The character assassination of Daenerys

[Kaapstad]

18 hours ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

Apparently we were suppose to have noticed a shift in Dany’s character back in Season 6 according to this article written in 2016. I agree that if you hadn’t read the books then you probably wouldn’t have realized that Dany was now through with peacekeeping and had decided to turn into a full blown violent conqueror.  Her joining with the Northerners to go after the Night King implied her desire to defend innocents and so there was no indication in that storyline to reinforce the shift in her character from Season 6 so I can see why so many folks felt there was a sudden change which didn’t make sense to them.  When you get a large segment of your viewing audience not following along then it is a failure of the writers and directing to adequately convey it in a convincing manner.

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11829546/game-of-thrones-episode-6-recap-daenerys-villain

Daenerys and her dragons were what was selling Game of Thrones. That and many feminists loved Dany taking the world by storm. That's why they had to keep pulling punches with her right till the very end. The books OTOH make it seem normal.

[Lord Stackspear]

3 hours ago, RYShh said:

I don't see any contradiction. She didn't believe Jon first. She didn't believe that the army of the dead existed, only after seeing it she recognizes them as enemies. Before that, she didn't even believe they were existed. Which is why she says they will defeat the Night King, but she doesn't say when. She doesn't say they will attack the Night King immediately before fighting with Cersei. Her priority was always Cersei and the Iron Throne, after that she could deal with the Night King (in reality she couldn't deal with them without the knowledge of dragonglass and Arya's help, but that's not the point), she believes she can burn Night King and White Walkers so they would win, the North and the people is not really important for her as far as I see so the North can wait until she takes the Iron Throne, all she did was recognizing Night King as an enemy, and that doesn't contradicts with her priority (which is Iron Throne not saving innocent people or saving the people in North) which she says in the next episode that she can't leave the fight against Cersei without getting a truce.

In your prior post, you stated that “she didn’t care about anything else like defending the innocent, or even Night King and the army of the dead.”  The dialogue in S6:E6 appears to indicate that she did care (at least about the NK, nothing is said about innocents) and that it was more than just a tertiary issue for her.     

As to what exactly her priorities were at this point, I don’t know that the dialogue itself indicates one way or the other what was her greatest priority.  For me, I look at the way each of these two scenes in question were filmed.  The first one takes place on the ship with Jon injured and in bed - it’s an intimate scene and Dany appears to be on the brink of tears.  She seems honored that Jon is going to bend the knee to her and determined to defeat the NK.  If I had to conjecture, it would be, in part, out of her grief at losing Viserion and, in part, out of the love she has developed for Jon.  

The scene in the dragon pit where she is asking Jon what she should do now with Cersei refusing the truce is a quiet scene on side of the dragon pit between Jon and Dany where they are talking about what to do next.  They both seem uncertain.  Dany appears to be struggling.  Jon, rather than emphasizing again that the fight against the NK is the only one that matters, just listens to her - one might surmise that he also feels conflicted over the right course of action for Dany and for him.  If Dany’s question was meant to convey that she didn’t care about the NK and only really cared about the IT, I don’t think it would have been unreasonable to expect a stronger statement from Dany and/or some sort of reaction from Jon.  I suppose it’s possible she is just playing Jon, pretending that she cares about the NK when, in reality, she doesn’t care and thinks she can just easily burn the NK and his army.  

The impression I get from these scenes is that, yes, Dany is fixated on taking the IT (she has been the whole season and for most of the show), but she also seems to realize that the NK is an existential threat that must be defeated.  She commits herself to that cause whether it be because she lost a dragon to the NK or because she loves Jon - not sure what she thinks about the common folk of the North.  At the same time, because she does want to take the IT, she feels torn as to the best course of action should Cersei not cooperate.  Ultimately, because Cersei fakes cooperation, she doesn’t have to face the question of whether to take the IT or fight the NK first, but it seems clear that she views both as significant priorities. 

  

 

 

 

[RYShh]

35 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

In your prior post, you stated that “she didn’t care about anything else like defending the innocent, or even Night King and the army of the dead.”  The dialogue in S6:E6 appears to indicate that she did care (at least about the NK, nothing is said about innocents) and that it was more than just a tertiary issue for her.     

