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

[tze]

that maybe she is not meant to be a leader as we typically conceive, that maybe a messianic figurehead is precisely what Westeros might need, and that perhaps Dany's journey as a leader is about a tabula rasa lesson in recontructing the notion of power.

In all honesty, I have a great deal of difficulty envisioning a scenario in which Dany achieves messianic status in Westeros. In Essos? Absolutely---but only if she resolves to remain in Essos for the rest of her life, sits down and thinks through a workable plan geared toward (at least the beginnings of) the abolition of the institution of slavery, and very importantly, begins gathering together a cadre of people who all wish to help her institute that anti-slavery plan. Christ had his apostles, who aided his ministry and upon his death, spread his message throughout many lands (so that that message did not die with him); Dany does not have any equivalent of the twelve apostles to help her "spread her message"---the closest she could potentially get would be the Red Priests, but we really don't know what's going to happen between Dany and Moqorro, so that "future alliance" is far from certain. (The others around her are either sycophants, servants, employees, or a knight who just wants her to leave Essos ASAP.) The stars aligned to give Dany the messianic opportunity in Essos, but I don't see any scenario whereby they'll do the same for her in Westeros. No, not even if the Others do attack, given that there are plenty of other potential messianic figures in Westeros whose plotlines (and areas of expertise) are already intertwined with the Others.

In Essos, Dany was called "Mother". But Westeros already has a "Mother" archetype, and we have been repeatedly reminded that that archetype is primarily associated with mercy. Dany, immediately before ordering the wineseller and his daughters tortured, says:

Mercy, thought Dany. They will have the dragon's mercy.

Dany can't be the "Mother" in Westeros as she can be in Essos, certainly not by embracing "fire and blood". And unlike the Dothraki, the Westerosi don't seem to view mindless destruction (without associated rebuilding) as laudable for its own sake (if they did, Westerosi views of the Mountain would be rather different). And Westeros doesn't need fire and blood---it's already had several years' worth of both. An argument can be made that Essos needs "fire and blood" to destroy the entrenched institutions that give rise to slavery there. But GRRM has basically said Dany won't be staying in Essos forever, so is Dany going to be targeting "fire and blood" at the place that actually needs it?

The issue I see with the idea of Dany as an instrument of shifting power dynamics---that her role is merely to destroy, not to build, but that a person causing destruction without rebuilding can still be a positive thing---is that, if Dany doesn't also serve a leadership role after shifting said power dynamics, instead leaving that leadership role to be taken up by someone else . . . well, when one person comes in and destroys everything, but a second person, unassociated with the first person, comes in and cleans up the mess and actually builds something out of the chaos, people think of the second person as the hero, not the first. The first person goes down in history, fairly or not, as the villain. This was apparently the entire point of the Varys/Illyrio plan----have the Targ siblings sweep in with a Dothraki horde, cause a crapload of destruction, and then have Aegon swoop in as a savior figure. That the Targ siblings would supposedly take down the Baratheons would not matter, because the associated rampant destruction would have firmly placed Dany/Viserys in the "villain" category, even in the eyes of those who opposed the Baratheons. (The fact that Dany still doesn't realize that Illyrio never intended the Dothraki-led invasion to lead to Viserys's retaking of the Iron Throne has some pretty heavy implications for her ultimate embracing of "fire and blood" in ADWD.)

Stannis smashed the Free Folk in battle, he let some of them through the Wall, but how do the Free Folk view Stannis, even the ones he allowed to come through the Wall? He clearly wants to destroy their culture, religion, and pride. He destroyed, but he did not rebuild. Jon, however, swoops in as an alternative to Stannis, and I'd argue that one reason Jon has so much success with the wildlings is because has can, intentionally or not, position himself as a counterpoint to Stannis's destructiveness; had Stannis not come to the Wall and been such a jackass to the wildlings, Jon might have had greater difficulty winning the wildlings over, because Jon might not look quite so good without the benefit of being compared to someone like Stannis.

