Jump to content
Areisius

The character assassination of Daenerys

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 8/20/2019 at 8:58 AM, Cas Stark said:

The last season were so sloppy.  It's sad.  I have such a hard time when I listen to people talk about all the work/effort, especially the showrunners, when it seems so clear that the writing and plotting was dead last as a priority, and this is why it all fell apart finally at the end.  So many loose ends, dangling threads, backtracks, retcons, logic fails. I can't even imagine what they were thinking with something like Arya killing the NK, making both the battle and Jon's whole story irrelevant, or why they had Dany turn villain in such a short time with barely any ground laid for it.

Agree with most of what you say - S8 was sloppy shit.

Just got to say that Arya killing the NK was an obvious ploy to appease the girl power crowd, given D&D knew the story ended with 2 evil queens, I think they felt obligated (considering the modern political environment) to put some girl power in. It felt hackneyed because it was. It's actually amazing how much politics have changed in the West since GRRM started writing in the 90s through to now and how forceful some of the voices behind those politics have become. Arya was political pandering, plain and simple.

I also agree that the turning of Dany to villain lacked nuance and good writing in the last season - but strongly disagree that the groundwork wasn't laid way back in season 1/book 1 and it was the logical/necessary evolution of her character design. Poorly handled for sure. Though inevitable, without a doubt.

On 8/20/2019 at 2:10 AM, Mystical said:

Renly was one option yes, and there were plenty for Ned. I'm talking about a way that was literally delivered to him that he could have taken. Maybe Ned should have exercised his power as Hand and Protector of the Realm, as such he had the power to replace anyone with people he trusted. He could have replaced the small council and the guards but instead he left them all in their positions. Sorry but I don't make a habit of excusing stupidity just because someone is framed as 'the good guy', especially when someone is so dumb you wonder how they manage to dress themselves, as is the case with Ned. Or because 'it would have happened eventually', what-ifs are pointless to discuss as they have no effect on canon.

So look, I agree with some - Ned was definitely a dumb arse, I am not going to argue against that. But I think our little mini debate here raises a far bigger issue (that may or may not have been part of GRRMs narrative design, I err in favor of it being a point he was raising). Do smarts beat ideals? Does believing in something, anything - be it love, a god, honor etc generate a more viable way of life than pragmatism and outsmarting the opponent? Is the climb all that matters or is there a higher meaning for us all to aspire to?

You have to understand, I fully agree that D&D dropped the narrative ball big time - but I think we can decipher, from the remnants of GRRMs plan that remain, that he may have been suggesting honor is a great ideal. Perhaps not to be followed blindly, GRRM takes a lot from Stephen King and both of them oppose fundamentalism, but just as a primary yardstick around which to base other philosophy. 

And, well, Dany lacked honor - so she had to become a villain. She beat the masters of Astopor with trickery, she obtained power through dragons and she failed to strike down a single foe with her own hands and thus become truly accountable for her actions - as dumb arse Ned explained way back with 'He who passes the sentence must swing the sword.'

Being dumb does not make someone wrong, just dumb. Sam still saved Frodo and, by default, Middle Earth, in the end.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 1:32 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

I don't care which way you cut it.

There is absolutely no excuse for what happened in these last two seasons (but especially season 8)

No excuse.

And yes, because this was just so poorly devised and executed, what happened to Daenerys Targaryen was character assassination. It didn't even make sense.

In a medieval world at war, only a strange bird would object to a city held by a openly hostile force being sacked or torched. No one would complain about how burning people at the stake is an improper way to execute people.

Levelling the whole city -- as it was presented in the show -- and causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people was unnecessary, reckless and in poor taste. Not necessarily evil and sadistic.

Too many people are approaching it from a 21st century "woke" armchair point of view.

The fact that Tyrion literally gets away with murder (and much more) and gets to have a happy ending makes it even worse.

