Daenerys: Analysis of psychology and foreshadowing

[SeanF]

41 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Discussed this before in another thread and yes, Jon was an idiot. The Wall had been up for thousands of years and the NK and his army never went past it during that time as far as we know. So clearly there is no obvious way over, around or through it. The wight from S1 that @Gala mentioned hadn't turned yet (he was dead for hours after they brought him through the gate) but that was back when the rules for Wight Walkers/Wights were different and we didn't have instant resurrection yet.

The Wall would have been a much better defensive position to fight the NK's army if they even bothered to show up there. Clearly there had to be a motivation for why the NK wanted to cross it now. And really the only thing that changed was his arch-nemesis crossing south of the Wall. In which case Bran, sorry 3 Eyed Raven, shares as much blame for the Wall coming down as Jon and Tyrion.

I've never understood why that wasn't how the writers brought the Wall down. I guess it wouldn't have been cinematic enough for 'Bran' to negate the magic in the Wall (like he did in the cave) and that to open up a way for the NK and his army to make it over/around/through it. That's something invisible happening and not the spectacle of a dragon getting wighted and then the NK to ride it, blue fire everywhere and the Wall taken down by it. So of course the writers needed the nonsensical Suicide Squad road trip into Dumbassland.

But just imagine what difference it would have made in the story. We would have never gotten the 7x06 nonsense of an episode. The characters would have retained some credibility. Dany wouldn't have been dragged into the dumbassery of the men around her and then instead of having to clean up her own mess (and making a cease fire with Cersei), she would have actually come to defend the realm from this threat. The story D&D ended up writing presented Bran, sorry 3ER, as LittleFinger with magical powers anyway. Since 3ER ended up using everyone and sacrificing thousands (if not millions-see KL) to get a throne, it's not hard to imagine he would use all the people as fodder to protect him from his arch-nemesis. That he brought the wall down deliberately when he crossed it in 7x01. Even if they didn't plan to make 'Bran' evil (IMO it was purely accidental on D&D's part), that's what actually should have happened if they remembered at all what happened in S6 in the cave. And all the other characters would have been better for it.

Trying to rationalise this nonsense if probably pointless.

[Tyrion1991]

It’s a pathetic storyline and indefensible.

People keep trying to rationalise this. Yeah  “blood will always tell” clap clap. Get the man an Oscar. The foreshadowing is irrelevant. What’s the point of having Dany take a dark turn? Where is Citizen Kane? How is that a better story for her than overcoming her inner Daemons?

Tragedy? How can it be that? The show goes out of its way to set Dany as the incompetent villain opposed to the obviously correct and rational characters. Every single character, especially the Starks, are opposed to Dany. We have no reason to be sympathetic to her within the scope of the story. We are battered over the head with why she should just step aside and let Jon be the man Westeros needs. Long before she burns the city her character has been completely dragged through the mud and her role in saving the world minimalized to the point where the audience could legitimately ask whether the North could have won on its own. Tragedies have to be tragic and this was a farce.

Satire? Some moral criticism of a power fantasy chosen one character? Knocking women with power? Well, these kind of go out of the window when you make Magic Bran King. So some mystical chosen ones are okay? It’s just Dany wasn’t the messiah? Plus making Sansa Queen shows they have no issue with absolute monarchy.

A statement against the moral danger of black and white morality? When exactly did House Stark ever forgive its enemies? There’s nothing nuanced about it. They killed everyone who opposed them unless like Theon they were reduced to mewling sycophants who wanted to kiss their boots. So black and white morality is fine for those with the right blood because they have the wisdom to navigate such nuance as baking people into pies and hanging children. I mean really, Sam died as a character for me the moment he condemned Dany for executing his traitor racist father as if that’s ever been morally questionable in the series. Caesar killed a million Gauls and I don’t recall HBO blasting him over that. Morally grey storytelling indeed.

