the Dany hate thread

[Jaak]

Other-in-law,

True she herself as a private personage doesn't practice slavery. But remember that she's also a 'government' at the same time and her 'government' permits/condones the practice of slavery and also profits from it too.

She as a private person says she is against slavery, but as a government by saying that it is legal to do so, she is giving it her stamp of approval. That's what is hypocritical. Her words and thoughts are against it, but as a government she certainly doesn't actually mind it.

However, she also restricts it - the ban on selling children and husbands selling wives.

Compare a policy on alcohol or tobacco - restricting smoking and drinking, but refraining from completely banning it, and at the same time taxing it. Is this hypocritical?

[oneeye]

I'm still looking forward to dany + jon with tyrion as hand

I still wonder though why one of the other khal's didn't take dany as wife after drogo died.

[Stratonice]

Protagonists are the most important, that’s not to say that other characters have important roles. A protagonists doesn’t have to be the most cool or interesting character, but he/she has to have at least relative spectacular success in order to fundamentally affect the story, because that is their function. Bran could very well be the Gandalf, or Obi wan Kenobi of the story, important yes, but he isn’t a protagonist. He could be killed before the resolution of the story for example.

How do you know he isn't? And Dany or Jon could just as easily be killed before the resolution of the story. Half the story hasn't been written yet, anything could still happen to any of the characters. And I never said they had to be the most cool or interesting characters, I actually said quite the oposite, that they tend to be rather annoying.

You could be and you most likely are. I would say that Catelyn’s fate were far crueller and more deserving sympathy then Rob, Renly, Roberts. Catelyn was castigated for finding Jon’s presence offensive and lashing out at him in a moment of grief even before the Red wedding.

I never claimed the Red Wedding was what made anyone dislike Cat, only that the fact that she was resurected didn't improve popular opinion about her. UnCat's behaviour probably serves as confirmation that the negative opinions were right in the first place to some people while staying dead might have gained her some sympathy, especially considering the way she died.

I didn’t say they were. Only that they constitute a pattern. My impression is that such ardent death wishes seems reserved for a certain type of women, They also sometimes apply (but with considerable less fervor) to real scumbags like Jaime or Theon etc.

No, you didn't but since that's what we're discussing I assumed that that was what they in some way were meant to illustrate. But I'll accept your explanation.

Still, unless that's the way a devastating majority of people who dislike her feels, that hardly support the position that people in general who dislike Dany are sexist. And I sincerly doubt that those opinions are even a significant minority. I certainly don't want her to be eaten by her own dragons nor do I have any particular problem (except the one we're discussing further down) with her ambitions either. I just don't like her.

I’m not a mindreader. Virtually all Dany, Catelyn, Sansa bashers denies the sexism charge. I can’t prove anything, I can only show you how fans argue in the different cases, to me at least the pattern is obvious. If I’m wrong it would be little trouble for you to find the corresponding male bashing. If you disagree that the criticism is sexist without supporting your position there isn’t much reason to take it seriously.

That aside, you have point that death could be the reason a character doesn’t get more ire, and that those characters weren’t POV:s, but if so, why don’t Bran, Jon, Tyrion, Samwell Davos receive this attention? Tywin’s death doesn’t seem to have affected the discussions of his character either. Eddards I don’t know about but as long as I have been here the reader has always been sympathetic to him despite that you could easily make a Catelynesque case against him.

Let me see if I've got this right, you make accusations against people and then consider it up to others to prove you wrong rather than you having to prove your own accusations? That's absurd and a good example of exactly what makes me react whenever this accusation turns up. It's nothing but a convenient excuse for not having to take other people's opinions seriously.

Besides, you're still kind of missing the point. It's not the number of male/female characters being liked or disliked that determine whether anyone is subjected to sexism. It's the reasons. If Bran had failed to support Arya's story naming the crown prince a liar in front of the court and later given his fathers plans away, would he have met the same kind of negative opinions that Sansa does? If Davos had abducted Tyrion (on say, charges for killing Jon Arryn) and taken him to Stannis at Dragonstone, making an already unstable situation turning into a war, would he have met the same disaproval as Cat did for taking him to the Eyrie on charges of attempting to murder Bran? This, of course, is impossible to know for sure, but that kind of comparison between how similar acts with similar consequences are judged is a lot more significant than merely counting numbers, especially since the male characters met with negative opinions are disqualified as either being "scumbags" or appearantly not being allowed to count even if they do recieve way more negative opinions than their role or their actions could possibly deserve if they are minor characters.

