Is Dany becoming a megalomaniac? Is Bran?

[RoamingRonin]

17 minutes ago, SamuelVimes said:

Funny, that's exactly the point everyone made when they rebelled against her father. 

Please explain what you mean by this. 

[House Cambodia]

6 hours ago, khal drogon said:

What makes you to think she is hellbent on utter destruction? 

Another set of pillaging barbarians is on the way to take Winterfell. But the show would make them goody goody because Jon's leading them. Dothraki are similar in their raping, pillaging ways  to the wildlings but they are lead by a person who abbhors rape and have a compassion for common people, who has earned Dothraki's respect and has a bloody dragon. That speech meant she was finally ready to destroy her enemies in their stone castles. What's wrong with that? I have seen people wishing for the dreadfort and the twins razed to the ground. When Dany wants that it means she is hitler and will burn her way through and let Dothraki run wild? 

I was constructing a considered response in my mind but then I read SamuelVimes' posts - he expressed my reasons perfectly. As I stressed, pay close attention to the way Dany has been changing throughout the series and you'll see where she's heading.

[Charles Stuart]

1 hour ago, SamuelVimes said:

Funny, that's exactly the point everyone made when they rebelled against her father. 

Any system where ruling is based on inheritance is only ever one or two generations away from its next bad king. Sure, it's also one or two generations away from its next good one, but it's ultimately a really crap system even if you get a couple nice rulers in there on occasion. 

And looking at the mess she's made of the cities she's conquered so far, I'd say it's pretty clear anyway that Dany is not a good ruler. Great conqueror, sure--that was Daario's point too--but not a good ruler. It's the same thing you can say about Robert Baratheon, ironically. And if we trust what she said in her speech, she also doesn't care to be a good ruler. Things going badly in Meereen? Well, screw them, I'm going to Westeros! Where I'm going to bring my pillaging army and tear their houses down! (At some point Westeros stopped being "my people" and started being "the enemy" to Dany--that's important, she's never going to rule well unless that changes.) She's completely lost sight of the "common people," the ones she asked Jorah about so long ago, and now all she wants is revenge and conquest. If I were an average Westerosi commoner, I would prefer almost anyone to what Dany seems to have in store for the place. At this point, Dany and Euron would make a terrifyingly perfect couple. She's still got a chance to change, of course, but I'm amazed at how many people are still drinking the Targaryen flav-r-aid. 

She's magic, she's a super-pale Targaryen, and she's got dragons. Still doesn't mean she's fit to rule a city, let alone a kingdom--let alone seven. 

What politically correct agenda? Freeing slaves...and then letting them get captured again when she leaves? Getting a couple Dothrakis to stop raping for a little while? Dany's agenda is conquest, and while she might be a kinder, gentler conqueror than some, a nicer tyrant is still a tyrant. 

 

Finally, come on, stop with the whole "rightful Queen" thing. The Targaryens conquered Westeros a few hundred years ago, which is not a long time in the grand scheme of things. She's rightful queen only if you believe in the right of conquest AND the inherent justice of monarchy, both of which are pretty screwed up beliefs--not to mention the fact that if you DO believe in the right of conquest, well, the Targaryens got kicked out, so they lost that right to the people who conquered them. She's as rightful a queen as Ramsay Bolton is a rightful lord--that's feudal monarchy for you. You want something different, well, then, you want a revolution, not a different king. 

Tommen can always relinquish the throne you know..heck, it isn't like he has any real claim to it whatsoever and if faced by three dragons, the unsullied and dothraki, what real option do you really have?

the seven kingdoms is based upon the law of conquest, I think every single lord if I remember my history correct assumed control and their position through conquest. This whole thing regarding rights to rule means very little compared to the ability to conquer and assert a right to rule.

[Florina Laufeyson]

12 hours ago, RoamingRonin said:

First reply invokes Godwin's Law. That escalated quickly.

1

Yeahhh  

10 hours ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

Show!Dany is such a cipher, I have no idea how Dany's supposed to be, like what's her personality like? The bad writing + Emilia's performance makes her look dead inside. She's basically a speech-giving machine at this point. 

