A Daenerys Character Arc Reread II

[flame7926]

I think of it like killing 163 random members of a ruling class after a war in which atrocities were committed. Like if after WW2 all the Japanese generals were killed that were in charge of the attacks on Nanking.

The people she killed were all associated with the group that led the killings. It wasn't just a few random people, it was the group as a whole. Sure, there might have been a few people who disagreed. They should have escaped or in some way distanced themselves from it. I think she was absolutely right in killing random people, because, they werent random. The leaders were all slavers, and probably did worse things than nailing up children. They all were part of the society that didnt believe that was wrong, and she did . There is no reason to think they werent all in agreement about nailing up children. So, she should have killed them all.

[Sevumar]

Handy for you to ignore the multiple other examples I gave which were omissions within character's own PoVs. *applause*

I knew the content of the Ned one well enough off the top of my head that I didn't have to review the text to make a response. I'm looking at the Tyrion one you mentioned.

It requires some interpretation to say that because my post did not include a response to those examples, that I must not intend to remark on them. :laugh:

[Sevumar]

Sevumar, if Dany was attempting to deal with every grievance by knocking down doors, and crucifying suspects then I would be worried.

You're not bothered by the many significant issues of justice and morality raised by Dany's actions. But I am bothered by her actions and by the attempts to justify things we should all be appalled at.

The fury that Dany feels at such callous regard for human life is completely understandable, and IMO so is the punishment she metes out. Your sticking point is that the text doesn't indicate that she went about finding who these men were, but it doesn't suggest that she didn't know. I truly believe that it's a given that those people sitting in front of her are responsible and when asked for how many will have to pay for what was done,

When you answer murder with the corresponding executions of the first 163 people surrendered to you by a frightened group of people, you have lost any claim to moral superiority. The words she uses to describe her feelings during the incident suggest that she's reacting out of a gut feeling of anger, and we see other examples of exactly this type of behavior from her throughout the series. There's no acceptable justification, period.

Dany gives a number. If Martin wanted, one of her advisors could have simply come up to her at this point and pointed out - as they do later on - that there's no real way of knowing who did exactly what. That they do not says a lot to me. My contention is that it doesn't matter who did exactly what in the scenario. Is the man who went to get the slave child any less responsible than the one who pounded in the nails, or gave the order?

You may not be troubled about questions of guilt or using vengeance as a cheap and easy subsititute for justice, but I am. As I said above (and is actually stated slightly differently in the books) the real test isn't doing what's just or moral when it's easy, it's when the situation is difficult.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

I knew the content of the Ned one well enough off the top of my head that I didn't have to review the text to make a response. I'm looking at the Tyrion one you mentioned.

It requires some interpretation to say that because my post did not include a response to those examples, that I must not intend to remark on them.

It's a cheap debate strategy to look at someone's argument and pick out only the points that are easy to rebut for some irrelevant reason, and then ignore the rest (especially if the rest actually includes a rebuttal to the point you are making - in this case you argue that the Sansa example shouldn't count because it's not her PoV, when I immediately gave examples that both were and were not within a character's PoV).

The fact that you didn't quote the rest of the argument was particularly bothersome in this case, because it makes it look as if my argument was weaker than it was.

If you did not intend to misrepresent me then no problem.

[brashcandy]

You're not bothered by the many significant issues of justice and morality raised by Dany's actions. But I am bothered by her actions and by the attempts to justify things we should all be appalled at.

I am appalled, by what the slavers did. Your contention is that Dany carried out a miscarriage of justice simply because we are not precisely told about the crimes relating to each and every one of those 163 men. I have little doubt that each one wasn't involved in either the planning or execution phase, so I'm sorry if I can't rouse my moral fibre for them.

When you answer murder with the corresponding executions of the first 163 people surrendered to you by a frightened group of people, you have lost any claim to moral superiority. The words she uses to describe her feelings during the incident suggest that she's reacting out of a gut feeling of anger, and we see other examples of exactly this type of behavior from her throughout the series. There's no acceptable justification, period.

Frightened group of people? Are we supposed to feel sympathy for them now? Perhaps, but of course they're frightened! They've been conquered and now they have to answer for what was done. Yes Dany is reacting out of anger, and maybe she comes to regret her brutal measures, but that doesn't mean that she executed innocent men or that her principle wasn't correct.

You may not be troubled about questions of guilt or using vengeance as a cheap and easy subsititute for justice, but I am. As I said above (and is actually stated slightly differently in the books) the real test isn't doing what's just or moral when it's easy, it's when the situation is difficult.

