Jump to content
Tyrion1991

Dany the Mad Queen was a terrible idea

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think its a failure on the audiences' part because audiences keep making the wrong comparison.

The incident isn't a parallel to Janos Slynt. It's a parallel to Stannis with Mance and a contrast to Jon with the wildlings. Jon executing people at the Wall has nothing to do with what Dany did. Jon was Slynt's commander; Dany wasn't Randyll's. Also, it's the Wall. The rule is, if you disobey an order, it's the last stop for you because there's no where else to send you. Dany still had an option to send them to the Wall so she had an opportunity to show mercy. She also could have just executed their leader, like Stannis did with Mance - but she made the excessive choice. This came back to bite her because now she lost a potential ally with Sam. 

The fact that Dany forced them all to kneel as a group is also a foil to Jon. The show tells us this, when Jon says he's also executed men, Sam reminds us: "You've also spared men. Thousands of wildlings when they refused to kneel." 

Jon showed mercy to prisoners who lost on the battlefield. Even Stannis did too, to some degree - he said he didn't want to "slaughter beat dogs." Dany used excessive use of force to completely destroy them and still used fear even afterward. This ties into to her choice later in S8 "Let it be fear, then." She's already been doing that, just on people who seem like assholes. Keep in mind, Dany didn't kill Sam's dad for being a bad dad. Audiences have to learn how to disassociate these affect/emotional ties, but they're not doing that. 

So any random execution-to-execution is not the accurate comparison, it is prisoner-of-war-to-prisoner-of-war, and what to do with beaten people who don't want to kneel to you. 

Sam and Jon never found out the execution method. Dany doesn't mention that they were burned alive.

No it's a failure on the show's part because it's painfully apparent that the show stopped understanding how a feudal monarchy works and didn't realize that any monarch worth his salt in Westeros would've had to execute the Tarlys based on how they wrote the scene.

You're back to the Robb Stark mistake of comparing the Tarlys (lords of Westeros) with Wildlings (foreigners). Daenerys wasn't Tarly's commander but she was his queen and in a feudal monarchy that binds Tarly to her as much as Slynt was bound to Jon Snow. It doesn't matter if Tarly refuses to recognize that Daenerys is the rightful queen just as it wouldn't have mattered if Slynt refused to recognize Jon as the rightful Lord Commander. If you back one claimant (Cersei, absurdly enough in this case) you're a traitor to the others.  And if you refuse to bend the knee to the victorious claimant you're not going to get to be a lord anymore. If you then refuse to be exiled you're going to be executed. There is no way around this. 

Tyrion did offer Randyll Tarly the wall only for Tarly to reject it out of hand. The Tarlys effectively demanded that Daenerys execute them and we're supposed to blame Daenerys for what happened? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The One Who Kneels said:

No it's a failure on the show's part because it's painfully apparent that the show stopped understanding how a feudal monarchy works and didn't realize that any monarch worth his salt in Westeros would've had to execute the Tarlys based on how they wrote the scene.

You're back to the Robb Stark mistake of comparing the Tarlys (lords of Westeros) with Wildlings (foreigners). Daenerys wasn't Tarly's commander but she was his queen and in a feudal monarchy that binds Tarly to her as much as Slynt was bound to Jon Snow. It doesn't matter if Tarly refuses to recognize that Daenerys is the rightful queen just as it wouldn't have mattered if Slynt refused to recognize Jon as the rightful Lord Commander. If you back one claimant (Cersei, absurdly enough in this case) you're a traitor to the others.  And if you refuse to bend the knee to the victorious claimant you're not going to get to be a lord anymore. If you then refuse to be exiled you're going to be executed. There is no way around this. 

Tyrion did offer Randyll Tarly the wall only for Tarly to reject it out of hand. The Tarlys effectively demanded that Daenerys execute them and we're supposed to blame Daenerys for what happened? 

