When did Dany become so.... blind?

[Vargo Hoat's Teddy Bear]

I raise this topic due to Dany's talk with Barristan Selmy in ASOS or ADWD. It was when Dany asked about Rhaegar and Barristan told her about how Rhaegar's children were killed and so on. It was going fine until Dany said that Ned and Tywin were the same. Barristan protested but then Dany would not hear of it. I know Dany's source of history was Viserys but she should have realised that what Viserys told her were lies. If Dany goes back to Westeros I doubt she'd forgive most of the lords there, which would probably get her out of the contest for the throne.

[Black Wolf Smith]

She starts to realized that Visery was both crazy and made stuff up, but its hard to unlearn things you were brought up to believe.

[GarthKITN]

I can understand why Dany doesn't differentiate between Ned and Tywin. After all, these are the people that led to the destruction of her family. Right or wrong, she probably doesn't want to see the grey that's clearly there.

It has always struck me as ood however that the situation with Rhaegar has never been addressed. In all her conversations with Viserys, Jorah Mormont and Barriston Selmy, no one has told her (or she's chosen to just not care) that Robert's Rebellion was sparked by Rhaegar taking Lyanna Stark. It seems strange to me that Jorah, who fought for the Starks, or Selmy, who saw the entire thing unfold first hand, wouldn't have told her. Both of them have said to Dany that Robert wasn't an evil man, but it seems a bit...perplexing that she's never even tought of the fact that the entire war was started and caused by the Targaryns.

[Daario's*before*Snows]

Most of the characters are like that to a degree.

Ned wouldnt want to hear anything about a decent Lannister. Cat didnt want to hear about Jon not being a demon.

You think if Selmy told Ned that Jaimie saved the city from burning down by slaying the king, he would change his mind?

[Lyanna Stark]

I It has always struck me as ood however that the situation with Rhaegar has never been addressed. In all her conversations with Viserys, Jorah Mormont and Barriston Selmy, no one has told her (or she's chosen to just not care) that Robert's Rebellion was sparked by Rhaegar taking Lyanna Stark. It seems strange to me that Jorah, who fought for the Starks, or Selmy, who saw the entire thing unfold first hand, wouldn't have told her. Both of them have said to Dany that Robert wasn't an evil man, but it seems a bit...perplexing that she's never even tought of the fact that the entire war was started and caused by the Targaryns.

Most likely because she was brought up with Viserys' version of events and never questioned it.

She's starting to question things in ADWD when she goes off on a Viserys rant and then goes quiet, but really Dany has far too much other things going on to consider whether what Viserys told her was false. However, should one of her Yes men at one point actually tell her the truth, then I think she will listen. She knew Viserys was barmy, and she trusts Barry and Jorah. Although perhaps the honour of that reveal will fall on Tyrion.

I think it would make for better storytelling if it does, and more conflict for Dany, since she then has two conflicting version from two people she does not trust. She has no reason to trust Tyrion much, and she clearly recognises Viserys not being all that. Yet those will be all she has.

[Vargo Hoat's Teddy Bear]

I can understand why Dany doesn't differentiate between Ned and Tywin. After all, these are the people that led to the destruction of her family. Right or wrong, she probably doesn't want to see the grey that's clearly there.

It has always struck me as ood however that the situation with Rhaegar has never been addressed. In all her conversations with Viserys, Jorah Mormont and Barriston Selmy, no one has told her (or she's chosen to just not care) that Robert's Rebellion was sparked by Rhaegar taking Lyanna Stark. It seems strange to me that Jorah, who fought for the Starks, or Selmy, who saw the entire thing unfold first hand, wouldn't have told her. Both of them have said to Dany that Robert wasn't an evil man, but it seems a bit...perplexing that she's never even tought of the fact that the entire war was started and caused by the Targaryns.

Jorah mormont probably went with it so he was on Dany's good side. Small good that did him.

[Miryana]

It has always struck me as ood however that the situation with Rhaegar has never been addressed. In all her conversations with Viserys, Jorah Mormont and Barriston Selmy, no one has told her (or she's chosen to just not care) that Robert's Rebellion was sparked by Rhaegar taking Lyanna Stark. It seems strange to me that Jorah, who fought for the Starks, or Selmy, who saw the entire thing unfold first hand, wouldn't have told her. Both of them have said to Dany that Robert wasn't an evil man, but it seems a bit...perplexing that she's never even tought of the fact that the entire war was started and caused by the Targaryns.

