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

[SeanF]

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. ;)

Given Martin's political views, it's unlikely he'd want to portray the wholesale eradication of an entire ethnic group as being a positive thing, however dreadful that ethnic group may seem to readers.

[Paeon]

Well as much as you argue about her ability as a ruler, it's clear that it isn't her forte. Instead she is particularly suited to conquering.

I don't have direct quotes as a moment but I thought her POV's foreshadowed her arrival in Westeros as another Aegon I pretty well. I don't think its a coincidence that she has three dragons and is mounted on top of an enormous black dragon which has a knack for sowing destruction and chaos.

IIRC, end of her last POV she was hearing a voice telling her to remember that "dragons plant no trees", and to "remember who you are, remember your words", "Fire and Blood".

Her story arc seems like it will have a whole lot of "Fire and Blood" in the future. With two books left I don't see how GRRM will be able to include any more "ruling" on her part. Now that she has discarded her "floppy ears", I don't see why she will bother to put them back on.

[Ziggy Targdust]

She says in that same chapter that she took Mereen only because her tribe was starving and she stayed to get a break from nomadic and conquering lifestyle.

I still don't think anything is clearly indicating she is shitty at ruling from a fixed location

[Nictarion]

Given Martin's political views, it's unlikely he'd want to portray the wholesale eradication of an entire ethnic group as being a positive thing, however dreadful that ethnic group may seem to readers.

That was never Dany's intentions though. She spared the entire city of Yunkai, and gave Meereen the chance to surrender. Astapor was a special case because of what she learned about the process of making Unsullied. Even in Astapor she didn't wipe out the entire ethnic group, there were free men left for Cleon to enslave.

[SeanF]

That was never Dany's intentions though. She spared the entire city of Yunkai, and gave Meereen the chance to surrender. Astapor was a special case because of what she learned about the process of making Unsullied. Even in Astapor she didn't wipe out the entire ethnic group, there were free men left for Cleon to enslave.

I was responding to the point upthread that the Ghiscari were portrayed as irredeemably evil, so that readers would welcome their being wiped out.

I think that may well be their fate in TWOW.

[OldGimletEye]

I was responding to the point upthread that the Ghiscari were portrayed as irredeemably evil, so that readers would welcome their being wiped out.

I think that may well be their fate in TWOW.

I think that same person failed to consider this:

Its one thing to say I would like to make a certain group of people better off. Its quite another to say whether one's policies are actually making that group of people better off.

Also, a related question is, how much suffering should I be willing to impose today in order to make tomorrow better for future generations.

Martin, I think, wants us to ask these questions. I don't think he wants us to simply view Dany as the Jesus like liberator of Slaver's Bay. Particularly, after reading, Martin's last interview. Maybe Martin wants to potray Dany as both a hero and villian and leave it to the reader to decide what she is.

[Stormland's Fury]

Martin, I think, wants us to ask these questions. I don't think he wants us to simply view Dany as the Jesus like liberator of Slaver's Bay. Particularly, after reading, Martin's last interview. Maybe Martin wants to potray Dany as both a hero and villian and leave it to the reader to decide what she is.

Exactly, it's more like a "with great power comes great responsibility" kind of thing. She's a pretty grey character if you think about it.

[Ziggy Targdust]

Exactly, it's more like a "with great power comes great responsibility" kind of thing. She's a pretty grey character if you think about it.

Yeh, I'd call her a grey character in a grey series full almost nothing but grey characters.

[Stormland's Fury]

Yeh, I'd call her a grey character in a grey series full almost nothing but grey characters.

Average?

[Ziggy Targdust]

Average?

What do you mean?

[Stormland's Fury]

What do you mean?

It was a joke. I was joking.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I think that same person failed to consider this:

Its one thing to say I would like to make a certain group of people better off. Its quite another to say whether one's policies are actually making that group of people better off.

Also, a related question is, how much suffering should I be willing to impose today in order to make tomorrow better for future generations.

Martin, I think, wants us to ask these questions. I don't think he wants us to simply view Dany as the Jesus like liberator of Slaver's Bay. Particularly, after reading, Martin's last interview. Maybe Martin wants to potray Dany as both a hero and villian and leave it to the reader to decide what she is.

I was responding to the OP, who is the one that called the slavers 'cartoonish bad guys' I meant that if you see the slavers that way, then you should be fine with everything Dany has done. I dont understand the arguments that are made about her being a villain but the people she is fighting are also cartoonish villains, You can't have it both ways is the point I was trying to make.

