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

7 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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. 

I think that's a rather harsh and selective assessment.

Share this post


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

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 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 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. 

I agree with you that her identities as conqueror and saviour are huge source of conflict for her, and may well lead to her going 'mad' in the books. The show doesn't take it to this level, though.

It's hard to make racial assessments in the books as Martin has mentioned race based slavery is not practiced in Mereen. Many of the unsullied are supposedly white in the books. In the show, she is certainly a white saviour, but her leading 'foreigners' to conquer the west is definitely a spin on traditonal European imperialism. She is white but she's bringing her eastern troops to bend the west to her 'enlightened' way of thinking, which has been shaped by her adventures in Essos. She may have regarded the dothraki as barbaric to begin with but by the shows end she seems to hold them in much higher esteem than the people of westeros, whom she seems to regard as vermin to be snuffed out in a blaze of dragon fire...

Share this post


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

I agree with you that her identities as conqueror and saviour are huge source of conflict for her, and may well lead to her going 'mad' in the books. The show doesn't take it to this level, though.

It's hard to make racial assessments in the books as Martin has mentioned race based slavery is not practiced in Mereen. Many of the unsullied are supposedly white in the books. In the show, she is certainly a white saviour, but her leading 'foreigners' to conquer the west is definitely a spin on traditonal European imperialism. She is white but she's bringing her eastern troops to bend the west to her 'enlightened' way of thinking, which has been shaped by her adventures in Essos. She may have regarded the dothraki as barbaric to begin with but by the shows end she seems to hold them in much higher esteem than the people of westeros, whom she seems to regard as vermin to be snuffed out in a blaze of dragon fire...

That's why I said it's race coding. The author isn't using the black/white colorline but he is using an inferior/superior caste line. It has the same consequences.  In order to illustrate this, he has to use race-coded imagery like hair texture, dirty blood, disdain for "savage" traditions, and noticing human "difference" while ranking herself within it. 

Holding the Dothraki in "esteem" while burning their sacred temples and taking them away from the Dothraki sea they've known their whole lives isn't exactly good. It's probably more accurate to say she values their war-like side (to benefit herself) while ignoring everything else about them that makes them a people. 

Share this post


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

I think that's a rather harsh and selective assessment.

Each one of those points comes with a book quote to back it up. 

If he's writing this as the rise of autocracy based on subjugation of all the worlds people, I think some of the things I mentioned need to be discussed. 

Share this post


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

Fact that Dany wasn't evil early on doesn't mean she didn't have potential for evil, or that she didn't become evil later on. As I see it, in Essos, she was living out her own personal fantasy: she was liberator, breaker of chains etc. But she got disappointed in that, and left for Westeros to fulfill her "destiny" as "liberator" of Westeros. But she never received a warm welcome she expected. And you have completely missed the point I was making, too: she benefited from fulfilling her fantasy, but she eventually convinced herself that she was doing it for the good of all. That is why she stayed in Essos. And seeds of her eventually turning evil had been planted as far back as Season 1 (burning Mirri Maz Duur as vengeance).

Her speech was reflecting her mindset at the time. Her actions were reflecting her mindset at the time. People change, and good person can easily become evil due to experiences. I have no issue with Dany becoming a Hitler; what I do have issue with is the way in which it was executed. And I just can't see how destruction of King's Landing could be justified. Northern troops and her own forces were already in the city; she was burning civilians and even her own allies. Those are actions of either a madwoman or an evil person, seeing how she could have just burned the Red Keep and be done with it.

There are possible rational reasons for her decision to burn the city (see here), but all are based on her securing power for herself. And just as importantly, she always had propensity for needless cruelty. There was a guy she locked up to suffocate alive (Xaro Xhoan Daxos), she ordered massacre of every slave master and noble in Astapor (not that they didn't deserve it, but there was no judicial procedure, no trial); she would have butchered a Harpy's Son without a trial had Barristan not intervened; she did kill Tarlys without a trial. Dany always had propensity for madness and cruelty, it was just that she used to listen to her advisors; and as far as major problems go, she did not resolve one of them without use of fire. When she screwed up in Essos, she ran away to Westeros; I hate to imagine what she would have made of Westeros had she actually gotten to rule. And she believed that Westeros would accept her as a saviour; but when that did not happen, it was a major blow.

