The Targaryen Madness Factor/Targaryen Double Standard

[Lord Damian]

Jon has been raised as Ned Stark's bastard son who was loved by all growing up except by Cat Stark and to a lesser hostility but no affection towards him none the less by Sansa. Jon is a good, thoughtful, puting others above his own desires and wants person whereas Dany is the opposite of Jon.

[Northern_Star]

Just wonder, didn't all the reports of Mad Targaryen come from Kings Landing? Maybe it's the Maesters who try to kill them or poison them all the time.

We know that the Maester try to get rid of Magic which means Dragons which means Targaryen.

Wonder if they took Aemon in straight away? Does Anyone know?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I'm going to nitpick because I think the other parts of your post have been covered extensively. To the bolded, but other characters identify themselves according to their House sigils.

Arya - I am a wolf...I need a new pack...my pack is gone...I am wolf

Cersei - I am a lion of Casterly Rock

Tyrion - I am a lion

Tywin - lions do not care what sheep think [i'm not sure if this is show-only]

Robb - young wolf

Just a few I could recall. And that's not counting the number of characters who are fond of reminding everyone of their House words.

Yes it is quite foolish to say that the 'blood of the dragon' kind of statement is unique to House Targaryen. I would ask for anyone to try and name even one house which does not compare themselves to their house sigil at some point. It's not the Targaryens fault that their house sigil is cooler than everyone elses.

Lol, this one's my favorite.

Btw, Jon tried to kill a superior officer over an insult. Dany's "wake the dragon" moments were in reaction to the making of the Unsullied, the 163 dead children, 9 of her men killed in one night, etc.

Lol, It's so stupid. If all those attacks and deaths had happened around any other leader we are familiar with in these books, the punishment/response would have been 100 times worse than what Dany did........yet here we are, again.

He insulted and mocked his dead father. Jon's reaction wasn't smart but it was completely understandable. Using that situation as evidence of any kind of 'madness' is extremely weak.

I agree, just like most of the evidence used against Dany. EXTREMELY WEAK.

Using torture to extract a confession probably *is* socially acceptable to most lords and Kings in this world. A lot of them do it. What would not be socially acceptable (outside Slavers Bay) is using torture for fun.

That's not to say that the reader should be at all happy with it, either in general, or in this particular case.

Cheers, well said! Questioning sharply is undoubtedly the norm in ASOIAF. It is what many many characters use as a means to get answers, should we be appalled form 2014? Sure, if you feel so inclined, just please understand and include all the other characters who are guilty of it, and stop singling Dany out.

But of course... I mean, evil bastard Thorne insulted Ned Stark's memory. I mean, HE INSULTED HIM. WITH WORDS. And called Jon a bastard. WOW... those are Tywin/Ramsay/Roose/Maegor levels of cruelty. Didn't he know he was actually the son of Rhaegar and a untouchable prince? There are 109 threads about it, what's his problem??! Doesn't he read??! Jon was completely right on letting HIS EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS making him go and try to kill. Because when you're insulted, or your father is insulted, then YOUR EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS are ok. to surface. Specially when your dad is dead.

On the other hand, the slavers we're only trying to make Dany understand a peaceful message she didn't want to hear, because she's crazy, stupid and stubborn: "Look, girl. We don't care about your lizards, and we don't care you're some kind of mother. You want children? Well, here you have children, mom dearest. Nailed to a pole". How Dany dared to let HER EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS to go after them and punish them for tainting and mock her, and murder 163 innocent children? Can't bitch have some self-control? it's not like they INSULTED her father WITH WORDS or called her a bastard. Of course, not! she's a woman! always having EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS!! Like, when she wants to punish the Usurper's dogs, who actually rebelled against her father, killed him and got her and her brother exiled despite they were children... she's so wrong for wanting them dead, unlike Jon, who wanted to killed Thorned for INSULT Ned. Perhaps if Robert's Rebellion had been just Ned, Robert and Arryn screaming loudly at Aerys, calling him traitor and calling her, Viserys and Rhaegar bastards, then she would be ok having those FEELINGS.