Commentary on the allies fire bombing and dropping of the nukes? Well, that happened because the Allies demanded unconditional surrender. Dany is not asking for unconditional surrender. Not only that, but they DO surrender once she uses her dragons in a limited fashion. So bomber Harris was entirely correct. Terror works. It is possible to cow a civilian population into betraying their ruler. Just don’t put a nervous wreck in charge otherwise they’ll continue to kill everyone. Because, you know, the allies kind of stopped bombing once the peace treaties were signed...

Morlaising against the cult of personality and dictators. Okay, Hitler rose to power because the German loved him and saw him as a hero. How is that anything like dany and the people of Westeros? The whole reason Dany flips is because people hate her and don’t want her to be their Queen. It’s a complete disconnect. How is there a cult of personality if nobody wants her to be their Queen and is trying to overthrow her all the time. The problem can’t simultaneously be too much love and too little love.

“No one man can have all that power, the clocks ticking....” The show actually has Tyrion tell Jon that he has felt that power of riding a dragon and would have the wisdom to not use it. So the show is not criticising possession of power as shown by Sansa becoming Queen and Bran becoming King. It doesn’t matter if these are absolute monarchs or had the power to kill millions. Jon on a dragon would have been fine because he would have used it proportionately and justly because he’s this Ubermench King.

This series was just a dumb piece of Stark fan service where they went out of their way to defend and validate those stone faced maggots. Of course, they’d never just use Dany to get what they want and then murder her to seize the throne. That just wouldn’t do. We gotta end on a high note so let’s have her Bear all the moral condemnation.

 Danys only mistake was believing the Lords and people of Westeros were worthy of her. She should have turned her back on them and let fate take its course. 

[Ghostlydragon]

On 5/30/2020 at 7:17 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

It’s a pathetic storyline and indefensible.

People keep trying to rationalise this. Yeah  “blood will always tell” clap clap. Get the man an Oscar. The foreshadowing is irrelevant. What’s the point of having Dany take a dark turn? Where is Citizen Kane? How is that a better story for her than overcoming her inner Daemons?

Tragedy? How can it be that? The show goes out of its way to set Dany as the incompetent villain opposed to the obviously correct and rational characters. Every single character, especially the Starks, are opposed to Dany. We have no reason to be sympathetic to her within the scope of the story. We are battered over the head with why she should just step aside and let Jon be the man Westeros needs. Long before she burns the city her character has been completely dragged through the mud and her role in saving the world minimalized to the point where the audience could legitimately ask whether the North could have won on its own. Tragedies have to be tragic and this was a farce.

Satire? Some moral criticism of a power fantasy chosen one character? Knocking women with power? Well, these kind of go out of the window when you make Magic Bran King. So some mystical chosen ones are okay? It’s just Dany wasn’t the messiah? Plus making Sansa Queen shows they have no issue with absolute monarchy.

A statement against the moral danger of black and white morality? When exactly did House Stark ever forgive its enemies? There’s nothing nuanced about it. They killed everyone who opposed them unless like Theon they were reduced to mewling sycophants who wanted to kiss their boots. So black and white morality is fine for those with the right blood because they have the wisdom to navigate such nuance as baking people into pies and hanging children. I mean really, Sam died as a character for me the moment he condemned Dany for executing his traitor racist father as if that’s ever been morally questionable in the series. Caesar killed a million Gauls and I don’t recall HBO blasting him over that. Morally grey storytelling indeed.

Commentary on the allies fire bombing and dropping of the nukes? Well, that happened because the Allies demanded unconditional surrender. Dany is not asking for unconditional surrender. Not only that, but they DO surrender once she uses her dragons in a limited fashion. So bomber Harris was entirely correct. Terror works. It is possible to cow a civilian population into betraying their ruler. Just don’t put a nervous wreck in charge otherwise they’ll continue to kill everyone. Because, you know, the allies kind of stopped bombing once the peace treaties were signed...

