Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
King Adrian Storm

Why Daenerys will never win the Game of Thrones

Recommended Posts

Just now, Tyrion1991 said:

They aren't even remotely in the same category. If the Dragon was Age of Sigmar level, bigger than a mountain and its breath could vaporise entire cities in an instant then it is the equivalent of a nuke. Otherwise its hyperbole.

They are indeed in the same category, but ofc it's a hyperbole, the gist does not change however, dragons are metaphorical nukes.

 

3 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Then how are they end the world category. Dragons have to be able to end the world for them to be like nukes.

Several hundred dragons unleashed upon the continent can indeed end the world.

4 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Making them analogous to nukes is calling them evil. You're implying, like nukes, the world would be better off without them.

That's on you, besides... dragons are good??

4 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Its not really in an instant. More like an afternoon.

Potato...

 

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Gregor Clegane laid waste to the Riverlands with fifty men. Its clearly not an impressive achievement.

And that's a sign of his monstrousity, Clegane did not torch the entire riverlands however, Vhagar did.

 

6 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Because its not a WMD.

It is in Marin's world, denying it is simply absurd.

 

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

So why single out dragons if normal war is just as bad?

As bad?? I don't know if normal war is as bad, bullets killed more people than nukes in WW2, honestly, this false equivalence  is ludicrous. 

 

10 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Its a poor anti war sentiment if your characters believe dragons are bad but torture, summary execution and genocide are acceptable norms. 

Then we're hypocrites, since we believe that nukes are bad but do exactly the same,

 

11 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The only point of making a nuke analogy is to make precisely that point that the world would be a better place. If he has actually said that its definitely casting moral shades at Daenerys and excusing the characters who are using "normal" and "acceptable" violence. 

That's your judgment, not mine. But just because you don't like what it might imply doesn't make it ay less valid. I doubt that he castes moral shades at Dany, so far she is fighting slavery, he will castes moral shades at her when/if she goes batcrazy, just as he does to every character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, frenin said:

They are indeed in the same category, but ofc it's a hyperbole, the gist does not change however, dragons are metaphorical nukes.

 

Several hundred dragons unleashed upon the continent can indeed end the world.

That's on you, besides... dragons are good??

Potato...

 

And that's a sign of his monstrousity, Clegane did not torch the entire riverlands however, Vhagar did.

 

It is in Marin's world, denying it is simply absurd.

 

As bad?? I don't know if normal war is as bad, bullets killed more people than nukes in WW2, honestly, this false equivalence  is ludicrous. 

 

Then we're hypocrites, since we believe that nukes are bad but do exactly the same,

 

That's your judgment, not mine. But just because you don't like what it might imply doesn't make it ay less valid. I doubt that he castes moral shades at Dany, so far she is fighting slavery, he will castes moral shades at her when/if she goes batcrazy, just as he does to every character.

 

Its a ridiculous metaphor. Were Hannibals elephants nukes? 

Several hundred dragons would have the same impact as a few hundred WW2 bombers, still not nuclear bombs.

They're animals. They aren't good or evil. An angry mob thinking they should kill all the dragons are not sympathetic; they're idiots. A bunch of old todgers who want to rid the world of dragons by poisoning them; they're idiots. 

Its a sign that a few criminals with torches and free time can do as much damage as this metaphorical nuke that we're supposed to hate Dany for considering using. 

Because its not doing the same damage as a nuke. The author is being disingenuous to say that its like a nuke and to drag those moral arguments into the story. Arguments which a general audience consider on very different terms to conventional war. You see this in the show where besieging a large city into starvation is handwaved as a good rational thing whilst attacking the walls with a dragon is considered a monstrous crime. This is because the show made this distinction between normal war and using the thing it had been telling us was bad. Even using it in a very limited sense was depicted as evil whist hand waving everything the Starks did as just how things are.

So if we wipe out Carthage with swords and hammers its okay but you do it with a dragon and suddenly its an unspeakable war crime? That's missing the point of moral criticism. It should be the end result, not the methods that get disputed. The reason we single out nukes is because they are worse than conventional weapons and on a level with genocide; which is also banned under international law. What George is doing is casting severe moral judgement on using a dragon to set fire to a field or castle whilst its aokay to use trebuchets and minging guys with torches.    

Its not valid. Its a ham fisted satire of a "power fantasy" character. George has an axe to grind with that aspect of fantasy. That's what the criticism is all about. It doesn't matter if the consequences are achievable by conventional means  in world, he wants to critique this because he objects to the power fantasy element. For example, one kid gets killed by Drogon and theres this moral panic whilst more children are killed by wolves and bears on a regular basis. Hell, how many kids get killed because some knight runs over them with his horse? When they're chopping kids hands off for stealing and branding them in the street? But oh no that's part of the world. Those dragons though...                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Its a ridiculous metaphor. Were Hannibals elephants nukes? 

Again false equivalence. 

 

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Several hundred dragons would have the same impact as a few hundred WW2 bombers, still not nuclear bombs.

