Jump to content
Petitephlox

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

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Nictarion said:

Yes, it matters. Nobody called Tywin mad when he sacked KL. There’s a huge difference between being insane and being ruthless. 

Burning the Red Keep, and it's human shields, as a part of storming the city, would be ruthless, but neither insane nor evil, IMHO, unless one is arguing that people like Truman and Churchill were insane or evil.  Burning down the city, as an act of pure revenge, would be evil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Yeah but that’s not because dan and Dave or hbo are sexist, it’s because they can’t write and they don’t care about narrative sense. Male characters and their storylines are just as fucked up, look at Tyrion, Jon, Jorah, Jaime, Davos. 

No I totally agree with you, just made the point so it can be discussed. I said earlier it wasn't my initial thought the first time I watched it but could see why people thought that the second time I watched it. Wouldn't say it's intentional and that event would have definitely affected her but she's been through so much, it's hard to say if one event is worse than the other.

Regardless of how it's interpreted, the only thing certain is the bad writing. It's once again lazy that scene could have been a lot more powerful. The biggest motivation could have been her fathers death and the fact Cersei didn't object to Joffrey making Sansa watch - as well as the Littlefinger situation and many more. Her referencing those events without fear and saying something along the lines of, I'm who I am now because I've stayed alive to see Cersei suffer would have sent a big message about her too. Even if not in that exact way some Queen like attributes would have been welcome. 

Maybe I'm asking too much from the writers.

49 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

And yes the agenda against Daenerys is utter bullshit, plenty of other characters have done similar things and they were never considered insane. Daenerys’s reactions to events are completely human and rational (except when she shits on Viserion’s death because she’s worried about Jon). She has every reason to be furious after the losses she and her forces suffered and she has no reason to not use her resources because it’s “immoral”. It’s utter nonsense for the sake of stretching the plot and trying to cook up a non-existent conflict. It’s pathetic. 

Would they have been so quick to label her insane if her father wasn't the Mad King. Why isn't Cersei described as insane? Surely the biggest evidence of insanity was her refusal to send her army up north.

It's no secret that Dany wants the Iron Throne meaning that a war is inevitable. She has feelings and has suffered a lot on her journey which only fuels her ambitions and desire to get it over and done with. If she wants to use her resources because that's the only way to conquer KL then is that such a bad thing? Her enemies will only get stronger and it's Cersei that wants to use her people as human shields, voluntarily just to make Dany seem no different to her father. Yet there is no still no agenda against Cersei or how she's the new Mad King equivalent, I mean she blew up the Sept of Baelor. There's literally so much to mention about Cersei and why she must be removed.

I find it shameful that an argument about Dany not being fit to rule due to her madness is even being entertained as if she hasn't forgiven traitors in the past or made sacrifices up north. There's a bias towards one side of the story, they're refusing to look at the flipside. As I always say, whether you're for or against Dany, there's clearly an agenda against her character. Sansa and Vary's creating plots just seems a bit too ungrateful after 'The Long Night.`

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LearnToBeNoOne said:

 Yet there is no still no agenda against Cersei or how she's the new Mad King equivalent,

I would say the armies marching to remove her count as an agenda. The Tyrells, Sand Snakes, Yara and now the North and the Vale all teamed up to get her off the throne at one point or another. Virtually every single character not at Kings Landing has or was against her due to her style of leadership. 

Quote

I find it shameful that an argument about Dany not being fit to rule due to her madness is even being entertained as if she hasn't forgiven traitors in the past or made sacrifices up north. There's a bias towards one side of the story, they're refusing to look at the flipside. As I always say, whether you're for or against Dany, there's clearly an agenda against her character. Sansa and Vary's creating plots just seems a bit too ungrateful

Varys very likely plotted with Rheagar to remove Aerys, plotted to remove Robert, plotted to remove Joffrey, then when he was kicked out the capital was plotting to get Tommen then Cersei off the throne. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I wouldn’t have minded Daenerys becoming an anti-villain had there been credible build up to it. What I find insulting is how a lot of the writing that has currently brought her to this point is contrived. It’s like the writers had a bullet point saying “X will be Dany’s breaking point” and just shoehorned it in with no suspense or build up. She could have been one of the best anti-villains but for the poor writing. Now it’s just character assassination.

