the Dany hate thread

[Daemrion]

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."

Is he talking theory there or practice? We haven't even seen a recount of a dragon being killed in battle by a man yet. Something more than speculation on Jorah's part.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Is he talking theory there or practice? We haven't even seen a recount of a dragon being killed in battle by a man yet. Something more than speculation on Jorah's part.

He states that they died in war, but we know that Balerion died well before the Dance of the Dragons. That leaves a very strong possibility that 'he' was slain by a non-dragon. The alternative is old age or poisoning, which are certainly possible too, but then why not say as much during a discussion of dragon lifespans?

We also have three different tales of men who slew dragons, though they are all semi-mythical stories from the Age of Heroes: the Grey King in the Iron Isles, ser Galladon of Morne in Tarth, and ser Clarence Crabb on Crackclaw Point. Admittedly these three are very hazy, but since we have so very few details of the early years of the Targaryen dynasty it's not impossible that a dragon or two may have been killed by the hand of man late in the Conquest, or in Maegor's wars, or in Dorne, or who knows where.

If one of the Warrior's Sons slew Balerion it would no doubt make him very famous, but also anathema to the ruling dynasty who would squelch any treasonous cult of personality that grew up about him. If so, we might hear of it now that the Faith is arming itself again. 100% speculation on my part, of course.

[Daemrion]

Other-in-law,

I hope we see some good dragonslaying soon. Either through flashbacks to the days of the Conquest, or in the forthcoming war for Westeros.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I almost wonder if the bittersweetness of the ending could be the final extinction of all three dragons during the new War for the Dawn (with neither Ice nor Fire triumphant, and humans are free from their influences, ala Babylon 5), which would also entail the disappearance of the magic from the world.

I'm not super familar with the broader genre of fantasy (really just Tolkien, Williams, and Pratchett's lampoons), but I get the impression that the usual trope involves magic dwindling rather than reemerging, as well as dragons being villains that must be slain. And GRRM strikes me as someone who cleverly plays with the cliches, rather than defying them.

Are there many tales where the dragons are 'the good guys'? We seem to be set up to look at them as such in aSoIaF, partly because of Dany and partly because of the sheer exotic appeal of cryptozoology (no one gives a crap about lizard lions, but if there was just one in the whole world when everyone thought they were extinct...!). But really, they should be seen as horrific monsters of mass destruction, whose demise should be rejoiced...an angle that we start to see in Dany's preview chapters.

[Intercept]

He states that they died in war, but we know that Balerion died well before the Dance of the Dragons. That leaves a very strong possibility that 'he' was slain by a non-dragon. The alternative is old age or poisoning, which are certainly possible too, but then why not say as much during a discussion of dragon lifespans?

We also have three different tales of men who slew dragons, though they are all semi-mythical stories from the Age of Heroes: the Grey King in the Iron Isles, ser Galladon of Morne in Tarth, and ser Clarence Crabb on Crackclaw Point. Admittedly these three are very hazy, but since we have so very few details of the early years of the Targaryen dynasty it's not impossible that a dragon or two may have been killed by the hand of man late in the Conquest, or in Maegor's wars, or in Dorne, or who knows where.

If one of the Warrior's Sons slew Balerion it would no doubt make him very famous, but also anathema to the ruling dynasty who would squelch any treasonous cult of personality that grew up about him. If so, we might hear of it now that the Faith is arming itself again. 100% speculation on my part, of course.

I think I remember Jorah saying no one remembers the true lifespan of a dragon because no one recalls seeing one live long enough to die of old age. Then Barristan told Daeny that as far as human beings could tell, dragons can grow indefinitely larger as long as they have the food and space.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I'm familiar with that section, and memory is not the issue (they do have written records after all). There's a bit of a difference of opinion between Jorah and Barristan about the effects of confinement, and neither are much in the way of experts. My point is, Balerion being slain by man is a real possibility at this point. We do know that he didn't die in the Dance.

[Intercept]

I'm familiar with that section, and memory is not the issue (they do have written records after all). There's a bit of a difference of opinion between Jorah and Barristan about the effects of confinement, and neither are much in the way of experts. My point is, Balerion being slain by man is a real possibility at this point. We do know that he didn't die in the Dance.

I think Jorah probably meant it took a very very very very large amount of arrows.

[Daemrion]

Are there many tales where the dragons are 'the good guys'?

Pern by Anne McCaffrey (though technically sci-fi). A whole fest of dragons being good guys.

Eragon I suppose has dragons as 'good guys' (though I haven't read any of them)

Besides, dragons have been traditionally, for me been a symbol of good luck and wisdom and good and NOT evil. We do have a Year of the Dragon after all.

