Jump to content
Petitephlox

Great analysis on why this feels like such a betrayal of Dany’s character

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

When Sansa asks “why her” when looking at the dragons, or Dany saying that nobody in Westeros has ever looked at her with adoration that’s a sentiment so sharply at odds with the first six seasons and her depiction.

People only looked at her with adoration in Essos after she freed them from their oppressors, some taking longer than others.
I suspect she hasn't really freed Westerosi from their oppressors until she's broken the wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Figdoni said:

People only looked at her with adoration in Essos after she freed them from their oppressors, some taking longer than others.
I suspect she hasn't really freed Westerosi from their oppressors until she's broken the wheel.

 

Getting rid of Cersei doesn’t count? “A Queen whose people despise her.” - Ser Davos 

I find it odd. Even in the books, people do start hearing things about Daenerys and you have mumblings. A toast to the true queen, puppet shows where the dragons eat the lions and this is only based on Qarth information; never mind after she frees a continent of slaves. Peasants should simply assume she’s here to abolish serfdom.

Yet on the show nobody, like nobody in Westeros thinks she’s amazing? That’s a little hard to believe considering how good she is with groups as different as Ghiscari slaves and Dothraki riders. Danys strength is that she inspires love and devotion in people. So Iam quite struck that her inability to do that is being depicted as a weakness by Varys, Tyrion and herself. 

Which is why I suspect it is a setup for her overcoming that and having a Mhysa moment in Kings Landing.

Edited by Tyrion1991

Share this post


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

There is nothing wrong with the story itself, but I can't agree that the storytelling on the show has been anything but awful.  Such an abrupt change in her key advisors in the space of 1 or 2 episodes is poor.

I don't think it has been abrupt at all. Tyrion's doubts about Daenerys have been seeded since he met her. Even in Meereen she was quick to accuse him of treason. In Season 7 Tyrion was trying to discuss the matter of succession with Dany and Dany was quick to accuse him of treason again. He handled the situation bravely and explained very clearly why it's important to consider what your enemies are doing. Dany didn't want to hear it and she ended the conversation with threatening overtones. Tyrion tried to counsel her towards mercy with the Tarlys and she didn't listen to that either. Now it has completely backfired and it turns out that mercy was the right course, but Dany still doesn't see her errors of mercilessness. Tyrion's sideways look when she sets the Tarlys on fire says it all.

Varys's change in tune is understandably abrupt because he has barely spent any time with Dany. He's the newest member of her group and he's basing his trust in her largely on the fact that Tyrion believes in her and Varys trusts Tyrion's judgement. But Varys, having served Aerys himself, he doesn't need a lot of time before he realizes that his trust in Tyrion and Dany has been misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Figdoni said:

I think a lot of people have a selective memory about this... possibly because they were heavily invested in "Dany the saviour" or "Dany the underdog" portrayal that they didn't take it seriously at the time..... She actually did precisely what you don't recall her doing.

Like here:

 

And again here:


Or...

(which... fair enough, Fire and Blood might not be the only methods she's planning on using... but 'taking' with 'fire and blood' is a slight departure from being a bringer of Peace.)

 

Fair enough, I didn't recall these instances but also don't equate Dany with a "bringer of Peace" 

I stand by original point though which is that the show did not do a good job of showing a "turn" toward darkness. I think the reason it feels different this time is because A) her dragons are grown now & completely capable of laying waste to entire cities  B ) it is unprovoked & unnecessary. 

In Qarth she is desperate. Her people are starving & dying. She wants to save them & knows the difference between their life & death literally lies 50 feet away behind a wall. They have suffered & journeyed clear across a waste land, lost her husband & her child & is potentially being told she will die in reach of help because the people just don't want to help her. 

With Tyrion she is talking about killing the slavers & their soldiers. She does say she will lay waste to their cities but that doesn't necessarily include the Innocents. She has burned a city before & killed only those she viewed as the enemies, not the innocent civilians. 

With KL, this is her first suggestion. She wants to burn the city almost unprovoked. She seems to careless about the innocent people & iirc actually says something to the effect that the price is worth it. 