She has the potential for evil and the potential for good(which she often was). Like I wrote I don't consider her destruction of kings landing a defining act for her or her rule. I don't think she fundamentally changed beyond constantly losing the things she cared about until she got tired of it. I don't consider anything she did to be particularly evil(to be blunt, I would have done a lot of those things myself if I was in her position) before KL and even KL wasn't an act committed out of pure impulse but a byproduct of a situation which developed beforehand. 

How her rule would look we never got to see because D&D conveniently killed her. The only appropriate action would be to have her rule and fast forward in time which didn't occur. Her speech was a hamfisted attempt to commit the audience to a certain view of her but it failed.

I guess we just have fundamentally different values, I admit I have a willingness to follow someone who is less than perfect if I feel their overall contribution is right in spite of specific instances of what could be considered wrong. 

 

Edited by Techmaester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

She has the potential for evil and the potential for good(which she often was). Like I wrote I don't consider her destruction of kings landing a defining act for her or her rule. I don't think she fundamentally changed beyond constantly losing the things she cared about until she got tired of it. I don't consider anything she did to be particularly evil(to be blunt, I would have done a lot of those things myself if I was in her position) before KL and even KL wasn't an act committed out of pure impulse but a byproduct of a situation which developed beforehand. 

How her rule would look we never got to see because D&D conveniently killed her. The only appropriate action would to have her rule and fast forward in time which didn't occur. Her speech was a hamfisted attempt to commit the audience to a certain view of her but it failed.

I guess we just have fundamentally different values, I admit I have a willingness to follow someone who is less than perfect if I feel their overall contribution is right in spite of specific instances of what could be considered wrong. 

 

Regarding values, I have strong belief that power corrupts. Daenerys is both a Queen in an absolute monarchy and has dragons, so she automatically cannot be my favourite. Also, she is a little too perfect (in the books, and in the series up to her twist) for there not to be something going on. More importantly, she is too perfect in her own mind. Remember how she introduces herself to Jon (or rather, how Mellisandrei introduces her)? "You stand in the presence of Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, righful heir to the Iron Throne, rightful Queen of the Andals and the First Men, Protector of the Seven Kingdoms, the Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, the Unburnt, the Breaker of Chains.". I had red flags going up the moment I heard that (before that, I was merely suspicious); that little speech is one of reasons why her going "flambe" on King's Landing was not only not shocking to me, but not surprising at all. "Pride before the fall" and so on.

Every person has potential for evil and for good. But you can do evil while seeking to do good, and that especially happens to delusional people. And frankly, Daenerys had been delusional for a long time. To me, it seems that once she realized that people in Westeros will not love her, she decided "then let them fear me". And that is a rather good indication of how her rule would have gone on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Regarding values, I have strong belief that power corrupts. Daenerys is both a Queen in an absolute monarchy and has dragons, so she automatically cannot be my favourite. Also, she is a little too perfect (in the books, and in the series up to her twist) for there not to be something going on. More importantly, she is too perfect in her own mind. Remember how she introduces herself to Jon (or rather, how Mellisandrei introduces her)? "You stand in the presence of Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, righful heir to the Iron Throne, rightful Queen of the Andals and the First Men, Protector of the Seven Kingdoms, the Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, the Unburnt, the Breaker of Chains.". I had red flags going up the moment I heard that (before that, I was merely suspicious); that little speech is one of reasons why her going "flambe" on King's Landing was not only not shocking to me, but not surprising at all. "Pride before the fall" and so on.

Every person has potential for evil and for good. But you can do evil while seeking to do good, and that especially happens to delusional people. And frankly, Daenerys had been delusional for a long time. To me, it seems that once she realized that people in Westeros will not love her, she decided "then let them fear me". And that is a rather good indication of how her rule would have gone on.

