Why do people ignore that Daenerys sold women into slavery?

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

When the Dothraki attack the Lhazareen in GoT, Dany essentially forces the men to marry the women they were raping. Essentially forcing these women into sexual servitude and no one seems to bring it up.

Edited June 24, 2023 by King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd said:

When the Dothraki attack the Lhazareen in GoT, Dany essentially forces the men to marry the women they were raping. Essentially forcing these women into sexual servitude and no one seems to bring it up.

She suggested it as an alternative to gang-raping them.  It was the lesser evil.

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

She suggested it as an alternative to gang-raping them.  It was the lesser evil.

Except now they are bond to those men, who’ll no doubt continue to rape them

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd said:

Except now they are bond to those men, who’ll no doubt continue to rape them

Sure.  The fate of a Dothraki wife is not a good one.

It’s still less bad than multiple rape.

[Hugorfonics]

24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The fate of a Dothraki wife is not a good one.

Compared to the queen of the seven kingdoms? The Princess of Dorne? A stolen freefolk?

26 minutes ago, King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd said:

Except now they are bond to those men, who’ll no doubt continue to rape them

Outlaw marriage?

If it was up to Jon Snow, all the men would join the NW.

Maybe there's a middle ground?

Edited June 24, 2023 by Hugorfonics

[fischbroetchen]

Thought suggesting marriage was her way of saying that the Dothraki should feel responsible in the long run for the woman they took. I'm assuming that many of these captive women would have been sold as slaves anyway, and it's not so bad to become a wife in comparison.

4 hours ago, King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd said:

Except now they are bond to those men, who’ll no doubt continue to rape them

Dany's view of marital rape is probably confused by the fact that she herself was forced wed Drogo.

[SeanF]

20 minutes ago, fischbroetchen said:

Thought suggesting marriage was her way of saying that the Dothraki should feel responsible in the long run for the woman they took. I'm assuming that many of these captive women would have been sold as slaves anyway, and it's not so bad to become a wife in comparison.

Dany's view of marital rape is probably confused by the fact that she herself was forced wed Drogo.

Like most women, she would not even think that marital rape was possible.  She expects that her husband will use her for sex whenever he wants.

[SaffronLady]

Marital rape is a notion that would be quite strange if it showed up in the medieval mind. Lyanna troubled by a fiance who would mess around with multiple lovers could be boiled down to jealously guarding her future husband, so it isn't that strange compared to what this thread started about.

Yes, it is strange for a pre-modern female - and more importantly, a pre-modern RULER - to have the concepts of 'marital rape' and ''marriage after rape is functionally slavery". If we ignore intents altogether, Dany still needs to keep the appetites of her soldiers sated, how'd you think she's going to achieve that?

As for why people ignore that, well her army is the Dothraki. I don't know, maybe people just accepted that Dany wasn't going to impose the moral standards of some readers onto her own army.

Like, sometimes I have this feeling some threads on this forum start simply because GRRM is not giving us anything else to work with.

[Springwatch]

5 hours ago, King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd said:

When the Dothraki attack the Lhazareen in GoT, Dany essentially forces the men to marry the women they were raping.

Doesn't really happen:

Quote

Dany told him what she had done, in his own tongue so the khal would understand her better, her words simple and direct.

When she was done, Drogo was frowning. “This is the way of war. These women are our slaves now, to do with as we please.”

“It pleases me to hold them safe,” Dany said, wondering if she had dared too much. “If your warriors would mount these women, let them take them gently and keep them for wives. Give them places in the khalasar and let them bear you sons.”

Qotho was ever the crudest of the bloodriders. It was he who laughed. “Does the horse breed with the sheep?”

Something in his tone reminded her of Viserys. Dany turned on him angrily. “The dragon feeds on horse and sheep alike.”

