The Shakespearean Tragedy of Daenerys Targaryen

HoodedCrow · December 22, 2021

It seems Martin evokes Shakespeare or other classics, or even Mervyn Peake, ( or the Raven) or the Three Stooges. I like the discussion about Dany as a tragic hero. The red door is confusing to me, but when the idea that love, fire, desire, sex, destruction could be pitted against Ice, well there you have it.

Nathan Stark · December 22, 2021

It's rare that we get any kind of thread analyzing Danaerys Taryaryen's story and narrative like this, so I'm sold. I think the author of the blog is correct in calling Dany a Shakespearean tragic hero. I have always understood the infamous House with the Red Door to symbolize Dany's desperate desire for family, safety, love, etc. In a sense, she has conflated Westeros with home, and the Iron Throne with the Red Door. But we know that the Iron Throne does not bestow happiness upon the people who sit it, except for people like Joffrey. Dany is in for a very unpleasant surprise when she returns to Westeros to find that her reputation has preceded her and the people of Westeros like their fake King Aegon, thank you. The tragedy of Danaerys Targaryen is that she will ultimately let her worst impulses drive her actions. And it will lead to her downfall.

The Bard of Banefort · December 23, 2021

On 12/22/2021 at 4:57 PM, Nathan Stark said:

It's rare that we get any kind of thread analyzing Danaerys Taryaryen's story and narrative like this, so I'm sold. I think the author of the blog is correct in calling Dany a Shakespearean tragic hero. I have always understood the infamous House with the Red Door to symbolize Dany's desperate desire for family, safety, love, etc. In a sense, she has conflated Westeros with home, and the Iron Throne with the Red Door. But we know that the Iron Throne does not bestow happiness upon the people who sit it, except for people like Joffrey. Dany is in for a very unpleasant surprise when she returns to Westeros to find that her reputation has preceded her and the people of Westeros like their fake King Aegon, thank you. The tragedy of Danaerys Targaryen is that she will ultimately let her worst impulses drive her actions. And it will lead to her downfall.

This is my interpretation as well. I think Aegon was added specifically to throw a wrench in Dany’s plans. The Lannisters have already destroyed themselves; it wouldn’t take much for her to defeat them.

Another thing to consider is that wherever Dany had conquered, she has always been well-received by the commoners. We don’t know how she’ll react if she’s rejected by them.

Edited December 23, 2021 by The Bard of Banefort

LynnS · December 24, 2021

On 12/22/2021 at 4:34 PM, Mourning Star said:

I don't know why you think it's ok to speak to anyone like that,

Or to hurl accusations of sexism because someone pointed out a legitimate problem with what you said,

Maybe you are just having a bad day, but there is really no excuse for such horrendous behavior ever.

You don't start out your post with the snarky remark that I sound like Melisandre. The gist of your post is that I don't understand what I'm talking about and only you understand Melisandre; that I should change what I think and you are the one who is going to tell me what it is correct to think. How dare you! No! I don't have hurt feelings, I'm angry. You should have pressed the pause button before jumping out from behind the bushes.

The Bard of Banefort · December 24, 2021

Another interesting thing in this essay is the blogger’s argument that Dany rose to power relatively easily in order to make her fall that much more powerful. I’m thinking this might be the case with Littlefinger too. Most of his scheming relies on a hell of a lot of luck. Hopefully that will just make his downfall more satisfying.

I’ve also noticed that pretty much every romance in ASOIAF is or likely will be a tragedy. Even Jaehaerys and Alysanne turned out to be tragic in FaB, despite being together so long (losing most of their children, separating more than once, Alysanne realizing that Jaehaerys never really saw her as a true equal). I feel like we’re going to see a lot of people fall in love throughout the rest of the series, only for one partner to then die.

Edited January 5, 2022 by The Bard of Banefort

Mourning Star · January 5, 2022

On 12/24/2021 at 9:42 AM, LynnS said:

You don't start out your post with the snarky remark that I sound like Melisandre. The gist of your post is that I don't understand what I'm talking about and only you understand Melisandre; that I should change what I think and you are the one who is going to tell me what it is correct to think. How dare you! No! I don't have hurt feelings, I'm angry. You should have pressed the pause button before jumping out from behind the bushes.

I think you did sound like Melisandre.

I don't think you understood what you are talking about.

I do think you should reassess your thoughts on the story if you agree with Melisandre.

I am telling you what I think is correct, yes, and using the text to support my case.

You can be angry all you want, I think it's because you are embarrassed. But whatever the reason, it is totally inexcusable to speak to anyone the way you did to me. It was sexist and juvenile and has no place on a forum about a story. Grow up.

LynnS · January 5, 2022

22 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I think you did sound like Melisandre.

I don't think you understood what you are talking about.

I do think you should reassess your thoughts on the story if you agree with Melisandre.

I am telling you what I think is correct, yes, and using the text to support my case.

You can be angry all you want, I think it's because you are embarrassed. But whatever the reason, it is totally inexcusable to speak to anyone the way you did to me. It was sexist and juvenile and has no place on a forum about a story. Grow up.

It's over. Let's just move on.

ElviraHill · September 25, 2022

So, I read the thread's mini argue and couldn't get - what is in the main idea of the dawnfall
I am doing a study for my university department and would be thankful to receive some help with this Shakespeare's masterpiece.

SeanF · September 25, 2022

5 hours ago, ElviraHill said:

So, I read the thread's mini argue and couldn't get - what is in the main idea of the dawnfall
I am doing a study for my university department and would be thankful to receive some help with this Shakespeare's masterpiece.

Well, Greek tragedy and Shakespearean tragedy are different things, although they have much in common.

With Greek tragedy, Fate (or the will of the Gods) is inexorable. Any attempt to avoid one’s fate only brings it closer. Oedipus, for example, cannot avoid his fate, regardless of his actions.

Shakespeare’s tragic heroes take bad decisions - due to some fatal flaw in their character - with catastrophic consequences for them and those they love.

So, I’d ask what is Dany’s fatal flaw? If you follow the cited article) or Adam Feldman) her fatal flaw is that she is not a pacifist. What she ought to do is turn the other cheek, and pursue a policy of complete appeasement towards her enemies. It misses the point that when enemies are bent upon subjugating one’s people, a just and good ruler fights them.

Put bluntly, it’s Gandhi’s argument that five million Jews should have gone willingly to their deaths.

Quite why Daenerys, in a medieval world at war, ought to be a pacifist is never really explained.

To my mind, that is the “fatal flaw” in so much anti-Daenerys argument.

Edited September 25, 2022 by SeanF

DemetriusHill · September 26, 2022

On 12/22/2021 at 6:14 PM, Springwatch said:

I didn't get it. I ended up skimming back and forth, and still couldn't get into it. Having admitted as much, I'm voting it down. Behind the Shakespearian draperies, there are speculations and assertions here that are just as sweeping as anything on this forum - such as:

Because instead of finding a home, Daenerys will arrive in Westeros to find further loneliness because there she won’t be needed. There is no queenship for her but an entire nation of people who see her as an outsider, a brutal warlord when they already have their gallant Prince Aegon VI there. Instead of the loneliness of isolation, Westeros will be the loneliness of the crowd and rejection.

? It might happen. It might not happen.

Worse is the assertion that even if Dany dies fighting the Others, her death must be insignificant to the outcome, and cannot be a sacrifice to a good cause. To be honest, I suspect the author is motivated by pacifism and wants the outcome to be pure of Dany's warlording and all the fire and blood thing. (I mean, I don't know, but what else is there?) For more expository essays, check this as these essay types clearly explain different topics.

But the opening was terrific, I grant you. GRRM makes many cultural references though - he's not bound by them.

The idea of pacifism appeals to me. I even wrote about it in an essay for my college literature department and my professor supported this idea in Shakespeare's masterpiece.

Oana_Mika · September 26, 2022

Here is one great essay debunking her being a tragic hero :

First of all, his argument rests on comparing Daenerys to Macbeth and Hamlet, who were also tragic heroes. To be sure, I don’t doubt that GRRM used Shakespearean tragic heroes to influence his writing of Daenerys, but he didn’t do so with just her––he did so with Rhaegar, Ned, and Jon as well. Ned has several dreams before his actual death in AGOT. The person who wrote this essay references King Lear 5.3.207, “‘Never’, the darkness cried, 'never, never, never’”, paralleling it with the same line GRRM wrote when Dany was mourning Drogo in Dany IX AGOT.

And though both King Lear and Dany are mourning the deaths of their children, the contexts are vastly different. Dany’s unborn child is murdered by a woman who wanted to enact vengeance against the Dothraki for enslaving her and thus targets the Khal and his unborn son. Her idea that the son would grow up to be a huge threat is ultimately pointless because it was Dany who will be the Stallion all along. Dany then mercy kills Drogo because he was vegetative.

On the other hand, King Lear disinherits Cordelia because he’s offended at what she says. Ultimately, the ensuing power struggle that’s caused by Lear dividing the seat of his realm between his other two daughters is what causes Cordelia’s death and then his own.

What I want to get at is that Dany’s situation is a tragedy of circumstances, whereas a tragic hero is textually known as a trope whereby a hero’s downfall occurs in large part due to a crucial tragic flaw. And even if people think Dany is flawed, even if people think she is a narcissistic god who saves people to help herself feel good, there is no textual indication that Dany has a tragic flaw that causes her misery. Dany’s is a tragedy of circumstances. She’s only with the Dothraki in the first place because she was forced to marry Drogo; she was not there by deliberate choice or deliberate action (unlike Lear deliberately abdicating and splitting his realm between two of his daughters and disinheriting his favorite daughter).

Moreover, Dany, as a young woman (and not educated, wizened King), thought she was doing some good by saving the Lhazareen women and Mirri. She was, but what she didn’t realize is that Drogo’s pillaging of the village was far from an individual act of violence and instead part and parcel to a whole network of violence in Essos. And though Mirri directs her vengeance at the Khal and the Khal’s son, it was because of who Drogo is, and not because Dany has a “tragic flaw” that leads to her downfall.

In fact, many of the tragedies in Dany’s life are tragedy of circumstances. Had this been a power struggle caused by Dany, I would’ve understood the King Lear/Dany comparison. To be sure the direct textual reference to Shakespeare is there because GRRM wants to highlight the pain of a monarch losing their child, and not necessarily because GRRM wants the reader to conclude that Dany will take King Lear’s fate. For her to have the same fate would mean she’d have the same tragic flaw as Lear and then divide the realm in some way and cause a power struggle, which thus far, I have not seen textual indication of.

GRRM also uses a direct textual reference to Hamlet. Again, this is because he wanted to emphasize how much grief and isolation and pain Dany was feeling, and not to foreshadow that she is ASOIAF’s Hamlet. And indeed, Hamlet’s story is about revenge, about him taking action against his uncle for murdering his father. One could argue that Dany is like Hamlet because she is “driven by vengeance against the Usurpers”, but if Dany was solely driven by vengeance, she would be far more like Viserys; certainly she wouldn’t have saved the Lhazareen women and Mirri, she wouldn’t have freed slaves, she wouldn’t have stayed in Meereen rather than sail to Westeros. The text often calls her a dragon queen, little queen, shining queen, and parallels her with Aegon the Conqueror, showcasing that though she sometimes feels vengeful (as MANY of the other characters do), she is not motivated primarily by revenge. The same cannot be said for Hamlet; he is fueled by it until he commits suicide.

