Jump to content
Areisius

The character assassination of Daenerys

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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. 

Just a couple of thoughts.

One, I think the reason for killing people matters more (or at least differently) than the reason one has for saving people.  An unjustified killing is murder and something that is a moral wrong in the eye’s of most societies.  Saving people for selfish reasons, although not as honorable as doing so for selfless reasons, is not something that completely negates the act of saving such people.  You’ve still committed a morally good act, you just did not have morally admirable reasons for doing so.

Two, I think we still only have two clear reasons the show gives for why Dany fought the NK - her love of Jon and vengeance for the NK killing Viserion.   Any further speculation about what did or did not motivate her is not something the show chose to show us.  I don’t think her conversation with Sansa tells us any more here - Dany is responding to the accusation that Jon bent the knee because he loves her.  Dany is trying to tell Sansa that Dany loves Jon and that is, in large part, why she’s here.  Calling it “Jon’s war” in this context doesn’t mean she doesn’t care about the common people of the North or that she doesn’t also view the NK as an existential threat to humanity.  There isn’t explicit support in the show that she does care about the common people and the threat to humanity either - the most we get is Dany in tears when Jon bends the knee saying “now I know” about the threat Jon has been telling her about, but that isn’t clear evidence of what is her driving motivation.    

Edited by Lord Stackspear
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

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. 

The reasons for killing matter a very great deal, in order to determine whether such killing is justified.

Share this post


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

The reasons for killing matter a very great deal, in order to determine whether such killing is justified.

Her POV tells us nothing about justifications or justice because it will always be justified in her mind. Because she's that full of herself. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lord Stackspear said:

Any further speculation about what did or did not motivate her is not something the show chose to show us.

Dany appears to not want to put effort into winning over the Northern people; she would rather intimidate them with her dragons and just sits there while Jon takes the heat for giving the North to her. She wouldn't have even bothered to talk with Sansa if Jorah hadnt convinced her to do so. The whole thing plays like Dany being fake nice to the in-laws, who she has to get along with if she wants to keep fucking her new boy toy.

10 hours ago, Lord Stackspear said:

Saving people for selfish reasons, although not as honorable as doing so for selfless reasons, is not something that completely negates the act of saving such people.  You’ve still committed a morally good act, you just did not have morally admirable reasons for doing so.

It is part of her personality though, Dany always has to be dragged into doing the right thing, and at some point, it causes problems. Compare her morally good act to Stannis, who went North without requiring a truce from Joffrey first. Dragging her feet created a chain reaction that caused the Wall to fall. It doesn't really matter if this was Tyrion's plan, it wouldn't even exist without her approval, and she approved it, because she refused to help without conditions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Dany appears to not want to put effort into winning over the Northern people; she would rather intimidate them with her dragons and just sits there while Jon takes the heat for giving the North to her. She wouldn't have even bothered to talk with Sansa if Jorah hadnt convinced her to do so. The whole thing plays like Dany being fake nice to the in-laws, who she has to get along with if she wants to keep fucking her new boy toy.

It is part of her personality though, Dany always has to be dragged into doing the right thing, and at some point, it causes problems. Compare her morally good act to Stannis, who went North without requiring a truce from Joffrey first. Dragging her feet created a chain reaction that caused the Wall to fall. It doesn't really matter if this was Tyrion's plan, it wouldn't even exist without her approval, and she approved it, because she refused to help without conditions. 

 

I see those two things much differently.  

I think it's pretty reasonable for Dany to think she has the North because the King in the North bent the knee to her and loves her.  If he is truly a King the North follows, why should she think she has more politicking to do absent her advisors informing her of additional politicking she should do?  And that's exactly what happens.  If anything, I see the North/Sansa's continued distaste for Dany despite her sacrifices for the North as Sansa effectively spitting in Dany's face.  Dany didn't do anything to make Sansa naturally trust or mistrust her - to the contrary, she sacrifices a great deal by going North (albeit, not out of purely altruistic reasons).  Sansa repays this with political scheming despite Jon asking her to promise not to do so.  I'm not saying Sansa should have developed some sort of deep trust for Dany, but a smart leader would recognize that Dany is a powerful ally, and maybe it makes sense to support her despite your misgivings.  IMO, the main reason the show does this is to make Sansa look prescient with respect to Dany's eventual fall in KL.  For me, it was another failure of storytelling. A better story, would have been Sansa hearing about or seeing some sort of clear lack of good judgment in Dany that foreshadowed Dany's fall - maybe Sansa could have had spies on Dany that witness a conversation where Dany seems to be losing it over something or acting in a selfish manner.        

