Daenerys 'Stormborn' Targaryen: The Breaker Of Chains, Mother Of Dragons Etc

[rmontro]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Who were they?  What did they do?  How were they redeemed?

Melisandre burned people, including Stannis' daughter, but she came back to complete her mission and fight for the living against the dead, and went out on her own terms.  

Jaime pushed Bran out the window.  He ended up going back to Cersei, but he still went to fight for the living first.  More than anyone else from Cersei's court did.

Theon betrayed the Starks and killed children, but he came back to protect Bran and Winterfell, and died a hero's death.

The Hound also was presented as a villain at first, but he also saw the light (literally) and fought for the living.  He also went out on his own terms, fighting his brother.

I might add Daenerys also fought for the living, and lost more than most doing so.  

You're right, none of those things add up to mass genocide, but I reject the idea that she would commit that act in the first place.  That's what we're discussing here, and that's what angers me (still).

As for her being a foreign invader, her family had been established as living and ruling in Westeros for 300 years, before she was forced into exile as a refugee.  That's longer than most families in the US can claim citizenship.  True, she utilized foreign armies, but that was out of necessity.

You enjoyed the story, great.  The last three episodes left a very bad taste in my mouth.

[Umbelina]

I never said I enjoyed the story.

I simply saw things in Dany that concerned me quite a bit, and while I agree that the showrunners rushed the whole damn ending into nonsense?  Dany causing mass destruction did not surprise me.  Her entitlement and vision of herself as a "savior" turned me off Dany a while ago.  (back to book times really) and the show didn't relieve those concerns.

ETA

You are correct.  NONE of those things you mention by other characters come close to what Dany did.  For example, Jamie, well times what he did by millions for Dany, and she had less reason.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Umbelina

[rmontro]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

correct.  NONE of those things you mention by other characters come close to what Dany did.  For example, Jamie, well times what he did by millions for Dany, and she had less reason.

You're right she had less reason, which is why I'm not buying her doing it in the first place.

[slf]

4 hours ago, rmontro said:

As for her being a foreign invader, her family had been established as living and ruling in Westeros for 300 years, before she was forced into exile as a refugee.  That's longer than most families in the US can claim citizenship.  True, she utilized foreign armies, but that was out of necessity.

I mean, yeah, but so? Her family only ruled in Westeros because they invaded and conquered the Seven Kingdoms 'with fire and blood'. Then they were rightfully overthrown and a new monarchy was established. Dany's family having once been Westerosi didn't give her a 'right' to invade, or even really a good, much less noble, reason to do so. She wasn't going home because she was raised elsewhere. She had no knowledge of, or attachment to, Westerosi culture or religions. Really, in the first few season she had no opinion of Westeros other than "it has a nice big iron chair I want to sit in". She was just a foreign invader, conquering a kingdom and slaughtering its people because she felt entitled to.

[rmontro]

2 hours ago, slf said:

Her family only ruled in Westeros because they invaded and conquered the Seven Kingdoms 'with fire and blood'. 

It's true the Targaryens took over Westeros by force, but there are many in the US today whose ancestors killed Native Americans and took their land.  But they are still citizens, and the US is their home.  Many other countries have such a history, and certainly GRRM's world is ruled by force.  Robert Baratheon's main beef with the Targaryens appears to be that Rhaegar stole his girlfriend.

HOWEVER, none of that matters to me.  Let's just call her a foreign invader for the sake of argument.  That still doesn't mean she is going to kill women and children, which is my main objection:  Her sudden turn to villain, after being portrayed as a hero throughout the series, even if she did have her flaws (who doesn't?).

[slf]

3 hours ago, rmontro said:

It's true the Targaryens took over Westeros by force, but there are many in the US today whose ancestors killed Native Americans and took their land.  But they are still citizens, and the US is their home.  Many other countries have such a history, and certainly GRRM's world is ruled by force.  Robert Baratheon's main beef with the Targaryens appears to be that Rhaegar stole his girlfriend.

HOWEVER, none of that matters to me.  Let's just call her a foreign invader for the sake of argument.  That still doesn't mean she is going to kill women and children, which is my main objection:  Her sudden turn to villain, after being portrayed as a hero throughout the series, even if she did have her flaws (who doesn't?).