Okay so which is it. Is she unique and different like Jon or is she more of the same like Stannis and Cersei. If she's the former she would buck the trend. If she's the latter it's a signal to the audience that she's going to get taken out.

Also - Daenerys didnt have the Iron Throne yet. How was she Tarly's queen? He didn't die a traitor, he died a martyr. 

Tarly was just a microcosm for everyone in the North. He represented everyone who didn't want to kneel to her. 

If you think that's normal and fine, good, but don't call her the hero or cry foul when she dies just like all the other people who wanted power.

Meanwhile, we're shown someone who has done things differently when it comes to conquered people on the battlefield - and this is important. Of course people can say it's within Dany's prerogative as a claimant to do what she did, but the story isn't going to let her get away with it without making sharp contrasts to other characters.

She's just more of the same - and that's a really low bar. 

Share this post


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

Okay so which is it. Is she unique and different like Jon or is she more of the same like Stannis and Cersei. If she's the former she would buck the trend. If she's the latter it's a signal to the audience that she's going to get taken out.

Also - Daenerys didnt have the Iron Throne yet. How was she Tarly's queen? He didn't die a traitor, he died a martyr. 

Tarly was just a microcosm for everyone in the North. He represented everyone who didn't want to kneel to her. 

If you think that's normal and fine, good, but don't call her the hero or cry foul when she dies just like all the other people who wanted power.

Meanwhile, we're shown someone who has done things differently when it comes to conquered people on the battlefield - and this is important. Of course people can say it's within Dany's prerogative as a claimant to do what she did, but the story isn't going to let her get away with it without making sharp contrasts to other characters.

She's just more of the same - and that's a really low bar. 

Jon not's any different. We have no evidence he would've reacted to a lord actively siding with a usurper against him, refusing to bend the knee to Jon after he is defeated and refusing the Wall when that is offered by locking him up until he reconsiders. That would be absurd. Jon would just execute him.

You could also ask yourself how was Cersei his queen? Because she was physically sitting on the Iron Throne? Don't think that's how inheritance works. He picked a side in a civil war for the throne and when you do you are plainly a traitor to the other side in that civil war. If you wanted to make the burning of the Tarlys more morally questionable maybe have them sitting out the war instead of actively taking up arms against Daenerys? But the show didn't do that. 

You're still refusing to see the obvious distinction between foreigners and Westerosi lords. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, The One Who Kneels said:

Jon not's any different. We have no evidence he would've reacted to a lord actively siding with a usurper against him, refusing to bend the knee to Jon after he is defeated and refusing the Wall when that is offered by locking him up until he reconsiders. That would be absurd. Jon would just execute him.

You could also ask yourself how was Cersei his queen? Because she was physically sitting on the Iron Throne? Don't think that's how inheritance works. He picked a side in a civil war for the throne and when you do you are plainly a traitor to the other side in that civil war. If you wanted to make the burning of the Tarlys more morally questionable maybe have them sitting out the war instead of actively taking up arms against Daenerys? But the show didn't do that. 

You're still refusing to see the obvious distinction between foreigners and Westerosi lords. 

Jon would never be in a situation like Dany in the first place? Jon's different because he's never going to be the conqueror, he's always going to be the defender. The story is structured so that he is elected and Dany is not, so he has the advantage of already being king. A hypothetical scenario is moot when their differences are built into the story structure. It's also built into the dialogue. Sam tells Jon that he WAS different than Dany in such a scenario. Sam said "they were prisoners" and reminds Jon of other prisoners Jon dealt with. The same scene repeats with Tyrion, reminding Jon that he is different. They are foils and it is reiterated over and over.

It doesn't matter if they are foreigners or lords, the lesson was when to show mercy to gain followers and when to act just like all the other claimants. Dany knows how to win people to her side without force. I guess she just forgot. Arguing that Dany was justified just puts her into the "doomed pretender" pile like all the other claimants. 

