Is Dany actually the ANTAGONIST?

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

(Had a lot of fun reading those arguments though. The mental acrobatics some people go through in their attempt to explain why Stannis burning those starving footsoldiers is totally different from Dany crucifying the slavers are truly breath-taking.)

:bang:

Drawing a difference between guilty people being executed and random people from the same social class of the guilty parties is not "mental acrobatics."

Crucifying and burning people are both horrible ways to kill someone. If you want to consider them equal, the fine.

But when you compare specific incidents, as Lady Tippy Wolsbane point out, the context matters. You have to take all factors into account. And guilt should be the number one factor when it comes to judging a person's executions methods. Stannis, so far, has cared that he has actually executed guilty people. Dany didn't. She just had to have her 163. For all we know, in fact it is likely, at least some of those opposed to crucifying the child slaves. Just because someone is a slaver doesn't mean they were automatically OK with random murder of slaves (even if slavery makes it easier to accept it).

*snip*

Amazing post.

[ab aeterno]

E-Ro, you have a skill for turning unrelated posts into Stannis lovefests.

They're not really unrelated Eadie, it's just hard for people to see how they're related to Stannis. E-Ro just shows us how. :P

[ab aeterno]

<SNIP>

Wow, you quoted EVERYONE! :D That was pretty cool actually. Not being sarcastic.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Or slightly higher hopes for Stannis because he doesn't let his emotions and personal affections for people cloud his judgement as much as Dany.

That's argueable. You don't think his brother-issues play a bit of a role in his stubborn quest for the throne? Stannis the unfavourite has quite a bit of a chip on his shoulder in that regard. He is full of bitterness and resentment. But he does take great care at rationalizing his actions, that's true. How much emotion you admit to yourself is however not always a good sign of how much emotion actually affects your actions.

I quote someone else "Stannis deserves every praise he get" - you might have presented a slightly more nuanced argument, but my comment was not specifically directed at ayou, but at the general tone of the Stannis defenders in this thread here.

[E-Ro]

I quote someone else "Stannis deserves every praise he get" - you might have presented a slightly more nuanced argument, but my comment was not specifically directed at ayou, but at the general tone of the Stannis defenders in this thread here.

And what tone would that be? The only bad thing stannis has done is burned a few criminals(12, I think) I just think its ridiculous when people post stuff like "omg stannis is a nazi, he burns babies aliveeee!"

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

I applaud that she wants to give the 163 children justice for their deaths. But she lowered herself to almost the level of her enemy by doing it the way she did. And the are still opposing her, so it wasnt very effective. The Mereenese managed to kill several of her people, and were playing their own game of thrones against her. Pushed her into marrying Hizdar, got her to reopen the fighting pits and were close to poisoning her. She never fully defeated her enemies in Mereen.

I think Mother of The Others was just referring to that one act. The problem is that Dany didn't follow through after the act with the slavers. She effectively made going to that degree worthless when she started taking the advice of her enemies while settling in Meereen.

You do realize that I just brought up the Stannis thing in an attempt to point an inconsistency in the judgement of Dany? It's really not possible to celebrate one and condemn the other for the very same philosophy (namely the end justifying the means). I'd argue that both don't quite deserve the amount of celebration as well as the amount of comdenation they get on this boards.

Everyone realized that. The issue is that there isn't a inconsistency in the level of judgement between Dany and Stannis. As you yourself pointed out, the same thing happens to both characters. No one has tried to argue against that idea. People have simply defended Dany or Stannis when an inconsistency appears on either side.

Judging from a purely pragmatic perspective, Dany's moral compromise has not been quite worth it yet, that's true.

Judging from a purely pragmatic perspective however, Stannis's moral compromise has not been quite yet worth it either. We don't have any clear evidence that Mel's burning of people actually accomplishes all that much.

Stannis somewhat believes it does, which has a lot to do with the argument regarding his moral compromise. That's the issue with debating morals with these characters. There are reasons behind all their actions, even their questionable actions.

Sorry sister, but my king stannis deserves every bit of praise he gets.

