[IMPORTANT] A response to SomethingLikeaLawyer's views of Daenerys, an explanation of why Robert's Rebellion is not a righteous war & why Dany burning King's Landing is a theory with lots of negative implications (that go beyond favoritism)
First, Iâm being sincere when I say that I think that @warsofasoiaf aka SomethingLikeaLawyer is a great writer (I especially love many of his worldbuilding posts) who deserves respect. That Iâm willing to respond to his views of Dany already shows that I have respect for him, since I know that they influence the fandomâs outlook of the character. Also, I appreciate that he not only took the time to read my previous meta addressing some of his points about Dany but also wrote a polite reply to it. Iâve been blocked and harassed for merely expressing my views before, so his attitude means a lot. That being said, knowing a lot doesnât mean knowing everything, which is what I intend to show by explaining how heâs mischaracterized and harshly judged Dany. Then, Iâm going to point out the double standards and negative implications inherent in thinking that Robertâs Rebellion was righteous and to address why Dany burning Kingâs Landing is a theory that targets lots of marginalized people and that shouldnât be an outcome for the readership to be excited about.Â
Second, since the title already makes people inclined to think that Iâm âbiasedâ, Iâm going to bring up a lot of book evidence to corroborate my statements. Because the meta would get very long (more than it already is) if I had added the quotes here, I decided to link to asearchoficeandfire instead.
Third, the meta Iâm primarily responding to is this one. However, Iâm also going to reply to other metas if I find it necessary to comment on a certain viewpoint that he expressed elsewhere.
Argument 1: Daenerys does not value her word, nor does she see her obligations as binding.
As proof that this is what Dany tends to do, the essayist brings up 1) âthat she is willing to enter into bargains that she has no intent of fulfilling, when she dealt with Kraznysâ and 2) that âshe abandons the responsibilityâ âas soon as the position [of a khaleesi] requires her to do something she does not desireâ.Â
1) Before we get into the deal with Kraznys, why did Dany decide to go to Astapor in the first place? Jorah gave her the idea to go there and buy Unsullied, but why was she okay with doing so? Two reasons: first, she was a 14/15-year-old who didnât really know how the slaves were mistreated. As she later tells Xaro, his slaves âseemed well treated and contentâ - this explains her lack of outrage about both Xaroâs slaves in ACOK and Illyrioâs in AGOT. Before ASOS, she thought that slaves were treated like normal servants; thatâs because she had only interacted with slaveowners, not slavers. The second reason has to do with her background. Dany lived in poverty during her formative years and witnessed how being powerless negatively affected her brother. She had her taste of âthe beggarâs bowlâ in Qarth and does not want to âcome to Pentos bowl in handâ again. So, to make it clear right away, that Dany chose to go to Astapor does not mean that she was okay with slavery (though Jorah is) and just wanted an army.
In Astapor, Dany witnesses the Unsulliedâs training and finds out that they: 1) are not considered men and have their names changed every day so that they lose their sense of individuality; 2) begin their training at five; 3) are forced to undergo such a rigorous training that only one boy in three survives it; 4) are forced to stand for a day with no food or water to prove their discipline and strength; 5) are forced to drink the âwine of courageâ to feel less pain and endure a lot of torture (like having their nipples cut off); 6) are forced to kill puppies after one year taking care of them (and, if they donât kill them, they are fed to the surviving dogs); 7) are forced to kill a baby in front of its mother in the slave marts. Additionally, while the exposition of their training happens, Kraznys feels entitled to whip Missandei several times. Afterwards, he recommends that Dany goes to the pits to see duels against âa bear and three small boysâ.
Accepting the bargain with Kraznys as legitimate would mean accepting the Unsulliedâs and the Astapori slavesâ oppression as a whole as legitimate. In Danyâs view, if she is to be a true queen, she must âprotect the ones who canât protect themselvesâ. So she revolts against the masters and the narrative frames her actions as righteous by linking her draconic force to freedom.
To the essayist, however, thatâs not what her actions mean. To him, Danyâs actions against the slavers mean that Dany might not âhonor arrangements if she enters them in deliberate bad faithâ, which veers into slavery apologism since itâs implicit in his statement that the right thing to do was to honor the deal, i.e., buy the Unsullied and leave the slave trade intact. To him, Danyâs actions against the slavers mean that she might âtake [his] troops to fight her wars and not defend [his] landâ, which veers into slavery apologism since itâs implicit that the right thing to do was to honor the deal, i.e., buy the Unsullied and leave the slave trade intact. To him, Danyâs actions against the slavers mean that she might âtake [his] taxes but snatch up holdings in [his] fief to please some other vassalâ, which veers into slavery apologism since itâs implicit that the right thing to do was to honor the deal, i.e., buy the Unsullied and leave the slave trade intact.
Besides, as @mytly4 points out here, slavery is illegal in Westeros. Danyâs refusal to accept the deal, if it means anything, is more likely to count in her favour (though, as we know, she didnât take action against the slavers for that reason).
2) To show that Dany benefits from the âpower of a khaleesiâ, the essayist mentions that she supposedly âauthoriz[ed] Viserysâs executionâ. The basis of the argument is wrong to begin with, because we should remember that Dany was sold as a sex slave. She explicitly told Viserys that marrying Drogo wasnât what she wanted, but she was forced to do so and then was raped by him multiple times. To imply that Dany had any actual power during Viserysâs execution is dubious at best and blatantly false at worst. Indeed, Viserys didnât just threaten Danyâs son, he threatened Khal Drogoâs son. Would Drogo have let Viserys remain alive after that? Highly unlikely. Did Dany authorize his execution? Nothing in the text suggests that she had any say in this.
Also, I am not sure if the essayist implies that she shouldnât have authorized it ⊠As I just said, she didnât have any say on the matter whatsoever, but even if she did, we shouldnât expect her to lift a linger for him. Why should she? After years of physical and emotional abuse? After he sold her into sex slavery? After he attempted to rape her (even if sheâs unaware of this fact, it makes it clearer that she didnât owe her brother anything)? After she tried to reach out by giving him new clothes and even being willing to give him her dragon eggs? Dany was unable to establish any boundaries in her relationship with her brother and only did so once he threatened to kill her son (not her). To suggest that she should have done more or that she should have had a different reaction or that this is proof that she would be âan arbitrary ruler that erodes faith in the monarchâ is victim blaming.
If the essayist wanted to argue that Dany âacts with the power of a khaleesiâ, he should have mentioned her attempt to help the Lhazarene victims, which Iâve talked about before here. Thanks to Danyâs authority, she stops Drogoâs men from raping the women from Lhazar. We see in the scene, however, that her agency is very limited; she âwonder[s] if she had dared too muchâ when Drogo confronts her about her actions and she tries to conciliate Drogoâs interests and the Lhazarene womenâs well-being by suggesting that Drogoâs warriors marry these women instead. Itâs not a good solution, but sheâs 14 at this point and, as far as she is concerned, her husband helped her more than her brother ever did; Drogo was âthe shield that kept her safeâ. In any case, this moment and her order to let Mirri Maz Duur take care of her husband are the only ones in which she actually âacts with the power of a khaleesi. They go unmentioned, perhaps because they are too altruistic in nature and the essayist isnât willing to uplift Danyâs character in any way.
I also wonder what he means when he says that Dany âforfeits responsibility when the position [of a khaleesi]Â requires her to do something she doesnât desireâ. Does that mean that the essayist expects her to go to Vaes Dothrak and live with the Dosh Khaleen? Thatâs blatantly misogynistic (in the sense of enforcing women to stay in their patriarchal confines), so I hope not. No woman should have to be isolated from the world and prevented from exercising her political authority elsewhere because her husband died. Dany is completely justified in challenging these norms.
Argument 2: Daenerys confuses her office as a queen with herself as a person.
The essayist brings up three of Danyâs actions to corroborate this argument: 1) her execution of 163 Great Masters; 2) her authorization of torture for information; 3) her judgment of Jorah and Barristan.Â
1) While I donât think that Dany did the right thing here, itâs important to note that Dany specifically asks for the leaders of Meereen, i.e. the ones who are most likely to have ordered the childrenâs deaths. Therefore, itâs inaccurate to say that she took the action âwithout finding out who was responsible for the crime, not even a cursory examinationâ. One could argue that that isnât enough to guarantee that all of the crucified masters were actually responsible, thatâs for sure. Still, is it fair to expect her to determine their guilt? The text never suggests that she had to do so. Even one of her detractors, Qavo, only says that âthose who speak against her are impaled to die lingering deathsâ - he never mentions that she should have given them a trial or that she was arbitrary. Itâs also noticeable that, unlike in the showâs depiction, nobody around Dany ever points out that she was too violent for taking this particular course of action, which implies that her act, while certainly motivated by personal vengeance, is most likely normalized in this universe.
