A Daenerys Character Arc Reread Thread III

[Sevumar]

Since you invoked my name, I just want to point out that I could easily say the say for your incessant white-washing of Jorah the Slaver who wants to sell abducted children to brothels. In fact, I just did. :stillsick:

You're welcome to say whatever you want, as this is a discussion board, but your statement is not accurate. I've condemned a lot of things that Jorah has done, including his slaving and his attitudes toward slaves. I frequently say that things Jorah does bother me, and I have done so in the past. We differ on many things in our readings of Jorah, for instance, how much he should suffer as a result of the one time he did any slaving, but I don't approve of or support what he did to those poachers. I do think there is an important difference between a man who turns to slaving in a time of weakness and desperation for money as opposed to someone who trades in flesh for his living.

We've already discussed Jorah's advice to Drogo and Dany on the subject of the Lhazareen and Dothraki captives at length. I think it's important to note that Jorah is not in a position to decide the fate of any of these captives, and he's not actually the one doing the slaving. Drogo and Dany were. Is his advice odious? Absolutely, but there's a good chance that it was solicited and that nothing he said or did would've changed the fate of these captives. Nobody was raising any objection to this whole enterprise at the time.

Honestly, I think you just dislike Dany so much that it doesn't matter what she did, you'd condemn her anyway. She makes some questionable decisions but when you snark at people for defending her decision to fine someone for attempting to force his former slaves to compensate him for their slavery, I have to say that I find that pretty interesting myself. Dare I say -- disturbing? *dry voice*

Tze already made a better response than I've prepared to your understatement about Dany, so I won't add anything to it.

I will point out that I praise Dany when I think she does things correctly, and that I raise objections where I believe she has made a bad decision, or done something wrong. My overall view of Dany is that her personal story is one of remarkable resilience and luck, and that she's done a good job of building herself a powerbase from nothing, but that she is absolutely unfit to be a leader of anything, for a variety of reasons ranging from age and inexperience to bad habits and personality traits. I try to judge Dany on her pattern of behavior, and I did not come to disapprove of her as a leader as a result of any one incident.

If petitioners are stupid, cruel, and avaricious enough to attempt to force their former slaves to compensate them for the wonderful opportunity of being enslaved by them, then they should suffer. If they are foolish enough not to understand why they should suffer, then another fine to drive home the point would not be taken amiss. My heart bleeds for their suffering, verily it bleeds.

Tze's response to this is right on the money. In general, Dany's reasoning in the matter of justice is nearly nonexistent and her decisions tend to be made in the heat of the moment. In this recent round of discussion, posters have tried to ascribe all kinds of high-minded motives to her actions and craft all kinds of justifications that don't have any basis in the text. Dany tells us her reason for adding "and a loom" to this judgment, and it's petty personal disapproval of the man forgetting the slave's name.

Dont' do this because it adds nothing to the discussion. It's simple politeness not to insult other boarders for no reason.

I have not "insulted other boarders for no reason." I have not called them names, nor raised points that had nothing to do with the discussion.

It seems to me that when you post an opinion on a discussion board, and you imbue that opinion with statements about your own moral beliefs, you are putting them up for discussion. It's more than fair for me to give my opinion of others' opinions/reactions, and to express disapproval/disbelief/shock at their points of view. Others have done the same in response to things I have said, and I don't feel insulted by it. It's part of the discussion process. We are sharing and debating the various views people have of Martin's characters, their motives, and their actions. It is only natural and appropriate that our own moral views would inform this discussion.

If you want to go ahead and think that we are horrible people for not condemning Daenerys' actions, that is fine. But spending part of almost every single post you make dwelling on that point is simply unnecessary, rude, and insulting. And yes, you bring it up A LOT, whereas as far as I can tell none of us have returned the insult.

I have never said that anyone is a horrible person for not sharing my condemnation of Dany's actions. Occasionally, I am genuinely surprised by the fact that some people on these boards can hold the beliefs they say they hold in these discussions. When that is the case, I mention it, but I never have attempted to derail the conversation into a discussion of <poster X's> morality and its validity. I maintain that there is no insult here and you are, of course, free to disregard any part of my posts that you don't wish to discuss.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

ETA: I've decided to drop this argument. I think Ive made my position clear and hope that we can keep the discussion civil like it has been for the last 1000+ posts. I apologize for any bad feelings. Please, just avoid dismissive or insulting arguments whenever possible.

To the meat of the matter (in response to Alkion)

I agree with your position on the Tokar issue. As I said, I changed my mind and now agree with Alexia and others who say that the Tokar should probably only be banned in court. I also expressed concern with a number of Dany's decisions becoming inconsistent (mostly those arising out of her attempts to enforce the blanket pardon for crimes committed during the sack).

I don't agree with the issue of the loom being dwelt upon. Such discretionary and symbolic punishments/fines are very common, even in US courts of law today. It's not just King Solomon's thing, it's an established part of jurisprudence. And to be clear, discretionary judgements are not legislation. By declaring that this man must buy a loom for these woman during sentencing, that does not mean that she has made a law that every freed weaver should expect a loom from her former master.