Yet I feel I can see the writing on the wall — she’s going to be betrayed by Tyrion and the rest of the Starks. Yet they won’t act like it’s a betrayal but like Stannis-point-2. If we’re lucky, she flies away on Drogon never to be seen again - or back to Essos. Otherwise I think she just dies. 

Aren’t you thrilled the White Walkers we’re killed off for this?

Edited by Faera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be all due to acting, to be honest. Look at Jaime. He started as a villain and we hated him, he took a turn to the light side and we loved him. But this also due to the great quality of acting Nicolaj Coster-Waldau put in. 

Joffrey could never pull of a "face"-turn. Maybe Emilia Clarke is way to likeable to be ever taken seriously as the show's hidden villain.

I really wonder what was in the original mind of George RR Martin and how he saw her whole arc going. My point is it might have been more credible if the actress had the talent to pull it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Petitephlox said:

I thought this article was right on! 

Really? What is right on? This article is wrong in almost every sentence. This article is an unbearable eulogy of overly politically-correct nonsense.

For example, the wake scene with all the Northerners hailing Jon Snow and Daenerys sitting lonely on the side -- this is not about sexism at all. It is supposed to show Daenerys just not belongs into the North, has no people there, is on her own. Simple as that. It could have been exactly the same with a male like Viserys. Northerners will never accept a Southern queen. The "the pack survives", the North sticks together. 

Of course people celebrate with whom they feel close, connected, related. Have the same background, the same emotions, a long time of standing side by side. This is natural and not at all sexism. My goodness, just because Daenerys is female does not make her an outside. She is an Southern usurper, a wannebe-queen. No one really trusts her. And rightly so.

Please do not turn a great and entertaining show into real-world politics.

Further, Daenerys character arc did not begin to turn to mad queen only after arrival in Westeros. The author gets this totally wrong. Tyrion had to advise her against drastic punishments and "kill them all" strategies in Essos, too. He admonished her not to destroy King's Landing and the people she want to rule back in Meeren, too. For all attentive watchers Daenerys was power-greedy and on the verge of madness all the time long.

Daenerys' character is complex and a mixture of sometimes wanting the right things but using the wrong means. She shows a good heart and in the next moment she is overly harsh with punishments.

Edited by Kajjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ferrelhadley said:

I would say the armies marching to remove her count as an agenda. The Tyrells, Sand Snakes, Yara and now the North and the Vale all teamed up to get her off the throne at one point or another. Virtually every single character not at Kings Landing has or was against her due to her style of leadership. 

She used wildfire to bring down the Sept of Baelor and if you take a look at the deaths that took place just in the sept, The Queen Margaery Tyrell, Loras Tyrell, Mace Tyrell, The High Sparrow and Kevan Lannister all died. She also caused the death of Maester Pycelle and lead her child, King Tommen to suicide. The aftermath of these events should have been the end of her.

Regardless of her skill being survival, it is very flawed.

There was no riots in KL although both the High Sparrow and Queen Margaery were admired highly. In addition to this the whole of the 7 kingdoms would have rallied against her and nobody should have allied themselves with her after that day.

Jaime broke an oath to King Aery's, sacrificing his honour after finding out that he was about to burn the whole city, as much as he saved his father and Lannister army, he saved the city and everybody else. Cersei blew up the Sept of Baelor showing similarities to Aery's so where were the repercussions? The love or not wanting to be a 'kinslayer' argument doesn't justify it.

So that's why I wouldn't call it an agenda, if there were she would have successfully been removed. Plus there's so much more that she's done.

10 minutes ago, ferrelhadley said:

Varys very likely plotted with Rheagar to remove Aerys, plotted to remove Robert, plotted to remove Joffrey, then when he was kicked out the capital was plotting to get Tommen then Cersei off the throne. 