 

I blame Clarke for that, because the writing in earlier seasons tried to show a personality with her but Clarke doesnt have the chops to deliver it out. And now shes like "making stupid faces and yelling in a fictional language gets me Emmy nods, so why do i even need to try?" Shes a really bad actress in general. 

Right now, the character seems to be riding on an ego/accomplishment high. Shes gotta come back to earth eventually, but im afraid too many people will die before that happens. 

[JonisHenryTudor]

15 minutes ago, Charles Stuart said:

Tommen can always relinquish the throne you know..heck, it isn't like he has any real claim to it whatsoever and if faced by three dragons, the unsullied and dothraki, what real option do you really have?

the seven kingdoms is based upon the law of conquest, I think every single lord if I remember my history correct assumed control and their position through conquest. This whole thing regarding rights to rule means very little compared to the ability to conquer and assert a right to rule.

That is if her army makes it to Westeros alive. I would guess that by the time she finally arrives the whole of Westeros, or most of it, will be covered in ice. Her "army" isn't exactly equipped or well prepared for those sort of conditions. Also raiding slave cities isn't quite the same thing as westerosi castles defended by seasons troops. 

 

I would be very surprised if Martin doesn't wipe out half her army--or more--between the crossing and harsh environment. Of course...he could just protect them in a nonsensical way.... 

[Frejac]

8 hours ago, khal drogon said:

What makes you to think she is hellbent on utter destruction? 

Another set of pillaging barbarians is on the way to take Winterfell. But the show would make them goody goody because Jon's leading them.  Dothraki are similar in their raping, pillaging ways  to the wildlings but they are lead by a person who abbhors rape and have a compassion for common people, who has earned Dothraki's respect and has a bloody dragon. That speech meant she was finally ready to destroy her enemies in their stone castles. What's wrong with that? I have seen people wishing for the dreadfort and the twins razed to the ground. When Dany wants that it means she is hitler and will burn her way through and let Dothraki run wild? 

While I agree that I don't think it's fair to say that Dany will just let the Dothraki run wild in Westeros, and while I also agree that the show seems to be whitewashing the wildlings a bit, I find several problems with comparing the Dothraki in relation to Dany's plans and the wildlings in relation to Jon and Sansa's.

There are significantly more Dothraki than there are wildlings (100,000 to 5,000 if I'm remembering correctly).  Even if both groups were equally savage in their actions during and following the battles to come, the scale of what the Dothraki could do to Westeros is much larger than what the Wildlings could.

Besides that, Jon already has a plan for what to do with the wildlings should his efforts succeed and he retake Winterfell and somehow stop the Walkers.  He would like to settle the wildlings on the Gift.  And as there are only about 5000 of them, this plan is perfectly feasible.  I'm not sure that Dany has ever mentioned what she plans to do with the entirety of the Dothraki people after bringing them over from Essos and conquering Westeros.

Lastly, as Dany does seem to be planning to bring the Dothraki to Westeros, she is planning on taking them from their homes to serve her conquest of a different continent.  One that was no threat to them and had no real interaction with them before her intervention.  Jon, on the other hand, had no intention of using the wildlings to retake the North until Ramsay's letter (which, in addition to the threats on Jon's family, directly threatens all of the wildlings as well).  One group is being used in a war of conquest, the other in a war of survival.

 

[tmug]

On 5/29/2016 at 2:12 AM, Liuko said:

This is very like the Ned/Littlefinger logic of "That's treason/Only if we lose". Has she lost at Astapor, Dany would have been known as another greedy invader, but she keeps winning. And because she keeps winning, the sense that she is supposed to win, that conquering everything in her reach is as it's supposed to be, keeps growing. Might and right become cyclical, reinforcing each other out of proportion.

Remember what Rickard Stark told Ned, "if you're going to pick a fight, you better win" That definitely supports your point that its only considered "wrong" if you lose. Ned lost in King's Landing and now his and his family's legacy is being mocked, as shown in the play.

 

[SamuelVimes]

15 hours ago, RoamingRonin said:

Considering Westeros is ruled by the scum of the Earth at this point, Dany can sweep the seven kingdoms clean. Bring out the good guys and let the bad ones burn. Or will we all weep for Ramsay Bolton, Lord Frey and Littlefinger? 

