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

lyvyathan,

You might, however, be able to improve on your comprehension and spelling skills.

So blunt... so unoriginal. And what it I am dyslectic or , worst - a Russian? You wont become a real pirate, if you continue like this. :)

I'm not sure. People who desire very young teenage females and who also think that murdering prostitutes are acceptable forms of human behavior are a bit queer

I did say "LIKE Dany and Sansa" not "desire". Problem with comprehension, may be? Or is it the same? This will certainly explain all this excitement with facebook bussiness! Pervs!!!!!

Murdering prostitutes is acceptable behavior?... Oh,,, this is another of your comprehension problems. I will explain..... s l o w l y: I don't think murdering prostitutes is acceptable behavior (acceptable by whom btw? holy inquisition?)

Now, killing someone, prostitute, queen or a hand of the king, who assisted attempt on your life and now is in the same camp as your mortal enemy ... that is much more complicated. Is it acceptable? understandable? excusable?.. I dunno, . Somebody did say - when you play a game of thrones you either win or die. Shae played.

Fearsome Fred

They were together for about a year.

I stand corrected. I somehow got this one book - one year notion.

To clarify: I just pointed out the time gap form AGOT to ASOS. It is not like I have a problem with killing teenagers (if 18-19 is considered as such, especially). If anyone deserves to be killed (besides my boss obviously) those are these annoying teenagers. Justin Bieber? Seriously! :)

After all, that is what I drafted for, when I was 18 . To kill other 18-19 year olds.Come to think about ... our society prefers that her teenagers (if 18-19 are such) will be killed and not more older father and mothers, Interesting, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm ... "teenager" means someone aged 13 through 19. Write out the numbers, and you will see why.

I know what teenager means. But it doesn't change the fact that Shae was agrown-up by Westeros standards, and active in her profession for several years. Growing up is as much about experiences gathered as it is about age. Shae didn't lead a sheltered life, she collected lots of experience in her life that sheltered children would not come by so easily - that counts towards her being grown-up.

Grown-ups shouldn't be killed randomly, either, but I don't see why it is worse because she still has that teen in her age. If she even does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People, please, come back to reality!!! Nobody here justifies murder of person of any age! We are discussing a book! Please, do not forget!

Westeros world is quite different from the real one! at least in their customs and the way they live!

Shae was grown-up in that world! Not here, on Earth!

That fact do not justify murder and do not say she deserved it! It's just a fact that she was less innocent than many other teens and even much more younger, who died (for example, Elia's children or bastard Barra).

And it is a fact that she was responsible for her actions whatsoever! She chose to lie and as some say to humiliate! She chose a lot of things, which brought her to the place, where she died.

I do not defend Tyrion on any point, he made his choices too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People, please, come back to reality!!! Nobody here justifies murder of person of any age! We are discussing a book! Please, do not forget!
Uh, no, what is discussed is the validity of the idea that one guy is justified in killing a whore. The characters may be fictional, the scenario is not, and being real people the judgement is done on our values (not that it changes anything, since Westerosi values are the same, anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is a fact that she was responsible for her actions whatsoever! She chose to lie and as some say to humiliate! She chose a lot of things, which brought her to the place, where she died.

I've been publicly/privately humiliated by a crazy ex and that doesn't give me the right to strangle her. It gave me the right to leave her and cancel our wedding plans though.

She made some choices, but those choices stem from an origin point of sexual abuse and class discrepancy.

Also, she publicly humiliated someone who took great pleasure in the humiliation of others. Tyrion was happy to play the game until he lost.

Also, note that Shae wanted to escalate the relationship to something more real and was told by Tyrion that she helps between the sheets. As in, you're my whore, stop talking now.

He stops paying her, acting like this is sort of a relationship but slapping her. Her manner, as in her acting, immediately transform to what she thinks he wants. Demureness to avoid further physical violence. Once his protection ends she is one more whore who could be gang raped after all.

Again, is Tyrion a horrible person? Not exactly. He is a murderer though.

Is Shae a horrible person? Not exactly. She's a gold digger where the entire nobility works like that. (Remember Cat mentions how plain she thought Ned was - really think she'd marry him or even date him in modern times.)

The problem is the discrepancy, where everyone marks Tyrion's actions as justified.