[Knight of the Teabags]

We also have three different tales of men who slew dragons, though they are all semi-mythical stories from the Age of Heroes: the Grey King in the Iron Isles, ser Galladon of Morne in Tarth, and ser Clarence Crabb on Crackclaw Point. Admittedly these three are very hazy, but since we have so very few details of the early years of the Targaryen dynasty it's not impossible that a dragon or two may have been killed by the hand of man late in the Conquest, or in Maegor's wars, or in Dorne, or who knows where.

Another semi-mythical tale of dragonslaying we could add is the one that Tanselle 'Too-Tall' uses in her puppet show in 'Hedge Knight' that pisses off Aerion so much. Its yet another 'St. George & the Dragon' setup with the knight's name this time being Ser Rilian who I believe by his arms (I've only have the graphic novel version so correct me if the text says different) would be a Fosseway ancestor. So that's four very similiar 'dragonslayer' stories coming from four different parts of Westeros, could very well be based on a common origin? Would be interesting to hear the 'dragonslayer' myths from other regions of the country particularly - the Dornish version (afterall Dorne successfully resisted Targaryen rule throughout the period when they had dragons, they likely have a very good 'dragonslayer' tale wouldn't be at all surprised either if the hero happens to carry a sword called 'Dawn') and the Northern one(given the very different culture of the North, its strange Old Gods as well the Starks being potential future enemies of Dany could be very interesting).

Looking back at the original point of this thread GRRM made an interesting comment recently regarding a fan-made picture of Daenerys that he was sent. He said essentially that some people really like Daenerys whereas others generally dislike her, he then added he thinks its proper that she should be controversal.

[scipio]

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

nice question, after all dany is young, good loocking and of noble birth..

a good prey for a dotraki khal

[Stratonice]

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.

Considering the fact that the mystery of who his parents are is an important part in what makes Jon interesting as a character (and I never believed Ned was his father even if it took a while longer to begin suspecting L+R=J) so I never thought Ned or Robb or any of the other Stark kids were in his way.

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.

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.

Ok, we'll do it that way then. Regardless of wich one of them she's compared to the main difference between them is not the fact that she's female and they're male. It's the fact that she's completely disconnected from the rest of the story. She doesn't know any of the other characters, she doesn't see any of the same places, she doesn't interact with the rest of the story at all.

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.

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 not saying they will be "flying battleships wiping out all resistance", I doubt they will be, but that's more or less how they've been described so far so naturally that's what opinions are based on. Not these particular three dragons in their present state, but grown dragons. How useful they'll turn out to be and who they end up being used against remains to be seen.

[LordGhost]

Busting out some classics.... from an old voice under a new name.

Drogo's death did not lead to another taking Dany due to the major bad-voodoo she probably seemed to carry to anyone that new Drogo before Dany came along.

In defense of Dany to the original post in thread, what else is she supposed to do, or even supposed to know?

She feels the great weight of Destiny and extinction on her shoulders, most people will believe they are important if someone tells them they are. Dany handles most of her situation with class and a calculation far beyond the capacity of most girls her age that make what she has done so far nothing short of incredible. Her freeing the unsullied and unleashing the dragon is still one of my favorite moments in the books.

after all that i still look forward to her death

[moirne]

I just laughed at the OP... I don't hate her as much as that person does, but she isn't the best character. She's going to go from a Mary Sue, to a crazy Mary Sue. I don't want her to rule Westeros. Maybe her dragons will eat her?

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Crazy Mary Sue is preferrable to normal Mary Sue, so she has at least improved somewhat.

[Raegar]

I actually like Dany and her chapters - they have nothing to do with Westeros, and honestly, sometimes I get sick of all the Medieval atmosphere in fantasies. Why can't any author write something more...Ancient Greek or Diadochi-like, or maybe Roman? Like Ursula Le Guin with Earthsea or Chronicles of the Western coast(which, by the way, has people worshipping The One God of Fire and Sun. Coincidence?)?

Anyway, back on Dany...I just like the good old story of the brave valiant hero/ine who overcomes practicaly everything. Simply classic.

[AryaSnow]

Crazy Mary Sue is preferrable to normal Mary Sue, so she has at least improved somewhat.

I agree.

I don't like very much Dany because she's too perfect.

I'm glad she has some flaws that make her rather interesting. She's also pretty morally grey, that's a good thing. But, on the other hand, she also has too many "cool" and soperhero traits. Overall, I really dislike the prophecies that talks about her becoming the Queen. Predestination is really bothersome for me.

