Why didn't Ser Bold tell Dany her dad was a Nut Job?

[Spinebreaker]

ASOIAF isn't set in the real world, in 2012... Characters can only be 'judged' (bit of a heavyweight term for a story with giants and ice-fairies, but no matter) by the standards of the world they exist in...

Hercules and Hylas... Hercules; one of the most respected and admired heroes of the age had a boyfriend, barely out of puberty... This was not only accepted, but greek society of the time LAUDED it as an example of the pure and noble love between a man and a boy.

D'you think the women of Westeros spend any time thinking how unfair their treatment is??? Most (Certainly not all) just accept that that is how the world is... and as such, raise another generation that behave just the same. Is it the fault of Davos (random example) that he believes his wife should stay at home while he goes out to do stuff? No, that's just how it is for these people and how it has been for a long time...

I mean, here in the UK we're decades after Suffragettes and women fighting for the vote and there are STILL households that operate by these same standards, and there will still be in 10 or 20 years. In Westeros, where none of these societal changes have taken place they're bound to be less enlightened. If you insist upon viewing the characters through strictly politically correct 21st century eyes, all you're gonna do is find a barbarian and mysoginist on every page...

[Ser Tom]

In answer to the original question, it's not going to help anyone to find out they're the offspring of a violent rapist. That's my 21st century real world opinion but the fact the kingslayer thinks he should put a stop to it tells me it's unacceptable in westeros as well.

That's probably been said already, cant be arsed reading the whole thread.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

My point was that Dany will only go against Starks who are allying with her enemies. She'll have to go against Rickon because he's going to be used by Stannis, a rival claimant to the Iron Throne.

Dany has not really stated either way about the children of the rebels. She may seek revenge on their Houses in lieu of the actual rebels. She certainly has shown the willingness to keep her hatred by her refusal to her that Ned was an OK guy.

Of course, the reverse is true. She has not given any indication that she will harm them.

My point? Dany's treatment of the Starks is far from certain.

hey she might like the idea of the Kingdom of the North breaking with the Iron Throne and give them the option of surrendering again as a free nation sort of thing

No. If she's claiming the rest of Westeros as her birthright, there is no reason to believe she will not consider the North a part of that birthright.

[Evamitchelle]

ASOIAF isn't set in the real world, in 2012... Characters can only be 'judged' (bit of a heavyweight term for a story with giants and ice-fairies, but no matter) by the standards of the world they exist in...

Hercules and Hylas... Hercules; one of the most respected and admired heroes of the age had a boyfriend, barely out of puberty... This was not only accepted, but greek society of the time LAUDED it as an example of the pure and noble love between a man and a boy.

D'you think the women of Westeros spend any time thinking how unfair their treatment is??? Most (Certainly not all) just accept that that is how the world is... and as such, raise another generation that behave just the same. Is it the fault of Davos (random example) that he believes his wife should stay at home while he goes out to do stuff? No, that's just how it is for these people and how it has been for a long time...

I mean, here in the UK we're decades after Suffragettes and women fighting for the vote and there are STILL households that operate by these same standards, and there will still be in 10 or 20 years. In Westeros, where none of these societal changes have taken place they're bound to be less enlightened. If you insist upon viewing the characters through strictly politically correct 21st century eyes, all you're gonna do is find a barbarian and mysoginist on every page...

I don't think Westeros morality is that different from ours honestly. When Robert hit Cersei in front of Ned, Ned didn't approve at all, despite the fact that it was perfectly acceptable and authorized for Robert to do such a thing. Even Robert felt like it wasn't a good thing to do. Everybody thinks Ramsay is a complete creep, and though what he did to Lady Hornwood was completely legal, everybody reacted in disgust at what he'd done. When Chelsted and Jaime heard that Aerys wanted to burn down KG they were both pretty horrified, Tywin's ruthlessness isn't exactly looked upon with reverence either. Most people also seem to find Walder Frey marrying women 80 years his junior pretty skeevy, the NW didn't think highly of Craster taking his daughters as wives etc. etc. All of that stuff isn't really out of the ordinary, and it's all legal, yet the vast majority of people won't consider them particularly moral.