You were the one who brought up Edmure bashing as a counterpoint to Catelyn bashing and now you complain that I compare them?

I have said several times that my reason for bringing him up was as an example of a male character who gets an unreasonable amount of chritizism and harsh judgments considering his insignificant role in the story not because his situation was identical to his sister's. It isn't since his role is nowhere near as significant as her is. But if you didn't catch it the first few times I said it you probably won't this time either.

One could think so, but generally protagonists have the readers sympathies despite their annoying success and luck. Where is the “I hate Jon†threads? Yes, there are people that dislike Jon for this, but I can’t recall anyone saying that “I’m annoyed with Martin for creating him and I would laugh if Ghost bit him and he died of rabies.â€

Not necessarily. Most people I know tend to find the protagonists either lame and uninteresting or annoying and whining and feel more sympathetic towards the supporting characters. I usually feel the same way, and this case is no different.

As for why Jon isn't as disliked as Dany, first of all his situation is a lot different from hers. Three dragons (once they're grown) can do a lot more damage (presumably) than one direwolf. The NW can hardly be compared to her Unsullied in any way. He has lost his advisors (the Old Bear, Maester Aemon) while she's gaining hers (Barristan and others on their way). Stannis as an ally is more a complication than a help, wich I doubt Dorne would be. Etc. Not to mention the added mystery factor of who Jon's parents really are making his background (if not him personally) more interesting.

And I think another important aspect of this is the fact that his POV has been a lot more connected to the rest of the story while she's been completely cut off from everything else. But whether I'm right or wrong about this particular bit of it will soon show once she begins to interact with other POV characters.

You really think so? I would say a sovereigns most important duty is to rule her subjects well and give them justice, those things that are uppermost in Daenerys mind.

Royalty is not needed for that nor is it necessary for the monarch to be personally involved in providing those things if there are one (modern day constitutional monarchies are an example of this). Any kind of government can do that. But if you claim the right to rule based on birth and bloodlines then the most important duty is to provide an heir in order to secure a peaceful succession once you die.

[Guest Other-in-law]

You mean a euthanasia advocate?

Argh! No! I specifically said suicide because that is doing something to yourself. That's the distinction that makes both situations non-hypocritical: banning people from doing something to others while allowing them to do it to themselves.

I'd say a suicide-legalisation advocate who denounces something like abortion to be a hypocrite to some extent.

Why? I fail to see the contradiction. Both involve issues of bodily sovereignty, but this hypothetical person could take the stance that the woman in question is perfectly free to commit suicide after giving birth.

All of which is skirting the point that violating the rights of other people by forcibly enslaving them against their wills is a very different thing than selling oneself into slavery. Dany's policy is nowhere near as hypocritical as, say, Jaime's when he demands Balon Swann to hold himself to a different standard then he applied to himself on king vs family conflicts (if Jaime showed some more integrity he should be pleased if Balon opposed a Tommen that grew up as monstrous and dangerous to the public wellbeing as Aerys did).

[shadowbinding shoe]

I just wanted to say that while you might think Dany's decision to allow people to sell themselves is ethically correct you ignore the probable outcome of such a policy. Once it's allowed under certain conditions it becomes much easier for slave buyers to coerce freed slaves by various means to sell themselves under the new law. Policing is scarce and inefficient at the moment so if for example a freed slave's daughter is kidnapped we might see him sell himself to get her freed and that's just one scenario. When you make a policy you should consider how it could be twisted. This type of slippery slope is really dangerous.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I just wanted to say that while you might think Dany's decision to allow people to sell themselves is ethically correct you ignore the probable outcome of such a policy.

Well, I don't really consider it to be correct or prudent, just non-hypocritical.

[Enguerrand]

How do you know he isn't? And Dany or Jon could just as easily be killed before the resolution of the story.

There are no little hints towards greatness that is there for Jon and Dany. I can’t picture Bran as a leader of the free peoples from the way his character is built, but that doesn’t mean that his character won’t be important, he obviously has a manifest destiny as well. And no, Dany and Jon cannot be killed until then, if that.

Half the story hasn't been written yet, anything could still happen to any of the characters.

You have read the series, does it truly seem that random to you?

No, you didn't but since that's what we're discussing I assumed that that was what they in some way were meant to illustrate.

