429 replies to this topic

[tze]

Winterbreath, on 20 March 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

I don't understand-she crucified the slavers as a gesture that slavering will not be tolerated.

Except she then took a cut from the people selling themselves into slavery. And apparently was forcing people to work in her fields (but that wasn't slavery---it's not slavery if you're forced to do stuff but you get "paid" in food and shelter, right?) Slavery won't be tolerated, except for when it was.

Winterbreath, on 20 March 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

It didn't matter if the ones she crucified did or did not crucify the children.

So she didn't really care who crucified those children? She flat-out tells herself "I did it for the children."

Winterbreath, on 20 March 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

The message was clear and brutal-slavering and associating with slavers would not be tolerated under her reign.

Unless you're King Cleon, who resumed slaving and . . . Dany tolerated it. Or you're the Yunkish, who opened slave markets right outside her walls and Dany grudgingly admitted that she'd agreed that was okay. Or you're Xaro Xhoan Daxos, a slaver that Dany was perfectly okay with up until he personally threatened her.

PatrickStormborn, on 20 March 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Sigh. ALL the Great Masters are guilty of being slavers. She decided that crucifying 163 of them would be a symbolic gesture. They were lucky that she didn't just wipe them out completely. Was it justice? Well, it wouldn't be in 21st Century Western societies. But this is a medieval, pre-Industrial Revolution time period, so "an eye for an eye" is as close to justice as it gets.

Sigh. Like I've said: she claims she wasn't punishing them for being slavers. She says she's punishing them for the crucifixions. ("It was justice. I did it for the children.") And she chose to go about it in a way that was designed to make herself feel better without actually bothering to determine individual guilt. This does not fill me with confidence with how she'll act in the future.

PatrickStormborn, on 20 March 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

You think that Martin created two-dimensional characters (thus effectively somewhat weakening his series) ... so that we'd be tricked into thinking Dany was a fabulous hero? Ok. Good logic.

He didn't "effectively somewhat weaken" this series. You really think he thought readers would view the caricatures of Slaver's Bay in the same way we view the people of Westeros? No chance. He has readers glossing over Dany committing the same truly horrific actions---crucifixions (the only person in Westeros we've seen crucifying people is Ramsay!), torture (Cersei and Qyburn, anyone?)---that are condemned in the Westerosi.  I think that's perfectly intentional on his part.

Edited by tze, 20 March 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Lizaveta Martell]

I think a lot of this really interesting debate on sexism is being confused by essentialist vs. engendered problems.  

Essentialism: It would be misogynist to dislike women for traditionally feminine qualities (both positive and negative) like emotional thinking (Cat), compassion(Dany), romanticism (Sansa), defense of children (Dany,Cat) , sexual manipulation of men (Cersei), sexual passivity (Sansa) etc, because you are judging women for their essential natures and devaluing women's qualities (and thereby protecting and enshrining men's qualities).  This theory presupposes a natural hardwired feminine nature and punishes women for supposed deviation from it (ie. Arya, Brienne). It is problematic because these supposedly innate qualities have varied from time to time, culture to culture or situationally based on power structure (example: 12th century France had both an ideal of the sexual passive lady of chivalry and the mythos of the sexual corruptive Eve character who leads men astray).

Engendered: All qualities, whether traditionally womanly or not, are possible and natural for any given woman to have.  The only reason we associate certain qualities with women is because social conditioning has molded the majority of women to conform with these standards from an early age, to such a degree that the women themselves are unaware of the gendering process.  Arya vs. Sansa is a prime example of this.  It would be wrong to say that either are unnatural or unfeminine, because "natural" women's behavior or femininity are merely constructs of culture.  The problematic element here would be to judge a character like Sansa for not having more traditionally male characteristics like her sister, because if there is no essentially female nature, then she could just chose to be less passive, emotional, romantic, etc.  That ignores the effect that culture has on developing the brain itself and personhood.  Arya and Brienne might have intuitively rejected feminine qualities because they were never going to conform to the unchangable feminine qualities like beauty and so evolved separately from gendered expectations.  On the contrary, in societies like Dorne or the Iron Islands, women like the Sand Snakes, Arienne or Asha can acquire what seem to be "hybrid" qualities of aggression and sexual expression because the roles given to women are less rigid.  

