Who was Daenerys turned into?

[HighAndMightyBrightness]

1 hour ago, tallTale said:

She's been making grandiose threats since season one, but still acted with restraint. Actions speaks louder than words.

Her advisors were even more dangerous with their prostituting ways.

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, Starkz said:

It’s pretty obvious life under Daenerys would not have been good. She’s totally detached from reality and doesn’t seem to care that she just committed mass-genocide against innocents including children. Even with the IT she’s still not content and somehow believes she’s going to “break the wheel” by steering it and being the one in charge which is literally being a part of the wheel.

I never understood that wheel nonsense, but as I see it the cripple king and his bickering council are, basically, Robert Baratheon all over again. An absentee king surrounded by fools and flatterers.

Killing Dany is basically the same as killing Augustus in 27 BCE. Sure, he buried the republic, and he did so by killing a lot of people. But he ended the continuous wars and he gave Rome a period of lasting peace and internal stability.

Or better: Dany is basically Alexander the Great dying early. The result was not peace and plenty but fragmentation and continuous warfare and the eventual destruction of the Greek world (at least as independent political entities).

The idea to judge a ruler in this setting on one cruel act is just nonsense, even if one imagined that the criteria to judge her were criteria in that world would use - which they are not.

10 minutes ago, Starkz said:

Don’t forget Dany says she’ll go to Dorne and Winterfell too to ensure they follow her.

And that is bad how? I assume 'King Bran' is dealing with rebellion and succession in his 'Six Kingdoms' by ignoring that such events take place ;-)?

[Areisius]

31 minutes ago, Raebo said:

Have you read the books?  She says it herself in the Dance with Dragons, the last book Martin wrote, about 4 pages from the end in the last chapter when she is talking to the grass, her inner conflict, she changes her outlook and the last thing thing the grass asks her is, “who are you?”, and she replies, “________ and _________”.

I will not put her quote here since some may not have read the book but if you read it now, I think it is obvious that it foreshadowed what she would do and it tells what she turned into.  Looking back on it, the conversation with the grass is about the most important part of the books and sets up Danys arc but on first read, I just scratched my head and finished the book.

I think D&D failed to show that inner conflict adequately which left me very unsatisfied with how they portrayed her.

That would make her a sudden turned sociopath which isn't possible as I stated on here.

[Johan Wehtje]

12 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

Because they talked her either out of it or the threats were directly at the future. The future came. The threats became real.

No Actions really do talk louder. Not only that but we literally see her discuss and accept that she shouldn't burn cities. As for the speeches at Quarth or later when she returns to Mereen you will notice that they are either when she is with her khalisaar or when she has spent time with the Dothraki. She imbibed a fair bit of Dothraki culture which is why she was accepted as Khlaeesi over all. Between the Targareyen propensity for Fire and Blood language and Dothraki talk about exulting in conquest bloodcurdling talk to your enemies is completely standard in the world she lives in without anyone thinking you are going mad. 

And you can't have 8 seasons of a character being measured, and listening to advisors, and being flexible and having uncommon concern for innocent life and then do a 180 on all those traits and then tell us it was all foreshadowed by a couple of speeches similar to ones that many other characters make. And of course - foreshadowing is not the same as character development.!

[Nerevanin]

The problem with Dany is not that she became mad, burned the city and kinda lost in her belief that she is the savior of the world. The problem is that D&D put all this in 3 episodes. They should have started with it in a more obvious way in S7.

[dtones520]

45 minutes ago, tallTale said:

Her threats were always real as she acted vengeance on her enemies, but never against the innocent. Enough incidents passed to prove her moral character. You don't get to retcon her at this point, and for such poor reasons.

What about the innocents of Astapor that she left to die after she “liberated” the city? What about the innocent women and children of the slavers in Mereen? Who determined the Khals she burned alive were guilty? What about her threats against Qarth, what happens when you burn a city to the ground?

Dany has always laid waste to civilizations that she deemed to be her enemies and we could always rationalize that because we also, in our opinions, believe that they were doing awful things because we liked Dany and we used our own world view to say that things like Slavery are horrible. HOWEVER, the slavers of slavers bay have only known that life. They believe that is right and Dany ending that is not only bad for them but the slaves. 