The thing I really strongly disagree with in your, Tze, and Semuvar's posts is the ultimate judgement made, which I feel is premature. Is GRRM trying to tell us that Dany's a bad ruler/queen/person/mad, or he trying to demonstrate how even the those with good intentions that try to act from principle can make a mess of things?

[SeanF]

Neither in Essos nor in Westeros is there anything approaching the rule of law as we would understand it. Nor is there anything approaching the degree of sophistication of English Common Law in medieval times. The best people can hope for is that their ruler will try to do justice on an ad hoc basis; the worst they can expect is that might is right.

Given that Daenerys has no legal training, and given the limitations of her time and place, I don't think her rulings are bad ones. She's trying to be even-handed, as between the free Mereenese and the former slaves, and like many people who try to be even-handed, she ends up satisfying no one. But, I still think it's to her credit that she does make the effort.

The easy course of action would just be to institute a reign of terror against the free population. They could be killed or driven out, and it may well be, that by the end of ADWD, that's the course of action she's decided on. But, I think that from a moral point of view, it's a good thing that she does not rule as a tyrant (she may eventually become one) - and it's not totally futile either. A minority of the free Mereenese do favour her rule.

Her attempts to win them over though, are fatally compromised by the mass crucifixion. That was savage enough to make them hate her, without being savage enough to terrorise them completely. And it conflicted with her decree that crimes committed during and before the sack of the city were to be amnestied.

[Morte]

I was mostly thinkly mostly of Drogon's behaviour in the HOTU, when she tricks the slavers into buying him and he resists, or when we get descriptions of the dragons snapping at each other over the food Dany is feeding them. It's minor really, but it wasn't hard for me to imagine the behaviour in ADWD at least. When they're younger they depend on her for food, and they can't fly as yet, but later as they get older and can fly, it seems plausible to expect that they would become more fierce and begin to give problems.

I think the hunting game the dragons play is nothing different from that you could see at cats or dogs or lions or little bears, no forshadowing here in my opinion, however dragons have to be taught earlier and better, as they are even more dangerous than dire wolfes.

I tend to think from the man's reactions that Drogon did kill the child. If he was an imposter, he would have been much more public in revealing the bones. I found his quiet, desperate sorrow to be very convincing...

You're right that the Dragons had never harmed anyone before except on command, and they don't kill anyone again until Quentyn because Dany locks them up (well we don't know what Drogon is doing for most of the book, though he kills plenty in the fighting pits later).

I just thought that they behavior may come from being untended? Young animals (and children! remember Rickon) tend to react quickly and very extreme then they feel rejected and negleted. If a dragon can become 200 and more years old they are basically badies, at least very very small children, and they think of Dany as their mother.

Generelly I think we get a glimp of Dany's problems very clear in this first chapter: She tries to make things work but does forget herself and her ideals in the process by trying to win the former slavers while not harming the interests of her freedmen to much, in this way running the risk of loosing the support and love of her people while not gaining anything with the slavers, as loosing your angle will only let you look weak in the eyes of your enemies, but not help we win them to your side.

On the amnesty: I agree that she tried to "clean the tables" and setting a strict line for event after the sack of the city (as she did punish crimes just after the sack), but I also agree that she should have excluded at least rape.

[PatrickStormborn]

Generelly I think we get a glimp of Dany's problems very clear in this first chapter: She tries to make things work but does forget herself and her ideals in the process by trying to win the former slavers while not harming the interests of her freedmen to much, in this way running the risk of loosing the support and love of her people while not gaining anything with the slavers, as loosing your angle will only let you look weak in the eyes of your enemies, but not help we win them to your side.

This is exactly how I feel about Dany's time in Meereen. It's very frustrating, but I think this lesson will be very beneficial when she lands in Westeros.

On the amnesty: I agree that she tried to "clean the tables" and setting a strict line for event after the sack of the city (as she did punish crimes just after the sack), but I also agree that she should have excluded at least rape.

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this... On one hand, rape should always be punished. But I wonder how hard it would be for her to enforce a ruling that happened whilst she was taking the city? It's a difficult situation.

[Sevumar]

Since the discussion has turned to dragons, it reminded me about a part of this chapter that I found intriguing, the beginning of the chapter where Dany is alone with Viserion, considering her situation, the dragons, and her goals in Meereen. Viserion is described as coiled around a pear tree, resting his head on his tail. She approaches him, scratches him under the jaw, and finds the dragon very warm to the touch. She begins to wonder if the dragons have been fighting again, and what she's to do with them, then this happens:

Viserion’s tail lashed sideways, thumping the trunk of the tree so hard that a pear came tumbling down to land at Dany’s feet.

His wings unfolded, and he half flew, half hopped onto the parapet.

I wondered if there might not be something symbolic about this, and thinking back to the discussion of Renly's peach, I decided to do some reading about what role pears have served in literary and cultural symbolism throughout history. This is most likely an exercise in reading way too much into this part of the text, but I found it interesting.

