Let’s Change the Conversation: Remapping Dany

[Cas Stark]

LOL, I have to go with (A) it is too early to evaluate her role as a change agent and I certainly see no reason to see why the special Targaryen snowflake and her weapons of mass destruction are going to improve anything in Westeros from a political standpoint or a social structure standpoint unless by improve the meainging is 'burn it up and start over'. I'm sticking with my prediction that her legacy in Westeros isn't going go to be ushering some kind of modern democratic state, especially what with her being an autocrat who believes in rule by divine right of blood, but it will be using her power to defeat the Others...that opposite destructive force of ice to her fire.

[butterbumps!]

LOL, I have to go with (A) it is too early to evaluate her role as a change agent and I certainly see no reason to see why the special Targaryen snowflake and her weapons of mass destruction are going to improve anything in Westeros from a political standpoint or a social structure standpoint unless by improve the meainging is 'burn it up and start over'. I'm sticking with my prediction that her legacy in Westeros isn't going go to be ushering some kind of modern democratic state, especially what with her being an autocrat who believes in rule by divine right of blood, but it will be using her power to defeat the Others...that opposite destructive force of ice to her fire.

It's not because she's a spechulz Targ snowflake or anything.

Dany is unique in so far as she has true, significant power in her own right. Unfettered power. As in, the power to rewrite rules, which is exactly what Daario's explained to her. She doesn't quite recognize or understand that yet, but I think she will.

Westeros doesn't literally have to burn in some holistic way for Dany to apply the concept of productive destruction; the major social problem is with the highly flawed system of order that's rotting from within. An assault to the system itself is where someone with enough power, combined with a fairly enlightened aim (i.e. no one should claim the throne without adjusting the system in some capacity), has enough authority to make some fundamental change.

[Sevumar]

Westeros doesn't literally have to burn in some holistic way for Dany to apply the concept of productive destruction; the major social problem is with the highly flawed system of order that's rotting from within. An assault to the system itself is where someone with enough power, combined with a fairly enlightened aim (i.e. no one should claim the throne without adjusting the system in some capacity), has enough authority to make some fundamental change.

Part of the problem is that for Dany to succeed on this kind of campaign, she'd need the ability to accept the complexity of the situation and an appreciation for nuance that she hasn't yet shown. It's not enough to sweep away the old. In the act of doing that, she assumes responsibility for what comes after. You cannot fundamentally divorce the act of conquest from the responsibility for administering the conquered territory thereafter. To do that well, you need a plan and a willingness to listen and learn from those you hope to rule.

[Cas Stark]

It's not because she's a spechulz Targ snowflake or anything.

Dany is unique in so far as she has true, significant power in her own right. Unfettered power. As in, the power to rewrite rules, which is exactly what Daario's explained to her. She doesn't quite recognize or understand that yet, but I think she will.

Westeros doesn't literally have to burn in some holistic way for Dany to apply the concept of productive destruction; the major social problem is with the highly flawed system of order that's rotting from within. An assault to the system itself is where someone with enough power, combined with a fairly enlightened aim (i.e. no one should claim the throne without adjusting the system in some capacity), has enough authority to make some fundamental change.

Where do you expect her to come up with an improved system of government? Is she going to finally pick up a book? Is she going to "intuit" what a better system of government is, the way she intuits dragon riding? Where has she shown any special enlightenment? Slavery is already illegal in Westeros and Braavos.

I get her as a change agent, I've thought of her that way since I gave up on her as force for good in her own right or anyone capable of ruling even her own household....but you are going now several steps further and assuming that she's going to bring enlightened, improved change to Westeros...based on what? Not her past performance. Not her past or current outlook on power.

[butterbumps!]

Part of the problem is that for Dany to succeed on this kind of campaign, she'd need the ability to accept the complexity of the situation and an appreciation for nuance that she hasn't yet shown. It's not enough to sweep away the old. In the act of doing that, she assumes responsibility for what comes after. You cannot fundamentally divorce the act of conquest from the responsibility for administering the conquered territory thereafter. To do that well, you need a plan and a willingness to listen and learn from those you hope to rule.

Yes, actually, you can. Which is why we have the character of Dany set against this sea of characters who either perpetuate the status quo or who are unable to implement change to the system fundamentally despite having the desire to themselves.

Where do you expect her to come up with an improved system of government? Is she going to finally pick up a book? Is she going to "intuit" what a better system of government is, the way she intuits dragon riding?

