Hate for Tyrion & Danaerys?

[LordStoneheart]

IMO, people have the right to rule, when the people they want to rule over mostly agree with it (like Robb Stark as King in the North), but Dany's mixing of different legitimations is a bit off-putting for me.

Yet not many supported Stannis when he called for it, so he's still working under similar premises as Dany.

[The Mother of The Others]

Both groups (the haters and the non-haters) are missing out on something. The Buddha would ask why you feel you must hate a character simply because they're hatable. There's no requirement to hate the hatable. That's a choice, and you're making the predictable decision, which is boring. But if you refuse to hate a character who maybe deserves it, that's an opportunity you're not taking advantage of. Which leaves you incomplete.

[SeanF]

I think Stannis is a lot more consistent in his perception of his right to rule than Dany. Stannis thinks, that with Robert's Rebellion and all lords swearing fealty to Robert the ruling family changed from Targaryen to Baratheon. Since Cersei's children are bastards (for which IMO his proof is enough) he is the rightful heir of Robert and therefore the rightful ruler of the 7k.

Dany has a lot more inconsistencies in her legitimation as a ruler:

From the perception of him and her brother it is logical to say, that the Robert usurped the throne (even though all the lords swore fealty to him) and that Viserys is the rightful king.

But after she married Drogo and talked to Jorah, she somehow starts to think about when (not if!) her son will be king, which to me implies that she was planning on usurping her brother's rule (which would be fairly easy, given how she had all the manpower of Drogo). After her brother died and she became the rightful ruler of the Targaryen dynasty, having the rightful claim somehow became the only possible legitimation.

It got even more absurd, when she ruled Meereen by right of conquest, but at the same time thought herself as the rightful ruler of Westeros, since she had inherited it legally.

Assuming Rhaego had been born, he would have become Viserys' heir to the Iron Throne.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Assuming Rhaego had been born, he would have become Viserys' heir to the Iron Throne.

It's sweet of you to give her the benefit of the doubt, but wouldn't the logical extension of Viserys being the king be Viserys marrying someone and producing an heir, the way most kings are wont to do? Rhaego would be Viserys's heir until he had a son, sure. Still doesn't explain how Dany got from "if" to "when."

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Both groups (the haters and the non-haters) are missing out on something. The Buddha would ask why you feel you must hate a character simply because they're hatable. There's no requirement to hate the hatable. That's a choice, and you're making the predictable decision, which is boring. But if you refuse to hate a character who maybe deserves it, that's an opportunity you're not taking advantage of. Which leaves you incomplete.

If by Buddha you mean GRRM, I kinda agree.

He WANTS us to hate Tyrion in Dance. And mostly readers do.

[SeanF]

It's sweet of you to give her the benefit of the doubt, but wouldn't the logical extension of Viserys being the king be Viserys marrying someone and producing an heir, the way most kings are wont to do? Rhaego would be Viserys's heir until he had a son, sure. Still doesn't explain how Dany got from "if" to "when."

There's a general sense in her first chapters that Viserys is hurtling to his ruin. I don't think she was planning to destroy him.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

There's a general sense in her first chapters that Viserys is hurtling to his ruin. I don't think she was planning to destroy him.

I guess we'll never know. I do believe that thinking of "when" your own kid sits on the throne at the expense of your brother's line comes across as a dig, regardless of your opinion of said brother, especially when he's still technically your king.

I would love to see Westeros's reaction to Dany giving Rhaego bloodriders that would take precedence over the Kingsguard. People flipped shit when Daeron II's court had a Dornish feel, what would they do if the Red Keep was turned into Vaes Dothrak West?

[Hodor's Dragon]

I think Stannis is a lot more consistent in his perception of his right to rule than Dany. Stannis thinks, that with Robert's Rebellion and all lords swearing fealty to Robert the ruling family changed from Targaryen to Baratheon. Since Cersei's children are bastards (for which IMO his proof is enough) he is the rightful heir of Robert and therefore the rightful ruler of the 7k.

