The Parallel Journey of Daenerys Targaryen & ... Part II

[MoIaF]

https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/essays/

George Martin has praised Adam Feldman at a recent conference and says that he "gets it" in his essays about Daenerys in Mereen.

Definitely interesting but I'd like to see the exact quote. There is a lot in the Meereenes knot essays, some of which I do agree with (the intrigue of Meereenes politics) some of which of course I don't agree with.

ETA: I found this on read it. It simply said that Adam "got it" and then Adam speculates at the button what that might be. https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/3b75fu/spoilers_all_grrm_on_the_meereenese_knot/

Elio's comments: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/98687-meereenese-blot-discussion-of-dany-and-jon-part-ii-concluding-jon-essay-up/?p=7148502

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/98687-meereenese-blot-discussion-of-dany-and-jon-part-ii-concluding-jon-essay-up/?p=7149880

[SeanF]

Definitely interesting but I'd like to see the exact quote. There is a lot in the Meereenes knot essays, some of which I do agree with (the intrigue of Meereenes politics) some of which of course I don't agree with.

ETA: I found this on read it. It simply said that Adam "got it" and then Adam speculates at the button what that might be. https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/3b75fu/spoilers_all_grrm_on_the_meereenese_knot/

Elio's comments: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/98687-meereenese-blot-discussion-of-dany-and-jon-part-ii-concluding-jon-essay-up/?p=7148502http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/98687-meereenese-blot-

discussion-of-dany-and-jon-part-ii-concluding-jon-essay-up/?p=7149880

I don't think Martin is necessarily saying that Feldman has unravelled every thread of the Meereenese plot, but he has "got" what Martin was trying to achieve with the Meereenese storyline.

[Parwan]

My essay on page 10 now has all the parts in place. I may have more to say, depending on what sort of comments I get. One thing that is worth adding at this point--

At critical times in their rule, both Dany and Ned's desire to act "for the children" causes them to make decisions that lead to big problems. They are both so focused on helping, or at least not harming, little ones that the fail to see alternate paths that could lead to better results. Daenerys justifies her crucifixion of 163 Meereenese nobles by saying that she did it for the children. The 163 children that the Meereenese rulers crucified, however, are already dead. The suffering of their former masters won't bring them back. I do not wish to go, once again, into the questions of whether or not the queen got "the right people," whether or not she might have had some kind of trial for them, etc. My main point is that her action was severe but not effective. The same thing can be said about hostages. She doesn't wish to treat her cup bearers as hostages. That's a good attitude, as far as it goes, but she should have taken other people. The former rulers were at her mercy when she captured the city. She should have taken one adult from each of the great houses as her "guest" in the Great Pyramid. This would have been a far more effective action than nailing up a bunch of people to boards in a public square.

Ned doesn't want to follow Renly's advice to take Joffrey, Myrcelia, and Tommen. He doesn't want to frighten children. This doesn't take into account the fact that he may be endangering his own children by failing to act. Also, he could take the Lannister kids under his protection. Finally, he had other choices. He could have arrested Cersei in the godswood. He could even have arrested her at a later date with Renly's help.

[SeanF]

Lots of food for thought.

I think that when people are promoted beyond their capabilities, they so often perform beneath their capabilities. That's obviously the case with Ned Stark, who is no doubt an excellent Lord of the North, but a very bad Hand of the King, for the reasons you give. Everyone just runs rings around him.

Dany has promoted herself to ruling Queen, but has little knowledge of what she should do. She veers between too much cruelty, and too much appeasement. But, her charisma is such that she retains the loyalty of her followers. Dany might still mature into being a great ruler. Or, she may be a very bad one.

[BearQueen87]

WOLF AND DRAGON

PART II

Thanks for the new essay (in spite of various technical difficulties). Great job, as usual!

Few monarchs in ASoIaF are true believers. They mostly fit in the "religion has its uses" category. Does Lord Stark ever pray? The answer is "yes," but this is not something that we see him doing. It's something that others report in their POVs. In ACoK, Arya VI, we read: "Back in Winterfell, Arya had prayed with...her father in the godswood, but there were no gods on the road to Harrenhal..." Eddard's POVs do not present the lord on his knees, praising the gods. In the text, piety and religious observance appear to be more important to (some) highborn women than to highborn men. In Catelyn's very first POV, she finds her husband in the godswood. What is he doing there? He is cleaning his sword. Also, the faith of the North appears to be something like pantheism or even animism. There is no clergy, no sacred text, no one supreme being, or even an hierarchical pantheon.

This was a very interesting paragraph because I think Ned tends to be (mis)labeled as one of the more religious characters in ASOIAF. It is probably in large part because we do see him, through the eyes of others are you point out, engaging in something that feels religious--telling Bran that they are the Blood of the First Men and what that entails, cleaning his sword in the godswood, something that seems to have personal significance that we associate with religious contemplation (though, you're right, the act itself isn't religious); and finally when he asks Cersei to met with him after learning why Jon Arryn died, he does it in the godswood so that the gods might bear witness. All of these factors cause some readers to associate Ned as more religious than he is. I think it's better to say that he is more religious than those other men around him--certainly Littlefinger, Robert, Jaime, Tyrion ect are nowhere near as connected to their own religious upbringings as Ned is, none of them invoke the gods when trying to rule, for example. When those men speak of the gods, it is done "curse-style" (the 7 take you, and the like). But the opposite side of that coin is that being more religiously inclined than others around you does not make you only concerned with religious matters. Does Ned ever even met with the High Septon? I know it's not his personal religious belief, but as Hand of the King shouldn't he be meeting with all the important players--and Ned's worship of the 7 or not, it is a major part of the 7K.

In ADwD, she tells Quentyn, "I never had a maester growing up." Only a brother. She didn't have a septon either. And I doubt that Viserys presented extensive lessons on the Seven Pointed Star. The queen is much like many other characters in her lack of confidence in the efficacy of prayer.

True, I don't think Viserys was instructing Dany about the ways of religion and prayer. However, there is a similarity here, between Dany (or the Targs, more broadly) and Ned, is there not? It's not that they are religious; it's tradition that binds them to their faith. The Targaryens seem to be members of the Faith of the 7 not because they are devoted followers to the Andal religion but because it was a concession on the part of Aegon I when he and his sisters took over Westeros. Like the First Men of the North, they had no emotional investment in the 7 or the Faith of it; they did not practice the Andal religion. They adopted the faith for pragmatic reasons (to gain favor) and kept to it because it was the dominant religion of their realm and to continue to curry favor with the Faith. Like Ned, it's tradition that keeps them tied to this faith, though in Ned's case I think there is some honest belief and devotion whereas the Targaryens don't seem to really believe or be devoted to the Faith of the 7 (Baelor the Blessed might be the exception here).

The young lady is not on an ego trip. She sees gods as lonely, confusing or otherwise less-than-magisterial. She feels sorry for some (the butterfly god), and puzzled by others (seven in one, according to some septons). The religion of the red priests presents difficulties of its own. "The red priests believed in two gods, she had heard, but two who were eternally at war...She would not want to be eternally at war."

That last bit could lead to interesting conflicts in the next book. Benerro and friends have significant power, and they see Daenerys as a messiah. However, the worshipers of R'hllor and the dragon queen have some important differences in philosophy.