They are in Westeros.

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

They're animals. They aren't good or evil. An angry mob thinking they should kill all the dragons are not sympathetic; they're idiots. A bunch of old todgers who want to rid the world of dragons by poisoning them; they're idiots. 

Neither are nukes, which aren't sentient, their capacity of destruction and what they symbolize is what is feared.

 

10 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Its a sign that a few criminals with torches and free time can do as much damage as this metaphorical nuke that we're supposed to hate Dany for considering using. 

- They can't do the same damage.

- People can kill a loo, that does not make them wmd.

- No one says you must hate Dany for using them.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Because its not doing the same damage as a nuke. The author is being disingenuous to say that its like a nuke and to drag those moral arguments into the story. Arguments which a general audience consider on very different terms to conventional war. You see this in the show where besieging a large city into starvation is handwaved as a good rational thing whilst attacking the walls with a dragon is considered a monstrous crime. This is because the show made this distinction between normal war and using the thing it had been telling us was bad. Even using it in a very limited sense was depicted as evil whist hand waving everything the Starks did as just how things are.

It does not need to be.  Honestly, that's the whole point of an allegory.

The show wanted to accelerate Dany's nazification, so dragons become just that. A weapon for nazis.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

So if we wipe out Carthage with swords and hammers its okay but you do it with a dragon and suddenly its an unspeakable war crime?

What??

 

21 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

That's missing the point of moral criticism. It should be the end result, not the methods that get disputed. The reason we single out nukes is because they are worse than conventional weapons and on a level with genocide; which is also banned under international law. What George is doing is casting severe moral judgement on using a dragon to set fire to a field or castle whilst its aokay to use trebuchets and minging guys with torches.

It's simply not true, what Martin is saying is that Dany is now a superpower and as such she should be wary of using her wmds. No one looks at Syria at says, well it's all fine, they are not being nuked. That's again a very absurd false equivalence.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Its not valid. Its a ham fisted satire of a "power fantasy" character. George has an axe to grind with that aspect of fantasy. That's what the criticism is all about. It doesn't matter if the consequences are achievable by conventional means  in world, he wants to critique this because he objects to the power fantasy element. For example, one kid gets killed by Drogon and theres this moral panic whilst more children are killed by wolves and bears on a regular basis. Hell, how many kids get killed because some knight runs over them with his horse? When they're chopping kids hands off for stealing and branding them in the street? But oh no that's part of the world. Those dragons though...  

It's certainly valid, first and foremost because it's the word of god, so unless there is something in the books that outright contradicts him is valid.

But more importantly because as a metaphor for nukes, dragons are not supposed to be as powerful as literal nukes.

 

What kid has been killed by a direwolf?? Regardless, there are a lot of injusticies in our day to day, we don't answer by parading nukes.

Tell me, what do you think it would attire more media attention, a kid being hit by a car or a kid that was killed during a nuke test??

Share this post


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

Dany doesn't necessarily want the house with the red door and the lemon tree for herself. She wants it for other people, particularly children.

That's just not supported in the text. The Red Door is Dany's happiness, the home she is attempting to find for herself.

In this red door fantasy she is a simple person, removed from the ability to save others.

Quote

In her dream they had been man and wife, simple folk who lived a simple life in a tall stone house with a red door.

 

Share this post


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

Again false equivalence. 

 

They are in Westeros.

Neither are nukes, which aren't sentient, their capacity of destruction and what they symbolize is what is feared.

 

- They can't do the same damage.

- People can kill a loo, that does not make them wmd.

- No one says you must hate Dany for using them.

 

 

It does not need to be.  Honestly, that's the whole point of an allegory.

The show wanted to accelerate Dany's nazification, so dragons become just that. A weapon for nazis.

 

 

What??

 

It's simply not true, what Martin is saying is that Dany is now a superpower and as such she should be wary of using her wmds. No one looks at Syria at says, well it's all fine, they are not being nuked. That's again a very absurd false equivalence.

 

 

It's certainly valid, first and foremost because it's the word of god, so unless there is something in the books that outright contradicts him is valid.

But more importantly because as a metaphor for nukes, dragons are not supposed to be as powerful as literal nukes.

 

What kid has been killed by a direwolf?? Regardless, there are a lot of injusticies in our day to day, we don't answer by parading nukes.

Tell me, what do you think it would attire more media attention, a kid being hit by a car or a kid that was killed during a nuke test??

 

No the weapons destructiveness is a defined quality and should be judged against a real world equivalent. The dragons in this world cannot delete entire cities on a whim and leave whole continents irradiated wastelands. So they are not nuclear weapons. The author calls them that either because he is exaggerating or he is framing their use in negative terms by association. 

Yes they can. A dragon can burn a hamlet down and kill the people inside. The Mountains guys can and they can be more creative doing it as well. People can lay waste to cities and salt the earth without fire breathing lizards. 

