Jump to content
Areisius

The character assassination of Daenerys

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 6/12/2019 at 3:36 AM, Gendelsdottir said:

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.

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.

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.

 

 

Isn't internal conflict a reason for a character who "flaps to and fro"? Can you provide some specific character who "flaps to and fro" and is "convincing" and how that contrasts with, say, Jaime, as not being convincing?

"The state of being turned inward" - that's the idea I was looking to convey. A better word would be what? Inversion? Involution?

When you say what you say about editors - is that a fact or an opinion? And from what reasoning is it derived? It's like your teacher may have said at one time: show me the math.

Edited by John Meta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/11/2019 at 10:58 PM, CrypticWeirwood said:

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.

 

And the Night King signifies duty to the extreme (made to destroy, follows that duty without deviance) while Dany signified love to the extreme (much like Gollum's love of the ring, so is Dany's love of the throne) and thus Jon is the one who must spearhead the battle to "quench" both extremes - symbolized in his own inward conflict reacting to the manifestation of that inward conflict in the outward battles he leads.

We could write essays on the theme as it plays out - in Jaime who is a parallel to Jon, though cannot overcome the extreme of love, thus returns to Cersei once fulfilling his "duty" to fight in the battle at Winterfell (signified by his coupling with Brienne, duty) followed by his coupling with Cersei under the rubble of a collapsed King's Landing; the ruin of his inability to overcome the extreme, which Jon does overcome, thus not falling into ruin but bringing stability/balance to Westeros.

It all weaves together in a way that is, to my mind, an incredible feat of writing. 

Edited by John Meta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 10:06 PM, 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.  

No, your criticisms are no more "opinion" than if you were to claim that since you do not like the color of my car, then my car doesn't run and the person who built the engine was a failure. That is not an opinion and neither are your "criticisms"

"I’m sorry, but the way it as depicted on screen (combined with what the showrunners stated) allows only one rational explanation" is you making an objective "rational" statement which is objectively wrong - no amount of calling objectivity "opinion" will do anything other than misuse the word "opinion" in an attempt to save face.

Bear in mind again, if it appears that I don't like you, that's not true. In fact, I wouldn't be discussing with you these things if I didn't like you. The same is true of everyone. It's unconditional like. Which also applies to the people who made the show. As I said, what I don't like is witch-hunts based on "rational" reasons which are utterly irrational. I know for fact if you were on the receiving end of such a thing, and it was your neck in the noose, you be shouting THANK CHRIST! as I rounded the corner to evaluate the mob's "judgment".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 8:17 PM, Hodor's Dragon said:

I'm not about to get mixed up in your word salad, but I'll say a couple of things.

First, you're goddamned straight that I'm "attempting to entangle [my] personal subjective opinions with objective fact." YES, SIR OR MADAM, I make so bold as to claim that I can tell a shit story (e.g., GOT, Season 8) from a great one (e.g., ASOIAF, Vols. I-V.). I do, indeed, and you can't take the right to claim that away from me and if you ordain that I should leave it out of our discussions I shall simply disregard your ordinance.

I will also make so bold as to say that if humans generally spent their time wondering over whether they could tell good things from bad things, they probably wouldn't know it because they would still be squatting around a cave fire and lacking a language that would aid their ability to engage in abstract thought.

Finally, I am simply meaning "unprecedented" as you clearly meant it in your original discussion; IOW, it doesn't mean a unique, new event, it means an event that isn't related to forerunner facts in the story. If you don't like that meaning, the blame is not to me.

(Also, all the LOTR crap you went on and on about was in the beginning or middle of the story, not the last chapter.)

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has become a monolog. Are "we" still talking about the writers responsible of dick jokes, "I know a killer when I see one", everything put in Bron's mouth, "who has a better story than Bran the Broken", etc etc etc here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, 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.

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

Share this post


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

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

It's called reasoned, civil discourse, a rarity in a internet world dominated by rudeness and rabble rousing, by viciousness and mindless sloganeering. Attention spans are no longer capable of grasping the longer thoughts needed to debate rationally. 

See the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The majority can no longer even follow what was said in them. Postman was a prophet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Attention spans are no longer capable of grasping the longer thoughts needed to debate rationally. 

Yeah, that's exactly what Dumb&Dumber think of their audience. Bad luck, it's one of the few times in television where it didn't work. And now HBO or D&D's PR company or whoever are sending sophisticated trolls to explain us that we didn't understand anything and that we're a malicious mob.

I'm surprised he didn't take the time to tell us our TV set sucks if we think the battle of Winterfell was badly lighted…

Share this post


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

Yeah, that's exactly what Dumb&Dumber think of their audience.

THIS is why we can't have nice things.

Childish name-calling has no place in civil discourse. Its constant barrage of disrespectful insults is a falling tide that lowers all ships. 