Dany seems fairly impartial to religion in general. I remember we discussed this over in the Dany Re-read project during ADWD. She'll take pieces of religions to suit her needs as she sees fit, never devoting herself to one singular religion. She can worship the Horse Lords and the 7 and the Old Gods (if required) while being TSTMTW and being AAR, in the eyes of the Red Priests coming to see her. It speaks to her character overall, that she is something "new" in a very old world that she is trying to create anew. She's a Targaryen princess who has the support of the Dothraki (some of them) and is potentially their Messiah figure, who ruled Slaver's Bay, as a pseduo-Harpy will probably gain support in large portions of the Free Cities with their wide array of belief, before coming home to Westeros, where she'll be expected to adopt (at least publicaly) the faith of the 7.

Also, isn't the Cult of Starry Wisdom interested in Dany? Am I misremembering something from ADWD? After TWOIAF, I doubt that means anything good, but it's another religious component to Dany's hodgepodge of belief and influences.

In AGoT, Catelyn II, Eddard tells his wife, “It was all meant for Brandon. You, Winterfell, everything. He was born to be a King's Hand and father to queens. I never asked for this cup to pass to me.” The man was a good Lord of Winterfell, but KL was not his place. Would Brandon Stark have done any better as Hand of the King? That’s something we will never know.

I'm always struck by the bitter quality in Ned's voice during this exchange. Ned loves his wife and children very much and wouldn't give them up for anything, but this life that was forced on him through the actions of others is not something he wanted, ever. Ned doesn't relish being able to take his brother's place. He was content to be a second son.

Both Brandon and Viserys died horrible deaths at the hands of monarchs, and both deaths involved fire. Deanerys Targaryen, of course, is an even unlikelier ruler than Eddard Stark. She has some native skill and insight, but she has had no schooling in relevant subjects and is thus ignorant of important facts. For instance, as Dany’s army approaches Meereen, it is clear that she has little understanding of siege weapons and how they are made.

I think it's important to note the difference between Ned and Dany here as well. Ned was more or less forced to take up Brandon's position after Brandon died. The cup was passed to him and he had very little say in the matter--yes, he could have taken the black and passed it all off to his youngest brother, Ben, I suppose, but Ned's honor would never allow that. Dany, on the other hand, had a choice. Once she was rid of Viserys, she did not need to continue his dream of taking back Westeros. She could have been Khaleesi, ridden beside Drogo and lived out her life on the Dothraki Sea. But instead she tries (and with the "help" of a poisoner) and eventually succeeds to persuade Drogo to take back the 7K for her. She was neither born nor trained to rule, but she keeps making decisions to do in spite of that.

Also, question: can we really say Ned wasn't born to rule? I mean, I know he did not receive the same training Brandon likely did, but he was a second son so it would be expected that he'd take a keep for himself to hold in Brandon's name. Ned has a leg up there as compared to Dany.

I think there was a comment by one of Ned’s children that he once said a lord is like a father with many children. Maybe I only imagined this, or perhaps it was said only in the HBO version. At any rate, we have adequate information to make the case without that particular quote.

Yes, I think that might be HBO, but it fits with Ned who, like Dany, does a great many things "for the children" because it's what he's supposed to do.

Lord Stark has little regard for people like Pycelle and Baelish, especially the latter fellow. When LIttlefinger isn't smirking, he is insulting the Starks. His wife has a high regard for her former playmate. Eddard should have told her, "You knew the boy. The man is a stranger to you."

Still, the Hand of the King fails to act properly on his opinions and his perceptions. The story about how the dwarf acquired the knife used on Bran provides a fine example. LF, using his usual "diplomacy," says, "Do you Starks have nought but snow between your ears?...The Imp would never have acted alone." This means the Imp is a Lannister. He is loyal to his house. Yet, the bogus tale that the master of coin is presenting is that the Imp bet against the champion of House Lannister. We readers also know how close Tyrion and Jaime are. Surely, it wouldn’t have been hard for anyone doing even a half-assed investigation to establish this fact.

Yes, Ned's trust of Littlefinger (even if he doesn't regard him highly) is baffling whenever I re-read, though I think it speaks to Ned's character. LF even tells Ned that he (Ned) shouldn't trust anyone, especially LF. And yet Ned puts his faith in the man. You're especially right in one regard: Ned should have turned Cat's quote about Robert back on her WRT LF.

How could the Hand of the King miss the clear implication?

Very good points all around. Ned is rather wrapped up in his own world during the tourney, thinking quite a bit about the last tourney (Harrenhal) and the long felt consequences of that. And Ned just doesn't have the head for the Game of Thrones. He doesn't catch the subtle word play or what is being said between the lines. He is a very "line by line" kind of guy---which is fascinating when you think about his great secret (RLJ) and how deceptive and nuanced he's had to be in his own life to keep Jon safe.

[BearQueen87]

Lots of food for thought.

1. I think that when people are promoted beyond their capabilities, they so often perform beneath their capabilities. That's obviously the case with Ned Stark, who is no doubt an excellent Lord of the North, but a very bad Hand of the King, for the reasons you give. Everyone just runs rings around him.

2.Dany has promoted herself to ruling Queen, but has little knowledge of what she should do. She veers between too much cruelty, and too much appeasement. But, her charisma is such that she retains the loyalty of her followers. Dany might still mature into being a great ruler. Or, she may be a very bad one.

1. I think with Ned and the North, it's very much that Ned understands and loves the North, so he is able to do right by it. It's his own environment and he can flourish there because of that. Ned neither loves nor understands the South; he is predisposed to dislike (even hate) it and its players. Robert and Ned haven't seen each other since Greyjoy's Rebellion...why? Because Ned would prefer to stay isolated and away in the North where things make sense. Its when he leaves his little world that things fall apart for him.

2. Like Parwan suggests, she might just need some people who "get it." Like Tyrion who understood how to rally men to fight Stannis at the battle of the Blackwater. She also needs a Maester and (potentially) some religious figures, though if she's going to come to Westeros with a Red Priest in tow (and the Dothraki religion claiming her as a messiah) and NOT adopt the faith of the 7, she's in trouble. Dany also needs to find balance between that cruel streak and her pacifist streak.

[MoIaF]

WOLF AND DRAGON

PART II

Daenerys Targaryen and Eddard Stark are similar in many ways. For instance:

Each rules in a basically secular manner.

Neither is either a born or a trained ruler.

They are paternalists.

They have some weaknesses in common.

Very good essay! Thank you. A lot to think about.

As I said in essay 1, these two characters are creatures of their time and place. Since both are aristocrats from Westerosi houses, it's not surprising that they have some similarities, though I think that the similarities are stronger than would be expected simply on the basis of membership in the same social class.

I'll also continue to develop some main topics relating to the current situation of the 7K. There are connecting threads among these topics. Paternalism, dealt with in this essay, is connected to the tendency to place too much emphasis on the leader, to be considered in the last essay. The iron belief in the necessity of placing the "right" monarch on the throne has a connection to some serious problems with ignoring threats to the realm.

