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

2 minutes ago, Targaryen Peas said:

 

She did when she was yet a kid, but then she matured with the help of her advisors and friends/lovers. 

Doesn't mean she isn't a dragon anymore. 

We are discussing show here. She wasn't a kid in the show; she was significantly aged up. Which is another reason why her actions don't really fit; she acts like a kid yet she isn't one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the only thing that makes you negotiate is the threat of losing you power entirely you are a tyrant.  She only negotiated when given no choice.    Vaes Dothrak, while extreme on both sides, shows an unwillingness to compromise.  Either her demands are met or she uses overwhelming force. Only when that force is ineffective at getting 100% of what she wants does she compromise.  It’s not evidence of not being a tyrant.  Look the bread crumbs were there.  Not served up on a platter but we were “played” by the story.  Blinded by our expectations of stories and heroes perhaps but the story is there. 

Share this post


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

She's trying to compromise between her own views, and the views of her subjects who think differently.  One may think it was a poor compromise, that she should have stuck rigidly to her anti-slavery stance, or else just accepted slavery as being one of the facts of life in Meereen, but it's not the act of a tyrant.

She is fine profiting off the slave trade. You see how she has no moral center here, she is not ideologically opposed to slavery, she is opposed to losing to her enemies. So now folks wonder if she's just like the masters she displaced. And maybe she is - as we saw in Meereen she simply inverted the hierarchy, forcing former masters to plow her fields without a wage. She makes the same decisions as the tyrants before her. She uses the same violence, the same economic policies they inflict. That said I do think she did a lot of good in Meereen and she made the best decisions of her career when she didn't rely on her dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Techmaester said:

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.

I don't see how Jon betrayed her,

If anything Jon let her to be the Queen of S7 Kingdoms even when he had the better claim to the IT than Dany had, as Samwell says ''she shouldn't be'', but Jon still didn't ''betray'' her, and called Dany his Queen, did he need to do that? 

He was the Rhaegar's only living son, but still he said he didn't want it. To ask from Jon to lie to his family was just too much.

And Dany only asked that from Jon, because she knew;

A- Jon had better claim than hers

B- People don't like a foreigner such as Dany who never lived in Westeros before, while Jon was a war hero and raised by honorable Ned Stark in Westeros.

Also, they already said everyone would die if they didn't fight against the army of the dead, it's not something they could choose. It was so serious that even Jaime betrayed Cersei and went to the North.

Yes Cersei didn't fight, it was an evil and terrible act, but strategically she could do that. The North would never obey her rule, so she thought it's best to not send her armies to help them, and she had the KL,

Dany didn't have KL and she just lost the Olenna Tyrell, the Highgarden, the Dorne and Yara Greyjoy. She was in a terrible position, and she needed allies, to help North was the only thing she could do to earn allies, and she did. It was poltical as well as realistic, since she couldn't defeat the Night King alone as well, we've seen her Dragons can't harm the White Walkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RFL said:

If the only thing that makes you negotiate is the threat of losing you power entirely you are a tyrant.  She only negotiated when given no choice.    Vaes Dothrak, while extreme on both sides, shows an unwillingness to compromise.  Either her demands are met or she uses overwhelming force. Only when that force is ineffective at getting 100% of what she wants does she compromise.  It’s not evidence of not being a tyrant.  Look the bread crumbs were there.  Not served up on a platter but we were “played” by the story.  Blinded by our expectations of stories and heroes perhaps but the story is there. 

That's how rulers operate and the stronger their position the less they compromise. She may be bad at negotiation but ultimately all interactions come down to a threat of force. Would it be different if she instead asked for more knowing she would accept less?(which she already did to some extent).

Ultimately anyone willing to enforce their ideals is a tyrant to someone, it says nothing if they are right or not only that it's immoral to act without a consensus which I fundamentally disagree with(and all rulers felt the same way, how many did you see asking for peasants opinions in the series?)

 

Edited by Techmaester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But an argument of hypocrisy is a fallacy.  It does not actually debate the premise that Dany was a tyrant.  It simply points out many other people where.  If we consider that this book was really a book about the wheel (and the wheel won) the existence of near infinite tyrants, all checked only by the extent of their power, we may have a good idea of what Martin was aiming for.  

