the Dany hate thread

[Alexia]

I'm gonna add a big +1 to Oil's post. Just because torturers are in power doesn't make them representative of their society. AND, when I think Roman Empire one of the first things I think of is Christians fed to animals, gladiators fighting to the death to amuse the commons, etc. Of course, that is only one aspect of the Roman Empire and not its entirety.

Which isn't to say that I found the subplot of children fed to slavers to be particularly believable; there were definitely dimensions to the Romans and the slavers through Dany's POV lacked that.

[TrueMetis]

Horrific savagery for the purpose of entertainment is one of the very first things that comes to my mind about the Romans. We can be disgusted by the idea of snuff films in the present day, but snuff games were commonplace in the halcyon days of Rome.

I think of all the uneccessary wars and an incredibly corrupt government that lead to a failing civilization which is why the horrificc savagery for entertainment was needed. I also think of all the slaves used in everyday life and that only male landowners could be citizens. For all it's good Rome kind of sucked. Think about it, if your not a citizen your pretty much one small step up from a slave and if things go badly you could end up as one. If your a landowner citizen you have to watch your back because depending on how you vote or are planning to vote some one may just kill you over it.

/threadjack.

[Artas]

("football" to the uncivilized world)

You mean, like, practically every country on Earth except the US?

[Artas]

/threadjacking some more...

OK, I feel I need to stick up for the Romans here. While the Roman Empire definitely had its shady sides and was conquered in bloody wars (just like any other empire in the history of the planet), its achievements in law, art, literature, architecture and governance were tremendous. It shaped the western world in a way no other empire has.

I think of all the unneccessary wars and an incredibly corrupt government

Yes, there were many wars, but there was also the Pax Romana which guaranteed peace and stability for centuries. I doubt the West would have experienced that if the Celtic and Germanic tribes had been left to themselves - not to mention the East with its ever-warring Diadoch kingdoms.

And the Roman government was no more corrupt than most others in history. Our image of "Roman corruption and decadence" is mostly just that; an image, fuelled in part by the bias of our own Christian heritage.

that lead to a failing civilization which is why the horrific savagery for entertainment was needed

No, the circus games originate from a time when Rome was on the rise, rather than falling. (They actually declined with Christianity in late antiquity.) They were first held at funerals and were a symbolic way to conquer/deal with death. There's some interesting studies about it.

I also think of all the slaves used in everyday life and that only male landowners could be citizens.

True, although the ritual of "manumittere" (releasing slaves) was a remarkable feature of Roman culture. Roman slaves (at least those not working in the mines and such) had a much better chance of gaining freedom than, say, their early American counterparts. Moreover, many slaves were treated relatively well.

if your not a citizen your pretty much one small step up from a slave

During the Empire, the Romans were actually remarkably generous with handing out Roman citizenship - much more so than the ancient Athenians had done, for instance. All free men were made Roman citizens in 212 AD, although that didn't mean as much anymore as it had during the Republic.

For all it's good Rome kind of sucked.

In some respects, yes. But not as much as you seem to think.

/threadjack

Hoping this post survives...

[A wilding]

when I think Roman Empire one of the first things I think of is Christians fed to animals ...

To continue the Rome defence, while this did happen, the extent of it has been greatly talked up for centuries for propaganda purposes.

[Alexia]

To continue the Rome defence, while this did happen, the extent of it has been greatly talked up for centuries for propaganda purposes.

Oh, I don't disagree which is why I qualified it by saying it was only one aspect. The same thing goes for Mary Tudor, who was not nearly so bad as she is perceived in the modern day era. But on the other hand, Thomas Cranmer would doubtless have said that she is just as bad as we think of her. Its all in perspective.

[Spastic Plastic]

the first things I think of about Rome are roads and everything they say being epic because it is in latin. Hater's gonna hate on gladiators, I just consider it to be a sport I never got kind of like cricket or soccer ("football" to the uncivilized world)

You're not a very good troll.

Seriously, "uncivilized world"? You could do better than that.

If you're not a troll, you should know your posts are overflowing with shit and no one likes them.

[AvengingAryaFan]

...

Edited to belay a put-down-in-kind 'cause the point is not to attack other posters, even if your own opinions are otherwise above reproach.