Khal Drogo smiled. “See how fierce she grows!” he said. “It is my son inside her, the stallion who mounts the world, filling her with his fire. Ride slowly, Qotho … if the mother does not burn you where you sit, the son will trample you into the mud. And you, Mago, hold your tongue and find another lamb to mount. These belong to my khaleesi.”

 

[StarkTullies]

6 hours ago, King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd said:

When the Dothraki attack the Lhazareen in GoT, Dany essentially forces the men to marry the women they were raping. Essentially forcing these women into sexual servitude and no one seems to bring it up.

I have so many criticisms of Dany, but this isn't one of them.  This is one of her better deeds: she helped these women the best she could.

The fact that it was at Dany's urging that Drogo invaded the villages murdering thousands of innocents to sell thousands more innocents into slavery so they could buy ships to continue the slaughter on another continent that Dany felt entitled to... that's where my criticism of Dany comes in. 

[csuszka1948]

1 hour ago, StarkTullies said:

The fact that it was at Dany's urging that Drogo invaded the villages murdering thousands of innocents to sell thousands more innocents into slavery so they could buy ships to continue the slaughter on another continent that Dany felt entitled to... that's where my criticism of Dany comes in. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think it's entirely fair criticism.

1) If you carefully read the text, you will notice that Drogo didn't attack the village, he attacked a rival khalasar (led by Khal Ogo) that attacked the village and they took the remaining (not dead or fled) members of Ogo's khalasar and the members of the village as slaves.

2) The attack didn't happen at Dany's urging, it happened because Robert tried to kill Drogo's wife and unborn child, the Stallion Who Mounts the World, in the womb. That's what caused Drogo to make a declaration, not anything Dany said.

3) When Dany urged Drogo to invade Westeros, she was naive and didn't know what such an invasion entailed (raping the woman, taking everyone slave), because she didn't live that long amongst the Dothraki. This is pretty clearly seen later, when she is horrified but still tries to convince herself that 'it will be worth it', since she knows that her husband is set on the idea of invasion anyways.

 

As for Dany's entitlement... her family conquered Westeros and forged Seven Kingdoms into one realm, built King's Landing, the Red Keep, the Iron Throne, it was their home and as it was taken away from them by rebellion, usurpation and treachery (Tywin tricking Aerys to open the gates and sending his men to murder Elia and her children, his own Kingsguard Jaime murdering Aerys, garrison selling out Targaryens in Dragonstone) and that's what caused him and Viserys to live their life in exile and led Viserys to become mad. As far as she knows (wrongly), her father wasn't the Mad King and the rebellion was completely unjust treason.

In face of that, her desire to take back the IT in AGOT (really, until she learns the full account of her father's actions) and her entitlement to think that it belongs to her is not different from the desire of the Starks to take back WF (with the Usurper being her own Roose/Ramsay Bolton) and their entitlement to think that WF belongs to them and the desire of Stannis to take the IT and his entitlement to think that the IT belongs to him.

Edited June 24, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

I don't think it's really fair criticism.

1) If you carefully read the text, you will notice that Drogo didn't attack the village, he attacked a rival khalasar (led by Khal Ogo) that attacked the village.

2) The attack didn't happen at Dany's urging, it happened because Robert tried to kill Drogo's wife and unborn child, the Stallion Who Mounts the World, in the womb. That's what caused Drogo to make a declaration, not anything Dany said.

3) When Dany urged Drogo to invade Westeros, she was naive and didn't know what such an invasion entailed (raping the woman, taking everyone slave), because she didn't live that long amongst the Dothraki. This is pretty clearly seen later, when she is horrified but still tries to convince herself that 'it will be worth it', since she knows that her husband it set on the idea of invasion anyways.

Yes, Daenerys is not in charge of the Dothraki war machine.

Her culpability, such as it is, rests on one conversation with Drogo, and even then, she was not encouraging him to take slaves.

The culpability of Varys, Illyrio, and Jon Connington (who planned a Dothraki invasion), King Robert (who ordered the hit), and of course, Ogo, Drogo and their riders, is far greater.

