the Dany hate thread

[Spastic Plastic]

Dany definitely fulfils the narrative function of the antagonist, since Westeros is pretty much the protagonist of the story.

I just feel better thinking about Dany as villain with sympathetic traits rather than an annoying, all-conquering heroine.

I never paid much attention to the Others, who are a pretty bland, unoriginal zombie-menace. The civil wars in Westeros are so much more interesting.

AGOT is a lot better if you think of Dany/Viserys as the antagonists, with Cersei/Jaime as the secondary villains.

ACOK had Theon Greyjoy, who was an interesting main villain. Another humanized villain, but definitely a villain, was Stannis.

ASOS was the closest to "good-vs-evil" we've gotten in ASOIAF. Bolton was creepy, sadistic and enjoyed flaying people, and Frey was already in AGOT established as an unpleasant dirty old man. Both of them were traitors.

Jorah was a traitor as well, but a humanized one.

AFFC doesn't really have villains, since it's onlyt half of a story. The closest to a main villain in that book is Cersei.

[AvengingAryaFan]

...Dany of course starts out with nothing, she's been dispossessed. I think her desire for the iron throne is supposed to start out sympathetic and then become more and more iffy as she gets closer to Westeros, which I don't have a problem with. As far as characters go, I don't at all mind reading about people whose goals I don't agree with. I find Theon and Stannis to be two of the best characters in the whole series. Also, I think a major difference between me and most readers is that I don't see the iron throne as a plot payoff. Obviously the resolution of the series is tied up in knowing who gets it, but I don't necessarily think we're reading a story where that resolution will come off as a reward to a character who truly deserves good things happening to them, for certain values of "deserves". Reading a story about someone who gets the iron throne by virtue of factors other than merit, well that seems to fit with the somewhat cynical tone of ASOIAF anyway.

Dany clearly doesn't "deserve" success in Westeros. If she achieves the iron throne, merit will be a small part of the perfect storm that puts her there. Certainly she starts off with a deep-seated sense of entitlement; nice, but stupid:

I like reading about Dany because she is stupid. Not stupid in the ignorant kind of way like Cersei but more just naive. I enjoyed seeing how "freeing the slaves" blew up in her face. ...

Dany starts young and ignorant, assuming the goal of regaining Westeros but knowing nothing of war and politics. Because she is a POV character, Dany is judged for her sense of entitlement, which is a birthright literally and figuratively, and for her ignorant ideas about how regaining Westeros can be accomplished:

I see it more as disliking her for what she is, for what she wants. What she does afterwards has little bearing on that. That's what I meant with the Khellus example: I can dissociate actions from personality. Right now Dany's unabated desire to bring war to Westeros shows a lack of thought and/or a disregard of human life in favour of selfish desire, that's all.

Every step of Kellhus seems to involve ruthless manipulation of all those he meets in service to his own selfish goal; yet you recognize that he's likely to be supremely useful against the Consult. Dany may also prove supremely useful to Westeros without regard to her personal motivations. To me, Kellhus is so brilliant that he makes few mistakes; perhaps that's why he seems to become ever more egocentric and manipulative as he gains power.

... At the beginning, Viserys and Dany seem like the classic baddies (or rather, he's a classic baddie and she's the classic unempowered woman through whose eyes we observe him): Viserys especially is this megalomaniacal kid with no leadership skills who wants to conquer a country he barely knows, and when Dany adopts his goals she's all about using the Dothraki (who promise to rape and pillage everywhere) and even accepts the enslavement of innocents in order to attain that goal. In more recent books, Dany develops some leadership skills and more of a moral compass, and meanwhile most of the best leaders in Westeros have been killed off, which I think is supposed to make her look like more of a viable option.

Just so. If Westeros is fractured near anarchy, starving due to the reaving of farmers during the war, and under attack from the Others, Dany and her dragons could be an attractive enough alternative to not require a bloody invasion.