It was, but not by itself. What makes it sexist to me is how these views stand against comparable male characters. Daenerys obvious counterpoint would be Rob and Jon and they are perceived very differently.

Let me see if I've got this right, you make accusations against people and then consider it up to others to prove you wrong rather than you having to prove your own accusations? That's absurd and a good example of exactly what makes me react whenever this accusation turns up. It's nothing but a convenient excuse for not having to take other people's opinions seriously.

I can’t show you how people think. Perhaps people really see Cat, Dany and Sansa as the most suitable objects for scathing criticism and death wishes of all known characters in Westeros and it has nothing to do with that they are women, it’s however the best explanation I have for the one-sided criticism they receives and how comparable men are admired for similar traits. It’s not that people don’t like them, it’s how people really goes out of their way to find fault with them without doing so with similar men.

If Bran had failed to support Arya's story naming the crown prince a liar in front of the court and later given his fathers plans away, would he have met the same kind of negative opinions that Sansa does? If Davos had abducted Tyrion (on say, charges for killing Jon Arryn) and taken him to Stannis at Dragonstone, making an already unstable situation turning into a war, would he have met the same disaproval as Cat did for taking him to the Eyrie on charges of attempting to murder Bran? This, of course, is impossible to know for sure, but that kind of comparison between how similar acts with similar consequences are judged is a lot more significant than merely counting numbers, especially since the male characters met with negative opinions are disqualified as either being "scumbags" or appearantly not being allowed to count even if they do recieve way more negative opinions than their role or their actions could possibly deserve if they are minor characters.

I don’t think we need to get into hypotheticals. Catelyn is criticised for silently resenting her husbands bastard at her table, Ned isn’t less of a loving husband for ordering her to never to bring up the subject again.

Dany getting powerful dragons is a “plot device†Greywind leading Rob troops past the Golden tooth never bothers people sufficiently to complain about it. Sansa is stupid for being in love with Joffery and “betraying†her father, Rob pisses away his kingdoms and people’s future by marrying Jayne but are never subject to hate threads for that.

As to what is a fair comparison is of course a little tricky. I believe you yourself thought it was unfair to compare Catelyn with Gregor Clegane? Some people doesn’t find this beyond them.

You think Theon and Jaime are on comparable level of scumbaggery? Men that goes out of their way to destroy innocent people and takes joy in that?

How about Tywin? I have seen plenty of people express their admiration for his harsh but efficient ruling style, but Daenerys is cruel and bitchy for percived excesses in fighting slavers.

I would be perfectly willing to include Edmure in the fair category(except that you don’t find him a fair comparison). A decent man man with a good heart. it’s just that you still haven’t presented any evidence of the unmotivated rancour that you believe Edmure is a target of. That some people call him “stupid†hardly singles him out from the rest of the cast in any way, shape or form. I think most would agree that he isn’t written as the brightest bulb in the chandelier anyway.

As for why Jon isn't as disliked as Dany, first of all his situation is a lot different from hers. Three dragons (once they're grown) can do a lot more damage (presumably) than one direwolf. The NW can hardly be compared to her Unsullied in any way. He has lost his advisors (the Old Bear, Maester Aemon) while she's gaining hers (Barristan and others on their way). Stannis as an ally is more a complication than a help, wich I doubt Dorne would be.

You make it seem dreadfully straightforward for Dany. Anyway Daenerys will obviously need more firepower then Jon in order take control of Westeros, and Jon’s forces can’t be to large when he loses the wall. What I was mostly thinking of was Jon charmed existence. When this guy is about to die his commanding officer order him to defect and kill him to make it look good. When ordered to kill the old man to prove his allegiance his warging step brother thats on his way to learn magic at just that particular part of the polar circle happens to warg just then and get him loose.

And when he steels himself into a suicide attack in the middle of Mance Rayder camp Stannis Baratheon appears from nowhere and drives them away. And the less we talk about the election the better.

Even Frodo Baggins might say “fuck that guy must be a main character in a fantasy seriesâ€.

[GSP]

Nothing to add to any argument, just weighin in on the I like Dany side. She's admirable in my opinion.

[Daemrion]

Compare a policy on alcohol or tobacco - restricting smoking and drinking, but refraining from completely banning it, and at the same time taxing it. Is this hypocritical?

Responsible drinking disagrees with you. Drinking alcohol does have health benefits. Drinking excess alcohol is what gets you into trouble.