I liked one comment that Daenerys (both show and book) "builds walls" psychologically.  She's constructed a very rigid view of the world in which her family were victims of cruel and unjustified persecution and it is absolutely right  that she must avenge the wrongs they suffered, and take back what they lost.  It is very much a way of coping with the awful circumstances of her life, and losing that belief could shatter her.

Share this post


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

I liked one comment that Daenerys (both show and book) "builds walls" psychologically.  She's constructed a very rigid view of the world in which her family were victims of cruel and unjustified persecution and it is absolutely right  that she must avenge the wrongs they suffered, and take back what they lost.  It is very much a way of coping with the awful circumstances of her life, and losing that belief could shatter her.

Indeed. I have noticed that as well: her reactions to people questioning that tale are quite telling; her emotional stability pretty much depends on what she had been telling herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SeanF said:

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.

I think the summarily performed execution without any sort of trial or recourse is itself the missing piece of the jigsaw which makes sense given her later actions and particularly her speech to Jon about only her having a say in the new world she intended to create.

Daeny has a mindset that whatever she does is good and right therefore anyone who stands against her is automatically wrong by default. She doesn’t entertain any notion of doubt in this self-justifying narrative and she has the final say in what is good or bad so why bother with a trial by combat which could only offer doubt in this regards.

Basically, why bother with a trial by combat to determine guilt if she herself has already determined who is guilty based on the notion that all who oppose her are automatically guilty as only she knows what is good or bad.

Share this post


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

There are possible rational reasons for her decision to burn the city (see here), but all are based on her securing power for herself. And just as importantly, she always had propensity for needless cruelty. There was a guy she locked up to suffocate alive (Xaro Xhoan Daxos), she ordered massacre of every slave master and noble in Astapor (not that they didn't deserve it, but there was no judicial procedure, no trial); she would have butchered a Harpy's Son without a trial had Barristan not intervened; she did kill Tarlys without a trial. Dany always had propensity for madness and cruelty, it was just that she used to listen to her advisors; and as far as major problems go, she did not resolve one of them without use of fire. When she screwed up in Essos, she ran away to Westeros; I hate to imagine what she would have made of Westeros had she actually gotten to rule. And she believed that Westeros would accept her as a saviour; but when that did not happen, it was a major blow.

Long time book and series fan, first time poster. So please accept my apologies if I break forum ethos right off the bat. 

I think there is one interesting justification for Dany's actions that was hinted at in season 8 but wasn't explored (which gives hope that it might be a George thing that D & D didn't want to skip entirely). I've not seen it addressed anywhere, really. 
Not even in the excellent article linked above. 

Both Dany And Grey Worm state clearly that they consider the people and soldiers of King's Landing to be free. Coming from genuine sold-and-shackled slave backgrounds this is understandable. Westeros oppression is more subtle. 

Now, if we assume for a second that Dany's genuine ambition is indeed to "break the wheel" and rid the world of oppression, she needs the backing of the oppressed. History has taught us that the only way for freedom and change to stick is if the those who are being liberated are actively engaged in their own liberation. 
Only when the oppressed are able to free themselves (when given the opportunity) will that freedom last. This is what the unsullied did. For example. They got the opportunity and they took it.  

The people of King's Landing, seen in this light, are part of the problem. They are not innocent because they are not shackled. They can rise up and topple this feudalistic system that reduces most of them to pawns in an eternal game of power among the lords. Yet they don't. Even when the opportunity arises when a friendly(from Dany's POV) force arrives to back them up. 

Dany says that she's doing what's she's doing for the sake of generations to come. She's playing the looooong game. To do that, she has to change the mentality of the small folk. Given what she's seeing, due to this oppression related culture clash between Essos and Westeros, "just" taking out Cersei is pointless. 
Winning the iron throne is pointless if all the peasants beggars and lord-serving nobodies she wants to help aren't in on it. If all they will be looking for is another hand to feed from, she made all her sacrifices for nothing. 

So she makes a statement. Rise up out of the gutters and fight or become an example for others so that they will. Rule through fear for the betterment of all. It's an insane burden to carry, but it's a play that can potentially work. 

Sure, the above doesn't justify firebombing children and maybe, the way the show set everything up, Dany had to die. But I don't think she deserved the full Hitler treatment. 

