Is Dany a hypocrite?

[bloodofthedragon1995]

In my opinion, Dany's character has changed massively and her arc has taken a massive change. In aGoT and aCoK, Dany can be seen as being more desperate to claim the Iron Throne and not wanting to delay it at any cost. However in aSoS and aDwD, she has other issues she deems more important and can be seen as pushing aside her mission to Westeros in favour of being the champion of the commoners and former slaves in Meereen. In the latter two novels her main aim is totally crushing the slave trade and helping transform slavers bay into a democratic place.

However, i personally feel that Dany here is acting with no right and simply with presumption. It is quite annoying that she is determined to stay and rule Slaver's bay, a region she has no blood claim too and yet establishes a monarchy in meereen through right of conquest. However, she struggles to accept that the Baratheon's also claimed Westeros and the Iron Throne through right of conquest, viewing their dynasty as illegitimate. She seems completely fine however with staying in Slaver's Bay despite all of the chaos her 'reign' has caused. Dany essentially broke guest right in Astapor when she was buying unsullied and then killed most of the masters and high-born present. She also see's no problem in doing this seeing it as her right in order to save the people from tyranny or something but it is her ruthlessness which is quite shocking. She is "Only a young girl and knows little of the ways of war" yet she is willing to allow any children over 14 to be killed.

It is quite frustrating for me and maybe some other people that Dany is perfectly okay with conquering slaver's bay and completely changing cultures and societies thousands of years old simply because she has dragons and she can. To met this is similar to the colonisation of lesser civilisations by more powerful countries. Dany feels she is superior to this way of life that has existed since the days of old Valyria and so is determined to change it - being the "blood of the dragon" does not give her a right.

I also find Dany's stance on slavery to be quite hypocritical. In the first two novels when Dany is considerably weaker and less powerful, she has no problems with being attended on by Dothraki slaves, nor the thralls or slaves in Qarth. It seems like this hatred of slavery has popped up in aSoS almost out of nowhere. 

Although my favourite house is Targaryen (apart from Dany), I am also very pro-stark. Dany's unfounded hatred of House Stark is somewhat irritating. She has no clue about what really happened during Robert's Rebellion, not much has been revealed to the readers and even less to Dany. Dany believes that because she has heard limited biased tales from Viserys and Barristan, she understands everything that occurred. She is also heavily influenced by Jorah's biased hatred of Ned and her constant "usurper's dogs" comments are very annoying, portraying her as being childish and petulant, going on about something she knows nothing about. 

This is NOT A DANY HATE THREAD. I just want to discuss how Dany's character changed so much. How did she turn from the innocent, kind child in Illyrio's manse to the power-crazed, hypocritical woman she is aDwD who belives she has the right to just turn civilisations into dust.

 

[WSmith84]

It is possible to be a beneficiary of something you might later disagree with (or even despise), so her changing views on slavery doesn't strike me as hypocritical.

As for whether it's hypocritical to establish a throne by conquest in one area while complaining about another family doing it somewhere else, well... I don't know. I think that there are more important issues than hypocrisy in regards to that.

Overall, while I'm sure Dany is occasionally a hypocrite (after all, who isn't), I wouldn't say that it's a defining part of her character.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

As I understand it, her hatred of slavery came about because she was "sold" to the Dothraki. Which is all well and good, except for the fact that sometimes she seems to think it's the greatest thing that ever happened to her, her love for Drogo was perfect, blah, blah, blah.

And yes, she feels her claim to Meereen is just and right, because the people she overthrew were "evil". Of course, that is exactly as the Baratheons felt, as you say. So, yes, hypocrisy. There's another smaller scale example of this exact situation, when she's ruling Meereen. A more perfect metaphor for the overthrow of the Targaryen Dynasty you'll never find, and Dany herself rules that what happened was fine. I'll quote it:

A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. "They can keep the clothes," she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it.

So, obviously, the "house" is Westeros and the "woman" is the Targaryen dynasty (Dany, specifically). The "brother" is the Free Cities, and I can only wonder what the jewels are. It's just so absurdly alike to what Dany herself went through, yet she refuses to see it. I do wonder what Dany would rule if the woman massacred those who took her house, in order to take it back.

Anyway, there's certainly more, her rule of Meereen, outside of the rule itself, is riddled with hypocrisy. To answer the question in the title: Yes, in no uncertain terms, Daenerys Targaryen with her slew of self aggrandising titles, is a hypocrite. There are worse things to be than a hypocrite, and in an effort to not turn this into, as you say, a Dany hate thread, I won't voice those here.

