Is Dany a White Savior?

[Lord Varys]

On 3/24/2023 at 6:37 PM, Aldarion said:

Problem with poison is that Belwas ate the whole damned plate of these things and didn't die. So was the aim truly to kill her? I'm not so sure.

Of course the aim was to kill her. We have no idea what poison was used or how it works, but Belwas only survived because of his size and because he ate all the locusts so fast that he retched most or all of them up shortly after he ate them. And then he was tended by medical professionals who also may have identified the poison administering some antidote.

It might very well be the case that a single locust contained a lethal dose for Dany assuming the poison was completely absorbed by her body.

On 3/24/2023 at 6:58 PM, BlackLightning said:

Myrcella could be a queen regnant. As could Daenerys. Even Sansa and Arya stand a greater chance of becoming queens regnant of the 7K than Cersei.

Myrcella, Shireen, and Dany can - Sansa and Arya not really, either. They could try to claim another Northern or Trident or even a Vale crown, but not the Iron Throne. Cersei could, perhaps, put forth a weak claim as Robert's widow ... but there is literally no chance that anyone would support that. Not after her walk and her quarrel with the Tyrells, the Faith, and soon Dorne.

On 3/24/2023 at 6:58 PM, BlackLightning said:

Yes. But keep in mind that Aegon has the advantage of being male, of having an existing Westerosi support system (i.e., Dorne), and of playing a defensive position.

No matter what type of government or political system you have, it is very difficult to remove an incumbent ruler. Especially if you have to engage in amphibious warfare to do so.

Look at the Russo-Ukranian War. Russia has the more superior fighting force and Ukraine has been bombed and stormed to pieces, but Zelensky is still out there leading the charge and continuing to defy his Russian enemies.

Plus, if you look at it a certain way, Aegon's inexperience works in his favor. Daenerys is a known entity who has made her fair share of mistakes and enemies. These enemies, like all people, talk. So, while the mistakes that Dany has made are or will be common knowledge that can and will be used against her, you can't say that about Aegon. Aegon simply hasn't made that many mistakes because he hasn't done anything. Yet.

Aegon should have little trouble pushing aside Cersei's brats and Stannis ... but Dany is going to come to Westeros like Aegon the Conqueror did. With real dragons and - unlike Aegon - with a large army to make up for the size of her dragons.

I'm sure Aegon won't be in a weak position when she shows up - but that doesn't mean people will stay in his camp for long, considering the fact that he might be fake and never acquire a dragon.

On 3/24/2023 at 7:06 PM, illrede said:

Now that rings true. "This agreement isn't safe/reliable if this VIP is alive, end that problem as a precondition", has precedent.

The worst arguments people have been put forth about the locusts is that people wanted to abort Daario's child. There are actual people out there who think Hizdahr and the Green Grace care about Dany's children. They want the bitch gone. Her and her dragons. Yes, they also want to go with a King Hizdahr, want the new Meereen to be a monarchy rather than restore the oligarchical rule of the Great Masters. But they don't want Dany to be a part of that.

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course the aim was to kill her. We have no idea what poison was used or how it works, but Belwas only survived because of his size and because he ate all the locusts so fast that he retched most or all of them up shortly before he ate them. And then he was tended by medical professionals who also may have identified the poison administering some antidote.

It might very well be the case that a single locust contained a lethal dose for Dany assuming the poison was completely absorbed by her body.

Myrcella, Shireen, and Dany can - Sansa and Arya not really, either. They could try to claim another Northern or Trident or even a Vale crown, but not the Iron Throne. Cersei could, perhaps, put forth a weak claim as Robert's widow ... but there is literally no chance that everybody would support that. Not after her walk and her quarrel with the Tyrells, the Faith, and soon Dorne.

Aegon should have little trouble pushing aside Cersei's brats and Stannis ... but Dany is going to come to Westeros like Aegon the Conqueror did. With real dragons and - unlike Aegon - with a large army to make up for the size of her dragons.

I'm sure Aegon won't be in a weak position when she shows up - but that doesn't mean people will stay in his camp for long, considering the fact that he might be fake and never acquire a dragon.

