Jump to content

What do you think about Dany's last chapter in aDwD


Mrs.Grumpy

Recommended Posts

Danny is taking off her Floppy ears. And is ready to become the Dragon.



This biggest evidence on her new stance. Is she forgets the name of the child that Drogon supposedly ate. Where as this childs name haunted her in almost every chapter after the event.



She is ready for war and has come to terms with the cost of war.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who does Selmy works for? If tywin gets blame for Mountain's work in KL, Stannis gets blamed for Mel's work, why should dany be exempt?

I don't blame Selmy at all for arresting Hizdahr. He believes Hizdahr tried to poison his queen. Whether it was the right thing to do or not, we shall see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha, but it is justified to resent not being raised as the Princess in a regime led by a brutally despotic King? And it's not ok to depose said King, when he explictly threatens your life and is a clear and obvious threat to the lives of many people, but child hanging as practiced by Lady Stoneheart is A-OK because LS needs her vengeance and conducts sham trials to get it. I've seen you go fucking fire and brimstone on I can't even count how many people you think 'deserve' to die, but now it suits your Ned bashing to put the weight of a war on him and criticize him for it. Selig, you don't even try to make a coherent argument, just to be as disagreeable as possible.

And you're obviously unable to admit it when you've been caught dead-to-rights wrong, as is the case with your absurd claim that Ned didn't defy Robert.

I didn't claim that Ned didn't defy Robert. I said he was his obedient lapdog and Dany calling him one of Usurper's dogs is clearly true. The point of the term is that these are the ones who helped Robert get the throne and kept him there, and Ned surely fit that perfectly. Just because he disagreed with Robert a few times over a 15 years period doesn't change that.

Of course the war is partly on Ned. He made his choice. It's not OK to depose a brutal king (who so far has only been brutal towards a handful of nobles) if that means getting tens of thousands innocent people, who couldn't care less who's king, killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

u·surp (y-sûrp, -zûrp)

v. u·surped, u·surp·ing, u·surps


v.tr.

1. To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.


2. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land.


3. To take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant.


con·quer (kngkr)

v. con·quered, con·quer·ing, con·quers

v.tr.

1. To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms.

2. To gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms.

3. To overcome or surmount by physical, mental, or moral force.


Quite similar depending on your point of view of each definition and how it fits a given situation. As far how I feel about Daenerys' last chapter; I feel she has come to a turning point of sorts, but I see it as the beginning of a better enlightenment for her as to her mistakes at ruling from her first tries at it which she'll look to correct going forward, which is what think will be the whole point of all of these Daenerys chapters to begin with. Not only is it her arc development but it's her character. So far she has acted I believe on the instinct of empathy towards others that are innocents or bystanders to her aims. She displays this trait from the first time Khal Drogo's men raped the women and claiming them as her own thereafter so they wouldn't be, the ordering of children not to be harmed, to granting slaves who wish to be free, freedom. She has displayed a sense of justice in matters of common law (the seamstress story, the shepard story). She has displayed compassion for the commoners in every city thusfar. Daenerys to me is trying to instill her own brand of what she considers to be a conqueror who tries to better the plight of the commoner and the land as a whole and is a fair and just ruler for the most part, she's displayed these traits throughout. The Sons of the Harpy are a cause of Dany's ruling issues in Meereen yet her approach isn't necessarily bad to this point. The issue she's pushing is Slavery and that's a tough issue to push for immediate change of custom or law, it's going to take time and effort, there's going to be resistance and residual issues. Does she realize this or continue making that mistake for conquered vassal-states along her way to Westeros? We'll have to see.


How that makes her a bad character or even a ruler I don't really grasp. She's what, 15-16 and rules over people who have lived with certain customs for centuries, has subjects 30-40 years her senior and doesn't have the benefit of the elder-statesmen wisdom they've acquired yet she's conscientious enough to seek 'wiser' men's counsel? Doesn't sound like a bad ruler to me. Because of her reluctance to kill innocent children whom weren't the ones killing in the name of the Sons of the Harpy? Because she wasn't wise enough to know ahead of time that some issues would result of drastically changing the laws (on slavery) on the whole to the betterment of the many? Whether she heeds her advisor's wisdom or not is the development of her character too in many senses. At first we've seen her try to augment the advice given to her and tries to come closer to her own terms to the extent possible, but this may change as a result of how she comprehends (or doesn't) her own failures so far. The conquering will continue, but how she goes about settling the details of rule I think are going to change or she's going to learn to change only some aspects of the lands she's conquering and if they reject her ideals that will be the telling of how she changes from her handling of Astapor and Meereen. Opinion of course, it could well be that she turns dark and is completely unsympathetic to anyone she conquers now or, how gruesome she can make any particular enemy die. I don't see that as being Daenerys' arc but that's how she's being setup with the parallels of TPaTQ. I agree fully that she's going to have a ruthless side to her but I think that will continue to be a tempered aggression. She mirrors the Queen and the Princess in that she's on the precipice. Does she go mad like so many rulers before her while clawing for the throne and then trying to hold it, or does she learn and become wiser for her efforts learning about the supposed 50/50 chance of the Targaryens history? I believe we as readers know much more about her history than she does.


