Jump to content

The character assassination of Daenerys


Areisius

Recommended Posts

On 6/10/2019 at 9:15 PM, Nowy Tends said:

No. This is not true and you know it. Most of the posters here, at Reddit, in hundreds of Youtube channels, and even in mainstream media, who are angry with that shipwreck, clearly state they have no problem with the ending itself, but with the way it is hastily botched. No dialog, stupid attempts at humor at the worse moment, monstrous inconsistencies, characters whose personalitie turn the opposite of what it used to be, etc.

A witch-hunt, really? With a 4.3 IMDb rating? With actors telling how they are disappointed? A 1.6 million signatures petition?

I think you're on duty here.

In what backwards world do you not understand that "1.6 million signatures" is a mob? You're actually calling out a huge mob of people who you, yourself, call "angry" and then actually ask by inference, "What angry mob?!" How can you not see what your own words reveal?

And I certainly won't deny I'm on duty here. But it's not in the way in which you're thinking. If it were to be revealed - your hair would turn white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that you didn't pick apart any of the quotes I used from the show which shows me you obviously have no argument with them.

Of course I have no argument with anything that someone says about themselves, I stated as much so that should make it double-obvious. People like to say all manner of things about themselves - sometimes their actions back that up, sometimes they don't. I guess that's why they say actions speak louder than words. Words are kind of, meaningless until put to the test in a crisis situation. Then the truth has a way of revealing itself - sometimes with dragon wings sprouting from the back.

Her character is is pretty easy to understand

Apparently not.

She does not want...

Right, and John Wick didn't want to go "back in" and kill all those people. Too bad they killed his dog.

No other character wants to change the system that is in place but her so this shows the watcher that she is on a very unique path of stopping the tyrannical rulers like she did in Essos and was going to do in Westeros.

Cool. 

As you know D&D are not the original writers of the show so all of this "characterization"you keep repeating is null and void.

Are they not?

D&D made up their mind to character assassinate Daenerys in one season and it's blatantly obvious.

It's not possible for a writer to employ anything other than characterization. Character assassination is when you say things that aren't true, or heavily skew a perspective, in order to injure someone's reputation. Like unjustly cricisizing a writer's work in order to try to injure their reputation. That's a true use of character assassination. You know what the Greek word for a character assassin is? It might surprise you.

FYI. Dany went through way worst in Essos by losing Drogo, her son and many, many close friends and her character never wavered.

 

She hadn't lost her identity and her purpose in Essos. She wasn't on the doorstep of her goal in Essos. She wasn't facing an antagonist who murdered her friend in front of her. She wasn't losing sleep and refusing food for constant fear of being murdered in her sleep or poisoned by those around her. She didn't have an armed force at her disposal including a full-grown dragon with which to bring to bear in her reaction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, John Meta said:

1) There is no difference between inconsistent characterization and an inconsistent character - the characterization IS the character, that is why you see the word "character" in "characterization": inconsistent character-ization. The one is what makes the other. 

I agree that Dany wasn't meant to be an inconsistent character. The problem here is that you, like many, are failing to understand that at King's Landing Dany is in an unprecedented scenario. To assess "consistency" you have to first have a replicated scenario through which to make the assessment of consistent actions/reactions. Think of a repeatable experiment in which the parameters must be the same in order to assess consistency in the results. Suppose you have an environment of cold, and you apply radiation and the environment produces light; then you apply the same radiation to a different environment (say, of heat) and there is no light production. Your don't say the outcome is "inconsistent" you say the outcome is "different" - it is different because the environment has been altered. But if you have the same environment of cold, apply the radiation twice, and once light it produced and once it isn't - then the results are inconsistent.

Dany didn't "change" or "turn into" , it wasn't a change in character, it was a revelation of character that had always been there in potential, and only when the right amount of weight was applied did it reveal itself - thus the symbolism of the dragon wings sprouting from her back.

