I can see that I have obviously touched old, old wounds by talking about why I dislike Dany but I don't understand the reaction I'm getting. All I'm trying to do is reply to the question asked in the topic about why I, personally,
do not like Dany. I don't know whether you guys all lover or what but most of what I'm saying is a purely personal preference.
PatrickStormborn, on 11 April 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:
Basically you can't identify with female, non-tomboy characters.
brashcandy, on 11 April 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:
So basically what you're saying is that you have a problem with most of the female characters except the one who acts like a boy? Colour me surprised.
I didn't say I can't, I said it's more difficult, which I thought would have been true for almost everyone of the opposite gender to any character. I don't see how my being able to identify with someone or not can be argued. You seem to be insinuating I'm some sort of sexist, that is not the case, I just find it difficult to like characters that I can in no way relate to. I would have thought that I would be free to say so.
Robert was part of the political structure of Westeros. So he rebelled against his leige lord when he took the throne. Aegon did no such thing as he had no alliegances to any of the kingdoms. Robert is a usurper, and not once in the series is he called a conqueror.
No, what Aegon did was different from Robert. Aegon conquered the seven kingdoms and united them. What Robert did was plain old usurpation. Aerys could have been removed from power, and either Rhaegar, or those next in line could have continued the Targaryen rule. There's a reason why Robert has long been paranoid over the Targaryen heirs.
I'm not an idiot, I know the fucking difference in definition between usurping and conquering, what I'm saying is that you'd have to be blind not to see that it is the exact same thing in context
. For Christ's sake, do you really think that when the Aegon came over the Seven Kingdoms just handed over their power because they too believed that he was entitled to it? Are you trying to say that Aegon's was more justified or something? There is no "rightful" ruler of the Seven Kingdoms or anywhere in any fantasy or real universe. It all stems from a belief that just because you were born a certain way means you deserve certain things. If anything I think that Robert's rebellion was more justified, not because I love him/the Starks/Stannis/Renly etc, not because I hate the Lannisters/Dany/the Targaryens or any other thing that would affect my judgement but because he was avenging good men, removing a horrible King and he thought
he was saving Lyanna. What Aegon did was simply use power to take something that wasn't his. But back to what I was actually
arguing, Dany has no entitlement, if we just keep going back then we say there should be no united Seven Kingdoms and go back to all of them separately, or we could go back and say that the Children of the Forest should be the ones who control the Seven Kingdoms cos they ruled it first. My argument lies in the fact that I hate this sense of entitlement that monarchies produce and I don't believe that simply because Aegon united the Seven Kingdoms means that he is vastly different to Robert.
It was a political marriage.
And how would the public find out about it? There's many rumors going around about Dany in Dance, none of which has seriously undermined her position with the people. And make no mistake. The slavers need no extra excuses to hate Dany, something as small as who she slept with before being married isn't even a afterthought compared to their actual grievances against her.
Why is this disrespectful? Do you imagine that Hizdahr was being faithful to her in the lead up to the marriage as well? He was fully in it for what he could get out of Dany, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with her enjoying her last days of singlehood with the man she loves before entering into a purely political alliance.
Again, I understand that it was a political marriage, call me crazy but I just don't think it's nice to fuck other people in the lead up to your wedding, that's why it's disrespectful, Hiz is guilty of the same thing. There are a million and one ways they could find out which I believe you can figure out for yourself. I'm not saying that it would make them hate her more but that they, or Hiz, might not want to continue with the marriage and peace if they thought she was going to just do this in front of everyone. Dany did this without the knowledge that Hiz was sleeping with other women, or that he would be fine with it. In the end he was fine, I just think it stupid to do anything that has even a tiny chance of upsetting the very edgy peace. I never said that there was any affection between D+H, I just think that it would show more courtesy if she didn't fuck Daario.
She did not reject Quentyn because of his appearance or his personality. She did it because Hizdahr was necessary to fix her problems in Meereen. She still told Quenytn that there was hope for him when she took him to see her dragons, though.
Except that she didn't make a snap judgement. She told him later on that her marriage need not be end of all his hopes, treated him with courtesy, and tried to learn more about Dorne from him. She only rejects Quentyn afterwards when she realises that he cannot handle what he came for: fire and blood.
Who? Hiz or Quentyn? Quentyn doesn't even matter as she wasn't going to marry him, and in fact, wanted him to leave before he got himself into trouble.