Of course people born and raised in the US are Americans, but Dany was not raised in Westeros. She was raised in Pentos, since she was a baby. My point was that she did not even have the excuse of wanting to go home, to be with her people.

And I disagree that her being a conqueror means she wouldn't kill women and children. That is precisely what conquerors have always done; by definition, a conqueror takes a country by military force, subjugates its people. That is, as others spent the entire series pointing out to her, the price of the Iron Throne. And she decided early, back in season one, that it was acceptable for others to pay that price. That she cast herself as a liberator doesn't change that.

Edited July 15, 2019 by slf

[rmontro]

9 hours ago, slf said:

And I disagree that her being a conqueror means she wouldn't kill women and children. 

Dany may not have been raised in Westeros, but she was most certainly a refugee.

As for killing women and children, there is always collateral damage in wars.  But I don't buy that she would kill those smallfolk under those conditions, when the city had (allegedly) already surrendered (I say allegedly because it isn't clear who gave the order to ring the bells, it didn't appear to be Cersei).  I don't buy it because she had always been depicted as a protector of the weak. 

[slf]

On 7/15/2019 at 5:44 PM, rmontro said:

As for killing women and children, there is always collateral damage in wars.  But I don't buy that she would kill those smallfolk under those conditions, when the city had (allegedly) already surrendered (I say allegedly because it isn't clear who gave the order to ring the bells, it didn't appear to be Cersei).  I don't buy it because she had always been depicted as a protector of the weak. 

For me, it wasn't out of character. Badly done but not ooc. Dany was used to being hailed Breaker of Chains and Mhysa, the people lifting her up to crowd surf over them, getting to flex her muscle by violently overthrowing the opposition. She was denied all of that and more or less had been ever since arriving in Westeros. Almost everything about that invasion was, at best, a frustrating disappointment to her, at worst, a devastating loss and it all built up over the course of the season.

Edited July 17, 2019 by slf

[tabularasa]

She should have killed Tyrion and other traitors for treason on the spot. Yet she didn't. GoT would end differently. She was right about Sansa celling everyone. I still wish Jon loved her as much as Jamie did Cersei. Also rom-com but boat-sex baby.. So hope. My lesson from GoT is - don't trust any guy, they'll make you crazy and choose a bro.

[slf]

On and off over the past three or so weeks I had been thinking about how Dany always bragged about being of the blood of old Valyria (a massive empire that colonized much of the world and was responsible for spreading slavery) and then I saw a post about Dany buying the Unsullied. Someone had commented that, "It was very telling that Dany only let go of the whip once the slaves were already following her." Which lead to this post, some of which I will quote here:

As you said, she drops the whip when she knows all the Unsullied will fight for her.

So, as you can see, it's not just about the Unsullied didn't know anything but war to choose to leave. The lack of options is physically manifested by the Harpy and Daenerys holding it in her hand while promising "freedom."

But since we're on the subject and I'm a slut for symbolism, let's keep talking about the Harpy whip. 

When Drogon spreads his wings before killing Kraznys mo Nakloz, it looks eerily similar to the Harpy.

I’m pointing this out because the Harpy used to be the symbol of the Old Ghiscari Empire (known for their slaving ways) and is the symbol still used by the cities in Slaver’s Bay.

The harpy was adopted as a symbol by all the Slaver Cities and their silver coins are stamped with a harpy. The Good Masters of Astapor, the Wise Masters of Yunkai, and the Great Masters of Meereen have been training slaves for generations, much as their predecessors did, and are experts at it.

The harpy is said to have a woman’s torso, the wings of a bat instead of arms, the legs of an eagle, and a scorpion’s curled and venomous tail. The harpy was the symbol of the Old Empire of Ghis and is as synonymous with the Ghiscari as the dragon is with the Valyrian Freehold.

From S3 onwards, Daenerys slowly assimilates the Harpy symbol, until S8E6, in which we see her become the Harpy.

I have to say, I really like this interpretation. It works better than any other I've seen.