ETA: class discrepancy, Tyrion is a murderer, Cat wouldn't date Ned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errant Bard, with all respect...

I actually did not see anybody telling that he/she justify in killing anybody, whoever the person is a whore, a child, a king... Murder is the worst thing, I do agree. It is quite ridiculous to think that person, who apparently is not fond of a character in a book, like Shae is, would kill a whore or any other person in reality!

At least, I divide these two worlds. In reality anything can happen, but in a book everything happens as an author thinks it should. I've read a lot of different books in my life, sometimes I agree with author in some points (like killing the character or something like that), sometimes I am not, but in real life I am not capable even to slap somebody on the face, even if the person deserves it. My point is: judging people by their comments is ridiculous, unless you take the subject too seriously. Judging people in general is a quite stupid thing and always was.

I am personally discuss the character in the book, not the real life. And I am insisting that the way the character was described, she was doomed to die. Not because she was a whore, but because of her own decisions (the author's actually).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sciborg2, I didn't say that he has a right to kill anybody. NObody has that right!

The problem is the discrepancy, where everyone marks Tyrion's actions as justified.

I insist that are not justified, but quite understandable and that Shae, in fact, would be alive if there weren't particular circumstances (Tysha story and Tyrion's anger). But she also was lead (read: made decisions) by the author to that point. Plus: I didn't like her character, as she was obviously not innocent and completely aware what she was doing, but in the beginning I wanted them (Tyrion and Shae) to be even happy. That is what it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually did see anybody telling that he/she justify in killing anybody, whoever the person is a whore, a child, a king... Murder is the worst thing, I do agree. It is quite ridiculous to think that person, who apparently is not fond of a character in a book, like Shae is, would kill a whore or any other person in reality!
I didn't see anyone saying Shae haters were potential murderers.

However that doesn't mean that one cannot argue against the idea that it's ok for one person to murder a whore, no matter if it's a fictive scenario or a real one, the concept is the same, and deserves to be be argued against, as principles don't stop mattering when you enter the realm of fiction/imagination: they actually matter more.

My point is: judging people by their comments is ridiculous, unless you take the subject too seriously. Judging people in general is a quite stupid thing and always was.
Scuse me, but saying "something is ridiculous" or "people take something too seriously" is already judging. Don't you think you're a bit of an hypocrite here?

I am personally discuss the character in the book, not the real life. And I am insisting that the way the character was described, she was doomed to die. Not because she was a whore, but because of her own decisions (the author's actually).
You're tilting against windmills. Of course that she was doomed to die if the author decided to kill her, nobody ever cares about that subject: it's self-evident that no matter what the author decides, it will happen.

What is discussed is the questions raised by the situations the author brings up. Such as: what is right and what is wrong, given a scenario. This is not a matter of fiction, it's a matter of personal worldviews. From the readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errant Bard, I have to blatantly disagree with you. There is a clear distinction in my mind between a fictional story and my life. I like a lot of characters in the books, but I would never make the same decisions in real life. Whether it be novels, movies, or video games, I don't see a direct correlation between my opinions on fictional characters and my values. My values may impact my reaction to those characters' actions, but to say that I share the same values of characters I find intriguing is just wrong in my opinion.

This fictional world is Westeros, and bad things happen -- many bad things. I accept that death can come quickly to every character, and Shae is one of many to die thus far into the series. I don't think it's reasonable to say that those that are less sympathetic to her death are the same that wish death on people in real life. I think it makes for a good story, particularly of the complex character of Tyrion. It is an epic story filled with strife and despair after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gala: Apologies if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth, that was not my intention.

I insist that are not justified, but quite understandable and that Shae, in fact, would be alive if there weren't particular circumstances (Tysha story and Tyrion's anger). But she also was lead (read: made decisions) by the author to that point. Plus: I didn't like her character, as she was obviously not innocent and completely aware what she was doing, but in the beginning I wanted them (Tyrion and Shae) to be even happy. That is what it is!

I think Tyrion's actions were understandable, but that isn't the same thing as forgivable. Tyrion is a sociopath - it isn't his fault, but he is one. Part of that is his own abuse (forced to rape Tysha), part of that is his insecurity, and part of that is his being spoiled. Look at how insanely vindictive he is against Pycelle and others, this is what costs him at the trial.

