Jump to content
Tyrion1991

Dany the Mad Queen was a terrible idea

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Uilliam said:

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. 

Emotions are her sole justification for what she is doing. Her father was a shitty ruler who got overthrown because of it. That means that Targaryens had lost legitimacy, had lost the right to rule, yet she spent time harping about her "birtright". European colonial nations commited war crimes for various reasons: security, profit, honour... yes, there was rationale, and not all of it was contrived, if most of it was. EDIT: Also, take a look at how she acts in a lot of situations. The moment she is slighted by a city refusing her an entry (because she is in the company of few Dothraki), she immediately starts threatening to burn the city to the ground.

I do not see Lannisters being sympathetic protagonists. To me, conflict between Danerys and Cersei was evil vs evil. You could say that Jamie was sympathetic, but Jamie was just a soldier. who in the end abandoned Lannister cause. But that is just me, and I can see that D&D had attempted to make Lannisters in general and Cersei specifically more sympathetic, even if - for me - they did not really succeed. I actually couldn't bring myself to care about the finale - Cersei was evil from the outset, Daenerys had become evil, and Jon was/became an idiot.

I have never singled her out myself, but this thread is about Daenerys, so...

Edited by Aldarion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 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!"

 

But the show sanitized a lot to usher in perceptions like Ice good, Fire Bad as per the Houses represented, it was easier. At best in the earlier seasons, while original material was at hand you saw human nature and complexity, but later on the show sacrificed a lot more to streamline the story. Characters don't appear, history that isn't present, entire storylines cut and pasted.

It's Hollywood, baby!

The collective memory of the Fields of Fire remains because it's more recent, but the origin of the White Walkers, the Children of the Forest is lost to time and only the Faith remains. In the show we watch over the action, in the books we have a lot of first hand information even other characters don't get.

The Starks get turned into eternally benevolent even when Jon admitted to tactics worthy of Tywin Lannister. Oh wait, they're wildlings, not noblemen of Westerosi houses. 's all good.

Nobility is for the most part, to quote Bronn (and I'll have to bleach my phone), about being a killer. And lucky enough to hold on to the power you stole with that kill, ad nauseam, through your sons, and your sons' sons. No place for flowery prettyness there unless you want a better, more ruthless killer to get ideas. Like the Boltons, for example?

Share this post


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

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.

What do you think Theon was? 

Share this post


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

What do you think Theon was? 

All the same,

But the point is they didn't need to, they took them as a guarantee so they spared the lives of their fathers, if their fathers keeps their words their children are safe. They could kill their fathers first, but they didn't.

While Daenerys needed to kill that slaver who sold his Unsullied army to her, it's not comparable at all. One does it for protecting the kingdom, and another does that for stealing the power.

 

Edited by RYShh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that quite a lot of readers have theorised that Daenerys will become the villain and go "mad" means that the signs have been there all along. I like that she becomes a villian in the end and Jon is left wondering if he has done the right thing by killing her. I read something I like on here that basically said Jon brought everyone together to stop ICE (the army of the dead) and then stopped FIRE (by killing Daenerys) and I think that's a good way to end it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.

What about the Lannister soldiers on the Loot Train battle? Why did she give them the same non-choice she gave the Tarlys? They never swore her or her underlords fealty, yet she demanded their loyalty or be executed on the spot. After the massacre at KL, she didn't even give them a choice, and in fact, they had surrendered already and they were murdered for doing their job. It's not justified, and it's horrible. There is no defense for this action. 

Share this post


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

The fact that quite a lot of readers have theorised that Daenerys will become the villain and go "mad" means that the signs have been there all along. I like that she becomes a villian in the end and Jon is left wondering if he has done the right thing by killing her. I read something I like on here that basically said Jon brought everyone together to stop ICE (the army of the dead) and then stopped FIRE (by killing Daenerys) and I think that's a good way to end it.

Although I agree, Melisandre believes Jon was the ICE,

''VARYS: I wondered why you weren't there to meet our guests. You begged us to summon the King in the North. Don't you want to see him again?

MELISANDRE: I've done my part. I've brought ice and fire together.

VARYS: Strange. You spoke so highly of Jon Snow but when he arrives you hide on a cliff. I didn't take you for a bashful girl.

MELISANDRE: My time whispering in the ears of kings has come to an end.''

In the end Jon returns to the North, Daenerys returns to the East. Jon wouldn't break his vow in the Night's Watch, and Daenerys can't return from the dead.

Edited by RYShh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bear Claw said:

After the massacre at KL, she didn't even give them a choice, and in fact, they had surrendered already and they were murdered for doing their job. It's not justified, and it's horrible. There is no defense for this action. 

Do you realize that this action has been a common practice since the beginning of civilization?

Share this post


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

Do you realize that this action has been a common practice since the beginning of civilization?

Since when? Robb didn't execute Lannister prisoners. Even Tywin stopped the execution of prisoners at Harrenhal.

Share this post


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

Do you realize that this action has been a common practice since the beginning of civilization?

Murder is commonplace since the beginning of time. She is a cold-blooded mass-murderer. I can't be a fan of that. 

Share this post


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

Since when? Robb didn't execute Lannister prisoners. Even Tywin stopped the execution of prisoners at Harrenhal.

Since when? Seriously? You think war in the Middle Ages was all Chevalerie and Amour Courtois?

