Let’s Change the Conversation: Remapping Dany

[butterbumps!]

You are, I believe presenting a false choice. That the only options are the oppressive system goes on as it is, or that it's overthrown with no plan or people in place to make positive change. I don't accept that those are the only roads to change.

I also do not see evidence in the text that Westeros is so dysfunctional that it needs such a massive shock to the system as a wholesale peasant revolt and that doesn't really to me fit with the story we've been reading. Dany as a savior figure who will use her power to "save" Westeros from the Others instead of use her power to take the throne fits much more closely to me than that she decides admidst everything else going on in Westeros that what is really needed is a peasant revolt. I would find that terrible story telling.

I'm not sure if I believe that there is some inherently necessary dichotomy of choice here between intertia and complete shock in some abstract sense about everything. I do, however, believe that in terms of ASOIAF, that in order to reform there needs to be a very fundamental shock to whatever system is being addressed, whether it's the NW or the IT. In the framework of the story, simply reforming something without fundamentally challenging the system doesn't seem to work.

And if you really believe that the text doesn't support that the status quo is utterly dysfunctional, I have no idea what to say. Perhaps the fact that the system enabled Cersei's treason and the subsequent pushback by those who knew to restore the status quo and remove her thereby causing a war, and the utter disregard for human life by everyone who's playing the game are good starting points in how the system is dysfunctional.

If the idea of a wholesale peasant revolt doesn't fit according to your view of the text, I'm at a loss as well. Dany's entire arc has played on the notion of overturning social order in some cataclysmic way. Now we have slaves in Volantis looking to join in. We also have the Kingswood Brotherhood, the BwB, people like Meribald and EB who articulate systemic criticism, a riot in the streets of KL that nearly killed the royals, and a shitton of really restless, suffering peasants. Brienne in FFC and Arya in aSoS show us widespread peasant suffering, unrest and formless resignation variously. Now we're even getting less nebulous formations of unhappy peasants marching with the sparrows, demanding that the IT fulfill its duty to the smallfolk. I'd say we've seen a lot to suggest that a peasant revolt is ripe for the plucking.

Not that this is an argument, but since you put it in these terms, I have to say that I think your view would be "poor story-telling" because 1. it requires a narrow, and imo, incomplete understanding of Dany, 2. it requires an incomplete interpretation of the full extents of the situation in Westeros, 3. it would leave the threads of peasant dissatisfaction completely abandoned despite being a significant and consistent theme of the series.

[RoamingRonin]

This may not belong on this thread, but the discussion is based around the Meereenese knot, and I'm not sure GRRM has really resolved this since I can't see how he can get Dany out of Essos and have a positive resolution to Slaver's Bay, e.g. the region is on a positive track, with a sense that stability and a move toward a better, free system is in it's future without another unbelievable deus ex machina set of plot gifts.

That's not what the Meereense Knot is (correct me if I'm wrong). I assumed the Knot was resolving Dany's storyline in Essos and getting her to Westoros without it coming off as cheap and easy.

[OldGimletEye]

But that's just it. Sometimes reform is impossible without some massive interruption to the system itself. I don't think that without this major interruption to the status quo that any sort of the reform you're suggesting can find traction.

Importantly wrt Dany, she's very good at rallying people to interrupt these lumbering institutions, but neither interested in, nor does she excel at, the implementation of new order in the wake of such change.

But this argument seems to assume that only a cataclysmic, violent, and brutal blood bath can bring about reform. It also seems to assume that such event will lead to positive changes, without, apparently, any guiding force to bring about the changes.

I think if that is the argument, its proponents have a heavy burden of proving its likely to be the case.

Would you endorse a nuclear strike against Mereen, Yunkai, and Astapor? That would take care of slavery in Slaver's Bay, I would think. And assuming that you would dis-approve of said nuclear strike, would you be willing to pardon the person who ordered the strike on the grounds that it was “their destiny”.

[Cas Stark]

That's not what the Meereense Knot is (correct me if I'm wrong). I assumed the Knot was resolving Dany's storyline in Essos and getting her to Westoros without it coming off as cheap and easy.