Pears are said to symbolize a number of things, but without a uniform meaning worldwide. Here are some of the more interesting associations I found in an overview written by Jules Janick of Purdue University:

• The Chinese associated it with "justice, longevity, purity, wisdom, and benevolent administration." Many of these themes hold special importance for Dany, especially as they relate to her attempt to govern Meereen.
  
• In Korean culture, the pear may mean "grace, nobility, and purity" while the pear tree itself is seen as a source of comfort.
  
• For Christian writers and artists, the pear has been used to symbolize "Christ’s love for mankind."
  
• It has also been used as a symbol for affection and as a representation of the human heart.
  

For Dany's situation, I think the Chinese and Korean interpretations of the pear's meaning could hold special significance. We know that Dany's idealism is largely born of her personal experiences, and that she has deep attachments to the concepts of justice and good governance. One of her biggest challenges thus far in her story has been finding a way to put these ideas into practice without doing further damage to the society she's trying to rebuild. A pear that falls to her feet, shaken loose by a departing dragon could signal that these goals are to continue being elusive and that her inability to keep the dragons in check plays a role in her Meereenese failures.

In this chapter, we're told Dany's dreams include a house with a red door, a theme that is often repeated in Dany's chapters, and one usually associated with a sense of longing for a normal life and a home she never really had. The house with the red door symbolizes perhaps the only time in her life that Dany knew true comfort in permanence of place and in the feeling protected from her family's enemies.

This theme could be further reinforced by her encounter with Viserion near the pear tree, drawing on the Korean symbolism of the fruit. This is one of the few quiet places in the city where she can have a private moment with one of her dragons. Until now, the dragons number among those few of her companions that she could rely on for affection and companionship, utterly loyal, and seemingly attuned to her moods. The pear that falls after Viserion's departure could easily punctuate her thoughts about this period ending, and at the turbulent future (and reduced closeness) ahead for both Dany and the dragons.

In the context of Korean interpretations, Janick also mentions that in Korea, the dying of pear blossoms may be equated with the "sadness and coldness of departure." In a way, this chapter is a point of departure for Dany and the dragons. By the end of the book, Dany will still see herself as the "mother" of all three, although she will only ride one of them, Drogon. She will come to believe that safeguarding the people of Meereen from the danger of the dragons necessitates their transition from children to prisoners, and her focus on courtly live and administration will mean reduced interaction with them. This is something both readers and Dany look back on with a sense of sadness following ADWD.

To a lesser extent, connections can be made for the Christian symbolism of the pear and for its resemblance to the human heart. Dany is one of ASOIAF's two characters who show appreciation and concern for the humanity of people traditionally ignored or victimized by others. We get the sense that she genuinely cares for the people she's trying to help, even if she's not experiencing a lot of success, and she wants these people to love her back. Martin has commented extensively about the centrality of the "human heart in conflict with itself" to his stories and his characters. Dany's heart is a very conflicted one all throughout the story, but in ADWD, that conflict will begin to hurt other people.

We could also interpret the significance of the pear for Viserion and the other dragons, two of whom are about to lose their freedom of movement. There will always be bonds of affection between Viserion (and Rhaegal) and Dany, but Viserion's conflict with his elder brother and Dany's growing distance will change the character of that relationship. For Viserion, like Dany, there's no going back to a more idyllic past, as the natures of both are far different from the calm suggested by the scene near the pear tree.

If AFFC, which runs parallel to this early part of ADWD, a character remarks on the significance of the sigil of House Toland, a dragon biting its own tail. Viserion is described in just this position. To steal a phrase from Battlestar Galactica, all of this has happened before and all of it will happen again.

None of this is to imply that I think Martin has intended all the parallels I have discussed, but I do think it's fascinating to try to tease out possible meanings for the setting of this brief scene at the beginning of Dany's first ADWD chapter.

[Morte]

This is exactly how I feel about Dany's time in Meereen. It's very frustrating, but I think this lesson will be very beneficial when she lands in Westeros.

I truely hope so; if not it would just be a filler because of the missing 5-year-gap, for this it just have to had been too much work for GRRM ;)

@Sevumar: I need more time to think about your interpretation.

Beside @all (on last thing on the dragons): Am I the only one thinking that Rhaegal will turn out the "female" of the three? He seems much gentler then his brothers (well, for a dragon, that is).

[PatrickStormborn]

Very interesting post, Sevumar. I think that Viserion knocking the peach towards Dany symbolises just how important the dragons really are to her. This is clearly reinforced in her last chapter in ADWD, when Quaithe urges her to remember who she is, and tells her that the dragons have not forgotten.

I think the Chinese interpretation may suggest that, through the dragons, Dany can bring

"justice, longevity, purity, wisdom, and benevolent administration" to wherever she rules. By locking the dragons up, she loses this. Dragons are quite clearly a force of destruction, but despite this Daenerys can use them for good.

