[Spoilers] Episode 104 Discussion

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

What exactly does she become later? Because, as far as I can tell, she is a female Stannis without the religious zealotry.

I never really saw what the problem was with that. Especially since the same people who fawn over Stannis tend be so intolerant towards people similar to him...such as Rhaenyra.

I'm kind of at a loss how people view Rhaenyra in the book. We don't really know her as a person because she is mostly absent from her own story. The picture you can draw of her is that she is, in fact, a very weak monarch there. Not only does she not dare to fly to war herself, she also forbids her son to do so in her stead. Meaning she is, basically, a coward, like King Aenys, who didn't dare to burn Harrenhal a second time.

She also never takes charge properly, having to deal with her stillbirth and her later grief which developed into a depression. Rereading things recently I realized again that she didn't even participate in the War of the Gullet on Syrax - when Driftmark, Dragonstone, and their fleet were at stake ... and after Aegon the Younger had just shown up on a dying Stormcloud.

That reflects very badly on her.

As queen she decrees some things, but even there she doesn't have (m)any ideas of her own, merely deciding what other people put before her. Her bad decisions are not her own but rather suggestions other put before her - like the dragonseed issue, or the deicison to not offer peace to the Green lords until her half-brothers are defeated.

There are some executions but hers is not a bloody reign. People get pissed because her Master of Coin is an ass, but there wasn't an alternative to such policies. Not when the treasury is empty.

Her biggest mistake likely was to send Ulf and Hugh to Tumbleton - that's the beginning of her troubles. But we don't even know who made that call. Not sure if Daemon's idea to give them Stokeworth and Rosby, respectively, by way of marrying them to women from those houses, would have made them more loyal, but not properly rewarding them was a mistake (and Corlys argued against that, apparently).

In light of the show I don't think as weak and passive a figurehead queen as Rhaenyra is in the book would be an interesting protagonist or character. In fact, as weak she is in the book we have to ask why the hell Daemon didn't crown himself and/or ruled 'by right/in the name of his wife'? Because the Rhaenyra in the book doesn't seem to have the strength to fight back a dominating, powerhungry man. And Daemon supposedly coveted the throne for years and decades.

[RumHam]

2 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

The Mountain's band killed everyone, regardless of whether they resisted or not. And it was more about terror than forraging and scorched earth tactics.

And this was before the war had even started, and without their banners or anything. 

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

I mean in his world. Westeros to him is better off with a central power (with dragons) that a divided realm of bickering lords.

The best that Westeros can realistically hope for is a Henry Tudor or Maria Theresa.

[BlackLightning]

15 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Speaking as an anarchist in RL, one thing I love about Westeros is that Martin is quite clear that there's no such thing as a good king. It is an evil institution and a vile classicist society that he doesn't shy away from being inherently corrupt.

False.

Martin does make it very clear that there is a such a thing as a good king. That is the bedrock of not only Dany's entire story arc (particularly Storm and Dance) but Bran's as well.

Plus, Bran becoming King of Westeros (what kind of king he will be, how he rise to kingship, when he will rise to kingship and why remains to be seen) as an established ending has apparently been a thing since the outline back in 1991. Bran also has a wide array of magical psychic powers. Because between super-psychic Bran (and his not-so-super-but-still-very-psychic siblings) and dragonriding witch-conqueror Dany, it's clear that Martin believes that divine right and absolute monarchy only works if the king/queen possesses abilities and insight that makes him/her a cut far above and separate from the rest. The game of thrones is destructive to everyone and everything and that the only way to stop it is to have a king/queen who has the power to curb and control those they lead.

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Part of what sold A Song of Ice and Fire to me was when Jaime shows the hanged young women by the Stark bannermen.

That was like, "This is not typical fantasy."

Even more than Ned's execution.

Likewise, Arya discovering that her own grandfather, not the Lannisters, burned a village to the ground and slaughtered the population.

[butterweedstrover]

8 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

What makes a good king is not the same thing as an endorsement of a monarchy. Monarchies will always produce good kings and bad kings out of sheer statistical probability if nothing else. When you get the wrong guy at the wrong time and absolute power rests in that person, they can cripple it for generations or even bring the whole thing down. 

That’s cool, but nowhere in Martin’s work is there a criticism of monarchy as an institution. I’m fact an alternative isn’t even hinted at or alluded to. 

[C.T. Phipps]

13 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

I mean in his world. Westeros to him is better off with a central power (with dragons) that a divided realm of bickering lords.

I mean, in Westeros, George pretty much uses the Freefolk as a deliberate contrast and how the "savages" are much more civilized by compared to the "civilized" Westerosi by our standards.

[butterweedstrover]

11 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Stannis does not have authentic dedication to duty and honor.

1. If he did, he would not have abandoned his brother and the realm when he had proof that evil was afoot.
2. If he did, he would not have sat on his hands and waited until everyone else had marshalled their forces or barred their gates before he took action.

The list goes on...

I agree. 
 