In a medieval world Dany would be seen as stupid, for destroying her capital city, rather than immoral.  The show runners have failed to come up with any plausible reason why she would have destroyed her own capital city.,

Share this post


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

In a medieval world Dany would be seen as stupid, for destroying her capital city, rather than immoral.  The show runners have failed to come up with any plausible reason why she would have destroyed her own capital city.,

Read between the lines though - sure, the show delivered it badly, but - Dany was entitled, used to having her dragons protect her, used to getting her own way and used to being loved by all men. She felt entirely dejected and alone before she burned Kings Landing - that's what I thought her little cry before the burn was about. Her is my version of what happened in her head:

Fuck you Westeros! I gave up two dragons to save you. I fell for your king, only to be betrayed by him because he is too weak to fuck his aunty. Seriously, does he not know how gods are born? Fuck you and your pathetic peasants thinking you know more than I have seen in the world. I have liberated slaves. I have tamed the horde! I did this first with my pussy and then with my might! And now you, you pathetic little corner of the world, you favor some righteous man in front of me? A man who wont even put his dick in me because his sister bitches and he worries about his honor?  Fuck you all. I will show you power and after you shall weep and love your queen.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ummester said:

Read between the lines though - sure, the show delivered it badly, but - Dany was entitled, used to having her dragons protect her, used to getting her own way and used to being loved by all men. She felt entirely dejected and alone before she burned Kings Landing - that's what I thought her little cry before the burn was about. Her is my version of what happened in her head:

Fuck you Westeros! I gave up two dragons to save you. I fell for your king, only to be betrayed by him because he is too weak to fuck his aunty. Seriously, does he not know how gods are born? Fuck you and your pathetic peasants thinking you know more than I have seen in the world. I have liberated slaves. I have tamed the horde! I did this first with my pussy and then with my might! And now you, you pathetic little corner of the world, you favor some righteous man in front of me? A man who wont even put his dick in me because his sister bitches and he worries about his honor?  Fuck you all. I will show you power and after you shall weep and love your queen.

I think that would make sense if she had suffered another setback, say the Golden Company is beating back her forces. 

It doesn't make much sense for someone who has just won a triumphant victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ummester said:

Read between the lines though - sure, the show delivered it badly, but - Dany was entitled, used to having her dragons protect her, used to getting her own way and used to being loved by all men. She felt entirely dejected and alone before she burned Kings Landing - that's what I thought her little cry before the burn was about. Her is my version of what happened in her head:

Fuck you Westeros! I gave up two dragons to save you. I fell for your king, only to be betrayed by him because he is too weak to fuck his aunty. Seriously, does he not know how gods are born? Fuck you and your pathetic peasants thinking you know more than I have seen in the world. I have liberated slaves. I have tamed the horde! I did this first with my pussy and then with my might! And now you, you pathetic little corner of the world, you favor some righteous man in front of me? A man who wont even put his dick in me because his sister bitches and he worries about his honor?  Fuck you all. I will show you power and after you shall weep and love your queen.

Do you really believe what you just wrote?

Audiences should not have to read between the lines when it comes to such a monumental plot point at the end of the series. And I am not sure where you have gotten this "Dany is super entitled" thing from? 90% of the people on this show have an entitlement "issue."

It simply doesn't make any sense for Dany to burn the capital city after she has already won it. I mean, it does if say, the city was overrun by zombies, if the city was damaged beyond repair or if the city was still fighting back and refusing to capitulate. And then on top of that, she hardly even touched the Red Keep, the center of hostility and resistance.

Your version of what happened in her head doesn't make sense within the parameters of her character.

Edited by Jabar of House Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/22/2019 at 2:32 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

Too many people are approaching it from a 21st century "woke" armchair point of view.

And yet people tend to pick an choose when it comes to their approach with the show/books. They use 'medieval world' when they want to excuse something happening or not happening but also sometimes view it from our Western world mentality in present day at the same time.

This becomes especially clear with the female characters. Someone like Arya (or Brienne) is beloved because they buck the tradition of the world they live in which appeals to our modern senses. While at the same time a character like Sansa is condemned for excelling in the same system. But then the patriarchy and the abundant (sexual, physical) violence against women is excused with 'medieval world' or that's what it was like in the Middle Ages. Usually used by people who have little knowledge about those times, it's just a pretty phrase they like repeating. People tend to pick and choose what's convenient for them for any given situation. And that's not how it works. Pick a lane and stick to it. You either view a character based on the world they operate in or you view everything from a modern view. But most people want to have it both ways, especially when it comes to defending their fave character or the author/writer/showrunner.

On 8/22/2019 at 2:32 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

And yes, because this was just so poorly devised and executed, what happened to Daenerys Targaryen was character assassination. It didn't even make sense.

