Jump to content

Daenerys Stormborn - A Re-Read Project Part III: ASoS & ADwD


MoIaF

Recommended Posts

I disagree.

Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them the Usurpers dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought, and suddenly she heard herself say, I have to see the pit, in a voice as small as a childs whisper. Take me down, ser, if you would.

The fact that she stopped her tirade about the guilt of the Usurper's Dogs and realized the hypocrisy of her words is evidence of what I called a starting point. As I said before, normally she would have continued to insult and degrade the Usurper's Dogs and talk about how she would claim vengeance. But this time she stopped, and that makes all of the difference. And we hear nothing of the Usurper's Dogs in ADWD after this argument. I'm not saying she has changed her opinion on RR and those who fought against House Targaryen, but now she is beginning to understand the issue with her ideas about collective guilt, because based on that belief, she is just as guilty for Hazzea's death as Drogon is. Otherwise, she wouldn't have stopped talking about it.

She didn't stop because she understood hipocrisy of her words but because it was the main concern at the moment. Furthermore, her tirades were never that long. There is nothing, and I repeat nothing in the text that would give the slightest incling that Dany changed her opinion, unless we want to add some. Simply, Dany's continuing clinging to this is understandable, after all we have seen how Arya behaved when Ned Dayne told her about Ashara and her father. Fire Eater is right about pointing out that Dany misses a strong figure like Aemon near her. She is completely alone in this, and Barristan proved to be far less helpful than we hoped him to be. But, there is no doubt that she closed her ears to things she didn't want to hear. Which text unambiguously shows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh...








LordStoneheart would be one example. There were some others who made good points. The majority of people in the later pages wouldn't qualify, especially the one who made the Hitler comparison.







LordStoneheart: Finally! someone gets it.




Do you call that a good point?



Orientalism at its basest point with no small amount of racism. I know that he is not alone in this. I have seen a lot of people bleating such “arguments” in the mindless whitewashing of the 163.



By contrast, when Ned Stark beheads the Night Watchman, and later, when Ned's son Robb beheads another man, those killings take a toll on the two Starks. It's not easy for them to do it. It weighs on them.


As it should, I think. Taking human life should always be a very serious thing. There's something very close up about the Middle Ages. You're taking a sharp piece of steel and hacking at someone's head, and you're getting spattered with his blood, and you're hearing his screams. In some ways maybe it's more brutal that we've insulated ourselves from that. We're setting up mechanisms where we can kill human beings with drones and missiles where you're sitting at a console and pressing the button. We never have to hear their whimpering, or hear them begging for their mother, or dying in horrible realities around us. I don't know if that's necessarily such a good thing. You see this same moral struggle all through history. It's always the question, when you're at war, do you do whatever it takes to win, or do you actually maintain your own moral standard and ideals? Should we be waterboarding people? What if we get valuable information that saves our lives? Well, even so, aren't we compromising ourselves? But if it prevents another 9/11, is torture worth it? I don't know, but it's a question worth asking. Do you commit horrible crimes to stay alive so your side should win?




Dany is sitting on her room and playing with her console. The result is similar to how random people are dying due to bombardment from unmanned air vehicles. There are quite a lot of videos that you can find in Youtube showing this "game".



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I argued on another thread that Dany should have been present during the interrogation. That way, she could at least form a judgement on the truth or falsity of what the Wineseller and his daughters were saying. She could also set limits on what the Shavepate and his minions could actually do. Instead, she just told him to do as he thought best, so long as he brought her names. I'm sure the Wineseller and his daughters named everyone and anyone they could think of.

Sound advice, of course, and she's responsible for whatever the Shavepate did under her authority. I'd just like to know what he did, especially given Martin's penchant for glossing over such matters even when POV bias can't explain it.

Whether Dany ever set limits is unknown. She only said "do as you think best" in regards to the Shavepate saying, "Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sound advice, of course, and she's responsible for whatever the Shavepate did under her authority. I'd just like to know what he did, especially given Martin's penchant for glossing over such matters even when POV bias can't explain it.

Whether Dany ever set limits is unknown. She only said "do as you think best" in regards to the Shavepate saying, "Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on."

Martin prefers to let his readers speculate, unless and until one gets another POV.

For example, at the end of AGOT, Tywin orders Ser Gregor, Ser Amory, and Vargo Hoat to unleash their reavers on the Riverlands. Ser Kevan promises to set the Riverlands ablaze. If that was all we had to go on, we might think they were confining themselves to destroying property, burning crops, killing livestock. Unpleasant for the inhabitants, but legitimate acts of war.

