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

[Ragnorak]

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?

In a world with Ramsay Bolton and Gregor Clegane there are most certainly villains. The Others are an evil anti-human force as well. A zombie army creating faction that covers the world in ice and eternal darkness being a misunderstood force that really wants to get along and sing Kumbaya might have made for a decent scifi twist ending... once.

There can be no heroes without villains and nothing but victims if there are only villains. Fantasy novells are defined by their heroes and villains. Traditionally the Starks would be the "good guys" and the Lannisters the "bad guys." Given the way this tale is told you have people who love and people who hate Dany, Stannis, Jon, Littlefinger, Tyrion, Sansa, Arya, Sandor, Theon and more-- virtually every side of the story has its villians and heroes and the heroes are flawed and the villains sympathetic with redeemable qualities. More importantly, people don't agree on who the heroes and villains actually are. The way the Others laughed Waymar Royce and killed him is very one dimensional typical storybook evil. This helps contrast the very three dimensional human evil in the characters that not even every reader can agree upon. One need not look further than that for some other deconstruction of the typical hero/villain dynamic.

[Fire Eater]

@Tagganaro

Good point, Dany is making some of the same mistakes as Tywin's father, Tytos. Tytos was kind and amiable, but he was always trying to seek the approval of the lords he ruled and was always eager to please. Dany is trying to win the approval of the Meereenese, but the truth is as Tywin observed, no one likes a yuppie, someone who is desperately trying to seek their approval

Jon learned from Mance who stated it best: "They follow strength." People follow those who display confidence, strength and apathy towards what others (rivals and opponents) may think about them. Jon doesn't go seeking the approval of Marsh and his other brothers, but does what he feels he has to do, regardless of what some may think.

Jon is directly involved in forging a treaty while Dany leaves it to Hizdahr, which can be seen as a sign of who is in control of Meereen. Dany could have at least been with Hizdahr at the negotiating table, since the treaty is between Meereen and Yunkai, she has a right as to be there as ruler of Meereen. Leaving it to Hizdahr led it to being a unilateral treaty filled with many pro-slaver provisions that Dany disapproves of. For example, letting Yunkai'i being allowed to bring their slaves into Meereen without fear of having them freed; that is a step towards making Meereen a slaving city as Yunkish relatives of Meereenese noble families can bring slaves with them as they go to the pyramids of their relatives in Meereen for a permanent stay.

[Blisscraft]

There are no villains. . . in stories. Stories reveal humanity and god(s). ( Not Dorothy Parker). What god has to do with money, please enlighten me. I didn't realize that the spiritual world had currency in that form.

Of course, there are selfish, narcissistic, evil-doers in this world. They are those that can't admit that they may have made a mistake. There are the people who have a "'team" (like the folks who read the Twilight novels and create t-shirts or people who applaud when someone is executed. Believe me, I have seen it. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless and there is no justice). There are the bullies (like Hitler or Stalin or the man with hammer and everything is a nail). There are the people who enslave others with their erroneous ideas that there is a "evil" out there (McCarthy comes to mind, in addition to Hitler and Stalin) . There are the people whoinsist that others sit at the back of the bus. They are the ones "real" heroes must overcome. The "other," "the stranger" is in us when we follow bullies. The evil is you and me when we say nothing when we witness wrongdoing. Until we reconcile what exists within, including the "evil," there is no salvation. It is a spiritual journey.

It amazes me that Jon gets a pass and Dany doesn't. Neither one of them is more right or wrong than the other. It seems that the biggest difference is their sex. Lummel is correct in that regard. The standard is different if the "leader is female. Part of the reconciliation of opposites requires that male and female join. What was once separated becomes one. From that union springs the divine. That is "The marriage of Heaven and Hell" that is the reconciliation of opposites. That creates balance: order out of choas; life renewing itself.

[tze]

It amazes me that Jon gets a pass and Dany doesn't. Neither one of them is more right or wrong than the other. It seems that the biggest difference is their sex.