Think of it like a person who is a law-abiding and kind citizen while society is up and running. Then when the collapse of society takes place, that person becomes a vicious looter and a pillager. The person didn't actually change - a dramatic change in situation caused their true character to come out. Understand? This is the point of the proverb "Crisis reveals character"

Or, think of it like the internet. You see people in the real world and they act a certain way - usually respectable, kind and considerate. But you put them on the internet and remove all consequences giving complete anonymity and suddenly you see a person spewing hate and bitter strife. The person didn't "change" - the removal of consequences created a scenario in which their true character could be revealed.

2) Here you're regarding inconsistency as "wrong" in terms of writing, but this is called character growth. Character growth by its very nature is inconsistent characterization. Usually we have a character face a certain scenario and he reacts a specific way. Later we repeat the same scenario, and the character reacts differently - inconsistent with the first example. This inconsistency is a sign of character growth showing that the events that have unfolded have caused a change in character reflected in the new "inconsistent" outcome.

Jon is ice and fire which is symbolism of duty and love: he moves between the two motivations as the events in his life unfold. At first he is an adherent of duty but becomes detached from that due to his time in the Night's Watch (duty) - in which his duty caused death - especially notable in the scene in which Jon had to pass sentence on those that had betrayed their oaths (especially Ollie). Note his face in the preparation - unlike a character like Dany, whose face is stern and remorseless when she executes, Jon's face is visibly disturbed. He doesn't want to do his duty, be he must: cold as ice.

That is why Jon immediately leaves the Night's Watch - symbolic of cutting off duty as his sole motivation. Then with Dany Jon moves into love as motivation (fire/passion). Love is of course blind to the flaws of the object of love. It "covers" mistakes with rationalization. That also results in death when Jon must pass sentence on Dany. Note he holds her the same way he holds Ygrette. Thus his motivation is his character growth: a song of ice and fire. In the end, the two are brought into balance within him.

I don't believe I've ever read someone link the themes of ice and fire with the themes of duty and love before. When you put it that way, it seems almost self-evidently obvious in hindsight. I'm convinced. Thank you for that insight.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Stackspear said:

Well, I’m very happy for you that those are all additional examples of a great story that were completely logical and made for a great narrative story.  For me and many others, they are not. You can dismiss us as members of a mob who are simply out to bash the show runners if you want.  I’m not going to spend any more time explaining my opinions to you.  I respect that you have a different opinion and we’ll just have to leave it at that.  

We are not a mob at all.  Just disappointed that D & D botched (in our eyes) what had been a great show, in the last two Seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2019 at 5:11 AM, John Meta said:

Character assassination means you are saying untrue things about someone in order to hurt their reputation. It's not possible for a writer to engage in character assassination, they can only characterize. Try to understand that character assassination doesn't mean a character does something you didn't expect them to do - that's just an example of, well, a character doing something you didn't expect them to do.

Viewers can unreservedly love a show; or enjoy some aspects of it and be annoyed by others; or they might say to themselves, "This is a total train wreck, yet somehow I cannot pull my eyes away!" These are matters of opinion, naturally enough. There is a difference, however, between asserting "So-and-so is a jerk!" and saying "So-and-so did a terrible job!"

I suggest that in an Internet forum where not every participant is using his or her own language, someone's points can well come across as misstatement or hyperbole due to inadequacies in translation. I'm willing to make allowances for posters who are not native English speakers.

On 6/11/2019 at 2:00 AM, Aldarion said:

Problem is that while Dany's motivations were consistent, her actions were not. She was like a pendulum, shifting from one extreme to another. One moment she listens to reason, another one she does not. In books, at least, there is a farily consistent progression towards darker characterization, without much in the way of abrupt shifts.

This. A character who flaps to and fro like a weathervane, for no demonstrable reason, is not a convincing character. For me, Jaime is an egregious example of this, and he's far from the only one.