Okay, you just didn't read what I wrote. I explained that she never even considered him for the future, or how that dismissal would affect her alliance with Dorne. She said there was hope for him, but not as her husband. I don't know what you consider a snap judgement but I don't think 10 sentences is sufficient evidence to determine whether someone has a good personality or not. Ok well she laughed in his face that's not really courtesy but she never once considered marrying him, that much is clear, she may have aided him, joined forces with him, but she never thought over marrying him. It's the blatant disregard for Westeros that annoys me, as well as the snap judgement. I was talking about Quentyn and you missed my point. Dorne is currently the only kingdom that supports her, not to mention her family - she ultimately wants to capture Westeros. Disregarding Quentyn was counter-productive.
If you're going to post about Daenerys then you really should read AGOT. Game of Thrones (the tv series) covers most of what happens, but there are a lot of small details that are lost without her internal monologue.
I definitely am going to do so but I don't think the even more naive Dany is going to appeal to me any more than this more mature one
Calling her a "typical queen" is pretty misogynistic, is my point.
Right, well you just completely misunderstood my question. What I meant to say is that she acts just like someone who has been told she is entitled all her life, that this is her birthright, and that she is above the rest of the people. Please don't return with an argument against why she is like that if you don't read what I have written in a previous post first. You could have put any number of words in there and it would have had the same meaning: King, lord, Prince, Princess, Lady, Knight, Count, Duke etc. Don't try and lay the sexist card on me just because I don't like a female character.
Not moved by Dracarys?!? Are you sure you're alive?
Well maybe I'm just feeling a little annoyed....
Take this up with GRRM, not with Dany's character.
The question was why do people not like Dany? I don't like her partly because of the people around her. I thought it was more of a broad, "Dany chapters" kind of thing
ManyFacedOne, on 11 April 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:
It's evil but that's too simplified a view of things. For instance, many of the first US presidents owned slaves, but it doesn't negate all the good they did for their country, nor does it automatically make them evil.
Maybe "evil" is a bit too harsh. All I'm saying is that we are presented with almost no good or even grey, powerful characters.
Well it's hard to say for sure, but Meereen wasn't starving or plagued with disease before Dany came through. Certainly a great deal of them were better off before, even pit fighters, who were no longer even being feed well. One of Tyrion's chapters, for example, showed that a lot of the slaves were treated much better than the peasants of Westeros. Some of the slaves even take it as a point of pride being owned by a prominent slave owner and wouldn't take the freedom Dany was offering if they had a choice.
Well the disease was brought from Astapor, I wouldn't call that a direct result of freeing the Meereenese, more of an indirect one thanks to King Cleos. As for the starving, it's not because the slaves kept everyone fed, it's that the Great Masters burned the farms and the surrounding cities boycotted them. When the Lamb People agreed to come over, there was no longer a problem apparently. As Tyrion said, people choose to be slaves, unfortunately the other choice is death. I don't think that it's better for people to have to make that decision. Some having good lives doesn't make up for those who were killed.
No one wanted their salt or copper and their wine was inferior. If you noticed, Dany spent a lot of time trying to come up with alternatives and realizing they weren't enough.
And she found one, the Lamb People
What she did with Drogon almost killed her, and it still didn't tame him in any sense of the word.
Exactly my point, it all should have been done earlier, she should have taken more precautions and been more responsible.
They weren't difficult to control; they were impossible to control, as we see when she needed dozens of men to help take them to the pit. The only reasonable way she could control them was by locking them in the pit. I think the whole point was that you can do whatever you want to the dragons but it isn't going to change their nature. They're wild beasts and the only way the Valyrians ever controlled theirs were with spells and horns and such.
They were impossible to subdue, not control. She never once made a conceited effort to try and get them under her control, to follow orders. I agree that they probably are just wild and impossible to control but she should have tried.
Who said anything about torture? And ignoring Westeros is obvious. The only reason she didn't march for Westeros was because her people wouldn't have been able to take the march, and she didn't want to leave Meereen to the fate of Astapor.
All of them? Sure. But unless she comitted mass murder on every slaver in the city, it wouldn't have helped none; and it would've been hard, if not impossible, to be so thorough.
She agreed to have the wine seller tortured to find out if he knows anything about the Harpy. That's not the
point I was making. She ignored a good alliance in Quentyn and Dorne. I was saying that she claims to put her people first but doesn't consider how her invasion of Westeros will hurt those there.
The idea was to kill the Grand Masters, there weren't so many of them, so she could have been completely thorough. All she had to do was kill one member of every family, horrible I know, but it probably would have worked.