Daenerys Stormborn - A Re-Read Project Part II: ACoK & ASoS

[SeanF]

I had to think about this statement for a few hours to realize how exactly right you are. Dany is a fantasy hero the likes of which has never really been written before. The entire series is like that. It shows an element of fantasy while keeping in line with the harshness of life and war. Dany does fit into that, it's just harder for some to accept her, I have no idea why. All the characters have some bad true-to-life qualities, but IMO that is what makes these such an incredible read. :)

Paul Atreides, Turin Turambar, Dorotea Senjak, predate Daenerys as charismatic fantasy heroes who have a very dark side to them. But, she's certainly a great creation.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Paul Atreides, Turin Turambar, Dorotea Senjak, predate Daenerys as charismatic fantasy heroes who have a very dark side to them. But, she's certainly a great creation.

Feanor too. Also Merlin and Nimue from Bernard Cornwell's Arthur trilogy.

But nothing I've read has been like her, And I dont really see her a tragic figure yet, not like Turin. She's not depressed, ya know? Of course that could change by book 7 (or 8)

I think Rhaenyra from PATQ fits into that group a little better.

Atreides is a great reference though :) I hadn't ever really thought about the similarities from Dune before.

[Parwan]

Well have have read Jon's chapters and any Dany quote that has been placed on the forum and taken out of context. Or any theory on Dany being evil which somehow became fact. Like did you know Dany has not opened up her accounting books to the public? She must be evil, I mean that is a fact we have not been given her accounting books, so evil and the books prove it. Sure we don't know what any of the accounting books look like save the Crown which is 6 million in debt, though we have not seen the books and it is probably Dany's fault, cause of her evilness. She also killed innocent slavers, eeek! So evil, just thinking about her evilness scares me.

...

Hmm, where to start here? How about the concept of evil--that's a large issue, isn't it?

I don't believe that the message of ASoIaF is that evil arises solely from bad individuals. One of the things that has been interesting to me about reading comments on this forum and at similar sites is how differently various readers interpret things. For me, from the very first pages of the AGoT, my feeling was "something is wrong here." And I do mean "here." There are deep problems with this situation, with this society. Things are out of whack, the times are out of joint, something is rotten in Denmark, that sort of business. Now, there are well drawn characters in the story, and it is natural to sort of pick sides. Then you get into arguments with people who think another character is great and your favorite really sucks. I have done a certain amount of this myself. However, my opinions have always been formed within a framework of my original and continuing impression: The overarching "evil" (or difficulty, or sickness, or...you choose a term) is in the game itself, not in one or two, or ten or twelve, of the players.

Since you mention Jon, let me talk a bit about his father. In Ned's conversation with Cat in King's Landing, we find him saying, "All justice flows from the king." Eddard Stark is basically a good man. I have no doubt of that. But how could a good man think that anything called "justice" could flow from a fellow like King Robert Baratheon? How could he believe this even after Robert's miserable performance in the matter of Arya, Joffrey, and the wolf? I guess that Lord Stark, the Hand of the King, just about has to believe this. After all, the king is the king. That's the way things are. Does this thinking remind you of anything? It reminds me of some statements made by the young lady we are discussing on this thread. She maintains that Stark couldn't have had honor. He was a traitor to his "true king." After all, the king is the king. That's all there is to it.

The above is an example of an assertion that I have made before, and will no doubt continue to bring forth in a variety of ways. There are differences between the characters in ASoIaF. However, there are also similarities, and often the similarities are more important than the differences.

Do heroes carry out mass executions, burn, torture, and crucify people?

Not in fantasy literature, usually.

But, they do in real life. Alexander, Caesar, King David, Genghis Khan, Hannibal etc. showed incredible courage and resource, and were capable of great acts of kindness and generosity. At the same time, they performed the most dreadful deeds on their enemies. Dany fits into that mould.

That's well said. I'll change your question a bit:

Do heroes carry out torture and similar bad practices?

In A Song of Ice and Fire, it seems that they do.