[Parwan]

Some Further Considerations on Justice in Westeros and Esos

Eddard Stark is presented as a just man. Probably more than Daenerys Targaryen, he appears to be the sort of person who aims to stand above the crowd, to do justice where others only work for themselves or their families. However, he declares Gregor Clegane guilty and sentences him to death in a procedure that no reasonable person could call a fair trial. Clegane isn't even present. A few lords hem and haw a bit, but no one attempts any true defense of the Mountain.

Later, Lord Stark gathers strong evidence that Queen Cersei is guilty of treason. More than this, the lady confesses. There is no doubt about her guilt. Lord Stark not only fails to arrest her, he actually gives her advice on how to escape. In these two matters, there is no justice, there is no consistency. there is nothing that we would identify as proper jurisprudence. And again, we are talking about Eddard Stark. This is not some run-of-the-mill lord. It certainly isn't Little Finger or Walder Frey.

I have read many attacks on and defenses of Dany. Nothing I have read convinces me that she stands out as a poor leader compared to others in the story--not because of her youth, not because of her emotional makeup, not even because she fails to live up to her claims that she will bring about justice. I have, however, read a few interesting thoughts on this and related issues. Here and there on various threads, one can encounter opinions that go something like this:

The situation is far beyond hope. The "leadership" of Westeros has shown itself to be totally corrupt and/or worthless. Any legitimate ending to the story will involve destruction and ruin. Any attempted "happy ending" will be bogus and unconvincing. I do not subscribe to this dire view of things. If you hold it though, you will have some strong points that you can make for your case.

[Oshu]

This is in response to Parwan

Ned Stark is a honorable man who does the right thing; I don't remember him being raved about for his ideals of justice. The man follows what they call "The old way"; he is all about what we would call "Natural Law". Let me tell you something about natural law....its garbage and it covers both scenarios you talk about in regards to Ned.

As far as leadership goes I would have bet that Ned would have started a war if he ever held the crown. I mean he was ruling in the kings stead like... what.. 1 day? Clegane is sentenced to death and he pretty much declares war on the Lannisters... Awesome because fuck them and such...but I mean...not the peaceful king some might hope for.

[Morte]

@Sevumar: I poundered on that you wrote and think that PatrickStormborn hit the nail on the head in the symbolic meaning of the sceen:

Very interesting post, Sevumar. I think that Viserion knocking the peach towards Dany symbolises just how important the dragons really are to her. This is clearly reinforced in her last chapter in ADWD, when Quaithe urges her to remember who she is, and tells her that the dragons have not forgotten.

I think the Chinese interpretation may suggest that, through the dragons, Dany can bring

"justice, longevity, purity, wisdom, and benevolent administration" to wherever she rules. By locking the dragons up, she loses this. Dragons are quite clearly a force of destruction, but despite this Daenerys can use them for good.

I however want to even extend this:

I think the dragons symbolizies Danys world view here, her self. Of course dragons "don't plant trees", but they are a big part of Dany herself (even a symbol for her, as she is a "dragon" herself, like the Starks are "wolfs", the Lannisters are "lions" and the Tullys are "trouts"), so chaining them may also be a symbol of Dany being chained herself to the situation in Mereene and opinions and decisions she does not only not like, but those are diametrical opposed to her own. She, as stated later, has lost herself.

So this scene would tell us, that Dany can become a just, pure, wise and benevolent ruler, but she must stay true to herself, she must train her dragons, not lock them up (there must be a way: since the dragons began to degenerate in Westeros and Marwyn states that this was (also) because they were locked up, we must asume that they not only were free to fly in Valyria, but also were no thread to the people living there, as the sheer number of them would have been a problem)

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Ned Stark is a honorable man who does the right thing; I don't remember him being raved about for his ideals of justice. The man follows what they call "The old way"; he is all about what we would call "Natural Law". Let me tell you something about natural law....its garbage and it covers both scenarios you talk about in regards to Ned.

I guess that depends on how you define justice. In my opinion both Ned and Daenerys would say that what Ned did was justice. Both of them seem to think that Justice = protect the innocent from the powerful. Is that what justice means? I don't know but it seems to be what these characters think it means.

As far as leadership goes I would have bet that Ned would have started a war if he ever held the crown. I mean he was ruling in the kings stead like... what.. 1 day? Clegane is sentenced to death and he pretty much declares war on the Lannisters... Awesome because fuck them and such...but I mean...not the peaceful king some might hope for.

I agree with this... Ned has a real problem with prejudging people due to their social standing/social connections. He really is prejudiced against anyone with the name Lannister. Yes yes, Tywin was a ruthless bastard who murdered children, and Jaime is an arrogant prick... but the way Ned sees it one Lannister's just as bad as the next. He doesn't bother to ask Jaime why he killed Aerys, and instantly assumes that Jaime was also involved in the murder of Elia and her kids. He "knows" what happened without having to ask. As for the trial of Gregor, if anyone else's bannerman had been accused of slaughtering villagers, Ned would have looked into things before judgement was made. Because it was Tywin's bannerman, Ned prejudges him. Correctly as it turns out but...