Share this post


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

Jon would never be in a situation like Dany in the first place? Jon's different because he's never going to be the conqueror, he's always going to be the defender. The story is structured so that he is elected and Dany is not, so he has the advantage of already being king. A hypothetical scenario is moot when their differences are built into the story structure. It's also built into the dialogue. Sam tells Jon that he WAS different than Dany in such a scenario. Sam said "they were prisoners" and reminds Jon of other prisoners Jon dealt with. The same scene repeats with Tyrion, reminding Jon that he is different. They are foils and it is reiterated over and over.

It doesn't matter if they are foreigners or lords, the lesson was when to show mercy to gain followers and when to act just like all the other claimants. Dany knows how to win people to her side without force. I guess she just forgot. Arguing that Dany was justified just puts her into the "doomed pretender" pile like all the other claimants. 

Daenerys should never have been in the situation in the first place. It beggars belief that Tarly would voluntarily side with Cersei against Daenerys, that he would reject Daenery's offer to bend the knee or that Dickon would choose to commit suicide (or that Randyll would let Dickon commit suicide even if he personally has a death wish). I've said before that another way to establish the Tarly execution to be more questionable is to have Randyll desperately try to take back his defiance and offer to bend the knee or take the black after Dickon makes his stupid gesture in an attempt to save his son only for Daenerys to coldly reject this and burn them both. But again the show didn't do this. 

Your overall point about the story is however correct. The story decided that Daenerys will end as a villain so stuff like executing lords who actively fight against you and reject all offers of mercy is lamely recast as foreshadowing and another step on the road (she burned prisoners!) to deliberately burning thousands of innocent civilians while when Jon opts to cut Slynt's head off for disobeying orders or hangs a traumatized orphan for mutiny rather than locking them up to think about what they did it's okay within the context of the world. 

It does matter a lot actually because "bend the knee or die (or go to the Wall)" are literally the only options for Westerosi lords sworn to the Iron Throne engaged in a civil war for control of said Iron Throne. Daenerys isn't cruel or unreasonable for presenting those choices to the Tarlys. That's literally just how it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The One Who Kneels said:

Daenerys should never have been in the situation in the first place. It beggars belief that Tarly would voluntarily side with Cersei against Daenerys, that he would reject Daenery's offer to bend the knee or that Dickon would choose to commit suicide (or that Randyll would let Dickon commit suicide even if he personally has a death wish). I've said before that another way to establish the Tarly execution to be more questionable is to have Randyll desperately try to take back his defiance and offer to bend the knee or take the black after Dickon makes his stupid gesture in an attempt to save his son only for Daenerys to coldly reject this and burn them both. But again the show didn't do this. 

Your overall point about the story is however correct. The story decided that Daenerys will end as a villain so stuff like executing lords who actively fight against you and reject all offers of mercy is lamely recast as foreshadowing and another step on the road (she burned prisoners!) to deliberately burning thousands of innocent civilians while when Jon opts to cut Slynt's head off for disobeying orders or hangs a traumatized orphan for mutiny rather than locking them up to think about what they did it's okay within the context of the world. 

It does matter a lot actually because "bend the knee or die (or go to the Wall)" are literally the only options for Westerosi lords sworn to the Iron Throne engaged in a civil war for control of said Iron Throne. Daenerys isn't cruel or unreasonable for presenting those choices to the Tarlys. That's literally just how it is. 

This whole instance is an example of how Dany chooses fire and fear over other options to make people submit to her will.  This was a bad choice if she hoped to ever inspire love and acceptance of her as a benevolent liberator from Cersei.   It is particularly important at this juncture since she is a foreigner and newly arrived in Westeros.  Certainly not the best first impression to make if you want to gain new allies.  She doesn’t look like a better option than Cersei burning folks to a crispy critter. She should have just seized the Tarlys and imprisoned them. It would have been a more merciful and reasonable option.

