Jump to content
Areisius

Who was Daenerys turned into?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He doesn't attend his own council sessions, which is precisely what Robert did, too. And his good advisers immediately start bickering among themselves what their priorities should be whereas the Hand's only priority seems to be his obsession with the managing the chairs.

This ridiculous elective monarchy thing is nonsense considering it should make everything worse. Everybody would like to be king now that this is price every great lord apparently can get - which means the war for it when a king grows old and feeble should intensify. Not to mention that any king with children would - and quickly should - try to reestablish a proper hereditary monarchy. Considering that Bran may have some nieces and nephews by Sansa the Cripple King could actually have close kin who might see themselves as his heirs. But I'm sure those guys wouldn't care if some other dude were to follow their dear uncle, no?

She said they would continue the war in Westeros, yes, but to free people. No idea what exactly that meant since it is never made clear, but if it meant, of instance, to eradicate the entire hereditary aristocracy, root and stem, and replace them by a proper royal bureaucracy run by royal officials from the ranks of the commoners who can actually make careers and advance themselves then this would have been a very great idea, no?

The root of all injustice in this shitty political system is the nobility, their privileges, and their petty ambitions and squabbles.

You do understand that the entitled pricks 'electing' the new king ridiculing the idea that the commoners should have a voice, too, and Dany making it clear that she knows what's best for everybody and that she, as monarch, doesn't have to explain herself, etc. are essentially the same approaches, right? The only difference is that the collective of the pricks are somehow portrayed as good dictators and she is, apparently, a bad one.

You do realize, that Bran sees and knows all? Bran knew he was going to be King, Bran knows what his advisors and people are going to do. An elective monarchy doesn’t make any part of it worse and is far better than what the other options were. The informed and educated class voting on who should be King. The only “war” that would grow when a king gets old would be politics which is literally no different than today’s actual world.

It clear Daenerys is unhinged and unstable. I have no idea what you’re trying to rationalize anything she’s said. It’s clear her way of purification to paradise is through fire and blood. We all know exactly what Daenerys would’ve done to Winterfell and any other who didn’t bow down in fear for their lives. She’s never been a good ruler, conquerer? Yes. Ruler? Hell no. Robert was better than her. Commoners are represented through their lords the same way we as citizens are represented through representatives. You realize this right?

Furthermore why would any House try to restablish the hereditary monarchy? The lords of Westeros who want to be king won’t stand for this. Nor will any others as everyone wants a chance to be King. You’re trying to pick holes in places where there are none or that have safeguards.

Edited by Starkz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Starkz said:

Commoners are represented through their lords the same way we as citizens are represented through representatives. You realize this right?

Nope.

You wanna know why? Lordships are hereditary.

Representatives don't serve for life and then pass on their seat to their son or daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

I didn't see any Dothraki raping people in episode 5. Or even pillaging for that matter...

I did see a northerner try to rape someone and then try to kill Jon when Jon wouldn't let him rape someone.

Leaving aside that Dotrhaki did participate in the raping and pillaging, how does that help your argument? The northern soldiers were part of what the smallfolk were running from when they went to the city.

And by the way, I mentioned Dothraki in the first post because the people in Westeros are terrified of them and view them as savages. This devolved into silliness because you've chosen to die on the hill of your failure to understand why people would flee to a castle in the face of an invading army.

Edited by Forlong the Fat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Executing Varys was Robespierre. Massacring King's Landing was not.

Robespierre - who was always first amongst equals anyway, and who wielded a mere fraction of Daenerys' power - went after people as individuals. He never tried to burn down Paris.

Quote

 

"We want, in a word, to fulfil nature’s wishes, to further the destinies of humanity, to keep the promises of philosophy, to absolve providence of the long reign of crime and tyranny. So that France, once illustrious among enslaved countries, eclipsing the glory of all the free peoples that have existed, may become the model for all nations, the terror of oppressors, the consolation of the oppressed, the ornament of the universe; and that in sealing our work with our blood, we may at least glimpse the shining dawn of universal happiness. That is our ambition, that is our goal.

We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror...

Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs...The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny."

