Learning to lead III: the search for decisive actions, a re-read project of the Daenerys and Jon chapters from ADWD

[Spiderweaves]

The second thing he said that I find troublesome is essentially that the Ghiscari culture doesn’t really matter: “No, this story is about Westeros. Those other lands are important only as they reflect on Westeros.” Without looking at the issues of an imperialist gaze, what is Martin saying here? I take this to mean that the Ghiscari are not at all the point of Dany’s chapters; Dany is the point of Dany’s chapters. To this end, I get the impression that the point of DwD is maybe not so much about ruling, but rather a Bilungsroman, where the point is not for Dany to be successful at leadership, but about her personal journey to accept herself. When I approach Dany’s character from this angle- that it’s not about leadership but her coming of age- her chapters are both more palatable and vile to me; it makes her “person” more sympathetic, but it enrages me to think that the millions of people she’s affecting are just strawmen in her personal journey, props to lead her to some personally significant conclusion.

Yes, I would agree that the Ghiscari are Dany's "props." This is a common trait of travelogue literature; often, the traveled-to place and/or people are solely there to enrich the traveler in some way. The relationship as a whole is pretty one-way.

It seems like Dany has (if she stays alive) an uncomfortable future of confrontation ahead of her. Someday, she'll have to learn about Westeros and her family, and someday, forces from Slaver's Bay may seek to hold her accountable for what she's done.

I wonder what the significance is of a female character being chosen to learn these painful lessons of hegemony and imperialism.

[liberal teapot]

I often compare her time in Essos to the wilderness years of the Isrealites. As well as incorporating on one level the trials of hercules. She is doing penance, not for her sins, but of her kingdom. the Kingslaying was a sin that is so grave that it affects the whole kingdom, as we can see by the families worst affected. By the time the story has ended Houses Arryn, Lannister, Stark and Baratheon will have been so greviously affected. This is similiar to the Shakespeare tetralogy, in its scope.

Part of the problem with Dany I also believe is Martin's folly. If the books had been 3 books or even 5, we woud have by nessecity less of the dullard. Remember the pace of GoT, I think his success has insulated GRRM and made the books more flabby as we progress. For a comparision, look at his Dark Materials.

I see Sansa's, Arya's, Jon's, Tyrion's & Jamie's journey as preparation for their eventual purpose, much like Arya, was a faceless man before she became one, much is the same for Dany. Now I think we shall see her climbing from her nadir, ironically when she is literally at her zenith. The Maester and moqorro will help her with knowledge, Euron will help with taing her dragons and ships. Now I don't see those arcs as straighforward, but merely as an eventuality.

edit: I agree with ragnarok entirely.

[Lummel]

Just briefly I'd say that I think Butterbumps! the Daenerys storyline and the that of the Stark children conforms to the Bildungsroman (novel of education and formation of character) type. We essentially have children put through an educative experience at the end of which they are adults. I feel this is part of the reason why ideas of rebirth and the notion of the fallow period of winter, as maybe an ironic nod to the often difficult teenaged years, are strong in the story.

However don't limit that bad feeling to only the hapless people who die in the background to Daenerys' story. The lesson of Septon Meribald (and his dog) is that such deaths are inevitable given the political and social structure of Westeros. Thousands will also have died purely to support Robb Stark's notion of family honour too, which is not the same as dieing for freedom.

The big contrast and one we've avoided so far between Daenerys and Jon is that of the woman and the man as leaders, particularly because Daenerys' marriage to Hizdahr sees her stepping back and handing over executive leadership to him despite being in her own person the font of authority.

If the genders had been reversed then don't both storylines become impossible? No fate other than marriage is imaginable for The Ned's bastard girl and a brother to Viserys could hardly have risen to power through marriage to a Khal's sister or daughter could he?

[Spiderweaves]

The big contrast and parallel between Dany and Cersei is motherhood.

Another great contrast is access to resources (which you also touch upon in your post). Cersei has all the trappings of an aristocratic upbrininging and becomes a terrible ruler, too. I'm made uncomfortable by the implication that a mother who loves her biological children the way Cersei does simply can't be a good leader at the same time, even with all the material support she could possibly need. Probably a topic better suited for another thread.

