Why do people hate Dany?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Just rereading the Dany chapter in aSoS where Dany strikes down the slavers of Astopor and frees the Unsullied. Rousing stuff, especially as a female reader, newer to the fantasy genre.

Her progress in aDwD is less heroic. Hell it isn't even progress really. I understand being frustrated with her. But I don't understand the Dany haterade that sometimes flows on this board.

She's teaching herself and learning as much as she can in circumstances that she was never expected to participate in, much less succeed in. Similar to Arya . Sure she makes mistakes, but shes a hormonal teenager after all. So why the hate?

It's simple, because she is *clears throat* Daenerys Stormborn of the House Targaryren the first of her name, The Unburnt, Mother of Dragons, Princess of Dragonstone, Khaleesi, Breaker of Shackles/Chains, Queen of Meereen, and Queen of the Andals, and the Rhoynar, and of the First Men! And she will take what is hers with FIRE and BLOOD! *bows head and walks away* :D

[BlueDragon]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that it's impossible to be racist against white people or for women to hate men just because they're men? That's ... complete bullshit. Seriously. And if you think that, I can't really take anything else you say seriously. That is quite possibly one of the most ignorant things I've seen on here, and that's saying something.

First of all, no one is accusing anyone of anything, but I have to see that I've seen several posters call out others with names like stupid and ignorant and intellectually lazy. This comment wasn't directed at me, but in my ideal online community, there would be a way of downrating name calling like this. Anyone who does this can hardly claim the high ground in a debate, especially about morality, large and small.

Secondly, racism includes hierarchy. Without hierarchy, there is NO racism. There might be prejudice of a sort or hatred, but not racism.

• 
  the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
  
• 
  prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a program to combat racism
  

It is impossible 'to be racist 'against' white people' because white people are at the top of the racial hierarchy. If we could create a situation in which white people could be seen to be inferior, then would could create this version of racism. If we could make an anti-white statement that characterized white people as inferior, Then we could create this form of racism, but because race is a heirarchy with white at the top, we can't do that and make sense.

If say a Mexican American hates European Americans because of his/her experience with oppression which is the result of racism directed at Mexican Americans, that emotion is not racism. That emotion is a reaction to oppression. It might be hatred, but it isn't racism. Unless said Mexican American believes European Americans are inferior, mentally, emotionally and physically, s/he is not expressing racism. Racism always includes a definition of inferiority towards a non-white group. Racism is not simply identifying another group. Racism requires defining that other group as inferior.

Similarly, some women might hate men. I've never really met one, but I'd be willingly to grant they exist. However, unless they truly feel men are inferior, I couldn't call it misandry (as a parallel to racism). I didn't read this thoroughly, but it is interesting to note that 'misandry' does not appear in most dictionaries until the last half of the second century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry If some women hate men on the basis of defining men as inferior, that would be misandry. However, even then, it is not so easy to turn the tables of cultural hierarchy like that. Absent a cultural context in which men are considered inferior, misandry is a pretty hard nut to crack.

We live in a world where race, gender and class structure how everything around us functions. Expecting anyone to somehow remain above those all pervasive influences is expecting the impossible. We are all polluted with these ideas. The morally correct choice is to examine our thoughts and behaviors in that light. The morally correct choice is to understand how these systems work in order to undo them.

PatrickStormborn has it right except that he uses the word 'oppression' in the wrong place in the equation. Racism provides the justificatin for oppression, but it is heirarchy which is intrinsic to racism. Monique Wittig puts it this way: "First comes the oppression, then comes the justification."

Wittig would point out that women are oppressed first in a certain way and then the justification for this oppression is constructed later. ex: When typewriters were invented, men said they were beyond the talents of women because those men saw executives using them. When it became clear that it would work better if secretaries worked these machines, suddenly the refrain was "women have such delicate fingers, they handle keyboards far better."

[Lord Ben]

I've read a lot of silly theories on this forum but saying it's not racist to hate white people is perhaps the goofiest. Parody theories included.

[butterbumps!]

According to OED, racism means:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occas. in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities.

The definition swings both ways, and relates to the belief of inherent qualities based on race. It has to do with stereotyping- drawing conclusions about an individual based on generalizations about one's race. "Institutionalized racism" is a qualifier that pertains to what you're talking about, but on its own, racism can be committed by any individual of any ethnicity towards any individual of any ethnicity.