Before I move on to Danyâs next controversial action, I need to address some points that the essayist makes in a digression about Danyâs supposed motivations as a ruler. He says:
a) That Dany âis misusing her office and duties for self-gratificationâ, that she âwanted to feel better for being unable to protect the 163 childrenâ and that âcrime and punishment [âŠ] cannot be treated as a bandage for wounded prideâ.
b)Â That Dany âdoes not desire to bring stability, peace, or growth either to Westeros or to Meereenâ.
c)Â That, instead of planting trees, âshe wants to hurt the people who made her powerlessâ, âkill the ones who shattered her ego, by forcing her to compromise, by evicting her family from Westeros, one and all.â âSheâs lost any high-minded concept she may have hadâ âat the end of A Dance of Dragons, where Daenerys fully embraces the mantra that dragons plant no treesâ. âShe wants her opponents to suffer so she can feel like the glorious queen she imagines herself to beâ.
Ooof. Thereâs a lot to unpack in these three items before I move on to Danyâs second controversial action.
a) While itâs true that Danyâs inner thoughts are indeed focused on obtaining vengeance when she decides to crucify 163 masters, to say that she only âwanted to feel betterâ due to her âwounded prideâ is quite a reach. Iâm going to bring up Danyâs previous actions that the essayist never brings up to explain why:
Why isnât it brought up that, in the previous chapter, Dany had said that she âwill not march [her] people off to dieâ because they are â[her] childrenâ (which is one of two moments that strongly resemble Edmureâs âMy people. They were afraidâ)?
Astapor: Why isnât it brought up that Dany could have just offered all the trading goods inside the ships to the masters and gotten the 1000 Unsullied that Jorah advised her to get? Why isnât it brought up that Dany offered to pay double to make sure that she would get the untrained boys in Astapor (which she didnât have to do if she just wanted an army)? Why isnât it brought up that Dany could have given the trading goods and the ships and left with 2000 Unsullied (twice the number of men Jorah had recommended her to buy)? Why isnât it brought up that Dany thought that âshe must have them allâ (from trained soldiers to âthe little ones who still have their puppiesâ) and that â[i]t was her only choiceâ (akin to Brienneâs âNo chance, and no choiceâ) to offer the masters one dragon?
Yunkai: Why isnât it brought up that Dany didnât have to worry about the freedmenâs safety in battle, but she does? Why isnât it brought up that she could have kept the envoyâs chest for herself and chose not to? Why isnât it brought up that she could have taken other chests from the city like she suggested, but instead promised to the envoy that âYunkai will not be burned or plunderedâ if the masters released their slaves with âgold, clothing, coin and goodsâ?
Perhaps most importantly, why isnât the moment where Dany says that âjusticeâ is âwhat kings are forâ and that kings and queens must âprotect the ones who canât protect themselvesâ brought up? Why is it about her âprideâ or âegoâ or âself-gratificationâ instead? Where do we see her benefiting from her endeavors (nowhere.)? Why arenât her moral principles brought up as reasons to contextualize her behaviors at all? The essayist is cherrypicking at best and distorting Danyâs character at worst.
b) Dany âdoes not desire to bring stability, peace, or growthâ to either Meereen or Westeros? Then why does she always hold court (even when Barristan says she should leave that task to her advisors)? Why does she make sure that freedmen and noblemen receive the same attention (which reinforces GRRMâs statement that Dany wants equality)? Why does she keep multiple freedmen as advisors in her council? Why does she make multiple decisions at court favoring the freedmen? Why does she chain her dragons? Why does she agree to marry a man she doesnât love (and to sacrifice her sexual autonomy in the process)? Why does she agree to abandon a man she loves? Why does she send her khalasar to the hinterlands to free its slaves and bring crops to the city? Why does she send âgems and goldâ to guarantee an alliance with the Lhazarene and consequently reestablish the overland trade route through the Khyzai Pass and bring grains down the river or over the hills? Why does she order that irrigation canals are built to plant beans? Why does she plant grapes and wheat? Why does she replant olive trees? Why does she try to sell salt and wine and copper? Why does she promise to pay âgood goldâ for the short sword of Stalwart Shield and âone thousand honorsâ for information about the Sons of the Harpy? Why does she pay people affected by her dragonsâ actions? Why does she set up a camp and send food to the Astapori refugees? Why isnât she bothered at all for having to compensate the Yunkish masters with âgold and gemsâ? Why does she order the food that would be normally thrown away to be given to the poor? Why does she seek to strengthen her military forces to defend the city from the Yunkish masters and does not care about the price to do so? Why does she refuse to go to Westeros multiple times and thinks that âshe wanted Westeros as much as [Barristan] did, but first she must heal Meereenâ? These actions donât fit with the essayistâs statement that Dany âdoes not desire to bring stability, peace, or growthâ at all. They show, instead, that heâs being very selective about what he chooses to mention.
c) Itâs easy to bring up Danyâs so-called desire to âhurt the people who made her powerlessâ. Whatâs not brought up is that she also wants to hurt these people for being complicit in Rhaenysâs and Aegonâs deaths by letting them happen and go unpunished. She is wrong for thinking that the Starks and the Lannisters are one and the same, but she is right in blaming Robert for not punishing Gregor Clegane and Tywin Lannister and acknowledging these losses. (More on this issue later)
Itâs easy to briefly mention Danyâs so-called âegoâ or that she wants to âfeel like the glorious queen she imagines herself to beâ, but where are the book passages corroborating these statements? @rainhadaenerys wrote an in-depth meta explaining why Dany is not arrogant. I collected all the passages in the books showing the moments where Dany asserts her titles and she never uses them to show herself off for self-gratification. I also collected a (very long) list of all the passages showing how self-deprecating Dany actually is. I wrote a meta with a lot of book evidence explaining that Dany is neither prophecy-driven nor conscious of her heroic destiny. Thinking highly of herself or being arrogant is not a major aspect of Danyâs characterization.
Itâs easy to say that Dany has âlost any high-minded principles she may have hadâ while not mentioning any of her selfless deeds (as I already laid out above).
Itâs easy to say that she âfully embrace[d] the mantra that dragons plant no treesâ and that this means that she will now âkill the ones who shattered her ego, by forcing her to compromise, by evicting her family from Westerosâ. Iâm gonna talk about whether her eventual arrival in Westeros will be morally wrong or not in a later section. For now, Iâll focus on how the essayist frames it as a negative development that Dany will âkill the ones who shattered her ego, by forcing her to compromiseâ. Iâve already showed that Dany doesnât have a big ego. By mischaracterizing her as someone who does, he intends to argue that the foreshadowing for Dany going down a dark path is her desire to punish the people who are okay with selling human lives.
The same people who burned Meereenâs fields and crucified 163 children. The same people who let the Astapori starve inside their city and eat âcats and rats and leatherâ (which is probably what caused the bloody flux in the first place). The same people who burned Astapor merely as a lesson for the abolitionists. The same people who hunted down the Astapori citizens. The same people who threw corpses afflicted by the pale mare to spread the disease in Meereen and end the siege quickly. The same people who were okay with forcing Tyrion and Penny to âfuckâ. The same people who had a 15/16-year-old girl naked to be sold. The same people who are okay with whipping their slaves in the back until there âwas nothing but blood and raw meatâ. The same people who were okay with reopening the fighting pits and letting the systematic killing of freedmen to persist for their own entertainment. The same people who were okay with letting lions loose on Tyrion and Penny, who hadnât consented to participating.Â
How terrible it must be that the slavers die.Â
This slavery apologism in his arguments arises due to both the essayistâs lack of knowledge of Danyâs characterization (since sheâs actually one of the most self-critical characters of the book series) and by his desire to criticize her very harshly.
I also think that the essayist didnât really understand what âdragons plant no treesâ is supposed to mean for Danyâs character development going forward; here we enter the realm of speculation, I admit (which he doesnât).Â
Dany is terribly disillusioned and pessimistic by the end of ADWD due to her abolitionist reforms being slowly but surely undone, so it makes sense that she would think that âdragons plant no treesâ. Even so, itâs also noticeable that itâs Jorah (albeit in Danyâs mind) who tells her that. Jorah doesnât know Dany at all (for reasons Iâll elaborate below); as @yendany explained here, itâs one of the many signs that âdragons plant no treesâ is not a statement thatâs meant to define Danyâs endgame. Danyâs problem was not her ego or her repressed desire for vengeance or anything of the sort. Her problem that she was too lenient with the slavers; by leaving the Yunkish slaversâ wealth intact, she had an indirect part (but sheâs not ultimately responsible for them, just like Cat isnât responsible for the burning of the riverlands) in atrocities like Astaporâs fall, the pale mareâs outbreak and the upcoming Battle of Fire. By leaving the Meereenese slaversâ wealth intact, she had an indirect part in the Sons of the Harpyâs attacks. She had to deal with war outside and inside the city and ended up making too many concessions to establish an alliance with the slavers and keep hold of Meereen. They led Dany to stop holding court and being mhysa. On the other hand, by choosing fire and blood and getting in touch with her identity as the Mother of Dragons, Dany will be a better mhysa to her people; sheâll finally align pragmatism and principle as she did in ASOS when she began her revolution and prioritized the freedmen over the nobles. No wonder the narrative itself alludes to Dany returning to her ASOS mindset, which was also when her draconic force was linked to freedom. This isnât to say that things will go 100% smoothly and without any negative consequences (when did that ever happen to Dany?), but Danyâs actions will ultimately be framed as righteous, for sheâll be once again actively and consciously fighting for the oppressed.