The more I think about it, the more I agree that the author will kill Dany off soon. That way, she won't have to face any unseemly truths about society and her role in it. The reader will have the satisfaction of her uncomplicated martyr-ship.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Another great contrast is access to resources (which you also touch upon in your post). Cersei has all the trappings of an aristocratic upbrininging and becomes a terrible ruler, too. I'm made uncomfortable by the implication that a mother who loves her biological children the way Cersei does simply can't be a good leader at the same time, even with all the material support she could possibly need. Probably a topic better suited for another thread.

The more I think about it, the more I agree that the author will kill Dany off soon. That way, she won't have to face any unseemly truths about society and her role in it. The reader will have the satisfaction of her uncomplicated martyr-ship.

I think this is an extremely important point. Rightly or wrongly, a popular defense of Dany's ruling style is something like, "Well she has no training or upbringing and is making it up as she goes along, so of course she isn't doing too well." But, as you suggested, you can look at Cersei, someone who was quite literally raised to be a queen (someone's queen), and see that none of her resources — her background, her wealth, her looks, her family name, her manpower, etc. — were enough to make her a good ruler. So is Dany's failure really a matter of resources, or are resources incidental? Would Dany do better with Cersei's resources?

It is true that Dany has a much broader view of the maternal role than Cersei does, but Cersei is not a a bad ruler just because her maternal instincts only involve her biological children. When Cersei's shortcomings are laid out, they typically involve her cruelty, narcissism, conniving, scheming, propensity to elevate "yes men" at the expense of meritorious people, and general ignorance. No one ever makes the point that she'd do better if she thought of all the Westerosi as her children, and why would they? Minus the conniving (broadly speaking, not counting the Astapor stunt), many of Cersei's shortcomings also apply in some way to Dany — use of torture and crucifixion, the laundry list of meaningless titles subbing for Cersei's fixation on her looks, surrounding herself with sycophants, willful ignorance. Is Cersei worse of a person than Dany? I think so. But I think many of their failures go back to the same source, and just diverge in the sense that Dany might be too maternal and Cersei might not be maternal enough. It's hard to gauge.

[butterbumps!]

@ Ragnorak- the notion that with formal training comes indoctrinated notions of institutional oppression is spot on, I think. To some degree one might almost read Dany as a kind of tabula rasa in terms of her empirical apprehension of what power is and how to achieve it as an essential construct. It also gives the "trappings of power" argument another twist, in that, maybe we should be asking to what extent do trappings (ritual/ display/ clothing) reify power or detract from it. The interesting thing about Dany is that her power is innate (whether that power derives from dragons or herself); it is, in part, through the trappings she adopts that this power is stripped. I don't have too much time to comment further, but I really like what you're proposing in terms of not having existing bias in terms of what ruling "should" look like to our characters as it relates to their views of the "system." I think we should interrogate Jon on these aspects as well.

<snip>

Just wanted to say welcome to the forum (I see it's your first post).

[PatrickStormborn]

I think this is an extremely important point. Rightly or wrongly, a popular defense of Dany's ruling style is something like, "Well she has no training or upbringing and is making it up as she goes along, so of course she isn't doing too well." But, as you suggested, you can look at Cersei, someone who was quite literally raised to be a queen (someone's queen), and see that none of her resources — her background, her wealth, her looks, her family name, her manpower, etc. — were enough to make her a good ruler. So is Dany's failure really a matter of resources, or are resources incidental? Would Dany do better with Cersei's resources?

Cersei was not raised to rule, however. She was raised to be a queen consort, much like Sansa was. Comparing Sansa and Robb's education should show you that Cersei's education would not have been effective enough to allow her to lead. A better comparison would be Catelyn; she was raised as her father's heir and therefore learned how to be an effective ruler, and I think it's fair to say she would have made a great Lady of Riverrun.