This is relevant to the current discussion because Dany has this problem, too. She has a tendency to see groups of people as homogenous and to judge them accordingly. Anyone who owned slaves is worthy of nothing but disdain and contempt, whereas anyone who is a freedman is one of her "children" and deserving of protection and justice. In particular, whenever she makes decisions in anger - e.g. the 163 and "kill everyone in a tokar" - they are affected greatly by her belief that freedmen are worthy of protection whereas slavers are worthy of destruction.

In the end I have a difficult time judging either Ned or Dany too harshly for this. Rape, murder, and slavery are absolutely unacceptable, especially institutionalized rape, murder, and slavery. Gregor deserved to die and needed to be stopped. Slavery must be stopped just as surely. Again I think that GRRM is trying to demonstrate that sometimes good intentions can lead to arbitrary and/or wrong decisions. I don't think he's trying to cause us to actually believe Dany or Ned are "bad leaders". He's trying to show that black and white morality is problematic.

Daenerys attempts throughout aDwD to compromise with the people she loathes. We saw this turn out disasterously once before, when Ned attempted to compromise with Cersei and was crushed utterly. Indeed were it not for Drogon, I think this is what would have happened to her as well. Both Ned and Daenerys actually attempted to act against their prejudices. In Ned's case he was doing it for the same type of justice he always espoused - protect the innocent. In Daenerys' case, the same - she wanted to prevent war and save the lives of her "children".

Is GRRM then saying there can be no compromise with evil??? I seriously doubt it. The general message I get is there is no right choice, every choice will cause suffering. All we can do is to try to make decisions that minimizes the amount of suffering.

[PatrickStormborn]

As far as leadership goes I would have bet that Ned would have started a war if he ever held the crown. I mean he was ruling in the kings stead like... what.. 1 day? Clegane is sentenced to death and he pretty much declares war on the Lannisters... Awesome because fuck them and such...but I mean...not the peaceful king some might hope for.

I completely agree.

I see Dany's chapters in Slaver's Bay as a parallel to Ned's chapters in King's Landing. Dany, unlike Ned, attacks the leaders, and makes an effort not to involve the innocents. On the other hand, Ned's actions directly caused the War of the Five Kings. He could have taken Cersei into custody, and sent Tommen/Myrcella back to Winterfell to keep as wards (etc. etc.). This would have prevented both his and Robert's deaths. Instead he tries to be honourable and plans to support Stannis, throwing the seven kingdoms into war as winter approaches.

What does Dany do? She deceives the Astapori and the Yunkish in an attempt to protect as many people as she can. When she gets to Meereen, she kills 163 Great Masters instead of wiping them all out. And then, when she begins ruling in Meereen, she starts to appease them to avoid more bloodshed.

So whose actions were more "honourable"?

Is GRRM then saying there can be no compromise with evil??? I seriously doubt it. The general message I get is there is no right choice, every choice will cause suffering. All we can do is to try to make decisions that minimizes the amount of suffering.

I think Martin's message is pretty much that, if Dany hopes to succeed in conquering, she has to remember who she is and why she conquered in the first place. She didn't take Meereen to win over the nobles; she took it to free the slaves and improve their lives.

[Alexia]

Dany, unlike Ned, attacks the leaders, and makes an effort not to involve the innocents.

I'm not sure I agree with this. In a fit of anger, she orders (as we will soon see) the poor wineseller and his daughters tortured (despite knowing that there's a good chance they have no information) and consents to allow the wineseller's daughters tortured in front of his eyes to extract information she is clearly shown to be aware he might not have. Ned, as the passages cited quite clearly show, was hardly just and adhering to law himself. But Dany is shown to be a bit more vicious in her application of "justice" than Ned is, I think.

The entire scene was eeriely reminiscent of some of Gregor's adventures in the riverlands as well as the fate of poor Masha Heddle.

More than that, she orders a city sacked. We already know what happens in a Sack courtesy of Jorah's reminscences on the Sack of Kings Landing, and we realize in the chapter we just finished that her sack wasn't that far different (ironically, one of the reasons Jorah gives for recommending purchasing the Unsullied is to avoid a Sack).

I should add that this book is when I started feeling like some of the Targ madness was showing up in her, so I will be rereading while keeping that in mind. IIRC, Aerys didn't have his madness express until later in life and was quite charming beforehand. It'll be an interesting arc if that's the way she's going, to be sure.

[Sevumar]

Eddard Stark is presented as a just man. Probably more than Daenerys Targaryen, he appears to be the sort of person who aims to stand above the crowd, to do justice where others only work for themselves or their families.

Eddard is generally a just man, but has his share of missteps. He certainly seems to have a systematic approach toward justice, grounded in a basic understanding of the concept. His code of justice is not one appropriate for our society, but it generally one of the better approaches for his life, setting, and times. One the whole, I'd rather live in a land administered by Eddard than Dany.