Quote

Funny, that's exactly the point everyone made when they rebelled against her father. 

4 hours ago, RoamingRonin said:

Please explain what you mean by this. 

I'm saying that Robert Baratheon and his allies would have said that the Mad King ruling Westeros was scum of the earth (and it's hard to argue otherwise, really), and that they were going to sweep the kingdom clean, bring out the good guys, and let the bad ones... well, probably not burn, because the Mad King was doing enough of that, but you get the idea. The argument for bringing Dany back is the same argument for getting rid of Aerys II. It's the same argument anyone will use if they think the ruler needs to be brought down. And like I've said before, this is the fundamental problem with any system where power is inherited--you're never more than a generation or two away from the next awful ruler. So it's only a matter of time before the next person uses this exact same argument to start another rebellion. 

3 hours ago, Charles Stuart said:

Tommen can always relinquish the throne you know..heck, it isn't like he has any real claim to it whatsoever and if faced by three dragons, the unsullied and dothraki, what real option do you really have?

the seven kingdoms is based upon the law of conquest, I think every single lord if I remember my history correct assumed control and their position through conquest. This whole thing regarding rights to rule means very little compared to the ability to conquer and assert a right to rule.

Well, I haven't yet read the World of Ice and Fire, so I'm not as up on the history as I should be. And of course, the whole existence of men in Westeros is a history of invasion, so yeah, on some level it's all about conquest. But aside from the general fact of men not being the original inhabitants of Westeros, I just don't get the sense that, say, House Umber got to where it is by right of conquest, or House Reed. But you know, they may have--in fact, it might well be that they're just so far removed from that conquest that their existence there now seems natural, and the Targs came so recently from Valyria that they just haven't had a chance to feel natural. So yeah, right of conquest is the law of the land. 

I'm not saying right of conquest doesn't exist. Obviously it does, and it's the law of the land. It gives you the practical right to rule. But medieval belief is that it also gives you the MORAL right to rule, and that's what I'm saying I don't buy, and I don't think GRRM buys it either, which is why I think skepticism is warranted when Daenerys starts assuming that because she won the war, she's the right person to rule the peace. (That was Robert Baratheon's mistake as well.) 

On 5/29/2016 at 4:12 AM, Liuko said:

This is very like the Ned/Littlefinger logic of "That's treason/Only if we lose". Has she lost at Astapor, Dany would have been known as another greedy invader, but she keeps winning. And because she keeps winning, the sense that she is supposed to win, that conquering everything in her reach is as it's supposed to be, keeps growing. Might and right become cyclical, reinforcing each other out of proportion.

That's what happens when you decide that the right of conquest translates into a moral, rather than a practical, right. "I won!" is one thing; "I won! And that means the gods / the light / everything that is good and right is on my side, and I am the right person to rule!" is a completely different kind of conclusion. I suspect that (f)Aegon in the books is meant to draw our attention to this, since (f)Aegon's training has been focused on being a just ruler, rather than on being a conqueror, which makes him an interesting contrast to Dany. Or... well, at least it *should* make him that. 

2 hours ago, Frejac said:

While I agree that I don't think it's fair to say that Dany will just let the Dothraki run wild in Westeros, and while I also agree that the show seems to be whitewashing the wildlings a bit, I find several problems with comparing the Dothraki in relation to Dany's plans and the wildlings in relation to Jon and Sansa's.

There are significantly more Dothraki than there are wildlings (100,000 to 5,000 if I'm remembering correctly).  Even if both groups were equally savage in their actions during and following the battles to come, the scale of what the Dothraki could do to Westeros is much larger than what the Wildlings could.

Besides that, Jon already has a plan for what to do with the wildlings should his efforts succeed and he retake Winterfell and somehow stop the Walkers.  He would like to settle the wildlings on the Gift.  And as there are only about 5000 of them, this plan is perfectly feasible.  I'm not sure that Dany has ever mentioned what she plans to do with the entirety of the Dothraki people after bringing them over from Essos and conquering Westeros.