Cersei's position is actually somewhat similiar to Lysa's. Neither were raised as their father's heir so were not taught how to rule, and both killed their husbands and took power through their sons.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Cersei was not raised to rule, however. She was raised to be a queen consort, much like Sansa was. Comparing Sansa and Robb's education should show you that Cersei's education would not have been effective enough to allow her to lead. A better comparison would be Catelyn; she was raised as her father's heir and therefore learned how to be an effective ruler, and I think it's fair to say she would have made a great Lady of Riverrun.

Cersei's position is actually somewhat similiar to Lysa's. Neither were raised as their father's heir so were not taught how to rule, and both killed their husbands and took power through their sons.

Yes, but that still would have involved more of a focus on leadership — household management at the very least — than any training Dany ever got. There might come a time, for example, when a queen has to act as regent in her husband's absence or in her son's minority. Cersei also had more role models to look at as she grew up, namely her father who, though hard, seems by all accounts to be an effective Hand and administrator. ETA: Speaking of Sansa, she seems to be doing a bang-up job so far of being the de facto Lady of the Eyrie.

The Cersei and Dany dichotomy makes me wish that we had more POVs interacting with Dany. We didn't get a glimpse inside Cersei's head until Feast, and I think most of us can agree that that glimpse went a long way toward humanizing her or at least making her somewhat more sympathetic. Virtually every POV who interacted with her was her adversary in some way. On the flip side, we only have Dany's inner thoughts to flesh out her character. When we do get another POV that's interacted with her, it's Barristan, the epitome of the yes-man, and Quentyn, who wanted to marry her. And while both POVs have interacted with her, neither of them do so within their actual POV; it's all in hindsight.

All of that is just a long-ass way of wondering what our view of Dany would be if we had other perspectives of her besides her own, in which she will obviously be seen in a sympathetic light because it's her opinion of herself. I can't think of another major POV character who went such a long time without a single intersecting moment with another POV and I wonder if that isn't intentional. Dany thinks she's the bee's knees, but how would, say, Tyrion or Arya or Jaime or Brienne see her? Is there a reason GRRM's holding out in that department?

[Faint]

And while both POVs have interacted with her, neither of them do so within their actual POV; it's all in hindsight.

I've been disappointed with this state of matters for a while now, not only with respect to Daenerys, but also with Jon and Tyrion. So much of my anticipation of A Dance with Dragons was tied in with my hope that there would be multiple chapters of Daenerys viewing Tyrion, Tyrion viewing Daenerys, and Melisandre viewing Jon.

As it turns out, all I got was a single chapter of Melisandre viewing Jon, a single chapter of Jon Connington with some impressions of Tyrion after he had a left, and a couple of similar chapters with Barristan Selmy and Quentyn Martell with impressions of Daenerys after she had left.

I get the sense that the author is very hesitant to write chapters about his main characters from outside their heads (especially since the first book). I can only conclude that he finds such writing difficult for some reason. Even when he does do it, he seems to minimize the interactions between the characters involved (i.e., Jon/Tyrion, Bran/Tyrion, Tyrion/Sansa, Jon/Sam, Sam/Arya). He might write a paragraph or two of the characters interacting with each but that's it. He won't take it further than that. To wit, he'll have Tyrion thinking of Sansa, and Sansa thinking of Tyrion more than he'll have Sansa and Tyrion "on-screen" viewing each other or talking to together.

Anyhow, that being the case, I've always felt that the way we read Tyrion, Jon and Daenerys is inherently flawed. Everything looks much better from their perspective.

To take Jon as an example (since Daenerys has already been dissected extensively and Tyrion is not part of this thread): Just think how Jon sending Alliser Thorne on a near suicide mission would appear to another member of the Night's Watch. Or him being friendly with all these Wildings. Or the fact that he appears to have the same kinship with his direwolf that many of the Wildings have with their animals. Or imagine if one of the members of the Night's Watch saw him go into Melisandre's room and then proceeded to tell everybody else (something that has been hinted at). Or the other members of the Night's Watching finding out that Jon is planning Stannis' battles for him. Or, better yet, try to picture Jon's story in A Dance with Dragons being told completely outside his perspective by Melisandre, Alliser Thorne, Dolorous Edd, Val and Bowen Marsh. All the sudden, the actions he takes take on a very different character.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

<snip>

I see your point, especially where ADWD is concerned. But Tyrion and Jon have still had other POVs interact with them or at least give first-hand impressions of them where Dany simply has not. I do not think it's a problem encompassing the three of them, especially when you consider the series as a whole and not just the most recent book.

