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

[SeanF]

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.

She's also been compared to Hitler.

[mezmerised]

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.

Well, no one ever argued that revolutionaries are always "good", butterbumps said that Dany is good at being a revolutionary (instead of being a ruler) not that being a revolutionary makes her morally good.

But also that she is a revolutionary with humanitarian goals (which would make her a good person), which was when OGE directly compared Dany's bean ditches with Stalin's 5 year plans. Then you clarified by comparing her to Stalin and Castro, because they all oppose classes, are the faces of their movements and ended up ruling.

Then I compared her to Mandela because he opposed apartheid, was the the face of the movement and willingly stepped away from power after his 5 years in office. And I also pointed out that all these comparisons to RL people are ridiculous.

Then you say I don't understand your argument and am too defensive to have an 'objective' discussion about Dany.

[OldGimletEye]

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 am not sure what you are saying here. I am not saying Dany made a bad decision by not taking the field herself. She did actually made a good choice here because she is not a skilled fighter.

[Stormland's Fury]

She's also been compared to Hitler.

Ok, but in what context?

[Roddy the Ruin]

I am not sure what you are saying here. I am not saying Dany made a bad decision by not taking the field herself. She did actually made a good choice here because she is not a skilled fighter.

its more about troop morale then anything. Kings fighting on the field is monumentally stupid. But it raises troop morale and causes them to fight harder. It shows them that their King cares about them enough to fight beside them.

[Stormland's Fury]

Well, no one ever argued that revolutionaries are always "good", butterbumps said that Dany is good at being a revolutionary (instead of being a ruler) not that being a revolutionary makes her morally good.

But also that she is a revolutionary with humanitarian goals (which would make her a good person), which was when OGE directly compared Dany's bean ditches with Stalin's 5 year plans. Then you clarified by comparing her to Stalin and Castro, because they all oppose classes, are the faces of their movements and ended up ruling.

Then I compared her to Mandela because he opposed apartheid, was the the face of the movement and willingly stepped away from power after his 5 years in office. And I also pointed out that all these comparisons to RL people are ridiculous.

Then you say I don't understand your argument and am too defensive to have an 'objective' discussion about Dany.

Yes. Exactly.

And no, you immediately assumed I was bashing Dany when I wasn't even really arguing anything.

[MoIaF]

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.

Dany's most definitely a leader, meaning she is the head of her following which is the very definition of a leader. A boss is basically another employee, if the boss owns the business he'd also be the leader (head) of the company.

From the dictionary:

leader[lee-der] Show IPA

noun

1.

a person or thing that leads.

2.

a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group.

It's Dany who these people are following, they are all dependent on her to lead them and guide them. Fighting doesn't make you a leader.

[Roddy the Ruin]

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

Nymeria is called The Warrior Queen for a reason. She was a warrior.

[OldGimletEye]

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

Well, I think this is right. Some monarchs may choose to "lead from the front", while others may not. While, there are some advantages from "leading from the front", it is not necessarily the case that every monarch has too. In Dany's case, not being a skilled warrior, herself, its best she stays off the battlefield.

[Audrey Arryn]

Nymeria is called The Warrior Queen for a reason. She was a warrior.

GRRM said she didn't take part in the battles he even compared her to Dany.

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

Dany's most definitely a leader, meaning she is the head of her following which is the very definition of a leader. A boss is basically another employee, if the boss owns the business he'd also be the leader (head) of the company.

From the dictionary:

leader[lee-der] Show IPA

noun

1.

a person or thing that leads.

2.

a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group.

It's Dany who these people are following, they are all dependent on her to lead them and guide them. Fighting doesn't make you a leader.

Could we please not become embroiled in yet another long meandering argument based on dictionary definitions? I think you can reasonably infer what Ulysses of the Divide meant by the term "leader". As in a charasmatic, bombastic, from-the-front-lines sort of character seated on a horse at the head of an army vs. a "boss" which brings to mind the idea of someone seated behind a desk delegating tasks and considering reports.

[Roddy the Ruin]

Well, I think this right. Some monarchs may choose to "lead from the front", while others may not. While, there are some advantages from "leading from the front", it necessarily the case that every monarch has too. In Dany's case, not being a skilled warrior, herself, its best she stays off the battlefield.

you are right, it wouldn't be for the best. In fact it would have been monumentally stupid. But as I said, the act of a ruler on the front lines is mainly for troop morale.

[Roddy the Ruin]

Could we please not become mebroiled in yet another long meandering argument based on dictionary definitions. I think you can reasonably infer what Ulysses of the Divide meant by the term "leader". As in a charasmatic, bombastic, from-the-front-lines sort of character seated on a horse at the head of an army vs. a "boss" which brings to mind the idea of someone seated behind a desk delegating tasks and considering reports.

:agree: and I will say again there is nothing wrong with the ladder. In fact it's smarter to be the boss.

[Nictarion]

Nymeria is called The Warrior Queen for a reason. She was a warrior.

You'll get your wish soon enough. Dany will be leading her armies from the back of Drogon like Aegon the Conqueror.

[OldGimletEye]

its more about troop morale then anything. Kings fighting on the field is monumentally stupid. But it raises troop morale and causes them to fight harder. It shows them that their King cares about them enough to fight beside them.