By confusing a hardwired quality with a gendered expectation, some women are judged because they deviate from some (valued) norms and some are judged because they conform to some (disfavored) norms.

[Euphail]

Lizaveta Martell, on 20 March 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

STOP MAKING ME LEARN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jk, interesting post and analysis.

[Queen Beyond the Wall]

I don't see why people hate Dany. She may be taking a long time to get to Westeros, but she has to learn how to be a leader first, and that means making mistakes too.

[B'Tash]

PrinceHenryris, on 20 March 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

I'll never understand why there's so much Dany hate on this forum.  Especially when Cat and Sansa are given a pass so often.

Actually, it was the other way around - Cat and Sansa were much more unpopular at the beginning and Dany had more people rooting for her than outright disliking her which corresponds with their arcs - Cat got the wrath of the fandom with one sentence ("It should have been you") and Sansa was the one who "betrayed her family and got her father killed". Dany was the young princess in exile who grew up with abusive brother, who was sold to barbaric horse lord and was basically forced to have sex with him (at least at the beginning), then lost him and their child to a funeral pare/blood magic but got amazing dragons in return. Then, as the story continues, we had Red Wedding and Cat dying and becoming UnCat wrecking havoc on Freys and Lannisters and Sansa participating (unwittingly, though) in Jeoffrey's murder, then leaving KL and becoming a protégé of Littlefinger learning to play the Game of Thrones - quite interesting and dark, no? And, what is happening with Dany in all this time? Well, most of the people expected her to kick some serious ass in Westeros with her dragons and Unsullied (sp?) like ASAP but she, to the frustration of some, got stuck in Meereen making some seriously dumb decisions (which can be attributed to her lack of experience and age, though) repeating very often that famous "I am the blood of the Dragon" line which make some people believe she is going down the path of her father (which could be very interesting, imo). I guess people got frustrated with Dany because they expected something quite different from her arc - they expected some hell-raising, badassery, fire works and they got blundering in Meereen (mind you, hell-raising and badassery will, probably, still happen but later then expected).

I find all of these arcs very interesting and think that Dany's is going to become even more compelling for the very reasons she is frustrating to some at this point of the story - she is trying to do the best she could but she didn't have much preparations/education to get her ready for things that are coming her way. Of course, we can argue that to be prepared is not everything and that much depends on the character also and that is why I am so interested in her future arc - we saw her courage, goodness and intelligence but we also saw her tendency to blind herself from the bad things that are happening around her and her unlimited (it seams) sense of entitlement.

[Apple Martini]

Queen Beyond the Wall, on 20 March 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

I don't see why people hate Dany. She may be taking a long time to get to Westeros, but she has to learn how to be a leader first, and that means making mistakes too.

The problem is, when she makes a mistake, thousands of people, many of them completely innocent, die for it. That's a lot of destruction and mayhem just so Dany can have a "starter kingdom."

[Jaehaerys Sand]

The Swaggering Bravo, on 20 March 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

You forgot about how there was no attempt whatsoever to try and take Dany's dragons by force both in Qarth and Astapor.

In qarth, it was because she was being protected by Xaro, who sought to win them with marriage.

In astapor, it's because robbing the people you try to do business with is a great way to lose all of your customers.

[B'Tash]

Val the Wildling Princess, on 20 March 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

This exactly. I mean, I don't know how it is that difficult to understand that there are people who dislike Daenerys. It's not like she has been around being harmless. She has burned people alive, she has crucified random people, she has ordered torture...

True - and, that is the reason I (together with Dany) also do not like Jaimie, Cersei, Tyrion (oh, heresy ), Tywin, Stannis, any character with the last name of Bolton or Frey, Littlefinger, Varys, etc.   Although, I find them more or less interesting, btw

[Apple Martini]

Jaehaerys Sand, on 20 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

In astapor, it's because robbing the people you try to do business with is a great way to lose all of your customers.

I know you're talking about the slavers here, but it equally applies to Dany. In the context of Slavers Bay's society, what she did in Astapor is outright theft.