Dany has a lot more inconsistencies in her legitimation as a ruler:

From the perception of him and her brother it is logical to say, that the Robert usurped the throne (even though all the lords swore fealty to him) and that Viserys is the rightful king.

But after she married Drogo and talked to Jorah, she somehow starts to think about when (not if!) her son will be king, which to me implies that she was planning on usurping her brother's rule (which would be fairly easy, given how she had all the manpower of Drogo). After her brother died and she became the rightful ruler of the Targaryen dynasty, having the rightful claim somehow became the only possible legitimation.

It got even more absurd, when she ruled Meereen by right of conquest, but at the same time thought herself as the rightful ruler of Westeros, since she had inherited it legally.

I bolded the weak part of your argument. Stannis' only evidence is apparently the kids' appearance and hair color, or at least that's all we see that Ned has to go on from following the Jon Arryn-Stannis investigation, and it's all we ever hear about in the books. Stannis doesn't get to hear about Ned's conversation with Cersei, nor does anybody else. In common law, upon which Westeros law is loosely based, appearance and hair color is way insufficient to prove lack of paternity.

Nobody ever says the kids are the spitting image of dear old Uncle Dad. They're just blond instead of black-haired.

[Hodor's Dragon]

It's sweet of you to give her the benefit of the doubt, but wouldn't the logical extension of Viserys being the king be Viserys marrying someone and producing an heir, the way most kings are wont to do? Rhaego would be Viserys's heir until he had a son, sure. Still doesn't explain how Dany got from "if" to "when."

I see it as just a passing thought, and a very natural one for a mother. Viserys doesn't have an heir of his own and isn't close to having one. She is preparing to raise her son as a king; it's her duty to do so, as he will be a crown prince at birth. I don't think you're really in the mindset for raising your son as a king if a thought about what he would do when he rules never crosses your mind.

If having a thought about your son as king cross your mind is disloyal, I dare say there aren't many loyal moms in Dany's position as an expectant mother and a brother to an unwed king.

[SeanF]

I guess we'll never know. I do believe that thinking of "when" your own kid sits on the throne at the expense of your brother's line comes across as a dig, regardless of your opinion of said brother, especially when he's still technically your king.

I would love to see Westeros's reaction to Dany giving Rhaego bloodriders that would take precedence over the Kingsguard. People flipped shit when Daeron II's

court had a Dornish feel, what would they do if the Red Keep was turned into Vaes Dothrak West?

Whatever her other faults, Dany displayed the patience of a saint towards her brother. She did all she could to save him from himself.

[Mithras]

It's sweet of you to give her the benefit of the doubt, but wouldn't the logical extension of Viserys being the king be Viserys marrying someone and producing an heir, the way most kings are wont to do? Rhaego would be Viserys's heir until he had a son, sure. Still doesn't explain how Dany got from "if" to "when."

Maybe when she saw a dream in which she was being beaten by Viserys and then she gave birth to a dragon that burned Viserys, that dragon being herself, a hatched dragon like Egg.

Viserys bristled. “Guard your tongue, Mormont, or I’ll have it out. I am no lesser man, I am the rightful Lord of the Seven Kingdoms. The dragon does not beg.”

Ser Jorah lowered his eyes respectfully. Illyrio smiled enigmatically and tore a wing from the duck. Honey and grease ran over his fingers and dripped down into his beard as he nibbled at the tender meat. There are no more dragons, Dany thought, staring at her brother, though she did not dare say it aloud.

Yet that night she dreamt of one. Viserys was hitting her, hurting her. She was naked, clumsy with fear. She ran from him, but her body seemed thick and ungainly. He struck her again. She stumbled and fell. “You woke the dragon,” he screamed as he kicked her. “You woke the dragon, you woke the dragon.” Her thighs were slick with blood. She closed her eyes and whimpered. As if in answer, there was a hideous lipping sound and the crackling of some great fire. When she looked again, Viserys was gone, great columns of flame rose all around, and in the midst of them was the dragon. It turned its great head slowly. When its molten eyes found hers, she woke, shaking and covered with a fine sheen of sweat. She had never been so afraid…

It's easy to judge a character when such character is at his/her lowest. In the same way it's easy to judge a person who is in his/her lowest. I think that's GRRM's finest laugh: it's not about what the characters do, it's how we REACT to them. Hating Tyrion in Dance is the obvious feeling we should feel as Martin has done everything for us to do it. I suppose we shouldn't.