I want to say too that Dany does feel suicidal in AGOT, but this is when she’s enduring Drogo’s nightly raping of her. She feels suicidal because she’s a young girl getting raped daily. She does not feel suicidal after Drogo or Rhaego’s death; in fact, after their deaths, she has the courage to walk into a funeral pyre alive and emerge with her dragons. Hamlet and Lear’s stories are tales of deconstruction, but Dany’s is one of literal buildup; the deaths that proceed Hamlet and Lear’s own contribute to their untimely endings and forcibly break them down, whereas all the death and suffering Dany goes through in AGOT, in addition to making her grieve and of course contributing to her trauma, only teach her lessons that build her up in the future. Hamlet and Lear die after everything they go through; Dany rises and rises after everything she goes through. Again, had Dany been a tragic hero, we’d have seen something similar, but instead we see the opposite.

Also, when Dany thinks that she wants to sleep and not dream, it’s not because she wants to die (like Hamlet) but because she doesn’t want to have nightmares about her grief. Ironically enough, in Daenerys IX, when she thinks that, the chapter begins with her having a series of incredibly important, incredibly prophetic dreams that lead up to the birth of her dragons. Also, we get other characters not wanting to dream or not being able to dream after suffering grief:

She drew the curtains around her bed, slept, woke weeping, and slept again. When she could not sleep she lay under her blankets shivering with grief. Servants came and went, bringing meals, but the sight of food was more than she could bear. The dishes piled up on the table beneath her window, untouched and spoiling, until the servants took them away again.

Sometimes her sleep was leaden and dreamless, and she woke from it more tired than when she had closed her eyes. Yet those were the best times, for when she dreamed, she dreamed of Father. Waking or sleeping, she saw him, saw the gold cloaks fling him down, saw Ser Ilyn striding forward, unsheathing Ice from the scabbard on his back, saw the moment … the moment when … she had wanted to look away, she had wanted to, her legs had gone out from under her and she had fallen to her knees, yet somehow she could not turn her head, and all the people were screaming and shouting, and her prince had smiled at her, he’d smiled and she’d felt safe, but only for a heartbeat, until he said those words, and her father’s legs … that was what she remembered, his legs, the way they’d jerked when Ser Ilyn … when the sword … (Sansa VI, AGOT)

“All you have made certain is that I shall never see my daughters again. Brienne might have gotten him to King’s Landing safely … so long as no one was hunting for them. But now …” Catelyn could not go on. “Leave me, Edmure.” She had no right to command him, here in the castle that would soon be his, yet her tone would brook no argument. “Leave me to Father and my grief, I have no more to say to you. Go. Go.” All she wanted was to lie down, to close her eyes and sleep, and pray no dreams would come. (Catelyn I, ASOS)

That night she cried herself to sleep … for the first time, if not the last. Even in her dreams she found no peace. She dreamt of Arys Oakheart caressing her, smiling at her, telling her that he loved her … but all the while the quarrels were in him and his wounds were weeping, turning his whites to red. Part of her knew it was a nightmare, even as she dreamt it. Come morning all of this will vanish, the princess told herself, but when morning came, she was still in her cell, Ser Arys was still dead, and Myrcella … I never wanted that, never. I meant the girl no harm. All I wanted was for her to be a queen. If we had not been betrayed … (The Princess in the Tower, AFFC)

Afterward the wine was done and so was he, so he wadded up the girl’s clothing and tossed it at the door. She took the hint and fled, leaving him alone in the darkness, sinking deeper into his feather bed. I am stinking drunk. He dare not close his eyes, for fear of sleep. Beyond the veil of dream, the Sorrows were waiting for him. Stone steps ascending endlessly, steep and slick and treacherous, and somewhere at the top, the Shrouded Lord. I do not want to meet the Shrouded Lord. Tyrion fumbled back into his clothes again and groped his way to the stair. Griff will flay me. Well, why not? If ever a dwarf deserved a skinning, I’m him. (Tyrion VI, ADWD)

Characters like Arianne, Sansa, Catelyn, and Tyrion all fear dreaming after going through trauma and sorrow. Sansa says she prefers nights that are dreamless because when she does dream, she replays the horrific scene of Ned’s death. Catelyn doesn’t want to dream because by the beginning of ASOS, she’s lost her husband, her eldest son is at war, and her daughters and youngest sons are far away from her protection. Arianne is tortured by her dreams of Aerys Oakheart’s death and Myrcella getting maimed. Tyrion of course fears dreams in ADWD. It’s not some grand act of foreshadowing that Dany fears dreaming and wants to sleep after losing her husband and son; literally every character in the series who goes through grief and loss and heartache fears the nightmares that follow and go through periods of wanting to sleep dreamlessly and endlessly, so as not to face the pain of tomorrow.

Again, this is why I say that GRRM is emphasizing the grief that Dany is feeling in those scenes, and not that she is meant to be Lear or Hamlet, by directly referencing Shakespeare.

The author of this essay then compares Daenerys to Othello, saying that like Othello smothered Desdemona to death with a pillow, Daenerys smothers Drogo with a cushion. However, once again, there are incredible differences in context. Othello is deliberately ruined by the machinations of Iago. Iago resented Othello because he promoted Cassio rather than himself. This is why Iago deliberately leads Othello to believing that Desdemona is cheating on him with Cassio. Iago’s poison drives Othello mad with grief and jealousy, which is why he murders his wife. Othello commits an act of intimate partner violence because he was very craftily manipulated into wrath and vengeance toward the wife he so dearly loved (not excusing his IPV, of course, but explaining it). Upon learning the truth, Othello doesn’t fatally kill Iago, but he does commit suicide.

This is such a clear illustration of what I meant about the difference between tragic heroism vs. tragedy of circumstances. Othello’s flaw is his wrath; he is consumed with jealousy, such that instead of trusting his wife and listening to her, or getting all the information and facts logically in order, he kills her. He is devastated by the truth and cannot endure living after it, which is why he kills himself. Othello’s downfall was caused in large part by Iago, but also by his tragic flaw: here too we see a story of breakdown, that of Othello’s mental state and the deterioration of Othello and Desdemona’s marriage.

On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, Dany’s tragedy occurs due to circumstance. Mirri could’ve used any Khaleesi or Khal to enact revenge, rather than Dany specifically. Dany is not in that situation by her own choice or by getting manipulated. And in fact, rather than breakdown, Dany rises to the occasion after these deaths. She even tells Mirri that children grow and learn. And we do see her growing and learning, because she becomes a Queen Regnant, Mhysa, and the Mother of Dragons, a conqueror and a savior. What tragedy she goes through is nothing like Othello’s. There is a huge difference between committing intimate partner violence because of your own jealousy and because you were manipulated vs. mercy killing your husband who was already vegetative.

The author then says that Dany’s storyline actually highlights aspects of Shakespearean tragedy’s. However, we see that hers is not the only story that does so. This is what he lists:

The hero being someone who has risen high in position is crucial to Shakespeare’s tragedy. […] temporary abnormal conditions of mind, such as Lear’s episode in the wilderness, supernatural encounters that provide knowledge, such as Macbeth’s encounter with the witches or the ghost of Hamlet’s father, influential accidents, such as Romeo missing the friar’s message about Juliet’s ruse or Desdemona’s unfortunate missing handkerchief

Dany was in an abnormal condition at the end of ADWD because she had just tamed a dragon and then consumed poisoned berries that caused illness, diarrhea, and hallucinations. She likely miscarried as well. Then, we see that Jon has risen and risen to a position at the top throughout his arc too: going from bastard of Winterfell, to Lord Commander Mormont’s cupbearer, to himself Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch, and then in the future, likely King in the North. Cersei rises to Queen Regent. Robb had become King, when he always thought he’d be the Warden of the North. Robb dies later, though; so we see many characters who ascend, to their own peril. Jon himself dies in ADWD.

Bran also goes through a similar state of hallucination and spiritual re-awakening (or what the author of this essay calls “an abnormal condition”) when he consumes weirwood paste in ADWD. I also find it ludicrous that the author considers “having supernatural encounters” as a sign that Dany is a tragic hero. Like, this is a fantasy series, at the end of the day. Several characters are having several supernatural encounters. Jon has several. Bran has several. Dany obviously has several. Arya has several. Whether it’s wolf dreams, skinchanging, greenseeing, warging, birthing dragons, having prophetic dreams, riding dragons, using fire or dragonclass to kill wights, encountering the Others and giants and Children of the Forest… this is literally a fantasy series. Can’t have a fantasy novel without supernatural encounters. Am I really supposed to go “wow, Dany is definitely set up to be a Shakespearean tragic hero because she checks off this box of going through supernatural encounters” when she’s a magical messiah character in a FANTASY series in which other major characters go through the same number of magical and supernatural encounters? Lol.

Accidents out of the main character’s control happen in Bran’s arc, Arya’s arc, Jon’s arc, even Sansa’s arc. Um, a lot of what happens to the Starklings is entirely out of their control. Jon’s ADWD arc is rife with as many of those moments as Dany’s is.

The author mentions internal and external conflicts. He of course cites the Meereneese Blot essays (who would’ve thought?). However, the human heart in conflict with itself, which the author does mention, is not a theme exclusive to Dany’s arc. Dany yearning for home vs. knowing she belongs to the Realm and her people is a theme reflected in many other character’s arcs. Jon struggles between choosing his Night’s Watch vows and the loyalty and love he has for his family; by breaking his vows, he makes a deliberate choice, and is (imo unfairly) killed for it. He’s conflicting between what the Northmen have always done to the Wildlings vs. integrating them because they are people and need to be protected from the Others. Conflicting between what choices Stannis offers vs. what he must do as Lord Commander. So many of these characters must choose between two difficult scenarios or identities; why is this then something that makes only Daenerys a tragic hero?

I’m not even going to touch on this author’s idea of Dany having a “violent side”. I’ve already debunked that thought. Regardless, if people think being violent against slavers is the same form of violence to condemn as we would condemn Tywin’s violence, that is their prerogative. What this author is choosing to ignore is that though Dany loves Daario, she chooses to marry Hizdahr for the sake of her people. Conflicted she may be, the choice she makes is still clear. She rejects peace at the very end of ADWD because she herself learns that the false peace in Meereen is not worth maintaining; if people see that as a negative thing, as a sign of violence, that is rooted in their political and ethical philosophy, which I cannot change. My political and ethical philosophy states that peace with slaveowners is impossible and that slavery must be abolished with fire and blood (which, funnily enough, is GRRM’s philosophy, given that he wrote that very statement in another one of his novels, Fevre Dream).