[Golden&Crimson]

Val the Wildling Princess, on 20 March 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

This exactly. I mean, I don't know how it is that difficult to understand that there are people who dislike Daenerys. It's not like she has been around being harmless. She has burned people alive, she has crucified random people, she has ordered torture...

She made her dragons burn alive astapori slavers, capable of the greatest cruelty in the training of slaves.
She ordered the crucification of mereenese great masters because they ordered the crucification of a great number of children.
She don`t like to use torture on the interrogations, and only use that because her followers insist (Shavepate).

Daenerys is a quite gentle person, too gentle to much people in Mereen, and with a real wish of doing good things, her only tragedy is that (because of her poor education and training) she makes some mistakes.

Yes... i like her!

[B'Tash]

eyeheartsansa, on 20 March 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

There is not much frame of reference for how a young girl is expected to feel about the legacy of her house and her father as 'the Mad King.'

If I learned that my father, whom I knew, burned people alive and was batshit crazy, I honestly don't know what I'd do with that information.
There is plenty she still doesn't know, having been fed most of the story from Viserys her whole ilfe, and then getting a sugarcoated version from Barristan.  We can't expect Dany at her age to come completely to terms with her father's legacy right away.  In a story like this it needs to unfold delicately over the course of several novels.  Being stranded in the desert having time to reflect on these things, she is just now realizing, dammit, for better or worse, I'm a Targeryan!  Fire and blood!

Let's face it - in real life, who would like to hear or come to terms with something like that? I am sure many families in real life have somebody in their past they do not like to talk or think about and a lot of people try to forget about them or even hide their existence, hence the "skeletons in the closet" line....

[butterbumps!]

I hope I don't get myself into trouble saying this, but I would have preferred Dany's character, at least in terms of her ruling prowess, if she had been somewhat more ruthless in how she went about Slaver's Bay-- not indiscriminately, but strategically so.   Not to say I'd like her more personally, but I'd respect her more as a ruler.  

I have a lot of problems with her notion of justice, and the inconsistency with which she applies force, especially in that her use of force isn't always directed at those deserving of it, and she doesn't consider that possibility (or in some cases, doesn't care).   As I said earlier, my problem with the slaver crucifixions isn't just that it was vengeance rather than justice, but because, really, she showed her cards, and lost any leverage any hostages would muster.  I mean, the Meereenese recognized this- isn't it odd that they sent her children while she sent them fully grown adults?   I do think a preemptive strike against the opposition at the outset would have been the right move, so the Slavers would have understood real consequences for breaking the peace, because by not doing so caused a lot more misery than nipping it in the bud.  And to be clear, the manner in which the slavers were crucified does not seem, to my mind, a good way to do this.  

So, at least for me, it's not that she was forceful or "badass" as it were, but that she didn't apply either justice or force in a way that seemed fitting or strategic.  I've told myself "ok, she's a teenager, she is not to be expected to make flawless decisions, understand justice, the responsibilities of ruling, was never taught statecraft, doesn't want to face certain ugly truths, etc," but then I think, "ok, well maybe she ought not assume these responsibilities in the first place."

[Jaehaerys Sand]

What is this about Dany not making decisions to acheive her goals?

She comes up with the plan to take the unsullied from the Master's and sack Astapor (I know, plot armor, but I don't think it was as dumb a move as most people do).

She comes up with the plan to beat the Yunkish army (got Daario to turn his cloak, got the second sons drunk, and lured the yunkish conscripts into a false sense of security).

She came up with the plan to take Mereen.

She decides to marry Hizdahr to bring peace to the city.

Edited by Jaehaerys Sand, 20 March 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[Jaehaerys Sand]

Apple Martini, on 20 March 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

I know you're talking about the slavers here, but it equally applies to Dany. In the context of Slavers Bay's society, what she did in Astapor is outright theft.

There is a technical difference. Dany did pay for the unsullied, but then she immediately declared war and took everything back. She didn't need to continue to 'do business' with anyone. Since she technically went through with the transaction, she didn't fully sell out her diplomacy.

[butterbumps!]