Lastly, as Dany does seem to be planning to bring the Dothraki to Westeros, she is planning on taking them from their homes to serve her conquest of a different continent.  One that was no threat to them and had no real interaction with them before her intervention.  Jon, on the other hand, had no intention of using the wildlings to retake the North until Ramsay's letter (which, in addition to the threats on Jon's family, directly threatens all of the wildlings as well).  One group is being used in a war of conquest, the other in a war of survival.

 

Yes, this! There is a huge difference between the Dothraki and the wildlings, and this is a lot of it. 

I also suspect that wildlings do a hell of a lot less raping than non-wildlings think they do, whereas we've seen first-hand how endemic it is among the Dothraki. Women have a very different standing in Dothraki culture than in wildling culture. Dothraki women are expected to be subservient and have much lower status than men. Wildlings seem to be much more egalitarian, and women are well trained in fighting, and they're respected for it. So even though wildling traditions say that men need to be able to steal away the women they want, it's also pretty clear that if the woman isn't willing, it's not going to go so well. We hear about the wildlings' rapey ways from the northerners, but that's very different from actually seeing it first-hand. (OK, there's Craster, but the wildlings hated and avoided him, so I don't think we can draw conclusions from him.) Umber had a sister or daughter get stolen by the wildlings, but I'd want to hear her side of the story; maybe she was taken against her will, but maybe she was a willing participant. We don't know, and I don't believe Umber knows either. I'm not saying wildlings don't ever rape--I'm certain they do. I'm just saying that we've seen much less evidence of it being widespread, and very little evidence that it's a part of their warfare. 

 

[Knight of the Turnip Tree]

Bran and Daenerys are both characters I started getting a bad vibe from during ADWD. The well-intentioned kids with good hearts who get reason to become bitter and then try to make something of themselves, but who end up with power they might not be ready to wield. There's potential there for both of them to end up becoming villains. Daenerys wanted to be the breaker of chains, Bran wanted to be a true knight, but I feared they might end up becoming villains.

[HellasLEAF]

Dany feels I bet she could rule fairer.  Or she would be/should be best suited to rule.

So if war is necessary it's necessary but she will bring her army and her dragons.  

 

Bran I think no.  He doesn't want to be the 3 eyed raven.  He has come to terms with it though.  

[princess_snow]

16 hours ago, Not a kneeler said:

Bran has a mission given to him by BR,  quite a different position than Dany who has a sense of entitlement that was fostered in her by the death of her brother. Before that she was a sweet young girl, but gradually we see her focused on what she is entitled to because she is Daenerys Stormborn, Breaker of chains, Mother of Dragons, yada, yada. I have certainly been disturbed by her facial expressions in her last two segments: waiting to burn the khals to death and now stirring up her storm troopers. This is not the valiant little girl we saw in season 1. This is a cruel conqueror and if I saw her coming I would try to put 1000 miles between her and me. She is not going to save the world. She will see it burn unless it worships at her feet.

Yes I pretty much agree with you here. She ' takes ' what is hers. I think she has lost sight of her true self... perhaps it will return before the end of the story. As for her speech at the end of that ep as @Woman of War said - it too reminded me of Hitler.

[RoamingRonin]

39 minutes ago, SamuelVimes said:

I'm saying that Robert Baratheon and his allies would have said that the Mad King ruling Westeros was scum of the earth (and it's hard to argue otherwise, really), and that they were going to sweep the kingdom clean, bring out the good guys, and let the bad ones... well, probably not burn, because the Mad King was doing enough of that, but you get the idea. The argument for bringing Dany back is the same argument for getting rid of Aerys II. It's the same argument anyone will use if they think the ruler needs to be brought down.

No, they wouldn't... because they didn't. Jon Arryn didn't raise a fuss until Aerys sent for his wards' heads. Ned and Robert didn't decide to rebel to save the realm from the evil Mad King. It was Rhaegar and a secret group of lords that wanted to remove Aerys.

Anyways, you misunderstand me. The realm is ruled by a lot of villainous people. You seem to be arguing in defense of a perfect, unified Westeros. A pretender sits the Iron Throne (supported by opportunist and traitors). A monster rules the north (supported by opportunist and traitors). The Freys hold the Trident. I can't say I care if she comes through, dragons and Dothraki in tow.