I think this entire thread has pretty unambiguously disproven the highlighted part. The "biggest difference" between Jon and Dany is very clearly NOT their respective genders.

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.

The thing is, Dany made an active choice to essentially hand the reins of power over to Hizdahr. There was absolutely no requirement, implicit or explicit, that she do so upon marrying him. Meereen hasn't had a monarchy for a thousand years, so it's not like Dany was exactly boxed in by a preexisting rulership structure here. She could have retained her full executive authority upon marriage. She could have prevented Hizdahr from making these agreements with the Yunkish, removing the Shavepate, etc. She chose not to do so, and the fault for that decision lies solely with her, not with some pre-existing institutionalized understanding of Queenship. And it seems pretty obvious (to me, at least) that Dany made this particular choice in large part because of her personal distaste for Meereen, not because of the expectations those around her had of a female ruler.

[Winterfellian]

There are no villains. . . in stories. Stories reveal humanity and god(s). ( Not Dorothy Parker). What god has to do with money, please enlighten me. I didn't realize that the spiritual world had currency in that form.

Of course, there are selfish, narcissistic, evil-doers in this world. They are those that can't admit that they may have made a mistake. There are the people who have a "'team" (like the folks who read the Twilight novels and create t-shirts or people who applaud when someone is executed. Believe me, I have seen it. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless and there is no justice). There are the bullies (like Hitler or Stalin or the man with hammer and everything is a nail). There are the people who enslave others with their erroneous ideas that there is a "evil" out there (McCarthy comes to mind, in addition to Hitler and Stalin) . There are the people whoinsist that others sit at the back of the bus. They are the ones "real" heroes must overcome. The "other," "the stranger" is in us when we follow bullies. The evil is you and me when we say nothing when we witness wrongdoing. Until we reconcile what exists within, including the "evil," there is no salvation. It is a spiritual journey.

It amazes me that Jon gets a pass and Dany doesn't. Neither one of them is more right or wrong than the other. It seems that the biggest difference is their sex. Lummel is correct in that regard. The standard is different if the "leader is female. Part of the reconciliation of opposites requires that male and female join. What was once separated becomes one. From that union springs the divine. That is "The marriage of Heaven and Hell" that is the reconciliation of opposites. That creates balance: order out of choas; life renewing itself.

Sorry but this is a mistaken approach. Jon's rights and wrongs do not stem from the fact that he's a man nor more than Dany's from the fact that she's a woman. While their sexes do allow them to see things differently, as leaders, this is not their main differences but their individual actions, decisions and the way they tackle problems, which we have been analyzing in detail during the threads. I actually think is a good thing that we have kept their genders aside when analyzing their roles as leaders because at the end of the day they will not succeed or fail because of their sex but because of their decisions and actions. Dany may be a queen in the feminine sense but as queen she is still a leader (unisex term) for her people just like Jon as LC if the leader of his.

Am not sure I understand what are you referring when you say Jon gets a pass. Is true, that the road they are traveling is unique in their own way and so there is no precedent of what to do right or wrong. However of the things you listed on your post Dany is the only one to fall for the ''eye for an eye'' type of justice. Like Apple Martini pointed out Dany has involved herself in many questionable acts. This acts doesn't have to do with her being a woman not more than Jon's not involvement in this sort of acts reflect his condition as a man. Their involvement in questionable or violent deeds is more a reflection of their own human condition and their unique set of values and view of the world.

If anything, because Dany is a woman some posters (not you!) use this as an excuse to casually make ridiculous accusations of chauvinism and the like when someone doesn't automatically agree with Dany's actions.

[Tagganaro]

@Tagganaro

Good point, Dany is making some of the same mistakes as Tywin's father, Tytos. Tytos was kind and amiable, but he was always trying to seek the approval of the lords he ruled and was always eager to please. Dany is trying to win the approval of the Meereenese, but the truth is as Tywin observed, no one likes a yuppie, someone who is desperately trying to seek their approval

Oh, yes, nice catch with Tytos, another "ruler" who explores that theme (and additionally because of that Tywin is also obsessed with image). Dany could definitely use a bit of Tywin in Mereen (and hopefully she'll be getting that soon in Tywin writ small).