Those decisions directly impacted innocents and caused their death. So, burning Kings Landing isn’t completely out of character for her. Especially when it was clear that people in Westeros were not going to accept her as their ruler. Especially as Jon’s parentage would have spread through realm.

not to mention, she would likely have done even more than she actually did from the start if she was allowed to. 

Granted, they did not give her descent enough time to flesh out in the show. I feel good that the books will do a good job of playing it out.

[btfu806]

1 hour ago, Kajjo said:

Because she is talked out of it. After her advisors disappointed and there is none to talk her out of it, she does it eventually. It's been in her character all the time. And she showed ít clearly.

So we saw 5-6 years of no character growth then? She is the same exact person? Nothing changed. She never learned, grew up or anything. The difference was that the right people happened to not be around this time?

If that's the case, that's awful character development, or lack of character development.

[Kajjo]

1 minute ago, btfu806 said:

She is the same exact person? Nothing changed. She never learned

Well, she learned that many advice was not really helpful. That she could not trust her advisers. She grew more and more ruthless and learned that violence does the trick for her. She got better in commanding people, she actually fell in love with Jon, while she felt nothing for Daario.

 

[Larger than Average Finger]

She is someone entirely consumed with one goal, who had do do things she herself hates to get it, and now that she has it, does not know what to do next.

[tallTale]

On 5/20/2019 at 9:08 AM, dtones520 said:

What about the innocents of Astapor that she left to die after she “liberated” the city?  They can go wherever they damn well please. 

What about the innocent women and children of the slavers in Mereen? The slavers were not going to give up their power. It was the only way to stop the slave trade.

Who determined the Khals she burned alive were guilty? Everyone. The second they abducted her and threatened to rape her.

What about her threats against Qarth, what happens when you burn a city to the ground? They left her outside the city to die. She was understandably pissed. But she committed no action of genocide.

On 5/20/2019 at 9:08 AM, dtones520 said:

Those decisions directly impacted innocents and caused their death. So, burning Kings Landing isn’t completely out of character for her.

HOWEVER, the slavers of slavers bay have only known that life. They believe that is right and Dany ending that is not only bad for them but the slaves. 

Nah, freedom is better than slavery.

Dany has always laid waste to civilizations that she deemed to be her enemies and we could always rationalize that because we also, in our opinions, believe that they were doing awful things because we liked Dany and we used our own world view to say that things like Slavery are horrible. HOWEVER, the slavers of slavers bay have only known that life. They believe that is right and Dany ending that is not only bad for them but the slaves. 

Disagree. Targeting innocents goes against the many seasons of proof how she shows restraint, like when she freed the slaves, chained her dragons for killing an innocent person, when she saved the north , saved Jon multiple times, etc..

 

[btfu806]

Just now, Kajjo said:

Well, she learned that many advice was not really helpful. That she could not trust her advisers. She grew more and more ruthless and learned that violence does the trick for her. She got better in commanding people, she actually fell in love with Jon, while she felt nothing for Daario.

 

She fell in love with Khal Drogo, so that's nothing new.

But that same advice was the advice that stopped her from killing and burning down cities? So it was helpful? And they were people she could trust?

I guess she got better at commanding people, that is something.

[BlackLightning]

Daenerys became a plot device and a prop for other characters so that the other characters could get endings that they didn't deserve.

[dtones520]

2 minutes ago, tallTale said:

HOWEVER, the slavers of slavers bay have only known that life. They believe that is right and Dany ending that is not only bad for them but the slaves. 

Nah, freedom is better than slavery.

Dany has always laid waste to civilizations that she deemed to be her enemies and we could always rationalize that because we also, in our opinions, believe that they were doing awful things because we liked Dany and we used our own world view to say that things like Slavery are horrible. HOWEVER, the slavers of slavers bay have only known that life. They believe that is right and Dany ending that is not only bad for them but the slaves. 

Disagree. Targeting innocents goes against her consistency of showing restraint when she freed the slaves, chained her dragons for killing an innocent person, when she saved the north , saved Jon multiple times, etc..

 

And what about the innocent slavers and their children? She determined that Slavery in those cities was wrong. We agree with that because we know Slavery is awful. BUT in that world and in those cities, that is all those people know. Dany decided their fate because she thought it was right and she made those decisions despite of the advice of her advisors who pushed her to go to Westeros.