[Blisscraft]

Butterbumps and Flint! You Rock! Fantastic points about Dany and why she is so difficult to embrace. I have been thinking about it for awhile and your observations have lead me to conclude that much of Dany's misadventure in Meereen and Slaver's Bay has more to do with a hero's journey than to rule Westeros.

This is broader than the limits of this particular thread and I am reluctant to go too far into this as I realize many other followers of this thread may find it tiresome. However, Dany has refused her "call." Like Jonah, the gods gave her a message and intructions (plus three dragons). She, like Jonah, has avoided her call. She's done nothing but run away, ignore or adopt a stance of willfull blindness with regard to her "destiny." Meereen is her "belly of the whale." She has been swallowed by it whole and is paying for her refusing the call. And what comes is her expulsion from its belly with the help of her god's gift, Drogon.

I, along with many others, know that Dany doesn't seem equiped to handle her "heroic" responsibilities. I've read so many complaints about her incompetence and her arrogance and her stupidity. She doesn't deserve to be a hero and she certainly doesn't deserve those dragons. And yet, she's the one who wound up the dragons. In tales, such as this, the hero doesn't have to be the smartest, the best looking, the best leader, the one with the best claim, more often than not, it's the underdog, the undeserving, the cripples, bastards and broken things that the gods chose to reconcile a world of opposites.

Dany, like the Stark children and their abilities, these seven kids (five Starks, Jon and Dany), are "chosen" to fix something that is broken in Westeros and is leading to a reckoning with a mythic enemy. As we've seen so far in the story, not all of them will make it. (Poor Rob). Dany may not make it. Jon may not make it. But sacrifice is required. The world of Westeros is out of balance and needs someone(s) to fix it.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

She doesn't deserve to be a hero and she certainly doesn't deserve those dragons. And yet, she's the one who wound up the dragons.

If I might bastardize the (possibly apocryphal?) Dorothy Parker quote about money ...

"If you want to know what the gods think about dragons, just look at whom they gave them to."

In tales, such as this, the hero doesn't have to be the smartest, the best looking, the best leader, the one with the best claim, more often than not, it's the underdog, the undeserving, the cripples, bastards and broken things that the gods chose to reconcile a world of opposites.

This is true, but something has to be a quality or a feat of theirs in order to earn the designation of hero.

I know I'm jumping the gun here, but I do not get the sense of satisfaction or comfort from Dany deciding in the end to embrace "fire and blood." That points to eventual villainy to me, certainly not heroism.

[Blisscraft]

If I might bastardize the (possibly apocryphal?) Dorothy Parker quote about money ...

"If you want to know what the gods think about dragons, just look at whom they gave them to."

This is true, but something has to be a quality or a feat of theirs in order to earn the designation of hero.

I know I'm jumping the gun here, but I do not get the sense of satisfaction or comfort from Dany deciding in the end to embrace "fire and blood." That points to eventual villainy to me, certainly not heroism.

There are no villains. There are those that reconcile opposites and create balance, like yin and yang, dark and light, ice and fire.

[The guy from the Vale]

There are no villains. There are those that reconcile opposites and create balance, like yin and yang, dark and light, ice and fire.

But there are extremists, people who do't try to reconcile but to defeat the opposites. I think that's what Apple is getting at, and I somewhat agree that Dany fighting for dominion over Westeros seems more like extremism than reconciliation to me. Not that I'd blame her, after the mess reconciliation produced in Meereen.

[Arkash]

But Tyrion and Jon have still had other POVs interact with them or at least give first-hand impressions of them where Dany simply has not.