Jon learned from Mance who stated it best: "They follow strength." People follow those who display confidence, strength and apathy towards what others (rivals and opponents) may think about them. Jon doesn't go seeking the approval of Marsh and his other brothers, but does what he feels he has to do, regardless of what some may think.

Every person could stand to learn a thing or 100 from Mance. If he was ruling in Mereen, he'd kick everyone's ass and abolish slavery for good in less than a day, and be singing I tasted the Dornishman's Wife by supper-time.

Jon is directly involved in forging a treaty while Dany leaves it to Hizdahr, which can be seen as a sign of who is in control of Meereen. Dany could have at least been with Hizdahr at the negotiating table, since the treaty is between Meereen and Yunkai, she has a right as to be there as ruler of Meereen. Leaving it to Hizdahr led it to being a unilateral treaty filled with many pro-slaver provisions that Dany disapproves of. For example, letting Yunkai'i being allowed to bring their slaves into Meereen without fear of having them freed; that is a step towards making Meereen a slaving city as Yunkish relatives of Meereenese noble families can bring slaves with them as they go to the pyramids of their relatives in Meereen for a permanent stay.

You've hit the nail on the head with regards to my main problem with Dany (and I think most on here would agree). It's not that she's necessarily wrong or stupid or whatever else, it's that after a point she just seems to stop caring. I noted a couple chapters ago how I was disgusted with Dany's response to Hizdahr opening the fighting pits again (her response was basically: "Oh well, I've wiped my hands of it, it is Hizdahr's decision, the blood is on his hands"). Needless to say, I was stunned by how the nominal Queen marrying the supposed figurehead Hizdahr could act that powerless and indifferent to a major decision like that.

Say what you want about Jon, but he's not taking shit from Bowen Marsh and letting him make decisions for him, no matter how much Bowen Marsh complains and makes Jon's life miserable. You can call Jon a traitor or a turn cloak or half a wildling or whatever else he was being called in ADWD (I don't agree at all obviously but some on here seem to think that), but at least he makes a decision, tries his best to implement it and think through it logically, and then goes about executing it and taking responsibility for it. You don't see Jon saying "Oh well, let's leave all the wildlings to die, it's Bowen Marsh's decision and the blood is on his hands". Granted of course that Jon and Dany's situations are entirely different (for example, Marsh isn't going around conducting a shadow terror campaign killing anyone who supports Jon's thinking), but at the same time Jon is democratically elected while Dany is an absolute monarch with no one to answer yet it seems that Jon is acting like the absolute monarch and Dany is acting like a weakly elected official.

It's an interesting distinction to say the least.

[Winter's Daughter]

Every person could stand to learn a thing or 100 from Mance. If he was ruling in Mereen, he'd kick everyone's ass and abolish slavery for good in less than a day, and be singing I tasted the Dornishman's Wife by supper-time.

.......

(for example, Marsh isn't going around conducting a shadow terror campaign killing anyone who supports Jon's thinking)....

First, I agree, I think Mance is a pretty kickass guy.

......

Second, Marsh is kinda conducting a shadow campaign - to kill Jon.

[The Snow King]

The way the Others laughed Waymar Royce and killed him is very one dimensional typical storybook evil. This helps contrast the very three dimensional human evil in the characters that not even every reader can agree upon. One need not look further than that for some other deconstruction of the typical hero/villain dynamic.

I don't want to nitpick here, but we don't really know much about the Others. They may as well happen to be one dimensional comic-book villains, but as the characters in the books tend to be (mostly) grayish, I hope it's not the case. If the Others are just another kind of sentient beings, maybe quite alien to human, then things may be different. For example, they may have their own Ned Starks and Jamie Lannisters, so probably we should not judge all of them by the actions of just a few (which does not change the fact that they still seem to be a mortal enemy of humanity). From human eyes they are simply monsters, but that may or may not be the whole truth.