Because calling your father a traitor and bullying you is definitely worst than killing him or crucifying 163 kids to make fun of you.

Obviously.

Ahahhaaha, love it. The double standard's teeth are really showing in this thread.

[Kyoshi]

Yes it is quite foolish to say that the 'blood of the dragon' kind of statement is unique to House Targaryen. I would ask for anyone to try and name even one house which does not compare themselves to their house sigil at some point. It's not the Targaryens fault that their house sigil is cooler than everyone elses.

Not the Fossoways; I doubt anyone would want to be known as an apple. :)

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Not the Fossoways; I doubt anyone would want to be known as an apple. :)

LOL, they do too though!!

"Aye. My mother was a washerwoman at Cider Hall till one of milord's sons raped her. Makes me sort o' a brown apple Fossoway, the way I see it."

[sj4iy]

Ahahhaaha, love it. The double standard's teeth are really showing in this thread.

Yeah, the double standards are cutting both ways, actually. Dany did things that people would crucify Joffrey or Stannis for doing.

Jon deserved to be punished for his attack on Thorne. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Jon didn't deserve to be punished. But so did Thorne. That's the point. Thorne was just as much in the wrong as Jon was. Both got off lightly because Mormont really wasn't a good LC- but in an efficient organization, Jon would have been punished and so would Thorne.

The wineseller's daughters did nothing to deserve being tortured. Nothing. At all. They were simply the victims of Dany's anger at something completely unrelated. If you want to state that there's a 'double standard', then show me where Jon has innocent people punished because he's angry at something unrelated...because I certainly don't see that anywhere in the text.

Dany isn't crazy. Dany isn't insane. But she has certainly done questionable things, and she has certainly done downright bad things. Saying that she's not insane doesn't make all of her decisions the 'right' decisions. Jon has made questionable decisions and bad decisions, too, but he hasn't had innocent people tortured. Personally, I think Dany is a better person than that...she is kind and could be an excellent ruler one day, but she is undermining her own efforts by lowering herself to the level of those she abhors.

[Nictarion]

Jon has been raised as Ned Stark's bastard son who was loved by all growing up except by Cat Stark and to a lesser hostility but no affection towards him none the less by Sansa. Jon is a good, thoughtful, puting others above his own desires and wants person whereas Dany is the opposite of Jon.

If Dany didn't put others in front of her own desires she would have gone straight to Westeros after Astapor. And she definitely wouldn't have married Hizdahr or ended her relationship with Daario. Dany and Jon are much more alike than some choose to believe. Dany is freeing slaves, Jon is bringing Wildlings into the kingdom. How do you not see the parallel there?

[Mladen]

But of course... I mean, evil bastard Thorne insulted Ned Stark's memory. I mean, HE INSULTED HIM. WITH WORDS. And called Jon a bastard. WOW... those are Tywin/Ramsay/Roose/Maegor levels of cruelty. Didn't he know he was actually the son of Rhaegar and a untouchable prince? There are 109 threads about it, what's his problem??! Doesn't he read??! Jon was completely right on letting HIS EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS making him go and try to kill. Because when you're insulted, or your father is insulted, then YOUR EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS are ok. to surface. Specially when your dad is dead.

On the other hand, the slavers we're only trying to make Dany understand a peaceful message she didn't want to hear, because she's crazy, stupid and stubborn: "Look, girl. We don't care about your lizards, and we don't care you're some kind of mother. You want children? Well, here you have children, mom dearest. Nailed to a pole". How Dany dared to let HER EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS to go after them and punish them for tainting and mock her, and murder 163 innocent children? Can't bitch have some self-control? it's not like they INSULTED her father WITH WORDS or called her a bastard. Of course, not! she's a woman! always having EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS!! Like, when she wants to punish the Usurper's dogs, who actually rebelled against her father, killed him and got her and her brother exiled despite they were children... she's so wrong for wanting them dead, unlike Jon, who wanted to killed Thorned for INSULT Ned. Perhaps if Robert's Rebellion had been just Ned, Robert and Arryn screaming loudly at Aerys, calling him traitor and calling her, Viserys and Rhaegar bastards, then she would be ok having those FEELINGS.