One can't be excessively a slave so the comparison is invalid. It's a one time decision. Smoking and alcohol consumption can be done multiple times.

Other-in-law,

Sorry about the suicide legalisation thing. And FYI, the common law ban against suicide is never prosecuted or enforced. In fact, we aren't even really sure if it is good law anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide

All of which is skirting the point that violating the rights of other people by forcibly enslaving them against their wills is a very different thing than selling oneself into slavery

It is. I never said it wasn't. But I still think the very notion of one being owning another is morally outrageous, and for someone who claims to have moral outrage over slavery, to then turn around and make profit from it, is just as morally repugnant if not hypocritical in the strict sense.

Both involve issues of bodily sovereignty, but this hypothetical person could take the stance that the woman in question is perfectly free to commit suicide after giving birth.

I see it as being pro-life.

Enguerrand,

It was, but not by itself. What makes it sexist to me is how these views stand against comparable male characters. Daenerys obvious counterpoint would be Rob and Jon and they are perceived very differently.

Robb = not a POV character. So in the scheme of things he actually isn't really that important to the reader to subject various levels of hate. And yes, I would be the first to call Robb a **** fool for marrying Jeyne.

Comparison to Jon - Jon is a bastard. You know, born supposedly on the wrong side of the sheets. One cannot help but feel sorry for the poor boy, especially in light of Cat's treatment of him.

I think the "it should have been you," line really resonates how deep the animosity/lack of true love between Cat and Jon is. Add to that in the 21st century...where there is certainly no 'social ban' on step-parents getting on with their step-children...it's hard to not sympathise with Jon.

[Demonic Weasel]

I think the "it should have been you," line really resonates how deep the animosity/lack of true love between Cat and Jon is. Add to that in the 21st century...where there is certainly no 'social ban' on step-parents getting on with their step-children...it's hard to not sympathise with Jon.

In all fairness, I feel bound to point out, that while it might be hard not to sympathize with Jon in that particular scenario, it can be construed as equally difficult not to understand Catelyn's own frailty at that particular moment.

[Stratonice]

There are no little hints towards greatness that is there for Jon and Dany. I can’t picture Bran as a leader of the free peoples from the way his character is built, but that doesn’t mean that his character won’t be important, he obviously has a manifest destiny as well. And no, Dany and Jon cannot be killed until then, if that.

You have read the series, does it truly seem that random to you?

I would say that the hints surrounding Bran all along have been at least as much towards greatness, if not necessarily the same kind of greatness. He won't lead armies (and I doubt he will ever be the Lord in Winterfell either) but he's the one who's all along seemed destined to defeat the Great Other and rebuild the North (at least Winterfell and possibly the Wall). He's the only one to think the Others more than a fairy tale, the first one to realise the significance of the direwolves, his vision while he lies unconscious, etc. I would say the comparison to specifically Frodo is more accuratly applied to Bran than to Jon or Dany. (Though there are, of course, other heroes to compare them to.)

I wouldn't say it seems random, quite the oposite. But it does appear obvious that the usual patterns are not followed. If they were, it would have been impossible for Ned to die in AGOT. What's to say that Jon or Dany won't turn out to be the same kind of "red herring" he was until the story is finished?

I can’t show you how people think. Perhaps people really see Cat, Dany and Sansa as the most suitable objects for scathing criticism and death wishes of all known characters in Westeros and it has nothing to do with that they are women, it’s however the best explanation I have for the one-sided criticism they receives and how comparable men are admired for similar traits.

But the same things are not expected of male and female characters in this kind of midieval setting. Since the story takes place in a society that has different standards for men and women of course that will reflect in how their actions are percieved. That's a matter of an expectation for realism within a sexist environment created by the author not necessarily an expression of sexism in the readers attitudes. But the matter of expectations don't end there.

Take the "it should have been you"-incident as an example. IIRC she doesn't really say much at all at first and he even reflects on how they're sharing this moment with Bran even if it's awkward (or something like that) and then he says something like "it's not your fault". He's right of course, and he's probably right in the fact that she's blaming herself for allowing Bran to climb in the first place, but she's so not ready to hear this and would probably have lashed out at whoever said it. It's not really directed at him specifically. But to tie this back to expectations, Cat who's written specifically as a good mother and lady is not expected to say that kind of thing to someone under her care (as a member of the household) at all especially not someone who's little more than a child. It's not so much the fact that the scene is really all that terrible in itself, at least not compared to a lot of other things that are said and done in these books, but it's so very alien from what we've been led to expect from her.