Secular Leadership

Ned

Few monarchs in ASoIaF are true believers. They mostly fit in the "religion has its uses" category. Does Lord Stark ever pray? The answer is "yes," but this is not something that we see him doing. It's something that others report in their POVs. In ACoK, Arya VI, we read: "Back in Winterfell, Arya had prayed with...her father in the godswood, but there were no gods on the road to Harrenhal..." Eddard's POVs do not present the lord on his knees, praising the gods. In the text, piety and religious observance appear to be more important to (some) highborn women than to highborn men. In Catelyn's very first POV, she finds her husband in the godswood. What is he doing there? He is cleaning his sword. Also, the faith of the North appears to be something like pantheism or even animism. There is no clergy, no sacred text, no one supreme being, or even an hierarchical pantheon.

Perhaps "secular" isn't exactly the right word for the Lord of Winterfell. He is the leader of the clan, head of the tribe, the great father...Ned's religion is fundamentally a matter of tradition: "This is our way, we are the blood of the First Men, and so on. The old gods fit into this scheme of things. A godswood is not a place for complicated liturgies, but it has its uses. In A Clash of kings, Jon II, we read--

"Jon said, 'My lord father believed no man could tell a lie in front of a heart tree. The old gods know when men are lying.'"

In AGOT, the Hand asks Cersei Lannister to meet him in the godswood. When she asks, "Why here?" he answers, "So the gods can see."

Common Attitudes toward Religion

There are many who express negative views toward religion in the story. For instance we have the cynical atheism of Jaime. When Catelyn says the Kingslayer will go to the lowest of the seven hells if the gods are just, he just chuckles.

"What gods are those, Lady Catelyn? The trees your husband prayed to? How well did they serve him when my sister took his head off?"

Others aren't so cynical, but doubts about the goodness and/or power of the spiritual beings are common. In Arya IX of ACoK, we find: "But the old gods had never helped him. Remembering that made her angry 'You should have saved him,' she scolded the tree." Perhaps the gods are perverse. Maybe they are lacking in power. Possibly they just don't have much interest in human affairs.

Dany

Daenerys can reasonably be classed as a skeptic, though this is not a well considered philosophy with her. She has little info on the religious matters. In ADwD, she tells Quentyn, "I never had a maester growing up." Only a brother. She didn't have a septon either. And I doubt that Viserys presented extensive lessons on the Seven Pointed Star. The queen is much like many other characters in her lack of confidence in the efficacy of prayer. In ADwD, after a discussion with Selmy concerning what to do about the enemy forces approaching Meereen--

"Dany closed her eyes. 'Gods' she prayed, 'you took Khal Drogo who was my sun-and-stars. You took our valiant son before he drew a breath. You have had your blood of me. Help me now, I pray you. Give me the widom to see the path ahead...'

The gods did not respond."

The queen also daydreams and speculates about religion. In her last POV of ASoS, she says she sometimes feels like a god when she is way up in the Great Pyramid. The young lady is not on an ego trip. She sees gods as lonely, confusing or otherwise less-than-magisterial. She feels sorry for some (the butterfly god), and puzzled by others (seven in one, according to some septons). The religion of the red priests presents difficulties of its own. "The red priests believed in two gods, she had heard, but two who were eternally at war...She would not want to be eternally at war."

That last bit could lead to interesting conflicts in the next book. Benerro and friends have significant power, and they see Daenerys as a messiah. However, the worshipers of R'hllor and the dragon queen have some important differences in philosophy.

To me there is a difference between being religious and being spiritual. In the former you adhere to a set construct a cultural structure while in the latter you try and follow a certain set of beliefs. Both of course believe in a higher power.

Although, Ned is a follower of the Old Gods, they belief system itself is not as you mentioned structure. It's much more organic in nature. Therefore, those who believe in them try to follow a set of general belief of how they should or should not behave.

With Dany her belief system is very much based on her understanding of what should be right or wrong, but it's a very fluid understanding on her part. there is no real structure for her to follow.

Neither Born Nor Trained to Sit on a Throne

With both Eddard and Daenerys, we have a situation where a younger sibling had to take on the role usually reserved for an older brother. Both characters are quite aware of this.

Ned

In AGoT, Catelyn II, Eddard tells his wife, “It was all meant for Brandon. You, Winterfell, everything. He was born to be a King's Hand and father to queens. I never asked for this cup to pass to me.” The man was a good Lord of Winterfell, but KL was not his place. Would Brandon Stark have done any better as Hand of the King? That’s something we will never know.

Dany

In Daenerys’s first POV, it is clear she has been assigned a minor role in the business of ruling. Viserys states the way things are and the way they are going to turn out. Injustices have been done to the Targaryens, but he, the “true king,” will set everything right. He does the speaking, and his sister just has thoughts that don’t show any great confidence in herself, or even any connection to political power:

“‘The dragon remembers.’

And perhaps the dragon did remember, but Dany could not.”

Later in the same chapter:

“‘We will have it all back someday, sweet sister.’

All that Daenerys wanted back was the big house with the red door…”

We can know beyond a reasonable doubt that Viserys would have made a wretched king. How good a queen can Daenerys be? She didn’t start off too well in Meereen, but the story isn’t over.

Both Brandon and Viserys died horrible deaths at the hands of monarchs, and both deaths involved fire. Deanerys Targaryen, of course, is an even unlikelier ruler than Eddard Stark. She has some native skill and insight, but she has had no schooling in relevant subjects and is thus ignorant of important facts. For instance, as Dany’s army approaches Meereen, it is clear that she has little understanding of siege weapons and how they are made.

To the bolded part, I had never noticed it, good catch.

As to their ruling without having been trained. Regardless of their shortcomings, it is a testament to them that when they were called to take up this responsibility they had not been prepared to take, they both accepted it and made the best of it.

For Eddard is was probably easier because although he had not been trained to become the Lord of Winterfell, he still had been given a basic training and maester teaching. In his case also, he had no other alternative.

For Dany she had no training whatsoever, and her role as queen is much more tied to her being the last of her House and feeling the responsibility to upheld her family. She could technically give it all up, but her sense of duty is very strong when it comes to her family.

[SeanF]

In terms of religion, I've always thought that Dany is agnostic. She believes in magic, of course. She seems vaguely to accept that there may be gods of various kinds. But, I don't think she has any commitment to any system of belief.

Some of the Targaryens did become very devout, but I think she is far closer to Aegon and his sisters in outlook.

[Parwan]

A. This was a very interesting paragraph because I think Ned tends to be (mis)labeled as one of the more religious characters in ASOIAF. It is probably in large part because we do see him, through the eyes of others are you point out, engaging in something that feels religious--telling Bran that they are the Blood of the First Men and what that entails, cleaning his sword in the godswood, something that seems to have personal significance that we associate with religious contemplation (though, you're right, the act itself isn't religious); and finally when he asks Cersei to met with him after learning why Jon Arryn died, he does it in the godswood so that the gods might bear witness. All of these factors cause some readers to associate Ned as more religious than he is. I think it's better to say that he is more religious than those other men around him--certainly Littlefinger, Robert, Jaime, Tyrion ect are nowhere near as connected to their own religious upbringings as Ned is, none of them invoke the gods when trying to rule, for example. When those men speak of the gods, it is done "curse-style" (the 7 take you, and the like). But the opposite side of that coin is that being more religiously inclined than others around you does not make you only concerned with religious matters. Does Ned ever even met with the High Septon? I know it's not his personal religious belief, but as Hand of the King shouldn't he be meeting with all the important players--and Ned's worship of the 7 or not, it is a major part of the 7K.

...

