Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

It occurs to me that Khal Drogo's wounds while bloody were not the kind that often killed healthy men. I've been wondering if she treated him from the start with the intention of exacting revenge.

While it's not specifically stated, it seems likely to me. What do others think?

It looked to me as though it was Drogo's fault the wound festered. She applied a poultice. It itched and burned - both signs of healing - so he took it off and had a soothing bandage put on. That bandage had nothing to stop the infection, allowing the wound to fester.

That's how it seemed from the book to me, at any rate.

I took the burning as the first sign that his wound was going bad.

I thought that at that point she was trying to help - it was only later that I thought she was being more vindictive. Looking back on it now though it does seem more likely that she was seeking revenge that early on, whilst the 'crimes' against her people were still extremely fresh.

I've only read the first book so far but it seems that many of the characters have hidden agendas. I'm wondering if Daenerys is still being too trusting even at the end of the book.

I think it might have been a little of both. She may have treated him properly, but intentionally used herbs that would cause him discomfort. That way, he'd get angry and stop following her advice, and let the wound fester.

I think the Godswife pretended to heal Drogo. She was looking for vengeance instead.

I, too, wondered about this. The book felt like she was being revengeful... the show felt more like it was a mistake. I almost wondered while watching whether they were going to take that part out. I was also (and this might just be me!) thought I remembered in the book that she purposefully killed the baby? But the show made it look like it was an accident... I guess the benefit of having read the book is that we could see into their minds a bit more.

I didn't actually consider the HBO series interpretation but you are right in that her treatment of Drogo and his decline did seem as more of an accident.

I think in both the book and the TV series though the killing of Danys child is intentional - though I am not entirely sure if it would not have happened has Dany not been taken back into the tent.

Stephen - I have not yet read the most recently published booked, but you are right that (at least amongst the adults) they tend to have alternative agendas.

Even when I read the book the first time, almost a decade ago, I thought the Godswife intentionally killed the Khal. This was cemented further by conversations with friends and on forumsites. I think HBO's version made it a heavy-handed admission when she scoffs at the notion that Danys saved her, and given the context of GRRM's world I think the writers decided the same.

I thought she had purposefully allowed the infection to spread. She was such a nasty jerk-face to Dany after he died with that "what did you save me from" speech.

I think this is one of those "decide for yourself" moments that authors like to use. Personally, I got the feeling that the poultice was working and Drogo just couldn't take the itching and the burning and took it off, thus causing the wound to fester and kill him. I think the Godswife tried this small thing because she owed Dany that much, but when Dany asked her to go too far, that's when she totally screwed Dany over.

I would like to say that it was Khal Drogo's fault for removing the medicine, but it's possible the Godswife never healed him to begin with.

I originally thought it got infected because he took off her poltice which was healing him. Burning and itching are usually signs of healing. The new stuff put on allowed the wound to fester. But the way she acted later did bring things into doubt, I think she did her one good deed originally and after that revenge was her motive.

She was raped by the Khal's men. Why would she want to heal him? For Dany's sake? I don't think so. There's little to no motive for her to help the Khal, but plenty of reasons for her to want him (and the rest of the Dothraki) dead.

She knew about herbs and medicines, which means she also knew which ones cause harm. Sure, the wound was itching and burning; but both itching and burning are also associated with festering wounds. Those symptoms cannot be ascribed only to healing, nor should the assumption be made that the wound is healing because those symptoms exist. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I remember something about an odor when the Godswife's poltice was removed, which would mean that the wound was already festering BEFORE the poltice came off. (I could be remembering it wrong, in which case ignore that last bit.)

She did it on purpose. She bore no love for the man or for his people. It was a move of revenge.

When I saw this title I read it as 'Was she justified in what she did?', which I think is a fra more interesting question.

In a way, absolutely. As she says, they raped and killed her and hers, and the child was heralded to be the stallion who mounts the world; from her eyes he would have brought more of the same.

In a way, not. Dany did save her, however little it meant. And Rhaego had done nothing yet, he was literally innocent. With Dany's hand to guide him, he could have become a force for peace.

I disagree. Rape is a terrible terrible thing but I do not think anything really justifies killing another human being no matter how awful they are or how many atrocities they commit.