She tried something. She wanted to achieve something glorious and wonderful. Did she lose her way a bit? Yes. Did she misstep? Yes. 
But she deserved a legacy for what she did right and what she tried to do right. 

This was my second biggest issue with the how the series wrapped up. She and her earned legacy was tossed upon the scrap heap of history while the lords and ladies of Westeros carried on, pretending something had actually changed. 

Way too cynical in a world that is way too cynical already. 

Thanks for reading this. Shows and book series like GoT AsoIaF are amazing. I was so messed up by some of the choices D&D made I had to start writing continuation fan fiction as therapy! :-) 


/HH
 

Edited by HeadlessHenchman
Wrote "Winterfell" instead of "Westeros" in third last paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Charles Stuart said:

I think the summarily performed execution without any sort of trial or recourse is itself the missing piece of the jigsaw which makes sense given her later actions and particularly her speech to Jon about only her having a say in the new world she intended to create.

Daeny has a mindset that whatever she does is good and right therefore anyone who stands against her is automatically wrong by default. She doesn’t entertain any notion of doubt in this self-justifying narrative and she has the final say in what is good or bad so why bother with a trial by combat which could only offer doubt in this regards.

Basically, why bother with a trial by combat to determine guilt if she herself has already determined who is guilty based on the notion that all who oppose her are automatically guilty as only she knows what is good or bad.

In my scenario, she's not giving the Tarlys or their soldiers the chance to bend the knee and live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HeadlessHenchman said:

Long time book and series fan, first time poster. So please accept my apologies if I break forum ethos right off the bat. 

I think there is one interesting justification for Dany's actions that was hinted at in season 8 but wasn't explored (which gives hope that it might be a George thing that D & D didn't want to skip entirely). I've not seen it addressed anywhere, really. 
Not even in the excellent article linked above. 

Both Dany And Grey Worm state clearly that they consider the people and soldiers of King's Landing to be free. Coming from genuine sold-and-shackled slave backgrounds this is understandable. Westeros oppression is more subtle. 

Now, if we assume for a second that Dany's genuine ambition is indeed to "break the wheel" and rid the world of oppression, she needs the backing of the oppressed. History has taught us that the only way for freedom and change to stick is if the those who are being liberated are actively engaged in their own liberation. 
Only when the oppressed are able to free themselves (when given the opportunity) will that freedom last. This is what the unsullied did. For example. They got the opportunity and they took it.  

The people of King's Landing, seen in this light, are part of the problem. They are not innocent because they are not shackled. They can rise up and topple this feudalistic system that reduces most of them to pawns in an eternal game of power among the lords. Yet they don't. Even when the opportunity arises when a friendly(from Dany's POV) force arrives to back them up. 

Dany says that she's doing what's she's doing for the sake of generations to come. She's playing the looooong game. To do that, she has to change the mentality of the small folk. Given what she's seeing, due to this oppression related culture clash between Essos and Westeros, "just" taking out Cersei is pointless. 
Winning the iron throne is pointless if all the peasants beggars and lord-serving nobodies she wants to help aren't in on it. If all they will be looking for is another hand to feed from, she made all her sacrifices for nothing. 

So she makes a statement. Rise up out of the gutters and fight or become an example for others so that they will. Rule through fear for the betterment of all. It's an insane burden to carry, but it's a play that can potentially work. 

Sure, the above doesn't justify firebombing children and maybe, the way the show set everything up, Dany had to die. But I don't think she deserved the full Hitler treatment. 

She tried something. She wanted to achieve something glorious and wonderful. Did she lose her way a bit? Yes. Did she misstep? Yes. 
But she deserved a legacy for what she did right and what she tried to do right. 

This was my second biggest issue with the how the series wrapped up. She and her earned legacy was tossed upon the scrap heap of history while the lords and ladies of Winterfell carried on, pretending something had actually changed. 

Way too cynical in a world that is way too cynical already. 

