I'm Going to Break the Wheel

[Lord Freypie]

Personnally I hope GRRM won't go the route of good characters strangely having XXIth century mentality fixing every flaw in society in the space of less than several generations to have a fully happy ending, which would be complete opposition with Dany arc so far.

I like Robin Hobb, but her fairytale social evolution endings are an aspect of her series I always hated.

Nothing against Dany wanting to abolish the feudal system as long she fails / just succeed to barely make the life of smallfolk a little less miserable, or considering the actual state/culture of Westeros it would trigger my suspension of disbielef far more than a story about dragons burning hordes of undeads (don't ask me why).

Anyway , considering the ending is supposed to be bittersweet I expect it will just be"humanity is saved but everything is about as bad as before, and game of thrones restarting as soon the universal threat is removed, more likely than a sudden age of enlightment.

[JonisHenryTudor]

That's nonsense. The Starks were a - perhaps the - critical factor in the one southern political conflict that Dany is concerned with and is no doubt thinking about when she makes this comment, Robert's Rebellion. Yes, it was a war, but that's how politics are played in westeros, through war.

Yes I get that. But the Starks, as most northern houses, would probably be fine with whomever sat the throne. Of course they take part in the wars, but they seem more or less content in the north. Would the Starks have joined RR if nothing happened to Lyanna, Ned's father, and brother? It seems to me that the Starks were drawn into a war, they did not seek it out.

[El Guapo]

Aegon had three dragons he could control and two loyal sisters, and a bunch of Valyrian steel swords. And money. Dany has none of these, and a smaller army. And commitments elsewhere.

And Aegon was battling seven smaller kingdoms, each in some degree of disarray. Westeros is in disarray, but to Dany's knowledge the Lannisters have some degree of commitment from the Boltons, Tyrells, Littlefinger, and some of the lords of the Reach, plus a lot more naval power than she does. So while you might know she's got a good shot, she doesn't.

I see. So since you apparently have read the next two books is there any other spoilers you'd like to share?

[Brother Seamus]

So what your saying is that Dany doesn't have a brain and only does what others beckon? I mean after all she is just sitting there repeating what everyone tells her. No she re-stated the major houses to emphasize that she does not care and that she will crush them. "Hehe I shouldn't have to explain this".....

what is your argument anyway??? obviously the point of this bit of dialogue, well-written or not, was Dany saying that, if she is in charge, if she invades and wins, instead of playing this game of which noble family is on top at any given moment, she wants to change the game, change the system, to something not dominated so completely by this millennia old aristocracy. you don't disagree that's what this was about do you?

[Hodor's Dragon]

I disagree. I don't think the books point to her as a messiah, the way the show does most of the time. But I also don't think the books point to her as any kind of villain (black, grey or white), it's a rather simplistic stance to take, given everything she has done, endured and seen. I actually find myself interested in knowing how exactly she is a grey villain. It's times like this when I'm convinced we are all reading different books. I swear in mine she's just a scared girl who struggles with keeping a difficult people in line.

I don't think she's a good and virtuous queen. I think she's just like Ned, Tywin, Tyrion, Jaime, Catelyn, Jon, etc....she's just doing the best she can, trying to survive.

I think Cersei's arc alludes more to the second point I think you are trying to make--the one where I think you've taken the stance of HOW TO BECOME EVIL IN FIVE BOOKS OR LESS.

This post is a perfect demonstration of readers/show watchers disregarding character development.

The first paragraph is perfect for my original post. Like many others, this post shows me that people think it is important for Dany to know EVERY. SINGLE. DETAIL. ABOUT. EVERY. SINGLE. ATROCITY. COMMITTED. BY. EVERY. SINGLE. TARGARYEN. Given that this is more about the show, I have to point out that Dany says, "I know what my father was, I know the Mad King earned his name." But no, people insist that she must come out and say, "shit, my character development is strongly reliant on more of these stories. Tell me of every crime he committed. Yeah sure, I seem to grasp the idea that he was fucked up and he fucked up the realm, yeah sure, I know that my family was not perfect and I admit that I need help, yeah sure, I accept my flaws but I am willing to learn, but let's keep on beating the old horse that will in the end, not serve much since the implied purpose has already been achieved." I don't see how you could ignore that she basically accepts Tyrion after three conversations, THREE conversations. Then again, I also notice that your quandary seems to be more related to the Starks, which I suppose, is what really matters. I mean, if Dany can accept a Lannister into her service--a brother of the man who killed her father, why is it so impossible to imagine that she might actually see the speshul snowflake nature of the Starks?

That paragraph also hammers into the point I was trying to make in my original post i.e. of every entitled noble in the books, of all those who seek to avenge their fallen kin, only Dany is fallible in her quest.

If you want to blame her lack of knowledge on the extended and incredibly pointless telling of her family's crimes, then blame the author--he is the one who interrupts the scenes in which characters are speaking to Dany of her family. Don't blame the character for these kinds of plot devices, blame the author since he is the one employing delay tactics as a way of building up his big reveal. D+D messed that up, but at least we can credit them with getting that pointless reveal out of the way. I don't think I understand what people expect to happen after all these "important details about her family" come to light. Will that improve her leadership skills, will it stop the insurgents, will it fly her to Westeros sooner? At best, she will question her sanity....which is something she is already doing in Dance...throughout the book. She is not oblivious and in denial. These new details will add nothing of substance, nothing of earth-shattering proportions.