Yeah, and how is he going to do that, that's my point. A resolution that has her leaving Slaver's Bay in great shape, will be cheap and will have to rely on some kind of insane plot gift. If she leaves it in a disasterous state, then it further damages her character, already damaged by the Slaver's Bay side story.

[RoamingRonin]

Yeah, and how is he going to do that, that's my point. A resolution that has her leaving Slaver's Bay in great shape, will be cheap and will have to rely on some kind of insane plot gift. If she leaves it in a disasterous state, then it further damages her character, already damaged by the Slaver's Bay side story.

It all depends on how she exits. You're jumping the gun, which is my point. You're assuming there can only be two alternatives: a perfect Slaver's Bay or a wasteland. It doesn't have to be either.

[Cas Stark]

I'm not sure if I believe that there is some inherently necessary dichotomy of choice here between intertia and complete shock in some abstract sense about everything. I do, however, believe that in terms of ASOIAF, that in order to reform there needs to be a very fundamental shock to whatever system is being addressed, whether it's the NW or the IT. In the framework of the story, simply reforming something without fundamentally challenging the system doesn't seem to work.

And if you really believe that the text doesn't support that the status quo is utterly dysfunctional, I have no idea what to say. Perhaps the fact that the system enabled Cersei's treason and the subsequent pushback by those who knew to restore the status quo and remove her thereby causing a war, and the utter disregard for human life by everyone who's playing the game are good starting points in how the system is dysfunctional.

If the idea of a wholesale peasant revolt doesn't fit according to your view of the text, I'm at a loss as well. Dany's entire arc has played on the notion of overturning social order in some cataclysmic way. Now we have slaves in Volantis looking to join in. We also have the Kingswood Brotherhood, the BwB, people like Meribald and EB who articulate systemic criticism, a riot in the streets of KL that nearly killed the royals, and a shitton of really restless, suffering peasants. Brienne in FFC and Arya in aSoS show us widespread peasant suffering, unrest and formless resignation variously. Now we're even getting less nebulous formations of unhappy peasants marching with the sparrows, demanding that the IT fulfill its duty to the smallfolk. I'd say we've seen a lot to suggest that a peasant revolt is ripe for the plucking.

Not that this is an argument, but since you put it in these terms, I have to say that I think your view would be "poor story-telling" because 1. it requires a narrow, and imo, incomplete understanding of Dany, 2. it requires an incomplete interpretation of the full extents of the situation in Westeros, 3. it would leave the threads of peasant dissatisfaction completely abandoned despite being a significant and consistent theme of the series.

I don't think that overturning the social order is the main theme of Dany's arc nor do I think that peasant dissastisfaction is a significant and consistent theme of the series. I don't even think that peasant disatisfaction cracks the top 5 in terms of themes or importance in the story.

[Lummel]

That's not what the Meereense Knot is (correct me if I'm wrong). I assumed the Knot was resolving Dany's storyline in Essos and getting her to Westoros without it coming off as cheap and easy.

As far as I recall the Meereenese knot wasn't about Daenerys leaving Slavers Bay, it was purely about the people arriving in Slavers Bay (Tyrion, Quentyn, Victarion, Marwyn) and the impact they would have on the Daenerys storyline.

[GoldenFleece]

Well, the cult-like devotion... that's a double edged sword. In fact, I think religion will be another reason why Dany's fairly unlikely to take up the cause of Westerosi peasant. Because their cause has already been taken up/instrumentalized - by the High Septon and Co. Who will have problems with an Aegon killing Red Priest backed Dany. She's like Stannis in that regard. There's going to be a lot of religious fervor evoked, but it's not going to be in Dany's favour, I'm afraid.

This is interesting. The peasentry seems have taken up The Faith has protector of their class, and the Red Priests are falling about themselves to get Dany on their side. However Dany has always struck me as.... very bliase about the whole religion thing. I can't recall her praying at all and she doesn't seem bothered by other people's religion. She seems very tolerant in that regard.