Could I be off the mark? Sure, I do acknowledge that this is speculation. However, Iâm also making sure that itâs backed by a lot of textual evidence, which is more than the essayist is doing.
NOW, letâs move on to Danyâs second controversial action.
2) Danyâs order to torture the wineseller and his daughters is definitely an action that complicates her character, Iâm not denying that it doesnât. That being said, this must be contextualized in her time and place, in which the use of torture is normalized. To his credit, the essayist acknowledges that fact (though he also lingers for quite some time on how âbarbaricâ and âdisgustingâ torture is, which has the effect of undercutting his acknowledgement of how normalized this method is in this world and of manipulating the readers into feeling more uncomfortable with Dany than they otherwise would be). He mentions Tyland Lannister and the position of the Lord Confessor as one example. I would also add that the Vale, the Nightâs Watch, the North and King Jaehaerys I (who the essayist praised in the past) have all used it.
He doesnât point out two important things to fully comprehend the situation. First, it was not Danyâs idea to torture the wineseller and his daughters, it was the Shavepateâs. While that doesnât take away from Danyâs responsibility since she authorized him to do what he proposed, it does matter in terms of Danyâs characterization.
Second, itâs ironic that the essayist takes the time to note that âempirical research indicates that torture simply doesnât yield accurate data, which Martin hints at numerous times throughout the novel seriesâ and then fails to remember that Dany is the only ruler who is shown onpage realizing that torture doesnât bring feasible results and who puts a stop to it.
He criticizes Dany for âonly authoriz[ing] the torture because she personally knew the victimâ (Rylona Rhee) and ânot acting [âŠ] because the victim was an agent of the stateâ (the Unsullied). First, he forgets that Rylona Rhee was not only beloved by Dany, but also the leader of the Yunkish freedmen and, therefore, a major political figure whose death would require a bigger response. Second, Dany had already authorized torture before she heard about Rylonaâs death - she ordered the Shavepate to question them âsweetly, to beginâ. Third, we later find out that other suspects were tortured as well, which must be noted because it shows that her use of torture was standard practice rather than carried out arbitrarily. Fourth, the essayist doesnât note that these measures were taken because Dany was afraid for her children. Fifth, I donât interpret this moment as showing that Dany values Rylonaâs life more than the Unsulliedâs. Iâm not saying that there isnât desire for vengeance involved in her decisionmaking, there certainly is. However, I would say that Rylona was the final trigger (rather than the sole reason) for Dany to change her attitude. She âmade a fistâ when she found out that Mossador was killed and she was, again, âafraid for her childrenâ in general, not just Rylona. Sixth, Jaehaerys I Targaryen had a similar, though much harsher, reaction when he found out that Rego Draz was murdered by the crowd. He threatened to cut the peopleâs tongues if they didnât give him names and, after a girl decided to inform them, the murderers were âhung from the walls of the Red Keep, disemboweled, and left to twist until they died, their entrails swinging loose down to their kneesâ. And heâs still the Conciliator, GRRMâs favorite King and one of the examples praised by the essayist for âlabor[ing] to make Westeros a better governmentâ. If Jaehaerys can be a good ruler despite these shortcomings, so can Dany.
3) Danyâs final controversial moment, in the essayistâs eyes, was when she judged Jorah and Barristan differently. This, for him, is another moment when Dany lacks impartiality.
I said above that I would elaborate on why Jorah doesnât know Dany at all; nowâs the time. I wrote an in-depth meta about how much of an asshole he is and backed up my statements with book passages. To sum them up, he constantly tries to isolate Dany from other men, he tries to make her distrustful of others, he belittles and acts condescendingly, he forces a kiss on her and constantly looks at her breasts and disrespects her boundaries in general, he hides information from her and he is okay with slavery and doesnât understand why Dany cares so much about the Lhazarene victims or the Ghiscari freedmen. Heâs basically a creep attempting to groom Dany, similar to what Littlefinger is doing with Sansa. Even if Jorah hadnât given Dany many reasons at court to send him away (and he will do so, as I will show below), criticizing her as a ruler for sending him away is pure victim blaming.
Instead of paying attention to this toxic dynamic, the essayist criticizes Dany as a monarch partly based on the fact that âshe was angry that he did not immediately beg for forgivenessâ. Itâs particularly disgusting and insensitive to compare Dany negatively to the âbloody-handed tyrantâ Henry VIII based solely on how Dany dealt with Jorah. Dany had every reason to feel that she was owed respect after all of the things he did to her. Dany had every reason to feel that she was owed respect after she found out that he was spying on her. Dany has every reason to feel that she is owed respect because she is a woman. Henry VIII was respected without having to ask for it because he was a man. Dany has to fight for respect; this means that she has to be more conscious and open than a man about her desire to be respected ⊠because she is a woman. Itâs only natural that sheâs gonna have negative feelings if she doesnât receive the proper treatment of liege that sheâs owed from her subject. This essayist canât take gender dynamics into consideration and acknowledge all the ways that Jorah disrespected and infantilized Dany and how he always exploited the power imbalance in their relationship. Meanwhile, Barristan never looked at her breasts without her consent, Barristan showed respect and humbleness and, most importantly, Barristan truly respected Dany as an authority. This moment from ASOS Daenerys IV pretty much sums up the difference in how these two men treated Dany - Jorah called her âRhaegarâs sisterâ (or khaleesi, always tied to a man), Barristan considered her âa queen as wellâ. Dany definitely made the right choice in sending Jorah away and itâs a shame that the essayist doesnât view that as a positive moment. I hope that no one accuses Sansa of âview[ing] her personal desires and opinions as superior to the lawâ when she inevitably defeats Littlefinger, for that would be victim blaming. Itâs pretty much the same situation with Dany and Jorah.
Moreover, the essayist canât take into consideration all the reasons that justify Jorahâs dismissal based on his behavior at court. Letâs remember that Jorah had hidden information from his liege to âprotectâ her (something he wouldnât have gotten away with if Dany were a man). He then acted as if he was owed sole recognition for Meereenâs conquest (when Dany was the one who planned most of the military strategy to take Meereen) in front of Danyâs subjects, he lied when he denied that he was Robertâs source in front of Danyâs subjects and then he argued that he was owed forgiveness in front of Danyâs subjects. Iâm reiterating that he did all of these things in open court because to forgive him would have meant undermining Danyâs authority. Besides, Dany had every reason to expect more humility from Jorahâs part, which he miserably failed to do because he always acted patronizingly towards Dany and doesnât know how to act otherwise.
To say that Dany âconsiders both [Jorah and Barristan] equally guilty of the same crimeâ is false. As she notes here, Barristan lied to her about his name, while Jorah sold her secrets to her political enemies all the way to Qarth. Thereâs another man who she considers to be âequally guilty of the same crimeâ Jorah did, though: the wineseller. As Dany notes, if he was âdragged [âŠ] behind her horse until there was nothing left of him, [âŠ] â[d]idnât the man who brought him deserve the same?â. Ironically, she is shown doing the exact opposite of what the essayist claims she is doing: she is worrying about being arbitrary, which leads her to decide that itâs impossible to forgive Jorah.
Itâs also important to note that weâre in a time and place where the line between âimpartialâ justice and personal vengeance is particularly blurred. Just think back to King Jaehaerys I, praised by the essayist for âlabor[ing] to make Westeros a better governmentâ; after finding out that his daughter had (consensual) sex, he gives Braxton Beesbury an ultimatum: be gelded, have your tongue and nose removed and have your arms and legs broken or fight against Jaehaerys himself in a trial by combat. Braxton has no good choice here and Jaehaerys spins it as âjusticeâ; all because he had consensual sex with his daughter. Then, he forces Saera to watch his killing of Braxton, all because she dared to have sex. Later, after Saera runs away from the motherhouse and becomes a prostitute in a Lysene garden, Jaehaerys says that âshe always wasâ âa whoreâ and forbids Alysanne to visit Saera, for she needs her âas a Dornishman needs a pit viperâ.
