Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

[ray245]

Now, what I feel about Game of Thrones is trying to do is to create a narrative structure akin to Romance of the Three kingdoms. I highly doubt any of the writers are familiar with ROTK, but I can see them going for an ending that is simular to the historical novel.

ROTK starts off with a whole bunch of heroic figures trying to save the Han empire, or those that tries to take over the Han empire. But none of the leading dynasties actually won the war for reunification, with an entirely new family being the one that managed to accomplish the task. This is the kind of bittersweet ending that D &D seems to be going for, but I think they didn't quite manage to accomplish what they set out to do.

[Galvatron]

Is there some reason we should be assuming that it's D&D making up the ending and not GRRM?

[ray245]

Is there some reason we should be assuming that it's D&D making up the ending and not GRRM?

GRRM might give them a rough outline of an ending, like Dany turning evil. How it is up to them to build a narrative that reaches that ending in a satisfying way.

They might know what the ending is, but it's up to them to decide how the ending would look like. The recent backlash suggest they don't quite know how to reach the ending in a manner that will appeal to the fans.

[Solauren]

Burrowed from 9GAG:
"Danny is one of the greatest villains in fiction. It's impressive that she's managed to fool so many people into beleving that she's some kind of hero."

Season 1 - Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur alive (People are surprised, We Cheer)
Season 2 - Dany burns the House of the Undying (People are awed, We Cheer)
Season 3 - Dany burns Astapor (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 4 - Dany crucifies the Masters of Meeren (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 5 - Dany burns Meerenise noblemen (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 6 - Dany burns Vaes Dothrak (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 7 - Dany burns the Wagon Train (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 8 - Dany burns King's Landing (Only idiots are shocked)

[Elfdart]

I think the show failed.

People (the audience) wanted a flawed protagonist. For a while, the show had flawed protagonists and Daenerys was the first and foremost of them. Now ratings tanked and people are feeling let down. They did not like that the flawed protagonist is fairly quickly reduced to an antagonist.

This is a success in alienating own fanbase, though! Subversive!

Have the ratings tanked?

[ray245]

Burrowed from 9GAG:
"Danny is one of the greatest villains in fiction. It's impressive that she's managed to fool so many people into beleving that she's some kind of hero."

Season 1 - Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur alive (People are surprised, We Cheer)
Season 2 - Dany burns the House of the Undying (People are awed, We Cheer)
Season 3 - Dany burns Astapor (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 4 - Dany crucifies the Masters of Meeren (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 5 - Dany burns Meerenise noblemen (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 6 - Dany burns Vaes Dothrak (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 7 - Dany burns the Wagon Train (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 8 - Dany burns King's Landing (Only idiots are shocked)

Because people expect Dany to be willing to burn civilians as collateral during a battle, and that is different from burning them after the city had surrendered.

People think Dany is able to draw the line at not killing innocent civilians. Most of the people she killed tended to be leaders or armies. She has by and large, seek to spare the lives of the innocent as much as possible.

[Lord Insanity]

So Danny finally does what she should have done 12 episodes ago. Really this episode just makes it even stupider that she didn't fly around behind the Iron fleet and torch them last episode.

So I find it interesting that we did not see things from Danny's perspective during the battle. Often times in fiction we as the audience know more than the characters we are watching. This is one of the few times where the character Danny knows more about the situation from the air than the audience does. So what if she was actually burning down a whole lot of ambushes and the "surrender" of the Lannister front line was just a feint? We are told there are supposed to be 20,000 troops of the Golden Company present. We see at most a few thousand in front of the city gates get torched and trampled. Where are the other ~15,000? See if the writers were competent we could have a really nice gray morality conundrum of the audience debating whether or not it was worth the cost in civilians to protect her ground army from massive ambushes. We could even have seen troops shedding their armor and trying to blend in with the civilians after realizing the "surrender" feint failed. That could have gotten a lively discussion of whether she is a tactical genius for saving far more lives in the long run from guerilla warfare or a monster for burning civilians just to get a few cowards running away. Maybe we will actually get something like this when Jon inevitably confronts her next episode. From earlier seasons I would have expected this kind of nuanced and layered writing. Unfortunately given the last few episodes I am not very confident we will get any kind of quality to the ending.