Doesn't mean the scene makes sense - not straight after 'The Long Night.'

Either way, Vary's has the audacity to plot against Dany and refer to her as mad whilst Cersei sits on the throne? I don't buy it.

Share this post


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

That CNN article is a riot. It's hilarious how we're just normalizing Dany's behavior when she calls her dragons her "children." Jorah pointed out how weird it is that she calls them her children way back in Qarth. It's indicative of an unhealthy pathology regarding her dragons. She thinks of them as surrogate human children and treats them as if their lives are more valuable than any number of human lives.

 

To be completely honest: They are. They are (or should be) an ultimate weapon, and as such every single dragon is more valuable than... a LOT of human lives. How many human lives is, say, an aircraft carrier worth? 

Heck, knights had the same attitude to horses. Because a good war stallion would be more valuable than a horde of peasants - it would keep you alive, it would help you win battles... Heck, sheep were seen at certain times and places as more valuable than human lives given that a theft of sheep could get you hanged.

While Dany's obsession with dragons may be pathological, objectively speaking they are valuable. You have Planetos full of humans, you have only three dragons. That you hatched by burning your husband's body and a witch after finding out you are barren.

 

In itself it is not a sign of Mad Queen. Her other behavior hints there, esp. things like "I will not chain other human beings, I am the breaker of chains - I'd rather burn them alive and extinguish their house". This hints to a rather... "digital" justice, either you are good with her or you are dead (which kinda tends to motivate the opposition to fight to the last).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LearnToBeNoOne said:

She used wildfire to bring down the Sept of Baelor and if you take a look at the deaths that took place just in the sept, The Queen Margaery Tyrell, Loras Tyrell, Mace Tyrell, The High Sparrow and Kevan Lannister all died. She also caused the death of Maester Pycelle and lead her child, King Tommen to suicide. The aftermath of these events should have been the end of her.

Cersei is a bad person, ruthless, driven by vengeance, greed for power and general forlornness in life. I think no one will dispute this. You are right with the list of evil deeds committed by Cersei. However, these deeds were calculated, deliberate, ruthless, assisted by Qyburn, and not mad in itself. 

12 minutes ago, LearnToBeNoOne said:

There was no riots in KL although both the High Sparrow and Queen Margaery were admired highly. In addition to this the whole of the 7 kingdoms would have rallied against her and nobody should have allied themselves with her after that day.

I don't agree. The High Sparrow led a militant sect and surely was not applauded by all. Of course there are people hailing such a fanatic religuious leader, but the people more enjoyed the shame of Cersei than the power and aggressiveness of the High Sparrow. My personal assumption is that most people were glad the militant sect was brought to an end. They were against all kind of fun for the smallfolk as well, no matter what. They were fanatics, dangerous, militant, aggressive. Feared by all. Everyone being glad the High Sparrow gone.

When the Sept was destroyed mostly nobility and higher people suffered, not the small folk. Yes, Maergery was well like, but all the others? Less so.

Cersei had her King's Guard and the whole infrastructure under her command. She just usurped the throne because there were no other contenders and the military was on her side. We don't know how the political situation is there. We simply know "the people hate her and she hates the people". So that fits. The people probably would gladly accept any new ruler, no matter whether Daenerys or Jon.

18 minutes ago, LearnToBeNoOne said:

Either way, Vary's has the audacity to plot against Dany and refer to her as mad whilst Cersei sits on the throne?

Of course, why not. Daenerys is obviously depicted to be on the verge of madness. She is unstable and dangerous. Varys simply understands her personality better than Tyrion.

I agree, however, that is is extremely dangerous and somehow unwise for Varys to openly discuss treason with Tyrion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The show is a mess but applying contemporary political values and logic to a fantasy story set in a quasi medieval world is simply wrong and biased in the extreme.

Martin did not write completely "good" or "bad" characters he wrote "human" characters. Yes, Cersei is willing to do anything for power and her family, she's arrogant and spietful, yet she's also a mother who loves her children dearly. Ned and Jon are honorable but they are also rigid and this sets them to fail time and again (Ned dies, Jon dies too and needs to be magically resurrected). Jaime does monstruos things "for love" yet he also grows into one of the most honorable knights in the show, and so on.