I will assert at least this much: If you want to argue that Dany is clearly a worse choice for ruler than others currently contending for the crown, you would do well to stay away from the issue of torture. The practice is standard operating procedure in Westeros. I'm not the only poster to see this. Insightful commentators like Butterbumps have pointed it out. One can, of course, try to dig into things, claim that one character or another is better because he or she doesn't torture as much or as badly, or does so for more justifiable reasons...I don't think such arguments will ever amount to much. I've read of few that I found quite unconvincing.

[SeanF]

That's well said. I'll change your question a bit:

Do heroes carry out torture and similar bad practices?

In A Song of Ice and Fire, it seems that they do.

I will assert at least this much: If you want to argue that Dany is clearly a worse choice for ruler than others currently contending for the crown, you would do well to stay away from the issue of torture. The practice is standard operating procedure in Westeros. I'm not the only poster to see this. Insightful commentators like

Butterbumps have pointed it out. One can, of course, try to dig into things, claim that one character or another is better because he or she doesn't torture as much or as badly, or does so for more justifiable reasons...I don't think such arguments will ever amount to much. I've read of few that I found quite unconvincing.

I did a thread on this subject, (http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/74525-daenerys-and-torture/) which got some interesting replies, a while back. Sooner or later, even modern liberal governments are likely to resort to torture when faced with insurgents who fight in the shadows. We shouldn't be surprised that Dany does so in Meereen (although I don't think that fully exonerates her either).

The evil characters in the series are those who enjoy torturing their victims, such as Dany's father. Dany doesn't take delight in torturing people. But, there is something disturbing, to me, in her view that justice means that wicked people deserve to suffer as they die. Somehow, I think Rhaegar would have been a bit gentler.

[Parwan]

I did a thread on this subject, (http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/74525-daenerys-and-torture/) which got some interesting replies, a while back. Sooner or later, even modern liberal governments are likely to resort to torture when faced with insurgents who fight in the shadows. We shouldn't be surprised that Dany does so in Meereen (although I don't think that fully exonerates her either).

The evil characters in the series are those who enjoy torturing their victims, such as Dany's father. Dany doesn't take delight in torturing people. But, there is something disturbing, to me, in her view that justice means that wicked people deserve to suffer as they die. Somehow, I think Rhaegar would have been a bit gentler.

Yes, there are several interesting posts on that thread. I’ll read some of them more carefully and think about the points raised. For the present, I say that nothing on the thread changes my mind significantly. Some matters of relevance to this thread at the point we have reached in ASoIaF:

How are we to render judgements on Dany and other reasonably decent (i.e. non-sadistic, not completely self-absorbed) characters? In particular, how are we to render such judgements on the matter of torture? How do we choose between leaders, saying that one is better than another? I maintain that there is no moral calculus that is adequate for the purpose. I don’t think that burning a witch alive is an acceptable form of punishment. I also don’t think that aiding and abetting the activities of a vile man who marries his daughters and gives his newborn sons to monsters is acceptable. Trying to distinguish between these things on some sort of ethical basis will almost certainly lead nowhere. You will wind up arguing that trivial distinctions are serious ones, or you will just rationalize the bad behavior of characters you like. Burning someone to death is torture. Helping Craster, who has clearly made a pact with the devil, may not exactly be torture, but so what? Are you really going to say that men who work with Craster would never stoop to torture if they were in a situation where they thought the practice was necessary? The assertion that Starks don’t torture does not hold up. Jon learns that his uncle Benjen knew about Craster. Mormonts statement, “But the wildlings serve crueler gods than you or I” is a thin rationalization. *