I've always thought if Dany really ends up burning KL, that it would be by accident. She would do something like attack the walls or Red Keep or the army inside with dragon fire and this would set off all the wildfire caches in the city in a giant chain reaction. So Dany's intend was never to kill innocents but she would be viewed as the bad guy (which makes her a tragic figure) because if she hadn't used dragon fire on the city, nothing would have happened. Or that whoever is on the throne when Dany comes would set off the wildfire themselves in order to make Dany the bad guy.

I actually thought they would do this in S8. That Dany would attack the walls or fly directly to the Red Keep and Cersei would set off the wildfire in the city because 'if she can't have the throne/KL, no one will'. And it would be blamed on Dany for using dragon fire inside the city. But Dany just torching innocents by the thousands...just no. Even I who is neutral on Dany (though I think she is a power hungry, entitled pyromanic) think this was pure character assassination. Yes she loves setting enemies on fire but she has NEVER mass murdered civilians.

Edited by Mystical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mystical said:

And yet people tend to pick an choose when it comes to their approach with the show/books. They use 'medieval world' when they want to excuse something happening or not happening but also sometimes view it from our Western world mentality in present day at the same time.

This becomes especially clear with the female characters. Someone like Arya (or Brienne) is beloved because they buck the tradition of the world they live in which appeals to our modern senses. While at the same time a character like Sansa is condemned for excelling in the same system. But then the patriarchy and the abundant (sexual, physical) violence against women is excused with 'medieval world' or that's what it was like in the Middle Ages. Usually used by people who have little knowledge about those times, it's just a pretty phrase they like repeating. People tend to pick and choose what's convenient for them for any given situation. And that's not how it works. Pick a lane and stick to it. You either view a character based on the world they operate in or you view everything from a modern view. But most people want to have it both ways, especially when it comes to defending their fave character or the author/writer/showrunner.

I've always thought if Dany really ends up burning KL, that it would be by accident. She would do something like attack the walls or Red Keep or the army inside with dragon fire and this would set off all the wildfire caches in the city in a giant chain reaction. So Dany's intend was never to kill innocents but she would be viewed as the bad guy (which makes her a tragic figure) because if she hadn't used dragon fire on the city, nothing would have happened. Or that whoever is on the throne when Dany comes would set off the wildfire themselves in order to make Dany the bad guy.

I actually thought they would do this in S8. That Dany would attack the walls or fly directly to the Red Keep and Cersei would set off the wildfire in the city because 'if she can't have the throne/KL, no one will'. And it would be blamed on Dany for using dragon fire inside the city. But Dany just torching innocents by the thousands...just no. Even I who is neutral on Dany (though I think she is a power hungry, entitled pyromanic) think this was pure character assassination. Yes she loves setting enemies on fire but she has NEVER mass murdered civilians.

I don't think so.  The show went to great lengths, even if poorly done and rushed, to make Dany a villain, in the eyes of the audience and the eyes of the rest of the characters in the show.  They would never have done this if the GRRM ending was all about a misunderstanding or an accident.  Make no mistake, she will break bad in the books if he ever finishes them.  In my opinion.  Her entire story would become meaningless if the moral was that accidents happen and sometimes history gets it wrong, that would be a really weak take away from her story, whereas, while absolute power corrupts isn't original, it at least has good resonance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I don't think so.  The show went to great lengths, even if poorly done and rushed, to make Dany a villain, in the eyes of the audience and the eyes of the rest of the characters in the show.  They would never have done this if the GRRM ending was all about a misunderstanding or an accident.  Make no mistake, she will break bad in the books if he ever finishes them.  In my opinion.  Her entire story would become meaningless if the moral was that accidents happen and sometimes history gets it wrong, that would be a really weak take away from her story, whereas, while absolute power corrupts isn't original, it at least has good resonance. 

I don't think it's the burning of Kings Landing that will do it.

If we want to see Dany breaking bad, it will be during the conquest of Western Essos.  That's what was missing from the series.  If you want a character to act like Timur the Lame, then establish that they act like Timur the Lame.

That may still make Dany an antiheroine, a grey hat, but still an antagonist to the Starks

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don't think it's the burning of Kings Landing that will do it.

If we want to see Dany breaking bad, it will be during the conquest of Western Essos.  That's what was missing from the series.  If you want a character to act like Timur the Lame, then establish that they act like Timur the Lame.