Saying that your characters fantasy animal is like a weapon many groups actively want banned and has museums dedicated to its victims is not a neutral association. How does that not cast a shadow on Dany? That is saying she is the destroyer of worlds simply for bringing the dragons into being.

Its a poor allegory.

Last Punic War. Rome exterminated and enslaved it’s ancient enemy Carthage. Their city was demolished and the ground  salted. No dragons involved. Imagine if that happened in a fantasy book and somebody was waxing poetic nonsense about how dangerous fire breathing lizards are. By singling out a random fantasy animal, you are defining what a just War is. As long as we don’t use these evil creatures and stay with normal tactics then everything is okay. But you can have the same if not worse result without using this proscribed weapon. 

So Dany using the Unsullied to do the above to Yunkai is fine but burning the Masters Pyramid down with a dragon is evil? 

So you accept they are not like nukes?

Normal wolves and bears. George wouldn’t have the Starks go through a moral dilemma of their Direwolf killing an innocent. He wants them to be untainted by those sort of problems and it subtly insinuates they’re better than Dany because of how effortlessly they control their spirit animals.

Because those injustices are not in the same level as what can be achieved with nukes. The war in Syria isn’t on a level with dropping nukes. Whereas with your normal and acceptable methods of war you can do the same level of damage as one of these dragons. But the normal stuff isn’t subject to the same vehement moral criticism and debate. This is why the level of destruction matters and where the allegory falls apart. It doesn’t matter what I use to destroy a city. The issue is destroying the city.

The Media is sensationalist and everyone would forget after a month. But the number of road traffic accidents would be a constant issue that would impact policy. 

I strongly doubt a character in the novels ever said a dragon was like a nuclear bomb. If he said this at an interview then he’s being hyperbolic and trying to convey themes. I am saying they are problematic and that the author has a flawed agenda. He’s only singling out Dragons because of the power fantasy element and that’s really all there is behind the satire. He’s not fussed on how the Starks got to the top without using Dragons because it’s not what he wants to focus on. That comes across as hypocritical.

Edited by Tyrion1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2020 at 1:40 AM, Finley McLeod said:

Excellent point.  At least what remains of the old kingdom will ask her for help.  I am not certain if the throne will mean anything after the kingdom has already divided.  The north and the iron islands will have gone their own ways by then. 

That sounds like wishful thinking. That Dany is useful against the army of zombies does not mean that she'll be hailed queen by default. The smallfolk may be in awe of her, but she'll have to assert her dominance over the nobility the old-fashioned way regardless, or at least broker alliances and grant favors. To say nothing of the fact that IF the Long Night is defeated, it's hardly going to be a solo affair on her part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

No the weapons destructiveness is a defined quality and should be judged against a real world equivalent. The dragons in this world cannot delete entire cities on a whim and leave whole continents irradiated wastelands. So they are not nuclear weapons. The author calls them that either because he is exaggerating or he is framing their use in negative terms by association. 

Except that's not how allegories and metaphores work, If Martin wanted to be less subtle, he could've given her, real nukes, so he could have people complaining about it too.

Dragons can not delete cities on a whim, they can certainly destroy cities on a whim.

And dunno but the Rhoynish cities have seen better times.

 

10 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Yes they can. A dragon can burn a hamlet down and kill the people inside. The Mountains guys can and they can be more creative doing it as well. People can lay waste to cities and salt the earth without fire breathing lizards. 

And the US Army could've killed the Japanese population on Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they wanted to land, is the US Army comparable to nukes too?? :dunno:

But no, the Mountain really can't. Besides the difference is not really how many people they can eventually kill, but the speed with which it can be done.

 

14 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Saying that your characters fantasy animal is like a weapon many groups actively want banned and has museums dedicated to its victims is not a neutral association. How does that not cast a shadow on Dany? That is saying she is the destroyer of worlds simply for bringing the dragons into being.

Well she is, only by having dragons her capacity of destruction is multiplied. 

It's not a neutral association but that does not mean Dany is evil. You're putting on the band aid before the wound.

16 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Its a poor allegory.

It's a very good one actually, a poor one would've been if Dany had received literal nukes. 

 

21 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Last Punic War. Rome exterminated and enslaved it’s ancient enemy Carthage. Their city was demolished and the ground  salted. No dragons involved. Imagine if that happened in a fantasy book and somebody was waxing poetic nonsense about how dangerous fire breathing lizards are. By singling out a random fantasy animal, you are defining what a just War is. As long as we don’t use these evil creatures and stay with normal tactics then everything is okay. But you can have the same if not worse result without using this proscribed weapon. 

No, I knew what you were talking about, I was just shocked by it.

Martin is not saying that the Holocaust is ok because nukes were not involved.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

So Dany using the Unsullied to do the above to Yunkai is fine but burning the Masters Pyramid down with a dragon is evil? 

Ditto.

 

24 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

So you accept they are not like nukes?