But I think very poorly of cultural relativism in general. I understand why Drogo engages in the things he does because it's the way he's been taught to live his life from birth, I still think he's a shitty human being. And since Westeros isn't actually a real place and A Song of Ice and Fire isn't a history book, but was written by a modern author for a modern audience I'll still use my modern standards to form my opinions of the characters.

[Spinebreaker]

I don't think Westeros morality is that different from ours honestly.

For every example you gave (which I largely agree with to be fair) there are several divergent ones... The series opens with Ned (a largely heroic character) believing there's no problem having his 10 year old son witness him kiling a young man. It seems a routine thought that once a girl has her period she's ready for sex, not just among the male characters either. Young boys 'squire' for knights, even during actual war-time. Some things will remain human nature of course, but I just think going out of the way to say "This character's actions are rather sexist and patriarchal." may hinder the enjoyment of the story somewhat...

But I think very poorly of cultural relativism in general. I understand why Drogo engages in the things he does because it's the way he's been taught to live his life from birth, I still think he's a shitty human being.

That's fine, but also, the thousands and thousands of people round Drogo at the time think quite the opposite. He's probably the very epitome of a great human being. It's also not as if Drogo has made a choice to be shitty, he's a product of his culture, he hasn't DECIDED he's going to do horrible things. He merely excelled in the culture he was born in... Being born in a culture different to yours doesn't automatically make them shitty.

[Evamitchelle]

For every example you gave (which I largely agree with to be fair) there are several divergent ones... The series opens with Ned (a largely heroic character) believing there's no problem having his 10 year old son witness him kiling a young man. It seems a routine thought that once a girl has her period she's ready for sex, not just among the male characters either. Young boys 'squire' for knights, even during actual war-time. Some things will remain human nature of course, but I just think going out of the way to say "This character's actions are rather sexist and patriarchal." may hinder the enjoyment of the story somewhat...

Those examples have little to do with concepts of right and wrong though. Bringing your 7-year-old to a beheading or sending an 11-year-old away as a squire doesn't say anything about the morality of their dads, it just shows that they take a greater importance in war because most boys are expected to become knights. (Besides, the average American 10-year-old has seen about 8,000 murders on TV so I'm not too shocked about Bran seeing one beheading, even if it's "live" nature would have been more intense). Unless you're trying to say that it's child abuse somehow ? Otherwise I really don't see how it's comparable with me saying I don't agree with Dany crucifying 13 people and Victarion beating his wife to death. Those are moral choices. Sending your kid away to help him become a knight isn't.

The other example you mentioned is closer to a moral choice, but I have to point out that though the girls are "beddable" once they've flowered, the majority of husbands won't consummate the marriage until they are at least 15-16 (16 being the age of majority in Westeros) as per GRRM.

That's fine, but also, the thousands and thousands of people round Drogo at the time think quite the opposite. He's probably the very epitome of a great human being. It's also not as if Drogo has made a choice to be shitty, he's a product of his culture, he hasn't DECIDED he's going to do horrible things. He merely excelled in the culture he was born in... Being born in a culture different to yours doesn't automatically make them shitty.

If the culture engages in mass rape/pillaging/murder I'm going to have a very harsh opinion of them no matter what.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

If the culture engages in mass rape/pillaging/murder I'm going to have a very harsh opinion of them no matter what.

:agree:

MMD: The true hero of the series.

[The King in the South]

:agree:

MMD: The true hero of the series.

Definetely on the Drogo part, but the murdering Rhaego part wasn't exactly heroic.

[Spinebreaker]

Those examples have little to do with concepts of right and wrong though.

You think it's morally ambivalent to allow a 7 year old to watch a man die... OK then.

11-year-old away as a squire doesn't say anything about the morality of their dads, it just shows that they take a greater importance in war because most boys are expected to become knights.

The being a squire wasn't the issue, it was the fact they'd be involved in the war itself. Sending young boys off to get killed to carry some lords spare gloves is amoral... To us.

(Besides, the average American 10-year-old has seen about 8,000 murders on TV so I'm not too shocked

Given a choice between having my sons raised in Westeros and present day America? Get me a Trencher of Stale bread... You're not too shocked about Bran witnessing an execution... It's almost as if the culture you belong to has had an effect on your views of morality...