It is not definite that she will take up fully with the Red faith, Quaithe did tell her not to trust Dark Flame after all. Will her religious agnosticism rub The Faith in the wrong way and hence the peasantry? Maybe.

It is clear that at the end of AFFC/ADWD both peasantry and salves are crying out for a person to be their champion. Not saying that will definitely be Dany however.

I don't think that overturning the social order is the main theme of Dany's arc nor do I think that peasant dissastisfaction is a significant and consistent theme of the series. I don't even think that peasant disatisfaction cracks the top 5 in terms of themes or importance in the story.

Most of AFFC was about peasant dissatisfaction.

[OldGimletEye]

It all depends on how she exits. You're jumping the gun, which is my point. You're assuming there can only be two alternatives: a perfect Slaver's Bay or a wasteland. It doesn't have to be either.

I think this might happen, if Dany chills a little on the “Fire and Blood” crap. Dany might be able to broker some kind of uneasy truce in Slaver's Bay. She won't end slaverly like she wanted to, but some of her changes won't go away either. Perhaps, Yunkai and Astapor will still remain slave cities, but Mereen remains mostly free.

[butterbumps!]

But this argument seems to assume that only a cataclysmic, violent, and brutal blood bath can bring about reform. It also seems to assume that such event will lead to positive changes, without, apparently, any guiding force to bring about the changes.

I think if that is the argument, its proponents have a heavy burden of proving its likely to be the case.

Would you endorse a nuclear strike against Mereen, Yunkai, and Astapor? That would take care of slavery in Slaver's Bay, I would think. And assuming that you would dis-approve of said nuclear strike, would you be willing to pardon the person who ordered the strike on the grounds that it was “their destiny”.

I think you might still be conflating a few of my points, and my apologies if I haven't made this clear enough.

I'm not trying to make an argument about Dany's path based on some prophetic sense of "destiny." I'm saying in terms of her interests and skills, that her strength is in interruption to systems of massive inertia, and from that, I don't believe she's "meant" to be a ruler in the end, nor merely a savior due to killing all the Others or something. Just to clear up "destiny." And for the record, I see her stirring up change and contributing to the Battle for the Dawn-- they aren't mutually exclusive conditions.

As a second point, I've been saying that you can hate the chaos and suffering of such an interruption, and even find the method utterly abhorrent. A method might be immoral (nuclear strike), but I don't think that's enough to wholly reject or not at least appreciate that the interruption was made in the first place.

Can you clarify what you're saying I have a heavy burden of proof on? The idea that a shock to the system is necessary for change? (not a challenge, but a genuine request for clarification)

I'm not sure if you read some of my subsequent points about smallfolk revolt, but if not, that might put this into perspective a bit more.

I don't think that overturning the social order is the main theme of Dany's arc nor do I think that peasant dissastisfaction is a significant and consistent theme of the series. I don't even think that peasant disatisfaction cracks the top 5 in terms of themes or importance in the story.

Actually, the disenfranchisement of the peasants is incredibly pervasive. It's in the background quite often, but continually referenced, and sometimes comes to the fore-- Edmure and his smallfolk, the riot, the sparrows. I really don't think the smallfolk's importance can be denied.

[Cas Stark]

Most of AFFC was about peasant dissatisfaction.

Was it? Devastation due to war is not the same as disastisfaction. The small folk fondly remember Robert Baratheon, they even on occasion have fond memories of King Aerys...that doens't strike me as peasants ready to throw over the social order...that stirkes me as people who want order to be returned. The small folk remain loyal to the Starks, Tullys, Tyrells, Martells. The only time we see significant "uprising" is when people are starving. The High Sparrow is a religious zealot, he wants power not for the small folk but for his religion, the Faith Militant is not about helping peasants its about enforcing religious orthodoxy. People are free to disagree, but I don't see it. I think that this reading over polticizes the story and the themes that GRRM is getting are much more universal than politicfal structure..it's about how power is wielded, it's about what is the meaning of honor, how does one deal with divided loyalty, how does one navagate an unjust world, it's about cause and effect, about the risks and rewards and outcomes of doing things for oneself or for others, about personal growth, to boil it down to some peasant revolution would be so cheap I can't imagine it.

