What do you think of this argument that I found for why Dany isn't a good ruler?

[butterbumps!]

Which was his point as well, I think. Socialist leaders, like Stalin or Castro (I pick those as they are also opposed to classes) also just fought for a cause but ended up ruling anyway. And Dany by all means is the face of the liberation.

Which is even more confusing since at the same time she wants to reestablish the Status Quo in Westeros.

She doesn't necessarily want to reestablish the status quo, though. As per her last chapter, she's just looking for vengeance-via-conquest. She's in "destroy" mode. I'm saying that the pieces haven't all come together for her yet, and when they do, I suspect the throne won't even be her objective even as an object of veneagnce, such that instead she'll turn toward the smallfolk and/ or concentrate on the wight issue.

And that wasn't his point, I don't think. Dany isn't Stalin or Pol Pot, ffs. She's someone who has all this power, which manifests in a save-destroy dichotomy, with humanitarian leanings, who is also operating from this sense of destiny. When she puts this "destiny" into perspective, she won't even be in the picture at the end to become a totalitarian dictator-- either her flame burns out (death) or she returns to Essos as a Nymeria inversion to continue her crusade.

And I am totally aware of your quest to say Dany is good merely just because she is a "revolutionary".

When I bring up some of the worst revolutionarys in our history, I am not necessarily saying that Dany will be as bad as any of them. The point I am trying to make is:

1) Its not the case that being a revolutionary means a person is good,just or that their policies are wise.

Also, I recognize the value of public works. Every country needs them. I am not some kind of anarcho-libertarian type. However, its one thing to hire workers to work on public works, who have voluntarily decided, after being compensated, to work on them. Its quite another to force people to work on them at pistol point.

Oh heavens, no. First and foremost, I am not appealing to Dany's revolutionary leanings to say she is good. I point this out because I find the endless complaints about her being a shitty ruler boring and unproductive. More like, "ok, she's an apparently shitty ruler who doesn't even like ruling or want to rule. What is she good at, and what's the lesson here?"

A revolutionary is not inherently "good." But it changes the conversation from something that I believe is entirely beside the point (because Dany won't sit the throne, or want to sit the throne, at the end anyway), to something that seems more salient to both Dany's arc and ASOIAF-- itself a social critique-- holistically.

Dany did not hire those workers at pistol point. If you really want to get into "pistol points" look no further than Tyrion's chain, most of the men in the NW, or really, anyone called to arms for any lord over the course of the series.

[Stormland's Fury]

And Mandela fought against Apartheid and left after 5 years in office. So what? None of them have any connection to what will happen in ASOIAF.

You can't accuse Dany of crimes she hasn't committed yet. The same goes for her reestablishing the Targ dynasty. She hasn't even left Essos yet.

I wasnt arguing that.

I was just trying to clarify what OldGimletEye was trying to say. Revolutionaries are not "good" or just by default, so you're actually agreeing with me here.

But as far we know she still wants to retake the throne. I was never denying that she always will.

People getting defensive based on assumptions is exactly the reason why it's hard to discuss her objectively.

[OldGimletEye]

Dany did not hire those workers at pistol point. If you really want to get into "pistol points" look no further than Tyrion's chain, most of the men in the NW, or really, anyone called to arms for any lord over the course of the series.

Those workers weren't forced by Dany? I must have got it wrong then. I guess I have to re-read that part. Anyhow, you think I am defending Tyrion. Tyrion was wrong. I am not applying one standard to Dany and then another to Tyrion.

And as far as I remember, people join the NW voluntarilty. They are not drafted. Maybe I misread that too.

And of course, the feudal system is pretty desipicable. You think Dany is really going to change that? She may hate slavery, but I don't think she is advanced enough in her political thought to conclude that feudalism sucks. I don't see her becoming a classical liberal anytime soon.

[Stormland's Fury]

She doesn't necessarily want to reestablish the status quo, though. As per her last chapter, she's just looking for vengeance-via-conquest. She's in "destroy" mode. I'm saying that the pieces haven't all come together for her yet, and when they do, I suspect the throne won't even be her objective even as an object of veneagnce, such that instead she'll turn toward the smallfolk and/ or concentrate on the wight issue.

And that wasn't his point, I don't think. Dany isn't Stalin or Pol Pot, ffs. She's someone who has all this power, which manifests in a save-destroy dichotomy, with humanitarian leanings, who is also operating from this sense of destiny. When she puts this "destiny" into perspective, she won't even be in the picture at the end to become a totalitarian dictator-- either her flame burns out (death) or she returns to Essos as a Nymeria inversion to continue her crusade.

