Daenerys Stormborn - A Re-Read Project Part IV: ADwD

[MoIaF]

Welcome to the Daenerys Re-read Project!

Before we get started with our discussion, Id like to take a moment to thank the amazing group of posters who have agreed be part of the team analyzing Dany's chapters.

• Annara Snow
• Arya kiddin'
• BearQueen87
• GoldenFleece2
• HelenaAndTheMachine
• MoIaF
• PatrickStormborn
• SeanF
• Suzanna Stormborn
• The Good Queen Alysanne
• TheMysteriousOne

Now lets get down to business:

The aim of the re-read project is to gain a better understanding of Dany's character: by analyzing her motivations and her unique prospective. We would also like to gain a better understanding of the (very distinct) environment in which she finds herself. The structure of the re-read will be a chapter by chapter review. Each week one of us will be presenting a chapter for discussion. We will be summarizing / analyzing all of Dany's 31 chapters as well as Barristans 4 chapters.

We want to have a clear discussion looking objectively at the text. This isnt a appreciation thread so we ask that posters stay focus on the discussion at hand.

As with most re-reads there are a few ground rules which we would appreciate you follow:

• Discussion should focus on the chapters of the week (or previous chapters). You can reference future chapters if necessary for the discussion, but please stay on topic.
• When discussion please refrain from making unsubstantiated comments or be disrespectful towards other posters. We are aiming to do an objective analysis and it would be greatly appreciated if we stay on topic and not argue with each other about our personal feeling about the character.
• Your observations are very important to our discussion; if you find instances of foreshadowing, interesting symbolism, important parallels with other characters or other thoughts that can add to our discussion please share them with us. When ever possible quote from the text, it'll help enrich the discussion.

Below you will find the schedule for our discussion. We aim to stick to the schedule as closely as possible; however, we ask that you bear with us if there are any delays.

ADwD
Daenerys I 7/6/14 PatickStormborn
Daenerys II 7/13/14 TheMysteriousOne
Daenerys III 7/20/14 BearQueen87
Daenerys IV 7/27/14 Suzanna Stormborn
Daenerys V 8/3/14 Annara Snow
Daenerys VI 8/10/14 MoIaF
Daenerys VII 8/17/14 Queen Alysanne
Daenerys VIII 8/24/14 SeanF
Daenerys IX 9/7/14 MoIaF
Daenerys X 9/23/14 QueenAlysanne

Barristan I 9/14/14 Parwan
Barristan II 9/17/14 Parwan
Barristan II 9/19/14 HelenaAndTheMachine
Barristan IV 9/21/14 HelenaAndTheMachine

Tyrion II 7/9/14 Mladen
Tyrion III 7/16/14 Mladen
Tyrion VI 7/30/14 HelenaAndTheMachine
Tyrion VII 8/6/14 HelenaAndTheMachine
Tyrion VIII 8/13/14 BearQueen87
Tyrion IX 8/19/14 BearQueen87
Tyrion X 8/27/14 Suzanna Stormborn
Tyrion XI 8/31/14 BearQueen87
Tyrion XII 9/10/14 Suzanna Stormborn

Quentyn I 7/23/14 Suzanna Stormborn
Quentyn II 8/2/14 HelenaAndTheMachine
Quentyn III 9/3/14 MoIaF
Quentyn IV 9/12/14 Queen Alysanne

Here you'll find our previous discussion of Dany's AGoT, ACoK, and ASoS chapters:

AGoT

Daenerys I 1/5/14 Queen Alysanne
Daenerys II 1/12/14 MoIaF
Daenerys III 1/19/14 SeanF
Daenerys IV 1/26/14 MoIaF
Daenerys V 2/2/14 MoIaF / GoldenFleece2
Daenerys VI 2/9/14 Annara Snow
Daenerys VII 2/16/14 Suzanna Stormborn
Daenerys VIII 2/23/14 Arya kiddin
Daenerys IX 3/2/14 TheMysteriousOne
Daenerys X 3/9/14 PatrickStormborn

