Not A Big Fan Of Targs...

[yourcockandballs]

This is one of those things about "most people" I just don't get, probably because of my background (expat since a young age, never really known many of my relatives beyond the immediate family, never lived anywhere I had family ties to). I haven't felt proud of my nationality (US) since I was about 10 beyond enjoying the whiff of exoticism (my sister and I being pretty much the only foreigners at our primary and middle schools). Pride in white ethnicity is socially frowned upon . I feel vaguely proud of Italian culture by upbringing, but with a melancholy sense of never truly belonging. I can't quite shake a sense pride in one's bloodline may be faintly indecent!

Ah, I knew someone was going to bring up how white pride is frowned upon...oh well I'm Italian too and that's not tooo whitebread

And augh, I did just realize she is a bit Mary Sue-ish. Well ASOS was filled with her victories, hopefully she'll suffer some crushing defeats soon.

[Pellegrina]

YCB, is there a connection between your username, that big chainsaw in your icon, and the reference to a cooking pot in your sig file?

Italian-from-Italy?

[Red Rex]

Red Rex,

Lords give oaths, swearing to defend their kings and to protect the succession of their blood. If these lords circumvent their kings, to whom they have already turned over their rule, and now say to some other lord, "I want you to rule me, instead," this is a breach of their sworn agreement, and the succession of a king so given his kingdom is illegal. This is what happened in the case of Robert Baratheon.

Very valid point, I guess if Khal Drogo had swept through westeros and conquerored the kingdom it would've been akin to Aegon, your correct Robert foreswore a solemn oath

- as for the swords; in the pictures ICE is depicted as nothing longer than a longsword when in truth bran visually depicts it as being 6' tall

[Devil Hanzo]

Man, Italians are mediterrainian, NOT white. Your like Arabs.

Ashara, i have ashara's reasons for disliking Dany.

[commando penguin]

i just realised something: the only characters that i hate are female

Cersei

Catelyn

Mel

(im sure there's more but i cant think of any at this moment)

i dont hate Dany but neither do i like her. i get the feeling that if she werent young and misguided by Viserys that id hate her character

EDIT: i just realised that i hate Janos Slynt and Gregor.........well, i guess that renders my post obsolete

[Ser Vlad]

I'm weirded out that so many people hate her for being prideful of her bloodline. Even the most average people today still take pride in their ethnicity, culture, gender, etc. Humans are very tribal even if this is diverted into something other than a direct bloodline and probably always will be. Accepting this without letting it get out of hand isn't a bad thing.

I don't think it's so much pride in her bloodline that bothers people, as much as it is the belief that being part of X bloodline justifies her actions, her rule...etc. It certainly bothers me, although I doubt it's for the same reasons as everyone else.

And in any case, people who are irked by pride are irked by pride regardless..

Again, that's not something I read into her story arc. Admittedly, at the start I was definitely among those who didn't care much about her because she seemed so marginal, so I may have missed something. Dany's desire to abolish slavery does her credit, of course, but the passages I remember suggest that she is motivated at least as much by a desire for revenge and regaining what is "rightfully" hers. (I think it was Xarnrn who pointed out that technically Aerys abandoned any claim to rightful kingship and justified rebellion by his actions, a position I tend to agree with.)

In invading Westeros, Daenerys wants very much to restore her line to the throne. But at the same time, she has made it clear that she wants to improve the quality of life for her people - the exact line was something to the effect of "I want to see my people grow fat and happy," but I don't recall the exact book in which I read it, unfortunatly. As for abolishing slavery, that's really the reason Daenerys marches on Mereen and Yunaki - to free the slaves. She did, remember, leave Yunaki alone in exchange for the freedom of the slaves.

This is clearly a fundamental divergence in personal taste, because I agree with what you've said about the difference between them and I think you've put your finger on one reason why I don't enjoy Dany. It is alien to my nature to be so decisive and seek to impose my will on others; I question my motivations and the wisdom of my actions a lot more than Dany does.

Also, following on from what I said above on my blind spot to pride in one's antecedents, I guess I have a bedrock of sympathy for Jon and his search for an identity, and find Dany's ready-made "Blood of the Dragon" difficult to sympathise with, whether it derives from an arrogant sense of entitlement or a feudal sense of duty to the realm. I likethat Jon is drifting, uncertain of who he is and what he should do with his life, whereas Dany's certainties strike me as frighteningly driven and potentially misguided.

