rylona rhee

anonymous asked:

SomethingLikeALawyer, when you say that Daenerys doesn't deserve to survive or succeed, what exactly are you talking about? Her behaviour so far in books, or something else? Thanks (:

grottoofregrets: What has Daenerys done that’s so terrible that you say that she doesn’t deserve to survive or succeed, and even hope that she dies?

lesmotsincompris: I second the question about Daenerys. I don’t want to see her sitting the Iron Thrones, but why you think she doesn’t deserve to succeed or survive?

Alright, I know since I said it, I was going to have to elaborate on it. So here it is, why I don’t like Daenerys, why I don’t think she’s a good queen, and why I wouldn’t want her to rule Westeros. I’ll warn you already that a lot of this bases on my own value system, so you might (and many of you probably won’t) agree with some or all of my rationale. So anyway, here we go:

Daenerys does not value her word, nor does she see her obligations as binding. This is disastrous for any political leader, but especially for one looking to rule under feudalism. Under feudalism, the feudal contract and the vassal-overlord relationship are key, and both must be abided by. Daenerys proved at Astapor that she is willing to enter into bargains that she has no intent of fulfilling, when she dealt with Kraznys. She identifies the Dothraki as her people, accepts and acts with the power of a khaleesi (even authorizing Viserys’s execution), yet as soon as the position requires her to do something she does not desire, she abandons the responsibility most handily. As a potential feudal vassal, this would concern me. Feudalism’s basic premise is that your forsake autonomy in exchange for protection. If Daenerys does not see her oaths to me as binding, how am I to rest easy if I am under attack and require her to fulfill her end of the bargain? If she enters into arrangements in deliberate bad faith, how am I to feel comfortable that she has any intent of honoring them? Will she take my troops to fight her wars and not defend my lands? Will she take my taxes but snatch up holdings in my fief to please some other vassal? If I am not a vassal, but a foreign power, this still looms large. Will she abide by peace or economic treaties? Is she receiving me in her court to discuss matters of diplomacy only to execute me? There’s always an uncertainty when dealing with an arbitrary ruler that erodes faith in the monarch, and that is something I strongly condemn in leaders of government.

Daenerys confuses justice with vengeance, which is something that I’ve talked about at length in this tumblr ask. She approaches justice completely arbitrarily, rendering verdicts out of a desire to satisfy the self rather than uphold a unified form of law. We see this when she crucifies the 163 Great Masters without finding out who was responsible for the crime, not even a cursory examination. Her inner thoughts are revealed in this chapter, and we see her weak rationalization. Crimes have to be punished, so she thinks, but she already confesses that her reason for doing that was to make her feel better for being unable to protect the 163 children crucified along the wayposts. This is wrong. The offices of government, especially in the execution of justice, aren’t vectors to satisfy the ego of the person in charge. Crime and punishment is a serious thing, and it cannot be treated as a bandage for wounded pride. Daenerys is deliberately misusing her office and duties for self-gratification. We finally see this at the end of A Dance With Dragons, where Daenerys fully embraces the mantra that dragons plant no trees. She does not desire to bring stability, peace, or growth either to Westeros or to Meereen. She wants to hurt the people who made her powerless. She wants to kill the ones who shattered her ego, by forcing her to compromise, by evicting her family from Westeros, one and all. It’s that cycle of vengeance I’ve talked about all over again. She’s lost any high-minded concept she may have had. She wants her opponents to suffer so she can feel like the glorious queen she imagines herself to be.