He even justifies whipping Tommen, because otherwise Cersei wins their little game. He isn't dissuaded from this by morals, but because Tommen isn't around at the time.

However, and this is what makes Martin such a good writer, he is also kind and honorable in his own fashion.

My question is let's say you're in a relationship, and the other person holds high office. I'm a straight dude, but whether I was gay or a woman if my partner tells me that I can only help "in the sheets" if I had complete agency I would leave them for making such a demeaning comment.

I think its a worse comment if you're woman.

If this person could have me killed I would realize I had to play along or die, especially after being slapped I'd realize this was just another john if I was a sex worker.

This is what confuses me. How did Shae deserve death? Because she did her job too well, perhaps thinking she had to in order to protect herself? And if she was selfish, was she more selfish than young Sansa who wanted to marry a hot rich guy or Catelyn who clearly wouldn't have married Ned if it wasn't arranged?

ETA: insecurity, worse comment part

ETA II: this isn't going to win me favors, but I actually think Ned deserved to die more than Shae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a clear distinction in my mind between a fictional story and my life. I like a lot of characters in the books, but I would never make the same decisions in real life.
I don't get what you are objecting against here: you're clearly judging those decisions to be bad ones, so... err what's the objection?

Whether it be novels, movies, or video games, I don't see a direct correlation between my opinions on fictional characters and my values. My values may impact my reaction to those characters' actions, but to say that I share the same values of characters I find intriguing is just wrong in my opinion.
When did I say that?

Not to sure what you're arguing against, again, but if you refer the argument that Shae's murder was OK, that's not "finding characters intriguing", it's defending the idea that it's ok to kill whores, not the same thing. But you're not doing that, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this isn't going to win me favors, but I actually think Ned deserved to die more than Shae.

I don't think Shae deserved to die (hell, the whole "deserving to die" thing is kind of strange to me when you already put modern western morality on the table), but I am curious as to why you think this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, "deserved" is too harsh a word, but it seems we are debating who is more responsible for their death.

Shae is a child. Tyrion notes this on several occasions. Ned is an adult who is warned by Renly to seize the castle. Instead he does his whole whine-honor thing. He doesn't even think that his actions will plunge the entire kingdom into war if he doesn't seize power, and even says if Dany returns with Dothraki we'll just push them into the sea....

Not thinking about all the peasants and lower class people die due to this war. Really I found Varys's criticisms of Ned pretty accurate.

Tyrion suffers from the same blind spot, which is based around the privilege of class. Peasants dying by their hundreds or thousands don't matter to Ned, only his honor as part of the nobility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does this thing that Tyrion stopped paying Shae come from? They had moved to a "mistress" stage of relationship. Tyrion provided for her with house, clothes, gifts and money. He wasn't paying her "per night" anymore! That doesn't mean she was being cheated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does this thing that Tyrion stopped paying Shae come from? They had moved to a "mistress" stage of relationship. Tyrion provided for her with house, clothes, gifts and money. He wasn't paying her "per night" anymore! That doesn't mean she was being cheated.

Ah, but did she get to keep all those jewels, clothes? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scuse me, but saying "something is ridiculous" or "people take something too seriously" is already judging. Don't you think you're a bit of an hypocrite here?

....

What is discussed is the questions raised by the situations the author brings up. Such as: what is right and what is wrong, given a scenario. This is not a matter of fiction, it's a matter of personal worldviews. From the readers.

I said UNLESS people take something too seriously, which means I suggested it not stated! I am not a native speaker, but even I see difference here.

and yes, it is ridiculous because (just imagine, I am not talking about you in particular, I am giving the example): you've never seen a person and yet you judge, you no nothing about the person and you still judge, you've never talked to the person, but you still make judgement, based on the comments about a character in board dedicated to the fantasy book. Isn't it ridiculous?

I may be a hypocrite in you eyes, it doesn't change anything. we are strangers and I do not want to convince you with my point of view, we are different people and see things differently, that is ok, I think.Everyone has the right to think what he wants and to say what he thinks - something like that James Fenimore Cooper said. (by the way, the fact that I am defending myself from a stranger isn't less ridiculous than judging by comments).

