Is it too much of a trope killer for Dany not to rule?

[A spoon of knife and fork]

I'll be forthright and admit that this is *exactly* what I want to happen. But I don't see it happening because I don't think Dany will go that far. I think it would be the perfect ending for Dany's story for her to sacrifice herself to save Westeros, but it seems to be too much of a divergence from the Hero-of-the-entire-series trope to 1. be accomplished and 2. be enjoyed by some.

You might be surprised. Probably half of the most ardent Dany supporters actually think this is what will happen (and we are OK with it).

Also most people round these parts don't think there is one hero of the whole series - and those that do tend to think it is Jon, not Dany.

[239JMFL34109]

Agree to disagree. I don't see any of them as villains. :dunno:

well how do you define a villain? if you go be the oxford dictionary it's "a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot"

i would say they all have evil action or motives that are all important to the plot.

[RobOsevens]

well how do you define a villain? if you go be the oxford dictionary it's "a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot"

i would say they all have evil action or motives that are all important to the plot.

If that is the definition we are going by 90% of the characters are villains

[239JMFL34109]

You might be surprised. Probably half of the most ardent Dany supporters actually think this is what will happen (and we are OK with it).

Also most people round these parts don't think there is one hero of the whole series - and those that do tend to think it is Jon, not Dany.

I always think Jon will be hailed as a hero by others and a monster to himself

[RobOsevens]

I alway think Jon will be hailed as a hero by others and a monster to himself

So is Jon thena villain?

[Nictarion]

well how do you define a villain? if you go be the oxford dictionary it's "a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot"

i would say they all have evil action or motives that are all important to the plot.

How was Dany crucifying slavers, or Tyrion with the prostitute important to the plot?

Tywin's actions were important to the plot. Joffery's actions were important to the plot, same with Walder's, Roose's, etc.

[239JMFL34109]

If that is the definition we are going by 90% of the characters are villains

A hero is a "character who is typically identified with good qualities, and with whom the reader is expected to sympathize."

i think a lot of the same characters would fall in that too. everyone is a hero and a villain in their own story.

[239JMFL34109]

So is Jon thena villain?

no others as in sam and the rest of the world that are not himself not "the others"

[RobOsevens]

How was Dany crucifying slavers, or Tyrion with the prostitute important to the plot?

Its important to their development and changes to their characters that result will affect the plot

[239JMFL34109]

How was Dany crucifying slavers, or Tyrion with the prostitute important to the plot?

Tywin's actions were important to the plot. Joffery's actions were important to the plot, same with Walder's, Roose's, etc.

yeah actually one is part of why the people she sets to rule turn on her and the other is proof of how tyrion has fallen to almost become the monster they always were saying he was in the first place.

[AllOfTheHours]

well how do you define a villain? if you go be the oxford dictionary it's "a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot"

i would say they all have evil action or motives that are all important to the plot.

GRRM is trying to see how far he can push his most likable characters (in the beginning of the series) into evil before people stop defending/idolizing them. Dany, Arya, and Tyrion all start out a likable underdogs, who are brave, loyal, and rather self-effacing. They're heroic and human. And basically everyone loves them.

Then Dany struggles as ruler, letting emotions and poor judgement lead her (and her people) into bloody ruin. Arya has become a cold blooded killer. Tyrion murdered his father and his lover and has rapped at least two women: the prostitute and Tysha for certain, and perhaps the unwilling servant at Illyrio's mance. So are they villains/villainous? Without a shadow of a doubt.

However, they are also human and we have seen their suffering, joy, and vulnerability since GOT and our sympathies/loyalties towards them ask us to turn a blind eye to their proclivities towards murder, torture, and rape. But, of course, we can't! If we hate/condemn Gregor Clegane for being a rapist, we can't give Tyrion a free pass again and again.

So how do we negotiate human nature and the need to survive? How do we understand justice? I can't believe GRRM intends for any of his characters to be heroes anymore, he wants to make them challenging and problematic and force us to face the darkness in their hearts.

