Hate for Tyrion & Danaerys?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Ok so here's a question for you guys:

Dany and Jon are both clearly meant to be the main protagonists of the story (along with Tyrion of course)....so why do you guys think GRRM decided to make Dany a greyer character than Jon? I mean its definitely not something that I mind because Dany for me is a more relatable and realistic character than Jon and I love her at least 200x more than Jon. But I still question why he made that decision, I guess part of it has to with the fact that Dany is the Mother of Dragons and he wanted to establish that with dragons also comes destruction. And it is his story and everything so he can do whatever he wants, but I think its something that should be discussed.

So what you're wondering is why GRRM made a character you like less "good" than a character you don't like as much. Or to put it another way, you've already concluded that Dany must be one of the unambiguous "good guys" and as such any depiction of her that contradicts that is problematic, to the point where you question why the author wrote the character that way instead of questioning whether your conclusion might be inaccurate.

I'll toss out the radical possibility that Dany won't end up actually being the heroic figure so many people peg her as, which would explain why the author has made her more gray. (That doesn't preclude her from being a protagonist.) On the flip side, if the author wants to convey that someone like Jon will end up being more classically heroic, that also explains why he'd make Jon less gray.

[butterbumps!]

You're mistaken about the repetitive part. No one had addressed the rationales I stated for Daenerys' additional reasons for acting besides anger. Still, no one has addressed them. That's fine, nobody has to, but I was hoping to discuss them with someone.

Thanks for clearing this all up, and we're totally cool. For the requested clarity, your posts came across like you were seeing me as antagonistic (to both you and I think Dany), and it felt like I was maybe on the receiving end of frustration that might have been misplaced. But I'm not bothered or anything, and let's just go forward.

What I meant about the "repetitive" issue is just that a lot of other posters had given a more correct version of Dany's rationale in the incident, not all in direct response to you (and there was a lot of disagreement being thrown your way on various issues, so I didn't want to compound on that either, because I know how frustrating that can be).

So here's the reasons you gave:

Remember the situation: 9 of her people had been murdered the night before. One of them was a harpist who was the representative of the freedmen on Dany's council, who was tortured before being murdered by having her fingers broken. Another was Missandei's brother. The Harpy's murderers were stepping up their game, hitting big numbers, hitting people close to Dany, and it was very obvious that her entire regime was threatened, as well as everything she had accomplished, including the freeing of the slaves.

The other important point is that the wineseller's shop was her only lead.

It is not politically acceptable in the ASOIAF milieu, for a leader to take no action in response to that. If a leader doesn't show strength, she is branded as weak, and her enemies will be emboldened. "Justified" or not is a question I won't tackle, except in the comparative aspect as I've already done, but if one of the other torturers in the book had a reason that good or better, I'd like to hear about it. Dany had a really good reason, and just once I'd like one of the people who are constantly bringing this up to also explain what she was thinking other than "I am soooo evil!!! (evilgrin)."

If I'm not mistaken, you've given 2 reasons: that the wineseller is her only lead, and because a leader must take action so as not to be considered weak. These aren't the reasons why she does it, though. Yes she's desperate for information so that she can regain control, but she knows the wineseller probably knows nothing, and explicitly calls for torture in a fit of rage:

“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. “A moneylender, a cobbler, and the harpist Rylona Rhee. They cut her fingers off before they killed her.”

The queen flinched. Rylona Rhee had played the harp as sweetly as the Maiden. When she had been a slave in Yunkai, she had played for every highborn family in the city. In Meereen she had become a leader amongst the Yunkish freedmen, their voice in Dany’s councils. “We have no captives but this wineseller?”

“None, this one grieves to confess. We beg your pardon.”

Mercy, thought Dany. They will have the dragon’s mercy. “Skahaz, I have changed my mind. Question the man sharply.”

“I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him.”

“Do as you think best, but bring me names.” Her fury was a fire in her belly. “I will have no more Unsullied slaughtered...."

At first, this is about simply questioning the wineseller, who probably knows nothing about the murders; at this point, it's not about torture, and she's just hoping for info, and is desperate for a different lead since she doesn't think this one is going to know anything. Then news of the beloved Harpist is told. NOW-- after getting pissed off about this-- is when she calls for torture to be used. On a man she thinks probably doesn't know anything anyway. And then she agrees to have the man's daughters tortured in front of him instead at the Shavepate's behest, with "fury [that] was a fire in her belly."