I think any civilized person knows what's right and what's wrong, especially when the subject is murder and yes, unfortunately,there are people, whose worldviews include justification of a murder even in reality, but not all those, who "justify" or accept, or understand the murder of a character are the ones with such views. I hope I made myself clear.

P.s: sorry, if I offended you with "ridiculous", I didn't mean to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what confuses me. How did Shae deserve death? Because she did her job too well, perhaps thinking she had to in order to protect herself? And if she was selfish, was she more selfish than young Sansa who wanted to marry a hot rich guy or Catelyn who clearly wouldn't have married Ned if it wasn't arranged?

Of course, she wasn't more selfish than young Sansa and Catelyn, it's ok for woman to want a welfare. She didn't deserve to die in a moral way, nobody deserves (sorry, but Ned also). The thing is it was inevitable and quite understandable (due to the particular circumstances) from the reader's point of view, whether Martin wanted us to dislike Tyrion or to make him more dramatic figure, I don't know.

and, please, do mind that i do not defend or forgive (it's not my prerogative) Tyrion on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shae is a child. Tyrion notes this on several occasions. Ned is an adult who is warned by Renly to seize the castle. Instead he does his whole whine-honor thing. He doesn't even think that his actions will plunge the entire kingdom into war if he doesn't seize power, and even says if Dany returns with Dothraki we'll just push them into the sea....

Not thinking about all the peasants and lower class people die due to this war. Really I found Varys's criticisms of Ned pretty accurate.

In his situation seizing power would mean the death of innocent children (Tommen and Myrcella, I do not include Joffrey as he was a monster and probably he was that way since childhood), it wasn't about the honor or pride, it was indeed mercy, unforgivable mercy, because, unfortunately, he didn't even take his own children to safety. He also "made decision", like Shae's character, that lead him to his death. Additionally, he also died due to particular circumstances, for example, his naivety in politics and Joffrey's stupidy and cruelty, and yet there is a huge difference between him and Shae's personality: even if he was able to take black, he would still be more useful for the realm than Shae would be for the whole her life. It doesn't mean that they "deserved" to die. And I much more pity Ned's death, really.

One the point of Dothraki: he was convincing Robert not to bother Dany and he suggested a probable tactic, because Dothraki are afraid of the sea. If you think that they should let those savages (and when they conquer a city they act like savages: kill, burn, rape...and all that horrible stuff) to come and get your home for nothing. What if our grand- and great-fathers did so...?

P.s: I am interested in a question: how do you think are these crimes equal - the murder or the false testimony on the murder trial against another person in order to save your own neck, resulting this person's death sentence? (and it is not important whether your testimony lay a key role or not)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I don't think deserve actually has much to do with these novels - which is why they are great. There are no Disney villains or heroes, everyone has motivations that are understandable.

But if we are saying who takes more responsibility for their death, its Ned over a sex worker who Tyrion himself refers to as a child.

even if he was able to take black, he would still be more useful for the realm than Shae would be for the whole her life.

His usefulness came from his being both male and part of the nobility. Shae's life was one of sexual abuse and at best lower middle class to outright poor. To me, Shae is likely just young Sansa without the rosy shelter of Winterfell. She has similar goals, just blackened by actually having to face the realities of non-noble life.

One the point of Dothraki: he was convincing Robert not to bother Dany and he suggested a probable tactic, because Dothraki are afraid of the sea.

He did say that, but he was also willing to fight the Dothraki when they came to Westeros. I'm not saying I would order the poisoning of a pregnant woman, but my point is Ned doesn't even seem to consider that such a war would destroy the peasant class in Westeros.

Mormont even notes that lords would be safe in their castles. So really Ned's way, done for *his* honor, results in the slaughter of an entire class of people.

If Bran and his siblings were in a hovel outside the castle walls, I'm curious if Ned would have made the same decision.

Mind you, I'm not saying Ned is evil - he is incredibly honorable. But he doesn't think beyond his personal honor, and his class privilege colors his understanding that all these battles and banners raised result in so many people, even children dying.

As I said, when Varys calls him out on it, what refutation does Ned have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking about Ned right now, at least one character thus far has straight out said that Ned's men participated in the Sack of KL, and another character heavily implied the same. Moreover, the only victims of the Sack that Ned expressed any concern over were the highborn victims. He never spared a thought for the peasantry who suffered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×