However, he declares Gregor Clegane guilty and sentences him to death in a procedure that no reasonable person could call a fair trial. Clegane isn't even present. A few lords hem and haw a bit, but no one attempts any true defense of the Mountain.

While it's not my favorite trial, there is a presentation of evidence against him, an effort to establish Clegane's identity, and an accounting of what he's alleged to have done. It's more akin to an indictment than a trial, but there's not much more that can be done when Clegane is still at large and still killing and pillaging. Ideally, we'd want him captured and then judged, but this is about the best that can be done under the circumstances. It's much more than Dany does in the slaver episode.

Later, Lord Stark gathers strong evidence that Queen Cersei is guilty of treason. More than this, the lady confesses. There is no doubt about her guilt.

The political situation and burgeoning war make it extremely unwise to arrest Cersei. Sadly, she's pretty much immune to justice at the given time because she's the Queen Consort with a large amount of political insurance against anyone who'd try to take her down. This is more a case of a powerful person being able to evade the system than Ned failing to act.

I have read many attacks on and defenses of Dany. Nothing I have read convinces me that she stands out as a poor leader compared to others in the story--not because of her youth, not because of her emotional makeup, not even because she fails to live up to her claims that she will bring about justice.

Each leader in the story faces extremely difficult decisions. This is a given because ASOIAF wouldn't be an interesting story if things were straightfoward, easy, and normal. You may not believe it, but the three enumerated reasons all contribute to Dany's poor track record as a leader. With more maturity, thought, and education, Dany could learn to become a better ruler. If she could learn to control her temper and apply some of her better principles more consistently, she'd be on the road to improvement. Along with other posters, I have presented pretty detailed examinations of many of Dany's shortcomings and mistakes. There's no compelling evidence that, at this point in time, Dany is suited to rule Meereen, let alone Westeros.

Ned has a real problem with prejudging people due to their social standing/social connections. He really is prejudiced against anyone with the name Lannister. Yes yes, Tywin was a ruthless bastard who murdered children, and Jaime is an arrogant prick... but the way Ned sees it one Lannister's just as bad as the next. He doesn't bother to ask Jaime why he killed Aerys, and instantly assumes that Jaime was also involved in the murder of Elia and her kids.

I don't buy this reasoning. Eddard's main complaint against Jaime Lannister is based on Jaime's personal conduct/dishonor, not his family affiliation. It's a fair criticism of Eddard Stark that he gets too wound up in using honor as the most important measure of a man, and that he failed to see that on balance, Jaime's killing of Aerys was the better of two options. I looked over the scene in AGoT that I thought you might be referencing, and I don't Eddard trying to draw a direct connection between Jaime and the murder of Elia and her children. Can you quote the passage that gave you this impression?

You also listed one of the main reasons he finds Tywin distasteful. In both of these cases, Eddard is judging these two Lannisters on their personal actions and traits, not on their family name. I don't see any evidence that he dislikes people just for bearing that name.

As for the trial of Gregor, if anyone else's bannerman had been accused of slaughtering villagers, Ned would have looked into things before judgement was made. Because it was Tywin's bannerman, Ned prejudges him. Correctly as it turns out but...

I think things would have gone differently if Gregor had been captured and they had him present to answer the allegations. I can understand saying that issuing a death sentence was premature. It would have been better to issue a "kill or capture" order here, but I tend to give Ned the benefit of the doubt because the crimes are ongoing and Gregor has been about as positively identified as anyone can be in a medieval setting. There's not really any prejudging going on here at all.

This is relevant to the current discussion because Dany has this problem, too. She has a tendency to see groups of people as homogenous and to judge them accordingly. Anyone who owned slaves is worthy of nothing but disdain and contempt, whereas anyone who is a freedman is one of her "children" and deserving of protection and justice. In particular, whenever she makes decisions in anger - e.g. the 163 and "kill everyone in a tokar" - they are affected greatly by her belief that freedmen are worthy of protection whereas slavers are worthy of destruction.

What you've stated here is one of Dany's big problems, but the parallel to Eddard doesn't stand. Eddard doesn't condemn all of Tywin's bannermen, nor all of the Westermen, for the actions of their leader. Eddard attempts to hold each member of the Lannister family responsible for those crimes they are personally accused of carrying out, and it is his inclination toward mercy in the case of the Lannister children (along with his rigidity in the matter of honor) that leads to his downfall in King's Landing.

We have several good examples of Eddard taking the approach of judging people as individuals instead of on their family name, especially when he intervenes to keep Robert from trying to wipe out the remaining Targaryens. I'd be happy to discuss the morality of Eddard Stark with you in another thread if you want to continue and you're inclined to start one.

[PatrickStormborn]

I'm not sure I agree with this. In a fit of anger, she orders (as we will soon see) the poor wineseller and his daughters tortured (despite knowing that there's a good chance they have no information) and consents to allow the wineseller's daughters tortured in front of his eyes to extract information she is clearly shown to be aware he might not have. Ned, as the passages cited quite clearly show, was hardly just and adhering to law himself. But Dany is shown to be a bit more vicious in her application of "justice" than Ned is, I think.