At any rate, I don't feel like when/if this happens in the book that it will be a surprise to anyone because GRRM will set it up much better. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rustythesmith said:

I don't think it has been abrupt at all. Tyrion's doubts about Daenerys have been seeded since he met her. Even in Meereen she was quick to accuse him of treason. In Season 7 Tyrion was trying to discuss the matter of succession with Dany and Dany was quick to accuse him of treason again. He handled the situation bravely and explained very clearly why it's important to consider what your enemies are doing. Dany didn't want to hear it and she ended the conversation with threatening overtones. Tyrion tried to counsel her towards mercy with the Tarlys and she didn't listen to that either. Now it has completely backfired and it turns out that mercy was the right course, but Dany still doesn't see her errors of mercilessness. Tyrion's sideways look when she sets the Tarlys on fire says it all.

Varys's change in tune is understandably abrupt because he has barely spent any time with Dany. He's the newest member of her group and he's basing his trust in her largely on the fact that Tyrion believes in her and Varys trusts Tyrion's judgement. But Varys, having served Aerys himself, he doesn't need a lot of time before he realizes that his trust in Tyrion and Dany has been misplaced.

I found it interesting the parallel between Tyrions faith in Danaery's good side in spite of signs to the contrary,  and his faith in Cersei's good side in spite of signs to the contrary.
When he was telling Cersei "you're not a monster!" in the last episode, I found myself torn... She too has a side that is not monstrous, that is devoted to protecting her family, and she's had a horrible life that's made her how she is... but on the other hand, nah, she's a monster!! lol

Is it Tyrion's fate to be the gullible one always putting his faith in monsters ... or is he right about both? 
I know there's GRRM quotes & book quotes about the heart at war with itself, and good and evil on both sides of a war... so i guess Tyrion is cursed with seeing both sides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

<snip>Yet on the show nobody, like nobody in Westeros thinks she’s amazing? That’s a little hard to believe considering how good she is with groups as different as Ghiscari slaves and Dothraki riders. Danys strength is that she inspires love and devotion in people. <snip>

It is striking that this is what they pick as showing why Jon Snow would make a better king, when we have literally seen crowds all but worshipping the ground she walks on. Every Westerosi she encountered abroad--Varys, Jorah and Tyrion--was quickly swept into her circle of adherents. Even the Queen of Thorns liked her, told her to "be a dragon." Jon Snow fell for her, and Davos never felt he needed to ask why. The priestesses of Rh'llor are running PR for her big-time in Essos--wouldn't they at least have started in Westeros?

It doesn't seem organic to the story that everybody would be ignoring her here in Westeros--nobody even curious about what this wold-famous Mother of Dragons is like as a human being? Common folks not craning their necks to see her? Lords not making excuses to meet and her and chat her up? And then, after the sacrifices she made to win the Battle of Winterfell; after that smooth move with Gendry; people still just ignoring her? That's what passes for gratitude in the North?

Pardon me, but the whole freeze-out deal is utter nonsense. It's not like D&D haven't made  plenty of absurd plot moves before. But this one goes to the heart of the story, and as for me, I stan for Daenerys. This sort of thing is just hard to swallow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, divica said:

No. She could have done all she did but a lot of the dothriaki shouldn t have joined her.

That is the problem. She did a completly brutal thing to the dothriaki and noone of them revolted. The show depicted it as some great moment that everbody present is grateful for instead of showing a division where a big number of the dothriaki become her enemies.

That acting the way danny did has consequences and doesn t get her complete loyalty! 

they gave her complete loyalty  because she can walk though fire and has dragons. if she was any other women they would not follow her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Figdoni said:

I found it interesting the parallel between Tyrions faith in Danaery's good side in spite of signs to the contrary,  and his faith in Cersei's good side in spite of signs to the contrary.
When he was telling Cersei "you're not a monster!" in the last episode, I found myself torn... She too has a side that is not monstrous, that is devoted to protecting her family, and she's had a horrible life that's made her how she is... but on the other hand, nah, she's a monster!! lol

Is it Tyrion's fate to be the gullible one always putting his faith in monsters ... or is he right about both? 
I know there's GRRM quotes & book quotes about the heart at war with itself, and good and evil on both sides of a war... so i guess Tyrion is cursed with seeing both sides?

I agree. It's a sign of great story telling (the books not necessarily the show) that can make us feel something for someone who has done such horrible things. Most of us can't get behind the things Cersei has done but we can get behind loving our children & trying to protect them fiercely. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dany has been threaten to burn cities and people since season 1. rewatch the show. she has burned people with her dragons. they were slave masters  but two wrongs dont make a right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree. It's a sign of great story telling (the books not necessarily the show) that can make us feel something for someone who has done such horrible things. Most of us can't get behind the things Cersei has done but we can get behind loving our children & trying to protect them fiercely. 