I don't think the point is that all chaos/destruction can serve as positive forces. We've seen an abundance of chaos and destruction in this series: from the Ironborn, from the ravaging of the Riverlands. The forces causing this chaos and destruction aren't viewed as positive forces by anyone----they're viewed as forces that need to be destroyed. Bringing chaos and destruction to Astapor, without adequately rebuilding it, ultimately led to the death or enslavement of practically everybody in the city. If Dany's ultimate role is simply to destroy, not to build, then I don't think that's going to end up being a positive role at all. Dragons destroy, and dragons are what the heroes fight, they are not the heroes themselves. And heroes become heroes by destroying the dragons. But while the hero needs the dragon to be a hero, that does not inherently make the dragon is a positive thing---for without the dragon, there would be no need for the hero in the first place.

[PatrickStormborn]

Tze, I think it's quite simple how Dany will reach messianic status... by, you know, leading the war against the Others.

I don't think the point is that all chaos/destruction can serve as positive forces. We've seen an abundance of chaos and destruction in this series: from the Ironborn, from the ravaging of the Riverlands. The forces causing this chaos and destruction aren't viewed as positive forces by anyone----they're viewed as forces that need to be destroyed. Bringing chaos and destruction to Astapor, without adequately rebuilding it, ultimately led to the death or enslavement of practically everybody in the city. If Dany's ultimate role is simply to destroy, not to build, then I don't think that's going to end up being a positive role at all. Dragons destroy, and dragons are what the heroes fight, they are not the heroes themselves. And heroes become heroes by destroying the dragons. But while the hero needs the dragon to be a hero, that does not inherently make the dragon is a positive thing---for without the dragon, there would be no need for the hero in the first place.

Well, no one has attempted to say that all destruction can serve as positive forces, so I'm not sure what your point is. My argument is that destruction can be a positive force, just as unwillingness to use destruction can be a negative force.

I like this, Patrick. Perhaps because of my profession and worldview, I have trouble seeing the virtue in destruction, and this is precisely why I want to look at this from another angle (I'm a "builder" :cool4: ). I associate "building" and "maintaining" with positive, and I'm finding myself supremely challenged by Dany because she goes against the grain of this idea, though, is not portrayed unsympathetically in the text, so I am inclined to think Martin has a different intention for Dany, and that perhaps chaos or destruction is not inherently "negative."

But don't Jon's chapters also symbolise destruction? True, not on the same level as Dany, but in essence he is breaking down the barrier between the wildlings and the Night's Watch. In addition, whilst the Wall symbolises preservation, Jon's worries are less about preservation and are more about the upcoming threat posed by the Others, and he intends to leave the Wall to destroy Ramsay Bolton. This contrasts Dany, who waits around in Meereen for the olive trees to grow as she attempts to forge a peace to preserve the lives of her people. The Wall symbolises preservation, which is what Jon should be focused on, and the dragons symbolise destruction, which is what Dany should be focused on ("ice preserves, fire consumes"). I think this is the main reason for their respective failure.

On a (somewhat) related note, I think there's some nice foreshadowing of Dany's future at the end of AGOT and the beginning of ACOK, as we see Dany leading the fragmented remains of a once blossoming khalasar through the desert (the Red Waste), into the abandoned wasteland (Vaes Tolorro), and then into paradise (Qarth). Can this perhaps show that Dany will lead the fragmented remains of the Westerosi through the war for dawn and then help them to recover afterwards, in a city built on bones and ghosts?

[butterbumps!]

I don't think the point is that all chaos/destruction can serve as positive forces. We've seen an abundance of chaos and destruction in this series: from the Ironborn, from the ravaging of the Riverlands. The forces causing this chaos and destruction aren't viewed as positive forces by anyone----they're viewed as forces that need to be destroyed. Bringing chaos and destruction to Astapor, without adequately rebuilding it, ultimately led to the death or enslavement of practically everybody in the city. If Dany's ultimate role is simply to destroy, not to build, then I don't think that's going to end up being a positive role at all. Dragons destroy, and dragons are what the heroes fight, they are not the heroes themselves. And heroes become heroes by destroying the dragons. But while the hero needs the dragon to be a hero, that does not inherently make the dragon is a positive thing---for without the dragon, there would be no need for the hero in the first place.

