the purpose of Dany's arc

[Nami]

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

That killing people to get your way is okay if your name is Stark.

Killing a family, putting them into pies and serving to their relative is just the icing on the insane cake. Oh wait, it was a Stark. So that's ok.

[ummester]

She is showing that unbridled passion and idealism that tries to force rapid change can be dangerous and destructive.

She is also a contrast to the honorable traditionalist ideals of the Starks 'Let he who passes the sentence swing the sword' vs her cry of 'Dracarys'. She never had to swing her own sword, she was always backed up by fantastical fire breathing creatures. She had a rough time in the first book/first series but even then she had her beauty to help her and, after her dragons hatched, she was a total silver spoon character.

Look at all of her titles 'Daenerys of the House Targaryen, the First of Her Name, The Unburnt, Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men, Queen of Meereen, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Protector of the Realm, Lady Regent of the Seven Kingdoms, Breaker of Chains and Mother of Dragons' this is someone trying to convince the world they are powerful - remind the world all the time that they are powerful. But I think she was always afraid, deep down, that without her dragons, she really had no power and her ideals were kind of hollow.

Remember power resides where men believe it resides. If Dany did not have dragons, would anyone have believed power resided with her, based on her ideals alone?

I read or saw this thing - can't remember where - that suggested all of the great leaders in history have strength, intelligence and calm. Dany was intelligent, to a degree. Her dragons made her strong. Did she ever have calm?

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, ummester said:

She is showing that unbridled passion and idealism that tries to force rapid change can be dangerous and destructive.

She is also a contrast to the honorable traditionalist ideals of the Starks 'Let he who passes the sentence swing the sword' vs her cry of 'Dracarys'. She never had to swing her own sword, she was always backed up by fantastical fire breathing creatures. She had a rough time in the first book/first series but even then she had her beauty to help her and, after her dragons hatched, she was a total silver spoon character.

Look at all of her titles 'Daenerys of the House Targaryen, the First of Her Name, The Unburnt, Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men, Queen of Meereen, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Protector of the Realm, Lady Regent of the Seven Kingdoms, Breaker of Chains and Mother of Dragons' this is someone trying to convince the world they are powerful - remind the world all the time that they are powerful. But I think she was always afraid, deep down, that without her dragons, she really had no power and her ideals were kind of hollow.

Remember power resides where men believe it resides. If Dany did not have dragons, would anyone have believed power resided with her, based on her ideals alone?

I read or saw this thing - can't remember where - that suggested all of the great leaders in history have strength, intelligence and calm. Dany was intelligent, to a degree. Her dragons made her strong. Did she ever have calm?

Even without dragons, she has charisma, and is extremely loyal to her followers.  So, she would still be a considerable person without them..

[tallTale]

1 minute ago, ummester said:

I read or saw this thing - can't remember where - that suggested all of the great leaders in history have strength, intelligence and calm. Dany was intelligent, to a degree. Her dragons made her strong. Did she ever have calm?

She always listened to her advisers, used her dragons for precision strikes, and chained her dragons when they killed an innocent civilian. Many instances where she showed restraint.

[Nerevanin]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Even without dragons, she has charisma, and is extremely loyal to her followers.  So, she would still be a considerable person without them..

I think that the "loyal" part is discutable but let's put this aside. I think that the dragons helped her a lot to gain confidence. When she emerged from the funeral pyre, she had three dragons and the dothraki worshipped her. She truly believed that she really was the chosen one and acted like one. I think that this strong belief in her destiny was one of the things that made other people attracted to her.

[ummester]

1 minute ago, tallTale said:

She always listened to her advisers, used her dragons for precision strikes, and chained her dragons when they killed an innocent civilian. Many instances where she showed restraint.

Are restraint and calm the same thing though? Restraint to me sounds like a firebrand holding themselves back. To a calm person, restraint would not be needed.

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Even without dragons, she has charisma, and is extremely loyal to her followers.  So, she would still be a considerable person without them..

Sure, she was beautiful and smart, with her heart in more or less the right place (behind her rib cage) and from a noble house. So was Margery. Jeez, even Shae had some charisma and was loyal to Tyrion, for a while. Or if you want a bloke example, Loras. Davos even?

Notice I am not picking any natural leaders like Jon because I am not sure Dany was ever a natural leader, or portrayed as one. She was a strong Khalissi (chomping down those horse hearts) and earned Drogo's love and respect - but she could not lead the horde without him. She got the dregs and they hung around because she hatched dragons. After then she was on the dragon ticket.

Note that I am not suggesting she was not determined and strong willed, either. She was both of those, combined with righteousness and idealism. Just I am not sure those things in themselves really inspire others to look up to you of their own accord.