[NotSoSilentSister]

This is interesting. The peasentry seems have taken up The Faith has protector of their class, and the Red Priests are falling about themselves to get Dany on their side. However Dany has always struck me as.... very bliase about the whole religion thing. I can't recall her praying at all and she doesn't seem bothered by other people's religion. She seems very tolerant in that regard.

It is not definite that she will take up fully with the Red faith, Quaithe did tell her not to trust Dark Flame after all. Will her religious agnosticism rub The Faith in the wrong way and hence the peasantry? Maybe.

It is clear that at the end of AFFC/ADWD both peasantry and salves are crying out for a person to be their champion. Not saying that will definitely be Dany however.

Yeah, Dany's alliance with Rhollorism might be a fairly uneasy one. There's the problem that the Red Priests are so monotheistic and zealous while Dany herself is pretty much a paragon of religious tolerance. She's not going to allow them to burn Dothraki devotionalia, for instance.

Stannis has allowed Mel to suppress other religions under his protection, but I can't see Dany giving the same power to Moquorro. Then again, Stannis is very opportunistic - we know he'll humour Old-God believers too if it suits him, and he doesn't seem to fear that it will cost him Rhollorist support.

Curious to see how that plays out. Maybe it's indeed not as much of a done deal as I like to think. (Of course the smart thing for the Red Priests would be to humour Dany's religious tolerance for the time being. She's still way too much of a potential asset for them to ditch her over this, I think.)

[dpt24]

Two points

First, I would be very interested if Martin does take this story down a Revolutionary route and how as a result of the story major social/political change occurred. I do wonder if this is potentially too positive for Martin. In the Introduction to Mike Duncan's excellent Revolution Podcast series he talks about what it takes to be a revolution (and how its subjective) and the War of Five Kings comes close. For the events of the story to become a revolution there needs to be some sort of major political or social change. A number of smaller changes have already happened. The return of Dragons and Magic. The rise of the Faith Militant and the new lords like Littlefinger. The integration of the wildlings and the attempted independance of the North and Ironborn. So the groundwork is laid for something. Should Revolution (and I'm not necessarily talking about a peasant revolution) happen then Dany seems the most natural choice of the characters to lead it since she's already being revolutionary in Essos. Perhaps Ageon or Stannis or Jon could do something revolutionary but it seems more likely Dany would be the one to do it. I personally think this would be a really interesting though controversial move on Martin's part.

Secondly has anyone watched the Anime series Legend of the Legendary Heroes? I ask this because I see some parallels between the King in that series (Sion) and Dany. To summarize his plight he is a bastard relative of the old king who took power in a revolution. Sion wanted to be a good king and do good things for the people but he ran into a very brutal and hard to work with aristocracy. He slowly starts to become a more brutal and devious leader although until the end of the anime series he generally focuses this on the aristocratic threats rather than on innocent people. Three things complicate the story. Firstly he has the spirit of a much more brutal King inside him (as all kings of that country in the series end up getting it put into them) and he has two advisors who are very close to him and are both much more brutal and cynical. They also seem to be manipulating him towards a bad end although the anime ends without explaining it (I've heard the light novels continue on and explain more). The point of this is that Sion ends up with a similar situation to Dany. They are faced with the question how far can you go to try and improve the lives of your people? How much destruction is justifiable? I do think people are a little harsh on Dany about Meeren. Her decisions aren't always right or even well thought out but the reality is the slaver she's facing have almost no lines they are not willing to cross. So the fact Dany start's to take a darker path isn't necessarily surprising.

[Gogossos]

I think might happen, if Dany chills a little on the “Fire and Blood” crap. Dany might be able to broker some kind of uneasy truce in Slaver's Bay. She won't end slaverly like she wanted to, but some of her changes won't go away either. Perhaps, Yunkai and Astapor will still remain slave cities, but Mereen remains mostly free.

