Why do people hate Dany?

[QuaitheTheShadow]

The Shavepate who wanted Dany to destroy her leverage? And if you're talking about the Green Grace, the Shavepate never specifically says he thinks she's the Harpy, to my knowledge.

The hostages? She has no leverage since everyone knows she won't kill them. Selmy won't touch them either. They're useless. (I believe the Shavepat points this out when they're initially chosen).

The Shavepat warned Dany not to marry into her family. He then told Dany that her-soon-to-husband is the Harpy. After Dany's gone he tells Selmy that the King and his Mother are the Harpy. He's pretty much known the whole time. No one listened to him because they didn't want it to be true.

When the Yunkai bring the King poor Groelo's head, along with three of the King's relatives, who are completely fine, the Shavepat practically screams to Selmy that the King and his family are working for the enemy.

Later, after the Shavepat has told Selmy that the Green Grace is the Harpy, Selmy is so blind he continues to use her as an envoy to their enemies and offers her a seat in the counsel.

[butterbumps!]

@ Faint

Subverting Tyrion in later books is way more than cosmetic. For all intents and purposes, Shae wasn't a "bad" person, and she was put up to that awful testimony at Tyrion's trial by Cersei. When he strangles her, I think this is a good example of really graying him a bit more.

Also- why do you think that dragons are going to be the answer to the world's problems? Do you not believe that they've been the cause of some egregious systematic oppression throughout ASOIAFs history?

[Winterfellian]

So Jon forced all those wildlings specifically to march to Hardhome with Mother Mole? Hardhome, a place that everyone already knew had seriously bad vibes and was probably cursed? Wow, he has more power than I realized!

He probably used his super awesome warg powers to warg Mother Mole and lead the wildings to Hardhome. So when ''Mother Mole'' had the vision it was actually Jon acting through her to lead them to their doom and then send ships to save them. Jon probably just wanted to be seen as a hero after rescuing them...oh the nerve! :)

[BabyMeraxes]

Anything is possible. I still think she's more fascinating as a villain than as a hero, and honestly that's where I see it going. Martin subverts characters all the time. Bran's the innocent little boy, until he violates Hodor. Jaime's the evil Kingslayer until he comes around and starts trying to act with honor. Theon's a strutting peacock struck down as low as a human being can go. Cersei's the grand villainess who ends up a pathetic person, walking naked through the streets. Sansa's the naive little bird who's now learning to play the political game. Catelyn is the epitome of the nurturing mother and now she's a literal embodiment of Nemesis. No one is the same type of person, really, as when they started. So why do people assume that Dany is going to remain a heroic figure? I actually think both Jorah and Barristan are decent advisers. The person I was responding to said they were weak, so that's how I answered, in that context. Way to get that edit in there, you really showed me.

I definitely see the evidence for her villainy, but, again, I'd argue that Dany has done more noble, good things than bad; they're just smaller. I will grant you, however, that her mistakes and bad choices were huge and terrible. I think there's a better chance that she'll end up in Westeros, hated by every single last person, vilified through out history. She'll perform one last act of true heroism, and perish for it. She'll be the catalyst, in some way, for salvation. I don't think it will come in a blaze of glory from atop a dragon, but it'll happen. In fact, I kind of think the Meereenese shitstorm is a big diversion from Daenerys' true purpose, and I wouldn't be surprised if Martin is trying to have readers hate her, only to bring her back around full circle in the end. There are some pretty brightly colored red flags through out the series that suggest her impact on the whole will be positive. Either way, villainy is surely in Dany's future, we'll just have to see if it's warranted.

[Christine K]

I definitely see the evidence for her villainy, but, again, I'd argue that Dany has done more noble, good things than bad; they're just smaller. I will grant you, however, that her mistakes and bad choices were huge and terrible. I think there's a better chance that she'll end up in Westeros, hated by every single last person, vilified through out history. She'll perform one last act of true heroism, and perish for it. She'll be the catalyst, in some way, for salvation. I don't think it will come in a blaze of glory from atop a dragon, but it'll happen. In fact, I kind of think the Meereenese shitstorm is a big diversion from Daenerys' true purpose, and I wouldn't be surprised if Martin is trying to have readers hate her, only to bring her back around full circle in the end. There are some pretty brightly colored red flags through out the series that suggest her impact on the whole will be positive. Either way, villainy is surely in Dany's future, we'll just have to see if it's warranted.

I hope you're right.