Something tells me that in much the same way slavery had been normalized to her and she hadn't understood it was wrong but then saw it firsthand and then decided to act against it, it doesn't take a genius to see what the IT has done to Westeros, recognize something's inherently wrong, and take some sort of a stand against it's current form. I hasten to add I don't particularly see her implementing governmental changes or creating a new order or reform herself, but using her power to effect some fundamental change to the system.

[OldGimletEye]

Part of the problem is that for Dany to succeed on this kind of campaign, she'd need the ability to accept the complexity of the situation and an appreciation for nuance that she hasn't yet shown. It's not enough to sweep away the old. In the act of doing that, she assumes responsibility for what comes after. You cannot fundamentally divorce the act of conquest from the responsibility for administering the conquered territory thereafter. To do that well, you need a plan and a willingness to listen and learn from those you hope to rule.

And that is a key issue. She has only the vaguest of vaguest notions of what exactly she wants to do, after she takes Westeros.

She just wants to smash and destroy shit, if we are to take her last chapter seriously. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that she will be the uniter and healer of Westeros. Maybe the stars will align just right and everything will just work out fine. But, I am not holding my breath.

[OldGimletEye]

Yes, actually, you can. Which is why we have the character of Dany set against this sea of characters who either perpetuate the status quo or who are unable to implement change to the system fundamentally despite having the desire to themselves.

I am just not seeing the argument here. Dany will either have to figure out how to rule or, at least, have the ability to find competent people to do it for her, if she takes Westeros. Either way she is responsible. She will be the captain of the ship.

I think the idea that "with fire and blood Dany Stormborn burned the old social order into ashes and from those ashes a newer and better stronger society emerged" is wishful thinking.

[Cas Stark]

Yes, actually, you can. Which is why we have the character of Dany set against this sea of characters who either perpetuate the status quo or who are unable to implement change to the system fundamentally despite having the desire to themselves.

Something tells me that in much the same way slavery had been normalized to her and she hadn't understood it was wrong but then saw it firsthand and then decided to act against it, it doesn't take a genius to see what the IT has done to Westeros, recognize something's inherently wrong, and take some sort of a stand against it's current form. I hasten to add I don't particularly see her implementing governmental changes or creating a new order or reform herself, but using her power to effect some fundamental change to the system.

I don't see this at all. It isn't as if she's going to show up where there is a crazy tyrant on the IT who is laying waste to Westeros...where the concentrated power to create chaos ini an otherwise stable country would be apparent. She's going to show up right after a civil war, which is to a degree still going on, with the IT at it's weakest point in many decades. So, it would seem more likely, especially "fire and blood of Old Valaryia" is going to think...what we need is a good ruler...not 'hey this system of monarchy is all wrong....It is going to appear that what Westeros needs is a strong leader to unite it and help it heal the war wounds.

She is not the person to invent a new form of government, that to me would be completely out of character. She is governing in Essos and can't come up with a new form of government, why would a simple change of continent make a difference.

If you want to argue her destruction will make it possible for something new to emerge, okay. But, if you are arguing that Dany is going to be the brainchild of the new, better Westeros structure, I have to say no, that is not realistic given what we've seen of her in 5 books.

[SeanF]

Yes, actually, you can. Which is why we have the character of Dany set against this sea of characters who either perpetuate the status quo or who are unable to implement change to the system fundamentally despite having the desire to themselves.

Something tells me that in much the same way slavery had been normalized to her and she hadn't understood it was wrong but then saw it firsthand and then decided to act against it, it doesn't take a genius to see what the IT has done to Westeros, recognize something's inherently wrong, and take some sort of a stand against it's current form. I hasten to add I don't particularly see her implementing governmental changes or creating a new order or reform herself, but using her power to effect some fundamental change to the system.

She might conclude, as many monarchs have done, that the fault lies not with the IT, but with the fact the nobility have far too much power and autonomy. So, she might seek to go down the road of Peter the Great or Louis XIV. That is, much more effective absolutism, rather than giving a greater say to the Smallfolk.

[OldGimletEye]

She might conclude, as many monarchs have done, that the fault lies not with the IT, but with the fact the nobility have far too much power and autonomy. So, she might seek to go down the road of Peter the Great or Louis XIV. That is, much more effective absolutism, rather than giving a greater say to the Smallfolk.

I like your historical analysis here. That's my take on it. Many of the nations, France, Prussia and others got somewhat better, in many ways, as the nobles lost some power. But, I am not sure that Dany is that politically astute. Also, absolutism can be a two edge sword, so to speak.