As an aside, I now think that the hit on Daenerys was planned to fail, it was so amateurish.  Varys and LF wanted to prompt an invasion for their own ends.

Edited June 24, 2023 by SeanF

[StarkTullies]

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

If you carefully read the text, you will notice that Drogo didn't attack the village, he attacked a rival khalasar (led by Khal Ogo) that attacked the village and they took the remaining (not dead or fled) members of Ogo's khalasar and the members of the village as slaves.

Drogo was there to attack the village, and Ogo beat him to it, and the fight ended up being more against Ogo than the "lamb men".  I suppose it is not clear how many of Lhazareen Drogo's khalasar killed, but he was certainly there for the slavery.  Dany was "sad" but she knew it was "necessary" because the Iron Throne was more important than anything else:

Quote

Slaves, Dany thought. Khal Drogo would drive them downriver to one of the towns on Slaver's Bay. She wanted to cry, but she told herself that she must be strong. This is war, this is what it looks like, this is the price of the Iron Throne.

 

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

The attack didn't happen at Dany's urging, it happened because Robert tried to kill Drogo's wife and unborn child, the Stallion Who Mounts the World, in the womb. That's what caused Drogo to make a declaration, not anything Dany said.

Yes and no.  She had been urging him, and he said no, and then the wineseller was the final straw.  I don't think Drogo would have crossed the "poisoned water" if Dany hadn't been working on him all along.

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

When Dany urged Drogo to invade Westeros, she was naive and didn't know what such an invasion entailed (raping the woman, taking everyone slave), because she didn't live that long amongst the Dothraki. This is pretty clearly seen later, when she is horrified but still tries to convince herself that 'it will be worth it', since she knows that her husband is set on the idea of invasion anyways.

She had been with the Dothraki for a long time at that point.  I think she knew exactly what it entailed.  I listed the quote that I think you are referring to above, and she is struggling with herself to justify what she inherently knows is wrong.

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

As for Dany's entitlement... her family conquered Westeros and forged Seven Kingdoms into one realm, built King's Landing, the Red Keep, the Iron Throne, it was their home and as it was taken away from them by rebellion, usurpation and treachery

Yes, Aegon and his sisters conquered Westeros, and I consider them villains for doing so.  Robert is hardly a good guy and Tywin Lannister is one of the worst men in the history of Westeros, but Mad King Aerys brought the fall of the Targaryens of himself.  I don't hate Dany for being a Targaryen, but I certain don't think she is owed anything for it either.

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

his own Kingsguard Jaime murdering Aerys

Dany doesn't know the truth, but Jaime didn't murder Aerys; he saved Kings Landing from his treachery.  Jaime didn't have pure motives, but he certainly did the right thing.

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

As far as she knows (wrongly), her father wasn't the Mad King and the rebellion was completely unjust treason.

I agree.  I think Dany is most likely going to become a full-fledged villain, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong and I don't hate her (yet).  I have lots of sympathy for her for many reasons, which includes being raised by nobody other than her deplorable brother who was feeding her lies and narcissistic ideology her entire life.

But when Barristan tries to tell her the truth, she doesn't want to hear it.  She still hates the Starks just as much as the Lannisters.

Quote

"Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them the Usurper's dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty."

 

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

In face of that, her desire to take back the IT in AGOT (really, until she learns the full account of her father's actions) and her entitlement to think that it belongs to her is not different from the desire of the Starks to take back WF (with the Usurper being her own Roose/Ramsay Bolton)

I sort of agree (taking her incomplete knowledge into account), except that none of the Starks actively want to take back Winterfell at this time.  I'm not going to stress that point though, because that will undoubtedly change.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Yes, Daenerys is not in charge of the Dothraki war machine.

Her culpability, such as it is, rests on one conversation with Drogo, and even then, she was not encouraging him to take slaves.

