Kittyhat, on 21 April 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:
Who in the story refers to Dany as one? If anyone ever did, it was such a throwaway remark that I honestly can't even recall it. She gets called "Mother of Dragons" a lot, and sometimes "Breaker of Chains" and a few other random honorifics. I don't recall seeing anything about "Savior of Mankind."
You're kidding right? Aemon flat-out tells Sam that she's Azor Ahai reborn, and the red priests in Essos (Tyrion's POVs in ADWD) say the same, saying that she'll bring an unending summer, that death will flee before her, her servants will rise from the dead, etc. Multiple people have basically said that she's the Westerosi Jesus. A lot of her fans' reasoning for thinking that she's Azor Ahai is because people in the story actually say she is.
So is that all you've got? Strawmen?
Nope, just pointing out that Jon and Bran aren't good comparisons, because no one in the story seems convinced that they're the magical saviors of mankind. And neither of them are perfect, either. Jon's too trusting, cruelly separates a woman from her baby, can't communicate his ideas across very well, bucks the Night's Watch order without thinking about its repercussions and, yeah, whines a lot. Bran has been warging Hodor, a pretty gross violation.
Uh-uh. You can't start out by accusing one character of wearing too obvious a "You Are Special" sign, then just say "take it up with Martin" when I point out that others wear the same signs. Point stands.
Well Martin writes the books, not me. I don't know what you want me to say about Tyrion. I'm not really accusing her of wearing a "You Are Special" sign, I'm accusing her of being a terrible, naive, and willfully ignorant ruler.
Because the circumstances are entirely different. Do you think there's no moral difference between Eddard's execution of a Night's Watch deserter and Eddard's own execution at the command of an incest-spawned usurper simply because the methods of death are the same?
The Night's Watch member was guilty of desertion. Eddard was not guilty of treason. So yes there is a moral difference there. What did the wineseller's daughters do that they deserved to be tortured?
If all you have is "I don't like the methods she uses," well ... you can say that's your reason for disliking her, but it's a pretty stupid reason frankly, and it doesn't make her evil even if you want to believe it does.
Well aren't you a sweetheart, calling other people stupid.
I disagree with many things that she says, does and is, it's not just her methods. I don't think she's evil (not yet, at least), I think she's an idiot who's too idiotic to know she's an idiot.
They do relative to the main focus of the books, at least with regard to thrones. Sure, Asha cares about the Seastone Chair, and so do the ironborn. No one else does, including the vast majority of readers. It's a largely irrelevant throne situated on islands that are painfully boring to read about and are mostly only important to the plot because their inhabitants happen to be crazy.
Plenty of people don't give a shit about Essos and find it boring, does that mean that Dany's throne in Meereen is irrelevant?
Even if Asha were a serious contender (currently she's not), that wouldn't make her goal a place of power that's central to anything that actually matters in the story.
How the hell do you know what matters
in the story? Do you think Martin's had Asha stomping around the North with Stannis because she's a throwaway?
Don't get me wrong. I don't mind Asha, and I like Arya. But neither one of them is or ever was really a serious contender for anything that approaches real political power.
You're all for women seeking "real" political power, yet you just want them to be on the same self-destructive level as the men. You're letting men define what real political power is.
You haven't noticed what happens to people in this story who seek political power? It ends up destroying them or turning them into monsters. And I'd say that Asha wanting to bring HER people — HER people, people she actually cares about and grew up with and identifies with — into the "modern" world by improving their society and working to get them into a more updated and progressive system through diplomacy (what a concept) shows a damn sight more political wisdom than Dany has ever demonstrated.
Well, first off, she's neither vacuous not power-hungry. Secondly, I don't side with her because she's a woman; I side with her because I think she's great ... and yet still also far from perfect, with a lot to learn -- extraordinarily gifted and yet still all too human all the same. Which pretty much also describes Arya, Bran, Jon and arguably Tyrion as well, despite his being a dwarf.
She sacks three cities because she can, thinks she can overturn thousands of years of culture and society overnight, tortures and crucifies people out of vengeance and spite, refuses to face up to how screwed up her own family is, can't see that the Harpy is sitting across from her, literally staring her in the face, and drops such verbal gems as, "I am the blood of the dragon, do not presume to teach me lessons."
But oh yeah. Sexism. Juuuust sexism.
ETA: I get that people like her, and some people don't. But basically sneering that anyone who doesn't think she's cooler than the other side of the pillow must
be sexist is seriously offensive, ignorant and, worst of all, inaccurate. I dislike her because I find her methods barbaric, her attitude terrible, her ignorance troublesome and her dragon-god complex overblown. But if I (and Tze, Val, Octarina, Kraken and other ladies on here who aren't Dany fans) am a gender traitor of some sort just for disliking her, then perhaps I could say that her male admirers only like her because they see her as some adolescent sex-fantasy fulfillment. That's pretty ignorant, incorrect and offensive, too, and I'm sure many of them would take umbrage with it. Just like I take umbrage with your assertion that sexism is the only reason anyone could dislike Dany.
Edited by Apple Martini, 21 April 2012 - 01:48 AM.