ACoK
Daenerys I 3/23/14 GoldenFleece2
Daenerys II 3/30/14 Queen Alysanne
Daenerys III 4/6/14 SeanF
Daenerys IV 4/13/14 MoIaF
Daenerys V 4/20/14 Suzanna Sromborn

ASoS
Daenerys I 5/4/14 PatrickStormborn
Daenerys II 5/11/14 MoIaF
Daenerys III 5/18/14 Annara Snow
Daenerys IV 6/1/14 MoIaF
Daenerys V 6/22/14 TheMysteriousOne
Daenerys VI 7/2/14 Queen Alysanne

Resources:
There have been a few Daenerys re-reads in the past and I though I'd add links to them as they might be helpful to us in our re-read.

• A Daenerys Character Arc Reread I
• A Daenerys Character Arc Reread II
• A Daenerys Character Arc Reread III
• Daenerys: Rethinking and Remapping a Protagonist
• Dragon stirring - A Heretical look at Dany

[Mladen]

Ok, moving on the discussion to this thread

MOIAF said:

I think TMO is correct in his analysis, look at the structure of the sentence. As Dany is about to point out that they are all guilty by association (tying in to her previous point about the pack of dogs) she realize that she herself now can be considered guilty by association. To say that there is nothing in the text to show us that she is beginning to understand the nature of her "wide brush" approach is to ignore what TMO said about her not mentioning the Usurper Dogs again through all of ADWD and she still has 8 more chapter to go.

That is not to say that she's changed her mind and now agrees with Barristan that Ned is a great guy but she is forced to consider based on her own experience that painting with a wide brush doesn't always work.

Well, the structure of that sentence and what is being said simply show no sign of leniency towards the opposing opinion. She deflected and moved on to Hazzea and the problem at hand. Furthermore, her not thinking of Usurper's dogs at all (it's not like she thought of Starks and Lannisters in the next chapter and didn't call them Usurper's dogs) is not an actual proof. When she does think of Lannisters, Starks, Tullys and Arryns, and not call them Usurper's dogs, I will call that a start, but lack of thinking about them simply can't be logically used as change of opinion. I do believe that Dany, once faced with cold reason of Tyrion will remember what Barristan was telling her (I feel like Battle of Meereen might be Barristan's last battle), but we still have nothing to put these analyses on. Not only that she dismissed Barristan's opinion, she behaved in strict contrast to what she wanted. She didn't want to hear so she didn't hear it. And there is nothing, and I repeat nothing that would make the opinion that she is changing her perspective on "Usurper's dogs". I do admit that her perspective on her father is changing as we will see in her wedding chapter.

[MoIaF]

Ok, moving on the discussion to this thread

MOIAF said:

Well, the structure of that sentence and what is being said simply show no sign of leniency towards the opposing opinion. She deflected and moved on to Hazzea and the problem at hand. Furthermore, her not thinking of Usurper's dogs at all (it's not like she thought of Starks and Lannisters in the next chapter and didn't call them Usurper's dogs) is not an actual proof. When she does think of Lannisters, Starks, Tullys and Arryns, and not call them Usurper's dogs, I will call that a start, but lack of thinking about them simply can't be logically used as change of opinion. I do believe that Dany, once faced with cold reason of Tyrion will remember what Barristan was telling her (I feel like Battle of Meereen might be Barristan's last battle), but we still have nothing to put these analyses on. Not only that she dismissed Barristan's opinion, she behaved in strict contrast to what she wanted. She didn't want to hear so she didn't hear it. And there is nothing, and I repeat nothing that would make the opinion that she is changing her perspective on "Usurper's dogs". I do admit that her perspective on her father is changing as we will see in her wedding chapter.

Her stoping at the point of "guilt" is a reconsideration. Like I said, this is not to say that she likes the Usurper Dogs or has forgiven them, far from it. However, the sentence structure show a clear connection in which she see the guilt by association she uses for the Usurper Dogs and then associated her gulf by association in the affair of Hazzea.

She makes a connection there, Mladen. She stops herself because she realizes that she is as guilty by association as the Usurper Dogs. Doesn't have to change her whole perspective on them but in this instance she sees that like them or more specifically like Ned she is also guilty by association.