I definitely agree.  The Dothraki war culture has been terrible for centuries, and Dany did not create that.  Nor do I blame Dany for Drogo's actions.  She tried to influence him, but he is responsible for his own reprehensible actions.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

The culpability of Varys, Illyrio, and Jon Connington (who planned a Dothraki invasion), King Robert (who ordered the hit), and of course, Ogo, Drogo and their riders, is far greater.

I agree about Varys and illyrio, and obviously about the khals.

Regarding Jon Connington, I don't enitrely understand how Viserys or the Dothraki fit into the "Young Griff" plan.  His Golden Company invasion is much less violent and better contained than the Dothraki invasion would have been.  He's not at the same level as bad as Varys and Illyrio; they are using him as their puppet.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

As an aside, I now think that the hit on Daenerys was planned to fail, it was so amateurish.  Varys and LF wanted to prompt an invasion for their own ends.

Did Littlefinger have anything to do with the wineseller, other than approving Robert's plan in the small council?  It seemed like Varys was entirely responsible (and obviously Robert).  I don't understand Varys's plans with Young Griff vs Viserys and Dany, especially since dragons were not in the picture yet... but it seems that he didn't really want Dany to die.  Though a lot my inability to understand their motives is probably because I think Young Griff was an unexpected weed that sprouted in George Martin's garden.

[frenin]

3 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

2) The attack didn't happen at Dany's urging, it happened because Robert tried to kill Drogo's wife and unborn child, the Stallion Who Mounts the World, in the womb. That's what caused Drogo to make a declaration, not anything Dany said.

The attack happened because both tbh, Dany had been trying to get Drogo to invade without success, she did use Robert's attack as ammo tho.

 

3 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

since she knows that her husband is set on the idea of invasion anyways.

And so is she.

 

The title is clickbait btw. Dany never sold women to slavery.

[csuszka1948]

2 hours ago, StarkTullies said:

Yes and no.  She had been urging him, and he said no, and then the wineseller was the final straw.  I don't think Drogo would have crossed the "poisoned water" if Dany hadn't been working on him all along.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drogo completely ignored her pleas about invading Westeros before the poisoning attempt that was personal for him:

Khal Drogo did not want to hear it. “We will speak no more of wooden horses and iron chairs.” He dropped the cloth and began to dress. “This day I will go to the grass and hunt, woman wife,” he announced as he shrugged into a painted vest and buckled on a wide belt with heavy medallions of silver, gold, and bronze.

Obviously we will never know, but this really points towards Drogo not caring about Westeros AT ALL until the Westerosi King ordered a hit on her wife and his unborn child, the Stallion Who Mounts the World.

2 hours ago, StarkTullies said:

She had been with the Dothraki for a long time at that point.  I think she knew exactly what it entailed.  I listed the quote that I think you are referring to above, and she is struggling with herself to justify what she inherently knows is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The quote you linked actually seems to imply that she didn't know how 'war looks like' before and she was shocked to see Dothraki taking slaves.

During her time with the Dothraki before the posioning attempt, she spent most of her time riding and the Dothraki didn't attack anyone.  Why would a 14 year old girl raised by Viserys give much thought to the exact aspects of war before she sees it actually taking place? She probably thought that it involved the Dothraki smashing the Westerosi armies and then giving the IT to her son, not enslaving people. 

That's why she tries to justify it when she sees what war - a war that looks inevitable at this point (unless she kills her husband, sentencing her unborn son to death at this point - but asking her to do this would be pretty extreme imo)- actually entails. If she has always known that the way Dothraki wage war entails enslaving people and raping woman, then we should have seen her trying to justify the invasion in her mind long before (when she asked Drogo to invade previously).

 

Is it a good thing that she tries to justify this? No, I don't think so. It's part of her character development to accept that certain things (such as rape and slavery) are not acceptable, similarly to Jon's change of mind over the wildlings over the series (AGOT Jon definitely wouldn't have welcomed them to the Wall).