The question to me is, does she change as a result of whatever new-found wisdom she gains for the good or for the bad? Does she learn to review her ancestral failure and try to learn to not make the same mistakes? I don't know but I think in the end she'll change for the good but will admit I can see it going bad too. I think the key to Daenerys' role in the 'end' is tied to Jon, I think Jon's negotiating skills and the way he handles putting men of opposing viewpoints, strong in many cases together for mutual gain is going to come into play in Dany's arc for some reason. So far we've been seeing a pattern of poor female leadership on the Throne more than any positive relationship. Queen Alicent, Rheanyra, Cersei and Dany have so far more failures than Wins when it comes to their rule on the whole than some of the men do conversely. I would prefer to see that change just once in the story but I certainly can't say if she will be the one to do that at this point.


We can argue all day about the moral grounds of whether being a conqueror is ok or if being a usurper is ok, or if being a conquering usurper with a good heart and morals that reflect a genuine caring for people is ok, or if being a drunken whoring slothing usurping conqueror is ok, or if being a selfish usurping bastard conqueror is ok, etc. I think if you're playing the game of thrones it kind of makes all who play a little less than angelic because their actions determine the advancement or decline, fate, future, 'stock' and even attitude of the people they 'conquer'. I think in this type of fuedal society conquering is common and not much different than current day politics of the world insofar as people trying to push an ideological agenda towards 'ruling' the people after being conquered, aka the law or customs(aside from any ancestral right, valid or not, to claim rulership as opposed to elected office). If Dany being a conqueror is equatable to her being mad, then Stannis, Robert, Euron, Robb, Aegon I and every other conqueror or would-be conqueror that ever lived is just as mad. I realize the point people are trying to make is toward her Hypocrisy but I believe that theme applies to many characters. Of course it remains to be seen if she is or becomes or continues to be hypocritical of the semantics of conqueror and usurper. The theme of the story so far is while under accepted rule succession has been an issue under the Targaryen rule and under disputed rule claimants can have any number of reasons to base their cause to rule on when ultimately they all became conquerors, technically, if you have to fight for it you've conquered, if it's conceded you have still conquered, technically right? :)


Some people think her chapters boring and I'm not saying they make for the most exciting chapters to read to this point, but because this development she's undergoing is important enough for George to write and to me says it's important in her character arc, just like we see themes in other characters arcs. So in my view I think they've been good, if not tedious, good in that I see her as an exciting character because she is learning as much as she can before going after the throne she's been told is hers and the fact that she has dragons and this story is strongly associated with them and as such, we'll see them wiping out armies to drive home the point that the battles we've seen thusfar with Knights and Armored Cavalry, Infantrymen(Spearmen) and Archers/Crossbowmen those will pale in comparison as to when a dragon is introduced as well (as the TP&TQ illustrate). She realizes what that means both good and bad. Naive she may be, but I don't think I see her character as being mad and I look forward to seeing how her character changes and stays the same going forward. She's going to apply the full strength of Targaryen power, what made them conquerors along with the rest of the ruling families of Old Valyria. She represents the arc of Old Valyria and the Dragon Masters truly living or dying out in this series with all the evidence we've been given. Her arc is important because of the history of Valyria and their prior dominance to the Targaryens being the only Dragon Lords left after the Doom to now there only being one proven Targaryen with the 'ability' to master her dragons (and possibly how to help nurture and hatch their eggs). Sure dragons can be killed, but we know in great numbers and under proper mastery (to the extent that can be guaranteed) their power is devastating and has been a huge emphasis of the series, we are surely not going to get all that buildup and not see a taste of how it can be applied to current events in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the many reasons I like Dany, it's because of her hypocrisy on this matter. It somehow makes her seem more human and realistic.

It's no more than a truism that any pretender to the Iron Throne believes that their claim is justified, and that their opponents are traitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not OK to depose a brutal king (who so far has only been brutal towards a handful of nobles) if that means getting tens of thousands innocent people, who couldn't care less who's king, killed.

No tyrant would ever be deposed if that was so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No tyrant would ever be deposed if that was so.