You know, sometimes you make this so much harder. :laugh:

[ab aeterno]

That's argueable. You don't think his brother-issues play a bit of a role in his stubborn quest for the throne? Stannis the unfavourite has quite a bit of a chip on his shoulder in that regard. He is full of bitterness and resentment. But he does take great care at rationalizing his actions, that's true. How much emotion you admit to yourself is however not always a good sign of how much emotion actually affects your actions.

His poor relationship with his brothers may come into it but Stannis is led by the law. He wouldn't be pursuing the throne if Renly was older than him, so while it may have an effect on him, his primary motivation is doing what he views as the right thing.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Drawing a difference between guilty people being executed and random people from the same social class of the guilty parties is not "mental acrobatics.

That's one aspect.

You could also say that Stannis executed some starving footsoldiers who did no harm anybody and merely wanted to survive, (doing something probably half his host was doing at the time and something Stannis himself considered at the time of the siege) and merely had the bad luck of being caught.

Well Dany executed people who kept others as slave. The might not have been directly invovled in the child crucification, but they were certainly guilty of that much. They were also prisoners of war and killing prisoners of war seems a common practice. Other parties have done that without stating any particular reason. Of course there's hypocrisy in that as well, as Dany herself has de facto enjoyed the service of slaves while staying with Illyria and she once teamed up Jorah who was also once complicit in the slave trade etc., but I've already allowed that both Stannis and Dany are a bit hypocritical.

[ab aeterno]

That's one aspect.

You could also say that Stannis executed some starving footsoldiers who did no harm anybody and merely wanted to survive, (doing something probably half his host was doing at the time and something Stannis himself considered at the time of the siege) and merely had the bad luck of being caught.

Well Dany executed people who kept others as slave. The might not have been directly invovled in the child crucification, but they were certainly guilty of that much. They were also prisoners of war and killing prisoners of war seems a common practice. Other parties have done that without stating any particular reason. Of course there's hypocrisy in that as well, as Dany herself has de facto enjoyed the service of slaves while staying with Illyria and she once teamed up Jorah who was also once complicit in the slave trade etc., but I've already allowed that both Stannis and Dany are a bit hypocritical.

The difference is, what Stannis did was to execute people who had broken the law. None of the people Dany had killed broke the law. Not that I would justify burning.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Stannis somewhat believes it does, which has a lot to do with the argument regarding his moral compromise.

So does Dany.

Stannis effectively made Mel's burnings worthless when he did not take her to the Battle of Blackwater.

[ab aeterno]

Stannis effectively made Mel's burnings worthless when he did not take her to the Battle of Blackwater.

Why do you think that?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

That's argueable. You don't think his brother-issues play a bit of a role in his stubborn quest for the throne? Stannis the unfavourite has quite a bit of a chip on his shoulder in that regard. He is full of bitterness and resentment. But he does take great care at rationalizing his actions, that's true. How much emotion you admit to yourself is however not always a good sign of how much emotion actually affects your actions.

I knew this was coming,

I agree, which is why my original comment included the words, as much as Dany.

I quote someone else "Stannis deserves every praise he get" - you might have presented a slightly more nuanced argument, but my comment was not specifically directed at ayou, but at the general tone of the Stannis defenders in this thread here.

And I knew this was coming as soon as I read his comment. ^_^

You can't use E-Ro as an example. He's like a kid that just loves his father a little too much. :P

And what tone would that be? The only bad thing stannis has done is burned a few criminals(12, I think) I just think its ridiculous when people post stuff like "omg stannis is a nazi, he burns babies aliveeee!"

Sweetie, calm down. No one is saying that Stannis is a nazi or that he burns babies alive. Not today anyway... ;)

[NotSoSilentSister]

The difference is, what Stannis did was to execute people who had broken the law. None of the people Dany had killed broke the law. Not that I would justify burning.

That's one way to look at it. But accordance with laws is not the be-all and end-all of all moral judgment. I don't want to Godwin this, but...let's just say obeying the law doesn't necessarily make you a good person.

Another way to look at it is that Stannis killed people for something that did not harm anybody, while Dany killed people for violating human rights.

[E-Ro]

Sweetie, calm down. No one is saying that Stannis is a nazi or that he burns babies alive. Not today anyway... ;)

Im in a funny mood today, must be the holiday season.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Why do you think that?