A. Dany seems fairly impartial to religion in general. I remember we discussed this over in the Dany Re-read project during ADWD. She'll take pieces of religions to suit her needs as she sees fit, never devoting herself to one singular religion. She can worship the Horse Lords and the 7 and the Old Gods (if required) while being TSTMTW and being AAR, in the eyes of the Red Priests coming to see her. It speaks to her character overall, that she is something "new" in a very old world that she is trying to create anew. She's a Targaryen princess who has the support of the Dothraki (some of them) and is potentially their Messiah figure, who ruled Slaver's Bay, as a pseduo-Harpy will probably gain support in large portions of the Free Cities with their wide array of belief, before coming home to Westeros, where she'll be expected to adopt (at least publicaly) the faith of the 7.

...

B. I think it's important to note the difference between Ned and Dany here as well. Ned was more or less forced to take up Brandon's position after Brandon died. The cup was passed to him and he had very little say in the matter--yes, he could have taken the black and passed it all off to his youngest brother, Ben, I suppose, but Ned's honor would never allow that. Dany, on the other hand, had a choice. Once she was rid of Viserys, she did not need to continue his dream of taking back Westeros...

Also, question: can we really say Ned wasn't born to rule? I mean, I know he did not receive the same training Brandon likely did, but he was a second son so it would be expected that he'd take a keep for himself to hold in Brandon's name. Ned has a leg up there as compared to Dany.

...

A. The religion thing in ASoIaF is interesting and complex. I used the term "secular" as a sort of generic description because it was the best one I could come up with. It's clear that neither Eddard nor Daenerys is an atheist. Jaime might be considered one. The Hound is one ("There are no true knights, no more than there are gods.") A secular ruler could be many things--a believer but not a real "bible thumper," a spiritual but not a religious person, a "believer" in the sense that he or she sees religion as something that people need, and a variety of other possibilities.

B. Yes, this is why I said that Daenerys is an even more unlikely ruler than Eddard. The man was expected to rule a holdfast for his brother. Or he might have been in charge of Winterfell when his brother took an important position in King's Landing. Of course, if his brother died, he would assume the position of leader. Some women might do these things, but Dany was never given any training to do them or any expectation that she would assume such a role. There is a wild card in this deck though. Dany is magical, and she has charisma. The two, I suppose, overlap in her, but they are not the same. Eddard was widely respected. He was not particularly charismatic, and he certainly wasn't magical.

1. I think with Ned and the North, it's very much that Ned understands and loves the North, so he is able to do right by it. It's his own environment and he can flourish there because of that. Ned neither loves nor understands the South; he is predisposed to dislike (even hate) it and its players. Robert and Ned haven't seen each other since Greyjoy's Rebellion...why? Because Ned would prefer to stay isolated and away in the North where things make sense. Its when he leaves his little world that things fall apart for him.

2. Like Parwan suggests, she might just need some people who "get it." Like Tyrion who understood how to rally men to fight Stannis at the battle of the Blackwater. She also needs a Maester and (potentially) some religious figures, though if she's going to come to Westeros with a Red Priest in tow (and the Dothraki religion claiming her as a messiah) and NOT adopt the faith of the 7, she's in trouble. Dany also needs to find balance between that cruel streak and her pacifist streak.

1. Yes, this is a good way to put Ned's feelings.

2. Another example of the complexities of ASoIaF. Tyrion could help. That is, his advice could be useful. Having a convicted kingslayer and a known kinslayer by her side, however, is not what Daenerys Targaryen needs when she arrives in Westeros. The Imp, if he's an adviser, will need to stay in the background. Even then, Dany's enemies could use this alliance against her. As I've indicated here and on other threads, I'm quite interested to see how things will develop between the dragon queen and the red priests.

In terms of someone who "gets it," there might not be a better example than Marwyn. He has some political knowledge and a lot of knowledge about magic. I'm not sure whether he has a large role to play in the last two books or not.

Very good essay! Thank you. A lot to think about.

A. To me there is a difference between being religious and being spiritual. In the former you adhere to a set construct a cultural structure while in the latter you try and follow a certain set of beliefs. Both of course believe in a higher power.

Although, Ned is a follower of the Old Gods, they belief system itself is not as you mentioned structure. It's much more organic in nature. Therefore, those who believe in them try to follow a set of general belief of how they should or should not behave.

With Dany her belief system is very much based on her understanding of what should be right or wrong, but it's a very fluid understanding on her part. there is no real structure for her to follow.

...

B. For Eddard is was probably easier because although he had not been trained to become the Lord of Winterfell, he still had been given a basic training and maester teaching. In his case also, he had no other alternative.

For Dany she had no training whatsoever, and her role as queen is much more tied to her being the last of her House and feeling the responsibility to upheld her family. She could technically give it all up, but her sense of duty is very strong when it comes to her family.

A. Both Dany and the majority of leaders in the Seven Kingdoms have a good bit of tolerance of different religions. The septons don't care much for the old gods, and godswoods are not easy to find in the south. However, believers in the two religions get along with each other, and few men of power try to covert anyone from his or her chosen belief. This is another matter of conflict that is bound to arise when the worshippers of R'hllor come on the scene. These people are like many monotheists in their approach to other faiths. They say that they follow the one true god; other people follow either shadows or demons. The "true believers" are not prone to respect practices which conflict with theirs. They are very fond of burning idols.

Unlike most ladies, Dany has had almost no religious instruction. I suppose you could describe her outlook as fluid. You could also describe it as uninformed. She might be converted to one religion or another. The religion of the red priests could be very useful to her. However, I don't think she'll like it, and it would most likely be a political disadvantage in Westeros.

B. See my comments above. One other matter--

Ned had training and a tradition to follow. Dany had her dreams. It wasn't entirely a free decision she made, nor just a sense of duty. There was some degree of compulsion, or at least some feeling that she was meant to do what she did.

In terms of religion, I've always thought that Dany is agnostic. She believes in magic, of course. She seems vaguely to accept that there may be gods of various kinds. But, I don't think she has any commitment to any system of belief.

Some of the Targaryens did become very devout, but I think she is far closer to Aegon and his sisters in outlook.

"Agnostic" is not a bad term for Dany's outlook. As I indicated though, this is not a philosophical position. It is pretty much a result of her upbringing. The power of magic in the story has an interesting religious aspect, and Martin has commented on this at least a time or two. I don't think it's possible to be a believer in magic and also a confirmed atheist. If one can walk into a fire and come out alive with three dragons, then why couldn't there be spiritual beings in the world (or beyond

it) who could do similar things?

[SeanF]

I think that an atheist could believe in magic, if he simply viewed magic as part of the science of his world, capable of being studied and taught, in the same way as physics or chemistry.

However, Martin has said we shouldn't view magic that way in his world; it's something wild and unpredictable. We've seen magic succeed (the pyre, shadow babies) and fail (Melisandre's inability to obtain a vision of Stannis outside Winterfell). Also, Melisandre's own internal admission that she does resort to powders and tricks at times, due to the pain involved in working true magic.

I don't know if R'hllor truly exists, and if he does, what he is exactly. But, there's plenty of evidence that some Red priests can work magic. I think Dany could be very tempted to accept their claim that she's Azhor Ahai reborn, and automatically become the leader of millions of people. What they would want in return, I'm not so sure. Burning her enemies, to make their magic work? Conducting a crusade against unbelievers?