As to Dany dragging her feet to go North, I don't really see that either.  The wall fell because of the whole catch-a-wight, Dany swoops in to save us, and Viserion dies story line.  Had this stupid scheme not happened, it's not clear that the wall would even have fallen.  All of this happens at the urging of Jon and Tyrion to appease Cersei, and, as the show tells it, it all seems to happen pretty quickly.  As soon as it comes to resolution, they go North - and Dany doesn't fly her dragons, she goes by boat and horse to ride with Jon and show her alliance with Jon (at Jon's urging).  I just don't see any dragging of her feet.  Should she just have believed Jon as soon as he showed up on Dragonstone?  I don't see how a smart leader would not have had a high degree of skepticism toward the things Jon came to tell about the NK and army of the dead.  And once she fully sees the threat humanity faces (although maybe she doesn't really care about that and just wants vengeance - that's open to interpretation), she vows to Jon in tears that they will defeat the NK.  Seems like a high degree of grit and determination to me.    

Edited by Lord Stackspear

Share this post


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

I see those two things much differently.  

I think it's pretty reasonable for Dany to think she has the North because the King in the North bent the knee to her and loves her.  If he is truly a King the North follows, why should she think she has more politicking to do absent her advisors informing her of additional politicking she should do?  And that's exactly what happens.  If anything, I see the North/Sansa's continued distaste for Dany despite her sacrifices for the North as Sansa effectively spitting in Dany's face.  Dany didn't do anything to make Sansa naturally trust or mistrust her - to the contrary, she sacrifices a great deal by going North (albeit, not out of purely altruistic reasons).  Sansa repays this with political scheming despite Jon asking her to promise not to do so.  I'm not saying Sansa should have developed some sort of deep trust for Dany, but a smart leader would recognize that Dany is a powerful ally, and maybe it makes sense to support her despite your misgivings.  IMO, the main reason the show does this is to make Sansa look prescient with respect to Dany's eventual fall in KL.  For me, it was another failure of storytelling. A better story, would have been Sansa hearing about or seeing some sort of clear lack of good judgment in Dany that foreshadowed Dany's fall - maybe Sansa could have had spies on Dany that witness a conversation where Dany seems to be losing it over something or acting in a selfish manner.        

As to Dany dragging her feet to go North, I don't really see that either.  The wall fell because of the whole catch-a-wight, Dany swoops in to save us, and Viserion dies story line.  Had this stupid scheme not happened, it's not clear that the wall would even have fallen.  All of this happens at the urging of Jon and Tyrion to appease Cersei, and, as the show tells it, it all seems to happen pretty quickly.  As soon as it comes to resolution, they go North - and Dany doesn't fly her dragons, she goes by boat and horse to ride with Jon and show her alliance with Jon (at Jon's urging).  I just don't see any dragging of her feet.  Should she just have believed Jon as soon as he showed up on Dragonstone?  I don't see how a smart leader would not have had a high degree of skepticism toward the things Jon came to tell about the NK and army of the dead.  And once she fully sees the threat humanity faces (although maybe she doesn't really care about that and just wants vengeance - that's open to interpretation), she vows to Jon in tears that they will defeat the NK.  Seems like a high degree of grit and determination to me.    

I doubt about that. The Night King had many options;

  • The Horn Of Joramun (Sam finds it in the Fist of the First men).
  • They can climb over it with chains and make a wight ramp (like they did at fire trench in Winterfell).
  • They’ll walk around it on the frozen seas near Eastwatch. (the Hound also saw this in a vision).
  • The Night King’s “mark” on Bran still works, so the White Walkers can pass through the Wall already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, RYShh said:

I doubt about that. The Night King had many options;

  • The Horn Of Joramun (Sam finds it in the Fist of the First men).
  • They can climb over it with chains and make a wight ramp (like they did at fire trench in Winterfell).
  • They’ll walk around it on the frozen seas near Eastwatch. (the Hound also saw this in a vision).
  • The Night King’s “mark” on Bran still works, so the White Walkers can pass through the Wall already.

Maybe.  Unless I’m mistaken, the Horn of Joramun is only in the books - I don’t ever recall it being mentioned on the show.  And, even in the books, as I recall, Mance only claims to have found it - we don’t know if it ever actually was found or if it works.  In the show, we’re told the wall has magic woven into it and also that the wights/white walkers can’t cross water - maybe that’s not true, but it’s what Jon says.  There is the whole thing with Bran and his “mark” but it is never laid out that that would enable the army of the dead to cross the wall - it’s a fool’s errand trying to make out what exactly Bran’s powers are and are not in the show, so who knows.  I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that there really isn’t anything presented on the show to suggest those things would have happened.  As such, I think it’s unclear whether the army of the dead could have come south absent taking one of Dany’s dragons, at least that’s the story the show seems to tell.  