Quote

Yes, this! There is a huge difference between the Dothraki and the wildlings, and this is a lot of it. 

I also suspect that wildlings do a hell of a lot less raping than non-wildlings think they do, whereas we've seen first-hand how endemic it is among the Dothraki. Women have a very different standing in Dothraki culture than in wildling culture. Dothraki women are expected to be subservient and have much lower status than men. Wildlings seem to be much more egalitarian, and women are well trained in fighting, and they're respected for it. So even though wildling traditions say that men need to be able to steal away the women they want, it's also pretty clear that if the woman isn't willing, it's not going to go so well. We hear about the wildlings' rapey ways from the northerners, but that's very different from actually seeing it first-hand. (OK, there's Craster, but the wildlings hated and avoided him, so I don't think we can draw conclusions from him.) Umber had a sister or daughter get stolen by the wildlings, but I'd want to hear her side of the story; maybe she was taken against her will, but maybe she was a willing participant. We don't know, and I don't believe Umber knows either. I'm not saying wildlings don't ever rape--I'm certain they do. I'm just saying that we've seen much less evidence of it being widespread, and very little evidence that it's a part of their warfare. 

You pick and choose what you want to believe as long as it fits your narrative. I see.

[jandslegate]

4 hours ago, JonisHenryTudor said:

That is if her army makes it to Westeros alive. I would guess that by the time she finally arrives the whole of Westeros, or most of it, will be covered in ice. Her "army" isn't exactly equipped or well prepared for those sort of conditions. Also raiding slave cities isn't quite the same thing as westerosi castles defended by seasons troops. 

 

I would be very surprised if Martin doesn't wipe out half her army--or more--between the crossing and harsh environment. Of course...he could just protect them in a nonsensical way.... 

 

Disease was historically common in lengthy sea travel. She now has a massive group of people she must keep fed and quartered. Seems like a good time to throw in the bloody flux or pale mare from  the book. 

[storm.131]

38 minutes ago, jandslegate said:

Disease was historically common in lengthy sea travel. She now has a massive group of people she must keep fed and quartered. Seems like a good time to throw in the bloody flux or pale mare from  the book. 

I wish this would eventuate and Daenerys herself died of it leaving the path clear for a more worthy ruler.

[Amris]

I am sure the series meant for us to cringe inwardly when Dany gave her little total war speech. The scene was meant to convey both a feeling of utter triumph and also that such feelings so easily border on totalitarism and can very well bode ill for the future.

And to me the text - and yes - the actress - delivered this ambigous, question-mark-laden 'triumph' very well. If you have 2nd thoughts about the scene don't blame it on Emilia Clarke. We are supposed to be left queasy and thinking: This is not right!

It is one important intermediate step in Dany's arc which has always been torn back and forth between the 'fire and blood' and the 'mysa' personalities, between war with its seemingly 'easy' solutions on the one hand and hard decisions and less than perfect compromise on the other.

And now Dany - for the time being - has chosen fire and blood and the path of war. Just like she has to if this drama is supposed to go somewhere and move towards its conclusion. Whether Dany will stay on this path indefinitely is another question. Personally I doubt it. She has always had the two sides and though one of them dominates right now I don't see the other gone completely. Besides 'fire and blood' will wreak plenty havoc and give lots of reasons for guilt later on which I bet will wake the mhysa side again.

So if you feel this triumphatic 'I am a conqueror' and I get all the plot gifts kind of thing went too far then you are perfectly right. That's exactly what we were supposed to take away from the scene. 

Now if you come to the conclusion: 'See - I always knew Dany was shallow' I think you are missing the point of her story arc though: This is not the end. This is not the whole Dany we have seen there on Drogon's back. This is one of the low points (or high points, depending on point of view) of her wrestling with herself (heart in conflict with itself as GRRM likes to say) and illustrates the conflict she has always been in and probably will continue to be in at some point.

And I don't doubt for a moment that the series will show us at what cost in tragedy and human life that moment of triumph will come. GoT and ASOIAF do deliver on these things.

 

 

 

 

 

[House Cambodia]

30 minutes ago, Amris said:

I am sure the series meant for us to cringe inwardly when Dany gave her little total war speech. The scene was meant to convey both a feeling of utter triumph and also that such feelings so easily border on totalitarism and can very well bode ill for the future.