Thanks for reading this. Shows and book series like GoT AsoIaF are amazing. I was so messed up by some of the choices D&D made I had to start writing continuation fan fiction as therapy! :-) 


/HH
 

That’s a very nice narrative and a fresh approach.  Without  having the time to disagree because I believe that script writers were never thoughtful, just followed Martins outline and did a mess with her narrative aiming for shock, I really appreciate the effort. 

Share this post


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

 Long time book and series fan, first time poster. So please accept my apologies if I break forum ethos right off the bat. 

I think there is one interesting justification for Dany's actions that was hinted at in season 8 but wasn't explored (which gives hope that it might be a George thing that D & D didn't want to skip entirely). I've not seen it addressed anywhere, really. 
Not even in the excellent article linked above. 

Both Dany And Grey Worm state clearly that they consider the people and soldiers of King's Landing to be free. Coming from genuine sold-and-shackled slave backgrounds this is understandable. Westeros oppression is more subtle. 

Now, if we assume for a second that Dany's genuine ambition is indeed to "break the wheel" and rid the world of oppression, she needs the backing of the oppressed. History has taught us that the only way for freedom and change to stick is if the those who are being liberated are actively engaged in their own liberation. 
Only when the oppressed are able to free themselves (when given the opportunity) will that freedom last. This is what the unsullied did. For example. They got the opportunity and they took it.  

The people of King's Landing, seen in this light, are part of the problem. They are not innocent because they are not shackled. They can rise up and topple this feudalistic system that reduces most of them to pawns in an eternal game of power among the lords. Yet they don't. Even when the opportunity arises when a friendly(from Dany's POV) force arrives to back them up. 

Dany says that she's doing what's she's doing for the sake of generations to come. She's playing the looooong game. To do that, she has to change the mentality of the small folk. Given what she's seeing, due to this oppression related culture clash between Essos and Westeros, "just" taking out Cersei is pointless. 
Winning the iron throne is pointless if all the peasants beggars and lord-serving nobodies she wants to help aren't in on it. If all they will be looking for is another hand to feed from, she made all her sacrifices for nothing. 

So she makes a statement. Rise up out of the gutters and fight or become an example for others so that they will. Rule through fear for the betterment of all. It's an insane burden to carry, but it's a play that can potentially work. 

Sure, the above doesn't justify firebombing children and maybe, the way the show set everything up, Dany had to die. But I don't think she deserved the full Hitler treatment. 

She tried something. She wanted to achieve something glorious and wonderful. Did she lose her way a bit? Yes. Did she misstep? Yes. 
But she deserved a legacy for what she did right and what she tried to do right. 

This was my second biggest issue with the how the series wrapped up. She and her earned legacy was tossed upon the scrap heap of history while the lords and ladies of Winterfell carried on, pretending something had actually changed. 

Way too cynical in a world that is way too cynical already. 

Thanks for reading this. Shows and book series like GoT AsoIaF are amazing. I was so messed up by some of the choices D&D made I had to start writing continuation fan fiction as therapy! :-) 


/HH
 

Makes sense. It would also go with Dany's quite black-and-white morality, "either you are with me or you are against me". That is why I think she will not last long, and why she will not succeed in her stated goals of liberating people *in the short run*. French Revolution only had a payoff decades and decades later. In fact, revolutions rarely if ever build anything long-lasting: if you hope to build up a stable system, you have to do so slowly. So anything Daenerys may achieve will not survive her death. And with her inability to compromise, she will be unable to gain much support in Westeros.

I see Daenerys as being an example of all the tyrants and mass murderers that are glorified today because they happened to be on the "right side of history". There is little difference between Hitler and Stalin, or Pavelic and Tito, yet latter names in pairs often get a pass. And oftentimes justification for Communism is that "it was a good idea, it just didn't work in practice". Precisely like what Daenerys is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Makes sense. It would also go with Dany's quite black-and-white morality, "either you are with me or you are against me". That is why I think she will not last long, and why she will not succeed in her stated goals of liberating people *in the short run*. French Revolution only had a payoff decades and decades later. In fact, revolutions rarely if ever build anything long-lasting: if you hope to build up a stable system, you have to do so slowly. So anything Daenerys may achieve will not survive her death. And with her inability to compromise, she will be unable to gain much support in Westeros.