And Dany? Dany is a woman who suffered much, who's been teached her destiny is to take back the Iron Throne and was hailed and believed herself to be a saviour of mankind. She's "good" because she doesn't want people to die needlessly, she's against slavery and is not . She's also wrathful and believes herself to be better than others ("blood of the dragon").  She's now losing the people she loves and trusts one by one which enrages her even more and makes her chatacter's flaws stronger and mor eprominent, which in turn will probably lead her to unleash her fury on all those she thinks oppose her. As everyone else in ASoIaF Dany is not "good" or "evil", she's "human".

The point Varys and Tyrion made in season 7 to stop her from taking King's Landing is she should not win the throne by killing thousands of innocent people. She agreed, and paid the price for it. The northeners needed her to beat the White Walkers but now they balk at her requests of help. Besides, the person she loves turned out to have a better claim than she does to the Throne she believe to be her destiny and now she fears (rationally actually) that he can take it from her. This causes her to act more rashly and in doing so she seems to prove the fears of those who doubt her sanity and fitness to rule. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, and yes, Dany is a victim but that's probably what Martin intended from the very beginning for her AND for Jon.

There's not going to be an "happy ending" for these characters. And yes, that sucks to a certain level, but that's what the author intended and I dodn't think he did so because of some misogynistic tendency from Martin. He just not writing a tale where the "good guys" win in the end, he aims for something grittier and darker than that, and it's exactly how he wrote the series from the very begining, like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

Interesting article, and I agree with most of it.

As I posted in a different topic: Imagine Jon's reaction to watching most of his army die, Tormund die, Sam getting executed in front of him, and lastly the closest thing he has to children: Sansa and Arya die.

That's the situation Daenerys is currently in, but you can swap Tormund/Sam for Jorah/Missandei, and Sansa/Arya for Viserion/Rhaegal.
Jon lost his shit and did a kamikaze-charge after "just" watching Rickon die. Imagine his reactions if the above was to happen.
Daenerys reaction (so far) is one of great frustration and anger, fury even - but not madness. 

 

If Daenerys ultimate fate in this show is to go insane and die for no apparent reason, there really was no point in her entire story or character arc. You could've been able to cut out everything regarding her from the story, and nothing would change, other than the NK still being alive but stuck north of the wall. It would've been extremely anti-climactic, depressing, and makes no sense from a narrative point of view. 


 

Mincs52 - I always enjoy your posts and the clarity. I so hope she does not go insane and steps back from the abyss...lots of doom and gloom atm...lots of spoilers saying jon is going to kill her. I will be so depressed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

To be fair it's not much different than loving your dog. Have you ever seen people with no kids with their dog? That dog is literally a child to them. Hell, I have kids & I love my dog dearly. I don't think she treats them like they are more valuable than human lives but as valuable as human lives. It's not odd for her to be heartbroken or feel vengeful after someone has murdered someone she loves. If someone murdered my dog I would feel pretty damn vengeful also. Of course, thankfully for the would-be murderer, I don't have a fire breathing dragon to reign hell down on them - if I did I wouldn't - but it might cross my mind.

If I were to kill someone in retaliation for killing my pet, I'd rightfully go to prison for murder. Animals are not people, and peoples' lives are more valuable than animals' lives.

You might say, well dragons are an exception. But I would say that you might feel differently if you were to think hard about what it would have been like to have been one of those slave masters of Astapor when Dany betrayed her part of the bargain and slaughtered them all.

If you're thinking that you wouldn't have been a slave master because slavery is bad, then what else would you have been?

Now you might say that you would have been a slave. But more likely you'll realize that's too obviously dishonest and anticipate the weakness of such a stance. So instead you might dodge the dilemma entirely by saying that you would be neither a slaver nor a slave, you would migrate to some place that doesn't practice slavery.