[Elfdart]

Pointing out basic facts to heartbroken Danerys fans who simply can't accept that they fooled themselves into projecting their own attitudes onto someone (a fictional character!) who did not share them is never going to be received well. It's like telling your buddy at his divorce party: "See? I told you she was crazy!"

Adolph Reed did something similar when he pointed out to demoralized liberals that they had only themselves to blame for thinking Obama was ever one of them. Instead of coming to grips with how they suckered themselves, they lashed out at Reed.

I went through something similar with Stannis: I started pulling for him because he seemed to be about the only one left standing with a chance of killing Joffrey, Cersei and the rest. But between him developing a real hankering for putting human beings to the torch and his retarded plans that got his forces wiped out in humiliating fashion, it became clear that he was not just a bad person, but a loser, too. So when his final descent into lunacy and his own demise came along, I didn't fret over it at all. One, because it's a silly show about tits and dragons and two, because no fictional character deserves this kind of adoration.

[Vympel]

Pointing out basic facts to heartbroken Danerys fans who simply can't accept that they fooled themselves into projecting their own attitudes onto someone (a fictional character!) who did not share them is never going to be received well. It's like telling your buddy at his divorce party: "See? I told you she was crazy!"

Adolph Reed did something similar when he pointed out to demoralized liberals that they had only themselves to blame for thinking Obama was ever one of them. Instead of coming to grips with how they suckered themselves, they lashed out at Reed.

I went through something similar with Stannis: I started pulling for him because he seemed to be about the only one left standing with a chance of killing Joffrey, Cersei and the rest. But between him developing a real hankering for putting human beings to the torch and his retarded plans that got his forces wiped out in humiliating fashion, it became clear that he was not just a bad person, but a loser, too. So when his final descent into lunacy and his own demise came along, I didn't fret over it at all. One, because it's a silly show about tits and dragons and two, because no fictional character deserves this kind of adoration.

The most comical example of this tendency:

[Galvatron]

I wonder what outcome she imagined for a show that's consistently demonstrated its willingness to piss off its audience.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, you tried to make this a gender argument, the article doesn't (and its particular absurd to accuse Amanda Marcotte of all people of doing this, maybe read up on who she is) and neither am I. The "this is an attack on women" deflection is the cheapest and lamest take possible. This is a series full of people being led around by their emotions.

I'm not familiar with the author's entire career. I am just responding to certain points that the article made, and to the events of the episodes themselves. The author could also be sincerely not sexist, and still be wrong in their interpretation of the episode.

I would also maintain that this contrived, rushed reduction of a complex character to a fandumb meme is plain old fashioned bad writing, regardless of whether or not its sexist.

No, I mean "she's Targaryen therefore she thinks she has the right to invade Westeros to rule it because of her blood."

Yes, and that's a fair criticism. That does not automatically equate to "Mad Queen" or "Aerys 2.0".

Again, I point to the male characters with no legitimate claim who sought the throne, and are not widely derided as mad for it. Pretty much no one calls Renly mad, or Stannis. Dicks, maybe, but not mad. But ambition being seen as a sign of craziness is an old trope for female politicians, isn't it, going right back to the stereotypical "evil queen" of fairy tales. And that is part of the context in which I am judging this season so harshly.

The point here is not "We think Danny is a saint who never did anything wrong". The point is that they took a complex character and made her less complex in a way that feels forced, and which echoes old misogynistic tropes.

Picking gnatshit out of pepper - where she is near the end of Season 1 is perfectly sufficient a starting point for an an analysis of who she is, calling this 'twisting canon' is just obvious flailing.

Except its not, because aside from the claim that her starting point is irrelevant to a discussion of her starting point being on its face laughable, a large part of the basis for the "Danny=Mad Queen" theory is "She's Targaryen, therefore its in her nature to go mad". Which ignores that her worst qualities as well as many of her best qualities are pretty clearly products of her experiences as much as or more than her genes, so looking at who she was before those experiences is absolutely relevant.