Because he lost and lead many people to their death. If he believed that Mel was effective, taking her to the Battle might have avoided that.

[E-Ro]

Because he lost and lead many people to their death. If he believed that Mel was effective, taking her to the Battle might have avoided that.

I dont think mel would have saved him from the incredible luck of the lannister tyrell alliance.

[ab aeterno]

That's one way to look at it. But accordance with laws is not the be-all and end-all of all moral judgment. I don't want to Godwin this, but...let's just say obeying the law doesn't necessarily make you a good person.

No, but at least he is consistent. He does what he believes is the right thing, but is consistent about it. Dany vacillates.

Another way to look at it is that Stannis killed people for something that did not harm anybody, while Dany killed people for violating human rights.

Human rights do not exist in ASOIAF. The people of SB didn't know they were doing anything wrong and they weren't breaking any laws. Dany just came in and punished them. While I support Dany ending slavery, at least those Stannis executes knew they were doing something wrong.

[Wouter]

GRRM has spoken on the issue of villainy in the past, and his words were rather enlightening. See here: http://www.infinityp...ion/intgrrm.htm

I think it's pretty clear that this is not a series that's going to end with Humanity versus The Evil Others---that's exactly the sort of paradigm GRRM claims he wants to "stand on its head".

For me, that's not clear at all! To the contrary, everything in the books (but Jon's cautious and as yet, fruitless attempt to communicate through the wights) has been pointing to an existential conflict between Others and humans. It could well be the Others view themselves as the heroes of their sides, but nevertheless they still aim to eradicate the human population and turn Westeros into an eternal winter landscape. Since we are humans and the POV's are humans, that makes them the major villains, regardless of what their motives and possible justifications are.

GRRM has done a lot of work to give his human villains/antagonists/grey characters believable self-justification and motives, though, which is why he can claim that the main battle is fought within a person's heart and his books demonstrate that. But I don't think this should even be extended to all the human villains who are cardboard characters (Ramsay, Gregor, Bloody Mummers,...), let alone to the Others who are like a destructive force of nature from a human POV.

In my opinion, in the end it will come down to Others vs humans anyway. Even if by that time it may be seen as mere background for the human dramas that preceed and follow the struggle.

[Florina Laufeyson]

For the thread is Long and full of Stannis.

You know what? Dany being an antagonist to the protagonists on Westeros is an awesome idea.

We would be sympathetic to everyone involved. Dany wouldnt even be a Villain Protagonist because of how she was already set up. But having her go up against the Westerosi crew would be a lot of fun and a pretty cool emotional rollercoaster.

[Ribupr]

GRRM has spoken on the issue of villainy in the past, and his words were rather enlightening. See here: http://www.infinityp...ion/intgrrm.htm

I think it's pretty clear that this is not a series that's going to end with Humanity versus The Evil Others---that's exactly the sort of paradigm GRRM claims he wants to "stand on its head". I think it's equally clear that "the battle between good and evil" being "fought chiefly in the individual human heart" is a pretty excellent distillation of exactly what GRRM has been doing with Dany's arc all along. All along she's been struggling between the idea of "the Mother" and planting trees, versus "the Dragon" and fire/blood---with the idea of embracing the traditional qualities of a hero vs embracing the traditional qualities of a villain.

And GRRM has created a truly fascinating dynamic here, in which we have a character with the potential to be viewed as a great hero in one place (Essos) but as a great villain in another place (Westeros). It all comes down to Dany's choices: does she stay in Essos, make a workable plan geared toward attacking, and one day ending, the institution of slavery, in order to create a better society for everyone? Or does she go to Westeros, where seeking the Iron Throne makes her no better than any of the other greedy power-seekers who've caused so much ruin thus far?