2 hours ago, StarkTullies said:

Yes, Aegon and his sisters conquered Westeros, and I consider them villains for doing so.  Robert is hardly a good guy and Tywin Lannister is one of the worst men in the history of Westeros, but Mad King Aerys brought the fall of the Targaryens of himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did Aerys declare Robert King, or the Rebels? Did Aerys murder Elia and her childs and pardoned the murderers, or Tywin and Robert?

Obviously Aerys is responsible for the rebellion, but the rebels always had the option to declare Aegon as King, set themselves up as Regents and introduce some rules to stop the King from overreaching his power, but they decided not to do so, instead replace Targaryen (technically absolute) rule with Baratheon (technically absolute) rule. Everyone in Dany's place would blame them, even with full knowledge of the events.

2 hours ago, StarkTullies said:

  I don't hate Dany for being a Targaryen, but I certain don't think she is owed anything for it either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously she is not owed anything, but none of the nobles should be, that's feudalism for you.

2 hours ago, StarkTullies said:

I agree.  I think Dany is most likely going to become a full-fledged villain, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong and I don't hate her (yet). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think Dany becoming a full-fledged villain would work from a storytelling perspective, because there are only two books left, and Dany will arrive Westeros the same book the Others invade. Dany has been built up as one of the main characters (and the one with dragons and the largest army) for 6 books and the Others as the primary antagonists for 6 books. This means you cannot have both of them as antagonists in the same book and have a bittersweet ending.

Why? Because it's bad storytelling. Let me explain the three options I see:

a) Dany concentrates on winning the Throne and ignores the Others. It's unviable to think that somehow Westeros at its state at the end of TWOW would be able to withstand both the Others and Dany, they should lose and life should die out.

b) Dany concentrates on both defeating the Others and then winning the Throne, becoming somewhat of a villain. Considering her numerical superiority and dragons, she should be a pretty frightening final villain and realistically - and from a storytelling perspective: she would be a villain that did all the hard work, just like Palpatine in Star Wars - should win, bringing tyranny on Westeros. This is not bittersweet ending, this is a bitter ending.

c) Dany concentrates on defeating the Others and winning the Throne, but is still defeated by some treachery. This is the way the show has gone and it's bad (horrible) storytelling.

Dany is built up as a character for 6 books and if she becomes the villain, she should be the main villain, a capable and frightening villain - someone who is actually willing to harm the main characters (in the show, she didn't even kill Tyrion who comitted treason against her in sight and allowed Jon to see him, she didn't even order Sansa killed for telling about Jon's parentage, she trusted Jon without searching him for a weapon after he betrayed her trust for telling others about his parentage), just like LF, Joffrey (Ned), Tywin (Robb), Euron (likely bringing down the Wall and death to important characters) - and not a joke and and a simple storytelling element for the Starks to provide the necessary tools to defeat the Others then backstab. If this was the point of her character, then it's unnecessary to introduce her as a POV.

If she is a villain, she cannot even have a tragic ending like Stannis because her tragedy would be a tragedy of circumstances (again, this is not a good tragic story) and she is too powerful character for this (unlike Stannis, whose main trait is unpopularity) and too important character to die from a random death/betrayal (like Renly).

2 hours ago, StarkTullies said:

I have lots of sympathy for her for many reasons, which includes being raised by nobody other than her deplorable brother who was feeding her lies and narcissistic ideology her entire life.

But when Barristan tries to tell her the truth, she doesn't want to hear it.  She still hates the Starks just as much as the Lannisters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She doesn't hate the Starks and the Lannisters, she hates Ned Stark and Tywin (+Jaime) Lannister, who are dead.

Also, your quote shouldn't end here:

"Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them the Usurper's dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …" The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought, and suddenly she heard herself say, "I have to see the pit," in a voice as small as a child's whisper. "Take me down, ser, if you would."

She thinks Ned Stark and Tywin Lannister guilty for following Robert and accepting him as King and this resulting in the murder of the Targaryen kids, but she realizes that by the same standards she should hold herself guilty for the death of Hazzea because it was her dragon that performed the act.