[Parwan]

A. I think that an atheist could believe in magic, if he simply viewed magic as part of the science of his world, capable of being studied and taught, in the same way as physics or chemistry.

However, Martin has said we shouldn't view magic that way in his world; it's something wild and unpredictable. We've seen magic succeed (the pyre, shadow babies) and fail (Melisandre's inability to obtain a vision of Stannis outside Winterfell). Also, Melisandre's own internal admission that she does resort to powders and tricks at times, due to the pain involved in working true magic.

B. I don't know if R'hllor truly exists, and if he does, what he is exactly. But, there's plenty of evidence that some Red priests can work magic. I think Dany could be very tempted to accept their claim that she's Azhor Ahai reborn, and automatically become the leader of millions of people. What they would want in return, I'm not so sure. Burning her enemies, to make their magic work? Conducting a crusade against unbelievers?

A. This raises all sorts of interesting questions, many of which we can't legitimately pursue on this thread. One such question could be stated in the following manner: Some writers have created universes where magic works by definite laws. In such a universe, magic can be studied, but is it accurate to say that it can be studied and taught in the same way that physics and chemistry are taught? That could be an interesting question for another thread.

In Martin's world, magic is not a science. What is less commonly acknowledge is that there are no scientists. The maesters have a considerable store of knowledge. Some posters consider them as the scientists of Westeros. However, materialism is not the same thing as science. The maesters' anti-magic stance seems to me to be a combination of politics and dogma. The nearest thing to a scientist at the Citadel is the same fellow I brought up in my last post--Marwyn. He believes in the radical proposition that, if one wants to study the magic of the east, one should actually go to the east. This contrasts with his colleagues assertions that go something like, "Well that stuff is all mumbo jumbo. It had some power once, but that day is past." No real proof is offered of this assertion; it is just asserted.

Both Dany and Ned believe in a world where goodness and justice will prevail. In this way, they are like some other characters, e.g. Sansa. The basic belief (maybe we should call it a hope) tends to make them at least receptive to theology of some sort. This is more of an emotional than a rational basis for belief. The notable atheists, e.g. the Hound, have a similar basis for their lack of belief. It's just that they turn things around: The world is a rotten place. Therefore, there are no gods. The unspoken assumptions are that gods are good, or at least predominantly good, that gods have an interest in human affairs, and that gods have the power to critically effect said affairs. Possibly, a further assumption, is that gods are actually necessary for goodness to prevail. These assumptions don't have to be true. They are seldom critically analyzed. Melisandre's dualistic talk of "the Great Other" (i.e. a bad god) is something of an exception. A more interesting one occurs, I think, only in HBO's A Game of Thrones: Cersei says, "The gods have no mercy. That's why they're gods."

B. This could be an interesting topic when we compare Daenerys to Stannis.

ETA: I started paragraph 2 above with the phrase "in Martin's world." It might have been better to say, "In most of continental Westeros." Magic is not a science anywhere in this universe, but there could be scientists somewhere. The change of phrasing would be even more appropriate in the 3rd paragraph. "The unspoken assumptions" I consider are, in fact, made in most of the 7K. This might well not be true in the rest of Planetos. There is a multiplicity of religions in Essos for example. The details of the religions are not well revealed by the author.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Isn't it weird how all the Dany-haters are also pro-slavery and pro-Ghiscari? How could anyone hate a fictional character enough to make them support slavers? I do not and will not ever understand that. It's just weird how it is specifically only the Dany-hate crowd, no one else...............

A. This raises all sorts of interesting questions, many of which we can't legitimately pursue on this thread. One such question could be stated in the following manner: Some writers have created universes where magic works by definite laws. In such a universe, magic can be studied, but is it accurate to say that it can be studied and taught in the same way that physics and chemistry are taught? That could be an interesting question for another thread.

In Martin's world, magic is not a science. What is less commonly acknowledge is that there are no scientists. The maesters have a considerable store of knowledge. Some posters consider them as the scientists of Westeros. However, materialism is not the same thing as science. The maesters' anti-magic stance seems to me to be a combination of politics and dogma. The nearest thing to a scientist at the Citadel is the same fellow I brought up in my last post--Marwyn. He believes in the radical proposition that, if one wants to study the magic of the east, one should actually go to the east. This contrasts with his colleagues assertions that go something like, "Well that stuff is all mumbo jumbo. It had some power once, but that day is past." No real proof is offered of this assertion; it is just asserted.

Both Dany and Ned believe in a world where goodness and justice will prevail. In this way, they are like some other characters, e.g. Sansa. The basic belief (maybe we should call it a hope) tends to make them at least receptive to theology of some sort. This is more of an emotional than a rational basis for belief. The notable atheists, e.g. the Hound, have a similar basis for their lack of belief. It's just that they turn things around: The world is a rotten place. Therefore, there are no gods. The unspoken assumptions are that gods are good, or at least predominantly good, that gods have an interest in human affairs, and that gods have the power to critically effect said affairs. Possibly, a further assumption, is that gods are actually necessary for goodness to prevail. These assumptions don't have to be true. They are seldom critically analyzed. Melisandre's dualistic talk of "the Great Other" (i.e. a bad god) is something of an exception. A more interesting one occurs, I think, only in HBO's A Game of Thrones: Cersei says, "The gods have no mercy. That's why they're gods."

B. This could be an interesting topic when we compare Daenerys to Stannis.

ETA: I started paragraph 2 above with the phrase "in Martin's world." It might have been better to say, "In most of continental Westeros." Magic is not a science anywhere in this universe, but there could be scientists somewhere. The change of phrasing would be even more appropriate in the 3rd paragraph. "The unspoken assumptions" I consider are, in fact, made in most of the 7K. This might well not be true in the rest of Planetos. There is a multiplicity of religions in Essos for example. The details of the religions are not well revealed by the author.

I have often wondered about many of these points you bring up. Magic in ASOIAF does not seem to have rules, but just makes itself up from situation to situation. For instance "only death pays for life", but then what's the deal with Beric and Thoros? Why does Beric coming back 7 times require no death?

I think what you said about the Hound saying the world is shit = there are no gods is really interesting. Without any scientist around to offer an alternative explanation this is the only thing he could really turn to no?

Cersei's line from HBO is best way of looking at it I think. She is not laying blame on the gods because they dont give her what she wants, she is pointing out the gods ambivalence which is far more likely, IMO.

[Kyoshi]

WOLF AND DRAGON

PART II

This was an excellent read. Thank you.

I fully agree that Dany should have taken control instead of revenge. This is where I think the debate that ensued from the last essay is very relevant. It was a for-the-children moment. She goes as far as acknowledging it. And maybe this is the butterfly she steeped on, but I can't help but think I would have done the same thing in her position.

I think that unlike Ned, Dany later "changes" the way she initially dealt with her enemies. Or maybe it's just that Ned lost his head before he had the chance. It's not even the fire and blood statement in her last chapter for me. She is more compromising after the 163 crucifixions event. Which, of course, brings on a whole set of problems. Which is why I wonder if this wasn't one of those times when it doesn't matter what someone does--it will all go to hell, anyway. I agree with you. But I now wonder if trying to control, as you've outlined it, wouldn't have opened a different can of worms [a little on that below].

Ned, on the other hand, almost abdicates his duties. And his for-the-children sense of honour conflicts rather significantly with the office he holds. He quits after Robert says killing the Targ children is his final ruling. I was left wondering what Ned thought his job as HotK would entail. Difficult decisions would always need to be made. How far would his honour stretch and with what combination of issues?