The lack of an adequate moral calculus is a serious matter. The people of Westeros have definitely not developed such a thing. For practical purposes, it is not so easy to find in our world. Do we even have it in theory? I think we do, but philosophical debates on matters like this can get very weighty, and they are well beyond the scope of this thread. One poster at your thread said that the fact that other characters torture does not exonerate Dany. No, it doesn’t. However, consider things from the point of view of people in-universe. They may not exonerate Dany, but they will have to deal with her, and is dealing with her morally different from dealing with just about anyone who has power? Yes, in this sense—It is different from dealing with a few people like Ramsay. This accrues to the advantage of the dragon queen. Otherwise, the answer is “No, there is no realistic difference.” Let’s say you are a free rider or a minor lord who learns about the threat of the Others. You also learn that there is this woman across the Narrow Sea who has dragons. Should you be willing to seriously consider working with her? Of course you should. However, she is also the daughter of the guy known as “The Mad King.” Furthermore, you learn that she did some very objectionable things in Essos. Might this cause you to oppose her attempt to take the Iron Throne, even if such opposition puts you on the side of some unsavory characters? Again, the answer is, “of course.” Opposing her rule might be the best option for you. Overall, there is no firm general basis for deciding whether you should support or fight against Daenerys Targaryen.

Here we go again. Fortunately, I do not object to repeating myself. I hope I’m not boring anyone, but I suppose that you can always skip my posts if you don’t think I’m adding new info:

The fundamental problems in Martin’s world are structural; they are institutional; they are not due to the existence of bad individuals. They will not be solved by the emergence of someone who was promised. Indeed, a strong belief in this mythical person is one of the structural problems.

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

*There is also this, from a point in the text not far from the point we have reached: Mormont is talking to Qhorin about what Mance might be up to. Apparently, Mance is looking for something, and the Lord Commander wants to know what it is. Qhorin answers--

"Some power. What it was our captive could not say. He was questioned perhaps too sharply, and died with much unsaid. I doubt he knew in any case."

That is a very cavalier way for one of the good guys to report that a captive was tortured to death, isn't it? Now, someone can believe that no Stark would do such a thing, not even if this Stark was out there in the wild in bad need of information and with a captain who wanted to torture the prisoner. I don't believe this, and I don't see why "someone's" belief is superior to mine.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Yes, there are several interesting posts on that thread. I’ll read some of them more carefully and think about the points raised. For the present, I say that nothing on the thread changes my mind significantly. Some matters of relevance to this thread at the point we have reached in ASoIaF:

How are we to render judgements on Dany and other reasonably decent (i.e. non-sadistic, not completely self-absorbed) characters? In particular, how are we to render such judgements on the matter of torture? How do we choose between leaders, saying that one is better than another? I maintain that there is no moral calculus that is adequate for the purpose. I don’t think that burning a witch alive is an acceptable form of punishment. I also don’t think that aiding and abetting the activities of a vile man who marries his daughters and gives his newborn sons to monsters is acceptable. Trying to distinguish between these things on some sort of ethical basis will almost certainly lead nowhere. You will wind up arguing that trivial distinctions are serious ones, or you will just rationalize the bad behavior of characters you like. Burning someone to death is torture. Helping Craster, who has clearly made a pact with the devil, may not exactly be torture, but so what? Are you really going to say that men who work with Craster would never stoop to torture if they were in a situation where they thought the practice was necessary? The assertion that Starks don’t torture does not hold up. Jon learns that his uncle Benjen knew about Craster. Mormonts statement, “But the wildlings serve crueler gods than you or I” is a thin rationalization. *

The lack of an adequate moral calculus is a serious matter. The people of Westeros have definitely not developed such a thing. For practical purposes, it is not so easy to find in our world. Do we even have it in theory? I think we do, but philosophical debates on matters like this can get very weighty, and they are well beyond the scope of this thread. One poster at your thread said that the fact that other characters torture does not exonerate Dany. No, it doesn’t. However, consider things from the point of view of people in-universe. They may not exonerate Dany, but they will have to deal with her, and is dealing with her morally different from dealing with just about anyone who has power? Yes, in this sense—It is different from dealing with a few people like Ramsay. This accrues to the advantage of the dragon queen. Otherwise, the answer is “No, there is no realistic difference.” Let’s say you are a free rider or a minor lord who learns about the threat of the Others. You also learn that there is this woman across the Narrow Sea who has dragons. Should you be willing to seriously consider working with her? Of course you should. However, she is also the daughter of the guy known as “The Mad King.” Furthermore, you learn that she did some very objectionable things in Essos. Might this cause you to oppose her attempt to take the Iron Throne, even if such opposition puts you on the side of some unsavory characters? Again, the answer is, “of course.” Opposing her rule might be the best option for you. Overall, there is no firm general basis for deciding whether you should support or fight against Daenerys Targaryen.