I had a relative who was very abusive, and directed many of his anger towards me. I was going through a hard situation because of that and I wished him dead many times. I even elaborated scenarios in my head in which I could get him killed without being discovered. When this person finally died (not by me, obviously. He got sick), we ended up in good terms and I cried him and felt bad for not being able to be close to him when it happened. I would even say I miss him and I believe that, whoever he is, he takes cares of me as he never did that while alive.

My point is that many would judge me as a monster for wishing someone to be dead or doing bad things when I was in my lowest. Because that's very easy. Tyrion had been bullied and mistreated all his life. And confuse "justification" with "explanations" is also easy. Tyrion, despite being "allowed to live" by Tywin, never had the same chances any other highborn had. Yes, he had food, clothes, money. But when that comes with a sense of "be grateful we didn't kill you", it's a very bitter taste to swallow and sometimes, one would wish not to do it. A friend of mine got pregnant very young and her family was "kind enough" to not throw her away, and for every meal, they acted like she should be grateful and owe them everything. At the end, she ran away because she couldn't handle. Tyrion didn't "run away" because he couldn't. We're not talking about a person of normal height that could even end up working in a tavern to live. He had no chances but to accept whatever Tywin wanted to give him and be grateful, even if there was a mean intention behind. And then, he cracked when they tried to kill him for something he didn't commit, and indeed, he was in trial for being a dwarf, as he had been all his life. I agree with Stannis that a good deed doesn't wash away the bad one, but is not like Tyrion decided to be down because he liked and enjoyed cruelty. He hated himself in Dance and I can understand why. He will get better, I suppose, and I'm hoping to see him improve.

I can only :bowdown:

But still, I don't think he will get better. Some characters of George are passing across the boundary between good and bad (assuming that there is a visible boundary like that). There are few people who are truly "monsters" and born as such. Majority of the bad people turn bad because shit happens. I think Tyrion and Dany will face far worse shit than they have ever imagined. This time they will be dealing with the devil itself (Varys).

Small wonder though that the OP is baffled as to where criticism of Dany and Tyrion comes from if they genuinely don't recall Dany committing torture and Tyrion committing rape.

Very true. If people do not realize that Dany crucified and tortured some people who were most probably innocents, they can never understand criticisim to Dany and call it "Dany-hate". TBH, it is not easy to realize those at first glance because we are in Dany's POV and Dany would not do those kinds of things knowingly.

[Mikkel]

I bolded the weak part of your argument. Stannis' only evidence is apparently the kids' appearance and hair color, or at least that's all we see that Ned has to go on from following the Jon Arryn-Stannis investigation, and it's all we ever hear about in the books. Stannis doesn't get to hear about Ned's conversation with Cersei, nor does anybody else. In common law, upon which Westeros law is loosely based, appearance and hair color is way insufficient to prove lack of paternity.

Nobody ever says the kids are the spitting image of dear old Uncle Dad. They're just blond instead of black-haired.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that he's actually right about it. The kids are Cersei and Jaime's bastards, so even if a (valid) argument can be made that the evidence is scanty, it doesn't change the fact that Ned, Stannis and Jon Arryn all arrived at the right conclusion based on this evidence, and some follow-up investigation. As Stannis and Jon Arryn's investigation takes place before the beginning of the narrative, we don't get the details, but we do see Ned following in their footsteps, so we have some idea of what they found out - and it was enough to convince them.

As a trial is never going to decide the matter, just what level of empirical proof can be found isn't likely to matter any more (just as well since there's probably nothing to be had). I understand that it can seem like quite a leap to go into full rebellion mode from this little evidence, and yet it's objectively true that Stannis is Robert's true heir.