And there it is - the crux of your dislike for Daenerys is your inability to sympathize with who she was, and what she embodies. Not trying to sound preachy or anything, just pointing out that being unable to sympathize for the characters drive, motivations and situation leads to a case of acute dislike.

[cybroleach]

I don't think it's so much pride in her bloodline that bothers people, as much as it is the belief that being part of X bloodline justifies her actions, her rule...etc. It certainly bothers me, although I doubt it's for the same reasons as everyone else.

And in any case, people who are irked by pride are irked by pride regardless..

In invading Westeros, Daenerys wants very much to restore her line to the throne. But at the same time, she has made it clear that she wants to improve the quality of life for her people - the exact line was something to the effect of "I want to see my people grow fat and happy," but I don't recall the exact book in which I read it, unfortunatly. As for abolishing slavery, that's really the reason Daenerys marches on Mereen and Yunaki - to free the slaves. She did, remember, leave Yunaki alone in exchange for the freedom of the slaves.

And there it is - the crux of your dislike for Daenerys is your inability to sympathize with who she was, and what she embodies. Not trying to sound preachy or anything, just pointing out that being unable to sympathize for the characters drive, motivations and situation leads to a case of acute dislike.

Am i the only one that finds their bloodline discusting. That they inbreed brother to sister generation after generation, in todays socity they'd all be in prision, 50 yrs ago they'd have probably been shot. It's no wonder half them are mad and the other half were on thier way there. And Danny is proud of that? I'm glad the line ends with her. Plus they have huge superiority complexes as they BELIEVE they are dragons rather than just a house that has it as their symbole.

[yourcockandballs]

YCB, is there a connection between your username, that big chainsaw in your icon, and the reference to a cooking pot in your sig file?

Italian-from-Italy?

idk, I like Pat Bateman and the weasel soup, so there you go. And no, Italian-from-Chicago. :X

[Marth]

Marth,

Deus ex machinae only come at the very end of a tale. They're usually the result of bad storytelling, because the term implies the author had no other way to resolve the story and answer all pertinent questions except to blindside his audience with something they weren't given any reason to expect. It's hard for me to come up with any examples, but I think the tortoise-dropping incident at the end of Terry Pratchett's Small Gods qualifies -- although there, perhaps, the use was deliberate.

You can't see how this situation would possibly be a good example? She's in a tough jam and suddenly she's saved by way of an occurence with no apparent cause or reason to expect. Perhaps it doesn't follow the strictest of literary definitions, but still I'd say it's pretty darn close.

[Enguerrand]

I wouldn't say so.. Eddard has been ruling the North for 15 years or so and the people there IMO liked him and thought his rule was just. They fought a war to avenge his death after all.

Dany hasn't really ruled that much yet

So if Dany boss people around for 15 years and become liked she wouldn't be arrogant anymore?

Eddard didn't rule because he was nice. He ruled because he was the "blood of the wolf". So he doesn't go around telling people this, but then again, unlike Dany, no one questions his superior birth and people who doesn't appreciate his rule lack the muscle to do something about it. When do we see Eddard question the social order?

[Pellegrina]

And there it is - the crux of your dislike for Daenerys is your inability to sympathize with who she was, and what she embodies. Not trying to sound preachy or anything, just pointing out that being unable to sympathize for the characters drive, motivations and situation leads to a case of acute dislike.

I'm quite happy to admit that , to my mind that's no less valid a response to a fictional character. It's almost worse than that though - there are elements of her situation I sympathize with, but she responds in ways that just jar against my sense of what's right. Hanging the people in that city springs to mind; I empathize with her horror and don't envy her being the one responsible for doing something about it, but I object to "justice" imposed on random members of an offending class "pour encourager les autres". That's a very slippery moral slope, especially in the hands of a would-be absolute monarch.

For the rest of it, as I said yesterday, too much of what drives her is outside my experience in ways one can't really replicate - possibly a lack of imagination on my part, or of ability to convey it fully on GRRM's. If in future (being only just past halfway through the story) something clicks, I'll happily go back and revise my impressions. The blessing of a rotten memory as that one can reread things as if from scratch a year or two later.