In contrast with Kellhus, Dany has made lots of mistakes; but at 13-15, she's learning rapidly from them. She expressly recognized that freeing the slaves merely changed the seating arrangement, not the brutality in Astapor; she realizes that she must adapt to local customs (exposed breast, floppy ears); and she is being forced to realize that defeating Meereen does not create peace, but only vast numbers of fly-infested dead. Yet further, she can't fail to observe that ruling is an onerous burden, if she would do it well (and she does seem to have that instinct), and that she must have willing allies.

Furthermore:

I don't disagree with this...still, it does have the feel of blaming Dany for something that she has not, in fact, done yet.

She aimed Drogo at Westeros, yes, but that arrow broke even before the bowstring could be properly pulled.

So her personal, ignorant POV motivations may be a poor basis for judging her, not only because she hasn't actually initiated a bloody invasion of Westeros, but because such an invasion is becoming progressively less likely as she realizes what a mess a bloody invasion (as of Meereen) creates for a ruler. And in addition to learning from the results of her own mistakes, she now has advice headed toward her from all over Westeros, with Selmy, fortunately, making first contact.

I had a different take from EB on Dany thinking "If I look back I am lost." I see it as recognition that regretting past mistakes is futile - that she needs to keep her eye on the future. It seems to me that she recites that mantra when she's tempted to wallow in regret for her past mistakes. I don't think she refuses the lessons, just the angst.

[AvengingAryaFan]

He's totally whitewashing her, in a way: that's the reason she got painfully one-dimensional black hats to defeat (unbelievably easily and cleanly, too) in exchange for her super army of doom slaves, or how she got dragons: as a present plus killing one girl that betrayed her trust, killed her husband and her baby.

Contrast that with the only way he had Vyserys try to get his army: by selling off his own sister, it's not really the same.

If he didn't care about the whiteness of Dany, he'd still give her the will, but none of the karma-defying coincidences: Dany would have had to kill normal people for her dragons... note that it's what Melisandre wants to do, and she's not precisely liked. She would then have had to slaughter or otherwise deal with fully realized characters -grey ones- (let's say: Tyrions, Tywins, Jorahs, Cerseis, Renlys, GreatJons, Rooses) to get power enough to hire an army that would not be composed of terminally obedient droids, but of Daario-likes... Even killing a Cersei would put a totally different spin on readers' perception of the Astapor coup, I think, after all it's what villains like Roose do, not heroes like Ned.

Really like this post. No, Viserys' approach to getting an army isn't really the same ...

And yet - even Mirri Maz Dur had a pretty fair reason to betray Dany so as to punish Drogo and avoid "the stallion that mounts the world", which reduces Dany's justification. And while I personally have no problem with Dany killing the same number of Masters as they killed slave children, it was proportional but still pretty brutal. Plus her idealistic but feckless freeing of the slaves in Astapor has been shown to be a practical disaster. So she's not all that pristine - if she's whitewashed, it's at best a Navajo white. But of course George is trying to keep her sympathetic, and if that rankles then it does.

Myself, I don't see how an author can create a character who's both sympathetic and empowered without arranging opportunities for well justified bold action. I mean, Martin apparently wants the Targaryens to be rehabilitated to save Westeros ... how would you have him create his sympathetic but powerful queen, if not the way he is creating Dany?

[Spastic Plastic]

Like I said above, I don't like it that ASOS introduces a whole "good vs. evil" thing. Instead of dealing with more humanized, believable slavers, Dany deals with silly caricatures with not a single non-evil characteristic. When Viserys was gathering an army to take Westeros it was not treated as a good thing, but with Dany it is (I know, she's a POV character, but I'd like her methods to be less idealized).

The Red Wedding also suffered from this. Early on, you could tell who the traitors on Robb's side were because they were the most unpleasant ones. If some previously sympathetic bannerman had turned on Robb in the Red Wedding, it would've been an improvement. But no, the traitors had to be the creepy sociopath and the dirty old man.

Hell, the few good Freys are described as sympathetic in all POVs from Catelyn to Jaime, while those who planned the Red Wedding are always evil.