[Faint]

@ Faint

Subverting Tyrion in later books is way more than cosmetic. For all intents and purposes, Shae wasn't a "bad" person, and she was put up to that awful testimony at Tyrion's trial by Cersei. When he strangles her, I think this is a good example of really graying him a bit more.

I'm surprised you think so. The fans, by and large, still love him. Had he, as I suggested before, raped Sansa or killed one of his nephews? Not so much.

That said, he is supposed to be the edgy hero. Not quite good, not all bad, etc.

Also- why do you think that dragons are going to be the answer to the world's problems? Do you not believe that they've been the cause of some egregious systematic oppression throughout ASOIAFs history?

I said no such thing. At best, the dragons are probably necessary to combat the Others. But, even so, they are wild beasts, much like the direwolves are, and they take innocent human lives when they can.

As for being tools of systematic oppression, they can be but what would make you think Daenerys would use them so? She locks them up after one of the three kills a single innocent. I just don't see it.

[BabyMeraxes]

@Christine

Maester Aemon is a pretty capable, wise dude. "Daenerys is our hope!" means something, and I really don't think it's that she's AA. Also, I'm operating under the impression that Viserys was the asshole Targaryen, which means either Rhaegar or Dany is the awesome one.

Dany is a shitty monarch, a decent conquerer, but a sweet, loving person. I can't wait to finish my ADwD reread, because I'm going to take a long, hard, critical look at her final chapter. Of course, I could be completely wrong. Dany might end up in Westeros, double-marry Ramsey and Robert Strong, and burn the whole fucking continent to cinders. To which I say, "Well, as long as it's fun to read..."

[butterbumps!]

I'm surprised you think so. The fans, by and large, still love him. Had he, as I suggested before, raped Sansa or killed one of his nephews? Not so much. That said, he is supposed to be the edgy hero. Not quite good, not all bad, etc.

I said no such thing. At best, the dragons are probably necessary to combat the Others. But, even so, they are wild beasts, much like the direwolves are, and they take innocent human lives when they can. As for being tools of systematic oppression, they can be but what would make you think Daenerys would use them so? She locks them up after one of the three kills a single innocent. I just don't see it.

Yea- I still like Tyrion a lot, but I definitely think he's taken a somewhat regressive path in many ways from the character I easily respected in GOT. If he had done the things you say, like raping Sansa- well, it's tough. Raping a whore and raping Sansa is still rape and reprehensible. The difference is that the reader is more invested in Sansa's safety than the prostitutes- it's much harder to overlook or reconcile as a reader, I'll give you that. Still, I think I would consider those both equally reprehensible, and the difference would be that I'd feel additional grief because I've come to know Sansa and would not want that to happen to her.

I think the issue about the dragons is that their force is used for bad and good- it liberates the oppressed, and subsequently oppresses the oppressors. I could see the argument made that if she used her dragons to "liberate" (or eliminate a major enemy or what have you) and then destroyed the dragons and dragon lore so that they could never be used for oppression, I can see this as a heroic act. But we also don't know precisely what she's planning to do with them once she has decided she is willing to use them, as per the last POV of Dance.

[BlueDragon]

Since you know the OED inside and out ;) ,

Not the OED, the entry on race (noun). Specifically D below since this the the usage/disscussion we are having, i.e. we are not discussing race 2 = ginger root

then you certainly must be familiar with race, noun⁶ (the first that pertains to the use of the word relating to people): I. A group of people, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin. In its widest sense the term includes all descendants from an original stock, but may also be limited to a single line of descent or to the group as it exists at a particular period. 1. a. A group of people belonging to the same family and descended from a common ancestor; a house, family, kindred. Cf. kin n.1 1a. b. A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock. In early use freq. with modifying adjective, asBritish race, Roman race, etc. c. A group of several tribes or peoples, regarded as forming a distinct ethnic set

This meaning

c. A group of several tribes or peoples, regarded as forming a distinct ethnic set.Esp. used in 19th-cent. anthropological classification, sometimes in conjunction with linguistic groupings.

There is some overlap with sense 1d.

As you can see overlaps with 1d. 1d is the set of definitions which applies to race as we are using it in this discussion. I can see why the dictionary separates 1c from 1d. There is a distinction, but the dictionary notes there is an overlap here.