Oh no, they totally are.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Normal wolves and bears. George wouldn’t have the Starks go through a moral dilemma of their Direwolf killing an innocent. He wants them to be untainted by those sort of problems and it subtly insinuates they’re better than Dany because of how effortlessly they control their spirit animals.

Do you think so?? Direwolf are not fire breathing lizards. A dog is not as dangerous as a tiger...

 

 

26 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Because those injustices are not in the same level as what can be achieved with nukes. The war in Syria isn’t on a level with dropping nukes. Whereas with your normal and acceptable methods of war you can do the same level of damage as one of these dragons. But the normal stuff isn’t subject to the same vehement moral criticism and debate. This is why the level of destruction matters and where the allegory falls apart. It doesn’t matter what I use to destroy a city. The issue is destroying the city.

Aren't they now?? The war of Syria is indeed more devastating than any nuke, the only real difference would be the radiation but far more people have died in Syria that the radiation killed in Japan afterwards.

It indeed matters what you use to destroy the city, that's why Robb's dead is so reviled, and that's why the nukes are heavy debated even today. It's not the same killing 100k on a ten year war or killing 100k people in 5 minutes, one is much more terrying than the other. But that does not mean the other is ok.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The Media is sensationalist and everyone would forget after a month. But the number of road traffic accidents would be a constant issue that would impact policy. 

Everyone would forget after a month that a child died during a nuclear test?? Being nukes one of the modern men nightmares?? That's optimistic.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I strongly doubt a character in the novels ever said a dragon was like a nuclear bomb. If he said this at an interview then he’s being hyperbolic and trying to convey themes. I am saying they are problematic and that the author has a flawed agenda. He’s only singling out Dragons because of the power fantasy element and that’s really all there is behind the satire. He’s not fussed on how the Starks got to the top without using Dragons because it’s not what he wants to focus on.

No, what you have in the novels is a butt ton of characters signaling how the level of destruction a dragon can achieve is Next level.

When have the Starks used dragons??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2020 at 10:34 AM, King Adrian Storm said:

To start out, I have nothing against Dany. I don't have a problem with her character, but she isn't going to end on top. She will never be accepted in Westeros. A big part of her arc is about her trying to find Home, but Westeros is not the place she should be looking. Westeros is not her home, and never will be. The beauty of her arc to me, is Grrm set up the princess on her journey to reclaim the throne that was stolen from her as a child like the lion king, except she isn't going to win in the end. A few reasons why:

1.  She's a foreign invader to them. The people of Westeros aren't waiting for the day that their rightful heir returns to save them, like Viserys said. Dany is going to role up to Westeros with 3 dragons, she can't fully control, an army of dothraki, which cause a lot of damage to innocent people and like to rape and enslave people, and the unsullied.

2. She's already failed at leading Mereen. ADWD is all about Daenerys leading a city in preparation to Westeros. And what does she do? She fails miserably. Her own kingdom has turned against her. 2 of her dragons are set loose over the city, and she's captured by the dothraki.  This book shows how just because Jon and Dany are "heroic" characters they aren't meant to lead. Similar to Robert Baratheon. If Dany can't lead a city, how can she manage to lead 7 kingdoms.

3. Her allies. Tyrion is the most notorious man in Westeros at the moment. A kinslayer who was sentenced to death, and escaped by killing his father. Jorah was exiled from Westeros for selling slaves. Barristan although a good man, was demoted from the kingsguard, and killed 2/3 men before escaping to Essos. And on top of that she'll have the red priests backing her up, and we know how much Westeros loves red priests.

4. She will have no friends in Westeros. Who is going to support Daenerys? Dorne is siding with Aegon, and after her dragons burning Quentin, they are definitely not going to side with her. She literally hasn't met anyone in Westeros besides 2 people Jorah and Barristan. Why would anyone trust her, I think she will accept no one wants her in the south and try to gain support from the North, but in the end, the North wants its own independence, so I doubt they'll fight to get her on the throne.

5. She will be more ruthless going forward. ADWD ended with Dany deciding to be a dragon. She's going to burn the Khals, return to Mereen burn all of her enemies, and probably pass by a few more cities along the way, and burn them down as well. This is the only thing that works for Daenerys. How did Dany get her dragons? A fire ritual. How did she get the unsullied? Burning the slave masters. What happened when she locked up her dragons? Her city tried to assassinate her. Do you think she'll stop using her dragons when she gets to Westeros? No. Why would she when it's the only thing that's working for her? She'll burn down castles and armies, and everyone will fear her or turn against her.

Daenerys wasn't meant to rule. She may save the world from the Others, but she won't be queen.

I agree with the OP in that I find it unlikely that Dany will rule at the end of the series but I find a lot of these arguments flawed because if Dany can effectively control her dragons a la Ageon the Conqueror, most of these arguments pose obstacles for Dany but are not impossible. What really makes her rule at the end unlikely are A.) her poor ability to control her dragons and B.)  her darkening character arc.