The worst arguments people have been put forth about the locusts is that people wanted to abort Daario's child. There are actual people out there who think Hizdahr and the Green Grace care about Dany's children. They want the bitch gone. Her and her dragons. Yes, they also want to go with a King Hizdahr, want the new Meereen to be a monarchy rather than restore the oligarchical rule of the Great Masters. But they don't want Dany to be a part of that.

Next to ignoring the Volantenes, the weakest part of Feldman’s argument is his belief that the Green Grace is a benevolent figure.

[Nathan Stark]

On 3/24/2023 at 12:19 PM, Craving Peaches said:

'you have to compromise sometimes' rather than 'you should blindly always accept the status quo however bad'.

Well, you've hit the nail on why Feldman's argument is so flawed. He is taking it as a given that Danearys should compromise with the slavers and make peace with them, because in his view, compromise is always worth pursuing if it leads to peace. But this requires ignoring how one sided the arrangement Dany has made with the slavers is, and it ignores the fact that the slavers don't intend to uphold the terms of the deal anyway, since they know the Volantene fleet is coming while Dany does not. You cannot compromise with people who are negotiating in bad faith. Feldman notes with approval the fact that Dany was able to compromise with the slavers at all, and laments her rejection of the peace she made at the end of the book. Feldman views compromise as an inherent virtue, when it just isn't.

23 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

Because, when viewing Dany's story through that lens, we can better understand what she is missing when successfully (or unsuccessfully) ruling Meereen after she goes back to Westeros. How does one with a limited perspective such as Dany rule three previously slave cities and Westeros? Does she not? Is there a way to do regime change and reconstruction successfully? All questions George seems to be aiming to answer: there are definitely vindictive people bringing up "white savior" as a dig on the character and the author, but I think recognizing Dany as a white savior narrative actually adds more to the understanding of her story and her world.

Does veiwing Dany as a white savior really tell us much about what she is missing as a character? Because if there is a society and culture that Dany is truly unfamiliar with, it is Westeros, not Slavers Bay. Dany is culturally Essosi, has grown up traveling around Essos, and is deeply familiar with the slave trade in Essos as both a beneficiary and a victim. Even Dany's own ethnic group of Valyrian descendents are typical targets for slavery. Lyseni bedslaves are bred specifically for their Valyrian feautures. Dany's desire to help the freedmen of Slavers Bay, and her inability to forsee the consequences of her doing so, does not in itself make her a part of the "white savior" trope. Dany might be a white savior in regards to Westeros, a culture that she has little familiarity with beyond second hand accounts. But trying to make her a white savior in Slavers Bay, knowing how diverse the slaves are and how quickly they have come to take action on their own without Dany, is rather like trying to force a square peg to fit a round hole.

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

Well, you've hit the nail on why Feldman's argument is so flawed. He is taking it as a given that Danearys should compromise with the slavers and make peace with them, because in his view, compromise is always worth pursuing if it leads to peace. But this requires ignoring how one sided the arrangement Dany has made with the slavers is, and it ignores the fact that the slavers don't intend to uphold the terms of the deal anyway, since they know the Volantene fleet is coming while Dany does not. You cannot compromise with people who are negotiating in bad faith. Feldman notes with approval the fact that Dany was able to compromise with the slavers at all, and laments her rejection of the peace she made at the end of the book. Feldman views compromise as an inherent virtue, when it just isn't.

 

What I would consider a compromise is the slavers accepting that the institution has to go, but requesting some years to phase it out, in return for peace.  That might well involve unpalatable stuff, like slavers receiving compensation for loss of their “property”, or slaves working as indentured labourers for a time, but no longer being chattels in law.

Not, we will tolerate free Meereen, until such point as the Volantenes arrive.

[GZ Bloodraven]

18 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

Does veiwing Dany as a white savior really tell us much about what she is missing as a character? Because if there is a society and culture that Dany is truly unfamiliar with, it is Westeros, not Slavers Bay. Dany is culturally Essosi, has grown up traveling around Essos, and is deeply familiar with the slave trade in Essos as both a beneficiary and a victim. Even Dany's own ethnic group of Valyrian descendents are typical targets for slavery. Lyseni bedslaves are bred specifically for their Valyrian feautures. Dany's desire to help the freedmen of Slavers Bay, and her inability to forsee the consequences of her doing so, does not in itself make her a part of the "white savior" trope. Dany might be a white savior in regards to Westeros, a culture that she has little familiarity with beyond second hand accounts. But trying to make her a white savior in Slavers Bay, knowing how diverse the slaves are and how quickly they have come to take action on their own without Dany, is rather like trying to force a square peg to fit a round hole.