Morlaising against the cult of personality and dictators. Okay, Hitler rose to power because the German loved him and saw him as a hero. How is that anything like dany and the people of Westeros? The whole reason Dany flips is because people hate her and don’t want her to be their Queen. It’s a complete disconnect. How is there a cult of personality if nobody wants her to be their Queen and is trying to overthrow her all the time. The problem can’t simultaneously be too much love and too little love.

“No one man can have all that power, the clocks ticking....” The show actually has Tyrion tell Jon that he has felt that power of riding a dragon and would have the wisdom to not use it. So the show is not criticising possession of power as shown by Sansa becoming Queen and Bran becoming King. It doesn’t matter if these are absolute monarchs or had the power to kill millions. Jon on a dragon would have been fine because he would have used it proportionately and justly because he’s this Ubermench King.

This series was just a dumb piece of Stark fan service where they went out of their way to defend and validate those stone faced maggots. Of course, they’d never just use Dany to get what they want and then murder her to seize the throne. That just wouldn’t do. We gotta end on a high note so let’s have her Bear all the moral condemnation.

 Danys only mistake was believing the Lords and people of Westeros were worthy of her. She should have turned her back on them and let fate take its course. 

Absolutely. She should have just stayed in Mereen where she could have ruled peacefully. She deserved so much better than what happened in Westeros. 

[SeanF]

So many of the messages delivered by the final season were political garbage, and morally bad, to boot.

There's Tyrion's version of Niemoller, "First they came for the slave drivers, and I did nothing because I was not a slave driver.....".  Then making all the followers of the "fascist" leader people of colour;  presenting as ethical truths the facts that "cocks matter" and mad parents have mad children;  the rotten idea that the best rulers are those who don't want to rule (like Robert Baratheon?); that it's right to distrust foreigners;  that women in power are a problem etc.

[BlackLightning]

On 5/13/2019 at 4:14 PM, The One Who Kneels said:

But this just opens a bigger can of worms: why isn't Daenerys beloved by King's Landing, at least in comparison to Cersei? Daenery's father was a monster but the smallfolk don't know he planned to burn them all. It was Cersei's father who brutally sacked their city. Daenerys didn't blow up the Sept of Baelor and murder hundreds (thousands?) of people including beloved Queen Margaery and the head of their religion. Daenerys didn't usurp the throne with zero claim. Daenerys doesn't have a zombie bodyguard who murders smallfolk for insulting her. Daenerys wasn't paraded naked through the streets. Daenerys isn't widely (and correctly) suspected of fucking her brother and producing illegitimate incest babies who triggered the War of the Five Kings. 

The people of King's Landing should've absolutely been pro-Daenerys (or at least vehemently anti-Cersei) they just aren't for no reason other than the writers wanted it that way. 

Exactly.

So as long as all of you can admit that the show decided to go its own way in regards to Dani (with an "i" not a "y" because Danielle and Daenerys are two different entities) and that this disaster is not going to happen in the books...okay. That's fine.

Y'all can have Mad Danielle and we can keep Daenerys Targaryen.

[SeanF]

14 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Exactly.

So as long as all of you can admit that the show decided to go its own way in regards to Dani (with an "i" not a "y" because Danielle and Daenerys are two different entities) and that this disaster is not going to happen in the books...okay. That's fine.

Y'all can have Mad Danielle and we can keep Daenerys Targaryen.

Realistically, the game would have been up for Cersei, after she blew up the Great Sept, even if she reigned in the capital for a few weeks or months.  As soon as Daenerys landed, the relatives of murdered nobles, and the whole hierarchy of the Faith would have joined her.

[Ghostlydragon]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Realistically, the game would have been up for Cersei, after she blew up the Great Sept, even if she reigned in the capital for a few weeks or months.  As soon as Daenerys landed, the relatives of murdered nobles, and the whole hierarchy of the Faith would have joined her.

Absolutely. And it's not as if Danaerys has publically revoked the seven like Stannis did. She would have full support instantly.

[Angel Eyes]

On 5/30/2020 at 2:17 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

It’s a pathetic storyline and indefensible.