I think that you and I approach these issues with a consistently similar mind. Destruction may be requisite for creation in some cases, and especially in certain theologies like Buddhism they are one in the same, but it does seem like "destruction" itself carries negative connotations in the world of ASOIAF. The only exception to this is the fact that Dany is drawn is a highly sympathetic and positive light as a "personality," despite the fact that she is a symbol of destructive force. The Eastern theologies mentioned above suit her well, in that as "mother" and "fire," where the duality of creation and destruction are one.

I agree with the assessment that in order for destruction to be considered a positive thing, it must be followed by order, and that it is the person who can establish order who is regarded as the "hero" as it pertains. Destruction may be necessary, but I have trouble considering it positively on it's own. Given Dany's duality of creator and destroyer, I want to believe that by the end of all this, that she does indeed "deliver" people to a new land and build, like what Lykos mentioned. In terms of her arc, I believe that it would be the most suitable conclusion to her journey, as well as the way I personally would leave the series seeing her in a positive light (which I probably wouldn't without a "rebuilding" stage). I suppose that even if the oppressive system and corruption of Westeros are wiped out by her interventions- if they are of a chaotic and destructive nature- that I would have trouble crediting the change that follows to a purely destructive force.

[Faint]

Daenerys' ultimate role isn't to destroy. In so far as she has a greater purpose with respect to the mechanism of the story, it's probably to subdue all the warring factions south of the Neck into a single cohesive force that will help the North to take on the Others. Aegon isn't going to do that, neither will Jaime, the Tyrells or the Dornish. And Jon has enough on his plate as it is -- he'll probably be the one to achieve the same task, only applied to the North.

[butterbumps!]

But don't Jon's chapters also symbolise destruction? True, not on the same level as Dany, but in essence he is breaking down the barrier between the wildlings and the Night's Watch. In addition, whilst the Wall symbolises preservation, Jon's worries are less about preservation and are more about the upcoming threat posed by the Others, and he intends to leave the Wall to destroy Ramsay Bolton. This contrasts Dany, who waits around in Meereen for the olive trees to grow as she attempts to forge a peace to preserve the lives of her people. The Wall symbolises preservation, which is what Jon should be focused on, and the dragons symbolise destruction, which is what Dany should be focused on ("ice preserves, fire consumes"). I think this is the main reason for their respective failure.

I think we need to look at what is being destroyed. Jon isn't just destroying the barrier between free folk and kneelers; he's unifying them in a way that he considers them to all be men. Dany, conversely, only thinks of those in her debt as "her people." It's that extra step of unification where I see Jon taking "destruction" a step further, and why I view this differently. I'm also not completely sure of her role with the Others. Agree 100% on Vaes Tolorro, though.

[Faint]

Jon isn't just destroying the barrier between free folk and kneelers; he's trying to unify them in a way that he considers them to all be men.

I think it's important to point out that Jon, good intentioned and all, actually failed at his task. He didn't unify the Night's Watch and the Wildings against the Others. He couldn't even unify the Night's Watch and Stannis' force into a workable arrangement. This, I think goes back to the gist of the issue (which is also applicable in Daenerys' case): Jon simply isn't a good politician, or he isn't one yet. Above all, he has a decided inability to process how the appearance he was giving out all throughout A Dance with Dragons was slowing making him persona non grata to his own men. He also achieved the rather dubious distinction of somehow contriving to come off as both a Wilding lover and a Stannis sympathizer at the same time, made even worse by the fact that he did this without actually achieving any loyalty on the part of Stannis' contingent (with the possible exception of Melisandre).

[Ragnorak]

So what about changing the goalpost to looking for patterns to indicate her future post "Fire and Blood" epiphany? Maybe look at the last chapter first to get a baseline of themes and symbolism?