Share this post


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

This whole instance is an example of how Dany chooses fire and fear over other options to make people submit to her will.  This was a bad choice if she hoped to ever inspire love and acceptance of her as a benevolent liberator from Cersei.   It is particularly important at this juncture since she is a foreigner and newly arrived in Westeros.  Certainly not the best first impression to make if you want to gain new allies.  She doesn’t look like a better option than Cersei burning folks to a crispy critter. She should have just seized the Tarlys and imprisoned them. It would have been a more merciful and reasonable option.

Demonstrating strength while showing a willingness to forgive her enemies is a bad choice? That's a first. Clearly answering a traitorous lord who pisses all over your offers of pardon or exile with a jail sentence until he reconsiders would be the sign of a good ruler. 

And yes she would look like a better option than Cersei Lannister before she burned the Tarlys and after she burned the Tarlys. Queen Cersei was one of the most embarrassingly stupid decisions the show ever made. 

Share this post


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

The actress has requested that we not refer to Dany as the Mad Queen.

Just because she did something that was awful doesn't mean she had a psychotic break. The wasn't crazy. She was grieving, frustrated, angry, hurt, and alone, and in that darkest moment she struck out and did something terrible.

That's a really bad thing, and maybe it was irrational, but it's only because she used a weapon of mass destruction instead of just punching someone when she was so upset that we are even having this conversation. 

If you kill someone in the heat of passion or the depths of despair, the courts will still find you guilty of the crime. You don't get to cop to an insanity defence.

 When the actress says she doesn't want Dany to be called mad, we should recognize why a cheap cop-out that denies any agency to her character would bother her. Dangerous when angry is different from being insane because insane means no agency, no power over one's own actions or understanding of consequences. It dehumanizes her character. 

I can't blame her for not wanting that to happen. It's unfair to her as an actress. 

 

Problem is that Daenerys had been ruled by emotions, as well as being a hypocrite and a liar, for a long time; she had also been threatening to burn cities for quite some time as well. Burning King's Landing was not just something done in the "heat of the moment", it was a logical outcome of her character, especially if you look at how she had been portrayed in earlier seasons (I wrote a whole overview of it earlier). She always had capacity for doing precisely what she did, but she had advisors who she listened to and who generally stopped her from giving into her impulses.

So what you call her? What she did was definitely evil; and she herself very clearly became evil by the finale (even without viewers being hammered by the Nuremberg Rally scene). But did she burn KL merely because she had finally turned evil? I don't think so. And calling her "grieving mass-murdering b**ch Dany" is kinda mouthful (keyboard-ful). "Mad Queen Dany" may not be the most precise label, but it is a practical one.

Share this post


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

Problem is that Daenerys had been ruled by emotions, as well as being a hypocrite and a liar, for a long time; she had also been threatening to burn cities for quite some time as well. Burning King's Landing was not just something done in the "heat of the moment", it was a logical outcome of her character, especially if you look at how she had been portrayed in earlier seasons (I wrote a whole overview of it earlier). She always had capacity for doing precisely what she did, but she had advisors who she listened to and who generally stopped her from giving into her impulses.

So what you call her? What she did was definitely evil; and she herself very clearly became evil by the finale (even without viewers being hammered by the Nuremberg Rally scene). But did she burn KL merely because she had finally turned evil? I don't think so. And calling her "grieving mass-murdering b**ch Dany" is kinda mouthful (keyboard-ful). "Mad Queen Dany" may not be the most precise label, but it is a practical one.

Danaerys is an imperialst. Her methods were pretty tame compared to certain European nations. I don't see where emotionalism comes into it. Britain, Belgium, France, Spain and other colonial powers didn't commit atrocious war crimes because they 'were in a bad mood.' Rather, there were philosophies/rationale behind the barbarity, a lot of it contrived out of greed. Some people even respected their ruthlessness, as I'm sure many people would have grown to fearfully respect Danaerys' reign had she lived.