Also, all the characters want to go home. Arya and Sansa and Jon and Bran want to go home, but they can’t. Dany wants to go home, but she can’t. Jon wants to become King and then berates himself; he has the same ambitions the author singles Dany out for. Yet Jon’s heart is in conflict over wanting a seat he believes unequivocally belongs to his brother. Dany herself was in conflict because she wanted to follow Viserys as her King but knew he was never fit to be one. Characters being in conflict with themselves is universal in ASOIAF, and a sign of the universal tragedy in ASOIAF, not a tragedy unique to Daenerys.

I will say the author does interpret Dany’s longing for home as a longing for love, family, and companionship quite correctly. However, the author then incorrectly interprets Dany’s prophetic dream in Dany IX AGOT. Again, this is because the author has ignored context, like the author has been doing throughout the essay. The “icy breath” mentioned in Dany’s prophetic dream, the breath that she runs away from and what propels her toward “the red door”, is clearly a reference to the Others. At the end of this dream, she begins to fly, and sees not Rhaegar clad in armor as the last dragon but herself. Dany having a prophetic dream involving an icy wind propelling her to run home, a howling darkness that signifies death, and gaining wings of flight, before she gains her magical ability that will be integral to the fight with the Others, is also the same exact thing Bran goes through:

North and north and north he looked, to the curtain of light at the end of the world, and then beyond that curtain. He looked deep into the heart of winter, and then he cried out, afraid, and the heat of his tears burned on his cheeks. (Bran III, AGOT)

The red door was so far ahead of her, and she could feel the icy breath behind, sweeping up on her. If it caught her she would die a death that was more than death, howling forever alone in the darkness. She began to run. (Daenerys IX, AGOT)

“Now you know,” the crow whispered as it sat on his shoulder. “Now you know why you must live.“ “Why?” Bran said, not understanding, falling, falling. “Because winter is coming.”

Ghosts lined the hallway, dressed in the faded raiment of kings. In their hands were swords of pale fire. They had hair of silver and hair of gold and hair of platinum white, and their eyes were opal and amethyst, tourmaline and jade. “Faster,” they cried, “faster, faster.” She raced, her feet melting the stone wherever they touched. “Faster!” the ghosts cried as one, and she screamed and threw herself forward. A great knife of pain ripped down her back, and she felt her skin tear open and smelled the stench of burning blood and saw the shadow of wings. And Daenerys Targaryen flew.

They are also both associated with winged creatures. To use my tags on another post: #bran denying that summer’s anger is a reflection of his own anger is so interesting to me#‘he tasted the blood in his mouth’ is the same as 'dragons plant no trees’#not saying that i want people to start claiming that bran will go dark and mad#but i am saying that these two characters are structurally quite similar and parallel#if bran isn’t going to go mad and die dark then there is no logical reason that dany’s 'dragons plant no trees’ means she’ll die mad either#also consider: bran is the winged wolf#bran is chained and jojen and meera have come to 'break his chains’#daenerys often dreams of having wings; 'tell khal drogo he has given me the wind’; and of course she’ll fly on drogon#and she is referred to as the breaker of chains/breaker of shackles#the bran/dany parallels are so underrated

Bran nearly dies after his traumatizing fall; Dany has a traumatizing miscarriage that puts her through excruciating pain. Both of them wake up after a series of prophetic dreams that involve an icy cold darkness that scares them, with GRRM using the same language to invoke the terror they feel at the sight of that cold darkness. Both of them must live because winter is coming, as the crows of Bran’s dream say, and because they are needed to fight against the incoming Long Night. So while the author’s interpretation that loneliness to Dany is a death worse than death is correct, the overall reading of the dream sequence is incorrect; it’s about more than just Dany’s grief. It’s about her needing to be awake, needing to survive, needing to push through and be strong, because she will have to be a warrior against the Others. It’s the same reasons why the crows tell an unconscious, comatose Bran to survive, to wake, and to live, because winter is coming.

The author mentions the vision of the red door tempting Dany in the House of the Undying. Again, notably, the author chooses to ignore that Dany keeps going forward, despite the visions of Willem Darry, the red door, her baby Rhaego, and her brother Rhaegar and his wife Elia tempting her. Dany has the resilience and foresight to keep moving forward to gain knowledge. So yes, she longs for home, and companionship, and family; fundamentally that is who she is. But her being tempted does not mean that she loses sight of herself.

The author then mentions that ruling means loneliness, and thankfully showcases that this is not unique to Dany: it applies to Robert Baratheon, Robb and Jon as well. However, what I want to debunk is the next part of the argument:

While Westerosi rulers are still made of mortal stuff, likening them to gods and the ability to “make or unmake” creates a discussion about power. By nature, power breeds inequality, when one party has the ability to decide the fate of another. That inequality creates distance. As a queen Dany wields absolute power over the rest of her subjects and her court. And as the Mother of Dragons, Dany wields unmatched power that can “make or unmake at a word”—Dracarys—villages, armies and kingdoms, as shown by how Aegon the Conqueror bent the will of Seven Kingdoms into one Westeros. ASOIAF shows that Dany’s two desires of queenship and companionship run counter and cannot coexist—at least, not easily. Along with the isolating effect of power, a home built on companionship and belonging necessitates trust. The story repeatedly shows how trusting the wrong people can lead to both the loss of power and the loss of one’s life.

Leaders do have to go through a state of loneliness, which GRRM meditates on throughout asoiaf. I fundamentally disagree with this person’s reading of Dany’s politics, though. Dany does not wield absolute power over her subjects and court; if she did, she would not have had so much trouble negotiating with the Meereneese elite, the Green Grace, etc. She holds court everyday, refuses symbols of power and wealth like an ornate throne or the harpy statues, she has advisors who help her pass and enact laws, she negotiates with Xaro and the Lhazareen, she passes laws to protect the freedmen, she marries Hizdahr, she reopens the fighting pits, and she tries her best to address the grievances of her people. If Dany really did wield absolute power and could just Dracarys away Meereen, she wouldn’t have locked up her own sons after Hazzea’s death. Again, ignoring Dany’s choices and context is detrimental to reading her arc. Upon learning of what the dragons did to Hazzea, she locks ALL her sons, not just Drogon. She does not release them. And if she wanted to, she could’ve wielded Drogon to kill all the slavers in Daznak’s pit; instead, she makes the choice to save both Drogon and the people inside the pit by flying him away from the entire situation. Does that sound like someone wielding absolute violent power? It sounds like a Queen besieged by internal traitors, internal conflict, the hunger and starvation and misery of her people that she tries to alleviate, separation from her sons, war on all sides, and faulty allies.

Also… all monarchs wield absolute power. I’m failing to understand why the dictates of feudalism are only bad where Dany is concerned. Did Robb not wield absolute power? Does the LC of the NW not wield absolute power? Did Robert Baratheon and all who came before him not wield absolute power? Does Cersei not wield it? Isn’t Stannis trying to obtain said position that belonged to his brother?

The author’s musings on Dany’s supernatural encounters merely made me laugh. I won’t even touch upon that. It’s a fantasy series and Dany rides dragons. I think the math is simpler than “Dany will go mad because of prophecy”.

No, Dany is not paranoid. Jorah does actually betray her and Mirri did actually betray her and the Storm Crows and Brown Ben Plumm and the Harpy do betray her. She’s not paranoid; she has been betrayed. Moreover, if she was truly viewing everyone around her with suspicion, she wouldn’t be able to make friends and bond emotionally with any of the people she does from ACOK onward. And again, why are we ignoring all the betrayals the Starklings and other characters go through? Why are we ignoring that Cersei is an actual example of the paranoia this author is referring to, given that she falsely accuses Tyrion of killing Joffrey, she has dwarves slaughtered mercilessly, she has the Blue Bard tortured brutally, and she sees enemies everywhere she goes, to the point that she empowers the Faith Militant to her own detriment, just to pit them against Margaery Tyrell? Why are we ignoring that Jon himself is betrayed and killed by those who betray him? Dany knows that you can put your trust in people of different backgrounds but not trust only one voice over others; that she trusts Missandei and Barristan and her bloodriders and handmaids even after everything she goes through is proof enough that Dany is not some hyper-paranoid ghost incapable of emotionally connecting with anyone ever again.

It’s funny that earlier in the essay, the author says that Daario represents Dany’s violent side and says Daario is ambition while Hizdahr is patriotism. Now, the author is saying that Dany drives a wedge between her and Daario by mistrusting him. So uh, Dany is tragic because she loves Daario but she’s also tragic because she knows he’s danger and doesn’t fully trust him? Once again example of what I call the Daenerys trap: these writers fault Dany whether she does one thing or does the opposite. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t, essentially. On one hand, Dany is apparently tragic because she’s conflicted over marrying Hizdahr or loving Daario, because Daario is violent; on the other hand, Dany not trusting Daario is a sign of her pathological paranoia. The fact is, Daario is violent and not entirely trustworthy because he is literally a sellsword; the fact that Dany knows that showcases that she’s not naive or violent. When Daario suggests a very violent solution (lying to the slavers and then wiping them out), Dany gets angry at him and sends him away. Why doesn’t the author mention that? If Daario truly does represent her violent side, what are we to make of the fact that Dany rejects his “advice” and sends him away?

And if the author does criticize her for being drawn to him, why does the author then criticize her for mistrusting him? Given that the author already said Daario is violence when compared to Hizdahr’s patriotism, why should Dany, or the reader, trust Daario? If the author puts stock in Adam Feldman’s take on Meereen, which is that maintaining the peace with the slavers is necessary, then wouldn’t we want to see Dany not trusting Daario entirely and not letting him sway her? Can these people just stick to one narrative on Dany and stay with it?

“As Dany gains more power, which like the dragons engender lust and jealousy from others, her focus on the treasons causes her to push people away, widening the gap between rulership and companionship.“ Um, who does she push away other than Jorah, who literally did betray her, and Daario, who is untrustworthy?

The author believes that the HoTU and Quaithe’s prophecies drive Dany away from others. Notably, the author refuses to properly mention all of the other prophecies from Dany’s arc: three mounts, three fires, slayer of lies, bride of fire, mhysa, and instead over-focuses on three treasons. Even setting aside the fact that Dany has fulfilled the Azor Ahai prophecy, that she is the Stallion, and that there are several ways to interpret the three treasons prophecy, However, if the three treasons prophecy were the ones most formative to Dany’s arc, her storyline would look incredibly different, once again more similar to Viserys’. She’s set up to be a warrior in the War for the Dawn, and that is hammered home far more than her “going paranoid and losing companionship is”. This is why Tyrion, channeling GRRM, says that Daenerys is above all a savior.

Moreover, Quaithe herself says that to touch the light, she must pass under the shadow. Quaithe is not saying that Dany will lose herself; Quaithe does predict that Dany will touch the light. Why is that being ignored?