I need to make it clear that Jaehaerysâs actions paint his character in a much, much more negative light than Danyâs do. First, consider that Jaehaerys is 49 and Dany is 15. Second, consider that Dany was thrown into a situation where more collateral damage than usual would be inevitable since sheâs trying to end slavery; Dany is fighting for power in the name of the smallfolk, Jaehaerys is simply holding it (and not primarily for the sake of the oppressed). Now, yes, Dany choosing to go with âan eye for an eyeâ or to allow the torture of people who may not have been to blame werenât her best decisions. And yes, there is anger and desire for vengeance involved. Still, both of these decisions were made thinking of the children that the masters crucified solely to piss her off and the citizens that the Sons are killing solely to piss her off. Meanwhile, Jaehaerys took very extreme actions solely because he couldnât stand that his daughter was âdespoiledâ. Both punishments have a personal dimension to them, but the latter is much, much more despicable when you compare their actual intentions (and experiences).Â
Jaehaerys may be a blatant misogynist, but GRRM still regards him as âthe good kingâ who âruled for 55 years with peace and prosperityâ. Even though his punishment of Saera and Braxton was so clearly personal, arbitrary and disproportionate to what they did and even though he disregarded his wifeâs feelings for the sake of his misogyny, GRRM still sees him as a dragon who planted trees. Even a good king (albeit a misogynist one even by Westerosi standards; see Ned Stark or Selwyn Tarth as contrasts) like Jaehaerys can act callously because he wants to. Thatâs social commentary. Dany canât be criticized on her own for arbitrariness without a lot of double standards involved.
Argument 3: A Targaryen restoration means violation of the notion that a king who violates his lordly obligations and the social contract is no true king.
Itâs convenient for the essayist to argue that Robertâs Rebellion is a righteous war since it gives him a reason to say that Dany will be doing the wrong thing when she returns to Westeros to fight for her birthright. Iâve also seen others say that Robertâs Rebellion is as righteous as Danyâs crusade in Slaverâs Bay (so they at least acknowledge that it was righteous in the first place, while this essayist uses it as a reason to paint Dany as a âtyrantâ).
But the thing is: Robertâs Rebellion was not a righteous war and certainly does not deserve to be compared to Danyâs crusade.
Was it necessary to depose Aerys? Definitely. Iâm not saying that it wasnât.
However, what isnât remembered is that Aerys was already doing terrible things to his subjects long before the deaths of Rickard and Brandon Stark. He a) had Ilyn Payneâs tongue ripped out after he joked that Tywin ruled the Seven Kingdoms, b) killed Prince Jaehaerysâs wet nurse, c) killed his own mistress and all of her family and d) exterminated the Darklyns.
Where were the rebels while the peasants and the lower nobility were being brutally punished and/or killed? Where were the rebels while the peasants and the lower nobility had their basic human rights disrespected?
One could argue that the rebels already had reasons to restrain the Targaryensâ power for a long time, if the Southron Ambitions theory is to be believed. Itâs still noticeable, however, that it took the killings of Brandon and Rickard and the call for Nedâs and Robertâs heads for Jon Arryn and other great lords to do something about it. They only took action when the lives that they prioritized were in danger. When the lives of other innocents were in danger, they didnât lift a finger. Thatâs why Robertâs Rebellion is not a righteous war and does not deserve to be compared to Danyâs abolitionist crusade in any way.
Itâs also noteworthy that Aegon Vâs pro-smallfolk reforms were most likely one of the catalysts for the alliance pact to be developed, since the rebels werenât willing to lose their privileges to help the peasants. This highlights how Robertâs Rebellion is, more than anything, a power grab.
To hammer home the point that the rebels prioritize the lives of some people over othersâ, GRRM has Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon killed by Gregor Clegane, who was one of Tywinâs (and Robertâs) men at the time. Why didnât Robert punish both Tywin Lannister and Gregor Clegane for what happened? And if he let these people go unscathed, then why isnât the Baratheon regime denounced the way the essayist thinks that the Targaryen regime was denounced because of the deaths of Brandon and Rickard Stark? Judging Robertâs Rebellion as righteous means prioritizing the lives of white high lords over the lives of lowborn people and people of color.
Additionally, viewing Robertâs Rebellion as righteous means ignoring another very important point: the entire system is rigged. No oneâno Baratheon, no Targaryenâshould have such a degree of authority over others. Indeed, this system treats women like brood mare, it oppresses more than ninety percent of the population, it goes on through a line of succession where itâs never guaranteed that the son will be as capable or as moral as the previous king, it encourages family feuds over lands and titles and bloody wars in which the peasants ultimately pay the price, etc. Regardless of who assumes, this system is inherently defective.Â
Which leads me to why the theory that Dany burns Kingâs Landing is offensive in many, many ways.
On the theory that Dany burns Kingâs Landing
In other posts, the essayist explains his reasoning as to why it supposedly makes sense for Dany to be the one who causes Kingâs Landingâs destruction by wildfire:
Having Dany set it off means she has a reason to seek redemption, forcing her to acknowledge the terrible things that her father did, the terrible consequences that powers entails, and forcing her to confront, once and for all, the question of whether she is mad. (x)
~
Itâs made worse when she would learn that the wildfire caches are Aerysâs last legacy, that his final act as king was to attempt to destroy his own people. This comforting rationalization can no longer apply. Aerys was illegitimate, and his deposition was just. (x)
First, why does Dany need to be the one narratively punished by her fatherâs legacy? Every single House has achieved its power and dominance through bloodshed and had an awful ruler at some point. Most, if not all, of the feudal houses have decided, at some point, to wage war at the expense of people potentially dying because thatâs the issue with feudalism. And they are not nearly as punished or judged negatively for it either in-narrative or in real life. So why is Danyâs story being consistently singled out as the one in which she needs to face her worst version, her âworst selfâ?
Second, why the heck is it dramatically interesting to have Dany seek redemption for anything? Especially when she comes off of a storyline where she was doing too much (helping the slaves, we must remember, was not her moral duty); indeed, sheâs one of the characters who better embody the idea that you have to do the right thing even if it doesnât bring you any rewards (and I already listed her numerous sacrifices above). I also dislike how this makes it implicit that she canât be a peacetime queen and is only meant be a heroine who will help to defeat the Others, which is so dismissive of Danyâs development and skills. First, she is reduced to being a dragonrider, a weapon, a deus ex machina to allow the Starks to triumph. None of her ADWD experiences and actions (the majority of which the essayist never brings up) will have any bearing in this endgame speculation. Second, sheâs had a lot of interesting character development as a ruler and a leader, but, because she is a she-king (and, therefore, someone who makes decisions about warfare, which you wonât see someone like Sansa do; Sansa has other valid merits and skills, of course, Iâm just pointing out the misogyny in saying that only women who conform to gender norms are meant to stay to rebuild the world) and a revolutionary (who necessarily needs be more ruthless if she wants to truly abolish slavery, which you wonât see someone like Stannis do), she has to be reduced to being âmeant for warâ? To simplify her identity in that way instead of taking her unusual circumstances into account is deeply misogynistic.
Third, even if you discount Aerys, Rhaellaâs claim should also matter. If Robert and the Baratheons can claim the Iron Throne because of Rhaelle Targaryen, Dany can do the same because of her mother.
Fourth, the relative thatâs most often associated with Dany is not her father, itâs Rhaegar. This list of passages featuring all the moments displaying what Dany knows of her ancestors shows that âAerysâ is mentioned 3 times and âfatherâ is mentioned 18 times (note that I excluded the ones that donât refer to Aerys himself or that arenât part of the book passages). âRhaegarâ is mentioned 27 times and âbrotherâ (referring to Rhaegar; I didnât count the ones referring to Viserys) is mentioned 17 times. This highlights that Dany is not her father; instead, by connecting her to Rhaegar, the author shows that sheâs supposed to be viewed in a largely positive light.
I know that the essayist is not fond of Rhaegar, so I have to briefly talk about him too. I am critical of him as well and have written about how his treatment of Elia was not okay.Â
That being said, the double standards against Rhaegar are blatantly unfair. For all his mistakes, he still took actions attempting to save the world. Robert (whose rebellion the essayist judges as righteous) did no such thing, he only cared about his self-gratification and ran away from responsibility. Rhaegarâs relationship with Elia was âcomplexâ, but he was at least âfond of herâ. There was no complexity or fondness in Robert and Cerseiâs relationship - he raped her multiple times, even after she had made it abundantly clear that he hurt her. In fact, this is another reason why it pisses me off that part of the fandom is so critical of Rhaegar while thinking that Robertâs Rebellion was righteous. Not only that rebellion prioritized white and privileged people over peasants and people of color, it also gave authority to a terrible king and a terrible person. Do you want to talk about how Elia and Lyanna suffered because of Rhaegar? Fine. But donât shove Cerseiâs suffering, which is presented onpage, aside because of Robert. As a rape victim myself, I feel disgusted by the agenda behind why people would rather speculate (since thereâs nothing onpage) on the experiences of underdeveloped female characters whose relationships with Rhaegar were still positive to an extent and then barely address the suffering of a living, breathing POV character who was raped by Robert. And why? To paint Rhaegar as worse than Robert. And why? To support the narrative that Robertâs Rebellion is righteous. And why? To shove aside another rape victim who managed to rise to power thanks to her own actions and who actively chose to fight for the oppressed.