[Liadin]

I'd say it's not a matter of personal bias on Dany's part, but merely a reflection of the segments of society she's dealing with. You don't go to some lower-middle class artisan like a baker or a potter to beg for an army, you go to the rich and powerful, who's circumstances allow so much greater scope for nastiness (compare to Westerosi lords locking up people in iron cages so that they can slowly starve or be pecked to death by crows...the lady who does the laundry isn't in a position to do that).

I agree with that. Dany's scope is limited. That doesn't excuse the people/cultures she does get to know being one-dimensional, but that's a topic for other threads.

Disagree completely. Are Bill Gates or Dick Cheney representative of you? Or Paris Hilton?

But we're talking about a fictional society. If you create a fictional society, and you create 3 characters who belong to it and all of them whip slaves for fun and eat babies for dinner, and there's no indication that they aren't representative of their society as a whole, readers are going to think that they are. It could be that Meereenese society wasn't all about corruption and cruelty, we just haven't seen any other side to it yet.

(Unfortunately, this extends to real life as well. People who know nothing about America but what they've seen on TV assume the reality is like the TV. People who've only met a few people from a particular country, even people who spent a few months there, tend to generalize based on what they see. The difference is that, in fiction, the author is controlling our perceptions. If he only shows us vicious slavers, it's because that's all he wants us to see, or all he thinks is important.)

OK, I feel I need to stick up for the Romans here. While the Roman Empire definitely had its shady sides and was conquered in bloody wars (just like any other empire in the history of the planet), its achievements in law, art, literature, architecture and governance were tremendous. It shaped the western world in a way no other empire has.

When I think of Rome, I think of law, culture, organization/administrative skills that allowed them to conquer and keep a huge empire, aqueducts and roads and sculptures and so on. Gladiators are definitely not the first thing to pop into my head. Either way, we can agree that Rome had both--the good and the bad--and that's not something we've seen any indication of in Slaver's Bay. Hell, the place is named Slaver's Bay. As if nothing but slave trading ever went on there.

[corbon]

But we're talking about a fictional society. If you create a fictional society, and you create 3 characters who belong to it and all of them whip slaves for fun and eat babies for dinner, and there's no indication that they aren't representative of their society as a whole, readers are going to think that they are.

You seem to have a very low expectation of the intelligence of readers.

If we met a wide selection of characters in a wide spectrum of settings or circumstances, then yes, that is a reasonable way to think.

If we meet a very narrow selection of characters in a very limited setting and circumstance, then I think it is rather unreasonable to extrapolate and condemn entire societies from a tiny, specialised sample.

As for GRRM not 'fleshing out' the eastern societies more, thank goodness! How much longer would it take to finish the series...

[Liadin]

You seem to have a very low expectation of the intelligence of readers.

If we met a wide selection of characters in a wide spectrum of settings or circumstances, then yes, that is a reasonable way to think.

If we meet a very narrow selection of characters in a very limited setting and circumstance, then I think it is rather unreasonable to extrapolate and condemn entire societies from a tiny, specialised sample.

As for GRRM not 'fleshing out' the eastern societies more, thank goodness! How much longer would it take to finish the series...

You're assuming that 1) GRRM wanted us to have a nuanced view of the Slaver's Bay cities, despite the fact that the one defining trait of the area is its brutal slave-trade-based economy, and 2) that all readers will simply assume that any fantasy society is as complex and multifaceted as their own, despite having no evidence that the society is that complex or that the author ever intended it to be so. From what I can tell, GRRM created the eastern societies to fulfill specific plot-related goals. He goes heavy on the exoticism, with the effect that readers see the society as "Other," and he doesn't attempt to develop them the way he does the ironborn, wildlings or even MotM clansmen. As you say, it shortens the books; but I'd be happy to have a few more pages if it meant the eastern societies were more fleshed out.

If you don't believe that readers generalize based on the slavers we've met though, take a look at the "Most/least moral POV characters" thread. I was in a very small minority arguing that Dany should not have arbitrarily killed 160-odd people from the Meereenese elite without knowing anything about them personally. The majority of posters figured they're obviously slavers because they're part of the ruling class, and we've already seen (through the 3 slavers who had speaking parts) how awful the slavers are, so string 'em up.