And like I said, criticising her for the Dothraki horde is pointless and premature. At least wait for her to take the horde to Westeros and lay waste to it, in that case your argument will be stronger.

Nice post. I think I somehow came across the same rare copy of the series that you did.

[Ingelheim]

I see. So since you apparently have read the next two books is there any other spoilers you'd like to share?

He's not talking about any spoiler, but about her situation right now.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Another strawman LOL, you're really on-point today.

No. Let me explain the scene for you again because you're struggling with it for some reason.

Tyrion tells Dany that the support of the smallfolk won't be enough. Then he lists the great houses who won't support her and tells her why they can't/won't support her. She replies that it doesn't matter - she doesn't need the support of the great houses. The examples she uses are really irrelevant.

LOL this is hilarious, you've actually missed the whole point of the scene.

"I'm not going to stop the wheel. I'm going to break the wheel."

She's not going to be the spoke on top, she's getting rid of the whole damn wheel. It's not about the Lannisters, the Targaryens, the Baratheons, the Starks, the Tyrells - it's about the system, and she's going to break it.

Here we go again, everything is SM when you don't like the argument. It is cute how people just label things...... But conveniently as she removes the wheel she is going to still remain in power? Which sort of goes back to my initial point... that Dany intends to crush the existing structure and reign supreme, or as an absolutists. Unless of course you are arguing that Dany plans on sitting aside and electing one of the SF?

I am done with this petty argument. Again, I get that you worship Dany, go worship her. I don't see the scene the same way as do many, many other people.

[Brother Seamus]

Yes I get that. But the Starks, as most northern houses, would probably be fine with whomever sat the throne. Of course they take part in the wars, but they seem more or less content in the north. Would the Starks have joined RR if nothing happened to Lyanna, Ned's father, and brother? It seems to me that the Starks were drawn into a war, they did not seek it out.

No doubt, due to geography, the Starks are able, and often do, stand apart from southern conflicts, but I'm not sure how this supports your point, in part because I'm more than a little confused what your point is.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Personnally I hope GRRM won't go the route of good characters strangely having XXIth century mentality fixing every flaw in society in an heartbat, which would be complete opposition with Dany arc so far.

I like Robin Hobb, but her fairytale social evolution endings are an aspect of her series I always hated.

Nothing against Dany wanting to abolish the feudal system as long she fails / just succeed to barely make the life of smallfolk a little less miserable, or it would trigger my suspension of disbielef far more than a bunch of dragons burning hordes of undeads.

Yes I agree. I think going from feudalism to now cuts an the entire struggle of the early modern world and the rise of absolutism and constitutional monarchy. It just would not fit well. I doubt Martin is going that route.

Did she play that in the Farseer Tril? I don't recall.

[OldGimletEye]

I have watched the scene, Tyrion is the one who brings up the great houses and whether or not they will or will not support her and included in taht list of houses is the Starks.

Really what's your point here? No matter how you try to slice it, Dany's speech shows that she knows little about Westeros. Details matter. They matter a lot. Dany may find that the people of the North may not back her intended people's revolution as they seem to be pretty damn loyal to the Starks.

Also, same with Dorne, where the people there seem to be very loyal to the Martells. Dany may think she is the originator of the people's war, but you know, in reality the first people's war occurred in Dorne, when the people of Dorne fought against the aggression of Dany's ancestors.

[OldGimletEye]

what is your argument anyway??? obviously the point of this bit of dialogue, well-written or not, was Dany saying that, if she is in charge, if she invades and wins, instead of playing this game of which noble family is on top at any given moment, she wants to change the game, change the system, to something not dominated so completely by this millennia old aristocracy. you don't disagree that's what this was about do you?

That depends greatly upon what Dany has in mind to replace the current system. Again, details matter. They matter a lot. And if Dany doesn't have specific details in mind, then she is just talking trash.

[Brother Seamus]

Here we go again, everything is SM when you don't like the argument. It is cute how people just label things...... But conveniently as she removes the wheel she is going to still remain in power? Which sort of goes back to my initial point... that Dany intends to crush the existing structure and reign supreme, or as an absolutists. Unless of course you are arguing that Dany plans on sitting aside and electing one of the SF?

I am done with this petty argument. Again, I get that you worship Dany, go worship her. I don't see the scene the same way as do many, many other people.

absolutism is not inconsistent with the thesis of Dany "breaking the wheel" of aristocratic privilege. absolutism is a change from the current system, and very much akin to how it happened in real history. before we got to the enlightenment and democracy, we went through absolutism, exemplified by Louis XIV (1600's). It may seem counter-intuitive, but before you empower the peasantry, the power of the 2nd-3rd-4th tier nobility had to be broken and power accreted to the center.