It is telling how much evidence you have to ignore to justify your position.

There's nothing dishonest in what the article is actually saying at all, you're just being continuously reductive because you don't like its actual argument. The actual point is that Dany's so clueless that she couldn't conceive how Mirri would actually view a murderous warlord and to call this merely 'naive' and 'short-sighted' as opposed to 'hey, Dany is a wilful participant in mass cruelty and thinks she deserves loyalty regardless' is again - reductive.

Funny, because it sounded like the article said- oh yeah:

But loving Daenerys and rooting for her, from the beginning, has meant ignoring the constant reminders that she not only has a strong capacity for cruelty, but that nothing drives her to murder faster than sensing that someone doesn't worship the ground she walks on.

And it's in that storyline that we first see that Daenerys expects people to see her as a savior figure and if they express skepticism, she lashes out with a murderous rage of her own.

When Daenerys confronts Mirri about this, saying Mirri should be grateful that she "saved" her, Mirri points out that she'd been raped three times, she "saw my god's house burn" and the streets were piled with the corpses of people she knew and loved.

"Tell me again exactly what it was that you saved?" she finished.

In response, Daenerys burns Mirri to death.

The burning of King's Landing, then, is no different than the burning of Mirri in the first season. Daenerys is frustrated that the people of Westeros don't love her and she's explicitly said so repeatedly. She's frustrated that she led the army that defeated the Night King, but that most people don't know or care. She wants the people of Westeros to carry on their shoulders yelling "Mhysha," and since they won't do it, she's furious.

Yeah, the article's definitely not saying that Danny murders people simply for not loving her. That's definitely just me being "reductive". Jesus Christ, if you're going to lie, at least don't insult the intelligence of everyone on this board by telling lies so obvious that they can be exposed simply by quoting your own posts from a couple pages back.

Also, the article outright says that burning one woman who effectively murdered her husband and sacrificed her unborn child and destroyed her whole life is equivalent to slaughtering an entire city of innocent civilians after said city surrendered. Frankly, such an equivalency alone ought to destroy any credibility it has, as it means that the author is either a shameless liar to justify their position, or has no functioning moral compass whatsoever.

More reductive horseshit - the article says quite plainly that in addition to these things, they focus on her good side and her decent impulses more than her obvious bad side. No concession was offered.

Of course not, because you're incapable of not using ad hominems every time I disagree with you.

LOL I can't believe you're actually trying to argue the point with some lame-ass nitpicking about whether she has something to do with Westeros. She has fuck all nothing to do with Westeros. At all. That she was born to Westerosi parents or raised by some random Westerosi knight doesn't entitle her to a war of conquest to rule the kingdom. As to 'the last Targaryen' - who gives a flying shit? Why does that matter? Why is a war of conquest to reinstall some fucking monarch on a throne justified?

Ah, yes, her being born in Westeros, to Westrosi parents, raised by Westerosi, and then being subjected to murder attempts by a Westerosi King because she was guilty of the crime of Living While Targaryen are totally just nitpicks. Obviously none of that has any relevance to the argument of her being a foreign conqueror.

Also- I know that assigning me positions that are the opposite of what I actually hold and then attacking me for them is standard debating procedure on this board, but if you're trying to turn this thread into "TRR supports absolute monarchy!", so help me God I will nail your ass to the fucking wall for it (metaphorically speaking). Yeah, it would be nice if Westeros had a republic, but that isn't happening, so between a strong monarchy and feudalism... well, pick the least shitty option. Or you could pick "Faith Militant Theocracy", I guess, but that's shit too.

"The King of Westeros sent assassins after her and her unborn child" is pretty rich though, that's definitely not something I'd predicted as being deployed. She assembled a gigantic army and invaded Westeros in a war that would kick off untold suffering and deaths of innocents so she could sit the Iron Throne in self-defence against a dead king. There was no other alternative!

Just amazing.

Yeah, because his successors were so much kinder and more understanding.