She's no more evil than Tywin and the Lannisters, who basically became the 'sympathetic' protagonists of the show despite starting off as villains. Another contrivance by dumb and dumber. So you can call her evil, but it's foolish to single her out as such when you consider how equally depraved some of the other characters are. In a real medieval society, people wouldn't have the luxury of squeaming over the dragon queen's lack of morals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/29/2019 at 3:12 PM, beeeeeen said:

 Also, as it has been demonstrated countless times, there was a lot of build up to this moment, and it was in line with what the show was about in the end: Birth right and ambitions are the worst reasons to be a ruler. Dany was meant to fail, because there was no good reason for her to win the throne.

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.

 

On 5/29/2019 at 6:08 PM, Bear Claw said:

Executing prisoners was brought up in Season Two when Lord Boton suggested it to Robb. Robb told him he would not execute prisoners, so in show verse, it was certainly something that was considered wrong. 

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?!

 

13 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Jon would never be in a situation like Dany in the first place? Jon's different because he's never going to be the conqueror, he's always going to be the defender.

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.

 

Quote

The story is structured so that he is elected and Dany is not, so he has the advantage of already being king.

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. 

 

Quote

Sam tells Jon that he WAS different than Dany in such a scenario. Sam said "they were prisoners" and reminds Jon of other prisoners Jon dealt with. The same scene repeats with Tyrion, reminding Jon that he is different. They are foils and it is reiterated over and over.

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.

Edited by Maia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 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.

 

I don't remember such a thing like executing child hostages in the books, can you show the quote?

Share this post


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

She always had capacity for doing precisely what she did, but she had advisors who she listened to and who generally stopped her from giving into her impulses.

What you think of Dany's end in the show really comes down to whether you believe this statement, particularly the part I've bolded. Many of us who have a problem with how the show depicted her actions this season wouldn't argue that Dany wasn't capable of bad judgment or burning cities to the ground under the right conditions. Dany had clearly said and done things in the past that demonstrated her potential for ruthlessness and violence, particularly in the face of opposition.  She was entitled and had developed what I think can be fairly called a messianic complex. She believed she was doing good in the world and that people who were standing in her way were evil.  Had the battle for KL not gone as perfectly as it had, had the city not surrendered, had she faced a significant loss in the heat of the battle - I don't think Dany's character, especially given her losses at this point, would have hesitated to burn KL to the ground.

What I think was out of character for Dany was to suddenly decide to burn thousands of innocents after the city had surrendered, after she had won, after she was feared.  Her stated goal of this particular moment had been achieved.  There was no chance of her victory falling through.  At every previous moment in Dany's life, where she had been tempted to give in to her desire to effect mass destruction, when she won or got what she wanted, her desire for that almost immediately went away.  It didn't mean that desire wouldn't come back, but we simply have no evidence that, even in the face of victory, Dany still had temptations to slaughter innocents just for kicks (or even for retribution).  When you follow this by a Hitler-style rally and delusional rationalization in the aftermath when she speaks with Jon, it seems like she has basically reached a point of no return - no gentleness remains.  I guess you can explain that by saying her most trusted advisors are gone and no one loves her anymore, so it makes sense. It doesn't to me - it's so sudden and such an extreme turn, it leaves me with only one explanation - a sudden psychotic break.

Dany's turn is reminiscent of Anakin Skywalker's turn to the Dark Side in ROTS.  One minute, he turns in the Emperor and is clearly conflicted because he sees the potential promise of the Dark Side to save his loved one.  The next minute, he's slaughtering children, and before you know it, he's obsessed with his empire and brinigng order to the galaxy.  Anakin's turn was slightly more believable because you knew what he would eventually become, so you were not so shocked by his psycho-babble.  But, if you had never seen the original trilogy, you might have been left with a similar WTF moment that many of us feel left with after this final season.    

     

Edited by Lord Stackspear
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the show had the finesse to make us believe 'Daenerys = fire magic'?