The same applies, I feel, to the people of Slavers Bay. We see them as one dimensional tropes, but are they written that way because Martin does not care enough about them, or because the sole PoV we had of the region isn't really that interested, and does not try to know them better? The Yunkai forces seem absurd, but we don't really know much about Yunkai, so let's not judge to fast. I hope that Tyrion and Victarion can provide us with some more interesting perspectives on the people there.

[Blisscraft]

AM - You missed the point. I am not being snarky, just truthful.

Jon getting a pass has to do with some of you and the way you justify his every action. You give him a pass because he is male. Some of you criticize Dany (and call her names) because she is a female. There is a deep cultural fear of a powerful woman. It's a strong bias. A woman in charge is a "bitch." A man in charge is powerful. It carries over in your posting.

Jon makes many mistakes, so does Dany. Both are learning what they can and cannot do.

[Lady Aislinn]

AM - You missed the point. I am not being snarky, just truthful.

Jon getting a pass has to do with some of you and the way you justify his every action. You give him a pass because he is male. Some of you criticize Dany (and call her names) because she is a female. There is a deep cultural fear of a powerful woman. It's a strong bias. A woman in charge is a "bitch." A man in charge is powerful. It carries over in your posting.

Jon makes many mistakes, so does Dany. Both are learning what they can and cannot do.

Nah, I give Jon a pass because while I don't agree with some of his decisions, I do respect that he follows through and sticks with it and does it on his terms. Dany is just a trainwreck right now. Sorry. It could change though. :dunno:

[Maia]

They're both (money and dragons) symbols of power that are not necessarily always bestowed on decent/good/worthy people

Indeed not. In fact, IMHO, nobody in the books _deserved_ the advantages they were given - like, high birth, money, education, magical pets, high offices bestowed on them, etc.

But Dany has done more to earn her dragons than any other character has done to get their supernatural animals/pet sorcerers.

Picture a guy sacking cities, crucifying people, ordering torture, burning people alive. Can you say with a straight face that people would make excuses for him the way people do with Dany?

I don't need to picture it, I see it often enough on these very boards. Stannis, Tywin, Roose Bolton, Drogo and heck, even Victarion and Euron have their share of admirers. And, of course Tyrion did burn thousands too and did other questionable things.

And frankly, if we are being realistic, successful ruler should be prepared to do dodgy and cruel stuff occasionally. It is like Maester Aemon said - a good person doesn't a good ruler make.

What is more, a lot of people seem to fantasize about complete extermination of House Frey and Rickon feeding his enemies to his direwolf... Old Kings of Winter, who did terrible things, including human sacrifice, it appears, seem to be greatly admired as well.

Sacking cities, torturing people, crucifying people and burning people alive are all things, incidentally, that Jon has NOT done.

Yet. He did promise to execute some child-hostages if warranted, though, which is, IMHO, worse than killing some guilty adults, however cruelly. Of course, the way his plot-line has been mostly going, he'll never have to make good on it and/or never suffer for being unable to do so.

[David Selig]

I call shenanigans. I actually think that Dany gets FAR more passes for her often, sorry, borderline cruel and evil behavior than she would if she were a guy. Picture a guy sacking cities, crucifying people, ordering torture, burning people alive. Can you say with a straight face that people would make excuses for him the way people do with Dany?

Of course I can. This board is chock full of people excusing Tyrion, Jaime, Stannis and sometimes even Tywin and Littlefinger's crimes. I've even seen quite a few people claim that there was nothing wrong with Tywin ordering the atrocities in the Riverlands since "it was war". I am sure many of them would do it for a male character in Dany's place too.

Tyrion burned thousands alive and he's still the biggest fan favourite.

[Dacie]

Jon getting a pass has to do with some of you and the way you justify his every action. You give him a pass because he is male. Some of you criticize Dany (and call her names) because she is a female. There is a deep cultural fear of a powerful woman. It's a strong bias. A woman in charge is a "bitch." A man in charge is powerful. It carries over in your posting.

