[ADwD Spoilers] Dany Criticism Before and After ADWD

[Wethers]

Eh, Robert did have his breaks during the Rebellion (i.e. Stoney Sept - the whole town hiding him for days until he could be rescued) and so did Ned (sojourn on the Little Sister, Dorne, etc.), so I am not sure what they are doing in that list.

Jon isn't going to die, so his "assassination" will be comparable to Dany almost dying on the plains. And also, he had been extremely lucky on numerous occasions previously.

Tyrion also didn't have it particularly bad objectively speaking - until Jorah kidnapped him, which was completely unforeseeable. Also, he is not dying of flux or anything.

Theon did suffer horribly, but he'll get a chance to turn tables on his torturer.

Those who are dead are well... dead. Yes they didn't get a lucky break at a crucial moment, but does it mean that everybody else should die too? Or not make any mistakes? It would be a very boring series in such a case.

First off, we are talking about events that happened during the course of the story, not 15 years before the story. You say Robert and Ned got lucky prior to the story but you are extrapolating that they had made mistakes on the level that Dany is making them and still got away with it. I see no concrete evidence for that. And look where they are now - directly or indirectly murdered (during the story) and everything that they worked for undone. I would say they paid big time. If Dany pays for her giant mistakes on a similar scale later in the story I will withdraw my plot armor assertion, but she hasn't come close to it so far.

Similarly Jon seems dead for now so dismissing that death based on what you assume will probably happen doesn't make sense to me. He may be resurrected by Melisandre or some such but I doubt that is going to go seamlessly. Fire consumes and so on. You can't just assume Jon's death is no big deal. And yes if he had not gotten assassinated, I would have said he has plot armor just like Dany - those two more than any other characters in aSoIaF. But Jon's (apparent) death changed all that.

I notice you didn't argue against Robb/Catelyn and how they pay for their mistakes. Has a Red Wedding-like event happened for Dany?

Tyrion may not have had it that bad in this book, though being a slave does not sound like a picnic. But earlier in the story, he's had his nose sliced off, been imprisoned not once but twice (Eeyrie sky cells, KL dungeon) under horrible circumstances, and been held up for the entire kingdom to laugh at as the worst kind of monster - a pathetic one. He has lived quite an uncomfortable life for much of the story. I won't use Tysha as evidence since that happened pre-story, but he was humiliated by the woman he was (stupidly) falling in love with during the story in front of everyone he knew. Now Tyrion has also done monstrous things, like killing Shae, but this is not about who is the better person, this is about who has plot armor and who does not. Tyrion has paid quite a bit for his mistakes, which while significant (e.g. delusions about Shae), in my opinion are fewer than Dany's.

Meanwhile Dany has been sick and hungry/thirsty for a day on the Dothraki sea and had to cross the red waste (though she was going to be the last to die of thirst/hunger on that trek since she was their dragon queen, duh!), she lost her husband and she may be barren (uncertain). She was sold to Drogo but naturally ended up both loving and lusting after him on their first night (in the book, series presents it a bit differently). She has had people fawn over her for much of the story and see to her every comfort, which Tyrion has had on occasion as well but not for nearly as long. Overall, I would say Dany has suffered significantly less than Tyrion.

So I basically disagree with every one of your points.

Of course not everyone who makes a mistake has to die. If you notice, I wasn't even saying that Dany has to die for the story to be good. But she has to suffer some commensurate personal consequences for her huge blunders (committed while in a very exposed position of power) for me to mentally check into her story and not just feel that she is untouchable.

And trust me, if Aegon just sweeps in and everything goes his way, he gets some of Dany's dragons, and only his men and advisors pay for his mistakes in a major way (not himself), I will feel the same way about him. I already do a little bit, but his story is just starting.

[Lord Qorgyle]

The term Mary Sue did originate from self-insertion in fanfiction, but it has since evolved to a much broader term to include characters that are too ideal.

And I'm challenging that evolution in meaning because that's where the sexist facet relies. "Too ideal characters" have existed like forever, but I've never seen someone say that Gigamesh or Hercules are Mary Sues / Gary Stus or say that the Odissey is bad literature because Ulysses is too perfect. Male heroes are a long standing tradition and it's undisputed. Female heroes are a new thing and face much more opposition.

All ancient mythologies have male perfect heroes, ancient literature from the whole world has them, all epic songs have one flawless invincible knight in shining armor. It's older than dirt. They're usually called "heroes" by that reason. Gods get out of the way to help them win when they should lose, their enemies are irrevocably evil with no redeeming qualities, they have some rare and supernatural quality or possession, the other characters gravitate towards them, story bends to put them in a position to take advantage of a supposed disadvantage or simply get away clean from a major mistake... That's what main characters in epic stories are. And that's what makes them interesting and fun to read.

