Would the Essos Storyline be more interesting if the Villains had more Depth?

[astarkchoice]

40 minutes ago, sifth said:

I mean not all of Dany’s villains are idiots, just the ones in the third book. If anything Dany herself is an idiot in the first book; first for taking way too long to see her brother for the monster that he is and second for letting a slave prisoner heal her husband and not his loyal trained healers. 

Id say viserys slowly morphed into that as he got older plus you cant blame a little.girl for being scared of an abusive older brother hes both all shes known and always been able .to hurt her til then

 

As for 3rd book on the enemies id say bar the slavers in the 2nd siege  wit their bizzare niche troops they seem to.make decent rational decisions based in the info in front of them so arent idiots at all.

[sifth]

1 hour ago, astarkchoice said:

Id say viserys slowly morphed into that as he got older plus you cant blame a little.girl for being scared of an abusive older brother hes both all shes known and always been able .to hurt her til then

 

As for 3rd book on the enemies id say bar the slavers in the 2nd siege  wit their bizzare niche troops they seem to.make decent rational decisions based in the info in front of them so arent idiots at all.

The Great Masters are easily the dumbest villains in the series. First they sell Dany their entire army, leaving no one to defend them and second they ask for a dragon without asking for lessons on how to control it. 

[SeanF]

46 minutes ago, sifth said:

The Great Masters are easily the dumbest villains in the series. First they sell Dany their entire army, leaving no one to defend them and second they ask for a dragon without asking for lessons on how to control it. 

The Good Masters of Astapor are gross, perverted, and very stupid.

The Great Masters of Meereen are a good deal more cunning,

[sifth]

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Good Masters of Astapor are gross, perverted, and very stupid.

The Great Masters of Meereen are a good deal more cunning,

Right, my mistake for getting the two mixed up.

[SeanF]

@Oana_MikaOn reflection, I was unfair to say Adam Feldman views fighters for and against slavery as morally equivalent.

But what he does is empathise with the slavers, more than he does the slaves and freedmen.  He sets out in detail (and to be fair, very well) the reasons why the slavers fear the destruction of their way of life.

What he does  not engage with is the reasons why the slaves wish to be free, why they fight for Dany,  why the freedmen fear re-enslavement, and why they hate compromising with the masters.

So, he makes Daenerys’ anti-slavery campaign seem capricious, and driven by ego, enjoyment of war, and a desire for good sex.

He falls into the trap that Brett Devereaux says many of his history students do, of automatically identifying with the upper classes, who seem more like us than the anonymous masses do.  It’s far easier to imagine oneself as a master (obviously, a kind, decent, master) than as a chattel.

A far superior essay about Dany’s anti-slavery campaign is that of Steven Attwell in Laboratory of Politics.

Edited March 31 by SeanF

[GZ Bloodraven]

10 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

It is. His job is protecting the realms of men (from the Others), and (potentially) getting into conflict with the Boltons over helping in 'kidnapping' Ramsay's wife goes against the interests of the realms of men. 

"protecting the realms of men" has been stopping wildlings from getting over the wall and raping people. I don't see why he can't do the same with the Warden of the North.

[Oana_Mika]

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

@Oana_MikaOn reflection, I was unfair to say Adam Feldman views fighters for and against slavery as morally equivalent.

But what he does is empathise with the slavers, more than he does the slaves and freedmen.  He sets out in detail (and to be fair, very well) the reasons why the slavers fear the destruction of their way of life.

What he does  not engage with is the reasons why the slaves wish to be free, why they fight for Dany,  why the freedmen fear re-enslavement, and why they hate compromising with the masters.

So, he makes Daenerys’ anti-slavery campaign seem capricious, and driven by ego, enjoyment of war, and a desire for good sex.

He falls into the trap that Brett Devereaux says many of his history students do, of automatically identifying with the upper classes, who seem more like us than the anonymous masses do.  It’s far easier to imagine oneself as a master (obviously, a kind, decent, master) than as a chattel.

A far superior essay about Dany’s anti-slavery campaign is that of Steven Attwell in Laboratory of Politics.