When you posit : "If say a Mexican American hates European Americans because of his/her experience with oppression which is the result of racism directed at Mexican Americans, that emotion is not racism. That emotion is a reaction to oppression. It might be hatred, but it isn't racism. Unless said Mexican American believes European Americans are inferior, mentally, emotionally and physically, s/he is not expressing racism. Racism always includes a definition of inferiority towards a non-white group. Racism is not simply identifying another group. Racism requires defining that other group as inferior." it's sort of missing the issue of racism. Hating European Americans for oppressing you is not racist, because you do not hate them because of their race. You hate them because there is a direct causality between their actions and your hatred. But if you were a Mexican American and hated European Americans because you believed your culture to be superior, or because you thought Europeans were Meatheads, then this would be racist, even if you were simultaneously oppressed by them.

There are definitely instances of very real racism toward white people, Americans and other "dominant" ethnicities-- for a recent concrete example, the extremist ideals behind 9/11 comes to mind.

[Faint]

For all the grief over her failures in ADwD, I'm surprised nobody brings up the last Daenerys chapter. My first reaction when I read it, and I feel much the same now, is that all of her enemies will die screaming -- be it the the Harpy, Hizdahr zo Loraq, the Green Grace, the Yunkai, Xaro Xhoan Daxos, Khal Jhaqo, Mago, and whoever else.

The irony will come in Daenerys being even more hated than she is now, only, this time because she will have been too successful.

[Castel]

snip

I literally do not understand the argument being made here, that people mistake hatred of oppression for racism/sexism? Or that sexism/racism against the ruling class -let's go with that premise for a moment- is less likely to occur?

Your argument seems to take a bit of either side here and it's weird to me. On the one hand you seem to be going with the power+ prejudice = racism on the other hand you seem to be going with the definition the other side is using.

It is impossible 'to be racist 'against' white people' because white people are at the top of the racial hierarchy. If we could create a situation in which white people could be seen to be inferior, then would could create this version of racism. If we could make an anti-white statement that characterized white people as inferior, Then we could create this form of racism, but because race is a heirarchy with white at the top, we can't do that and make sense.

There is literally nothing stopping this from happening, I've seen plenty of black people declare whites inferior, and plenty of women -and more men- declare men inferior in more than one respect.

Do you mean a wider social oppression here? Because the alternative is kinda creepy.

[Lord Ben]

For all the grief over her failures in ADwD, I'm surprised nobody brings up the last Daenerys chapter. My first reaction when I read it, and I feel much the same now, is that all of her enemies will die screaming -- be it the the Harpy, Hizdahr zo Loraq, the Green Grace, the Yunkai, Xaro Xhoan Daxos, Khal Jhaqo, Mago, and whoever else. The irony will come in Daenerys being even more hated than she is now, only, this time because she will have been too successful.

She's better at making enemies and ruining cities than she is at anything else. Personally she needs to be invited to a Red Wedding, the story demands it!

[danm_999]

For all the grief over her failures in ADwD, I'm surprised nobody brings up the last Daenerys chapter. My first reaction when I read it, and I feel much the same now, is that all of her enemies will die screaming -- be it the the Harpy, Hizdahr zo Loraq, the Green Grace, the Yunkai, Xaro Xhoan Daxos, Khal Jhaqo, Mago, and whoever else.

The irony will come in Daenerys being even more hated than she is now, only, this time because she will have been too successful.

Yeah I agree. I think this little gem of Catelyn's summarises the likelyhood of that strategy working:

Catelyn said sharply. “A child sees an obstacle, and his first thought is to run around it or knock it down. A lord must learn that sometimes words can accomplish what swords cannot.”

[danm_999]

Someone said it could be done using an "I, Robot" type of conditioning. First rule, never take up arms against Astapor or its citizens. Second rule, obey your master in everything, except when it conflicts with the first rule. And so on.

Even without fancy brainwashing, you'd think one of the Astapori nobles would, at the very least, suggest not have all the Unsullied they're giving away standing in the middle of the city with all the political elite assembled there. It's cartoonishly amateurish.

[Dr. Pepper]

These threads always turn a bit comical.

The first person to compare Dany's actions with other characters is also the first person to say that it's misogynist to compare her actions with other characters. It's interesting to note that those who dislike Dany generally do not bring in comparisons with other characters. They judge her based on her own deeds.