Because calling your father a traitor and bullying you is definitely worst than killing him or crucifying 163 kids to make fun of you.

Obviously.

Hahahahahaha... What a poor attempt of joke... And with no actual meaning, and no understanding of what is being said. Better luck next time... You should try not to make it so forced.

Using torture to extract a confession probably *is* socially acceptable to most lords and Kings in this world. A lot of them do it. What would not be socially acceptable (outside Slavers Bay) is using torture for fun.

That's not to say that the reader should be at all happy with it, either in general, or in this particular case.

For the likes of well, Tywin, Gregor Clegane, Ramsay, Roose, High Septon... That is the company that uses torture to extract confession. So, when you say it is acceptable for Dany, it is... If she finds company with above-mentioned group. I, however, have a higher standards for her.

You've been selectively reading, Apple.

The order was always to question them. She didn't order it after the death of the harpist was mentioned. The order was always there, and it was meant to yield names, something you completely ignore in your posts. I also highlighted the manner of death of the freed people and Unsullied to show that her stance, while abhorrent, was a completely understandable one [there was emotion involved, just as there was in the case of Jon and Thorne the Evil]. It is astounding how blind you choose to be just so you can condemn her.

That is not selective reading. Dany realizes the futility of it the moment she ordered it and she went with it, and guess what, it proved futile. And the ultimate result of all of that is well, catastrophic, since Sons of Harpy are more powerful than ever. We all know how it would have ended if Drogon hadn't come...

[Nictarion]

For the likes of well, Tywin, Gregor Clegane, Ramsay, Roose, High Septon... That is the company that uses torture to extract confession. So, when you say it is acceptable for Dany, it is... If she finds company with above-mentioned group. I, however, have a higher standards for her.

Of course you leave out the other sympathetic characters like Stannis, and Qhorin Halfhand that use torture.

[The Drunkard]

For the likes of well, Tywin, Gregor Clegane, Ramsay, Roose, High Septon... That is the company that uses torture to extract confession. So, when you say it is acceptable for Dany, it is... If she finds company with above-mentioned group. I, however, have a higher standards for her.

I don't know, torture seems pretty common. The BwB keeps people in those cages, Stannis used Suggs, Jon Arryn had Mord, Wyman has that crazy guy who names his tools, the NW tortures captured wildlings. There are probably other cases of leaders being less than humane with their treatment of prisoners. My issue is more with how she decides to make that decision. She goes from 'sweetly' to 'sharply' because some tangentially related news makes her mad. The torture became about sating her anger.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

The wineseller's daughters did nothing to deserve being tortured. Nothing. At all. They were simply the victims of Dany's anger at something completely unrelated. If you want to state that there's a 'double standard', then show me where Jon has innocent people punished because he's angry at something unrelated...because I certainly don't see that anywhere in the text.

I'm sorry, maybe you had an extra chapter in your book that I didn't have. In my copy of DwD we never find out whether or not the wineseller's family did have anything to do with the murders. For you to say that the wineseller did nothing at all with such surety is entirely your own opinion and not based on the text. We know that men were murdered in their store and that Dany took action to find out answers, but that's all we know. If they were involved with the murders or if they were not will remain a mystery forever.

And I am not sure what you mean by 'unrelated' Dany was angry at the death of nine of her people in one night, including the ones who were murdered int he wine shop, that does not sound 'unrelated' to me.

"Have any of the murderers been captured?"

"Your servants have arrested the owner of the wine shop and his daughters. They plead ignorance and beg for mercy."

They all plead ignorance and beg for mercy. "GIve them to the Shavepate. Skahaz, keep each apart from the others and put them to the question."

"It will be done, Your Worship. WOuld you have me question them sweetly or sharply?"

"Sweetly to begin. Hear what tales they tell and what names they give you. It may be they had no part in this." SHe hesitated. "Nine, the noble Reznak said. Who else?"

"Three freedmen, murdered in their homes," the Shavepate said........