To answer your last question; the reason Dany became the way she is? She was given far too much power by those around her. People like Jorah, like Barristan, like Illyrio and all the rest, convincing her that she can do as she likes, never telling her she's wrong, never attempting to curb her wild behaviour. Then, her Dragons grew. She had power over people, the power they gave her, and then she had a weapon that gave her power over people. That kind of power in the hands of a - as she's so fond of saying - young girl; well, why would she not believe in the righteousness of her cause, when only her detractors tell her no?

I do apologise if this comes across as hateful, I really don't want to turn this into a hat thread, I'm simply trying to answer your questions.

[purple-eyes]

Of course she is. 

Look at her attitude towards slaver jorah and slavers in SB. 

 

[Nevets]

The biggest change in her attitude, I think, came in Astapor, with her discovery of how the Unsullied were trained, and the barbaric punishments for disobedient slaves.  This truly outraged her. Her previous experiences with slavery were of a "softer" variety practiced in Pentos (where it was technically illegal), Qarth, and the Dothraki, and she was unprepared for SB.  She remained in Meereen after seeing what happened in Astapor and Yunkai after she left, where chaos reined, and slavery was restored..

I do agree that she has her problems.  She is prone to over-reaction and acting passionately without clearly thinking things through, but I think that overall, she is trying to do the right thing.  Of course, as they say "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," so we will see what happens.  My own prediction is that her supporters lose Meereen and are forced to run for their lives and head for Westeros, as there are no alternatives.

[Shierak Qiya]

Perhaps, but not nearly as big a hypocrite as the Starks.  I'm talking about Robb Stark in particular, and Jon.  Robb talked about honor and all that crap and yet, he betrayed his ally.  When two subordinates commit treason, he lets one off the hook and takes the other one's head off.  Jon kills Slynt for breaking the rules, and then all the while he breaks even bigger rules, all while trying to rescue Arya from the Boltons.  Stannis is also a bit of a hypocrit.  He spouts off about following the rules and importance of the law, and yet, he assassinates his brother with a shadow baby, burns his own men at the stake, just because they had to eat to survive his ill-advised march.  Yes, all the characters are hypocrites to some extent.  But Dany is much less so than the ones above.  She is actually the only one who did a great deal of good when she brought freedom to 250K slaves.  I don't think there is any other characters in the story who has done so much good for so many people.  Guys like Robb only wanted to serve their families.  Dany actually went and fought for the freedom of 250K people that she didn't even know.  I would say, that makes her the hero in the story and the primary protagonist.

[Maxxine]

IMO there was always a tone of unease concerning Dany and slaves from the very beginning. Look at how she reacts with the Dothraki and the Lamb Men. It was only just in Storm when she has the power to do something about it. So I don't think she's being a hypocrite about that. However,even as a Dany fan I'll admit that she probably is being a hypocrite with the conquest of Slavers Bay. I mean she see its as different as Robert's rebellion bc she feels her reasons are justified the same way Robert felt his reasons were justified. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing though. It's just more of human thing. Also while I like the Starks too, I don't have a problem with Dany's hatred of them. Considering everything she's been told how else is she supposed to feel? She's only been told that the Starks helped Robert kill her family & take her throne. You can't hold it against her that the reader knows more than she does. And idk if her usurper's dogs are constant but even if they are she's no worse than Robert and his dragon spawn. At least Dany has not gone out of her way to try to kill a Stark child.

With all that being said I do agree with what you said about her behavior being similar to European colonization which is a bit annoying. "I have to civilize the savages" is a bit of her attitude. I think we can all agree slavery is abhorrent & she deserves some credit for trying abolish it but she acts as if she can change a thousand years culture in a few days just bc she thinks this is the way things she be. It's not going to happen.

[Kaibaman]

Considering that her MO isn't to ruler Meereen or Slaver's Bay permanently but merely to protect the former slaves and improve their livelihoods, I don't see how we can compare this to Robert taking the Iron Throne to build his own dynasty upon it and tried to eliminate the Targaryen heirs as they have a claim to the throne in the eyes of the people of Westeros. Dany on the other hand didn't take power from the establishment of Meereen as all she did was establish herself as supreme ruler while allowing the Wise Masters to keep their wealth and positions of influence and might just give them back control of the city (provided they will stick to her reforms) once she heads to Westeros.