The entire reading he has of her decision at the end of Dance rests on Feldman’s essay and on the idea that peace with the slavers is good. I reject that because it is very much the peace with the slavers that causes violence; the violence of the fighting pits, the Sons of the Harpy, Astapor and Yunkai declaring war, etc. Daenerys has already proven herself to be a nation-builder who plants trees, hence why her hallucinating Jorah saying “dragons plant no trees” is not what her arc will ultimately amount to. Dany rejecting peace with the slavers, after a book in which we see the slavees themselves wanting Dany to “smash the Yunkai and break their chains”, is not a sign of madness, darkness, or paranoia, it’s a sign that she’ll be taking out SLAVERY with fire and blood. Why does that mean she’ll land in Westeros with fire and blood, especially considering that right now it’s FAEGON who is fighting a war with the Lannister-Baratheon-Tyrell regime?

This person thinks Dany has rejected peace and family because “dragons plant no treees, and the red door is connected to the lemon tree”. Dany has not rejected HER family. Her family is Missandei, her Khalasar, her people, her children both dragon and freedmen. Her family is not the slaveowners of Meereen, lol. In order for to protect HER family and HER people, she will HAVE to reject the peace, because it is that very peace that’s leading to the deaths of HER family and HER people. And why does Dany rejecting peace with slaveowners = her not wanting to go home to the red door with the lemon tree? 2+2=5? For Dany to actually be Mhysa, she has to protect her people. It’s her people who die in the fighting pits. It’s her people who are killed by the Sons of the Harpy. It’s her people getting killed by Cleon and the like. It’s her people being re-enslaved by the Meereneese Masters. It’s her people clamoring for her to smash the Yunkai, to break their chains, to close the fighting pits, who are waiting for her to come soon, her people saying that they refuse to believe that she’d make peace with the slavers. If it’s her people literally saying they want her to smash the slavers and the slave trade, if it’s her people not wanting her to make peace with the slavers, if it’s her people waiting for her in Volantis and Yunkai and beyond, why would she be rejecting them, rejecting home, rejecting companionship, rejecting family, rejecting the red door with the lemon tree, if she rejects the peace with the enemies and oppressors of HER PEOPLE?

“Through Quentyn’s chapters, we see people are already spreading rumors that the dragonqueen is mad, bathing in the blood of virgins among other vices“. The author of this essay doesn’t mention that the “people” spreading these rumors are slaveowners.

“Whether or not she is exactly a villain to the reader is both unimportant and ambiguous. Greatness is not necessarily synonymous with goodness so much as grandeur. But she will feel like a villain to the Westerosi, as she burns their villages and crops ahead of a hard winter.“. So again, this author thinks that, and citing Bryden Blackfish (known militarist and zionist and white supremacist who served in the US military, lol), Aegon VI will be set up nicely in Westeros, accepted by the people, and that Dany will have to burn villages because she will feel lonely and unneeded.

I’m not going to bother debunking that. The burden of proof is upon these people to show me that Aegon will 1) be able to take out the Lannister-Baratheon-Tyrell regime without backlash, 2) win against Cersei herself, 3) do all of this without setting off the wildfire caches buried underneath King’s Landing, 4) not trigger JonCon’s bell trauma, 5) acquire a dragon, 6) tame the dragon, 7) learn how to fly it, for 8) in time for Dany’s landing in Westeros so that he can engage in th second dance of dragons with her. If the authors can prove all of that, I’ll buy their theory, but given that. itwould be impossible to prove any of that, their theory continues to be fallacious.

Dany also never once uses violence against the villages of the innocent when conquering Slaver’s Bay. She has always only attacked the slavers. Even if someone were to bring up the torture of the wineseller’s daughters, she has never burned crops or villages to make a point; only the slavers and the kings in Westeros have done that. She has only ever killed slaveowners and she even minimized casualties in Yunkai. She only killed the Astapori masters and Meereneese masters. Why would she suddenly burn villages and crops in Westeros? Because she rejected the Meereneese peace and peace = red door and red door = lemon tree so now she suddenly has a vendetta against all villagers and their crops? Lol.

“To choose indiscriminate destruction over peace tends toward the evil, especially as the means and ends evolve. To delay the call of the North and continue to divide an already weakened realm is to give into dark desires. To nurture a fear of betrayal rather than the courage and vulnerability of faith is to give into the darkness.“ Okay but when did she do all of this? She literally delayed LANDING IN WESTEROS to RULE Meereen. So she’s actually done the opposite. This entire rest of the essay rests on hearsay and conspiracy theory about a book that hasn’t come out.

I won’t bother debunking the rest of the essay for that reason. It’s based fundamentally on a misunderstanding of how slavery operates and what’s necessary both historically and in ASOIAF to take it out. It’s also based on complete hearsay that is logically impossible for ASOIAF. This person argues that Tyrion will be the Iago to Dany, despite them not meeting yet and despite all the positive things Tyrion has had to say about Dany. This person then argues that Dany will somehow die tragically in the North but not by sacrificing herself––um, why would that happen? Why would she become a mad queen in the war against the Others, especially if the author already argued that she’ll be the mad queen to Faegon’s good king? And why would she drive Jon away? Way too much hearsay and not enough textual evidence to back those claims up.

This person uses Maester Aemon’s quote of “fire consumes” but ignores all the positive aspects of fire that occur within ASOIAF, or GRRM himself positioning the ardor and passion of fire against the coldness and hate of ice, or the fact that Aemon fully believes in Dany and says that she is Azor Ahai. Once again, deliberately ignoring or erasing context.

In short, the essay is full of hearsay and deliberate erasure of context, as all anti-Dany essays tend to be.

https://brideoffires.tumblr.com/post/675193333331755008/hello-navya-i-see-a-lot-of-dany-antis-using-this

Edited September 26, 2022 by Oana_Mika

Oana_Mika · September 26, 2022

And here is another :

In the context of that essay, Dany is considered a Shakespearean tragic hero because the writer thinks she fits five requirements: 1) Dany’s chapters contain supposedly deliberate references to Shakespearean plays; 2) Dany is “torn by an internal struggle”, namely peace versus violence or companionship versus rulership or home versus the Iron Throne, all of which also drive the external conflicts. Choosing the second options will lead to her demise; 3) prophecies and “influential accidents” - that is, events that “have roots in a character’s motivation”, as well as “the sense of ‘if only this had not happened’” - will “heighten and exaggerate [tragic flaws that] already [exist]” in Dany; 4) Dany will (according to the essayist’s speculations) take actions that produce “exceptional calamity” and her demise will be “her own choice and doing”; 5) Dany “[rose] high in position” and is “an exceptional being”, which sets her apart as a character that fits the mold of the Shakespearean tragedy because her reversal of fortune will highlight “the greatness and piteousness of humanity”.

I would argue that the points that the essayist made to justify how Dany supposedly fits these five requirements are all very skewed.

1) When it comes to requirement 1 (Dany’s chapters contain supposedly deliberate references to Shakespearean plays), the essayist is conveniently cherry-picking (as they often do throughout the meta). Bran Stark wants a dreamless sleep just like Dany: “Sweet, dreamless sleep, Bran thought.” (ACOK Bran I); “That night Bran prayed to his father’s gods for dreamless sleep.” (ACOK Bran II). Indeed, @marinabridgerton argues that that’s most likely tied to the fact that they’re the two characters most heavily associated with prophecies. Even Sansa is said to have a dreamless sleep: “Sometimes her sleep was leaden and dreamless, and she woke from it more tired than when she had closed her eyes” (AGOT Sansa VI). And yet, where are the essays about how these quotes are teaching the readership to interpret Bran’s and Sansa’s characters, storylines and trajectories based on Shakespearean tragedies?

2) When it comes to requirement 2 (Dany is “torn by an internal struggle”, namely peace versus violence or companionship versus rulership or home versus the Iron Throne, all of which also drive the external conflicts. Choosing the second options will lead to her demise), the essayist is right to point out that those dilemmas exist. However, they portray Dany’s struggles in a way that makes it seem that 1) there are “good” options (peace/companionship/home) and “bad” options (violence/rulership/Iron Throne) for Dany to take and that 2) choosing the latter ones will lead to Dany’s downfall. There is a lot to question about these assumptions.

2.1) When it comes to Dany’s conflict between peace versus violence, the essayist takes everything that Adam Feldman’s series of essays “Untangling the Meereenese Knot” says for granted when it shouldn’t be. I’m not going to delve into all the problems/inaccuracies/double standards with those essays. For our purposes here, it’s enough to say that they: 1) dichotomize Dany’s identity into mhysa and mother of dragons to argue that the former represents her desire for peace and the latter her violent impulses; 2) assert that the peace was real; 3) conclude that, by rejecting the peace, the Dany of ASOS is gone and from now on she’s going to be a very different person because she will have chosen to follow her violent impulses.

As already argued before, though, 1) Dany’s character can’t be dichotomized in that way because these facets - mhysa and mother of dragons - actually complement each other (as @yendany made clear in her most recent meta). Because Dany was the mother of dragons, she was able to act as mhysa way before she was hailed as such, which we see, for instance, when she kills the Astapori slave masters to free the Unsullied. Both of these identities manifest Dany’s fierceness when faced with great injustices. This is why, in ADWD, locking her dragon children prevented Dany from properly defending her human children… She needs to integrate both parts of her identity to be able to protect them. But Feldman couldn’t recognize that because 2) he accepts the peace deal that Dany made with the slavers as valid. Doing so would mean, however, ignoring the re-enslavement and suffering of thousands of marginalized people, which GRRM continually emphasizes in Dany’s and Tyrion’s final ADWD chapters (read more about this here and here) to hammer home that the peace is false for prioritizing the slavers over them. Finally, 3) Dany is not a violent person nor does she have violent impulses. Feldman decontextualized the moments in which Dany uses violence from the standards of her time and place (read more about this here and here and here and here) to portray them in a more negative light than how they are actually meant to be viewed. Additionally, he conveniently left out all the moments in which Dany chooses to be merciful, from when she spares Yunkai and most of the Meereenese slavers (she didn’t do the same in Astapor because she was outnumbered and needed to protect her retinue) to when she doesn’t punish people who threaten or disrespect her to her face (such an envoy who spits at her face, a boy who tries to attack her, Xaro after he says he wishes he’d killed her), to give a few examples (read more about this in @rainhadaenerys’s comprehensive meta). I would argue that Dany’s conflict is less about peace versus violence and more accurately about her tendency to be merciful versus her desire for justice (which, especially in the particular context she finds herself in, is unattainable without violence). In fact, I would go further and say that it’s distasteful to characterize Dany as someone “violent” or with “violent impulses” when, so far, she’s only used violence to a) defend and protect victims of (physical and systemic) violence and/or b) in circumstances in which her actions are no more problematic than those of any other leader of her world. And yet, the essayist portrays them as if they were (“To choose indiscriminate destruction over peace tends toward the evil”).

It’s also convenient that the essayist only talks about fire negatively (“Dany wields unmatched power that can “make or unmake at a word”—Dracarys—villages, armies and kingdoms”, “in the words of Maester Aemon, “Fire consumes.””) when it’s also connected to life, rebirth, healing and enlightenment. And dracarys in particular is explicitly associated with freedom by the narrative while Dany frees the Unsullied (her decision, in turn, is associated with her future actions in the War for the Dawn). But acknowledging these things would make it harder to portray Dany as a Shakespearean tragic hero.