And what proof do you have that these men weren't guilty, Sevumar. Pray tell me and then perhaps I will be able to become as troubled as you are. Until then, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[Sevumar]

Another example is in Tyrion's last aSoS PoV. When he decides to climb up to Tywin's chamber, he never thinks about how he's about to confront (and possibly kill) his father "aloud" to the reader - but of course this is probably what was foremost on his mind.

I've just reread this part, and I don't think the parallel holds. For one thing, what you're saying is unclear here is Tyrion's motivation and his intentions, not his actions. During his confrontation with Jamie, we get a direct threat against all the members of his immediate family (“Oh, you’ve earned more than that, Jaime. You and my sweet sister and our loving father, yes, I can’t begin to tell you what you’ve earned. But you’ll have it, that I swear to you. A Lannister always pays his debts.”). When he realizes that they're beneath the Tower of the Hand, it's not all that mysterious that he might be attempting to take his revenge there.

And then there's the fact that this event is a major turning point for Tyrion's character, breaking the last tie to his family. He will continue to brood on this action, his motivation, it's meaning, and how he will go forward throughout ADWD. It's very clear that this is a major thing and additional revelations about this thougths, intentions, and state of mind will be out of place. We really don't see the same markers of importance with Dany in this chapter.

Dany's PoV especially in aSoS is full of holes where we dont' know what happened, and we've discussed several of them. Like, how much advice did she get between chapters about what to do next? How and why exactly did she decide to attack Yunkai, or when did she determine that she would steal the Unsullied? It's unclear. The lack of a description of a character's feelings or thoughts does not mean that they did not have them. Rather GRRM uses this as a way to build suspense and sometimes to influence the reader in specific ways.

As you've said, these are primarily things that occur between chapters, and the events from that list that are truly important in her development play out over the course of several pages/chapters. They have little in common with a several sentence long recollection of an event that really doesn't get revisited all that much.

To be honest, I'm not sure we're meant to weigh how much advice she got, or why she decided to attack Yunkai. Those are things that come up in the minds of readers who are hungry for every detail they can pick from the text, but there haven't been any followup revelations suggesting that something absent from the text is significant in any way. I've long said that the pacing of ASoS is a bit faster than I prefer, and that the arcs of several characters feel disjointed as a result.

[Sevumar]

I am appalled, by what the slavers did. Your contention is that Dany carried out a miscarriage of justice simply because we are not precisely told about the crimes relating to each and every one of those 163 men. I have little doubt that each one wasn't involved in either the planning or execution phase, so I'm sorry if I can't rouse my moral fibre for them.

I am also appalled by the crucifixion of the children, but I also believe that if something is to be called justice, it must be significantly different from vengeance. It must show an effort to ascertain which person committed which act, that he is to be held responsible for the things he is alleged to have done, and that there is a prescribed punishment under law for this crime.

Frightened group of people? Are we supposed to feel sympathy for them now? Perhaps, but of course they're frightened! They've been conquered and now they have to answer for what was done. Yes Dany is reacting out of anger, and maybe she comes to regret her brutal measures, but that doesn't mean that she executed innocent men or that her principle wasn't correct.

Why shouldn't you feel sorry for someone who has been dehumanized and believes that she is about to be cut down without reason or explanation? The fighting has ended, and this is no longer a battle. These people have surrendered and they are helpless. There is a reason that the accused have rights in all modern legal systems worthy of the name. That you are so untroubled by what Dany does here is very telling.

If you are interested in good discussion about issues of justice, leadership, and morality in ASOIAF, I would suggest listening to the podcast that Sean T. Collins and Stefan Sasse started a few weeks ago. There are links from Sean's site, http://boiledleather.com .They've done a pretty thorough treatment of several of the topics we've discussed in this thread, and a good takedown of a lot of of reasoning people try to use to excuse the brutality of their favorite characters.

And what proof do you have that these men weren't guilty, Sevumar. Pray tell me and then perhaps I will be able to become as troubled as you are. Until then, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm not required to prove that they're not guilty. Dany is the one who wants to administer punishment for a crime, so the burden is on her and she failed to meet it. Spectacularly.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

As you've said, these are primarily things that occur between chapters, and the events from that list that are truly important in her development play out over the course of several pages/chapters. They have little in common with a several sentence long recollection of an event that really doesn't get revisited all that much.

No, they are not only events that occur between chapters. For example Dany's plan to steal the unsullied was obfuscated during a paragraph break, something that you claim never happens but in fact is exactly similar to the lack of description seen in this case.

"Dany called Ser Jorah and her Bloodriders to her tent. They were the only ones she trusted."

The character of Dany is obviously thinking here about her plan. We hear none of the details because GRRM has chosen not to tell us. He does this all the frakkin' time.