What I forgot to say is that of course the dragons didn't help. Robin Hobb's Liveships triliogy has left me with an enduring loathing of dragons, undoing all Anne McCaffrey's good PR.

idk, I like Pat Bateman and the weasel soup, so there you go. And no, Italian-from-Chicago. :X

My dad's from Chicago :cool: I only know the bit of downtown near my grandmother's apartment, but I'd love to live within walking distance of the Newberry Library

[Doran Doran]

And there it is - the crux of your dislike for Daenerys is your inability to sympathize with who she was, and what she embodies. Not trying to sound preachy or anything, just pointing out that being unable to sympathize for the characters drive, motivations and situation leads to a case of acute dislike.

No not neccessarily. I don't symphatize with, say, Gregor Clergane or Qyburn, but I don't dislike them as charcters. This most probably has to do with the fact that they've both been interesting to read about for me, while I've found Dany's post-dragon chapters rather sleep-inducing.

In literature, it's boredom, not evil - or heck, even simple cognitive dissonance - that's the ultimate arbiter of who gets liked and who doesn't.

[Grant Dempsey]

Again, my argument was that this was a survival mechanism- either make Drogo love me or I die. Very compelling.

Perhaps on some level, but Dany did seem to love Drogo in return, seeking vengeance on the maegi for his death (not just her child's) and still remembering and thinking of her "sun-and-stars" even after his death, such as in A Clash of Kings.

Personally, I'm not sure why Daenerys Targaryen's relationship with Khal Drogo should have to be explained away like this, as though in the hope of not letting her "record of goodness" be somehow tainted. Not all the characters perceived to be the "good guys" are going to be cardboard cutouts for the forces of light and kindness and nothing else, nor should they be, really.

Look at things through Daenerys Targaryen's own perspective. Given her situation and circumstances, I could see how her love for Khal Drogo may have been partially the result of her forcing herself to feel that way "to survive" or some case of Stockholm Syndrome or something, if you really want to push it in that direction, but, on the other hand, it may truly have been that she became attached to him as she got to know him and to the side of himself which he shared with her. She seemed somewhat opposed to certain of the Dothraki's cultural practices and she tried to use her position as khaleesi to influence the situation a bit to change some of them or at least stop them when she saw them happening, but she still seemed to support her husband in general. Her connection with Khal Drogo shouldn't, I think, have to be shrugged aside through "she's a good person and so she didn't really love him" kind of justification.

Plus, as has been mentioned before, Khal Drogo himself was somewhat of a departure from the norm of the Dothraki's culture and society anyway. He still certainly led his khalasar on attacks, raids, and the taking of slaves, and expressed no opposition to rape, but he treated his khaleesi kindly where other khals might have simply raped her and then shared her around for amusement, and he often took her thoughts and feelings into geniune consideration, which I'm sure had an impact on her own feelings for him.

Personally, I enjoy trying to get into each characters' heads and personalities in relation to their society and surroundings and so on. I mean, naturally, I'm not going to end up sympathizing with all of them, but I tend to like judging them by things more within the story itself and by their own perspective and such, not only by whether or not I myself would like them in reality or necessarily agree with what they do.

[Rockroi]

I see Stark's wolves as something very different from Targaryen's dragons. The dragons are Targaryen's swords, a machine of war. The wolves are Starks' shields, the extesnions of the characters themselves. They were given to Starks children, just as their mother and father were about to be destroyed.

To me, this you are making excuses for one plot device while decrying the other. The wolves are huge to the success and survival of the Starks, not just these “extensions†of the characters. Robb’s wolf helped kill men; Jon’s practically makes all of his decisions him. They are hardly these benign “shields.â€

And I think the dragons are a far greater metaphor for humans than you are giving them credit for.

I don't think that Ghosts decides for Jon, I think that Ghost is a part of Jon's decisions.

Not at all. Jon does not MAKE decisions. The book is as solid on that point as you can be about anything. Jon did not decide to kill Querion or become Lord Commander or even VOTE for Lord Commander. Hell- he NEVER has to make a decision in any book; they are made for him. Ghost practically kills Qurion himself and saves Jon from making decisions. Its all via force and story devices. Ghost is just one of many of those devices.

This could be part of the allegory of “Fire and Ice;†Dany and Jon. Dany’s fire of passion and sure-headedness that constantly desires to change the landscape she inhabits by bending others to her will. Jon is slower (dear God, could ANY character be as glacial as this guy?) more deliberate and more apt to RESIST change (much like his Wall).

As for whose childhood was tougher, Jon's or Dany's... … Jon did not urge his girlfriend to come make war.