And to me the text - and yes - the actress - delivered this ambigous, question-mark-laden 'triumph' very well. If you have 2nd thoughts about the scene don't blame it on Emilia Clarke. We are supposed to be left queasy and thinking: This is not right!

It is one important intermediate step in Dany's arc which has always been torn back and forth between the 'fire and blood' and the 'mysa' personalities, between war with its seemingly 'easy' solutions on the one hand and hard decisions and less than perfect compromise on the other.

Yes to the first 2 paragraphs, but there is no 'back and forth' - GRRM, D&D and Clarke herself are quite clearly portraying a pretty smooth arc in her character development from sweet idealistic victim to evil incarnate. I think a lot of readers/viewers are so hooked on her earlier persona that they're forcing themselves to see her current character as some kind of teenage phase that she'll grow out of. At some point, the penny's has to drop!

[ummester]

8 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

Yes to the first 2 paragraphs, but there is no 'back and forth' - GRRM, D&D and Clarke herself are quite clearly portraying a pretty smooth arc in her character development from sweet idealistic victim to evil incarnate. I think a lot of readers/viewers are so hooked on her earlier persona that they're forcing themselves to see her current character as some kind of teenage phase that she'll grow out of. At some point, the penny's has to drop!

Dany is the most awesome fantasy troll character ever - well, perhaps not ever but at least for this generation. She is the epitome of a champagne/social justice warrior - an SJW goddess - idealistic, self righteous, beautiful, strong and feminine. It's hard for the penny to drop because it is hard for the young and idealistic to admit that what they believe may lead to a dark place, or at the very least be full of shit. I wish I wrote her before GRRM did, I've had similar plans but have been too lazy to put them in motion. Still, have to congratulate George for doing it first.

[House Cambodia]

^ Word!!!

[SeanF]

23 hours ago, Woman of War said:

I only can talk about Dany because I felt rather troubled. Bear in mind that her character is definitely one of my favorites 

When Dany made her stirring speech I got the vibe of Hitler's Sportpalast Total War Speech. Here she is not the breaker of chains but the conqueror of a continent. Westeros has as much use for her as for any High Lord or Lady or for any High House, be it Lannister, Targaeryen, Stark or Tyrell. She brings war to people who have not waited for her nor any other ruler but who care about their children surviving, about harvest, rain and sun, paraphrasing Jorah.

Hitler made his speech before a carefully selected audience who was certain to cheer for his total war.. Dany here does not promise freedom to slaves but instrumentalises a people for her cause, feeding them lunatic ideas of greatness. See the similarities.

	"I ask you: Do you want total war? If necessary, do you want a war more total and radical than anything that we can even yet imagine? [......] Now, people rise up and let the storm break loose!" Feb 18, 1943

Only I believe and I hope that Dany herself will learn her lesson and will turn all her force against the real enemy. We all hope that but in that speech terror came with a beautiful face.

Since the producer has referenced Hitler speaking at Nuremburg, that's not an unreasonable comparison.  Also, I think we're meant to draw a parallel with Bran's vision of Aerys shouting "burn them all!"

[SeanF]

35 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

Yes to the first 2 paragraphs, but there is no 'back and forth' - GRRM, D&D and Clarke herself are quite clearly portraying a pretty smooth arc in her character development from sweet idealistic victim to evil incarnate. I think a lot of readers/viewers are so hooked on her earlier persona that they're forcing themselves to see her current character as some kind of teenage phase that she'll grow out of. At some point, the penny's has to drop!

1. I'm still not sure if that's GRRM's intention (Daenerys has a dark side, which will no doubt be in evidence during her invasion of Westeros. ) But, she's a good deal less brutal in the books than the Show.  Or at any rate, her compassionate side is far more in evidence in the books than in the Show.  GRRM may intend to show her ultimately falling into evil and cruelty, but I think it will be done more subtly than in the Show.

2. WRT the Show, I'm still not sure if we're supposed to see that Daenerys is breaking bad, or if the producers intend her just  to be seen as a badass.   Daario was probably speaking for the producers when he said rulers are "either butchers or meat."