As we can see, Dany clearly has ordered him to question them sweetly first, and sharply after/next. She says 'Sweetly to begin' meaning 'don't stay sweet the whole time, only begin sweetly'.....So when she is accused of rapidly changing her mind based on anger, this is obviously incorrect. Yes she was angry at her people being murdered, but the decision was not made rashly as some suggest (also what is a great enough cause to get angry if not the murder of 9 people????, Posters act like Dany was ordering torture over a dropped call). From the beginning of the conversation she wants answers from these people who have been caught, at the scene of the crime with dead bodies. Everything she is doing makes perfect sense given the situation.

[Mladen]

Of course you leave out the other sympathetic characters like Stannis, and Qhorin Halfhand that use torture.

OK, put them also in. What does it change? I see so little difference between Stannis and Dany. Does it change the message? Does it make it OK? Hell no. So, here we go again:

Tywin, Gregor Clegane, Ramsay, Roose, High Septon, Stannis, Cersei Qhorin...

Does it make OK if someone else did it, Dany can do it? Absolutely not.

As I have said, I have higher standards for her.

I don't know, torture seems pretty common. The BwB keeps people in those cages, Stannis used Suggs, Jon Arryn had Mord, Wyman has that crazy guy who names his tools, the NW tortures captured wildlings. There are probably other cases of leaders being less than humane with their treatment of prisoners. My issue is more with how she decides to make that decision. She goes from 'sweetly' to 'sharply' because some tangentially related news makes her mad. The torture became about sating her anger.

Brotherhood's tortures are when they actually find someone guilty. Stannis, yeah, I am not denying it, Mord is more of jailer than torture expert... That still doesn't change the point "If someone does it, can I do it?" The fact someone else did it doesn't make it all right.

[sj4iy]

I'm sorry, maybe you had an extra chapter in your book that I didn't have. In my copy of DwD we never find out whether or not the wineseller's family did have anything to do with the murders. For you to say that the wineseller did nothing at all with such surety is entirely your own opinion and not based on the text. We know that men were murdered in their store and that Dany took action to find out answers, but that's all we know. If they were involved with the murders or if they were not will remain a mystery forever.

And I am not sure what you mean by 'unrelated' Dany was angry at the death of nine of her people in one night, including the ones who were murdered int he wine shop, that does not sound 'unrelated' to me.

"Have any of the murderers been captured?"

"Your servants have arrested the owner of the wine shop and his daughters. They plead ignorance and beg for mercy."

They all plead ignorance and beg for mercy. "GIve them to the Shavepate. Skahaz, keep each apart from the others and put them to the question."

"It will be done, Your Worship. WOuld you have me question them sweetly or sharply?"

"Sweetly to begin. Hear what tales they tell and what names they give you. It may be they had no part in this." SHe hesitated. "Nine, the noble Reznak said. Who else?"

"Three freedmen, murdered in their homes," the Shavepate said........

As we can see, Dany clearly has ordered him to question them sweetly first, and sharply after/next. She says 'Sweetly to begin' meaning 'don't stay sweet the whole time, only begin sweetly'.....So when she is accused of rapidly changing her mind based on anger, this is obviously incorrect. Yes she was angry, but the decision was not made rashly as some suggest. From the beginning of the conversation she wants answers from these people who have been caught, at the scene of the crime with dead bodies. Everything she is doing makes perfect sense given the situation.

She suspects the wineseller. Not his daughters. She orders the daughters tortured to make the wineseller talk. They are innocent. Whether he is innocent isn't the issue...they ARE and they are being used to make their father confess. She changes her mind when she hears about the harpist...which is nothing to do with the wineseller. She doesn't think HE cut off her fingers. So that's what I mean by 'unrelated'. And Dany isn't justified in any way.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

She suspects the wineseller. Not his daughters. She orders the daughters tortured to make the wineseller talk. They are innocent. Whether he is innocent isn't the issue...they ARE and they are being used to make their father confess. She changes her mind when she hears about the harpist...which is nothing to do with the wineseller. She doesn't think HE cut off her fingers. So that's what I mean by 'unrelated'. And Dany isn't justified in any way.