I agree that perhaps one of the biggest mistakes Dany made was not re-appropriating lands and titles as you suggest. But I wonder how that would have worked out. I don't think I know the socio-economic makeup of Meereen very well. How many families and people belong to Hizdhar and the GG's class? How many to the Shavepate's? Are there other classes in between? What are their politics? How many classes over the former slavers and the general poor? What are their politics? Would reassigning lands and titles not be the same as leaving the pit of one snake only to land in another? How many of these people would have been truly loyal to her? Would this not be another Astapor--where the healer, the scholar and the priest were no better at wielding power than the former masters? Is Meereen a city divided between slavers and slavers? How many want abolition?...all these things. I think it's a tricky thing, with its own web of entangled pros and cons.

I really like the Tyrion and the Knife Saga.

[Kyoshi]

On religion: I've always viewed Dany and Ned the same way I view my father. My father man is Rastafarian, well, he was raised Rastafarian. He doesn't practice but he adheres to certain things like vegetarianism. When he married my mother they moved to a Christian community. So my siblings and I were raised Christian. When asked what he is, my father says, "I'm Rastafarian." But he doesn't believe in any god per se. He's more agnostic than atheist, though. And I think the Rastafarian part of his identity is more a cultural thing than religious. [i think some Jewish people experience the same thing--more culturally than religiously Jewish. I could be wrong] When we have trouble my father prays, I think. So it gets weird and confusing.

[Parwan]

This was an excellent read. Thank you.

I fully agree that Dany should have taken control instead of revenge. This is where I think the debate that ensued from the last essay is very relevant. It was a for-the-children moment. She goes as far as acknowledging it. And maybe this is the butterfly she steeped on, but I can't help but think I would have done the same thing in her position.

I think that unlike Ned, Dany later "changes" the way she initially dealt with her enemies. Or maybe it's just that Ned lost his head before he had the chance. It's not even the fire and blood statement in her last chapter for me. She is more compromising after the 163 crucifixions event. Which, of course, brings on a whole set of problems. Which is why I wonder if this wasn't one of those times when it doesn't matter what someone does--it will all go to hell, anyway. I agree with you. But I now wonder if trying to control, as you've outlined it, wouldn't have opened a different can of worms [a little on that below].

1. Ned, on the other hand, almost abdicates his duties. And his for-the-children sense of honour conflicts rather significantly with the office he holds. He quits after Robert says killing the Targ children is his final ruling. I was left wondering what Ned thought his job as HotK would entail. Difficult decisions would always need to be made. How far would his honour stretch and with what combination of issues?

2. I agree that perhaps one of the biggest mistakes Dany made was not re-appropriating lands and titles as you suggest. But I wonder how that would have worked out. I don't think I know the socio-economic makeup of Meereen very well. How many families and people belong to Hizdhar and the GG's class? How many to the Shavepate's? Are there other classes in between? What are their politics? How many classes over the former slavers and the general poor? What are their politics? Would reassigning lands and titles not be the same as leaving the pit of one snake only to land in another? How many of these people would have been truly loyal to her? Would this not be another Astapor--where the healer, the scholar and the priest were no better at wielding power than the former masters? Is Meereen a city divided between slavers and slavers? How many want abolition?...all these things. I think it's a tricky thing, with its own web of entangled pros and cons.

I really like the Tyrion and the Knife Saga.

1. This touches on a matter I'll go into in the next essay. Honor and duty aren't the same thing. One way of looking at Ned is to say that he chose honor over duty. He had a job to do. The job description was not "Protect ladies and their children."

2. Yes, Dany would have had trouble, no matter what she did. Still, there are things she should have at least tried. I mentioned one before: require houses that have men serving in the enemy fleet to publicly disown and disinherit these men. She could also have placed sections of the city under the official protection of houses that had their pyramids in said sections. If the murders cease in a section, that house is rewarded. If they don't cease, unpleasant things happen to the house, especially to its leading members.

On religion: I've always viewed Dany and Ned the same way I view my father. My father man is Rastafarian, well, he was raised Rastafarian. He doesn't practice but he adheres to certain things like vegetarianism. When he married my mother they moved to a Christian community. So my siblings and I were raised Christian. When asked what he is, my father says, "I'm Rastafarian." But he doesn't believe in any god per se. He's more agnostic than atheist, though. And I think the Rastafarian part of his identity is more a cultural thing than religious. [i think some Jewish people experience the same thing--more culturally than religiously Jewish. I could be wrong] When we have trouble my father prays, I think. So it gets weird and confusing.

There are a lot of stories like this. I was raised Catholic--because that's what we were. Mom was a sort of political Catholic. She believed in the Kennedys and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Dad was a skeptic. The virgin birth, the trinity, all of that stuff, I don't think he believed any of it. He quit going to church for a while. Then he went back. I think the main reason he returned is that he knew his mother would have wanted him to do so.

One reason we are drawn to fictional characters is that they remind us of people we know.

[SeanF]

This was an excellent read. Thank you.

I fully agree that Dany should have taken control instead of revenge. This is where I think the debate that ensued from the last essay is very relevant. It was a for-the-children moment. She goes as far as acknowledging it. And maybe this is the butterfly she steeped on, but I can't help but think I would have done the same thing in her position.

I think that unlike Ned, Dany later "changes" the way she initially dealt with her enemies. Or maybe it's just that Ned lost his head before he had the chance. It's not even the fire and blood statement in her last chapter for me. She is more compromising after the 163 crucifixions event. Which, of course, brings on a whole set of problems. Which is why I wonder if this wasn't one of those times when it doesn't matter what someone does--it will all go to hell, anyway. I agree with you. But I now wonder if trying to control, as you've outlined it, wouldn't have opened a different can of worms [a little on that below].

Ned, on the other hand, almost abdicates his duties. And his for-the-children sense of honour conflicts rather significantly with the office he holds. He quits after Robert says killing the Targ children is his final ruling. I was left wondering what Ned thought his job as HotK would entail. Difficult decisions would always need to be made. How far would his honour stretch and with what combination of issues?

I agree that perhaps one of the biggest mistakes Dany made was not re-appropriating lands and titles as you suggest. But I wonder how that would have worked out. I don't think I know the socio-economic makeup of Meereen very well. How many families and people belong to Hizdhar and the GG's class? How many to the Shavepate's? Are there other classes in between? What are their politics? How many classes over the former slavers and the general poor? What are their politics? Would reassigning lands and titles not be the same as leaving the pit of one snake only to land in another? How many of these people would have been truly loyal to her? Would this not be another Astapor--where the healer, the scholar and the priest were no better at wielding power than the former masters? Is Meereen a city divided between slavers and slavers? How many want abolition?...all these things. I think it's a tricky thing, with its own web of entangled pros and cons.

I really like the Tyrion and the Knife Saga.

Confiscation of lands and wealth can certainly prompt retaliation, but it is nevertheless an effective punishment and method of control. The new landowners have a vested interest in supporting the new regime, and can be expected to fight back on its behalf . My guess is that Meereenese outside of the circle of Great Masters might well have been persuaded that they had a vested interest in seeing Dany succeed, if some of them were rewarded with lands and wealth that were confiscated from Great Masters of dubious loyalty.

