The character assassination of Daenerys

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

They had some definite strategical screw-ups from the get-go.

I had an idea for another way Daenerys could have done things from the Season 7 premiere: meet up with Ellaria and Sand Snakes at Sunspear, then go to Oldtown and get crowned there; they could pick up Jorah after Sam flays the greyscale off him and Olenna can raise her banners from there and she’d have access to two families that have some loyalty to her, particularly the Redwynes. Spread out from Oldtown, promote law and order in the Stormlands and Riverlands (particularly the former since there are no more Baratheons for all of Season 7) and cut the Lannisters in two with the Westerlands on one side and the Crownlands on the other.

D & D wanted to keep Cersei in the game right until the end.  So, they had to show Daenerys and her allies doing militarily stupid things to even the score.

[Angel Eyes]

48 minutes ago, SeanF said:

D & D wanted to keep Cersei in the game right until the end.  So, they had to show Daenerys and her allies doing militarily stupid things to even the score.

They didn’t do a good job with that since Cersei spent most of Season 8 staring out of windows, drinking wine, staring out of windows and drinking wine...

On the other hand, I would have honestly liked to see Daenerys try and do a propaganda tour and get the rest of the realm on her side, as detailed in This video.

[Rose of Red Lake]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

She was threatening to burn Yunkai, the aggressor, that was burning down her city.  She did not have to be talked out of burning Meereen, because she never wanted to burn the city.

And bear in mind, violence in war is sometimes the correct choice.  Burning down the Red Keep at the start of Season 7 would have ended the war against Cersei in 30 minutes.  Tyrion's and Varys' military advice was terrible.

She said their cities and also made the exact  same threat to Hizdahr about Meereen. Is everyone in these cities an aggressor? You wondered how she would get to a point where she would kill innocents en masse, these scenes show she had no problems with it. She sees all those innocents lost as a cost of winning so she can be queen. Tyrion and Varys were trying to hold Dany back from going overboard and losing popularity with the people. Their tactical mistakes arent even remotely the point of their storyline with Dany, its how they were blinded by her, and couldn't see her for what she was until it was too late. 

[SeanF]

10 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

She said their cities and also made the exact  same threat to Hizdahr about Meereen. Is everyone in these cities an aggressor? You wondered how she would get to a point where she would kill innocents en masse, these scenes show she had no problems with it. She sees all those innocents lost as a cost of winning so she can be queen. Tyrion and Varys were trying to hold Dany back from going overboard and losing popularity with the people. Their tactical mistakes arent even remotely the point of their storyline with Dany, its how they were blinded by her, and couldn't see her for what she was until it was too late. 

"The cities" that were attacking her own city.

Her advisors' strategic mistakes are very much the point.  They destroyed half her armed forces between them.  You don't win wars through non-violence.

Look, I know that to some people, it was foreshadowed that she would burn Kings Landing because she didn't organise a campaign of Gandhian  non-violent resistance in Slavers Bay, but most of us just don't buy this.

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

"The cities" that were attacking her own city.

Her advisors' strategic mistakes are very much the point.  They destroyed half her armed forces between them.  You don't win wars through non-violence.

Look, I know that to some people, it was foreshadowed that she would burn Kings Landing because she didn't organise a campaign of Gandhian  non-violent resistance in Slavers Bay, but most of us just don't buy this.

It sounds like you want Dany to be perfect, just dark enough to win, but not dark enough to do something evil. That's so adorable!

Bookwise, WAKE THE DRAGON is repeated over and over, as everything living flees from her, foreshadowing in Book 1. Somehow I don't think that means Dany is going to be the Dark But Not Too Dark Hero.

Sure, maybe Dany needed one extra scene to have her say she's going to return King's Landing to the dirt for what they did to her "child" (rofl!), but the arc is fine. Not amazing, but serviceable enough for lots of people to pick up on her development.

Dany wants to choose the most violent option that is unnecessary overkill, and she doesn't want to find alternative ways to use power. The author is clearly against her on this, you can intone as much from the interview where he talks about how dragons can only destroy things and how the U.S. (aka Dany) can't achieve their goals with them. Not everyone who speaks up against nuking places is a "pacifist."

[SeanF]

38 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

It sounds like you want Dany to be perfect, just dark enough to win, but not dark enough to do something evil. That's so adorable!

Bookwise, WAKE THE DRAGON is repeated over and over, as everything living flees from her, foreshadowing in Book 1. Somehow I don't think that means Dany is going to be the Dark But Not Too Dark Hero.

Sure, maybe Dany needed one extra scene to have her say she's going to return King's Landing to the dirt for what they did to her "child" (rofl!), but the arc is fine. Not amazing, but serviceable enough for lots of people to pick up on her development.