Maximilien Robespierre, "On the Principles of Political Morality that Should Guide the National Convention in the Domestic Administration of the Republic" (5 February 1794)

 

Actually, many people underestimate the sheer industrial-scale killing of Robesperre's Reign of Terror (they don't call it a 'reign' for nothing, even though it only lasted less than a year). Norman Hampson notes in his biography of Robespierre that “the revolutionary tribunal . . . had become an undiscriminating murder machine. . . . Imaginary . . . plots and absurd charges were everyday events.” 

Dany had dragon-fire (a magical, fantasy weapon), Robespierre had the guillotine (a mechanised weapon). Both were instruments of public terror used en masse against civilians who had not been given fair and free trial but were slaughtered indiscriminately. 

The contemporary revolutionary Louis-Marie Prudhomme put the total number of victims drowned, guillotined, or shot during the 'Terror' throughout France at 300,000; of that number 17,000 were in Paris alone and only about 3,000 could be considered nobles (Robespierre justified the killings because his enemies were 'aristocrats', 'bourgeoisie' and 'counterrevolutionary royalists' but in fact the vast majority of his victims were peasants, the very peasants he had been 'fighting' to liberate!)

In the city of Lyon, writes the English historian Simon Schama in Citizens, the guillotine began its work, but it was found to be “a messy and inconvenient way of disposing of the political garbage. . . . A number of the condemned, then, were executed in mass shootings. . . . [A]s many as sixty prisoners were tied in a line by ropes and shot at with cannon. Those who were not killed outright by the fire were finished off with sabers, bayonets, and rifles. . . . By the time that the killings . . . had finished, one thousand nine hundred and five people had met their end.”

The commissioner in Nantes “supplemented the guillotine with . . . ‘vertical deportations.’ . . . Holes were punched in the sides of . . . barges. . . . Prisoners were put in with their hands and feet tied and the boats pushed into the center of the river. . . . [The] victims helplessly watched the water rise about them. . . . [P]risoners were stripped of their clothes and belongings . . . [Y]oung men and women [were] tied naked together in the boats. Estimates of those who perished in this manner vary greatly, but there were certainly no fewer than two thousand.”

The Committee for Public Safety (aka Robespierre) sent Jean-Baptiste Carrier to Nantes: he arrived on October 20 1793 and stayed there until the middle of February. On November 16 1793, 80 priests were drowned together in a boat; on December 5 or 6 a further 58 were disposed of in the same manner; 10 days later drowning was opened up for "enemies of the people" more generally, and 129 Vendéens were drowned. Drownings spread far beyond Nantes: on 16th December, General Marceau sent a letter to the Revolutionary Minister of War triumphantly announcing, among other victories, that at least 3,000 non-combatant Vendéen women had been drowned at Pont-au-Baux.    

 But General Westermann’s single finest day of slaughter took place at Savenay, on December 21. As he announced, to an appreciative and grateful Robespierre and Committee for Public Safety:

Quote

Citizens of the Republic, there is no more Vendée. She has died beneath our sabre of freedom, with her women and children. I have buried her in the woods and marshes of Savenay. Following your orders, I have crushed her children under the hooves of my horses, and massacred her women … who will give birth to no further brigands now. There is not a single prisoner who could criticise my actions—I have exterminated them all….

In 1794, the armies of Revolutionary France were defeating coalition after coalition of enemy nations, which meant that the Terror was no longer necessary. But Robespierre continued the Terror because he wanted to purge France of everyone who was corrupt. He in fact stated that the Revolution had "no end". It would go on and on and on. 

The killing only ended when Robespierre was executed on July 28, 1794.

To live in Robespierre's France was to inhabit something akin to a nightmare. In his speech of March 31, 1794, he stated: 

I say: Anyone who trembles at this moment is guilty because innocence never fears public scrutiny.

Think about that for a second: if you trembled during an inquisition or inspection by the Revolutionary Army or security personnel, you were considered guilty. Imagine a legal system structured around such arbitrary notions of culpability and you have the makings of indiscriminate mass slaughter. The dichotomy drawn between innocence and guilt is based upon fear or lack thereof. True citizens of the Republic have no need to fear questioning by the Revolutionary Tribunal about where there loyalties lie. 