I know there have been posts on this board criticizing Dany with direct gender-based insults, like calling her a "whore" for sleeping with Daario or a "bitch" for mistreatment (?) of Jorah. These are of course gross and ridiculous. But honestly I have never read it from any of our regular contributors to this thread and certainly not on this particular thread or the previous versions.

Dany's power in Meereen is a curious thing. She earns it on her own merit. However, she also loses it on her own merit. She chooses to marry Hizdar and accept the peace that comes with it. She chooses to let him make important decisions. She chose to give up her power because she was overwhelmed and didn't want to deal with it anymore. Even before her marriage she hadn't held court in a very long time. I do not think Dany's problems in Meereen stem from the fact that she's a woman. The GG seems to be the one pulling the strings behind everything, and she is a woman.

I will freely admit that Dany and Jon are on opposite ends of my character spectrum, but I came into this re-read hoping to get good discussion and enlightenment on both characters and their actions. Do I think every move Jon makes is perfect? Definitely not. Do I think every move Dany makes is a mistake? No.

To say that we would give Jon a free pass because he's a man is really disingenuous and kind of insulting. I think we have so far managed to assess their leadership styles, trials, and tribulations without gender bias or prejudice. I have really enjoyed this thread, but if it turns into a "You don't like Dany because she's a woman!!!" discussion, I'll probably bow out.

I don't mean to sound harsh at all, and I'm sorry if I come off that way. You've had some really good insights and I hope we can all continue with the positive discussion.

[Ragnorak]

@Blisscraft

I think Lummel's point that both storylines become impossible if the genders are reversed is brilliant, but also only goes so far. Martin gave us the Sand Snakes, Asha, Arya, Osha, Spear-wives, and Dornish succession laws; he isn't exactly writing a "bare foot and pregnant" story. There are truly interesting dynamics based on the gender differences but I think elevating them to "the biggest" is just too far.

Based on the last series of posts about who gets "a pass" and how come this one's killing is ok but that one's is awful-- I am going to take a moment to gloat over my "More importantly, people don't agree on who the heroes and villains actually are." line. :cheers:

[Arya Targaryen]

Indeed not. In fact, IMHO, nobody in the books _deserved_ the advantages they were given - like, high birth, money, education, magical pets, high offices bestowed on them, etc.

But Dany has done more to earn her dragons than any other character has done to get their supernatural animals/pet sorcerers.

Of course, nobody deserves high birth, money, education, but it is a given, and most of the main characters are of high birth. But tell me, exactly how did Dany earn her dragons? What did she do? She accepted her husband? Or killed him? Burned MMD? Was willing to walk into the pyre? As I see, Jon did much more to earn Ghost, simply by being willing NOT TO HAVE a direwolf, in favour of his siblings.

Old Kings of Winter, who did terrible things, including human sacrifice, it appears, seem to be greatly admired as well.

While of course most people IRL don't agree with any kind of human sacrifice, in-story it seems to be traditional, or just, you know, common. We may say, that human sacrifice is a terrible thing, in Westeros it seems to be the normal way, so I definitely won't judge anyone who does it. But there is a difference between sacrifice and sacrifice. "Only death will pay for a life" - but that death doesn't have to be cruel. It seems to me, that even the FM don't give painful death. Beheading is probably one of the most "human" way of executing someone, because it won't cause unnecessary pain. Burning someone, on the other hand, is extremely painful. Old Kings of Winter preferred beheading (like Starks do). Dany is fine with crucifiction and burning - and they are just cruel. Not just by our standards - that's why Jon shot "Mance", even if that could have meant Stannis' wrath.

Yet. He did promise to execute some child-hostages if warranted, though, which is, IMHO, worse than killing some guilty adults, however cruelly.