Someone arguing that people who dislike Dany are sexist also makes negative comments about her sex life. I think it's interesting to note that those who dislike Dany generally do not include who she's boning or finding attractive when they present their opinion. I think there are many of us who might have questionable bed practices or taste in partners, doesn't mean it should be considered when discussing our strengths and weaknesses in our careers.

And I think it's utterly ridiculous that there are some who argue that she should be cut a bit of slack because she's a teenager. When I read, I tend to think of modern day examples when I am going to make a positive or negative judement. I ask that those who argue that Dany should be cut some slack due to her age consider this hypothetical scenario:

You live in a big sprawling mansion with your family and your servants. One day someone, Jane, breaks in and takes you all hostage and starts calling herself Owner of the Manor. Jane shuts off all of the power to the house because she claims that your carbon footprint is increasing global warming. She kills some of your family and servants. The rest of you are starving since the food in the refrigerator and freezer have spoiled and you are running out of water because you're supported by your own well that is powered by electricity. Some more family and servants die due to starvation and dehydration. You're finally rescued and Jane is arrested. You find out that Jane is 16 and dropped out of school years ago and you find out that she is an activist for environmental issues. Are you going to cut her some slack because she's an ill-educated teenager who supports a noble cause? Does her age and education level somehow make it more bearable that nearly all of your family and staff are dead? Be honest.

My assumption is that most people will say "fuck no, it doesn't matter how old she was or that she never finished school. She killed my family and staff and should be held accountable for her actions." Why are there people arguing that all of Dany's incompetent decisions should be considered justified just because she's young and ill-educated? What if Dany had actually turned Slaver's Bay into a bustling, prosperous free region in a month? By the ageist argument, her success really shouldn't be acknowledged because she's only 16 and 16-year-olds shouldn't be held accountable for their failures or successes. It's the most ridiculous argument I've ever encountered when discussing a fictional character who is in a leadership position.

[DornishKnight]

And what will you do if she ends up being a saviour after all? Then her sense of her own worth will have been justified all along :P

I'll call "Hack Writing!" and throw my book at the wall (assuming it still stands). Considering I'm Dornish, that will be an epic throw. :hat:

[Lummel]

...And I think it's utterly ridiculous that there are some who argue that she should be cut a bit of slack because she's a teenager...

I agree in so far as in the book we get other teenage leaders, ok Jon and Robb come to a bad end eventually, but say Tywin who as a youth crushed the Reynes and shortly after became Hand to the King, but in any case all of them avoid some of the mistakes that Dany makes. The big difference that I see is that she has to make it all up as she goes along. She's got no context, no power structures or traditions of 'this is the way it is always done' that she can draw on. Her assets are close to being liabilities in terms of leadership as well, the unsullied are obedient but have no leadership ability, Barristan (once he reveals himself) can fight and guard but he's no politician, the sellsword captains are ...well sellswords not rulers of city states.

So for me it seems inevitable that once she gets beyond doing simple things, like fighting, and into complex situations, like governing a city and leading a massive social economic and cultural revolution in the face of opposition, that it is going to be a trainwreck. But it's a fascinating trainwreck in which you can see how her earlier decisions leave her with less and less freedom of movement until she is trapped into having to compromise on all of her original idealism. It's great stuff.

In the same vein I did become uncomfortable with the Great White Queen storyline in ASOS, swooping in teaching the naughty natives not to do slavery, but I think GRRM pulls this off with ADWD precisely because Dany's POV and her failure to get under the skin of these people and inability to understand what makes them tick (let alone how to use that to her own best advantage) is a big reason for her failure - she does see her self as the great white Queen who is going to come into town, be that Meereen or kings landing, and clean it up. And of course it all goes wrong. And of course it's no surprise that she plans to fall back on what she knows - Fire and Blood.

I'm actually eager now for the first time to find out how the Dany storyline develops. It's great.

Anyhow deviation over. I have no particular insight into why some people hate Dany. It's a great dialogue with the genre staple of the hidden heir and the teenager coming into their kingdom full of noble good intentions, only of course in the GRRMiverse it all turns sour.