As to what exactly her priorities were at this point, I don’t know that the dialogue itself indicates one way or the other what was her greatest priority.  For me, I look at the way each of these two scenes in question were filmed.  The first one takes place on the ship with Jon injured and in bed - it’s an intimate scene and Dany appears to be on the brink of tears.  She seems honored that Jon is going to bend the knee to her and determined to defeat the NK.  If I had to conjecture, it would be, in part, out of her grief at losing Viserion and, in part, out of the love she has developed for Jon.  

The scene in the dragon pit where she is asking Jon what she should do now with Cersei refusing the truce is a quiet scene on side of the dragon pit between Jon and Dany where they are talking about what to do next.  They both seem uncertain.  Dany appears to be struggling.  Jon, rather than emphasizing again that the fight against the NK is the only one that matters, just listens to her - one might surmise that he also feels conflicted over the right course of action for Dany and for him.  If Dany’s question was meant to convey that she didn’t care about the NK and only really cared about the IT, I don’t think it would have been unreasonable to expect a stronger statement from Dany and/or some sort of reaction from Jon.  I suppose it’s possible she is just playing Jon, pretending that she cares about the NK when, in reality, she doesn’t care and thinks she can just easily burn the NK and his army.  

The impression I get from these scenes is that, yes, Dany is fixated on taking the IT (she has been the whole season and for most of the show), but she also seems to realize that the NK is an existential threat that must be defeated.  She commits herself to that cause whether it be because she lost a dragon to the NK or because she loves Jon - not sure what she thinks about the common folk of the North.  At the same time, because she does want to take the IT, she feels torn as to the best course of action should Cersei not cooperate.  Ultimately, because Cersei fakes cooperation, she doesn’t have to face the question of whether to take the IT or fight the NK first, but it seems clear that she views both as significant priorities. 

  

 

 

 

Indeed, that statement from episode 6 proves that she cared about destroying the Night King, but it doesn't prove that she wanted to save the North. She doesn't say ''we will save the North'' she says ''We will destroy the Night King and his army'', because Night King and his army is also an obstacle for her quest to conquer Westeros.

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

35 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Indeed, that statement from episode 6 proves that she cared about destroying the Night King, but it doesn't prove that she wanted to save the North. She doesn't say ''we will save the North'' she says ''We will destroy the Night King and his army'', because Night King and his army is also an obstacle for her quest to conquer Westeros.

In Season 6 Daenerys was still in Meereen.  If you read  the article I linked in my initial post then you would have read that those scenes when she had gathered the Dothraki to go back to Meereen was suppose to have marked the shift in character from Dany in conflict to fully embracing fire and blood.  I was just noting that got off track  IMO once she decided to go after the NK because the viewers thought she was doing good and still being a savior.  Maybe if she had just attacked and burned King’s Landing to the ground first then folks would have more clearly realized that she was a violent conqueror and not thought her change in character was so sudden or assassinated which is what the main topic post is about.  Of course there are other instances showing Dany’s brutal side of her character but it was always balanced by a kinder and more compromising side before she turned completely dark.  The transformation to pure violence was supposedly to have been in Season 6 (according to the director) but the author of the article said the writers did not do a very convincing job. I agree plus they didn’t follow up very well in Season 7 other than burning the Tarlys and that apparently still didn’t convince many fans she was really evil. It apparently took Season 8 Episodes 5 & 6 for most to get it and then many continued to deny it.

[Lord Stackspear]

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

Indeed, that statement from episode 6 proves that she cared about destroying the Night King, but it doesn't prove that she wanted to save the North. She doesn't say ''we will save the North'' she says ''We will destroy the Night King and his army'', because Night King and his army is also an obstacle for her quest to conquer Westeros.

Agreed that it doesn’t prove that she wanted to save the North.  The absence of such explicit statement regarding her motivations also does not prove the part of your post I’ve underlined.  Her motivations are open to interpretation based on aspects of the show other than  dialogue (such as tone, facial expressions, music, cinematography).  Obviously, we disagree on what the show depicted in this respect.  