Of course the examples I gave are comparable to yours, They aren't the same. Of course I'm not saying crucifying 163 people is just the same as letting a child see you kill a man but they ARE comparable. And both are clearly moral issues.

If the culture engages in mass rape/pillaging/murder I'm going to have a very harsh opinion of them no matter what.

So, you're gonna judge and condemn the individuals based on the actions of the culture... You sound more and more like Dany every post :eek: JK. But seriously though. Drogo has NO choice over the society he lives in and the aspects of personality they emphasise. By this logic, Arya is one of the shittiest human beings in the series... Despite her upbringing being very morally correct (For Westeros) and being surroundedby a loving family and relative comfort, she's become a killer, who mistreats little girls for no reason. She's become willing to murder complete strangers to educate herself. She's gone against her culture, and she's CHOSEN to be shitty. Drogo is just a product of Dothraki tradition.

[Alia of the knife]

I have always wondered at Dany's insistence on hating the Starks, though technically the Starks had a reason to be angry with her Brother for taking their Sister?

(Though it sounds that she thinks what Rhaegar did in "taking his Northern girl at swordpoint," romantic). :dunno:

It was Neds stand on the poisoning of Dany that started the new divide between him and Robert, just as was the first divide when Ned left furious at the murder of Elia and her children.

What will she think when she finds out that her Father didn't just put Brandon and Rickard to death for "treason," but brutally murder them?

At least nutjob Joffrey gave Ned the Axe and put a quick end to it.

[Spinebreaker]

There are various theories about the Others not really being evil... What if actually, Dany ends up not being good, and does go nuts...

[Ser Joshifer of Skane]

What if Dany's father really isn't Aerys II? What if its Ser Bonifer Hasty? Just a thought.. care to share?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Please don't mock my opinion. I would never do that to you, or any other poster. :) This is a fantasy novel; the six main point of view characters are probably going to work together (even if it isn't in a straightforward manner).

I'm sorry, I just think it's funny that you apparently believe that the Starks actually need Dany for anything, or that they should thank their lucky stars for her existence because she's "their best chance a reunion." Um, how, pray tell? She's shown nothing but blind ignorant contempt for Ned and I don't see why his children owe her anything or would have any good reason to rely on her solely on the basis of "who she is."

Davos is one of Dany's enemies. He's working with Stannis. That doesn't make him a villain, and I never said it did. But if Davos takes Rickon, then he's going to be directly challenging Daenerys because he allies with Stannis. Does that not make sense to you?

I don't see what Davos taking Rickon has to do with anything. Why does Davos taking Rickon "challenge Dany"? Do you think Rickon in any way whatsoever belongs to Dany?

"Harm no one under the age of twelve" =/= "kill everyone over the age of twelve".

"Kill every man wearing a tokar" and "Harm no one under the age of 12" implies that, say, a 13-year-old boy wearing a tokar will probably be killed. Does that not make sense to you? That's to say nothing of the fact that the Unsullied can't exactly card people, you know?

[Ser Joshifer of Skane]

Dany doesn't know the Starks. She will go some where and learn some more about life and come back and accept them, maybe even grow fond of them, theyre a broken house of children for seven gods sake!

[Evamitchelle]

You think it's morally ambivalent to allow a 7 year old to watch a man die... OK then.

The being a squire wasn't the issue, it was the fact they'd be involved in the war itself. Sending young boys off to get killed to carry some lords spare gloves is amoral... To us.

They start squiring quite young, but I'm not sure they're sent into battle as soon a they become squires. I was under the impression that they helped the knight put on his armour but did not necessarily go into battle with him. Pod (12) didn't accompany Tyrion during the Battle of the Green Fork, and when he showed for the Battle of the Blackwater Tyrion was surprised, told him to go back because he was too young but Pod insisted and Tyrion was too busy trying to mount the defense and didn't have time to deal with it. Jaime started squiring at 11 but only went into battle at 15 against the Kingswood Brotherhood, his fellow squire Merret Frey was 19. Jaime's own squires don't seem to have been into battle yet, except Josmyn Peckledon who was 14-15 at the time and during the Blackwater (but that Battle isn't really typical to begin with), Olyvar Frey was actually older than Robb at 17. Brandon's squire was actually the only one not to end up as toast when he went to KG. The norm doesn't seem to be sending 12-year-old into battle (the fact that the Hound went into battle at that age should be an indication that it's not normal).