[butterbumps!]

So what about changing the goalpost to looking for patterns to indicate her future post "Fire and Blood" epiphany? Maybe look at the last chapter first to get a baseline of themes and symbolism?

Perhaps this: We can still look at the "leadership" question, perhaps not to judge her performance in this category, but to talk about specific issues that are part of leadership as they arise in her chapters. Personally, I'm interested in the construction of power as something separate from leadership, and perhaps this might be a productive lens? Perhaps also to focus more on her personal trial to embrace her "demons"- expand it to more personal character analysis than just leadership?

ETA: sorry for the overuse of "perhaps"

[Faint]

The indications for her future epiphany are all right there in that line she keeps repeating to herself (i.e., "If I look back, I am lost"). What she really should be saying is: "Until I look back, I am lost." It's this inability to confront her past, deal with her heritage, and embrace what she is that always proves her downfall. This starts, of course, with dealing with the fact that her father was a murderous, psychotic tyrant and asking herself why her family was deposed in the first place.

[Ragnorak]

@butterbumps!

We've already had a good deal of focus on the identity crisis, inner monster, one foot in each pool, mother vs conqueror, so personal trial sounds good. She has effectively abdicated leadership but still wields power so there should be "construction of power" material to work with as well.

[Ser Pollo Loco]

The indications for her future epiphany are all right there in that line she keeps repeating to herself (i.e., "If I look back, I am lost"). What she really should be saying is: "Until I look back, I am lost." It's this inability to confront her past, deal with her heritage, and embrace what she is that always proves her downfall. This starts, of course, with dealing with the fact that her father was a murderous, psychotic tyrant and asking herself why her family was deposed in the first place.

I think this is closer to the mark on Dany's latest chapters, it become less about leadership and more about identity, both Jamie and Dany have the same epiphany in thier last chapters in adwd and feast, "the question is who are you." Dany has so far been taking whatever role people (or she) thrust upon herself, khaleesi, then khal/mother of dragons, then mother/breaker of chains ect.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Tze, I think it's quite simple how Dany will reach messianic status... by, you know, leading the war against the Others.

I think that part of Tze's point was that there are already candidates in Westeros who could fit this bill and probably fit it better. I don't think I'm alone when I say that the idea of Dany spending five and potentially six or even six-and-a-half books in complete ignorance of the Others' very existence only to swoop in and save the day would feel incredibly deus ex-ish, forced and contrived. Like, fan-fiction worthy.

Well, no one has attempted to say that all destruction can serve as positive forces, so I'm not sure what your point is. My argument is that destruction can be a positive force, just as unwillingness to use destruction can be a negative force.

But the thing is, you can't "just" knock something down. You have to have something else in mind to replace it. That's consistently been Dany's biggest problem with slavery — she thinks it's enough to say, "Slavery is no more" and that will solve everything, and it does not work that way. Anyone can knock a bad thing down. The best people knock a bad thing down and build a GOOD thing on top of it.

[Spiderweaves]

I think this is closer to the mark on Dany's latest chapters, it become less about leadership and more about identity, both Jamie and Dany have the same epiphany in thier last chapters in adwd and feast, "the question is who are you." Dany has so far been taking whatever role people (or she) thrust upon herself, khaleesi, then khal/mother of dragons, then mother/breaker of chains ect.

Unfortunately, Dany (and Jon to a lesser extent), is not in a very good position for self-discovery. I mean, she can't exactly start therapy or go off to college to find herself. She's got a group of people to lead, and people who depend on her for their survival.

It reminds me of the old expression: "It's hard growing up in public."

[Ser Pollo Loco]

Unfortunately, Dany (and Jon to a lesser extent), is not in a very good position for self-discovery. I mean, she can't exactly start therapy or go off to college to find herself. She's got a group of people to lead, and people who depend on her for their survival.

It reminds me of the old expression: "It's hard growing up in public."

