Jump to content

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


Mrs.Grumpy

Recommended Posts

What if this is the last Daenerys chapter we ever get?

I mean what if we only get Tyrion, Barristan and Victarion for a while, everyone wondering where she is, and then all of a sudden she shows up with Drogon like after 25% of the book is done? We will not know what happened with her and the Dothraki or what her thought process is. She will be spoken with by many POV characters but we will no longer know what she is thinking.

I would not mind this since I do believe that people with as much power as Dany should not be given a POV (Robb, Tywin, Joff, Euron, Varys, Aegon, Baelish). I mean look what happened to Melissandre after one POV chapter. She is not at all as powerful as she appeared in past books, when we didn't know much about her.

Daenerys will start to do some questionable things in order to get back to Westeros and I think it would be better off if we didn't see her thought process. Or perhaps she is starting to go mad like her father and would no longer be of use to us as a POV character. Or perhaps she has been revisited by Quaithe and we are not meant to know what she has planned. There are so many options surrounding Daenerys and I think that since there are three other POVs waiting on her, either one of them will die (Victarion) or Dany will lose her chapters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dishonest nonsense.

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.

Yeah, it wasn't once, it was 2 or 3 times. In 15 freaking years. Great difference.

But OK, if it's so important to you, Ned wasn't an obedient lapdog. He was still Robert's faithful follower the vast majority of the time, supported his usurpation of the throne and forcing Dany into exile and that's what matters in this case.

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.

Where did I say that's what Dany hates Ned for? It's why I consider Ned to be in the wrong in this case. He got tens of thousands killed to avenge his family and evade exile. Not OK in my book.

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

Of course it's not OK if it costs tens of thousands of lives who didn't want any part of the civil war. If they could've gotten him dethroned without a major war, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

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!

Except that the King's brutality had nothing to do with Dany being a princess, in fact that's what got him in trouble and lost him the throne.

Anyway, why is it fair that she suffers for whatever her father did wrong? Is that right according to you? Whatever Aerys did it doesn't justify forcing his newborn daughter and her 7 year old brother into exile.

Is it right that your hero Ned got to enjoy the power his family gathered by 8000 years of oppression and bloody conquest of half a continent and he consolidated that power in a bloody civil war? Is it right that he was prepared to fight another war to avoid having someone with the wrong blood on the throne?

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.

When did I ever say that about Podrick? IIRC what I said was that his trial wasn't any worse than a typical Westerosi one. Not the same thing at all.

And your moral bleating when you keep praising Ned for taking a major part in a war which got tens of thousands killed so he could get one man killed and removed from power isn't questionable, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say that's what Dany hates Ned for? It's why I consider Ned to be in the wrong in this case. He got tens of thousands killed to avenge his family and evade exile. Not OK in my book.

Of course it's not OK if it costs tens of thousands of lives who didn't want any part of the civil war. If they could've gotten him dethroned without a major war, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

right?

Ned wasn't a pacifist, and I see no reason why he should be expected to behave like one. He was the lawful Lord of the North, and the King wanted him dead. I'd have acted as he did, in his position.

That doesn't mean that Dany should be expected to forgive him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it wasn't once, it was 2 or 3 times. In 15 freaking years. Great difference.

But OK, if it's so important to you, Ned wasn't an obedient lapdog. He was still Robert's faithful follower the vast majority of the time, supported his usurpation of the throne and forcing Dany into exile and that's what matters in this case.

15 fears in which they spent most of their time apart, and when they were together during the rebellion Ned disagreed with him and then when Ned was his hand he disagreed multiple times. The 'vast majority of the time' Ned was nowhere near Robert and when they were together he was never afraid to disagree and did so on multiple occasions.

But I'm glad you've admitted you were wrong a little bit at least.

Where did I say that's what Dany hates Ned for? It's why I consider Ned to be in the wrong in this case. He got tens of thousands killed to avenge his family and evade exile. Not OK in my book.

Of course it's not OK if it costs tens of thousands of lives who didn't want any part of the civil war. If they could've gotten him dethroned without a major war, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You said Dany hates Ned for his part in the war and is justified in this. Of course, that's profoundly inconsistent since what it amounts to is arguing that Dany is right in resenting someone denying her family's ability to abuse and kill, and her birthright which depends on hundreds of years of conquest and warfare involving the killing of hundreds of thousands who had no choice in the matter.

What your characteristically contrarian argument amounts to is a criticism of one person and a defense of another without any coherent unifying principle. That Dany can be right in resenting the loss of her ability to reap the rewards of a brutal dynasty dependent on considerable killing and cruelty but Ned has transgressed unjustly for his involvement in violence in opposing this dynasty is an absurd, inconsistent, and indefensible position.

Except that the King's brutality had nothing to do with Dany being a princess, in fact that's what got him in trouble and lost him the throne.

Aerys brutality has everything to do with Dany being a princess, allowing his brutality to continue is what would have been necessary for Dany to be a princess! But I'm glad you acknowledge the fact that he deserves blame for his own downfall, instead of blaming Ned, Jon Arryn, or even Lyanna for it as you've thus far preferred to do.

Anyway, why is it fair that she suffers for whatever her father did wrong? Is that right according to you? Whatever Aerys did it doesn't justify forcing his newborn daughter and her 7 year old brother into exile.