"Essosi culture" is like saying "Asian culture;" Dany has never been to Slaver's Bay before ASOIAF. And again, the critique is not about Dany's desire to help the people of Slaver's Bay, or her lack of a reconstruction plan, or the diversity of the mostly POC slaves in Slaver's Bay, or the ability for the slaves to fight for their own freedom (though I would include many of those points as higher arguments for George's inspiration); it is simply about her, an in-our-world white woman, being the only perspective on the liberation of mostly in-our-world POC slaves. The limited Point of View is an inherent part of the storytelling of ASOIAF, and Dany's narrative is a commentary on white savior narratives because of it. So, yes, it tells us much about what she is missing as a character to only have her perspective on her momentary ambition to liberate Slaver's Bay (assuming she actually goes to Westeros sometime in the next 6 years).

[Nathan Stark]

39 minutes ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

"Essosi culture" is like saying "Asian culture;"

Let's unpack this assertion. Braavos is an Essosi city. Do they have an Asian seeming culture? No. Pentos is an Essosi city. Do they appear Asian? No. What about Quarth? That place seems more like George's deconstruction of Hollywood than anything related to Asia. I don't think Norvos has any real world parallels, Asian or otherwise. Slavers Bay is based much more on ancient Medditerranean societies than on medival Arabic civilizations. The Roynar are largely adjacent to Ancient Egypt.

It's true that the farther east you go, the more "Asian" Essos feels, with the Dothraki acting as a sort of cultural bridge connecting western Essos with eastern Essos. However, the continent is so immensely diverse that declaring "Essosi culture" to be like "Asian culture" is clearly a huge leap to make. 

52 minutes ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

And again, the critique is not about Dany's desire to help the people of Slaver's Bay, or her lack of a reconstruction plan, or the diversity of the mostly POC slaves in Slaver's Bay, or the ability for the slaves to fight for their own freedom

In universe, the slave trade affects all sorts of people, including Dany herself, who vivdly recalls the experience of being sold to Khal Drogo like a peice of meat. Arguing that Dany is a white savior because we percieve her as white isn't a compelling argument to me. Dany's trying to free slaves because she recognises the institution as an utterly depraved, inhuman practice that must be ended. It doesn't matter in universe what Dany's skin color is, or what skin color most of the slaves have, so why should we try to impose importance on those things? I think it's fair to critique George for not introducing pov characters of color in Slavers Bay, but I do not believe it was his goal not to do so. He simply didn't want to create even more pov characters. 

But setting all of the above aside. Danearys Targaryen is not culturally Westerosi. She is culturally Essosi. With the exception of Braavos, and nominally Pentos, every other city on the continent that Dany lives in is a slave city. She doesn't need to have been unfamiliar with Slavers Bay to have been deeply familiar with slavery. Dany is not trying to impose "western" cultural values upon "eastern" cultures. She is trying to get rid of slavery, a vile practice that is considered normal throughout the vast majority of Essos, including the "western coded" parts. To view Dany's story as a "white savior" narrative overlooks the context in which Dany's story is taking place. 

I think it is much more useful to view Danaerys as a modern political thinker stuck in a deeply antiquated society, who just so happens to have the actual power to force said society to change its ways. 

[GZ Bloodraven]

14 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

It's true that the farther east you go, the more "Asian" Essos feels, with the Dothraki acting as a sort of cultural bridge connecting western Essos with eastern Essos. However, the continent is so immensely diverse that declaring "Essosi culture" to be like "Asian culture" is clearly a huge leap to make. 

We're making the same point, though you used Dany being immersed in Western Essosi culture to explain why she would have any greater understanding of the Ghiscari. Essosi culture is as nebulous and wide-ranging as saying Asian culture: even more so because much of Western Essos is Greek, Roman and Eastern Europe inspired.