I would also ask you to consider that Gregor Clegane is revived and named Robert Strong. Not only is that a way for Cersei Lannister to reclaim her abuserâs name and power over her, itâs also a way to link Robert to the murderer of Elia and her children. How can Robertâs Rebellion be considered righteous since itâs abundantly clear that the event culminates in Robert enabling the Lannisters and Gregor to commit so many atrocities? No wonder a Lannisterâs monster lives on with his name.
Whatâs also infuriating is that the essayist thinks that Robert was a moderately good king for making alliances while Dany is a âtyrantâ in his eyes. Robert, the guy who let Tywin go unpunished for the deaths of Elia and her children, allowing him to burn the riverlands and enslave the smallfolk of the same region years later. Even if it could be argued that Robert only played an indirect role in these atrocities, they happened because he was negligent and unable to take responsibility. Thatâs in contrast to Dany; she also played an indirect role in the mastersâ burning of Astapor, for instance, but that happened because she is an inexperienced 15-year-old who thought that they would leave her alone if she left their wealth intact, avoided bloodshed and remained neutral to their war. Unlike Robert with Elia and her children or with Mycah and Lady, Dany takes full responsibility for what happened because, as queen, she feels it is her place to know what to do to prevent her people from suffering. Also, even if Dany werenât a much, much better ruler and person than Robert (and she certainly is), it bothers me that any sign of Danyâs moral ambiguity is painted as evil while Robertâs evil is painted as moral ambiguity.
Her external enemies have consistently failed to provide a credible external threat ever since ASOS. The Masters, the Sons, they never managed any sort of real menace to the story; the reader always knew Daenerys would triumph. The danger in Daenerysâs story is that she would succumb to the quick and easy paths of power, using power carelessly, becoming the brutal and petty tyrants that characterized the worst of her ancestors. This fear is what pushed her into unappealing compromises, and her rejection of such when she returns will initially be a giddy burst of triumph, and Kingâs Landing will be the wages of falling in the other direction. (x)
This entire excerpt is false. To explain why, I have six major points to explore.
First, I made seventeen lists of all the book passages showcasing key aspects of Danyâs characterization. I read her ASOS and ADWD chapters eight times. I can tell you with no hesitation that âsuccumb[ing] to the quick and easy paths of powerâ and âbecoming the brutal and petty tyrants that characterized the worst of her ancestorsâ is not a recurring problem in Danyâs journey and I would challenge the essayist to provide book passages to back up his statements. For instance, he says that âdo I have the taint?â is a âconstant mantra in her ADWD arcâ, but this only comes up once in ADWD Daenerys II.
Second, as I said before, the essayist misses the forest for the trees when he refuses to acknowledge how threatening the Masters are. If he thinks that they are ineffective as military commanders because GRRM failed in his writing of them, fine. It doesnât change the fact that they are presented as a âcredible external threatâ and need to be viewed as such for Danyâs actions to make sense.
Letâs recap the events: at first, Dany thinks that she will be able to rule Meereen in peace if she remains neutral to Yunkaiâs war. However, she later finds out that they are hiring sellswords and making alliances with other cities. Her influence is tenuous even inside the city. Because she left the Meereenese nobilityâs wealth intact as well, they hired the Harpyâs Sons to kill the cityâs freedmen and her soldiers. Later, with Qarth, Tolos and Mantarys against her, she makes a deal with Hizdahr to marry him if heâs able to give her ninety days of peace. However, after Astapor falls and the refugees infected by pale mare keep coming, she decides that she needs to marry him because âa queen belongs not to herself but to her peopleâ. Later, Ben and the Second Sons betray her and she is forced to leave the Astapori outside the city with no food because her military strength has been compromised. She is also forced to reopen the fighting pits (and she was right that they should have remained closed for reasons Iâve explained here) as a compromise for her marriage.
The wars inside and outside are the reasons why Dany makes the compromises that she makes, not a fear of becoming a tyrant. The slavers are killing the Meereenese freedmen, letting the Astapori population stuck without any food, actively causing the pale mare to spread, selling human lives, acquiring a much larger force than Dany⊠And theyâve maintained a slave instituition for thousands of years. Thereâs that too. They are meant to be seen as a viable threat. Perhaps thereâs another reason why the essayist doesnât do so: he and the readership know that Dany will leave the region at some point and go to Westeros, so this makes them predisposed to think that Dany will inevitably come off as the winner. However, to undermine her storylineâs importance for the sake of Westeros has negative implications, as I will show below.
In any case, is Dany an awful ruler for not being able to control the slaversâ actions? No. She made political mistakes in leaving the Yunkish noblesâ wealth and the Meereenese noblesâ wealth intact, yes, but this was also motivated by her desire to prevent more deaths from happening. Her lenience was also motivated by her trauma in having lost so many people, from Quaro to Eroeh to Doreah to Stalwart Shield to Mossador to Rylona Rhee. These are understandable mistakes that indirectly cause huge consequences because her existence as the Breaker of Chains threatens the mastersâ main source of income and way of life. Moreover, Dany is not responsible for the slaversâ actions, just like Cat isnât responsible for the Lannistersâ burning of the Riverlands. Implying that they were would mean taking the slaversâ and the Lannistersâ agency away and equating competent and sympathetic characters to the worst kind of abusers.
As we can see, Danyâs problem was that she tried to hard to forge a false peace, for it privileged the noblemen over the freedmen. She needed to have been more ruthless all along. And yet, the essayist frames Danyâs struggle to be more firm as a danger of âbecoming the brutal and petty tyrants that characterized the worst of her ancestorsâ. Itâs an argument that veers into slavery apologism. Also, Dany is in a very difficult position in that she actively chose to fight for the slavesâ dignity and the slavers wonât voluntarily back down and see them as equals after so much time profiting off of their unpaid labor. To describe her eventual acceptance of her draconic identity (linked to freedom by the narrative) and use of force (which turns her back into the Dany of ASOS, as the narrative alludes to) as proof of her tyranny while all the moments where she chose not to use violence are conveniently ignored is misogynistic. To desire Dany to accidentally burn Kingâs Landing and be so heavily defined by violence without considering that her overall tendency to be conciliatory and compassionate and that sheâs mostly used it in the name of the freedmen is misogynistic. Because Dany is using violence (for the good of the former slaves), sheâs doomed to become much more defined by it than other male characters due to the scope of the tragedy the essayist speculates she will cause. This sort of narrative punishment is completely unwarranted.
Third, I need to bring up the double standards against Dany in comparison to other Westerosi Houses. Letâs focus on the Starks. Stark feudalism is xenophobic and exclusionary, as we see with their hatred of wildlings. Stark feudalism is also classist, disdainful of bastards and opposed to gender non-conformity, as we see with Nedâs treatment of Arya. Stark feudalism profits off the serfsâ labor, who never chose this system in the first place. Stark feudalism is built upon the First Menâs killing of the Children of the Forest. Why are the Starks allowed to have a âglorious returnâ (as the essayist puts it) if their ancestors were just as awful as Danyâs? Why is Dany being singled out as the one who needs to confront and pay for her fatherâs sins if the Starks, at least in this speculation, wonât do the same? Just because they became orphans? Dany is one too. Just because theyâre victims of the Lannisters? Dany was too. Just because they lost their oldest sibling and role model? Dany did too. Just because they were betrayed? So was Dany. Just because they live in fear? That was Danyâs life for thirteen years. I really recommend everyone to read @yendanyâs metas on how every noble House is feudalist.
Fourth, the essayist fails to acknowledge the resonance of Danyâs storyline for marginalized people. As a refugee, Dany doesnât belong in either Westeros or Essos. As a former slave, Dany is able to empathize with the Ghiscari slavesâ suffering in a way others canât. Her identity and her experiences culminate in Dany developing, as @khaleesirin puts it, âa sense of universalizing principle of social justice grounded on the fact that while we are born from different cultures, while we belong to different political community, while we have different sets of codes and tradition, we are all human.â This, of course, is remarkable and pioneering for her time. It informs Danyâs discontent and outrage at seeing the slaves in Astapor being exploited. It also informs why, after the peace agreement is made, Dany continues to be uncomfortable for knowing that Astapor and Yunkai will continue to oppressed. Hizdahr asks her to be content that the Meereenese will remain freedmen, but Dany canât do that because âshe looks at her children beyond national identitiesâ; she cares about and acknowledges the freedmenâs humanity in a way that transcends feudal ties and common heritage. Thatâs why, for instance, she feels like a failure if there are still people suffering outside her gates, itâs not enough just to take care of âher cityâ. By transcending petty concerns about lands and claims and developing a universal sense of social justice, Danyâs story becomes not just about rulership, but also about questioning and finding out âon what grounds she should be rulingâ. Her conclusion, as we know, is that kings are meant to do âjusticeâ and âprotect the ones who canât protect themselvesâ. Recognizing the connection between Danyâs background and her actions as an abolitionist also discredits the notion that Dany being a foreigner makes her a less worthy contender to the Iron Throne or an unfit agent of justice in Slaverâs Bay. In fact, Dany might be a better person for the job because she is âthe otherâ. No wonder Danyâs story resonates not only with women and abuse survivors, but also with immigrants and people of color.