I alway think Jon will be hailed as a hero by others and a monster to himself

Yeah. This sounds super likely to me. He will have to make tough choices before the war with the Others is done. He may help save humanity, but will lose more of himself (like when he helped hold the Wall and lost Ygriette in the process).

How was Dany crucifying slavers, or Tyrion with the prostitute important to the plot?

Tywin's actions were important to the plot. Joffery's actions were important to the plot, same with Walder's, Roose's, etc.

Because this is something we can't ignore? Because its evil? Because these moments redefine their characters and how they will impact the plot from not on? What happens if Dany choses an eye-for-an-eye again and tries to kill all the Starks when they resurface? Or what if Tyrion, who now has little respect for other people's humanity, helps Dany retake/rule Westeros? (Tyrion is now a different man than the one who chose not to rape Sansa, even though he had already helped gang rape his first wife previously, he still used to try to be a better man. Now he's not.) I mean, imagine these two ruling the world from KL with dragons? "Fire and Blood" indeed would cover Westeros.

[Harry the Hair]

I believe she will rule something, but I doubt that something will be the 7K.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I guess you think every ruler is a villain then ? Or is Dany worse then most of the ruler/villains already established in the series? Not trolling just want to see more of your reasoning

Please look again at my second example: "Presumably innocent" and "useless" are the keywords. Dany orders the torture simply out of anger, not to achieve anything but to lash out blindly. And it's not even the actual suspect, but his daughters to torture him by proxy. Under-age daughters, children, since they still live with him!

Guess what? The only rulers in the entire series ordering killing or torture for similar reasons are Joffrey and Ramsay. And both actually target adults.

Out of curiosity, do you also expect the Starks to question their claim to Winterfell? The Lannisters, their claim to the Westerlands? Sunspear for the Martells? Stannis to abandon his own fight for the Iron Throne?

Preferably, yes. But since they have inertia on their side or are being pushed back by popular demand, they've got the advantage

It's all fine and good if you consider her a villain over such things, but at least be consistent. Stannis should be a villain in your book as well then. He employs torturers on DS. Suggs even gets off on torturing women ffs.

Daenerys, Tyrion, and Arya are all very grey, but I don't think for one minute he's going to make any of his main characters a "villain".

Stannis employs torturers to torture legally convicted people or enemy spies. Adult ones at that. Rational. Brutal, but somewhat excusable. Same for Qhorin Halfhand.

Suggs definitely is a villain. But even he is better than Dany, because he doesn't condemn anyone to get off on it, he just profits of what is done anyway.

[Valyrian Fork]

I don't think GRRM actually gives much of a shit about whether people think something is a "trope killer" or "shocking" or a "twist" or whatever. He writes the story that comes to him, prunes the garden into a nice shape. Trying to guess the plot by some kind of 11th-dimension chess full of literary psych-outs and reverse psychology is a mook's game.

Pretty much everything that's happened in the books hasn't come as a surprise if you read closely, or go back and reread to pick up the hints and clues. His reputation as a "trope buster" is overrated, too. Killing Ned off in the first book actually isn't any more shocking than the first Star Wars movie when Obi-Wan dies, so that's something that's been established for like what, 35 years now?

The Red Wedding was shocking to people because it's gory and made people who are too trusting of protagonist POVs actually realize that the Starks might not have the inevitable juggernaut path to glory that happens in most other fantasy novels, but it was very well-established beforehand both in terms of clues and the society Martin has set up in Westeros and the characters actions and motivations. I think it's more shocking to people than it should be because, in essense, people raised on a diet of bad Tolkien-derivative fantasy see war as inevitable and almost bloodless, not an active choice with a heavy cost, a series of risks taken. The Good Guys fight back against the Evil Overlord and prevail in a climatic and epic battle because they are the Good Guys, even if one or two minor characters die to evoke some pathos. The fact that people are so hung up on the "tropes" and they're so predictable is just evidence of how bad and juvenile most of the fantasy genre is at heart.