. d. According to various more or less formal systems of classification: any of the major groupings of mankind, having in common distinct physical features or having a similar ethnic background. So I suppose I include culture and ethnicity as part of this "ism." I understand it's not pertaining to biological race in the strictest sense, but on the notion of "several groups regarded as forming a distinct ethnic set." I think calling a group of people "infidels" or "barbarians" or the like based on nationality is racist, as it implies a qualitative judgement on the other. I see what you are saying about this being an issue of a "clash of civilizations/ empires," and don't disagree, but I think there is an ethnic/ racist component to it as well. It wasn't just about oil or the sphere of American influence in the Middle East- it was condemnation of our perceived cultural sins. I think I have to accept this as ethnic/ racial imperialism, just as I accept that "Orientalism" is a racist phenomena. It seems like you're well read on the subject though. Are there any texts you'd recommend or were influential to you?

Orientalism as defined by Said was fostered by the notion of the superiority of the white race in all things.

And I do think that ASOIAF is Orientalist, something that Martin clearly does not want to address. Dany's character arc is suffering from being ensconced in an Orientalist setting.

The dispute I think we are having gets back to the idea that the oppressed cannot reduplicate oppression towards the oppressor. I maintain that the oppressed can never simply turn the tables. In an unequal relationship, the terms of the relationship can't be neatly reversed. Ergo: reverse racism is not possible. European Americans are obssessed with the idea that peoples of color can and do hate them with what looks like to them, reverse racism. I am not claiming purity for any group; however, as soon as we get on the reverse racism ground, we are in trouble because it obscures the fact that Europeans and European Americans invented race. It contributes to the idea that race and racism is a universal human problem. It most definitely is not.

I believe the original comment used homophobia as an example, pointing out that homophobia cannot simply be reversed into heterosexism or whatever term you wish to coin. I insist that using the term 'racist' for other phenomena only obscures how the idea of race and racism works, making it infinitely more difficult to fight racist ideology. Groups of humans have struggled for all of human history, but it hasn't been on the basis of what we call race. Groups have struggled over resources and used all kinds of ideological excuses for these struggles, religion being just one. It is important to understand how this works if we have any hope of evolving past the horror that is war.

Books:

Race: The Histoy of an Idea in the West

The Invention of the White Race Vol I and II

Race in North America

This last one is not well written from a stylistic point of view but is the most comprehensive and contains the best bibliography

How does this relate to Dany? I am afraid we have gotten very far afield and I apologize for this; however, I thought we might better understand mysogyny if we compared it to to racism.

Mysogyny is much, much older than racism and a tougher nut to crack all the way around.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

He then told Dany that her-soon-to-husband is the Harpy. After Dany's gone he tells Selmy that the King and his Mother are the Harpy. He's pretty much known the whole time. No one listened to him because they didn't want it to be true. When the Yunkai bring the King poor Groelo's head, along with three of the King's relatives, who are completely fine, the Shavepat practically screams to Selmy that the King and his family are working for the enemy. Later, after the Shavepat has told Selmy that the Green Grace is the Harpy, Selmy is so blind he continues to use her as an envoy to their enemies and offers her a seat in the counsel.

When does the Shavepate say that the Green Grace is the Harpy, explicitly? I'd like a quote from the book, if you please. The only thing I remember him saying is that she might join Yunkai, but that's only after the situation is getting desperate and he never uses the H word. But hey, I might be wrong, which is why I'm asking for, if you please, the exact quote.

He does think that Hizdahr and his family are in league with the Harpy, but I see no evidence that he makes the link between Hizdahr's marriage and the Green Grace, who pushed it.

[butterbumps!]

@BlueDragon-

I see what you're saying, getting down to the underlying roots of the issue. I think I still maintain that racism applies to any situation in which one person draws a conclusion about an individual based on ideas about the race/ ethnicity as whole, but I do think that what you're getting to about the genesis of "race"in the first place is really interesting.

Thanks for the sources- My engagement with orientalism, "imperial (or "male") gazes," and the ensuing power dynamics/ fetishization/ domestication has been almost exclusively through the lens of art and architecture, so beyond Said, Foucault, and the usual suspects, I'm mostly familiar with authors focus on the visual/ spatial implications, which don't typically get to the genealogy you're describing.

I don't think it's far afield, but totally relevant to Dany's plot, and I can't tell you how much the portrayal of the Ghiscari thus far boils my blood.

[BlueDragon]

Then you should accept that not all people share your view, that it's their prerogative to judge/like/dislike whoever they want and that such things are going to come up in discussion, not just about Dany, but about every major character. If no one ever participated in dissecting and judging characters' actions and personalities and motivations, this forum would be dead.

I don't think you know what my view is or you wouldn't even say this. I stated very clearly that I was surprised to see the hate posted here and wanted to understand it.