Dany getting powerful dragons is a “plot device†Greywind leading Rob troops past the Golden tooth never bothers people sufficiently to complain about it. Sansa is stupid for being in love with Joffery and “betraying†her father, Rob pisses away his kingdoms and people’s future by marrying Jayne but are never subject to hate threads for that.

I would be more prepared to compare Dany and the dragons with Jon and Ghost since Robb isn't nearly as significant a character as either of them, and since that doesn't really change the nature of your chritizism (since Ghost too is way more helpful than all the dragons put together has been so far) I'll argue from that perspective instead if that's ok with you. I accept and agree that the direwolves have been a lot more useful so far than the dragons. However, the dragons alone (based on the stories from Aegon the Conquerers days) are supposedly enough to defeat any army no matter how big. Ghost sensing the Whights inside Castle Black or finding obsidian (or Grey Wind leading Robb and his troops past the Golden Tooth) can hardly compete with that.

As for the comparison between Sansa and Robb, I believe I've already dealt with that but I'll add that from my perspective, Robb marrying Jeyne was a lot worse than Sansa's infatuation with Joff.

As to what is a fair comparison is of course a little tricky. I believe you yourself thought it was unfair to compare Catelyn with Gregor Clegane? Some people doesn’t find this beyond them.

You think Theon and Jaime are on comparable level of scumbaggery? Men that goes out of their way to destroy innocent people and takes joy in that?

How about Tywin? I have seen plenty of people express their admiration for his harsh but efficient ruling style, but Daenerys is cruel and bitchy for percived excesses in fighting slavers.

See above (the part about expectations).

You make it seem dreadfully straightforward for Dany. Anyway Daenerys will obviously need more firepower then Jon in order take control of Westeros, and Jon’s forces can’t be to large when he loses the wall. What I was mostly thinking of was Jon charmed existence. When this guy is about to die his commanding officer order him to defect and kill him to make it look good. When ordered to kill the old man to prove his allegiance his warging step brother thats on his way to learn magic at just that particular part of the polar circle happens to warg just then and get him loose.

And when he steels himself into a suicide attack in the middle of Mance Rayder camp Stannis Baratheon appears from nowhere and drives them away. And the less we talk about the election the better.

I wouldn't say straightforward, I just saw no point in going over all the parts where their sitations really are similar (like losing their families, gaining positions of authority they shouldn't have been able to, etc). They both have gotten through the first half of the story in so much better shape than most others who've lost more or less everything, but her situation (so far) is much stronger than anyone elses (Jon included). That creates resentment, especially when she's had no contact with the rest of the story yet. It will be really interesting to see what kind of opinions she'll attract once she begins to interact more with the other main characters.

ETA: I'm dropping the Edmure-thing. I've tried to explain my reason for brining him up three or four times and you still refuse to see what I'm actually saying so I don't see the point in continuing that part of the discussion.

[deathmold]

Enguerrand, with regard to the criticism of certain women, correlation does not imply causation. It is not up to whoever questions your proposition to disprove it, you must prove it. I am curious as to what type of women Cat,Sansa and Dany is classified as. How do you handle suspected sexists with mixed, or unknown, opinions?

Stratonice, in the hypothetical cases, why are you comparing Bran to Sansa? Sansa is much older. Wouldn't Sansa/Robb be better? As Robb is the oldest male and, presumably, role model to his younger brothers, as Sansa is to Arya.

Stannis - Lysa: Stannis ordered Davos to lose his fingers, because he was a smuggler, despite having aided Stannis. Could anyone, least of all the Imp, expect justice at the hands of Lysa, when the case concerned her sister's son?

[Jaak]

Responsible drinking disagrees with you. Drinking alcohol does have health benefits. Drinking excess alcohol is what gets you into trouble.

One can't be excessively a slave so the comparison is invalid. It's a one time decision. Smoking and alcohol consumption can be done multiple times.

Being a slave can have health benefits, too. This is the point of the people wanting to sell themselves as slaves.

One can be "excessively slave" in the sense of being owned by someone who is ready to expend the lives of slaves on offending Daenerys or training Unsullied. Alternatively, one can make sure to be sold somewhere where the service is likely to be respectable. There is still the risk of the owner changing plans or reselling the slave. But compare the disappointment of Jon when assigned as steward, or ordered to kill Qhorin and pass for a defector. Selling yourself as slave is one-time decision, but so is joining Night Watch or Kingsguard. Or marrying, for the matter.