I'm with you on this, believe me that, but I was going from what she believes up until now. She probably comes to that realization herself, maybe even soon.

The problem is that some people (not you) just see "Dany compared to Stalin" and denounce it as an insult, while all what is compared is the political context and not her as a person.

[Ser No One]

I reckon ADWD shows her in a bad light, contrarily to what OP says... It's no wonder everyone hates her now :laugh:

And she is confronted to real good players for the very first time in Meereen. The Graces, all the nobility, maybe even her own husband, might be worth a few people in Kings Landing when it comes to treachery.

The result of all this, it's true, is that she comes out as not ready to lead a kingdom. But the simple fact that she wanted to learn shows she realizes she has progress to make. And even though she wasn't able to deal with the opposition, she has made perfectly sensible decisions too. She has been willing to compromise, and even delay her coming to Westeros to protect her people.

I believe the point made in Meereen is that she's a terrible ruler (or at least a terrible player in politics, and what Westeros call the Game of Thrones), for now.

We don't know yet how she'll come out of her last chapter. Either completely mad, or just as a new conqueror, or filled by a desire for vengeance, or if she'll just be less naive... but what this chapter shows us is that there will be a drastic evolution in her way to approach things.

So I'm not quite sure anybody should try to draw conclusions on her abilitiy to rule based on what happens in Meereen. It's true she makes mistakes, but she came there to learn, and it's highly probable that recent events have moved her enough to change the way she'll rule.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

He made her adversaries grotesque and cartoonish so that we the reader would consider it a good thing for her to wipe them out. They are supposed to be a group of terrible monsters who no one in their right mind would care about or try to defend. But of course here on the forum, the grotesque cartoonish bad guys are inexplicably defended. I think it says more about the reader who defends them (is mis-interpreting the novels) than it does about Dany being a villian. This could not be more obvious.

[Light a wight tonight]

That looks really familiar. That could be one of Apple Martini's posts.

Wait...no "could" about it! Pretty sure thats one of Apple's!

Some similarities in viewpoint, but Apple's posts, at least here, have a more biting tone. Maybe she soft-pedals things elsewhere?

[Ziggy Targdust]

Really the worst thing about her Meereen rule is the former slaves outside of the city are sick and dying.

Everything else is to be expected and part of any other Game of Thrones.

So if she burned all the sick people like some of her advisors said, then I guess she wouldn't be such a shitty ruler.

[Audrey Arryn]

The whole post sounds like a summary of every argument Apple Martini has ever brought up against Dany and is even written in her style so either she has written it or it was written by someone who reads her posts on here and is now passing her thoughts of as their own opinion. Anyway the arguments have been brought up, refuted or agreed with in pretty much every daily "Is Dany a terrible ruler or would she be an even worse ruler if (fill in the blank) happened?" -thread on this forum. I just don't get people's motivation for regurgitating these threads every day as if there's some new information that will finally convince people that their side is right.

The Dany detractors will agree with it and the Dany fans wont. It all comes down to interpretation of her actions and a bit of guessing when we have to fill the gaps since we are not given the full information in the text. And this is always coloured by personal bias and wether you like Dany as a character or not.

So the question is rather what do you personally believe?

Do you think Dany keeps up slave labour when it suits her need?

IMO Dany very consistently tries to stop slavery whenever she has enough power to do so. The infamous ditch digger very likely gets paid in food and shelter and even though he hates his work he probably doesn't have to fear any mistreatment like an actual slave would. And as a free man he has the chance to try and find something that suits him better eventually. People who try to paint Dany as a slaver are grasping at straws if you ask me. Old Nan and Hodor probably have similar food-and-shelter arrangements with the Starks and nobody goes all 'OMG! the Starks are slavers who are exploiting the old and the feeble-minded!'. Osha having to work in the kitchen while being a prisoner at WF is even more questionable but since she was part of a group of Wildlings who were trying to harm/kill Bran it's also understandable.

And under Dany's rule in Meereen slavery is a crime punishable with being sent to the fighting pits. Do you really think the Meereenese nobles would just put up with such a blatant hypocrisy if they are being punished for a practice that Dany herself continues whenever it suits her? Which leads us to the next question:

Do you believe all her enemies are moustache swirling, one-dimensional, idiotic cartoon villains?

For me one theme in Dany’s arc is that she doesn’t know who she can trust, see Quaithe’s warnings, Jorah’s betrayal and the fact that she knows even her most trusted advisers like Ser Barristan or Missandei only for about a year. With that in mind MMD, Xaro, and possibly Hizdahr, the Green Grace or the Shavepate are pretty formidable enemies.