Tsk tsk. You're not taking the dilemma seriously. If there were only two possibilities, as most of the people in Astapor were either slaver or slave, which one would you be? The slaver or the slave?

If you answered slave, then you either don't think very highly of your ability to adapt and survive, or you aren't being honest with yourself.

Now that we've proven that the reason slavers are slavers is, in large part, due to the unavoidable necessities of their environment, then Dany's treatment of them begins to look a lot less like a righteous liberation and a lot more like a self-righteous little girl who didn't stop to consider every perspective before she set out to change the world.

Quote

The show has butchered everything. But the reason I think I feel so blindsided by Dany is that there was no decent into or turn toward darkness but a plummet. She jumped off the cliff with little to no warning. Yes she has done some bad things, yes she is hot headed. But never would she have suggested burning a city of innocent people to the ground.

Was Astapor a city of villains? Was Yunkai? Meereen? Does being a slaver make someone a villain? If yes, would you consider Jorah a villain? If Jorah's involvement in slavery is not significant enough to earn him villainhood, exactly how much slavery must a person be involved in before he is a villain? Ten slaves sold? Ten slaves bought? A hundred?

Quote

They aren't really the same things though are they? Ramsay was a sadistic fuck who had raped Sansa, tortured Theon, & killed Rickon among other horrendous acts. Maybe the hounds was his repercussions for the horrid things he did. 

The Frey's butchered an entire group of unarmed people at a wedding. Maybe he deserved what he got. 

The people of KL have done nothing to Daenerys or her dragons. To make all three things equivalent I think we would have to talk in terms of Dany just scorching Cersei. Maybe Cersei deserves that.

The purpose of prosaic justice isn't to give people what they deserve. I think the purpose is to stop the suffering.

If our goal is to match the cruelty of the criminals, there are two big problems with that. One is external and one is internal.

The external problem is that, having successfully matched the cruelty of my enemies, now their family and friends have a responsibility to take revenge upon me. Then after they kill my sister, I have to get revenge on them back by killing two of their sisters. This cycle of violence goes around and around forever and continues to escalate until the town, city, country, and world are in a state of perpetual warfare.

The internal problem is that each individual has a conscience and is guided by it. You know your history and shortcomings more intimately than anybody else in the world knows them. So by engaging in the same cruelty as your enemies, you're corrupting your conscience in the same way they've corrupted theirs. Now that your guide is corrupted, you can't trust it anymore for guidance. It leads you the wrong way, which corrupts it further. On and on it goes until one day it seems like a good idea to tie a rope around a man's throat so that he might strangle himself to death in the attempt to rescue his father from being burned alive.

So that's why beheading has to be good enough, regardless of the crime. If it ever feels like beheading isn't good enough, that indicates that the ruler has forgotten the purpose of justice and that he/she is no longer fit to rule.

Edited by rustythesmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is one thing to be born a leader and another to struggle to become one even if if doesnt fits you, people will follow those who are natural born leaders and Jon is one.

Share this post


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

The show is a mess but applying contemporary political values and logic to a fantasy story set in a quasi medieval world is simply wrong and biased in the extreme.

True!

1 hour ago, elanmorin said:

There's not going to be an "happy ending" for these characters. And yes, that sucks to a certain level, but that's what the author intended and I dodn't think he did so because of some misogynistic tendency from Martin. He just not writing a tale where the "good guys" win in the end, he aims for something grittier and darker than that, and it's exactly how he wrote the series from the very begining, like it or not.

True.

Share this post


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

Cersei is a bad person, ruthless, driven by vengeance, greed for power and general forlornness in life. I think no one will dispute this. You are right with the list of evil deeds committed by Cersei. However, these deeds were calculated, deliberate, ruthless, assisted by Qyburn, and not mad in itself.

I agree they indeed were but I'm just exploring the fact that Dany isn't any more mad than Cersei is.

For me the use of wildfire is enough to draw parallels between Cersei and the Mad King - Jaime broke an oath to prevent it from happening before.