On 6/11/2019 at 8:18 AM, John Meta said:

That's one aspect of this story and I'm not even fully exploring all nuances of interwoven plot lines, parallels and introversions which are present in this single episode, let alone every episode of the past two seasons. This is just the surface of the proverbial pool. That level of sophistication in interweaving story elements is rare - I'm hard-pressed to think of another story which has that level of thematic interplay in multiple resolutions weaving together to support a single main character's story arc.

Introversion: The state of being inward-turned; preoccupation with one's own mental life.

Editors may be the bane of a writer's existence, but ultimately, they serve a higher purpose. The show could have used a few more of them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gendelsdottir said:

Editors may be the bane of a writer's existence, but ultimately, they serve a higher purpose. The show could have used a few more of them.

+1

Not just the show, but many movies too. Sometimes it feels like editors are an unknown phenomenon in the script writing world...

No book editor would have let the scripts of the late seasons of GoT be published without extensive rewrites I'm sure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vanadis said:

No book editor would have let the scripts of the late seasons of GoT be published without extensive rewrites I'm sure.
 

Absolutely, specially if the publishing company has a magnitude comparable to that of HBO in its own field…

I wonder if the weakening in the writing of D&D and their detachment from the production (as it appears in the documentary The Last Watch) did not lead to a general loosening that would explain gross mistakes such as the Starbuck's cup, the landscape around KL, Get Worm's teleportation (editing error), etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

Absolutely, specially if the publishing company has a magnitude comparable to that of HBO in its own field…

I wonder if the weakening in the writing of D&D and their detachment from the production (as it appears in the documentary The Last Watch) did not lead to a general loosening that would explain gross mistakes such as the Starbuck's cup, the landscape around KL, Get Worm's teleportation (editing error), etc.

No doubt the weaker writing, general detachment and mishaps on set are all correlated.

I do, however, think the NK was a bigger character assassination than Dany - actually, I wouldn't use the word assassination on either. But, where as Dany had dot points that D&D botched the story telling for, I do not think they had anything with the NK. I wonder if that is part of why they gave up a bit at the end - knowing all the fans would want more out of the NK and magic in the show than what they had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ummester said:

I do, however, think the NK was a bigger character assassination than Dany - actually, I wouldn't use the word assassination on either. But, where as Dany had dot points that D&D botched the story telling for, I do not think they had anything with the NK. I wonder if that is part of why they gave up a bit at the end - knowing all the fans would want more out of the NK and magic in the show than what they had.

Ok, but then why did they create him at the first place if they had no idea where to lead him? :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

Ok, but then why did they create him at the first place if they had no idea where to lead him? :dunno:

Coz they were trying to simplify a bunch of book concepts that probably didn't lead anywhere either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gendelsdottir said:

This. A character who flaps to and fro like a weathervane, for no demonstrable reason, is not a convincing character. For me, Jaime is an egregious example of this, and he's far from the only one.

Grrm talks about people doing heroic things one moment and awful things the next, so like...this seems to be his approach to creating "grey" characters. It might work better in novels but on TV it's pretty bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2019 at 12:42 PM, John Meta said:

You know what the Greek word for a character assassin is? It might surprise you.

The word sycophant has a fascinating history. It started life in Greece as sukophantēs (literally: "to show the fig"), or "informer, talebearer, slanderer." It is thought to be derived from the insulting gesture of an upraised hand with thumb between fingers, resembling a woman's privates. (Cf. "I don't give a fig.") The term was adopted into French via Latin as sycophante, where it retained most of its original sense of "informer." In modern Greek it is συκοφάντης (sykofántis or "slanderer.")

As an English loanword, it underwent a shift in meaning in the mid-16th century to its modern sense of "a person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage," i.e. "yes-man, flatterer, minion, groveler."

On 6/12/2019 at 12:42 PM, John Meta said:

Character assassination is when you say things that aren't true, or heavily skew a perspective, in order to injure someone's reputation. Like unjustly cricisizing a writer's work in order to try to injure their reputation.