Another example from a character that is not Dany is Jon's long conference with Tormund, about which we still know nothing. We literally only know that Jon sat down with Tormund and had a long meeting just prior to his announcement to go south. We don't even know if it was significant, but that hasn't stopped several readers here from speculating on what might have happened that could explain Jon's behaviour in the rest of the chapter. Some have that Jon and Tormund were simply planning the assault on Winterfell that Jon announces, while others think that there was some grand plan involving Jon faking his death or something similarly conspiratorial.

[Sevumar]

No, they are not only events that occur between chapters. For example Dany's plan to steal the unsullied was obfuscated during a paragraph break, something that you claim never happens but in fact is exactly similar to the lack of description seen in this case.

"Dany called Ser Jorah and her Bloodriders to her tent. They were the only ones she trusted."

I didn't say it never happens; I said that this case doesn't contain any indication that anything like this is occurring here. When Martin employs this particular technique, there's usually a sense that it's coming and that the omitted information is important and will be revealed in the future, usually the next chapter.

The character of Dany is obviously thinking here about her plan. We hear none of the details because GRRM has chosen not to tell us. He does this all the frakkin' time.

The fact that she's formulating a plan is telegraphed. Nothing like that happens in the three short lines we're discussing here. Furthermore, this concerns something that will take place in the future, while the passage of concern is a recollection of events that have already taken place. Once again, there is no indication in the surrounding or supporting text that hints at omitted events. Her recollection clearly and smoothly moves from one line to the next, with pretty obvious cause and effect.

Another example from a character that is not Dany is Jon's long conference with Tormund, about which we still know nothing. We literally only know that Jon sat down with Tormund and had a long meeting just prior to his announcement to go south. We don't even know if it was significant, but that hasn't stopped several readers here from speculating on what might have happened that could explain Jon's behaviour in the rest of the chapter. Some have that Jon and Tormund were simply planning the assault on Winterfell that Jon announces, while others think that there was some grand plan involving Jon faking his death or something similarly conspiratorial.

Once again, in this case, we are talking about information (plans, intentions, motives) that quite likely concerns the future. The fact of our incomplete knowledge is made obvious as a part of the telegraph:

“I think we had best change the plan,” Jon Snow said.

They talked for the best part of two hours.

No such indication appears in the passage from Dany's chapter. There is a seamless transition from the woman's question directly to the straightforward retelling of Dany's atrocity. From what we've seen of Martin's writing style, concealed information or misdirection is usually hinted at in some way. The event that Dany is retelling in this chapter just does not fit the pattern for Martin's use of this technique. There is no good reason to assume that the events are substantially different from Dany's retelling at this point in time.

[PatrickStormborn]

I always took the lack of information about the 163 men she had crucified to show that their identity really wasn't important in the narrative. What's important is the guilt Daenerys feels after she has the "justice" performed, and how it will affect her in the future.

Perhaps some of the Great Masters who got crucified were ones who were against the crucifixion of the children. But perhaps they were guilty. What I think is very telling is that it was only men who were crucified.

And I'm sorry, but asking the leaders of the city to hand over 163 people is pretty much as fair a trial as Tyrion got. I don't think there would be much evidence to prove if they were innocent or not, and it may instead have led to no one being executed for the murder of the children. I imagine that the only witnesses would have been the other Great Masters (who handed over the 163).

Personally I don't think there was anything wrong with what Daenerys did. She had just sacked the city; it was in chaos, and she had no intentions of staying. She had to make a symbolic gesture, and so she did. If she had've done this action during her rule in Meereen, then I would be appalled, just like I'm appalled by Aerys ordering the deaths of Ned and Robert during peacetime.

That being said, I'd be interested to see where others see her arc taking her, at least at this point? I don't see her ever being a Conciliator, she's far too polarizing and she's introducing massive social upheaval.

She's definitely not going to be a Concillator. I see her as being like Aegon the Conqueror, which is what Westeros needs right now. Westeros doesn't need an Egg (like what Varys seems to be creating in Aegon); Westeros needs a strong leader who can unite them as they face the real battle that is approaching.

Why shouldn't you feel sorry for someone who has been dehumanized and believes that she is about to be cut down without reason or explanation? The fighting has ended, and this is no longer a battle. These people have surrendered and they are helpless. There is a reason that the accused have rights in all modern legal systems worthy of the name. That you are so untroubled by what Dany does here is very telling.

They're slavers. I don't feel sorry for them. They're going "to be cut down" for their past crimes of selling slaves, just like Jorah would have been cut down for selling slaves in Westeros.

And that last sentence is just rude. Brashcandy's views of fictional character performing fictional deeds in a fictional world in a fictional period of time are not "very telling".