Anyone could be executed under the criteria of the Law of 22 Prairial. To quote one historian: "his complete identification with revolutionary ideals lead him to instigate the highly dangerous notion of trial by character". 

The likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and other later totalitarian despots were far more deadly reincarnations of the basic personality that Robespierre brought into politics and statecraft, and their much greater crimes have obscured the scale of what the former did. 

Robespierre was not just a "first among equals". By that stage, in 1793 - 94, the First French Republic had entirely abandoned any real semblance of democracy in practice, despite retaining the high-minded rhetoric in theory.  

The Committee of Public Safety, the National Convention (parliament)...these were elaborate set-pieces of window-dressing, cloaking a totalitarian revolutionary regime founded upon extra-judicial violence and intimidation, albdit behind a veneer of consensus-based normalcy. As Carl Schmitt correctly noted in his work, Dictatorship: "Robespierre dominated the Committee and the Committee dominated the Convention, which accepted all the former's proposals and decisions without discussion, unanimously".

What's 'throwing' you here is that we are comparing a modernist dictatorship (Revolutionary France in the late 18th century) with a medieval feudal one (Dany's Westeros). If you account for the necessary differences between a near-contemporary political regime in a post-industrial, post-enlightenment world and a pre-modern one, the affinity in terms of personality, political philosophy and even policy between Dany and Robespierre become apparent. 

Robespierre needed to make his dictatorship look far more consensual and participatory than Dany did hers. But if he wanted you dead - as he did his own best friend from childhood Camille and his young wife, his rival Danton, the Girondins, the Herbertists and anyone else whom he deemed an "enemy of the people" (code term for a rival claimant to Robespierre) - then you were toast. People were being mowed down at the guillotine left-right-and centre at a truly astonishing rate - it has been described by one historian as an "undiscriminating machine of mass murder". 

What has shocked so many people down the years is that Robespierre managed to construct a truly awesome architecture of state terror, paranoia and mass murder, all behind the veneer of universal equality, republican liberty and social justice. And he never deviated, in principle, from those ideals: believing sincerely that state terror was the best and only means of delivering them. 

To celebrate the Revolution's victory against the enemies of freedom abroad and at home, Robespierre instructed in June 1794 that in the center of Paris, a papier-mache replica of a mountain was to be constructed.

And guess who walked down that mountain, before the eyes of the adoring crowds? Robespierre appeared on top of it, of course, clad in a toga:

http://timesillustrated.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/festival-of-the-supreme-being2.jpg

Doyle, p. 277: "'Look at the bugger,' muttered Thuriot, an old associate of Danton. 'It's not enough for him to be master, he has to be God.'"

http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/exhibits/show/liberty--equality--fraternity/item/3077

Quote

Adapting the established strategy of staging public pageantry to win support for a political cause, Robespierre organized a "Festival of the Supreme Being" in the summer of 1794. Having recently eliminated his adversaries Hébert and Danton, Robespierre delivered the keynote speech.

"Republican Frenchmen, it is yours to purify the earth which they have soiled, and to return the justice that they have banished! Liberty and virtue together came from the breast of Divinity. Neither can abide with mankind without the other…

The monster which the genius of kings had vomited over France has gone back into nothingness… Frenchmen, you war against kings; you are therefore worthy to honour Divinity… Hatred of bad faith and tyranny burns in our hearts, with love of justice and the fatherland. Our blood flows for the cause of humanity. Behold our prayer. Behold our sacrifices. Behold the worship we offer Thee.”"

Remind you of anyone? The showrunners were not subtle in having Dany appear on top of a mound-like structure to deliver her idealistic speech. 

 

Edited by Krishtotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

Leaving aside that Dotrhaki did participate in the raping and pillaging, how does that help your argument? The northern soldiers were part of what the smallfolk were running from when they went to the city.