As I said above, I suspect that the essayist doesnât consider the slavers as real threats partly because itâs certain that Dany will leave for Westeros at some point. This ultimately makes her Slaverâs Bay storyline subservient to whatever happens in Westeros next. Some speculate, for instance, that it foreshadows her ultimate destiny fighting against the Others. As @khaleesirin laid out before, though, this would be a development that warrants criticism. For one, Danyâs fight against slavery would become secondary to a male character (Jon)âs war. For two, it would mean prioritizing a fantasized form of slavery that is âan abstraction of evilâ ânot presented as a pervasive presence in our real, mundane lifeâ over a human form of slavery that âtranscends borders and is so deeply institutionalized that it becomes the moral normâ. For three, it would undermine how Danyâs identity as a conscious pariah and former sex slave culminates is intertwined with how sheâs become a competent she-king and a revolutionary as she dealt with very complex political issues in ADWD. Even if GRRM does decide to make the Others the ultimate threat, it would deserve criticism nevertheless. Unlike what the essayist argues, Danyâs enemies are a âcredible external threatâ - they arenât just individual oppressors, they are a mass oppressive ruling class. Because of their systematic oppression of the slaves, Dany had to start an abolitionist campaign and enact large-scale violence - that was the only way for her to be a true queen and âprotect the ones who canât protect themselvesâ. This is why itâs offensive to distort her use of force as being about her fighting against her fear to become a tyrant, as well as why itâs offensive to equate Danyâs crusade to Robertâs Rebellion.
Fifth, as I already said above, Robertâs Rebellion prioritizes white and highborn lives over people of color and lowborn people. Itâs only natural, then, that the essayist, for being pro-RR, also undervalues the lives of marginalized people in his speculation that Dany burns Kingâs Landing.
He thinks, for instance, that all of the Unsullied will die in the destruction. Remember how powerful it was to witness these men deliberately challenging their masters, choosing to fight for their own freedom and contradicting Kraznysâs opinion that they were no longer men with their own desires? According to this speculation, it wonât matter in the long run, because they will have another horrible fate.
He also thinks that Arianne Martell is going to die in Kingâs Landingâs destruction, which would be such a disservice to the character. If one thinks that Elia was done dirty by Rhaegar and by GRRMâs writing, why would one want a Dornish POV character to be killed off while servicing another âTargaryenâ princeâs story? If one thinks that itâs likely that this will happen, one can say so, but not without also expressing lot of criticism of the writing.
But then, thatâs because the essayist defends that the Dornish have to be narratively punished for getting caught up in a cycle of vengeance. Like with his views on Robertâs Rebellion, his speculation prioritizes Northern lives over Dornish lives.
He overlooks that the Northern independence and Robbâs war against the crown were motivated partly by personal vengeance and resulted in a lot of casualties across the riverlands. Was it righteous? No. Unlike Dany in Slaverâs Bay, Robb doesnât act as a voice for the oppressed fighting against the system that abuses them. Instead, he partly wants vengeance for his fatherâs death and ends up ultimately hurting the smallfolk. His actions keep the cycle of revenge going, but they donât prevent him from still being a largely sympathetic character. They donât prevent his siblings to take back Winterfell and to be, as many fans speculate, part of the ASOIAF worldâs reconstruction.
How are Doranâs actions any different? Why is he and the Dornish the ones who must be punished for wanting revenge against the Lannisters for the deaths of Elia, her children and Oberyn? Why canât he and/or his daughter be part of the reconstruction as well? Why arenât they afforded the same level of sympathy?
This leads me to the sixth point, which is the elephant in the room that I havenât seen anyone discuss so far: the theory that Dany burns Kingâs Landing is pro-Stannis and pro-Stark at its core. Thatâs why its proponents are okay with minor characters like Trystane or Sarella (and like Stannis) taking over Dorneâs (or Westerosâs) administration over a POV character like Arianne (and like Dany). Thatâs why its proponents are critical of Rhaegarâs treatment of Elia and GRRMâs poor writing of Elia and then say nothing about how Arianne, Cersei and Dany will all either be undermined or killed with this theory (which is particularly misogynistic because Cersei and Dany are the only representations of female leadership in ASOIAF that donât rely on men, followed by Arianne and Asha who have mostly been seen fighting for rather than wielding power like Dany and Cersei; note that only Asha, who doesnât threaten Stannis or the Starks in any way, gets to stay in power according to pro-RR speculations). Thatâs why its proponents are okay with the Starks coming out mostly unscathed for taking vengeance while the Martells are punished; the North will probably be retaken by Stannis, while the Martells are allying themselves with the Targaryens. Since the essayist perceives the Baratheon regime as the righteous one and the Targaryen regime as the illegitimate one (itâs certainly not the entire system thatâs rigged, nope), itâs the Dornish who need to be punished.
This is also why the essayist is harshly critical of Barristan for remaining passive about Aerysâs wrongdoings and not of Ned Stark for remaining passive about Robertâs wrongdoings. Ned stood passive as Robert let Mycahâs death go unpunished and as Robert allowed Lady to be executed. Ned stood passive as he saw Cersei being slapped by Robert and as he realized his best friendâs abusive nature. Ned stood passive as Robert slept with a girl whose age Ned âhad not dared to askâ (for all that pro-RR people criticize the power imbalance in Rhaegar and Lyannaâs relationship, I donât see them criticizing Robert for this). Ned stood passive as his best friend dismissed Eliaâs children as âdragonspawnâ and didnât do anything about their murders. He feels a lot of guilt about not having done anything, which is why, after fourteen years, he finally stands up to Robert when Robert considers killing another Targaryen child. It must also be acknowledged, as @yendany explains here, that Dany has every right to hate Ned. Iâm sure she will learn that Ned was an honorable man (despite his flaws) who is not like the Lannisters, but he was still complicit in Robertâs crimes, including in allowing Rhaenysâs and Aegonâs deaths to go unpunished.Â
Regarding Danyâs tendency to try to see her parents in an overly positive light and her enemies in an overly negative light ⊠As @rainhadaenerys and @mytly4 talked about here, Dany is just 13-16 years old in the books. Her young age means that she deserves some leeway from the readership for being resistant to accept criticism about her relatives, just like the Starks are given when Arya is angry at Edric for suggesting that Ned loved Ashara and when Sansa refuses to believe that Cat flirted with Littlefinger. But acknowledging Danyâs age instead of criticizing her like an adult would mean uplifting Danyâs character, which the essayist isnât willing to do. Also, criticizing Ned would mean criticizing Robert, which would mean questioning the legitimacy of the Baratheon regime, which would undermine the supposed rightfulness of the so-called One True King, which the essayist isnât willing to do.
Barristan certainly deserves criticism for his inaction in Aerysâs regime. What he doesnât deserve is to be criticized for deciding to join Dany rather than Stannis. First, Barristan rightly acknowledges that Robert was in the wrong for not lifting a finger for Rhaegarâs children, so joining the Targaryens instead of the Baratheons would be, in his mind, a way to make up for his inaction when it came to that issue. Second, criticizing him for that reason means overlooking the fact that his character development happened because of Dany. Thanks to Dany, he found a liege worth fighting for. Thanks to Dany, he deposed an unjust king. Thanks to Dany, he went from being sympathetic but passive about the slavesâ plight to being an active anti-slavery agent who is willing to âshatter [King Hizdahrâs] peaceâ, the false peace that benefits the nobles over the freedmen. But acknowledging Barristanâs character development (or even acknowledging Danyâs crusade as righteous instead of âpredictableâ) would mean uplifting Dany, which the essayist isnât willing to do.
Even the speculation about Danyâs trajectory conveniently resembles Stannisâs in ACOK-ASOS: Dany will be hellbent on destroying her enemies, will ultimately lose the battle in Kingâs Landing and then will realize that the true war is elsewhere. If Dany is the real Azor Ahai and not Stannis, then she canât be praised for her political skills and intelligence too; a woman can only be one thing or another. She must compensate for her heroic nature by being incompetent as a ruler (a âtyrantâ, actually). Burning Kingâs Landing is fitting to make sure that the woman isnât âtoo muchâ.