Fire canbe a useful tool, when managed and handled safely. It is a natural force of renewal, but that renewal comes at a cost of destruction of what came before.

You see her loose her tethers, her council, her allies, until she is standing alone. "It is known" that firefighting in the wild is mostly about guiding fire and starving it. By the end she is without connections, nothing to stop her and plenty to feed the fire. So 'power mad' is how I think it'll happen in the books, you can see it happening already.

Again, the complaint is execution. 

They took what could be the symbol of an elemental force, unleashed to maximum destructive capacity and threatening the natural order, and through ineptitude, left many without context seeing 'stupid girl throws a tantrum, goes unhinged and nazi'.

Share this post


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

Again, the complaint is execution. 

I agree with this.  What I will add, however, is that the stakes for executing this last, irredeemable turn for Dany were much more significant than the stakes for executing prior moments in the show.

If executed well, the ending is a tragic fall of a character you thought could overcome her demons and have the potential to effect significant societal changes for others.  Not sure I would call it a bittersweet ending - sort of depends on what her tragic fall brings about in the aftermath.  

If executed poorly (IMO, the way it was executed), the ending is just about as nihilistic as if the Night King having won.  You watched the struggles of Dany for these past 8 seasons with the potential for great good and for great destruction, only for it to end in a psychotic break that was predetermined by her Targaryen genes.

One execution is powerful and tragic and could leave you with a mixture of conflicted feelings.  The other execution leaves you wondering why you ever invested anything in this story if it was always going to end in such predetermined, pointless fashion.  There's no conflict, there's no struggle about how you feel.  Dany went psycho and she had to die. 

Edited by Lord Stackspear
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

I agree with this.  What I will add, however, is that the stakes for executing this last, irredeemable turn for Dany were much more significant than the stakes for executing prior moments in the show.

If executed well, the ending is a tragic fall of a character you thought could overcome her demons and have the potential to effect significant societal changes for others.  Not sure I would call it a bittersweet ending - sort of depends on what her tragic fall brings about in the aftermath.  

If executed poorly (IMO, the way it was executed), the ending is just about as nihilistic as if the Night King having won.  You watched the struggles of Dany for these past 8 seasons with the potential for great good and for great destruction, only for it to end in a psychotic break that was predetermined by her Targaryen genes.

One execution is powerful and tragic and could leave you with a mixture of conflicted feelings.  The other execution leaves you wondering why you ever invested anything in this story if it was always going to end in such predetermined, pointless fashion.  There's no conflict, there's no struggle about how you feel.  Dany went psycho and she had to die. 

Well, fire must end for natural order to resume, I guess.

Like the dragons were tamed and coddled and used to extinction, her endgame was always to die after she did her part in returning the world to balance. 

Our mistake, created by the 'must get more viewers' money grabbing duos' way of telling the story, was to loose track of Daenerys as a vessel for fire. 

If a fire is out of control you need to extinguish it to preserve everything around it.

Our inner fantasy fans were all rooting for magic to endure.

The true bittersweetness could simply be that magic will end and the world grows poorer, but manageable through human means.

We got lost in her journey instead of remembering her usefulness was at an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

Daenerys wasn't Tarly's commander but she was his queen

Was she?!

She was not.

She just started usurping Westeros and had not yet conqeured the throne. It is nonsense that she herself alway calls herself queen, even if she is not yet.

Daenerys was just the leader of an intruding force. 

Edited by Kajjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a blatent lack of shades in characters in the last season, especially of Daenerys and Jon who deserved better than the classic opposition between ice and fire, North and South, and so on. Everybody bears his/her flaws in the previous seasons (even Ned with his bastard), but the more we go on into the serie, the simpler go the characters (I'm bad/I'm good). Daenerys's cruelty toward Tarly or the Masters in Mereen should not be hints about a final snap, but just...shades of a well-built character. Anyway this cruelty does not exceed that we can expect from a normal sovereign in Westeros.