Let me further add, I don't know if she has the abilities to create the institutions to allow for a more absolutist state.

[butterbumps!]

I am just not seeing the argument here. Dany will either have to figure out how to rule or, at least, have the ability to find competent people to do it for her. Either way she is responsible. She will be the captain of the ship.

I think the idea that "with fire and blood Dany Stormborn burned the old social order into ashes and from those ashes a newer and better stronger society emerged" is wishful thinking.

But it's what we're seeing. Dany overturned the Slave Trade in SB, and the ramifications are being felt from Westeros to Qarth. Now we've got the Volantenes on the verge of a popular revolution, seeking to uphold the changes she's made. And after Volantis, I'd imagine other states will revolt as well. She made a huge ripple without having had to learn to rule.

As a personal preference, I strongly dislike the idea of a conqueror who then fails to rule, either through ability or abdication. I personally feel that these two should be done together. But it doesn't mean that they absolutely must be done by the same person.

She might conclude, as many monarchs have done, that the fault lies not with the IT, but with the fact the nobility have far too much power and autonomy. So, she might seek to go down the road of Peter the Great or Louis XIV. That is, much more effective absolutism, rather than giving a greater say to the Smallfolk.

Well, yea, there's that as well, but I frankly don't believe ruling is even on her mind anymore as a goal. She's personally separated this into conquest and ruling, and has chosen the conquest side.

She is not the person to invent a new form of government, that to me would be completely out of character. She is governing in Essos and can't come up with a new form of government, why would a simple change of continent make a difference.

Yes, that's a ridiculous idea, which is why I've not been suggesting she would invent some new form of government. I've been saying I could see her choosing to destroy-- either entirely or on some fundamental level-- the current one. At the very least, putting its nature in flux, to be sorted out by those able and willing to rebuild. And the fact that it would be challenged thusly is a good thing in my view.

[Sevumar]

I like your historical analysis here. That's my take on it. Many of the nations, France, Prussia and others got somewhat better, in many ways, as the nobles lost some power. But, I am not sure that Dany is that politically astute. Also, absolutism can be a two edge sword, so to speak.

Let me further add, I don't know if she has the abilities to create the institutions to allow for a more absolutist state.

She has the personal desire, but the new wave of absolutism in Europe didn't survive long, as nationalism developed due to some of the same trends that made highly centralized power possible in the first place.

[SeanF]

I like your historical analysis here. That's my take on it. Many of the nations, France, Prussia and others got somewhat better, in many ways, as the nobles lost some power. But, I am not sure that Dany is that politically astute. Also, absolutism can be a two edge sword, so to speak.

Let me further add, I don't know if she has the abilities to create the institutions to allow for a more absolutist state.

I don't think she has that ability either. Both Louis and Peter acted as their own chief minister, which is hardly Dany's style.

But, if she's an agent of change, that change could just as easily be in an absolutist direction, as a democratic one. For example, if she massacred her opponents among the nobility and annexed their lands to the Crown.

[Cas Stark]

I've been saying I could see her choosing to destroy-- either entirely or on some fundamental level-- the current one. At the very least, putting its nature in flux, to be sorted out by those able and willing to rebuild. And the fact that it would be challenged thusly is a good thing in my view.

I would consider that...destroying the existing structure of a society with no thought or plan or idea as to what should replace it...as tantamount to insanity. Destroying something and then crossing your fingers that somebody else can improve upon things. Yikes. That would make her incompetence in slaver's bay look heroic by comparison.

[Sevumar]

Yes, actually, you can. Which is why we have the character of Dany set against this sea of characters who either perpetuate the status quo or who are unable to implement change to the system fundamentally despite having the desire to themselves.

Sorry, I don't buy that this is possible. Somebody who creates that much upheaval out of something as vague as a desire to "change" things without a specific plan or end is not a desirable influence. The behavior should not be accepted or excused. Dany's one saving grace against being this way is that she at least felt some sense of responsibility (as she ought) after attacking Meereen. She was not very good at what came after, but she was not so irresponsible as to walk away like she did in Astapor.

[OldGimletEye]

But it's what we're seeing. Dany overturned the Slave Trade in SB, and the ramifications are being felt from Westeros to Qarth. Now we've got the Volantenes on the verge of a popular revolution, seeking to uphold the changes she's made. And after Volantis, I'd imagine other states will revolt as well. She made a huge ripple without having had to learn to rule.