Still just all your own opinions. Please show me evidence from the book that the daughters are proven innocent? They are all three caught at the scene of the crime, there is no way in hell to determine if any of them are guilty or innocent based on the text we are given. You have a biased view on it when you say that they were 100% innocent as we clearly do not have that knowledge. I accept that they could be innocent or they could be guilty, but I also accept that any lord in the same situation would do the same thing to get answers, Dany is no different and should not be treated differently.

[Ingelheim]

Still just all your own opinions. Please show me evidence from the book that the daughters are proven innocent? They are all three caught at the scene of the crime, there is no way in hell to determine if any of them are guilty or innocent based on the text we are given. You have a biased view on it when you say that they were 100% innocent as we clearly do not have that knowledge. I accept that they could be innocent or they could be guilty, but I also accept that any lord in the same situation would do the same thing to get answers, Dany is no different and should not be treated differently.

Well...that's wrong.

[SeanF]

A list of lords who don't employ torture would probably be a good deal shorter than a list of those who do.

Doran is probably one of the most enlightened rulers in Westeros, yet, during Arianne's imprisonment, she thinks she'd almost welcome being put on the rack, or experiencing the touch of hot iron, just so long as she got someone to answer her questions. That implies their use is not unknown in Dorne.

[Ingelheim]

A list of lords who don't employ torture would probably be a good deal shorter than a list of those who do.

Doran is probably one of the most enlightened rulers in Westeros, yet, during Arianne's imprisonment, she thinks she'd almost welcome being put on the rack, or experiencing the touch of hot iron, just so long as she got someone to answer her questions. That implies their use is not unknown in Dorne.

So? I know many different tortures. Hell, I know 100 different ways to torture someone. That doesn't mean I practice it.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Well...that's wrong.

You have anything to back that up?

[Mithras]

No. People like me and Suzanna are not trying to get around it. I am yet to encounter anyone who thinks the torture was justified. We are simly arguing that Dany's crimes are held to a completely different standard than any other character's. By people like you and Apple and many others. People who often cite the torture of the daughters as something to despise and the reason you dislike her with such astonishing passion, yet you turn around and defend Stannis and Victarion and other characters whose actions are just as questionable.

Classical example of ad hominem, as the premise of this thread. Your only problem is why some people criticize Dany but spare other characters of doing the same thing (according to you), which says nothing about those critics. I grew really tired of whenever Dany is criticized, people always bring other characters (Jon, Stannis, Tyrion etc.) into the discussion.

BTW, I remember a lot of posts (though it is hard to find now) in which it is argued that Dany's every action against the slavers were justified because they were slavers (less than human), they had it coming, Dany didnot do enough, she should have killed them all etc. Some people also see the SB as a training ground where Dany is free to mess around to learn ruling and it does not matter if she destroys SB in the process. I also remember very disturbing posts arguing that since the daughters of the wineseller were working in a wine house, they had to be adults (with the implication of whores of course). These are more than "justifications". I call them "feeble whitewashing".

And I will as bold as stating that Danerys is right up there with the greatest Targaryens that ever walked Planetos. As you are fond of taking Tyrion's word as gospel and you idolise Aegon I, I will quote Tyrion in saying Daenerys Targaryen is no maid, however. She is the widow of a Dothraki khal, a mother of dragons and a sacker of cities, Aegon the Conqueror with teats.

Context is your friend. Tyrion never saw Dany. Very little of the news coming from the SB is true. Tyrion was trying to glorify Dany here so that fAegon would consider her not as a meek bride bound to bend knee to him but an unpredictable queen who is not to be relied on. Tyrion was trying to convince fAegon to go to Westeros, not just wait Dany in Volantis or even go to SB for her.

And Dany frees slaves. I know it's not a cause you support given your thread on how this move was a particularly horrendous one, but she frees slaves. In my eyes, and in the eyes of many others (more importantly, the slaves) that is a great deed. One worthy of calling her a true heir of Jaehaerys I. Not just Saint Jon Snow.

Jaehaerys was called the Concilliator because he made peace with the Faith. That is what Jon did in the North as the LC. He made peace between enemy factions. That is why I called him as the true of Jaehaerys I. Dany fucked it up when it came to making peace. That is why she is no way an heir to Jaehaerys the Concilliator.