Given a choice between having my sons raised in Westeros and present day America? Get me a Trencher of Stale bread... You're not too shocked about Bran witnessing an execution... It's almost as if the culture you belong to has had an effect on your views of morality...

Of course the examples I gave are comparable to yours, They aren't the same. Of course I'm not saying crucifying 163 people is just the same as letting a child see you kill a man but they ARE comparable. And both are clearly moral issues.

Where did I ever say that Westeros is better than modern-day America ? My point was that, given the fact that the average middle-schooler has seen 8,000 murders in his life because of the television, and that most middle-schoolers aren't scarred for life because of the things they see on TV, I don't think it's that traumatic. At worse he'll have nightmares for a few days (Jon and Robb didn't suffer from it apparently, Bran didn't think much of it afterwards either). That's why I don't think what Ned did with his sons (giving them potential nightmare fodder) is comparable to killing children en masse, group crucifixion and wife beating on a morality scale.

So, you're gonna judge and condemn the individuals based on the actions of the culture... You sound more and more like Dany every post :eek: JK. But seriously though. Drogo has NO choice over the society he lives in and the aspects of personality they emphasise. By this logic, Arya is one of the shittiest human beings in the series... Despite her upbringing being very morally correct (For Westeros) and being surroundedby a loving family and relative comfort, she's become a killer, who mistreats little girls for no reason. She's become willing to murder complete strangers to educate herself. She's gone against her culture, and she's CHOSEN to be shitty. Drogo is just a product of Dothraki tradition.

My problem with Dany isn't that she thinks that all the Slavers are evil/barbaric/whatever, my problem is that she starts thinking of herself as Justice personified, an "avenging dragon", a "god" and whatnot while doing things just as terrible as the people she's judging (without anything even resembling a trial).

And bringing up Arya in that argument is only going to fortify me in my beliefs. I'm giving her a pass right now because she's still only 11, but if she's still an assassin/kills people for other reason than self-defense by the time she becomes an adult I'm definitely not going to think of her as a good person. Drogo, on the other hand, is a grown man. Yes, I get the fact that Dothraki culture "made" him the way he is but he's still actively choosing to engage in rape/murder. He's not a completely mindless zombie, he's not weak and powerless either (come on he has 40,000 men under his command, that he won because he's a great fighter, he's not a 10-year-old girl). If everybody kept excusing everybody's shitty behaviour with "it's not him it's just his culture" then things would never change. The fact that things do change proves that there are some people who can still see the difference between right and wrong despite what their culture is telling them. Which is why I think Drogo is a pretty bad human being.

[Ser Joshifer of Skane]

Lets give Drogo a little credit Dany was starting to influence him a bit.. maybe he could have changed his ways.. surely if he had survived and marched on Westeros and survived he would have adapted to a less barbaric society, or just go back home and ride horses all day and go back to the way of old, but who cares.. dude died in the 1st book. He defended Dany's honor and payed for it with his life, totally different kind of lifetyle than that of the west.

[Miryana]

ASOIAF isn't set in the real world, in 2012... Characters can only be 'judged' (bit of a heavyweight term for a story with giants and ice-fairies, but no matter) by the standards of the world they exist in...

ASOIAF is written in the real world, and real world concerns inform GRRM's writing about topics such as sexism, dwarfism and sexuality, where he tends to side with those whose oppression is part of mainstream Westerosi culture - a stand that is followed by fandom in general. I don't believe anyone can so utterly separate him/herself from our cultural values as to can judge the books strictly from a Westerosi POV, and that's even ignoring the fact that there are different Westerosi POVs and some actions can only be defended if you argue that the most brutal POV is the norm - Tywin and Roose are fine with child brides being raped to secure a claim obtained by the murders of their young brothers, but the likes of Ned would sure as hell not agree. The "don't be politically correct" argument usually relies on ignoring the compassion and standards of honourable behaviour that do exist in Westeros and are violated by sexual abuse and indiscriminate murder just the same as modern standards.