That, I think, is one of the most brilliant things GRRM has done with this character. He's set up a situation whereby Dany has the potential to go down as either one of (ASOIAF) history's greatest heroes or one of its worst monsters, and which path she finds herself on come ADOS ultimately depends on her personal choices. Does she choose to stay in Essos, embrace the role of Mother of the Slaves, and try to use her various capabilities (military and political) to devote her life to ending the institution of slavery---to try to make the world a better place for an entire society? Or does she head to Westeros, where she will be mother to absolutely no one, will have no place or purpose other than seeking her own self-aggrandizement, and will only be capable of bringing even more death and destruction (but certainly no healing) to an already-ravaged country? (And to those who for some reason believe this series is going to end with Dany riding on dragonback to single-handedly defeat the Evil Others---yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath there. This is not that sort of series. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Jon ends up negotiating a ceasefire with the damn Others in TWOW and we don't actually ever have a new Humanity vs The Others, Battle For The Dawn Part 2.)

One of the major points of the whole "Stallion That Mounts The World" episode seemed to be to illustrate the fact that one group's Great Hero is, practically by definition, another group's Great Villain---and who serves as the hero and who serves as the villain will depend entirely on where you happen to be standing at the time. To Dany, Khal Drogo was the person who saved her from Viserys and from a life of powerlessness, and Rhaego was destined to be a great hero to his people. To the Lamb Men, Khal Drogo was a murdering, raping, pillaging villain, and Rhaego was destined to be a great destroyer of their people. And both Dany and the Lamb Men were absolutely correct. Their respective attitudes simply depended on where they were standing at the time.

Dany is a character currently situated in a place where a large group of people---the Red Priesthood, the slaves---want her to be their heroine. In that same place, she's clearly viewed as a villain by a large segment of the population---the slavers. The issue there is that the readership is obviously going to empathize with the former over the latter, so to a good portion of the readership, Dany's been falling on the "hero" side and not the "villain" side. Move her to a place where the readership already empathizes with a large number of characters---Westeros---and that paradigm shifts. Suddenly it's not Dany vs the Evil Faceless Slavers, it's Dany vs. Stannis/Arianne/Jon/Davos/Brienne/Sansa/etc., and Dany's "inherent righteousness" evaporates.

And the problem with the idea that Dany's "obviously" going to be viewed as a hero in the end is that GRRM has explicitly written things into her character arc that should give any careful reader pause. She's ordered torture. She's savagely sacked cities (more even than Tywin Lannister ever did). She's ordered crucifixions---and I sincerely doubt it was coincidental in a literary sense that Dany ordered exactly 100 more crucifixions than did one of our primary Westerosi villains, Ramsay (he ordered 63, she ordered 163). We've seen her cause untold amounts of destruction, not just intentionally, but also unintentionally, thoughtlessly. She's begun believing some truly disturbing things about herself (that she can't get sick, that she she's a dragon in human skin) that should give any careful reader pause, not just due to those claims' objective outlandishness, but also due to those claims' source (Viserys---parroting the words of someone like Viserys is never a good sign). She fetishizes the dragons, creatures capable of inflicting untold amounts of suffering. She's shown herself to be a rather terrible judge of character and tends not to think before she acts.

I think it's very easy for some readers to overlook these things because of how readers saw Dany start out the series: as a terrified, powerless 13-year-old. But that's not what she is anymore, and that's certainly not how she's going to be ending this series (she's gone too far and done too much). As Thoros of Myr says to Brienne:

If I thought there was any chance whatsoever that Dany was going to be ending slavery in Essos come ADOS, I wouldn't feel confident thinking she's going to end up in the "villain" category in the eyes of both the readership and of (at least, the majority of) her fellow characters (though probably not her own eyes). But I'd say the chances of that happening are slim to none. She's been fighting the "battle" in her heart since AGOT, and the part that's been winning . . . well, let's just say "good" isn't winning out here. Her final chapter in ADWD encapsulates this: she thinks approvingly of Daario (who represents cruelty, destruction, and immaturity), she can no longer remember the name of the child Drogon ate, she hallucinates people telling her to go to Westeros and embrace fire and blood at the expense of planting trees. Going to Westeros cannot make her a hero because Dany doesn't have the capabilities to save the people of Westeros (only to destroy them). The thing that the readership has been clamoring for for years---"Get Dany out of Essos!"---basically puts the final nail in the coffin of "Daenerys the Hero", because she simply doesn't have the tools, knowledge, or skills to be a hero to people in Westeros (as she was to people in Essos).

You put that way better than I did when I posted the topic. But this is what I meant (only I see her being slightly more crazy). Well put.