(As far as people generalizing in real life, I've met people who insisted that Mexicans don't eat fruit because their host mothers in Mexico didn't serve it to them, or that Americans don't drink because their short visit to the U.S. was spent entirely in a conservative rural community. Never underestimate the tendency of people to generalize about cultures other than their own--although as I've said, when it comes to fantasy that's not necessarily bad, because an author presents his made-up society as he wants us to see it.)

[Guest Other-in-Law]

If you create a fictional society, and you create 3 characters who belong to it and all of them whip slaves for fun and eat babies for dinner, and there's no indication that they aren't representative of their society as a whole, readers are going to think that they are.

I disagree that there's no indication that the slavers aren't representative of their society as a whole. The one's we've met were very clearly of the ruling class, the most powerful men in the city. That alone makes them exceptional and non-representative. It would laziness on the readers part to assume that peasants in a kingdom all wear gold crowns and ermine robes if they've only seen it's royal family. Simply knowing their place in that society ought to tell them otherwise.

We do seem to get a slightly deeper cross section of Meereen in the Dany chapter at the end of aFfC.

[Liadin]

I disagree that there's no indication that the slavers aren't representative of their society as a whole. The one's we've met were very clearly of the ruling class, the most powerful men in the city. That alone makes them exceptional and non-representative. It would laziness on the readers part to assume that peasants in a kingdom all wear gold crowns and ermine robes if they've only seen it's royal family. Simply knowing their place in that society ought to tell them otherwise.

We do seem to get a slightly deeper cross section of Meereen in the Dany chapter at the end of aFfC.

Heh, I haven't read that chapter. I am hopeful about Meereen if Dany spends most or all of ADWD there.

While I think you have a good point, the thing is that the Slaver's Bay cities seem to consist entirely of 1) the ruling elite, every last one of whom is vicious and cruel, 2) the slaves, who are all brutally treated, and 3) maybe some free laborers who basically accept the society as it is. I don't recall at the moment whether we have any indication that a free laborer class exists, but even if it does, the ruling class is still portrayed very one-dimensionally. There are a lot of them, given that Dany can kill over 150 and still have some left over, and there's no indication that they aren't all just like the horrendous caricatures Dany's met. Dany--since from her POV she's interacting with a real society--should assume that they're not all the same. It's just that, thus far, GRRM hasn't indicated that he thinks they're not all evil.

[TrueMetis]

Yes, there were many wars, but there was also the Pax Romana which guaranteed peace and stability for centuries. I doubt the West would have experienced that if the Celtic and Germanic tribes had been left to themselves - not to mention the East with its ever-warring Diadoch kingdoms.

Those Germanic tribes are currently the rulers of the world. Anyway very bad idea to speculate about this type of thing. Especially because from my view Rome wasn't much different, Rome was almost always at war.

And the Roman government was no more corrupt than most others in history. Our image of "Roman corruption and decadence" is mostly just that; an image, fuelled in part by the bias of our own Christian heritage.

Your Christian heritiage. My family hasn't been very Christian since Louis Riel. If your talking in the general western sense I dispute that to.

No, the circus games originate from a time when Rome was on the rise, rather than falling. (They actually declined with Christianity in late antiquity.) They were first held at funerals and were a symbolic way to conquer/deal with death. There's some interesting studies about it.

I was talking specifically about gladitoral games which hit their peak during the fall of Rome, they were an easy way to appease the masses.

Anyway as I said it's just what I think of not necessarily what was.

/threadjack

[Guest Other-in-Law]

I don't recall at the moment whether we have any indication that a free laborer class exists, but even if it does, the ruling class is still portrayed very one-dimensionally. There are a lot of them, given that Dany can kill over 150 and still have some left over, and there's no indication that they aren't all just like the horrendous caricatures Dany's met.

I would think there are at least Meereenese soldiers who were free, but far lower than the major familes. And from that spoiler chapter

Dany has two primary Meereense councillors; one is a former ruling class family guy who defected to her and shaved his head as a sign of his new loyalty (shedding his distinctive Ghiscari hairstyle) but the other appears to be a functionary of much lower birth.