Here we go again. Fortunately, I do not object to repeating myself. I hope I’m not boring anyone, but I suppose that you can always skip my posts if you don’t think I’m adding new info:

The fundamental problems in Martin’s world are structural; they are institutional; they are not due to the existence of bad individuals. They will not be solved by the emergence of someone who was promised. Indeed, a strong belief in this mythical person is one of the structural problems.

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

*There is also this, from a point in the text not far from the point we have reached: Mormont is talking to Qhorin about what Mance might be up to. Apparently, Mance is looking for something, and the Lord Commander wants to know what it is. Qhorin answers--

"Some power. What it was our captive could not say. He was questioned perhaps too sharply, and died with much unsaid. I doubt he knew in any case."

That is a very cavalier way for one of the good guys to report that a captive was tortured to death, isn't it? Now, someone can believe that no Stark would do such a thing, not even if this Stark was out there in the wild in bad need of information and with a captain who wanted to torture the prisoner. I don't believe this, and I don't see why "someone's" belief is superior to mine.

Excellent points. I completely agree. Sometimes I think we get a little too wrapped up in morally right or wrong. Now this is just me, but shouldn't the questions be more about how good the reading is as opposed to how 'good/evil' the person is we are reading about? For instance Ramsay is absolutely terrible and i can't wait for him to die, but he has been a great read. I love to hate him. And with Dany, I love to love her, but both characters keep my interest and keep me turning pages so I am happy they are both there.

[Nictarion]

Excellent points. I completely agree. Sometimes I think we get a little too wrapped up in morally right or wrong. Now this is just me, but shouldn't the questions be more about how good the reading is as opposed to how 'good/evil' the person is we are reading about? For instance Ramsay is absolutely terrible and i can't wait for him to die, but he has been a great read. I love to hate him. And with Dany, I love to love her, but both characters keep my interest and keep me turning pages so I am happy they are both there.

I completely agree. The forum sometimes feels like one big morality contest, and if we like certain characters (basically anyone besides Brienne and Davos) the morality police come along to tell us how wrong we are for liking such a character. At the end of the day I just want a good story.

[SeanF]

I completely agree. The forum sometimes feels like one big morality contest, and if we like certain characters (basically anyone besides Brienne and Davos) the morality police come along to tell us how wrong we are for liking such a character. At the end of the day I just want a good story.

I suppose Davos and Brienne (perhaps Sam too) are the obviously virtuous POV characters. Ned, Catelyn, and Jon, perhaps a bit greyer. Dany is greyer still.

Talking about heroes, I've just finished a biography of Mithradates, Rome's most formidable opponent between 100 and 62 BC. He was an incredibly brave man, who was regarded as the absolute model of chivalry in medieval Europe. Roman rule in Greece and Anatolia was appalling in this period, and the locals rightly regarded him as a liberator when he drove the Romans out. Yet, he also organised the mass execution of 80,000 Italians in the area. And punished a notoriously bad Roman governor by pouring molten gold down his throat in front of a cheering audience.

Could I imagine Dany doing something similar as she overthrows slaver regimes in the free cities? Hell, yes.

[MoIaF]

Excellent points. I completely agree. Sometimes I think we get a little too wrapped up in morally right or wrong. Now this is just me, but shouldn't the questions be more about how good the reading is as opposed to how 'good/evil' the person is we are reading about? For instance Ramsay is absolutely terrible and i can't wait for him to die, but he has been a great read. I love to hate him. And with Dany, I love to love her, but both characters keep my interest and keep me turning pages so I am happy they are both there.

