Jump to content
Areisius

Who was Daenerys turned into?

Recommended Posts

12 hours 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.

to this and to many other similar comments, all I have to say is:

FORESHADOWING IS NOT CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ser Glendon Fireball said:

 

...I agree that Bronn in ths Council is a bad & weird thing to do, though. u_u

Awww... C'mon!  :)  Bronn is no worse than just about any other noble or candidate for the council.  And better than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ser Glendon Fireball said:

But according to Tyrion (and Dany herself in her speech), Dany wasn't going to simply rule Westeros from the capital. It looks like she was going to invade other lands, such as the Free Cities, or idk, Sothoryos ?

Had she accept to stay in Westeros and rule, I don't even know if she'd dealt with a Smart Council, or gather all the power in her own hands. (remember at this point she doesn't even have a Hand of the Queen) And do you think she'd have been fine with the North being independent ?

...I agree that Bronn in ths Council is a bad & weird thing to do, though. u_u

Yeah which she all of a sudden decides to do. She went from "this will be the last war" to "lets keep going to war" No this was crappy writing plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nymeria Stone said:

to this and to many other similar comments, all I have to say is:

FORESHADOWING IS NOT CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. 

Sure, that's why GRRM will have to do a much better job than D&D who rushed her development ridiculously.


But there is nothing inherently wrong with the Mad queen Dany arc unless you are just a Dany fan who insists on some sort of happy ending

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Journey95 said:

Sure, that's why GRRM will have to do a much better job than D&D who rushed her development ridiculously.


 But there is nothing inherently wrong with the Mad queen Dany arc unless you are just a Dany fan who insists on some sort of happy ending

sure, as long as its done properly

Share this post


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

sure, as long as its done properly

Yeah the show handled it badly. I just don't get fans who aren't even open to the Mad queen Dany idea and have made up their mind already.

Share this post


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

Awww... C'mon!  :)  Bronn is no worse than just about any other noble or candidate for the council.  And better than most.

WHAT? ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The character development at the end of ADWD is exactly what happened in the show:

At the end of ADWD:

- Dany secures a victory in Meereen by ending slavery, and a surrender is marked by the a celebration at the opening of the fighting pits

- Dany is clearly unhappy with this outcome even though it's the best deal she will get at this time (realistically).

- Dany decides that her dragon is more important than peace, she thinks she's like a dragon "Dragons are fire made flesh and so am I" and hops on Drogon's back.

- Dany closes her eyes from the smoke - HERE IS THE POV TRAP WHERE THE UNRELIABLE NARRATOR STARTS - and the next moment she opens them and she's high above them, flying away. We learn in Barristan's chapter what happened. Drogon burned 200 innocent bystanders.

- Dany forgets the name of the child Drogon killed, she DOES have memories of the carnage in the fighting pits, but she ignores these images and thinks it was all worth it because her dragon flight was so thrilling.

In S8:

- Dany secures a victory in King's Landing, and a surrender is marked with the bells.

- Dany is clearly unhappy with this outcome even though it's the best deal she will get at this time.

- Dany decides that her dragon is more important than peace.

- Drogon/Dany proceed to burn thousands and thousands of people. This time Dany is fully aware. Her eyes are open.

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been rushed and sloppy and could have been done a thousand times better with more episodes and better writers, but people here act like Dany going crazy came out of nowhere when that's not true.

Rewatch Season 7. There are several instances when Dany goes nuts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

WHAT? ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE?

nope.  not at all.  ;)  Character-wise, Bronn is actually better than the majority of the nobles that we have seen.  And he owes his position 100% to the Hand and the new King. 

Bran would have vetted Bronn before allowing him to be on the Small Council.

 

We heard Bronn's little speech re. what really makes a lord for a reason ;)  In it's core, it is true.

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


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

It's been rushed and sloppy and could have been done a thousand times better with more episodes and better writers, but people here act like Dany going crazy came out of nowhere when that's not true.

Rewatch Season 7. There are several instances when Dany goes nuts. 

Yep.  Maybe not 'nuts', per se, but the 'Fire & Blood' instances from Dany were there for us to see.  We chose not to.

Edit:  in all fairness, they were difficult to see.  but they were there.

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

Heh...And now Bloodraven is King  :)  Doesn't Bran have Bloodraven's memories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours 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.

It would have been controversial to show a "successful" rape in the show. But it would be naive for us to think that the incident with the northerner was an isolated one.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

All you're doing in all of your posts is trying to excuse Daenarys actions based on modern tropes concerning ancient and medieval times. I.E. seeing people from those times as savages who killed without reason, therefore Dany's actions were "normal". Usually when cities were sacked in ancient/medieval times it was because the defenders had put up a very hard and long resistance, so the leader would decide to make an example of them in order to discourage cities that they planned to attack later from mounting similiar resistance. Long sieges were periods of enormous suffering for both the defenders and the attackers so would-be conquerors would take such extreme measures to prevent them. They were strategic decisions taken in certain circumstances, not just something done because it was "normal for the time". (Granted, occasionally a settlement would be sacked because the troops lost discipline but it was clearly not the troops that were at fault in episode 5.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tadco26 said:

but the speech they couldn't understand shouldn't have had any real impact on their decisions.

Tyrion is very well read, so immediately recognized the Fascist symbolism of the while setting. Jon is actually a keen sci-fi fan, so thought "hmm this feels more like First Order than the Jedi council, First Order bad, so Auntie bad"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

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.

Actually news flash... they really do. Have you realized how long families like the Clintons have been in politics or the Kennedys? Not to mention lordships are given out occasionally and this is just the first step towards democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, White Walker King said:

All you're doing in all of your posts is trying to excuse Daenarys actions based on modern tropes concerning ancient and medieval times. I.E. seeing people from those times as savages who killed without reason, therefore Dany's actions were "normal". Usually when cities were sacked in ancient/medieval times it was because the defenders had put up a very hard and long resistance, so the leader would decide to make an example of them in order to discourage cities that they planned to attack later from mounting similiar resistance. Long sieges were periods of enormous suffering for both the defenders and the attackers so would-be conquerors would take such extreme measures to prevent them. They were strategic decisions taken in certain circumstances, not just something done because it was "normal for the time". (Granted, occasionally a settlement would be sacked because the troops lost discipline but it was clearly not the troops that were at fault in episode 5.)

But isn't that exactly what they tried to present as her motivation? "Let it be fear", after she had been let down again and again by trying to show restraint. Of course, whether such a strategic decision is in character for Dany is a different question altogether...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Journey95 said:

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

Agreed. 

Daenerys will act similar in the book. It makes sense and the denial of the fans does not help. It's really getting irrational here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nymeria Stone said:

FORESHADOWING IS NOT CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. 

True, but what we call foreshadowing are actually sentences by Daenerys and she made clear early on that destroying cities is an option.

There is no sudden development in S8, all this is in her all the time. 

Don't moan about lack of development, better focus on why you haven't understood her character back in early seasons where they showed us cruel streaks of Daenerys's character. 

It's not new. It been there all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, White Walker King said:

All you're doing in all of your posts is trying to excuse Daenarys actions based on modern tropes concerning ancient and medieval times. I.E. seeing people from those times as savages who killed without reason, therefore Dany's actions were "normal". Usually when cities were sacked in ancient/medieval times it was because the defenders had put up a very hard and long resistance, so the leader would decide to make an example of them in order to discourage cities that they planned to attack later from mounting similiar resistance. Long sieges were periods of enormous suffering for both the defenders and the attackers so would-be conquerors would take such extreme measures to prevent them. They were strategic decisions taken in certain circumstances, not just something done because it was "normal for the time". (Granted, occasionally a settlement would be sacked because the troops lost discipline but it was clearly not the troops that were at fault in episode 5.)

From what I know sacks were very common and had nothing to do with the length of the siege. But we can certainly say that they have nothing to do with stuff like that in Westeros if you think of the sacks of King's Landing, Bitterbridge, or Tumbleton. In fact, in certain times sacks were completely normal since the opportunity to plunder was part of (or the only) payment the troops were getting.

I'm pretty sure nobody in the books would care if Dany sacks a city, just as pretty much nobody cared about such modern sensibilities in other instances. Nobody wanted to see Tywin dead because of KL, or the Green leadership because of Tumbleton or Bitterbridge.

Share this post


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

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.

I disagree. Octavian was a harsh man, and not likeable, but in no way he would've burned thousands of people needlessly. If he is close to anyone in GoT, it certainly is more Jon than Dany.

Dany resembled more Cleopatra in her last years- pressing claims in the Roman Republic/7 kingdoms which she didn't have any business to press. Augustus was Caesar's heir, not Cleopatra's son, just like Jon was heir to the Iron Throne, not Dany. 

Quote

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).

Maybe this is a better comparison. Alexander destroyed Thebes to the ground and put the inhabitants to the sword and enslaved the rest. But he did this early in his career, so the Greeks were afraid of him and eventually joined him conquering Asia and Africa, after some verbal resistance here and there.

She did it in the end-after years of trying to conquer with less civilian victims.

 

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

×