Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Armand Gargalen

What is wrong with Daenrys´ character

Recommended Posts

On 18/08/2017 at 10:09 PM, DarkBastard said:

This is a tough one, because I see your point but I also see the show running a logical arc.If you remember last season when she made Tyrion Hand of the Queen, she had just broken things off with Daario.  She said she "felt nothing".  As her character progresses through those stages of emotion and maturity, they are showing an evolution of her behavior.  She had no remorse for burning the Khals in Vaes Dothrak, but no one questioned it.  Is it less meaningful to kill men in that way than it was to kill the Tarleys in their defiance?  She didn't cry for them, and she didn't cry for the slavers attacking Mereen...would it be logical for her to cry for the Lannisters, who had just slaughtered her allies the Tyrells?  

We sometimes project our feelings and expectation upon those we admire without considering their own perspective.  Those men had just killed her allies, killed Olenna, raided everything of value from The Reach and left the few survivors with nothing to support an illegitimate Queen Cersei who had just recently murdered a huge group of people in the Sept of Baelor.  And Cersei murdered them because she gave power to a sycophant in order to eliminate the "rightful" queen. These are terrible people in her eyes.  The Sons of the Harpy were terrible people.  The Masters were terrible people.  She didn't shed tears for any of them.  

We expect it because to us the Lannisters and Tarleys are not abstract like the others.  That is not true from Dany's perspective.  We care about Jaime and Bronn and (to a lesser degree) Dickon ...we didn't care about the Masters or the Khals or the Harpies.  We saw the personal side of the Lannister army with Arya on the road earlier this season.  We didn't see the personal side of the Master's armies...does that mean they were all terrible people?

The perspective argument is a good point. We have seen the culture of Essos always as outsiders, from Dany's perspective (and more recently Arya's). We have sided with Dany because she has been the only perspective to side with.

Now that Dany is in Westeros, a place that we know more about the workings of, from multiple perspectives, she may seem a bit different to us. But is that only because our adjusted perspective views her differently?

Dhario is right about her, I'm afraid. She's a conqueror, plain and simple. The story has just set her up in a way that we sympathise with her reason for conquering (slaves, chauvinist Dothraki men etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DireKiwi said:

She WANTS the Iron throne like all others (Stannis, Renly etc) before her.

But WHY does she want the Iron throne? Because she's entitled to have it, it's her birthright.

I think that's being a little unfair. She really does think she can make life better for everyone in Westeros if she's in charge. When and if that becomes the reason she wants the throne, she deserves it. As long as she wants it because of her entitlement, she doesn't. And I think that's what both the books and the show are trying to demonstrate with her character arc. (And Renly and Stannis are there in part to foreshadow that question. Stannis unquestionably had the best entitlement to the throne, and yet he didn't make things better by contesting for it.) And revealing R+L=J to her is the only thing that's going to force her to see this.

45 minutes ago, DireKiwi said:

I cannot take her seriously anymore unless she wins the Iron throne only to renounce it and creates a new political system WITHOUT the Iron throne.

I see the exact opposite. I found it a lot harder to take her seriously after she abandoned the throne in Meereen and charged a council of uneducated former slaves and maybe some nice-guy former slavers to build a government for the people from whole cloth. What does she thinks is going to happen there? What do D&D think is going to happen there? All I can imagine is what happened to Astapor in the books.

The obvious thing to do is to turn Westeros into a constitutional monarchy, which can gradually transition to democracy a la England. She can't get it all done in her lifetime, so the most important thing is to set up the systems that will make it possible to keep moving forward after she's gone. Just overturning the entire system overnight and hoping someone manages to immediately invent republican democracy (or anarcho-syndicalism, or whatever utopian government you're hoping they end up with, but I'll assume democracy) before their civilization falls apart is ridiculously naive.