After realizing that, she no longer seems to think about Usurper's dogs in the same context and even somewhat sympathizes with Robert when she sees Barsena ripped apart with a boar. At the end of ADWD, her guilt over Hazzea's death also somewhat abates, because she realizes that she cannot prevent every death. Hopefully this will mean that she will apply the same for its parallel (a parallel in her own mind), the Usurper's dogs.

Edited June 24, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

23 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Drogo completely ignored her pleas about invading Westeros before the poisoning attempt that was personal for him:

Khal Drogo did not want to hear it. “We will speak no more of wooden horses and iron chairs.” He dropped the cloth and began to dress. “This day I will go to the grass and hunt, woman wife,” he announced as he shrugged into a painted vest and buckled on a wide belt with heavy medallions of silver, gold, and bronze.

Obviously we will never know, but this really points towards Drogo not caring about Westeros AT ALL until the Westerosi King ordered a hit on her wife and his unborn child, the Stallion Who Mounts the World.

The quote you linked actually seems to imply that she didn't know how 'war looks like' before and she was shocked to see Dothraki taking slaves.

During her time with the Dothraki before the posioning attempt, she spent most of her time riding and the Dothraki didn't attack anyone.  Why would a 14 year old girl raised by Viserys give much thought to the exact aspects of war before she sees it actually taking place? She probably thought that it involved the Dothraki smashing the Westerosi armies and then giving the IT to her son, not enslaving people. 

That's why she tries to justify it when she sees what war - a war that looks inevitable at this point (unless she kills her husband, sentencing her unborn son to death at this point - but asking her to do this would be pretty extreme imo)- actually entails. If she has always known that the way Dothraki wage war entails enslaving people and raping woman, then we should have seen her trying to justify the invasion in her mind long before (when she asked Drogo to invade previously).

 

Is it a good thing that she tries to justify this? No, I don't think so. It's part of her character development to accept that certain things (such as rape and slavery) are not acceptable, similarly to Jon's change of mind over the wildlings over the series (AGOT Jon definitely wouldn't have welcomed them to the Wall).

Did Aerys declare Robert King, or the Rebels? Did Aerys murder Elia and her childs and pardoned the murderers, or Tywin and Robert?

Obviously Aerys is responsible for the rebellion, but the rebels always had the option to declare Aegon as King, set themselves up as Regents and introduce some rules to stop the King from overreaching his power, but they decided not to do so, instead replace Targaryen (technically absolute) rule with Baratheon (technically absolute) rule. Everyone in Dany's place would blame them, even with full knowledge of the events.

Obviously she is not owed anything, but none of the nobles should be, that's feudalism for you.

She doesn't hate the Starks and the Lannisters, she hates Ned Stark and Tywin (+Jaime) Lannister, who are dead.

Also, your quote shouldn't end here:

"Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them the Usurper's dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …" The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought, and suddenly she heard herself say, "I have to see the pit," in a voice as small as a child's whisper. "Take me down, ser, if you would."

She thinks Ned Stark and Tywin Lannister guilty for following Robert and accepting him as King and this resulting in the murder of the Targaryen kids, but she realizes that by the same standards she should hold herself guilty for the death of Hazzea because it was her dragon that performed the act.

After realizing that, she no longer seems to think about Usurper's dogs in the same context and even somewhat sympathizes with Robert when she sees Barsena ripped apart with a boar. At the end of ADWD, her guilt over Hazzea's death also somewhat abates, because she realizes that she cannot prevent every death. Hopefully this will mean that she will apply the same for its parallel (a parallel in her own mind), the Usurper's dogs.

Like most wars, there are multiple causes.  One could point to her conversation with Drogo as being one cause, but only one out of a lot of causes.

And where it comes to be comitting acts that a modern reader would view as war crimes, like rape, murder, enslavement, I do think it's important to remember where criminal responsibility lies.   With those who do them, those who order them, or those who possess command responsibility. She falls into none of those categories.