Fortunately, this speculation doesnât match with whatâs actually on the text. Dany is not just presented as a positive counterpart to Stannis because she is the real Azor Ahai and he isnât; Dany cares about the prostitutesâ hardships, Stannis doesnât. Dany sees the humanity in the slaversâ children (which makes one wonder whether sheâd be as hellbent on killing her enemies as the essayist thinks she will be), Stannis sees Tommen, Myrcella, Joffrey, Gilly and her child as abominations; Dany wants equality (as stated by GRRM) and gives the freedmen equal voice to the former masters, Stannis maintains that bastardsâ lives matter less (he only makes an exception to Edric and Jon because the former was neglected by Robert just like him and and because the latter was overshadowed by his older brother just like him). Danyâs first impulse is to find conciliation with the nobles to restore order in Meereen, Stannis wants to âscour that court cleanâ and kill children as well (while it could be argued that the Lannistersâ court deserves that punishment, why is Danyâs use of fire and blood against the slavers framed as her âsuccumb[ing] to the quick and easy paths of powerâ and losing âany high-minded concept she may have hadâ?). Dany is fighting against misogyny, Stannis is a misogynist himself. Dany stays in Meereen solely to restore order to the city with no benefits to herself, Stannis goes north not just because itâs the right thing to do (though it is commendable that he goes north because of that too), but because it provides him benefits that he thinks heâs entitled to. Dany propels Barristanâs character development, while Stannisâs character development is propelled by Davos; itâs not a coincidence that Dany and Davos were the ones chosen by GRRM to be POVs (Barristan only became one because GRRM needed to finish the Meereenese Knot). Itâs also not a coincidence that Dany is the major female protagonist of ASOIAF with lots of viewpoint chapters of her own and that Stannis is a minor character.
The purpose of making these comparisons is not to bring Stannis down; Iâm not calling him a tyrant, after all. Stannis is ultimately a righteous man, in spite of everything. Iâm focusing the âeverythingâ here to explain that speculation built upon enhancing Stannisâs claim and the Baratheon regime over Danyâs claim and the Targaryen regime isnât morally righteous at all.Â
Also, itâs a shame that people think that itâs so much more satisfying to have an able-bodied white man end up as king instead of a woman who also happens to be a former sex slave, an exile, a revolutionary and a she-king who rose to power thanks to her own actions, which, unlike Stannisâs, were detailed onpage as we followed her throughout the five books. Same goes for Young Griff. But then, as I already said, this speculation is unsympathetic to marginalized people in general, from Dany to the Unsullied to the Dornish.
Conclusion
I want to make it clear that, although many of the essayistâs assumptions, mischaracterizations and theories are misogynistic, slavery apologia and victim blaming, it doesnât mean that the essayist himself is all of these things. Sometimes it simply comes down to his lack of awareness about his privileges rather than malice.
However, because so much of Danyâs development and storyline rests on her marginalization (which GRRM acknowledges when he says that Dany is âan exile, powerless, penniless, at the mercy of other peopleâ) and on the fact that Dany is a largely sympathetic and heroic character who, like Jon, is not supposed to be as morally complex like other characters such as Jaime or Theon, his views and speculations are still offensive at their core.Â
They constantly cherrypick and overlook several events and actions from Danyâs part. They dismiss Danyâs political skills and intelligence. They distort Danyâs deeds motivated by her compassion and moral principles as being about her ego. They donât acknowledge that slavery (rather than Danyâs âfear of becoming a tyrantâ) is Danyâs real enemy, so she can never really unambiguously win (which makes her storyline a very nuanced and realistic representation of human oppression). They are unaware of double standards that undermine women, lowborn people and people of color.
I would also advise the essayist to consider his blatant double standards against other marginalized characters like Rhaenyra Targaryen (a woman), Jon Connington (a gay man) and Renly Baratheon (a gay man) as well.
188 notes
·
View notes
Hello, would you be able to when you can, make a post about the parallels between Yen and Dany please, thank you
I finally finished catching up on The Witcher and Iâm so glad you asked me this! Theyâre both my babies, and btw I love Yennefer so much that I changed my twitter @ to @yenndany lol.Â
Disclaimer: Daenerys and Yennefer are very different people but they have a lot of similar experiences and traits. Theyâre both incredibly important to me and Iâm very protective of them both. However, one thing I will say is that I do not want to see people using Yen to prop Dany up â Iâve been very clear that Yen being played by a South Asian actress is very important to me as a South Asian woman and I had a lot of people on targ twitter make very racist and dismissive comments toward me as a result. I had also mentioned that I donât want show!Jonerys shippers comparing Jonerys to Yenneralt (for good reason). So keep that in mind; Iâm madly in love with them both but they are different people at the end of the day, and The Witcher and ASOIAF/GOT are different franchises.Â
That being said, please enjoy the parallels between our beautiful ladies! Warning for spoilers for Netflixâs The Witcher.
Their family backgrounds Yennefer and Daenerys both come from unstable familial backgrounds. Yenneferâs biological father was half-elf, and he was killed in a genocide known as the The Great Cleansing, in which elves were systematically murdered or enslaved. âThe Continentâ, which is where The Witcher takes place, was originally inhabited by elves, but once monsters and humans came along, elves taught humans magic and then humans began to wipe out elves to take total control of magic. This is a political backdrop to Yenneferâs life. Yennefer is adopted by a white human family and raised in Vengerberg. However, because her father was half-elf, she was born with a congenital disability: a deformed spine and jaw. Naturally, in the medieval world she lives in, disabled people are oppressed and stigmatized (dwarves, for instance, are also treated poorly on The Continent). Her adoptive family abuses her. While her adoptive mother seems to care for her, sheâs complicit in what Yennefer goes through. Yenâs adoptive father is physically forceful with her and forces her to sleep with the familyâs pigs in the pig sty. So she is quite literally reduced to animalistic conditions and treated as lower than human.Â
Daenerys, as we know, was orphaned at birth. Her father, Aerys II, died before she was born, and her mother, Rhaella, died giving birth to her. She and her older brother Viserys had to flee Westeros because the usurper King Robert Baratheon slayed almost the entirety of House Targaryen and would have killed them too had they not escaped. They flee to Essos, a separate continent, with a skeleton loyal guard. Eventually, their loyal guard is whittled down to nothing, as they are forced to go from place to place to escape the Usurperâs âhired knivesâ (partly Viserysâ paranoia, partly truth). Daenerys faces physical, sexual, and emotional abuse from her brother Viserys, who goes from being protective and caring (he sells Rhaellaâs crown to feed her) to predatory, violent, and possessive (caused by years of trauma and paranoia). Daenerysâ only family left in the world is Viserys (of course sheâs unaware that Jon Snow is a Targaryen and she doesnât know who Aemon Targaryen is as heâs masked his identity at the Nightâs Watch, and he never met her).Â
Thus, both Yennefer and Dany have abusive, disruptive family backgrounds and incredibly difficult childhoods. They know what itâs like to live in poverty, and to be stigmatized: Yen because she is disabled (and a quarter elf), Dany because she is a Targaryen and a female exile. By the time theyâre teenagers, theyâve already been forced to âgrow upâ in many ways because of the experiences they go through.Â
How they are introduced to the viewer & a life-changing moment Yennefer is I believe 14 when we first meet her on the show. A white couple is strolling along and the girl drops a dandelion that the guy gives her. Yennefer, who is an innately kind and helpful person, picks up the dandelion and reaches out to the couple. They are disgusted at seeing a disabled girl, who is the mockery of their village, holding the dandelion, and immediately jump on her and start mocking her. They talk about how she must not understand love and sex and how her father makes her sleep amongst pigs. It is very evident as theyâre on top of her that sheâs about to be beaten, assaulted, and most likely raped by the couple. She is terrified, and in her desperation, she creates a magical portal that takes her to Aretuza (far away from Vengerberg), where she meets Istredd. This event will forever change her life. Istredd tells Yen that she clearly has an innate magical power because she was able to unconsciously summon a portal. He tells her to avoid revealing her power to others. They hear footsteps, and Yennefer somehow summons a portal again, and takes it back to her village. However, itâs too late for her, because the Brotherhood of Mages is already aware of her power. Tissaia de Vries, a Rectoress (aka mage mentor/guide) from Aretuza, comes to buy Yennefer from her family. She purchases Yennefer for four marks. (Now note: Iâm not calling Tissaia a slaver or a bad person, I actually quite like Tissaia and this is a life-saving moment for Yennefer as it turns out, but Yen IS bought and sold for merely four marks).Â
Daenerys is 13 in the books and 16 on the show when she first meet her. On the show, sheâs pensively looking out of a window, and in the books we learn that sheâs missing home, and that all she wants is to go back home. However, when her brother Viserys comes calling for her, she stands in front of him and he molests/assaults her. He tells her to make him happy and that he will be marrying her off to Khal Drogo, a warlord of the Dothraki. Essentially, heâs selling his sister off to a grown warlord for the exchange of an army that he would take to reconquer Westeros. He later tells Daenerys that he would gladly let Drogo, his men, and his horses âfuck herâ if it meant getting an army to take them back home. So Daenerys is also bought and sold, not for money but for an army.Â