And Barristan doesnt really count... the man is damn honorable and everything you want, but he is too much of a "Ned Stark": blind and a follower.

He idealizes Dany and never really, in his life, thought really by himself: he always followed orders... even if it does start changing at the end of ADWD...

Quentyn doesnt really count too... he was young and not ready for this journey... he didnt have a correct view of the situation, so he couldnt have judged Dany efficiently.

Victarion will not really count too if he ever meets her... he is definitly not a great judge of people.

That is why I really long for Tyrion to meet her in flesh and bone... if her ever reaches her. To finally have the best judge of characters we have as a PoV meeting the character we definitly need other views on.

[Faint]

I see your point, especially where ADWD is concerned. But Tyrion and Jon have still had other POVs interact with them or at least give first-hand impressions of them where Dany simply has not. I do not think it's a problem encompassing the three of them, especially when you consider the series as a whole and not just the most recent book.

That seems to me an outgrowth of the fact that Daenerys started off as the only POV in her story, which was hundreds and hundreds of miles away from the rest of the other POVs, along with the author's early obsession with having the whole series told via the POVs he introduced in the first book. I wonder, actually, whether if he could go back he might not have had Jorah become a POV. I think there were several of Daenerys' chapters that would have been better told from his perspective, including the last chapter of the first book (which, incidentally, is one of the few times the author actually cheats with his POV because he knew he needed an external POV on Daenerys when she went into the flames).

In any case, I stand by my point, ever since the first book, and in many cases, the beginning stages of that book, the main characters have basically been in POV isolation, which has led to a very biased view of things. To cite just one example, just think how A Clash of Kings and A Storm of Swords would have read if Cersei was the POV in King's Landing and not Tyrion.

Also, I'm hoping this state of affairs ends soon. It does look like Tyrion and Daenerys will finally get POV chapters written the other's perspective. And here's hoping that Jon finally leaves the Wall and runs into another POV or maybe just more Melisandre chapters. Personally, I'd love a chapter on Jon told from either Asha's or Davos' perspective.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Also, I'm hoping this state of affairs ends soon. It does look like Tyrion and Daenerys will finally get POV chapters written the other's perspective. And here's hoping that Jon finally leaves the Wall and runs into another POV or maybe just more Melisandre chapters. Personally, I'd love a chapter on Jon told from either Asha's or Davos' perspective.

I agree. But here's the $1 million question: What if Tyrion meets Dany and thinks "Egad what a pill, why would anyone want her in power"? What if the POVs who do end up encountering Dany have a markedly different opinion of her than she has of herself?

I think that Asha and Davos would like Jon. ;)

[Tagganaro]

@ Ragnorak- the notion that with formal training comes indoctrinated notions of institutional oppression is spot on, I think. To some degree one might almost read Dany as a kind of tabula rasa in terms of her empirical apprehension of what power is and how to achieve it as an essential construct. It also gives the "trappings of power" argument another twist, in that, maybe we should be asking to what extent do trappings (ritual/ display/ clothing) reify power or detract from it. The interesting thing about Dany is that her power is innate (whether that power derives from dragons or herself); it is, in part, through the trappings she adopts that this power is stripped. I don't have too much time to comment further, but I really like what you're proposing in terms of not having existing bias in terms of what ruling "should" look like to our characters as it relates to their views of the "system." I think we should interrogate Jon on these aspects as well.

We have talked about this before with regards to Dany. Trappings of power actually in essence just be trappings. Part of what we learn from other POVs is that the great masters and the Slavers in general were scared of Dany the Dragon. They are not scared of Dany the Rabbit with floppy ears though. This has really been a recurring theme throughout her chapters, being reinforced with scenes such as the Green Grace/Harpy telling Dany about the ridiculously degrading wedding customs and even what kind of seat Dany uses for her "throne". These trappings can have a lot of power or they can have a severe weakening effect (look at Aerys continually getting cut on the Iron Throne). Actually, for that matter it has been a theme explored from the very beginning of AGOT. I remember back to the royal procession in Winterfell where Jon remarks on how Robert doesn't look like a King at all and Jaime does. I believe this was in turn mirrored by Stannis (was it??) who remembers back to visiting the "King" and being really impressed with him (it was in fact Tywin sitting the Throne that day because Aerys had cut himself yet again).