I think that was the point of the last few dark chapters in adwd, discovering who she is or will be because her actions led her down a path she really didn't want to go on, she sacrificed who she was/her goals for peace. Disagree about Jon, his who are you moments were in late GOT and early Clash, he's a man of the night watch and bastard son of Eddard stark. He doesn't even get upset when people refer to him as a bastard in adwd as evidenced by his conversation with Karstark. I am curious to see if he has to reevaluate if he is out of the nights watch (shouldn't be discussed in this thread), and if this is Dany's last identity moment

[Blisscraft]

Blisscraft, I rather see Dany as someone like Moses or Nymeria if you want, who leads her people to new shores, and I´m desperately waiting for her to come down with the Ten Commandments. (While I see Jon as a sort of Jesus and Samwell is his Petrus.)

I think neither Dany nor Westeros are such a lost cause that she needs to burn it down with fire. (But I´m a hopelessly naive optimist.)

I don't think she'll burn Westeros down with fire either. I think she is part of a union which will bring about rebirth and reconciliation. Earlier, I made reference to Prometheus. Although Dany doesn't steal fire from the gods, she's given it in the form of dragons. Fire is not only a means of destruction, but also a means of illumination. It's a symbol of the spirit of god (ie, the tongues of flame that appear above the heads of the apostles). Also, your reference to Moses is apt in this regard. He saw God in a "burning" bush and from there brought forth justice in the form of the Ten Commandments.

[butterbumps!]

I don't think she'll burn Westeros down with fire either. I think she is part of a union which will bring about rebirth and reconciliation. Earlier, I made reference to Prometheus. Although Dany doesn't steal fire from the gods, she's given it in the form of dragons. Fire is not only a means of destruction, but also a means of illumination. It's a symbol of the spirit of god (ie, the tongues of flame that appear above the heads of the apostles). Also, your reference to Moses is apt in this regard. He saw God in a "burning" bush and from there brought forth justice in the form of the Ten Commandments.

I like the references to Prometheus. In the case of Prometheus, though, it's not that he brought fire to man; he gave man a way to control it, and as a controlled entity it became a tool that enabled civilization, and also made men more god-like (or at least giving them the powers of the gods). Fire was now something shared amongst men that raised their literal standards of living; interestingly, it also "domesticated" man.

The dragons are a bit more complex than this, I think. For one thing, the introduction of fire control has a very literal and direct causation to raising the standards of living and enabling an agricultural civilization to take hold-- cooking, warmth, light, clearing fields for planting, etc. The dragons are not as directly causal in this regard; it seems like they are foremost weapons. As weapons, it can be argued that they have a similarly civilizing presence-- they can be used to enforce order, sustain social change, and protect one's people from harm. In the right hands and properly controlled, this "enforcement" mechanism could be a very positive thing. But, the end goal is not destruction, as I see it; it's about using destruction as a catalyst for upheaval, as well as the threat of destruction in order to maintain these changes.

With that said, perhaps my reservation stems from the fact that these weapons are not being controlled or considered in a responsible way. That's what frightens me. I think that until she learns the difference between vengeance and justice, and learns that force is not just a tool to punish, I am very cautious about considering this "fire" a good thing as its own end. But, I do appreciate her internal struggle to come to terms with embracing the fire, without judging whether I approve of the fire as good or bad.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I like the references to Prometheus. In the case of Prometheus, though, it's not that he brought fire to man; he gave man a way to control it, and as a controlled entity it became a tool that enabled civilization, and also made men more god-like (or at least giving them the powers of the gods). Fire was now something shared amongst men that raised their literal standards of living; interestingly, it also "domesticated" man.

The dragons are a bit more complex than this, I think. For one thing, the introduction of fire control has a very literal and direct causation to raising the standards of living and enabling an agricultural civilization to take hold-- cooking, warmth, light, clearing fields for planting, etc. The dragons are not as directly causal in this regard; it seems like they are foremost weapons. As weapons, it can be argued that they have a similarly civilizing presence-- they can be used to enforce order, sustain social change, and protect one's people from harm. In the right hands and properly controlled, this "enforcement" mechanism could be a very positive thing. But, the end goal is not destruction, as I see it; it's about using destruction as a catalyst for upheaval, as well as the threat of destruction in order to maintain these changes.