[Woman of War]

My two cents:I think dislike for certain characters also come from a liking of their antagonists/future antagonists. So, while there are reasons to dislike a character (Don't identify with them, find them boring, find their actions horrible etc.), sometimes the dislike is also because one's own favorite character either opposes the disliked character or the disliked character is treated more favorably by the author as opposed to one's own character.From my time on this forum, this is the trend I have noticed ( Caveat: This does not include all the fans, just some of the vocal ones on this forum). And the following are just my opinions! :Catelyn fans tend to dislike Jon.Jon fans tend to not like Catelyn as much either.Sansa fans tend to dislike Dany, Jon and Tyrion. This seems to mostly be because of the importance these characters get as opposed to Sansa in the series. How dare Jon get Winterfell! It belongs to Sansa! Jon gets everything else. Let Sansa get something too! Tyrion also gets disliked because he forcibly married Sansa, and Dany is diametrically opposite to Sansa in every way and gets more book time and plot armor.Sansa fans tend to dislike Arya and vice versa because both sisters are ideologically pitted against each other.Dany gets a lot of criticism and dislike from Jon and Stannis fans. This is possibly because they are all three possible future antagonists or in the case of Jon and Dany, fighting for the post of AAR, PTWP etc. Also Jon fans want Jon to have Dany’s dragons and Dany fans are like no way!Jon gets disliked by Dany fans. The reason should be obviousStannis is disliked by...I can't think of anyone right now. Maybe by folks who are just fed up with the Stannis the Mannis mannia!Being on this forum has also made me feel differently about some characters, namely Sansa. Where I was indifferent towards her earlier, my time here has made me actively dislike the character. Now, I can’t resist a Sansa thread! I have noticed others feel the same way about characters like Jon, where being on the forum and interacting with Jon fans has made them dislike him as a character.So, many factors other than just the writing for the character itself that may contribute to one’s liking or disliking a character.

:agree:

I can better talk about Tyrion who happens to be my favorite character:

I do not think that everybody hates Tyrion. There is only a very vocal minority in these forums who does, here people tend to "hate".

In order to get closer to Tyrion's character it is imo important to see what his role isn the books is, why Martin gave us precisely this character.

Tyrion as literary invention mirrors the complexity of the books in an exemplary manner:

That famous wedding night chapter is one of the best written in the books, it tells us incredibly much about both characters concerned. And in ADWD Martin had to bring Tyrion down to the bottom of moral and real dirt in order to build up, I guess, the character again. This physical and moral lowlevel intends to show us what could become of any character if the signpost is turned only a little bit, every path is open. Tyrion is not automatically set up as hero, as positive identification character, he does not fulfil our desire to see the good guys win easily, no straight stairway to a positive ending that will inevitably happen. Nothing is given here, neither the dark path nor a turn to light.

I believe many posters relate to Tyrion like disappointed lovers. The opposite of love is not indifference but hatred. So the character has disappointed them big time since he was supposed to be the good guy, someone to root for. And then he turned out to be hard to digest, complex and not the morally superior Uncle Tom cripple readers feel morally entitled to love. No poor downtrodden vertically challenged asexual model handicapped with a heart of gold, in the books to sacrifice himself or to promote the one true hero, stepping back into second row whenever the good guys and girls have to shine. Tyrion bites back and with every fiber of his existence he refuses to be reduced to victim. He on some occasions may even become the victimizer but he fights every single moment, no compliant saint accepting his fate.

No, the character develops a life of its own, does not fulfill expectations anymore. Readers have fallen out of love since they bought a good guy and got a personality with many unexpected layers. That's not what they have emotionally invested in and they feel tricked and betrayed instead of seeing that they got so much more depth and complexity for their emotional investment.

The author very consciously walks the thin line betwen making us like or despise exactly this character, he does that with many other protagonists, leading them into or out of morally conflicting situations to make judgement difficult for us: Dany first of all but as well Theon or Sansa e.g. In Tyrion's case this is even more carefully orchestrated: we have too much pity with the disinherited dwarf? Let him marry Sansa! We are disappointed now? Let him not rape her! He has been sentenced to death? Let him commit double murder! Poor homeless exiled? Let him threaten a slave! Let the rich upperclass brat become a slave himself, he had it coming....etc... There is a deliberate pattern behind this, we are carefully manipulated into an emotional rollercoaster ride with the character Tyrion more than with others.