I think Jon's next chapter or 2 will be a good time to bring up the discussion again with regards to that (I distinctly remember him using Ghost when the wildlings come through the gate to project an image of power and fear on them).

Anyway, I'd argue that Dany has been severely "fooled" with regards to the trapping of power by the Green Grace and the likes of Reznak and HIzdhar. They tell her she will never win over the city if she doesn't embrace some of their customs and she will therefore always be seen as a foreign barbarian/conqueror. But it's actually the opposite- To be able to push through such dramatic change and divest the Slavers of their notions of power, Dany must use fear (particularly fear of death and being burned alive). By chaining her Dragons, Dany is in essence chaining herself and restricting and constraining her power and ability to impose fear on others. Don't even get me started on her decision to basically announce to the Green Grace and Mereen in general her inability and unwillingness to kill the "hostages" she has taken.

I think this in turn brings up a very interesting question. When dealing with major reform and abolition, is it better to work within the system or to work from outside and essentially smash through the existing institutions? I'd put forward that there's no question the best way is to destroy the existing institutions and project an image of real fear and power rather than reconciliation and peace. I think this idea is emblematic of Dany's real problem- Inability to embrace the Dragon (a creature who does not plant trees).

I like the comparison between Dany and Jon here as well, particularly in the scenario that I mentioned is about to come up with the wildlings coming through. There's a real similarity between the way Jon uses Ghost and Dany should be using Drogon and the other Dragons rather than leaving them chained up in the basement.

[Teal'c]

Butterbumps and Flint! You Rock! Fantastic points about Dany and why she is so difficult to embrace. I have been thinking about it for awhile and your observations have lead me to conclude that much of Dany's misadventure in Meereen and Slaver's Bay has more to do with a hero's journey than to rule Westeros.

This is broader than the limits of this particular thread and I am reluctant to go too far into this as I realize many other followers of this thread may find it tiresome. However, Dany has refused her "call." Like Jonah, the gods gave her a message and intructions (plus three dragons). She, like Jonah, has avoided her call. She's done nothing but run away, ignore or adopt a stance of willfull blindness with regard to her "destiny." Meereen is her "belly of the whale." She has been swallowed by it whole and is paying for her refusing the call. And what comes is her expulsion from its belly with the help of her god's gift, Drogon.

I, along with many others, know that Dany doesn't seem equiped to handle her "heroic" responsibilities. I've read so many complaints about her incompetence and her arrogance and her stupidity. She doesn't deserve to be a hero and she certainly doesn't deserve those dragons. And yet, she's the one who wound up the dragons. In tales, such as this, the hero doesn't have to be the smartest, the best looking, the best leader, the one with the best claim, more often than not, it's the underdog, the undeserving, the cripples, bastards and broken things that the gods chose to reconcile a world of opposites.

Dany, like the Stark children and their abilities, these seven kids (five Starks, Jon and Dany), are "chosen" to fix something that is broken in Westeros and is leading to a reckoning with a mythic enemy. As we've seen so far in the story, not all of them will make it. (Poor Rob). Dany may not make it. Jon may not make it. But sacrifice is required. The world of Westeros is out of balance and needs someone(s) to fix it.

I'm thinking specifically the fighting pit was her belly of the whale, but until we get a little further into her adventure I can't be sure. Certainly it represented a departure to the unknown, flying on the back of a half-wild dragon and not knowing where she would end up.

[Dr. Pepper]

There are no villains. There are those that reconcile opposites and create balance, like yin and yang, dark and light, ice and fire.

What does this mean? I've seen this idea brought up around the forum, but it doesn't make any sense to me. If we cannot objectively identify villains, then how can we determine the difference between good actions and bad? How can we decide the genocide is not inherently evil if it's just part of the balance? How can we decide that slavery isn't inherently evil if it's just there to provide balance to freedom?