The Shakespearean Tragedy of Daenerys Targaryen

[Rondo]

4 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Jon getting assassinated by Bowen is not the equivaelnt of him being fired by the men he was supposed to lead. Firstly, Bowen's actions are not representative of the watch as a whole. He represents a small faction at best. Secondly, it is not the same as getting fired because it was an assassination. Also, the order is in danger of collapse because of Bowen's actions, not Jon.

I would argue that Jon has a greater ability to lead people based purely on his own merits. Jon is able to convince most of the watch and the Freefolk follow him and work together for the common good of all. Daenerys relies on her dragons to inspire people. Before the dragons hatched the only person who seemed to be 'inspired' by her was the slaver Ser Jorah. No one (save Robert) really cared about Daenerys before the dragons hatched. A large part of her power and prestige derives from the dragons, as does her ability to inspire people. Daenerys' leadership is based less on her own merits than Jon's is.

To put it simply people follow Daenerys because she has dragons and is a Targaryen while people follow Jon because he is Jon.

Jon got assassinated because he was an incompetent leader and he later turned out to be a traitor.  Jon's communication skills were awful.  He was ineffective in communicating why he felt certain things needed to be done.  He readily dismissed the concerns of the more senior men of the Watch.  He failed to carry out justice when two of his subordinates, Mance and Janos, needed to be judged and sentences carried out.  His lacked an understanding of power and authority.  He misused his office to avenge Ned Stark and murdered Janos Slynt.  Jon was so bad at his job that a man who has been a loyal and steady officer of the watch in Bowen Marsh had to make the decision to get rid of him for the good of the watch, for the good of Westeros, for the good of humanity.

[Lissasalayaya]

Responding to OP:

There is a tension between eastern and western mythology about dragons.

In the west, a dragon is a terrible beast that steals princesses, hoards treasure, and that you need to slay, harvest and/or subdue.

In the east, a dragon is a majestic, lucky, someimes benevolent creature or deity that grants wishes and creates worlds.

There is a lot of contrast and a little overlap.

The author is utilizing this tension in ASOIAF to great effect everywhere there are dragons, especially regarding Daenerys, and especially regarding the story's biggest themes.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Lissasalayaya

[Craving Peaches]

7 hours ago, Rondo said:

Jon got assassinated because he was an incompetent leader and he later turned out to be a traitor.

Jon got assassinated because Bowen disagreed with his policies. Not because he was an incompetent leader. Also Bowen was stupid because Jon, in his competence, was pursuing a plan which actually avoided giving tens of thousands of troops to the Others and strengthened the Wall at the same time. Bowen's 'plan' was to sit there and hide, leaving all the Wildlings to die which just strengthens the greater threat. Pretty stupid.

7 hours ago, Rondo said:

Jon's communication skills were awful.  He was ineffective in communicating why he felt certain things needed to be done.  He readily dismissed the concerns of the more senior men of the Watch.

When does he dismissed anyone's concerns? He listens to them, he just doesn't agree with some and for good reason. Their 'concerns' amount to petiness about the Wildlings, in fact they're so petty they're willing to augment the greatest threat the realm has ever faced just because they hate the Wildlings. And anyway Jon does listen e.g. he takes a loan from the Iron Bank to buy more food when Bowen says it will be a problem.

7 hours ago, Rondo said:

He failed to carry out justice when two of his subordinates, Mance and Janos, needed to be judged and sentences carried out.  His lacked an understanding of power and authority.  He misused his office to avenge Ned Stark and murdered Janos Slynt

Janos Slynt was executed for repeatedly refusing to follow orders. Perfectly in line with the justice of the organisation. He was not murdered to avenge Ned. Otherwise Jon could have killed him instantly. How does he lack an understanding of power and authority?

7 hours ago, Rondo said:

Jon was so bad at his job that a man who has been a loyal and steady officer of the watch in Bowen Marsh had to make the decision to get rid of him for the good of the watch, for the good of Westeros, for the good of humanity.

No. Bowen killing Jon puts all of those things at great risk. Now the first line of defence, and some of the only people who know about the problem of the Others, are leaderless and weakened. Through Marsh's stupidity humanity is in great danger.