That leads on to a real blind spot on Dany's part. She really doesn't seem to think very much about the free Meereenese below the ranks of the Great Masters. Instinctively, she thinks of the population as being divided into the nobility (the Great Masters) and the freed slaves. Yet, the free population must be huge. They comprise people who are rich, but not quite part of the elite, all the way down to people doing fairly menial occupations.

[Parwan]

Confiscation of lands and wealth can certainly prompt retaliation, but it is nevertheless an effective punishment and method of control. The new landowners have a vested interest in supporting the new regime, and can be expected to fight back on its behalf . My guess is that Meereenese outside of the circle of Great Masters might well have been persuaded that they had a vested interest in seeing Dany succeed, if some of them were rewarded with lands and wealth that were confiscated from Great Masters of dubious loyalty.

That leads on to a real blind spot on Dany's part. She really doesn't seem to think very much about the free Meereenese below the ranks of the Great Masters. Instinctively, she thinks of the population as being divided into the nobility (the Great Masters) and the freed slaves. Yet, the free population must be huge. They comprise people who are rich, but not quite part of the elite, all the way down to people doing fairly menial occupations.

This is quite true. Also, confiscation and redistribution of lands are parts of standard operating procedure after a war in Westeros. I'm sure the practices are also common in Essos. I don't think Daenerys did well here; it also appears that she did not get good advice. There's no indication in the text that anyone advised her to take these steps, is there?

Concerning the bolded part: "Instinctively" is a good term here. Dany's blind spot is more or less to be expected. She may have done a worse job than other members of her class would have done in this area; perhaps she did a better job than some would have done. I believe that, at best, only a few Westerosi aristocrats would have seen things much more clearly than the dragon queen did. Rich merchants, tradesmen, well-to-do guildsmen, etc. None of these people bode large in the thinking of the powers-that-be. We hear little about such individuals in ASoIaF. Occasionally, they make a brief appearance, e.g. when Joff is flinging the Antler Men over the walls at Stannis's forces. I guess another example occurs when Janos Slynt is made a lord. That didn't end up well, did it?

Danny's way of categorizing things could certainly use improvement. She tends to classify everyone as either her people or as Meereenese. The latter term is used for the upper classes of the city. The queen should consider everyone living in the place as Meereenese. She should make sure that everyone who supports her phrases things this way.

Rulers like Eddard and Daenerys try to be just. They believe in honor and duty. They do not think in terms of equal rights and equality before the law. I'll have more to say on this in my last essay. It should be posted on Sunday.

[SeanF]

Yes, royalty and nobility view those below them as Smallfolk, despite the fact that there are enormous differences of wealth and status between say, a prosperous merchant, a master armourer, a man who farms 50 acres, a smallholder, a prostitute, and a landless labourer. There are Smallfolk who are no doubt richer than lesser nobility.

[BearQueen87]

Yes, royalty and nobility view those below them as Smallfolk, despite the fact that there are enormous differences of wealth and status between say, a prosperous merchant, a master armourer, a man who farms 50 acres, a smallholder, a prostitute, and a landless labourer. There are Smallfolk who are no doubt richer than lesser nobility.

This is an excellent point. And I don't think it's one that is going to be corrected in universe before the series is over. Even in history, that's not something that happens until well past the "middle age" that we find ourselves in with GRRM. For all the families in the series, I think, you're either a noble or you're not. And that binary line of thinking is bound to cause resentment among the more prosperous of the so called smallfolk--just look at Littlefinger.

[Parwan]

WOLF AND DRAGON

DAENERYS TARGARYEN AND EDDARD STARK

PART III

Daenerys Targaryen and Eddard Stark exemplify important factors in Westerosi leadership.

• There is an overly-strong focus (truly an obsession) on the importance of the leader. This is sometimes expressed as paternalism. We dealt with paternalism in the 2nd essay. Now we’ll look more at the first factor.
  
• There is a tendency to ignore important, possibly existential, threats to the realm. This has been developing at least since late in the Targaryen dynasty.
  

I don’t say that the “true king” fixation caused the unfortunate tendency, but it was at least a major contributor to it. If people are obsessed with the idea that there is one and only one correct leader, they can easily overlook other important matters. Also, if the guy on the throne is the one-and-only, then his orders can’t be seriously questioned. If he does things that endanger the realm, no one is going to go against him.

“All justice flows from the king,” Eddard tells Catelyn when they meet in King’s Landing. Aboard Balerion on the way to Astapor, Dany tells Whitebeard, “A wise man never makes an enemy of a king.” These two statements have a good bit in common.

The Leader

Ned

The “flow” that Eddard Stark believes in is a strange business. The main thing that flowed around Robert Baratheon was wine and beer. The guy was bored with the basic work of ruling, and he had managed to beggar the kingdom with his extravagant spending. On the trip south from Winterfell, Lord Eddard was given a strong example of his friend’s unfitness to rule. After Robert’s performance on the direwolf matter, it’s hard to see how anyone would think that this king could be the absolute font of something that anyone would care to call “justice.”

But Stark does not stand alone. To the contrary, his way of seeing things is very much the rule. Others have similar opinions. The man on the Iron Throne is THE MAN. Justice comes from him. Ser Kevan, for example, is not a bad guy for a Lannister. When he visits Tyrion in his cell, he tells the Imp that justice belongs to the throne. It seems to be a possession, sort of like a sword or a horse, I suppose. Truth and goodness is invested in a person, not an institution, and not a constitution. There isn't much in the way of well-designed process, established sets of laws and precedents, etc. Good governance depends on the virtue of the man (or woman) in charge.

The requirements of duty may seem rigid and unbreakable. This is close to the truth, but it is not always so. Duty can come into conflict with other important virtues. At a critical point, Lord Stark chose honor over duty. Cersei Lannister confessed to treason. The Hand of the King is supposed to enforce the law. He isn’t supposed to advise criminals when and where to flee. I believe we can consider this an example of struggle within the human heart that we hear so much about. Eddard considered it a matter of honor to give a woman and her children a chance. He was haunted by the deaths of another queen and her kids. In a way, that’s admirable, but he wasn’t doing his job.

Robert Baratheon does not handle judicial matters well, but he isn’t alone in this. We have said a few things about the tendency of the nobles to classify things in a “nobility” and “smallfolk” dichotomy. This is another thing that stands out in the direwolf “trial.” The king says he doesn’t know what to make of the matter. Arya says one thing, his son says another. The Hand says, ”They were not the only ones present,…Sansa, come here.”

Note that the butcher’s boy isn’t suggested as a witness. The thought doesn’t even occur to anyone. Fundamentally, the rule of law does not exist in this system. It isn’t just that a commoner’s word is not as good as an aristocrat’s. There is also the issue of corroboration. Mycah ran away. I don’t think any of the three witnesses asked to testify denied that. It seems unlikely that he and Arya would have had time to plot things, to get a false story straight. And there’s the matter of the cut on his cheek. Was it there or not? No one asks. If the kid had been found alive, and if there had been a cut on his cheek, that would support Arya’s version of events.

Worse things occur. The slaughter of the boy is seen as unfortunate by some people, but it isn’t treated as a crime. In our terms, this was a murder, ordered by the queen and undoubtedly approved by the crown prince.* There is no suggestion, however, that criminal charges should be brought. Lord Eddard Stark doesn’t even consider canceling the betrothal of his older daughter to a little creep whose lies helped lead to the death of an innocent person.