Fair point about the ruling class appearing to be homogenous; we definitely don't see the kind of variation that we do in Westeros's ruling class. That's part and parcel with the relative uniformity of the Dothraki, and partly attributable to her outsider perspective that's not familiar with the inner nuances of alien societies.

[Artas]

Those Germanic tribes are currently the rulers of the world.

No, they're not - they don't exist anymore. They made important contributions to current western culture, though, just as the Romans did. The western world is as much the inheritor of the Romans as of the so-called "barbarian" tribes.

Anyway very bad idea to speculate about this type of thing. Especially because from my view Rome wasn't much different, Rome was almost always at war.

Sure it was - with external enemies. From the rise of Augustus to the early third century, there was usually peace within the borders of the Roman Empire (the civil wars of 68-69 and 193-197 being the major exceptions). Cities flourished, bandits were kept in check, long-distance-trade reached unprecedented levels (also due to the excellent systems of Roman roads). It's hardly speculation to say these things wouldn't have been possible without Roman hegemony. That's why Gibbon calls the second century "the time when the human race was most happy and prosperous".

Your Christian heritiage. My family hasn't been very Christian since Louis Riel. If your talking in the general western sense I dispute that to.

I was talking in a general sense. And I'm not sure what you're disputing. That our Christian sources and perspective have skewed our image of pagan Rome? Just watch a movie like "Quo Vadis" or "The Fall of the Roman Empire" and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I was talking specifically about gladitoral games which hit their peak during the fall of Rome, they were an easy way to appease the masses.

As I said, there was a lot more to them than appeasing the masses. (Not that I approve of killing for a sport - I just think it's unfair to ignore what these games meant to the Romans.) And they hit their peak in the first and second centuries AD, when the might of Rome was at its height.

If you want to pursue this further, I suggest we open a new thread.

[corbon]

You're assuming that 1) GRRM wanted us to have a nuanced view of the Slaver's Bay cities, despite the fact that the one defining trait of the area is its brutal slave-trade-based economy, and

No, I'm assuming he didn't have time for anything more than what he gave us because it wasn't relevant to the storyline.

2) that all readers will simply assume that any fantasy society is as complex and multifaceted as their own, despite having no evidence that the society is that complex or that the author ever intended it to be so.

No, I assume readers are (well, should be) not stupid enough to categorise a whole society by a tiny look at a tiny slice of that society. If they are smart enough to need categorisation they should be smart enough to understand the situation and not pigeonhole an entire society based on ...almost nothing at all.

Societies don't need to be categorised. In these cases they are simply a minor background setting for the story and nothing is truly lost or gained by the limited background we have.

From what I can tell, GRRM created the eastern societies to fulfill specific plot-related goals. He goes heavy on the exoticism, with the effect that readers see the society as "Other," and he doesn't attempt to develop them the way he does the ironborn, wildlings or even MotM clansmen. As you say, it shortens the books; but I'd be happy to have a few more pages if it meant the eastern societies were more fleshed out.

Exactly. They fulfilled plot related goals but did not need fleshing out just for the sake of it. I too would be happy for more pages, if well written, but not when traded for more time!

If you don't believe that readers generalize based on the slavers we've met though, take a look at the "Most/least moral POV characters" thread. I was in a very small minority arguing that Dany should not have arbitrarily killed 160-odd people from the Meereenese elite without knowing anything about them personally. The majority of posters figured they're obviously slavers because they're part of the ruling class, and we've already seen (through the 3 slavers who had speaking parts) how awful the slavers are, so string 'em up.

I understand that many people do generalise based on the slavers we've met. I'm here pointing out that such a generalisation is lazy and stupid - and using historical references to prove it. What we have seen from the slavers is easily mirrored in Republican Rome. That is a civilisation honoured by our own, long before it fell into corruption and depravity, and from that civilisation came the foundations that our own is built on.

This is my key point. I see all this whinging about how nasty, brutish and one-dimensional the slavers (and other eastern societies) are and I'm trying to point out that it is the whinger's who created that one-dimensionality in their own heads, with no justification, not GRRM. He didn't show any dimensions really, just a few interactions with a tiny elite group of the society.