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Rondo said:

Jon got assassinated because he was an incompetent leader and he later turned out to be a traitor.  Jon's communication skills were awful.  He was ineffective in communicating why he felt certain things needed to be done.  He readily dismissed the concerns of the more senior men of the Watch.  He failed to carry out justice when two of his subordinates, Mance and Janos, needed to be judged and sentences carried out.  His lacked an understanding of power and authority.  He misused his office to avenge Ned Stark and murdered Janos Slynt.  Jon was so bad at his job that a man who has been a loyal and steady officer of the watch in Bowen Marsh had to make the decision to get rid of him for the good of the watch, for the good of Westeros, for the good of humanity.

Jon's judgement was both humane and sound.  Dead wildlings mean fresh wights. And, starving women and children to death is not the mark of a great leader.  Attempting to save them is.

Mance was not Jon's prisoner to execute, any more than the Lannister squires were Karstark's to execute.  Slynt was a mutineer, who was given ample opportunity to fulfill his duties, but refused.  Granted, Jon certainly took pleasure from his execution, but it was just by the standards of their time and place.

Bowen Marsh's decision did absolutely nothing to help the situation, and a great deal to inflame it. There is every likelihood of fighting breaking out now, at Castle Black.  Marsh had picked a side in the fight for the North, namely the Boltons.  Jon had picked Stannis.  That's why Marsh slew him.  Marsh simply took the view that Stannis' cause was doomed, and it was best to stay on good terms with the Lannister regime.

[Craving Peaches]

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Jon had picked Stannis.

Could Jon really have refused Stannis though?

[Roswell]

The title of this piece is really meant to bring the haters out of their dark corners.  So, anyhow, to the most recent discussion within the topic. 

Daenerys is unquestionably a better leader.  She is fighting against an evil institution that has been in place for thousands of years.  It is a war that must be fought.  Essos is a bigger stage than what Jon has in the northern parts of Westeros.  The politics are more complex in Slaver's Bay. 

Jon had a smaller task.  He had good advisers and could rely on the experienced leaders at the wall.  He screwed up because he failed to keep his feelings in check.  Jon is a fighting man who was placed in the wrong seat.  He should have never been put into a lord commander position.  He works best alone.  His strong points will work better among the wildlings. 

[the trees have eyes]

12 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

If the story goes as written up until Daenerys gets the dragons but she doesn't get the dragons then no, I cannot see how she would be able to follow the storyline she did with the dragons. It would be a different story.

Indeed.  No dragons, no bloodriders or Dothraki followers and off to the Dosh Khaleen with her.  No dragons, nothing to bargain for The Unsullied.

The best way to see the dragons is as part of her.  She is the mother of dragons but without them she would have been in a tight spot after Drogo's death.  It's possible GRRM could have conjured up some escape with Ser Jorah but then she's in the middle of the Dothraki Sea with one follower.

Of course she was doing just fine without dragons before Drogo's death, having embraced her role as Khaleesi, won Drogo's love and, after the botched assassination attempt, his commitment to conquer Westeros.  But GRRM then did one of his signature rug pulls by taking it all away from her except, for once, he made it a net win by giving her the dragons.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Could Jon really have refused Stannis though?

Realistically not.

[Daenerysthegreat]

16 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

She is certainly more capable than Joffrey, but whether she is a better leader than Jon is debatable.

Who is alive between the two of them? It isn’t Jon.

 

17 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

So, it appears that unless specifically disinherited Rhaegar's male children would still come before Daenerys in the line of succession because as said by the Author females of House Targaryen would only inherit after all males of the line were dead.

In a normal situation, and real targaryens not fake ones.

 

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Who is alive between the two of them? It isn’t Jon.

We don't know whether Jon is dead or just injured.

8 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

In a normal situation, and real targaryens not fake ones.

Jon may be a real Targaryen though. Aegon less likely but it is possible. Also what do you mean by 'normal situation'? The succession is contested and these are the rules for Targaryen succession, so I can't see why they wouldn't apply.

[Daenerysthegreat]

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

normal situation'

Well, half of Westeros is currently in ruins. there were 5 kings but it got reduced to 3 and a fourth one is currently coming and the war is still going on.

normal situation: Any post dance per war of the usurper time except in the blackfyre rebellions

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Roswell said:

Daenerys is unquestionably a better leader.

No she isn't.

2 hours ago, Roswell said:

She is fighting against an evil institution that has been in place for thousands of years.  It is a war that must be fought.  Essos is a bigger stage than what Jon has in the northern parts of Westeros.