[Hodor's Dragon]

On 6/14/2019 at 2:12 PM, John Meta said:

I claim that you can't tell a "shit story" from a "great one" - now all you have to do is demonstrate your claim to be true. Otherwise it's just a claim with no support. You might as well claim you're the King of France.

Sadly, I definitely was not the best writer in the M.F.A. fiction-writing program I graduated from, but a lot of folks think I was the best, most perceptive reader. I actually do, literally, have evidentiary "support" for my ability to draw judgments about stories, in the form of letters of recommendation for my subsequent law school application, including from the program chair and multiple other successful, award-winning writers, saying I was the best reader in the program.

I'm not going to dig them out of a box, photograph them, photocopy them, black out the identifying info, and load them up to photobucket just because some dude is being a dick on the internet, but I will say this: it's a very, very ordinary thing for people to form impressions of stories they see and read and post them on forums for others to read. If you want to take the position that all of those impressions are invalid and should be disregarded because of some mumblety-jumblety about writers controlling characterization of their characters, the burden is on you to prove it. You're the one making a universal attack on a commonly-held idea (i.e., that ordinary folks may express valid opinions about stories they watch/hear/read), not me. 

[John Meta]

1 hour ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Sadly, I definitely was not the best writer in the M.F.A. fiction-writing program I graduated from, but a lot of folks think I was the best, most perceptive reader. I actually do, literally, have evidentiary "support" for my ability to draw judgments about stories, in the form of letters of recommendation for my subsequent law school application, including from the program chair and multiple other successful, award-winning writers, saying I was the best reader in the program.

I'm not going to dig them out of a box, photograph them, photocopy them, black out the identifying info, and load them up to photobucket just because some dude is being a dick on the internet, but I will say this: it's a very, very ordinary thing for people to form impressions of stories they see and read and post them on forums for others to read. If you want to take the position that all of those impressions are invalid and should be disregarded because of some mumblety-jumblety about writers controlling characterization of their characters, the burden is on you to prove it. You're the one making a universal attack on a commonly-held idea (i.e., that ordinary folks may express valid opinions about stories they watch/hear/read), not me. 

Obviously you're free to call me any names you wish, but let's be real and acknowledge that I'm simply criticizing (your criticism). If criticizing makes one a "dick" then, I guess that word applies to us both. However, I'd propose that my criticism of your criticism is justified, while your criticism isn't. It's the difference between just and unjust criticism.

About all of your "accolades" they don't matter even if they actually exist. You can upload a form in which every human on the face of the earth names you "Prime Logician of Earth" and it wouldn't suddenly turn bad reasoning good. And your reasoning is still as bad now as when we first began.

About the burden of proof, you're the one who made the positive claim that you can "objectively" determine "good" stories from "bad" ones - thus the burden of proof is squarely on you to demonstrate that claim. I deny it.

Also, you keep using the word "opinions" (of which I have no problem) but you're not presenting "opinions" you're presenting "facts" as evidenced by use of words such as "rational" - and we all know (well, at least I do) that there is nothing "rational" about opinions. They are simply a form of statement both relative and subjective.

At any rate, at this point you can either address the reasoning in my refutation of your "opinions" (i.e. "rationale"), or, keep the rhetoric flowing (which only demonstrates an inability to maintain a reasonable defense). Or, flee altogether. Your move. I'd advise the third option.

[John Meta]

Was sycophant not the word you had in mind? If not, what was?

spoiler warning

I'm curious - are there any circumstances where you believe a negative reaction is justified? Or is criticism always, by definition, unjust?

All subjectivity is, of course, "justified" - a person who doesn't like a certain type of music is "justified" in that dislike by their own relative subjectivity. 

The reaction of "I don't like it" is justified in regards to a red car if the person doesn't like the color red.

The reaction of "I don't like it - the engine doesn't run and the person who built the engine failed" is not in any way, shape or form "justified" by their own relative subjectivity.

Again, this isn't about people stating opinions - none of the posts to which I'm replying have anything to do with people stating subjective opinions. They are stating objective "facts" in relation to a technical/objective structure. Meaning, when a person says "That isn't how you write a character: Storytelling 101" this isn't an opinion, this is an attempt to place objective constraints onto a measure of judgment thus attempting to create an "objective" conclusion.