I completely agree. The forum sometimes feels like one big morality contest, and if we like certain characters (basically anyone besides Brienne and Davos) the morality police come along to tell us how wrong we are for liking such a character. At the end of the day I just want a good story.

Agreed, besides I always think we must take into consideration the circumstances of the acts and the person perpetuating them.

I suppose Davos and Brienne (perhaps Sam too) are the obviously virtuous POV characters. Ned, Catelyn, and Jon, perhaps a bit greyer. Dany is greyer still.

Talking about heroes, I've just finished a biography of Mithradates, Rome's most formidable opponent between 100 and 62 BC. He was an incredibly brave man, who was regarded as the absolute model of chivalry in medieval Europe. Roman rule in Greece and Anatolia was appalling in this period, and the locals rightly regarded him as a liberator when he drove the Romans out. Yet, he also organised the mass execution of 80,000 Italians in the area. And punished a notoriously bad Roman governor by pouring molten gold down his throat in front of a cheering audience.

Could I imagine Dany doing something similar as she overthrows slaver regimes in the free cities? Hell, yes.

Dany would kill the slavers, but she wouldn't kill random citizens just because. Whatever citizen would die would be a casualty of war.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Agreed, besides I always think we must take into consideration the circumstances of the acts and the person perpetuating them.

Dany would kill the slavers, but she wouldn't kill random citizens just because. Whatever citizen would die would be a casualty of war.

Agreed, She doesn't kill anyone just for fun. She is not like her father in that way at all.

And yes Davos and Brienne are basically the only 2 characters with (almost) no red in their ledger. If anyone gets on a high-horse about any the low morality of any other characters then their favorite better be one of those 2, otherwise they are hypocrites.

It makes more sense to lengthily discuss stupid and not-stupid decision made by characters instead of their morality.

[Parwan]

I completely agree. The forum sometimes feels like one big morality contest, and if we like certain characters (basically anyone besides Brienne and Davos) the morality police come along to tell us how wrong we are...

There are questions other than just the moral stature of individuals, especially if we are talking about leaders and potential leaders. In the Seven Kingdoms, we have the rule of men, not of laws. Granted, women occasionally get to share some power, but that is not important for our discussion here. When the men (or women) are good (e.g. Ned Stark), the results are usually (but not invariably) good. When the men are very bad, the results are almost always bad. Some men keep their vows. Some men break them. Unfortunately, no one questions the vows. This is unfortunate because the vows themselves are often the problem. Predominantly, they are not decent contracts; they are promises of slavish devotion. Jorah's vow to Daenerys is just one example. He promises to obey, no matter what. She promises him a sword.

...

Talking about heroes, I've just finished a biography of Mithradates, Rome's most formidable opponent between 100 and 62 BC. He was an incredibly brave man, who was regarded as the absolute model of chivalry in medieval Europe. Roman rule in Greece and Anatolia was appalling in this period, and the locals rightly regarded him as a liberator when he drove the Romans out. Yet, he also organised the mass execution of 80,000 Italians in the area. And punished a notoriously bad Roman governor by pouring molten gold down his throat in front of a cheering audience.

Could I imagine Dany doing something similar as she overthrows slaver regimes in the free cities? Hell, yes.

Agreed, besides I always think we must take into consideration the circumstances of the acts and the person perpetuating them.

Dany would kill the slavers, but she wouldn't kill random citizens just because. Whatever citizen would die would be a casualty of war.

Agreed, She doesn't kill anyone just for fun. She is not like her father in that way at all.

And yes Davos and Brienne are basically the only 2 characters with (almost) no red in their ledger. If anyone gets on a high-horse about any the low morality of any other characters then their favorite better be one of those 2, otherwise they are hypocrites.

It makes more sense to lengthily discuss stupid and not-stupid decision made by characters instead of their morality.