It's like Roman Centurion meets Persian Officer. OMG, the Persian culture must be completely depraved, weak and unmanly because the men wear perfume, oil their hair, bathe frequently, compose poetry and, most heinous of all, wear trousers!

Yet the Persian/Parthian empires kicked Roman butt until internal struggles weakened the Sassanids just as the first Islamic expansion began.

The centurion's one-dimensional view of the entire Persian society is his own flaw, not anyone elses.

[Spastic Plastic]

I agree completely with Other-in-Law.

Shagga and the other Mountain Men are cartoony, but they're so entertaining to read about I don't want them to be any other way.

The Ghiscari were created just to be evil obstacles for Dany to kick over while still being cheered on. Even the name "Slaver's Bay". It's as if nothing else than slavery ever happens there.

Oh, and those two Ghiscari advisors to Dany are assholes. Especially that Skahaz guy with the shaved head, who thinks a good way to deal with the death of one Unsullied is to go and kill two random men from every slaver family.

GRRM goes a bit too heavy on the exoticism. Someone said it's just because Jack Vance has influenced him, but I don't think it's a good influence.

[Liadin]

I agree completely with Other-in-Law.

Shagga and the other Mountain Men are cartoony, but they're so entertaining to read about I don't want them to be any other way.

The Ghiscari were created just to be evil obstacles for Dany to kick over while still being cheered on. Even the name "Slaver's Bay". It's as if nothing else than slavery ever happens there.

I agree with this. The clansmen were fun in their cartoonishness; plus, they're a society that's in flux, trying to redefine their place in the world.... really very well done considering how little we see of them. I wish GRRM would have applied that same thoughtfulness and skill to more of the eastern societies. He's certainly capable of very nuanced societies, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Fair point about the ruling class appearing to be homogenous; we definitely don't see the kind of variation that we do in Westeros's ruling class. That's part and parcel with the relative uniformity of the Dothraki, and partly attributable to her outsider perspective that's not familiar with the inner nuances of alien societies.

I think we're basically in agreement, although I'm not sure I'd attribute too much of it to the ignorance (as opposed to just the limited scope) of Dany's POV. I don't read the spoiler stuff but am hoping for good things from Meereen in the future.

Corbon: I don't think you understood my point, but I don't know how to make it any clearer. Sorry.

[AvengingAryaFan]

No, I assume readers are (well, should be) not stupid enough to categorise a whole society by a tiny look at a tiny slice of that society. If they are smart enough to need categorisation they should be smart enough to understand the situation and not pigeonhole an entire society based on ...almost nothing at all.

Societies don't need to be categorised. In these cases they are simply a minor background setting for the story and nothing is truly lost or gained by the limited background we have.

Exactly. They fulfilled plot related goals but did not need fleshing out just for the sake of it. I too would be happy for more pages, if well written, but not when traded for more time!

This is my key point. I see all this whinging about how nasty, brutish and one-dimensional the slavers (and other eastern societies) are and I'm trying to point out that it is the whinger's who created that one-dimensionality in their own heads, with no justification, not GRRM. He didn't show any dimensions really, just a few interactions with a tiny elite group of the society.

A point that I don't think has been mentioned: Dany herself seemed to quite clearly believe that the slavers she overthrew were NOT representative of Astaporians. She turned that society on its head to give the downtrodden masses control over their slaver masters, expecting the resulting society to be vastly more just than the one it replaced. We know how that turned out.

Of course, the lesson Dany had to learn there was that it wasn't enough to just "liberate" the people of a political entity - it was essential to provide more hands-on guidance, to rule them. So she is doing that in Meereen. But the fact that the butcher ended up being just as bad as the slavers they replaced implies the Astaporians were more homogeneous than Dany expected.

Well, at least sufficiently homogeneous that after the "revolution" the new city power structure settled down much the same as the previous city power structure. Granted there could still have been a wide range of different sorts of people - though, if so they appear to be at least feckless in respect of the societal power structure.

Just thought it was interesting. But I share corbon's other position: I'm content that the slavers served their purpose as a foil for Dany without unduly stretching out the book. I think it's good that some things get short shrift. I want Dany and Arya to just learn their lessons overseas and get back to Westeros where the real story is centered. The overseas adventures are interesting and educational, but they're digressions from the main storyline. IMO.