Do you think it likely that she just crucified random people without checking up who they actually are? We don't get to read about any trials in the books but since her goal was to show that the life of every one of the 163 crucified slaves is worth just as much as a slaver's life to me it seems pretty obvious that she would at least have gotten enough info about them as to avoid crucifying slaves dressed up in tokars by their masters.

Do you think Dany is systematically torturing people? Do you think Quentin's description of Astapor as the closest thing to hell is to be taken at face value or is that just the opinion of a sheltered Dornish Prince who has never seen, say, the devastation in the Riverlands? Do you think Dany had any power to tell Drogo what to do and that therefore she bears responsibility for his khalasaar's raping and pillaging?

And maybe most importantly can you understand why Dany felt compelled to free the slaves in Astapor and the rest of SB without having the ultimate plan of where to go from there or would you've rather she accepted that the task of abolishing slavery was probably too big for her and have her leave for Westeros?

The way I see it you can only fully agree with any of the arguments in the OP if you believe that Dany is stupid, completely incompetent, mad, evil and extremely hypocritical and opportunistic (I mean 'she only decided that slavery was bad again when she couldn't pay for the army in Astapor'? Seriously? I really can't believe that anyone could honestly interpret the Astapor chapter that way).

The way I see it Dany is still inexperienced and inconsistent in her ruling. She needs to control and channel her emotions (I understand where she was coming from in Astapor but she went too far in her anger about the evil she saw there and turned dark herself to fight it).

But she is willing to learn from her mistakes and overall tries to make level-headed decisions with the well-being of the majority of her people in mind. All the mistakes she made previously are now coming back to her (that's why her 'victories' were so 'easy' before, because if you really look at it they were no true victories at all). Qarth has declared war, Astapor turned into a failure, the Yunkaii are right outside her gates and the Sons of the Harpy are inside the city walls.

And her people are dying, which leads to her critics pointing at all those people that are dying for Dany's mistakes and the lessons she needs to learn. But what gets mentioned a lot less is that she still has the support of all those people she freed and who are now dying for her. So as long as they are willing to pay this price for their chance at freedom who am I to argue with that? It wasn't as if someone else was just waiting in the wings with a perfect plan to end slavery peacefully and without economic breakdown and Dany came rushing in and ruined this better thought-out opportunity. The former slaves probably see this as their first real shot at freedom in centuries and for themselves and their decendants they are willing to make sacrifices for it.

I also think it's possible and even likely that some of the ex-slaves will eventually turn on Dany because the sacrifices they have to make will become just too much to bear but so far it hasn't happened. I guess it'll also very much depend on the outcome of the Battle of Meereen.

Lol, I applaud you for plugging this in every thread but from following the Dany discussions on here I kind of get the feeling that most people are already pretty set in their opinions. But for what it's worth I think it is a very plausible theory. When I read Dance myself I directly suspected the Green Grace and didn't even consider the Shavepate but as a fan of Martin's writing I would really like it if the less obvious theory turns out to be true.

:bowdown: This soooo much.

Well, the rebuttal would be that maybe that's the point-- as in, it shows she's not a ruler but something closer to a revolutionary. I mean, it's not just her performance, but also her own thoughts about ruling that would lend credence to that-- she doesn't like ruling and even wants to turn it over to someone else.

So I suppose the rebuttal to the ultimate point of the essay would be to ask if Dany channeled her power to destroy toward something noxious that we're actually invested in overcoming-- be it as a champion of the smallfolk, which erodes the existing power order, or leading a battle against wights-- if we'd feel similarly about her potentially deleterious effect in Westeros. As in, I don't think she's looking to rule, but to apply her "destructive" powers to a cause-- like a revolutionary. Does that change how we'd see her? (It does change it for me, and where I'd put the emphasis on her ruling failures. I mean, you use a different rubric when you analyze a revolutionary versus a ruler.)

Exactly, I for one believe Dany will give up her quest for the throne before the end of the story. As I've seen other people on the forum put it (Dany Reread), she only wants it as far is it being her duty, thats why she still calls Viserys King.

It's interesting that GRRM said her historic parallel is Joan d'Arc and Joan wasn't a ruler she was more of a revolutionary.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

:bowdown: This soooo much.

Exactly, I for one believe Dany will give up her quest for the throne before the end of the story. As I've seen other people on the forum put it (Dany Reread), she only wants it as far is it being her duty, thats why she still calls Viserys King.