Jon is fighting against the ultimate omnicidal evil (as far as anyone can tell). The stakes for Jon are arguably higher as if Jon fails all of humanity could be wiped out. Daenerys' fight against slavery is important, and if she fails it will cause untold suffering, but it will not result in the end of the world, just a return to status quo. Jon is fighting the ultimate battle which will decide whether everyone dies or not.

2 hours ago, Roswell said:

Jon had a smaller task.

Not really, Jon was trying to save the whole world...At best they are comparably sized.

2 hours ago, Roswell said:

He had good advisers and could rely on the experienced leaders at the wall.

So could Daenerys, and I'd argue she had superior advisers.

2 hours ago, Roswell said:

He screwed up because he failed to keep his feelings in check.

Not really...

2 hours ago, Roswell said:

Jon is a fighting man who was placed in the wrong seat.  He should have never been put into a lord commander position.  He works best alone.  His strong points will work better among the wildlings. 

LC Mormont and everyone who voted for him, the majority of the watch, would disagree with you.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Daenerysthegreat said:

Well, half of Westeros is currently in ruins. there were 5 kings but it got reduced to 3 and a fourth one is currently coming and the war is still going on.

normal situation: Any post dance per war of the usurper time except in the blackfyre rebellions

Westeros is in a succession war, somthing that has happened before. So I think the rules, the rules of succession, are relevant. Not that everyone will follow them but just because something is disputed doesn't mean the rules dissapear. They are still there, just not everyone cares.

[Maia]

16 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

 Daenerys' leadership is based less on her own merits than Jon's is.

To put it simply people follow Daenerys because she has dragons and is a Targaryen while people follow Jon because he is Jon.

This is very much untrue. Lion's share of Jon's successes hinge on him being a son of Eddard Stark and having  been raised alongside his legitimate siblings as well as his direwolf. Without the prestige of his father's family, a  noble education at the most powerful regional court it afforded him, without his physical resemblance to the Starks and their sigil as his animal companion he wouldn't have had the opportunities he did. And all he had to do to get Ghost was to be self-effacing for a couple of minutes. Oh, and don't start me on his getting a Valyrian steel sword on a very contrived pretext and even more ridiculously, not being relieved of it by the wildlings. Finally, simply being male is also an unearned advantage for him.

That's not to say that Jon didn't make a fairly good use of his advanatages, but let's not pretend that he is some kind of self-made man.

@Oana_Mika:

Sadly, we can't trust GRRM. I had had some reservations about his depiction of adult women in ASoIAF from the beginning, but it seems like at some point while writing ADwD and materials for the worldbook, which became WoIaF and FaB,  he decided that his setting wasn't sexist enough and it's women too capable. I used to think that it was a clumsy and misguided set-up for Dany  overcoming these obstacles, but after the ending of the show and reading the early outline for the "trilogy", I suspect that it was meant as a justification for her failing. Because whatever else may have been distorted by the showrunners' chase after subversion and shock, king Bran could have only come from GRRM.

Ditto Martin's hypocritical stance on dragons, where they are simultaneously weapons of mass destruction and also somehow give their female riders and to some degree even Daemon zero political clout and don't prevent them from being pushed around by dragonless men. Oh, and also they are unbeatable by mundane means, except for all the many cases when they were killed by the same. Etc., etc. Honestly, very little concerning dragons and their use in FaB and WoIaF makes much logical sense.

 

 

[Daenerysthegreat]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

No she isn't.

She didn’t end up walking naked across the whole city, or being stabbed by her brothers

 

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Not really, Jon was trying to save the whole world...At best they are comparably sized.

That was official task. The real task was mainly to keep the nights watch neutral and not interfere in realms duties, which he kinda failed, as you can see in his last chapter.

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Westeros is in a succession war, somthing that has happened before. So I think the rules, the rules of succession, are relevant.

Tell that to renly, who had the entire reach at his command despite being 4th/6th in line( If you count Myrcella and Shireen)

Wasn’t there a will that named Ned stark regent, I hope you know where it went.

 

[Shi Qiang]

They got where they are mostly on merit.  Birth rights and what not lubricated the process.  Superhuman abilities and their bonds with their dragon and direwolf couldn't hurt.  Who is better depends on the level of leadership.  Jon would have the edge in a small company of men.  Jon was born to be a head ranger.  Dany was born to rule a kingdom. 

Jon would know the advantages of a lance versus a sword.  Therefore, he should lead troops in battle.  Dany understands complexities of culture and power politics.  She is better fit to govern. 