The passage is very explicitly portraying Dany's decision process to be rage (the dragon's mercy; Her fury was a fire in her belly). Dany knows torture is not effective, and she knows that the wineseller won't know anything useful in this instance (that's why she's desperate from someone else). Torture comes into the mix for no reason other than her anger and frustration over the harpist. So from that point forward it's not about intel in order to gain control, but anger.

And to reemphasize the point-- I'm not really sympathetic to this, but I can see how one would be, and morality isn't really the big selling point for me in terms of the characters I like anyway, so pointing this out isn't meant to be some condemnation of Dany.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Thanks for clearing this all up, and we're totally cool. For the requested clarity, your posts came across like you were seeing me as antagonistic (to both you and I think Dany), and it felt like I was maybe on the receiving end of frustration that might have been misplaced. But I'm not bothered or anything, and let's just go forward.

What I meant about the "repetitive" issue is just that a lot of other posters had given a more correct version of Dany's rationale in the incident, not all in direct response to you (and there was a lot of disagreement being thrown your way on various issues, so I didn't want to compound on that either, because I know how frustrating that can be).

So here's the reasons you gave:

If I'm not mistaken, you've given 2 reasons: that the wineseller is her only lead, and because a leader must take action so as not to be considered weak. These aren't the reasons why she does it, though. Yes she's desperate for information so that she can regain control, but she knows the wineseller probably knows nothing, and explicitly calls for torture in a fit of rage:

“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. “A moneylender, a cobbler, and the harpist Rylona Rhee. They cut her fingers off before they killed her.”

The queen flinched. Rylona Rhee had played the harp as sweetly as the Maiden. When she had been a slave in Yunkai, she had played for every highborn family in the city. In Meereen she had become a leader amongst the Yunkish freedmen, their voice in Dany’s councils. “We have no captives but this wineseller?”

“None, this one grieves to confess. We beg your pardon.”

Mercy, thought Dany. They will have the dragon’s mercy. “Skahaz, I have changed my mind. Question the man sharply.”

“I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him.”

“Do as you think best, but bring me names.” Her fury was a fire in her belly. “I will have no more Unsullied slaughtered...."

At first, this is about simply questioning the wineseller, who probably knows nothing about the murders; at this point, it's not about torture, and she's just hoping for info, and is desperate for a different lead since she doesn't think this one is going to know anything. Then news of the beloved Harpist is told. NOW-- after getting pissed off about this-- is when she calls for torture to be used. On a man she thinks probably doesn't know anything anyway. And then she agrees to have the man's daughters tortured in front of him instead at the Shavepate's behest, with "fury [that] was a fire in her belly."

The passage is very explicitly portraying Dany's decision process to be rage (the dragon's mercy; Her fury was a fire in her belly). Dany knows torture is not effective, and she knows that the wineseller won't know anything useful in this instance (that's why she's desperate from someone else). Torture comes into the mix for no reason other than her anger and frustration over the harpist. So from that point forward it's not about intel in order to gain control, but anger.

And to reemphasize the point-- I'm not really sympathetic to this, but I can see how one would be, and morality isn't really the big selling point for me in terms of the characters I like anyway, so pointing this out isn't meant to be some condemnation of Dany.

Oh thank you!

We really aren't that far apart, once we get past the dramatics. I actually agree that Dany has an anger problem. Anger is what made her change her mind and her actions in the scene you've quoted from, and it's always anger that makes her do questionable things. I only differ with you on one thing: I wouldn't say she "knows" torture is not effective, it's that she "thinks" that. Really, you and I don't "know" it, either, it varies from situation to situation. She's desperate and doesn't really have many options, so she grabs at straws. Which I think goes to my theory about how she chooses actions that are arguably justifiable in her milieu when she's angry, actions that she wouldn't otherwise choose, but that never take her completely off the rails. To put it another way, when she's angry she imitates a mode of lordship she is familiar with: ASOIAF fear-instilling ruler mode a la most of the rulers we've seen. It's not her normal mode, and it's problematic, but it's not really pitching a hissy.

Morality isn't where I start for character appreciation, either; it's not really all that strong a determinant, other things are, and to the extent it is one, I prefer 'em mixed. I find myself defending Dany's morality pretty frequently under what I perceive as unfair attacks, and I actually think she is pretty high-principled, but that's not why I like her so much. I find her rags-to-riches story so compelling, I enjoy her intelligence and urbanity . . . and dragons. She's definitely one of my favorites.