Outright falsehoods are, indeed, libelous. Outraged opinions, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2019 at 3:53 AM, John Meta said:

1) There is no difference between inconsistent characterization and an inconsistent character - the characterization IS the character, that is why you see the word "character" in "characterization": inconsistent character-ization. The one is what makes the other. 

I agree that Dany wasn't meant to be an inconsistent character. The problem here is that you, like many, are failing to understand that at King's Landing Dany is in an unprecedented scenario. To assess "consistency" you have to first have a replicated scenario through which to make the assessment of consistent actions/reactions. Think of a repeatable experiment in which the parameters must be the same in order to assess consistency in the results. Suppose you have an environment of cold, and you apply radiation and the environment produces light; then you apply the same radiation to a different environment (say, of heat) and there is no light production. Your don't say the outcome is "inconsistent" you say the outcome is "different" - it is different because the environment has been altered. But if you have the same environment of cold, apply the radiation twice, and once light it produced and once it isn't - then the results are inconsistent.

Dany didn't "change" or "turn into" , it wasn't a change in character, it was a revelation of character that had always been there in potential, and only when the right amount of weight was applied did it reveal itself - thus the symbolism of the dragon wings sprouting from her back.

Think of it like a person who is a law-abiding and kind citizen while society is up and running. Then when the collapse of society takes place, that person becomes a vicious looter and a pillager. The person didn't actually change - a dramatic change in situation caused their true character to come out. Understand? This is the point of the proverb "Crisis reveals character"

Or, think of it like the internet. You see people in the real world and they act a certain way - usually respectable, kind and considerate. But you put them on the internet and remove all consequences giving complete anonymity and suddenly you see a person spewing hate and bitter strife. The person didn't "change" - the removal of consequences created a scenario in which their true character could be revealed.

2) Here you're regarding inconsistency as "wrong" in terms of writing, but this is called character growth. Character growth by its very nature is inconsistent characterization. Usually we have a character face a certain scenario and he reacts a specific way. Later we repeat the same scenario, and the character reacts differently - inconsistent with the first example. This inconsistency is a sign of character growth showing that the events that have unfolded have caused a change in character reflected in the new "inconsistent" outcome.

Jon is ice and fire which is symbolism of duty and love: he moves between the two motivations as the events in his life unfold. At first he is an adherent of duty but becomes detached from that due to his time in the Night's Watch (duty) - in which his duty caused death - especially notable in the scene in which Jon had to pass sentence on those that had betrayed their oaths (especially Ollie). Note his face in the preparation - unlike a character like Dany, whose face is stern and remorseless when she executes, Jon's face is visibly disturbed. He doesn't want to do his duty, be he must: cold as ice.

That is why Jon immediately leaves the Night's Watch - symbolic of cutting off duty as his sole motivation. Then with Dany Jon moves into love as motivation (fire/passion). Love is of course blind to the flaws of the object of love. It "covers" mistakes with rationalization. That also results in death when Jon must pass sentence on Dany. Note he holds her the same way he holds Ygrette. Thus his motivation is his character growth: a song of ice and fire. In the end, the two are brought into balance within him.

Character growth can be part of consistent characterization, if we are given reasons for that growth, if we can see evolution of that character. And that is my point: changes in characterization should be evolutionary, not revolutionary. You should be able to tell how, when and why these changes in character happened, and changes themselves should be gradual and flow from reactions to events. And you do not need to have comparable scenarios with which to assess consistency: greater trends in character evolution can be determined from a very wide span of disparate scenarios.

Problem with King's Landing isn't just that she goes and burns the city. It is how it is portrayed: she just snaps, and for no obvious reason. I mean, if she did just snap, then there should have been a clear trigger. If she had gone and burned King's Landing after Cersei executed Missandei, I would not have had much of a problem with it: yes, it might have been out of tune with how she behaved most of the time, seeing how showrunners removed many of her darker moments from the books, but there would have been clear context and causal relationship (and I am one of those who believe that she always did have murderous tendencies). But bells? What is that supposed to mean? I guess it is a reference to Battle of the Bells, but it is not clear from within the episode, and even so it should not have led to what it did lead to.