Daenerys confuses her office as a queen with herself as a person. This is evidenced most clearly when she deals with the wineseller and his daughters. She authorizes torture for information, which is barbaric on its own, but for the time period, I can’t criticize it as much as I would. Torture for information important to the state was a standard practice, as we see with Tyland Lannister and the position of the Lord Confessor. As disgusting at that practice is (not to mention that empirical research indicates that torture simply doesn’t yield accurate data, which Martin hints at numerous times throughout the novel series), the characters of the setting understand it as a standard practice of government. What I can criticize, however, is that she authorizes torture because she finds out that Rylona Rhee, a harpist she was particularly fond of and a leader of a former-slave committee. She is not acting in respects to the murder, nor is she acting out of doing so because the victim was an agent of the state (the Unsullied are actors of the state, and she refused to authorize the Shavepate’s torture when she learned there were Unsullied among the victims). She only authorizes the torture because she personally knew the victim. Impartiality is a key component of justice, and if a judge cannot be impartial, I cannot have faith in justice. We see this also when she judges Jorah and Barristan for collaborating with Robert’s court. She considers both equally guilty of the same crime, but she pardons Barristan and exiles Jorah not because of their crimes, but because she felt Jorah was not contrite enough. Had she judged Jorah’s crime more severely, because his information led to her attempted assassination, that would be one thing, but we clearly see in her chapters that she was angry that he did not immediately beg for forgiveness. She sees the state as the extension of herself and cannot separate the two, thus her judgment must always be called into question. I cannot have faith in the judgment of the monarch if I can reasonably expect her to judge differently based on her own personal investment in the case. Corruption of the court is the reason why King Jaehaerys I abolished the Faith’s right to conduct trials, and Daenerys’s judgment is equally corrupt and impure. Even Henry VIII, bloody-handed tyrant that he was, said he was not above the law. Dany, however, views her personal desires and opinions as superior to the law, and I cannot respect nor swear fealty to a monarch who does such a thing.

Daenerys is a petty, arbitrary tyrant exemplifying some of the worst traits a monarch can have. She views monarchy primarily as a sense of self-gratification, that only her own desires matter (damn what anyone else thinks), and that’s what’s good for her ego is good for the state. She abandons her obligations when they inconvenience her, and now justifies further destruction of the innocent and guilty alike because the throne belongs to her. There’s no high-minded concept here, just: “I deserve to be queen.” The notion that there are limits to a king’s power, the notion that a king who violates his lordly obligations and the social contract is no true king, all of the faults that Robert’s Rebellion addressed, go away under a Targaryen restoration spearheaded by Daenerys. In their place, Daenerys leaves the idea that the state exists wholly with the selfish whims of an absolute monarch, one who believes that guilt and innocence are secondary to feeling powerful and dominating all dissenters, and one who believes that lordly obligations are second to personal satisfaction. Daenerys’s ascension means that Robert’s Rebellion was wrong, that the Targaryens are answerable to no man or justice. Westeros needs a monarch who will treat the position with the gravity and honor that the position deserves, and respect the heavy burden that it requires. All of the people who labored to make Westeros a better government, Jaehaerys I, Good Queen Alysanne, Septon Barth, Viserys II, Aegon V, Jon Arryn, Eddard Stark, Davos Seaworth, all of them, deserve to have their efforts pay off.

Thanks for the question Grotto, Compris, and all of the Anons who were waiting patiently for an answer to this.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

on-this-rock  asked:

Don't drag me, but ADwD is the one book that I never finished. I can't remember if it was out of disinterest or because I was reading it during Season 3 (which was the final straw for me as a viewer and turned me off to everything ASOIAF related for a long time). So uh...what's that you said about Dany having teenage girls tortured in front of their fathers????

You didn’t finish ADWD??

Originally posted by samisoffthewall

I kid <3 seriously, though, I recommend you give it another shot. I loved it to pieces my first time through, but I know that many of those in the fandom who agree with me that it’s the best installment of ASOIAF to date only came to that conclusion upon a second reading (Adam Feldman and Jeff Hartline come immediately to mind). 

Anywho, as to your question: it actually happened quite early on in ADWD, in Dany’s second POV chapter in the book.

“Your servants were set upon as they walked the bricks of Meereen to keep Your Grace’s peace. All were well armed, with spears and shields and short swords. Two by two they walked, and two by two they died. Your servants Black Fist and Cetherys were slain by crossbow bolts in Mazdhan’s Maze. Your servants Mossador and Duran were crushed by falling stones beneath the river wall. Your servants Eladon Goldenhair and Loyal Spear were poisoned at a wineshop where they were accustomed to stop each night upon their rounds.”

Mossador. Dany made a fist. Missandei and her brothers had been taken from their home on Naath by raiders from the Basilisk Isles and sold into slavery in Astapor. Young as she was, Missandei had shown such a gift for tongues that the Good Masters had made a scribe of her. Mossador and Marselen had not been so fortunate. They had been gelded and made into Unsullied. “Have any of the murderers been captured?”