[Colorful Mess]

I do blame D&D for misleading fans one major way. They didn't engage with the theme of destroying vs. building which may have provided some clarity on where Dany was going. In s5 they rewrote that pit scene to make Drogon rescue her from the evil villains, which isn't what happened at all. In the books, the peace was real as Skahaz states, until Drogon showed up and Daenerys rides off on her dragon. Dany actually killed or maimed some 200-600 innocent people by riding Drogon in the books. That should have been included in the show. In the show, Meereen gets cleaned up just by "burning all the bad guys," which is the Sweetrobin solution to everything. GRRM would never resolve a complex scenario that simply. These quotes sums it all up:

"Whatever I do, all I make is death and horror." - Daenerys, ADWD

“She was the blood of the dragon. She could kill the Sons of the Harpy, and the sons of the sons, and the sons of the sons of the sons. But a dragon could not feed a hungry child nor help a dying woman’s pain.” - Daenerys, ADWD

People who embrace "full Targaryen" like Dany will always be shown to be limited to one form of power, which is efficiently killing lots of people, and the story will always come back to the idea that this method is insufficient to rule, or build a city, effectively. 

Now, to be fair, a lot of book readers get this theme wrong too and reach the wrong conclusions about Dany's arc in ADWD. When Dany uses other forms of power other than fire and blood, she is shown to be effective. She knows she needs to use soft power, even though she detests her subjects in Meereen. And that is why the progress she made in marrying Hizdahr was important. She tried to do something other than use her dragons and as a result, she did achieve her goals. Her goal was to make sure Meereen didn't go the way of Astapor. It wasn't to end slavery everywhere. Meereen faced a food crisis and an insurgency. As a result of the marriage and the peace terms, the insurgency stops, Meereen is free, and it can now receive food by sea trade. However, all of that changes during the fighting pits as Dany chooses to ride Drogon and conveniently burns the people she already hates. 

The more she uses her dragons, the less she'll be able to solve real problems later, because every time she uses her dragons, she just makes death and horror. This is what the author is talking about when he says that by using dragons a person can't reform, improve, or build. If she uses dragons she'll end up right back where she started, which is kind of the whole theme of House Targaryen. They spectacularly failed on both continents because they thought WMD was the only way to get the job done. Realistically, leaving Meereen in Daario's hands means she didn't build anything. Show!Dany made the same mistake Book!Dany made in Astapor. She just conquered, set up a weak ruler, and left. They were on theme though at the end when Dany destroyed the city that the Targaryens built. So, WMD gets you nowhere and isnt a way to build anything lasting.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Colorful Mess

[Brn2bwild]

On 12/5/2019 at 8:38 AM, Colorful Mess said:

I do blame D&D for misleading fans one major way. They didn't engage with the theme of destroying vs. building which may have provided some clarity on where Dany was going. In s5 they rewrote that pit scene to make Drogon rescue her from the evil villains, which isn't what happened at all. In the books, the peace was real as Skahaz states, until Drogon showed up and Daenerys rides off on her dragon. Dany actually killed or maimed some 200-600 innocent people by riding Drogon in the books. That should have been included in the show. In the show, Meereen gets cleaned up just by "burning all the bad guys," which is the Sweetrobin solution to everything. GRRM would never resolve a complex scenario that simply. These quotes sums it all up:

Except that one of Dany's servants got horribly ill from poisoned honeyed locusts that were meant for her.  There were definitely people (such as the Green Grace?) who wanted to see the peace fail.  

[Colorful Mess]

On 7/4/2020 at 6:27 PM, Brn2bwild said:

Except that one of Dany's servants got horribly ill from poisoned honeyed locusts that were meant for her.  There were definitely people (such as the Green Grace?) who wanted to see the peace fail.  

You might want to posit that as a theory and question conventional wisdom.  Adam Feldman argues that it was Skahaz, who was trying to break up the peace because he didn't like the fact that Dany married into House Loraq. And the poison wasn't deadly. He just wanted to frame Hizdahr. You can see this in the way he dupes Barristan. I think this makes the most sense, but more importantly it shows that Dany had built something which she promptly threw away by concluding "Dragons don't plant trees," i.e., dragons don't actually rebuild societies. A tragedy really since she was quite good at it.