That may still make Dany an antiheroine, a grey hat, but still antagonist to the Stark   and the conqueror.

Yeah, I mean while I don't have a lot of trust left in GRRM, I trust that whatever his plan is with Dany it is 1000 times better than having every atrocity committing character in the series do an about face and start randomly spouting 21st century morality out of nowhere.  Oh No The Children!  That was fucking laughable.  She may still burn down King's Landing, but that alone would not be enough for someone like Jon Snow, let alone Tyrion Lannister, to turn on her, she will  have to commit a string of atrocities on a large scale all over Westeros along with her plan of future world liberation by fire and blood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Yeah, I mean while I don't have a lot of trust left in GRRM, I trust that whatever his plan is with Dany it is 1000 times better than having every atrocity committing character in the series do an about face and start randomly spouting 21st century morality out of nowhere.  Oh No The Children!  That was fucking laughable.  She may still burn down King's Landing, but that alone would not be enough for someone like Jon Snow, let alone Tyrion Lannister, to turn on her, she will  have to commit a string of atrocities on a large scale all over Westeros along with her plan of future world liberation by fire and blood. 

I have a sense that the show runners were starting to go there in Season 5, where Dany started to get pretty nasty towards the native Meereenese. But, then they backed off completely in Seasons 6 and 7.  No one's going to persuade me that killing some rapist Khals and executing the Tarlys, and a couple of bloodthirsty speeches, are signs that Dany is becoming a genocidal tyrant.

It would actually have been quite easy to show her following through on her threats to Yunkai, and burning the city down, while slaughtering the inhabitants, or carrying out atrocities against the inhabitants of Westeros who wouldn't accept her rule.  The cynic in me believes that Emilia Clarke/Daenerys had become too much of a cash generator by that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Yeah, I mean while I don't have a lot of trust left in GRRM, I trust that whatever his plan is with Dany it is 1000 times better than having every atrocity committing character in the series do an about face and start randomly spouting 21st century morality out of nowhere.  Oh No The Children!  That was fucking laughable.  She may still burn down King's Landing, but that alone would not be enough for someone like Jon Snow, let alone Tyrion Lannister, to turn on her, she will  have to commit a string of atrocities on a large scale all over Westeros along with her plan of future world liberation by fire and blood. 

What I want is a narrative justification, for burning Kings Landing.  Not "being triggered by bells" or "she was always evil".

People always have a reason for burning cities.  That reason may be entirely rational - to induce other cities to surrender, or to deny them to the enemy - even if it's horrible.  Or it may be based on some terrible ideology - the city is inhabited by heretics, or a hated ethnic group.  But, there's a reason.

Dany could have been losing the fight on the ground, and left with no choice but to unleash Drogon if she wanted to win;  or she could have accepted a surrender, only for a bolt to go off, leading her to conclude it was another act of treachery,  or the fires could run out of control.   Those would all have made sense, but would mean she remained a grey character, rather than turning into Satan.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

And I am not sure where you have gotten this "Dany is super entitled" thing from?

By virtue of the fact she had more titles than any other character:

Daenerys of the House Targaryen, the First of Her Name, The Unburnt, Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men, Queen of Meereen, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Protector of the Realm, Lady Regent of the Seven Kingdoms, Breaker of Chains and Mother of Dragons.

That is the literal definition of being entitled. I'm certain it was by design, to remind us clearly what her character was about.

21 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think that would make sense if she had suffered another setback, say the Golden Company is beating back her forces. 

It doesn't make much sense for someone who has just won a triumphant victory.

I don't think it was triumphant in her mind. She no longer trusted her Westerosi forces and she knew Jon:

1) Was the rightful heir, whom Varys had already turned to support.

2) Was more loved by Westeros and especially Westerosi men (and her experience with powerful Westerosi women via Sansa and Cerise was that they are back stabby bitches).

3) No longer wanted to fuck her/could be swayed by desiring her (this part of the TV series was really, really badly written and I am sure GRRM, if he finished it, would do far better - but, as I have mentioned, Dany was used to bending men to her will by power of her looks. She was described as the most beautiful woman in the world and learned very early on with Drogo that her pussy could be powerful).

Edited by ummester

Share this post


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

What I want is a narrative justification, for burning Kings Landing.  