Robb didn't want Lannister prisoners killed because his 2 sisters were at KL. Tywin is responsable of thousands death… The Frey killed thousands of North/Riverlands soldiers who were their guests…

Share this post


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

The fact that quite a lot of readers have theorised that Daenerys will become the villain and go "mad" means that the signs have been there all along. I like that she becomes a villian in the end and Jon is left wondering if he has done the right thing by killing her. I read something I like on here that basically said Jon brought everyone together to stop ICE (the army of the dead) and then stopped FIRE (by killing Daenerys) and I think that's a good way to end it.

 

Almost always prefaced with “I ve always hated Daenerys”. It’s never been a neutral theory and has been maintained by individuals who’ve resented the idea that the Starks or Baratheons wouldn’t be the central characters. 

The people who wanted that ending, I know a close friend whose reaction to KL being burnt was “YES!”, have always wanted Danys story to amount to nothing and for her be a failure. They got their wish.

It’s never been a sincere analysis of the themes involved with Danys storyline. It’s simply that people wanted Jon as King, Arya/Gendry, Tyrion or even Stannis on the throne. Nobody wanted Bran as King funnily enough. That'll go down like a wet fart; thanks George.

This is why it’s a poor storyline. If you want to tell a fantasy version of the Dark Phoenix saga and for this to be a cult tragedy people will remember for years you have manifestly failed at that task if a sizeable chunk of your readers hate the character and wanted her to implode from the beginning. Most of those people would have looked the other way had Stannis put a city to the fire; none of them remotely care about the good people of KL. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The people who wanted that ending, I know a close friend whose reaction to KL being burnt was “YES!”, have always wanted Danys story to amount to nothing and for her be a failure. They got their wish.

It’s never been a sincere analysis of the themes involved with Danys storyline. It’s simply that people wanted Jon as King, Arya/Gendry, Tyrion or even Stannis on the throne. Nobody wanted Bran as King funnily enough. That'll go down like a wet fart; thanks George.

To flip this, lots of folks wanted her to finally face the fact that SHE doesn't care about the people, she just cares about winning and using her dragons to do it. That's what "be a dragon" meant. 

What do you think the themes of her storyline are?

Share this post


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

To flip this, lots of folks wanted her to finally face the fact that SHE doesn't care about the people, she just cares about winning and using her dragons to do it. That's what "be a dragon" meant. 

What do you think the themes of her storyline are?

She does care about the people though. Just not the Westerosi. She only really likes the people of Essos. I think she resents the Westerosi and knows from bitter experience how fickle they are when it comes to monarchies. Remember Olenna Tyrell is the one who gave her counsel to ignore her advisors and 'be a dragon,' and that piece of advice was not for nothing. It took her an entire season to heed that advice. In the battle of blackwater, Cersei' Lannister regurgitated Tywins advice that 'the people should fear you more than they do the enemy.' Danaerys set out to put that philosophy into practice and succeeded spectacularly.

Edited by Uilliam

Share this post


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

She does care about the people though. Just not the Westerosi. She only really likes the people of Essos. I think she resents the Westerosi and knows from bitter experience how fickle they are when it comes to monarchies. Remember Olenna Tyrell is the one who gave her counsel to ignore her advisors and 'be a dragon,' and that piece of advice was not for nothing. It took her an entire season to heed that advice. In the battle of blackwater, Cersei' Lannister regurgitated Tywins advice that 'the people should fear you more than they do the enemy.' Danaerys set out to put that philosophy into practice and succeeded spectacularly.

The story was never going to allow her to win cleanly - she would eventually have to admit that the people don't matter as much as her "success." 

Jorah convincing her to buy the unsullied because they would never rape and murder in war and perfectly do her bidding  - this was a pipe dream. Jorah never considered, what if their leader commands them to do horrible things? He, and others, were caught up in the idea of a "benevolent dictator." That concept is an oxymoron and philosophically problematic. 

Share this post


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

She does care about the people though. Just not the Westerosi. She only really likes the people of Essos. 

I think only certain people in Essos? She should have really stayed there. 

Share this post


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

I think only certain people in Essos? She should have really stayed there. 

I agree. It's heavily implied that Danaerys can only really succeed in Essos. Westeros is poison to her soul. Had she stayed and ruled in Essos she would have made an excellent queen... fearsome as she was.

Edited by Uilliam

Share this post


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

I agree. It's heavily implied that Danaerys can only really succeed in Essos. Westeros is poison to her soul. Had she stayed and ruled in Essos she would have made an excellent queen... fearsome as she was.

Yes, I liked Dany in Essos when she wasn't fawning over her dragons and when she realized she had to compromise to marry Hizdahr. She had some great achievements there.  

Share this post


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

To flip this, lots of folks wanted her to finally face the fact that SHE doesn't care about the people, she just cares about winning and using her dragons to do it. That's what "be a dragon" meant. 

What do you think the themes of her storyline are?

 

Trite and nonsense.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Power corrupts absolutely. That humans are too ignorant and flawed to make any decisions. So, it’s better if we simply don’t act on them. Daenerys could have been happy had she simply stayed in Drogo’s tent. Her efforts to save people and change the world only caused more suffering and turned her into a monster. 

That is morbid nihilism. It is an inditement against human nature. To say that all the worlds problems would go away if people stopped trying to change and making trouble for quiet folk is an incredibly conservative sentiment.

 

 

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

×