Let’s Change the Conversation: Remapping Dany

[butterbumps!]

There is another way in which Dany can cripple the slave industry.

I suspect she’ll be headed to Vaes Dothrak where I believe the crones will name her the stallion who mounts the world, the khal of khals. Once Dany has control of all the khalasar she’ll be able to end the capturing and selling of slaves from the Dothraki.

At the end of her last chapter, she says for the first time “to go forward, I must go back”, this might mean that in order to move forward with her abolitionist crusade, she’ll have to destroy it at its roots with the Dothraki - where she first encountered how slaves are captures.

Now, this won’t end the slave trade but it’ll be a huge blow as the Dothraki are the worst offenders in this respect. As for the Dothraki they can focus on horse breeding and trade, there is always money there.

ETA: clarification

I made a thread about this a long time ago, but can't seem to locate it. Needless to say that I agree with you about tackling slavery from the Dothraki root.

I confess that I have only read the first few pages of this thread, but I am perplexed that Stannis and Jon are held up as examples of good rulers and administrators, when the jury is very much still out on both of them in these capacities.

I mean, Stannis has hardly made Dragonstone flourish in his 12 years of lordship there and his only claim to fame in these capacities is successfully banning brothels ;). Nor did he manage to garner any political support among the nobility or merchants during his tenure on the council.

As to Jon, he made a string of appallingly naive administrative and political decisions that should come to bite him in the posterior (even more). And it remains to be seen whether his reforms are going to endure any better than Dany's new regime in Astapor. Nor does Jon hate the mundane work of ruling any less than Dany.

I don't have a ton of time to address this at length, but that wasn't really the point of bringing those two up.

The point of the foil was to address Stannis as a representation of the status quo, and in particular, someone who is adamant about upholding the order of the system. And in doing so, he's not so much a leader but concerned with issues of administration-- the resolute faith in order and concepts like justice. He's representing the inertia of the "old guard."

As a foil to both Stannis and Dany, I pointed out that like Dany, Jon's concerned with progress out of humanitarian spirit, but that like Stannis, he represents a bit of inertia himself in that he's not about changing everything and seems better equipped to handle administrative functions than the role of deified leader who can change things abruptly. I was calling Jon more of a "reformer" than the other two, which I think is somewhere between inertia and upheaval.

I'm not interested in the "Dany did well for not having training" argument. As much as I've emphasized that I don't believe she excels at administration, I've pointed out that imposition of the role of ruler destroys her personally, prevents her from expressing her natural talent, and turned her into a shadow of herself, and importantly, is not something she actually wants. There's a strong parallel to Robert here, in that compelling leaders are not always meant to be rulers also-- that sitting the throne in that capacity can take away the best of that sort of person.

[NotSoSilentSister]

I confess that I have only read the first few pages of this thread, but I am perplexed that Stannis and Jon are held up as examples of good rulers and administrators, when the jury is very much still out on both of them in these capacities.

I mean, Stannis has hardly made Dragonstone flourish in his 12 years of lordship there and his only claim to fame in these capacities is successfully banning brothels ;). Nor did he manage to garner any political support among the nobility or merchants during his tenure on the council.

As to Jon, he made a string of appallingly naive administrative and political decisions that should come to bite him in the posterior (even more). And it remains to be seen whether his reforms are going to endure any better than Dany's new regime in Astapor. Nor does Jon hate the mundane work of ruling any less than Dany.

Regarding Dany herself - for somebody who had zero training or example in the kind of ruling that she had to do in Meeren, nor any education in history beyond Viserys's tales and a few books of songs and romances, she did very decently. Not to mention that she was operating in a completely alien cutlure, to boot!

Speaking of abolition of slavery - have all the detractors forgotten Braavos? It has as few natural resources as the Slaver's Bay, yet it is the most powerful and rich of the Free Cities - _because_ it doesn't have slavery. When all is said and done, slavery is inefficient. Which is why it was eventually superceded by the much more efficient feudalism IRL.

And Braavos did undertake a not very successful attempt to eradicate slavery in the Free Cities. So, Dany isn't even the first there, nor is it such an alien concept for Essos.

I imagine that Dany will be the catalyst for the Faith of R'llor to embrace the anti-slavery agenda and that they will be the ones to make it stick in the course of the religious crusade, for which they seem to be gearing in Tyrion's PoV in Volantys.