I think what I have written above is the best you will get - I don't think the books will ever be finished now and I have done my best to decipher where the books and show intersects. I have only read the books once - but I have watched the show multiple times and I think 'Dany was an entitled and ended up feeling unloved in Westeros' is the most concise explanation for her character turn that can be made.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 3:02 PM, ummester said:

By virtue of the fact she had more titles than any other character:

 Daenerys of the House Targaryen, the First of Her Name, The Unburnt, Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men, Queen of Meereen, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Protector of the Realm, Lady Regent of the Seven Kingdoms, Breaker of Chains and Mother of Dragons.

 That is the literal definition of being entitled. I'm certain it was by design, to remind us clearly what her character was about.

Just like every other noble or royaltie we've seen so far, from the wall, to the desert of Dorne, all we see are entitled nobles.

 

On 8/24/2019 at 3:02 PM, ummester said:

I don't think it was triumphant in her mind. She no longer trusted her Westerosi forces and she knew Jon:

1) Was the rightful heir, whom Varys had already turned to support.

 2) Was more loved by Westeros and especially Westerosi men (and her experience with powerful Westerosi women via Sansa and Cerise was that they are back stabby bitches).

3) No longer wanted to fuck her/could be swayed by desiring her (this part of the TV series was really, really badly written and I am sure GRRM, if he finished it, would do far better - but, as I have mentioned, Dany was used to bending men to her will by power of her looks. She was described as the most beautiful woman in the world and learned very early on with Drogo that her pussy could be powerful).

 

Ignoring the fact that everyone accepting Bran's word as face value is pretty dumb.

1) Jon had pledged fealty to her, Varys was executed for treason.

2) That's certainly a very  extended misconception, Jon only had the loved of the North and the Wildlings, the rest of Westeros certainly didn't give a shit about him, whom the wildlings love isn't really relevant because they are not part of the Realm, the fact that Dany was pretty upset with it is laughable, the North can be won over with time anyway but Dany had the fealty of the entire Reach except for the Tarlys whom like the Gardeners died in another Field of Fire, the fealty of Dorne and the Iron Islands and she knows for a fact that the Riverlands want the Lannisters gone

 

3) That part and how it was carried in the show was absolutely cringe.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I wish that GRRM subvert expectations and not use the pathetic link of family lineage of craziness to be her downfall. Isn't this a bad story trope of saying that a person is predestined to be mad and go coo coo and burn down a city because why not she's crazy! Can her downfall be on her own character faults with realistic possibilities and not a bloodline of Madness? Every character has blood on their hands due to the times in which the story portrayed and every character has an entitlement complex. If Bran was born of a smaller house he would not be even considered eligible for kingdom due to him being a cripple. The House of Starks are allowed to be entitled and everyone else who claim anything of power of kingdoms should be seen as nagging and brand them with some entitlement complex title? The Baratheons felt so entitled they started a war with each other for the entitlement of the throne. The Lannisters have such an entitlement complex that they have a song written about how their crimes to another house sung and known through the lands because Tywin wanted his legacy to entitle his offspring by name alone.

Daenrys for all her life was fed stories about a family lineage who was murdered and throne lost because her father went mad. Never felt like she had a home, no family but an abusive brother and strangers with selfish intent and the only thing she had hope for was a chair that was told to her could avenge everything she had lost. But we are told to hate her for this because she has the strongest weapons at her disposal and who trust a woman with nuclear weapons? We are told to hate her because instead of a sword she kill her enemies with fire, but only Tyrion can torch people and no outrage of craziness is included to his titles (kinslayer)? Her character deserves more credit for the times she lives in becoming a force of nature to only be hated by the man writing her and to tell the audience see look she's crazy,  and couldn't beat hereditary predisposition.

Edited by terloublag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternative to Dany going mad and burning everything down is that she was always evil.  Some people involved with the show seem to be running with that.  But, her conduct (while sometimes violent) was never portrayed, in the show, as evil, in earlier seasons.  Her acts as violence always come with triumphant, uplifting music, and met the approval of characters like Jorah, Missandei, Barristan, who we were encouraged to view as moral arbiters.