I've read that essays and indeed, he explains far more better Daenerys' anti-slavery campaign. I also have to add that many fans of Daenerys are greatful for Adam's essays because he did help to evolve the discussion around her, but we can also view his flaws in those essays. Namely, not seeing the injustices Dany has to overlook (and she hates it) in order to make and keep the peace with the slavers.

Edited March 31 by Oana_Mika

[astarkchoice]

4 hours ago, sifth said:

The Great Masters are easily the dumbest villains in the series. First they sell Dany their entire army, leaving no one to defend them and second they ask for a dragon without asking for lessons on how to control it. 

Why would they ask her for lessons on dragon control when she herself clearly can barely handle the beasts herself ? Besides utter obedience training is their 'niche'

As for selling her the whole army they have no reason to assume a woman whos already under threat of death from westeros king, some in quarth and wanted by  dothraki khals   is suddenly going to launch a suicidial campaign vs the might of all  slavers bay and thus eventualy most of essos slave power brokers!!! Its like running from the mafia and then killing one of the local   triads!!!!

Her needing every last one of them fits ( as with even the full 9k its still too small a force to take westeros ) 

Add in she looked like a lil girl and is squamish at the sight of some nipple removal so it would make sense theyd assumem she  wouldnt be up for  suddenly genociding a city that isnt her enemy!

Edited March 31 by astarkchoice

[sifth]

29 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

Why would they ask her for lessons on dragon control when she herself clearly can barely handle the beasts herself ? Besides utter obedience training is their 'niche'

As for selling her the whole army they have no reason to assume a woman whos already under threat of death from westeros king, some in quarth and wanted by  dothraki khals   is suddenly going to launch a suicidial campaign vs the might of all  slavers bay and thus eventualy most of essos slave power brokers!!! Its like running from the mafia and then killing one of the local   triads!!!!

Her needing every last one of them fits ( as with even the full 9k its still too small a force to take westeros ) 

Add in she looked like a lil girl and is squamish at the sight of some nipple removal so it would make sense theyd assumem she  wouldnt be up for  suddenly genociding a city that isnt her enemy!

You're trying really hard to defend idiots. The whole situation is similar to going out in a desert with a person and trading him a diamond for a new gun and the person getting the diamond being too stupid to realized the guy with the gun is just going to shoot him with it and take the diamond back.

You're also using conjecture again, similar to how you would defend Balon. Why would they ask for lessons? Lets see, because it's common sense. Because anyone with half a brain would. You don't get a new weapon and not request lessons on how to control it.

I'm going to stop replying to your posts unless you start using facts, instead of conjecture when making points. I'm starting to think you're an alt of the Dany is great and the Starks are evil troll.

Edited March 31 by sifth

[astarkchoice]

20 hours ago, sifth said:

You're trying really hard to defend idiots. The whole situation is similar to going out in a desert with a person and trading him a diamond for a new gun and the person getting the diamond being too stupid to realized the guy with the gun is just going to shoot him with it and take the diamond back.

You're also using conjecture again, similar to how you would defend Balon. Why would they ask for lessons? Lets see, because it's common sense. Because anyone with half a brain would. You don't get a new weapon and not request lessons on how to control it.

I'm going to stop replying to your posts unless you start using facts, instead of conjecture when making points. I'm starting to think you're an alt of the Dany is great and the Starks are evil troll.

You're leaving out context which is always crucial ...if the person you are meeting is connected to the mafia would you still blow his brains out or not? Of course not itd be virtual suicide ! you might as well put the gun to your own head when you are done.

What of you were already being chased by another don too? As is danys case

Add in the stigma of being a deal/oathbreaker now as well ina  society where your word is crucial

This part makes 0 sense.....its.not a weapon with instructions nor has dany demonstrated any great control to indicate she has an 'instruction manual'  to give the slavers .......other than 'dracarys' and they have ears.

 

As.for the the other slavers = the yunaki slavers seem.compent enough until the 2nd siege of mereen where possibly althe prospect of easy win has left them complacent

The mereense are clearly competent their inital defence vs dany was excellemt and now have her srmy dying in the shadows

 

 

 

Edited April 1 by astarkchoice

[csuszka1948]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Good Masters of Astapor are gross, perverted, and very stupid.

