Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The_Salt_Wife

Did Shae get a raw deal?

Recommended Posts

Okay. Shae was not an angel, but who in this book (except maybe Sansa to a point) ever was? She just did what everyone else in the book was doing - looking out for herself.

...

If it were Osmund Kettleblack I would have felt the same. I didn't care too much about Shae, either.

Fair enough. My point was mostly just that in terms of morality, Shae is a lot closer to the Kettleblacks than to Sansa Stark. I was also trying to highlight the fact that she was one of only three people to actually tell a complete and utter lie at Tyrion's trial, Osmund being one of the other two. Even Boros Blount and Meryn Trant, who were trying to paint Tyrion in the most negative light possible, didn't just make things up.

I also don't think you can excuse it by saying that she's a whore or that she's just doing what she needs to do to survive. As Arland says, there's no reason to assume that just because someone's a prostitute it makes them innately treacherous. We see a few examples in the series of whores who act much more nobly and courageously, such as Alayaya. I don't get the argument that she "doesn't owe Tyrion anything" either. Sure, she doesn't really love him, but that doesn't give her the right to lie about him when his life is on the line. A witness shouldn't have to love the defendant or "owe" him anything to tell the truth, or at least to not tell so blatant a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way does Alayaya act nobly or courageously? She was basically tortured and permanently scarred to send a message to Tyrion as a consequence of his threats to rape Tommen. She was 100% a victim and had absolutely zero agency in what happened to her, from being kidnapped by Cersei, to Tyrion's decision to use her to hide Shae. She was a bone torn between two dogs and the bone lost. Quite similar to Shae, in fact.

Maybe I forgot something that happened earlier but Alayaya had no choice or agency in her scourging at Tywin's hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the argument that she "doesn't owe Tyrion anything" either. Sure, she doesn't really love him, but that doesn't give her the right to lie about him when his life is on the line. A witness shouldn't have to love the defendant or "owe" him anything to tell the truth, or at least to not tell so blatant a lie.

I think what she owes Tyrion depends on how one sees their relationship. When I first read Storm years ago, I did think of her as scheming and evil.

But Fred put out a lot of good arguments that casts Tyrion into a darker light, and I have to admit when I judged Shae harshly I'd forgotten about the bite marks and didn't even consider how he abducts her into sexual slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way does Alayaya act nobly or courageously? She was basically tortured and permanently scarred to send a message to Tyrion as a consequence of his threats to rape Tommen. She was 100% a victim and had absolutely zero agency in what happened to her, from being kidnapped by Cersei, to Tyrion's decision to use her to hide Shae. She was a bone torn between two dogs and the bone lost. Quite similar to Shae, in fact.

Maybe I forgot something that happened earlier but Alayaya had no choice or agency in her scourging at Tywin's hands.

Because she keeps up the ruse that she was Tyrion's whore in order to protect Tyrion's real lover. If she'd confessed it could've potentially gotten her off the hook. It probably wouldn't have, considering what we know of Cersei and Tywin, but the fact that she kept up with the ruse even in the face of kidnapping and torture says a lot about her courage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because she keeps up the ruse that she was Tyrion's whore in order to protect Tyrion's real lover. If she'd confessed it could've potentially gotten her off the hook. It probably wouldn't have, considering what we know of Cersei and Tywin, but the fact that she kept up with the ruse even in the face of kidnapping and torture says a lot about her courage.

We don't know that she kept up any ruse. It is quite likely that she denied it (as any normal human being would when being abducted by thugs) and was completely ignored and dragged in anyway. Tyrion pretty much acknowledged that she was his whore and after that, it didn't matter at all what Alayaya claimed.

And she wasn't tortured for being Tyrion's whore. She was tortured because Tyrion threatened to do to Tommen whatever was done to her, including rape, personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't know that she kept up any ruse. It is quite likely that she denied it (as any normal human being would when being abducted by thugs) and was completely ignored and dragged in anyway. Tyrion pretty much acknowledged that she was his whore and after that, it didn't matter at all what Alayaya claimed.

And she wasn't tortured for being Tyrion's whore. She was tortured because Tyrion threatened to do to Tommen whatever was done to her, including rape, personally.

Cersei very well may have had Alayaya tortured just for being his, if he hadn't made that threat. Even if she didn't, there's a good chance the Kettleblacks might've raped her. Tywin also probably would've had her whipped regardless, just for the shame he felt about Tyrion's whoring. We can't know for sure, but I think her fate was decided well before Tyrion made that threat.

That said, I do think that Tyrion threatening Tommen was stupid. In fact, his whole plan to kidnap Tommen in order to better protect him seemed rather dumb to me. I know Cersei already hated him, but that was really throwing fuel onto the fire. But we're getting way off topic here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sciborg2

Shae was no slave. Whole Fearsome Fred's argument rests on a premise, that we cannot trust a word Shae says in response to Tyrion's repeated proposals to simply end their relationship, for her own safety.