She freed the slaves - to them she was a liberator, more than a leader. Jorah loved her. Dahrio loved her. Yara loved her. Tyrion loved her. Jon loved her. Loving someone, in that desire sense, is not the same as respecting them as a leader.

[tallTale]

16 minutes ago, ummester said:

Are restraint and calm the same thing though? Restraint to me sounds like a firebrand holding themselves back. To a calm person, restraint would not be needed.

Both are measures of self control. She proved her ability to control her anger.

[Lady Rhodes]

That rulers, even with the most lofty of goals, can be misguided and corruptible.

[btfu806]

I do think she becomes "a bad guy" in the books. I think there are going to be several reasons for that and it's not as black and white as she is just a mass murderer. I could see that a point of arc shows that a person's subject truth of what's good, doesn't make it objectively true or good. Or you know, the path to hell is paved with good intentions kind of thing.

But in the show? Her arc is about how D&D think they are masters of subverting expectations. It was extremely poorly executed but I do think the idea comes from GRRM.

[Erkan12]

Her fate was to conquer Westeros, not to rule. She couldn't let the power go at the end and lost her control and killed thousands of innocents, and then stopped by someone who can control himself at the end. A sad story for her, but she was indeed important as a conqueror, not a ruler.

[Isewein]

The question of what makes a main character is interesting. I remember that when first reading the books the Stark children were the obvious main characters. Later on I became less sure of this however, and I think it's one of the great strengths of GRRM's writing that there is a whole array of protagonists, defined by the challenges they face and journeys they undergo, and very few pure antagonists - that is characters which purely exist as plot device obstacles for the main characters. It's the first point in which the show really deviated from the novels, and in hindsight I now understand why characters like Ramsey and Euron were so infuriating in it. They didn't have to fight hard for their victories because they were nothing but plot devices; antagonists in the narrative sense.

 

The show set more heavily on Dany as a main character, and thanks to Emilia Clarke's great acting, the score and cinematography her hero's journey began to feel natural. I remember skipping the Essos chapters because I was too curious to see how the next intrigue in KL would play out in the books, but in the series those were often my favourite scenes.

[Krishtotter]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Tyrion has her down as a well-intentioned extremist, Kit Harrington says she was cruel and brutal from the time that Viserys was killed.

Not necessarily at odds 

You can be well-intentioned and idealistic but believe that brutal methods are necessary to implement those ideals, and also be cruel to go with it.

[Krishtotter]

8 hours ago, Erkan12 said:

Her fate was to conquer Westeros, not to rule. She couldn't let the power go at the end and lost her control and killed thousands of innocents, and then stopped by someone who can control himself at the end. A sad story for her, but she was indeed important as a conqueror, not a ruler.

Indeed.

Could you ever see Dany settling down to determine tax policy for her kingdom, or doling out grain or other banal requirements of good governance?

She was only ever about abstract ideals employed in the pursuit of her military conquests.

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, Krishtotter said:

Not necessarily at odds 

You can be well-intentioned and idealistic but believe that brutal methods are necessary to implement those ideals, and also be cruel to go with it.

She still needed more than three episodes to go from well-meaning ruler who is capable of cruelty, but not unduly so in this world, and saviour of humanity, to complete monster who has to be put down.

[Wholala17]

Giving the story a multidimensional "villain". Without her POV, she'll end up a laughable caricature villain like the NK - a malevolent dragon princess invader with an army of savages who takes what is hers with Fire and Blood, no matter the cost. 

[starklover]

brainwashed and abused as a kid. i dont think she would been a good ruler. 

[no_one...]

Danny = absolute power corrupts absolutely / hell hath no fury like a woman scorned

Sansa = that which does not kill me makes me stronger

Jon = no good dead goes unpunished 

 

[Hodor the Articulate]

That ambition makes for poor governance.

But having no interest in ruling also makes bad rulers.

Except lack of ambition actually makes the best rulers, guys, especially when the dude is completely useless and does nothing, ever.

 

** Bonus theme** Slave liberators and freed slaves are Nazis. Can't wait to see Confederate.

[Nictarion]

17 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

That ambition makes for poor governance.

But having no interest in ruling also makes bad rulers.

Except lack of ambition actually makes the best rulers, guys, especially when the dude is completely useless and does nothing, ever.

 

** Bonus theme** Slave liberators and freed slaves are Nazis. Can't wait to see Confederate.

Is that even still happening? I’d think they’ll be pretty busy with Star Wars. 

[Tb0ne]

After reading Clash of Kings and really all of the books it really hammers home how the peasants are typically caught in the middle between warring Lords and Kings. I've always thought that there was a possibility the next King would be elected like the Nights Watch Lord Commander. Instead the Lords of Westeros pick a King. 

Contrast this with Dany, not from Westeros, claims the throne by birthright and is willing to kill in order to win it.