I disagree. Killing someone (even if he is guilty) cruelly is always unnecessary, because there is always an other way to handle things (less painfully)

Killing child hostages - well, yes, according to our laws it seems to be awful (it is), but if Jon (or any other King of Winter) shows mercy on these cases, that would result in even more war and rebellion, killing even more people, including children. Because the laws are different, they don't have police who keeps up peace, on the other hand they have Lords with their own loyal people, who might start some kind of war if not for the hostages. And it is not like those children were abused - they got proper education as long as their fathers stayed loyal. It's not like the poor father has to rescue his son, that's why he starts a rebellion but the evil King/LC/whatever executes the child. Those children got a much better chance to live (be educated, etc), than they would have got anyway, so their parents have no reason whatsoever to rebel. And they KNOW if they do, well, the child will be beheaded. Which is a much worse punishment for the father, than for the beheaded child, I think. Of course, IRL, killing a child is awful, but somehow I think, even nowadays, if you have the choice between having a quick death, or to see your kid dead, most people would choose the former.

And just one more thing: most of those children (boys) were almost "grown men" (age 10-16), even if IRL they would be just kids.

Of course, the way his plot-line has been mostly going, he'll never have to make good on it and/or never suffer for being unable to do so.

We'll see.

[kg1982]

Granted of course that Jon and Dany's situations are entirely different (for example, Marsh isn't going around conducting a shadow terror campaign killing anyone who supports Jon's thinking), but at the same time Jon is democratically elected while Dany is an absolute monarch with no one to answer yet it seems that Jon is acting like the absolute monarch and Dany is acting like a weakly elected official.

Both Jon and Dany are taking the wrong approach to leading based on how they obtained power in the first place. Perhaps Jon's decision to act like an absolute monarch might have as much to do with his downfall as Dany's desire to compromise with the slavers in Meereen.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Both Jon and Dany are taking the wrong approach to leading based on how they obtained power in the first place. Perhaps Jon's decision to act like an absolute monarch might have as much to do with his downfall as Dany's desire to compromise with the slavers in Meereen.

The Night's Watch, after the Lord Commander is elected, is not a democracy. Why do people expect Jon to run it like one when it isn't?

[Harlaw's Book]

Apple, I was writing the same thing you said. And even if it was a democracy/republic, Jon is granted the right to exercise his power to the fullest extent possible.

Furthermore, I think this is the key meta difference between between Jon and Dany. We have outside textual support showing that Jon is making the right decisions. Ned would've supported Stannis. Mormont independently came to the conclusion that the Wildings were not the enemy. I don't see the same for Dany.

[PatrickStormborn]

Apple, I was writing the same thing you said. And even if it was a democracy/republic, Jon is granted the right to exercise his power to the fullest extent possible.

Furthermore, I think this is the key meta difference between between Jon and Dany. We have outside textual support showing that Jon is making the right decisions. Ned would've supported Stannis. Mormont independently came to the conclusion that the Wildings were not the enemy. I don't see the same for Dany.

The Night's Watch is not supposed to get involved in the politics of Westeros, so what makes you think The Ned would have sacrificed his honour to support Stannis? This is the same Ned who inadvertantly plunged the kingdoms into a civil war to appease his honour, rather than simply backing Renly or Joffrey.

As for Dany, I'm not sure what sort of outside textual support she's supposed to get. I like to hope we can assume everyone else would have tried to free slaves if they could. We know that other characters (Tywin and Tyrion, for example) would have got the dragons out as soon as one of the Unsullied was murdered, but isn't it actually a good thing that Daenerys attempted to forge peace rather than going the easy way? I can only imagine what sort of reception she would have received from the readers if she'd actually wiped out all the noble families.

[Dacie]

The Night's Watch is not supposed to get involved in the politics of Westeros, so what makes you think The Ned would have sacrificed his honour to support Stannis? This is the same Ned who inadvertantly plunged the kingdoms into a civil war to appease his honour, rather than simply backing Renly or Joffrey.

If Ned had been successful in fleeing King's Landing, he would've backed Stannis because he knew that his was the legitimate claim. I think this is made pretty clear in the text. If he had been sent to the Night's Watch, I still believe he would've backed Stannis. The ultimate purpose of the NW is to "guard the realms of men". Stannis helped accomplish that.