1. Dany is a foreign invader...So was Aegon the Conqueror. While Targs had fled the Doom to Dragonstone, their customs were very foreign at the time of the Conquest and after. Effective control of dragons made armed resistance futile. Futhermore, the smallfolk aren't really focused on the game of thrones and are more focused on survival, even moreso during the LN. Thus, this is an obstacle, but not insurmountable.  What is not mentioned and would probably be a greater obstacle is simply Dany's gender, given the more intense sexism in Westeros (except Dorne) compared to Essos. But again, I think the choice between serving a ruling Queen and death is easy for most.

2. Dany failed in Mereen...OP is right that her rule of Mereen wasn't good, but "failure" is unfair. For a teenage revolutionary, I think Dany did very well tactically in short term situations. I argue her main problems in ruling are long term strategic planning and areas that are not cut and dry, black and white since she is so young. She is consistently torn between the quest for love/acceptance vs the quest for power, the expedient vs right action, Daario vs Hizdar, power vs peace and this combined with her youth leads to a deficit in long term decision-making. It is reasonable to expect a ruler of Dany's talents to be able to learn...the problem is that she learns the wrong lessons and becomes darker than I expected reading GOT and I think that is more salient in why she won't rule at the end than the mistakes made a world away from Westeros.

3. Her allies...This is the worst of the arguments. Tyrion is not for sure a close ally yet in the books: this is only in the show. Even if Tyrion does become integral to Dany, effective control of dragons can render opposition to Tyrion mute. Often those surrounding the ruler who have to do the dirty work are disliked anyway. The knock on Barristan is baffling and simply textually wrong. If anything, Barristan is an asset. See Tyrion's POV in ACOK. Cersei/Joffery's dismissal of Barristan was the impetus (among other blunders) for Tywin to send Tyrion to KL as acting Hand. According to both Tyrion and Tywin, Barristan the Bold lent credibility to whomever he served because he was so respected. Despite their humongous flaws, I trust Tywin and Tyrion's political acumen and analysis in this case. Barristan is stuffy and not very bright but there is no way that he is a negative for Dany politically in Westeros.

4. No friends in Westeros...This is also not accurate. Not only are Targaryen loyalists actively (if secretly) plotting to get Dany or fAegon on the throne, Robert disinherited and/or reduced the lands of the staunchest Targaryen loyalists. Especially with Westeros in chaos and Lannister inepitude, these lords would be ripe for Dany. Her strategic mistake of staying in Slavers Bay will likely result in these lords going to fAegon in the short term, but again if Dany shows up with effective control of her dragons a la Targs of old, I think most lords would turn their cloak for Dany and not burn to death.

5. Dany is getting very brutal...This is the best argument. Dany made a strategic blunder in staying in Slavers Bay and forced her to get creative and win some tactical prryhic victories which put her in a terrible, almost unwinnable situation in Mereen. This has forced her to learn that she should be more brutal and by the end of ADWD Dany is a darker character than in GOT. There have been hints of her slow metamorphisis from hero to antihero, and it is this factor that most makes me doubt Dany's ultimate success in ruling at the end of the series.

The main variables IMO for this question are A.) Dany's ability to effectively utilize her dragons and B.) Dany's darkening character arc. If Dany has control of her dragons like Aegon the Conqueror and she doesn't get too dark, the likelihood of her ruling at the end increases. Given Dany's relative lack of control over her dragons  by the end of ADWD I find it unlikely that she will be able to claim the Iron Throne, if she makes it to Westeros at all. Dany's character has been slowly shifting since GOT from standard fantasy hero to antihero. Given GRRMs choices in character development over the series such as Ned's death or RW, I find it unlikely (despite my wishes) that Dany swoops in, saves Westros and rules happily ever after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Its a sign that a few criminals with torches and free time can do as much damage as this metaphorical nuke that we're supposed to hate Dany for considering using. 

Because its not doing the same damage as a nuke. The author is being disingenuous to say that its like a nuke and to drag those moral arguments into the story.

Yeah, it's the humans who are the problem in both our world and in theirs. No shit.

But give each one of those angry peasants a dragon, and then what happens?

Humans created dragons and Targaryens bred them for war. It's the humans who are the destructive ones. But humans also created nukes and the dangerous aspect of WMD is a wackadoodle dictator or nation-state using them. So the metaphor still stands. 

Either people dont understand how metaphors work or they want to pick this apart because it makes dearest Dany look bad.

The story is about different ways to wield power. Different types of power will produce different results with different strengths/weaknesses.

Killing people en masse quickly without having to think about their dying, without even having to see their suffering because they look like little ants on the ground, probably does something to a person's psyche. 

GRRM has called Dany the most powerful person in the world. And that's how he's written her, with the ability to wipe out cities without even breaking a sweat or costing her very much personally.

Something has to take its toll eventually though. Unless we're reading a comic book and she's Wonder Woman. That's not really moralizing its just attempting to be realistic. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


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

Either people dont understand how metaphors work or they want to pick this apart because it makes dearest Dany look bad.