[Sydney Mae]

52 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

 

IMO there was always a tone of unease concerning Dany and slaves from the very beginning. Look at how she reacts with the Dothraki and the Lamb Men. It was only just in Storm when she has the power to do something about it. So I don't think she's being a hypocrite about that. However,even as a Dany fan I'll admit that she probably is being a hypocrite with the conquest of Slavers Bay. I mean she see its as different as Robert's rebellion bc she feels her reasons are justified the same way Robert felt his reasons were justified. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing though. It's just more of human thing. Also while I like the Starks too, I don't have a problem with Dany's hatred of them. Considering everything she's been told how else is she supposed to feel? She's only been told that the Starks helped Robert kill her family & take her throne. You can't hold it against her that the reader knows more than she does. And idk if her usurper's dogs are constant but even if they are she's no worse than Robert and his dragon spawn. At least Dany has not gone out of her way to try to kill a Stark child.

With all that being said I do agree with what you said about her behavior being similar to European colonization which is a bit annoying. "I have to civilize the savages" is a bit of her attitude. I think we can all agree slavery is abhorrent & she deserves some credit for trying abolish it but she acts as if she can change a thousand years culture in a few days just bc she thinks this is the way things she be. It's not going to happen.

Some credit?  She deserves full credit for bringing the right of freedom to those slaves.  This is something that no one on that world had ever done. What matters is, she did it.  Waiting around and hoping for an "opportune time" is not going to work because there will never be a time when the task of liberation will ever be easy.  The best time is ASAP.  Stepping and helping those poor souls was the right thing to do no matter how you look at it.  If things are going bad, it's because the masters refuse to do the right thing and cooperate.  The suffering going on is their fault.  They could lay down their arms and agree to end the slave trade for good, and most of the suffering would end.  The blame is on them for trying to continue the evil practice of slavery.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

I absolutely cannot stand Dany for a number of reasons, hypocrisy being one (before I switched to an ereader I used to throw my book every time she had food brought to her little pyramid paradise and then wasted it because something unpleasant occurred to her and she just didn't feel like eating).

On the slavery issue, however, I do give her credit for this: even if she packed up all her military forces and magically decamped overnight, and the slavers did everything in their power to restore their region to its previous condition, it will never be the same again.

Slaves now know how freedom tastes and that even one person - let alone all of them - can make a difference. Slavers now know fear, and also that future uprisings are not only possible, they are guaranteed. They could be as small as a single cook poisoning his cruel master, or as great as an entire city; some successful and some not. But when she smashed the trade as it was, she changed the future of that region forever. 

[Quillon]

4 hours ago, Franklin VI said:

Perhaps, but not nearly as big a hypocrite as the Starks.  I'm talking about Robb Stark in particular, and Jon.  Robb talked about honor and all that crap and yet, he betrayed his ally.  When two subordinates commit treason, he lets one off the hook and takes the other one's head off.  Jon kills Slynt for breaking the rules, and then all the while he breaks even bigger rules, all while trying to rescue Arya from the Boltons.  Stannis is also a bit of a hypocrit.  He spouts off about following the rules and importance of the law, and yet, he assassinates his brother with a shadow baby, burns his own men at the stake, just because they had to eat to survive his ill-advised march.  Yes, all the characters are hypocrites to some extent.  But Dany is much less so than the ones above.  She is actually the only one who did a great deal of good when she brought freedom to 250K slaves.  I don't think there is any other characters in the story who has done so much good for so many people.  Guys like Robb only wanted to serve their families.  Dany actually went and fought for the freedom of 250K people that she didn't even know.  I would say, that makes her the hero in the story and the primary protagonist.

Jon's last action was hypocritical but he paid for it. I wouldn't judge Robb for choosing the honor of Jeyne over Freys/sleeping with Jeyne after he had the news of his bros' passing nor for not killing his mother but then killing RK was hypocritical. Just so I wouldn't judge Dany for breaking the guest right in Astapor nor anything slaves-related and her hypocrisy against "usurpers" comes from lack of knowledge and how she were raised(she must have heard IT was theirs by right etc every day growing up with Viserys) and she behaves better and better in time as she learns, Tyrion would be big help in that matter.(painfully slow councelling from Jorah and Barristan btw)

As for Dany being the primary protagonist.......meh. Main hook of the story takes place in Westeros which she never been to. Yeah she is important but only as much as Tyrion-Jon-Jaime-Cercei etc. If you are looking for a hero, Jon's a better fit: The Others are the main threat not slavery.