(My favorite book is still ACOK, because Theon and Stannis are interesting, humanized villains).

[Lummel]

I don't see the good vs evil thing that you refer to Terrorist Fist Jab.

What is there in the text that makes Dany's ambition good but Viserys bad in your opinion? It seems much of a muchness to me saving that Dany seems to be more competent than Viserys but there does not seem to be any suggestion that an invasion lead by her will be sweetness and light for all concerned.

One of the joys of ASOIAF is that everybody has realistic motivations. The nobles play the game of thrones, Bolton sees his chance and plays the game well. Same for old man Frey really. The Slavers are out for themselves just like pretty well everybody else in ASOIAF.

[Alexia]

I think Viserys and Danaerys are pretty much the same in their methods. I also don't see that Dany's methods are treated all that well either - there's talk of upper-class women raped by former slaves, people selling themselves into slavery, Cleos the Butcher King, et al. She stole an army of slaves she couldn't afford to buy and intended to attack her own people using the Dothraki. I'd like to see some more gray in her motivations but I thought her methods came across as being pretty ugly.

[Lummel]

It is the game of thrones. We can make up the motivations but the methods are invaribly ugly.

[Spastic Plastic]

Lummel, you know what I meant about the Red Wedding. It was the two most unpleasant bannermen who chose to betray Robb. Neither Frey nor Bolton are people we would sympathize with.

The Astapori slavers are really silly. They're incredibly over-the-top, and spend their days torturing slaves, killing puppies and eating babies ("But we cannot sell these Unsullied yet, they have not stabbed their suckling!"). Like I said before, they exist only so Dany can trample over them.

Just because it's a GRRM forum doesn't mean we have to ass-kiss him the whole time.

EDIT: Hahaha, I had to laugh a while at the things the Astapori slavers say...the funniest one is "I will feed her an unborn puppy", and also "Tell her how pretty the pyramids are. I will lick honey from her breasts, or she can lick it from mine", which Missandei translates as "Astapor is most beautiful at night, Your Grace!"

[AvengingAryaFan]

Dany definitely fulfils the narrative function of the antagonist, since Westeros is pretty much the protagonist of the story.

I just feel better thinking about Dany as villain with sympathetic traits rather than an annoying, all-conquering heroine.

AGOT is a lot better if you think of Dany/Viserys as the antagonists, with Cersei/Jaime as the secondary villains.

ACOK had Theon Greyjoy, who was an interesting main villain. Another humanized villain, but definitely a villain, was Stannis.

ASOS was the closest to "good-vs-evil" we've gotten in ASOIAF. Bolton was creepy, sadistic and enjoyed flaying people, and Frey was already in AGOT established as an unpleasant dirty old man. Both of them were traitors.

Jorah was a traitor as well, but a humanized one. ...

Like I said above, I don't like it that ASOS introduces a whole "good vs. evil" thing. Instead of dealing with more humanized, believable slavers, Dany deals with silly caricatures with not a single non-evil characteristic. When Viserys was gathering an army to take Westeros it was not treated as a good thing, but with Dany it is (I know, she's a POV character, but I'd like her methods to be less idealized).

...

(My favorite book is still ACOK, because Theon and Stannis are interesting, humanized villains).

I won't disagree that the slavers are very easy to dislike. But the type isn't that unrealistic: slavers really have existed, in large numbers and through much if not most of human history. A person willing to treat human beings like cattle for a living will need to be very callous and arrogant. In asserting that GRRM's characterizations are caricatures, you're denying their plausibility. I disagree, and think you're in denial about just how awful people can be. Sure, GRRM chose unsympathetic targets for Dany to overcome, but just because it works to make Dany's otherwise outrageous theft admirable doesn't mean that the situation is implausible or caricatured (except by 21st century standards).

Slavery is pernicious because it can be so thoroughly accepted in societies. Look at the early U.S., and France's Haiti. Slavery becomes such a mindset that, as Dany learned, overturning it doesn't end it but simply change who is slave and who is master.