After all, the only acceptable course of action is to misinterpret the text and use intellectually dishonest arguments to make Dany look as bad as possible.

Share this post


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

 

The main variables IMO for this question are A.) Dany's ability to effectively utilize her dragons and B.) Dany's darkening character arc. If Dany has control of her dragons like Aegon the Conqueror and she doesn't get too dark, the likelihood of her ruling at the end increases. Given Dany's relative lack of control over her dragons  by the end of ADWD I find it unlikely that she will be able to claim the Iron Throne, if she makes it to Westeros at all. Dany's character has been slowly shifting since GOT from standard fantasy hero to antihero. Given GRRMs choices in character development over the series such as Ned's death or RW, I find it unlikely (despite my wishes) that Dany swoops in, saves Westros and rules happily ever after.

I think that her character arc has to become darker, because if ADWD proved anything, it is that peace between slave and free is not possible.  Either the free states have to accept injustices occurring on their doorstep (eg allowing masters to bring slaves in and out with them, returning fugitive slaves to their masters etc, allowing them to operate slave markets) or they have to fight them.  Notably, the main free state in Essos, Braavos, chooses to fight.  They went to war with Pentos to end slavery, and they seize slave ships on the high seas.  I don't think that we're meant to view the Braavosi as being morally wrong to do this.  Very much the reverse.  

That very much reflects what happened in the real world.  European nations ceased to tolerate the Barbary corsairs;  free and slave states could not ultimately co-exist in the USA.  

I find the argument that gets advanced against Dany that peace = good, war = bad, a false one.  There are times when peace is the worse option. The peace that Daenerys was offered (even assuming it was sincere, which I doubt) was the kind of peace that the UK was offered in July 1940.

Share this post


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

Yeah, it's the humans who are the problem in both our world and in theirs. No shit.

But give each one of those angry peasants a dragon, and then what happens?

Humans created dragons and Targaryens bred them for war. It's the humans who are the destructive ones. But humans also created nukes and the dangerous aspect of WMD is a wackadoodle dictator or nation-state using them. So the metaphor still stands. 

Either people dont understand how metaphors work or they want to pick this apart because it makes dearest Dany look bad.

The story is about different ways to wield power. Different types of power will produce different results with different strengths/weaknesses.

Killing people en masse quickly without having to think about their dying, without even having to see their suffering because they look like little ants on the ground, probably does something to a person's psyche. 

GRRM has called Dany the most powerful person in the world. And that's how he's written her, with the ability to wipe out cities without even breaking a sweat or costing her very much personally.

Something has to take its toll eventually though. Unless we're reading a comic book and she's Wonder Woman. That's not really moralizing its just attempting to be realistic. 

 

The dragons can’t delete entire cities by looking at them. This is not Age of Sigmar level dragons. You certainly can achieve the same level of destruction with conventional weapons and tactics. Does it matter if you commit genocide with cold steel or with a flying lizard? If it takes you a few hours or a few days? If you’re looking your victims in the eye or like ants?

That’s just casting moral judgement on the means and not the consequences.

George is focusing in on the wrong aspect of this. He’s making moral judgements based on the method. As you say, killing people from a distance is somehow more monstrous than a Roman cutting up Carthaginian prisoners with his knife? Some guy in an Apache blasting guys on a street versus a marine shooting prisoners in the back of the head?

It’s based on a flawed assumption. That if people are face to face that their natural empathy would prevail and we wouldn’t see as much violence. Therefore if you remove these powerful weapons that remove the Human element everything would be good. That is a dangerous distortion that misses the point. In the YouTube channel War against Humanity they make this point very clearly. People are hard wired to suppress empathy when they view a group they consider to be Other. It has nothing to do with them being like ants and a sense of detachment. People can be very evil without such things and looking their victims in the eye. The world would not be a better place if you removed the dragons and didn’t address the other issues. Which are for more important.

Its like saying it’s more honourable to cut a mans throat than drop a bomb on his head. By focusing moral condemnation on such a superficial point you end up quietly sanctioning more conventional methods and behaviour.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

The dragons can’t delete entire cities by looking at them. This is not Age of Sigmar level dragons. You certainly can achieve the same level of destruction with conventional weapons and tactics. Does it matter if you commit genocide with cold steel or with a flying lizard? If it takes you a few hours or a few days? If you’re looking your victims in the eye or like ants?

That’s just casting moral judgement on the means and not the consequences.

George is focusing in on the wrong aspect of this. He’s making moral judgements based on the method. As you say, killing people from a distance is somehow more monstrous than a Roman cutting up Carthaginian prisoners with his knife? Some guy in an Apache blasting guys on a street versus a marine shooting prisoners in the back of the head?