Which is exactly what happened in ADWD but that truce was never going to last now, was it? If I have to project forward, Dany must leave Slaver's Bay under her military protection, something she failed to do with Astapor. She has to leave someone with authority to command her free companies. The revolt in Volantis and potentially other Free Cities as well, in addition to the Pentos and Braavos complications make it extremely hard to predict the exact outcome. But if she wins the Battle of Meereen, she cannot possibly bring all those people to Westeros, nor would they want to come. If the slavers are destroyed, all she can do is install a governor(s) for each city that remains, following her ideals and protected by her military. She can always fly back and forth to check things up, anyway.

[OldGimletEye]

Which is exactly what happened in ADWD but that truce was never going to last now, was it? If I have to project forward, Dany must leave Slaver's Bay under her military protection, something she failed to do with Astapor. She has to leave someone with authority to command her free companies. The revolt in Volantis and potentially other Free Cities as well, in addition to the Pentos and Braavos complications make it extremely hard to predict the exact outcome. But if she wins the Battle of Meereen, she cannot possibly bring all those people to Westeros, nor would they want to come. If the slavers are destroyed, all she can do is install a governor(s) for each city that remains, following her ideals and protected by her military. She can always fly back and forth to check things up, anyway.

Well, I am not in complete disagreement with all your points.

But, when I say broker a truce, I mean a truce more to her liking. So perhaps she gets back to Slaver's Bay and then crushes the Sons of The Harpy and the she hands an ass whippin to the Yunkai. If this occurs, she will be in a better position to negotiate.

However, I don't see her being able to completely wipe out slavery because of both political and economic constraints. If she totally wipes out slavery in Yunkai, then she will have many of the same problems she had in Mereen. Also, I think she will not be able to leave significan military forces behind, at least those that are reliable.

Also, I think the idea of her flying back to “check up on things” is a little bit of wishful thinking.

[butterbumps!]

Was it? Devastation due to war is not the same as disastisfaction. The small folk fondly remember Robert Baratheon, they even on occasion have fond memories of King Aerys...that doens't strike me as peasants ready to throw over the social order...that stirkes me as people who want order to be returned. The small folk remain loyal to the Starks, Tullys, Tyrells, Martells. The only time we see significant "uprising" is when people are starving. The High Sparrow is a religious zealot, he wants power not for the small folk but for his religion, the Faith Militant is not about helping peasants its about enforcing religious orthodoxy. People are free to disagree, but I don't see it. I think that this reading over polticizes the story and the themes that GRRM is getting are much more universal than politicfal structure..it's about how power is wielded, it's about what is the meaning of honor, how does one deal with divided loyalty, how does one navagate an unjust world, it's about cause and effect, about the risks and rewards and outcomes of doing things for oneself or for others, about personal growth, to boil it down to some peasant revolution would be so cheap I can't imagine it.

It does not over politicize anything, but is fundamentally a part of how Martin deconstructs and reformulates the notion of power throughout the series.

You know Varys' little adage, "power resides where men believe it resides?" That's exactly the sort of premise about power construction the issue of smallfolk is playing into-- it's another facet of the more holistic "umbrella" of power construction.

There are already players aware that there is power in the populace-- look at Marg's appeals to keep them sweet, for example. We have seen not just suffering, but actual, honest to god rioting and direct critique by members of the peasantry to the system of power. Varys' "Enlightened Despot" speech caters to the notion of a ruler's responsibility to people (but stops short at the suggestion of actually empowering the people). There's even a rather large army of angry peasants in KL calling out the rot of the kingdom.

I'm not suggesting these people have any notion about democracy in mind, or that they are necessarily thinking in terms of toppling the current system. They are nostalgic for Robert and Aerys in the sense that they did not suffer this horrifically under them-- meaning, they want someone who can relieve their suffering and protect them again. So if a leader emerged who sought to represent their interests, with the implication that they as a social class are empowered such that they have the right to impose certain expectations on their rulers, then yea, I do happen to see this manifesting as a revolt of sorts. Dany might not be the only figurehead of such a thing, but the notion of systemic challenge has been brought up just as much, if not more than nostalgia for the status quo to return.