[Dr. Pepper]

Lummel, the argument that Dany has no context to draw on makes a far more suitable argument than using her age to give her a free pass. I wish others would replace their age argument with the lack of context argument. The only time I think an age argument can be valid is when a character is doing something distracting like smashing walnuts while his brother is holding court (yes, I know this particular example has only happened in the show).

There are a lot of things I dislike about Dany. Her arrogance and ignorance, her disconnect from the people she's attempting to rule, her torture of random people. However, I am fascinated by her literary value. You know an author has created a very good character when when the readership is so incredibly divisive and passionate about arguing the characters worth. I'm definitely also eager to discover how her story develops. TWOW can't come soon enough.

[FuzzyJAM]

snip

Again, you're redefining racism. Fine, do that if you like, but your definition isn't somehow the correct one when it contradicts (1) what most people mean by the word and (2) what all dictionaries say the word means. It's entirely possible to be racist against white people according to what the word has meant for over a century and what it still means in both standard usage and lexicography, and to argue against this by changing what racism actually means is just. . .well, what's the damn point? You're deliberately arguing at cross purposes - how is that in any way reasonable, let alone helpful?

Note: "You/your" in this context means the people doing this (second person plural? I forget the technical term. . .), not specifically the person I'm quoting. Apparently this wasn't clear last time, so I'll point it out here just to be sure.

[Scipio Africanus]

There are a lot of things I dislike about Dany. Her arrogance and ignorance, her disconnect from the people she's attempting to rule, her torture of random people. However, I am fascinated by her literary value. You know an author has created a very good character when when the readership is so incredibly divisive and passionate about arguing the characters worth. I'm definitely also eager to discover how her story develops. TWOW can't come soon enough.

The problems with Dany are many.

To begin with, her actions are totally disconnected with the rest of the story. The story, in my view, the coming of winter in Westeros and the chaos it causes before and during that event.

The author, who had planned a great role for Dany, then has to pull everything out of the closet to make sure Dany is still connected somehow to the real story. Like Quentyn Martell, Tyrion Lannister and Victarion Greyjoy looking for her. Even though all their interests are with the real story, what's happening in Westeros.

And then, to add insult to injury, Dany gives us a fashion update and a culinary report. Not only that, sometimes half her POV chapters (and there are many) are like this. Boring!

So to give her some depth and justifying her very excistance (and the reason why ADWD took so long to write), the author then makes her "develop" her character and making her learn that she only brings fire and blood to her environment. Unfortunately this learning process is accompanied with lots of death, rape, torture and plague. Nice going trying to make her sympaphetic there. And again, to add insult to injury, she prattles on about how mean everyone is for not giving her the iron throne, all the while people are dying and suffering around her due to her prescence.

I'm not so sure Martin made the right move to remove Dany from Westeros for this long and at the same time, spend 3/4 of the POV chapters revolving around her. If his intention was to generate discussion and perhaps hatred for his main hero (which I assume she is intented to be) then that certainly has succeded.

[Stanmore]

Dany has made it pretty abundantly clear that she won't listen to any advice that she doesn't already agree with. Both of them also swore oaths of fealty to her for some ungodly reason, so even if they had told her she was mistaken, she was under no obligation to listen to them.

Sorry, but blaming Selmy and Jorah is ridiculous. And they were RIGHT to tell her to get back to Westeros, which I suspect now she's finally figuring out, hallucinating and seeing Jorah in the Dothraki Sea. Too bad it came after she destroyed thousands and thousands of lives.

Sure, she doesn't take every piece of advice she's offered, but she's not stupid. If either of them had bothered to lay out why what she was doing was wrong I’m sure she would have at least considered it.

They only wanted her to go back to Westeros for their own selfish reasons. Both of them had been exiled and they wanted to go home. A wise councillor would serve his queen and give her advice on the current situation, not endlessly babble about a country half the world away.

Dany made the bed in Astapor and she has to lie in it. What happened there is her fault. You'd give her credit for her silly "council" if it had worked, right? So why doesn't she get the blame when it fails?

The thing about planting crops is that it takes TIME to yield results. It's not like you plant seeds and get a bumper crop overnight. What was she going to do in the interim? Do you think people without money or means to feed themselves are going to survive while the freaking bean seeds germinate?

Well I’m sure the kitchens of the slave masters weren't completely empty,and without the masters throwing banquets there was probably enough to last for a good while at least. Most of the slaves left to follow Dany, so the supply situation in Astapor probably wasn't too bad to start with.