Example: "I don't like classical music" vs. "That musician has written a song with changing time signatures which is not how music is correctly writtern: Music 101." Former is justified, latter is objectively wrong and the criticism is not justified.

Objective criticism is justified when it is objectively true. If an engine doesn't run because of a "bad" alternator, then the criticism "You've built a "bad" engine" is justified.

Most people I see making criticisms against the writers and the show are doing so under the guise that what they are saying it "objective" and I see hardly no one making any kind of statement of opinion. When they do make statements of "opinion" I can still ask to see the reasoning, and often (if not always) the reasoning can be objectively determined as "bad" reasoning. In such a case, the conclusion is that it is the reasoning of the critic which is "bad" and not the narrative.

If the reasoning was "good" then I wouldn't be posting. There are many stories I like of which I've heard criticisms, and I don't disagree with the criticisms. I liked the movie Avengers: Endgame - but I've seen a lot of criticism of the narrative, and I don't see any flaws in (some of) the criticism. Flaws, no flaws, it generally doesn't matter to me if I like something, I like it (and am subjectively justified).

But, again, in this case, I don't really see "criticism" I see a self-righteous mob condemning innocent people and doing it very, very loudly - with an irrational pomp and a very pronounced hypocrisy. This, isn't about a story - to me, it's about a huge mob of irrational hypocrites growing a warped and corrupt tree from which all manner of foul fruit are produced. So when I see that - no matter what it's about, stories, politics, religion, you name it - I'm compelled to, grab and ax, cut down the tree - throw it into the fire.

There are at least as many ways to consume a cultural product as there are people consuming it. My exact response to any given work won't - can't - be the same as anyone else's, because I bring my own set of preferences, assumptions, and experience. It cannot be anything but subjective.

Look, if I am a teacher, and a student writes a narrative in which a person is wanting to meet someone but states they "didn't get their phone number", then in the next scene they are calling that person - that is a place I'm going to write "the narrative is in conflict" and that (if anything) is an example of an objective "flaw". If a narrative includes a character with no left hand (got blown off or something) and then later has the character "picked it up in his left hand" that is a narrative problem.

Thus, I believe it is disingenuous to call any criticism an "objective fact," even if it's couched in "no sane person could possibly deny this"

The above are "objective" is the meaning of the word as it relates to incontrovertibility. Everyone would agree the "picked it up in his left hand" is an error in the narrative.

Okay, if I think that X's character is behaving in an understandable manner, but Y doesn't have a through line that makes sense to me, am I within my rights to say so? If someone disagrees with me, do they get to say that I'm stupid, or unobservant?

Sure, anyone can criticize whatever they want - including the criticism of others, true? People like to "measure" but sure hate it when that measure is used to measure them. It's like an acid bath, you know? But in relation to your statement, I'd ask "What didn't you understand?" "What didn't make sense?" etc. just to see if maybe you missed something that could provide a clearer picture. Etc. This isn't to say, I'll always conclude your statement unreasonable. It may well be reasonable since you're speaking in generalizations. 

But again, in this specific situation (i.e. this specific story/series) we're in a very different scenario because of the segment of the "critics" which have gone off the mob rails and threaten to defame/hurt/condemn others (who may be innocent of any "crime"). If you think this is all harmless, I'd say: Jake Lloyd. One name out of many whose lives have been utterly filled with pain, hurt and ruin because of this type of nonsense grown by this type of, mentality. 

If you have a sense of humor, and if that sense of humor is similar to mine, you may enjoy this speech given by GRRM in 1979 at Coastcon II. This article by Amy Friedman is a more serious, up-to-date view of the writer-editor relationship. These pieces are concerned with editing for print publication. I concede that the process for TV writing may have its own little quirks.

I do have a sense of humor, believe it or not. Honestly, what you're seeing of me right here is one facet of myself that I have absolutely no love of showing. In fact, I hate it. I would rather that I never have to show this side. But you know what they say, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[John Meta]

On 6/14/2019 at 10:16 PM, Lord Stackspear said:

Aww, thanks.  I’m glad to you like me despite the fact that my views are so “utterly irrational” that you can’t even afford them being called an “opinion.”  