As a personal preference, I strongly dislike the idea of a conqueror who then fails to rule, either through ability or abdication. I personally feel that these two should be done together. But it doesn't mean that they absolutely must be done by the same person.

First, I don't think the slavery question will get resolved very cleanly or at all. If GRRM writes the story such that Dany ends slavery in one or two years, I tend to think the story will lack credibility, the magical nature of the story notwithstanding.

Also, I think it is a very dubious act to conquer a place, then leave it in disorder and chaos. And I just find that it strains credulity to believe that a “newer and better order will spontaneously arise out of the ashes of the old order.” If that were the case, then the Dothraki should be the greatest creators of civilization in history.

[Audrey Arryn]

She just wants to smash and destroy shit, if we are to take her last chapter seriously. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that she will be the uniter and healer of Westeros. Maybe the stars will align just right and everything will just work out fine. But, I am not holding my breath.

Thats a bit presumptuous to say the least.

Thats not what her last chapter means. This quote in my opinion describes Dany's last chapter very well, and is probably the best interpretation I have seen on the board since I have joined.

If readers interpret Dany's final chapter of ADwD as proof of her insanity, then they ARE wrong. In the chapter she faces her fears, addresses and criticises the problems she has caused, and devises a plan through which she can regain her strength and return to her people (following the Dothraki scout, knowing he will lead her to a khalasar), all despite the fact that she is suffering from starvation, dehydration, a fever/food poisoning, and most likely a miscarriage.

Dany's final ADwD chapter is about her realising that she's on the wrong path. At the beginning of the chapter she can fly on Drogon, but she can't get him to take her back to Meereen. By the end of the chapter, he goes where she tells him; she's finally on the right path.

She makes Drogon follow the scout, knowing that it will lead her to a khalasar. She then stands beside him as the Dothraki appear... But why stand beside him? It's a symbol of peace; Dany is showing the khalasar her strength but she is not openly showing them hostility. That's why I think the "twist" will be that she pardons Mago (and potentially Jhaqo) and returns to Vaes Dothrak (the "obvious" outcome would be Dany killing Jhaqo and Mago and then returning to Meereen).

-PatrickStormborn

Dany is not stupidly thinking "fire and blood" she has a plan.

[Sevumar]

Dany is not stupidly thinking "fire and blood" she has a plan.

That plan still appears to be to acquire yet another army, which she will use to kill more people and destroy more of Meereen. It's completely unclear that she's in any way prepared for what will follow.

[Lady Beyond the Wall]

(I brought this up before, recently in the current Dany is insane thread, but I thought if it might be time to open a thread about it directly.)

My basic proposal is to re-evaluate the way we think about and debate over Daenerys. That is, I think it might be productive to deconstruct and reframe the way weve been understanding her role within ASOIAF.

In particular, I do not believe we are supposed to see her as a ruler. Despite her being one of the major claimants to the IT, and her self-appointment as queen in Slavers Bay, I think DwD confirms that ruling is simply not her destiny. Administration is not something that shes not particularly good at, it doesnt afford her the opportunity to use her natural talents, and importantly, its not something she finds fulfilling or desirable.

Ruling is not the same thing as being a compelling leaderMLK, John the Baptist, even Damphair serve to illustrate this. Danys natural talent is best expressed in a role of leadership, while ruling has been shown to slowly destroy her. A leader can rouse people to their cause; a ruler excels at administration, implementation, and maintenance of order.

I believe that her major virtue lies in having tremendous power (dragons and leadership), and from that power, the ability to overturn social order-- but not necessarily restore and maintain a new order.

That is, I believe rather than evaluate her against the rubric of ruler, we look at Dany instead as an agent of change, a catalyst.

Once we dismantle our expectations of her as a ruler, I think we might get a renewed appreciation for her arc, one that doesnt stumble over examination of each of her actions against a notion of suitability for rule, which inevitably solicits moral interrogation.

For example, I dont personally think we ought to be caught up in whether or not freeing slaves was her original goal, or in the particulars of mismanagement and chaos that followed abolition, or arguing whether she ought to have freed slaves at all. Conversely, I think excusing her performance in SB (in terms of the ruling) due to her intentions is also perhaps missing the point.

Instead, I think the takeaway from this is that Dany's strength is in shaking things up, but not in setting them back down again. And I do believe were supposed to see the fact it was shaken at all (its slavery, guysan objectively reprehensible system) to be positive, if not the cost.