You may disagree and clinch to the "evolution" of the Mary Sue concept but by doing so you're supporting the people who used it to cow female (and sometimes male) authors from writing strong female characters simply labelling them as "Mary Sues" or "Anti Sues" and encouraging them to write uninteresting women with no special qualities at all - ie, uninteresting characters. IMHO, that sexist use is frequent enough to refute the "evolved Mary Sue" concept, giving it indiscriminately every time a female character with heroic qualities shows up.

Wikipedia stuff

You may want to scroll down and see the "criticism" part of the Mary Sue definition in Wikipedia. I'm quoting that source too:

"Smith quotes editor Joanna Cantor[11] as identifying "Mary Sue" paranoia as one of the sources for the lack of "believable, competent, and identifiable-with female characters." In this article, Cantor interviews her sister Edith, also an amateur editor, who says she receives stories with cover letters apologizing for the tale as "a Mary Sue", even when the author admits she does not know what a "Mary Sue" is. According to Edith Cantor, while Paula Smith's original "Trekkie's Tale" was only ten paragraphs long, "in terms of their impact on those whom they affect, those words [Mary Sue] have got to rank right up there with the Selective Service Act."[12] At Clippercon 1987 (a Star Trek fan convention held yearly in Baltimore, Maryland), Smith interviewed a panel of female authors who say they do not include female characters in their stories at all. She quoted one as saying "Every time I've tried to put a woman in any story I've ever written, everyone immediately says, this is a Mary Sue." Smith also pointed out that "Participants in a panel discussion in January 1990 noted with growing dismay that any female character created within the community is damned with the term Mary Sue."[13]

However, several other writers quoted by Smith have pointed out that in Star Trek: The Voyages Of The "Enterprise" as originally created, James T. Kirk is himself a "Mary Sue," and that the label seems to be used more indiscriminately on female characters who do not behave in accordance with the dominant culture's images and expectations for females as opposed to males.[14] Professional author Ann C. Crispin is quoted as saying: "The term 'Mary Sue' constitutes a put-down, implying that the character so summarily dismissed is not a true character, no matter how well drawn, what sex, species, or degree of individuality."[15]"

This was posted and explained a few pages back, so I don't know why we are debating the definition again. If the definition of Mary Sue for the purposes of this thread is not agreed on, I find it pointless to quibble over whose label or definition is right or wrong. It's just a term - call it by any other name but all the arguments still hold. Call it plot armour, if you like.

While I can agree that Daenerys has a substantial amount of Plot Armour, so did Jon Snow (infiltrates wildlings despite being so bad at it, gets away because of Summer being at the right place at the right time, Lord Commander of the NW at 15 at a critical moment? sure), Tyrion (always, always gets out of everything), Littlefinger (all his plans are perfect, nothing unexpected happens that ruins them), Varys (same), Barristan Selmy (getting out of KL after insulting the King?), Samwell (this kind of character would never survive a place like the NW in the real world), Arya Stark (crosses the whole Riverlands unharmed, gets away every time she's captured, escapes the Red Wedding by a hair, recovers her lost sword, kills seasoned soldiers, only 11 years-old?), Davos Seaworth (his plot to kill Melissandre is rewarded with promotion, smuggling Edric out of Westeros -against Stannis's wishes- goes unpunished, his misfortunes are always turned into fortunes), and to a lesser degree Bran Stark (God bless Jojen's dreams!) and Cersei (until Tywin died).

I get that you people don't like Daneerys as a character. I can understand why, even if I don't agree. Some of you are also staunch Stark supporters that hate how the Starks got killed while she's away unharmed and getting stronger by simply doing nothing. We get it. You don't have to like every single character in the books.

However, the Mary-Sue labelling and the forum hate against her could possibly be the reasons behind her character decay in ADWD. And that would be unfortunate for the whole series: if GRRM was trying to disprove those accusations, it made her a boring character that still got Anti-Sue accusations nevertheless and disappointed Dany's fans. So who's winning here? Nobody; haters will still have Daenerys until her story arc is complete, whatever that means; fans will be frustrated because we wanted Daenerys' action and had little or none; GRRM will still have to endure the same accusations or worse, and the story may be damaged by the character decay.

I am not sure how valid your findings with google search are. For one, Mary Sue is the original and oldest term to describe such characters, and it is widely-used as a gender-agnostic term (eg. Wesley Crusher is considered a "Mary Sue". So I disagree that this is a female-gendered or sexist label.

Gary Stu is just a "spin-off" term so naturally it has fewer search results.