With that said, perhaps my reservation stems from the fact that these weapons are not being controlled or considered in a responsible way. That's what frightens me. I think that until she learns the difference between vengeance and justice, and learns that force is not just a tool to punish, I am very cautious about considering this "fire" a good thing as its own end. But, I do appreciate her internal struggle to come to terms with embracing the fire, without judging whether I approve of the fire as good or bad.

I agree with this. I'm not sure the Prometheus analogy works all that well. In Greek mythology, Prometheus teaching mankind about fire was foremost about knowledge (technology, infrastructure, subsistence, whatever); it's probably the closest instance to the story of Adam and Eve eating the apple that Greek mythology has. It is literal "illumination," and I honestly don't see three weapons of mass destruction really fitting the motif there.

[Tagganaro]

I think it's important to point out that Jon, good intentioned and all, actually failed at his task. He didn't unify the Night's Watch and the Wildings against the Others. He couldn't even unify the Night's Watch and Stannis' force into a workable arrangement. This, I think goes back to the gist of the issue (which is also applicable in Daenerys' case): Jon simply isn't a good politician, or he isn't one yet. Above all, he has a decided inability to process how the appearance he was giving out all throughout A Dance with Dragons was slowing making him persona non grata to his own men. He also achieved the rather dubious distinction of somehow contriving to come off as both a Wilding lover and a Stannis sympathizer at the same time, made even worse by the fact that he did this without actually achieving any loyalty on the part of Stannis' contingent (with the possible exception of Melisandre).

Agreed, but that's kind of the point right? There's no room for politics when an army of ice demons is ready to destroy mankind. Jon shouldn't be worried about politics- He should be worried about fulfilling his oath to "guard the realms of men". This is for a later Jon chapter, but I don't believe his "assassination" has anything to do with his past policies (hence, Ghost not even being worried about Marsh and co. right before the assassination attempt). Instead it has to do with his seemingly spur of the moment decision to invade Winterfell.

The indications for her future epiphany are all right there in that line she keeps repeating to herself (i.e., "If I look back, I am lost"). What she really should be saying is: "Until I look back, I am lost." It's this inability to confront her past, deal with her heritage, and embrace what she is that always proves her downfall. This starts, of course, with dealing with the fact that her father was a murderous, psychotic tyrant and asking herself why her family was deposed in the first place.

Yes, this is a very good way of looking at it I think. This has been one of my major complaints- She has a fount of knowledge (or at least facts) in Barry (because god knows he is the opposite of knowledgable) and she doesn't seem that interested in using it. She does need to look back and understand her history, because I believe it will give her the proper perspective to understand how to get things done and rule.

I agree with this. I'm not sure the Prometheus analogy works all that well. In Greek mythology, Prometheus teaching mankind about fire was foremost about knowledge (technology, infrastructure, subsistence, whatever); it's probably the closest instance to the story of Adam and Eve eating the apple that Greek mythology has. It is literal "illumination," and I honestly don't see three weapons of mass destruction really fitting the motif there.

Agreed. Prometheus is about education/learning/technology. Dragons are just weapons of destruction. Destruction can be good on it's own (i.e. Sodom and Gommorah ), but it's not the same as providing Man with a technology that can change its own way of living and enhance it significantly. Dragons will not be lighting fires for people to use to cook food and such- They'll be burning people alive and feasting on their remains.

I like what I have quoted from Faint just above. Dany needs to learn to embrace the destruction (and the tabula rasa that comes with it) and then have a plan of what to do with it afterwards. Part of this should come with some reasonable perspective about Targ history. Dany already has the necessary compassion to do good things- It's just very disappointing when she ignores this for her own pride. Hopefully this will be a great learning experience for her (which it seems to be based on the end of ADWD).