[HexMachina]

I think wrt to the whole Usurpers Dogs thing, this is meant to be the "start" in that its the first time she is confronted with a different viewpoint on the matter. As I have said already, its going to be a slow change of her viewpoint, which is understandable given her...9, 10 years? of biased opinion from Viserys. You don't forget things like that in a single day, but I think this incident is here to make the reader think about why Dany is acting as she does. (i.e. Why is Dany still calling them Usurper's Dogs when Barristan vouched for.Ned?) I see a lot of people who throw dislike at Dany for this, without considering how she was brought up and taught about the Rebellion

[Mladen]

I think wrt to the whole Usurpers Dogs thing, this is meant to be the "start" in that its the first time she is confronted with a different viewpoint on the matter. As I have said already, its going to be a slow change of her viewpoint, which is understandable given her...9, 10 years? of biased opinion from Viserys. You don't forget things like that in a single day, but I think this incident is here to make the reader think about why Dany is acting as she does. (i.e. Why is Dany still calling them Usurper's Dogs when Barristan vouched for.Ned?) I see a lot of people who throw dislike at Dany for this, without considering how she was brought up and taught about the Rebellion

She is not confronted for the first time with the objective truth of her family and Rebellion. Barristan did tell her some snippets, and she demanded to hear it all. The good and the bad. Barristan even reproached her in ASOS about her reject of what he is telling her. But, as I have said in previous iteration of this thread, we can't blame child in puberty clinging to what she knew for ages. But, the ruler she is, the Queen she wants to become can't afford that sort of mistake. I don't dislike her for what she believes in, but I do reproach her on this occasion since she literally did the opposite of what she said she would do. When the next conversation about past comes, about Aerys and Rhaella, I will speak of how her perspective on her father has changed. But, for the time being, in microcosm of this moment, she did behave like a child, not like the mature Queen she is, or tends to be.

[Mladen]

Her stoping at the point of "guilt" is a reconsideration. Like I said, this is not to say that she likes the Usurper Dogs or has forgiven them, far from it. However, the sentence structure show a clear connection in which she see the guilt by association she uses for the Usurper Dogs and then associated her gulf by association in the affair of Hazzea.

She makes a connection there, Mladen. She stops herself because she realizes that she is as guilty by association as the Usurper Dogs. Doesn't have to change her whole perspective on them but in this instance she sees that like them or more specifically like Ned she is also guilty by association.

The problem with this is that she doesn't contemplate in terms of Ned or his guilt. Her train of thoughts moved on Hazzea and dragons. We even see Barristan being dissatisfied with how she dismissed him and his arguments. That is why this is not a start. If I am to pinpoint the start of her changing the perspective it certainly would be the day of her marriage when she actually listens to Barristan and contemplate about that. I simply don't see her change in this for one bit, especially not in terms of "guilt by association". Simply, there is nothing in the text that even suggests her thinking process about that.

ETA: I am on iphone and with bad Internet connection, so apologies for lack of multiquotes, double posts and spelling errors.

[MoIaF]

The problem with this is that she doesn't contemplate in terms of Ned or his guilt. Her train of thoughts moved on Hazzea and dragons. We even see Barristan being dissatisfied with how she dismissed him and his arguments. That is why this is not a start. If I am to pinpoint the start of her changing the perspective it certainly would be the day of her marriage when she actually listens to Barristan and contemplate about that. I simply don't see her change in this for one bit, especially not in terms of "guilt by association". Simply, there is nothing in the text that even suggests her thinking process about that.

ETA: I am on iphone and with bad Internet connection, so apologies for lack of multiquotes, double posts and spelling errors.

I just don't see how you can dismiss this scene given her train of thought. Barristan disapproves because he lacks Dany's POV, he doesn't see how she associated the guilt by association of the Usurper Dogs and the guilt by association she feels towards the death of Hazzea by Drogon. He can't see how she is force internally to reconcile these two events and therefor disapproves because he believes she is dismissing his words all together. That she doesn't go into it deeper does not mean that she doesn't consider it, even if it was for that moment.