Dany didn’t either. That was Viserys and Varys’ henchman. Later on Dany requests it, but it never comes to fruition. And I STILL say that Dany bringing War to Westeroes might be a really good thing.

Jon was there to defend his people, while Dany is there to conquer them.

And Dany was there to FREE other people while Jon was there to … wait for Stannis to show up and save his ass. Dany’s conquests have been amazing feats of freedom over tyranny. Hardly the simple little “good v. evil†play you would like it to be. I think that to defeat evil you truly have to DEFEAT it- in the cultural, political, social, and military fileds. Dany is doing that., Jon- as usual -is waiting for the evil to come to him.

Jon tries to understand and comes to like some of his enemies, seeing them as people. Dany turns away from the facts that are thrown into her face, in her stubborn belief that everyone who is against her is a dog and must be hunged.

Dany killed slavers; hardly the "misunderstood enemy" you are vaguely portraying. God, I would HOPE that type of passion for decency and human rights would be emulated, not disparaged. By this (warped) logic, Dany could NEVER have freed a single slave or risen up a single person; she could only have tried to “learn†from the slavers. Seems barbaric.

Dany's attitude is always "I am right because I am right!" Jon's: "Am I right? How to do it right?"

This is 100% bologna. Dany is CONSTANTLY questioning WHY she is doing something. She does NOT question “what†she is doing because she has confidence in her actions and she is resolute. Jon’s wishy-washy “Do I do this… I don’t know… God I wish Ghost were here or that Stannis would suddenly attack so I would not have to decide on whether to kill Mance….â€

I don't know why I keep reading fantasy when Chosen Ones get my goat so!

God, I 100% agree. The only saving grace to this is that if there IS a chosen one (and dear God, I really hope there never is) I want to see HOW they accomplish the goals, because the IF is already a fait a compli. I really despise this type of character, but I am pacified with the knowledge that (so far) it was been done well if Dany is such a character. I think, conversely, that Jon Snow IS the “Chosen One†and I find his journey to be relatively boring.

Now our disagreement is in the area of personal taste. Jon’s inability to immediately make decisions and come to a determination on anything strikes me as the author trying to keep the character from having to pick a side. As long as Jon does NOTHING he does not need to explain ANYTHING. I hate this because it promotes the myth of the “Reluctant Hero.†This is just uninteresting to me.

Dany, by contrast, could be seen as pushy and arrogant, but I treat her as determined and prideful which are really good qualities. Again, personal taste.

Am i the only one that finds their bloodline disgusting. That they inbreed brother to sister generation after generation

Nope, I think “disgusting†fairly and accurately describes the whole affair.

Look at things through Daenerys Targaryen's own perspective. Given her situation and circumstances, I could see how her love for Khal Drogo may have been partially the result of her forcing herself to feel that way "to survive" or some case of Stockholm Syndrome….but…, on the other hand, it may truly have been that she became attached to him as she got to know him and to the side of himself which he shared with her.

Her connection with Khal Drogo shouldn't, I think, have to be shrugged aside through "she's a good person and so she didn't really love him" kind of justification.

No, I never said she did not REALLY love him. What I am suggesting was that subconsciously she HAD to love him as he was the only thing that was going to protect her from the other dothrakai, the perception of Usurper knives, and her own brother. I think Dany DID love the Kahl, warts and all. But I also think that love was a byproduct of survival… warts and all.

[ltm]

Having read the series through entirely once and now starting again,

Dany's story only got interesting when she finally figured she didn't know everything about ruling and settled to learn how. I think that was her last sentence in ASOS.

I don't think she has any better or worse claim to the Iron Throne than any of the others. At the end of the day, it's the person who can hang onto it who hangs onto to it and the Targs didn't. Well life's tough.

Khal Drogo and his riders didn't impress me. The dragons I suspect will be more interesting later and so much of Dany's story comes across like

trip to the backstory department. It's interesting and you need it but I don't re-read it like I might much of Tyrion's or Jaime, Arya or Sansa.

I suspect as events move these characters into closer proximity she'll get more interesting but right now she's just a fifteen or so year old kid with a really big army and some unusual pets.

And only flashes of evidence she would be a more just ruler than anyone else at the moment.

[Xanrn]

Robert didn't forswear any oaths.

Aery's demanded his head without provocation, he broke the oaths. Oaths don't matter anything when one of the sides in the oath is trying to kill the other.