[Luckylyn]

What is Dany’s Madness

 

[Constantinople]

On 7/15/2019 at 2:39 AM, slf said:

I mean, yeah, but so? Her family only ruled in Westeros because they invaded and conquered the Seven Kingdoms 'with fire and blood'. Then they were rightfully overthrown and a new monarchy was established.

The Mad King tortured a few 1%ers to death. In response, less than a handful of great lords started a civil war that killed untold innocent people.

Quote

Ser Jorsh: ow many wars have you fought in, Ser Barristan?
Ser Barristan: Three.
Ser Jorah: Have you ever seen a war where innocents didn’t die by the thousands?(Ser Barristan shakes his head to say No)

Ser Jorah: I was in King’s Landing after the sack, Khaleesi. You know what I saw? Butchery. Babies, children, old men. More women raped than you can count.

S3E3 Walk of Punishment

And then that was just King's Landing. We can only imagine how many died during Robert's Rebellion in the Riverlands, the Stormlands and elsewhere.

So I wouldn't say the Targaryens were rightfully overthrown. I would say the elite of Westeros were willing to subject tens of thousands of ordinary people to death to save their own skins. They're showing no less entitlement to slaughter the great unwashed than Dany

[nikma]

On 7/15/2019 at 8:39 AM, slf said:

I mean, yeah, but so? Her family only ruled in Westeros because they invaded and conquered the Seven Kingdoms 'with fire and blood'. Then they were rightfully overthrown and a new monarchy was established. Dany's family having once been Westerosi didn't give her a 'right' to invade, or even really a good, much less noble, reason to do so. She wasn't going home because she was raised elsewhere. She had no knowledge of, or attachment to, Westerosi culture or religions. Really, in the first few season she had no opinion of Westeros other than "it has a nice big iron chair I want to sit in". She was just a foreign invader, conquering a kingdom and slaughtering its people because she felt entitled to.

I mostly agree with this.

Daenerys fed a slaver to her dragons because she was angry about Selmy. She had no idea whether he was involved with the harpy and by her own rules you were not supposed to execute slavers without a trial since she executed a former slave for that.

She burned MMD alive for what she did to Drogo and her unborn child. If anything upset Dany she killed people. She executed 163 random slavers for what they did to the children. One of them we know was even against it. She wanted to burn down the slaver cities when they invaded meereen. There were slaves and innocent people in those cities. Tyrion gave her a better option to get ships.

No she never snapped, she simply did what she always had done, kill people when she was upset.

[nikma]

On 12/5/2019 at 5:38 PM, Colorful Mess said:

do blame D&D for misleading fans one major way. They didn't engage with the theme of destroying vs. building which may have provided some clarity on where Dany was going.

The main point D&D did in their execution, which really is a key trait of Game of Thrones, is make her downfall in some way shocking/surprising. It doesn't matter how much they supported it throughout the story, it is pretty certain that they actively wanted people to support Dany and then be shocked by her downfall. They wanted the audience in Tyrion and Jon's shoes. 

So they never wanted it to be obvious. If they did it would completely undermine their main point - demonstrating the danger of populism and revolutionary rhetoric/power through making the audience make the same mistakes as the characters. It's an absolutely ballsy and groundbreaking move. That doesn't mean there can't be a discussion over whether it made sense at all - but it's a lot harder to ask. Nonetheless, if you do pick apart the story, look for the clues, there is an absolute enormity of evidence for Daenerys' fall- her messianic complex, her ego and entitlement, being reined in by her advisers constantly, her convenient and loosely defined morals, her emotional instability - that its hard to say it wasn't justified. D&D seem to rely on the length of GoT to achieve both providing enough clues and development for Daenerys' turn, while also covering up to ensure its surprise later down the road.

They wanted the audience in a position of accomplice of the biggest crime in the show. Miguel Sapochnik talked about this. As I said we can talk how well they did their job but comparing GoT to Breaking Bad and Walt's fall (as some people do)completely misses the point. I mean it would be easy to do that. Just have Daenerys burn Astapor, Yunkai and Volantis as she wanted at the end of S6 and everyone would see her for what she is. 

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by nikma