[JonisHenryTudor]

what is your argument anyway??? obviously the point of this bit of dialogue, well-written or not, was Dany saying that, if she is in charge, if she invades and wins, instead of playing this game of which noble family is on top at any given moment, she wants to change the game, change the system, to something not dominated so completely by this millennia old aristocracy. you don't disagree that's what this was about do you?

My initial response was regarding Dany as the Savior. I don't recall the page. I compared the two scenes of Jon and Dany, and Jon is willing to work with while she wants to crush. My argument was that by looking at the scenes music, tone of voice, character mannerisms, and dialogue, the scene suggests that Dany is not exactly heading down the savior route. I am not arguing that people believe her to be that, nor am I arguing that she will become the Mad Queen. I was looking at the opening scene to its close and how she responded to Tyrion's comments and how she verbally and physiologically responded, and then of course combined the other elements. For me the scene suggests something entirely different. That is what I initially put out there.

[Brother Seamus]

That depends greatly upon what Dany has in mind to replace the current system. Again, details matter. They matter a lot. And if Dany doesn't have specific details in mind, then she is just talking trash.

why do the details matter? she's saying she wants to destroy the current system. she doesn't say much about what replaces it, but the clear implication is something more favorable to the small folk. what do you want, a 723-page white paper?

[OldGimletEye]

absolutism is not inconsistent with the thesis of Dany "breaking the wheel" of aristocratic privilege. absolutism is a change from the current system, and very much akin to how it happened in real history. before we got to the enlightenment and democracy, we went through absolutism, exemplified by Louis XIV (1600's). It may seem counter-intuitive, but before you empower the peasantry, the power of the 2nd-3rd-4th tier nobility had to be broken and power accreted to the center.

And absolutism in real history didn't work out that well for the masses. And absolutism is not a necessary precondition either for bringing about a better state of affairs.

[JonisHenryTudor]

absolutism is not inconsistent with the thesis of Dany "breaking the wheel" of aristocratic privilege. absolutism is a change from the current system, and very much akin to how it happened in real history. before we got to the enlightenment and democracy, we went through absolutism, exemplified by Louis XIV (1600's). It may seem counter-intuitive, but before you empower the peasantry, the power of the 2nd-3rd-4th tier nobility had to be broken and power accreted to the center.

Yes I know. But that is sort of my point. She plans to crush and reduce the noble houses and place herself on top. It is the idea that she feels she deserves to be on top etc (books 1-5), not just that scene. It is the idea that those other houses are the plague, yes she is righteous and deserving to rule. Obviously she subtly hints at this, otherwise what is she breaking the wheel so the Reed's rule? No she is crushing the nobility so she can rule, and she is doing this as an extension of RR, which she has very little understanding of.

If she "wanted to go home", then she would go home and seek favor at court. Test the waters. Her family lost the throne, and rightfully so. She wants to storm in and crush the existing system because of wrongs done to her family. I could swallow the pill if she said "I don't care who is right or wrong, I am a Targ and I want the throne back". But that is not what Dany does. She takes the path of it is mine, I am the heir, and I deserve it, and the Usurpers Dogs will be crushed. This scene sums up what the first books have essentially said. Dany is going back to Westeros to overthrow the Usurpers dogs, regardless of their righteousness in overthrowing House Targ. If my father and brother were torched alive, and then the king wanted my head, I would probably call my banners as well. It is the fact that she does not take that into consideration and still plays the "It is mine card".

[OldGimletEye]

why do the details matter? she's saying she wants to destroy the current system. she doesn't say much about what replaces it, but the clear implication is something more favorable to the small folk. what do you want, a 723-page white paper?

LOL details don't matter. What a bunch of horseshit.

[El Guapo]

why do the details matter? she's saying she wants to destroy the current system. she doesn't say much about what replaces it, but the clear implication is something more favorable to the small folk. what do you want, a 723-page white paper?

Yes. Instead of the last half hour being about Hardhome it should have been Dany giving a speech detailing every thing she plans to do from that white paper

[nastydream]

And absolutism in real history didn't work out that well for the masses. And absolutism is not a necessary precondition either for bringing about a better state of affairs.

what's absolutism?

[Brother Seamus]

My initial response was regarding Dany as the Savior. I don't recall the page. I compared the two scenes of Jon and Dany, and Jon is willing to work with while she wants to crush. My argument was that by looking at the scenes music, tone of voice, character mannerisms, and dialogue, the scene suggests that Dany is not exactly heading down the savior route. I am not arguing that people believe her to be that, nor am I arguing that she will become the Mad Queen. I was looking at the opening scene to its close and how she responded to Tyrion's comments and how she verbally and physiologically responded, and then of course combined the other elements. For me the scene suggests something entirely different. That is what I initially put out there.

OK. I get it. I agree Dany is bent on conquest. That doesn't mean she won't then preside over a more just system. Or, she could try to install a more just system, and botch it up and create a disaster. Of course, what we know but she does not is that she is likely to be a savior due to the coincidence of her arrival with dragons when she is needed to defend westeros against the others. that doesn't make her some kind holy messianic figure.