(Interestingly enough Fearsome Fred assumes that all the things said by Shae at her trial are truth , which seems to me to be somewhat manipulative)

Lets say, you can still somehow imagine how Shae will be afraid of Tyrion and misjudge him to be a monster who will kill anyone who will refuse him, the first time she meets him (and even that is quite incredible). But she had to lack any kind of understanding of human nature to think this way after a year or more of close acquaintance with a man.

Remind you: She wasn't a nun, who met a man first time in her life, she was quite good in human relations department - she easily fooled Tyrion, who was good at reading people (even though the fact that he wanted to be fooled obviously helped). Add to that the fact that she was Sansa's personal maid and knew of Tyrion's treatment of Sansa. (and she seems quite unsympathetic to Sansa's situation, which is odd if Shae were really "enslaved", like Sansa in truth was).

That is why Fearsome Fred was so eager to picture Shae as 12 - 13 years old...His exact wording was "no more then a child". It is supposed to give some excuse for her behavior, that in no way can be settled with alleged lack of consent to be Tyrion's servant. (even though in Wester 12 - 13 years old are considered adults). It was supposed to evoke in our mind a picture of lost and helpless 12 - 13 teen, as opposed to 16-17 years old, young women, who already had rich experience with men - with dealing with them, sleeping with them and manipulating them, if need be.

And with regards to "bite marks"... please don't make me laugh. I bet you could as easily find scratch marks on Tyrion back- does it mean Shae abused him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Westeros, 12-13 year olds are indeed considered children. This is explicitly indicated by several characters throughout the book -- including Shae herself. Sixteen years old is the age of adulthood in Westeros.

Leaving bite marks (ow! :ack:) on someone's breasts is indeed abusive. And sounds exceedingly painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Westeros, 12-13 year olds are indeed considered children. This is explicitly indicated by several characters throughout the book -- including Shae herself. Sixteen years old is the age of adulthood in Westeros.

Even thought it is besides the point - Are you sure about it? I guess I thought about it the way it was in our Middle Ages (see for example bar mitzva age)

Leaving bite marks (ow! :ack:) on someone's breasts is indeed abusive. And sounds exceedingly painful.

That is sooo a matter of personal preferences...:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even thought it is besides the point - Are you sure about it? I guess I thought about it the way it was in our Middle Ages (see for example bar mitzva age)

Yes. Jon, in ADWD, "Twelve year old girls are children." Tyrion repeatedly calls Sansa a child. GRRM indicates that sixteen is the age of majority for both boys and girls. And Shae says: "She's only a little girl. You'll give her a big belly and come back to me."

As for bar mitzvah age, isn't that a very ancient tradition that originated well before the Middle Ages? Or am I mistaken? I'm not very familiar with Jewish customs.

Back on the subject, no, I do not believe that Shae is twelve and I do tend to believe that she's about the age Tyrion estimated her to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I thought about it the way it was in our Middle Ages

In our Middle Ages, the age of adulthood was 21. Anyone below this age was not considered responsible enough to manage his own property. (Hence, it was also called the age of inheritance).

In our Middle Ages, the average age of first marriage, for women, was about 22.

Girls could marry at younger ages - as young as 12 - ... but only with parental permission. Girls were under the protection of their fathers, who were, more often than not, liable to say "no" to underage marriage proposals, as well as beat the crap out of anyone who lay a finger on their young daughters.

This is not too different from the situation in many jurisdictions today, such as, IIRC, Alabama, where girls can marry (with parental permission) as young as 14. This does not mean that 14 is the age of adulthood in Alabama, or the norm.

In the Middle Ages, high profile exceptions existed among the corrupt aristocracy, who tended to cynically use their young daughters as tools for political maneuvering, and marry them at or close the the legal minimum. Fathers who loved their daughters did not tend to do this. For instance, Eleanor of Aquitaine's marriage at age 15, arranged by the King of France, was possible only because her father had just died.

Underage marriages, when they occurred, were not necessarily consummated right away. For instance, in the famous Martin Guerre case, Bertrande was only 10 when she married 13-year old Martin (making the marriage technically illegal even then), but the marriage was not consummated until 8 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a huge specialist on middle ages I tried to google it. Here is the first thing I bumped into. Of course I think in different periods of time and different place there were different customs:

http://www.represent...ieval_child.htm

"...Medieval law-makers tended to place the boundary between childhood and adulthood at puberty, coventionally 12 for girls and 14 for boys..."