[GravyFace]

No. It's not like she decided to conquer and stay in Meereen because she liked their pretty gold (or because she wanted revenge over a fiancé). She decided to conquer and stay because of the atrocities she witnessed on a grand scale and her hatred for slavery.

[Amris]

An interesting take on Dany, OP - and yes, I think you are right - there is some hypocrisy there between the Dany who feels it is her duty and right to impose regime-change in Slaver's Bay and the Dany who thinks the Usurper had no right to enforce a regime change against a mad king.

However for me that does not lessen my fascination for Dany as a character but heightens it. It's always the imperfections and faults that make characters interesting.

I find this hypocrisy quite realistic as some politicians in RL also think they are entitled to enforce regime change someplace else but would be outraged if it happened to their own country. And the thing is even more complicated because every situation is different and who knows - they may not be always wrong. They certainly aren't always right either though.

Can we categorically say Dany was right in Slaver's Bay? She caused a hell of a mess so I don't know. But can we categorically say she was wrong? Not either IMO. Someone had to do something about slavery at some point and it is clear that things would have gotten messy no matter what. Do or don't? Nothing is ever simple. That's so in RL and also in GRRM's world.

I can't wait to find out how Dany reacts once she finds out that everything about the War of the Usurper was not how she thought it was. Will she realize her own hypocrisy? Will she choose to close her eyes to it?

[chrisdaw]

For actions concerning slavery not really, she just grew and became powerful enough to do something about it. For that judgement and believing the throne is hers by rights, yes somewhat.

But the real question of hypocrisy is going to come when she destroys Aegon because his blood is false, and then comes to believe Jon's blood is true and he is her rightful king. She'll have to swear fealty to him or prove herself a hypocrite on the largest scale.

[Protagoras]

I have been commenting before why Daenerys claim is fundamentally legit, so I will refrain from doing so again. I can sort of see the case that if Daenerys is allowed to do a regime change in the name of justice, then so is Robert.

What bothers me is that Daenerys hatred of the Usurper´s dogs is seen as wrong, as unfounded. That is certainly not the case. The North participated in a rebellion that annihilated her dynasty. Does it really matter which house who did what when the end result still resulted in the death of Elia and her children. If you ally with a child murderer and then refuses to punish him, then you are responsible for his crime and that is as true for House Stark as it is for the other "dogs". If I was a former nazi I would not care whether Allies or Soviet troops killed my family - I would care that they are dead and realize that without all parts in the alliance participating in the war this would not have happened. 

Secondly - the argument "You don´t know anything about X and don´t know what you are talking about" is quite possibly one of the worst logics in existence (and for me a clear indication that you have lost the discussion on whatever topic you were talking about since you refuse to present arguments, but instead tries to destroy the arguer because of your inability to refute factual arguments). Everyone is entitled to draw conclusions from the information that they have access to and if someone feels that certain parts/info is lacking and would result in a new logical conclusion then the onus is on those people to provide said information and argue why the case should be reevaluated, NOT arrogantly try to forbid drawing conclusions in the first place by the faulty logic of "You need to reconsider because I know more about you on this, yet I make no attempt to explain why this is the case and you should only shut up and adapt". Indeed, if your knowledge and therefore your arguments is sooo impressive then it should be easy to convince, right? Yet many falls to the moral lazyless and with little backup tries to bully the conclusiondrawer into submission by forcing him/her to accept subjective values not proven in the first place. If you "know" something (and you need to define "know", if you can, and explain  why this is crucial information in a polite way) then present your fucking case. Until then, accept the right to draw conclusions. That I don´t have the same viewpoint or experiences doesnt in any way devalue my argument and opinion. 

Thirdly, the relation between Daenerys and the Starks in the future is going to be dependent on current and future exchanges, not Ned´s past (since he is dead after all). Daenerys have been very clear on that she will not punish anyone for their relatives crimes and that means what matters is how the Stark siblings will react to Daenerys. Will they become staunch allies? Well, then certainly Daenerys should modify her speech in order to not insult and offend those she have need of. Will they oppose her and refuse to swear fealty? Well, in that case I can see no reason why she should reconsider her Usurpers dogs-position at all. After all, the old enemies still insists to be enemies - why give them anything?