I won't deny that she left her new government in a weak position, but I don't think the freedmen of Astapor were doomed from the moment she left. If they hadn't turned upon themselves things might have gone ok. They wouldn't have needlessly provoked Yunkai, and Dany would certainly have been more willing to assist the city if the place wasn't being run by a man called “the butcher king”

Yes she made the bed and she had to lie in it, but she'd probably have slept a little easier if people didn't keep messing up the sheets ;)

[Stanmore]

He was mostly right. It's making up a fake argument for your opponent that's easy to defeat (men made of straw don't fight back very well!).

So I say "doing nothing would be better, she should have listened to her advisors who cautioned her to go to Westeros. It was a foolish decision." and instead of retorting to the real point I made his response is that I don't know the ultimate outcome of every decision you make which is silly if that's what I said, but I made no such claim. But while I don't know the outcome of every single decision I make I do know the outcome if I sack and burn a city and then set everyone free in a society that has had slavery for thousands of years. It would be bad (and was) and that's all I claim to know.

Well your claim was "things would have turned out better if she did nothing" and my point was without the power of foresight she had no way of knowing that would be the case, and neither would you in her situation. And it's not like a city of freed slaves is a ridiculous proposition. Braavos is a city founded by refugees and the dispossessed, and it's grown to be one of the most prosperous cities in Essos.

[FuzzyJAM]

Well your claim was "things would have turned out better if she did nothing" and my point was without the power of foresight she had no way of knowing that would be the case, and neither would you in her situation. And it's not like a city of freed slaves is a ridiculous proposition. Braavos is a city founded by refugees and the dispossessed, and it's grown to be one of the most prosperous cities in Essos.

I'd say it's pretty damn obvious that if you create a power vacuum and try to completely overturn centuries of culture by force, it's going to end up all going rather poorly.

Maybe that's just me, though.

[Dr. Pepper]

The problems with Dany are many.

To begin with, her actions are totally disconnected with the rest of the story. The story, in my view, the coming of winter in Westeros and the chaos it causes before and during that event.

The author, who had planned a great role for Dany, then has to pull everything out of the closet to make sure Dany is still connected somehow to the real story. Like Quentyn Martell, Tyrion Lannister and Victarion Greyjoy looking for her. Even though all their interests are with the real story, what's happening in Westeros.

And then, to add insult to injury, Dany gives us a fashion update and a culinary report. Not only that, sometimes half her POV chapters (and there are many) are like this. Boring!

So to give her some depth and justifying her very excistance (and the reason why ADWD took so long to write), the author then makes her "develop" her character and making her learn that she only brings fire and blood to her environment. Unfortunately this learning process is accompanied with lots of death, rape, torture and plague. Nice going trying to make her sympaphetic there. And again, to add insult to injury, she prattles on about how mean everyone is for not giving her the iron throne, all the while people are dying and suffering around her due to her prescence.

I'm not so sure Martin made the right move to remove Dany from Westeros for this long and at the same time, spend 3/4 of the POV chapters revolving around her. If his intention was to generate discussion and perhaps hatred for his main hero (which I assume she is intented to be) then that certainly has succeded.

Dany was always removed from Westeros. She may have been born on an island near the main continent and of parents who were actual citizens of the country, but she's never lived there. From page 1 of her chapters, her story as been in Essos. And I know you might be intentionally exaggerating, but in case you're not, just want to point out that Dany's chapters hardly cover 75% of the text. She's completely absent in one book.

In my opinion, ADWD made clear why the Essos storyline is necessary to fully tell the Westeros storyline, but this is off topic. There are some great threads discussing this or another thread can be started to discuss this specifically.

[danm_999]

Well your claim was "things would have turned out better if she did nothing" and my point was without the power of foresight she had no way of knowing that would be the case, and neither would you in her situation.

I think anyone would be pretty certain sacking two cities, removing their political elite and removing the central industry would cause some chaos.

And it's not like a city of freed slaves is a ridiculous proposition. Braavos is a city founded by refugees and the dispossessed, and it's grown to be one of the most prosperous cities in Essos.

Braavos hid itself for 400 years until it was powerful! Daenerys tells the envoys of half the cities in Essos she's going to give them fire and blood before she's cracked Mereen open.

They're not going to have the same ending.