How beautiful, the queen tried to tell herself, but inside her was some foolish little girl who could not help but look about for Daario. If he loved you, he would come and carry you off at swordpoint, as Rhaegar carried off his northern girl, the girl in her insisted, but the queen knew that was folly. I have no idea what she actually knows about Rhaegar and Lyanna. Viserys telling her that Rhaegar wanted Lyanna and of course every girl would want the amazing Rhaegar is the only thing that makes sense, because it would be just too absurd to think that she'd see the abduction and rape at swordpoint of an unwilling girl as romantic and compatible with her view of Rhaegar as an honourable man. I really wish there was a proper answer to this question; Dany never, IIRC, thinks about how Lyanna's family and betrothed reacted to the abduction as a reason for why the war started, and even if she thought that Rhaegar was every woman's dream and they should have let him have Lyanna that would still be a logical reason. If she doesn't recognise and learn from the mistakes of her predecessors (both in a way, despite the difference in degree, the result of not considering the feelings and rights of others - Aerys' madness and brutal alienation of powerful lords, Rhaegar's PR fail of not making sure Lyanna's family knew she went with him willingly and would have a decent position at his side), I won't like the thought of her ruling Westeros.

[Lion of Judah]

Everyone tends to give their family the benefit of the doubt, even when your better instincts tells you otherwise. It's part of what being family means, why would we expect Dany to be any different when hearing negative things from people who did nothing when her niece and nephew got their heads smashed in? I don't know if anyone would be excited to hear that they were conceived when their nut job father raped their mother. I get that a bunch of people don't like Dany, but some of the hatred is kind of pitiful. It's like you view her as an easy target, so let's find different creatives way to dump on Daenerys Targaryen. Oh well...I supposed flattery comes in different forms.

[chrisdaw]

Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it, apparently. It appears the same for women.

[Ser Wun Wun]

I raise this topic due to Dany's talk with Barristan Selmy in ASOS or ADWD. It was when Dany asked about Rhaegar and Barristan told her about how Rhaegar's children were killed and so on. It was going fine until Dany said that Ned and Tywin were the same. Barristan protested but then Dany would not hear of it. I know Dany's source of history was Viserys but she should have realised that what Viserys told her were lies. If Dany goes back to Westeros I doubt she'd forgive most of the lords there, which would probably get her out of the contest for the throne.

That's not exactly what happened imo. Dany started to deny Baristan's claim that Ned was not at fault for the deaths of Rhaegar's children, yes, but then she stopped mid-sentence and started thinking about how her dragon had killed a little girl. Is she at fault for what her "dog" did? Does that make her evil too, like she was claiming Ned is? It's one of the moral questions that plagues her throughout much of ADWD. She didn't just ignore the import of that conversation w/ Bary imo, it did seem to weigh heavy on her mind.

As to whether or not she would ever forgive the people/descendents of the people who rebelled against House Targaryen....that's still very much up in the air obviously. I would point out that she never used the phrase "Usurper's Dog's" again after that conversation w/ Bary (which took place in her 2nd ADWD chapter). So perhaps we can take that as a sign that Bary did manage to temper her opinion on the Starks slightly. Which, if true, shows that she is not completely locked into the warped opinions of Viserys.

[Silverin]

When Iread the title I thought it will be about something else. Mainly that while so many people say that Dany is becomming more and more openminded and she will learn the truth accept it and understand, I actually see the opposite. Just hear me out.

At the beginninhg Dany was well aware that Viserys is very deillusional, that despite he calls himself a king he isn't. Later she sais other Westerosi lords that Viserys was their king, and while at the beginning of AGoT she was aware how deillusional he was, at ADwD she even buys into his most ridicoulus theories, like Targs don't get sick, which we know isn't true. The thing is she seemed to be able to better see when Vis sais and does something dumb when he was still alive. Maybe Dany does feel some guilt over his death, and that is the way she tries to ease it, by embracing his ideas and stortries, by stubbornly grasping into them.

So actually to me Dany at the beginning of AGoT seemed more openminded than the Queen in ADwD. When I started the books I believed she will eventually learn the true and will forgive. Now I am not sure anymore.