Dany

Dany’s comment about how it’s not a good idea to raise the ire of a king comes after she asks Whitebeard about her father: “Did you find him good and gentle?” Clearly, this is a leading question. Her adviser answers that Aerys “could be very harsh to those he thought his enemies.” The dragon queen wants to think well of her relatives. It’s not fair to say she is unwilling to listen to any criticism of them. She begins to see something could have been wrong with her father. Nevertheless, he was the “true king.”

She has the same attitude toward her brother. This explains both her disappointment with him and her continued belief that he was the rightful monarch of the Seven Kingdoms. “He wasn’t just my brother,” she tells Jorah, “he was my king. Why do the gods make kings, and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?” Jorah says that some kings, like Robert, make themselves. Daenerys Targaryen will have none of this.

“‘He was no true king,’ Dany said scornfully. ‘He did no justice. Justice…that’s what kings are for.’”

So, the king provides justice to the realm, much as the shepherd provides safety to the flock. It’s true that part of Daenerys’s continuing attitude toward Viserys could be attributed to the human tendency to think well of relatives and to look back on things wistfully, remembering more good than bad about the departed. I don’t think that this is all there is to the matter though.

The men who overthrew Aerys continue to express some unhappiness and uncertainty about events. This is true of Lord Stark. It is even more true of Stannis (We should get to Stannis’s attitude later in this thread.) For Daenerys, there is unhappiness, but no true uncertainty. It was just wrong. The wrongness is inherent in the nature of the world. Overthrow the “true king”? How could you do such a thing? You are throwing matters out of sync. You are removing the keystone of the arch. You are eliminating the source from which justice and proper rule “flows.” I can see why some readers get the idea that the dragon queen is full of herself. However, a careful reading doesn’t show this. She is a woman who sincerely believes in the need for a good monarch to rule the realm. She thinks she has a duty, not only to the Tagaryens, but also to Westeros. I’ll repeat a phrase I used before. Deanerys Tarragon’s attitude is not one of privilege and pure entitlement. It is more like noblesse oblige on steroids.

I think we can also see now how Dany’s judgment in the matter of the woman who wanted her house and jewels returned corresponds well with Eddard’s ignoring of the butcher’s boy as a legitimate witness. It doesn’t occur to the dragon queen to consider the woman’s situation similar to hers. Why would you expect such a thought to occur? The complainant is identified simply as “a rich woman.” It seems likely that she wasn’t even a member of the Meereenese nobility. The property of the aristocrats, after all, remained pretty much untouched. All kinds of people lose their houses in warfare. What does that have to do with rebellion against the “true king”? One should no more compare the Targaryen’s flight from Dragonstone to a Meereenese lady’s flight to her brother’s place than one would think of weighing the word of a butcher’s son against the word of the heir apparent to the Iron Throne.

Ignorance and Denial in the Face of Threats

From the first page of ASoIaF, I saw one of the recurring themes to be this: Something terrible is approaching. These people aren’t prepared, and they aren’t preparing. At times it seems they aren’t capable of preparing. In part, this is due to all the sleaze balling and back stabbing taking place in King’s Landing. In part, it is due to the myopic concentration on the-one-true-head-honcho. In part, it is due to entrenched attitudes of the ruling classes. All of these things are related to each other.

The Others

Ned

Eddard shares the prejudices of his class. In essay 1, we noted the irony of his “No living man has ever seen one” comment. His wife gives a very good reply. “Until this morning no living man had ever seen a direwolf either.” The Lord’s weak rejoinder is “I ought to know better than to argue with a Tully.” Notice the “logic” here:

I shouldn’t argue with a Tully.

Therefore, there is no danger in magic returning to our realm.

Eddard Stark accepts the common wisdom of his social class and his time. This “wisdom” has been shaped, perhaps put in place, by the maesters, men who have close to zero experience beyond the Wall.

Dany

Dany is ignorant of the danger. This is not a plus for her as a potential ruler; it doesn’t dispose one to say that she would be a good queen of the Seven Kingdoms. Someone attacking from the east should know who the most important foe to attack is. Otherwise, she could do more harm than good. Of course, Dany can’t be blamed too much. No one has given her information. Ser Barristan says nothing of the Others. Dany is the “true queen.” That is the transcendent fact. Ignorance concerning dangerous enemies can be remedied later.

Well, Barristan the Bold is a southerner, not the sort of fellow to believe in White Walkers. Jorah Mormont is from the North though. He might not believe either, but he has less excuse for not giving some credence to the threat.

Inadequate Preparation for Winter

Ned

As I said in first essay, Lord Stark’s story ends before this becomes a major factor. Also, he was a Stark. Thus, he would probably have done a better job than most in trying to avoid conflict as the weather turned cold and the snow started piling up.

Dany

Dany’s education, it seems, didn’t include info on long winters in Westeros. Barristan and Jorah also told their queen nothing about winter. But this failure on their part gave no weight to a glaringly obvious fact: Westeros doesn’t need another invader.

Said glaringly obvious fact is not as important when considering Daenerys as it is when considering another claimant to the throne. Strictly speaking, this does not directly concern Dany, but a potential rival. Sorry, but I can’t help including it in this post. In the Epilogue to ADwD, we have Varys’s speech to Ser Kevan about the wonderfulness of Aegon (or fAegon if you wish). This speech is an incredible piece of work. It shows just how extreme the “true king” business can be. Supposedly, the young man, who has never ruled anyone or anything, is an absolute paragon, the very person for the Iron Throne.

Certain facts are neglected in this analysis: The realm is on the edge of disaster. A potentially devastating winter is setting in. There is a large zombie army threatening from the north. The war isn’t over; rival armies are still slaughtering each other and innocent third parties. So the spider thinks that now is just the time to bring about a situation where “Doubt, division, and mistrust will eat the very ground beneath your boy king.” In truth, if Aegon were worth a damn as a leader, he would see that now is not the time for opening new fronts of slaughter and destruction.

And there is another matter, something that goes beyond irony, something that just about goes beyond the believable. The spider is going on about how great and virtuous this young king will be. Why should anyone believe this stuff? The guy who is putting it all forth, the guy who wants everyone to believe in the virtue of Aegon, has just murdered one man and is in the process of torturing another man to death.

CONCLUSION

Deanerys Targaryen and Eddard Stark are unsurprisingly similar to each other in that they are like many leaders in the 7K. They are significantly like each other in that they are strong believers in paternalism. A stronger similarity is the importance they place on working for “the children.” This is partly a matter of opinion and a natural tendency for a paternalist. With Dany and Ned, however, it is also a strongly emotional matter.

These three essays have been an interesting exercise for me. Even with all I’ve written, I think that there is a lot more to say. But then, there are always more threads in which one can participate.

…………………………………………………

*Indeed, in private conversation with Arya, Lord Eddard labels the act the same way we would. He tells his daughter not to feel guilty about what happened to Mycah. “That murder lies at the Hound's door, him and the cruel woman he serves." Eddard doesn’t make this charge in public. Did he do so when he talked to Sansa in private? An interesting question, but not one appropriate for this thread.

Also, it’s possible that the killing was not just approved, but actually ordered by Joffrey. When the Hound is questioned by Beric Dondarrion in ASoS, Joff’s former bodyguard says, “It’s not my place to question princes.”