Re: important societal changes, most of them are preceded by several unsuccessful attempts, revolts, etc. and these failures, as well as the ideas behind them very much inform the tactics and strategies that later lead to successes.

You can't have one without the other, nor is it fair to denigrate the failed precursors as stupid or evil and claim that they should have just _seen_ that changes were impossible and resigned themselves. You don't know what is possible until you try.

MTE. I've certainly tried to make a similiar argument about Braavos before. Rarely find any takers for this one though.

Those "Dany did so much worse than Jon"-arguments always rub me the wrong way too (considering that she faces an even more complicated problem and he has home advantage; I've come to like Jon more than I'd ever expected, but I'm not at all certain he would have done better than Dany in Meereen), but I can see OP's argument that Jon's seems better suited for reform, while Dany seems better suited to revolution, purely judging on the basis of temperament.

Jon grumbles quite a bit about the everyday burden of responsibility as well (who wouldn't?, it's work, it's not supposed to be fun), and he can't be as chummy with ex-collegues as he'd like to be (or at least that's what he thinks; the reader might conclude a bit less aloofness might have been helpful after all), but if it weren't for the impending apocalypse, you can really picture him eventually growing into his position without having to sacrifice too much of his authentic personality. But for what it's worth, I can't really envision him happy as the King of anything either. Lord Commander who reforms the NW/Diplomat/Architect of Alliance with the Wildlings seems about right.

Here's the thing: I think Jon too would be wasted on the Iron Throne, precisely because he might have a taste for the operative side of things. As King he might rather be discouraged from too much micro-managing, and possibly rightfully so. He earns people's (sometimes quite grudging, see Stannis) respect in time, but he's also quite prone to leaving unfortunate first impressions. As a King who'll be necessarily removed from most of his subjects, that might be a liability. I just feel his leadership qualities shine better when he has a more manageable span of control.

He certainly wouldn't find much fullfillment in courtly intrigue, and courtly intrigue, whether we like this or not, will always be an important part of the job. (Okay, you might say, that's why you would need to have someone like Tyrion as Hand. But frankly, with Tyrion as Hand, Dany might do well enough too, no? It's almost as if the right person in that particular position was equally if not occassionally more important that whoever sits the stupid chair....)

And what kind of monarchy would Jon even want to be the head of? I don't see him at all as the enlightened absolutist despot, for instance. Neither as the mostly representative head of a constitutional monarchy. A feudal Lord in the vein of Stark senior, maybe. One who's a bit more open to questioning tradition, after all.

[butterbumps!]

I've come to like Jon more than I'd ever expected, but I'm not at all certain he would have done better than Dany in Meereen), but I can see OP's argument that Jon's seems better suited for reform, while Dany seems better suited to revolution, purely judging on the basis of temperament.

.................

And what kind of monarchy would Jon even want to be the head of? I don't see him at all as the enlightened absolutist despot, for instance. Neither as the mostly representative head of a constitutional monarchy. A feudal Lord in the vein of Stark senior, maybe. One who's a bit more open to questioning tradition, after all.

I think you nailed the heart of the comparison I was making-- reform v revolution.

I'm about to probably completely alienate myself from all fanbases with this, but what the hell, carpe diem:

I actually agree with you that Jon could not do better than Dany in Meereen, but let me explain. If Jon came into Meereen, I'd imagine he, too, would be opposed to slavery, but instead of interrupting it, he'd try to do what he could to rule while simultaneously reform it. Had Jon come into Meereen the same way he came into the NW, inheriting the system and trying change it with certain reforms, I suspect he'd have enabled more order than we see, but would not have had much of an impact on slavery at all. Which is to say, he'd have failed. I can see the argument that Jon may have done a better job in Meereen post-revolution in terms of restoration of order, but without that interruption Dany brought, Jon wouldn't have managed any sort of progress.

The same argument can be made wrt Dany and the Watch. In terms of keeping active control over his organization and getting creative, Jon did a good job of this. He hated it not because he hates administering, but because he was operating in a system that was so fundamentally dysfunctional, the inertia prevented any sort of real reform from getting traction. His efforts failed because the inertia was too great to change anything. Had Dany come in and taken over the Watch, here methods would have shocked the system and given the Watch more of a tabula rasa to work from.

I think it's futile to squeeze both Dany and Jon into the same category when evaluating their leadership formats. That is, I don't think we're supposed to judge either one for not administrating better than the other. I think we're supposed to realize that Jon's stint can be called a failure for the reasons Dany's was a success, and vice versa. Reform and Revolution go hand in hand, and when tackling lumbering inert organizations like SB or the NW, both are needed for true success.