I think the author made it very clear.

All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …” The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought...

Guilt by association is what Dany was railing towards the UDogs and here she thinks, well, I'm guilty by association too and thus she is basically forced to stop and for a second consider it.

ETA:I'm also on my phone, sorry.

[SeanF]

One problem is that we don't have an objective account of Robert's Rebellion. We get snippets of information from different characters.

I think we've heard enough to suggest, at the very least, Aerys had to be deposed. But, we haven't heard enough to determine the rest.

[MoIaF]

One problem is that we don't have an objective account of Robert's Rebellion. We get snippets of information from different characters.

I think we've heard enough to suggest, at the very least, Aerys had to be deposed. But, we haven't heard enough to determine the rest.

I think GRRM said we are going to hear more about it in the upcoming books enough so that we'll know the whole story. There is probably more to it that we know about it.

[SeanF]

I think GRRM said we are going to hear more about it in the upcoming books enough so that we'll know the whole story. There is probably more to it that we know about it.

The key points for me are:-

1. When did the rebels decide Aerys had to go.

2. When did they decide Rhaegar had to go.

3. When did they decide the Targaryens had to go.

4. When did they decide the Targaryens had to wiped out.

[HexMachina]

The key points for me are:-

1. When did the rebels decide Aerys had to go.

2. When did they decide Rhaegar had to go.

3. When did they decide the Targaryens had to go.

4. When did they decide the Targaryens had to wiped out.

I think 3 was never clear until Jaime killed Aerys and Tywin had Elia and her babes killed. After that there was no real way they could keep the Targs in power.

Number 4 I think they never decided, and never agreed on. It was only Robert who wanted them wiped out imo, otherwise Dany would not be alive now

[BearQueen87]

I think 3 was never clear until Jaime killed Aerys and Tywin had Elia and her babes killed. After that there was no real way they could keep the Targs in power.

Number 4 I think they never decided, and never agreed on. It was only Robert who wanted them wiped out imo, otherwise Dany would not be alive now

I agree. 4 seems to be a Robert Baratheon thing, something Barristan is trying to get across to Dany in regards to Ned

[Mladen]

I just don't see how you can dismiss this scene given her train of thought. Barristan disapproves because he lacks Dany's POV, he doesn't see how she associated the guilt by association of the Usurper Dogs and the guilt by association she feels towards the death of Hazzea by Drogon. He can't see how she is force internally to reconcile these two events and therefor disapproves because he believes she is dismissing his words all together. That she doesn't go into it deeper does not mean that she doesn't consider it, even if it was for that moment.

I think the author made it very clear.

All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …” The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought...

Guilt by association is what Dany was railing towards the UDogs and here she thinks, well, I'm guilty by association too and thus she is basically forced to stop and for a second consider it.

ETA:I'm also on my phone, sorry.

And I can't see how we can add thoughts to someone who is basically not having them. Dany never, absolutely never associated the quilt and situation she has at hand with Hazzea and dragons with what happened in RR. The word "guilt" triggered the overwhelming emotion she was dealing with for some time. Simply, the last time she thought of Ned was the time she used "Usurper dog". Not one thought of her is connected to Ned, or RR. She never contemplates it afterwards. She never actually has a thought process about it. This is not the start of her changing the opinion. Even the guilt by association is something she thinks solely as something related to her. As I said, there is no textual proof to claim that Dany understood the concept of "guilt by association" wrt Ned and other Rebels. Claiming that author made quite clear case that she is reconsidering RR is quite the leap, and one that simply isn't corroborated with ONE line of the text in Dany's chapters.

That being said, it is not like her opinions are rigid and unchangeable. We see small movements towards Dany realizing truth and abandoning Viserys' position. We will see how her perspective on her father is changing, and I do have high hopes of her understanding everything that has happened in RR (I seriously doubt that GRRM put Aerys ordering destruction of KL vision in HotU without some purpose for Dany). But, simply, for the time being, the text gives us nothing to say that she is changing her perspective on RR.