It’s based on a flawed assumption. That if people are face to face that their natural empathy would prevail and we wouldn’t see as much violence. Therefore if you remove these powerful weapons that remove the Human element everything would be good. That is a dangerous distortion that misses the point. In the YouTube channel War against Humanity they make this point very clearly. People are hard wired to suppress empathy when they view a group they consider to be Other. It has nothing to do with them being like ants and a sense of detachment. People can be very evil without such things and looking their victims in the eye. The world would not be a better place if you removed the dragons and didn’t address the other issues. Which are for more important.

Its like saying it’s more honourable to cut a mans throat than drop a bomb on his head. By focusing moral condemnation on such a superficial point you end up quietly sanctioning more conventional methods and behaviour.

 

 

"Kill them all.  God will look after his own."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with dragons is the same as their strength, they consolidate power to a single person or few people and make a broad consensus unnecessary for rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chrisdaw

The best thing to happen to the people of Westeros was the arrival of the Targaryens and their dragons.  The Targaryen monarchs kept the nobles in line and thus allowed for reasonably long periods of peace.  Power is not necessarily a negative.  It takes power to do good.  Slavery would not have ended in the US if power was not used against the slave owners.  The Nazis could not have been stopped without the use of power.  Power can corrupt but so can the absence of power.  Having the power concentrated in the hands of the monarch was a benefit to the people of Westeros.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

After all, the only acceptable course of action is to misinterpret the text and use intellectually dishonest arguments to make Dany look as bad as possible.

What is there to misinterpret?? It's quite clear that dragons are the equivalents of wmds and if it wasn't clear enough, Martin outright says it.

The only intellectually dishonest argument I've seen so far is the insistence of dragons not being the equivalents of nukes because a dragon cannot cause the same damage, which ofc makes one wonder, either people don't know how  metaphors work or are grasping straws because they believe it reflects badly on Dany. If it's the second, it's indeed dishonest.

 

@Tyrion1991

 

Quote

The dragons can’t delete entire cities by looking at them. This is not Age of Sigmar level dragons. You certainly can achieve the same level of destruction with conventional weapons and tactics. Does it matter if you commit genocide with cold steel or with a flying lizard? If it takes you a few hours or a few days? If you’re looking your victims in the eye or like ants?

Nor they need to to be the metaphorical nukesin Martin's world. Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the cities and its inhabitants were already being deleted from time to time without much problem, sure it took longer, but apparently the speed is not so much of a concern to you. 

So all in all, the only problem people should have with nukes is radiation, since the humans can be just as barbaric and destructive if they put their best efforsts on it.

 

Quote

That’s just casting moral judgement on the means and not the consequences.

 Like we do with nukes. 

 

Quote

George is focusing in on the wrong aspect of this. He’s making moral judgements based on the method. As you say, killing people from a distance is somehow more monstrous than a Roman cutting up Carthaginian prisoners with his knife? Some guy in an Apache blasting guys on a street versus a marine shooting prisoners in the back of the head?

I don't really believe that killing people from distance is more monstrous than doing it face to face, i believe the opposite, from distance you can detach yourself from it.

What set the dragons and nukes apart are the level of destruction, the speed which they destroy and the options of defense people have to face them.

 

Quote

It’s based on a flawed assumption. That if people are face to face that their natural empathy would prevail and we wouldn’t see as much violence. Therefore if you remove these powerful weapons that remove the Human element everything would be good. That is a dangerous distortion that misses the point. In the YouTube channel War against Humanity they make this point very clearly. People are hard wired to suppress empathy when they view a group they consider to be Other. It has nothing to do with them being like ants and a sense of detachment. People can be very evil without such things and looking their victims in the eye. The world would not be a better place if you removed the dragons and didn’t address the other issues. Which are for more important.

Indeed, you're very right on this, but i do believet that the world would be a better place without wmds.

 

 

@Aline de Gavrillac

 

Quote

The best thing to happen to the people of Westeros was the arrival of the Targaryens and their dragons.  The Targaryen monarchs kept the nobles in line and thus allowed for reasonably long periods of peace. 

Except for Dorne, they were genocided because they did not accept the master race.;) Power is not a problem... until it becomes a very dangerous problem.

 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I agree to the things said by @SeanF and @Tyrion1991 concerning the matter of peace and war in Dany's campain, I just wanted to add:

On 5/14/2020 at 9:47 PM, SeanF said:

As for Tsar Bomba.....

The Tsar was actually what got the US- and UDSSR-Government to start the negotiations which later ended with the NTBT, SALT and START treaties.

Beside: I liked the Cold War a LOT better when I would have a Third World War by the means of WW I and WW II, sorry (MAD is an interesting concept). So the analogon of dragons and nukes does not fit, but still not even nukes are "evil" per se, one can argue that tactical nukes are "worse", while strategical nukes are "not so bad"; but all in all they are something completely different than dragons, not only because their "fire power".

The only way dragons do fit in the analogy with nukes is in the sense of si vis pacem para bellum, meaning: you have them, you don't want to use them, but you would, and the other does know this. And in that way, the dragons could not even be seen as something completely bad, but a way to get the lords of Westeros to stop warmongering, and the Free Cities of Essos to stop being hypocritical on slave trade.