So it is somewhat pointless to paint Tyrion dark or to wash him white since we are supposed to have very conflicting feelings about that hugely fascinating character even more than about most other characters, Martin wants us to develop strong emotions here. The author has cleverly calculated the emotional swing of some readers, fully knowing what he does and that some more swings will follow.

I personally love Tyrion's ADWD chapters, especially the Rhoyne travels, they remind me of Bruce Chatwin or of travels along ruins of the disappeared Khmer empire on the Mekong river. Like the Dany chapters in Essos have "Kingdom of Heaven" quality, mirroring the cultural clashes and ethical disasters of the crusades, Constantinoples being Mereen.

It is a pity that readers do not have more patience with those quieter travelogues. They are wonderfully written.

Of course readers are entitled to hate the three main characters of a book. I personally do not understand why they continue reading in that case, it has a touch of masochism or of atonement for whatever sin.

Though there are lots of protagonists who are basically morally ambiguous and complex they are still wonderful creations, like Mr. Ripley by Highsmith. I do not waste an emotion like hatred on fictional personalities so of course I never "hated" Ripley but I cringed at reading his stories - and still I rooted for him.

Hating Cat is something I absolutely don't understand. No, she is not a bluescreen character that invites fandom infatuation and shipping, she is adult, edgy and determined (Dany is edgy and determined too, really "unfeminine" attributes that may be unforgivable for those who prefer more traditional female protagonists).

Cat's mistakes would have been my mistakes in that world, she is highly relatable to me.

[Hodor's Dragon]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that he's actually right about it. The kids are Cersei and Jaime's bastards, so even if a (valid) argument can be made that the evidence is scanty, it doesn't change the fact that Ned, Stannis and Jon Arryn all arrived at the right conclusion based on this evidence, and some follow-up investigation. As Stannis and Jon Arryn's investigation takes place before the beginning of the narrative, we don't get the details, but we do see Ned following in their footsteps, so we have some idea of what they found out - and it was enough to convince them.

As a trial is never going to decide the matter, just what level of empirical proof can be found isn't likely to matter any more (just as well since there's probably nothing to be had). I understand that it can seem like quite a leap to go into full rebellion mode from this little evidence, and yet it's objectively true that Stannis is Robert's true heir.

I'm willing to give him and Ned some modicum of justification simply because I have secret knowledge as a reader that they were correct, but I can't say it justifies Stannis in claiming the crown. Unless he's got some kind of evidence that can be presented to the public, then his maneuver is indistinguishable from a mere power grab, and ultimately will be seen as vindication only for the principle that might makes right.

[Winter's Knight]

Which is your prerogative. Doesn't change the fact that people are entitled to read the series for whatever reason or whatever character they damn well please, regardless of whether it meets with your approval or anyone else's. If someone wants to read the series solely to see what happens to Lollys Stokeworth, who are you to stare down your nose at them?

And plenty of readers dislike characters as people but still like to read about them. Theon and Jaime immediately come to mind as examples. Likewise it's possible to like a character as a person but find their chapters plodding (common complaints about Bran and Brienne). I do like to read Tyrion's chapters because he comes across some interesting people (something you also fail to acknowledge, the possibility that supporting players in a POV make reading it worth it even if you dislike the POV character) and because I'm fascinated by his train wreck. I really don't see what's so strange or so baffling about that to warrant such snobbishness on your part.

:agree:

[Woman of War]

....and starting a war, attacking a big city with hundreds of thousands of people for your right to rule......?

Forget it, this is not a Stannis thread. But in every character that has any true importance in the story we will sooner or later find an aspect that may cause hatred in some readers.