The Great Masters of Meereen are a good deal more cunning,

 

 

 

 

 

Why would the Good Masters of Astapor assume that Dany would use the army of Unsullied to attack them?
Nobody has done this before and by breaking a deal in such a way she essentially made the entire slaver world her enemy, which should be an unwinnable fight. 

Also, as far as they know, she wants to get an army to get to Westeros and has no desire to remain in Essos. 

 

The only thing that is very questionable is not asking Dany to teach them how to control the dragon she gives them.

Edited March 31 by csuszka1948

[astarkchoice]

24 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Why would the Good Masters of Astapor assume that Dany would use the army of Unsullied to attack them?
Nobody has done this before and by breaking a deal in such a way she essentially made the entire slaver world her enemy, which should be an unwinnable fight. 

Also, as far as they know, she wants to get an army to get to Westeros and has no desire to remain in Essos. 

 

The only thing that is very questionable is not asking Dany to teach them how to control the dragon she gives them.

To be fair she hadnt demonstrated she had any  control over the dragons to teach them  so they had no reason to ask her.

[FictionIsntReal]

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

1.  What I don't take from these books is that it's "just a matter of opinion"

The is-ought gap dates back to Hume, long before GRRM was born. The books themselves have an existentialist streak in which the characters must decide for themselves what is right, rather different from the medieval mentality.

Quote

3. Astapor.  If you want to quote me, quote me correctly, not selectively.

I don't know what quotation you're objecting to. I try to pair quotes with my specific responses so they are easy to see side-by-side.

Quote

That's clear in real life, and clear in the text.

It's clear in real life and the text that slave traders were not regarded as enemies of humanity like pirates.

Quote

Nor should it be controversial that if the victims were sufficiently militarily powerful to fight back, they would do.

I don't disagree with that, it's just not sufficient to be a pirate-like "enemy of humanity".

Quote

But, according to your timeline, there is ample time for the Yunkish envoys to have dispatched messages to their masters, to inform them of the outcome of these negotiations.

No, not "ample time". 19 days doesn't allow for any delay in the dispatch of an envoy from Meereen, nor in the journey of that envoy to Volantis, or for the Volantenes to deliberate how to react to the news. Then their reaction would have to be sent back from Volantis, but there's no time for that because the battle has already started two days (recall that the agreement was on the 2nd of the month, so at the earliest it would arrive 19 days later on the 21st) before we should expect the envoy from Meereen to have arrived in Volantis in the first place.

Quote

The criminal law treats incitement to commit an attack upon someone in similar fashion to actually carrying out the attack.  So do governments.

International relations are not governed by criminal law.

Quote

If the UK signed a treaty with France to end a war, while simultaneously, French envoys struck a bargain with Spain for the latter to attack the UK, of course the British would treat it as a resumption of war with France.

It wasn't simultaneous. Volantis was contacted before the Yunkish arrived in Meereen, then after arrival they made a deal with Dany, then the Volantenes don't arrive until later.

Quote

What the Yunkish have done is to strike one bargain with Daenerys, for “peace”, while striking another bargain with Volantis, to destroy Free Meereen.  That is the very essence of negotiating in bad faith.

No, Volantis was invited before there was any peace agreement.

Quote

When the British and other European powers were themselves slave-traders, they treated slave-traders and pirates differently

I'm glad we agree on that much.

Quote

When they ceased the trade, they treated them similarly.

No, the British were unique in attempting to suppress it worldwide.

Quote

6.  The war between Braavos and Pentos was (so far as we know) fought over slavery.

I don't think we actually know the details. There were multiple wars and disputed territory between them.

Quote

and Braavosi children were being seized to be made into Unsullied.

Yes, if they were being attacked that would be expected.

Quote

treat those fighting to uphold slavery, and those fighting to end it, as morally equivalent

I think Feldman is uninterested in the morals of those fighting to uphold slavery because they aren't main characters. The moral complexity lies with Dany, and whether the peace is a sham or not is relevant just because of what it means for Dany's decision.

Quote

analyse the Meereenese plot as Dany making sacrifices for peace, rather than innocent people being sacrificed for peace.

