Is Dany actually the ANTAGONIST?

[UnbentFury]

I'm down with Dany being the antagonist just for the reactions when she comes through on a big black dragon and a kraken on a side burning down villages.

Dany: I am your savior and the one-true queen!

Burning villagers: Da fuck, bitch?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I disagree. While the Dany haters seethe they know she is the hero and she will defeate the White Walkers and bring on the eternal spring.

We do? I certainly don't know that.

[Arkantos]

We have a counter example in one of Mel's guards. It's specifically mentioned he should have been hanged by Stannis's own admission, but was spared, because his father and brothers were nobles loyal to Stannis.

What was his crime? Stannis might've just been in a foul mood, that could've simply been him saying that he doesn't like the guy.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Such bullshit Apple. I am tired of your needlessly antagonising people who don't agree with you.

Just calling it as I see it based on precedence. If it hits a nerve, tough.

[richard_ba]

In this series there aren't antagonists or protagonists, every POV character has their own chance to shine

[The Idiots Lantern]

We do? I certainly don't know that.

You don't know it's impossible either. You know it's unlikely, but hell, humanity getting it together long enough to survive the immanent zombie apocalypse is "unlikely," so....

[Wouter]

The problem with that argument, though, is that "Others vs humans" is the very definition of "externalizing the struggle", so that "the heroic protagonists" (humanity) "need only smite the evil minions of the dark power" (the Others) "to win the day"---exactly what GRRM said he doesn't want to do.

The presence of the Others does not mean that the struggles between Lannisters and Starks, between Tyrells and Cersei, between Stannis and Renly, between Dany and her various opponents (etcetera) are nullified. I don't think we can say Dany, or Arya, or Tyrion or even Jon need only "smite the evil minions of the dark" just because there are Others around who may be entirely evil from a human POV! There are more external struggles of this kind, like the entire concept of a year(s)-long winter or the storms that various characters had to content with at sea. Obviously, a seastorm is neither a complex character with good and bad sides nor can one bargain with it, but as external struggle it doesn't diminish the internal struggle of the characters involved in the storm. In my opinion, the Others will have more in common with a storm at sea than with complex (and to some extent even likeable) villains like the top brass of the Lannisters.

Dany, Arya, Tyrion, Stannis and co all have inner struggles and all have committed things we could call crimes. For many characters, whether they are seen by readers as heroes or villains (or in between) can easily shift depending on personal opinion of the reader. IMO this more than qualifies to have an inner struggle, so that we don't need the Others to be more than an external menace that needs to be stopped in order to comply with GRRM's stated aims.

I think people on this forum tend to have an exaggerated idea of just how far GRRM wants to deviate from more "standard" fantasy. He is not necessary out to completely subvert every other fantasy trope. IMO, the books still point to Jon and/or Dany saving the day in some fashion, even if the road to get there will not be the typical one for standard epic fantasy. Dany's vision in the house of the undying seems to be largely ignored by some, in this regard.

We don't actually know what the Others want, whether they can be bargained/reasoned with, whether they bring darkness/cold or if the darkness/cold comes for other reasons and the Others are just taking advantage of favorable (to them) weather conditions. Hell, there are plenty of things in the books that could very well point to the North ending up allying with the Others by ADOS.

Colour me sceptical, on that point. I see nothing pointing to an alliance between the north and the bitter cold, which is what the Others seem to be or represent. Whether the Others can be reasoned with remains in doubt (Craster and Jon's attempt to communicate suggest it may be possible, to some extent), but what they have made it pretty clear what they want and it's nothing good for human creatures (or any warm-blooded creature, for that matter).

If the whole point (as GRRM said) is for it to be difficult to know who's "good" and who's "evil", then it can't end with "an existential conflict between humanity and the Others", because that's the exact opposite of "the battle between good and evil" being "fought chiefly in the individual human heart".

Not the opposite, as I've stated above. Battles "fought chiefly in the individual human heart" can perfectly co-exists with "an existential conflict between humanity and the Others" (the Other are probably not evil from their perspective - but that's not our perspective). Such a conflict can even serve a function in the human heart battle, as it may force people who hate each other to cooperate out of grave need (maybe with blanket pardons for even the vilest crimes being extended).