You are correct about "revelation of character that was always there in potential". But point is, revelation was done badly. There should have been gradual buildup, hinting at her true nature long before it comes out in the open. Instead, D&D have actually made her less morally ambigous as the show went on, up until they neared the point at which she goes to Westeros. It is not like scenario she faced at King's Landing was that outlandish and impossible to predict. But again, see my point before: it is not clear what caused her to snap. Was it the bells? The fact that Jon left her? The fact that citizens at King's Landing didn't cheer? The fact that she was not received as "Our Lady and Saviour" in Westeros? All of it together? Personally, I believe it is the last one - but would somebody without knowledge of books be able to tell? And was it even spur-of-the-moment decision or something she had been considering for a while? Again, unclear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2019 at 2:40 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Grrm talks about people doing heroic things one moment and awful things the next, so like...this seems to be his approach to creating "grey" characters. It might work better in novels but on TV it's pretty bad.

Not really. Person can do both heroic and awful things while still having consistent mentality and internal reasoning. People react to circumstances as much as their own beliefs and ideas. But it should be clear why these "switches" are happening. For example, you could say that Stannis was good for saving the Wall, and evil for killing Renly and burning Shireen. But even though the last one was a stretch (and indeed will likely never happen in the books), we still were given a clear reason for why he did it: he considered it a sacrifice for the "greater good", so that his army could survive, and was desperate; he could not see how he could fulfill his duty to the realm otherwise. Same goes for his assassination of Renly. All his actions were expressions of his character traits, and of his beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

But again, see my point before: it is not clear what caused her to snap. Was it the bells? The fact that Jon left her? The fact that citizens at King's Landing didn't cheer? The fact that she was not received as "Our Lady and Saviour" in Westeros? All of it together? Personally, I believe it is the last one - but would somebody without knowledge of books be able to tell? And was it even spur-of-the-moment decision or something she had been considering for a while? Again, unclear.

Or did she just go mad? Was she mad all along, it just took this long for someone to notice? Who knows. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood why the show took away her internal struggle. 

Like yeah lack of inner monologue the way the book’s have hurts, but they still needed to show something.

Book Dany worries about becoming a monster, she worries about Targ madness, she questions herself constantly. 

She also has a ton of other vulnerabilities/insecurities that never made the show, and ends Dance at pretty much full rock bottom (with hallucinations and everything). 

The show just made her a stoic queen badass, and hand waved all her shades of grey for 70+ episodes before turning her into Hitler. 

I’m fully expecting book Dany to go ham on KL.... but at the end of book 6. And not after they surrender. And she won’t be targeting innocents. But she will kill a ton of key characters to piss everyone off and actually earn the reputation the show wanted her to have in season 8.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, King Wyman said:

I never understood why the show took away her internal struggle. 

Like yeah lack of inner monologue the way the book’s have hurts, but they still needed to show something.

Book Dany worries about becoming a monster, she worries about Targ madness, she questions herself constantly. 

She also has a ton of other vulnerabilities/insecurities that never made the show, and ends Dance at pretty much full rock bottom (with hallucinations and everything). 

The show just made her a stoic queen badass, and hand waved all her shades of grey for 70+ episodes before turning her into Hitler. 

I’m fully expecting book Dany to go ham on KL.... but at the end of book 6. And not after they surrender. And she won’t be targeting innocents. But she will kill a ton of key characters to piss everyone off and actually earn the reputation the show wanted her to have in season 8.

 

Her rule would only work in Meereen where slavery is rampant and she has something to "liberate" people from. It would never work in Westeros and she will go Stalin the moment she arrives even in the books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kaapstad said:

Her rule would only work in Meereen where slavery is rampant and she has something to "liberate" people from. It would never work in Westeros and she will go Stalin the moment she arrives even in the books. 