2.2) When it comes to Dany’s conflict between companionship and rulership … Again, the dilemma exists, but not in the way that the essayist presents it. What I mean is that they go out of their way to make it seem that Dany’s loneliness was the main factor driving her decisions, such as the liberation of the Unsullied (“She feels for the forced loneliness of the Unsullied, and it is loneliness that convinces her to commit violence in the plaza to free the slaves—just as it is in loneliness she chooses violence amidst the Dothraki Sea.”)… And not, y’know, her compassion and sense of justice (“Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?”), which are rarely acknowledged in this essay even though it’s arguably the main aspect of Dany’s characterization. Why does the essayist do that? Because, since they are arguing that Dany is a tragic hero, they need to present Dany’s loneliness both as the reason why she achieved greatness and as the reason that will lead to her demise when she (supposedly) starts distrusting people, closing herself off and choosing violence (“the moral conviction she feels for her abolitionist crusade is part of the greatness that is also her tragic trait […] She feels for the forced loneliness of the Unsullied, and it is loneliness that convinces her to commit violence in the plaza to free the slaves—just as it is in loneliness she chooses violence amidst the Dothraki Sea.”). As I said, however, doing so requires downplaying Dany’s compassion, as well as ignoring the fact that she does not close herself off to people in ADWD, nor is there any sign that this was seeded as a serious issue for her in future books (especially considering that her governance is meant to be contrasted with Cersei, the character who actually does close herself off to people. But more on that below when I talk about why Dany doesn’t fit the essayist’s third requirement).

Also, singling out rulership in particular as a reason for Dany to feel alone is conveniently selective (“Returning to Westeros means ruling Westeros - and ruling means loneliness”). All the major characters have reasons to feel lonely and isolated in their society because GRRM chose to focus on the underdogs. Their social standings are already enough to make all of them feel alone. As he said, “Tyrion of course is a dwarf which has its own challenges. Dany is an exile, powerless, penniless, at the mercy of other people, and Jon is a bastard”. You can also throw in Arya for being a young girl struggling to adhere to gender norms and Bran for being a disabled child. And that is just one example… There are a myriad of reasons and situations for various characters to feel lonely and isolated, but the essayist specifically chose to talk about how rulership causes that for Dany. And, considering that the essayist thinks that Dany’s rulership -> growing isolation and loneliness -> her ultimate downfall, it really feels like they’re punishing Dany narratively for acquiring and wielding power. Which leads me to the next point…

2.3) When it comes to Dany’s conflict between home and the Iron Throne, I would argue that that’s not really a conflict. Dany (like any feudal leader) believes she needs to retake the Iron Throne to stay in her homeland just like the Starks believe they need to retake Winterfell to stay in their homeland. Whether Dany finds herself at home in Westeros or not is irrelevant to that fact. And yet, the essayist only presents the former as being in the wrong for fighting for her birthright. However, as it’s been already explained before, the Starks’ claim to the North isn’t morally righteous. They only have dominance over the North because, for thousands of years, their ancestors fought against, drove away and killed most of its indigenous population (the Children of the Forest), as well as multiple families who were also vying for control over the region. With that in mind, Dany fighting for her birthright isn’t any more problematic than the Starks enjoying the lands and privileges obtained with conquest and bloodshed, as well as the labor of peasants. One could argue that GRRM may have a double standard against Dany in this case (though it’s been argued before that he doesn’t intend to present the Iron Throne as a source of greed and evil like how fandom presents it) because of the order of the events and depending on whether he holds Dany accountable for more problems for waging her war than the Starks for having done/doing essentially the same thing, but that’s not what the essayist is doing. Instead, they a) take for granted that Dany is doing the wrong thing for fighting for the Iron Throne (“To delay the call of the North and continue to divide an already weakened realm is to give into dark desires.”) and b) center all their speculations about her eventual demise based on that belief.

Ultimately, I would argue that none of these three dilemmas - peace versus violence, companionship versus rulership, home versus the Iron Throne - come with easy answers. When it comes to the first conflict, it’s important that Dany prioritizes the lives of the slaves over the privileges of the masters, but that causes more war and bloodshed. When it comes to the second and the third conflicts, it’s worth noting that the first options (which the essayist presents as the “good” ones) are actually the selfish paths for Dany to take. After all, she would rather live a normal life with a husband (companionship) in the house with the red door (home) - “She would rather have drifted in the fragrant pool all day, eating iced fruit off silver trays and dreaming of a house with a red door, but a queen belongs to her people, not to herself”. But, as the quote shows, instead of choosing these selfish goals, Dany accepts the burden of rulership and the fight for the Iron Throne because of her duty towards her people and ancestors. And, while this path leads to war (either in Meereen or in Westeros, though the former is morally righteous and the latter, while not inherently justified, is not any more problematic than Robb fighting for Northern independence), power is also the means through which Dany can make changes that benefit the common people.

With all that said, it’s ironic that Dany fans are often accused of flattening her character or her choices when it’s actually her detractors or “neutrals” (like the essayist) who do so - they are dead set on portraying Dany’s available options as either “good” or “bad” and on speculating that choosing the latter ones will lead to her downfall, but the text actually gives her conflicts in which all the options have their pros and cons.

The essayist also makes a mistake that isn’t really up to interpretation or difference in opinions. They say that, in AGOT Daenerys III, “after admitting this difficult truth [that Viserys will never take back the Seven Kingdoms], Dany assumes the goal for herself (and at the time, her son)”. That is incorrect. In AGOT Daenerys V, moments before Viserys’s death, Dany says she would have allowed him to have the dragon eggs because “he is my brother … and my true king”. Jorah doesn’t think she should still acknowledge him as such, but she tells him that “he is all I have”. So no, Dany hadn’t assumed the goal for herself at that point, she only took over his campaign in her son’s name (not hers) after Viserys’s death. But the essayist needs to exaggerate Dany’s ambition to justify her demise, since they speculate that “in that hurt and betrayal, all that will be left - she will think - is the crown”.

3) When it comes to requirement 3 (prophecies and “influential accidents” - that is, events that “have roots in a character’s motivation”, as well as “the sense of ‘if only this had not happened’” - will “heighten and exaggerate [tragic flaws that] already [exist]” in Dany), the problem is not in cherry-picking or in double standards against Dany, but rather in the essayist’s lack of knowledge about Dany’s characterization. It’s simply not true that Dany’s distrust of people grows to the point that she closes herself off to them. Instead, I would argue that Dany is actually portrayed as someone with a healthy distrust of people. We know from the books (1, 2, 3, 4) that she finds it unlikely that Barristan, Grey Worm or Missandei would ever betray her, but that she doesn’t think she can rely entirely upon Reznak, the Green Grace, the Shavepate, Hizdahr and Daario. Do Dany’s doubts about these people’s intentions lead her to, as the essayist says, “push people away”? No. Through almost all of ADWD, she (wrongly, though understandably) believes that “until [freedmen and former masters stand together, Meereen will know no peace”. Accordingly, Dany is willing to listen to the counsel of all of her advisors (both the ones she trusts and the ones she distrusts) to ensure that she makes informed decisions. To give some examples:

Dany allows “well spoken and gently born” people (i.e., not the typical condition of most former slaves, who are glad that Dany freed them) to sell themselves into slavery and imposes a tax each time men chose to do so like how it happened in Astapor (ASOS Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with both Missandei and Daario.
Dany employs the Unsullied to ask the Blue Graces if someone showed up with a sword wound and to ask butchers and herdsmen who’s been gelding goats (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany chooses not to punish any noble in response to the murder of Stalwart Shield and only increases the amount of gold for whoever gives information about the Sons of the Harpy (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she agreed with Reznak and disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany gives up on banning the tokar and wears it herself (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace.
Dany (rightly) refuses to reopen the fighting pits for a while until she later relents in the name of the peace with the Meereenese nobles (ADWD Daenerys I, II, III, VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Hizdahr, Reznak, the Green Grace and the Shavepate and agreed with Missandei.
Dany delays the choice of a husband until it becomes necessary later (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak, the Shavepate and the Green Grace.
Dany chooses to pay the shepherds for the animals that they say their dragons ate (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak.
Dany pays Hazzea’s father the blood price (i.e., one hundred times the worth of a lamb) for her death, lays her bones to rest in the Temple of the Graces and promises to pay for his children each year so they shall not want (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany allows the Shavepate to torture the wineseller and his daughters for information about the Sons (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate.
Dany imposes a blood tax on the noble families to pay for a new watch led by the Shavepate, takes the gold and the stores of food of any nobleman who wishes to leave the city and keeps two children from each pyramid as hostages instead of letting the nobles go unpunished after nine freedmen were killed by the Sons (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate and disagreed with Reznak.
Dany has Barristan and Groleo and his captains and sailors to inspect Xaro’s ships (ADWD Daenerys III). By making this decision, she agreed with Barristan.
Dany chooses not to go to Westeros despite being offered ships to do so (ADWD Daenerys III). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany doesn’t kill her child hostages despite the Sons’ ongoing attacks (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace and disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany agrees to marry Hizdahr if he’s able to give her ninety days of peace in Meereen (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr, the Green Grace and Reznak and disagreed with the Shavepate, Barristan, Missandei and Daario.
Dany refuses to gather the masters and kill them indiscriminately (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she disagreed with Daario.
Dany doesn’t allow the Shavepate to continue his tortures due to their unreliable results (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr and disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany refuses to use her dragons in battle (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with Reznak.
Dany decides not to take the field against Yunkai (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate and disagreed with Barristan.
Dany brings the food to the Astapori refugees instead of sending someone else to do it (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak, the Shavepate and Barristan.
Dany burns the dead among the Astapori refugees, bathes an old man and shames her men into helping her (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany refuses to allow Hizdahr’s mother and sisters to inspect her womb and to wash Hizdahr’s feet before he washes hers (ADWD Daeneerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with the Green Grace and Reznak.
Dany decides to marry Hizdahr by Ghiscari rites and to wear a white tokar fringed with pearls (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace and Reznak.
Dany allows Hizdahr to reopen the fighting pits (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr, the Green Grace and Reznak.
Dany goes along with a peace agreement with the Yunkish slavers in which she’ll let Yunkai and Astapor reinstall slavery if they leave Meereen intact (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr.
Dany holds court in order to, among other reasons, meet the Westerosi men that came over from the Windblown (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she agreed with Daario.
Dany doesn’t accept Quentyn’s marriage proposal because she doesn’t want to abandon her people (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany doesn’t ride a horse in a tokar to meet Hizdahr (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she agreed with Missandei.
Dany decides not to sound out the Company of the Cats (even though she wanted to) because Barristan says he’s untrustworthy (ADWD Daenerys VIII). By making this decision, she agreed with Barristan.
Dany attends the reopening of the pits (ADWD Daenerys IX). By making this decision, she disagreed with Missandei.
Dany allows the Brazen Beasts to guard her because she wants to show that she trusts them so that her people can trust them as well (ADWD Daenerys IX). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany prevents Tyrion and Penny from fighting against lions with wooden swords. By making this decision, she disagreed with Hizdahr.