And regardless of what GRRM has stated, he has already demonstrated that he can make use of cardboard villains - unless you want to point out how Ramsay or Gregor or the Goat or Euron are demonstrating the battle "fought chiefly in the individual human heart"? Not every character needs to be a Theon or a Jaime, or a Tyrion or Dany or Stannis.

And the books haven't actually been inextricably building toward a Humanity/Other conflict---not just because the Others have been off-screen for a truly staggering amount of time, but also because, come on, they're literally called "The Others"---and we've seen multiple people and groups in this series "Other-ize" those they don't understand (the Freys do it with the Crannogmen, the southerners do it with the Northerners, the Northerners do it with the wildlings, everybody does it with the Dornishmen, the Westerosi do it with the Essosi, the Essosi do it with the Westerosi, Dany does it with the slavers, the slavers do it with Dany, on and on and on). I sincerely doubt the end message of the series will end up being "treating your enemies like some alien Other-figures is helpful, positive, and correct".

You are reading rather a lot of symbolism in the name - would it all be different if the books used "white walkers" more often? As it happens, the Others are very alien and extremely dangerous figures so treating them like your neighbours is not a good idea anyway (unless you can offer them your freshly born sons, I suppose). I don't see the name making much of a difference. Jon seems to be taking the right steps to deal with them, and while that includes attempts to start some kind of negotiation, Jon definitely wants to find men and armament to fight them if necessary (which looks like it will be).

That the Others have been onscreen for a long time is probably because GRRM wants Westeros to weaken itself further before the attack proper starts, and to portray the destructive Game of Thrones against the background threat that the readers are aware off, but most characters aren't. The buildup is definitely still there though, with ADWD adding Jon's dream of fighting them and the account of Tormund dealing with his own wight-ified son, as well as the entire Hardhome action. Both Jon and Dany have a definite "savior" vibe going for them, even if Dany may end up being quite destructive in the meantime.

We know Stannis almost resorted to cannibalism in Storm's End during Robert's Rebellion . . . but now suddenly he thinks it's a crime worthy of being burned alive?

That's a good point. People have been saying that Stannis had proof those men committed crimes, but if we look at the extent of the cruelty that permeated Astapor's Unsullied "production", then cannibalism by starved men (IIRC the victims were dead already - if they kill to eat then that's another level) ranks low as a crime by comparison, particularly so if Stannis would resort to it himself in the wrong circumstances (and as apparently quite some men in his Winterfell army were doing, if we can believe Asha). So, while Dany is wrong in not making sure each of the 163 men had a personal stake in the Astapori crimes, Stannis' reasons for the burnings sound flimsy even though he had proof those particular men were involved in cannibalism.

[Wouter]

Dany is an antagonist to Westeros b/c of her claim to the throne.

That's a very broad claim. Dany will be supported by some - commoners and lords alike - and be hated by others. Just like for all the other claimants.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You don't know it's impossible either. You know it's unlikely, but hell, humanity getting it together long enough to survive the immanent zombie apocalypse is "unlikely," so....

This wasn't about it being impossible, it was about a poster saying it was inevitable. I don't think her being the hero is impossible but it sure as hell isn't inevitable.

[Faint]

This idea that GRRM is the master of subverting fantasy tropes is absurd. Jon and Daenerys are walking cliches, in case the mythical animals, magical weaponry, and resurrection scenes didn't clue everybody in.

[I do not sew]

Yeah she's a real piece of shit alright.

[E-Ro]

Yeah she's a real piece of shit alright.

U mad? Why dont you tell us how you really feel.

[The Idiots Lantern]

This idea that GRRM is the master of subverting fantasy tropes is absurd. Jon and Daenerys are walking cliches, in case the mythical animals, magical weaponry, and resurrection scenes didn't clue everybody in.

Wow. You know what, I think I know the perfect book for you. It's called "War and Peace" and it doesn't have ANY MAGIC AT ALL. In fact, there's tons of books with no magic in them. What are you doing here?