It is female-gendered: Mary Sue was a female name last time I checked. Also, I was replying to someone who said exactly that: that it was a female-gendered term so people didn't say Jon Snow was a Mary Sue. You should direct your reply to that forum user instead and show him that Jon Snow, by your own definition, is a Mary Sue, when he said he couldn't be for being male. If you guys manage to agree on this, discussion will be smoother.

1/25 of results isn't just fewer, it's much much fewer. It proves that the term remains strongly associated with the female connotations. Even TVTropes lists all characters with these qualities in the "Sue" sections jointly. It proves that the Gary Stus aren't as widely known as their female, original, more recurrent counterparts. Of course it's sexist. People see plenty of female Sues but little and less ( :blushing: ) male Stus. However I still have to see someone say that Tyrion Lannister is an Anti-Stu, or that Egg in the Dunk & Egg stories is a Gary Stu. Or that Gandalf and Aragorn in LOTR are Gary Stus, and so on. Why? Because people accept this kind of characters more easily in males, it connects with Western literature and we're accustomed to see them. Female, strong, hero characters are a much newer thing, and our society will not accept them so easily.

Sadly this also reflects attitudes in the real world, though I haven't seen this bias in this forum yet. I certainly do not think Dany is a "slut" for wanting Daario, just that given his cruel, unpredictable sellsword nature, she should have known better.

I'm not sure if the word "slut" or similar have been used, but there has been plenty of criticism directed at her POV expressing sexual desires or arousal. Sure Daario isn't an ideal man for her, and it's a mistake, but she has the right to feel sex arousal as much as Jaime or Tyrion and others often do. People weren't so vindictive with Tyrion for desiring Shae, which was another big mistake, because it's more easily accepted in men.

[Shaun Snow]

Does Dany having to prostitute herself to a ghiscari lord that she, at best, holds in contempt due to her misguided efforts to end slavery in Meereen count as paying for a mistake?

[Layne]

Actually, the one time its brought up in the books, Drogo sides with Dany. So, no, I'm afraid I can't even agree here.

You're reading a different set of books than the rest of us apparently. :lol:

Except for the fact that the Dothraki do indeed rape and enslave MMD's entire city of Lhazar, in the pages of the book, and Drogo does nothing to stop them. That's implied consent, and any other argument is some kind of purposeful deflection from the truth to set up some kind of rose colored alternate history.

The Dothraki do rape, and they do enslave. Drogo leads the Dothraki. Thus it is known that he is a slaver, and there's the overwhelming implication that he's also raped because of it. Sure, he sided with Dany on MMD, but he was giving her to Dany as a slave, not freeing her.

[TrueMetis]

Slaves with good masters flock to Dany

And freedmen flocked back to the Slaver`s in a chapter of AFFC so they could be fed. Like I said earlier, freedom is nice and all but most people would rather be fed than free.

[Wethers]

I think it's pretty presumptions to write off that Dany has not experienced suffering simply because she hasn't died or been tortured and broken. Seems like you're saying that personal bodily harm is the only suffering that "counts" which is really just an extremely callous view on suffering. Dany has lost her brother, husband and her ability to bear children. If you think that those losses were easy for her to bear because they didn't come with physical pain or death, then your concept of human suffering is very narrow. The consequences of Dany's actions fall on the well being of the people in her life, which arguably bothers her more than the prospect of personal pain and death.

This was brought up in another thread. Dany's advisers were against her marriage to Hidzhar and they had valid reasons for that (which Dany acknowledged). What's not mentioned is the alternatives they were suggesting. The Shavepate was suggesting that Dany start torturing nobles in order to find out information about the Sons of the Harpy and to send out a message. Selmy was suggesting marching to battle against the slave masters, even though the Meereen had next to no trained knights meaning that he'd rely mostly on the Unsullied and leave the city with little protection. So when faced with the choices of torture and a costly battle, Dany took the insane third option of a peaceable marriage, which is a horrible judgement call any way you slice it.

I mean it's basically the same problem Jon faces. His counsel finds the flaws in his plans, but either they don't offer any better alternatives or their advice is just as costly or worse.

True, Dany has experienced some suffering, esp. in the first book. She does pay for the consequences of trusting MMD, though of course Drogo pays even more for the consequences of going along with his (then?) naive wife. I just don't think Dany's personal price has been as bad during the course of the books. By the time her brother died she no longer thought of him as a brother. She lost a beloved spouse and (an unborn) child, but she is hardly alone in that misfortune. She may be barren though in light of her last aDwD chapter, I'm not certain of she truly is. All of the above happens in the first book, and frankly I did not feel as if she was untouchable in the first book, or at least was not annoyed by her apparent untouchability. Since then the price she has personally paid for her mistakes has been far lower than what other characters have paid for theirs, or that others have paid for hers. All in my opinion of course. Sorry I seem callous to you. Frankly I think it's far more callous of those that dismiss Jon's actual death with "ah he's not really dead so it doesn't count" as has been argued on this thread. And while death is not the only price, it is the ultimate price, and most others that have made her mistakes with that level of exposure have eventually died for it. Maybe she will as well but it hasn't happened yet.

