Jump to content
Tyrion1991

Dany the Mad Queen was a terrible idea

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

I think you've hit on something important that hasn't been talked about much. Her only model is the Dothraki. That's a big problem.

Unlike Rhaegar, Daenerys never had any formal training in how to be the Seven Kingdoms’ monarch. She didn't grow up watching how the noble houses and the Crown interacted.  She wasn't tutored by maesters and septas.  She didn't really know much about Westeros at all.

All she “knew” was what her abusive brother Viserys told her while they were on the run from Robert. She had an ugly childhood, and then before that was over she was thrust into the rape-and-murder based tradition of the Khalasar.  That's where she learned to measure success, where she learned savagery.  Nobody is going to come out of that with their screwed on straight.

Maybe even worse for me is the repetitive hammering of trying it their way and being granted failure at every turn. If we consider her damaged from the beginning, and her inner monologue becomes more and more unhinged the weaker she is, physically and emotionally?

Surrendering to doing it the way she learned through reality and life experience? That would give me a whole new dimension to the 'let it be fear, then' moment. Not as a Targaryen, in the end she was making the same mistakes as her ancestors and 'weaponizing' her dragons instead of almost comuning with them, but as the quintessencial leader of a horde.

That would be a fantastic way to have a savage, all out conqueror, raider queen that all of Westeros would resist through every means available. I mean, screw honor when the alternative is annihilation and submission to an invading power, right?

In circling the drain while celebrating her for audience ratings, the show more than camouflaged, they erased, and the nazi thing was so offensive to me on an intrinsic level that my expectation of her as a destructive power was burried under the emotional recoil of disgust at their imagery.

If she turns up doing her speech thing in leathers, promising to reform Westeros to her 'vision', I'll cheer both at her brutality and when Jon eventually does his bit (almost rabid, Ghost infused Jon would certainly rip out the throat of an apex predator threatening his pack. Anybody ever seen a crocodile getting hunted?, It's memorable.).

I'll cheer almost as much as I'll pity her and her lost dreams.

Share this post


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

I think you've hit on something important that hasn't been talked about much. Her only model is the Dothraki. That's a big problem.

Unlike Rhaegar, Daenerys never had any formal training in how to be the Seven Kingdoms’ monarch. She didn't grow up watching how the noble houses and the Crown interacted.  She wasn't tutored by maesters and septas.  She didn't really know much about Westeros at all.

 All she “knew” was what her abusive brother Viserys told her while they were on the run from Robert. She had an ugly childhood, and then before that was over she was thrust into the rape-and-murder based tradition of the Khalasar.  That's where she learned to measure success, where she learned savagery.  Nobody is going to come out of that with their screwed on straight.

Precisely. Monarchs in Middle Ages - and before - had formal training. Roman Emperors would, when they did not have children, select heirs from among their colleagues - young soldiers etc. - and train them for the crown. In Middle Byzantine period, succession was lot easier since army generals were also provincial administrators, and thus automatically had training; these generals would often marry into imperial family, or even usurp the throne, thus bringing in outside experience. And since Constantinople had extensive bureocracy, the Empire could chug along even under uninterested emperors a lot better than any other medieval state (and because there was no "divine right of the Emperors", incompetent emperors were often overthrown or assassinated - until 11th century, at least).

But Daenerys has none of that. She did not have formal training, especially in Westerosi style of rule; her model - as you point out - are Dothraki, who value strength and only strength. She did have advisors, but that was only fine for as long as she listened to them. She never had the formal support network that was so important for Byzantine Emperors.

Share this post


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

I think you've hit on something important that hasn't been talked about much. Her only model is the Dothraki. That's a big problem.

Unlike Rhaegar, Daenerys never had any formal training in how to be the Seven Kingdoms’ monarch. She didn't grow up watching how the noble houses and the Crown interacted.  She wasn't tutored by maesters and septas.  She didn't really know much about Westeros at all.

All she “knew” was what her abusive brother Viserys told her while they were on the run from Robert. She had an ugly childhood, and then before that was over she was thrust into the rape-and-murder based tradition of the Khalasar.  That's where she learned to measure success, where she learned savagery.  Nobody is going to come out of that with their screwed on straight.