It's interesting that GRRM said her historic parallel is Joan d'Arc and Joan wasn't a ruler she was more of a revolutionary.

I love how GRRM never bashes or trashes her. There is so much of it on here, it is nice to see the author disagrees.

[SeanF]

Not so. Dany starved with her people in the Red Waste, remember? She changes her plans because she cannot leave her followers behind, she stays in Meereen because she realises that she needs to sta and try to strengthen the anti-slavery position.

And, as an aside, I think Robb going into battle, like Rhaegar or Robert going into battle is stupid. Kings should not fight because if they fall, their kingdoms fall with them.

There are pros and cons. It can give enormous encouragement to an army to have their king or prince fighting in their ranks, but the army dissolves if he's killed.

[MoIaF]

I love how GRRM never bashes or trashes her. There is so much of it on here, it is nice to see the author disagrees.

Well, she is tied for his second favorite character

(2:18). :D

:bowdown: This soooo much.

Exactly, I for one believe Dany will give up her quest for the throne before the end of the story. As I've seen other people on the forum put it (Dany Reread), she only wants it as far is it being her duty, thats why she still calls Viserys King.

It's interesting that GRRM said her historic parallel is Joan d'Arc and Joan wasn't a ruler she was more of a revolutionary.

GRRM has also compared her to in story character Queen Nymeria. A leader of people.

[SeanF]

Daenerys isn't a leader though. She is a boss. Stannis, Ned, Robb, and Robert were leaders who were down in the dirt and grime with their men. Daenerys sat on a couch while her men fought and died for her. She is like Tywin in that regard.

She walked into the fire. She put her life on the line at Astapor. And, she wanted to take part in the attack on Meereen, but was deterred by her advisers.

[Ziggy Targdust]

She walked into the fire. She put her life on the line at Astapor. And, she wanted to take part in the attack on Meereen, but was deterred by her advisers.

I recall something about her saying that her advisors told her they would never follow a woman into battle

[SeanF]

The only reason the slaves see her as a savior though is because she quite literally, saved them. I don't think that necessarily makes her a great leader. She also doesn't have any particular great charisma. It's easy to lead people through a desert when the way back will most likely get them killed, it's easy to lead slaves when all they've ever known is bondage, it's easy to lead people like Jorah and Barristan whom can never go home except at the vanguard of a conquering army. She's just gathered this cluster of desperate people through circumstance and luck. Without the dragons she'd be just another Westerosi exile, no army, no money, no nothing.

I think there's little doubt about her charisma. Charismatic leadership typically involves people being persuaded to alter their way of thinking not because they're intellectually persuaded to do so, but out of blind trust in their charismatic leader.

So, she can persuade the three bloodriders to swear an oath of allegiance to her as a female ruler. Or slaves, to revolt in her favour.

[OldGimletEye]

I recall something about her saying that her advisors told her they would never follow a woman into battle

I have to re-read the passage again, but I think it was more of a case that since Dany isn't skilled fighter herself, she would be liability on the battlefield. If that was the case, I think her military advisors gave her the correct advice.

[Stormland's Fury]

I think there's little doubt about her charisma. Charismatic leadership typically involves people being persuaded to alter their way of thinking not because they're intellectually persuaded to do so, but out of blind trust in their charismatic leader.

So, she can persuade the three bloodriders to swear an oath of allegiance to her as a female ruler. Or slaves, to revolt in her favour.

Yes, I agree to a certain degree.

But in the case of the slaves, that was less charisma and more her not being a slaver. I mean if you can choose between someone who punches you in the face and someone who doesn't the choice is pretty clear.

[Audrey Arryn]

Well, she is tied for his second favorite character

(2:18). :D

GRRM has also compared her to in story character Queen Nymeria. A leader of people.

That too, I also see a lot similarities of Moses in her

[Roddy the Ruin]

I have to re-read the passage again, but I think it was more of a case that since Dany isn't skilled fighter herself, she would be liability on the battlefield. If that was the case, I think her military advisors gave her the correct advice.

So? She could have shot them down. She didn't. It isn't a character flaw. There is just a difference between being a leader and being a boss. She is a boss, nothing wrong with that. She just doesn't have the same prestige Robb, Robert, Ned, and Stannis have.

[Audrey Arryn]

So? She could have shot them down. She didn't. It isn't a character flaw. There is just a difference between being a leader and being a boss. She is a boss, nothing wrong with that. She just doesn't have the same prestige Robb, Robert, Ned, and Stannis have.

I dont think leader means fighting on the battle field. Nymeria was a leader but didnt take part in any battles.