I have always wondered at Dany's insistence on hating the Starks, though technically the Starks had a reason to be angry with her Brother for taking their Sister?

(Though it sounds that she thinks what Rhaegar did in "taking his Northern girl at swordpoint," romantic). :dunno:

Yes, another headdesking moment. The most virtuous, bestest brother ever needed a sword to take a girl (not his wife) with him - which (however much the readers may know about R+L) does point to her either not wanting to go or to her family not wanting her to go? And Dany never makes a connection between this and the rebellion by the girl's brother and betrothed? She stops the rapes the Dothraki commit before her, but when the married Rhaegar takes a girl at swordpoint, it's romantic and totally compatible with her chosen view of the evil Usurper and his dogs that doesn't even waver due to Ned's mercy - when new information doesn't match your worldview, just dismiss it.

Apart from the fact that they're all book 1 POVs and storytelling logic encourages thinking those POVs will unite against the Others, there's no in-world or in-character reason to think Dany would be the one to help the Starks recover, especially when she's taking forever to get to Westeros. Currently she doesn't care what her brother did to Lyanna and she doesn't care what her father may have done.

Either Dany's going to do a huge amount of total worldview restructuring and maturation in the remaining two books, or GRRM has had me fooled and intended all along not to make her the saviour queen but a story of how a sympathetic well-intentioned girl grows into a brutal conqueror who must be stopped.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Either Dany's going to do a huge amount of total worldview restructuring and maturation in the remaining two books, or GRRM has had me fooled and intended all along not to make her the saviour queen but a story of how a sympathetic well-intentioned girl grows into a brutal conqueror who must be stopped.

Agreed. I spent three books rooting for her and it took just one book for me to completely turn against her. If she starts showing some inkling of common sense, self-awareness or competence, I don't see why my opinion of her couldn't change. But it wouldn't surprise me if her character is a deliberate misleading and she does go off the deep end. There's been an awful lot of heavy-handed talk about her being a "savior," which suggests to me that she's anything but.

[ARYa_Nym]

I have always wondered at Dany's insistence on hating the Starks, though technically the Starks had a reason to be angry with her Brother for taking their Sister?

(Though it sounds that she thinks what Rhaegar did in "taking his Northern girl at swordpoint," romantic). :dunno:

This is good for Jon/Dany imo because Rhaegar was like Bael the Bard come again. Jon's time with the wildlings made him value this concept as well. He said that he would have to steal Val if he wanted her love.

[PatrickStormborn]

I'm sorry, I just think it's funny that you apparently believe that the Starks actually need Dany for anything, or that they should thank their lucky stars for her existence because she's "their best chance a reunion." Um, how, pray tell? She's shown nothing but blind ignorant contempt for Ned and I don't see why his children owe her anything or would have any good reason to rely on her solely on the basis of "who she is."

I don't think I said that, so stop misquoting me.

Daenerys is one of the main characters, so I don't think it would be too surprising if she helped the Starks gain power again. Who else is going to help them? Stannis? No, he only wants one so that he can hold Winterfell. Aegon? I don't think he'll be too bothered about taking the North. Euron? Cersei? Littlefinger?

I don't see what Davos taking Rickon has to do with anything. Why does Davos taking Rickon "challenge Dany"? Do you think Rickon in any way whatsoever belongs to Dany?

Did I ever say that? No. So read my post properly.

I'll break down what I wrote: Dany will probably side with the Starks (or not go against them because their house is destroyed, like hers), unless they're being used by rival claimants. If Rickon is being used by Stannis to hold Winterfell, then Dany certainly won't ally with him but she may still side with him after she's beaten Stannis.

"Kill every man wearing a tokar" and "Harm no one under the age of 12" implies that, say, a 13-year-old boy wearing a tokar will probably be killed. Does that not make sense to you? That's to say nothing of the fact that the Unsullied can't exactly card people, you know?

"Harm no one under the age of 12" implies that the Unsullied should not harm any children. Considering that Daenerys is only about 14-15 at this time (and married at 13), she can't really be blamed for thinking that 13 year olds are responsible for their actions.