A very good point,

She was indeed raised like a Dothraki, who only values strength, a culture that forces her to eat a horse heart uncooked. They are only a little better than savages, they don't care about honor and they don't value people life,

Not only that, let's examine Daenerys's view when it comes to love as well, she always loved strong men, Drogo was her first, a strong Khal, she forced herself to love him somehow after getting raped, and then Daario, a very skilled fighter and a strong mercenary, yet she loved him I guess it's obvious because he was strong, and when Tyrion says Jon Snow loves her she says he is too little for her, she already impressed with his bravery before when Jon says he needs to lead a raid beyond the wall, then she sees Jon's knife wounds (she also interested before and asked Jon what Davos really meant) and then she looks closely on Jon's wounds, sees that it wasn't a figure of speech, she gets impressed even more. She was nothing like a Westerosi Queen, more like a Dothraki Khaleesi. And she know that as well, which is why she didn't get any love in Westeros and probably she would never get.

Share this post


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

And she know that as well, which is why she didn't get any love in Westeros and probably she would never get

We can make the case that someone who compartmentalized savage marital rape until she loved her savage husband would certainly mindbend fear into love.

But like some other comments here indicated, that'd make her crazy and rob her of agency. My new pet theory is she simply dispensed with westerosi politics in the end and went full Khal on KL. It simply would've been fantastically brutal in a dothraki way if she'd reduced the Red Keep to rubble and 'then' submitted to their cultural notion of 'the next city will immediately pay tribute', laying a tale of fear by completely forsaking the westerosi ways and butchering the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 3:52 AM, Hodor's Dragon said:

Everyone is bound to the sovereign, and anyone who follows a "false" sovereign is a traitor.

That's just your private definition of traitor. I end the discussion here. It makes no sense at all to argue with you. We need to agree to disagree here.

Enemies and traitors are different thing for me. Believe what you want, though.

16 hours ago, kjl473 said:

The paradox of Daenerys is the paradox of Marxism-Leninism which took place in the 20th century.  How could groups of people so committed to ending social inequality wind up killing millions of innocent people over and over again?  Her victory speech is entirely about Karl Marx's perpetual revolution and she turns herself into a one person dictatorship of the proletariat.  That was exactly how the Marxist-Leninists planed to make the world free from social inequality.

Interesting though. I see the parallels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't just declare a conversation over by fiat, especially when what you said doesn't even make sense and you provide no support for your position.

Following a false sovereign is hardly a "private definition" of treason. What do you think treason is? 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom - I bolded the parts that clearly would pertain to following an alternative liege:

Quote

Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession.

In fact, that last one is clearly aimed at persons who follow false pretenders.

I don't see how this could possibly be controversial. Following another liege is treason, period. If you think this other liege is the right one, fine, you can think that, but you had better win the war/battle or you stand in danger of being executed for treason.

Share this post


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

Precisely. Monarchs in Middle Ages - and before - had formal training. Roman Emperors would, when they did not have children, select heirs from among their colleagues - young soldiers etc. - and train them for the crown. In Middle Byzantine period, succession was lot easier since army generals were also provincial administrators, and thus automatically had training; these generals would often marry into imperial family, or even usurp the throne, thus bringing in outside experience. And since Constantinople had extensive bureocracy, the Empire could chug along even under uninterested emperors a lot better than any other medieval state (and because there was no "divine right of the Emperors", incompetent emperors were often overthrown or assassinated - until 11th century, at least).

But Daenerys has none of that. She did not have formal training, especially in Westerosi style of rule; her model - as you point out - are Dothraki, who value strength and only strength. She did have advisors, but that was only fine for as long as she listened to them. She never had the formal support network that was so important for Byzantine Emperors.

The problem with this "her model is the Dothraki" idea is that she forced the Dothraki to radically change their ways. What Dothraki practice are y'all claiming she adopted and brought to Westeros?

Also--in the books, of course, she is raised by Ser Willem Darry, a Westerosi knight and master at arms of the Red Keep, her father's loyal ally. Since, I believe, her upbringing is glossed over without mention in the show--am I wrong about that? Is it mentioned at all?--I wouldn't run too far with the idea that she had no one but Viserys to train her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

The problem with this "her model is the Dothraki" idea is that she forced the Dothraki to radically change their ways. What Dothraki practice are y'all claiming she adopted and brought to Westeros?

Also--in the books, of course, she is raised by Ser Willem Darry, a Westerosi knight and master at arms of the Red Keep, her father's loyal ally. Since, I believe, her upbringing is glossed over without mention in the show--am I wrong about that? Is it mentioned at all?--I wouldn't run too far with the idea that she had no one but Viserys to train her.

Influence is a two-way street. She did change the Dothraki, but they also changed her. There is then the fact that, as mentioned, she did not have formal training - and the closest thing to it she did have was being a Khaleesi. So her falling back to familiar Dothraki ways of "rape, pillage and burn" makes sense.

How long was she with him, though? And in the show, I think it is implied it was Viserys who raised her.

Share this post


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

The problem with this "her model is the Dothraki" idea is that she forced the Dothraki to radically change their ways. What Dothraki practice are y'all claiming she adopted and brought to Westeros

The idea is that she tried it the Westerosi way. At every turn she lost allies, support, friends, faith in herself and was even confronted with another, more popular claim.

I'm not upfront saying that she was always going full khal during from the moment she set foot on Dragonstone.

I'm saying, what if her moment in 'The Bells' was her finally dispensing with the bullshit and doing it in a way that favored her and her allies, her armies?

She told the dothraki to stop raping and owning slaves, but she did promise them a legendary war of conquest. 

I mean, it still looks stupid to loose time going street by street instead of knocking the other side's queen off the board, so to speak. And it made me go 'yep, totally nutso' when I saw it. At that point you might as well have one of the wildfire caches blow and bury both her and Drogon under rubble for the Darwin award.

Sudden thought, considering the 'fixed future timeline' theory for the 3ed and the 'the more you try to avoid prophecy the more you're making sure it actually happens' theory? I don't really recall the circumstances, but since many around here are taking her vision from the hou as gospel? Wasn't she in her dothraki leathers? 

(Tries to laugh evilly and chokes on own spit.)

 

Edited by It_spelt_Magalhaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 11:46 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

However it simply was never going to be a good choice of direction for the story. 

Firstly, it’s not actually an original or striking idea. There have been many, many stories in which a well meaning character goes mad with power. I mean this summer we’ll be seeing the second rendition of the Dark Phoenix saga. We have loads of evil superman tales like the Injustice game which dwell on “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. So the argument that had this been well done it would have been some ground breaking moment is simply not true. It’s as worn out a trope as any other. So this isn’t some sort of intellectual or cerebral story that I am just not comprehending.

Although I agree with your point it's a subjective one as there seem to be plenty of people who have been predicting and hoping she would end as  her father did so we're left arguing as to how well the show has done it (poorly) and speculating how well GRRM might unravel her.  Now that the end point is clear it's hard to see how the story will capture us on page as it would if we were ignorant of the ending.  But that's the box he's long nailed himself up in.

I do wonder at how novel or striking his idea was when he had it in the (presumably) early 1990s if not earlier.  Shows like Breaking Bad or Dark Phoenix may be contemporaries (or antecedents to) of ASOIAF but when GRRM planned this all out near 30 years ago the market and our public consciousness was not so saturated with anti-heroes and moral grayness.  The now fashionable trend of putting "heroes" in positions with such difficult choices and awful consequences that they go beyond flawed or questionable to openly filling us with disapproval or revulsion seems to leave no place for heroes at all in storytelling at present.

In other words, if GRRM had actually got this off the press in 1995 or even 2005 would we find him on the leading edge of this trend rather than following in it's wake?  I think the story is bolder and more original than perhaps given credit but, once again, the pace of his writing and his many competing projects may impact on his legacy as an author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2019 at 12:10 AM, the trees have eyes said:

It's a story set in a faux medieval world where birthright and ambition are everything.  IF GRRM really wanted to hammer that home would he not have Dany break the wheel?  The wheel surely isn't broken and she was really just another player in the game of thrones .

Much like having Ned go to KL to solve Jon Arryn's murder and save Robert from his enemies; or having Robb set out on a campaign to free and then avenge his father; having Dany set out to reclaim the throne in order to "do justice" is all part of GRRM delight in setting up the character's hopes only to dash them and to make their own actions the key to their failure and downfall.  And of course to shock the reader in so doing.  It seems largely because we expected and wanted Ned, Robb and Dany to succeed that he determined they should fail.  I don't think there's a moral here really, just an interest in writing a gripping story and having tragic characters contributing to their own failures throughout: Catelyn finally got trumped (by Dany) in terms of dying knowing that nothing she cared for in the world was left to her.

and yet, in the end, Tyrion's speech in dragonpit is telling us that birthright is a bad thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 1:09 PM, Maia said:

Yea, this is incredibly hypocritical, though. Because why are the Starks the rightful rulers of the North? Because, according to the books, their ancestors conquered and massacred and executed child hostages until their rule became uncontested and the North united. Ditto every other lord paramount, except for the Tyrells and the Tullys, who were nominated by Aegon the Conqueror. Are we supposed to think that they are morally superior to Dany because their ancestors were the ones who did all the dirty work, so that they themselves didn't have to? The _only_ reason that the Starks are important political players is birthright. Yes, even Jon massively profited from his "blood of Winterfell" and the noble upbringing that resulted from it.

The whole "ambition to rule is bad" thing is Disney morality at it's most unrealistic, which is particularly ironic given that we live in a world where ambition is the first and the completely non-negotiable pre-requisite  for somebody to eventually become a leader of their country. Nor is there historically any reason to conclude that lack of ambition would result in a good ruler. Louis XVI is the parade example for this fallacy. He didn't want to be king, but felt that it was his duty. And before you bring up Cincinnatus and Washington - they were both quite ambitious (apart from the fact that Cincinnatus likely wasn't real), as their biographies _prior_ to being offered ultimate power amply testified. They weren't some shmoes who got power repeatedly pushed at them just because.

 

This is not comparable, though, because Tarlys turned on Olenna, who in the show was presented as their rightful overlord and who did accept Dany as her queen. They were not just prisoners of war, they were traitors and thus comparable to Lord Karstark, the Freys  and the Boltons. Which is why Tyrion's and Varys's reactions to their executions felt so out of place. Robb didn't even offer the black to Lord Karstark, but we were supposed to think that Dany was showing signs of becoming a mad despot?!

 

I beg to differ, as far as the show is concerned. In the show, Ramsey had more northern support than the Starks and they had to resort to  "foreign" help such as wildlings and the Valemen, to triumph. They were also the ones attacking Ramsey.

 

He is "elected" by the victors, yes. The losers - who in the show were presented as the majority of the powerful  northern nobles, didn't get a vote. He is also "elected" because of his Stark blood and being male - i.e. birthright + bigotry. 

 

Yea, but in the context of the show, this doesn't make sense. Jon didn't have to deal with show Karstarks and Umbers who betrayed the Starks and handed Rickon to Ramsey - they all conveniently died. He showed mercy to their children - but note that Sansa, who is presented as the worthy queen in the end, was against it.

Ambition to rule is a bad thing... yes, unfortunately lot of rulers had ambitions, and you know what? most rulers are pieces of sh**.
As for the Stark, well yes they are ruling by birthright, and it kinda works because they have good morals, the show takes a few exemples of birthrights going wrong (Joffrey, Dany) to teach us that it's not a good thing. If every birthrights had to be destroyed so the show would not be hypocrite it would not be credible, it would be like a movie about cigarette causing cancer where every smoker in the world gets a cancer... it would not be credible and it would ruin the message of the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Although I agree with your point it's a subjective one as there seem to be plenty of people who have been predicting and hoping she would end as  her father did so we're left arguing as to how well the show has done it (poorly) and speculating how well GRRM might unravel her.  Now that the end point is clear it's hard to see how the story will capture us on page as it would if we were ignorant of the ending.  But that's the box he's long nailed himself up in.

I do wonder at how novel or striking his idea was when he had it in the (presumably) early 1990s if not earlier.  Shows like Breaking Bad or Dark Phoenix may be contemporaries (or antecedents to) of ASOIAF but when GRRM planned this all out near 30 years ago the market and our public consciousness was not so saturated with anti-heroes and moral grayness.  The now fashionable trend of putting "heroes" in positions with such difficult choices and awful consequences that they go beyond flawed or questionable to openly filling us with disapproval or revulsion seems to leave no place for heroes at all in storytelling at present.

In other words, if GRRM had actually got this off the press in 1995 or even 2005 would we find him on the leading edge of this trend rather than following in it's wake?  I think the story is bolder and more original than perhaps given credit but, once again, the pace of his writing and his many competing projects may impact on his legacy as an author.

 

I agree. Thirty years is long enough for your original ideas to become out of touch or fall behind the times.

For one thing, having a dude straight up murder his lover because he can’t sort out his relationship problems with her? Hmm. Yeah that’s a little too on the knuckle these days.

So if a person has a mental illness we should kill them. Of Mice and Men has the excuse of being written in the 30s. George does not.

Plus, frankly, George probably never imagined that Dany would be a hugely popular and iconic character. People named their kids after this fictional characters nickname. Which meant that the characters fate was always going to be more important than any thematic point he tried to make about the perils of fascism. Would not have been an issue in the 90s because most people would have seen her as another female character whose set against the guys we’re rooting for.

I think people today are actually quite accepting in their own ways of “the end justifies the means”. People aren’t interested in breaking bread or compromise atm. Whereas George saw the world through the prism of the Vietnam War and that’s an increasingly distant event.

George is critical of the power of the state. Whereas people today are more critical of elites. If King Bran happens then George never questions the role of feudalism or aristocratic power; instead centring everything on a discussion on the state getting too powerful. Which is what Daenerys crusade represents.

Also just as an aside. I actually think most people don’t agree with George’s Love vs Duty dichotomy. Even the show cops out because Jon chose the love of his family and could have chosen his duty by simply feigning love for Daenerys to save her from herself.

Its a story belonging to a different time.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find a female villain origin story unique. Hollywood has so few female villains, even today. There should be just as many men as women in this role, and they should have anti-heroine portrayals. Think of how far we've come from the Wicked Witch of the West, just screeching about flying monkeys. The "female villain" is just now being explored, but typically without any logical motivations that progress from her choices. She's just bad because she represents death or because she wants to kill the heroes. Or because she acts like an evil drag queen (I'm thinking of Hela here). Surely Dany's portrayal of a villain contributes something. I mean, the fact that tons and tons of people were fooled by her is pretty rad. 

Share this post


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

I find a female villain origin story unique. Hollywood has so few female villains, even today. There should be just as many men as women in this role, and they should have anti-heroine portrayals. Think of how far we've come from the Wicked Witch of the West, just screeching about flying monkeys. The "female villain" is just now being explored, but typically without any logical motivations that progress from her choices. She's just bad because she represents death or because she wants to kill the heroes. Or because she acts like an evil drag queen (I'm thinking of Hela here). Surely Dany's portrayal of a villain contributes something. I mean, the fact that tons and tons of people were fooled by her is pretty rad. 

I don't know: fairy tales are full of evil queen and wicked witch stereotypes, sure but Bond films are full of Blofelds or Draxes after all so it's not new to have evil stereotypes of either gender by any means.  What is different is setting up a character who the readership or audience sympathize with and then changing them into something much darker and more depressing than we thought: the hero or heroine usually wrestle with their demons or face temptation but come through rather than fall from grace.  We're not usually invited to sympathise with the character (an orphaned 13 year old girl) and watch her battle with her demons, attempt to do good and ultimately turn or / and fail. To this extent gender is irrelevant.  It will be interesting to see if book Tyrion becomes a villain or remains a complex and more nuanced character or how Jaime's redemption arc (the pull of Brienne vs Cersei) turns out.

My dislike of Dany's ending is that it is too close to Cersei's, a mad queen losing sight of anything but her own wishes so we are taking essentially the two main adult female povs and having them both end in madness and destruction.  Add in Catelyn and all three main female povs go mad and end in failure and despair.  I think there was room for other outcomes.  I really don't want to inject gender politics into creative art but part of me found the idea of a young woman being a if not the central character and power broker in an epic fantasy of this scale to be bold and intriguing and one that could have been incredibly well done.  She was not set up as a cliche of a powerful sorceress or mystical priestess wielding power or influence obliquely but as a queen in the making, wielding political and military power and we watched her grow and establish herself.  If we can have Aegon the conqueror, why not Dany the Conqueror / Liberator.  Of course this is subjective reasoning and not the story the author was writing, being more interested in showing characters being broken down rather than built up and in this he has had no eye on gender.  I just find it a bit too bleak to be satisfying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, beeeeeen said:

and yet, in the end, Tyrion's speech in dragonpit is telling us that birthright is a bad thing...

What does that count for though?  "Words are wind" a man has said.  Who will be king after Bran?  Sansa took her birthright in the North and the surviving Houses will continue to inherit and contend with each other when opportunity and ambition raise their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2019 at 1:54 PM, SeanF said:

Her genes were her downfall. 

Which is lazy plotting.

I think its more that history repeats itself especially for those who don't want to learn about the past.  We saw this with Dany becoming Aerys, Jon becoming Jaime, Arya and Gendry becoming Lyanna and Robert, the Field of Fire, the second Long Night, Brienne becoming Duncan the Tall and probably more I'm forgetting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I don't know: fairy tales are full of evil queen and wicked witch stereotypes, sure but Bond films are full of Blofelds or Draxes after all so it's not new to have evil stereotypes of either gender by any means.  What is different is setting up a character who the readership or audience sympathize with and then changing them into something much darker and more depressing than we thought: the hero or heroine usually wrestle with their demons or face temptation but come through rather than fall from grace.  We're not usually invited to sympathise with the character (an orphaned 13 year old girl) and watch her battle with her demons, attempt to do good and ultimately turn or / and fail. To this extent gender is irrelevant.  It will be interesting to see if book Tyrion becomes a villain or remains a complex and more nuanced character or how Jaime's redemption arc (the pull of Brienne vs Cersei) turns out.

My dislike of Dany's ending is that it is too close to Cersei's, a mad queen losing sight of anything but her own wishes so we are taking essentially the two main adult female povs and having them both end in madness and destruction.  Add in Catelyn and all three main female povs go mad and end in failure and despair.  I think there was room for other outcomes.  I really don't want to inject gender politics into creative art but part of me found the idea of a young woman being a if not the central character and power broker in an epic fantasy of this scale to be bold and intriguing and one that could have been incredibly well done.  She was not set up as a cliche of a powerful sorceress or mystical priestess wielding power or influence obliquely but as a queen in the making, wielding political and military power and we watched her grow and establish herself.  If we can have Aegon the conqueror, why not Dany the Conqueror / Liberator.  Of course this is subjective reasoning and not the story the author was writing, being more interested in showing characters being broken down rather than built up and in this he has had no eye on gender.  I just find it a bit too bleak to be satisfying.

I think the story was very true to what conquering was, to what war meant, so the "liberator" part couldn't be maintained and a dragon had to do what they do.

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

  I just find it a bit too bleak to be satisfying.

I guess we all have different tastes. I liked the idea of a villain as a hero from the other side and Smaug as a innocent looking woman. 

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I really don't want to inject gender politics into creative art but part of me found the idea of a young woman being a if not the central character and power broker in an epic fantasy of this scale to be bold and intriguing and one that could have been incredibly well done

Dany had way too much power to be sustainable and she has a supremacist attitude. She also got a Greek hero tragic ending, like Dido. 

Sansa is the person who fulfills that role, she's just the underdog the whole time until the end.

Share this post


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

I think the story was very true to what conquering was, to what war meant, so the "liberator" part couldn't be maintained and a dragon had to do what they do.

I'll  just repeat: "If we can have Aegon the conqueror, why not Dany the Conqueror / Liberator."  Aegon wan't mad, conquest and dragons didn't make him mad, there's no more "realism" in one character's arc than the other's, each is equally a result of conscious choices by the author.  He could have made her Aegon but he chose to make her Aerys.

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I guess we all have different tastes. I liked the idea of a villain as a hero from the other side and Smaug as a innocent looking woman.

However, to each his/her own.  Smaug's not that gray mind.  Unless he's just misunderstood: poor guy had a hard life and everyone turned on him so he abandoned his good intentions, engaged in some fire and blood and took what was rightfully his :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'll  just repeat: "If we can have Aegon the conqueror, why not Dany the Conqueror / Liberator."  Aegon wan't mad, conquest and dragons didn't make him mad, there's no more "realism" in one character's arc than the other's, each is equally a result of conscious choices by the author.  He could have made her Aegon but he chose to make her Aerys.

However, to each his/her own.  Smaug's not that gray mind.  Unless he's just misunderstood: poor guy had a hard life and everyone turned on him so he abandoned his good intentions, engaged in some fire and blood and took what was rightfully his :P

IMHO, Aegon and his sisters were villains.  They did slaughter thousands of people, many of them civilians, for purely selfish reasons.  But, they were also competent and level-headed rulers.  They were examples of Maester Aemon's view that bad people can be good rulers.

Having Dany gradually transform from being an idealist to someone whose motives are - in the end - purely selfish, or if not purely selfish, certainly very questionable, would be a more interesting and believable arc, then having her go batshit over the course of two and a half episodes. 

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

×