 

Totally... We hear Jaime in the last episode listing all the terrible things he's done, but yet our hearts still break for Brienne. :bawl:

Its the complexity of the characters that really make it. The books are obviously way more complex and insightful... getting to hear thoughts in characters heads as well... the show writers have a really difficult task trying to convey soooo much into a few scenes, it can never be as intricate or as well woven as the books and I do wish they could have drawn it all out more, over more episodes and more seasons... but oh well.... budgets. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, starklover said:

dany has been threaten to burn cities and people since season 1. rewatch the show. she has burned people with her dragons. they were slave masters  but two wrongs dont make a right. 

 

Words are wind. She hasn’t actually burnt any cities to the ground.

After they murdered Barristan. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I am implying Dany's actions are sympathetic. They are. More than that though I'm disagreeing with you saying not only that the slavers actions are sympathetic but that they are more so than Dany's. The issue I have with this is that the slavers enslaved, murdered, tortured, & disfigured people. Dany killed those people. 

I don't understand how anyone can say defend the slavers or use that as evidence of Dany's madness or cruelty with a straight face. 

I think you need to read your own argument but apply it to the slavers. There are limits to sympathy and my limit is drawn at the 'enjoyment of hurting other people' line. Apparently yours encompasses slavers but not the person who killed said slavers because ... I'm not even sure why. Because human lives are more important than animals? I don't even understand how this applies to this tbh. She hasn't killed anyone because she had to pick her dragons or some person.

I think you missed the point that sympathy is not a measurement of morality. It doesn't matter whose situation is more or less sympathetic. The inescapable truth is that everybody's situation is sympathetic.

Most of the slavers did not choose to be born into a slave society. Who are you to condemn them for adapting and surviving to the environment into which they were born? Implicit in your condemnation must be some proposed solution then, right? What solution would you suggest to a person who happens to have been born into a slaving family in Astapor?

Perhaps rather than adapt and survive, these people born in Astapor should have rolled over and died. Would that be preferable to you? Or perhaps you would prefer that they become slaves themselves, so that they might be able to hold their head high during their whipping and raping. Or perhaps you think that these people should have risked certain death by rebelling against their slaving society in order to bend it to their superior sense of morality.

Which one of these things would you propose as a solution for someone who is born in Astapor or Yunakai or Meereen or Volantis or any slaving society? I think they're all naive and ridiculous, but maybe you have a better solution.

I would sooner become the slaver than the slave. If you can't concede that you would rather be the slaver than the slave too, then we're not operating on the same level of honesty necessary for any serious discussion about ethics or Dany's mishandling of Slaver's Bay.

Why are you assuming that every slaver is a slaver because they enjoy hurting other people? Hizdahr's own father and many other slave masters voted against the crucifixion of the children. Have you forgotten about the freed slave who begged Dany to allow him to sell himself back into slavery so that he might continue to serve his master's family as a well-respected and well-treated mentor? There were hundreds more like him waiting to make similar requests.
 

Quote

That being said I would like to make it very clear that I would absolutely value my dog's life over the hypothetical person that tortured & killed my dog because they enjoyed it. I'm not saying if my dog gets out & someone accidentally hits her with their car & she dies that person deserves some punishment. I'm saying people that get enjoyment out of the punishment or cruelty of another being, whether that be a dog, a dragon, or another person, have no value to their life and I disagree that that means I love my dog irrationally.


Why are you trying to misrepresent what I said by changing the hypothetical?  I said nothing about people torturing animals. The hypothetical was that you're forced to choose between the life of your dog and the life of a human being. You said that you aren't the type of person to evade a dilemma, but that's what you're doing at the first opportunity. You made the human being into an animal torturer in order to make the dilemma easier for yourself. But I think maybe the reason you did that is because you haven't absorbed the first point that everyone's situation is sympathetic. In other words, relativity kills the validity of any argument that involves measuring whose situation is more or less sympathetic. The solution to morality isn't to hold a tournament of victimhood. We will not solve any problem of morality by measuring which side has the bigger claim to victimhood, and a big reason why is because you would have to be omniscient in order to actually know all of the relevant information about a person's life and situation in order to pass any kind of moral judgement on them.