Maybe if someone delivered Dany all of the ideas that go to making a democracy on a plate, written in plain English (or Common), she could make it work. But neither she nor anyone else is going to invent it overnight. Remember, these people don't have any of the background that our modern democracies had. There's no writings of philosophers like John Locke, or even the basics of the enlightenment, or even the renaissance, for them to arise from. They don't have any kind of notions of freedoms or human rights even for the aristocracy, much less for the common people, to build on. They don't have a professional judiciary or lawyers to come up with the idea of the rule of law. They don't have historical precursors like Athens and Rome to look back on. And they're transitioning directly out of feudalism, which is a lot harder than out of a French-style absolute monarchy (much less a British-style constitutional monarchy with a Parliament that's already halfway there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, ummester said:

Dhario is right about her, I'm afraid. She's a conqueror, plain and simple. The story has just set her up in a way that we sympathise with her reason for conquering (slaves, chauvinist Dothraki men etc).

Those same chauvinistic Dothraki men that now follow her? Are we supposed to believe that just because they follow a woman are they less misogynistic and treating other women with respect? Or is this another example of the show inconsistent and poor writing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Heathen Librarian said:

I think you are absolutely correct.

I think she was improperly cast for book!Cersei but the show writers hired her because they like her version of Cersei better. I hated it but eventually I just grew to accept it as an alternate version. Lena's version has grown on me a little.

Yeah I agree. Book Cersei is nothing like what Lena portrays. I've said this before but in my opinion Lena's Cersei can be summed up with that Harry Potter line when Harry taunts Draco Malfoy how his mother looks as though she had dung under her nose all the time. She's boring, sour and crunched in stress. I prefer book Cersei. 

3 hours ago, Armand Gargalen said:

This show fad feminism is really cringeworthy. Somebody should explain the showrunners feminism is not about women behaving like men, specially like stupid, violent ones, but about women behaving the way they decide to behave. 

Or the show could just altogether stop trying to shoehorn 2017 internet feminism into their medieval fantasy series and just concentrate on creating an enjoyable plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, falcotron said:

I think that's being a little unfair. She really does think she can make life better for everyone in Westeros if she's in charge. When and if that becomes the reason she wants the throne, she deserves it. As long as she wants it because of her entitlement, she doesn't. And I think that's what both the books and the show are trying to demonstrate with her character arc. (And Renly and Stannis are there in part to foreshadow that question. Stannis unquestionably had the best entitlement to the throne, and yet he didn't make things better by contesting for it.) And revealing R+L=J to her is the only thing that's going to force her to see this.

I see the exact opposite. I found it a lot harder to take her seriously after she abandoned the throne in Meereen and charged a council of uneducated former slaves and maybe some nice-guy former slavers to build a government for the people from whole cloth. What does she thinks is going to happen there? What do D&D think is going to happen there? All I can imagine is what happened to Astapor in the books.

The obvious thing to do is to turn Westeros into a constitutional monarchy, which can gradually transition to democracy a la England. She can't get it all done in her lifetime, so the most important thing is to set up the systems that will make it possible to keep moving forward after she's gone. Just overturning the entire system overnight and hoping someone manages to immediately invent republican democracy (or anarcho-syndicalism, or whatever utopian government you're hoping they end up with, but I'll assume democracy) before their civilization falls apart is ridiculously naive.

Maybe if someone delivered Dany all of the ideas that go to making a democracy on a plate, written in plain English (or Common), she could make it work. But neither she nor anyone else is going to invent it overnight. Remember, these people don't have any of the background that our modern democracies had. There's no writings of philosophers like John Locke, or even the basics of the enlightenment, or even the renaissance, for them to arise from. They don't have any kind of notions of freedoms or human rights even for the aristocracy, much less for the common people, to build on. They don't have a professional judiciary or lawyers to come up with the idea of the rule of law. They don't have historical precursors like Athens and Rome to look back on. And they're transitioning directly out of feudalism, which is a lot harder than out of a French-style absolute monarchy (much less a British-style constitutional monarchy with a Parliament that's already halfway there).