Then we get Arya's chapters in ACOK, and realise the full depths of horror and depravity that Tywin's orders entailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missandei is pretty much the little sister Dany never had. I'd say like Tyrion, Dany has a soft spot for outcasts and broken things. She can be harsh and cruel as she has shown with the Great Masters, but she can also be caring and gentle to the weak like Missandei and former slaves.

Yes, its why she has such a fierce loyalty from some her her people, and why I think she is one of my favourite characters; she is capable of moments of both atrocities and great compassion. It makes for a very interesting character.

Sigh...

Do you call that a good point?

Orientalism at its basest point with no small amount of racism. I know that he is not alone in this. I have seen a lot of people bleating such “arguments” in the mindless whitewashing of the 163.

By contrast, when Ned Stark beheads the Night Watchman, and later, when Ned's son Robb beheads another man, those killings take a toll on the two Starks. It's not easy for them to do it. It weighs on them.

As it should, I think. Taking human life should always be a very serious thing. There's something very close up about the Middle Ages. You're taking a sharp piece of steel and hacking at someone's head, and you're getting spattered with his blood, and you're hearing his screams. In some ways maybe it's more brutal that we've insulated ourselves from that. We're setting up mechanisms where we can kill human beings with drones and missiles where you're sitting at a console and pressing the button. We never have to hear their whimpering, or hear them begging for their mother, or dying in horrible realities around us. I don't know if that's necessarily such a good thing. You see this same moral struggle all through history. It's always the question, when you're at war, do you do whatever it takes to win, or do you actually maintain your own moral standard and ideals? Should we be waterboarding people? What if we get valuable information that saves our lives? Well, even so, aren't we compromising ourselves? But if it prevents another 9/11, is torture worth it? I don't know, but it's a question worth asking. Do you commit horrible crimes to stay alive so your side should win?

Dany is sitting on her room and playing with her console. The result is similar to how random people are dying due to bombardment from unmanned air vehicles. There are quite a lot of videos that you can find in Youtube showing this "game".

SeanF has been "musing" over this idea though:

If TWOW portrays Dany's armies rampaging Westwards, leaving behind them heaps of ash in place of cities, pyramids of skulls, and long lines of captives trailing back to Vaes Dothrak, she'll still have her critics and defenders, but overall, I think her popularity would rise. My impression, too, is she'd have got

more respect from readers had she actually executed the child hostages in Meereen.

which is why some of the posts, such as Lord Stoneheart, would be interesting to that discussion.

ETA: Interestingly enough, I think this thread supports SeanF's viewpoint. Basically laying out Tywin's brutal means but popularity as a character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




ADWD DAENERYS II



snip





Great analysis, thank you! :thumbsup:



No much to say as most as been mentioned, a few points though.






I disagree.



“Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them the Usurper’s dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …” The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought, and suddenly she heard herself say, “I have to see the pit,” in a voice as small as a child’s whisper. “Take me down, ser, if you would.”



The fact that she stopped her tirade about the guilt of the Usurper's Dogs and realized the hypocrisy of her words is evidence of what I called a starting point. As I said before, normally she would have continued to insult and degrade the Usurper's Dogs and talk about how she would claim vengeance. But this time she stopped, and that makes all of the difference. And we hear nothing of the Usurper's Dogs in ADWD after this argument. I'm not saying she has changed her opinion on RR and those who fought against House Targaryen, but now she is beginning to understand the issue with her ideas about collective guilt, because based on that belief, she is just as guilty for Hazzea's death as Drogon is. Otherwise, she wouldn't have stopped talking about it.









She didn't stop because she understood hipocrisy of her words but because it was the main concern at the moment. Furthermore, her tirades were never that long. There is nothing, and I repeat nothing in the text that would give the slightest incling that Dany changed her opinion, unless we want to add some. Simply, Dany's continuing clinging to this is understandable, after all we have seen how Arya behaved when Ned Dayne told her about Ashara and her father. Fire Eater is right about pointing out that Dany misses a strong figure like Aemon near her. She is completely alone in this, and Barristan proved to be far less helpful than we hoped him to be. But, there is no doubt that she closed her ears to things she didn't want to hear. Which text unambiguously shows.





I think TMO is correct in his analysis, look at the structure of the sentence. As Dany is about to point out that they are all guilty by association (tying in to her previous point about the pack of dogs) she realize that she herself now can be considered guilty by association. To say that there is nothing in the text to show us that she is beginning to understand the nature of her "wide brush" approach is to ignore what TMO said about her not mentioning the Usurper Dogs again through all of ADWD and she still has 8 more chapter to go.



That is not to say that she's changed her mind and now agrees with Barristan that Ned is a great guy but she is forced to consider based on her own experience that painting with a wide brush doesn't always work.