Is that really a contradiction? It's perfectly coherent for Dany to sacrifice innocent lives to protect innocent lives. Making war would also mean sacrificing the lives lost in fighting to protect others.

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

"The Nights Watch takes no part" is nowhere mentioned.

Perhaps not in that vow, but it's repeatedly stated they are sworn not to take part.
"the black brothers were sworn to take no part in the quarrels of the realm" AGoT - Tyrion V
"So they pledged as well that the Night's Watch would take no part in the battles of the realms it guarded." AGoT - Jon VII
"They say vows, to take no part in wars and stuff." ASoS - Bran III
"The Night's Watch is pledged to take no part in the quarrels of the realm." ASoS - Jon VII
"The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," he read. "Our oaths are sworn to the realm" AFfC - Samwell I
"The Night's Watch is sworn to take no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms" AFfC - Ceersei IV
"He made his vows and means to live by them. The Night's Watch takes no part." ADwD - Melisandre I
Nobody EVER points out that since the bit you quoted doesn't mention that it means they hadn't actually sworn it.

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

Freeing Arya does not jeopardise the fight against the Others, and nor does Jon nor anyone else frame the moral conflict in such terms.

Jon leaving Castle Black to march south (exactly what Osha warned against Robb doing in AGoT) certainly does undermine the ability of the Wall to resist the Others. He's the Lord Commander! And he's killed pretty quickly after announcing his decision, so we don't hear that much reasoning.

14 hours ago, SeanF said:

I certainly don’t think the Boltons and Lannisters would be any sort of help against the Others. Stannis, on the other hand, would be.

I think for both the applicable phrase is "Better inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in". Ned had been able to rely on the Boltons during Robert's Rebellion, and the Lannisters helped put down the Greyjoy Rebellion.

11 hours ago, Oana_Mika said:

You can scroll back and look.

 

No, I can't read your mind and after being irked at things erroneously attributed to me I'm not going to make the same error towards you by attempting to do so. The way to get past inferential distance is to ask for clarification rather than assuming you know.

Quote

But it shows Yunkai attacking Meereen. So there is no agreement anymore

 

The agreement breaks down, the dispute is over whether there was really an agreement in the first place.

Quote

He ignored that "dragons plant no trees" comes right after she says she wanted "to laugh,to rest,to plant trees and see them grow"

 

Coming right after means she is rejecting the planting of trees despite wanting to see said trees grow.

Quote

he is wrong in painting her like an war addict, like the comparison you made in your replies.

 

What I said was that it would be silly to claim I was saying Dany was an addict. Search for "addict" at the Blot and you won't find that there either.

Quote

You are really being disingenuous. She clearly hates everything unjust regarding this peace, not just them being paied very low.

 

I'm not being disingenuous. The low pay is an entirely separate issue from the peace, it's not a "just" at all. As I said, her flying away would not be expected to fix that at all. Thus it makes no sense to cite it as an injustice she is correcting by acting in a way that will undermine the peace.

Quote

And no, her flying away on Drogon does not cause everyone's wages to go up. She just saves many other people from getting killed.

 

Are you referring to the people that Drogon would have killed?

Quote

tells why Adam views Jon this way: because he puts much of the blame on Mel.

 

Adam says that Mel is making Jon worse. That is NOT the same as saying that Jon was "a soft, pure, one-sidedly sweet boy before meeting Melisandre", yet that is what the post you linked says he "implies". You say "much", but where does Feldman actually quantify Melisandre's share of responsibility? The direction & magnitude of a vector are different things.

Quote

So both chose war. That is the difference? And that she is not going to do any more good things it's just your projection.

The difference is that Jon is personally leading wildlings against the Boltons, whereas Dany has left Meereen entirely. Her people are going to fight & die without her, which includes her not being there to do the good things you pointed out earlier. Jon is not rejecting his earlier efforts at shoring up the NW because a wolf does not count turnips.

Quote

Quotes are not put only to quote someone.

 

What are they for then? If you want to mock an idea, you can do so in your own words without putting them in quotes, just as I did when closing off any discussion of Dany as an addict (which no one had brought up prior).