[joluoto2]

One of the problems is that Dany doesn't seem to understand that Aerys was a mad tyrant. Neither Jorah nor Barristan have really tried to explain that to her. She still see the Targaryen downfall from the perspective Viserys gave her from his stories, where the rebels were all pure evil.

[Erudain]

6 hours ago, Amris said:

An interesting take on Dany, OP - and yes, I think you are right - there is some hypocrisy there between the Dany who feels it is her duty and right to impose regime-change in Slaver's Bay and the Dany who thinks the Usurper had no right to enforce a regime change against a mad king.

However for me that does not lessen my fascination for Dany as a character but heightens it. It's always the imperfections and faults that make characters interesting.

I find this hypocrisy quite realistic as some politicians in RL also think they are entitled to enforce regime change someplace else but would be outraged if it happened to their own country. And the thing is even more complicated because every situation is different and who knows - they may not be always wrong. They certainly aren't always right either though.

Can we categorically say Dany was right in Slaver's Bay? She caused a hell of a mess so I don't know. But can we categorically say she was wrong? Not either IMO. Someone had to do something about slavery at some point and it is clear that things would have gotten messy no matter what. Do or don't? Nothing is ever simple. That's so in RL and also in GRRM's world.

I can't wait to find out how Dany reacts once she finds out that everything about the War of the Usurper was not how she thought it was. Will she realize her own hypocrisy? Will she choose to close her eyes to it?

Well everytime Barristan tryed to tell her the "real" history about the war, she either changed the subject or stopped him, so I think deep down she knows that whatever Viserys told her all this time isn't real but on the other hand she doesn't seem to want to face reality....hopefully Tyrion's arrival will help that.

[daccu65]

In my humble opinion, she's also undergoing a wearing down of her idealism, similar to what all of the young characters seem to be going through.  When Dany reached slavers bay, she saw the injustice of slavery and decided to both solve the injustice and gain the unsullied at the same time.  Unfortunately, neither Astapor or Yunkai is prepared to function as a free society.  Simply freeing the slaves didn't set up a culture and economy based upon wage-earning labor.  I interpreted Dany's decision to stay in Meereen as a maturing decision, knowing that she now had to help the city re-establish itself after she demolished a centuries old culture and economy.  While slavery is undeniably evil, it cannot be crushed without planning for what comes afterwards.    

I actually see this "more realistic outlook" (I say realistic outlook with a grimace, as we're talking about a tale involving dragons and wizardry) as being a good thing.  She wants to reclaim the Iron Throne and take revenge on those who wronged her family.  When she gets to Westeros, now maybe she'll think twice and find out that Aerys was about to incinerate the Red Keep before the Kingslayer killed him.  Maybe she'll find Stannis in a key role fighting the Others, and think twice before killing him in revenge for his taking Dragonstone.  Assuming Jon returns somehow, maybe she thinks twice before considering him an oathbreaker.  Maybe she'll encounter Arya and see not the assassin, but a young girl who did what she had to in order to survive. 

Who knows, maybe she'll come to the conclusion that her family had no right to conquer Westeros in the first place.

 

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, Erudain said:

Well everytime Barristan tryed to tell her the "real" history about the war, she either changed the subject or stopped him, so I think deep down she knows that whatever Viserys told her all this time isn't real but on the other hand she doesn't seem to want to face reality....hopefully Tyrion's arrival will help that.

I think that Barristan gave a reasonably clear idea of what Aerys was like, during his conversation with her in her last chapter in ASOS.

 

[Protagoras]

6 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

For actions concerning slavery not really, she just grew and became powerful enough to do something about it. For that judgement and believing the throne is hers by rights, yes somewhat.

But the real question of hypocrisy is going to come when she destroys Aegon because his blood is false, and then comes to believe Jon's blood is true and he is her rightful king. She'll have to swear fealty to him or prove herself a hypocrite on the largest scale.

But why would she be be a hypocrite because of that?

Blood is not enough here - first Jon need to prove that there was a marriage or he is still a bastard (Howland Reed can´t help him with this).

But lets say Daenerys somehow sees that in a dream or something - then we have Jons own oaths to the Watch, removing him from succession. In addition, we have that Jon have so far done absolutely zero to advance the Targaryen cause. The party who do the reconquering is clearly the scion, the person committing to the family name. 

The sensible reaction should be "Wow, a sibling - I am removing your oaths to the watch and name you my hier" not "Here is the crown". No hypocrisy in any shape or form.