I hear your point on lack of options regarding the marriage to Hizdahr. It's a good one - there were no truly good options left. I do disagree with the wishful fable that she chose a "peaceable" marriage - in my opinion there was quite clearly never a chance of a peaceable marriage. She was told correctly that the only way Hizdahr could stop the violence without bloodshed is if he was a leader among the perpetrators himself, and that meant that he was only stopping the violence because he had found a better way of eliminating the enemy (i.e. Dany and her people). Dany just didn't want to admit that she had already voluntarily entered into a fight to the death.

I do feel there were alternatives for Dany though no great ones. I think Selmy's suggestion would have worked if done in the form of quick, unpredictable sorties aimed at taking out specific components of what Selmy properly recognized as a fairly disorganized Yunkai'i host, not necessarily even using all the Unsullied at once. The strategy needed tweaking, not outright rejection. The fact that this strategy seemed completely without value I think was largely colored by Dany's own perceptions and point of view. Same frankly with the Shavepate's suggestions. I am not suggesting Dany should have given in to everything suggested (torture), but I think several suggestions, while brutal, would have resulted in fewer deaths. Even the macabre one of killing one from every noble house for every Unsullied or freedman killed by the Harpy's Sons. Despicable using a modern lens (though unfortunately still quite common if you look at reprisal tactics around the world), but actually quite mild compared to what someone like Tywin Lannister, a bad person and horrible parent but effective ruler, would have done. And again, my opinion is that the Shavepate was right - it would have ended in fewer deaths overall. Hell, even Daario's brutal Red Wedding redux suggestion probably would have resulted in fewer deaths overall (not endorsing that one) than Dany's approach did.

It's clear that the Mereenese are not great at direct confrontations. They would have resorted to assassination attempts, but that was bound to happen (and did happen) anyway when marrying a snake in the grass (and harpy's first son) like Hizdahr. Instead, Dany could have freed up some Unsullied to stand as personal guard along with Selmy and Belwas, used her hostages as tasters for her food etc.

But this is looking at it after Dany has already made many of her mistakes. Sort of like saying at the very end of Ned's arc, after rejecting Renly's help, Ned had no choice but to try to buy the City Watch from Littlefinger to counteract the larger Lannister guard. Not that far from the truth, but only because Ned had already painted himself into a corner. Dany tries to find a fictitious peaceable solution when her idealism has led her down a path in aSoS that effectvely prevents any peaceable solution in aDwD. By 100% committing to free slaves, her very existence has become incompatible with the long term existence of the slaving high families. I admire that idealism but the approach she took, while causing much fist-pumping and celebration, was doomed to failure, or at least doomed to the lack of any "peaceable" solution (which her marriage again, was not despite her delusions). Whole separate discussion. It's understandable that she made all of those those mistakes and like Ned, was unwilling to compromise on her principles until forced to once there was no choice, but the bottom line is... Ned's dead. In the space of one book. Ned's family and loyalists also paid heavily for his mistakes, as have Dany's for hers, but she herself has not paid to the same extent.

And finally you compare her to Jon. And I largely agree - he makes mistakes, and flatly rejects counsel when perhaps he should have listened and compromised just a bit. His actions are colored by his ideals. All in all, I think he makes *fewer* mistakes than Dany does. And the fact remains, Jon is stabbed in the back by his sworn brothers and as much as people seem to dismiss it, he is *DEAD*. Dany is not. Even if Melisandre resurrects him (which I doubt will turn out that well for Jon - look at unCat or even Beric), DYING is a fairly large personal price to pay for one's mistakes. If Jon had not died, I might have made the same point about him as I am making about Dany. Hell, let Dany die under horrible circumstances and treachery as Jon did, then get resurrected into unDany as Jon may, and I will then concede that she has paid like John has.

[Wethers]

Does Dany having to prostitute herself to a ghiscari lord that she, at best, holds in contempt due to her misguided efforts to end slavery in Meereen count as paying for a mistake?

Doing so was voluntary and a mistake in itself, though at that point her options were fewer.

[Wethers]

double post

[Shaun Snow]

Doing so was voluntary and a mistake in itself, though at that point her options were fewer.

Voluntary, yes. Also unpleasant and demeaning, I would say.