My attitude towards the rebels is that Robert, Tywin, Hoster Tully were as rotten as Aerys.  Ned was obviously much better, Jon Arryn may have been.  The rottenness of Robert's reign is signified by the murder of Mycah.  A harmless child is casually murdered, and nobody cares, apart from Arya.  Ned couldn't answer at the end, when Robert asked him to say, at least he was better than Aerys.

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by SeanF

[csuszka1948]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Like most wars, there are multiple causes.  One could point to her conversation with Drogo as being one cause, but only one out of a lot of causes.

And where it comes to be comitting acts that a modern reader would view as war crimes, like rape, murder, enslavement, I do think it's important to remember where criminal responsibility lies.   With those who do them, those who order them, or those who possess command responsibility. She falls into none of those categories.

My attitude towards the rebels is that Robert, Tywin, Hoster Tully were as rotten as Aerys.  Ned was obviously much better, Jon Arryn may have been.  The rottenness of Robert's reign is signified by the murder of Mycah.  A harmless child is casually murdered, and nobody cares, apart from Arya.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think Hoster or Robert enjoyed others' pain and suffering (like Aerys) nor they did go above and beyond the standards of age in inflicting vengeance or teaching a 'sharp lesson' (like Tywin). Mycah's death wasn't ordered by Robert. Hoster seems typical for a feudal lord of his age (so not very good), and Robert is an ignorant and bad King, but that's not as bad as Aerys.

Edited June 24, 2023 by csuszka1948

[frenin]

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

Drogo completely ignored her pleas about invading Westeros before the poisoning attempt that was personal for him:

Indeed but we also know Dany and Jorah used the attempt as a way to get Drogo on board.

 

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

Everyone in Dany's place would blame them, even with full knowledge of the events.

Would they? Would they handwave Rhaegar and Aerys' actions and just say the rebels had no right to do what they did?

 

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

don't think Dany becoming a full-fledged villain would work from a storytelling perspective

I actually very much agree with this take.

 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

My attitude towards the rebels is that Robert, Tywin, Hoster Tully were as rotten as Aerys.

That's simply not true.

 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Ned couldn't answer at the end, when Robert asked him to say, at least he was better than Aerys.

Yeah he did, not that it matters anyway, Robert was pretty terrible.

[csuszka1948]

21 minutes ago, frenin said:

Indeed but we also know Dany and Jorah used the attempt as a way to get Drogo on board.

 

Yes, you are right. I am not saying that Dany didn't want to invade Westeros to retake her son's 'birthright', but that she (probably) didn't know what an actual Dothraki invasion entailed before Drogo's proclamation and the attack on the village, and after that she tried to justify it to herself.   

21 minutes ago, frenin said:

Would they? Would they handwave Rhaegar and Aerys' actions and just say the rebels had no right to do what they did?

 

Dany (or someone in a similar position) could accept that Jon Arryn was perfectly right to rise in Rebellion, but I don't think she would ever accept that the rebels were right to 'usurp' the Throne by naming Robert as King - an event that prompted Tywin to sack KL and kill Elia and her children to show his loyalty and resulted in Dany and Viserys living in exile.  

21 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

I actually very much agree with this take.

 

It's good to see.  For a long time it was difficult to put into words, but I don't think Dany ending up as a villain would work in a story where the Others are presented as final antagonists.

21 minutes ago, frenin said:

That's simply not true.

Yeah he did, not that it matters anyway, Robert was pretty terrible.

 

I feel SeanF's hate towards some of the rebels is overblown, partially fuelled by his desire to view things from a modern perspective. I think we should also factor in the views of their age, and by that standards Hoster wasn't a particularly bad feudal lord and even Robert was far far from Aerys, Robert in Aerys' position would have let Tywin do the ruling.