Dany wants to choose the most violent option that is unnecessary overkill, and she doesn't want to find alternative ways to use power. The author is clearly against her on this, you can intone as much from the interview where he talks about how dragons can only destroy things and how the U.S. (aka Dany) can't achieve their goals with them. Not everyone who speaks up against nuking places is a "pacifist."

I expect her to do what is necessary to win.  War involves killing people.  Some of the people you kill will be nice people.  The Good/Wise/Masters were not going to end slavery peacefully.  Cersei was not going to let Daenerys run for election against her.  The Lannister army on the Goldroad was not going to just surrender peacefully.  I just don't understand why quite jarringly, in Season 7, Daenerys was suddenly expected to adhere to moral standards that got her own soldiers killed in droves.

Martin has made it entirely clear that he regards war as legitimate against a great evil, like the slave trade.

Destruction by dragon is sometime necessary, As the Army of the Dead discovered.

Edit:  Or as Cas Stark pointed out upthread, Varys could have told her about the secret passages he told Tyrion about in Season 2.  Or she could have flown round the Red Keep with the three dragons, and induced a surrender. Instead, we were given military plans that made no sense.  

 

[Angel Eyes]

On 9/2/2019 at 9:15 AM, SeanF said:

D & D wanted to keep Cersei in the game right until the end.  So, they had to show Daenerys and her allies doing militarily stupid things to even the score.

Oh, I forgot something with the Faith of the Seven; make herself more palatable particularly after the Great Sept went up in wildfire.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Oh, I forgot something with the Faith of the Seven; make herself more palatable particularly after the Great Sept went up in wildfire.

It was bizarre that blowing up the Great Sept, and killing the High Sparrow, and loads of important nobles, had no consequences at all for Cersei.

[Cas Stark]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

It was bizarre that blowing up the Great Sept, and killing the High Sparrow, and loads of important nobles, had no consequences at all for Cersei.

LOL, other than somehow causing Randyl Tarly to flip the Tyrell army [that couldn't fight] to her side?  Yes, that was among the most awful plot turns the show took, maybe not quite up there with the hilarity of the wight hunt, but her breaching all protocols, killing the pope, blowing up the vatican [where, let's note, the small folk were PO when all they did was profane it by a beheading], killing the super popular Marg Boleyn.....and having it work out perfectly, no riots, no resignations of Lannister bannermen, nope..

Ugh. 

[Angel Eyes]

8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

LOL, other than somehow causing Randyl Tarly to flip the Tyrell army [that couldn't fight] to her side?  Yes, that was among the most awful plot turns the show took, maybe not quite up there with the hilarity of the wight hunt, but her breaching all protocols, killing the pope, blowing up the vatican [where, let's note, the small folk were PO when all they did was profane it by a beheading], killing the super popular Marg Boleyn.....and having it work out perfectly, no riots, no resignations of Lannister bannermen, nope..

Ugh. 

Plus the smallfolk cheered Euron. 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

LOL, other than somehow causing Randyl Tarly to flip the Tyrell army [that couldn't fight] to her side?  Yes, that was among the most awful plot turns the show took, maybe not quite up there with the hilarity of the wight hunt, but her breaching all protocols, killing the pope, blowing up the vatican [where, let's note, the small folk were PO when all they did was profane it by a beheading], killing the super popular Marg Boleyn.....and having it work out perfectly, no riots, no resignations of Lannister bannermen, nope..

Ugh. 

Which makes it all the more bizarre the more bizarre that killing the Tarlys is portrayed as a bad thing.  In any real medieval society, the Tarlys would have been hanged and quartered

 

 

 

[Cas Stark]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Which makes it all the more bizarre the more bizarre that killing the Tarlys is portrayed as a bad thing.  In any real medieval society, the Tarlys would have been hanged and quartered

 

 

 

Nah, as high lords, they'd always be given the nobleman's death of beheading, especially given the specific circumstances, assuming that the person in charge didn't either 1) ransom them like happened most often, or 2) wait a few days to see if they'd bend the knee afterall, since Tarly is allegedly one of the best commanders left alive in Westeros.  While killing them wasn't insanely out of step with behavior of typical middle ages warriors, or in world in Westeros, it was still a stupid, knee jerk, emotional reaction, that failed to take into consideration the wider issues of her conquest.  Or, we can just call it bad writing, LOL.

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Nah, as high lords, they'd always be given the nobleman's death of beheading, especially given the specific circumstances, assuming that the person in charge didn't either 1) ransom them like happened most often, or 2) wait a few days to see if they'd bend the knee afterall, since Tarly is allegedly one of the best commanders left alive in Westeros.  While killing them wasn't insanely out of step with behavior of typical middle ages warriors, or in world in Westeros, it was still a stupid, knee jerk, emotional reaction, that failed to take into consideration the wider issues of her conquest.  Or, we can just call it bad writing, LOL.