Saying that, you can understand that the things which the Godwife and her people went through would cause her to want revenge... I think if any of us were actually faced with that situation our opinions might all alter.

Allyson wrote: "I think it might have been a little of both. She may have treated him properly, but intentionally used herbs that would cause him discomfort. That way, he'd get angry and stop following her advice,..."

Interesting theory! So she kept a healer's Hippocratic Oath (not that there is one in Martin’s world, but something similar) to help the sick, but also created an opportunity for Drogo to hurt himself. Technically, she has acted ethically in helping him, but by opening a window for him to jump out of, she puts into his death into his own hands ultimately. And no one could argue that opening the window (figuratively) was what killed him.

That is singularly devious.

~

I think, like Pam, though, that she really did harm him on purpose. She’s not afraid for herself any more so if she has an opportunity to kill Drogo, why wouldn’t she? Her own life will never get better so why wouldn’t she do this on behalf of her people and any others the Khal has preyed upon?

Terry wrote: "When I saw this title I read it as 'Was she justified in what she did?', which I think is a far more interesting question..."

Personally, I think that she could justify killing Khal Drogo and that she did it in such a way that she was also able to kill his unborn son before his destiny of becoming a conqueror came to pass was also justified in her thinking.

Just look at the number of lives that she saved. Personally, I like to think that I'd hold myself to a higher standard and not kill anyone in cold blood but who can say what they'd do in her situation.

Personally I'm against capital punishment but have been troubled lately by thinking about the possibility of executions in the form of forced transplants of organs to save lives.

Read Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro and tell me that forced organ transplants to save lives wouldn't be more humane in some ways than our current system.

BTW... One of the killers featured in In Cold Blood by Truman Capote donated his eyes. Would you have allowed that?

I think she wanted him dead from the get go after what he did to her people

Annemarie wrote: "I thought she had purposefully allowed the infection to spread. She was such a nasty jerk-face to Dany after he died with that "what did you save me from" speech."

That was what made it clearer that she didn't have intentions of healing him from the beginning. She made them believe she was going to help him but she was just looking for vengeance.

The 'what did you save me from' speech was harsh and brutal, and it was hard to hear it said to someone I have so much time for as Dany, but the thing is, she had a point. That's the kind of thing that lifts A Song of Ice and Fire way above the level of most fantasy; nuance like that, dilemmas like the one that started this thread. You can completely see Dany's POV, but also Mirri Maz Duur's.

She killed him. Of course, she wants to kill him.

I think it was intentional.

Think: Khal Drogo is a warrior. He's probably had wounds before. If the itching and healing is just part of the process, he'd recognize that. My guess is, she did something to the poultice in the first place.

And I do think she was justified, even though I love Dan. The guy killed everyone in her village.

The sense I got was that she not only wanted to kill Drogo, but she wanted to make sure he died painfully.

I got the impression that Mirri Maz Duur tried to heal Drogo properly at first, but when he refused to follow her instructions and took off her poultice, she basically thought 'Screw this!'

I don't think that she was quite so villainous as Dany makes her out to be (thought it's an understandable mistake on Dany's part). Mirri may even have genuinely tried to help Drogo magically - it may simply have been beyond her power to heal him completely, i.e. she was just out of her depth. It's pretty clear that the magical forces in the A Song of Ice and Fire universe are very dark, and definitely not something amateurs should be dabbling in.

Of course, Mirri Maz Duur finally tells Dany that what happened to Drogo and Rhaego was what she intended all along, and she may be right as far as Rhaego was concerned, since he was almost certainly the life she took in exchange for Drogo's.

She killed him and she meant to

Allyson wrote: "I think it might have been a little of both. She may have treated him properly, but intentionally used herbs that would cause him discomfort. That way, he'd get angry and stop following her advice,..."