Well, not necessarily. A king might feel that he might be able to make better last minute tactical adjustments by leading from the front. Particularly, if he posses the the coup d'eil. Alexander was famous for his ability to make last minute tactical adjustments based on the terrain and what the enemy was doing.

[Rippounet]

Dany is faced with the problem of any powerful hereditary ruler: "should I attempt to improve the social order when I can?". In Astapor and Mereen, she decided to use her power to start some kind of revolution, but by now she realizes that changes cannot be brought by the mere use of strength.

In a sense, her problem isn't strictly political. It's all about nation-building. She has the power to conquer whole countries, but struggles to understand the concepts of identity or social order.

So far, Astapor has taught her that peoples can't do without a strong hierarchical structure, and Mereen that this power must be seen as legitimate to have an enduring social order.

But in truth, I doubt GRRM wants to teach us politics. This has to do with her actions in the future. Astapor has shown her that a monarch is actually necessary (or a strong executive if you want). In Mereen, she understood the importance of legitimacy. In other words, Astapor has taught her that she has to rule if she can, that this is her duty. Mereen has taught her that she must be accepted both by the people and the nobility to get peace.

It seems to me that all this is supposed to explain why she could oppose any illegitimate ruler. It pushes her to go to Westeros where she is "needed".

But more importantly (to us), it also hints that a Dance of Dragons is perfectly possible. All it would take for her to fight Aegon is a little dwarf whispering in her ear that Aegon is actually fake, and that only a genuine Targaryan can restore order in Westeros. It would help if Aegon turned out to be a bad ruler for some reason...

By now, Dany is a reluctant ruler who despises many things about established social orders. But she's also starting to understand that ruling is being a slave, and that the chains of her duty as the last Targaryan are ones she cannot break. I think the books also show us that she's starting to understands how such responsibility drove Viserys mad.

As I see it, her little escape on Drogo was a way to flee responsibilities she couldn't bear anymore. But this was the last time. Once she returns, she will commit to a course of action. Most likely she will make plans to reach Westeros asap. Of course, she might have to go to Vaes Dothrak and/or Asshai first. So far she has learned a lot about war and politics. She has yet to learn about her role as a spiritual leader. When she arrives in Westeros, she'll probably be hailed as queen of fire and savior of Westeros, for only her fire can save the continent from winter and the Others.

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.

Actually, as grotesque as the slave masters may be, publicy crucifying 163 of them who weren't necessarily connected to the murders of the 163 slaves in the first place isn't exactly justice, but rather a show of blind ruthlessness. Plus, not all slave masters or Mereneese are obviously evil, it seems to me the books make it clear that not all slaves are mistreated. The books also make it clear that manpower is one of the few valuable things to trade in Slaver's Bay and that the cultural and economic background must be taken into account before passing any sort of judgment. Judging too quickly is what gets Dany in such a mess in the first place, and even if we read the story mostly through her POV, we're also supposed to exercise critical distance at this point, which is what this thread is all about.

I don't think many people in ASoIaF are supposed to be seen as "terrible monsters". On the contrary, I think the books show how anyone can do evil under certain circumstances, and how one should not be too quick to decide what constitutes "justice". A central question of the series is how can one be a good ruler/leader. Ned lost his head because he wasn't ruthless enough, but the last Dany chapters are supposed to show us that ruthlessness isn't a solution to everything. This is way more complex then you make it to be, and if you think that the Mereneese are just villains to be wiped out, then you trully know nothing. ;)

[MoIaF]

Could we please not become embroiled in yet another long meandering argument based on dictionary definitions? I think you can reasonably infer what Ulysses of the Divide meant by the term "leader". As in a charasmatic, bombastic, from-the-front-lines sort of character seated on a horse at the head of an army vs. a "boss" which brings to mind the idea of someone seated behind a desk delegating tasks and considering reports.

But she is a leader and that's what I'm trying to get a cross. A boss delegates. yes, however, Dany has actually been the architect of many of the actions we've seen, from Astapor to Yunkai and Meereen.

Commanding the tropes in battle does not make you a leader, what makes you a leader is that you are brains behind the operation, it is your ideas people follow, it YOU the person the LEADER who people follow. People take order from bosses they don't necessarily follow them. You can interchange one boss for another, you can't interchange leaders. There is no one you can interchange Dany with.

:agree: and I will say again there is nothing wrong with the ladder. In fact it's smarter to be the boss.

But your definition is completely incorrect and complete opposite to the nature of Dany's arc and character. You are misunderstanding what Dany is about.

[Stormland's Fury]

You are misunderstanding what Dany is about.

Not necessarily, some things are simply up for interpretation. Doesn't really mean it's bad.

[Roddy the Ruin]

You'll get your wish soon enough. Dany will be leading her armies from the back of Drogon like Aegon the Conqueror.

good. It would be more interesting then her slavers bay arc has been.

[MoIaF]

Not necessarily, some things are simply up for interpretation. Doesn't really mean it's bad.

But this really is not, Dany's arc is about begin a leader since the moment she stepped out of the pyre. I would reiterate what I said above, you can interchange one boss for another, you can't do that with a leader.