GRRM is only seen as a "trope killer" because he's a good writer, and most of the established tropes are mindless garbage. Basically, he's a historical fiction writer who happens to have created a fantasy world to set his books in, and that's a much different perspective on war and narrative inevitability than typical fantasy.

Whatever happens to Dany is going to be what makes sense to happen to Dany, given the rules of GRRM's world and what he's created of her character. Tropes just don't actually enter into it at all.

I do think it's incredibly unlikely that she's going to give up her throne to lead Westeros to a democratic future after the Others have been dealt with, but not because GRRM's going to be going "hmm, no, the Tropes And Laws Of Fantasy are very clear on that subject!", but because Dany has been set up as a character who has been raised to believe that she has the right to rule, that she is special (and she is!), and who has also seen the difference between societies with good, strong rulers, and societies with bad, corrupt rulers. Nothing in her background suggests she's even going to be enable to envision democracy, equality, and self-rule as real, viable options for order and peace in a society, and she's far too responsible to accept anarchy as an option to autocratic-but-just rulership, because she's directly experienced anarchy and knows how vicious it is.

[NOT A TARG I SWEAR]

Out of curiosity, do you also expect the Starks to question their claim to Winterfell? The Lannisters, their claim to the Westerlands? Sunspear for the Martells? Stannis to abandon his own fight for the Iron Throne?

I don't expect it from everybody exactly, but of course it would be great although too much would seem a bit too out of place. There is a pretty substantial difference however between those examples and Dany. Your examples are largely current long serving liege lords with a pre-existing agreements.

Dany on the other hand is about to embark on the conquest of a continent with a very high likelihood of ravaging the land and potentially killing tens of thousands. Dany has a fairly limited understanding of the people, cultures, environments/locations, and has no idea whether anybody even wants her there.She currently has no concrete plan how to travel to and conquer Westeros and I don't recall her laying out any general ideas on how to rule while there.

At the moment Dany has a very limited number competent advisers to help her rule and and currently lacks a concrete agreement with anybody that lives on Westeros to denote they unequivocally want her there(although she could have had something with Dorne or may obtain a temporary agreement with the Ironborn). Additionally it would be nice to examine Dany reflecting on why she deserves to rule this foreign, strange, distant land to denote some further learning from her missteps in the conquest of the lands of another culture at SB.

[RobOsevens]

The Red Wedding was shocking to people because it's gory and made people who are too trusting of protagonist POVs actually realize that the Starks might not have the inevitable juggernaut path to glory that happens in most other fantasy novels, but it was very well-established beforehand both in terms of clues and the society Martin has set up in Westeros and the characters actions and motivations. I think it's more shocking to people than it should be because, in essense, people raised on a diet of bad Tolkien-derivative fantasy see war as inevitable and almost bloodless, not an active choice with a heavy cost, a series of risks taken. The Good Guys fight back against the Evil Overlord and prevail in a climatic and epic battle because they are the Good Guys, even if one or two minor characters die to evoke some pathos. The fact that people are so hung up on the "tropes" and they're so predictable is just evidence of how bad and juvenile most of the fantasy genre is at heart.

This is a great point... I started this series when I was 16 or 17 and it ruined a lot of my favourites at the time because its much deeper and complex

We are used to everything working out for the 'good guys' even when things go wrong... oh no Ned has to take the black well thats ok cuz he will be reunited w Jon and the real threat is the Others so he will aid in that fight... when Joff cuts is head off we don't see it coming because we are used to the the good guys getting thru everything

[Valyrian Fork]

This is a great point... I started this series when I was 16 or 17 and it ruined a lot of my favourites at the time because its much deeper and complex

We are used to everything working out for the 'good guys' even when things go wrong... oh no Ned has to take the black well thats ok cuz he will be reunited w Jon and the real threat is the Others so he will aid in that fight... when Joff cuts is head off we don't see it coming because we are used to the the good guys getting thru everything

Wait, wouldn't that mean Joff is a good guy?