I think this makes the most sense.

my personal opinion is that mirri maz duur attempted to heal the khal. i'm certain she despised him, but she took an oath to be a healer. it is probably no different than maesters who are sworn to serve regardless of family loyalties. remember she was trained by marwyn. at the beginning she probably is disgusted with the dothraki and khal drogo but is curious to know what type of person danaerys is, so she does her best to heal him, fully expecting him to ignore her advice anyway.

the more she sees of danaerys the more vindictive she likely becomes. to her danaerys isn't virtuous and altruistic, she is young, naive, and as mirri points out misguided in her attempts to "save" people. keep in mind mirri is still a slave, no matter what danaerys intent was. when dany implores her to save drogo, she resists telling dany that there is nothing that can be done. dany insists and forcefully tells her to do it anyway regardless of the cost. she likely sees dany as arrogant and irrational at this point, but she does what is asked.

as cruel as mirri maz duur seems at first there has always been an attempt to reason with dany and let her see that she is selfish and naive to what she asks, which dany ignores. she very much seems like her brother in these scenes: angry, desperate, arrogant.

my first read through made me hate the maegi with the same passion that the dothraki shared, but on a re-read i feel that though i believe she got what she deserves in the end, what she did to drogo and danaerys were warranted in some way and were a direct result of their own actions/attitude and not necessarily hers.

Mick wrote: "She killed him and she meant to"

I agree

Susana wrote: "Mick wrote: "She killed him and she meant to"

I agree"

The HBO series is clear. She kills him. In the book, while not so clear, she has every motive to kill him. The book makes Dany and Drago more arrogant and mutually responsible.

Allyson wrote: "I think it might have been a little of both. She may have treated him properly, but intentionally used herbs that would cause him discomfort. That way, he'd get angry and stop following her advice,..."

Ooo I like that. I could see her going both ways (treating the wound properly, poisioning him), but that seems more crafty to me.

VENGENCE it was

(SPOILER INSIDE!)

It never occurred to me that Drogo's death was anything except a result of ignorant medical treatment until I saw the title of this thread. Think about it: Martin kills his characters off without even so much as a by-your-leave over and over again. Drogo's death seemed to me to simply be a device from which to launch Dany's independent storyline. I am not sure wondering if he was "done in" by the godswife really even serves any kind of purpose. Martin is pretty good at leading the reader down a rabbit trail, but this particular trail seems to me to be the invention of the speculative reader rather than the purposeful intent of the author.

(SPOILER ALERT!!)

By contrast, I found Brienne's demise shocking, especially since there was the feint before the actual final blow. I am not entirely convinced she won't make some kind of Catelyn-esque come back in a subsequent book. Brienne was a character who had great purpose in and of herself, rather than Drogo who, although sexy as hell, seemed simply to be a ploy for Daenery's development.

And, it is because I look at the comparison that way that I don't think there was any skullduggery on the godswife's part. To bother to develop and include the possibility of treachery surrounding Drogo's death seems, to me, to give too much weight to his character, but then again, I could just be full of it. Haha!

Kerry wrote: "Susana wrote: "Mick wrote: "She killed him and she meant to"

I agree"

The HBO series is clear. She kills him. In the book, while not so clear, she has every motive to kill him. The book makes ..."

I didn't think that. I was reading both the book and watching the tv series at the same time and I can say that...Dany was, in my opinion, naive. She thought that the fact that she'd saved the woman's life made her trustworthy. Plus she was desperate and wanted to save her Khal =/

Josh wrote: "my personal opinion is that mirri maz duur attempted to heal the khal. i'm certain she despised him, but she took an oath to be a healer. it is probably no different than maesters who are sworn to ..."

I don't think she attempted to heal the khal. When she tells Dany that the house where she had healed so many people had been burnt by the khalasar and that Dany did not actually save her life, she proves to Dany that she saw her oath had ceased once the house burnt and that she owed Dany nothing.

Stephen wrote: "I've only read the first book so far but it seems that many of the characters have hidden agendas. I'm wondering if Daenerys is still being too trusting even at the end of the book."

Dany being to trusting is an on going theme in book 2 as well, so be prepared for that.

Reply to Sharon:

*SPOILERS**

There is only one way in which I'll believe that Brienne is actually dead (we see her hang, not actually die), and that's if her death is the spur that takes Jaime Lannister from reforming bad guy to (nuanced) hero material. He's just put too much into her to kill her off like that, without it serving some particular story purpose. Other deaths have served some kind of purpose.

I feel the same about Jon. There are around four different ways he could escape being dead, my favourites being either through Melisandre, or as Varamyr Sixskins did. I know he killed Ned when nobody was expecting it, but when you look back you can see Ned was slated for it from the word go. Robb I believed with ease, too. Jon? Not for a second.