[Wethers]

Voluntary, yes. Also unpleasant and demeaning, I would say.

Again, voluntary and itself a mistake. Sounds like we disagree: you think this was Dany paying a tough price for her mistakes. I think it was no more paying the price than Cersei sleeping with a Kettleblack represented Cersei paying the price for her mistakes (as opposed to the walk of shame from hell). Both marrying Hizdahr and sleeping with Kettleblack(s) were voluntary actions and of themselves mistakes when other better options were available - again, subject to disagreement but see my other recent posts.

[iamthedave]

All ancient mythologies have male perfect heroes, ancient literature from the whole world has them, all epic songs have one flawless invincible knight in shining armor. It's older than dirt. They're usually called "heroes" by that reason. Gods get out of the way to help them win when they should lose, their enemies are irrevocably evil with no redeeming qualities, they have some rare and supernatural quality or possession, the other characters gravitate towards them, story bends to put them in a position to take advantage of a supposed disadvantage or simply get away clean from a major mistake... That's what main characters in epic stories are. And that's what makes them interesting and fun to read.

I think Hercules is a bad example here; he was and is presented as a complete asshole, and his 'enemies' included the Amazons who were not in any way presented as being 'evil' irrevocably or otherwise.

Then there's Circe's role in the Odyssey, where again she is not presented as having no redeeming qualities.

You're also making a gross mistake in mentioning the gods, given that the gods themselves are usually the reason the heroes end up in trouble in the first place. The Grecian gods might go out of their way to help the heroes - SOMETIMES - but they equally go out of their way to make their lives hell. Hercules' entire plotline comes out of the fact he happens to be an illegitimate son of a god and that god's wife is pissed off about it. The gods aren't some deus ex machina (usually, at least), they're central characters in the story. Same with Odysseus, who both benefits from the gods' kindness and is smited by them on multiple occasions.

Not to mention you're bringing up stories where the heroes DIE, usually horribly, at the end. Hercules' end is appalling, and Jason of the Argonauts dies a sad, pathetic end as well. Grecian heroes were built up only to be torn down, in the most part. There's little evidence to believe that Dany is a tragic hero.

You may disagree and clinch to the "evolution" of the Mary Sue concept but by doing so you're supporting the people who used it to cow female (and sometimes male) authors from writing strong female characters simply labelling them as "Mary Sues" or "Anti Sues" and encouraging them to write uninteresting women with no special qualities at all - ie, uninteresting characters. IMHO, that sexist use is frequent enough to refute the "evolved Mary Sue" concept, giving it indiscriminately every time a female character with heroic qualities shows up.

I don't see anyone on this entire forum accusing Brienne of Tarth, the most undeniably heroic female character in the story, a sue. Can you find someone who makes this claim?

While I can agree that Daenerys has a substantial amount of Plot Armour, so did Jon Snow (infiltrates wildlings despite being so bad at it, gets away because of Summer being at the right place at the right time, Lord Commander of the NW at 15 at a critical moment? sure), Tyrion (always, always gets out of everything), Littlefinger (all his plans are perfect, nothing unexpected happens that ruins them), Varys (same), Barristan Selmy (getting out of KL after insulting the King?), Samwell (this kind of character would never survive a place like the NW in the real world), Arya Stark (crosses the whole Riverlands unharmed, gets away every time she's captured, escapes the Red Wedding by a hair, recovers her lost sword, kills seasoned soldiers, only 11 years-old?), Davos Seaworth (his plot to kill Melissandre is rewarded with promotion, smuggling Edric out of Westeros -against Stannis's wishes- goes unpunished, his misfortunes are always turned into fortunes), and to a lesser degree Bran Stark (God bless Jojen's dreams!) and Cersei (until Tywin died).

Most of whom have all encountered fair amounts of criticism on these boards for the exact reasons you lay out here.

Why does Dany get more? Dany gets greater rewards for suffering less. That's the sum of the reason why Dany gets more hate. It's not 'because she's a woman'. If you want to cling to the dislike for Dany being because she's a woman then why bother pretending to be involved in a debate? It's impossible to ever argue fairly in that situation. Once you've prescribed a sexist cause for arguments against Dany, then anything which is relevant or not is instantly dismissed as sexist.

However, the Mary-Sue labelling and the forum hate against her could possibly be the reasons behind her character decay in ADWD. And that would be unfortunate for the whole series: if GRRM was trying to disprove those accusations, it made her a boring character that still got Anti-Sue accusations nevertheless and disappointed Dany's fans.