[Maegor_the_Cool]

2 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

 

I don't think Dany becoming a full-fledged villain would work from a storytelling perspective, because there are only two books left, and Dany will arrive Westeros the same book the Others invade. Dany has been built up as one of the main characters (and the one with dragons and the largest army) for 6 books and the Others as the primary antagonists for 6 books. This means you cannot have both of them as antagonists in the same book and have a bittersweet ending.

Why? Because it's bad storytelling. Let me explain the three options I see:

a) Dany concentrates on winning the Throne and ignores the Others. It's unviable to think that somehow Westeros at its state at the end of TWOW would be able to withstand both the Others and Dany, they should lose and life should die out.

b) Dany concentrates on both defeating the Others and then winning the Throne, becoming somewhat of a villain. Considering her numerical superiority and dragons, she should be a pretty frightening final villain and realistically - and from a storytelling perspective: she would be a villain that did all the hard work, just like Palpatine in Star Wars - should win, bringing tyranny on Westeros. This is not bittersweet ending, this is a bitter ending.

c) Dany concentrates on defeating the Others and winning the Throne, but is still defeated by some treachery. This is the way the show has gone and it's bad (horrible) storytelling.

Dany is built up as a character for 6 books and if she becomes the villain, she should be the main villain, a capable and frightening villain - someone who is actually willing to harm the main characters (in the show, she didn't even kill Tyrion who comitted treason against her in sight and allowed Jon to see him, she didn't even order Sansa killed for telling about Jon's parentage, she trusted Jon without searching him for a weapon after he betrayed her trust for telling others about his parentage), just like LF, Joffrey (Ned), Tywin (Robb), Euron (likely bringing down the Wall and death to important characters) - and not a joke and and a simple storytelling element for the Starks to provide the necessary tools to defeat the Others then backstab. If this was the point of her character, then it's unnecessary to introduce her as a POV.

If she is a villain, she cannot even have a tragic ending like Stannis because her tragedy would be a tragedy of circumstances (again, this is not a good tragic story) and she is too powerful character for this (unlike Stannis, whose main trait is unpopularity) and too important character to die from a random death/betrayal (like Renly).

She doesn't hate the Starks and the Lannisters, she hates Ned Stark and Tywin (+Jaime) Lannister, who are dead.

Also, your quote shouldn't end here:

"Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them the Usurper's dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …" The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought, and suddenly she heard herself say, "I have to see the pit," in a voice as small as a child's whisper. "Take me down, ser, if you would."

She thinks Ned Stark and Tywin Lannister guilty for following Robert and accepting him as King and this resulting in the murder of the Targaryen kids, but she realizes that by the same standards she should hold herself guilty for the death of Hazzea because it was her dragon that performed the act.

After realizing that, she no longer seems to think about Usurper's dogs in the same context and even somewhat sympathizes with Robert when she sees Barsena ripped apart with a boar. At the end of ADWD, her guilt over Hazzea's death also somewhat abates, because she realizes that she cannot prevent every death. Hopefully this will mean that she will apply the same for its parallel (a parallel in her own mind), the Usurper's dogs.

Daenerys may not become a villain, persay, but by GRRM’s own admission she is a threat to Westeros. I could easily see her defeating the Others with Jon and their coalition. Then turning to be Queen and finding nobody wants her, or that she may want to force drastic change in Westeros and be resisted. Yes, if you assume she is at full power when she brings tyranny to Westeros. She is unbeatable. One of my gripes with her character is how her dragons make her pretty much unbeatable. But if she loses a dragon in the fight with the Others, which if the fight has any gravity, she should. I also think it likely that Euron steals one. Even if just Drogon survives she is pretty much untouchable on the field of battle. If she goes full tyrant, which is entirely possible, she’ll have to be dealt with similar to her show counterpart. Perhaps Jon, perhaps some other character will do it. Arya perhaps.
 

Calling show Dany betrayed, with no context makes her seem like a victim. Poorly written sure, but she WAS the villain. On did nothing wrong in the show.