Queen A wrote:



Great analysis TMO,


I like how this chapter was structured, continuing from the first chapter. There seem to be three themes in Dany's arc so far continuing from the first chapter. Dany's fear of her dragons, The Harpy's killings and Hizdahr's continuing pursue to open the fighting pits.



I agree with you about the continuing conflict between Dany as a mother of dragons and also as a mother to her slaves etc. I see that conflict more as a balance(Just like everything in ASOIAF is) rather than a choice Dany has to choose, for example embracing her dragon side to protect her people and be a better mother of thousands.. After Drogon ate Hazzea, Dany has come to the belief that dragons both literal and metaphorical (herself) can not be of good use and cannot help people. This is also shown symbolically through her conversation with Missandei you showed.



I must know, though. I am all they have. I am the queen … the … the …” “… mother,” whispered Missandei. “Mother to dragons.” Dany shivered. “No. Mother to us all.” Missandei hugged her tighter.


Dany's continuing negative view of dragons, makes her believe that as the Mother of Dragons she won't be able to protect Missandei. Also it extends to all her people in Meereen.



She was the blood of the dragon. She could kill the Sons of the Harpy, and the sons of the sons, and the sons of the sons of the sons. But a dragon could not feed a hungry child nor help a dying woman’s pain. And who would ever dare to love a dragon?


And I think this is where lies the problem, As I pointed up earlier the general theme of the story seems to be about balance/co-existance and not picking one side over the other as good or bad. I think the ying-yang is a good example to use. Dany currently in the story has identified dragons as "Bad and destructive" so she is trying to dissociate from that imagery as much as possible. However I believe destruction is not bad and can also be put to good use and I think thats what Dany's arc is about, learning how to use dragons/destruction for good use. E.g Drogon uses it to kill the undying to protect Dany which is good. I also saw this quote some time ago and I believe it fits into that theme.


This goes to something I was discussing last week, Dany's world view where everything is black or white doesn't allow for her to find a balance between being the Mother of Dragons and being Mhysa, it her mind she can only be either or.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Stark was a traitor who met a traitor’s end.”

“Your Grace,” said Selmy, “Eddard Stark played a part in your father’s fall, but he bore you no ill will. When the eunuch Varys told us that you were with child, Robert wanted you killed, but Lord Stark spoke against it. Rather than countenance the murder of children, he told Robert to find himself another Hand.”

“Have you forgotten Princess Rhaenys and Prince Aegon?”

“Never. That was Lannister work, Your Grace.”

“Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them the Usurper’s dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …”

Changing the last part a bit;

“If a child is nailed to a post by a pack of slavers, does it matter which one hammered the nail? All the slavers are just as guilty. The guilt” … The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought, and suddenly she heard herself say, “I have to see the pit,” in a voice as small as a child’s whisper. “Take me down, ser, if you would.”

The beauty of Dany’s hypocrisy/idiocy/inadequacy here lies in the fact that she imprisoned two innocent dragons but the (supposedly) guilty one is out there somewhere.

Well, you need a new dictionary.

You see, if Dany held other to a different standard that she would hold herself, that would be hypocritical. However, Dany holds herself to the same standards she holds other, whether it be right or wrong. She punishes herself as well as Viserion and Rhaegal for what Drogon did even though none of them were directly responsible.

I think TMO is correct in his analysis, look at the structure of the sentence. As Dany is about to point out that they are all guilty by association (tying in to her previous point about the pack of dogs) she realize that she herself now can be considered guilty by association. To say that there is nothing in the text to show us that she is beginning to understand the nature of her "wide brush" approach is to ignore what TMO said about her not mentioning the Usurper Dogs again through all of ADWD and she still has 8 more chapter to go.

That is not to say that she's changed her mind and now agrees with Barristan that Ned is a great guy but she is forced to consider based on her own experience that painting with a wide brush doesn't always work.

What are we to make of this sudden change of dictionary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some important questions about the meaning of terms--the denotations, and, often more importantly, the connotations.






...



2) True, but to me believing a traitor loses his honor is very different from believing a traitor can never again make a just decision.



3) Understood, but as I've said before, I don't think it's in Dany's nature to fit in. To the degree that she does, I think it's largely due to the factors you mention, and that her progression indicates she'll be an agent of change wherever she goes. But of course she still has far to go, as your next point shows:




...




2. I don't think that the difference here amounts to that much. We'll have to agree to disagree.



3. This is an example of what I'm talking about in my opening sentence. When I say "Dany fits in," I don't mean that she is a conformist. She doesn't follow the maxim, "When in Rome..." I say that she is very much a member of her class and her time. It appears that all the major leaders in the story are this way. Lenin is not going to take over. Lenin isn't even in the shadows or in the wings. The phrase "agent of change" in our parlance generally indicates someone of the left--a radical or a liberal. It could, however, be otherwise. Reactionaries can be agents of change, just in the opposite direction. Some people don't want to develop new things. They want to change back to the way things were, back to the good old days.