The entire scene was eeriely reminiscent of some of Gregor's adventures in the riverlands as well as the fate of poor Masha Heddle.

More than that, she orders a city sacked. We already know what happens in a Sack courtesy of Jorah's reminscences on the Sack of Kings Landing, and we realize in the chapter we just finished that her sack wasn't that far different (ironically, one of the reasons Jorah gives for recommending purchasing the Unsullied is to avoid a Sack).

I should add that this book is when I started feeling like some of the Targ madness was showing up in her, so I will be rereading while keeping that in mind. IIRC, Aerys didn't have his madness express until later in life and was quite charming beforehand. It'll be an interesting arc if that's the way she's going, to be sure.

I actually agree with your post (apart from the madness part, of course). I was referring to her events up until the first chapter of ADWD (not wanting to fight Yunkai to save her troops, for example). Her use of torture is the one thing I find inexcusable about her actions in Meereen, but I don't think it makes her a horrible person -- unless, of course, she does it again, and then I will start to feel worried.

Barristan said in the last chapter in ASOS that, in hindsight, he thinks Aerys was always slightly mad, but he was always forgiven. Maybe no one will take my opinion seriously because I'm a Dany fan, but I've seen no signs of madness in her. Can she be vicious at times? Yes, but that's not a sign of madness. Cersei's rule is the definition of madness -- and she mirrors Aerys because she seems to have always been mad.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Eddard is generally a just man, but has his share of missteps. He certainly seems to have a systematic approach toward justice, grounded in a basic understanding of the concept. His code of justice is not one appropriate for our society, but it generally one of the better approaches for his life, setting, and times. One the whole, I'd rather live in a land administered by Eddard than Dany.

I agree, Eddard does quite well in the North, and I think he was a fine leader. But he has his blindspots. And they are strangely similar to Dany's, IMO. Too much black and white morality.

Along with other posters, I have presented pretty detailed examinations of many of Dany's shortcomings and mistakes. There's no compelling evidence that, at this point in time, Dany is suited to rule Meereen, let alone Westeros.

It would be nice to hear you admit that this is your opinion and not state it as if it were some kind of fact.

In other words, the evidence isnt' strong enough to be compelling to you. Myself and many posters have presented our own examinations of we think Dany has great potential as a ruler. We have also pointed out problems and weaknesses (in particular with this first adwd chapter), and previously you have pointed out some things you think she has done well. Surely you believe at least these things you pointed out yourself are evidence in her favor so to say there is no evidence that she could be a good leader is misleading.

In my opinion, the weight of evidence favors Dany becoming a great ruler. In your opinion it goes the other way.

I don't buy this reasoning. Eddard's main complaint against Jaime Lannister is based on Jaime's personal conduct/dishonor, not his family affiliation.

It's a fair criticism of Eddard Stark that he gets too wound up in using honor as the most important measure of a man, and that he failed to see that on balance, Jaime's killing of Aerys was the better of two options. I looked over the scene in AGoT that I thought you might be referencing, and I don't Eddard trying to draw a direct connection between Jaime and the murder of Elia and her children. Can you quote the passage that gave you this impression?

We know from Eddard's PoV that he believed Jaime killed Aerys because his father was at the gates and that it was an act of cowardice and opportunism. We know this isn't actually true, but Eddard stares at Jaime coldly the moment he enters the room. Eddard doens't know or care to find out that Aerys had ordered Jaime ot kill his own father ,nor does he know that Aerys was about to burn down the city. He his eyes see all he needs to see as Jaime puts it.

Eddard prejudges Jaime's motives in killing Aerys because he prejudges Jaime. What "previous personal conduct/dishonor" is Ned basing his judgment of why Jaime killed Aerys on? There aren't any as far as I know. The fact that Jaime is Tywin's son, and Eddard thinks that Tywin is dishonorable, is enough to condemn him.

You also listed one of the main reasons he finds Tywin distasteful. In both of these cases, Eddard is judging these two Lannisters on their personal actions and traits, not on their family name. I don't see any evidence that he dislikes people just for bearing that name.

I should find some quotes. There are a number of times when Eddard mentally or verbally uses the phrase "the Lannisters" disdainfully. And at the point he does this, he has no reason to hate Cersei or Tyrion at least. I should find the exact quotes.

What you've stated here is one of Dany's big problems, but the parallel to Eddard doesn't stand. Eddard doesn't condemn all of Tywin's bannermen, nor all of the Westermen, for the actions of their leader.

Dany condemns all slavers for their own actions not for the actions of their leaders. She holds the slave holding class in disdain because they themselves kept slaves. The parallel to condemning all Westermen (the common folk of the West) for the actions of the Lannisters (the elite of the West) would be condemning the freed men (the common folk of Meereen) for the actions of the slave holding class (the elite of Meereen). Dany does not do this any more than Eddard does. Quite the opposite, both leaders hold protecting the class they consider innocent to be a high priority.