[tallTale]

Just now, dtones520 said:

And what about the innocent slavers and their children? She determined that Slavery in those cities was wrong. We agree with that because we know Slavery is awful. BUT in that world and in those cities, that is all those people know. Dany decided their fate because she thought it was right and she made those decisions despite of the advice of her advisors who pushed her to go to Westeros.

What are you arguing? That she doesn't always listen to her advisers? Or that she didn't take the into account the children of the slavers enough? That doesn't make her crazy.

[sifth]

50 minutes ago, Johan Wehtje said:

No Actions really do talk louder. Not only that but we literally see her discuss and accept that she shouldn't burn cities. As for the speeches at Quarth or later when she returns to Mereen you will notice that they are either when she is with her khalisaar or when she has spent time with the Dothraki. She imbibed a fair bit of Dothraki culture which is why she was accepted as Khlaeesi over all. Between the Targareyen propensity for Fire and Blood language and Dothraki talk about exulting in conquest bloodcurdling talk to your enemies is completely standard in the world she lives in without anyone thinking you are going mad. 

And you can't have 8 seasons of a character being measured, and listening to advisors, and being flexible and having uncommon concern for innocent life and then do a 180 on all those traits and then tell us it was all foreshadowed by a couple of speeches similar to ones that many other characters make. And of course - foreshadowing is not the same as character development.!

Dany literally mentions in her second chapter in ACoK that “she doesn’t want to burn Kings Landing”, and these are coming from inner thoughts, not Jorah trying to talker her into doing something less evil. So yea.

[sifth]

2 minutes ago, tallTale said:

What are you arguing? That she doesn't always listen to her advisers? Or that she didn't take the into account the children of the slavers enough? That doesn't make her crazy.

She’s also judging people with trials, for doing something that was legal up until her take over. She also never takes into account that some slavers could be reformed. She basically punishing people just because she doesn’t like the current law set in place.

[dtones520]

9 minutes ago, tallTale said:

What are you arguing? That she doesn't always listen to her advisers? Or that she didn't take the into account the children of the slavers enough? That doesn't make her crazy.

The original post I quoted was talking about Dany’s character not being capable of killing innocents when she has been harming innocents through her entire storyline.

[tallTale]

Just now, dtones520 said:

The original post I quoted was talking about Dany’s character not being capable of killing innocents when she has been harming innocents through her entire storyline.

You're arguing she's capable of targeting the completely innocent meat shields in KL because she didn't take into account the women and children of slavers. I don't agree that those two situations equate.

[StoneColdJorahMormont]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

They made her fit Tyrion's utterly ridiculous characterization of her. Likely because Emilia had read the script ;-).

But with Bronn insisting to rebuild brothels in the city one really wonders who is the sociopath there, no? Would have life under Dany been better or worse than what the detached, inhuman cripple king and his bickering council is going to give them?

We'll never know. But I have my doubts. The entire idea that killing innocents on the enemy side is *wrong* or a reason to abandon or murder a monarch does actually not fit very well with the overall setting of this world. No nobleman ever condemned another nobleman for the suffering or killing of innocent people in war. Sure, there are less accepted and more accepted ways of how to butcher, exploit, and kill the smallfolk, but none of that is likely to turn people against a ruler.

I mean, keep in mind that Tarly actually wants to clean out the High Sept with armed men even as late as the Epilogue of ADwD. That's how the nobility of Westeros respects the High Septon and the Faith once it is taken over up commoners.

Saying as the mood was very light hearted at the small council meeting, I took Bronns idea of rebuilding the brothels as Bronn just joking acting a Dick.. he is obviously a frequent visitor but there are other brothels in Westeros and im sure he will have a few in High garden... again I just saw it as light hearted banter.... " ohhh Bronn what you like.. " kind of thing.

As for Bran I think he is just put in place as a symbol. someone that cant be corrupted.. I'm Saddened Varys died but at the same time glad as I think  Westeros is in good hands with the current council.

[madhikun]

They made her into Hitler. Why? So they could justify killing her. They had Tyrion paint all her triumphs into atrocities so Dany fans were laughed at. 

 

Really Jon is a horrible boyfriend. He killed both of his lady loves because "it was the right thing to do". 

 

Really, how is that supposed to be who we're rooting for? Screw this show. I am glad it's over and I'll likely not read the books if this is the ending.