I do hope GRRM, if he ever finishes the books, has a better story to tell than what they did in the show for the wall coming down.    

Share this post


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

Maybe.  Unless I’m mistaken, the Horn of Joramun is only in the books - I don’t ever recall it being mentioned on the show.  And, even in the books, as I recall, Mance only claims to have found it - we don’t know if it ever actually was found or if it works.  In the show, we’re told the wall has magic woven into it and also that the wights/white walkers can’t cross water - maybe that’s not true, but it’s what Jon says.  There is the whole thing with Bran and his “mark” but it is never laid out that that would enable the army of the dead to cross the wall - it’s a fool’s errand trying to make out what exactly Bran’s powers are and are not in the show, so who knows.  I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that there really isn’t anything presented on the show to suggest those things would have happened.  As such, I think it’s unclear whether the army of the dead could have come south absent taking one of Dany’s dragons, at least that’s the story the show seems to tell.  

I do hope GRRM, if he ever finishes the books, has a better story to tell than what they did in the show for the wall coming down.    

The spell at the 3 eyed raven's cave must be the same spell that they put on the Wall, otherwise why would they put a weaker magic in a cave while it protects the 3 eyed raven. Once the Night King realizes Bran is at the south of the Wall, he can do the same trick and remove the spell at the Wall.

True wights can't cross the water, but they can cross the frozen water, we've seen that when Jon and his crew went to the north of the wall to capture a wight, they crossed the frozen water.

Benjen also knew about the spells at the Wall, yet he says;

''You must learn to control it before the Night King comes. Drink. One way or another, he will find his way to the world of men. When he does, you will be there waiting for him.'' (S06E06) 

So he believed that the Night King could pass the wall, ''one way or another''.

Edited by RYShh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 10:00 AM, SeanF said:

It's best to avoid condescension.

I don't disagree. In the same manner, it's best to avoid using the F-word in poetry - but sometimes, if even rarely, poetic license allows for it when no other word has enough emphasis to deliver the desired form of expression. However, even here I'd propose that what I said is less along the lines of condescending and more along the lines of, foreshadowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

4 hours ago, RYShh said:

The spell at the 3 eyed raven's cave must be the same spell that they put on the Wall, otherwise why would they put a weaker magic in a cave while it protects the 3 eyed raven. Once the Night King realizes Bran is at the south of the Wall, he can do the same trick and remove the spell at the Wall.

True wights can't cross the water, but they can cross the frozen water, we've seen that when Jon and his crew went to the north of the wall to capture a wight, they crossed the frozen water.

Benjen also knew about the spells at the Wall, yet he says;

''You must learn to control it before the Night King comes. Drink. One way or another, he will find his way to the world of men. When he does, you will be there waiting for him.'' (S06E06) 

So he believed that the Night King could pass the wall, ''one way or another''.

Those seem like plausible theories to me, I just feel like the show didn’t really show enough to conclude that either one of those things could have or would have happened in the absence of the catch-a-wight story sequence. I really wish the show would have given us a little bit more explanation of all the magic going on - it seems like they really wanted to stay away from going into any depth on the magic stuff.  I understand not wanting to go full in on explaining the magic - it’s nice to have some mystery to how it all works - but I think a little more would have helped a lot of things make a little more sense.    

Edited by Lord Stackspear

Share this post


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

It appears to me from this and your other posts that you see yourself as...

... a guy who is tired of having to fight the ones that "unjustly criticize in order to defame, malign, condemn" - it appears to me that you're a kid in a line of kids moving through the area and I have to pause an let you waltz through while eyeing the bald guy across from me. 

Quote

you don't seem to be having any fun.

No, this is the opposite of fun to me.

Quote

You've set yourself a task of refuting, in a logical way, all possible reasons

It's not possible to refute subjective reasons. If you say "I hate what they did with Dany" that is justified and impossible to refute. If you say "I hate what they did with Dany because that is character assassination and the writers are failures who cannot write a story correctly" then you are not only objectively wrong, but have put yourself into the category of one who "unjustly criticizes in order to defame, malign, condemn". That's where I come in.

Quote

a mind and a voice of their own.

I have no problem with a person who has a mind and a voice of their own. In fact, I encourage such - that is the point. A person caught up in an illogical witch-hunt doesn't have a mind and a voice of their own; that is the point of the "to leave you defenseless" remark.