Beside: With trebuchets, catapults etc. being a part of this world with throwing of plague victims over city walls and greek fire (aka wild fire), we already have wmds, a dragon is only a living one. :dunno:

23 minutes ago, frenin said:

What is there to misinterpret?? It's quite clear that dragons are the equivalents of wmds and if it wasn't clear enough, Martin outright says it.

The only intellectually dishonest argument I've seen so far is the insistence of dragons not being the equivalents of nukes because a dragon cannot cause the same damage, which ofc makes one wonder, either people don't know how  metaphors work or are grasping straws because they believe it reflects badly on Dany. If it's the second, it's indeed dishonest.

I think it depends on what one wants to say with the analogy. If one does mean that dragons are a very powerful weapon, it isn't so wrong (but still not quite right).

But if one does mean that dragons are just as bad as nukes, building a moral high ground out of the "horrors" of their possible usages, while on the other hand being totally fine with "normal" warfare (rape, plunder, sacking, killing, wild fire, poisoning of wells, throwing corpses into cities, etc.pp.) and finding murder "badass", it become a dishonest argument.

Share this post


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

 

 Like we do with nukes. 

 

Do we though? If pushed, I imagine most British and Americans would say that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the correct course of action. (It is my view, based on what I've read about the Pacific War).  I think most peoples' fear of nuclear weapons is based on the devastation that a full scale exchange of missiles would wreak, rather than a belief that their use is morally worse than the use of conventional WMD.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


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

Beside: With trebuchets, catapults etc. being a part of this world with throwing of plague victims over city walls and greek fire (aka wild fire), we already have wmds, a dragon is only a living one. :dunno: 

Not so quite, it's like saying that because we already had cannnons and bullets and cannons and bullets can kill a lot of people, we already had wmds in the 17th century, is a quite curious mental gymnastics people are doing here just for Dany. Comparng a trebuchet with a full zise dragon is simply ludicrous.

 

1 hour ago, Morte said:

Beside: I liked the Cold War a LOT better when I would have a Third World War by the means of WW I and WW II, sorry (MAD is an interesting concept). So the analogon of dragons and nukes does not fit, but still not even nukes are "evil" per se, one can argue that tactical nukes are "worse", while strategical nukes are "not so bad"; but all in all they are something completely different than dragons, not only because their "fire power".

The analogy fits quite nicely, the only difference is that in this case only one country and later one family had the nukes, instead of two super powers and when another super power may have them, Jaeharys moved to avoid it.

1 hour ago, Morte said:

The only way dragons do fit in the analogy with nukes is in the sense of si vis pacem para bellum, meaning: you have them, you don't want to use them, but you would, and the other does know this. And in that way, the dragons could not even be seen as something completely bad, but a way to get the lords of Westeros to stop warmongering, and the Free Cities of Essos to stop being hypocritical on slave trade.

Sure, if the one who has the dragons want them to do good, if not... Well, Maegor, Valyria, Aemond,  First Dornish war...  Nukes can't be completely bad if they are used for good. It just so happens that the "good" is never what those who have it are looking for. 

 

1 hour ago, Morte said:

I think it depends on what one wants to say with the analogy. If one does mean that dragons are a very powerful weapon, it isn't so wrong (but still not quite right).

Quite right indeed.

 

1 hour ago, Morte said:

But if one does mean that dragons are just as bad as nukes, building a moral high ground out of the "horrors" of their possible usages, while on the other hand being totally fine with "normal" warfare (rape, plunder, sacking, killing, wild fire, poisoning of wells, throwing corpses into cities, etc.pp.) and finding murder "badass", it become a dishonest argument.

 This is indeed the dishonest argument, I'll ask again, is anyone fine with Syria because no one has been dropping nukes?? It's not the War of the 5 kings brutal and does not Martin makes a point to make us understand how barbaric this war is?? Isn't Elia's fate repeated to us over and over again??

Is conventional warfare ok and badass because people don't like nukes?? I simply cannot understand where people get the idea that the normal warfare is somewhat ok, especially with someone as antiwar as Martin is.

 

@SeanF

Quote

Do we though? If pushed, I imagine most British and Americans would say that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the correct course of action.  I think most peoples' fear of nuclear weapons is based on the devastation that a full scale exchange of missiles would wreak, rather than a belief that their use is morally worse than the use of conventional WMD.

We do, Yankees and their allies will ofc defend and rationalize their actions, god forbid they can be seen as the bad guys of the story for once, i very much doubt that they would be so lenient with its use had Russia been the one dropping the bomb.

Fear for nukes have evolved, at the beginning it was the fact that finally, after a millenia trying, the man had finally achieved the way to destroy the world, later was the fact that several people could destroy the world if they got really angry. Killing a ton of people very quicly is always going to inspire more fear than killing several people after many rows, that's why bio weapons are also dreaded.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...