That's not exactly what happened imo. Dany started to deny Baristan's claim that Ned was not at fault for the deaths of Rhaegar's children, yes, but then she stopped mid-sentence and started thinking about how her dragon had killed a little girl. Is she at fault for what her "dog" did? Does that make her evil too, like she was claiming Ned is? It's one of the moral questions that plagues her throughout much of ADWD. She didn't just ignore the import of that conversation w/ Bary imo, it did seem to weigh heavy on her mind.

That is not what happened either. Because Drogon ate a child she punished her other dragons ("dogs"), despite the fact they did nothing wrong. That is what she was thinking about. Drogon was the guilty one, but the other dogs had to be punished as well.

[Ser Wun Wun]

That is not what happened either. Because Drogon ate a child she punished her other dragons ("dogs"), despite the fact they did nothing wrong. That is what she was thinking about. Drogon was the guilty one, but the other dogs had to be punished as well.

Well, let's look at some relevant passages:

ADWD; Dany

“Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them the Usurper’s dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …” The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought,

She's throwing guilt on the Starks one second, then she thinks of Hazzea and the very words catch in her throat. IMO this is b/c she realizes that the same logic she is using against the Starks (that if one dog commits a crime, all are guilty) also applies to her with regards to what Drogon did (else why did one make her think of the other?) The impact of that conclusion hits her pretty hard I'd say, that's why she can't even finish the sentence. Later:

ADWD; Dany

Mother of dragons, Daenerys thought. Mother of monsters. What have I unleashed upon the world? A queen I am, but my throne is made of burned bones, and it rests on quicksand. Without dragons, how could she hope to hold Meereen, much less win back Westeros? I am the blood of the dragon, she thought. If they are monsters, so am I.

She is clearly struggling with the idea of collective guilt, and what exactly it means for her. Which is what I was intimating with that first paragraph you quoted, to show that she did not just ignore the import of that entire Bary conversation like I felt the OP was stating.

[Silverin]

She is clearly struggling with the idea of collective guilt, and what exactly it means for her. Which is what I was intimating with that first paragraph you quoted, to show that she did not just ignore the import of that entire Bary conversation like I felt the OP was stating.

You are right in that regard she didn't ignore that, but Dany did punish other dogs as well, not just one who was responsible, that is what I was trying to say.

She knew that that is why MMD killed her child and Drogo, and she was furious because of that, yet she still uses collective punishment after that incident (I was hoping from such an expensive lesson that cost the life of her son she would learn just how it is not OK).

Just like she used it in Astapor, where every male above 12 who was wearing a tokar was basically allowed to be killed, or in Meereen where she ordered the death of the maesters. She knows that it is not entirely okay, she has her guilts, but she is still using it.

I guess that is why I am sceptical about her learning. She is more closeminded about Vis than she was at the beginnin of AGoT. And it doesn't seem she learned that much from the MMD incident later, despite the fact that it cost her the life of her son.

[SeanF]

Everyone tends to give their family the benefit of the doubt, even when your better instincts tells you otherwise. It's part of what being family means, why would we expect Dany to be any different when hearing negative things from people who did nothing when her niece and nephew got their heads smashed in? I don't know if anyone would be excited to hear that they were conceived when their nut job father raped their mother. I get that a bunch of people don't like Dany, but some of the hatred is kind of pitiful. It's like you view her as an easy target, so let's find different creatives way to dump on Daenerys Targaryen. Oh well...I supposed flattery comes in different forms.

I agree that she gives them the benefit of the doubt. Almost anyone in her position would do so. As readers, we have vastly more information than one character does, and, crucially, we aren't emotionally committed in the way that they are.

Of course, she's never going to accept that the rebellion against her father was justified, or that her brother behaved badly, as that would destroy her claim to the Iron Throne.

[KAH]

If I look back, I am lost.

This sentence has deeper consequence than just for the situation in which the thought originated with Dany, I think.

Throughout the series, Dany's sights have been fixed on returning to the only place she's ever felt truly comfortable and happy - Home, as defined by the house with the red door and which image she has mentally projected onto Westeros, for which she claims birthright.

Moreover, pursuing moral justice seems central to her being, and therein lies the rub.