Fire and Blood is absolute nonsense because it has been reduced to mean something it doesn't mean. This fandom in particular has created a version so twisted and misconstrued that it comes as no surprise that the name Targaryen is often equated to "arrogant, misguided and delusional"...but only when convenient.

Is it because the readers are subjected to "blood of the dragon" shit of Viserys since the beginning and Dany repeats them consistently?

You prove my point, AntZ, in the Tragrayens you like, like Saint Jon Snow, you choose to see the Fire and Blood stripped and watered and speckled with golden dust.

I am quite happy with Jon not bleating those "I am the blood of the dragon" nonsense. If he starts doing that in WoW, I will consider it negatively.

This is not a "Fire and Blood/dragons plant no trees" discussion but my take on the arc of Dany and the context of her last chapter is that she developed a highly flawed vision and Essos will pay the price in millions of corpses. Dragons do plant trees. Ask Aegon the Conqueror. Dany's attempt to plant trees in Meereen ended in a monumental failure and as a result of that, she concluded that the dragons are not supposed to plant trees. That is one sick reasoning. She should have thought that "Dragons should plant trees too, but I failed in that, at least in SB. Now, I should elaborate more on where/how I failed and do a better job next time."

I'm going to skip over this because I don't see the point in arguing Thorne's doucehbaggery and comparing it with the vile nature of the Sons of the Harpy and the absolutely vile ways in which they taunt Dany. Comparing Thorne to them seems, IMHO, so so so wrong. But since he dared taunt Saint Jon Snow, I suppose his crimes seem so so so unforgivable to you, as opposed to the killings of the freed people in Meereen. Yeah, no double standard there.

Tell that to Nictarion and the others who brought it up to throw shit to Jon, which according to them absolves Dany from something. The comprasion really sucks because in that case, Thorne is definitely guilty and Jon only attacked him. In Dany's case, there is no person of absolute guilt. BTW, it is still lousy ad hominem.

I am "shocked" that the only thing you took away from that passage was Dany's oh so obvious idiocy. I bolded another part for you, the one you so conveniently overlooked, where she tells the Shavepate "no more tortures"...in case you choose not to read it. I even made it read in case you miss it, as is often the case with any text supporting Dany's intelligence.

The part I bolded is where you overlook conveniently because it does not portray Dany's decision to give up torture because it is morally wrong or practically useless; but because Dany didnot have the courage to continue with her previous decision. She asked for names and Shavepate brought her lots of them. All of a sudden she didnot feel like she could kill all the Great Masters Shavepate told her, so she produced a feeble reasoning and suddenly realized that tortures are useless. And she didnot even think about why Shakaz brought that names. That is what I call selective reading.

The question isn't whether or not she allowed children to be tortured. As I understand it, the question was whether or not she was a torture enthusiast. Posters like you added the children aspect to make it more despicable. To me it doesn't matter, a person is a person regardless of their age, the torture is despicable either way. I was merely pointing out that your attempts to make it that much more disgusting were unsupported by the text.

...

As to the part you bolded, it is once again a case of you stating opinion as fact. We do not yet know what sort of organisation the Sons of the Harpy is; as such, we cannot state with such (vitriol fueled) passion that anyone who comes to any sort of conclusion is "an utter moron." And behold, she even makes the smart observation that the validity of names given under torture is a questionable one! Oh my, Dany is smart? What a shock this is to me!

I find this text-bigotry hilarious. That is the same line of thought as in the example of Parwan claiming that Dany didnot sack Astapor or no freed men sold themselves to slavery again. His argument was "Hey! We didnot see the bills".

[Suzanna Stormborn]

A list of lords who don't employ torture would probably be a good deal shorter than a list of those who do.

Doran is probably one of the most enlightened rulers in Westeros, yet, during Arianne's imprisonment, she thinks she'd almost welcome being put on the rack, or experiencing the touch of hot iron, just so long as she got someone to answer her questions. That implies their use is not unknown in Dorne.

Exactly. it is the world they live in, Dany is a part of that world, just like all the other characters.