I'm not sure how I feel about the prospect of Jon in a King position. I think a reformist ruler would be a benefit in the aftermath of everything, but I'm not sure that this will be Jon. I also don't think Jon is the exclusive reformist we see; Arianne and Asha are potentially in this camp, as is Varys perhaps. No matter who follows, though, I don't think we should keep viewing the position of king as necessarily more meaningful or valuable than that of a revolutionary leader, without which nothing would change.

[Veltigar]

I see a lot of (unintentional?) J+D shipping in these last few posts. Reform + Revolution = golden age. Nice work people ;)

[butterbumps!]

I see a lot of (unintentional?) J+D shipping in these last few posts. Reform + Revolution = golden age. Nice work people ;)

No-- not at all shipping. Stability also needs people like Stannis (if not Stannis personally) to keep things grounded. Order and custom are also positive and necessary, though become problematic when they are themselves flawed and overpowering to the point of inertia. A Reformer needs people who will uphold order and stability as much as they needed a spark to change things.

[OldGimletEye]

Speaking of abolition of slavery - have all the detractors forgotten Braavos? It has as few natural resources as the Slaver's Bay, yet it is the most powerful and rich of the Free Cities - _because_ it doesn't have slavery. When all is said and done, slavery is inefficient. Which is why it was eventually superceded by the much more efficient feudalism IRL.

Yep, it appears Braavos has done very well building a commercial and financial empire. Still, I just don't see Dany convincing Yunkai, Quarth, and the Dothraki to pick up and read the “Wealth of Nations”.

I think it would be hugely difficult to get the Dothraki to fight on her behalf, and yet get them to forego the traditional rewards for people who risk their lives in battle for their leader.

Perhaps she could get them to take "wives", rather than gang-rape female captives; to let captives ransom themselves, rather than be enslaved; to turn captives who can't ransom themselves into servants and labourers, rather than chattel slaves. I think that anything more would be unreaslistic.

Agree. Dany might be able to curb some of the worst practices among the Dothraki. But, I don't see her getting rid of them all.

Finally, assuming that Dany doesn't get a endless supply of hordes of both Dothraki and jihadist dedicted to her abolutionist cause, which I think will become of secondary importance for her, with her primary goal being getting to Westeros, I think she still might be able to put a pretty big dent in slavery. For one, I think its reasonable that she will be able to broker a peace that keeps Mereen pretty much slave free. Secondly, when she takes Volantis that will mean one less big “customer” for the slavers if Volantis can remain slave free. Also, if Volantis ever became a sufficiently anti-slavery city, it could use its considerable naval forces,at some point, to combat slavers, similar to the British Navy's campaign to end the slave trade.

One a side note, I wonder how she will handle Volantis, after causing social upheaval there, as I don't think we are going to get a “Mereneese Knot: Volantis Edition.”

[E-Ro]

No-- not at all shipping. Stability also needs people like Stannis (if not Stannis personally) to keep things grounded. Order and custom are also positive and necessary, though become problematic when they are themselves flawed and overpowering to the point of inertia. A Reformer needs people who will uphold order and stability as much as they needed a spark to change things.

I agree really, stannis is the most important part of this. Without him it goes to shit since dany and Jon are both pretty terrible.

[jet199]

I think in Volantis there is already a slave uprising planned and waiting to take advantage of Dany's fire and blood led by the likes of the widow of the waterfront.

[butterbumps!]

I agree really, stannis is the most important part of this. Without him it goes to shit since dany and Jon are both pretty terrible.

You might have missed the point, brah. For long term progress, revolution and reform seem requisite side by side to enable change, but for stability, upholding order adjacently to reform is is also key. That is, all 3 are equally important in the whole. Everyone shouldn't be starting revolts all the time or deciding to issue reforms willy nilly.

[Winter's Knight]

You might have missed the point, brah. For long term progress, revolution and reform seem requisite side by side to enable change, but for stability, upholding order adjacently to reform is is also key. That is, all 3 are equally important in the whole. Everyone shouldn't be starting revolts all the time or deciding to issue reforms willy nilly.

E-ro miss the point because of a chance to Stanstan? Perish the thought!