But its hard to make a story with the wheel being a central character.  The POV chapters would have been a bit boring

Chapter one, the wheel:  Rolling, with Baratheon at the top

Later on, the wheel:  Looks likes its going to be Stark for awhile

Later on, the wheel:  Wow, little bit of a curve there.  Lannister

Later on:  Ohh, Stark is making a play

Later:  Back to Lannister, thought it looks like Baelish might be making a play

Later:  Oh, little bit of infighting.  We might have to divide the Lannisters into seperate factions

Later:  SURPRISE COMEBACK by last milleniums champions:  The TARGARYENS.

Later:  Oh.. that was short.  Back to Stark

Beginning, middle, and end:  that wheel still rolls and that is the story.  Just can't write the wheel directly as a protagonist or antagonist it seems.  

Edited by RFL

Share this post


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

But an argument of hypocrisy is a fallacy.  It does not actually debate the premise that Dany was a tyrant.  It simply points out many other people where.  If we consider that this book was really a book about the wheel (and the wheel won) the existence of near infinite tyrants, all checked only by the extent of their power, we may have a good idea of what Martin was aiming for.  

But its hard to make a story with the wheel being a central character.  The POV chapters would have been a bit boring

Chapter one, the wheel:  Rolling, with Baratheon at the top

Later on, the wheel:  Looks likes its going to be Stark for awhile

Later on, the wheel:  Wow, little bit of a curve there.  Lannister

Later on:  Ohh, Stark is making a play

Later:  Back to Lannister, thought it looks like Baelish might be making a play

Later:  Oh, little bit of infighting.  We might have to divide the Lannisters into seperate factions

Later:  SURPRISE COMEBACK by last milleniums champions:  The TARGARYENS.

Later:  Oh.. that was short.  Back to Stark

Beginning, middle, and end:  that wheel still rolls and that is the story.  Just can't write the wheel directly as a protagonist or antagonist it seems.  

I'm not debating if some would perceive her as one, I'm making the case it doesn't matter as long as her ideals were correct. This argument is even stronger when considering if it wasn't to be her it would likely be another who would be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't that the danger of what Tyrion warned about.  The most dangerous people are those who are convinced they are correct.  Self assurance of knowing what is best for everyone and incredible power are dangerous things.  I think that is why, for instance, Brann was the worst possible choice.  Not only is he incredibly self assured in his abilities apparently (and without evidence it seems) so is everyone else.  

Brann:  We must destroy Dorne, root and stem, or war will overtake the seven kingdoms again.

The small council:  My Lord, Dorne is a large area and inaccessible.  Even with our armies that would be nearly impossible

Brann:  I have found a way to raise an army of undead zombies AND I can control Drogon.  We must destroy it

The council:  Wonderful.  We are blessed to have you as our ruler.  We made a great choice naming you king.  

Share this post


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

But isn't that the danger of what Tyrion warned about.  The most dangerous people are those who are convinced they are correct.  Self assurance of knowing what is best for everyone and incredible power are dangerous things.  I think that is why, for instance, Brann was the worst possible choice.  Not only is he incredibly self assured in his abilities apparently (and without evidence it seems) so is everyone else.  

Brann:  We must destroy Dorne, root and stem, or war will overtake the seven kingdoms again.

The small council:  My Lord, Dorne is a large area and inaccessible.  Even with our armies that would be nearly impossible

Brann:  I have found a way to raise an army of undead zombies AND I can control Drogon.  We must destroy it

The council:  Wonderful.  We are blessed to have you as our ruler.  We made a great choice naming you king.  

Ultimately it comes down to belief in the person, to be an effective ruler and revolutionary you need to be convinced your actions are correct. I believe Danys actions were mostly correct and worth following(not to mention the other obvious reasons to follow her).

 Every form of government has the flaw that who ever is running it could be wrong. You could argue the lesser each persons power the more limited in scope their influence and thus averaging out across the population. But this isn't the case in the show, the peasants are still mostly irrelevant and power limited to a few. It also supposes the majority is right which is not always the case.

By the way, she only stopped listening to counsel after it consistently failed her ending in their outright betrayal. So it's dishonest to say she won't consider input....

Edited by Techmaester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Techmaester said:

Ultimately it comes down to belief in the person, to be an effective ruler and revolutionary you need to be convinced your actions are correct. I believe Danys actions were mostly correct and worth following(not to mention the other obvious reasons to follow her).

 Every form of government has the flaw that who ever is running it could be wrong. You could argue the lesser each persons power the more limited in scope their influence and thus averaging out across the population. But this isn't the case in the show, the peasants are still mostly irrelevant and power limited to a few. It also supposes the majority is right which is not always the case.