I mean her rule didn’t work even in Meereen. She made so many compromises, they’re basically back to where they started while on the verge of a massive battle. 

Her book 5 arc showed she’s a great conqueror, but a bad queen. 

She will absolutely bring fire and blood to westeros, but I don’t believe she ends up as the one-dimensional villain the show tried to turn her into.

Book Dany’s personality is vastly different than it is in the show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Character growth can be part of consistent characterization, if we are given reasons for that growth, if we can see evolution of that character.

Character growth is by nature inconsistent characterization. Character responds one way, then another: inconsistence in response. I think what' you're saying in the spirit of your words is that, character growth (which is inconsistent characterization) can be "reasonable" and the inconsistent characterization "makes sense" if you can understand (i.e. connect the dots) of the "evolution" of the character.

If that's what you're saying, then I don't disagree with that at all. But the idea of "given reasons" and "seeing evolution" are equal parts writer/audience. You not being able to follow the "reasons" or "see the evolution" isn't necessarily an indicator of poor writing, it can be an indicator that the writing is at a level of sophistication which causes difficulty for a general audience to follow yet specific segments of the audience may be able to immediately understand. This is the nature of almost every story - different segments of the audience will "get it" at different points. Sometimes it will take multiple viewings of a movie in order for certain people to "get it" by being able to connect dots with more ease knowing the outcome in advance.

Now, none of this is a "problem" - the writing isn't "bad" and the audience isn't "bad" - it just takes a bit more time and discussion for the big picture to come into focus. The problem is when a segment of the audience doesn't "get it" immediately, or, misunderstands story elements and then - instead of reserving judgment until more sure information is presented in some way - immediately reacts with critical judgment, condemning the writers/actors/producers/whoever with a loud voice causing an eruption of discord and ill-will from the proverbial crowd. The problem is in a segment of the audience which is quick to judge, quick to anger - slow to understand.

And that is my point: changes in characterization should be evolutionary, not revolutionary.

That is a completely subjective generalization which has no objective value and which I don't even believe you, yourself, believe given specificity. For example, at the end of the Return of the King, Frodo gets all the way to the end of his journey then, suddenly (revolutionary) decides he's going to abandon the quest, keep the ring and doom the entire populace of Middle Earth to darkness (making Dany's revelation of character at King's Landing seem meek in comparison). So, is that scene "wrong"? Did Tolkien write poorly since that moment wasn't the result of "evolutionary" characterization? This is just one example of inconsistent characterization which isn't "evolutionary" and doesn't even have a fraction of the potential in set-up in which Dany's does.

You should be able to tell how, when and why these changes in character happened

The "you" in "you should be able" is a generalization with no functional meaning in this discussion. Who do you specifically mean by using the word "you" here? The entire audience across the board? Every single person, no matter how dense or lacking in attention span, should be able to "connect" all "dots" with immediate ease? All you're doing there is implying that no narrative ever writtern has been anything but "bad" (since no narrative ever written has been immediately understand in full by every member of the audience) and you're advocating the "dumbing down" of every narrative to a point of ignorance matching the most ignorant of the audience. Complex and sophisticated writing is now extinct, thanks to you. All that exists now is continual hammer-over-the-head exposition in terrible movies. Good work.

and changes themselves should be gradual and flow from reactions to events.

More generalization with no functional meaning. Sometimes a change should be very fast to remove the ability of a character to adjust gradually. Sometimes a crisis is immediately upon the character, just as it is in the real world. Again, in the analogy I used, we can have a character who acts kindly and decently until - suddenly - society collapses. Then he becomes a vicious looter. This is not "gradual" and it doesn't "flow" it is sudden and sharp - that is the point. It is the sudden of being "thrown into the fray" that matters to the character. Thus your generalization is just wrong. Things are happening to Dany so rapidly that it's less bearable than if things happened slowly, gradually, smoothly. 