So the only useful measurement of morality is survival. With any given action, how well does it work to keep our species alive? That's what I think Martin is testing with these warring House philosophies. House Stark's philosophy is the only value system that is aimed primarily at the preservation of the human collective. Most everyone else is just looking out for themselves, and that's why their philosophies fail. "Winter is Coming" calls to the Stark's responsibility to store up food for their families and smallfolk, as well as to defend the realms of men against the monsters in the north. "The lone wolf dies but the pack survives" calls to the Starks' responsibilities to their family members as well as their friends and any other kinships they  might form. People survive better in groups, so each individual needs to be willing to sacrifice on behalf of the group. That's essentailly what Ned does when he sacrifices to protect children, whether they're his sister's children, Cersei's children, the mad king's children, it doesn't matter. They're innocent members of the great human pack.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, rustythesmith said:

I think you missed the point that sympathy is not a measurement of morality. It doesn't matter whose situation is more or less sympathetic. The inescapable truth is that everybody's situation is sympathetic.

Most of the slavers did not choose to be born into a slave society. Who are you to condemn them for adapting and surviving to the environment into which they were born? Implicit in your condemnation must be some proposed solution then, right? What solution would you suggest to a person who happens to have been born into a slaving family in Astapor?

Perhaps rather than adapt and survive, these people born in Astapor should have rolled over and died. Would that be preferable to you? Or perhaps you would prefer that they become slaves themselves, so that they might be able to hold their head high during their whipping and raping. Or perhaps you think that these people should have risked certain death by rebelling against their slaving society in order to bend it to their superior sense of morality.

Which one of these things would you propose as a solution for someone who is born in Astapor or Yunakai or Meereen or Volantis or any slaving society? I think they're all naive and ridiculous, but maybe you have a better solution.

I would sooner become the slaver than the slave. If you can't concede that you would rather be the slaver than the slave too, then we're not operating on the same level of honesty necessary for any serious discussion about ethics or Dany's mishandling of Slaver's Bay.

Why are you assuming that every slaver is a slaver because they enjoy hurting other people? Hizdahr's own father and many other slave masters voted against the crucifixion of the children. Have you forgotten about the freed slave who begged Dany to allow him to sell himself back into slavery so that he might continue to serve his master's family as a well-respected and well-treated mentor? There were hundreds more like him waiting to make similar requests.
 


Why are you trying to misrepresent what I said by changing the hypothetical?  I said nothing about people torturing animals. The hypothetical was that you're forced to choose between the life of your dog and the life of a human being. You said that you aren't the type of person to evade a dilemma, but that's what you're doing at the first opportunity. You made the human being into an animal torturer in order to make the dilemma easier for yourself. But I think maybe the reason you did that is because you haven't absorbed the first point that everyone's situation is sympathetic. In other words, relativity kills the validity of any argument that involves measuring whose situation is more or less sympathetic. The solution to morality isn't to hold a tournament of victimhood. We will not solve any problem of morality by measuring which side has the bigger claim to victimhood, and a big reason why is because you would have to be omniscient in order to actually know all of the relevant information about a person's life and situation in order to pass any kind of moral judgement on them.

So the only useful measurement of morality is survival. With any given action, how well does it work to keep our species alive? That's what I think Martin is testing with these warring House philosophies. House Stark's philosophy is the only value system that is aimed primarily at the preservation of the human collective. Most everyone else is just looking out for themselves, and that's why their philosophies fail. "Winter is Coming" calls to the Stark's responsibility to store up food for their families and smallfolk, as well as to defend the realms of men against the monsters in the north. "The lone wolf dies but the pack survives" calls to the Starks' responsibilities to their family members as well as their friends and any other kinships they  might form. People survive better in groups, so each individual needs to be willing to sacrifice on behalf of the group. That's essentailly what Ned does when he sacrifices to protect children, whether they're his sister's children, Cersei's children, the mad king's children, it doesn't matter. They're innocent members of the great human pack.

 

I can't quote right on my phone so my apologies for quoting it all at once. 

Yes, most people's situations are sympathetic. Maybe I am missing your point because that Dany's situation is sympathetic is exactly what I'm saying. Not that she is perfect, not that she has not made mistakes, not that she hasn't done anything morally wrong, but that her situation is sympathetic. 