As far as sympathy for the wineseller's daughters actions? I'm more sympathetic with this than with MMD or the 163, but that's because the (apparent) need for this action seems more palpable to me. Even here, I'm at best borderline on accepting/rejecting it, as opposed to definitely disapproving of the other two, but I find all of them understandable and forgivable. I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to fictional characters.

[Dicer]

I only differ with you on one thing: I wouldn't say she "knows" torture is not effective, it's that she "thinks" that. Really, you and I don't "know" it, either, it varies from situation to situation.

I am not so sure of this. The characters in Essos seem to know that torture does not work (Maybe reflecting GRRM's liberal background)

“Can you?” Dany studied his eyes. “Why should the Sons of the Harpy lay down their knives for you? Are you one of them?”

“No.”

“Would you tell me if you were?”

He laughed. “No.”

“The Shavepate has ways of finding the truth.”

“I do not doubt that Skahaz would soon have me confessing. A day with him, and I will be one of the Harpy’s Sons. Two days, and I will be the Harpy. Three, and it will turn out I slew your father too, back in the Sunset Kingdoms when I was yet a boy. Then he will impale me on a stake and you can watch me die … "

[butterbumps!]

Oh thank you!

We really aren't that far apart, once we get past the dramatics. I actually agree that Dany has an anger problem. Anger is what made her change her mind and her actions in the scene you've quoted from, and it's always anger that makes her do questionable things. I only differ with you on one thing: I wouldn't say she "knows" torture is not effective, it's that she "thinks" that. Really, you and I don't "know" it, either, it varies from situation to situation. She's desperate and doesn't really have many options, so she grabs at straws. Which I think goes to my theory about how she chooses actions that are arguably justifiable in her milieu when she's angry, actions that she wouldn't otherwise choose, but that never take her completely off the rails. To put it another way, when she's angry she imitates a mode of lordship she is familiar with: ASOIAF fear-instilling ruler mode a la most of the rulers we've seen. It's not her normal mode, and it's problematic, but it's not really pitching a hissy.

Morality isn't where I start for character appreciation, either; it's not really all that strong a determinant, other things are, and to the extent it is one, I prefer 'em mixed. I find myself defending Dany's morality pretty frequently under what I perceive as unfair attacks, and I actually think she is pretty high-principled, but that's not why I like her so much. I find her rags-to-riches story so compelling, I enjoy her intelligence and urbanity . . . and dragons. She's definitely one of my favorites.

As far as sympathy for the wineseller's daughters actions? I'm more sympathetic with this than with MMD or the 163, but that's because the (apparent) need for this action seems more palpable to me. Even here, I'm at best borderline on accepting/rejecting it, as opposed to definitely disapproving of the other two, but I find all of them understandable and forgivable. I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to fictional characters.

I don't think I take much issue with changing "knows" to "thinks" on this, though I was thinking of the passage Dicer quoted, as well as what I think Martin believes of torture more generally.

I'm still not sure if "justifiable" is a good term to use, though. I think it's understandable, and I think we can look forgivably at this, but "justifiability" implies a sense of rightness that I find problematic. You asked earlier for other examples of "justifiable" torture. Mel is looking to sacrifice babies/ children via fire (so torture isn't the purpose, but the method of sacrifice) in order to save the world from destruction (from her view). This is a case where someone isn't even seeking torture on its own, just an excruciating method of death in order to save humanity; it's one of the major "ends justify means, maximizing utility" debates we see in the book. And even in this instance, I would not call it "justifiable" (it crosses my line). Logical, understandable, sympathetic, misguided, and not-evil-just- wrong are the ways I'd look at this. I think that that example is more arguable than the Dany cases, because with Mel, the intention sparks a debate about ends/ means and utilitarian ethics, whereas it doesn't with Dany, especially wrt the harpist, and even in Mel's case, I still find it immoral to torturously kill an innocent even if the result is great good for a large number (but a firm utilitarian would likely disagree with me).

I don't think Dany believes she's right about ordering the torture like this. There isn't an end she believes these means will accomplish. She was merely going to have the man questioned, sans torture, prior to getting angry about the harpist. The harpist's death turned her vindictive toward people she knows to be innocent and futile leads.