It seems to me that you do yourself a disservice by insisting on having villains. Isn't Martin on record as saying that every character is the hero of their own narrative? Greyness comes naturally when people act in a manner that is self-serving, yet that can be rationalized to themselves as perfectly reasonable or even good. Aren't misguided heroes better than villains with redeeming value?

Most posters recognize that GRRM is trying to make Dany sympathetic, perhaps even heroic; EB goes so far as to call it a whitewash. If Martin keeps trying to draw her as on a journey from a youthful state of entitlement, combined with ignorance of the consequences of war and invasion, toward a realization of the consequences of brutal action - a little twist on the typical hero's journey - then aren't you setting yourself up for continued disappointment by trying to force her into the "villain" box?

I understand that Dany's willingness to unleash the brutal Dothraki to conquer Westeros was in conflict with the idea that, as their ruler, they would be "her people", and agree that it would have made her a villain had she proceeded on that course. But as KAH pointed out, the bow broke long before Dany could even nock the Dothraki arrow, let alone pull and release it toward Westeros. Meanwhile, she was 13-14 years old, but intelligent; and the education she's garnered in moving toward her self-appointed "destiny" should suffice to avoid the blunder of a bloody invasion. It seems highly unlikely that Dany will ever be the villain you initially expected. You can't control what Martin writes, but you could reduce your annoyance by realigning your expectations.

[Spastic Plastic]

I'm not in denial about anything. I just think it's a bit over-the-top for the evil slavers to eat babies, in addition to their brutal treatment of slaves. Portraying slavery this way is like deciding that the Nazis aren't evil enough even with the Holocaust, so we have to show them crucifying puppies as well.

AvengingAryaFan seem to think that people can really have not a single non-evil characteristic.

Gregor Clegane and especially Ramsay Bolton are as bad as the slavers, and they're very effective villains. There's nothing silly or over-the-top about Ramsay in ACOK, and he's the most evil person in that book.

I put this in the Orientalism thread, but I think the portrayal of the Ghis slavers has a lot to do with my argument. ASOIAF can sometimes be pretty orientalist - all the eastern cultures (except the Free Cities) have near-identical people.

Go on TV Tropes and look up "Planet of Hats". The Dothraki are all short-spoken with very few individual traits. The Qartheen are all degenerate and girly. The Ghiscari are all EVIL.

EDIT: I know that in ADWD, Dany will become more heroic as a contrast to Cersei who mentally degenerates. She was definitely the villain in AGOT, in my opinion. You can have yours.

Oh, and I'm not having any expectations from Martin. For all I know, he might pull a Robert Jordan tomorrow. If I don't expect ADWD to ever be finished, at least it's gonna be a pleasant surprise if it is.

[Liadin]

Hmm, I'd agree that the slavers are over-the-top. I really do think there are awful people out there with no apparent redeeming characteristics (thus, if you didn't know them very, very well, you'd see none at all), and I found Gregor's gang and the Brave Companions believable. Would some people do the kinds of things they've done? Absolutely.

The difference, though, is that those are self-selecting groups. Cruel, vicious people join up with Gregor because they get along well and they get a chance to do what they want. Awful as slavery is, it's an institution, and I don't find it plausible for every single person born into a society that happens to practice slavery to be evil. Anybody who says that all slaveholders in the U.S., or Haiti or anywhere else, were utterly lacking in redeeming characteristics, is so overwhelmed by moral disgust that they can't see clearly. (What would you say about Thomas Jefferson, I wonder?)

That said, I'm not sure if Martin really intended his slavers to be, as a society, utterly lacking in redeeming characteristics. The ones we've seen are over the top, but how many slavers actually had more than a couple of lines? Like, three? I think a lot of readers assume they were all the same, but I (would like to) think Martin's a better writer than that. I don't believe anywhere near as many of the elites were involved in the crucifixion of the children as Dany killed, for instance, which just makes what she did that much more horrible.