Quote

I don't agree. The High Sparrow led a militant sect and surely was not applauded by all. Of course there are people hailing such a fanatic religuious leader, but the people more enjoyed the shame of Cersei than the power and aggressiveness of the High Sparrow. My personal assumption is that most people were glad the militant sect was brought to an end. They were against all kind of fun for the smallfolk as well, no matter what. They were fanatics, dangerous, militant, aggressive. Feared by all. Everyone being glad the High Sparrow gone.

When the Sept was destroyed mostly nobility and higher people suffered, not the small folk. Yes, Maergery was well like, but all the others? Less so.

I was focusing more on the fact that The Seven is arguably the predominant religion in Westeros and The Seven is what knight's tend to follow. Regardless of your description of them, across Westeros there would have been an uproar by Septons. Are you telling me they couldn't gather enough common folk, knights and those fanatical about The Seven to storm KL?

Quote

Cersei had her King's Guard and the whole infrastructure under her command. She just usurped the throne because there were no other contenders and the military was on her side. We don't know how the political situation is there. We simply know "the people hate her and she hates the people". So that fits. The people probably would gladly accept any new ruler, no matter whether Daenerys or Jon.

This, so we don't disagree that the aim should be to remove Cersei and the people of KL have the chance to do just that. If the people were to rise now and Cersei slaughtered them, the story could potentially change from Dany took the city by burning innocent people to Dany came to save the people from being slaughtered by Cersei.

Judging by what Tyrion said ''They hate you and you hate them`` in regards to Cersei and the people of KL then the general public wouldn't necessarily see Dany as a usurper but a saviour instead. 

Quote

Of course, why not. Daenerys is obviously depicted to be on the verge of madness. She is unstable and dangerous. Varys simply understands her personality better than Tyrion.

Dany has always wanted the throne, Vary's knows what it will take yet now that it's time to conquer KL he suddenly tries to plot against her? It's all a bit ridiculous to me. He's just trying to make up a flimsy excuse to justify switching his support once again.

Cersei is refusing to step down and will only get stronger if Dany waits. Vary's needs to come down from his moral high and realise that certain actions must be taken for the greater good.

Unless somebody ends up murdering Cersei there is no other way of bringing down the Red Keep. Dany is also not aware of anybody trying to do so, leaving her with no choice but to go to war.

Just like Cersei has Qyburn who is rumoured to practice black magic and necromancy, Cersei has dragons - it's a fantasy, it was never meant to be an ethical affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, GeorgeIAF said:

It is one thing to be born a leader and another to struggle to become one even if if doesnt fits you, people will follow those who are natural born leaders and Jon is one.

"She's not our queen before she's the daughter of some king we never knew. She's the queen we chose".

Daenerys has clearly been depicted as a natural leader, same as Jon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LearnToBeNoOne said:

For me the use of wildfire is enough to draw parallels between Cersei and the Mad King

No, two people can do the same thing for different reasons and in a different state of mind.

The Mad King was mad. Just shouting, giving unreasonable orders, enjoying people burning. He was really mad, not to be taken seriously anymore.

Cersei does all this with a clear mind, very deliberate, very calculated. She acts completely differently.

3 minutes ago, LearnToBeNoOne said:

across Westeros there would have been an uproar by Septons.

No, I don't so. Cersei replaced a normal Septon with the High Sparrow from a militant sect. Like replacing the Pope with a militant, aggressive, overly fundamental TV-preacher ordering death penalty for homosexuality, incest, alcohol abuse and so on. 

All knights with at least a residual common sense will not support the High Sparrow, but the established Septons and Maesters. Knight would not follow these weird sectists. We saw how Kevan despised them. Or Olenna and many other nobility.

8 minutes ago, LearnToBeNoOne said:

we don't disagree that the aim should be to remove Cersei and the people of KL have the chance to do just that.

Yes, the people hate Cersei and would like to see a new ruler.

8 minutes ago, LearnToBeNoOne said:

the general public wouldn't necessarily see Dany as a usurper but a saviour instead. 

That is what Tyrion talks about since at least season 6. Tyrion teaches it that way. I somehow believe him since Cersei is actually bad for them.