A common space littered by such trailer trash is not merely unproductive. It is unhealthy to the mind and ultimately dangerous to the body politic. In this way we do deliberate harm both to ourselves and to our commonwealth.

To what end?

Silver-tongued Pericles you may never be, but why not crawl on up out of the gutter to engage one another not with bile but with grace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Meta said:

No, your criticisms are no more "opinion" than if you were to claim that since you do not like the color of my car, then my car doesn't run and the person who built the engine was a failure. That is not an opinion and neither are your "criticisms"

"I’m sorry, but the way it as depicted on screen (combined with what the showrunners stated) allows only one rational explanation" is you making an objective "rational" statement which is objectively wrong - no amount of calling objectivity "opinion" will do anything other than misuse the word "opinion" in an attempt to save face.

Bear in mind again, if it appears that I don't like you, that's not true. In fact, I wouldn't be discussing with you these things if I didn't like you. The same is true of everyone. It's unconditional like. Which also applies to the people who made the show. As I said, what I don't like is witch-hunts based on "rational" reasons which are utterly irrational. I know for fact if you were on the receiving end of such a thing, and it was your neck in the noose, you be shouting THANK CHRIST! as I rounded the corner to evaluate the mob's "judgment".

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.”  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

THIS is why we can't have nice things.

The possibility to "have nice things" was lost the day the authors began to show contempt for their audience: "themes are for eight-grade book reports" (from someone working on a series full of magic, prophecies, visions, etc.!!!), "If you don't like it don't watch it", etc.

These men are Emmy-winning writers for a hit HBO series and rather than be grateful to the material that launched them to success they seemed to resent the expectation they should be held accountable to their creative choices, actively avoiding any and all criticism for a franchise beloved by millions. This smacks of immaturity and a fair bit of cowardice on their part.

John Lewis in Quora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, John Meta said:

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

Was sycophant not the word you had in mind? If not, what was? I'm curious - are there any circumstances where you believe a negative reaction is justified? Or is criticism always, by definition, unjust?

14 hours ago, John Meta said:

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.

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.

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" rhetoric. I say what I think. Others are free to agree or disagree with me as they see fit.

14 hours ago, John Meta said:

Isn't internal conflict a reason for a character who "flaps to and fro"? Can you provide some specific character who "flaps to and fro" and is "convincing" and how that contrasts with, say, Jaime, as not being convincing?

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?

14 hours ago, John Meta said:

"The state of being turned inward" - that's the idea I was looking to convey. A better word would be what? Inversion? Involution?

Totally your choice. :)

14 hours ago, John Meta said:

When you say what you say about editors - is that a fact or an opinion? And from what reasoning is it derived? It's like your teacher may have said at one time: show me the math.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Show-runners are now saying that Daenerys was a bad person for being unmoved when Viserys died, what is that other than character assassination ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 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

Agreed.  We shouldn't have to be relying on the last chapter of ADWD.

It would have been pretty easy to show her giving orders in Westeros to bring "war to everything that moves, war to everything that can burn", and show the Dothraki burning villages and killing peasants, in Season 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 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

Best line from that article: "Here's the problem: The show hasn't portrayed this change in Dany's character particularly well. Indeed, my interpretation of what's happening here is mainly informed by my reading of Martin's books."

I think I actually read that article real-time when it was released.  I remember thinking at the time and having conversations with friends about how the books really depicted much more inner turmoil with Dany.  I thought GRRM was trying to create within Dany a sense that the reader could not know whether she was going to choose her peace-loving, liberator side or her fire & blood side.  Much like the way GRRM has said he wants you to fear on every page you read that the character you're reading about could die, I thought he was trying to turn Dany into this character where on every page you read, you wondered whether she would choose a more thoughtful and peaceful resolution to her struggles or choose to simply burn them all.  

Most friends who were show watchers only thought this was crazy based on what they saw on the show, and they were right to think so IMO.  Dany takes control of the Dothraki by killing relatively few - it was more inspired than fearful.  I don't think they all bowed to her after she emerged from the fire primarily because they feared her - they believed in or were inspired by her.  She returns to Mereen and, as best we can tell in the show, has eliminated slavery in what they are now calling "Dragon's Bay," has established a peace, and did it all with relatively few casualties.  Then she sails for Westeros, and, again, chooses restraint over fire & blood.  She forms alliances with Dorne and Highgarden and, even if the face of losing those allies, chooses more of a surgical strike in the loot train battle than pure fire & blood.  Then, she chooses to believe Jon Snow and falls in love with him, sacrifices a dragon, suspends hostilities with Cersei to save humanity and, even though the Northerners treat her like garbage, she realizes the fight against the dead is bigger than any of that. 