[The Snow King]

Agreed. Prometheus is about education/learning/technology. Dragons are just weapons of destruction. Destruction can be good on it's own (i.e. Sodom and Gommorah ), but it's not the same as providing Man with a technology that can change its own way of living and enhance it significantly. Dragons will not be lighting fires for people to use to cook food and such- They'll be burning people alive and feasting on their remains.

I vehemently disagree on how a destruction of two cities can be a good on it's own. It's really hard to justify killing a whole city, and even if it's possible it's usually for a very good reason.

On the same note, I wonder how 'good' destruction can be in the Song of Ice and Fire universe. As many people pointed out, destruction is a part of the forever cycle in many mythologies, but Martin tends to deconstruct and subvert tropes in his books, and in real life destruction is almost never a good thing. It's hard to find a good thing coming out of destruction, except maybe better safety procedures. When it comes to social order and political system violent changes probably never have led to anything good, and revolutions end in massive bloodshed and often even more oppressive regimes than before. The revolutions usually (though I admit, not always) are not forcing changes, but the rather result of changes already happening. Changing anything for the better, on the other hand, takes hard work and time, and often results from technological advancement.

I do not expect destruction to be shown in positive light in the course of the books.

[PatrickStormborn]

I think that part of Tze's point was that there are already candidates in Westeros who could fit this bill and probably fit it better. I don't think I'm alone when I say that the idea of Dany spending five and potentially six or even six-and-a-half books in complete ignorance of the Others' very existence only to swoop in and save the day would feel incredibly deus ex-ish, forced and contrived. Like, fan-fiction worthy.

If she is Azor Ahai Reborn, she is the only person who can lead the people against the Others. As Maester Aemon said, following a false candidate (i.e. Stannis) will just push the world into further darkness.

I don't think it counts as "deus ex-ish" unless she simply shows up and defeats the Others straight away (like Stannis with the wildlings), which I haven't suggested. Clearly, if you've been reading the thread closely, you'll see my point is that Dany has to force Westeros to submit to her so she can lead a unified kingdom to war.

Furthermore, the majority of the people in Westeros don't know about the Others. Does that mean that every character apart from Jon, Stannis and Bran needs to just sit back and get out of the story because their presence will be too "deus ex-ish" for you?

But the thing is, you can't "just" knock something down. You have to have something else in mind to replace it. That's consistently been Dany's biggest problem with slavery — she thinks it's enough to say, "Slavery is no more" and that will solve everything, and it does not work that way. Anyone can knock a bad thing down. The best people knock a bad thing down and build a GOOD thing on top of it.

Isn't this exactly what I've been saying all along? I said that "Dracarys" was an example of "good" destruction, but it was everything that came afterwards that was the mess. If Dany had left Astapor stable, she'd still be a hero despite destroying the city.

I vehemently disagree on how a destruction of two cities can be a good on it's own. It's really hard to justify killing a whole city, and even if it's possible it's usually for a very good reason.

On the same note, I wonder how 'good' destruction can be in the Song of Ice and Fire universe. As many people pointed out, destruction is a part of the forever cycle in many mythologies, but Martin tends to deconstruct and subvert tropes in his books, and in real life destruction is almost never a good thing. It's hard to find a good thing coming out of destruction, except maybe better safety procedures. When it comes to social order and political system violent changes probably never have led to anything good, and revolutions end in massive bloodshed and often even more oppressive regimes than before. The revolutions usually (though I admit, not always) are not forcing changes, but the rather result of changes already happening. Changing anything for the better, on the other hand, takes hard work and time, and often results from technological advancement.

I do not expect destruction to be shown in positive light in the course of the books.

Well, Westeros is facing a war against a supernatural enemy that will result in a never-ending winter. Any destruction done by Dany would be done in an effort to prevent this from happening (and by "destruction", I mean more like Harrenhal/Field of Fire than burning whole cities or fields to the ground).