Another interesting parallel is Dany's mercy and affection towards the children she takes as hostages - like Eddard she cannot blame the children for the actions of their parents and indeed takes steps to protect them that are not neccessarily the most politically expedient.

We have several good examples of Eddard taking the approach of judging people as individuals instead of on their family name, especially when he intervenes to keep Robert from trying to wipe out the remaining Targaryens. I'd be happy to discuss the morality of Eddard Stark with you in another thread if you want to continue and you're inclined to start one.

Eddard held the Targaryens in high esteem and may even have intended for Aegon to inherit. He only wanted to do what was necessary for his and Robert's safety - overthrow Aerys. Only Robert and Tywin hated all Targaryens.

On the other hand, Eddard judged all Lannisters to be sneaky cowards because Tywin was late to choose sides in the war.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

More than that, she orders a city sacked. We already know what happens in a Sack courtesy of Jorah's reminscences on the Sack of Kings Landing, and we realize in the chapter we just finished that her sack wasn't that far different (ironically, one of the reasons Jorah gives for recommending purchasing the Unsullied is to avoid a Sack).

Did Dany actually order a sack? We know she sent the men through the sewers to free the slaves, and these slaves rose against their masters, stealing from them, killing them, and in some cases raping and killing women and children. It's certainly referred to as the Sack of Meereen but based on the results it seems more like The Slave Uprising of Meereen. Is there any evidence of crimes committed by Dany's soldiers against citizens (i.e. what happened in King's Landing)?

I'm much more forgiving of slaves who commit crimes on those who had previously enslaved them than I am of soldiers that commit the same crimes just because they have the opportunity to do so during a battle.

[Parwan]

In my opinion both Ned and Daenerys would say that what Ned did was justice. Both of them seem to think that Justice = protect the innocent from the powerful. Is that what justice means? I don't know but it seems to be what these characters think it means.

I think you are oversimplifying the thoughts of both Ned and Daenerys. Lord Stark has several things to say about justice. One of his favorites is, "the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword." Daenerys shows a real desire to get everyone, former slave and former master, to work together. More on this below.

...Ned has a real problem with prejudging people due to their social standing/social connections. He really is prejudiced against anyone with the name Lannister. Yes yes, Tywin was a ruthless bastard who murdered children, and Jaime is an arrogant prick... but the way Ned sees it one Lannister's just as bad as the next...

Hmm, there's some anti-Ned on this thread now, more than I anticipated. I think you overstate Lord Eddard's position. He doesn't like the Lannisters, but I don't think he's blindly prejudiced against them. Interestingly though, your accusation would be accurate if you aimed it at Stannis. In A Clash of Kings, the subject of which Lannister might have killed Jon Arryn comes up. Then we have:

"Stannis snorted. 'If you step in a nest of snakes, does it matter which one bites you first?'"

I'd say that the Lord of Dragonstone is definitely prejudiced against anyone with the Lannister name.

This is relevant to the current discussion because Dany has this problem, too. She has a tendency to see groups of people as homogenous and to judge them accordingly. Anyone who owned slaves is worthy of nothing but disdain and contempt, whereas anyone who is a freedman is one of her "children" and deserving of protection and justice.

Definitely inaccurate. Daenerys does not have disdain for all Dothraki. She does not have disdain for all Qartheen. She tries quite hard to work not only with former slavers, but also with many who still own slaves. She does not show any significant tendency to see all Meereenese as homogenous. For example, she sees the Green Grace as a force for peace.

In particular, whenever she makes decisions in anger - e.g. the 163 and "kill everyone in a tokar" - they are affected greatly by her belief that freedmen are worthy of protection whereas slavers are worthy of destruction.

... He's [Martin's] trying to show that black and white morality is problematic.

Daenerys attempts throughout aDwD to compromise with the people she loathes.

It is not accurate to say that Dany believes freedmen are worthy of protection whereas slavers are worthy of destruction. The crucifixion of 163 was not a justifiable move. It was not, however, total destruction of the slavers. Dany was very angry, but if she had been bent on destruction, she would have implemented a "Tywin Lannister solution"--slaughter the entire group while having your musicians play "The Rains of Castamere."

Yes, Martin does see black and white morality as problematic. More than this, he presents his characters and his readers with moral quandaries.

The last quoted point undercuts much of what you said earlier in your post. Daenerys does not see groups of people as an homogenous mass. She tries to seek out compromise, to find points of a agreement, and to bring people together. She does this not only with people she loathes, but with people who were once on the other side but now may be on her side or in the middle. In fact, I'd say she goes too far with this at times. More on this matter later.

[Parwan]

Technical Note and Question:

I'm not getting Multi-Quote to work properly. That's the reason why I quoted and re-quoted MDIND in my last post. When I try to use Multi-Quote, I can't get the number of quotes to go above one. I'll ask the tech people about this. However, if anyone out there can advise me on the proper procedure, you'd save me a bit of time and effort.