And Rhaenyra is still worse because she doesn’t even have the faintest instinct towards duty and respect.

[C.T. Phipps]

4 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

False.

Martin does make it very clear that there is a such a thing as a good king. That is the bedrock of not only Dany's entire story arc (particularly Storm and Dance) but Bran's as well.

I mean, you seem to have read different books than I have. One of the things that I felt was strongly brought out by monarchs is Daenerys is NOT A GOOD RULER. She's a great CONQUEROR and amazing general with the capacity to lead a wide variety of disparate peoples but objectively terrible at ruling.

Also, Bran being King is something that we no knowledge about the results of. I genuinely was shocked that it was Martin's endgame.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm kind of at a loss how people view Rhaenyra in the book. We don't really know her as a person because she is mostly absent from her own story.

But the few things we do know about her don't paint her in a very good light, she really seems like a mini-Cersei at times.

[butterweedstrover]

1 minute ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I mean, in Westeros, George pretty much uses the Freefolk as a deliberate contrast and how the "savages" are much more civilized by compared to the "civilized" Westerosi by our standards.

He’s ideal leadership is Jaehaerys, not a bunch of cave dwellers. 
 

In fact the wildlings only become good once they are under the strict control of the noble blooded Jon. 
 

 

[C.T. Phipps]

3 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

That’s cool, but nowhere in Martin’s work is there a criticism of monarchy as an institution. I’m fact an alternative isn’t even hinted at or alluded to. 

Elective monarchy like the Ironborn.

Freefolk monarchy of choice.

The Night's Watch elective leadership.

We also have multiple Essos rulership styles.

And EVERY PAGE is a criticism of the monarchy with the many-many awful monarchs who ruin the lives of everyone around them in constant feuding for power.

[The Bard of Banefort]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The best that Westeros can realistically hope for is a Henry Tudor or Maria Theresa.

Which Henry Tudor?

 

The books never felt nihilistic to me. GOT did and HOTD is starting to. I think that Atlantic article from a few weeks ago made a good point about how the incest angle spoils the family dynamics.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

5 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

That’s cool, but nowhere in Martin’s work is there a criticism of monarchy as an institution. I’m fact an alternative isn’t even hinted at or alluded to. 

Literally everywhere in Marin's work is where it's alluded to. 

[butterweedstrover]

1 minute ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Elective monarchy like the Ironborn.

Freefolk monarchy of choice.

The Night's Watch elective leadership.

We also have multiple Essos rulership styles.

And EVERY PAGE is a criticism of the monarchy with the many-many awful monarchs who ruin the lives of everyone around them in constant feuding for power.

All three of those are populated by rapists and killers. 
 

They are fun lifestyle alternatives for character growth, but they are not alternatives to rule the realm. 
 

The bad kings and queens are referenced to promote the good kings and queens. I mean watch an interview from him about good leadership, he’s not referencing the ironborn.

[butterweedstrover]

1 minute ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Literally everywhere in Marin's work is where it's alluded to. 

The ironborn and wildlings aren’t alternatives, they the uncivilized invaders.

[C.T. Phipps]

1 minute ago, butterweedstrover said:

He’s ideal leadership is Jaehaerys, not a bunch of cave dwellers. 

In fact the wildlings only become good once they are under the strict control of the noble blooded Jon.

1. I appreciated FIRE AND BLOOD for the piss take that it does for Jaehaerys and takes some of the shine off of the man. It shows he's a sexist traditionalist who is an objectively awful father (and in a feudal society like Westeros, his shitty fatherhood results in the seeds being laid for the Dance of the Dragons).

2. They're fine under Mance Rayder as well. They're also living their own lives fine before the Others deprivate them of it.

[IFR]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Martin may do that to a point - the show doesn't.

Your position is that Rhaenyra in this show has no power even with respect to commoners due to her gender?

Well, all right. I naturally disagree, but I can see this is another debate that has the potential to be interminable since neither party will concede, so I suppose this is something else we simply won't see eye to eye on.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I mean, you seem to have read different books than I have. One of the things that I felt was strongly brought out by monarchs is Daenerys is NOT A GOOD RULER. She's a great CONQUEROR and amazing general with the capacity to lead a wide variety of disparate peoples but objectively terrible at ruling.

Also, Bran being King is something that we no knowledge about the results of. I genuinely was shocked that it was Martin's endgame.

The paradox of Dany, as Stephen Attwell points out, is that she’s a bad conqueror, rather than a good one.  She leaves people alive and in positions of power,  who mean nothing but harm to her and the freedmen.

A good ruler, in this world, does not shrink from violence.  Jaehaerys I burned an invasion fleet to the waterline and cut the bloody cross in traitors. Dany’s failure (in ADWD) was to be insufficiently ruthless.

[C.T. Phipps]

1 minute ago, butterweedstrover said:

All three of those are populated by rapists and killers.

The Hound kind of spells out George's point that ALL feudalism is full of rapists and killers.