 

20 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Nah, as high lords, they'd always be given the nobleman's death of beheading, especially given the specific circumstances, assuming that the person in charge didn't either 1) ransom them like happened most often, or 2) wait a few days to see if they'd bend the knee afterall, since Tarly is allegedly one of the best commanders left alive in Westeros.  While killing them wasn't insanely out of step with behavior of typical middle ages warriors, or in world in Westeros, it was still a stupid, knee jerk, emotional reaction, that failed to take into consideration the wider issues of her conquest.  Or, we can just call it bad writing, LOL.

The Tarlys' offence went well beyond defying Daenerys.  They betrayed their own liege Lord and Queen, by siding with their murderer, for gain, sacking his castle, and forcing his mother to drink poison.  It's well-established in the series that betraying your liege Lord is a capital crime.  In his conversation with Jaime, Dickon made clear that he knew what they had done wrong.  

If Dany had taken the Boltons prisoner, and executed them for betraying the Starks, no one would bat an eyelid.

[Cas Stark]

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

 

The Tarlys' offence went well beyond defying Daenerys.  They betrayed their own liege Lord and Queen, by siding with their murderer, for gain, sacking his castle, and forcing his mother to drink poison.  It's well-established in the series that betraying your liege Lord is a capital crime.  In his conversation with Jaime, Dickon made clear that he knew what they had done wrong.  

If Dany had taken the Boltons prisoner, and executed them for betraying the Starks, no one would bat an eyelid.

True, a fair point. 

[Minsc]

On 9/6/2019 at 11:43 PM, SeanF said:

It was bizarre that blowing up the Great Sept, and killing the High Sparrow, and loads of important nobles, had no consequences at all for Cersei.

It always appeared to me that Cersei if not all the main Lannisters (besides Jaime) were their favorite characters thus explaining why she lasted so long.

[Artimicia]

I thought it was a pretty fair ending honestly in some respects, but yeah also kinda clumsy perhaps.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 9/7/2019 at 10:37 AM, SeanF said:

 

The Tarlys' offence went well beyond defying Daenerys.  They betrayed their own liege Lord and Queen, by siding with their murderer, for gain, sacking his castle, and forcing his mother to drink poison.  It's well-established in the series that betraying your liege Lord is a capital crime.  In his conversation with Jaime, Dickon made clear that he knew what they had done wrong.  

If Dany had taken the Boltons prisoner, and executed them for betraying the Starks, no one would bat an eyelid.

The betrayal didnt start with Randyll, he just sided with the people who weren't invading the country with Dothraki. I dont really care if Dany kills him but its pretty clear that he's not going to be a stock villain, because in the books he's rebuilding Maidenpool and making it safe for the small folk, and they are grateful. Dany will surely put a stop to this heinous traitor's madness.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The betrayal didnt start with Randyll, he just sided with the people who weren't invading the country with Dothraki. I dont really care if Dany kills him but its pretty clear that he's not going to be a stock villain, because in the books he's rebuilding Maidenpool and making it safe for the small folk, and they are grateful. Dany will surely put a stop to this heinous traitor's madness.

I expect Tarly's story will be very different in the books.  He'll stand or fall with the Tyrells.  It's FAegon's invasion he'll be fighting.

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

I expect Tarly's story will be very different in the books.  He'll stand or fall with the Tyrells.  It's FAegon's invasion he'll be fighting.

Whatever happens to him, it needs to affect a POV character. Sam is the most logical. Sure, he could die because of fAegon but that seems like a lost opportunity to have Sam react to Dany's decision, which would definitely involve Dickon if she killed them. 

[WolfOfWinter]

We're talking about a character who told a bunch of terrified soldiers she only invaded their country to save them from oppression, before telling them to bend the knee or burn alive. Who smirked at the Northern peasants running away in terror at the sights of her dragons because she didn't like that they distrusted and disliked her. Who fed some random man to her dragons before admitting that she didn't care whether he was innocent or not (after beheading a former slave for killing a Son of the Harpy because "everyone deserves a trial". Who actually had to be reminded that trials were a thing by Barristan. And who literally had to be talked down from crucifying every master, killing every soldier, and burning Yunkai and Astapor to the ground.

She was never a graceful ruler. Deluded and cruel? Absolutely. Her biggest accomplishment was somehow tricking her fanbase into believing that she only invaded a foreign country for the commoners' sake. Like she wasn't willing to wage war against Westeros when Tommen and Margaery ruled Westeros. Or like she didn't ally herself with Ellaria and the Sand Snakes, who only came to power after murdering two innocent children, one of them the niece to her Hand, and the rightful ruler of Dorne.

I can't wait to see her transform into a tyrant in the books (if we ever get them), and for Jon to choose the Starks over her. It's going to be glorious.