[Daemrion]

One can be "excessively slave" in the sense of being owned by someone who is ready to expend the lives of slaves on offending Daenerys or training Unsullied. Alternatively, one can make sure to be sold somewhere where the service is likely to be respectable. There is still the risk of the owner changing plans or reselling the slave.

And that's the danger. Once a slave, control is gone. Can't quit being a slave.

[Stratonice]

Stratonice, in the hypothetical cases, why are you comparing Bran to Sansa? Sansa is much older. Wouldn't Sansa/Robb be better? As Robb is the oldest male and, presumably, role model to his younger brothers, as Sansa is to Arya.

I chose to compare Sansa to Bran rather than to Robb based on the fact that there are more similarities between their personalities and roles. Robb was very early on forced to accept all the responsibilities of an adult and take a very active role. Bran and Sansa are younger, have so far had rather passive roles and both are rather idealistic with dreams of knights and chivalry, etc.

But I've made comparisons between Sansa and Robb as well, and the above fact that he early on leaves childhood behind and becomes active, while Sansa's "hung on to" her childhood longer (wich is kind of natural since she's several years younger) and has so far taken a rather passive role under very frustrating circumstances is probably a major reason for how the differences in how they are percieved.

Stannis - Lysa: Stannis ordered Davos to lose his fingers, because he was a smuggler, despite having aided Stannis. Could anyone, least of all the Imp, expect justice at the hands of Lysa, when the case concerned her sister's son?

Stannis and Lysa are hardly similar personalities, I agree. But it was the abduction/arrest and the consequences of that (Tywin sent his men burning the Riverlands as soon as he heard about it not caring about the possible legalities of the matter) that were the object of comparison. Is the difference between Lysa and Stannis enough reason to think he would have acted differently if his son had been taken to Dragonstone by Davos instead? If so, the comparison doesn't work, but if that's not enough reason (as I believe) then differences between Lysa and Stannis doesn't really matter to the comparison. It might actually have been worse for Tyrion to be taken to Stannis (who knew about the incest, and planned to make war (if necessary) against the Lannisters and might have decided to keep him for questioning in regards to that aspect.

But since it's all hypothetical it's just speculation anyway.

[Enguerrand]

I would say the comparison to specifically Frodo is more accuratly applied to Bran than to Jon or Dany.

A good point, Bran might be the one that throws the crucial artefact into the fire, while Jon and Dany are more of the Aragorn mould.

But it does appear obvious that the usual patterns are not followed. If they were, it would have been impossible for Ned to die in AGOT. What's to say that Jon or Dany won't turn out to be the same kind of "red herring" he was until the story is finished?

ASOIAF are full of clichés Martin’s gift is that he very good at tweaking them but he doesn’t break any moulds as such. I consider Ned death extremely predictable, the hero exceptionally loving caring father always die so that hero can have righteous vengeance.(the difference is that authors seldom give the father this much space) Unless someone thought AGOT wasn’t part of a series I can’t understand why anyone would think that Ned would live. Jon was given the standard protagonist treatment from the beginning and if he were to take over the Stark legacy despite being a bastard a lot of people needed to be removed. Foremost of all Ned and Rob of course, I remember reading chapter after chapter surprised every time that Rob hadn’t died yet.

I would be more prepared to compare Dany and the dragons with Jon and Ghost since Robb isn't nearly as significant a character as either of them, and since that doesn't really change the nature of your chritizism (since Ghost too is way more helpful than all the dragons put together has been so far) I'll argue from that perspective instead if that's ok with you.

Rob isn’t a POV, but he generate considerable more posts then many that are, he is also a massive fan favourite(as I said I think a lot of the Catelyn hate is a result of fans not being able to accept their darlings shortcomings.) He is also like Dany in a command position and share many of the traits that she is criticised for but that he is never called on. Which makes them a better comparison. IMO.

As for the comparison between Sansa and Robb, I believe I've already dealt with that but I'll add that from my perspective, Robb marrying Jeyne was a lot worse than Sansa's infatuation with Joff.

I’m speaking in general, one of these figures prominently in hate threads and I can’t recall the latter cause anyone to start a Rob hate threads.