Quote

The deal was also with Yunkai

Hizdahr asserting that marrying him is necessary to make peace with Yunkai does not actually make it a deal with Yunkai (this is ironically an example of placing too much confidence in Hizdahr's self-promotion, one of his defining features). The Yunkish themselves would need to say that. Dany's agreement with Hizdahr & the Green Grace was that if the Harpy stopped attacking for a certain number of days she would marry him, and after that happened she went through with her end of the bargain. The Yunkish haven't put forth any condition as an exchange for that marriage, they merely perceive Dany's regime differently after she's done so (and also perceive it differently once she leaves, and even moreso once Hizdahr is overthrown).

Quote

Hizdahr is treated as one of their own.

No, Bloodbeard handing over Groleo's head before making more demands is a hostile action (ameliorated by releasing hostages to show good faith). The people arguing for war while Yezzan urged peace were doing so AFTER Dany had left and with only Hizdahr in charge. He's perceived as a weak counterparty, not an ally.

Quote

That's why they wanted to see Dany wed with him

That's just what Hizdahr claimed, not something we got the Yunkish.

Quote

as part of the peace deal and released his family, but none of Dany's people.

Dany isn't even there anymore, all of "Dany's people" are now Hizdahr's people as far as the slavers are concerned.

Quote

Fine then. The peace was at best fragile

I'm glad we're slowly approaching agreement.

Quote

and not worth of sustaining because it allowed injustices happen and prioritized the lives of slavers over the slaves.

The very real tradeoffs/downsides is part of why it's a difficult decision which puts the human heart in conflict with itself.

10 hours ago, Oana_Mika said:

In those same lines she tells she wants "to laugh, to rest, to plant trees and see them grow" and she is sad that she can't remember Hazzea's name. This is not a person who has no concern for innocents.

It's not that she has "no concern", but rather that she has decided not to let those concerns decide her actions.

Quote

it's simply bad writing because in order to show a character making 180 degrees change, you have to show it gradually

The point of the essays is that there is a gradual accumulation of dissatisfaction until the appearance of Drogon causes Dany to change course.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

What he does  not engage with is the reasons why the slaves wish to be free, why they fight for Dany,  why the freedmen fear re-enslavement, and why they hate compromising with the masters.

I think those things go without saying, and would be more relevant if Dany (our POV) was making deals with former slaves as her counterparty rather than slavers.

2 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Nobody has done this before and by breaking a deal in such a way she essentially made the entire slaver world her enemy, which should be an unwinnable fight.

It will make it more difficult for her to make any other deals with slavers, but she could have just set herself up in Astapor as the new ruler without necessarily sparking a war with other cities. When she goes to Yunkai, they initially just try to bribe her like they might do for a Dothraki khalasar. I don't think they had any plans to launch an expedition toward Astapor beforehand (though over time they could have come into conflict).

[Oana_Mika]

13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The difference is that Jon is personally leading wildlings against the Boltons, whereas Dany has left Meereen entirely. Her people are going to fight & die without her, which includes her not being there to do the good things you pointed out earlier. Jon is not rejecting his earlier efforts at shoring up the NW because a wolf does not count turnips.

So are you blaming her for flying away with Drogon? What would you have done then, in her place? And again, the efforts Dany rejects are those she made to appease the masters, not her supporting her people (i.e. the freedmen and slaves) who don't want her to make peace with the masters. The very reason she hated the peace was because it came at the detriment of the slaves.

13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Are you referring to the people that Drogon would have killed?

Yes

13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The very real tradeoffs/downsides is part of why it's a difficult decision which puts the human heart in conflict with itself.

Peace is not necessarily good by just being named peace. You also have to wage if the price is worthing. If you think that turning a blind eye to slavery is a good price for peace, then I disagree with you. I also want to point out the actual reasons why this peace broke : because Yurkhaz and Yezzan died and because Barristan deposed Hizdahr on the suspicion of poisoning her. So all these reasons why peace broke were out of her control. Yes, she decided at the end of ADWD that peace was not worthing but it's curious that ultimately, George put the breaking of the peace in other hands than actually hers. So no matter what Dany had decided, war was inevitable and how could then Martin portray Daenerys as being in the wrong for breaking the peace with the masters if there would have been no way for her to maintain said peace after all that happened? Also, as I pointed out before, slaves also see making peace with the slavers as no good. Would Martin ultimately portay them as being wrong too for wanting to be free?