Yea, Ned didn't do this. In fact he opposed the killing of Aegon and Rhaenys, so we know he wouldn't have forced Viserys and Dany into exile under threat to their lives. That was Robert and Tywin's doing.

Is it right that your hero Ned got to enjoy the power his family gathered by 8000 years of oppression and bloody conquest of half a continent and he consolidated that power in a bloody civil war? Is it right that he was prepared to fight another war to avoid having someone with the wrong blood on the throne?

No, it's not right. Nor have I argued it was. What I've argued is that you're being disingenuous and inconsistent in criticizing Ned for, at this point, several different things as your arguments have wobbled about, while defending the justice of Dany hating him for denying her the benefit of Aerys' enormities. And I've argued that Dany has the wrong assessment of Ned, who was a better man than she gives him credit for being. You, in your absurdity, choose to go after the man who opposed the worst excesses of the system you purport to criticize- until that system's defense is required in arguing that Dany's position is just.

As for Ned being prepared to fight a war to keep someone with the wrong blood from the throne, I know we've had this argument before. Shockingly, you failed to respond after I provided evidence showing how pretty clearly incorrect you were. There's a pattern here.

When did I ever say that about Podrick? IIRC what I said was that his trial wasn't any worse than a typical Westerosi one. Not the same thing at all.

You have argued on multiple occasions that Stoneheart's trials are fair and her hanging of Brienne, Podrick, and Hyle is entirely justified.

And your moral bleating when you keep praising Ned for taking a major part in a war which got tens of thousands killed so he could get one man killed and removed from power isn't questionable, right?

I have never praised Ned for taking part in the war. I've argued that he is not responsible for it, the Targaryen downfall, or Dany's suffering, and that he should not be expected to lay down and submit to a mad tyrant. He is, however, emphatically praiseworthy for opposing the murder of the royal family and the assassination attempt against Dany.

What's questionable about your position is that you want to lay the blame for the war on the victims of Aerys' aggression rather than Aerys himself. What's questionable is that you bizarrely choose to direct your criticism at a character of notably greater goodness than most other people surrounding him, and as part of an argument that another person is justly entitled to benefit from the actions of far worse people. What's questionable is how much more interested you are in bashing a well-liked character than making any kind of consistent point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I think this is what's next for Dany. She will know who she is (the last Dragon) and she'll embrace her role as a conqueror of the known world.

She will be seen (as she already is by some) to be the blood thirsty Mad Queen in the footsteps of her Mad Father. This would be the case regardless of the choice she makes, but the charges of madness and villainy will also grow with her lists of conquests.

She will be the leader of a vast hoard that will reshape the culture, politics and trade of Essos. She will make many enemies. She already has.

In ADWD she tried to come to terms with the elites of the East even as she worked to destroy their slave-based economy. It is not a surprise that this path made her seem indecisive and weak. She threatened their existence and she thought that she could negotiate a peace with them. Ending the slave-based economy was not going to happen through negotiation. It had to be conquest. It had to be Fire and Blood. That is what she realized in the Dothraki Sea.

I think her big change in the next books is that she'll know that the elites who do not submit to her new order are her enemies. I expect that she'll give her enemies the choice that Aegon The Conqueror gave to Westeros: bend the knee or die.

She will see herself as a liberator and those who fear a loss of power in her arrival and/or those who are toppled by her, will call her a monster. Which view is true will depend upon where you sit, who you support and the stories you are told. (And we aren't told the full story about her or any of the other characters--not even her father. He may have always been Mad or there may be more to his story than meets the eye. We don't know).

I expect her to do some brutal things and some good ones. I think she will not get to Westeros until the seventh book (too many places in Essos that need to be conquered first). By the time she arrives in Westeros I think she will be feared, but by then Westeros will have a long list of things to fear from more wars to greyscale to The Others.

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.

Dany had no legal right to take over Mereen according to any existing legal structure. Call her a conqueror if you like, but she is every bit a usurper as Robert. More so, in fact.

True.

And if someone and by someone I mean myself, look at Targaryenlaw where women are excluded from the line of succession if there is a male relative, if she takes the throne and use the Targaryen name, she usurpes her nephews,at least, birthright. But if she calls her dynasty Stormborn or something like that then she starts a new dynasty and she becomes the Queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...

And your moral bleating when you keep praising Ned for taking a major part in a war which got tens of thousands killed so he could get one man killed and removed from power isn't questionable, right?

Are you deliberately being a troll or some shit? What would have you done in Ned's shoes? Your brother and father have just been horribly assassinated with great pain in public. Wouldn't you be justified in seeking dethroning and killing the crazy bastard that did that to your family, let alone other high lords and their sons? The guy was a public danger for the whole kingdom. He was willing to burn King's Landing to the ground! If Dany needs to blame someone for the demise of her dinasty, it's her father Aerys. That's him to blame. And the murder of Rhaegar's children was the Lannister's job. Ned had 0 to do with that, because he's against killing children, as we all know.

Daenerys, being de decent human being she is (and not a psycho unable to feel empathy, like some in this thread seem to be) would understand that Ned did what his honor and morality told him was the right thing, the same way Robb did after him. After all, he wasn't alone wanting to dethrone the Targaryens. if more than half Westeros was on his side it's because there was good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...