Jaehaerys Sand, on 20 March 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

What is this about Dany not making decisions to acheive her goals?
She comes up with the plan to take the unsullied from the Master's and sack Astapor (I know, plot armor, but I don't think it was as dumb a move as most people do).
She comes up with the plan to be the Yunkish army (got Daario to turn his cloak, got the second sons drunk, and lured the yunkish conscripts into a false sense of security).
She came up with the plan to take Mereen.

I actually do think some of these are her better moments where she shows some cleverness.   I especially like the scene where she pretends not to understand the slavers, speaking instead through Missendei.   I think it's quite briliant, actually.    For me at least, though, I see these circumstances more as clever short term tactics rather than a long term vision/ strategy to achieve her goals (and partially this might be due to her not really knowing what her goals really are, which is in itself problematic to her cause).   I feel that in order for her to become someone I want to see rule, she needs to become more reflective and committed to a particular goal.   This is what causes my frustration- I see moments of cleverness, which makes me want to see her get somewhere, but then she fails to follow through in a consistent or disciplined way, undoing whatever benefit her clever tactics achieved.

[Solmyr]

"Fuck me with a bloody spear, it's another Dany-bashing thread" -Shitmouth

I'll be frank, I didn't read the whole 11 pages of hate, counter-hate, sexist-calling, feminazing and etc. Everyone has the right to their opinions, just try to express them properly (OP, you lost me @ 1/35 - you were totally wrong about 1, so I skipped the other 34).

People who say they hate Dany now, but never hated her before, do so because her story didn't progress the way they wanted it to. Most won't admit it, but it's true. People wanted Dany to move to Westeros and have some action with her dragons. Instead dragons get chained in a pit for the entire book, Dany nibbles on olives, fucks Daario and queens around. People feel cheated so they call Dany a cheater (wait, I'm actually staying on topic ... inconceivable).

I don't like how Dany's story developed either. I don't hate the character for that, the character is not to blame. If anything, the character stays in character - Dany is 'just a young girl', as she herself points time and time again. Girls her age are supposed to want those things (if anyone calls me sexist now I'm gonna slap you) and she's in a rare position to get her wishes for once.

Dany is one of the main protagonists in the books and the fact that the character has the capacity to invoke so much dislike from the fandom only proves what a great job GRRM has done with asoiaf.

Edited by Solmyr, 20 March 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Apple Martini, on 20 March 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

I don't think consistency is too much to ask, one way or the other.

Exactly, she could have been cruel and effective while being feared, or completely lenient and compassionate while making attempts to have them love her. Instead she remains indecisive and works both directions, each time she changes her position it completely undos what she attempted previously. All of this makes me wonder if there are even people in this world who are moral, then I remember that Catelyn was probably the most moral in the series. Seriously, she even tried to convince Renly to have the people of Westeros choose who to rule and to bring Bran to a jury to dictate whether the Lannisters were guilty or no. Dany's sense of justice reflects undead Catelyn, which says a lot.

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Solmyr, no, we've hated her since Clash. And we don't love to hate her either, we simply despise most anything about her.

[B'Tash]

eyeheartsansa, on 20 March 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

It's more the merit of the story itself, than the merit of every little decision Dany makes.  Are you not entertained?



There is no Western concept of justice in this ancient setting.  'Eye for an eye'  is/was a very real concept in ancient history, not a phrase I'm throwing around because it sounds badass.

Actually, it is still happening in some parts of the world, even in Europe ....Not everybody is living in 21-century Western-European environment and I am saying this not to condemn or patronize people's opinions just to point out that Westeros is not 21-century Earth (the fact I know people here are aware of ) and that people might want to consider various situations in the books in proper context. Of course, we cannot escape our own moral&other values but I am always trying to be as objective as possible while evaluating stories which are not placed in modern real life situations (and sometimes falling miserably )......

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Jaehaerys Sand, on 20 March 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

There is a technical difference. Dany did pay for the unsullied, but then she immediately declared war and took everything back. She didn't need to continue to 'do business' with anyone. Since she technically went through with the transaction, she didn't fully sell out her diplomacy.

So if back in the day I attached a string to a quarter and put it into a vending machine, only to pull it right back out and take the candy, it isn't theft because I "went through with the transaction"?