Even though she's a fundamentally good person, there are some things I don't like about her, I still think she relies too much on her dragons to get things done. Jon on the other hand fights his own battles and doesn't think his life is above anyone else's.

Daenerys will NOT give her own life to save anyone else, and there lies the difference. She is important and she knows it and acts like it. 

I am not a Jon fan (Tyrion actually) but I do think he is more of a real character than Dany is, he makes mistakes yes but so does Tyrion. It makes them relate-able and most of all human.

Daenery being on a losing strike this time actually feels rather refreshing, she now knows her dragons are not invincible and it makes her more of a person instead of being the unattainable badass goddess she seems to impersonate sometimes.

No one should sit on the iron throne in my opinion, if Daenerys wins it ,she'll spends the rest of her life fearing she'll lose it (like her father) Power should not be inheritable but earned, so if she earns it ,she'll have to change the rules. Otherwise she'll just be more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2017 at 3:27 PM, Katleesi said:

A couple of things about Dany's "reactions"  (or lack thereof) come to mind:

1. Her dragons are her children (apparently the only she will ever be able to have) and Drogon is practically her soulmate. Did you see the look she gave Jon Snow when he called them beasts?  If this show has taught us one thing, its never under estimate a mother's love or wrath.  These soldiers unleashed the MF scorpion on her favorite child, and wounded him. If I were Dany, I'd burn every last one of them if I could, and I'm merely a Katleesi.  

2. Dany burning the enemy is not out of character with her show version, and she's well acquainted with the damage her children can cause. She chained R and V up for quite a while as she came to terms with the power. Knowing - and using- the power she has is not inconsistent with anything she's done at this point. In fact, using them as a  last resort is wholly consistent with her series long courses and choices of action. 

3. I'm pretty surprised that people are reacting so strongly to her alleged "ruthless". She went into battle with the best weapons at her disposal. I wonder if anyone would have batted an eye if Stannis had used Dragons in the same manner. These were soldiers- an army. I don't think her battle strategy is inconsistent with what a good general would do. 

4. I think D&D are relying on people knowing things and remembering past scenes/chapters to gloss over a lot in their hurry to finish this series in the next 8 episodes. We are used to seeing at least some lip service building up to difficult choices on this show, and we are not getting any of that this year. Dialogue and back story are non existent. 

I think it's more like George Martin told David and Dan that Dany will win the game and rule in the end.  The story supports that conclusion.  D and D have to throw a bone to the dogs too and give the fans of Arya, Jon, and the Dany haters something to cheer about.  So they either depower Dany, kill off Barristan, or something else.  In fairness, they do give Jon haters and Dany supporters a lot to like too. 

To give an example, that fight scene between Arya and Brienne were strategically put in the same episode with Dany's victory over Jaime.  If they had not put that scene there, many Dany haters would have disliked that excellent episode.  The same goes for Jon haters like me.  Think on last year's ep. 9, the battle of the bastards.  If that show had not had an awesome Dany victory over the slavers at the start and if it had only been about Jon's victory (it was really Petyr Baelish and Sansa who won that battle, but whatever!), over Ramsay, Jon haters like me would have hated that episode.  David Benioff and Daniel Weiss knows the fandom is divided between Dany supporters like me and Jon's supporters.  So they plan their episodes to give both sides something to like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DireKiwi said:

Even though she's a fundamentally good person, there are some things I don't like about her, I still think she relies too much on her dragons to get things done. Jon on the other hand fights his own battles and doesn't think his life is above anyone else's.

Daenerys will NOT give her own life to save anyone else, and there lies the difference. She is important and she knows it and acts like it. 

 

Did you miss the part where Dany was leading the charge on her dragon where any one of those arrows that were shot at her could have ended her life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RhaenysB said:

Yeah I agree. Book Cersei is nothing like what Lena portrays. I've said this before but in my opinion Lena's Cersei can be summed up with that Harry Potter line when Harry taunts Draco Malfoy how his mother looks as though she had dung under her nose all the time. She's boring, sour and crunched in stress. I prefer book Cersei. 