That's an interesting postulation at least. What would you point to as possible examples that would support the argument, though? I can't see anything which really suggests Martin veered off course with Dany beyond what we knew already. His dreaded 'Meereenese knot' which most of us have surmised to be him trying to come up with a good reason for Dany to leave Meereen when her plotline had so firmly stuck her there and it would have been antithetical to the character to abandon 'her' people after where she left off.

Having Dany - as she's been accused - become witless and yet still come out of the tale much stronger (dragonrider) doesn't strike me as an attempt to convince people she's not a sue. If anything it provides more ammo. At this point, who can you think of who fails more spectacularly in a position of rulership and comes out of it so well?

[Brienne the Beauty]

I don't see anyone on this entire forum accusing Brienne of Tarth, the most undeniably heroic female character in the story, a sue.

She's heroic, but not very successful. Mary Sue hate is against powerful women who get things done. Even the broadest of definitions of "Mary Sue" won't include an ugly, irrationally hated, unsuccessful woman.

Great post by the way Lord Qorgyle. I agree completely.

[Shaun Snow]

Again, voluntary and itself a mistake. Sounds like we disagree: you think this was Dany paying a tough price for her mistakes. I think it was no more paying the price than Cersei sleeping with a Kettleblack represented Cersei paying the price for her mistakes (as opposed to the walk of shame from hell). Both marrying Hizdahr and sleeping with Kettleblack(s) were voluntary actions and of themselves mistakes when other better options were available - again, subject to disagreement but see my other recent posts.

All prostitution is voluntary to a degree, its what seperates it from rape. In a perfect world, would Dany have wanted to let Hizdahr have his way with her? I doubt it. But thats what she felt she had to do to fix the mess she made in Meereen. Mistake and consequence. We can agree to disagree with no hard feelings, though sure.

[Wethers]

All prostitution is voluntary to a degree, its what seperates it from rape. In a perfect world, would Dany have wanted to let Hizdahr have his way with her? I doubt it. But thats what she felt she had to do to fix the mess she made in Meereen. Mistake and consequence. We can agree to disagree with no hard feelings, though sure.

Agree to disagree. Either way, would you agree it's just a sliiightly lesser price to pay than say, dying by treachery? Like Jon Snow. And Catelyn. And Robb. And Ned, or being imprisoned in the sky cells or the black cells for long periods, having your nose cut off, and being unloved and universally hated and ridiculed by everyone like Tyrion, or being mutilated and flayed like Theon etc. etc. etc.

[Shaun Snow]

Agree to disagree. Either way, would you agree it's just a sliiightly lesser price to pay than say, dying by treachery? Like Jon Snow. And Catelyn. And Robb. And Ned, or being imprisoned in the sky cells or the black cells for long periods, having your nose cut off, and being unloved and universally hated and ridiculed by everyone like Tyrion, or being mutilated and flayed like Theon etc. etc. etc.

To all of the above except the imprisonment and ridicule ones, yes I would agree its a lesser punishment. But I don't feel it an insignificant one.

[Lord Qorgyle]

I think Hercules is a bad example here; he was and is presented as a complete asshole, and his 'enemies' included the Amazons who were not in any way presented as being 'evil' irrevocably or otherwise.

I don't want to get too much derailed from the main thread, so I'll be concise. Those were examples of classic heroes; some may fit the trope, some may not. This isn't the place for discussing them in detail, because that was not the point. The point is that the broad definition of Mary (Canon) Sue you're trying to pour into throats is, well, too broad. Virtually any relevant character in any epic story may be called a Canon Sue / Canon Stu if you find him annoying. The difference between an "ideal character" and a "too ideal character" is a matter of perception: when does something become "too" ideal? When you say so. And any linguist knows that any definition that is too broad or covers more than advisable is a useless definition.

Canon Sues are, in particular, a controversial issue. It happens to be used too hastily to vindicate any character that isn't liked by the reader / viewer. If I don't like it, I say it's a "Mary Sue" and that's all. It's like nazificating a character. It doesn't have to be an opinion shared by the majority of people because the baggage carried by the term is so heavy that it is burdensome enough. TVTropes even questions itself if Canon Sues exist, or whether is it convenient that they do exist because the legitimacy of extending a term from fanfic to literature is tricky.

"Also, with the general trend of Mary Sue being used as an all-encompassing insult for any positively portrayed character, this accusation gets thrown around a lot without much basis in fact."

The funny thing about Mary Sues is that the list of traits associated to them is so long and varied that is really hard to write a fantasy novel without NO Mary Sue traits.

I don't see anyone on this entire forum accusing Brienne of Tarth, the most undeniably heroic female character in the story, a sue. Can you find someone who makes this claim?

She's an Anti Sue, obviously. GRRM goes to great lengths in AFFC to show us how ugly she is and how much people despise her and mock her because of her looks and her decision to become a female knight instead of living a maiden's life. She also fails to accomplish nothing she was intended to do. But still anyone that gets to know her more seems to become fond of her.

