Jump to content
A man doesn't have a name

People's reaction to Dany turning Mad Queen says something about us as humans

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

She threatened to burn all of Qarth, the merchant who didnt lend her ships(and in the same sentence threatened to burn Qarth again)

She crucified the masters not all of whom were masters, some even fighting against slavery.

She fed a man to her dragons without a trial to see if he was a sons of the harpy member...

She burned the Tarlys, the list goes on and on.

While the writing was rushed and not as good as seasons passed, everyone except Dany fans seemingly could tell she was going crazy.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_X2GGH_A_0

Edited by LordCommanderFrost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

1) There are no slaves in Westeros. And Stannis himself, at least going by books, treated his people - including peasants - rather well. He wanted to become a king because it was his duty, he did want to end various injustices (nobody of importance in King's Landing wanted him to become a king because they knew he would have had them executed because of various abuses of power and other crap they did), and he did what he could to defend the realm once an external threat appeared. Same as what Daenerys did, in fact, except her motivation was apparently a lot more... personal.

2) Daenerys was an idealist and revolutionary, and see where that got her. And no, she did not consistently act in a way which advanced her moral philosophy. She consistently acted in a way which helped herself, and then justified it through her moral philosophy. Maybe she believed it, maybe she didn't, but she was the main benefactory of her own political philosophy. Same like Stannis seeking the Iron Throne; but unlike her, he at least had experience in ruling.

3) Stannis wanted to become a king because he was the rightful king of Westeros, as far as he was aware. Same as Daenerys wanting to become Queen of Westeros.

4) Within time constraints of the show, her speech about "liberating" people was quite good at establishing her as evil. And unrestrained violence is, in itself, evil; it may be justified sometimes, but it is still evil. And I have already agreed that they did not handle transition to "Mad Queen Daenerys" well; what I do not agree with is the view that there were absolutely no indications of her going mad/evil earlier in the show.

You should apply same standards to Stannis and Daenerys both.

The video puts it well that says there was foreshadowing that Dany could turn evil, but not enough development.

If, say, she'd simply burned Tarly and his men, without even offering them the chance to switch sides, that would shown development towards evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, say, she'd simply burned Tarly and his men, without even offering them the chance to switch sides, that would shown development towards evil.

Or if they demanded, for instance, trial by comabt and she named "fire" (or Drogon) her champion.  Your right though about that spot.  It REALLY missed a chance.  

Share this post


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

 

Or if they demanded, for instance, trial by comabt and she named "fire" (or Drogon) her champion.  Your right though about that spot.  It REALLY missed a chance.  

It could have been so chilling, "Fire is the champion of House Targaryen."

And then, it would have added real depth to the subsequent discussion between Varys and Tyrion, about the manner of person they were serving, as well as giving Sansa a real reason to fear her, when she came North.

i think that was the missing piece of the jigsaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have been, in the end, a big piece of it.  So did they just not see the opportunity or were the writers trying desperately to save the big reveal of Dany "going mad" to leave that big of a bread crumb for the audience.  Her burning the Red Keep was not shocking - I think we all kind of saw that coming.  It was the destruction of Kings Landing and how we were shown it that was shocking.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The video puts it well that says there was foreshadowing that Dany could turn evil, but not enough development.

If, say, she'd simply burned Tarly and his men, without even offering them the chance to switch sides, that would shown development towards evil.

Precisely. I had watched show, and read portions of the books (Stannis and Dany chapters, specifically), and there was foreshadowing in both that Dany would turn evil. Problem with the show is that this foreshadowing is just that, foreshadowing - it never becomes an actual plot development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The video puts it well that says there was foreshadowing that Dany could turn evil, but not enough development.

If, say, she'd simply burned Tarly and his men, without even offering them the chance to switch sides, that would shown development towards evil.

We still needed more development of her becoming more of a zealot about her own idea of breaking the wheel....what that idea is, if it's anything beyond breaking the wheel and then installing herself as god queen of the world.  We need a MUCH better sense of the people of Westeros fearing her rule, not just in the North, which mostly played as them being xenophobic assholes, instead of anyone articulating any reasons why they distrusted her, and we needed scenes of her confiding in either Missy or Jon, more scenes, where she speaks of her vision of conquest, her depression and alienation that Westeros isn't what she thought it was.  So, even IF she just straight up killed the Tarlys, we still need some bridges to sell that her idealism has turned rotten and she's going to blame Westeros et al for her not having the feels anymore. 

So, yeah 10 episodes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, having rewatched her final scene, it's obvious she's having some kind of mental breakdown - nothing she says to Jon Snow about knowing what's good and building a better world, makes any sort of rational sense. But going mad, because of genetic determinism, is a very poor plot device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If, say, she'd simply burned Tarly and his men, without even offering them the chance to switch sides, that would shown development towards evil.

She wanted to do that in Meereen with the Yunkai masters in S4. Just round them up and kill them. Jorah said at least let them decide to kneel or not. She did that with the Tarlys but, these are not slavers, they are lords and she needs to win their support through something other than fear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She wanted to do that in Meereen with the Yunkai masters in S4. Just round them up and kill them. Jorah said at least let them decide to kneel or not. She did that with the Tarlys but, these are not slavers, they are lords and she needs to win their support through something other than fear. 

It's why you show, rather than tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could have been so chilling, "Fire is the champion of House Targaryen."

 

I cannot overstate how MUCH this single line would have added to the show if spoke to the Tully's after they demanded trial by combat.  This statement is right - it would have been chilling and foreshadowing and just awesome at the same time 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

And, having rewatched her final scene, it's obvious she's having some kind of mental breakdown - nothing she says to Jon Snow about knowing what's good and building a better world, makes any sort of rational sense. But going mad, because of genetic determinism, is a very poor plot device.