 

13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Hizdahr asserting that marrying him is necessary to make peace with Yunkai does not actually make it a deal with Yunkai (this is ironically an example of placing too much confidence in Hizdahr's self-promotion, one of his defining features). The Yunkish themselves would need to say that. Dany's agreement with Hizdahr & the Green Grace was that if the Harpy stopped attacking for a certain number of days she would marry him, and after that happened she went through with her end of the bargain. The Yunkish haven't put forth any condition as an exchange for that marriage, they merely perceive Dany's regime differently after she's done so (and also perceive it differently once she leaves, and even moreso once Hizdahr is overthrown).

So are you saying that Hizdahr was lying? Why would he lie if Dany already agreed marrying him if he gave her 90 days of peace, which he succeeds?

13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's not that she has "no concern", but rather that she has decided not to let those concerns decide her actions.

It's basically the same thing. You still say that she won't care anymore by saying that "she has decided not to let those concerns decide her actions". Anyway, that's just speculation.

Quote

The point of the essays is that there is a gradual accumulation of dissatisfaction until the appearance of Drogon causes Dany to change course.

But what those essays ignore are the reasons of this dissatisfaction because to Adam, she chose war because it felt better.

Quote

I'm not being disingenuous. The low pay is an entirely separate issue from the peace, it's not a "just" at all.

The low pay is not part of the peace with Yunkai, but it's due to her not being ruthless enough with the meereense.

 

Quote

Coming right after means she is rejecting the planting of trees despite wanting to see said trees grow.

And as I said, that's what Jorah says. I know it's her projection of him, but as I don't take seriously her projection of Viserys calling her a traitor and a whore, I also don't take this as what defines her because what she really wants is "to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow".

Edited April 1 by Oana_Mika

[SeanF]

@FictionIsntReal

1. What I quoted is the entirety of the NW Oath. It’s not a selective quotation.

People have come to interpret it as meaning neutrality, the same way people interpret the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution in a way that bears only a faint resemblance to the original text.

My criticism of Jon is that he tried to maintain a pretence of neutrality.  Once he decided to back Stannis, he should have backed him to the hilt, and rallied the North against the Boltons.

2. Feldman does not make an argument for “realism” in international relations like Mearsheimer, treating ethical considerations as irrelevant in disputes between states.  He views peace (however unjust) as ethically superior to war (however just).  He sees war as sacrificing innocents (which it does) but ignores the fact that peace may do the same (as it does in this case).  He views Daenerys’ choosing war as a “dark turn”, which is unproven at this point.  

He’s left with making a really bad argument at the end, that her choosing war is about wanting good sex with Daario as opposed to poor sex with Hizdahr.

Since he frames his argument in ethical, not “realistic” terms, then his failure to address the ethical case for fighting against slavery is a very big gap in his essays.

Attwell, by contrast, draws attention to the very real costs of the peace, in terms of human suffering, which Feldman glosses over.

 

Edited April 1 by SeanF

[SeanF]

@Oana_Mika

Dany could have just run for the exit, like everyone else.  And far more people would have died, had she not flown Drogon out of the Pit, an act of immense courage, given how angry Drogon was with her.  It was by far the most best decision that she could have taken.

And yes, war is coming regardless of any choice Daenerys makes.  Even if one thinks that the Yunkish are entirely honourable, and never wanted the Volantenes to come, they’re still coming, as is the Iron Fleet. The freedmen are still determined to fight their tormentors, Bloodbeard is still intent on a sack, and the Windblown are still planning to switch.

It’s a peace of dramatic irony that it really doesn’t matter if the peace was “real” or not.  It was doomed regardless.

Even if one thinks Hizdahr was innocent of poisoning the locusts, it would be far too dangerous to allow him to remain in charge in that situation.

Edited April 1 by SeanF

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Even if one thinks Hizdahr was innocent of poisoning the locusts

I'm undecided on the issue. On the one hand, he seems suspicious because he seemed to really want Daenerys to eat them. On the other hand, surely he would have known Daenerys didn't really like locusts? And this assumes Daenerys was the Target.