The key points for me are:-

1. When did the rebels decide Aerys had to go.

2. When did they decide Rhaegar had to go.

3. When did they decide the Targaryens had to go.

4. When did they decide the Targaryens had to wiped out.

1. I think Jon Arryn decided this at the beginning of the Rebellion

2. and 3. I think when it became obvious that Rhaegar is nowhere to be found, with Robert hatred towards man, they decided that somewhat before Trident.

4. This was only Robert deciding for himself.

I think GRRM said we are going to hear more about it in the upcoming books enough so that we'll know the whole story. There is probably more to it that we know about it.

I agree. Beside Jon's parentage, I think we'll going to find out Rhaella's and Elia's roles in entire thing, then what caused Brandon's reaction etc... Certainly there is more than we know, especially with Varys lurking around Aerys, but I think we already got the most of the details.

[BearQueen87]

So I'm looking over the thread linked in the previous Dany Re-Read thread before we moved, about why people hate Tywin. It's...an interesting read. There are of course those who call a spade a spade and lay out Tywin's crimes, why he's a bad guy overall. But there are some who jump on the "the Reyens got exactly what was coming to them and Tywin is awesome!" train. Even one comment about how Tywin had to teach Tyrion a less in regards to Tysha.

If I said I was confused that'd be putting it mildly. I don't deny that there are reasons to dislike Dany. Her black and white worldview and her insistence that she remain ignorant of the grey is a hindrance. The order to question the wine sellers daughters sharply can't be defended. And yet other characters who flay, rape, brutally murder for their pleasure and decimate families, for their own selfish reasons get applauded or at least excused. Until I joined this forum, I honestly didn't know how much people hated Dany; or at least that she was such a polarizing figure. Do people want her to be full on black-hat rape, pillage, plunder, maim and destroy? And if she doesn't do this, if she actually brings up about some sort of positive change through her conquests and laws...is she good or bad?

[Mladen]

If I said I was confused that'd be putting it mildly. I don't deny that there are reasons to dislike Dany. Her black and white worldview and her insistence that she remain ignorant of the grey is a hindrance. The order to question the wine sellers daughters sharply can't be defended. And yet other characters who flay, rape, brutally murder for their pleasure and decimate families, for their own selfish reasons get applauded or at least excused. Until I joined this forum, I honestly didn't know how much people hated Dany; or at least that she was such a polarizing figure. Do people want her to be full on black-hat rape, pillage, plunder, maim and destroy? And if she doesn't do this, if she actually brings up about some sort of positive change through her conquests and laws...is she good or bad?

I understand you completely... I am quite neutral towards Dany, with even some rather positive thoughts about her. But I can't make myself forget some things. I generally don't think that Joffrey, Tywin, Ramsay or anyone is getting less hate, it's just that we sometimes focus on Dany, since she represents the greyest of the good guys. I won't deny that there is some genuinely disgusting comments, but some arguments against those posts are even worse. From misogyny catch 22 to "slavery supporters", from arguments like "so what, Tywin did worse" where supporters basically put the two of them on same moral ground to defend her. And not to mention that any criticism is being called hate. All of that is so annoying. So, basically, if I criticize Dany more often than Ramsay or Tywin, that doesn't mean I think she is worse or God forbid same with them, but because I have much higher standards for her. I doubt any Dany fan would want me to look at her like that. And ironically, I see some of them doing exactly that in rather, IMO, bad arguments that are made.

[SeanF]

So, basically, if I criticize Dany more often than Ramsay or Tywin, that doesn't mean I think she is worse or God forbid same with them, but because I have much higher standards for her. I doubt any Dany fan would want me to look at her like that. And ironically, I see some of them doing exactly that in rather, IMO, bad arguments that are made.

My own view is that Tywin was scum, who employed scum as his enforcers. He liked to portray himself as a man who only employed violence where necessary, but in reality he took cruel revenge for slights throughout his career, humiliating his father's mistress, wiping out the families of rebels, sacking Kings Landing, murdering the royal family, gang-raping Tysha etc. Roose Bolton is a more interesting and entertaining villain. But, at heart, he's a repulsive human being. Ramsay is unspeakable. So, yes, there is good reason to hold Dany to higher standards than people who we know to be evil.