“Your servants have arrested the owner of the wineshop and his daughters. They plead their ignorance and beg for mercy.”

They all plead ignorance and beg for mercy. “Give them to the Shavepate. Skahaz, keep each apart from the others and put them to the question.”

“It will be done, Your Worship. Would you have me question them sweetly, or sharply?”

“Sweetly, to begin. Hear what tales they tell and what names they give you. It may be they had no part in this.” She hesitated. “Nine, the noble Reznak said. Who else?”

“Three freedmen, murdered in their homes,” the Shavepate said. “A moneylender, a cobbler, and the harpist Rylona Rhee. They cut her fingers off before they killed her.”

The queen flinched. Rylona Rhee had played the harp as sweetly as the Maiden. When she had been a slave in Yunkai, she had played for every highborn family in the city. In Meereen she had become a leader amongst the Yunkish freedmen, their voice in Dany’s councils. “We have no captives but this wineseller?”

“None, this one grieves to confess. We beg your pardon.”

Mercy, thought Dany. They will have the dragon’s mercy. “Skahaz, I have changed my mind. Question the man sharply.”

“I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him.”

“Do as you think best, but bring me names.” Her fury was a fire in her belly.

anonymous asked:

Why you've the obsession of a second field of fire? That would kill Dany as a characther.

I presume, Anon, that you refer to my belief that Daenerys will (albeit not intentionally, having no foreknowledge of its existence) set off the wildfire under King’s Landing, thus killing the would-be Aegon VI (and thousands of others); I have never referred to this, as I recall, as a “second field of fire”, but I suppose one could refer to this event as such if one so chose. Still, I would hardly characterize what I think will happen in TWOW as an “obsession”, since as far as I can tell I’ve written about it primarily all of three times in over three thousand posts.

Myself, I maintain that it would not “kill Dany as a character”, but rather allow her to reach her darkest point in order to come back from the abyss and become the hero Westeros needs in its darkest hour. TWOW, I’ve said before, will be a progress of fire and blood for Daenerys, a march through old stomping grounds but in new and triumphant ways. The Dothraki who had abandoned her at Drogo’s death will kneel to her or be burned; the slaves of Volantis will hail her as the breaker of chains and the chosen of R'hllor as she destroys their slavers; lying, treacherous Illyrio will feel her wrath for his secret backing of Aegon. The Iron Throne will be hers, and carried by the enthusiasm of her followers, she may think that she cannot fail to have it. The only thing that will stand in her way will be Young Aegon, the false pretender out to rob her of her family legacy - and fueled on by the same “fire in her belly” she felt in Meereen on hearing of the murder of Rylona Rhee, she will plan to give Aegon “the dragon’s mercy”.

But then, attacking the city, she’ll find that she lights a jade holocaust, more terrible than anything she had envisioned. This will not simply be the death of Aegon and his queen and court; this will be tens of thousands more, men, women, and children, horribly burned alive from the partnership of her father’s last legacy and her own draconic one. This is the destructive side of “fire and blood”, and I think it will devastate Daenerys, forcing to reconsider herself, her position, and her desires. Is she simply her father’s daughter, heiress of the Mad King, destined to rule by fire and terror as he did? How can she reconcile being mhysa, the mother of thousands, the Breaker of Chains, with this dragon who destroys rather than creates, who devours the people it would rule?

In this darkest place for her, when she’s at a personal crossroads - wondering if she should fully embrace the inheritance of her dragonlord ancestors or stop and try to scramble together some remnants of her former peaceable ways - that’s when she’ll be confronted by Euron. In his appropriating Valyrian heritage - the slaving, the blood magic, the Valyrian steel - Euron will tempt her to choose the former; come with me, he’ll say, you’ve already killed thousands, show them who is the dragon here, let’s rule as the dragonlords did. That’s an incredibly dark temptation, and it’s one that Daenerys will ultimately reject. She will be the dragon, yes, but not in the service of such evil ends, nor in the pursuit of a temporal crown. The true fight, the true enemy, is the one to the north which Euron will have helped unleashed; it’s there that she will combine her two identities - the Breaker of Chains and the Mother of Dragons - into a single, apocalyptic one. She will be Daenerys, the dragon she was always meant to be, but fighting for the survival of humanity, sacrificing herself and her pretensions toward the restoration of House Targaryen that tens of thousands more might live and that the supernatural slavers who are the Others will never take humanity under their control.