I didn’t include all of Dany’s decisions because she makes many of them on her own and/or without someone explicitly supporting them or opposing them (in fact, many of the ones above were made without any advisor giving her their feedback, but I listed them if they’re seen agreeing or disagreeing with her onpage anyway). That being said, note that Reznak is the one that Dany is most suspicious of (because he perfectly fits the description of one of the treasoners), but that five of her decisions follow his recommendations, in contrast to Barristan (the knight who she actually trusts and who keeps all her secrets) only having his advice followed twice. Also note that Dany “trusted Skahaz more than she trusted Hizdahr”, but she agreed with the former three times and disagreed with him eight times, in contrast to having agreed with the latter four times and disagreed with him twice. The list clearly shows that Dany listens to everyone’s feedback (including from people she distrusts), considers it carefully, makes her own decisions and handles dissent extremely well. Her actions reflect her own words (“A queen must listen to all. […] One voice may speak you false, but in many there is always truth to be found”, “It seems to me that a queen who trusts no one is as foolish as a queen who trusts everyone”).

There is, however, one character who is seen only listening to people who agree with her and who distrusts and closes herself off to almost everyone - Cersei Lannister. And it’s especially worth noting that Cersei is meant to be “directly contrasted” with Dany, that the author was “doing point and counterpoint” with them and that each of them is meant to show “a different approach to how a woman would rule in a male dominated, medieval-inspired fantasy world”. In other words, Dany and Cersei are narrative foils, but Cersei’s traits are being transferred to Dany in this essay.

Also, I could just as easily create an entire narrative about how Sansa will end up closing herself off to people based on what we see on canon. She thought she could trust Joffrey, but she ultimately couldn’t. She thought she could trust Cersei, but she ultimately couldn’t. She trusted Sandor, but he left her. She tried to trust the Tyrells, but they ultimately disposed of her after she was no longer necessary. She tried to rely on Dontos, but he was a disappointment and was ultimately murdered. She doesn’t trust Littlefinger, but she needs to stick to his side because she has no better option. She considered telling the Vale lords her identity, but she doesn’t trust them. All of this feeds into Sansa’s distrust of others and will lead to tragic consequences. Indeed, as Sansa herself says, “In life, the monsters win”. I bet that the essayist would find this whole speculation biased considering that they favor Sansa’s character. But then, why is only Dany singled out as the one who is going to meet her demise even though it’s made clear that she continues to trust people through and through?

The essayist needs to say that Dany starts distrusting people to an unhealthy degree (“As Dany gains more power, […] her focus on the treasons causes her to push people away, widening the gap between rulership and companionship”; ”The more power she gains, the greater her isolation and likely her fear of betrayal. The fear of betrayal is, of course, human. But GRRM has stated that he likes to turn dramatic situations up to 11, which is necessary to create the Shakespearean tragic hero. Dany’s fear must be larger than life.”), as well as to judge her campaign to take back the Seven Kingdoms based on double standards (“Dany’s great sin within the story’s moral order will have been focusing on the war for Westeros against Aegon VI before she turns to the enemy of the North”) compared to the Starks. If they didn’t do so, there wouldn’t be a reason to justify Dany’s demise. If they didn’t do so, the entire speculation that she’s a Shakespearean tragic hero falls apart. But saying that something is true doesn’t necessarily make it true, you need to provide the textual evidence (which they barely do … They assume that the reader will take almost everything they say for granted. After all, since there’s a prophecy foretelling that Dany will be betrayed three times, of course she’s going to distrust people way too much from now on).

There’s also another aspect of Dany’s relationship with prophecies that the essayist portrays inaccurately. They say that “the effect of this prophecy on Daenerys is multifaceted” for “[promising] greatness” (which, along with the also inaccurate statement that “part of Dany’s pursuit of the Iron Throne is born from a sense of destiny”, implies that Dany wants to be great or that she thinks of herself as great, none of which are true) and pushing her “further from the people who surround her”. I already questioned the latter statement, and the former is inaccurate too. After all, Dany has doubts that there are men in Westeros waiting for the Targaryens to return. The birth of the dragons has to do with the fact that Dany was able to put two and two together with clues from dragon dreams and Mirri’s words, not because she thinks she’s exceptional. Dany is not really sure that the red comet was meant for her. She followed its direction because the other paths weren’t reliable and, even in Qarth, she’s unsure that it was meant to guide her to success. Then she never thinks about it again. I’d expect otherwise from someone who thinks they’re exceptional. Dany is surprised when told by Quaithe that she’s the reason why magic is increasing in the world and never thinks or brags about it after their interaction. I’d expect otherwise from someone who thinks they’re exceptional. Dany doesn’t think she won any victories in the House of the Undying, she credits Drogon for burning the Undying Ones. She only allows Jhiqui to add a bell to the end of her braid because “the Dothraki would esteem her all the more for a few bells in her hair”. Dany refuses to sit on the throne inside the Great Pyramid’s audience chamber and chooses to sit on a simple ebony bench that the Meereenese think does “not befit a queen”. Dany refuses the offer to have a statue in her image to replace the bronze harpy in the Plaza of Purification. I’d expect otherwise from someone who thinks they’re exceptional. Dany is highly self-critical and, later in ADWD, thinks that she “was as clean as she was ever going to be” after taking a bath because she holds herself accountable for the upcoming slaughter in the opening of the fighting pits. I’d expect different from someone that thinks they’re exceptional. Dany doesn’t think that the people who came to the reopening of the pits wanted to see her - “it was my floppy ears they cheered, not me”. I’d expect different from someone that thinks they’re exceptional. Most of Dany’s titles (the Unburnt, Mother of Dragons, Mhysa, Azor Ahai, etc) are given to her by other people, they’re not self-proclaimed (not that there’s a problem if they were, I’m only saying it to reiterate that Dany doesn’t think she’s exceptional). The ones that she assumes on her own are the ones that anyone who believes in birthright (i.e., everyone in her time and place, regardless of family, regardless of whether they’re Targaryens) would assume.

4) When it comes to requirement 4 (Dany will (according to the essayist’s speculations) take actions that produce “exceptional calamity” and her demise will be “her own choice and doing”) … Well, we now enter the realm of speculation. It’s not impossible that Dany “will feel like a villain to the Westerosi, as she burns their villages and crops ahead of a hard winter” in the future. The problem here, once again, is in the double standards. Look at the way the essayist describes the likely reascendance of the Starks in the upcoming books - “With the death of “good” characters like Ned, the injury of innocents and moments such as the Red Wedding, ASOIAF as a story is not concerned with justice. But as the story progresses, we see that the way Ned ruled his people and raised his children contrasts with characters like Tywin and his methods. Much of the North seems to continue to rally behind the idea of the Starks, some with less “honorable” methods than others, while Tywin’s legacy begins to fall apart. Like in Shakespeare’s tragic world, there appears to be an order that arcs towards a higher idea of goodness that instills a dramatic satisfaction”. Like I said above when I questioned requirement 2, the Starks’ claim to the North is no more justified than Dany’s to the Seven Kingdoms. They have the advantage of having had their rule normalized throughout the thousands of years they ruled the North, but it doesn’t change the fact that, because they’re feudal lords, they still maintain a system rigged in favor of the nobles that promotes social inequality and extreme lack of social mobility. It doesn’t change the fact that there’s no righteous form of feudalism. But only Dany is criticized in that sense by the essayist - “By nature, power breeds inequality, when one party has the ability to decide the fate of another. That inequality creates distance. As a queen Dany wields absolute power over the rest of her subjects and her court”. Which is pretty infuriating not only because the Starks are also morally grey in the sense that the essayist describes, but also because GRRM specifically mentioned that Daenerys is the ruler “who wants equality for everyone, she wants to be at the same level as her people”. Additionally, if Ned left a legacy that motivated his people to fight against his enemies, so did Dany with the former slaves. But the essayist needs to ignore all of that to paint Dany as a Shakespearean tragic hero.

Even if we don’t take into account what TWOIAF reveals about the Starks’ ancestors, the main story itself often paints House Stark’s actions in a negative light. We see a peasant spitting at the mention of the Starks and saying that things were better with King Aerys II in power. We’re told that Northmen looking for Jaime on Edmure’s orders burned a village called Sallydance and were guilty of rape and murder. It’s no wonder that the High Sparrow mentions the wolves along with the lions as threats to the septas. Also, thousands of soldiers died indirectly because of Robb’s decisions, as well as lots of people who remained north and became vulnerable to raping and pillaging due to his inability to hold Winterfell. And finally, when winter comes, the smallfolk will be affected by the actions of the northmen, who (like Dany might do in the future) already helped to disrupt the harvest and to leave the continent short on food. And yet, why is their future success framed as “an order that arcs towards a higher idea of goodness”? Why is Dany the only one who is said to be “giv[ing] into dark desires” by “divid[ing] an already weakened realm” when the Starks (framed as the heroes in the essay) did the same thing? This double standard gets infuriating when one remembers that Dany is the one fighting a war in the name of the disenfranchised (even though she is not connected to them by blood or lands or oath of fealty and doesn’t gain anything by helping them), while the Starks are (and will be, if they want to retake Winterfell) fighting a war because of personal injury (which, sympathetic as it may be, doesn’t justify the damage that they caused to the smallfolk). It gets even more infuriating when, as @rakharo pointed out to me, one remembers that, while Dany is trying to right the wrongs of the Valyrians by ending slavery in Slaver’s Bay, none of the Starks have acknowledged, much less tried to make amends for injustices perpetrated by the First Men against the Children of the Forest. It gets even more infuriating when one remembers that Aegon the Conqueror united Westeros in preparation for the War for the Dawn (something that GRRM himself confirmed), while the Starks’ ancestors conquered the North solely because of their greed. That’s why Dany’s story can’t be effective as a tragedy: she’d be punished for starting to do what everyone else was doing after doing more than almost everyone else was doing.

5) When it comes to requirement 5 (Dany “[rose] high in position” and is “an exceptional being”, which sets her apart as a character that fits the mold of the Shakespearean tragedy because her reversal of fortune will highlight “the greatness and piteousness of humanity”), again, we’re in the realm of speculation. But there are some things to question as well. First, the essayist validates the criticisms that Dany “too easily ascends to a position of power” by using them as proof that she’s a tragic character. But that’s not really true, which becomes clear with a few comparisons: the Starks lost their father, mother and older brother throughout the story because of the Lannisters, which Dany also did; but her losses go beyond them: she also lost another brother, her first husband and her first child. The Starks had their direwolves given to them, Dany had to use her intuition and then literally walk into a fire to birth her dragons. Aegon the Conqueror used dragons to take Westeros, Dany conquered three cities without barely using hers. Jon Snow’s conflict in ADWD involves conciliating the Free Folk and the Night’s Watch after he makes decisions favoring the former group, while Dany’s involves conciliating the freedmen and the slavers after she makes decisions favoring the former group, which has a worldwide impact; Jon’s conflict has relatively low stakes (because it hasn’t involved the Others so far), Dany’s conflict leads to “half the world” wanting her dead. As these examples show, Dany suffered more losses than the Starks. Dany had to do a lot more than the Starks to find her animal companions. Dany became a conqueror primarily because of her military strategies and resourcefulness without relying on dragonfire like her ancestor. Dany faced greater opposition than her male counterpart Jon so far. As we can see, gaining power and retaining it has not been easy for Dany at all. Every single one of her accomplishments has been earned. But it sure is interesting that Dany’s supposed future tragedies must stem from her actions, but that her victories aren’t given the proper credit and acknowledged as being a result of what she also did as well.