People keep trying to rationalise this. Yeah  “blood will always tell” clap clap. Get the man an Oscar. The foreshadowing is irrelevant. What’s the point of having Dany take a dark turn? Where is Citizen Kane? How is that a better story for her than overcoming her inner Daemons?

Tragedy? How can it be that? The show goes out of its way to set Dany as the incompetent villain opposed to the obviously correct and rational characters. Every single character, especially the Starks, are opposed to Dany. We have no reason to be sympathetic to her within the scope of the story. We are battered over the head with why she should just step aside and let Jon be the man Westeros needs. Long before she burns the city her character has been completely dragged through the mud and her role in saving the world minimalized to the point where the audience could legitimately ask whether the North could have won on its own. Tragedies have to be tragic and this was a farce.

Satire? Some moral criticism of a power fantasy chosen one character? Knocking women with power? Well, these kind of go out of the window when you make Magic Bran King. So some mystical chosen ones are okay? It’s just Dany wasn’t the messiah? Plus making Sansa Queen shows they have no issue with absolute monarchy.

A statement against the moral danger of black and white morality? When exactly did House Stark ever forgive its enemies? There’s nothing nuanced about it. They killed everyone who opposed them unless like Theon they were reduced to mewling sycophants who wanted to kiss their boots. So black and white morality is fine for those with the right blood because they have the wisdom to navigate such nuance as baking people into pies and hanging children. I mean really, Sam died as a character for me the moment he condemned Dany for executing his traitor racist father as if that’s ever been morally questionable in the series. Caesar killed a million Gauls and I don’t recall HBO blasting him over that. Morally grey storytelling indeed.

Commentary on the allies fire bombing and dropping of the nukes? Well, that happened because the Allies demanded unconditional surrender. Dany is not asking for unconditional surrender. Not only that, but they DO surrender once she uses her dragons in a limited fashion. So bomber Harris was entirely correct. Terror works. It is possible to cow a civilian population into betraying their ruler. Just don’t put a nervous wreck in charge otherwise they’ll continue to kill everyone. Because, you know, the allies kind of stopped bombing once the peace treaties were signed...

Morlaising against the cult of personality and dictators. Okay, Hitler rose to power because the German loved him and saw him as a hero. How is that anything like dany and the people of Westeros? The whole reason Dany flips is because people hate her and don’t want her to be their Queen. It’s a complete disconnect. How is there a cult of personality if nobody wants her to be their Queen and is trying to overthrow her all the time. The problem can’t simultaneously be too much love and too little love.

“No one man can have all that power, the clocks ticking....” The show actually has Tyrion tell Jon that he has felt that power of riding a dragon and would have the wisdom to not use it. So the show is not criticising possession of power as shown by Sansa becoming Queen and Bran becoming King. It doesn’t matter if these are absolute monarchs or had the power to kill millions. Jon on a dragon would have been fine because he would have used it proportionately and justly because he’s this Ubermench King.

This series was just a dumb piece of Stark fan service where they went out of their way to defend and validate those stone faced maggots. Of course, they’d never just use Dany to get what they want and then murder her to seize the throne. That just wouldn’t do. We gotta end on a high note so let’s have her Bear all the moral condemnation.

 Danys only mistake was believing the Lords and people of Westeros were worthy of her. She should have turned her back on them and let fate take its course. 

Well as a bit of consolation it isn’t like the Starks are going to last much longer. Jon’s sworn to the Night’s Watch, Arya’s unlikely to settle down, Bran can’t have kids (how does Sansa know this?) and according to Sophie Turner, Sansa’s not going to have a family. 

[Ghostlydragon]

On 6/7/2020 at 11:14 PM, Angel Eyes said:

Well as a bit of consolation it isn’t like the Starks are going to last much longer. Jon’s sworn to the Night’s Watch, Arya’s unlikely to settle down, Bran can’t have kids (how does Sansa know this?) and according to Sophie Turner, Sansa’s not going to have a family. 