Don’t you love it when people reblog your posts, and then block you so you can’t reply? Love it. *sarcasm*. Either way, I’m going to respond to this whether that user likes it or not. Heads up, a lot of text.

There are so many things wrong with post and I’ve seen it just a few times too many so I needed to react. (And disclaimer: I’m not a Jalsa ‘hater’; I don’t even know what Jalsa is so there.) 

You may not attack Jonsa, but so many people who are pro- Daenerys do, up to the point of calling us ‘delusional’, sending anon hate, and mocking them constantly. Just cause you don’t take part of it, doesn’t mean others don’t. So -yeah- I’m going ot have a problem with that.

“Dany tortured a child.” I presume you’re talking about the wineseller’s daughter here…? In that case, context is everything. What eventually happened to the wineseller’s daughter remains vague. Apart from that, torturing her was never Dany’s idea to start with. Throughout the series, we see her being protective of children and struggling with her ideas of motherhood. The idea to torture the wineseller’s daughter came from Shakaz. And when Dany thinks about the murder of her people - especially Rylona Rhee, a freed woman -, she agrees to Shakaz’s notion. I don’t condone that, I think it’s 100% wrong and I wish Dany acted differently here. But to take this action out of its context - a city besieged from within, while Dany tries to protect her people, amongst whom there are children as well! - in order to proof Dany is a Horrible Person is a strawman argument imo.

Well, I completely disagree with that meta linked. Context? You mean, ‘cool motive, still a war crime.’ I don’t give a shit what motivated Daenerys to torture a child. I don’t care that the city was under seige. Just cause it’s not ‘your idea’ doesn’t mean you don’t hold the power in that situation. Daenerys is a Queen. Shakaz is part of her council. Who holds the influence at the end of the day? Daenerys does. And it’s not ‘vague’ if you know what medieval torture was. Flaying, pulling out teeth, burning, snapping bones. Want a full list? Happy to provide one. I suppose the Wineseller’s daughters don’t count as Daenerys’ ‘people’. Her prior protection of people (and any “context” doesn’t make the wineseller’s daughters less tortured and brutalized. So it’s not a strawman argument at all. 

Is practically an imperialist.” Nope, I don’t agree with this, sorry. There are a lot of racial issues with Dany’s Slaver’s Bay storyline but I think these stem from problems with Martin’s writing rather than Dany’s characterization an sich. There are people who can talk about this way more eloquently than I can but in short I don’t think Dany’s an imperialist and/or has imperialist motives. This post is excellent in explaining why that’s so

I never once talked about the racial undertones of Slaver’s Bay. Never did. I called her an ‘imperalist’ in relation to her wanting to overtake Westeros and imposing herself as ruler of Meereen. I’m just going to quote from a meta I wrote

She uses military forces to take Meereen, Yunkai and Astapor. She’s not simply the Princess Of Dragonstone, but the Queen Of Meereen, a title which has nothing to do with Targaryen legacy, but she creating in some Slaver’s Bay Empire. She used the Unsullied and Second Sons to do so. What Daenerys did does fit the definition of imperalism. (…)

As for imperalism and it being justified, well- you are justified in getting rid of slavery. You are, however not justified in changing a culture to see how you feel fit, you are not justified to execute whoever you feel wronged by, you are not justified to torture children, you are not justified in bringing three weapons of mass destruction into a city with the intent of using them- even if they are your ‘children’. Imperalism gives an appeal- power goes to the mightiest and in the case of Daenerys, someone with more humanity than the slave masters. But it’s not that simple. Any imperalism comes fire, blood and destruction.