[BearQueen87]

My own view is that Tywin was scum, who employed scum as his enforcers. He liked to portray himself as a man who only employed violence where necessary, but in reality he took cruel revenge for slights throughout his career, humiliating his father's mistress, wiping out the families of rebels, sacking Kings Landing, murdering the royal family, gang-raping Tysha etc. Roose Bolton is a more interesting and entertaining villain. But, at heart, he's a repulsive human being. Ramsay is unspeakable. So, yes, there is good reason to hold Dany to higher standards than people who we know to be evil.

And this is my problem with lumping Dany in with the likes of Tywin, Roose, and Ramsey (or, apparently Hitler and Pol Pot if one thread was to be believed...) I don't believe that those three in particular--and we can add in the Mountain and Euron Greyjoy--have redeeming qualities. They do what they do for power, their own personal honor, to keep their own status in the world, and in a few cases because they just sincerely love blood and gore and violence. We don't get inside their head because there is no reason to be there; they are what they are.

[Parwan]

I just don't see how you can dismiss this scene given her train of thought. Barristan disapproves because he lacks Dany's POV, he doesn't see how she associated the guilt by association of the Usurper Dogs and the guilt by association she feels towards the death of Hazzea by Drogon. He can't see how she is force internally to reconcile these two events and therefor disapproves because he believes she is dismissing his words all together. That she doesn't go into it deeper does not mean that she doesn't consider it, even if it was for that moment.

I think the author made it very clear.

All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …” The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought...

Guilt by association is what Dany was railing towards the UDogs and here she thinks, well, I'm guilty by association too and thus she is basically forced to stop and for a second consider it.

ETA:I'm also on my phone, sorry.

I don't think the author makes anything very clear. GRRM doesn't usually do this.

I think it is possible to interpret Dany's thoughts in the manner that I do. I don't think it's necessary. As regards her future thoughts and statements, i believe that there are hints that her thinking is changing in a number of ways, even a passing thought or two that she might be able to have some sympathy for Robert Baratheon. She doesn't mention Eddard, Jaime, Tywin, etc. by name again in the text. Topics about Westeros and Westerosi lords do come up. The queen has the opportunity to talk about the "dogs". She does not do so. That may be significant, or not. This is a matter for future discussion.

I see no proof, indeed no convincing evidence, that Barristan's flicker of disapproval indicated he was unhappy about his point of view being "dismissed." To me, it's more likely that he didn't want Dany to go down into the pit near the dragons. I would definitely reject any assertion that Dany's thoughts refer only to her guilt and have no reference to any worry about the concept of guilt by association, whereas Barristan's unhappiness relates only to the "dismissal" and has no relation to the queen's decision to go down into the pits. As I said, Martin does not make things this clear. One can read the Daenerys-Selmy exchange in a number of different ways.

[LordStoneheart]

All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …” The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought...

I don't see how this isn't clear, honestly. She says guilt after referring to animals killing children... thinks about Hazzea, and ends the chapter with "if they are monsters, so am I."

It's no great stride towards finding the truth of the WotU, but it shows her reflecting on guilt and guilt by association.

[HexMachina]

And this is my problem with lumping Dany in with the likes of Tywin, Roose, and Ramsey (or, apparently Hitler and Pol Pot if one thread was to be believed...) I don't believe that those three in particular--and we can add in the Mountain and Euron Greyjoy--have redeeming qualities. They do what they do for power, their own personal honor, to keep their own status in the world, and in a few cases because they just sincerely love blood and gore and violence. We don't get inside their head because there is no reason to be there; they are what they are.

I just want to.make absolutepy clear, in case I have been misunderstood. I didn't link that thread to compare Dany to Tywin. I meant it as an illustration of the point that people love to hate the "villains". I didn't for a second mean to put Dany and Tywin in the same category, in case that is how it appeared.