Look, let me give you three criticisms:

1. It was stupid when Drogon burned the Iron Throne because dragons are dumb beasts with no intelligence.

2. Arya's character isn't realistic - a girl would never be allowed by her father to become a swordsman in that time period.

3. Ned Stark is a failure of writing - nobody would ever choose honor if it meant death, especially if they have a family that needs them alive.

So? Comments? Anything wrong with those criticisms or, they all just and true? Sometimes criticism is okay, sometimes it's off-the-rails ignorant. And when off-the-rails ignorant targets the innocent in order to hurt them? What do you do? Let it alone? Or, intervene for the sake of the innocent? What do you do when a group of people surround a girl with glasses criticizing her with "You're a failure because we don't like the way you look and you're ugly and stupid" and then they pick up stones to throw at her. Do you smile and say, "They all have their own mind and voice!" or do you start walking over with smoke coming out of your nostrils?

 

Edited by John Meta

Share this post


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

<snip> What do you do when a group of people surround a girl with glasses criticizing her with "You're a failure because we don't like the way you look and you're ugly and stupid" and then they pick up stones to throw at her. Do you smile and say, "They all have their own mind and voice!" or do you start walking over with smoke coming out of your nostrils?

 

Well, OK, that's your metaphor, but this time the ugly girl with glasses is actually two extremely wealthy and powerful Hollywood producers who managed to take something I dearly love and have devoted more hours of my life to than I care to count and burn most of what is good and admirable about it right down to the ground. Also, people aren't talking about their looks, they're talking about specific things they did in their extremely well-compensated and high-profile professional lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Well, OK, that's your metaphor, but this time the ugly girl with glasses is actually two extremely wealthy and powerful Hollywood producers who managed to take something I dearly love and have devoted more hours of my life to than I care to count and burn most of what is good and admirable about it right down to the ground. Also, people aren't talking about their looks, they're talking about specific things they did in their extremely well-compensated and high-profile professional lives.

Snip

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 1:22 PM, Lord Stackspear said:

I see those two things much differently.  

I think it's pretty reasonable for Dany to think she has the North because the King in the North bent the knee to her and loves her.  If he is truly a King the North follows, why should she think she has more politicking to do absent her advisors informing her of additional politicking she should do?  And that's exactly what happens.  If anything, I see the North/Sansa's continued distaste for Dany despite her sacrifices for the North as Sansa effectively spitting in Dany's face.  Dany didn't do anything to make Sansa naturally trust or mistrust her - to the contrary, she sacrifices a great deal by going North (albeit, not out of purely altruistic reasons).  Sansa repays this with political scheming despite Jon asking her to promise not to do so.  I'm not saying Sansa should have developed some sort of deep trust for Dany, but a smart leader would recognize that Dany is a powerful ally, and maybe it makes sense to support her despite your misgivings.  IMO, the main reason the show does this is to make Sansa look prescient with respect to Dany's eventual fall in KL.  For me, it was another failure of storytelling. A better story, would have been Sansa hearing about or seeing some sort of clear lack of good judgment in Dany that foreshadowed Dany's fall - maybe Sansa could have had spies on Dany that witness a conversation where Dany seems to be losing it over something or acting in a selfish manner.        

As to Dany dragging her feet to go North, I don't really see that either.  The wall fell because of the whole catch-a-wight, Dany swoops in to save us, and Viserion dies story line.  Had this stupid scheme not happened, it's not clear that the wall would even have fallen.  All of this happens at the urging of Jon and Tyrion to appease Cersei, and, as the show tells it, it all seems to happen pretty quickly.  As soon as it comes to resolution, they go North - and Dany doesn't fly her dragons, she goes by boat and horse to ride with Jon and show her alliance with Jon (at Jon's urging).  I just don't see any dragging of her feet.  Should she just have believed Jon as soon as he showed up on Dragonstone?  I don't see how a smart leader would not have had a high degree of skepticism toward the things Jon came to tell about the NK and army of the dead.  And once she fully sees the threat humanity faces (although maybe she doesn't really care about that and just wants vengeance - that's open to interpretation), she vows to Jon in tears that they will defeat the NK.  Seems like a high degree of grit and determination to me.    

Thing is that a ruler depends on legitimacy to rule. Now, depending on time period and culture, king may be given more or less leeway - Byzantine Emperors had to be quite watchful of people in their Empire (or at least capital) so that they don't get overthrown for doing shit, while French Kings had (in theory) a lot more freedom of action. So question is, how much authority does King in the North have? Is he an absolute ruler, or not? If yes, then Jon's act is symbolic of the kingdom accepting her, and so no more politicking needed. If not, then his acceptance is merely a first step on the road, and she should prepare to negotiate with essentially all major Northern houses.