And then the essayist declares something even more inaccurate: that Dany “overcame each obstacle that came her way” and that “Robb and Jon paid for their mistakes while Dany did not” (which, to the essayist, is evidence that “Dany’s fall is meant to stand in contrast as something grander than just one slip-up”).

First of all, Dany clearly did not overcome every obstacle that came her way. Saying so means ignoring all of her ADWD storyline (and it’s funny how Dany’s detractors go from saying that she’s overpowered and hasn’t suffered consequences to accusing her of being a bad ruler precisely because she dealt with the negative consequences of her choices, lol). To recap, Dany had an indirect part in the wars outside Meereen because she left the Yunkish slavers’ wealth intact, which leads to terrible consequences - multiple city-states and sellsword companies joining forces against her, Astapor’s fall, the pale mare’s outbreak, the emergence of refugees from Astapor outside her city and the upcoming Battle of Fire. Dany had an indirect role in the wars inside Meereen because she left most of the Meereenese slavers alive with most of their wealth intact, which leads to terrible consequences - the Sons of the Harpy’s attacks and dozens of freedmen’s deaths. Additionally, Dany had an indirect role in Hazzea’s death because Drogon was allowed to roam freely and she had no way to train him or her brothers. All these problems culminate in Dany agreeing with a peace deal that, as already explained here, was inherently unjust for prioritizing the slavers over the freedmen. Dany had to learn that, as much as she wants peace and to plant trees, there are situations in which she can’t be merciful because violence really is the only way to achieve justice for the disenfranchised. (On the flip side, that’s one of the reasons why I’m critical of the theory that Dany accidentally burns King’s Landing. When she was merciful, as I just listed, great tragedies occurred (which is fine, it was a realistic exploration of what happens when you abolish slavery and try to do good). When she used fire and blood, great tragedies will occur too? Even though she would be acting just like the Starks or any other feudal lord by fighting for her birthright? The theory narratively punishes Dany in a way that it doesn’t do with the Starks, which is why it’s no wonder that it was created by someone with Stark/Stannis biases. Additionally, it validates the common belief that Dany is only meant to be a wartime queen, even though she’s already showed that she’s a good peacetime ruler.)

Second, is dying the only way to pay for one’s mistakes (considering that only Robb and Jon are listed as examples of characters who did)? I don’t think so. Consider Sansa. Didn’t she pay for the mistake of going to Cersei to tell her of Ned’s plan? I would say she did. I would say the author agrees - “Sansa was the least sympathetic of the Starks in the first book; she has become more sympathetic, partly because she comes to accept responsibility for her part in her father’s death”. Similarly, Dany had to accept her indirect responsibility for the tragedies that I just listed (Hazzea, forgive me; No marriage would ever bring them back to life, but if a husband could help end the slaughter, then she owed it to her dead to marry.; “I should’ve gone to Astapor. […] I am the queen. It was my place to know.”; “What kind of mother has no milk to feed her children?”). I would argue that Dany and Sansa both paid for her mistakes, which were acknowledged, made them suffer and influenced their character developments. But the essayist needs to say that Dany didn’t pay for them (or that she had an easy rise to power) to help to paint her as a Shakespearean tragic hero.

6) Now that the essayist’s five requirements have all been questioned, I would also like to mention positive prophecies and speculations related to Dany that are never brought up in this essay.

First, Dany is AA/PTWP/SWMTW. That was heavily foreshadowed (read more about it here) and built up to and, if it doesn’t happen, it frankly would be bad writing. After all, haven’t readers praised GRRM for the foreshadowing of Ned’s death (e.g., a stag having killed the mother direwolf in the beginning of AGOT)? Haven’t readers praised GRRM for the foreshadowing of the Red Wedding (which we see from Tyrion’s to Theon’s to Dany’s chapters)? And yet, the essayist thinks that Dany’s death will cause “the forces [to] become more even, making victory less sure, or the Others surpass the side of the living in strength” and that “the White Walkers gain Drogon, becoming one-on-one but with the White Walkers having the larger dragon.”

Second, Dany and Bran both have dreams in AGOT leading up to their magical awakening. Bran needs to fly to escape from the “cold” of the darkness below, while Dany needs to run from the “icy breath behind”. Both of these dreams culminate with Bran and Dany learning to fly and accepting their magical destinies, which will be important in the War for the Dawn. And yet, the essayist thinks that “by understanding that the concept of warmth is tied to companionship, we can understand that the cold, “icy breath” must represent the opposite: loneliness” to justify Dany’s demise. Instead, it’s clear (especially considering the parallels with Bran) that “icy breath” is an allusion to the Others. But they can’t acknowledge that Dany will have a crucial role in the War for the Dawn, otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.

Third, Quaithe was presented as the third of the three Qartheen envoys (after Pyat Pree and Xaro) that came to find Dany in Vaes Tolorro, which heavily implies that she breaks the norm and is the one person that Dany can trust. And yet, the essayist takes for granted that Quaithe’s “narrative connection to betrayal is already established”.

Fourth, Dany might as well be the prophesied betrayer, not the one who’s betrayed by three people (after all, she’s already been betrayed by more than three people - Jorah, Mirri, Pyat Pree, Xaro, Brown Ben, the person that gave her the poisoned locusts, etc). It would fit with the pattern of Dany being an active participant in the prophecies rather than a passive one (e.g. Dany is AA/PTWP, not the one who gives birth to the AA/PTWP or the one who dies as a sacrifice to AA/PTWP) even though, at first, the readership is expected to think otherwise. And yet, the essayist takes for granted that Dany will be betrayed because otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.

Fifth, Dany is foreshadowed to have a positive relationship with Jon because “the blue flower” from the “wall of ice” filled the air with “sweetness”. And yet, the essayist needs to say that Dany “[will push] Jon away […] from fear of betrayal and hurt” and from worries that he might be a “usurper” (nevermind that they are mischaracterizing Dany as someone overfocused on retaking the Iron Throne and who closes herself off due to prophecies, none of which are not true, as I already showed above) because otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.

7) Finally, I would also like to ask: what’s the point of giving Dany a storyline like this? Not only because it would be unearned due to the double standards and the changes that would have to occur in her characterization, but also because Dany has a special place in the narrative. She is 1) one of the two women (along with Asha) claiming power in her own right and the only one that we actually got to see rule, 2) one of three Chosen Ones (along with Bran and Jon) and the only female one, 3) one of two POV revolutionaries (along with Jon) and the only female one (and the one whose storyline arguably has the most political messages since she’s fighting against human slavery), 4) one of two POV female rulers (along with Cersei) and the only one who’s been depicted as competent (because she subverts the Good Princess Evil Queen dichotomy), 5) one of two Targaryen conquerors (three, if Young Griff does indeed take Westeros) and the only female one - “Aegon the Conqueror with teats”, 6) the only major mother who isn’t sure to be doomed and/or hasn’t gone mad, 7) one of two Targaryen queens regnant (along with Rhaenyra) and the only remaining Targaryen woman who gets to have power after a long line of Targaryen women - Rhaenyra herself, but also Rhaena, Aerea, Rhaella, Daenerys (Alysanne’s daughter), Rhaenys the Queen Who Never Was, Baela, Rhaena of Pentos, Daena - who were disempowered. GRRM already has a terrible history with female leaders in particular. If he causes the downfall of another one (especially one who is also one of the five main protagonists) for such unearned reasons like the ones that the essayist laid out, there would also be sexist implications. It would make the only she-king that we saw wielding power onpage overly defined by violence and destruction in a way kings don’t have to be depending on their actions, it makes the only competent POV female ruler look incompetent in comparison to the other POV male rulers and it makes her conquest a disaster while the other male Targaryen conqueror (two, if Young Griff takes Westeros) gets to succeed. And yet, death by childbirth is the only speculation that the essayist calls out as problematic (“death by childbirth is a uniquely biologically female phenomenon and would be punishing Daenerys for her sexuality”).

8) What I find insidious about essays like this one is that they pretend to be unbiased (I do not argue for the death of Daenerys as a judgement on her ethical/moral goodness as a character nor of the world she inhabits. I argue it on the strength of her characterization and story, that she should be able to encompass such intensity and greatness as to be considered as complex as all these other single-name headliners in literature.) even though they really aren’t. To recap, the essayist portrays Dany as someone with "violent” impulses even though she’s a merciful person in general, accepts the peace deal with the slavers as valid even though it prioritizes the slavers’ privileges over the lives of marginalized people, only talks about the negative connotations of fire, downplays Dany’s compassion and sense of justice, argues that Dany is losing her ability to trust others even though she isn’t, says that Dany is negatively affected by promises of greatness even though she isn’t, argues that Dany had an easy rise to power and didn’t pay for her mistakes even though she did, paints Dany’s campaign to take the Iron Throne in a negative light without doing the same with the Starks having dominance over the North and ignores Dany’s foreshadowing as AA/PTWP, as well as her special place in the narrative. So it’s not that Dany stans are unable to accept Dany’s mistakes and flaws, it’s that people who dislike her can’t understand her characterization or acknowledge the double standards against her or accept her particular place in the story. At the end of the day, an essay like this one is no better than jonsa metas mindlessly hating on Dany because, just like them, as @semperty and @niniane17 made clear, it also creates speculations with the intent of making Dany self-destruct to pave the way for their preferred characters. The only difference is that it’s more successful at appearing “neutral” to someone who doesn’t remember what happened in the books very well, especially because Dany has become a polarizing character for a variety of reasons and it’s easy to buy into the Appeal to Moderation fallacy.

Also, as I said before, the fact that these Twitter ‘neutrals’ all misunderstand Dany’s characterization, downplay her struggles and judge her by different standards actually make me somewhat hopeful that she’s getting a better ending, because how can their speculations come true if they don’t know Dany at all? But then, it’s hard to trust GRRM.