I see Daenerys as being an example of all the tyrants and mass murderers that are glorified today because they happened to be on the "right side of history". There is little difference between Hitler and Stalin, or Pavelic and Tito, yet latter names in pairs often get a pass. And oftentimes justification for Communism is that "it was a good idea, it just didn't work in practice". Precisely like what Daenerys is doing.

I guess I would argue that to the extent it is a flawed and possibly impossible strategy it is not perhaps not so because the person trying that strategy will become corrupted by power but rather because of the weakness of of man. In general we simply do not have what it takes to see genuine change through. 

It's dangerous to make real world comparisons but the Arab spring might perhaps work as a recent equivalent. 
Status Quo is comforting. 

The fact that the French Revolution only paid off way later imho only strengthens the need for legacy of those who started it (but erred and failed along the way) to be protected. 

 "No anything Daenerys may achieve will not survive her death." 

If she can't change the mindset of the oppressed (through fear or otherwise) then no. What she's done dies with her. I think that's the lesson she learned in Slaver's Bay. Conquering and liberating wasn't enough. 

Share this post


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

I guess I would argue that to the extent it is a flawed and possibly impossible strategy it is not perhaps not so because the person trying that strategy will become corrupted by power but rather because of the weakness of of man. In general we simply do not have what it takes to see genuine change through. 

It's dangerous to make real world comparisons but the Arab spring might perhaps work as a recent equivalent. 
Status Quo is comforting. 

The fact that the French Revolution only paid off way later imho only strengthens the need for legacy of those who started it (but erred and failed along the way) to be protected. 

 "No anything Daenerys may achieve will not survive her death." 

If she can't change the mindset of the oppressed (through fear or otherwise) then no. What she's done dies with her. I think that's the lesson she learned in Slaver's Bay. Conquering and liberating wasn't enough. 

It is not just weakness of man. It is a question of inertia. Society is in essence a very large, very complex organism, and is thus inherently resistant to change. If change comes quickly, it will automatically cause devastation. For a system to become stable you need at least one generation to be born and grow up in said system, and more likely several generations.

And ability to change minds of anyone is limited without formal educational system and mass media. So she will be facing an uphill battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, HeadlessHenchman said:

Long time book and series fan, first time poster. So please accept my apologies if I break forum ethos right off the bat. 

I think there is one interesting justification for Dany's actions that was hinted at in season 8 but wasn't explored (which gives hope that it might be a George thing that D & D didn't want to skip entirely). I've not seen it addressed anywhere, really. 
Not even in the excellent article linked above. 

Both Dany And Grey Worm state clearly that they consider the people and soldiers of King's Landing to be free. Coming from genuine sold-and-shackled slave backgrounds this is understandable. Westeros oppression is more subtle. 

Now, if we assume for a second that Dany's genuine ambition is indeed to "break the wheel" and rid the world of oppression, she needs the backing of the oppressed. History has taught us that the only way for freedom and change to stick is if the those who are being liberated are actively engaged in their own liberation. 
Only when the oppressed are able to free themselves (when given the opportunity) will that freedom last. This is what the unsullied did. For example. They got the opportunity and they took it.  

The people of King's Landing, seen in this light, are part of the problem. They are not innocent because they are not shackled. They can rise up and topple this feudalistic system that reduces most of them to pawns in an eternal game of power among the lords. Yet they don't. Even when the opportunity arises when a friendly(from Dany's POV) force arrives to back them up. 

Dany says that she's doing what's she's doing for the sake of generations to come. She's playing the looooong game. To do that, she has to change the mentality of the small folk. Given what she's seeing, due to this oppression related culture clash between Essos and Westeros, "just" taking out Cersei is pointless. 
Winning the iron throne is pointless if all the peasants beggars and lord-serving nobodies she wants to help aren't in on it. If all they will be looking for is another hand to feed from, she made all her sacrifices for nothing. 

So she makes a statement. Rise up out of the gutters and fight or become an example for others so that they will. Rule through fear for the betterment of all. It's an insane burden to carry, but it's a play that can potentially work. 