I think another question is what the said "tyrant" is deposed for?

It is one thing to make a war to depose a tyrant to install a system that will better the realm as a whole, and it is another thing entirely if you just replace one tyrant with another one. The fact that half the realm was prepared to stick with the "old tyrant" and even fight for him implies that the choice was far from obvious.

Another issue which is often overlooked in those "usurper's dog" discussions that the RR was not only about deposing Arys the One crazy king who went too far , but about taking the throne from the hands of Targerians and eliminating Targerians as a dynasty and a house entirely.

I will not go as far as to claim that Arys's Madness and a brutal murder of Rickar and Brandon Stark was used as a mere pretex for a long planned anti - Targ coup. But I think that many who participated in the RR did so for advancement of the own Anti - Targ agenda and a land grab.

Just look at Robert, who cared mainly about kicking Rhagaer and his progeny down.

If it was really only about Arys being crazy, there should have been made some attempt to talk with Rhaegar about peacefull solution, that would make Arys go and spare countless lives. Of course considering Robert's hate such possibility was fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again the common mistake that reader knowledge equals character knowledge.

Let me repeat: the point is that it isn't Dany's fault that the "facts" provided to her all her life were wrong. Given her "knowledge" she is fully justified in hating Ned and others and thus her opinion from her PoV is 100% correct.

If someone were to provide her with the real facts (which Barristan and Tyrion will most likely do) than she would lose said justification because she has had access to the truth.

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. For one thing, everyone has their own axe to grind, regarding Aerys and Robert. Ser Barristan is both unhappy about having served a tyrant, and also serving the man who overthrew him. Tyrion will say anything that advances his chances of getting Casterly Rock.

For another, I wouldn't condemn her if she failed to change her mind, even on hearing the plain truth. It doesn't alter the fact that her family was massacred, she was driven into exile, and almost murdered. She's entitled to want revenge (according to the characters' moral code) , and her enemies are entitled to want to destroy her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't claim that Ned didn't defy Robert. I said he was his obedient lapdog and Dany calling him one of Usurper's dogs is clearly true. The point of the term is that these are the ones who helped Robert get the throne and kept him there, and Ned surely fit that perfectly. Just because he disagreed with Robert a few times over a 15 years period doesn't change that.

Dishonest nonsense.

How dare she says the truth?

Robert was an usurper and Ned was his obedient lapdog (or "bitch", if you prefer it stated this way).

Yeah, Ned resigned as Hand - but then come back a week later and it changed nothing. He always did what Robert asked him to except this one case where it changed nothing whatsoever, how was he not obedient?

Was Ned crucial in getting Dany's family dethroned, most of its members murdered and her becoming a poor exile instead of a princess? Of course. So she has a very good reason to hate him.

Don't act like the term 'obedient lapdog' only means Ned helped Robert win the throne. You know damn well 'obedient lapdog' is a pretty strong statement, suggesting an extreme degree of subservience, that's why you used it- you went further than Dany, and knowingly made your claim more extreme. Don't act now like the term you used doesn't make the claim that Ned was completely subservient to Robert.

And did he "always do what Robert asked him to except this one case"? No, he did not. You're absolutely wrong. He defied Robert repeatedly and on very serious matters. Show a little intellectual honesty for once and admit that you were wrong.

Of course the war is partly on Ned. He made his choice. It's not OK to depose a brutal king (who so far has only been brutal towards a handful of nobles) if that means getting tens of thousands innocent people, who couldn't care less who's king, killed.

Oh, and is this what Dany hates Ned for? I must have missed that. In fact I'm certain Dany believes that war is necessary to do things like free slaves or restore her to the Iron Throne, and would therefore not herself even try to claim that she hates Ned because he engaged in war. She hates Ned for helping Robert usurp her family's throne, and people are claiming she rightfully resented this because it cost her her birthright.

Like right here:

If not for Ned's actions she'd be an actual princess all her life and her family wouldn't be killed. IMO she's definitely justified in hating him and also Brandon and Lyanna who largely caused this mess by being hotheaded idiots.

The world according to Selig:

1) Not ok to want to depose brutal King who threatens your life, after having already murdered several lords, including members of your close family, and given every indication that he's gone off the deep end

2) Totally ok and justified to resent the people that prevented you from reaping the benefits of this King's brutality, as if being a princess of the Targaryen dynasty does not itself rest on hundreds of thousands of smallfolk killed!

3) Podrick Payne must die

That last point is in there to remind everyone just how unseriously your moral bleating is to be taken. This is really just an exercise in blaming people who don't normally get blamed so that you can be disagreeable, you have no actual consistent vantage from which you make these criticisms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...