16 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

I think it's fair to critique George for not introducing pov characters of color in Slavers Bay, but I do not believe it was his goal not to do so. He simply didn't want to create even more pov characters. 

I think he intentionally didn't so he could do a white savior commentary, like Dune. Dany's personal experience with slavery, while important to understand, doesn't change the white savior narrative that is her story. Her not being in-universe white doesn't change our racial analysis coding her as white. 

I agree that it is useful to think of Dany as a modern political thinker, but the white savior narrative also highlights different meanings from her story.

[Alester Florent]

22 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

Let's unpack this assertion. Braavos is an Essosi city. Do they have an Asian seeming culture?

...

It's true that the farther east you go, the more "Asian" Essos feels, with the Dothraki acting as a sort of cultural bridge connecting western Essos with eastern Essos. However, the continent is so immensely diverse that declaring "Essosi culture" to be like "Asian culture" is clearly a huge leap to make.

I think the point is that Essos is extremely diverse, and that therefore saying "Essosi culture" is just as meaningless as saying "Asian culture", rather than that Essos maps neatly onto Asia or vice versa.

Quote

No. Pentos is an Essosi city. Do they appear Asian? No. What about Quarth? That place seems more like George's deconstruction of Hollywood than anything related to Asia. I don't think Norvos has any real world parallels, Asian or otherwise. Slavers Bay is based much more on ancient Medditerranean societies than on medival Arabic civilizations. The Roynar are largely adjacent to Ancient Egypt.

With that said...

As I've said earlier in this thread, Slaver's Bay seems to me rather more like a mishmash of orientalist tropes about the Near/Middle East - Turkey, Persia and the Arab world - than it does the Greco-Roman Med (notwithstanding that the eastern Hellenistic Med was heavily influenced by Persia and its predecessors anyway).

Norvos feels to me like if it has a parallel it's one of the old Rus' cities, probably a northern one like Novgorod.

[Lord Varys]

Norvos is very obviously based on the city of Natchez in Mississippi. Not the whole religious stuff there, but the city as such.

Sometimes it helps to read more George R. R. Martin than just ASoIaF (Natchez features heavily in 'Fevre Dream').

2 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

I think he intentionally didn't so he could do a white savior commentary, like Dune.

'Dune' is also not a 'white savior commentary'. The book series is from the 1960s and doesn't address real world racist issues in any way.

2 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

Dany's personal experience with slavery, while important to understand, doesn't change the white savior narrative that is her story. Her not being in-universe white doesn't change our racial analysis coding her as white.

But it makes no sense for us to code her as white since the concept simply doesn't exist in-universe. As you should understand - 'whiteness' isn't a ethnic but a political concept. It is part of a racist ideology creating superior and lesser races ... but this kind of concept - especially in a colonialist or imperial context - simply doesn't exist in this world.

The Westerosi are about as white as the Anglo-Saxons were before the Norman Conquest.

You can code a character as white or black or brown or whatever if you have reason to believe the work you talk about does include such racial categories. I mean, when you read the Mhysa scene in the book you don't even have to imagine it as there being dark(er)-skinned people among the freed slaves - because they are not described. They could all be as light-skinned as Daenerys (who isn't actually particularly light-skinned as the inability of the wineseller to recognize her as Daenerys Targaryen shows) and there could even be a lot of slaves with Valyrian hair and eyes among them.

The important point about Dany's culture being Essosi is that her take on slavery is that of an insider. Any attempt to frame her as a person from another continent who comes with her 'better and more advanced morality' to teach the natives how things have to be done is faulty. That is simply not what happens.

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

As I've said earlier in this thread, Slaver's Bay seems to me rather more like a mishmash of orientalist tropes about the Near/Middle East - Turkey, Persia and the Arab world - than it does the Greco-Roman Med (notwithstanding that the eastern Hellenistic Med was heavily influenced by Persia and its predecessors anyway).

Even if one goes with that - it is equally clear that the Westerosi are primitive people who are stuck in a perpetual, quite brutal fake medieval feudalism. Their culture is no alternative to anything. It doesn't save anyone. And it is never presented as a more developed 'white' alternative to primitive orientals. Trying to read the Ghiscari (or Volantenes and Qartheen) through an orientalist lens is, in fact, as ahistorical as pretending medieval Frenchmen around 1000 AD viewed the Byzantine Empire as primitive or savage and in need of a savior from the West. Since we do have fake medievalism in 'fake Europe' in this world, it doesn't really do to pretend that the 'fake orient' in this world is presented in the way the modern West since the Enlightenment (eventually) viewed the orient (in the early 18th century China was still viewed as the perfect society in continental Europe). George certainly could have included colonialism and chauvinism and racism in his world - like he does include xenophobia, religious intolerance, superstition, and exoticism. But we actually don't get cultural and hierarchies where Westeros is presented as the most advanced, most powerful culture/race/society. Far to the contrary, actually. And there is no indication that this is supposed to be read ironic. When Xaro Xhoan Daxos basically dismisses Westeros as backwater actual people don't really have to put on maps of the world then this is not supposed to be as funny as Ygritte mistaken some watchtower for a castle. The latter does show ignorance, but the former just underlines that Westeros is a backwater place at the very vicinity of the civilized world - what Ireland was for the Romans, say.

And Daenerys' anti-slavery stance is not that of a person who grew up in Westerosi culture, it is the point of view of a person who was raised in the Valyrian world of Essos - which stretches from Slaver's Bay in the east all the way to Lorath and Braavos and Pentos in the west - and who, like the runaways slaves who founded Braavos, realized that slavery sucks.

Of course, George wants to other the Ghiscari in comparison to the Westerosi - he wants both the POV narrators as well as the reader to not feel 'at home' in Slaver's Bay to the same degree he might, at this point, feel at home in Westeros. But that is part of the travelogue narration, of the fact that people from one region/country travel to another where they are strangers and do not feel at home. However, once we start to get to know those people to a point we see that they are people like everybody else. We also get that thing for the wildings (both those beyond the Wall as well as Tyrion's clansmen).

[GZ Bloodraven]

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Westerosi are about as white as the Anglo-Saxons were before the Norman Conquest.

 

But the book was not written in 900s pre-Britannia, it was written by a guy from mid to late 1900s New Jersey, at the turn of the 21st century. Again, in-universe Dany isn't a white savior, but because we are only told her perspective, and she can very easily be read as "white" in our world, she is metatextually part of a white savior narrative.

 

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

'Dune' is also not a 'white savior commentary'. The book series is from the 1960s and doesn't address real world racist issues in any way.

I'm speaking a little outside my realm of knowledge, but as I understand it, Dune is a critique of messianic complexes and the white saviors that purport to have them (even though our conception of race also doesn't exist within in-universe Herbert's world). 

[Morte]

On 3/24/2023 at 9:26 PM, Aldarion said:

Precisely my point. Belwas ate the whole damn plate. Would Daenerys have eaten everything? I doubt it. How could they have known she would have liked the locusts enough to eat the amount that would have caused her to ingest the lethal dose of poison?

Any halfway competent poisoners would have made sure that any single locust had the lethal dose... unless, of course, the aim was to make her sick but not die.

I think a competent poisoner wants to make sure that it looks like a medical issue, so using a dose, that kills the target outright, is unwise. Maybe they underestimated the freedmen medics and thought that the Green Grace would be called to "cure" the sickness, so they could administer another dose.

A slow death after which her grieving husband would inherit Meereen would surely look better than her dying quickly after her wedding day.

[SeanF]

7 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

But the book was not written in 900s pre-Britannia, it was written by a guy from mid to late 1900s New Jersey, at the turn of the 21st century. Again, in-universe Dany isn't a white savior, but because we are only told her perspective, and she can very easily be read as "white" in our world, she is metatextually part of a white savior narrative.

 

I'm speaking a little outside my realm of knowledge, but as I understand it, Dune is a critique of messianic complexes and the white saviors that purport to have them (even though our conception of race also doesn't exist within in-universe Herbert's world). 

I think Herbert’s take was that all politicians are evil, and we’re better off with political leaders who are overtly evil (like the Harkonnens) rather than with those who mask their evil behind good intentions (like Paul).

Whether Herbert actually succeeded in establishing that point is an open question. Most readers vastly prefer Paul and his family to the Harkonnens.

[Morte]

7 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

But the book was not written in 900s pre-Britannia, it was written by a guy from mid to late 1900s New Jersey, at the turn of the 21st century. Again, in-universe Dany isn't a white savior, but because we are only told her perspective, and she can very easily be read as "white" in our world, she is metatextually part of a white savior narrative.

Just because your only tool is a hammer, doesn't make every problem in the world a nail.

The author has already told us, that his metatextual aim is to deconstruct the young-and-clueless-saviour-troupe in fantasy, in which the saviour is a saviour simply because they are, and everything they touch works to the benefits of everyone and nothing ever backfires or has a price. That's why both Jon and Daenerys fail initially, even though they are right in what they aim for. For all his flaws in worldbuilding and researching on historical subjects he's using, GRRM does this one really well.

Beside: Can Daenerys even be "read as 'white' in our world"? She was a de facto pauper all her life - and then sold to a Dothraki khaal... Would you read Sally Hemings as "white"?

7 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

I'm speaking a little outside my realm of knowledge, but as I understand it, Dune is a critique of messianic complexes and the white saviors that purport to have them (even though our conception of race also doesn't exist within in-universe Herbert's world). 

No. It's - beside other things* - about the believe in a messiahs - both political and religious - and that it makes people do or not do. The subject of his novels are not the "narrative persona", but society as a whole.

It's not about "the saviour" or his complexes, which - to be fair, however unsympathic, pathetic and cowardly he is - not even Paul has.

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think Herbert’s take was that all politicians are evil, and we’re better off with political leaders who are overtly evil (like the Harkonnens) rather than with those who mask their evil behind good intentions (like Paul).

Whether Herbert actually succeeded in establishing that point is an open question. Most readers vastly prefer Paul and his family to the Harkonnens.

Because most readers don't pay enough attention and have read the books at an age, then one likes to imagine oneself as a force that can change something for the better (with Superpowers!). One can argue, whether Herbert build this trap intentionally - I would say "yes", as he is actually very explicit about his stunt in the books following "Dune".

 

* Like: "religions purpose is to keep people manipulatable and usable" and "kill aristocrats on sight"

[SeanF]

32 minutes ago, Morte said:

 

Because most readers don't pay enough attention and have read the books at an age, then one likes to imagine oneself as a force that can change something for the better (with Superpowers!). One can argue, whether Herbert build this trap intentionally - I would say "yes", as he is actually very explicit about his stunt in the books following "Dune".

 

* Like: "religions purpose is to keep people manipulatable and usable" and "kill aristocrats on sight"

I was 32 when I read Dune for the first time.  I got the point that Herbert was trying to make, but I don't think that he succeeded in establishing it.  

Or to be more charitable to Herbert, I disliked his point intensely.  It's a very nihilistic way of viewing the world.

It's similar to my reaction to Paul Verhoeven's version of Starship Troopers.  I get that it's meant to a satire on the War on Terror, and a commentary on how that leads to fascism but I don't think it works as such.  As a straightforward adventure story, it's very entertaining.

For one thing, no fascist state would replace a failed white, male, general, with a Maori woman as commander in chief.

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I was 32 when I read Dune for the first time.  I got the point that Herbert was trying to make, but I don't think that he succeeded in establishing it.  

Or to be more charitable to Herbert, I disliked his point intensely.  It's a very nihilistic way of viewing the world.

It's similar to my reaction to Paul Verhoeven's version of Starship Troopers.  I get that it's meant to a satire on the War on Terror, and a commentary on how that leads to fascism but I don't think it works as such.  As a straightforward adventure story, it's very entertaining.

For one thing, no fascist state would replace a failed white, male, general, with a Maori woman as commander in chief.

Why not? Tyranny comes in many shapes.

But it is true that Verhoeven failed at establishing the Federation as a tyrannical society or as "bad guys", assuming that really was his intention. When I watched the movie, I always saw them in a rather sympathetic light, even as I facepalmed at their "tactics".

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Why not? Tyranny comes in many shapes.

But it is true that Verhoeven failed at establishing the Federation as a tyrannical society or as "bad guys", assuming that really was his intention. When I watched the movie, I always saw them in a rather sympathetic light, even as I facepalmed at their "tactics".

I think Putin's generals saw their tactics as a blueprint.

[Morte]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I was 32 when I read Dune for the first time.  I got the point that Herbert was trying to make, but I don't think that he succeeded in establishing it.  

Or to be more charitable to Herbert, I disliked his point intensely.  It's a very nihilistic way of viewing the world.

Hm, don't know if it is that nihilistic, he does have lighter shades of grey and even truly benevolent people (some of them pitch black, morally) in his work; one could argue, that they even succeed in the end, however pricey this victory was.

What indeed is very frustrating is how many of his reader misinterpreted his work toward the exact opposite of what he actually was saying. But that may be attributed also to the fact, that many people only ever read the first book (although I found him quite straightforward even in Dune. But I, too, have read him quite late in my late Twenties).

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

For one thing, no fascist state would replace a failed white, male, general, with a Maori woman as commander in chief.

On this one I have to disagree. A fascist state very well could (we are talking about fascists here, not nazis), Heinlein's certainly would, as it is liberal in this regards (see Marcuse et all.).

It's like @Aldarion said: Tyranny comes in many shapes.

That's why I do think Verhoeven did a very good job in his movie: They don't seem unsympathetic, because we see them from the inside, with the eyes of people who have been indoctrinated all their life and are sympathetic toward the system, we don't get a bug-POV, we have to connect the dots given to us, to see that the system really is. But he also remained true to his source in a way, as he didn't try to paint the militaristic regime Heinlein created worse than it is in the source material.

What both, Herbert and Verhoeven, would imho agree upon is, that there is no easy way out, no easy judgement.

[the trees have eyes]

11 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

But the book was not written in 900s pre-Britannia, it was written by a guy from mid to late 1900s New Jersey, at the turn of the 21st century. Again, in-universe Dany isn't a white savior, but because we are only told her perspective, and she can very easily be read as "white" in our world, she is metatextually part of a white savior narrative.

I'm speaking a little outside my realm of knowledge, but as I understand it, Dune is a critique of messianic complexes and the white saviors that purport to have them (even though our conception of race also doesn't exist within in-universe Herbert's world). 

I think you're a bit hung up on this.  Story telling and fantasy, in particular, have dealt with heroes and prophecy since forever.  Whether it's the boy who pulls a sword from a stone or the man who rides a worm these are individuals fulfilling an in story role.  Whether it's Dany, Jon or the three heads of the Dragon who will save the world - or not if it's all distraction and GRRM is going to totally deconstruct the prince that was promised / Last Hero trope - viewing Dany, ASOIAF or fantasy in general via this white saviour lens as if that's all the author is trying to write about seems really limiting.  And once you start off that way you don't seem able to see much else.

[Aldarion]

1 hour ago, Morte said:

That's why I do think Verhoeven did a very good job in his movie: They don't seem unsympathetic, because we see them from the inside, with the eyes of people who have been indoctrinated all their life and are sympathetic toward the system, we don't get a bug-POV, we have to connect the dots given to us, to see that the system really is. But he also remained true to his source in a way, as he didn't try to paint the militaristic regime Heinlein created worse than it is in the source material.

 

There is also the fact that bugs did kill millions of people in an unprovoked attack, kept attacking, and... well, we have never seen (at least in the first movie - didn't watch the others in a long time) Federation do anything obviously bad. The worst thing about the movie-verse Federation is their ridiculous military incompetence, but I have never noticed anything that some people accuse them of. The only thing suggesting Federation to be bad is the Nazi aesthetics used (uniforms being rather blatant example), but that is rather thin evidence.

I don't think getting bug-POV would have changed much.

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

There is also the fact that bugs did kill millions of people in an unprovoked attack, kept attacking, and... well, we have never seen (at least in the first movie - didn't watch the others in a long time) Federation do anything obviously bad. The worst thing about the movie-verse Federation is their ridiculous military incompetence, but I have never noticed anything that some people accuse them of. The only thing suggesting Federation to be bad is the Nazi aesthetics used (uniforms being rather blatant example), but that is rather thin evidence.

I don't think getting bug-POV would have changed much.

Attlee's Britain was highly militarised, but that did not make it a tyranny.

Too many producers think that wearing black = Nazi.

The Bugs are not necessarily evil, but they are most definitely, antagonists.