By the way, she only stopped listening to counsel after it consistently failed her ending in their outright betrayal. So it's dishonest to say she won't consider input....

And there you have it why her going Mad Queen route was not surprising. Revolutions generally end in mass murder. Daenerys is a revolutionary, so Daenerys ended in mass murder. If you want to make a change that sticks, you need to make it slowly.

Problem with Daenerys is that she has dragons. Even ancient and medieval rulers were kinda-sorta accountable to people they ruled over, as they could be overthrown by a rebellion. Daenerys' dragons made that nearly impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Problem is we want some hero to rule.  Heros MIGHT win wars but the do not generally rise to leadership through politics (ask Ned) and they generally are turned on when leading (ask Jon about the mutiny).  Jon only rose to King of the North because there was a known enemy and they needed a hero to lead them.  Even Ned rules the North because the Starks were well established (he did not rise to leadership) and were supported by a seemingly overwhelming power (the seven kingdoms).    

Noted above:  revolutions are bloody things especially in a world where even the concept of democracy is laughingly dismissed 

Edited by RFL

Share this post


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

We are discussing show here. She wasn't a kid in the show; she was significantly aged up. Which is another reason why her actions don't really fit; she acts like a kid yet she isn't one.

In the first season she was closer to a kid than an adult. You can see the difference each season. 

I don't remember seeing her age mentionned in the show. So the closest thing we have is the book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 in the book.  The show has it (according to a Quora article I read) 17 years since Roberts Rebellion so there is a noticeable age difference.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Targaryen Peas said:

In the first season she was closer to a kid than an adult. You can see the difference each season. 

I don't remember seeing her age mentionned in the show. So the closest thing we have is the book. 

Born 282 AC, murdered 305 AC.  her story starts in 299 AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After nearly a week to reflect on the finale I feel no one should be surprised by Dany’s actions.   She always said she would take what is hers by Fire and Blood.  Well.....guess what?  She did exactly that.  Also...it should have been expected that she would not have been embraced as “Mhysa” in Westeros.   Her WMDs (dragons) just didn’t inspire love amongst the people.  She was seen as a tyrant and not a loving mother.   Jon seemed the logical choice to stop her since he was the only person in Westeros who could get pass Drogon (due to his Targ blood) and close enough to assassinate her. Jon was destined to put honor and duty above love for a woman.  For instance, I am rereading now and when Halder was beating on newly arrived Sam with his sword and drove him to the ground and then was instructed by Allister Thorne to keep beating Sam Jon steps in. He says “There’s no honor in beating a fallen foe.  He yielded”.  Early sign it was established that he would intercede once an enemy surrendered and come to the aid of innocents. Jon had a personal moral code.  He struggled with it over the years and just when you thought he might abandon it due to love he remained true to his self.   Maybe the writers could have spent more time building up character motivation and complexity instead of rushing from one plot point to another but ultimately I think things would have ended the same.

Share this post


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

Problem is we want some hero to rule.  Heros MIGHT win wars but the do not generally rise to leadership through politics (ask Ned) and they generally are turned on when leading (ask Jon about the mutiny).  Jon only rose to King of the North because there was a known enemy and they needed a hero to lead them.  Even Ned rules the North because the Starks were well established (he did not rise to leadership) and were supported by a seemingly overwhelming power (the seven kingdoms).    

Noted above:  revolutions are bloody things especially in a world where even the concept of democracy is laughingly dismissed 

Quibble:  Ned's rule of the north had nothing to due with the 'overwhelming power' of the South.  As you stated, it was due to the established traditions of the Starks ruling the North.  The North was more or less a quasi-independent vassal kingdom; the Starks maintained their power as kings without the actual 'fancy title'.  If we recall, no Southern power has successfully invaded the North.  Not since the First Long Night / Age of Heroes.   6,000-8,000 years in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 11:05 PM, Uilliam said:

I want to see Danaerys's communist agenda materialise. At least she's direct and honest.

How was she honest? When she learned that she wasn’t the rightful heir to Iron Throne, she tried to suppress the spread of that information so that she could lie to everyone about it.

Share this post


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

Problem is we want some hero to rule. 

You're utterly and completely right.

Martin has said a million times that being able to win battles is nothing like being able to rule. He set out to show us the ramifications of all that.

And he did so, in spades and in dragonfire.