Without a catalyst, some things simply won't change, and while we can hate the catalyst itself, I think looking at the fact that there was a catalyst at all is something to appreciate, knowing that without it, however negative it may be, things would have stayed the same. As it pertains to Dany, the fact that she's the only character with enough power to fairly singularly overcome the inertia of social systems is something I've started to see as positive, broadly speaking. I think there's a sore need for some social progress in a lot of places that could benefit from a bit of shaking.

I think for most of us, myself very much included, we tend to favor concepts like order, stability, and maintenance over change and chaos, and as it pertains to Danys specific implication of the dragon as said catalyst, we tend to prefer building over razing, creation over destruction. I do think its very difficult to appreciate the catalyst in and of itself; the Black Death was a catalyst, after all, though, unlike a simple force of nature, Danys catalysis has intentionality, in that she recognized a vile system and sought to challenge it.

But lets put our biases about chaos and order into the perspective of the series as a whole.

Order, in and of itself, is not inherently good. The status quo of Westeros has been breaking down because the order itself is fundamentally flawed. Though its devolving into chaos, its not the chaos thats the issue; its the fact that the order itself was so flawed that its rotting under its own weight. This principle is marvelously illustrated by the smaller-scale examples of the Watch and Slavers Bay; the order behind both of these systems is so flawed and unsustainable that it threatens to destroy their very existence.

Westeros, the Watch and SB (pre-abolition, I mean) are three good examples of organizations with an ordered status quo, which is fundamentally flawed on some moral and/ or sustainable grounds, but with too much inertia to effect conditions for change. Without destroying at least some part of this problematic order, there can be no rebuilding or creation, just a continuation of the same lumbering, problematic order thats threatening to destroy itself. For an example of trying to reform without some cleansing beforehand, Id point to Jons attempts with the Watch.

At the risk of making this even more controversial, I think theres value in foiling Dany to a couple of other characters for precision (and foils arent about determining whos better, its about putting traits into relief). I think Dany, Stannis and Jon are the pertinent foils here. Stannis represents the side of pure order, ice, as it pertains. Hes fundamentally determined to uphold order as his highest ideal, and specifically, preservation of the current order. Though he bucks the system a bit with his appointments of Davos and Mel, hes not looking at the system itself with a critical eye, seeking any sort of change to the status quo. I see him as a representation of stability, order, and inertia. That is to say, I see him as Danys opposite.

Jons in between, opposite to neither. Unlike Stannis, Jon does examine the status quo critically, and unlike Dany, he is suited to the task of administrating and keeping order. But before it seems as though hes superior to either because he negotiates between, it should be noted that he lacks Danys significant power and freedom to actually shake things up enough to effect the progressive aims he seeks. Without someone like Dany, or at least the sort of deconstruction she brings, Jon cant manifest his virtue of being someone whos both reformer and administrator. So my point is that none of these 3 characters or representations is inherently better than the others, but truly necessary in the greater context of the series.

This dovetails directly into the basic theme of the series: ice vs. fire, symbolically, the conflict between preservation, inertia and order versus destruction, change, and chaos. Neither side is sustainable on its own, and neither side inherently more evil than the other.

First of....thank you! Fantastic essay. From the rigid interpretations I've seen on this forum, I am happy to see a post like this that looks beyond her as a fictional person. Dany has always been my favorite character. Take her personality or storyline out of it, I t's genius writing. Such a well developed character with such a complicated arc, and the psychology is dead on. GRRM writes her POV so well, he is a man, and her inner mind is so completely female, and she is so dynamic!

So aside from that, the only disagreement I have is on your comparison with Stannis and Jon. Jon, you've nailed. Stannis however.....I disagree that he is upholding current order as top priority. I believe he is very obviously a rigid person who requires order to function. But is her preserving the current system in Westeros? I would say no. I feel like this is why he fails to inspire people to his cause. He has subscribed to an unpopular religon, and is forcing it on his followers, evening starting his reign out by burning the Seven. He feels his claim is based on current hierarchy, but because of his adaption of the Red God I don't think we can say that his top priority is preservation of the system. He seems more to take from it what benefits him.

To add: I think Dany's IRL parallel is America's War on Iraq. Abolishing oppression, and failing to administer replacement governments.

[El Guapo]

That plan still appears to be to acquire yet another army, which she will use to kill more people and destroy more of Meereen. It's completely unclear that she's in any way prepared for what will follow.

No she would use that army to destroy the armies that are currently trying to destroy Mereen.