Daenerys didn't have anything to do with the northern soldiers. Everyone who went on sacking the city, sacked the city because they were mad and they wanted to sack the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Daenerys didn't have anything to do with the northern soldiers. Everyone who went on sacking the city, sacked the city because they were mad and they wanted to sack the city.

Do you even know what you're arguing about at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that her last two speeches, first to the unsullied then to Jon, provided a pretty compelling understanding of what happened to her. She maintained her core view of things, but it was perverted by madness and grief. She developed a megalomaniac view of how she could make a better world--by forcing everyone to be good in precisely the way she thought they should be. She touched upon a paradox that lies within all ideas of government. More important, she maintained her vision but it evolved into something despotic and evil due to extremity, and that happened due to madness.

Further, it is apparent that  Barristan and others simply misunderstood madness. They thought it was purely genetic--Targs are born and they are mad or not. In reality, they are born with a propensity to madness based on life events. And, of course, this is how it often works in the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Starkz said:

You do realize, that Bran sees and knows all? Bran knew he was going to be King, Bran knows what his advisors and people are going to do.

That is not properly established since the guy doesn't talk. We have no idea what he knows and doesn't know. But what we do know is that he doesn't give a crap. He didn't lift so much as a finger when Littlefinger was trying to play Arya and Sansa against them - how can we expect this guy to care about any of his subjects?

18 minutes ago, Starkz said:

An elective monarchy doesn’t make any part of it worse and is far better than what the other options were. The informed and educated class voting on who should be King. The only “war” that would grow when a king gets old would be politics which is literally no different than today’s actual world.

Right, because the Westerosi would just forget that plotting and backstabbing - which is very much ingrained in their aristocratic culture - is the only way to gain power?

18 minutes ago, Starkz said:

It clear Daenerys is unhinged and unstable. I have no idea what you’re trying to rationalize anything she’s said. It’s clear her way of purification to paradise is through fire and blood. We all know exactly what Daenerys would’ve done to Winterfell and any other who didn’t bow down in fear for their lives. She’s never been a good ruler, conquerer? Yes. Ruler? Hell no. Robert was better than her. Commoners are represented through their lords the same way we as citizens are represented through representatives. You realize this right?

LOL, no. Nobles live off their smallfolk, they exploit them and force them to fight in their pointless little wars. The only thing they represent is themselves and their own petty ambitions.

The reason why I brought up the Augustus example above is because the guy also got to supreme power to a sea of blood. But he still gave his people peace and internal stability for 50+ years afterwards.

The idea that cruelty and the killing of innocents has no place in a pre-modern world is simply wrong - especially in a world as shitty as George's Westeros where you have to write your name in letters of blood or else you are not taken seriously at all - and it is even more wrong to assume that the benefactors of such a harsh political approach - i.e. Dany's closest confidants - would conspire to murder her just because she killed some peasants and enemies she didn't need to kill.

That is as ridiculous as Maecenas and Agrippa conspiring to murder Augustus because they had to kill a shit load of fellow Romans to secure power. It would never happen.

18 minutes ago, Starkz said:

Furthermore why would any House try to restablish the hereditary monarchy? The lords of Westeros who want to be king won’t stand for this. Nor will any others as everyone wants a chance to be King. You’re trying to pick holes in places where there are none or that have safeguards.

Because they themselves are still all hereditary nobility, no? Which means their sons grow up expecting to inherit the lands and titles of their fathers. Anybody growing up in that mindset would *never* suddenly accept that he cannot hand the crown to his son.

In fact, in no medieval society was ever a longstanding hereditary monarchy changed to a elective monarchy. The few elective monarchies that existed in the middle ages resisted the transformation into clear-cut hereditary monarchy since in many early medieval societies kings were actually chosen, often from the same family and kin. Things did not start with the hereditary monarchy thing, especially not with a clear-cut from father to son system.

But this kind of thing inevitably comes to be seen as *more natural* since parents also always leave their private property to their children. The very concept that the mad ramblings of some imprisoned dwarf actually shape and change law and tradition is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Dany is that the pieces were all there for the way it turned out but the writing made it hard to sense it.