You are correct about Sansa. But even then, her scheming could have been made reasonable, if, for example, Daenerys did something really vile in Essos - like burning a city or something - and Sansa learned of it. As it was, however, it is merely ungrateful and treasenous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

You are correct about Sansa. But even then, her scheming could have been made reasonable, if, for example, Daenerys did something really vile in Essos - like burning a city or something - and Sansa learned of it. As it was, however, it is merely ungrateful and treasenous.

Dany did destroy cities, threatened to bomb them back to the stone age, then couldnt keep stability without burning the shit out of them. I'm sure Sansa was right to worry about Dany as queen, read her like an open book, saw her as unstable, unpredictable, fickle, entitled, all the bad qualities that made her a poor choice when Jon Snow is standing right there. Hell I guess I'd commit treason too if I was a Northerner.

Dany being queen over the North has nothing to do with her helping the North. If Dany cant handle the North preferring someone else over her then she should work harder to be better. Not just give into her worst impulses.

Dany should also know something doesnt sound right when Jon warns her that the North wont accept a Southern ruler... then says oh nevermind, they will! Isnt that a little....odd? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Dany did destroy cities, threatened to bomb them back to the stone age, then couldnt keep stability without burning the shit out of them. I'm sure Sansa was right to worry about Dany as queen, read her like an open book, saw her as unstable, unpredictable, fickle, entitled, all the bad qualities that made her a poor choice when Jon Snow is standing right there. Hell I guess I'd commit treason too if I was a Northerner.

Dany being queen over the North has nothing to do with her helping the North. If Dany cant handle the North preferring someone else over her then she should work harder to be better. Not just give into her worst impulses.

Dany should also know something doesnt sound right when Jon warns her that the North wont accept a Southern ruler... then says oh nevermind, they will! Isnt that a little....odd? 

Daenerys destroyed no cities, prior to Kings Landing.  In the books (but not the series) she sacked Meereen, but that was the norm for any city that failed to surrender. 

If one can make any sense of the final season, I suppose it's a clash between different outlooks.  Sansa sees the North as an independent state that has formed a military alliance with Daenerys.  Dany sees the North as hers, and once she fulfils her end of the feudal bargain (by fighting the Dead) she is entitled to their fealty.

Share this post


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

Daenerys destroyed no cities, prior to Kings Landing.  In the books (but not the series) she sacked Meereen, but that was the norm for any city that failed to surrender. 

If one can make any sense of the final season, I suppose it's a clash between different outlooks.  Sansa sees the North as an independent state that has formed a military alliance with Daenerys.  Dany sees the North as hers, and once she fulfils her end of the feudal bargain (by fighting the Dead) she is entitled to their fealty.

She left a power vacuum in Astapor in the books (Quentyn shows us how bad it was) and destroyed a Dothraki religious site in the show. But, Sansa doesnt even need to know that, she can just sense the tyranny vibes because she's spent enough time around scary people like that. 

With the way Dany treats humans and her loss of self reflection on her own actions, she isnt entitled to anything. They still didnt choose her. She can take several seats. Westerosi nobles are electing people now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Westerosi nobles are electing people now.

Except that it sounds like a bad joke. The first Lord who will be able to assemble an army will seize power, piece of cake, that is, if Bron hasn't already killed the King and the whole council…

Share this post


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

Except that it sounds like a bad joke. The first Lord who will be able to assemble an army will seize power, piece of cake, that is, if Bron hasn't already killed the King and the whole council…

True, D&D didnt care about checks on power. I think GRRM would at least have some ideas there because he's been vocal about how only having a small council sucks as a governing body. We know that Bronn stuff is just D&D fuckery, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Dany being queen over the North has nothing to do with her helping the North. If Dany cant handle the North preferring someone else over her then she should work harder to be better. Not just give into her worst impulses.

Well, it does, since she came to help after Jon bent the knee. Would she have come to defend them if Jon didn't swear fealty ? doubtful. And in any case, after the war with Cersei (so likely Red Keep burnt down, not the rest of KL... oh how things go sideways for no reason).

And no, this is not Narnia, the easy solution to the North preferring someone else is to kill them all. That's pretty much the idea. In Astapor she killed the whole ruling class, and the result was bad. In Westeros she tried to keep the ruling class, and ended up betrayed and dead. Should have sticked with the method that works.

 

The whole North Independent with a Northman as King in the Six Kingdoms, thus without any power base, doesn't make sense (unless Bran's plan is to promote chaos that is). 

 

Edited by Jaghen

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

×