And, D & D were constantly going on about how great she was "a heroine, the good Targaryen" "a liberator" etc.  If there's one thing I find absolutely unforgivable in a book or series, it's retconning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SeanF said:

The alternative to Dany going mad and burning everything down is that she was always evil.  Some people involved with the show seem to be running with that.  But, her conduct (while sometimes violent) was never portrayed, in the show, as evil, in earlier seasons.  Her acts as violence always come with triumphant, uplifting music, and met the approval of characters like Jorah, Missandei, Barristan, who we were encouraged to view as moral arbiters.

And, D & D were constantly going on about how great she was "a heroine, the good Targaryen" "a liberator" etc.  If there's one thing I find absolutely unforgivable in a book or series, it's retconning.

I don't think those are the only choices, in fact, the most realistic choice is that she becomes corrupted, she started as a liberator but time and circumstances changed her into a tyrant.  Her goals and her self image can even still remain to be that of a liberator seeking justice while her actions degenerate into that of a dictator.  

As for the showrunners, being too lazy to write her a story arc that shows her devolving into tyranny, yes, they retconned  their own story, turning previously triumphant events into signposts to her demise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I don't think those are the only choices, in fact, the most realistic choice is that she becomes corrupted, she started as a liberator but time and circumstances changed her into a tyrant.  Her goals and her self image can even still remain to be that of a liberator seeking justice while her actions degenerate into that of a dictator.  

As for the showrunners, being too lazy to write her a story arc that shows her devolving into tyranny, yes, they retconned  their own story, turning previously triumphant events into signposts to her demise. 

And, I think there's a good chance it will go like that in the books.  The showrunners preferred a cheap shock to good characterisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2019 at 11:16 PM, frenin said:

1) Jon had pledged fealty to her, Varys was executed for treason.

Yes, but he no longer wanted to fuck her. He was devoted to her out of duty, not love. The difference is subtle, almost immaterial, to a man (I'll stand by my wife and kids out of duty, because it is the honorable thing to do, regardless of whether I love them or not - but you just try and get my wife to accept that). To most women, in my experience, this is very different - duty and honor is not enough - they need love.

On 8/25/2019 at 11:16 PM, frenin said:

2) That's certainly a very  extended misconception, Jon only had the loved of the North and the Wildlings, the rest of Westeros certainly didn't give a shit about him, whom the wildlings love isn't really relevant because they are not part of the Realm, the fact that Dany was pretty upset with it is laughable, the North can be won over with time anyway but Dany had the fealty of the entire Reach except for the Tarlys whom like the Gardeners died in another Field of Fire, the fealty of Dorne and the Iron Islands and she knows for a fact that the Riverlands want the Lannisters gone

Ok, perhaps I overstated - but Dany could see that the honor driven society of Westeros would never favor her dragon empowered pussy above Jon's sword empowered cock - I do not know how much more clear I have to make this. HE WHO PASSES THE SENTENCE MUST SWING THE SWORD. Westeros cherished the accountability of those who had the strength to carry out their convictions with their own hands - not via their dragons, or their lover's swords - sure, D&D told the tale badly but the subtext was there. 

Brienne got respect because she could deliver justice (and kill) with her own hand. Arya got the same (though her show character was fucked up). Take Dany's dragons and lovers away and what the fuck could she do with her own hands? Stroke a cock? Seriously. Her mind may have been impressive but she was part of a barbaric world and strength matters, she was just a tad upset to discover this.

On 8/25/2019 at 11:16 PM, frenin said:

3) That part and how it was carried in the show was absolutely cringe.

Yes. I agree - and I think GRRM is too chicken shit to write it properly now, considering how insane modern PC has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You know, I was just watching snipets of 805 again, from where Dany spits the dummy, and it's actually pretty cool that she can swoop her dragon in and torch that wretched city. Everything is perspective right? Westeros was the wheel and she was breaking the mother fucker with fire and blood - innocents suffer either way, you want a revolution, Dany brings it.

Everything depends upon which side of the aisle you view it from.

And seriously, Drogon melting the IT in 806, I have been waiting 10 fucking years to see that chair destroyed, so if the events of 805 led to it, then goof fucking riddance.

The end of all worthwhile narratives is about catharsis. D&D are shit house storytellers - but the overall catharsis of the narrative still shines through. Dany was entitled and lost hope, Jon's honor had him banished and the IT was melted - I mean, how much more resolution do we really need?

Edited by ummester

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

×