[E-Ro]

You might have missed the point, brah. For long term progress, revolution and reform seem requisite side by side to enable change, but for stability, upholding order adjacently to reform is is also key. That is, all 3 are equally important in the whole. Everyone shouldn't be starting revolts all the time or deciding to issue reforms willy nilly.

I completely forgot to change your name to the proper one in the quote tags brah brah. I'm all embarrassed now.

[OldGimletEye]

You might have missed the point, brah. For long term progress, revolution and reform seem requisite side by side to enable change, but for stability, upholding order adjacently to reform is is also key. That is, all 3 are equally important in the whole. Everyone shouldn't be starting revolts all the time or deciding to issue reforms willy nilly.

I am not sure I would put revolution (at least the violent kind) on the same footing as reform with respect to obtaining long term progress. Revolutions often have a tendency to spiral out of control without achieving their stated purpose.

[E-Ro]

E-ro miss the point because of a chance to Stanstan? Perish the thought!

Lol, I wasn't tryna Stan! Honest, I was just pointing out how I agreed with the post.

[Maia]

The point of the foil was to address Stannis as a representation of the status quo, and in particular, someone who is adamant about upholding the order of the system.

The guy is trying to force a new state religion on Westeros. That's hardly upholding the status quo! That is more revolutionary than anything anybody did in this area since the Andal Conquest!

Nor do I see how faith in order and justice (on your own terms only, no less) makes you a capable administrator or concerned with administration.

I was calling Jon more of a "reformer" than the other two, which I think is somewhere between inertia and upheaval.

He was trying to follow this middle way, yes. Or, rather, he started out that way, becoming more radical as he went, while Dany, wo started as a revolutionary, was moving in the opposite direction. How successfully he managed is up in the air, nor do I see a lot of conclusive evidence that it made him good at administration. In fact, like Dany, he seems to be more of an inspirational leader, neglecting the nitty-gritty of administration and politics in favor of high-minded ideas and leading by personal charisma. Which resulted in his clash with Marsh...

As much as I've emphasized that I don't believe she excels at administration, I've pointed out that imposition of the role of ruler destroys her personally, prevents her from expressing her natural talent, and turned her into a shadow of herself, and importantly, is not something she actually wants.

But the same can be said of Jon and even Stannis, if you believe what he says on the matter.

Which is one of the reasons why the juxtaposition just doesn't work for me.

The others are that Stannis has already failed as a ruler once, when he failed to build enough support for his claim and for really petty reasons, too.

As to Jon, he too was abandoning his position when he was stabbed - analoguously to Dany leaving Meeren on Drogon's back. And it is up in the air whether what he has built is going to hold up while he is out of comission even as well as what Dany built in Meeren is holding up in her absence.

My feeling after ADwD was that Dany and Jon exemplified 2 different ways of failure as rulers, something that they are both going to recover and learn from. And that they both really need to cram on administration and political manoeuvring, if they are to be successful in the future.

[E-Ro]

The guy is trying to force a new state religion on Westeros. That's hardly upholding the status quo! That is more revolutionary than anything anybody did in this area since the Andal Conquest!

Nor do I see how faith in order and justice (on your own terms only, no less) makes you a capable administrator or concerned with administration.

But the same can be said of Jon and even Stannis, if you believe what he says on the matter.

Which is one of the reasons why the juxtaposition just doesn't work for me.

The others are that Stannis has already failed as a ruler once, when he failed to build enough support for his claim

Wow this is a load if bullshit. I can't even be bothered.

Yeah, stannis hasn't even gotten a chance to rule but he failed at it.

Do everyone a favor, google the word "ruler" so you can understand what it means.

[NotSoSilentSister]

I am not sure I would put revolution (at least the violent kind) on the same footing as reform with respect to obtaining long term progress. Revolutions often have a tendency to spiral out of control without achieving their stated purpose.

Whereas reforms often have a tendency of petering out, resulting in cosmetic changes at best. Seriously, I'm more of a reform-gal myself, but sometimes it just won't do.

(It also seems to me, that historically, those reforms that actually got off the ground, were often implemented in an attempt to avoid a local franchise of the revolution that was already going on elsewhere at that point.)

[butterbumps!]

I am not sure I would put revolution (at least the violent kind) on the same footing as reform with respect to obtaining long term progress. Revolutions often have a tendency to spiral out of control without achieving their stated purpose.

I think that bias is what Martin is challenging, though. I think he's playing with the idea that progress = change + stability. Reform is something of a reconciliation of revolution and stability; it won't happen without a spark, and won't last without upholding order.