#also the tragic shakespearean figure in this story is clearly stannis #it’s not even that subtle (by @niniane17)

Exactly! Which is why so many of Stannis’s (and Cersei’s) traits and problems are projected onto Dany in this essay. I mean:

The essayist speculates that Dany will isolate herself due to anxieties and fears of betrayal… Even though she’s remained open-minded and willing to listen to her advisors, unlike Cersei and, at some point, even Stannis after the Blackwater.
The essayist speculates that Dany will be unable to trust her family… Even though she has treated her enemies and the children of her enemies and the advisors she distrusts well and even though there are two characters (Cersei and Stannis) who contrast her that already don’t.
The essayist speculates that Dany will clash with her family in the second Dance and Targs are enemies and Starks are actual family… Even though there are already two characters who do that (Cersei and Stannis) and even though the Starks haven’t all gotten along with each other through time well (see: the She-Wolves of Winterfell).
The essayist speculates that Dany will not find love and that that will cause her doom… Even though the Starks’ ancestors didn’t at first when they conquered the North either and even though Dany managed to carry on after the deaths of her husband and son, so that’s no reason in particular for her to experience a downfall. Besides, Dany is not desperate for love or to escape loneliness to the point that that can be considered one of her flaws.
The essayist speculates that Dany will only be left with her ambition for the Iron Throne once she is rejected by the common people and be angry at usurpers trying to steal her crown… Even though she doesn’t particularly want power, does not think the Iron Throne is meant to be her destiny or anything of the sort, unlike two other characters (Cersei and Stannis, the latter of which had to be convinced by Davos to fight the good fight in the north, unlike Dany in contrast with her advisors in Slaver’s Bay). And there’s also a double standard with the Starks, who fought for power before the Conquest, during Robert’s Rebellion and during ASOIAF when they asked for independence. Why aren’t they getting tragic speculations?

And these are just examples that appear in the speculations of that essay, there are other things about Stannis that the fandom projects on Dany and that aren’t mentioned in it. Even the theory that Dany accidentally burns King’s Landing (which a lot of tumblr asoiaf fandom accepts as unwritten canon) has a lead up that’s pretty much a copy-paste of ACOK!Stannis’s storyline, which is one of the reasons why I think we should be more critical of it. Why would GRRM turn one of his five protagonists into a second version of a supporting, non-POV character?

https://aegontheconquerorwithteats.tumblr.com/post/651912839916896256/that-happens-even-when-the-person-isnt-trying-to#notes

Edited September 26, 2022 by Oana_Mika

Oana_Mika · September 26, 2022

Deleted

Edited September 26, 2022 by Oana_Mika

The Sleeper · September 27, 2022

A few thoughts.

It seems to me that this type of analysis would apply better to Cersei. You have the witch, the fact she is trying to emulate Tywin who is ultimately the source of her woes and the fact that her actions would lead to her fall.

A tragic outcome is also relative. For instance I can totally see Tyrion dying at a later date (probably of liver failure) as the Lord of Casterly Rock with a prostitute giving him blowjob and still be utterly miserable because he is universally despised and loathed and the feeling is mutual.

Regarding the essay about the Meereneese plot. I think the author makes a good case about the events themselves, however fails to address the greater context, that is that the peace involves a fundamental compromise of Dany's values, that the Yunkai'i and the Great Masters achieved it through threat of violence and that there is a greater world, the Volantene navy, that is about to fall on them and shatter it all to pieces. Consequently, peace is hung by a thread which why it fell so easily and ruinously apart.

That is not to say that the issues examined were not woth examining. The consequences of violence do fall on everyone and generally speaking, the guilty are better insulated than the innocent. Which is why Dany accepted peace to begin with. Naturally, because Dany is our protagonist, the focus falls on her actions and motivations both from the perspective of the readers and the narrative. She is not the sole actor in the narrative and the moral cannot and should not fall entirely on her.

Aegon has been set up to steal Dany's thunder and while he will be initially well received, he doesn't have the resources to pacify Westeros or to address its many problems. Nor would he care to, ultimately he is prop for a disparate group of people with conflicting and deeply problematic agendas.

Edited September 27, 2022 by The Sleeper

Daenerysthegreat · September 27, 2022

I guess Daenerys’s tragedy will be more of a Pyrrhic victory one

Since her first chapter, her prime motive is to get back what was stolen from her and her brother, to get back at the people who killed her kin, to avenge the defiling of the capital by the Lannister and stark armies.

I don’t think she will ever get to Westeros, it is going to be destroyed by the others. She will win back her home, but she will lose everything in the process.

Craving Peaches · September 27, 2022

30 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

to avenge the defiling of the capital by the Lannister and stark armies.

I don't think the Stark armies participated in the sack of KL. They couldn't have, they weren't there. They were with Ned, who was not in the city when it was sacked. They only arrived after the sack.

32 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

what was stolen from her and her brother

I would disagree that The Iron Throne was stolen from her and Viserys (if indeed that is the stolen thing you are talking about), because I'm not sure that they ever owned it in the first place. There are a few issues to consider:

1. Daenerys' claim to Queenship of the Seven Kingdoms comes through being the daughter of King Aerys. So she cannot inherit until Rhaegar, all of his children, and Viserys are dead. If 'Aegon' and/or Jon are Rhaegar's legitimate children then Daenerys cannot legally be Queen of the Seven Kingdoms unless she marries one of them or they die.

2. Whether Viserys was king or not. Viserys cannot be king either until all of Rhaegar's legitimate children are dead. So the same that applies to Daenerys applies to him.

3. Ultimately all the rights of Targaryens with regard to the Throne derive from Aegon the Conqueror, but whether he himself had right is debatable.

Finally, by Daenerys' own logic, she has forfeited any claim to the Throne she once had.

Quote

A rich woman came, whose husband and sons had died defending the city walls. During the sack she had fled to her brother in fear. When she returned, she found her house had been turned into a brothel. The whores had bedecked themselves in her jewels and clothes. She wanted her house back, and her jewels. "They can keep the clothes," she allowed. Dany granted her the jewels but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it.

Craving Peaches · September 27, 2022

The article was an interesting read, and I agree that Daenerys will ultimately follow a tragic arc. But I think caution should be exercised when it comes to predicting characters' fates and arcs based on similarities to other works. Some things are intended as homages but that does not mean the whole thing will be the same or similar to the works being paid homage. Also, some of the tropes, while used by Shakespeare, are not exclusive to him, and were used before and after, things like self-fulfilling prophecies and so on.

Also, Shakespeare was a Tudor Propagandist who slandered the name of good King Richard III!

Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 · September 27, 2022

55 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The article was an interesting read, and I agree that Daenerys will ultimately follow a tragic arc. But I think caution should be exercised when it comes to predicting characters' fates and arcs based on similarities to other works. Some things are intended as homages but that does not mean the whole thing will be the same or similar to the works being paid homage. Also, some of the tropes, while used by Shakespeare, are not exclusive to him, and were used before and after, things like self-fulfilling prophecies and so on.

Also, Shakespeare was a Tudor Propagandist who slandered the name of good King Richard III!

And portrayed Henry V as a saint, while vilifying the french during the Hundred Years War.

SeanF · September 27, 2022

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't think the Stark armies participated in the sack of KL. They couldn't have, they weren't there. They were with Ned, who was not in the city when it was sacked. They only arrived after the sack.

I would disagree that The Iron Throne was stolen from her and Viserys (if indeed that is the stolen thing you are talking about), because I'm not sure that they ever owned it in the first place. There are a few issues to consider:

1. Daenerys' claim to Queenship of the Seven Kingdoms comes through being the daughter of King Aerys. So she cannot inherit until Rhaegar, all of his children, and Viserys are dead. If 'Aegon' and/or Jon are Rhaegar's legitimate children then Daenerys cannot legally be Queen of the Seven Kingdoms unless she marries one of them or they die.

2. Whether Viserys was king or not. Viserys cannot be king either until all of Rhaegar's legitimate children are dead. So the same that applies to Daenerys applies to him.

3. Ultimately all the rights of Targaryens with regard to the Throne derive from Aegon the Conqueror, but whether he himself had right is debatable.

Finally, by Daenerys' own logic, she has forfeited any claim to the Throne she once had.

Ser Jorah, who was with the Northern army, was present at the sack. He describes it in some detail. I don’t think he ever says whether he or they participated.

As to the throne, nobody claims that Seven independent kingdoms were restored on Aerys II’s death (apart from the Greatjon, at the end of AGOT). The throne passed to a man who had killed his cousin and rival, and whose ally had killed his rival’s children, but who based his claim on his descent from Aegon I. The Baratheon claim is dependent upon the Targaryens being legitimate rulers of all Seven Kingdoms.

As to Dany’s claim, it’s the only Targaryen claim that is not open to dispute. No one claims she is not Aerys’ daughter by Rhaella. Aegon is almost certainly not Rhaegar’s son, and if Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna’s, he’s either illegitimate or the product of bigamy. By the time Dany returns to Westeros, there will be no legitimate Baratheons left, so their rival claim will have vanished.

As to the rich woman, Daenerys herself never abandoned Kings Landing (she was not alive at the time and was raised in exile ) so that last point doesn’t really apply as a precedent.

In any case, there’s no good solution to the problem of the rich woman and the slaves. Either the slaves are thrown out of the house, or the woman loses it. She splits the difference by awarding her the jewels. The house should be considered as compensation for servitude.

Not that anyone in Westeros is seriously going to argue “hang on, in Grazdan vs Hargo, you ruled differently” if she rolls up with a large army.

Oana_Mika · September 27, 2022

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Ser Jorah, who was with the Northern army, was present at the sack. He describes it in some detail. I don’t think he ever says whether he or they participated.

As to the throne, nobody claims that Seven independent kingdoms were restored on Aerys II’s death (apart from the Greatjon, at the end of AGOT). The throne passed to a man who had killed his cousin and rival, and whose ally had killed his rival’s children, but who based his claim on his descent from Aegon I. The Baratheon claim is dependent upon the Targaryens being legitimate rulers of all Seven Kingdoms.

As to Dany’s claim, it’s the only Targaryen claim that is not open to dispute. No one claims she is not Aerys’ daughter by Rhaella. Aegon is almost certainly not Rhaegar’s son, and if Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna’s, he’s either illegitimate or the product of bigamy. By the time Dany returns to Westeros, there will be no legitimate Baratheons left, so their rival claim will have vanished.

As to the rich woman, Daenerys herself never abandoned Kings Landing (she was not alive at the time and was raised in exile ) so that last point doesn’t really apply as a precedent.

In any case, there’s no good solution to the problem of the rich woman and the slaves. Either the slaves are thrown out of the house, or the woman loses it. She splits the difference by awarding her the jewels. The house should be considered as compensation for servitude.

Not that anyone in Westeros is seriously going to argue “hang on, in Grazdan vs Hargo, you ruled differently” if she rolls up with a large army.

The fact that anoyne thinks Jon will simply be accepted as Rhaegar's son, when in the text Young Griff is pushed to be married with Daenerys because elsewise no one will believe him, is laughable. :lol:

Franklyn Flowers laughed. "I like it. Sail west, not east. Leave the little queen to her olives and seat Prince Aegon upon the Iron Throne. The boy has stones, give him that."

The captain-general looked as if someone had slapped his face. "Has the sun curdled your brains, Flowers? We need the girl. We need the marriage. If Daenerys accepts our princeling and takes him for her consort, the Seven Kingdoms will do the same. Without her, the lords will only mock his claim and brand him a fraud and a pretender. [..]" - A Dance with Dragons - The Lost Lord

Sign In

The Latest News

Notable Releases

The Shakespearean Tragedy of Daenerys Targaryen

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation