The Problem with Dany

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I think possibly a trap you are falling into is assuming that because Dany is not the cliche-driven disaster that Cersei is, she will therefore necessarily be as one-dimensionally competent as Cersei is incompetent. A more realistic depiction of a strong woman is still a flawed human being…just nowhere near as flawed as Cersei. I guess what I’m saying is that within your argument, the problem with Dany is really a problem with Cersei.

 

For all the criticism the show rightfully gets, they obviously felt that Cersei needed to be more well rounded to be credible, and for most of the show they managed that. Book Cersei is formidable before we get inside her head, buffoonery to the point of satire afterwards, and you could rightfully say that’s not one of George’s better moments. 
 

edit: unless comedy is the central thrust of her arc, which I’ve heard suggested. It’s kindof how I read her now, light/dark comedy peppered with all kinds of important information she misses or misunderstands. 

I think Dany’s motives should always be mixed.  Freeing slaves is good, but at the same time, they’re a huge fifth column, assisting her conquest of Western Essos.  If she pitches a deal to the Dothraki leaders, it should be on the basis that they free the slaves, but in return, gain the lands and treasures of the elites.

If she bargains with the Iron Bank, to fund her conquests, they will have their due, a monopoly of the commerce of the conquered cities.

[kissdbyfire]

On 5/24/2023 at 11:03 PM, Jeff Claburn said:

The problem with Dany is that I then read that George Martin says that the fan theorist who gets it is the one who wrote about how Dany learned all the wrong lessons in Meeren because the peace was working and she gave up on it. That line of analysis does seem to lead toward what happened in the TV show.

I haven’t read the Meereenese Blot theory since that reader first posted it, and I also haven’t read Martin’s comments on it since forever. So, w/ that disclaimer out of the way… as far as I recall, that’s not what Martin said/meant. I think what he meant was that the person who wrote the theory got intricacies of that plot line, how hard it had been for Martin to “sort it out” but he wasn’t saying the person was right about their conclusions. Again, I could be wrong here. 

[csuszka1948]

On 5/25/2023 at 3:03 AM, Jeff Claburn said:

I think you misunderstand. I had written a much longer post starting to explain the issue but my computer froze and it got lost when I had to go pick up my kids. By the problem with Dany I don't the problem with her, I mean the problems with her story line.

I read that Martin had won the Nebula Award for "Blood of the Dragon"--all Dany's collected chapters in a Game of Thrones--and so that is the first thing I read. Dany for me has always been the heart and soul of the story. She is the one who grew up with an abusive older brother, and no parents, who was sold into marital slavery at age 13 in a frankly horrific culture. Yet she has shown herself to be the most compassionate person in the story.

The problem with Dany is that I then read that George Martin says that the fan theorist who gets it is the one who wrote about how Dany learned all the wrong lessons in Meeren because the peace was working and she gave up on it. That line of analysis does seem to lead toward what happened in the TV show.

But that is not the story I read. There was no working peace in Meeren. Hizdar ordered her dragon (and baby) Drogon to be killed without asking her, which was tantamount to treason and a direct negation of her authority and her power based. And for nothing by Meerenese standards: Martin showed us that the Meerense love follies and planned to set lions on Tyrion and Penny while they were performing, until Dany stopped it. Martin showed us that the Meerenese like to tie up slave children coated in honey and blood and milk to see which of them a bear will eat as spectacle. Then a boar mortally wounds a female gladiator--right after an apparent assasination attempt on the queen in front of Hizdar, and Hizdar's response is to ignore his Queen and order Dany's dragon to be killed. How is this the peace working? There is no way Dany or her people could possibly allow Hizdar to stay in power or share authority with him after that. Yet I read this long Reddit post that Dany was the one in the wrong here and that George Martin says that reddit post got it right!

Another problem with Dany: We know that the dragons are necessary to save all humanity from the Others. We've always known that. We also know that Robert Baratheon has been a truly terrible, selfish king who bankrupted a wealthy realm after he killed Dany's family. We know the Lannisters have since taken over and Tywin and Joffrey and Cersei are all monsters, and now Cersei is destroying the country. So how is it bad for Dany to protect the dragons that we know are necessary to save the world as well as to remove the coterie that took over the realm and has run it horribly into the ground? Yet when I try to say positive things about Dany on Reddit and Quora, what I have run into is all these people who say Robb was great for rebelling against the Lannisters while Dany is evil for plotting to rebel against them, for hatching and not killing her dragons, for liberating all the slaves in Slavor's Bay (because it is bloody and destabalizing to do so).

Another problem with Dany: As far as I can tell, Cersei is an accumulation of every old trope and calumny used against intelligent and powerful women who have been involved in politics or government for 2,000 years. Livia exerted some influence on her husband Augustus, so Roman historians fifty years later accused her of poisoning something like 20 different people and ruining the early Roman Republic. They blamed Livia for every mistake actually made by Augustus and Tiberius and other men! Women who would have a role in government, right up to the present moment, have been accused of being conniving plotters with evil schemes (like Hillary Clinton). Of only caring about their own kids and not the welfare of the realm (another accusation lodged at Livia and so many ever since). Of being too emotional to make good decisions or rational judgements or stick to courses of action. Of being cruel and petty. Of listening to cute younger handsome men and ignoring wise old men. Of cheating on their husbands and partners and sleeping with every handsome man at court. All of these calumnies against women and more, Cersei actually does.

So I took it all along we were setting up a contrast where Cersei shows the false image but Dany shows how strong, assertive, intelligent women really can rule and do so more compassionately and carefully than so many overly warlike and ego-obsessed and closed minded male rulers and politicians. If so, I have been down with that story and I thought I was enjoying it. Then we got what happened in the show. But it's not just that the show was badly written, then all these other theorists have come forward supporting the argument that Dan and Dave are getting Dany right, they just rushed things over one and half seasons that should have taken three to five. And the things I have read, the hints from George, don't seem to be that they butchered Dany, but more along the lines that it's hard to change course in the middle of a series when you've planned things all along. In other words, that this was George's plan for Dany all along. He hated the way it happened in the show, but not that it happened, only the way it was done.

This is the problem with the Dany storyline, and I apologize if I phrased it misleadingly. I love George's writing on most aspects of the story, but it seems like he has headed Dany off a cliff that really is going to be hard to escape misogyny and telling what is frankly the celebration of 2,000 years of the worst tropes rather than anything interesting or trope-shattering when it comes to her storyline.

 

I understand your concerns.

The answer is... we do not know the end of Dany's storyline. The showrunners have come up with the idea of Jon killing Dany and this moment+Dany intentionally burning down KL was not among the 3 'holy shit moments' Martin told them. 

1) In the books (unlike the show), Cersei is set up as Aerys 2.0 - paranoid and obsessed with wildfire - and GRRM said that one of his biggest regrets regarding splitting the 4th book into two parts is that he couldn't show Dany and Cersei's ruling methods in the same book as 'point and counterpoint'. He also found the theory that Dany would burn down the Water Gardens ridiculous. 

2) The Meereenese Blot is a good essay and it shed light to many things readers ignored, but GRRM saying that Feldman 'gets it' doesn't mean he agrees with the final conclusion, just that he gets the themes of Dany's storyline in ADWD, the struggle between peace (which means accepting slavery outside of Meereen) and war. 

3) The dragons might help against the Others and slavers, but they are also dangerous weapons. I don't think it's an accident that the dragonhorn was introduced in AFFC - someone (one or two people) other than Dany is going to get a dragon and they are going to use it in less savory ways.