Obviously I don't really think she's an Anti Sue, but I wanted to show that it's too easy to divide female relevant characters into either category. If they're pretty and interesting / attractive, they can easily be called (Canon) Mary Sues. If they're ugly, then they're Anti Sues. But the list of categories and infamous labels is endless. Sansa Stark is a Purity Sue. Catelyn Stark is a Sympathetic Sue. Arya Stark is a Mary Tzu. Cersei Lannister is a Villain Sue. Any female character that is relevant to the plot can be accused of being some kind of Sue. It is so easy that it's completely useless.

But then I'm just a young boy who knows nothing of Mary Sues and wanted to participate in the discussion.

Most of whom have all encountered fair amounts of criticism on these boards for the exact reasons you lay out here.

Probably we should just accept that GRRM uses Plot Armor a LOT to keep the story going in the direction he needs. Dany is just the most extreme case, for the reasons I detail below.

Why does Dany get more?

Because her position in the beginning of the story is the weakest of all. She has nothing: no wealth, no land, no soldiers, no education for rulership, and only a pair of assets. The Iron Throne wants her dead. Littlefinger had more assets when he began playing the Game, and it took him years. Her only capital is Targaryen looks and a dubious claim to the Throne. In order to get where she can become a serious contender for the Iron Throne, GRRM needs to give her a credible military force out of nowhere, and that's impossible to achieve without some use of coincidences, lucky events, etc. At some points, GRRM has been too kind to her, I agree, but then making her even more perfect would have been worse (more Suish, if you want) than not. If the author wants Daenerys to be a major power by the end of the series, she must protect her somehow until she becomes one.

Dany gets greater rewards for suffering less. That's the sum of the reason why Dany gets more hate. It's not 'because she's a woman'. If you want to cling to the dislike for Dany being because she's a woman then why bother pretending to be involved in a debate? It's impossible to ever argue fairly in that situation. Once you've prescribed a sexist cause for arguments against Dany, then anything which is relevant or not is instantly dismissed as sexist.

I'm not saying that all the cause against Daenerys is because she's a woman. You have legitimate reasons to dislike her. You don't have to support her as a character, or to root for her success. You may even hate her if it pleases all of you.

However the "Mary Sue" label IS a sexist accusation and one that should be avoided in discussions regarding any female character because of its negative connotations, its loose definition, and because it's too easy to find Sue traits in fantasy /scifi characters. Same as calling her a "slut" for having sex with Daario (I found it) In general, labelling a canon character as a Mary Sue will only generate internet flames, because it doesn't really work as a legitimate criticism after removing the wish-fulfilment clause that was key to the concepts' origin.

That's an interesting postulation at least. What would you point to as possible examples that would support the argument, though? I can't see anything which really suggests Martin veered off course with Dany beyond what we knew already.

It is pure speculation, based on my reading of the book, and the sudden change in the treatment of Daenerys compared to her previous story arcs in the first three books. You don't have to take it into serious consideration if you don't want to. However I honestly believe it is a possibility. If the author is aware about the criticism that Dany receives from detractors, he may have tried to correct that view with the Meereenese knot, showing her as an imperfect character with flaws and failures. Because he obviously wants her to be a likeable character, but with mixed success thus far.

Having Dany - as she's been accused - become witless and yet still come out of the tale much stronger (dragonrider) doesn't strike me as an attempt to convince people she's not a sue.

It strikes me as a failed attempt to convince people she's not a Sue. The only thing that would convince those who believe she's a Sue that she's not, would be her dying a painful death. Which obviously wasn't the writer's plans.

If anything it provides more ammo. At this point, who can you think of who fails more spectacularly in a position of rulership and comes out of it so well?

It remains to be seen if she's coming out THAT well, the ADWD ending was quite ambiguous. She may still lose Meereen after all, showing her that failure at leadership means losing it. She may have to forget about her ideals and become more pragmatic. And we don't know what this new Dothraki Khal's plans for her will be.

Yes, she's not dead, while Jon Snow may die for similar sins.

[Gogossos]

Why does Dany get more? Dany gets greater rewards for suffering less. That's the sum of the reason why Dany gets more hate.