Who am I to judge? I'm just a person with an opinion, just like you. I have no solution which is kind of the point. None of the proposed situations are optimal, none are what I would choose. If I had no choice but to make a choice I would choose to not be a sadistic fuck, regardless if I was slaver or slave.

To the bolded - you are not serious?

How does rebelling against people enslaving you = trying to bend them to their superior sense of morality?! It is Not ok to own people. It is absolutely ok to want to not be owned. That does not mean you are trying to bend anyone to your sense of morality. Every human being has the right to be their own person. 

I would rather not be a slaver or a slave as I stated. Since, according to you, these people had no choice if they were slaver or slave why do you keep presenting me with this choice as some evidence that your argument is on par while if I cannot admit I would choose to be a slaver?? I would never, ever, ever, choose to be a slaver or a slave. 

I'm not assuming all of the slavers were slavers because they enjoyed hurting people. Are you assuming all the slavers were morally righteous people who just couldn't avoid their fate? No. I'm telling you there are times when it isn't as black & white as: there's an animal & a human, the human life is more valuable period. There is evidence that not all the slavers enjoyed hurting people, there is also evidence of slavers who enjoyed every minute of it. 

No I didn't avoid the dilemma or make it easier for myself. Again, I'm telling you the life of the human is not always valuable. I furthered that by giving you a situation where I would say the life of the animal is more valuable. 

How am I missing the point that everyone's situation is sympathetic when I have, for pages, been arguing with you that Dany's situation is sympathetic?

I fear we will just continue to go in circles & will be more than happy to read your reply, should you have one, but I may not reply if I don't have anything more to add. Just in case, thanks for chatting with me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Getting rid of Cersei doesn’t count? “A Queen whose people despise her.” - Ser Davos 

I find it odd. Even in the books, people do start hearing things about Daenerys and you have mumblings. A toast to the true queen, puppet shows where the dragons eat the lions and this is only based on Qarth information; never mind after she frees a continent of slaves. Peasants should simply assume she’s here to abolish serfdom. 

Yet on the show nobody, like nobody in Westeros thinks she’s amazing? That’s a little hard to believe considering how good she is with groups as different as Ghiscari slaves and Dothraki riders. Danys strength is that she inspires love and devotion in people. So Iam quite struck that her inability to do that is being depicted as a weakness by Varys, Tyrion and herself. 

Which is why I suspect it is a setup for her overcoming that and having a Mhysa moment in Kings Landing.

Yeah, I don't think this "foreign conqueror" plot thread is going to be in the books. It's a creation of internet forums, which is what D&D seem to have taken a lot of ideas from.

Realistically, there should be people lining up to meet the Dragon Queen everywhere she goes, even if they don't end up supporting her, just as it was in Essos. Dany and her dragons are celebrities. They should have attracted plenty of positive attention upon arrival, and at least a few minor lords should have been won over by her. Those that aren't, should be rejecting her out of loyalty to their current crown, poor deals, or for lack of confidence in her. Rejecting her for being "foreign" doesn't make sense to me. She was born in Westeros and doesn't act any different to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, divica said:

Not true. What she did to the dothriaki was completly awful and the show made it into a super bad ass moment. 

She burned all the leadership of a race of people because "she is a better leader" and nobody cared? Then she completly changed their culture to fit her values and nobody cared?

Her burning the tarlys for treason is very mild compared to what she has done in essos where the show made her into a beloved hero...

i agree it was bad and she was smiling when she was doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Dany does turn into the Mad Queen the books will set that up better. The show has done almost zero leg work on this. In the books I can see the Dothraki raping and pillaging, Dany either does nothing or is ineffective at stopping this. The smallfolk turn against her as a result. She becomes pissed at the smallfolk and minor lords disdain and becomes more and more isolated and paranoid. The love of Jon accelerates this and she goes Mad. Especially if she loses her key advisors. This will take a long time to happen. This will be nothing like the show. Dany in the show is as sane as any character, so far at least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In the books and earlier seasons Dany was obviously foreshadowed as a reverse savior/subversion of the magical princess with a special word changing destiny trope. Her foreshadowing as a mass burner of innocent life is up there with Ned and Robb's deaths for obviousness. I remember commenting with others a few years back in the book forums that I wished I'd written her character before GRRM, she seems so obvious a creation for controversy in this day and age. The aim of a good story is to get people to asses their ideological positions, right?