The call back to Breaking the Wheel made me realise how many hints there have been for quite some time. But somehow it still felt sudden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pacing and storytelling was all over the place, but Dany going mad is always been one of the most popular theories for this series, and I've always bet on it. There's just too much foreshadowing on the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Forlong the Fat said:

I think that her last two speeches, first to the unsullied then to Jon, provided a pretty compelling understanding of what happened to her. She maintained her core view of things, but it was perverted by madness and grief. She developed a megalomaniac view of how she couldn’t  make a better world--by forcing everyone to be good in precisely the way she thought they should be. She touched upon a paradox that lies within all ideas of government. More important, she maintained her vision but it evolved into something despotic and evil due to extremity, and that happened due to madness.

 

2 hours ago, Starkz said:

 It clear Daenerys is unhinged and unstable. I have no idea what you’re trying to rationalize anything she’s said. It’s clear her way of purification to paradise is through fire and blood. We all know exactly what Daenerys would’ve done to Winterfell and any other who didn’t bow down in fear for their lives. She’s never been a good ruler, conquerer? Yes. Ruler? Hell no. Robert was better than her. Commoners are represented through their lords the same way we as citizens are represented through representatives. You realize this right?

Exactly.  What do people think was going to happen once word spread of her savagery??! Every free innocent population around the world would’ve been against her, thus transforming them all into Dany’s enemies standing in her way of global domination.  She would’ve made the Holocaust look like a drive-by shooting. 

When your answer to the age old philosophical question of How many innocent lives would you sacrifice for the greater good is “Most of them”, then you’re really not for the greater good anymore. You’re just mad. 

The only surviving people in Dany’s world would’ve been her army and the freed slaves. Rest would’ve been committed to ash. The events of King’s Landing clearly represented a microcosm of the rest of the free world, even according to her own words.

 

Edited by ToddDavid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I never understood that wheel nonsense, but as I see it the cripple king and his bickering council are, basically, ...

You mean the greenseer king, not the cripple king.

Compared to King Bran, the previous monarchs were all crippled, and he isn't.

That's because they all lacked a greenseer's vision or guidance, except at most for when Bloodraven was Hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Areisius said:

I'm baffled as to who she was morphed into in S8.

She was transformed into a scooby-snack for Drogon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

She was transformed into a scooby-snack for Drogon.

lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kajjo said:

Rewatch the fighting pit talk Hizdahr/Daenerys. Only her reason is valid, she is ready to burn cities. Or the talk to the Thirteen in front of Qarth. Or her pep talk to the Dothraki after burning the Dosh Khaleen. Again and again she is willing to destroy and burn cities.

But these are all show inventions, don't happen in the books. How does that match up with the GRRM ending for Dany? Wasn't the show ending supposed to be GRRM's overall vision for the story? 

11 hours ago, Areisius said:

In her last scene with Jon she acted completely detached from reality and was acting like a sociopath. What in the world did D&D do to her character?

Dany in the show has always been more bloodthirsty compared Dany in the books. Still, her actions in KL and afterwards is a complete 180. I mean, it doesn't even look like she realized what she has done. Looks like they wanted to make her totally evil out of nowhere, so when Jon kills her, we feel sympathy for him and not her for some reason. 

In the end, the show has a happy ending for just about everyone except Dany, who goes crazy in literally a matter of minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Areisius said:

I'm baffled as to who she was morphed into in S8.

Adolf Vader?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

You mean the greenseer king, not the cripple king.

Compared to King Bran, the previous monarchs were all crippled, and he isn't.

That's because they all lacked a greenseer's vision or guidance, except at most for when Bloodraven was Hand.

No, I mean the cripple king. A king who is never going to inspire any loyalty or devotion in a time of crisis. And that's made worse by his general approach to things, meaning his robotic nature and him being completely detached from other people. The idea that a half-god would give a damn about 'counting coppers', as Robert would put it, is insane.

And Bran isn't a greenseer in the show. The term is never mentioned, is it, nor do we know what exactly he can do.

6 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

But these are all show inventions, don't happen in the books. How does that match up with the GRRM ending for Dany? Wasn't the show ending supposed to be GRRM's overall vision for the story? 