Share this post


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

Ultimately it comes down to belief in the person, to be an effective ruler and revolutionary you need to be convinced your actions are correct. I believe Danys actions were mostly correct and worth following(not to mention the other obvious reasons to follow her).

This is where we disagree. 

What are the 'other obvious reasons to follow her'?

 

Quote

 Every form of government has the flaw that who ever is running it could be wrong. You could argue the lesser each persons power the more limited in scope their influence and thus averaging out across the population. But this isn't the case in the show, the peasants are still mostly irrelevant and power limited to a few. It also supposes the majority is right which is not always the case.

But Dany doesn't really have a form of government.  As Daario Neharis points out, she is a conqueror, not a ruler.

Edit:  at best Dany's form of government is personal absolute autocratic rule.

 

Quote

By the way, she only stopped listening to counsel after it consistently failed her ending in their outright betrayal. So it's dishonest to say she won't consider input....

Who said that she didn't consider input?  Not I.  She did listen, for a while.  And it curbed her worst impulses, as Tyrion states.  But then she stopped listening.

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

You're treating these folks like they're her friends. They're not. They're just followers or servants because that's the kind of relationship she expects. 

Is this about status or about race / ethnicity?  Because they are servants and she is a princess and then a Khaleesi (and after the dragons hatch she is in effect a Khal).  Of course it's not a relationship of equals but the relationship is not defined by Dany deeming herself superior to the Dothraki because of race but because of her relative status.  She doesn't despise or look down on Drogo as an inferior due to his ethnic group, quite the opposite, she regards him as an equal because of his status.  Equally, her bloodriders are subordinates but she certainly values them and respects them.  Doesn't mean she doesn't expect them to do what she says pronto. 

12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She has subtly looked down on the Dothraki since Viserys diedWhen Viserys is alive, she embraces them, yes, and goes native. After Viserys is dead, she makes a subtle turn against their culture by starting to look down on them. She thinks she's better than them because she wants to go for the Iron Throne. She literally says, being a khaleesi isn't enough for her. At that point, she does NOT go native. She goes Targaryen. She wants them to violate their customs just for her. She bends them to HER will. 

Does she?  They seem to be pretty important to her.  After Drogo's death she takes control of her life for the first time and decides that her life is not to go to join the crones of the Dosh Kaleen but to be a Targaryen Monarch.  Because her identity is far more complex than being just a Khaleesi which she was for a mere year.  She adapted to Dothraki culture and embraced it which you seem to discount but she did not become Dothraki.  The thirteen years of being raised as a Targaryen exile was not erased by one year being a Khaleesi and I don't know why this should surprise anyone.  Does remembering who you are and wanting your birthright amount to "thinking yourself better than them"?

And she does what any Khal would: enforce her will on her khalasar.  Don't forget Drogo had planned to cross the Narrow Sea for his son's birthright, he just died en route  He's not violating their customs because he looks down on the Dothraki, he's doing it out of ambition.  So is she.  Doesn't imply lack of respect from either of them.

13 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

How can you not read this and think - "entitled white lady"?

Well, it's really easy.  It's a pseudo-feudal, pseudo-medieval world where nobility and royalty have servants whatever the colour of their skin.  Dany was given three maid servants when she married Drogo just as any other bride would have been whatever the colour of her skin.  And they would order those servants around without thinking about it. 

Entitled is correct because that's the reality of social status in a hierarchical world, but you'll remember of course that Doreah, one of Dany's three servants is white (Lysene), that Dany treats her no differently to the others because her racial and cultural background is irrelevant, and that Irri and Jhiqui laugh at Doreah, calling her "foolish strawhead slave" because her folklore story about the moon is different to their own.  It's almost as if GRRM has shown realistically that people from different backgrounds hold their own customs and beliefs to be correct and others to be erroneous and there's quite enough of Dothraki preying on the Lhazarene (and truly despising them) or the Ghiscari preying on the Naathi to see the picture is far more realistic and complex to warrant throwing a racial stereotype at Dany.

13 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

And as for the Irri "freely initiating sex" - 

They are her sex "servants." This isn't some sexy lesbian romp. There is no intimacy there. Dany treats her like a human vibrator. Irri is summoned to do her duty: 

This is what I mean about being selective.  There are two sexual encounters, one intitiated by Dany one by Irri, quite freely if you care to read the passage.  Why you are only interested in considering one is problematical.

 

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

×