Again I find myself brining this back to the task at hand!
There is a motive here, and it was clear in the conversation between Dani and the healer woman. As a healer/ priestess, her agenda was to stop Drago at any cost. That would mean also to stop his lineage as well.
Dani is/ was a naive and trusting child to believe that just because she
" saved " this woman, her intentions would be honored or returned.
This is a cruel and wild world that she lives in now and Dani only has to learn how to survive better.

I don't think Duur killing the baby was an accident.

In the book, she told Dany that prices must be paid; only death could pay for life, and the death of a stallion would open the way. She doesn't actually come out and say the child must die, but she does imply that the death of the stallion was just the beginning of the magic at work.

Dany thinks the stallion is the only price, but I never believed that. There was a lot of subtext in that scene, and even if Dany didn't fully understand what she was buying, for sure, she knew there was a price.

In the show, of course, the death of the baby looks like a complete accident, and I didn't like that as much. I liked the story better when Dany was purposely refusing to think of the consequences of her bargain, and ends up losing everything.

I'm of two minds about the witch's initial motivation (I suspected foul play from the start, but motivation isn't the same as evidence), but I do fully believe that she knew what version of the Khal Dany would get back, and what the price would be. I do believe malice played a role here, but I think it's a passive malice, if that makes sense: Duur's powers were the knife, but she only acted at the insistence of Dany. The ultimate cause of the Khal's unlife and their son's death was Dany.

I think it makes for a better story if that were true.

Well
SPOILER ALERT****
BEWARE***
Dani does see Khal and her baby again in the House of the Undead
(in season 2 oin the HBO series, but she knows she must walk away!)
So what the Preistess said was the truth in a way!
But the price ....." It is known!"

I do believe she was trying to help at the beginning but when Drogo took the poultice off to replace it with a soothing bandage, I think that was the point that she decided to exact revenge. This would be because of the crimes against her people and also by removing the poultice that she put on with good intentions is an insult to any form of healer when you remove their good work when they try to help.

Terry wrote: "Reply to Sharon:

*SPOILERS**

There is only one way in which I'll believe that Brienne is actually dead (we see her hang, not actually die), and that's if her death is the spu..."

CONTAINS SPOILERS>>>>DON'T LOOK!!!)

Hi, Terry, thanks for the reply...sorry I didn't see it until today for some reason. Yup....I thought Ned was gonna get it from the beginning, but I was bummed about Rob and I agree...Jaime has put too much into Brienne.....

Susana wrote: "Kerry wrote: "Susana wrote: "Mick wrote: "She killed him and she meant to"

I agree"

The HBO series is clear. She kills him. In the book, while not so clear, she has every motive to kill him. T..."

I read the book(s)--it was, in my opinion, not clear in the book at least that Duur's actions were motivated by murder....but hearing everyone else's opinions makes me think I should re-think mine....

When I read it I was certain she had been seeking revenge from the outset.

I absolutely felt she was exacting revenge from the get-go, too. There was no intent of ever healing Drago. Why would she?

She made it perfectly clear in that speech mentioned above, his life, against all he might have destroyed, in her eyes it was worth the sacrifice?

Didn't she apply the poultice in the temple, and then they burnt it down afterwards?

I always thought that she had used healing herbs to start with, but ones that cause discomfort (intending to heal, but with the least pleasant way possible, as Allison said.

But then they burnt her temple anyway she decided on revenge.

Nothing justifies rape EVER, however ......
nothing justifies Drago's long suffering descent into a living death, of nothingness. Being the person he was, SO alive, he'd rather be completely dead, "don't cha " think?

yeah but the godswife was only saved because of Dany.. she must've known Dany would be killed if Drogo was to die. She is only alive because of Dany so i dont think she wants either of them dead.

No, a poultice is meant to be changed. The infection and fever were there to start with, and when they were packed in with no way to drain the infection, the infection turned inward.

I think the original intent was just, but as the wound festered, so did the old woman's wounds of what was done to her and her people. It's a duality.

Her later actions were meant to cause harm, though even she was afraid of the consequences. Dani made an innocent decision when she demanded that the woman apply her skills to the Khal.