I did a thread some time ago with the title "Dany Changes."



http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/85052-dany-changes/



I stand by what I said there. It is relevant to my points thus far in this post and to what I say below in reply to Miladen, TMO, and Bear Queen. Here is part of one of my posts in "Dany Changes"




Ned Stark is usually seen as one of the good guys; I agree with this assessment. If it came down to a choice, I'd pick him as my ruler over most main characters in the story. However, he suffers from the same "there's only one true way" myopia as just about everyone else who has power in Westeros. Stannis is the only legitimate heir, and we have to put him on the throne. It does not matter that the realm will bleed because of this.




The manner in which the relevant scene is presented makes it hard to say exactly how myopic Stark and others are. On the basis of many words, in this scene and elsewhere, said by Stark an others, I maintain that the affliction is significant. Let's say that the case against Stannis was not presented by sleazeball Baelish, but by a more honorable fellow. Let's also say that evidence about Melisandre and the Lord of Dragonstone's turn toward the dark side was well laid out. Would the Hand still have insisted "It is not a choice. Stannis is the heir." No way to be sure, but I suspect that he would have had a very difficult time saying anything else.






I would also like to think that Dany is slowly realizing the truth, but honestly it would be quite the lapse of logic to conclude that from this conversation. Not for one second does Dany show any sort of change of opinion, so I have to say that despite what we wish for, her opinion simply didn't change.









That is all nice and plausible, but we weren't speaking about what might happen at some point in the future. For the time being, Dany simply shows no sign of chage of opinion regarding her father and what happened to her family.




The context is important in this discussion. Miladen appears to be saying "Dany shows no sign of changing any opinion about her father." But the context makes it possible that the actual assertion is "Dany shows no sign of changing her opinion in the matter of the Usurper's dogs." I disagree--strongly in the first case, not as strongly in the second. First of all, Dany is quite capable of changing her mind. That was my main point in the thread I've linked to. She certainly has changed her ideas on the subject of "the taint." That is clear in the chapters we are now reading.



On the Usurper's dogs issue, my opinion is similar to TMO's. Context is important here too. Dany's mental flexibility inclines me toward the view that she can be flexible even in this area. In the conversation with Barristan, she realizes that there is a major problem with her blanket condemnation of "dogs." As far as I remember, she never uses the phrase "Usurper's dogs" again. No, this doesn't prove conclusively that she has undergone a total shift in her opinion. To me, it is a decent indication that she has at least modified it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The context is important in this discussion. Miladen appears to be saying "Dany shows no sign of changing any opinion about her father." But the context makes it possible that the actual assertion is "Dany shows no sign of changing her opinion in the matter of the Usurper's dogs." I disagree--strongly in the first case, not as strongly in the second. First of all, Dany is quite capable of changing her mind. That was my main point in the thread I've linked to. She certainly has changed her ideas on the subject of "the taint." That is clear in the chapters we are now reading.

On the Usurper's dogs issue, my opinion is similar to TMO's. Context is important here too. Dany's mental flexibility inclines me toward the view that she can be flexible even in this area. In the conversation with Barristan, she realizes that there is a major problem with her blanket condemnation of "dogs." As far as I remember, she never uses the phrase "Usurper's dogs" again. No, this doesn't prove conclusively that she has undergone a total shift in her opinion. To me, it is a decent indication that she has at least modified it.

Mladen has been saying that Dany's opinion regardig her father is changing (edit: I do think that her opinion about Aerys is changing, as I pointed out in the next iteration of the thread. I made a mistake in expressing myself yesterday), but in this conversation opinion about usurper's dogs simply didn't change. Nor have I said that Dany is incapable of changing the mind. She just didn't change her mind about this particular topic at this particular moment.

I don't disagree that she can be flexible, nor is that my point or argument. But, she doesn't realize that there is a "major problem" since there is nothing that suggests that she is contemplating the roles Usurper's dogs had in RR.

Now, will someone point me, after this moment, where does Dany think of Robert's allies WITHOUT calling them Usurper's dogs? Her not using the phrase or not thinking about them doesn't mean a lot when the last time she thought of them, she USED that phrase. So, I don't see how this can be seen as "change of opinion" when it's no less rigid than it was for the past 4 books. I will celebrate the moment when she actually thinks of Ned, Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully etc without using usurper's dogs. That would be a change. This was just dismissing what Barristan wanted to say, and moving to the pressing issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...