(…)

Critics of Daenerys do not just call her an imperalist in relation to Astapor, Yunkai and Meereen. It’s also about Westeros. The Targaryens lost their right to rule when they committed the atrocities under King Aerys II. Back to Aegon The Conquerer, the ‘conquered’ Westeros. But the Baratheons, under Robert- conquered the Targaryens. So it’s technically a Baratheon state. Daenerys wants to change that, and revert it back to the Targaryen way. Changing how things works, who is in charge and who sits on the throne is imperalism. She wants to bring imperalism to Westeros. Therefore, Daenerys is an imperalist and more importantly will continue to be so.

“Called Ned an usurper dog.” Well, eh, it’s kinda logical Dany would think that, no? Eddard was crucial in the downfall of House Targaryen. We, the readers, know Robert’s Rebellion was justified but in Dany’s mind - the mind of a girl who had to flee her homeland, grew up with Viserys and relied on his version of events of what happened when she was just a babe - Eddard is an usurper who contributed in the fall of her House, the murder of her family and the loss of her home. I think accepting what her father has done, acknowledging that dark part of her ancestry is and will be one of the driving forces of Dany’s arc and characterization in the series. She isn’t there yet; she’s still holding onto her idealized version of her family and history. That’s rather ignorant and wrong of her but c’mon, it’s understandable; it’s human. I really don’t understand how you (or anyone for that matter) can fault her for not looking favorable upon Eddard Stark. Why in the seven hells would she, considering she doesn’t know the whole truth about her father’s reign?

Her counsel includes Barristan Selmy, who tried to tell her differently that Ned advocated for her life. She chose to not listen. Next point.

“Dishes out ‘justice’ to the Grand Masters without trial.” Lol, somehow I find this one extra funny. I would totally agree with such a complaint, if we were talking about a real life situation with real life people. However, the world of ASoIaF is not real life; it’s fantasy. A fantasy world where the capital punishment is very much a thing, where the ruler of a city, city state, state, kingdom, et cetera rules supreme, where faux ‘trials’ are in vogue and where the murder of slaves is everyday business. That doesn’t mean you can’t be bothered by the fact Dany ordered the deaths of slave holders and traders but in that case, I would fully expect you to be just as bothered with Arya’s sense of justice, or Jon’s, or basically anyone in the series who kills ‘bad’ people without a trial first. Dany is the Breaker of Chains; she wants to destroy the slave trade and free the people of Slaver’s Bay. For me, especially in the context of ASoIaF, that’s a noble enough goal to justify killing the Grand Masters and it doesn’t make me like Dany any less.

You do know that the grand masters who were nailed to the cross were picked at random? Not by measure of atrocity, or their actions…. she just grouped them all together and at random, chose 163. It is totally not comparable to Arya Stark, a fierce warrior. In the books- she wants to know the names of the Freys responsible. She just doesn’t go on a rampage like Lady Stoneheart does and kill them all. Arya is very specific in who she wants to kill- Daenerys is not. 

“Can’t control her dragons for shit.” Okay, what. A) Literally NOBODY (or at least nobody Dany came in contact with) can at this point. NOBODY. B) Dany regularly reprimands herself for that very fact throughout the series. She even locks up Rhaegal and Viserion, who she considers to be her children* and who are her biggest weapons and the foundation of her power, in order to make sure the people are safe. She constantly berates herself for the murder of Hazea. *I think the fandom really underestimates this fact. The dragons are not just her ‘pets’, they are her children, her salvation, her means of going back home (the very thing she longs for most). C) May I remind you that it’s Quentyn Martell (the poor fool) who lets Rhaegal and Viserion escape at the end of ADwD? D) At the very end of her ADwD arc Dany is actually succeeding in taming Drogon. With only a whip. (Favorite chapter ever.)

Point being: she should have done it sooner. I do get what you are saying about the dragons being her children, but Hazea’s death could have been avoided if Drogon wasn’t roaming around that day. I don’t -hate- Daenerys because of it, I just find it careless on her part. 

6. & 7. I’m going to combine your last two arguments, because they boil down to the same thing: a leader under siege in the world of George R.R. Martin does things like to that in order to survive. A leaders threatens people. A leader takes hostages (hostages that are in Dany’s case well taken care of by the way). And Dany took the children hostage because she wanted to stop the killings. Wow, she’s such a Jerk. Amazing. I sincerely wish Dany didn’t have to do these things but it’s not like she was in a very comfortable, safe position when she made these decisions. Once again for the people in the back: context is everything.