She knows very well what her invasion of Westeros will entail; thousands of dead smallfolk. People will die in droves for hoisting her banner, or as an indirect consequence of the disruption of society that war entails (hunger, disease, etc). She knows this because she's seen it first hand. She knows that whatever she does, this will be the unavoidable consequence; she can only curb it in scope, she can't stop it altogether - except by NOT invading.

In order to overcome that cognitive dissonance, she needs all the blackhats Viserys gave her; be it Baratheon, Lannister or Stark; murderous dogs oppressing the people. The hints at the mental disease of the Targaryens, or the fact that things are more nuanced than what she's been told, lies gnawing under the surface. It's no mystery why she reacts like she does, in that light.

However, the full truth will eventually be clear to her, and I think it very likely that her motivation to go on with the invasion will completely collapse as a consequence.

It will not be salvaged before someone can build up her motivation in another way - not to go there because it's her birthright, but because the people there actually need her.

That's my prediction, anyway.

[Ser Wun Wun]

You are right in that regard she didn't ignore that, but Dany did punish other dogs as well, not just one who was responsible, that is what I was trying to say.

She knew that that is why MMD killed her child and Drogo, and she was furious because of that, yet she still uses collective punishment after that incident (I was hoping from such an expensive lesson that cost the life of her son she would learn just how it is not OK).

Just like she used it in Astapor, where every male above 12 who was wearing a tokar was basically allowed to be killed, or in Meereen where she ordered the death of the maesters. She knows that it is not entirely okay, she has her guilts, but she is still using it.

I guess that is why I am sceptical about her learning. She is more closeminded about Vis than she was at the beginnin of AGoT. And it doesn't seem she learned that much from the MMD incident later, despite the fact that it cost her the life of her son.

I can definitely understand that skepticism b/c of her past actions, but I'd point out that every incident you mentioned (and I'd also include the torture of the wineseller and his daughter, which you didn't mention) happened before that conversation with Barry. I can't think of any other act she committed after that that was "atrocious" in nature or indicative that she had ignored the import of the conversation with Bary (if there is one, someone cite it and I'll have to reconsider my opinion here).

And If she was still comfortable with this idea of blanket punishment after the Bary convo, wouldn't she have killed her child hostages for the attacks their relatives were committing?

Regarding the Dragons, and maybe this is just semantics on my part, but I wouldn't say she was locking them away to punish them per se. Locking them away was more about...um, let's call it "crime prevention" rather than punishment. It was more about her fearing (rightly so imo) what they would do if left to roam freely, rather than about her blaming them for what Drogon did.

I know that might sound like quibbling, but it seems like an important distinction to me. As in, would Dany treat the Stark's or other :"Usurper's Dog's" the same way ? I mean, would she either kill or lock them away in order to (not punish them for past crimes, but rather) prevent any future crimes/rebellions on their part? Maybe, but I think it unlikely.

[Lyanna Stark]

However, the full truth will eventually be clear to her, and I think it very likely that her motivation to go on with the invasion will completely collapse as a consequence.

It will not be salvaged before someone can build up her motivation in another way - not to go there because it's her birthright, but because the people there actually need her.

That's my prediction, anyway.

You mean, she needs her own Davos Seaworth? :)

[eggs]

Shes always been kinda blind. She knows that Rhaegar took Lyanna. I just checked, and she complains to selmy about it after she speaks with the sellsword captains.

The real question is does she know that her father had Brandons group killed along with their fathers? It was that and Aerys calling for Ned and Roberts heads that led to Jon starting the war.

[eggs]

Most of the characters are like that to a degree. Ned wouldnt want to hear anything about a decent Lannister. Cat didnt want to hear about Jon not being a demon. You think if Selmy told Ned that Jaimie saved the city from burning down by slaying the king, he would change his mind?

Would Ned change his views? Probably not. You have to remember that Jaime really was an evil person. Killing Aerys wouldnt have been neccessary to save the city and it doesnt help that Jaime crowned himself and sat on the throne grinning. Ned actually has good reasons to dislike the lannisters.

[KAH]

You mean, she needs her own Davos Seaworth? :)

Hm. Interesting juxtaposition.

Stannis has motivation and drive up the yin-yang, even in the face of impossible odds, so it's not a one-to-one fit.

However, Davos acts like a corrective force when Stannis has got his head too far up his keister - and so, I imagine, there could be a need for a similar character close to Dany. Someone to give her the Speech when she reaches her nadir.