[RobOsevens]

Wait, wouldn't that mean Joff is a good guy?

No I was speaking to the point of I was used to standard Tolkien-derivative fantasy... I was kind of reinforcing why things seem more shocking than they necessarily are

[AllOfTheHours]

No I was speaking to the point of I was used to standard Tolkien-derivative fantasy... I was kind of reinforcing why things seem more shocking than they necessarily are

I agree! This is a great way of putting it. :) We are shocked as an audience not because what GRRM does is particularly surprising/outrageous in the context of his books (its compellingly laid out in plain sight with foreshadowing) but because some of the preconceived notions we bring to reading the text are rejected. The most well known and culturally expressive fantasy stories (like LoTR, Harry Potter, and Star Wars) are all based on a good vs. evil hero's journey. (George Lucas even admitted that Star Wars took shape because of reading Joseph Campbell.) When we as readers - who have these other stories in the back of our mind - see the RW it feels totally surprising/impossible, and yet on rereads everything is there (Walder Frey's personality, Roose Bolton's interactions with Jamie, ominous clues at the wedding, etc). I would say that predicting GRRM to do something outrageous/unpredictable is both true and untrue. He'll surprise us. But he's a good enough author to craft a fully integrated, detailed, and foreshadowed story. So every surprise will have a trail of bread crumbs to follow.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I don't think GRRM actually gives much of a shit about whether people think something is a "trope killer" or "shocking" or a "twist" or whatever. He writes the story that comes to him, prunes the garden into a nice shape. Trying to guess the plot by some kind of 11th-dimension chess full of literary psych-outs and reverse psychology is a mook's game.

Pretty much everything that's happened in the books hasn't come as a surprise if you read closely, or go back and reread to pick up the hints and clues. His reputation as a "trope buster" is overrated, too. Killing Ned off in the first book actually isn't any more shocking than the first Star Wars movie when Obi-Wan dies, so that's something that's been established for like what, 35 years now?

The Red Wedding was shocking to people because it's gory and made people who are too trusting of protagonist POVs actually realize that the Starks might not have the inevitable juggernaut path to glory that happens in most other fantasy novels, but it was very well-established beforehand both in terms of clues and the society Martin has set up in Westeros and the characters actions and motivations. I think it's more shocking to people than it should be because, in essense, people raised on a diet of bad Tolkien-derivative fantasy see war as inevitable and almost bloodless, not an active choice with a heavy cost, a series of risks taken. The Good Guys fight back against the Evil Overlord and prevail in a climatic and epic battle because they are the Good Guys, even if one or two minor characters die to evoke some pathos. The fact that people are so hung up on the "tropes" and they're so predictable is just evidence of how bad and juvenile most of the fantasy genre is at heart.

GRRM is only seen as a "trope killer" because he's a good writer, and most of the established tropes are mindless garbage. Basically, he's a historical fiction writer who happens to have created a fantasy world to set his books in, and that's a much different perspective on war and narrative inevitability than typical fantasy.

Whatever happens to Dany is going to be what makes sense to happen to Dany, given the rules of GRRM's world and what he's created of her character. Tropes just don't actually enter into it at all.

I do think it's incredibly unlikely that she's going to give up her throne to lead Westeros to a democratic future after the Others have been dealt with, but not because GRRM's going to be going "hmm, no, the Tropes And Laws Of Fantasy are very clear on that subject!", but because Dany has been set up as a character who has been raised to believe that she has the right to rule, that she is special (and she is!), and who has also seen the difference between societies with good, strong rulers, and societies with bad, corrupt rulers. Nothing in her background suggests she's even going to be enable to envision democracy, equality, and self-rule as real, viable options for order and peace in a society, and she's far too responsible to accept anarchy as an option to autocratic-but-just rulership, because she's directly experienced anarchy and knows how vicious it is.

Spot on.

Apart from the Obi-Wan issue. That's 3,500 years old, not 35. Probably even older, but sources are a bit rare.