Yes, war and seiges put leaders in a corner. Do they have to be children, though? Just cause she takes care of them well doesn’t change the fact that they are hostages. Just cause she won’t harm them (even though it’s been established she’d torture innocent people)

Accept that not everyone is going to like your ‘fav’. We have valid reasons, and you can’t just scream ‘sexism’.

2

It seems that the new “it” thing is to shit on Dany with a claim that Martin compared her story to the Iraq war, which is a complete fabrication. Here are the quotes straight from the horses mouth.

Ah, and btw Mareen first appeared in ASOS which was published in 1999, four years before the Iraq war.

I borrowed this from Oadara, hope you don’t mind. http://oadara.tumblr.com/post/160663404011/what-do-you-think-about-grrm-equating-daenerys-and

Also, it seems that the bullshit claim that the wine sellers daughters were little girls is still going around.

Here are the quotes from the books and no description is ever made of them as little girls. I don’t approve of torture but it something common in that world, even Jon engages in it.

Daenerys II ADWD:

Dany knew their tidings were bad before a word was spoken. One glance at the Shavepate’s ugly face sufficed to tell her that.

“The Sons of the Harpy?” Skahaz nodded. His mouth was grim. “How many dead?” Reznak wrung his hands.

“N-nine, Magnificence. Foul work it was, and wicked. A dreadful night, dreadful.” Nine.

The word was a dagger in her heart. Every night the shadow war was waged anew beneath the stepped pyramids of Meereen. Every morn the sun rose upon fresh corpses, with harpies drawn in blood on the bricks beside them. Any freedman who became too prosperous or too outspoken was marked for death. Nine in one night, though …

That frightened her.

“Tell me.” Grey Worm answered. “Your servants were set upon as they walked the bricks of Meereen to keep Your Grace’s peace. All were well armed, with spears and shields and short swords. Two by two they walked, and two by two they died. Your servants Black Fist and Cetherys were slain by crossbow bolts in Mazdhan’s Maze. Your servants Mossador and Duran were crushed by falling stones beneath the river wall. Your servants Eladon Goldenhair and Loyal Spear were poisoned at a wineshop where they were accustomed to stop each night upon their rounds.”

Mossador.

Dany made a fist. Missandei and her brothers had been taken from their home on Naath by raiders from the Basilisk Isles and sold into slavery in Astapor. Young as she was, Missandei had shown such a gift for tongues that the Good Masters had made a scribe of her. Mossador and Marselen had not been so fortunate.

They had been gelded and made into Unsullied.

“Have any of the murderers been captured?”

Your servants have arrested the owner of the wineshop and his daughters. They plead their ignorance and beg for mercy.” They all plead ignorance and beg for mercy. “Give them to the Shavepate. Skahaz, keep each apart from the others and put them to the question.”

“It will be done, Your Worship. Would you have me question them sweetly, or sharply?”

“Sweetly, to begin. Hear what tales they tell and what names they give you. It may be they had no part in this.” She hesitated.

“Nine, the noble Reznak said. Who else?”

“Three freedmen, murdered in their homes,” the Shavepate said. “A moneylender, a cobbler, and the harpist Rylona Rhee. They cut her fingers off before they killed her.” The queen flinched.

Rylona Rhee had played the harp as sweetly as the Maiden. When she had been a slave in Yunkai, she had played for every highborn family in the city. In Meereen she had become a leader amongst the Yunkish freedmen, their voice in Dany’s councils. “We have no captives but this wineseller?”

“None, this one grieves to confess. We beg your pardon.” Mercy, thought Dany. They will have the dragon’s mercy.

“Skahaz, I have changed my mind. Question the man sharply.”

“I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him.” “Do as you think best, but bring me names.” Her fury was a fire in her belly. “I will have no more Unsullied slaughtered..“

anonymous asked:

In order for Dany to succeed, would she need to completely eradicate the master classes of Slaver's Bay, or is there a more peaceful option?