That's what they said - until it was evident that that's just nonsense. Which was basically evident in season 5, I'd say. Even season 4 was pretty detached from George's vision in most scenes.

But this Dany travesty didn't just destroy the Dany character (I actually have little issue with her burning and sacking cities, I actually hope that stuff like that's going to happen in the books, just as I'm looking forward to Euron's madness, blood sacrifices, plagues, cannibalism in winter, etc. - I really like this horror stuff) but this entire nonsensical plot ruined basically all the other characters. Jon becomes a lovesick moron with no story of his own, a guy who is manipulated by others to kill the love of his life, Tyrion basically no longer exists, Varys becomes an utter joke (and Tyrion's BEST FRIEND!III???), Sansa, Arya, and Bran don't have stories or characters of their own, Jaime, Cersei, Brienne, and Davos are not even existing anymore, etc.

If we actually pretend that the entire post-Others plot of the show is going to take place in any fashion then we would have George cutting himself and his characters to pieces while creating this setting. This cannot possibly work.

6 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Dany in the show has always been more bloodthirsty compared Dany in the books. Still, her actions in KL and afterwards is a complete 180. I mean, it doesn't even look like she realized what she has done. Looks like they wanted to make her totally evil out of nowhere, so when Jon kills her, we feel sympathy for him and not her for some reason. 

I honestly assume they wanted to end the show with the destruction of KL - because the series was always about the Iron Throne. They wondered how they would close out and decided to take this road. That's why they postponed this so long - which is precisely the reason why George is not going to postpone this so long (if it happens) because his characters exist in a realistic fantasy world and are written as if they were real people. Nobody would war everywhere in Westeros but KL when they have THE FUCKING MEANS AND OPPORTUNITY to take the city and the throne.

But considering that the Dany twist there came literally out of nowhere and we got Tyrion's rather jealous look back at the end of season 7 I'm not sure this ending is even remotely the same ending they themselves wanted to make back two years ago. Not to mention that it is not the ending George is aiming at. Because if there is a jealous character in the books, a character who cannot handle rejection very well then it is Tyrion - who, considering his behavior and deeds (Shae, Tywin, the singer, but especially the rape of Tysha) really doesn't seem to be the kind of guy we would expect to get out of the thing in one piece in the books. Especially not since we can expect that old sins and crimes usually come back to haunt you in this series.

But in any case - if George's grand finale is going to be the War for the Dawn, and if Dany is going to play a part in that one (which is very likely) then the taking of KL must happen before that, most likely during whatever conflict she has with Aegon. There is a potential there for a lot of dirty stuff there but considering how fucked-up things in Westeros should be then I really cannot see anybody having empathy for tens of thousands of people dying in a sack - because, in winter, it will be a sack, not some dragon holocaust. Dany's dragons won't grow that huge, and with snow everywhere they won't really be able to incinerate a city.

In a world where the real Euron might actually sit the Iron Throne for a time, where Cersei and her pet sorcerer create undead monsters, where the Northmen might water their weirwoods with the blood of hundreds or thousands of prisoners of war, where Catelyn and her merry band of outlaws might brutally butcher Genna Lannister, her men, and the Freys, where Stannis is going to sacrifice his only child to R'hllor (and nobody is going to prevent it), where starvation and cold is going to drive people to use pretty much all humanity even before they become wights, Daenerys Targaryen cannot really become all that scary. That just doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kajjo said:

Not so different from before. You just don't want to see it.

Rewatch the fighting pit talk Hizdahr/Daenerys. Only her reason is valid, she is ready to burn cities. Or the talk to the Thirteen in front of Qarth. Or her pep talk to the Dothraki after burning the Dosh Khaleen. Again and again she is willing to destroy and burn cities.

This, Dany fans are in denial. GRRM was always going this route and he will write it well, unlike D&D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her character? What about Jon? Wasn't he supposed to care about innocent people? Wasn't he trying to save the people of Westeros? Yet, even after Dany kills everyone in KL, Tyrion has to be Jon's moral compass because Jon now only cares about Dany. 

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

×