For full disclosure, I have trouble sympathizing with Dany in general. The morality isn't the issue I have, though. I think I lean toward the characters that tend to be rational, collected, cynical, or intellectual over emotional (and/ or hilarious in my view). I'm also a bigger fan of the non-fire stuff, and don't like the dragons. But when I abstract all of it out, that's where I like Dany/ what she stands for-- that is, I don't really like the particulars of Dany or the fire side, but when I look at her arc as one of a revolutionary and agent of change, I actually prefer that side to the the static status-quo preservationists that "ice" symbolizes.

Ok so here's a question for you guys:

Dany and Jon are both clearly meant to be the main protagonists of the story (along with Tyrion of course)....so why do you guys think GRRM decided to make Dany a greyer character than Jon? I mean its definitely not something that I mind because Dany for me is a more relatable and realistic character than Jon and I love her at least 200x more than Jon. But I still question why he made that decision, I guess part of it has to with the fact that Dany is the Mother of Dragons and he wanted to establish that with dragons also comes destruction. And it is his story and everything so he can do whatever he wants, but I think its something that should be discussed.

I think this is a good question. To start, I'm not so certain that Jon won't become greyer as his power increases. That's been one major difference between Dany and Jon-- Dany has a great deal more power over a greater number of people than Jon has had. As Jon increases his authority moving forward, and thereby becomes more responsible for a larger number of people, will his decisions come across more ambiguously? Will he end up taking the "ends justify means" approach he's avoided to this point? Finding a "third path" is one of the hallmarks of Jon's arc-- that is, he tends to look for an alternate route when the choice appears to be a dichotomy between 2 terrible options. Does that continue in the same way?

I think there's other issues with this as well, though. The first book is bookended by the apparent big bads (the Others in the Prologue), and their apparent solution (Dany and her dragons in the last chapter). While the Others have continued to remain shrouded in mystery, the idea of dragons and Dany as the ultimate savior has been challenged in the subsequent books. I mean, Dany and dragons are set up to appear like the ultimate panacea for the world's problems at the outset, but upon seeing Dany's greyness and further elaboration of dragons and the fire side generally (as well as the introduction of other more balanced strains of thought like the Faceless and CotF), it establishes that this is no simple elemental battle whereby fire should triumph over ice, nor that a single person can be the ultimate savior of the world's ills.

I think Jon comes across to us with fairly little friction because he's the one straddling both sides of the equation. Jon's not Dany's opposite; Stannis is the current character who stands opposite to her (he more or less represents the status quo ice preservationist side), and he's no less controversial than she is. So I think the issue might be that Dany is designed to represent one of the extremes, which is at first depicted in a way that makes her seem like the clear hero, but then the idea of any extreme being inherently good is deconstructed. Jon's one of the "reformers," whereas Dany is a "revolutionary" and Stannis would be a "preservationist," so I think that positions Jon in a way that makes it easier for us to agree with.

But I think a lot of Jon fans underestimate how necessary someone like Dany is to make reform happen at all. What Jon needed was the sort of power Dany had to knock down the decay at the Wall and rewrite the rules; he tried reforming without having the sort of power to make a clean slate the way Dany could (and she, herself, was afraid to go all the way, despite having said power to do so), and building on rotted foundations just doesn't work.

[Davrum]

Yet, not all of us are as horrified as others. Does this mean that a person who doesn't find something that others classify as "awful" that someone else does, is immoral? It's a fantasy, set in a different world. Can you see it from the character's perspective, rather then yours? Can you put yourself in THAT world, rather then yours? Can you take yourself out of the equation?

...

I think for plenty who judge more harshly it's not that they're failing to see the points of view of the main characters, it's that in addition to considering the main characters they're taking in a wider view of the world by also factoring in the points of view of their victims. That's why it's possible that judging the likes of Tyrion based on how poorly he has treated other people in THAT world actually shows a deeper engagement with THAT world than simply looking at it from Tyrion's perspective does. The simplistic (aka "vacation"?) way to engage with the story is to read a characters point-of-view chapters considering only that character's perspective. Other readers engage on a deeper level.

This is the point of fantasy and science fiction for me. To engage with human stories in which the humans are placed in circumstances unlike those of the real world, but in which they are still humans. The most invigourating genre fiction isn't simply a vacation or an escape, it's also an opportunity to reflect on how people behave in our own world by considering how they behave in others.