Just because I like someone doesn't mean I'll agree with them that "five-sided triangle" makes rational sense as a statement. It's precisely because I like you that I won't lie to you or mislead you in order to placate your ego. Also, as I said, my like encompasses the people at the end of your barrel as well as you. I care just as much about the victims as the perpetrators - but the victims have more of my compassion because - need I explain?

[John Meta]

On 6/14/2019 at 6:13 PM, Nowy Tends said:

Dude you love so much to hear the sound of your voice, it's almost obscene… 

Is it all just a flood of emotional rhetoric intending to defame others, or is there any spark of rational thought inside of that mind? If not, how can we light that spark? How can we get you to leave crawling on all fours and stand upright on two legs like a genuine human being in the full dignity of mind and thought? Suggestions? I refuse to believe it's not possible. To leave you like this is to leave you defenseless and at the mercy of any piper who comes along to carry you away to wherever the choose to take you. 

I don't know. Maybe that's the point.

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

21 minutes ago, John Meta said:

But, again, in this case, I don't really see "criticism" I see a self-righteous mob condemning innocent people and doing it very, very loudly - with an irrational pomp and a very pronounced hypocrisy. This, isn't about a story - to me, it's about a huge mob of irrational hypocrites growing a warped and corrupt tree from which all manner of foul fruit are produced. So when I see that - no matter what it's about, stories, politics, religion, you name it - I'm compelled to, grab and ax, cut down the tree - throw it into the fire.

Just out of curiosity....where else is this occurring? Is it having a harmful effect on the writers and the HBO brand?    Maybe I am naive but I thought the negativity was limited to forums like this and social media. The negative reactions and language used here is pretty typical to what I have experienced before for other shows when folks disliked the writing.  HBO even expected some fan backlash.  Also .....the opinions expressed here certainly do not reflect the majority of viewers reactions to the finale if polls like these are to be believed. 

https://people.com/tv/game-of-thrones-viewers-mostly-pleased-finale-poll/

 

[Nowy Tends]

21 minutes ago, John Meta said:

 To leave you like this is to leave you defenseless and at the mercy of any piper who comes along to carry you away to wherever the choose to take you. 

I don't know. Maybe that's the point.

Who do you think you are? Don't use that tone, dude, you're just the pitiful thurifer of the two wankers who'll remain famous for rotting one of the few TV productions that deserved to be watched by people who rarely watch TV. It's as simple as that, and your superior attitudes won't change anything.

[Lord Stackspear]

40 minutes ago, John Meta said:

Just because I like someone doesn't mean I'll agree with them that "five-sided triangle" makes rational sense as a statement. It's precisely because I like you that I won't lie to you or mislead you in order to placate your ego. Also, as I said, my like encompasses the people at the end of your barrel as well as you. I care just as much about the victims as the perpetrators - but the victims have more of my compassion because - need I explain?

Whatever your reasons, I'm just happy you like me.  It makes me feel warm and fuzzy.  I mean, I'm probably too dumb to understand anything rational, so emotions are basically all I have left to enjoy in this world.  At some point, I hope you stop telling me all your rational thoughts.  They make too much sense!!  They make my head hurt!!  

[Gendelsdottir]

7 hours ago, John Meta said:

I do have a sense of humor, believe it or not. Honestly, what you're seeing of me right here is one facet of myself that I have absolutely no love of showing. In fact, I hate it. I would rather that I never have to show this side. But you know what they say, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

It appears to me from this and your other posts that you see yourself as Advocatus Diaboli, (a Keanu movie I quite liked, BTW) or champion of the downtrodden, or similar. I'll assume that the "THANK CHRIST" he's here! remark you made earlier to @Lord Stackspear, and your "to leave you defenseless" crack at @Nowy Tends, are playful verbal extravagance. I deplore that aside from those bits of levity, you don't seem to be having any fun. You've set yourself a task of refuting, in a logical way, all possible reasons for disliking the way show!Dany's through line played out. I submit that this is akin to trying to empty Blackwater Bay with a wooden soup spoon.