[Alexia]

I believe that a certain degree of the one-dimensional evil that the slavers exude is simply because that is how Dany sees them and she is our only POV in that region. We've only seen a few of the slavers and they are all in power (i.e., Unsullied trainers, etc.). Maybe when we get more POVs in the region (Tyrion, Quentyn) we will get a more nuanced version of the slavers.

That being said, I really could have lived without the crucifixions with the arms pointing the way towards Mereen.

[Liadin]

I believe that a certain degree of the one-dimensional evil that the slavers exude is simply because that is how Dany sees them and she is our only POV in that region. We've only seen a few of the slavers and they are all in power (i.e., Unsullied trainers, etc.). Maybe when we get more POVs in the region (Tyrion, Quentyn) we will get a more nuanced version of the slavers.

People say this in these threads a lot, but I'm not convinced. This isn't a scenario where Dany simply tells us that the slavers have no redeeming characteristics and eat babies. We see their actions, and we hear their words. How is Dany's POV distorting that? I grant that she's not going out searching for evidence to change her mind, but she's not inventing the dead puppies either.

[corbon]

People say this in these threads a lot, but I'm not convinced. This isn't a scenario where Dany simply tells us that the slavers have no redeeming characteristics and eat babies. We see their actions, and we hear their words. How is Dany's POV distorting that? I grant that she's not going out searching for evidence to change her mind, but she's not inventing the dead puppies either.

We see the actions of a powerful few at the top. We hear the words of even less.

Consider the finale of the historic slave revolt of Spartacus.

Republican Rome is not generally considered to be an evil empire, yet they were every bit as brutal as the slavers.

We just have their POV rather than Spartacus'...

[Liadin]

We see the actions of a powerful few at the top. We hear the words of even less.

I agree with that, but that doesn't explain this meme. If the point was that Dany has limited exposure to the slavers, people would say that, not "they come across as one-dimensional evil because that's how Dany sees them." My point is, there's not a whole lot of interpretation going on within Dany's POV. She presents us with the words and actions that she observes. We're the ones who conclude that the people she's observing are one-dimensional evil. In what way is she deliberately observing only the worst qualities of these people? What evidence can you show for that?

[corbon]

I agree with that, but that doesn't explain this meme. If the point was that Dany has limited exposure to the slavers, people would say that, not "they come across as one-dimensional evil because that's how Dany sees them." My point is, there's not a whole lot of interpretation going on within Dany's POV. She presents us with the words and actions that she observes. We're the ones who conclude that the people she's observing are one-dimensional evil. In what way is she deliberately observing only the worst qualities of these people? What evidence can you show for that?

Sorry, you lost me...

I thought people were whinging that the Slavers are too 'evil' and 'one dimensional' to be reasonable as people or as a society.

I'm merely pointing out that we don't really see anything of them as people or as a society.

And, as an aside, that there is direct historical precedent for their supposed worst actions in our own history, from the very society that modern western civilisation is largely founded from (and at it's supposed 'peak' too).

I think all the judgement of the slavers as one-dimensionally evil is... well, hard to describe it without sounding rude really, but ... emotive and not based on a truly objective view.

I'm not saying that Dany is at fault for this judgment, I'm addressing us, the readers, who jump to judgments on a much larger scale the the evidence.

It is just a society. Not necessarily better or worse than others. We are just getting to see a few of the bad sides because they are pertinent to the story and none of the good because they are not.

Sure, they have slaves. So did the Romans and Greeks. And Americans.

Sure, they crucified a few hundred kids as a warning. So did the Romans (the Greeks didn't use crucifixion, but were certainly not averse to killing children when deemed necessary, especially slaves).

[SingleMort]

I don't really have anything that profound to add to this but personally Dany is one of my favourite characters, and I think if she doesn't get killed off by one thing or another she might actually grow to become a pretty good leader.

I would also add that I think all of the best characters in ASOIAF at times make mistakes or do things that seem reprehensible but that's what makes them more interesting to me. I hate characters who always do the right thing or the honorable thing, characters that show their darker sides are more rounded and human to me becuase everyone is capable of doing terrible things and everyone makes mistakes.