[SeanF]

I'm doubtful that a peasants' revolt in Westeros would actually achieve very much, however much mayhem might be caused as a result.

Neither the Peasants' Uprising in England in 1381, nor the various Jacqueries and town revolts in France during the 14th century actually succeeded in overturning the social order. In large measure, because the Peasants themselves were divided between those who wanted a new social order; those who were simply revolting against bad government and military defeat, and those who simply wanted the King to protect them from internal and external enemies. Many of the peasants would actually seek noble leaders, much as the BWB do.

Peasants' revolts in China would often herald the end of one dynasty, and the establishment of a new one.

[butterbumps!]

I'm doubtful that a peasants' revolt in Westeros would actually achieve very much, however much mayhem might be caused as a result.

Neither the Peasants' Uprising in England in 1381, nor the various Jacqueries and town revolts in France during the 14th century actually succeeded in overturning the social order. In large measure, because the Peasants themselves were divided between those who wanted a new social order; those who were simply revolting against bad government and military defeat, and those who simply wanted the King to protect them from internal and external enemies. Many of the peasants would actually seek noble leaders, much as the BWB do.

Peasants' revolts in China would often herald the end of one dynasty, and the establishment of a new one.

Yea, there's no way it would achieve much good in the short term. Kind of like how abolition doesn't. The virtue is in shocking the system, which will invariably return to something more closely aligned to the status quo than anything else, but now with ripples of changed expectations. As in, yes, I see Dany coming in and starting a revolt of sorts, and a different power base coming in to stop it and restore order similar to the former status quo, but now with the tension that at some point, the people could rise again. Which is a sense of empowerment of the people themselves, as well as an imposition of those in charge to be somewhat more concerned about responsibilities. Not terribly far from what Varys was projecting.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Was it? Devastation due to war is not the same as disastisfaction. The small folk fondly remember Robert Baratheon, they even on occasion have fond memories of King Aerys...that doens't strike me as peasants ready to throw over the social order...that stirkes me as people who want order to be returned. The small folk remain loyal to the Starks, Tullys, Tyrells, Martells. The only time we see significant "uprising" is when people are starving. The High Sparrow is a religious zealot, he wants power not for the small folk but for his religion, the Faith Militant is not about helping peasants its about enforcing religious orthodoxy.

That may be true, but that's not how it's sold to the smallfolk. For me, their flocking to the High Septon is definitly a sign for a wide-spread desire for change. It's very clearly a populist movement, for better or for worse.

The loyality to the noble Houses may still be strong in certain areas (eg. the North), but the Riverlands and the Crownlands are certainly a different matter. If you look at the Brotherhood-Without-Banners for instance .... One part may have accepted Cat as a leader because of old loyalities, but the other part split for - I think? - never quite clarified reasons and you generally get the impressions that they don't care too much for both lions and wolves... sure, they're now all about killing Freys and Lannisters, but that might be quite a bit more about punishing the taboo breakers rather than Tully restauration. That's a force that could be easily mobilized for a popular uprising as well. (Although they clearly can't team up with the Sparrows, even post Cersei, because of their religious differences).

[RoamingRonin]

However, I don't see her being able to completely wipe out slavery because of both political and economic constraints. If she totally wipes out slavery in Yunkai, then she will have many of the same problems she had in Mereen. Also, I think she will not be able to leave significan military forces behind, at least those that are reliable.

I think the upcoming war she's about to have with everyone in Essos and the free cities will determine how slavery will be handled in the future. It might not be completely eradicated but hopefully we won't have people being shipped around the world by the boatload.

And, hey, that's progress.

Also, I think the idea of her flying back to “check up on things” is a little bit of wishful thinking.

I agree. But the fact that she could fly back should be enough for people to tow the line.