[Oana_Mika]

3 hours ago, Maia said:

This is very much untrue. Lion's share of Jon's successes hinge on him being a son of Eddard Stark and having  been raised alongside his legitimate siblings as well as his direwolf. Without the prestige of his father's family, a  noble education at the most powerful regional court it afforded him, without his physical resemblance to the Starks and their sigil as his animal companion he wouldn't have had the opportunities he did. And all he had to do to get Ghost was to be self-effacing for a couple of minutes. Oh, and don't start me on his getting a Valyrian steel sword on a very contrived pretext and even more ridiculously, not being relieved of it by the wildlings. Finally, simply being male is also an unearned advantage for him.

That's not to say that Jon didn't make a fairly good use of his advanatages, but let's not pretend that he is some kind of self-made man.

@Oana_Mika:

Sadly, we can't trust GRRM. I had had some reservations about his depiction of adult women in ASoIAF from the beginning, but it seems like at some point while writing ADwD and materials for the worldbook, which became WoIaF and FaB,  he decided that his setting wasn't sexist enough and it's women too capable. I used to think that it was a clumsy and misguided set-up for Dany  overcoming these obstacles, but after the ending of the show and reading the early outline for the "trilogy", I suspect that it was meant as a justification for her failing. Because whatever else may have been distorted by the showrunners' chase after subversion and shock, king Bran could have only come from GRRM.

Ditto Martin's hypocritical stance on dragons, where they are simultaneously weapons of mass destruction and also somehow give their female riders and to some degree even Daemon zero political clout and don't prevent them from being pushed around by dragonless men. Oh, and also they are unbeatable by mundane means, except for all the many cases when they were killed by the same. Etc., etc. Honestly, very little concerning dragons and their use in FaB and WoIaF makes much logical sense.

 

 

I know in the fandom people like to atribute Dany's victories to her dragons, eg : "Without them she would have been sent to Vaes Dothrak!!!!!" . Same I could say that without the direwolves, the Starks would have been dead, Rob won Jon Umber's loyalty and respect thx to Grey Wind and without Sam, Jon would have not got his LC position because he manipulated people into electing Jon (he was not the first choice for that position). Funny how they ignore the fact that Martin made Dany face more struggles with them, than the Starks with their direwolves. I mean, I don't see them beating themselves over for the power they have thx to their abilities and beasts. As for Martin, I doubt he is not aware that the way he treats his only two rulling queens (since F&B and TKOTSK are peppered with how women are overlooked in favour of men and he also stated that Cersei and Daenerys are ment to be contrasted X, X) determines what he has to say about women in power. And from my understanding, Isaac was told that it came from Martin. Plus, if Bran indeed ends up king, we don't know if he will be the king of Westeros. Honestly, I can't see king Bran working since he hammers so much about "Aragorn's tax policy" and how magic should never be the answer. Bran never actually ruled, he was mostly a head figure as Lord of Winterfell and following Maester Luwin and a magical king that can forsee everything is pretty much slapping magic to Westeros' problems.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[Craving Peaches]

3 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

That was official task. The real task was mainly to keep the nights watch neutral and not interfere in realms duties, which he kinda failed, as you can see in his last chapter.

I'm confused. The whole point is that the true purpose of the Watch is to protect from the Others. This is what it seems to be created for. So why does Jon carrying out this task not count?

3 hours ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Tell that to renly, who had the entire reach at his command despite being 4th/6th in line( If you count Myrcella and Shireen)

Wasn’t there a will that named Ned stark regent, I hope you know where it went.

I explicitly pointed out that people don't always care about the succession laws. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. As much as I would have liked it, Renly having the largest army did not move him up the legal line of succession. Same with Daenerys and her dragons.

4 hours ago, Maia said:

Oh, and don't start me on his getting a Valyrian steel sword on a very contrived pretext

How was it a contrived pretext? He saved the Lord Commander's life.

4 hours ago, Maia said:

This is very much untrue. Lion's share of Jon's successes hinge on him being a son of Eddard Stark and having  been raised alongside his legitimate siblings as well as his direwolf. Without the prestige of his father's family, a  noble education at the most powerful regional court it afforded him, without his physical resemblance to the Starks and their sigil as his animal companion he wouldn't have had the opportunities he did.