Oh yes, she's madder than a March hare in the last episode, no 2 ways about it. She won't even allow discussion of whether slaughtering the population of KL was the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

And, having rewatched her final scene, it's obvious she's having some kind of mental breakdown - nothing she says to Jon Snow about knowing what's good and building a better world, makes any sort of rational sense. But going mad, because of genetic determinism, is a very poor plot device.

Centuries of incest should have consequences though, affecting people physiologically in some ways. This is centuries of human choices, not just genetic determinism. YMMV on how much incest makes people more susceptible to mental breaks, but the author is also illustrating a characteristic of pride/hubris that comes with this House. Targaryens believe themselves to be gods. It's their superiority complex that socialized them, dating as far back as Valyrian dragonlords. In this case it's not mental illness per se, but belief in their superiority as a "race" of people because of their specialness and ability to control nuclear weapons. That feeds into their family psychology, subjugating an entire continent just because they could. If you are a product of Targaryen upbringing, you learn to speak the language of "kneel or die" and you absorb the messages of your forebears that you are above "lesser" men. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It's why you show, rather than tell.

Sure, but you could imagine that it would go like it did before when she crucified them. Barristan was also there to offer counsel. It's just the same scenes over and over. I'm sure D&D were like, lets vary it up a bit. At some point they don't have to spoon feed people. Viewers have to actually put in the work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

And, having rewatched her final scene, it's obvious she's having some kind of mental breakdown - nothing she says to Jon Snow about knowing what's good and building a better world, makes any sort of rational sense. But going mad, because of genetic determinism, is a very poor plot device.

I think she was too obsessed with IT, and even when she learned that there is another Targaryen and with a better claim, she just wanted to usurp that Targaryen's right for no reason at all,

The obsession leads to madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 7:22 PM, A man doesn't have a name said:

... We pick our favourite heroes and turn a blind eye to everything they do from the moment they become our heroes. We leave them unchecked or justify their actions on the basis of a greater purpose that they are trying to achieve ...

... I don't know. I'd like to hear people's opinion on that. Although I feel like Dany's fans are so passionate that this might attract some angry comments.

Daenery has her fans. Donald has his fans. Hillary has her fans.  Even Hitler still has his fans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Centuries of incest should have consequences though, affecting people physiologically in some ways. This is a century of human choices, not just genetic determinism. YMMV on how much incest makes people more susceptible to mental breaks, but the author is also illustrating a characteristic of pride/hubris that comes with this House. Targaryens believe themselves to be gods. It's their superiority complex that socialized them, dating as far back as Valyrian dragonlords. In this case it's not mental illness per se, but belief in their superiority as a "race" of people because of their specialness and ability to control nuclear weapons. That feeds into their family psychology, subjugating an entire continent just because they could. If you are a product of Targaryen upbringing, you learn to speak the language of "kneel or die" and you absorb the messages of your forebears that you are above lesser men. 

Racial superiority doesn't make sense when Danaerys presides over 'foreigners' and ethnically diverse Easterners who are viewed as savages in the west.

Personally, I don't buy mad queen Danaerys. I see rigidity, violence, cruelty and excess, but she does seem to have a method to her madness. She grew to despise her brother and I don't think she entirely respects the legacy of her father, either. She has every reason to regard her own house as questionable.

Edited by Uilliam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Uilliam said:

Racial superiority doesn't make sense when Danaerys presides over 'foreigners' and ethnically diverse Easterners who are viewed as savages in the west.

Personally, I don't buy mad queen Danaerys. I see rigidity, violence, cruelty and excess, but she does seem to have a method to her madness. She grew to despise her brother and I don't think she entirely respects the legacy of her father, either. She has every reason to regard her own house as questionable.

I'm going to bring in some book knowledge here just to illustrate why this is a misguided view:

- She viewed the the Dothraki as savages in Book 1, deciding that being the wife of a khal wasn't enough for the blood of the dragon. 

- She treats Irri and Jiqui like stupid girls who know nothing. She uses Irri as a sex slave.

- She starts to see the Lhazareen as an inferior people based on appearance, the way the Dothraki look down on them. 

- She forces them to break their sacred custom of crossing the poisoned water, just for her. She says she had to adapt to their customs, so an entire culture will have to adapt to HERS. 

- She takes them to a foreign land and does nothing to help them integrate into it. It's just war, war war.

- She "presides" over the Easterners is an interesting way to put it. I would call it "dictating" them. 

- The books indicate that she profits off the slave trade by taking taxes to sell themselves back into slavery.

- She has race-coded thinking about the former masters, noting that their hair texture looks wiry and thinks they look better with shaved heads.

- She calls Brown Ben a "mongrel"

- The only reason she decides to "free" the Unsullied in the first place is because she couldn't afford them. Lucky for her they can't read or write and are already brainwashed. She does nothing to help them integrate or transition out of slavery. She also doesnt pay them a wage, just pays them in food and clothing.

She is written as a white savior. A conqueror who is a savior. These two identities are at odds and that was the lesson Mirri was trying to teach her. It is impossible to maintain. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dany does not buy into racial superiority she buys into genetic superiority.  The Targaryens intermarried to protect the Targaryen blood.  Its not a racial thing in that it is much more narrow than that.  

Share this post


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

Dany does not buy into racial superiority she buys into genetic superiority.  The Targaryens intermarried to protect the Targaryen blood.  Its not a racial thing in that it is much more narrow than that.  

That's why I call it race-coding. The author is using it symbolically, not literally. 

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

×