Despite all of this predicate, we are supposed to believe that Jon's lineage reveal + Jorah's death + Northern rejection + Missandei's death + Rhaegal's death + basically a complete and total victory in King's Landing causes Dany to just say f*** it, I'm burning everyone - men, women, children, friend and foe.  And, to boot, it's not just because I'm down and depressed, it's because I have a new vision of a world order where all shall bow before what I have decided is good for humanity.  If they choose not to conform, they shall burn.  It didn't work for me.   

 

  

 

Edited by Lord Stackspear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 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

If this is your only reference to Daenerys's not changing nature, then I would say you're wrong. Daenerys didn't want to save the North. She only agreed AFTER Cersei agreed on their truce offer. What she was going to do? Still not go to North after they accepted their offer of truce, she even thought Lannisters will send their armies to the North. She already said this to Jon;

Jon: ''So, what now? ''

Daenerys: ''I can't forget what I saw north of the Wall. And I can't pretend that Cersei won't take back half the country the moment I march north.'' (S07E07)

This quite obvious. If Cersei didn't agree, she wouldn't go to the North even after Jon bend the knee to her. So basically she wouldn't even care about the North even when Jon agreed to follow Daenerys, she was so obssessed with the Iron Throne and destroying her only enemy, she didn't care about anything else like defending the innocent, or even Night King and the army of the dead.

Share this post


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

If this is your only reference to Daenerys's not changing nature, then I would say you're wrong. Daenerys didn't want to save the North. She only agreed AFTER Cersei agreed on their truce offer. What she was going to do? Still not go to North after they accepted their offer of truce, she even thought Lannisters will send their armies to the North. She already said this to Jon;

Jon: ''So, what now? ''

Daenerys: ''I can't forget what I saw north of the Wall. And I can't pretend that Cersei won't take back half the country the moment I march north.'' (S07E07)

This quite obvious. If Cersei didn't agree, she wouldn't go to the North even after Jon bend the knee to her. So basically she wouldn't even care about the North even when Jon agreed to follow Daenerys, she was so obssessed with the Iron Throne and destroying her only enemy, she didn't care about anything else like defending the innocent, or even Night King and the army of the dead.

In the immediately preceding episode, however, we have the following dialogue:

Jon: I'm sorry.
I'm so sorry.
I wish I could take it back.
I wish we'd never go.
Dany: I don't.
If we hadn't gone I wouldn't have seen.
You have to see it to know.
Now I know.
The dragons are my children.
They're the only children I'll ever have.
Do you understand? We are going to destroy the Night King and his army.
And we'll do it together.
You have my word.

So, I think you could argue that Dany’s words in the next episode are a complete reversal of this sentiment, that she no longer cares about defeating the NK, but I would argue that the more natural reading of the words you’re quoting (particularly in light of the tone of the scene in which the words are said) are that she was simply musing with Jon as she struggled about the right course of action if Cersei didn’t agree to stand down.  She’s having a moment of open questioning with Jon about the right path forward - I wouldn’t say she is definitively saying she doesn’t care about the North or destroying the NK.   

If the show writers were intending to communicate that Dany was ready to go back on her word and abandon the fight against the NK if Cersei didn’t stand down, I think they should have shown this conversation as more of a conflict between Jon and Dany - more of a moment of hostility and tension where Jon starts to question why he bent the knee if his Queen was not going to keep her word.  And, something like that could have been a good way to start to show Dany becoming so obsessed with the IT that it was going to be here doom.  But, they couldn’t do that - after all, they were laying the predicate for the boat bedroom romp that would follow soon after this scene.       

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

In the immediately preceding episode, however, we have the following dialogue:

Jon: I'm sorry.
I'm so sorry.
I wish I could take it back.
I wish we'd never go.
Dany: I don't.
If we hadn't gone I wouldn't have seen.
You have to see it to know.
Now I know.
The dragons are my children.
They're the only children I'll ever have.
Do you understand? We are going to destroy the Night King and his army.
And we'll do it together.
You have my word.

So, I think you could argue that Dany’s words in the next episode are a complete reversal of this sentiment, that she no longer cares about defeating the NK, but I would argue that the more natural reading of the words you’re quoting (particularly in light of the tone of the scene in which the words are said) are that she was simply musing with Jon as she struggled about the right course of action if Cersei didn’t agree to stand down.  She’s having a moment of open questioning with Jon about the right path forward - I wouldn’t say she is definitively saying she doesn’t care about the North or destroying the NK.   

If the show writers were intending to communicate that Dany was ready to go back on her word and abandon the fight against the NK if Cersei didn’t stand down, I think they should have shown this conversation as more of a conflict between Jon and Dany - more of a moment of hostility and tension where Jon starts to question why he bent the knee if his Queen was not going to keep her word.  And, something like that could have been a good way to start to show Dany becoming so obsessed with the IT that it was going to be here doom.  But, they couldn’t do that - after all, they were laying the predicate for the boat bedroom romp that would follow soon after this scene.       

 

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.

Edited by RYShh

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

×