The Feudal system is deeply flawed and rests almost entirely on force not legalitys, this is why noone uses it anymore. Its also why it has the tendecy to fall apart, for most of the conflicts resulting from it solved with violence.

Think of it as a House of Cards, the Cards on top are the King.

Below that 8 Cards support the King, now take away 5 of thoose cards (Stark, Tully, Lannister, Arryn, Baratheon). Chop the 6th in half (Dorne who only sided with Aery's because he has Elia).

Now are thoose top cards still standing with only 2 and half cards supporting them?

This is how the Feudal system works, its about the Iron Fist.

The closest to the Feudal system in today's world is infact not any kind of politics, but Organized Crime.

Now is the Kingpin of say the Italian Mafia legally entitled to his position?

The Targayens also compounded the problem by being very bad at working the system.

They should not have been wasting marriages marrying brother to sister, but using them to form ties of blood between them and the great houses. Say Aery's had married Genna Lannister and his sister married Lord Rickard Stark... Well I leave it up to you to see where that would lead.

Look instead at what the Targayens did marry, Dorne, Velaryon (I mean what the hell married 3 times to some minor fleespeck house?) and various Free Cities which don't actually have ruling families. Besides from Dorne their wasted marriages.

"bamf" is the noise Nightcrawler from the X-men makes when he teleports, so I was basically saying the oaths went out the window.

[Pellegrina]

Dany's story only got interesting when she finally figured she didn't know everything about ruling and settled to learn how. I think that was her last sentence in ASOS.

I'd forgotten that - that sounds promising. Maybe I needn't dread ADwD!

[Lord Mord]

Robert didn't forswear any oaths.

Aery's demanded his head without provocation, he broke the oaths. Oaths don't matter anything when one of the sides in the oath is trying to kill the other.

The Feudal system is deeply flawed and rests almost entirely on force not legalitys, this is why noone uses it anymore. Its also why it has the tendecy to fall apart, for most of the conflicts resulting from it solved with violence.

Think of it as a House of Cards, the Cards on top are the King.

Below that 8 Cards support the King, now take away 5 of thoose cards (Stark, Tully, Lannister, Arryn, Baratheon). Chop the 6th in half (Dorne who only sided with Aery's because he has Elia).

Now are thoose top cards still standing with only 2 and half cards supporting them?

This is how the Feudal system works, its about the Iron Fist.

The closest to the Feudal system in today's world is infact not any kind of politics, but Organized Crime.

Now is the Kingpin of say the Italian Mafia legally entitled to his position?

The Targayens also compounded the problem by being very bad at working the system.

They should not have been wasting marriages marrying brother to sister, but using them to form ties of blood between them and the great houses. Say Aery's had married Genna Lannister and his sister married Lord Rickard Stark... Well I leave it up to you to see where that would lead.

Look instead at what the Targayens did marry, Dorne, Velaryon (I mean what the hell married 3 times to some minor fleespeck house?) and various Free Cities which don't actually have ruling families. Besides from Dorne their wasted marriages.

"bamf" is the noise Nightcrawler from the X-men makes when he teleports, so I was basically saying the oaths went out the window.

Xanrn,

I agree with your notion of feudalism -- or monarchy in general, really -- as being akin to organized crime, and yes, the Targaryens ought to have thought more about alliances than "purity."

You can't see how this situation would possibly be a good example? She's in a tough jam and suddenly she's saved by way of an occurence with no apparent cause or reason to expect. Perhaps it doesn't follow the strictest of literary definitions, but still I'd say it's pretty darn close.

Marth,

I see what you mean, but I disagree.

[Xanrn]

The main problem with Dany is.

She doesn't ask enough questions, about her actions, about herself, about the past.

She will get much better when Tyrion gets there, he has the ability to shatter everyone he has met so far's world view.

Also he got some serious brass balls, especially when it comes to not holding his tongue.

I bet the first chapter they meet up he says something shocking to Dany, probably cause he will be drunk.

Probably the 3rd most aggrivating thing about aFfC, no Tyrion and Dany scenes. Been looking forward to thoose scenes since the Tyrion spoiler chapters( the 2nd one).

[Ashara]

Viserys thought he could coerce people without any force, thought he could buy people with promises. Daenerys recognizes people willing to sell themselves require something a tad more substantial...

Her body, for example. "Dear Drogo, do conquer Westeros for our son," whishpers she between the pillows... When Cersei does that, it is inattractive and inappealing, but Dany, Dany can do it and still be considered deserving admiration?