The trouble is she has been handled very poorly in the last two seasons of the show. Rather than writing her as someone trying to hold onto their humanity whist they try to do good and their dreams crumble around them, she is written totally illogically. Her descent is confused and unclear. I'm sure if GRRM ever finishes, he plans to write her better, with a clearly sympathetic and identifiable descent into madness. Though I am not sure he will ever finish and the shows crap version of what should have been an incredible character will be all we have.

The only thing the show has done right with Dany in the last half is the music. It is suitably epic with a hint of violence, subverting you to think she is a great savior whilst letting you know she is a conqueror at the same time. I'd argue the only thing that has remained consistently good with this production, in every season, is the music - props to the composer.

A villain is just a hero of the other side, after all.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

It is striking that this is what they pick as showing why Jon Snow would make a better king, when we have literally seen crowds all but worshipping the ground she walks on. Every Westerosi she encountered abroad--Varys, Jorah and Tyrion--was quickly swept into her circle of adherents. Even the Queen of Thorns liked her, told her to "be a dragon." Jon Snow fell for her, and Davos never felt he needed to ask why. The priestesses of Rh'llor are running PR for her big-time in Essos--wouldn't they at least have started in Westeros?

It doesn't seem organic to the story that everybody would be ignoring her here in Westeros--nobody even curious about what this wold-famous Mother of Dragons is like as a human being? Common folks not craning their necks to see her? Lords not making excuses to meet and her and chat her up? And then, after the sacrifices she made to win the Battle of Winterfell; after that smooth move with Gendry; people still just ignoring her? That's what passes for gratitude in the North?

Pardon me, but the whole freeze-out deal is utter nonsense. It's not like D&D haven't made  plenty of absurd plot moves before. But this one goes to the heart of the story, and as for me, I stan for Daenerys. This sort of thing is just hard to swallow.

Agreed. Couldn't had said it better myself.

That the writers basically went down the path of "Jon is a better ruler because people love him" makes no sense from a narrative perspective, unless you purposefully ignore Daenerys' entire arc. Jon and Daenerys are both extremely good at inspiring loyalty and love in the people around them. (And ironically, making them do stuff that will briefly remove said loyalty and love.)
The show suddenly downplaying every "khaleesi/mhysa"-moment Daenerys has ever had makes no sense. It's a ill-hidden plot device. 

And the notion that she of all people would be completely alone and isolated during the feast after winning the great war is so contrived that it borders on immersion-breaking. I can see why drunk Tormund would focus entirely on this crow-bro (even if he did make a toast in Daenerys' honor earlier), but why does no one else show any interest in Daenerys what so ever? With the risk of sounding like a fanboy, but if I had been at that feast and noticed how she sat all alone, I would be over there in an instant and try to learn everything there is to learn about the Mother of Dragons and Saviour of Winterfell.
The tavern-wenches getting more attention than Daenerys again, feels like an ill-hidden plot device. 

Edited by MinscS2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

Agreed. Couldn't had said it better myself.

That the writers basically went down the path of "Jon is a better ruler because people love him" makes no sense from a narrative perspective, unless you purposefully ignore Daenerys' entire arc. Jon and Daenerys are both extremely good at inspiring loyalty and love in the people around them. (And ironically, making them do stuff that will briefly remove said loyalty and love.)
The show suddenly downplaying every "khaleesi/mhysa"-moment Daenerys has ever had makes no sense. It's a ill-hidden plot device. 

And the notion that she of all people would be completely alone and isolated during the feast after winning the great war is so contrived that it borders on immersion-breaking. I can see why drunk Tormund would focus entirely on this crow-bro (even if he did make a toast in Daenerys' honor earlier), but why does no one else show any interest in Daenerys what so ever? With the risk of sounding like a fanboy, but if I had been at that feast and noticed how she sat all alone, I would be over there in an instant and try to learn everything there is to learn about the Mother of Dragons and Saviour of Winterfell.
The tavern-wenches getting more attention than Daenerys again, feels like an ill-hidden plot device. 

I am more of a jon then a dany fan but I totally agree. Where is MIssandei? Also so many people would want to ingratiate themselves to the Dragon Queen. Also those serving girls were Sansa's whore spies, which is weird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×