[SeanF]

14 hours ago, Oana_Mika said:

I've read that essays and indeed, he explains far more better Daenerys' anti-slavery campaign. I also have to add that many fans of Daenerys are greatful for Adam's essays because he did help to evolve the discussion around her, but we can also view his flaws in those essays. Namely, not seeing the injustices Dany has to overlook (and she hates it) in order to make and keep the peace with the slavers.

https://towerofthehand.com/blog/2015/02/01-laboratory-of-politics-part-vi/

Attwell's conclusion is, IMHO, outstanding:-

If the price of peace with Yunkai was to accept the restoration of slavery in Yunkai and Astapor, and the re-establishment of the slave trade across Slaver's Bay, then in a very real sense it's not peace at all. The slaves of Yunkai and Astapor, in their thousands and tens of thousands, will continue to experience not only the "perpetual existential violence" of being a slave, but the very physical violence of being mutilated, raped, and murdered on a yearly basis - as Dany acknowledges. I cannot see how one can argue that peace of this nature is preferable to war without privileging the lives of the Yunkish and Meereenese nobles who might die in this war over the lives of the slaves who will suffer in peace for who knows how many more thousands of years.

I will not pretend to even-handedness on this score: as I think my remarks throughout the essay have shown, I side with the slave over the slave master, and weigh their lives accordingly. Better that the Good Masters of Astapor die than thousands of slave children; better that the Wise Masters of Yunkai die, than the freedmen of Astapor, Yunkai, and Meereen be threatened; better that the Great Masters of Meereen die, than the Sons of the Harpy be permitted to live.

And this is one case in which I think principle and pragmatism align completely. At every step, the mercy that Meereenese Blot praises brings only death and the triumph of injustice. Had Daenerys been more consistently Machiavellian in her methods, as I argue in my forthcoming essay in Tower of the Hand: A Hymn for Spring, thousands and tens of thousands of lives would have been spared at the cost of hundreds.

In-universe, in Essos, there may be a widespread view that the lives of masters are of infinitely greater value than the lives of slaves and freedmen.

But we, as readers, do not have to share that outlook.

”The human heart in conflict with itself” is Daenerys still being partly in thrall to the prejudices with which she was brought up. She thinks, like all her class, that noble lives count for more than non-noble lives, so she shrinks from the kind of blood-letting that is necessary to secure freedom for the majority.

Edited April 1 by SeanF

[astarkchoice]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm undecided on the issue. On the one hand, he seems suspicious because he seemed to really want Daenerys to eat them. On the other hand, surely he would have known Daenerys didn't really like locusts? And this assumes Daenerys was the Target.

Yeah my impression is that hes genuine in wanting peace. He genuinely sees dany and her dragons as a way to boost his city and his people. The way he describes mereen before her arrival seems to be heartfelt from a powerful young man in a dying former empire who sees a chance to inject change and new blood to a dying beast.

If the ghiscari empire fell due to opposing dragons hes gotta wonder what they could achieve with them!!

[Oana_Mika]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

”The human heart in conflict with itself” is Daenerys still being partly in thrall to the prejudices with which she was brought up. She thinks, like all her class, that noble lives count for more than non-noble lives, so she shrinks from the kind of blood-letting that is necessary to secure freedom for the majority.

I don't really agree with this.

"There may be another choice. The Yunkai'i can be persuaded to allow all your freedmen to remain free, I believe, if Your Worship will agree that the Yellow City may trade and train slaves unmolested from this day forth. No more blood need flow."

"Save for the blood of those slaves that the Yunkai'i will trade and train," Dany said, but she recognized the truth in his words even so. It may be that is the best end we can hope for. (ADWD, Daenerys IV)

 

When Daenerys finally turned away, Ser Barristan stood near her, wrapped in his white cloak against the chill of evening. "Can we make a fight of this?" she asked him.

"Men can always fight, Your Grace. Ask rather if we can win. Dying is easy, but victory comes hard. (ADWD, Daenerys V)

 

I mean, she does not like it, but she neither has much of a choice.

Edited April 1 by Oana_Mika