I guess in the end it comes down to a matter of taste and personal opinion. That and who you would prefer to sit on the iron throne.

[Liadin]

I thought people were whinging that the Slavers are too 'evil' and 'one dimensional' to be reasonable as people or as a society.

I'm merely pointing out that we don't really see anything of them as people or as a society.

And, as an aside, that there is direct historical precedent for their supposed worst actions in our own history, from the very society that modern western civilisation is largely founded from (and at it's supposed 'peak' too).

If you haven't read the "orientalism" thread you probably wouldn't have seen where I was coming from. People constantly cite "Dany's POV" as a reason for the flat appearance of eastern cultures, and I just don't buy it. My point is that Dany doesn't characterize or interpret what happens to the degree where we would expect to see personal bias creeping in (we're not reading her diary entries): she tells us who said what, who did what, and we come away with the conclusion that the societies are drawn in a one-dimensional way. And I see that as being the way Martin's writing it, not the way Dany's seeing it; if a good writer wants the readers to know that his character isn't seeing things that are right in front of her face, he can communicate that to the readers. We have no indication of Dany's bias clouding our view of the cultures she encounters.

It's certainly true that she doesn't get very in-depth in any of the eastern societies, but that's the author's choice. He decides which representatives of the societies to show us, and unless there are indications to the contrary, we generally assume the characters we see to be representative of their cultures. I'd be thrilled to see Martin turn that on its head in ADWD and show us some positive aspects of Slaver's Bay culture, aside from just "they're slavers and that's awful." After all, as you say, the Greeks and Romans did some nasty things, but when you think of those cultures, "cruel slavers" is probably not the first thing that comes to mind.

I would also add that I think all of the best characters in ASOIAF at times make mistakes or do things that seem reprehensible but that's what makes them more interesting to me. I hate characters who always do the right thing or the honorable thing, characters that show their darker sides are more rounded and human to me becuase everyone is capable of doing terrible things and everyone makes mistakes.

I agree with this. It doesn't mean that we can't still dislike some characters due to their dark sides, though. (Although I don't know that I truly dislike Dany. I just find her problematic.)

[Guest Other-in-Law]

And I see that as being the way Martin's writing it, not the way Dany's seeing it; if a good writer wants the readers to know that his character isn't seeing things that are right in front of her face, he can communicate that to the readers. We have no indication of Dany's bias clouding our view of the cultures she encounters.

I'd say it's not a matter of personal bias on Dany's part, but merely a reflection of the segments of society she's dealing with. You don't go to some lower-middle class artisan like a baker or a potter to beg for an army, you go to the rich and powerful, who's circumstances allow so much greater scope for nastiness (compare to Westerosi lords locking up people in iron cages so that they can slowly starve or be pecked to death by crows...the lady who does the laundry isn't in a position to do that).

It's certainly true that she doesn't get very in-depth in any of the eastern societies, but that's the author's choice.

And a perfectly reasonable choice given Dany's circumstances and objectives.

He decides which representatives of the societies to show us, and unless there are indications to the contrary, we generally assume the characters we see to be representative of their cultures.

Disagree completely. Are Bill Gates or Dick Cheney representative of you? Or Paris Hilton?

I'd be thrilled to see Martin turn that on its head in ADWD and show us some positive aspects of Slaver's Bay culture, aside from just "they're slavers and that's awful." After all, as you say, the Greeks and Romans did some nasty things, but when you think of those cultures, "cruel slavers" is probably not the first thing that comes to mind.

Horrific savagery for the purpose of entertainment is one of the very first things that comes to my mind about the Romans. We can be disgusted by the idea of snuff films in the present day, but snuff games were commonplace in the halcyon days of Rome.

[Ser David the Just]

the first things I think of about Rome are roads and everything they say being epic because it is in latin. Hater's gonna hate on gladiators, I just consider it to be a sport I never got kind of like cricket or soccer ("football" to the uncivilized world)