However, the dragons alone (based on the stories from Aegon the Conquerers days) are supposedly enough to defeat any army no matter how big. Ghost sensing the Whights inside Castle Black or finding obsidian (or Grey Wind leading Robb and his troops past the Golden Tooth) can hardly compete with that.

Well before we make that comparison perhaps we should wait until the dragon’s are flying battleships wiping out all resistance(where would the good story in that be?). So far their worth is mostly symbolic, and are very much a double edged sword. And at this point Rob’s magical wolf have given him the same cheap “Mary Sue†like success as the dragons, yet this never bothers people for some reason.

I just saw no point in going over all the parts where their sitations really are similar (like losing their families, gaining positions of authority they shouldn't have been able to, etc). They both have gotten through the first half of the story in so much better shape than most others who've lost more or less everything, but her situation (so far) is much stronger than anyone elses (Jon included). That creates resentment, especially when she's had no contact with the rest of the story yet. It will be really interesting to see what kind of opinions she'll attract once she begins to interact more with the other main characters.

This is the nature of a story, those who are well-of are brought low, those that starts out with poor odds succeed and generally becomes appreciated. In Daenerys case she need to have some relative strength how else will she ever get to Westeros?

I'm dropping the Edmure-thing. I've tried to explain my reason for brining him up three or four times and you still refuse to see what I'm actually saying so I don't see the point in continuing that part of the discussion.

Refusing what? taking your word that Edmure is unfairly lambasted for his actions in accordance with his status as a supporting character?

I am curious as to what type of women Cat,Sansa and Dany is classified as. How do you handle suspected sexists with mixed, or unknown, opinions?

I can’t give you any exact parameters, all women aren’t targeted, tomboys like Arya and Asha are universally liked for example. I think they resonate with people for different reasons. Sansa as the unattainable cheerleader, that destroyed your favourite character, Catelyn the meddling not all loving mother that is presented as a adversary to Jon and obstacle to Rob and Ned.

Daenerys is the most easy, who likes a woman that isn’t shy about proclaiming her innate superiority?

I have no trouble with mixed opinions. I have never said that because you dislike Dany you are a sexist. But if you have no problem with male characters doing the same dislikeable thing, that is my best explanation for the pattern of disparity.

[Daemrion]

Well before we make that comparison perhaps we should wait until the dragon’s are flying battleships wiping out all resistance(where would the good story in that be?). So far their worth is mostly symbolic, and are very much a double edged sword. And at this point Rob’s magical wolf have given him the same cheap “Mary Sue†like success as the dragons, yet this never bothers people for some reason.

Dragons gave even more super-cheap Mary-Sue success in the Conquest for Aegon and co.

And we aren't bothered by direwolves as they died on-screen/on-page. Lady was executed, Grey Wind died at the Red Wedding fighting. They can be taken down, by a couple of men.

There haven't been any tales of Dragonslayers (the heroic type like Beowulf anyway)...maybe if GRRM shows us it is possible to kill a dragon - say through magic they wouldn't be considered as such cheap plot devices.

[Guest Other-in-law]

There haven't been any tales of Dragonslayers (the heroic type like Beowulf anyway)...maybe if GRRM shows us it is possible to kill a dragon - say through magic they wouldn't be considered as such cheap plot devices.

It is:

Ser Jorah shrugged. "A dragons natural span of days is many times as long as a man's, or so the songs would have us believe...but the dragons the Seven Kingdoms knew best were those of House Targaryen. They were bred for war, and in war they died. It is no easy thing to slay a dragon, but it can be done."

As far as we know, the Dance was the only occasion when dragon fought dragon since the Conquest. Balerion the Black Dread died at the age of 200 in the reign of Jaehaerys I. How did he die? Old age? Or was there some fanatical dragon slayer who took him out at the end of Maegor's war against the Faith Militant?

[crocobar]

...

I actually had no problem getting an impression of her [Dany] and figuring out what she's like, and I quite like her, particularly when compared with a spineless waif like Sansa Stark.

This is quite a bad comparison. Not that I particularly like Sansa but she has it way worse and difficult. Dany never had her whole world crushed before her eyes. Dany just lives in moderate shit, and she is capable enough to rise. Sansa actually has to adapt with no time given and nothing to build the foundation on, since her world just turned over.

[crocobar]

I'm not a big fan of Dany. I don't hate her persé, ...

Or, come on! Her "perse" is the single best thing most people like about her. We'll see if Martin is dirty enough to provide us with more pages involving descriptions of her "perse". :)