Neither Yen nor Dany have any control over what happens to them. No one cares that theyâre being bought and sold, or what danger lies ahead of them. And theyâre both introduced to us as victims of violence and abuse, as young girls whoâve already endured far more than any girl should. Theyâre also treated as property. At this point they have no agency, power, or autonomy, and are forced to resign to their fates. However, this is the beginning of their journeys, and a clear turning point in their lives. It will set up the rest of their arcs.Â
PTSD/TraumaYennefer is so shaken by the fact that her father literally sold her for four marks, that this is what her worth to him is, and that her mother was sad but just stood there and let it happen, that she punches a mirror and then uses a shard of the mirrorâs glass to slit her wrists.Â
Daenerys is raped every night by Khal Drogo. The experience is so painful and miserable that she contemplates killing herself at first, and only her dragon eggs (gifted to her at her wedding) give her the strength to stay alive.Â
They experience PTSD, anxiety, and depression, and both were suicidal at some point.Â
Magical abilities Yennefer is a powerful mage. She is one of the most talented mages on The Continent and her power is awe-inspiring but can also be destructive.Â
Daenerys is a true Targaryen. She has the dragon-riding ability that was lost amongst Targaryens after the dragons died out. She has prophetic dreams and visions that come true. The birth of her dragons brought back a resurgence of magic into the world. And due to a combination of her dreams, Mirri Maaz Durrâs blood magic, and her Targaryen heritage, Daenerys was able to walk through fire and emerge unscathed.Â
It took them both time to achieve their magic, though. Yenneferâs emotions were clouding her ability to control chaos (in The Witcher, magic is defined as the ability to control chaos), and so even though she was full of power, she couldnât get a handle on it at first. Similarly, Dany didnât know what to do with the dragon eggs. Even when she put them on a hot fire, they didnât hatch. She had to properly interpret her prophetic dreams to understand how to hatch them.Â
Finally getting a sense of home/peace before having it snatched away Once Yennefer âascendsâ, as in officially becomes a mage, sheâs assigned a position to the Court of Aedirn as the Kingâs Mage. Sheâs really happy about it because Vengerberg is in Aedirn so sheâd be going home. Sheâs ready to experience success and power, after years of being denied love, attention, and basic humanity. However, Istredd, her first boyfriend, is feeding information to his Rector, Stregoborg, and he tells him that Yen is part-Elf. Political upheaval complicates the assignments Tissaia gives to the mages sheâs in charge of, and Fringilla, another witch (and the niece of the head of the Brotherhood) is assigned to Aedirn (because of nepotism) while Yennefer is assigned to Nilfgaard (which is a backwater and full of corruption, as Yennefer knows quite well). Yennefer is devastated, and after a confrontation with Istredd in which she realizes her options are either going to Nilfgaard or becoming essentially a housewife to Istredd, she makes a very impulsive decision (more on that later in the post).Â
Danyâs husband, Khal Drogo, gets injured in a fight with one of his bloodriders. The fight began because Dany wanted to protect the Lhazareen women from rape and claimed them as her own. Drogo decided to grant her whims, much to the ire of his bloodriders, and upon getting injured, one of the Lhazareen women, a witch named Mirri Maaz Durr, claimed she could help him. Drogo actually ended up getting sick and fell off his horse, which is the worst thing that can happen to a Dothraki Khal, for it signifies that he is too weak to lead his horde. Desperate and heartbroken, Dany cuts a deal with Mirri Maaz Durr, but doesnât realize the depth of the price she pays. She goes into labor but when she wakes up she finds out that her son was stillborn and died. Also, Khal Drogo survived, but he was left in a vegetative state. Dany had no choice but to mercifully kill him, and later made a decision that also changed her life.Â
Both of them were betrayed by people they trusted (Istredd and MMD) and both of them lamented that they were so close to achieving happiness but that their happiness got snatched away from them.Â
A life-changing, magical transformation that required sacrifice Yennefer refuses to let her choices be either getting sent off to Nilfgaard or becoming Istreddâs little girlfriend. Heartbroken and angry, she chooses to undergo a magical transformation that would heal her deformed spine and jaw (essentially make her beautiful and able-bodied). Itâs an excruciating and extremely painful process, and she chooses to go through it wide awake (so she endures all that crippling pain on purpose). Also, the magician cuts out her uterus because the sacrifice required for the transformation is giving up your ability to have children. Itâs gruesome and heartbreaking, but she does come out alive, with her spine and jaw healed, and extremely beautiful.Â
After Dany mercy kills her husband, she captures Mirri Maaz Durr and ties her to her husbandâs funeral pyre. Having pieced together the clues from her prophetic dreams, Dany knows how to hatch her dragon eggs. She walks unflinchingly into her husbandâs funeral pyre (essentially she walks into fire awake and alive) and comes out alive, unburnt, and cradling three baby dragons. She birthed the first dragons seen in 100 years after many of her ancestors failed to do so, and with the birth of her dragons, she becomes âthe Mother of Dragonsâ and brings back a resurgence of magic into the world.Â
Both of these transformations took place because Yen and Dany willingly sacrificed themselves. Both of these transformations also completely change Yen and Danyâs paths, give them power, and set them on a very different life course.Â
Grappling with infertility Yen makes an irreversible choice when she is young because she was impulsive, emotional, and heartbroken in that moment. But she also made that choice after years of facing violent abuse & not wanting to continue being a pawn. However, as she grows older, she regrets her choice to sacrifice her womb, because at her core she is full of love and longing and wants to be important to someone. She loves children, cares for them, and wants to be a mother. She searches the world for a way to reverse her infertility, but obviously will never find a solution because the transformation is permanent. She does eventually realize that sheâll never be able to biologically have children, but her future bond with Princess Cirilla Fiona Ellen Riannon will be important because sheâll become Ciriâs mother-figure, and itâll fill the hole in her heart. Still, grappling with her infertility is a huge point of insecurity and tragedy for Yennefer.Â
Mirri Maaz Durr tells Dany that she will never be able to have children again because of the bargain she struck. We donât know how true this prophecy is, given that Dany may have experienced a miscarriage in A Dance with Dragons, but Dany goes through life thereafter believing that she will never have children again. And she believes it because her son Rhaego is stillborn. Itâs an extremely traumatizing experience for her, but one that she suppresses because she has no time to mourn him, and emotionally & psychologically has no more capacity to ruminate over her trauma. When she becomes the Mother of Dragons, she claims the dragons as her own children, in part because it was her sacrifice and her pain that birthed them, in part because they are a physical manifestation of her blood, her heritage, and her house, in part because they give her a new sense and form of power and autonomy, and in part because she is their caretaker, they are attached to her as their mother, and they fill the place her infertility has left inside her. She is very sad, though, about not being able to have human children, as she tells her dragons that they must be her children, and later, when remembering that her son Drogon killed an innocent little girl named Hazzea, she cries over her and thinks âI will never have a baby girl. I am the blood of the dragonâ. Even though she had no time to process her infertility, it clearly affects her and upsets her. She, like Yen, just wants to go back home and find a family.Â
Fire Queens This is beautifully straightforward and makes for a great visual parallel. They both have fiery, passionate, and emotional personalities, but on the magical front theyâre both fire queens. When Tissaia tells Yen to âlet [her] chaos explodeâ, Yenâs magic quite literally explodes in a field of fire that annihilates all their enemies. Meanwhile, Danyâs Houseâs motto is âfire and bloodâ, she is âthe blood of the dragonâ and âthe mother of dragonsâ, the âfireâ in âa song of ice and fireâ, the fire that will burn against the cold, & she walked into fire unburnt when she birthed her dragons.Â
Destinyâs great loves Destiny connects Yennefer and Geralt of Rivia, who are fated to be each otherâs greatest loves. The same goes for Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen, each respectively the âiceâ and âfireâ in âa song of ice and fireâ, fated to be warriors against the Others and the threat of the cold. There is great foreshadowing in ASOIAF for Jon and Danyâs eventual meeting and romance. Saving Yennefer is also Geraltâs âlast wishâ granted to him by a djinn. They are connected by destiny which is why they always end up together.Â
Protective of women and children If I sat here and listed every example of this then Iâd be sitting here for days! Yennefer and Dany are champions of the innocent and powerless, especially women and children. They are compassionate, empathetic, and kind.Â
Ultimately, Daenerys and Yennefer are both very unique, interesting, complex, multidimensional, intriguing, tragic, and gorgeous characters. Theyâre two of my favorite characters and very important to me. They also face a lot of unnecessary hatred from jealous and insecure people in their respective fandoms because they both contradict and defy the âuwu, soft, non-threatening, âstrongâ, kind, sweet, pure, infallible, little dove, never makes mistakes, underdog soft, sadâ female character archetype. Hereâs to our fire queens!
115 notes
·
View notes