Sure, the above doesn't justify firebombing children and maybe, the way the show set everything up, Dany had to die. But I don't think she deserved the full Hitler treatment. 

She tried something. She wanted to achieve something glorious and wonderful. Did she lose her way a bit? Yes. Did she misstep? Yes. 
But she deserved a legacy for what she did right and what she tried to do right. 

This was my second biggest issue with the how the series wrapped up. She and her earned legacy was tossed upon the scrap heap of history while the lords and ladies of Westeros carried on, pretending something had actually changed. 

Way too cynical in a world that is way too cynical already. 

Thanks for reading this. Shows and book series like GoT AsoIaF are amazing. I was so messed up by some of the choices D&D made I had to start writing continuation fan fiction as therapy! :-) 


/HH
 

Certainly a very interesting theory. But....

The problem is that if Dany wants to make a statement that all the peasants who don't rise up will be obliterated, then SHE NEEDS TO SAY SO, right, and not just keep it a secret and obliterate the peasants anyway. 

In order for a threat to be effective, you have to say the threat, not just think about i.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

You misspelled "2 episodes."

No.  It was correctly spelled '8 seasons'.   :)

(At the very least it was 3 seasons.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Certainly a very interesting theory. But....

The problem is that if Dany wants to make a statement that all the peasants who don't rise up will be obliterated, then SHE NEEDS TO SAY SO, right, and not just keep it a secret and obliterate the peasants anyway. 

In order for a threat to be effective, you have to say the threat, not just think about i.

 

100% 

It's clearly not how D&D wanted us to interpret Dany's motives and it's a thematically tough theme to sell even without a rushed season. So I think they shot themselves in the foot by hinting at this somewhat redeeming motive and then still erased her earned legacy. 

Best example I can think of is s8 e6 when Grey Worm tells Jon that the Lannister men are free and chose to fight for Cersei. So they deserve to die. If you buy that they did indeed choose it (and to an extent they did) then yes, warring without dire consequences is not going to stop people from warring - if they can choose not to. 

Jon argues for mercy because form his POV they are not really free men. They are bound to the Lannister line. Had Grey Worm acted and reasoned the same way had the lion commander had a simple coat and a chain around his neck?
 
This conversation serves a purpose even if what I suggest is nonsense but I like to think that perhaps it is residue from George's likely far more multifaceted ending. 

It helps me cope :-) 

Edited by HeadlessHenchman
Sloppy typos with editing error seconds

Share this post


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

Regarding values, I have strong belief that power corrupts. Daenerys is both a Queen in an absolute monarchy and has dragons, so she automatically cannot be my favourite. Also, she is a little too perfect (in the books, and in the series up to her twist) for there not to be something going on. More importantly, she is too perfect in her own mind. Remember how she introduces herself to Jon (or rather, how Mellisandrei introduces her)? "You stand in the presence of Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, righful heir to the Iron Throne, rightful Queen of the Andals and the First Men, Protector of the Seven Kingdoms, the Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, the Unburnt, the Breaker of Chains.". I had red flags going up the moment I heard that (before that, I was merely suspicious); that little speech is one of reasons why her going "flambe" on King's Landing was not only not shocking to me, but not surprising at all. "Pride before the fall" and so on.

Every person has potential for evil and for good. But you can do evil while seeking to do good, and that especially happens to delusional people. And frankly, Daenerys had been delusional for a long time. To me, it seems that once she realized that people in Westeros will not love her, she decided "then let them fear me". And that is a rather good indication of how her rule would have gone on.

Delusional to a degree maybe, but who wouldn't be after her experiences? We really don't know how she would rule. We know how she deals with the stronghold city of a clan which betrayed her, ambushed her dragon, publicly beheaded her best friend and attempted to kill her multiple times. We know she was just rejected and betrayed by a man she loved and saved after commiting her forces to a war she didn't need to immediately enter to save a population that looked at her with disdain.

Her actions while morally questionable were understandable. To judge her would require time to pass which let her contemplate and actually see what she does. What we got was a joke of an ending.

Edited by Techmaester

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

×