[Mikkel]

I'm willing to give him and Ned some modicum of justification simply because I have secret knowledge as a reader that they were correct, but I can't say it justifies Stannis in claiming the crown. Unless he's got some kind of evidence that can be presented to the public, then his maneuver is indistinguishable from a mere power grab, and ultimately will be seen as vindication only for the principle that might makes right.

It would always be seen and marketed as a might-makes-right powergrab by the Lannister faction, and a legitimate rebellion by Stannis' faction and supporters. No amount of evidence is likely to change that fact.

I am curious though - what kind of evidence could there be, short of a public confession by Cersei (which she'd never give unless she had already lost) ?

[Danelle]

Because with so much time between books, people invent their own drama.

:agree:

Tyrion and Dany are two of my favourite characters and even though SOS is my favourite book in the series, I enjoyed reading DWD, especially Dany's chapters.

But DWD wasn't meant to be a book about ongoing adventures, just like the previous books.

Instead, the focus was on the result of their actions. In SOS Dany had a fascinating moment when she said Dracarys and then she just leaves and continues her conquest.

But in DWD we are told what happenned to Astapor after she left, people were so desperate that they disinterred Cleon's body and had his corpse lead the sortie.

Meanwhile Daenerys is desperately trying to establish a fragile peace between the Meereeeneese.

Almost everything about Dany in Meereen is controversial, and the same applies to Tyrion.

Until SOS, they were seeking to find a way to success, recognition, earn admiration and respect.

Dany does manage to become a conqueror and a queen but it is a bitter victory.

Tyrion on the other hand, he is no longer a Hand, Master of Coin, Lannister or even free. By the end of SOS he loses everything, especially after the revelation about Tysha.

Since DWD was the last book that was published, the devastating events that are described have a great effect on how people react to characters. Sometimes the criticisms directed towards Dany and Tyrion, completely neglect their past and what lead them to take those decisions. I am not suggesting that just because they had problems in their lives, all their actions can be forgiven, but it is very difficult for me to regard them as entirely villainous or entirely heroic.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is not a single character in the boks that is entirely innocent or pure and GRRM has often said that he prefers grey characters and that he finds rogues to be fascinating.

[Mithras]

It would always be seen and marketed as a might-makes-right powergrab by the Lannister faction, and a legitimate rebellion by Stannis' faction and supporters. No amount of evidence is likely to change that fact.

I am curious though - what kind of evidence could there be, short of a public confession by Cersei (which she'd never give unless she had already lost) ?

We have a public confession by Ned and we know the truth behind it as readers but ...

[Mithras]

:agree:

Tyrion and Dany are two of my favourite characters and even though SOS is my favourite book in the series, I enjoyed reading DWD, especially Dany's chapters.

But DWD wasn't meant to be a book about ongoing adventures, just like the previous books.

Instead, the focus was on the result of their actions. In SOS Dany had a fascinating moment when she said Dracarys and then she just leaves and continues her conquest.

But in DWD we are told what happenned to Astapor after she left, people were so desperate that they disinterred Cleon's body and had his corpse lead the sortie.

Meanwhile Daenerys is desperately trying to establish a fragile peace between the Meereeeneese.

Almost everything about Dany in Meereen is controversial, and the same applies to Tyrion.

Until SOS, they were seeking to find a way to success, recognition, earn admiration and respect.

Dany does manage to become a conqueror and a queen but it is a bitter victory.

Tyrion on the other hand, he is no longer a Hand, Master of Coin, Lannister or even free. By the end of SOS he loses everything, especially after the revelation about Tysha.

Since DWD was the last book that was published, the devastating events that are described have a great effect on how people react to characters. Sometimes the criticisms directed towards Dany and Tyrion, completely neglect their past and what lead them to take those decisions. I am not suggesting that just because they had problems in their lives, all their actions can be forgiven, but it is very difficult for me to regard them as entirely villainous or entirely heroic.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that there is not a single character in the boks that is entirely innocent or pure and GRRM has often said that he prefers grey characters and that he finds rogues to be fascinating.

Actually, the news of Astapor (and Yunkai where the Wise Masters reinstated slavery again) reached Dany after she took Meereen in ASoS and that was her primary reason to stay and rule Meereen.