That is skewed logic at best. I'm a man, so the whole sexism argument can be set aside by both of us. That means there are two components to your argument:

Dany suffers less

To satisfy you Dany has to die, nothing less. I think, as has been argued, that is a very narrow definition of ultimate suffering. Ned was prepared to die for his principles, no regrets. He thought his life wasn't worth it if he compromises himself to the extent his enemies wanted. It's only when Sansa's life was put in his hands that he relented. So Ned losing his head wasn't as ultimate a suffering as you'd want to argue. Seeing your family suffer (according to Ned) was more. And that's exactly what Dany has gone through. Her son, husband, brother (to an extent) and in her view her brother, nephew, niece, etc. that she's never known. That's suffering. Cat effectively sacrificed her life when Robb was killed. Loved ones dying is ultimate suffering, I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Dany's greater rewards

Greater than who? Being highborn and hence hunted for it all your life seems greater than Sansa in your view. Maybe you have dragons in mind? Well, the Starks found their wolves, Dany effectively sacrificed her son and husband's lives for her dragons. Maybe it's the comfortable life you're thinking about? But forgetting almost dying of thirst and hunger over the red waste. She has earned her army (and hence her pyramid apartment and servants) by paying it with the dragon blood. Are dragons the most powerful symbol? Yes and she gets multiple wars as a result. Either way you look at it, there's a cost to her rewards, bringing the "net reward" to below Sansa's at this point.

Both of these certainly don't explain the level of hate. It's not plot armour, it's not all sexism either, it's not "being dumb" too. The level of hate seems personal, as if GRRM decided to make the prom queen the heroine of the piece who ends up marrying a prince and living in a castle; instead of the tale everyone expects that the prom queen's beauty gets her nowhere, and her quarter-back boyfriend cheats on her before dumping and her eventually turning into a mess. Well, for me, in a story fool of unspeakable unfairness, I'd like to hope some semblance of reward exists for our characters.

[Ivy Snow]

Longtime Daenerys hater here. Did anybody else get really and irrationally angry at her "Stark was a traitor who died a traitor's death" comments to Selmy? I get that Ned rebelled against her father and played a huge part in overthrowing her family's dynasty -- but, listen, lady, your dad kind of fried Ned's dad, strangled his brother, and your brother by popular account (which we the reader know to be wrong but Dany doesn't) kidnapped Ned's sister. Also, he tried to save your life when Robert wanted to kill you. It made me want to talk to some sense into the woman.

THIS.... I didn't like Danny that much before but I never hated her... until she said those. I blame Selmy for this in a way. He should have told Danny how crazy her father is and he roasted Rickard alive while making his son watch and strangling him at the same time. While her brother took Lynna without explaining why so people took it as kidnap. Anyone in their right mind would rise up and rebel if the king did that to your family.

I kinda don't want to suffer any Danny chapters, I know its impossible but heck, a girl like me can dream. IMo I would have enjoyed ADWD better if there were more Bran POV, Theon and Davos POV than Danny.

edit: typo errors

[Olenna]

Both of these certainly don't explain the level of hate. It's not plot armour, it's not all sexism either, it's not "being dumb" too. The level of hate seems personal, as if GRRM decided to make the prom queen the heroine of the piece who ends up marrying a prince and living in a castle; instead of the tale everyone expects that the prom queen's beauty gets her nowhere, and her quarter-back boyfriend cheats on her before dumping and her eventually turning into a mess.

I think this really nails it. There is something a bit cheerleadery or beauty-pageant-like about Dany, with her perfect looks and simplistic platitudes and (arguably) unearned high status and good luck. To give her a happy ending on top of that could seem unfair in a story where pretty much everyone else is a tragic figure or an underdog. And of course readers are conditioned to root for the underdog.

But I'm pretty sure she will be a tragic figure. Right before she marries Hizdahr she has a dream about having scary sex with a blue-lipped man, which may well be a prophecy of bad times with Euron. And her entire last chapter, where she realizes that she's only good at conquering and not good at ruling, could be a foreshadowing of what will happen in Westeros. Does anyone seriously think she'll wind up as queen of Westeros and living happily ever after as a wonderful ruler? I don't. The ending will be bittersweet. She will likely die through one of the betrayals.

In short, it isn't really possible to assess whether someone's a Mary Sue until the end of the story. Could be she's being set up for an epic fall.

[Grogsmash]

THIS.... I didn't like Danny that much before but I never hated her... until she said those. I blame Selmy for this in a way. He should have told Danny how crazy her father is and he roasted Rickard alive while making his son watch and strangling him at the same time. While her brother took Lynna without explaining why so people took it as kidnap. Anyone in their right mind would rise up and rebel if the king did that to your family.

It has been said a 100 times in threads like these, but it is absurd to think that Dany would have any other thoughts about Stark at this time. She was raised her entire life to believe that her father was a good man killed by evil traitors. Her only insight on anything in Westeros was Viserys and possibly Ilyrio.

Now finally she has one person in her life giving her a different viewpoint, but obviously its going to take awhile for her to be willing to listen.