... but despite that she isn't a bad character and some things in her story are interesting.

[gladius]

I don't hate her anymore. I just feel that she, like the Others, diminishes the value and outcome of the strongest storyline (the game of thrones).

The series would be much better without them.

[Lady Blackfish]

I had to go through this thread to make sure I didn't already blather on at length, and I don't appear to have, so here goes. I am one of those who had problems with Dany, though it isn't with her personality. I don't care that she is righteous or arrogant or whatever, that can make for interesting characters and it seems valid to me. I also think that there are interesting dilemmas presented in her arc, and as ... Roose Bolton's Pet Leech? I think? will point out, Dany does at least make choices that lead her to her successes.

But beyond that, she is uber fantastical, and for me the realism is the most compelling part of ASOIAF rather than the fantasy. But really, this is fantasy and it's kind of odd to complain about the fantastical in a fantasy novel. Moreover, and much more interestingly, I think GRRM does a lot of interesting things by having the magical and the mundane in one storyverse, there are so many implications about rationality and ethics as well as examinations of fictional conceits that fall out from this.

Still, I think what bothers some people is that there is a perceived dissonance between how good and awesome we are supposed to perceive Dany and how good and awesome she actually is, according to the rules set out in the series as a whole. Some will say that this dissonance is on purpose, something that is supposed to lead us to anticipate the proverbial dropping of the other shoe. And I think that's valid too, especially considering that this was originally supposed to be a trilogy. Dany's landing would have happened much sooner, and that might really have affected how her arc came off.

Nevertheless, it does mean that I have to wait, what, five books now? for all that awesome stuff to happen. Well, fair enough, if there is awesome stuff to occupy me in the meantime. But on a superficial glance, what I seem to have gotten was a more cardboard setting filled with exoticism and pastiche, satellite characters that kind of exist only to create an image of Dany in the reader's mind, and lots of references to her superhumanness and supreme beauty and noble destiny.

Now, you can say that at some point things become so obvious that you should be able to read an amount of authorial intent into the choices -- we should know that Martin is too smart to not know how Dany comes off, and too smart to not have something up his sleeve with regards to her arc. If not know it, we should at least leave the door open for the possibility. I agree with this very much in theory, because toying with expectations is something of a forte for Martin. For some reason, though, I am able to interact with Dany intellectually more than emotionally. Which is to say, I end up thinking about her as a character trope more than as a person.

This is not to say I don't like certain things about her story. I think she's basically a good person, I find her desire to do the right thing sincere, and if she crosses the line I find it an interesting commentary on the feasibility of the ideal ruler/benevolent dictator. I also think it's great that she and Jon Snow are on a collision course with the internal plot, the game of thrones, and I like to anticipate the clash of those different kinds of stories on a meta level.

All in all, I feel like I should like her more than I do. I do treasure ASOIAF for its ability to question fictional conventions, and Dany is maybe one of the more conventional archetypes (or maybe it's not that she's more conventional, but that she and Jon are like the Yankees), but even then, I'm not a contrarian, and I don't like the idea of penalizing her for being a hero either. But for whatever reason, I find myself thinking more about what the author intended for her to be and intends for her in the future, about her as a fictional experiment, rather than as a person, and that's probably the most honest way I could put it.

[Lummel]

I think what bothers some people is that there is a perceived dissonance between how good and awesome we are supposed to perceive Dany and how good and awesome she actually is, according to the rules set out in the series as a whole.

Dany's chapters are the ones that I enjoy the least in the series so far. Why? What is there not to enjoy, what's going on in those chapters:

There's a journey from innocence to experience

There's the Targaryen flip of the coin from madness to greatness

There's history as a cycle (history repeats itself first as tragedy then as comedy or possibly if you don't learn the lessons you are doomed to repeat them)

There's the theme of power as expressed in the metaphor of the game of thrones or Varys's riddle

None of this is new in the context of ASOIAF, the same themes are explored elsewhere, but Dany has to bear the weight of the reader's expectations and there is a dissonance between the need we perceive in Westeros: peace, security, stable rule and what we see that Dany has to offer.

Maybe she would work better for me if she was off stage and we only learnt about her through uncertain rumour. Maybe I find her difficult because she has been the most isolated POV so far and we don't have the joy of comparing and contrasting how characters think about themselves and how they are perceived in other POVs.

[hnv]

I hate danny, I hate her episodes. I hate her charecter.

the whole "I'm the queen of westros it belongs to me I'm the dragon" is annoying as hell. I would realy hate if the books ends with her being on the Iron thorne. she doesn't deserve it. by far my most hated charecter along with cersei and cate