[Faint]

Wow. You know what, I think I know the perfect book for you. It's called "War and Peace" and it doesn't have ANY MAGIC AT ALL. In fact, there's tons of books with no magic in them. What are you doing here?

I love the books but I'm not deceiving myself about what they are. I love Lord of the Rings too.

[straits]

I love the books but I'm not deceiving myself about what they are. I love Lord of the Rings too.

Who is considered to be the master of subversion in the fantasy genre?

[jons nissa]

I disagree. While the Dany haters seethe they know she is the hero and she will defeate the White Walkers and bring on the eternal spring.

just because she is going to fight the white walkers doesn't mean she's a hero. tze said some amazing things regarding this.

[SeanF]

Ok, time out for a second.

There is no reason in the world to torture someone. Torture done for any reason, is inherently unjustifiable. Burning 100 Ramsays alive who are guilty of being Ramsays is not right.

However, the rationale behind why some people use torture varies, and this makes them more sympathetic than others in their choices to torture people. That Stannis does this out of a misguided justice makes him more sympathetic in my eyes than the motivations behind Dany's crucifixions. But it doesn't absolve the problematic morality of his use of torture over anyone else who has used torture.

Torture is always evil, but it may be a necessary evil.

In-universe, burning people alive can be an effective form of magic. In the absence of a modern police force, extracting information by torture *may* be unavoidable when countering the insurgency in Mereen (as I've said on other threads, plenty of liberal, democratic governments in the modern world have resorted to torture in such circumstances).

Throughout Essos and Westeros, torture seems to be pretty common. The main difference is between those who see it as a necessary evil; those who who see it as routine, and lose no sleep over it; and those who enjoy doing it.

[SeanF]

That's a good point. People have been saying that Stannis had proof those men committed crimes, but if we look at the extent of the cruelty that permeated Astapor's Unsullied "production", then cannibalism by starved men (IIRC the victims were dead already - if they kill to eat then that's another level) ranks low as a crime by comparison, particularly so if Stannis would resort to it himself in the wrong circumstances (and as apparently quite some men in his Winterfell army were doing, if we can believe Asha). So, while Dany is wrong in not making sure each of the 163 men had a personal stake in the Astapori crimes, Stannis' reasons for the burnings sound flimsy even though he had proof those particular men were involved in cannibalism.

Astapor was different to Mereen.

In Mereen, the Great Masters were told to hand over 163 of their number to be crucified, in retaliation for the crucifixion of 163 slave children. It is likely that some of those 163 were indeed guilty, and others were innocent. The sack of Mereen was pretty brutal, and the brunt of it was borne by the free lower classes, but it was at least brought to an end.

The massacre at Astapor was more brutal and systematic. The order was to kill any male wearing a tokar, plus slavers, and men with whips. The under 12's were exempted from this. Having re-read the relevant chapters, the tokar is the garment of all the free-born, not just the nobles and slavers. Indeed, there are only 100 slavers in Astapor, though doubtless many of the free lower classes worked for the slavers. Now it's likely that many free adult males would have been outside the city at the time of the massacre, and doubtless some survived the massacre, but I think it's likely that the bloodshed was far greater at Astapor, and done far more cold-bloodedly.

[turinturambar1]

dany vs WW :drunk: i'm sick of hearing that story, I think that dany will come to westeros with her dragons/ironborn/dothraki barbarians blabla and will start a war in the already destroyed westeros , When the word comes to Jon/Stannis on the Wall that some barbarians and dragons (Grrm has told that dragons are like atomic bombs in are time) are destroying everything south of the Neck , they might make a pact whit the WW and than go south to deal with Dany and save the day :cheers:

EDIT : Sorry about my english

[SeanF]

I think that Dany vs the Others is quite plausible, in fact likely.

But, even if Dany does save (or help to save) Westeros from the Others, it doesn't follow that she wouldn't be an antagonist to many characters that we sympathise with. She might follow up a victory over the Others with a major effort to hunt down the "Usurper's Dogs" and their families.