I doubt that Dany would give direct orders for the mass execution of tens of thousands of people. Still, it's possible that SeanF might have a point. Even by the time we get to Qarth, it is clear that the young queen has released forces that neither she nor anyone else may be able to control. Quaithe senses this. Her comment about dragons, power, and lust can be taken in more than one way. I also believe that the pyromancers are correct in their suspicion about the reason for the increased potency of their spells. Dany doesn't even know all the things she has started. There has been a lot of blood and fire. There will be a lot more. How much might be considered the responsibility of Daenerys Targaryen is a question that can be debated. I'd say that she does make some stupid decisions. We'll get to that.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Somehow, I think Rhaegar would have been a bit gentler.

Agreed.

I think Rhaegar is Dany's idol but she doesn't want to be exactly like him because of what Jorah said " Rhaegar fought valiantly, nobly and honourably but Rhaegar died"

I like what D and D said in a recent interview that Martin's book reflect real life well, that being fully honourable doesn't always get you to the end.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

I suppose Davos and Brienne (perhaps Sam too) are the obviously virtuous POV characters. Ned, Catelyn, and Jon, perhaps a bit greyer. Dany is greyer still.

Talking about heroes, I've just finished a biography of Mithradates, Rome's most formidable opponent between 100 and 62 BC. He was an incredibly brave man, who was regarded as the absolute model of chivalry in medieval Europe. Roman rule in Greece and Anatolia was appalling in this period, and the locals rightly regarded him as a liberator when he drove the Romans out. Yet, he also organised the mass execution of 80,000 Italians in the area. And punished a notoriously bad Roman governor by pouring molten gold down his throat in front of a cheering audience.

Could I imagine Dany doing something similar as she overthrows slaver regimes in the free cities? Hell, yes.

Hmmm

If Dany goes to a Free city Such as Volantis, I could see her being ruthless to the Old Blood since they are one of the main advocates of slavery.

But I wouldn't expect her to kill all the citizens of Volantis, only the ones she sees as "pro-slavery" like the old blood.

[Parwan]

Hmmm

If Dany goes to a Free city Such as Volantis, I could see her being ruthless to the Old Blood since they are one of the main advocates of slavery.

But I wouldn't expect her to kill all the citizens of Volantis, only the ones she sees as "pro-slavery" like the old blood.

There has been a lot of blood and fire. There will be more. I'm sure that pro-slavery forces will suffer. That doesn't mean that Dany has to kill all of them. It doesn't mean that they have to die because of direct orders from her. There is a truism involved here: Those who start revolutions often don't end them. I'm definitely not saying that Dany will wind up as a sort of Robespierre. I am saying that she has never been in full control of things, and there is no reason to believe she will gain full control.

[SeanF]

There has been a lot of blood and fire. There will be more. I'm sure that pro-slavery forces will suffer. That doesn't mean that Dany has to kill all of them. It doesn't mean that they have to die because of direct orders from her. There is a truism involved here: Those who start revolutions often don't end them. I'm definitely not saying that Dany will wind up as a sort of Robespierre. I am saying that she has never been in full control of things, and there is no reason to believe she will gain full control.

Indeed, if the slaves of Volantis successfully revolt in her favour, they'll massacre, torture, and rape indiscriminately.

[MoIaF]

Public Service Announcement

The review for Dany III will be up tomorrow.

Now back to our regular discussion.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

There has been a lot of blood and fire. There will be more. I'm sure that pro-slavery forces will suffer. That doesn't mean that Dany has to kill all of them. It doesn't mean that they have to die because of direct orders from her. There is a truism involved here: Those who start revolutions often don't end them. I'm definitely not saying that Dany will wind up as a sort of Robespierre. I am saying that she has never been in full control of things, and there is no reason to believe she will gain full control.

I agree, it's similar to the sacking of the Lhazareen in AGOT, she wasn't in complete control

[Suzanna Stormborn]

show spoiler

How great was Dany's first scene with the dragons last night??!?!?!

[Audrey Arryn]

show spoiler

How great was Dany's first scene with the dragons last night??!?!?!

I thought it was really cute with all the Drogon cuddling.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I thought it was really cute with all the Drogon cuddling.

That was your 420th post hehehe