And here is something about an age of consent:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/...ing-modules/230

"An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age."

http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmarriage/a/teenmarriage.htm

"During the Middle Ages, the practice of youthful marriages continued and women married as early as fourteen...It is obvious from a historical perspective that marriages of teenagers (at least teenage girls) were quite common."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_household

"During the High and Late Middle Ages, women were increasingly married away in their teens, leading to higher birth rates.[37] While women would be married once they reached reproductive age, men had to possess independent means of sustenance – to be able to provide for a family – before entering into marriage"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a huge specialist on middle ages I tried to google it.

Beware of google searches, and do not swallow uncritically everything you read. The modern age (including much of modern academia) is filled with alot of self-congratulatory nonsense about how modern people are radically different from, and so much better than, people of prior ages. Take all this with a grain of salt.

> Of course I think in different

> periods of time and different

> place there were different

> customs:

Yes. For instance, in the late Roman Empire, Christian girls tended to marry at around 18, whereas pagan girls tended to be married at much younger ages. By the time of the Middle Ages, the average age of first marriage for girls, in Western Europe, had risen to about 22 or more - significantly higher than (for instance) China, where the average age of first marriage was around 18.

http://www.represent...ieval_child.htm

"...Medieval law-makers tended to place the boundary between childhood and adulthood at puberty, coventionally 12 for girls and 14 for boys..."

Without specifics, this is meaningless. I assume the "12 for girls" is a reference to "age of marriage" (which was an absolute legal minimum) and/or "age of consent". I assume that "14 for boys" is a reference to "age of marriage" and/or "age of criminal responsibility."

But, taking a wild guess at what is meant, lawmakers make the same or very similar distinctions today. Please google "tried as an adult". Also please note while statutory rape laws have become MUCH more complicated (and the penalties MUCH milder, even for the most serious crimes), they STILL make distinctions based on age that begin, for the most serious crimes, at very young ages, like 10 or 12.

And here is something about an age of consent:

Age of consent, and age of adulthood, are not the same thing.

A 12-year old girl, in the middle ages, is a child. She is expected to be a good little girl, who does what Mommy and Daddy tell her. This generally means that she does not have sex with men or boys. If she does this, she is a bad little girl, who deserves a good beating from Mommy or Daddy. However, under medieval law, the cad (man or boy) who has sex with her is not necessarily considered a rapist. Daddy may beat the living crap out of him (and the law will probably look the other way), but, as long as the girl consented, the law will not sentence the cad to be hanged (yes, that was the penalty for rape). This is because, at 12, a girl was considered old enough to take SOME responsibility for her own actions. Hence, only for a girl under 12 could a man (or boy) be PUT TO DEATH for having sex with a girl who consented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, taking a wild guess at what is meant, lawmakers make the same or very similar distinctions today. Please google "tried as an adult". Also please note while statutory rape laws have become MUCH more complicated (and the penalties MUCH milder, even for the most serious crimes), they STILL make distinctions based on age that begin, for the most serious crimes, at very young ages, like 10 or 12.

Totally. In New York a 14 year old will be tried as an adult if he commits a felony (and a 13 year old will be if he commits a murder). This does not mean New Yorkers consider 14 year olds adults. The legal distinction between a juvenile and an adult is not the same the cultural definition of what is an adult (especially when it comes to sex with older people). Being just above the legal age limit =/= normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fearsome Fred assumes that all the things said by Shae at her trial are truth , which seems to me to be somewhat manipulative)

I assume no such thing, as already clarified. Arland is lying through his teeth, which seems to me to be somewhat dishonest.

Lets say, you can still somehow imagine how Shae will be afraid of Tyrion and misjudge him to be a monster who will kill anyone who will refuse him, the first time she meets him (and even that is quite incredible). But she had to lack any kind of understanding of human nature to think this way after a year or more of close acquaintance with a man.

MISJUDGE him??? MISJUDGE him??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA. How could she "misjudge" that harmless little Teddy Bear. This is only the guy who boasted in her presence that he is terrified of his enemies and therefore kills them all. This is only the guy who murdered her friend Symon. This is the guy who was thinking of throwing her like a bone or a piece of meat as a reward to the most vicious of his dogs, and then decided she "deserved" better, because, and only because, at just that moment, she coddled him and pleased him and told him she loved him and called him a "giant of a Lannister". Not to mention the fact that he MURDERS her.

That is why Fearsome Fred was so eager to picture Shae as 12 - 13 years old...

I am not "eager" to do that at all, as already clarified. I mentioned this as the minimum age that she could possibly be, not as the age I necessarily think she is. Why does Arland feel the need to keep attacking this straw man?

His exact wording was "no more then a child".

No. My exact wording was "LITTLE more than a child", and this was a reference to the FACT that she is "no more than eighteen" and not the the POSSIBILITY that she might be younger. Not that it makes any difference to you. According to you, I should not be allowed to refer even to 12-year olds as "children".