The guy is trying to force a new state religion on Westeros. That's hardly upholding the status quo! That is more revolutionary than anything anybody did in this area since the Andal Conquest!

Nor do I see how faith in order and justice (on your own terms only, no less) makes you a capable administrator or concerned with administration.

He was trying to follow this middle way, yes. Or, rather, he started out that way, becoming more radical as he went, while Dany, wo started as a revolutionary, was moving in the opposite direction. How successfully he managed is up in the air, nor do I see a lot of conclusive evidence that it made him good at administration. In fact, like Dany, he seems to be more of an inspirational leader, neglecting the nitty-gritty of administration and politics in favor of high-minded ideas and leading by personal charisma. Which resulted in his clash with Marsh...

But the same can be said of Jon and even Stannis, if you believe what he says on the matter.

Which is one of the reasons why the juxtaposition just doesn't work for me.

The others are that Stannis has already failed as a ruler once, when he failed to build enough support for his claim and for really petty reasons, too.

As to Jon, he too was abandoning his position when he was stabbed - analoguously to Dany leaving Meeren on Drogon's back. And it is up in the air whether what he has built is going to hold up while he is out of comission even as well as what Dany built in Meeren is holding up in her absence.

My feeling after ADwD was that Dany and Jon exemplified 2 different ways of failure as rulers, something that they are both going to recover and learn from. And that they both really need to cram on administration and political manoeuvring, if they are to be successful in the future.

Stannis is not looking critically at systems of power and seeking change. Whatever he's doing with R'hllor is not the same criticism of the status quo both Dany and Jon are doing.

If you seriously need to discuss Jon and Dany's administrative successes and failures in detail, please make another thread about it away from here. The long and short of it, though, is that Jon actually became so caught up in the nitty gritty and so disgusted with the institution itself he alienated himself completely and failed. Dany, conversely, completely removed herself from said nitty gritty, not leaving her chambers at all, and was relieved she would no longer have the responsibility of ruling as she could pass it off to Hiz.

Jon and Dany both failed in that they both sought change, but neither excelled at both of the necessary skillsets to make that happen. I think this is an extremely fair criticism, especially as I'm challenging the positive bias many of us have toward ruling and administration. I'm saying, yes, Jon is more inclined toward administration, but that this doesn't make his LC stint less of a failure or somehow more inherently admirable.

[Lummel]

Yes I suppose that is a point about Stannis and stasis. He even says it himself. The Seven are proudwing for him, while Melisandre is is red hawk. He's still hawking, he's just changed his hawk.

Although there is a risk I suppose that his decision will bring about unintended changes from the few converts that we see in the story.

[Jasta11]

He was trying to follow this middle way, yes. Or, rather, he started out that way, becoming more radical as he went, while Dany, wo started as a revolutionary, was moving in the opposite direction. How successfully he managed is up in the air, nor do I see a lot of conclusive evidence that it made him good at administration. In fact, like Dany, he seems to be more of an inspirational leader, neglecting the nitty-gritty of administration and politics in favor of high-minded ideas and leading by personal charisma. Which resulted in his clash with Marsh...

That's not how I read it at all. Jon talks to every leader of every faction on the Wall very fequently, assesses the supply situation with Marsh and solves it via haggling like a fishwife with the Iron Bank's envoy, makes sure to ease tensions between Watchmen and wildlings at every turn (IE the mole-town situation), sends able people on important missions, spends days combing records to find things helping against the Others, and explains clearly, several times, to Marsh and co. that ice zombies are coming to eat everyone and it's really not the time to nurture grudges. He may not be Tywin come again, but to me it seems he did a pretty good job given the ridiculously sorry state of the Watch and the fact he had to juggle people like Stannis, Mel, Thormund, Marsh and the Queen's Men.

I don't remember Dany doing anything like this; she mostly holds court and lets people go to her. She's much less proactive than Jon as I remember it.

[OldGimletEye]

I think that bias is what Martin is challenging, though. I think he's playing with the idea that progress = change + stability. Reform is something of a reconciliation of revolution and stability; it won't happen without a spark, and won't last without upholding order.

Well, we did see the handiwork of one Dany's “revolutions” in Astapor, which resulted in death, slaverly being re-instituted anyways, and even, if I recall correctly, new Unsullied being trained.

Accordingly, I not really convinced that Martin is challenging that bias.