I really don't think that the primary motivation for reading and analyzing a work of fiction is to 'judge' the characters -- although I'm not actually sure what that means for you. There are hundreds of issues to discuss concerning any given work of fiction. Placing myself in the position of judge and jury in relation to any given character does not seem awfully interesting or productive to me. I don't chose to spend my life thinking along these lines. But I did chose to try to understand why some people would take that approach which is why I joined this discussion. It is obviously puzzling to quite a few people. The title of the thread is: "Why do people hate Dany?" and the question was sincerely asked.

And it is interesting, to say the least, that I don't see any threads, for example. about hating Arya. After all, she is learning to be an assassin for hire. This is hardly a savory occupation. Personally, I have reserved 'judgment' regarding her present situation because, like Dany, she had few options and her survival is damn near a miracle at this point. She did go out and kill her mark the merchant and without any compunction as to whether what she was doing was right. Arya has been so wounded by what has happened to her family, almost anything can be forgiven. I adore Arya for a lot of reasons, but she is more positioned to be a villian than is Dany at the moment who, at least, seems to want to do the right thing. I see no indication that Arya is interested in saving anyone. Is she training for revenge? One of her tutors (I forget the name of the character) confronts her with this question: Is she there just to learn how to kill for revenge because the FM only kill for hire. Given that the entire setting is a sort of monastic retreat and one which suggests the development of skill for higher insight, I am quite unclear about Martin's intent.

In general, a work of fiction seems to ask the question: how can we learn to live from this story? It doesn't seem to ask us to root for one character or another. Some characters are heroes, but I the quest the hero finds him/herself on is a larger question about how to live a decent life. Take a story that is more black and white, Star Wars. Even Darth Vader is someone we come to understand and sympathize with. I've never been on a Star Wars board, but I would expect that be the time we got to a discussion of Aniken Skywalker versus Darth Vader that the conversation would not be about hating Vader in a one dimensional way. I can't imagine that people wouldn't want to discuss Aniken as a tragic figure who took a wrong turn. There is a difference between analyzing/attempting to understand how any character winds up in his/her predicament and judgment of the character.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Placing myself in the position of judge and jury in relation to any given character does not seem awfully interesting or productive to me. I don't chose to spend my life thinking along these lines.

Then ... don't do it?

[QuaitheTheShadow]

"But hey, I might be wrong, which is why I'm asking for, if you please, the exact quote.

I may be wrong too but I only have a paperback. :dunno:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I may be wrong too but I only have a paperback. :dunno:

You can still look up the quote, can't you? You don't need a page number, you can just type the pertinent remarks. :P

[butterbumps!]

hey.....just a thought. This has been one of the better Dany discussions I've seen in a while, and we're getting close to being locked. Does anyone want to start a continuation thread so it's there?

[bbqq]

I couldn't find that quote, but I did find this interesting one, from the green grace:

“We are an old people. Ancestors are important to us. Wed Hizdahr zo Loraq and make a son with him, a son whose father is the harpy, whose mother is the dragon. In him the prophecies shall be fulfilled, and your enemies will melt away like snow.”

then a few lines later, from Hizdahr zo Loraq:

“I do not doubt that Skahaz would soon have me confessing. A day with him, and I will be one of the Harpy’s Sons. Two days, and I will be the Harpy...."

I know this doesn't exactly imply he is the Harpy, but it does seem like they are doing their utmost to point out how untrustworthy they are.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I couldn't find that quote, but I did find this interesting one, from the green grace:

“We are an old people. Ancestors are important to us. Wed Hizdahr zo Loraq and make a son with him, a son whose father is the harpy, whose mother is the dragon. In him the prophecies shall be fulfilled, and your enemies will melt away like snow.”

then a few lines later, from Hizdahr zo Loraq:

“I do not doubt that Skahaz would soon have me confessing. A day with him, and I will be one of the Harpy’s Sons. Two days, and I will be the Harpy...."

I know this doesn't exactly imply he is the Harpy, but it does seem like they are doing their utmost to point out how untrustworthy they are.

Yeah, the Green Grace all but tells Dany that she's the one doing the damage. I wish she was a POV, honestly. She and the Queen of Thorns would get along wonderfully.

As for Hizdahr, I think he's just taking potshots at the Shavepate's torture getting "names," just not necessarily any useful ones.

[BlueDragon]

Then ... don't do it?

What is your point?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

What is your point?

You act like it's a waste of your time to sit in judgment of characters, and I suggested that if you think that way, the problem is easily solved by ... not doing it. I don't understand the confusion.