Well for starters quite a few Wildlings, who are noted to not care about ancestry and all that, chose to follow Jon. And Jon's Stark relative status doesn't really afford him much special treatment at the wall, as he finds out. I really don't think Mormont would have picked him just because he's a Stark, in my view he got chosen because Mormont thought he'd make a good leader, as Sam said.

4 hours ago, Maia said:

That's not to say that Jon didn't make a fairly good use of his advanatages, but let's not pretend that he is some kind of self-made man.

Both Daenerys and Jon have been given some advantages. But Daenerys arguably has been given bigger advantages than Jon.

[Rondo]

3 hours ago, Oana_Mika said:

I know in the fandom people like to atribute Dany's victories to her dragons, eg : "Without them she would have been sent to Vaes Dothrak!!!!!" . Same I could say that without the direwolves, the Starks would have been dead, Rob won Jon Umber's loyalty and respect thx to Grey Wind and without Sam, Jon would have not got his LC position because he manipulated people into electing Jon (he was not the first choice for that position). Funny how they ignore the fact that Martin made Dany face more struggles with them, than the Starks with their direwolves. I mean, I don't see them beating themselves over for the power they have thx to their abilities and beasts. As for Martin, I doubt he is not aware that the way he treats his only two rulling queens (since F&B and TKOTSK are peppered with how women are overlooked in favour of men and he also stated that Cersei and Daenerys are ment to be contrasted X, X) determines what he has to say about women in power. And from my understanding, Isaac was told that it came from Martin. Plus, if Bran indeed ends up king, we don't know if he will be the king of Westeros. Honestly, I can't see king Bran working since he hammers so much about "Aragorn's tax policy" and how magic should never be the answer. Bran never actually ruled, he was mostly a head figure as Lord of Winterfell and following Maester Luwin and a magical king that can forsee everything is pretty much slapping magic to Westeros' problems.

Bran is not a suitable king.  At least not in the sense of a monarch who manages, guides, governs, and administers a large country.  If Bran becomes king it will be regional.  Something like King-Beyond-the-Wall.  King In the North, or something along those lines.  He is not getting any training, nor any experience, to prepare him to govern.  As you say, managing taxation and those important things that Dany is learning in Meereen.  Bran is being prepared to learn magic, greenseeing (word?), and skin changing.  If Bran becomes king it will be to lead a very primitive folk like the Wildlings and those pagans in his visions.  It's not to sit on the iron throne and lead the seven kingdoms.  

[csuszka1948]

On 9/30/2022 at 2:00 PM, Maia said:

Sadly, we can't trust GRRM. I had had some reservations about his depiction of adult women in ASoIAF from the beginning, but it seems like at some point while writing ADwD and materials for the worldbook, which became WoIaF and FaB,  he decided that his setting wasn't sexist enough and it's women too capable. I used to think that it was a clumsy and misguided set-up for Dany  overcoming these obstacles, but after the ending of the show and reading the early outline for the "trilogy", I suspect that it was meant as a justification for her failing. Because whatever else may have been distorted by the showrunners' chase after subversion and shock, king Bran could have only come from GRRM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see the early outline as a justification for her failing, unless you think Dany not becoming queen* of Westeros as a failing. Dany's story was never leading to her becoming the queen of Westeros (a land she has never been to), just like Bran's story was never leading to him becoming the knight he wished to be.

Also, the early outline has been altered. Even after writing ASOS, GRRM had planned Dany to invade Westeros in the 4th book, but after scrapping the 5-year gap and splitting the book into two, he had Dany stay in Essos and Aegon and Euron invade Westeros instead. If anything, that's a more heroic story for Dany, because she probably won't kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people for the Iron Throne.

 

As for the F&B, how are woman too incapable? Visenya is much more capable than Maegor (a bit of a reverse Tywin&Cersei), Alysanne seems more capable than Jahaerys and Rhaenys seems more capable than Viserys. Rhaenyra is incompetent but she is meant to be a parallel to Cersei and her half-brother Aegon II isn't much better.

 

*but, instead, for example, giving up her persuit of the crown (by calling a Great Council, just like her brother Rhaegar - whose legacy she takes up in the last act according to the House of Undying visions - intended) and departing to Essos, where she can make lasting impact - and that's what the early outline suggests (Dany pursues the Throne in book 2 and 'all 5 characters make it through the 3 volumes') and what I expect to be Dany's ending in broad strokes, but what would have never worked in the show with their setup and without Dany's internal thoughts

Edited June 25, 2023 by csuszka1948