And -but that was already discussed in another topic- different houses seek alliances by weddings, but at the end, nobody marries nobody. Ok I admit we have one bastard, one crippled, one barren, one gelded (I forgot, his one died in an absolutely stupid way), and that reduces somehow the scope for weddings. But nobody knows the prophecy about Daenerys's barrenness, and prophecies are not supposed to always be true (remember the stallion who mounted the world). Daenerys was about to marry a Mereen prince two seasons ago, so she should have thought about marrying some Westeros lord, instead of childishly complaining about being hated by Westeros people.

The normal ending? Daenerys burns down KL. She receives redditions of all lords in Westeros. She begins to rule the best she can/the least worst she can, with Jon part-Hand (Varys and Tyrion were dracarysed for treason), part-hostage (or better, she sends him in exile to run Essos in her name). She marries the nameless Dornish guy. Bran is the guardian of the North, like his father before him. Twice widow, Sansa marries some North-guy to foster anew the alliance after the nasty wars with Ironborns, Boltons and Wildlings. 

A last remark: why D&D did not deal with the two main plots in the same time? I mean, two/three epic episodes with at once the battle against the Night Walkers and the regular game of thrones, the very stake being how the GOT affects the battle against NW (people are already thinking to the aftermaths, and their schemes could cause the failure of the war against NW...). We could have a huge battle in the vicinity of KL stretching over the three last episodes, with side plots addressed in the same time. For instance, the rivalty between Daenerys and Cersei was overlooked...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2019 at 10:07 PM, Einheri said:

The George can probably make Dany’s fall work in the books, but yeah, as far as the show is concerned, it’s pretty baffling that they chose to have Dany become a villain in the second to last episode when there has been so little build up leading to this moment, and the show would have been better off if they had simply cut this plotline (and scaled down the game of thrones stuff), so that they could focus more on the White Walkers instead.

Can he now? The show spoiled it, wouldn't it be too hard for the reader to be surprised, or follow the path to her dawnfall.

The first impression is always full of consequences. 

Share this post


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

I don't remember such a thing like executing child hostages in the books, can you show the quote?

Jon, chapter 53, ADwD:

"Aye, and why not?" Old Flint stomped his cane against the ice. "Wards, we always called them, when Winterfell _demanded boys_ of us, but they were hostages, and none the worse for it".

"None but them _whose sires displeased the Kings o'Winter_", said The Norrey. "Those came home shorter by a head".

Jon subsequently assures the clan lords that he would be willing and able to execute child hostages that Tormund's people are going to provide, should the situation call for it. I have my doubts that he would have actually done it, but Starks of old were certainly child-killers, when pushed, and it eventually helped them gain respect and obedience of other northeners.

Which also makes mockery of such arguments as "but Dany executed _innocent_ slavers!" and "westerosi don't practice collective punishment!"

 

Share this post


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

Jon, chapter 53, ADwD:

"Aye, and why not?" Old Flint stomped his cane against the ice. "Wards, we always called them, when Winterfell _demanded boys_ of us, but they were hostages, and none the worse for it".

"None but them _whose sires displeased the Kings o'Winter_", said The Norrey. "Those came home shorter by a head".

Jon subsequently assures the clan lords that he would be willing and able to execute child hostages that Tormund's people are going to provide, should the situation call for it. I have my doubts that he would have actually done it, but Starks of old were certainly child-killers, when pushed, and it eventually helped them gain respect and obedience of other northeners.

Which also makes mockery of such arguments as "but Dany executed _innocent_ slavers!" and "westerosi don't practice collective punishment!"

 

Ah, you mean wildlings? Yeah, sure.

I thought it was the Northern houses or any other noble houses from Westeros.

But Kings of Winter didn't need anything from the wildlings right? They only did that to protect the North. Not for gaining power or stealing power from them.

Edited by RYShh

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

×