Or the show could just altogether stop trying to shoehorn 2017 internet feminism into their medieval fantasy series and just concentrate on creating an enjoyable plot.

That would probably be an excellent idea. As a feminist, I still would like them to be educated about the topic, but if they leave it all out of the show I will be as happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

I think it's more like George Martin told David and Dan that Dany will win the game and rule in the end.  The story supports that conclusion.  D and D have to throw a bone to the dogs too and give the fans of Arya, Jon, and the Dany haters something to cheer about.  So they either depower Dany, kill off Barristan, or something else.  In fairness, they do give Jon haters and Dany supporters a lot to like too. 

To give an example, that fight scene between Arya and Brienne were strategically put in the same episode with Dany's victory over Jaime.  If they had not put that scene there, many Dany haters would have disliked that excellent episode.  The same goes for Jon haters like me.  Think on last year's ep. 9, the battle of the bastards.  If that show had not had an awesome Dany victory over the slavers at the start and if it had only been about Jon's victory (it was really Petyr Baelish and Sansa who won that battle, but whatever!), over Ramsay, Jon haters like me would have hated that episode.  David Benioff and Daniel Weiss knows the fandom is divided between Dany supporters like me and Jon's supporters.  So they plan their episodes to give both sides something to like. 

I am on the opinion that this way of thinking is one of the reasons this show is going downhill.

Personally, there are no characters I hate or support. At the end of the day, they are just fictional characters, and there is no Iron Throne or White Walkers, so what should I care what happens to them? What I want is a set of characters that make for an interesting and enjoyable story. So while I may say Daenerys is my favourite book character it just means she is the one I enjoy reading about the most; to be honest, I do not care if she ends up as queen or dies at the end, as long as the character arch is engaging.

If fans and showrunners shared a little of this vision, I believe the show would really improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2017 at 3:33 PM, Armand Gargalen said:

Would it not have been much more powerful if we saw a Daenerys who is trying to hide her tears for the horrors she just witnessed and committed because she has to be a strong ruler who can no display weakness in public, only to be surprised by Jon? That would really show she is a real human being with a conflicted heart, someone another decent human being could fall in love with.

 

This is not possible because Emilia Clarke is not able to express the depth of these feelings in her acting. So they just let her do the least possible required by the character. I know it's sad, but unfortunately it's true :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Armand Gargalen said:

That would probably be an excellent idea. As a feminist, I still would like them to be educated about the topic, but if they leave it all out of the show I will be as happy.

Sure, let them be. But it's probably for the best to leave it out of the show even if they are. Just don't try to use a medieval fantasy context for pushing a feminist message. Leave that for different shows, dystopian shows, shows set in the modern age. That's just my opinion though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

I think it's more like George Martin told David and Dan that Dany will win the game and rule in the end.  The story supports that conclusion.  D and D have to throw a bone to the dogs too and give the fans of Arya, Jon, and the Dany haters something to cheer about.  So they either depower Dany, kill off Barristan, or something else.  In fairness, they do give Jon haters and Dany supporters a lot to like too. 

To give an example, that fight scene between Arya and Brienne were strategically put in the same episode with Dany's victory over Jaime.  If they had not put that scene there, many Dany haters would have disliked that excellent episode.  The same goes for Jon haters like me.  Think on last year's ep. 9, the battle of the bastards.  If that show had not had an awesome Dany victory over the slavers at the start and if it had only been about Jon's victory (it was really Petyr Baelish and Sansa who won that battle, but whatever!), over Ramsay, Jon haters like me would have hated that episode.  David Benioff and Daniel Weiss knows the fandom is divided between Dany supporters like me and Jon's supporters.  So they plan their episodes to give both sides something to like. 

not anyone hates dany or jon.  i like  both of them. i sometimes dislike dany because i agree with what she does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×