[Stormland's Fury]

I was responding to the OP, who is the one that called the slavers 'cartoonish bad guys' I meant that if you see the slavers that way, then you should be fine with everything Dany has done. I dont understand the arguments that are made about her being a villain but the people she is fighting are also cartoonish villains, You can't have it both ways is the point I was trying to make.

I agree with you on the first part, but you can fight cartoon villains and still be a villain yourself as long as the innocent population suffers.

[Paeon]

Just thought I would throw this in, from a recent Rolling Stones interview with GRRM posted online yesterday (http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140423)

"Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

In real life, real-life kings had real-life problems to deal with. Just being a good guy was not the answer. You had to make hard, hard decisions. Sometimes what seemed to be a good decision turned around and bit you in the ass; it was the law of unintended consequences. I've tried to get at some of these in my books. My people who are trying to rule don't have an easy time of it. Just having good intentions doesn't make you a wise king."

So we've heard this response from GRRM before, I just wanted to bring it up again because as good as her intentions have been. She has really made a mess of the region like it was explained in the OP. She never really thought out the repercussions of ending slavery, only sought to end it for the sake of doing what is right.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I agree with you on the first part, but you can fight cartoon villains and still be a villain yourself as long as the innocent population suffers.

Well I disagree, but I dont want to get into it.

[Ziggy Targdust]

I hope WoW has a Westeros Lord literally twirl his moustache

[OldGimletEye]

I agree with you on the first part, but you can fight cartoon villains and still be a villain yourself as long as the innocent population suffers.

Yep, absolutely. And its up in the air whether Dany's liberation project will utimately succeed. And there are legitimate questions to ask about whether her methods are appropriate. And whether the suffering inflicted on the slaves has in the end been worth it. I am not one to give much of a shit about the slave masters, generally speaking.

[Jairion Lannister]

Even though the point about the evil cartoon type villains she's come up against is valid, I still don't think it's a great excuse for what's been some of the weakest writing in the whole story. It's hard to even give her credit, without taking morality into consideration, because some of the villains she's come up against have been incredibly dumb to the point where anybody with a brain could out-trick them.

As for her being better as a conqueror than as a ruler, the problem with this is that she's been gifted much of what she needs to conquer. She happens to have three dragons - fairly handy once they start to grow - and was lucky enough to get some very skilled soldiers from Westeros who knew her supposed homeland and give her good advice generally.

[SeanF]

Just thought I would throw this in, from a recent Rolling Stones interview with GRRM posted online yesterday (http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140423)

"Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

In real life, real-life kings had real-life problems to deal with. Just being a good guy was not the answer. You had to make hard, hard decisions. Sometimes what seemed to be a good decision turned around and bit you in the ass; it was the law of unintended consequences. I've tried to get at some of these in my books. My people who are trying to rule don't have an easy time of it. Just having good intentions doesn't make you a wise king."

So we've heard this response from GRRM before, I just wanted to bring it up again because as good as her intentions have been. She has really made a mess of the region like it was explained in the OP. She never really thought out the repercussions of ending slavery, only sought to end it for the sake of doing what is right.

I've always thought that Tolkien was well aware that a ruler had to be more than just a good man. Aragorn was actually very keen to make peace with his enemies, from a position of strength, after becoming king. His verdict in the trial of Beregond was one that combined adhering to the letter of law with compassion and justice.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

I disagree with the OP that Dany's foes are just mustache twirling villains to "lull" the reader into rooting for Dany before she comes to westeros.

Dany has had some foes that have been well written like MMD who is sympathetic and Xaro who seems politically adept. And some people in Meereen.

The reason why the Astapori seem to be prtrayed as black villains / cartoonish comes down to Dany's perspective:

1. Dany is from the free cities so her perspective is based off the free cities (Western culture of this series), their culture living etc. She goes further east and can't relate to these people so obviously it makes sense for there to be a bit of bias in the way she will describe them. Believe it or not I've gone to places in the world where dogs/puppies are eaten as a normal cuisine and the method of slaughter is awful, however its not awful to them so that doesn't make them "cartoonish".
   
2. Secondly Dany has had the experience of being sold as a slave so obviously she is going to paint the slavers as awful people and black villians from her perspective. Just like on the other side the Essosi believe Westerosi are savages
   

I am looking forward to Dany going to Volantis, because she has actually lived there so her perspective won't paint them as black as slaver's bay people. So in a nutshell GRRM is not "making" cartoon villains on purpose he is just making it realistic from the perspective of someone from the west and who has been sold before.