clearly depicted as preferable to 7-9 separate kingdoms. In the US, especially in the northeast, Abraham Lincoln is arguably the most revered and beloved American who ever lived, even today. (There’s a reason why Dany stans love to compare her to him). George, like the rest of us, would have been taught that anything short of one united nation was a failure and a disgrace. Breaking away from an unworthy monarch is one thing, but breaking away from the neighbors you share land, language, and history with is quite another. I fully expect Westeros to once again be a united realm by the end of the series (and no, the North will not be independent).

I think the clear parallel in real life (although not one for one) is the way that the House of Wessex conquered Seven kingdoms, in order to create England.  Only a handful of eccentrics would want to reinstate the heptarchy.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I mean, obviously he’s not a monarchist lol. Very few people are in real life. But in the context of this fantasy world, he clearly enjoys writing about monarchies more than the other systems. If he didn’t, he’d be writing about them instead.

I guess if he started writing a fantasy series now he wouldn't be that focused on monarchies. But he started in the early 1990s.

I don't fault him for writing about monarchies - it is not uncommon in the fantasy genre. And Westeros could really need an honest Lenin or somebody along those lines. Although the Thousand Worlds setting human government is a socialist republic, at least on paper, which is not that common in American SF. Not that this plays much of a role in the stories most of which take place after its collapse, anyway.

But George is dreadfully cynical about short-lived peasant uprisings like the Shepherd movement. He really does mock the common man when he has poor Bean be the first moron to fight for Maegor ... and the first guy to die for this stupidity. Not to mention how he has the people suck to the dragon Morning and her rider after more or less the same people killed five dragons not that long ago.

On the other hand, I do like the implication that the Targaryen rule bettered the life of the common people to no small degree, explaining why KL grow as quickly as it did, why the smallfolk are suckers for the Targaryens still during the main series, etc.

Other thing:

In light of Daemon's history of erectile dysfunction in the show, do you think part (or the) reason why his marriage to Rhea Royce didn't work is that he cannot get it hard for her? That could be something she might not take kindly to. And it could explain why he cannot suffer her presence.

I actually like they gave this manly bad boy guy such a problem. It puts things into perspective.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

George is no monarchist.

ASoIaF shows how sick a legal/government system feudalism is or can be, with hundreds of little kings sitting in their castles, brutalizing and exploiting the common people. Modern states and absolutism is preferrable to that shitshow. That's especially prominent in Dunk & Egg but also in the main series. The entire War of the Five Kings setting works in part only because Westeros is a fucked-up feudal system.

In turn, though, (absolutist) monarchy sucks, too, especially hereditary monarchy.

I'd say that Jaehaerys I comes pretty close to what a good king in Westeros would be, but he also has his flaws (Barth and Alysanne are both smarter than he is), although they basically never affected the common people. But that is not a statement for monarchy as system of government.

We could actually do a little thought experiment here. Let us compare Rhaenyra to Jaehaerys. Both kind of face the same problems early in their reign - a lack of cash - and they resolve them differently. Is the young Jaehaerys smarter than his great-granddaughter? I don't think so, but since he had the luxury to not being forced to wage a civil war he could afford a trial-and-error approach to his advisers and ministers. First he has a Master of Coin in Lord Celtigar - the same family from which Rhaenyra chose hers - who implemented problematic taxes and measures. He could rectify that later on. Same with Prentys Tully as Master of Laws and Myles Smallwood as Hand.

Rhaenyra didn't have that luxury, she had to fight a civil war with an empty treasury. Jaehaerys could afford to interrupt the building of the Dragonpit for a time.

Rhaenyra also didn't have the luxury to look for the men best suited for a particular government job (although that, in turn, is an unpleasant modernism in ASoIaF since no medieval or early modern monarch would grant offices to people on the basis of whether they 'were qualified for the job' - being a member of the aristocracy was the way how you decided whether you were eligible to get a high court office or not). She had to work with what she had, and the most important part there was to appoint people of proven loyalty to high office.

She couldn't afford to appoint some foreign moneylender or baseborn septon and risk to alienate or antagonize any of her loyal highborn supporters.

In that context ... let's imagine King Maegor hadn't died childless but with a, say, 20-year-old trueborn son from his first wife Ceryse who took up his mantle and challenged the reign of Jaehaerys I in his first years. In this setting the great Conciliator could have easily ended up like Rhaenyra. Because when pushed the guy actually did have the temper for excesses. The way he dealt with the murderers of Rego Draz shows this, and the Forth Dornish War as well. If he had been forced to wage a civil war with an empty treasury he wouldn't have been able to win the love of his people with niceties and grand gestures.

His big advantage was that Maegor had no heirs, that Westeros longed for peace, that he had a great sense for good propaganda ... and that he had the time and ability to pick good advisers and listen to them (many of his great accomplishments weren't his ideas but stuff Alysanne and Barth suggested he do).

Viserys I wasn't a particularly impressive king, either - but he kept the peace as well, and the Realm prospered under his reign, presumably because he had nearly as good a hand as his grandfather in appointing the right people for the right jobs. Rhaenyra could have done the same thing easily enough ... just as Jaehaerys could have failed if his rule had been challenged by a powerful pretender.

One has to distinguish between two questions?

What is the best type of government?

What is the best type of government/ best ruler, within the parameters of this world?

Those parameters are that anyone who matters politically thinks capital punishment and torture are legitimate;  war is an acceptable means of settling disputes;  sacking cities that fail to surrender timely is fair;  pillaging enemies is standard operating practice;  the world ought to be governed by people with the right bloodlines and:or wealth; same sex marriage is an absurdity;  women are inferior to men; but, opinions do vary on slavery.

You want a ruler who is both a lion and a fox.

Edited September 14, 2022 by SeanF

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

What is the best type of government/ best ruler, within the parameters of this world?

Those parameters are that anyone who matters politically thinks capital punishment and torture are legitimate;  war is an acceptable means of settling disputes;  sacking cities that fail to surrender is fair;  pillaging enemies is standard operating practice;  the world ought to be governed by people with the right bloodlines and:or wealth; same sex marriage is an absurdity;  women are inferior to men; but, opinions do vary on slavery.

I don't think the measure of a good ruler - even in Westeros or Essos - is in how well they uphold the status quo.  Particularly the abject iniquities that compose much of that status quo.  If that were the case no progress could ever be made throughout history.

As an absolute ruler ordained by the gods - and, ya know, dragons in the Targs' case pre-Dance - most rulers have incredible opportunity to alter this status quo.  Indeed, much more so than their real life counterparts.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I think he still enjoys writing about fictional monarchies. If he didn’t, he would have never been able to write FnB.

24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think the clear parallel in real life (although not one for one) is the way that the House of Wessex conquered Seven kingdoms, in order to create England.  Only a handful of eccentrics would want to reinstate the heptarchy.

You’re probably right, but I do think that culture (particularly when it’s so deeply instilled in you from birth) also plays a role, however unconscious.

[The Bard of Banefort]

It’s kind of funny to see all these YouTube bros praise HOTD in order to disparage Rings of Power even more, which they view as anti-male propaganda. HOTD took the two main male characters from the Dance and depicted them as squabbling man children lol. (And no, I don’t think HOTD is anti-male, although I do wish they wrote Daemon and Viserys slightly differently).

[C.T. Phipps]

12 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think he still enjoys writing about fictional monarchies. If he didn’t, he would have never been able to write FnB.

You’re probably right, but I do think that culture (particularly when it’s so deeply instilled in you from birth) also plays a role, however unconscious.

I mean, people write about monarchy because it's exciting. Bloodshed, death, betrayal, and intrigue.