Generally speaking, there’s really only two ways to prevent a revolution like Dany’s from going backwards - eliminate the population of the master class or eliminate what makes them a master class. 

The former involves a lot of revolutionary violence and/or exile. Deeply morally problematic, certainly, but a big part of Machiavelli’s chapter on cruelty in the Prince is an argument that it’s better to do it all at once, rather than leave things undone and deal with years and years of insurrectionary violence and reprisal-killing that will either bring down the new regime or require an incredibly heavy hand to put down, leading to more overall violence. 

The latter is much, much harder to pull off, because it means keeping alive a class that has an existential impulse to pull down the new order, and it requires a thorough power analysis - in other words, what made the master class the master class, and what would the newly-overthrown class need to get back on top, and how can we confiscate and redistribute the former while preventing them from getting their hands on the latter? And the reason why this is hard to pull off is that if you miss one element that gives the former masters a foundation to build power from, they’ll come roaring back with a vengeance. 

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

In a recent post you noted about the show that "... Daenerys, Renly, Robb, Stannis, and Tyrion have been changed so profoundly that they are almost unrecognizable," from their characters in the book. I can see that with Renly and Stannis, but I think the other three, while different, have been changed more by emphasizing certain aspects of their characters than others, mostly to make them look more positive. Could you expand on what you think makes them "unrecognizable?"

Robb Stark’s plot is butchered in insensible ways. The military component of Robb’s campaign is off-scene for a trite love story. But RacefortheIronThrone already covered that in his article here, and turtle-paced already covered the problems with Taelisa Maegyr here, follow on by NFriel here. I urge you to check both of those articles out, and follow their tumblrs, they do fine work. The bottom line as I see it: Robb was changed from a flawed character with strengths and weaknesses into a dopey, lovesick puppy. The wrangling question of what to do when there’s no good answer isn’t presented, it’s just Robb breaking his word with the Freys for a pointless and selfish reason.

Tyrion does a lot of shady stuff over the course of the novels that simply isn’t present in the show. He arranges to break guest right with his Riverrun envoys (hints of his father here), he has Bronn murder Symon Silvertongue to cover up his affair with Shae. With the omission of the Tysha reveal that destroys him, the Tyrion we see in ADWD is a fundamentally different beast than the Tyrion we see in season five. BookTyrion is a destroyed man, and the account of what happens in his chapters are raw and gouging. As a semi-related aside, read poorquentyn’s account of Tyrion’s arc. It’s not done yet, but it’s splendid. Part 1 and Part 2 for your perusal.

As for Daenerys, sure she’s whitewashed as you say (Jon Snow is, if anything, even worse with his pointed non-involvement in Stannis’s campaign and the absence of the Pink Letter). We don’t see her lash out, angrily ordering torture of the wineseller’s children for the death of Rylona Rhee in ADWD, Daenerys II, as an example, but the big character arc for Daenerys is that she has a real, palpable struggle between the desire for peace and desire for war. She agonizes over what type of ruler she wants to be and forces to ask tough questions in everything from the Meereenese pages and cupbearers (Can I kill the innocent children to discourage enemies who are probably involved in the Sons insurgency?) to the former fighters wanting to reopen the fighting pits (Can I deny these people their free will or should I remove this bloody relic altogether?). Will she assimilate, as she did with the Dothraki, and risk her emancipation campaign dying by inches? Or will she stamp out the slaving practices that have so pervaded the heirs of Ghis that it perverts even their symbols (the Harpy used to carry lightning, but each city instead transformed it into a tool of slavery, the Unsullied aren’t the free lockstep legions of yore, and so on) and risk both good people dying in her war and harming innocent people herself, as we see with the wineseller? That’s her struggle, and it’s important because any monarch is going to have to grow incredibly comfortable with the fact that their decisions cost lives, which is they say: ‘heavy is the crown.’ bookDaenerys is feeling that and realizes that it sucks, which is what Martin means when he says: “Ruling is hard” in his Rolling Stone interview. It’s one of his core beefs with traditional fantasy and denying it changes the character drastically.

EDIT: One thing I forgot to add about Jon was not just the Pink Letter, but his: “C’mon everyone, let’s go attack the Boltons!” speech.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King