I am quite content for you not to be put to the bother of refuting, in great depth, my every problem with characterization in a TV show.

7 hours ago, John Meta said:

Sure, anyone can criticize whatever they want - including the criticism of others, true? People like to "measure" but sure hate it when that measure is used to measure them. It's like an acid bath, you know?

I'm all for a vigorous exchange of views, but I draw the line at ad hominem. This is why you'll not see me declaring, "Dan & Dave are incompetent buffoons!" (hastily checks post history to be sure this is true ), but I might say something like, "This scene reminds me of a frat house keg party." In the same way, I wouldn't say to another poster here, "You have no capacity for reasoned analysis, unless you demonstrate otherwise," or "Your perceptions are faulty and your understanding is limited, because you don't realize that [insert tedious expository lump here]" or any other thing suggesting that they don't have a mind and a voice of their own.

[Rose of Red Lake]

In E2 in her conversation with Sansa, Dany says she put her life's quest on hold to come North for "Jon's war." That's not language you use if you really care about the Northerners. She doesn't say anything about helping the people of the North. I think she's just doing it to get Jon's approval. Why would she like the people who stare at her as if she's an outsider? There is very little left of "good, selfless queen Dany" this late in the story. 

As for the topic at hand, Jon losing all his brain cells and falling in love with a future mass murderer, to the point where he treats his family like shit, implicates his people in war crimes, and continues to side with her despite her obvious unfitness to rule, is the real character assassination. Or maybe it's built into the story? At which point it will jump the shark.

[CrypticWeirwood]

17 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

In E2 in her conversation with Sansa, Dany says she put her life's quest on hold to come North for "Jon's war." That's not language you use if you really care about the Northerners. She doesn't say anything about helping the people of the North. I think she's just doing it to get Jon's approval. Why would she like the people who stare at her as if she's an outsider? There is very little left of "good, selfless queen Dany" this late in the story. 

I'm pretty sure that the reason they stare at her like she's an outsider is because she actually IS an outsider. Hard to fault them for calling a spade a spade. 

[SeanF]

10 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

In E2 in her conversation with Sansa, Dany says she put her life's quest on hold to come North for "Jon's war." That's not language you use if you really care about the Northerners. She doesn't say anything about helping the people of the North. I think she's just doing it to get Jon's approval. Why would she like the people who stare at her as if she's an outsider? There is very little left of "good, selfless queen Dany" this late in the story. 

As for the topic at hand, Jon losing all his brain cells and falling in love with a future mass murderer, to the point where he treats his family like shit, implicates his people in war crimes, and continues to side with her despite her obvious unfitness to rule, is the real character assassination. Or maybe it's built into the story? At which point it will jump the shark.

Quite a few people had their characters assassinated.

TBH, though, it doesn't matter much whether Daenerys went North for altruistic reasons, or because she wanted Jon in her bed,  The thing is that she did it.

[Kaapstad]

11 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

I'm pretty sure that the reason they stare at her like she's an outsider is because she actually IS an outsider. Hard to fault them for calling a spade a spade. 

And she also smirks when her dragons which really are nukes fly overhead and everyone gets terrified. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Quite a few people had their characters assassinated.

TBH, though, it doesn't matter much whether Daenerys went North for altruistic reasons, or because she wanted Jon in her bed,  The thing is that she did it.

I'm fine with just talking about her actions from here on out. If her reasons for doing something altruistic don't matter, then her reasons for killing people in Essos don't matter either. It doesn't matter whether Dany felt bad or believed she was doing the right thing, the thing is that she killed people. 

[SeanF]

On 6/18/2019 at 12:30 AM, John Meta said:

Is it all just a flood of emotional rhetoric intending to defame others, or is there any spark of rational thought inside of that mind? If not, how can we light that spark? How can we get you to leave crawling on all fours and stand upright on two legs like a genuine human being in the full dignity of mind and thought? Suggestions? I refuse to believe it's not possible. To leave you like this is to leave you defenseless and at the mercy of any piper who comes along to carry you away to wherever the choose to take you. 

I don't know. Maybe that's the point.

It's best to avoid condescension.