And you do not need to have comparable scenarios with which to assess consistency: greater trends in character evolution can be determined from a very wide span of disparate scenarios.

I don't necessarily disagree but, again, you're speaking in such a general and vague manner that your words apply to everything and, thus, nothing. They have no fucntional meaning in regards to anything specific - like the topic of the thread.

Problem with King's Landing isn't just that she goes and burns the city. It is how it is portrayed: she just snaps, and for no obvious reason.

She doesn't "snap" she made a choice (pressed by events that had rapidly occurred to her): to reveal the character of the "dragon" which was in her the entire time, and now fully at the fore. This was all set-up in the story in a manner in which, I have trouble believing anyone couldn't understand it. There was, in fact, a "prologue" prior to the episode in which the audience is shown Dany going into a silent rage as bits of dialogue swirl around her culminating in "You're a dragon; be a dragon" "Wake the dragon" and as I watched that I personally though, "Well, that's a bit heavy-handed - I guess they want to make sure even the dullest tool in the shed gets it" but, apparently, they underestimated the dullness of the tools.

But, then again, I don't think that's the case. Because I don't think you're dull. I think you're intelligent. I can see it in your words. Which says to me, there is something else going on here: some hidden agenda (either hidden consciously or unconsciously). Not to say it's knowingly malicious but there is some sort of emotional reaction hiding under all of this "reason"

But bells? What is that supposed to mean?

The bells signified a moment of revelation, which is why Dany immediately saw the Red Keep which signified to her all she had lost, and what she had to do to take produce change - wash away the old world, herself included.

But point is, revelation was done badly.

Revelation can't be done "badly" because it is the "uncovering" of something hidden. You cannot "uncover" something "badly" - to reveal is a sudden thing. A REVELATION. 

hinting at her true nature long before it comes out in the open.

If you missed any "hints" that Dany was capable of releasing the "dragon" then you weren't watching the show. Also, it's not her "true" nature - it's "a" nature which came to the fore in a time of crisis with which to manage that crisis.

It is not like scenario she faced at King's Landing was that outlandish and impossible to predict.

Oh, so there were "hints"? You're going back and forth like a ping-pong ball.

But again, see my point before: it is not clear

Sometimes (most) clarity comes through discussion, re-watching, etc. How many times have you thought something doesn't make sense, then go back and watch a movie a second time and think "Oh, how did I miss that? Now it makes sense." Again, the problem isn't in any issue except one: unfair criticism causing widespread ill-will and potential harm to people who may not be guilty of any "crime". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2019 at 2:08 AM, Gendelsdottir said:

The word sycophant has a fascinating history. It started life in Greece as sukophantēs (literally: "to show the fig"), or "informer, talebearer, slanderer." It is thought to be derived from the insulting gesture of an upraised hand with thumb between fingers, resembling a woman's privates. (Cf. "I don't give a fig.") The term was adopted into French via Latin as sycophante, where it retained most of its original sense of "informer." In modern Greek it is συκοφάντης (sykofántis or "slanderer.")

As an English loanword, it underwent a shift in meaning in the mid-16th century to its modern sense of "a person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage," i.e. "yes-man, flatterer, minion, groveler."

Outright falsehoods are, indeed, libelous. Outraged opinions, not so much.

Okay so what's the word meaning "unjustly criticizing to hurt (malign) and condemn"?

I agree there is a difference between outraged falsehoods and outraged opinions. The point is that most of the criticisms I'm seeing don't fall into the category of "opinion" but are clearly being presented as a type of objective fact. I can't comment on opinions because they are relatively true from a subjective point of view. But once a criticism is given as "objective", now I can comment on it. Like if someone says "I don't like your car because you painted it red and I hate red"? Fine. But "Your car is red, therefore it doesn't function and is a car that won't run - whoever designed it failed at building the engine"? Now that the criticism has entered into the realm of objectivity, it can be objectively examined to determine veracity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...