9 minutes ago, LearnToBeNoOne said:

Dany has always wanted the throne, Vary's knows what it will take yet now that it's time to conquer KL he suddenly tries to plot against her?

Well, I agree that the Varys issue is difficult. We were never shown what his true intentions are. He claims "the best for the realm" but we don't know.

Varys turned his head quite a lot of times. So he might switch from Daenerys to Jon if he thinks Jon is more temperate, moderate, a better ruler. This is believable for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LearnToBeNoOne said:

I agree they indeed were but I'm just exploring the fact that Dany isn't any more mad than Cersei is.

For me the use of wildfire is enough to draw parallels between Cersei and the Mad King - Jaime broke an oath to prevent it from happening before.

I was focusing more on the fact that The Seven is arguably the predominant religion in Westeros and The Seven is what knight's tend to follow. Regardless of your description of them, across Westeros there would have been an uproar by Septons. Are you telling me they couldn't gather enough common folk, knights and those fanatical about The Seven to storm KL?

This, so we don't disagree that the aim should be to remove Cersei and the people of KL have the chance to do just that. If the people were to rise now and Cersei slaughtered them, the story could potentially change from Dany took the city by burning innocent people to Dany came to save the people from being slaughtered by Cersei.

Judging by what Tyrion said ''They hate you and you hate them`` in regards to Cersei and the people of KL then the general public wouldn't necessarily see Dany as a usurper but a saviour instead. 

Dany has always wanted the throne, Vary's knows what it will take yet now that it's time to conquer KL he suddenly tries to plot against her? It's all a bit ridiculous to me. He's just trying to make up a flimsy excuse to justify switching his support once again.

Cersei is refusing to step down and will only get stronger if Dany waits. Vary's needs to come down from his moral high and realise that certain actions must be taken for the greater good.

Unless somebody ends up murdering Cersei there is no other way of bringing down the Red Keep. Dany is also not aware of anybody trying to do so, leaving her with no choice but to go to war.

Just like Cersei has Qyburn who is rumoured to practice black magic and necromancy, Cersei has dragons - it's a fantasy, it was never meant to be an ethical affair.

In regards to Varys if you remember two seasons ago and while trying to form alliances for Dany, he promised Olenna "fire and blood". So back then he seemed ok, promoting their campaign motto without any second thoughts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nightwish said:

In regards to Varys if you remember two seasons ago and while trying to form alliances for Dany, he promised Olenna "fire and blood". So back then he seemed ok, promoting their campaign motto without any second thoughts. 

Yes, Varys is a turncoat. He changed his allegiance quite often. 

He claims to do so for "the best of the realm". We don't know whether this is his true intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LearnToBeNoOne said:

Dany has always wanted the throne, Vary's knows what it will take yet now that it's time to conquer KL he suddenly tries to plot against her? It's all a bit ridiculous to me. He's just trying to make up a flimsy excuse to justify switching his support once again.

Cersei is refusing to step down and will only get stronger if Dany waits. Vary's needs to come down from his moral high and realise that certain actions must be taken for the greater good.

Unless somebody ends up murdering Cersei there is no other way of bringing down the Red Keep. Dany is also not aware of anybody trying to do so, leaving her with no choice but to go to war.

Just like Cersei has Qyburn who is rumoured to practice black magic and necromancy, Cersei has dragons - it's a fantasy, it was never meant to be an ethical affair.

I agree that the problem is the inconsisty of how varys and tyrion behave. Danny is acting like she has always done and sudenly they want to rebel when 5 min ago they thought she was the greates ruler ever...

However there have been clear signals in the show that danny is very destructive and mean when she is angry and her speeches are mostly rubish. Her supporters just didn t care until last ep. 

And once again being a cruel person to her enemies isn t exactly a motive to revolt against her now. Even if she kills a lot of inocents to conquer KL it wouldn t be strange. I can only understand that people get angry with her if she unleashes her anger on the smallfolk without need just to vent her anger. However that isn t danny! 

 

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

×