It's ridiculous that ST claims Sansa will not marry again. She's gonna have to. If she doesn't, all that's gonna happen is a war for rule of the North is gonna happen. Even if it's a political marriage, she has to produce an heir, that's the rule of a feudal society.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 5/13/2019 at 7:39 AM, hallam said:

Cersei would have no problem keeping control but Danny will.

Interesting, about Cersei being able to win the propaganda war. I think folks overlook how Cersei relishes the minutiae of ruling with her scenes in the small council and loves making ruling decisions, directing every detail. 

On 5/13/2019 at 7:01 AM, sweetsunray said:

The first smallfolk she encounters are those of Wintertown and they only look at her with fear and mistrust, despite the fact she brought her dragons and armies to defend them against an army of the dead. Well, at least she might expect a heartfelt welcome by Jon's own sister? But she doesn't. And during that welcome she is reminded of the loss of Viserion and how he was turned into an enemy. She "named" him after Viserys. Now a part of her had come to despise Viserys, but he was also her sole caretaker for many of her formative years. Chronic abuse of a parent-figure on who you are dependent might make you fear them, maybe even hate them, but also love them in a twisted way. For years, she needed to try and empathize with Viserys, think and feel like him, to anticipate his moods, to anticipate how to please him so he wouldn't hurt her. It creates a twisted bond. And Viserion represented the ideal Viserys in a way - finally a dragon, white and pure, she can love and who loves her back. Viserion is her way to round up that strange love for an abusive parent figure and project it onto something else, so she doesn't need to confront her conflicting feelings for Viserys himself. When she loses Viserion, she now must deal with the complete bag of feelings for Viserys, including the inexpicable feelings that she loved him, even though he abused her. How is this externalized? She expects Jon to make his sister behave better to her, just by word of command alone. This is what Viserys did to Dany, and in fact, when amongst people who had no respect for him, Viserys demanded her to make the Dothraki and Khal Drogo respect him. So, she expects Jon and Sansa to have a similar boss-servant relation. Meanhile, the less instant love she gets from everyone else, the more she seeks and desires it from Jon, and so she takes him on the dragon flight.

Revisiting this post as I was thinking how Viserys taught her how to be a Targaryen. Dany was put in Viserys' position and reacted very similarly. "I saw the way they looked at you. I know that look. So many people have looked at me that way, but never here. Never on this side of the sea." I thought this was realistic.

[Angel Eyes]

30 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Interesting, about Cersei being able to win the propaganda war. I think folks overlook how Cersei relishes the minutiae of ruling with her scenes in the small council and loves making ruling decisions, directing every detail. 

Revisiting this post as I was thinking how Viserys taught her how to be a Targaryen. Dany was put in Viserys' position and reacted very similarly. "I saw the way they looked at you. I know that look. So many people have looked at me that way, but never here. Never on this side of the sea." I thought this was realistic.

Daenerys never tried to win the propaganda game however.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 5/20/2019 at 3:47 AM, tallTale said:

Daeny has never targeted innocent civilians before, we have seven and half seasons of proof she wasn’t a mad targ. She chains her dragons for killing one civilian on accident. She literally just saved the north an episode ago. You don’t get to flip that switch after all that. It’s poor story telling after establishing the morality of the character.

She killed people who didn't worship her. Civilian/soldier doesnt make a difference in her mind. It's just "do you love me or not" 

I always found GRRM's assertion that we can do good things on Tuesday and evil things on Thursday a bit ridiculous, but this "flip switch" is his way of viewing humans. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

12 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Daenerys never tried to win the propaganda game however.

She didnt even try. She despaired too quickly. 

[Angel Eyes]

41 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She killed people who didn't worship her. Civilian/soldier doesnt make a difference in her mind. It's just "do you love me or not" 

I always found GRRM's assertion that we can do good things on Tuesday and evil things on Thursday a bit ridiculous, but this "flip switch" is his way of viewing humans. 

And here I was, getting criticized for thinking that ASOIAF was pessimistic.