But guess what? I am forty-five years old, and I will call a person under 18 a "child" if I damned well please. I don't need anybody's permission or approval, not even GRRM's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beware of google searches, and do not swallow uncritically everything you read

True. But when choosing between statements based on something (be it articles found on google), and statements supported by nothing, I prefer the based ones. Unless of course I am speaking with academically acclaimed authority on childhood in Middle Ages.

I assume the "12 for girls" is a reference to "age of marriage"

You do assume a lot.

Actually in this particular article they do speak about "age of adulthood", whatever that means (In our modern time it is first and foremost a right to vote, and I don't see why it is more important then a right to consent to have sex).

But anyhow age of marriage, age of consent and age of criminal responsibility are rather important. A person who is considered by a society responsible enough to be a mother and run a household is much more close to adult then to a child. Of course you can think differently.

Please google "tried as an adult"

I did: "According to The Disappearance of Childhood by Neil Postman, the Christian Church of the Middle Ages considered the age of accountability, when a person could be tried and even executed as an adult, to be age 7."

Well, may be he is wrong. Anyhow, the point is what was accepted in Middle Ages, not what is the law now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. My exact wording was "LITTLE more than a child", and this was a reference to the FACT that she is "no more than eighteen" and not the the POSSIBILITY that she might be younger.

Got me. What a horrible liar I am, claiming that you have said "no more then a child" when you have said "little more than a child". You did write "… she could possibly be as young as 12 or 13", putting rather undue emphasis on this very improbable possibility.

I assume no such thing, as already clarified

But you do, don't you? IMHO half truth is worst then a blatant lie – but, may be it is just me.

You assume that what Shae told about her previous client is true... You consider the issue a bit but latter you repeatedly call him a "fiancee" . You do accept uncritically her statement that her previous client was placed in a vanguard. You do accept uncritically things she told about her past. (compare it to your very critical approach to everything Shae says Tyrion)

Of course when you say "no evidence to the contrary"- you forget that there is huge evidence to the contrary – we know for a fact that Shae lied about Tyrion part in Jeffry's poisoning (her guesses aside – she told a factual lie) We also know that she had a clear interest to portray Tyrion at the trial in the worst light possible (for whatever reason, greed or fear) so her credibility at this point is quite low.

his is only the guy who boasted in her presence that he is terrified of his enemies and therefore kills them all.

This as opposed to all other lords who send their enemies flowers… I bet he also boasted that he pisses farther then any other lord – what a monster!

This is only the guy who murdered her friend Symon.

Bronn has killed Symon, and not without a cause, btw - first and foremost in order to protect Shae. This "good friend" Symon wanted to reveal whole Shae business which would have led to her being killed by Tywin or tortured by Cercei. A good friend indeed! Anyhow, IIRC, Shae didn't know about Simon business, so it is utterly irrelevant.

This is the guy who was thinking of throwing her like a bone or a piece of meat as a reward to the most vicious of his dogs… ".

So she is a mind reader now? Is it really written "throwing her like a bone" or is it an assumption? Is it written somewhere that he wanted to do it without asking her first? I ASSUME he would have asked her , after all – THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY!

BTW.. Bronn was not the most vicious of Tyrion's dogs. Shaga would have cut someone manhood and feed it to a goat in a second for such insult!

If she is a mind reader, she must have known that Tyrion cared about her and worried about her wellbeing (and was ready to give up having sex with her, just so she will be out of danger)- THIS IS STATED CLEARLY AND UNANBIGUESLY in his POV. Actually it was enough for her to be "observant of men" to notice that.

Not to mention the fact that he MURDERS her..

Didn't we already establish that it was actually a Great Other who warged into Tyrion. No evidence to the contrary.

The only fact is that he kills her - murder implies something more. Your version of events is relevant only to establishment of Shae's guilt. Even in your version of the story Tyrion doesn't understand that he is lied to by Shae out of fear – he doesn't know what Bronn tells her and what she really feels. From his POV, she wanted to be his whore all along and cheated him and testified against him out of pure greed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't know that she kept up any ruse. It is quite likely that she denied it (as any normal human being would when being abducted by thugs) and was completely ignored and dragged in anyway. Tyrion pretty much acknowledged that she was his whore and after that, it didn't matter at all what Alayaya claimed.

And she wasn't tortured for being Tyrion's whore. She was tortured because Tyrion threatened to do to Tommen whatever was done to her, including rape, personally.

She wasn't tortured FOR being Tyrions whore but didn't they make a big point of saying about "knowing his secret" the reason Alayaya was chosen was because they had theorised she was. Tyrion describes his momentary panic that they knew of Shae with the way they were talking that soon changes to an element of guilt that actually... It's someone completely innocent in this.

Leaving bite marks (ow! :ack:) on someone's breasts is indeed abusive. And sounds exceedingly painful.

My girlfriend loves it, it's a personal preference...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×