Daenerys was born into a civil war she had no choice but to be a participant in. Sucks to be her.

ROFL, Marcotte's argument has nothing to do with the line of succession, for fuck's sake. It's really fucking simple: Dany is launching a war on Westeros because she wants the throne. Her idea that her family name entitles her to sit the throne isn't a legitimate reason for a war. It's launched as an aggressive war of choice, for the purposes of conquest and attaining personal power. How is this hard to understand?

Just stop and think about the actual implications of fighting for horseshit monarchic rights.

Wow, you're really going to try to derail this thread into "TRR supports absolute monarchy!"

I mean, I'm not really surprised, I've been called much worse on this board with no factual basis, and derailing any thread I participate in to make it about abusing me personally rather than debating arguments is SOP on this board, but still, that's pretty fucking low.

Burrowed from 9GAG:
"Danny is one of the greatest villains in fiction. It's impressive that she's managed to fool so many people into beleving that she's some kind of hero."

She was no saint (except maybe in the early parts of book/season one), but she was never the one note caricature that you and others (including, sadly the show runners) seem so desperate to make her.

Season 1 - Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur alive (People are surprised, We Cheer)

Vicious, unjustified, but also a response to the effective murder of her husband and sacrifice of her unborn child, and the destruction of her entire world. Certainly not comparable to wiping out an entire city full of innocents. And I can't help but think of how many male "anti-heroes" are wanked over for being HARD MEN for similarily brutal acts of retaliation against those who killed their loved ones.

Season 2 - Dany burns the House of the Undying (People are awed, We Cheer)
Season 3 - Dany burns Astapor (No one is shocked, We Cheer)

When did Danny try to murder every civilian in Astapor again?

She toppled a slaver regime. Boo Fucking Hoo.

Season 4 - Dany crucifies the Masters of Meeren (No one is shocked, We Cheer)

Vicious, but arguably no more so than most leaders not named Ned Stark or Jon Snow in this setting, and not comparable to the murder of innocents.

Season 5 - Dany burns Meerenise noblemen (No one is shocked, We Cheer)

See above.

Season 6 - Dany burns Vaes Dothrak (No one is shocked, We Cheer)

Daenerys did not exterminate the Dothraki. She decapitated the leadership. Who had taken her prisoner. A justified military action against a military target.

Season 7 - Dany burns the Wagon Train (No one is shocked, We Cheer)

A justified military action against a legitimate military target.

Season 8 - Dany burns King's Landing (Only idiots are shocked)

The fact that you are trying to equate the killing of enemy soldiers in battle, or the execution of murderers and slavers, to the deliberate slaughter of civilians in a city that has surrendered just shows how desperately you're reaching to justify your position, and what a double-standard its based on.

Also, calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot? That's not entitled at all...

I think the show failed.

People (the audience) wanted a flawed protagonist. For a while, the show had flawed protagonists and Daenerys was the first and foremost of them. Now ratings tanked and people are feeling let down. They did not like that the flawed protagonist is fairly quickly reduced to an antagonist.

This is a success in alienating own fanbase, though! Subversive!

EXACTLY.

[K. A. Pital]

Burrowed from 9GAG:
"Danny is one of the greatest villains in fiction. It's impressive that she's managed to fool so many people into beleving that she's some kind of hero."

Season 1 - Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur alive (People are surprised, We Cheer)
Season 2 - Dany burns the House of the Undying (People are awed, We Cheer)
Season 3 - Dany burns Astapor (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 4 - Dany crucifies the Masters of Meeren (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 5 - Dany burns Meerenise noblemen (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 6 - Dany burns Vaes Dothrak (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 7 - Dany burns the Wagon Train (No one is shocked, We Cheer)
Season 8 - Dany burns King's Landing (Only idiots are shocked)

Truth be told, freeing the slaves and killing their masters is not an act of a villain. So why are people “fooled” when the narrative presents her as a flawed protagonist at first?

Unless you’re a slaver. “Poor muhsters”.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, fuck, the show went to great ham-fisted lengths to show how evil and insane Danny's actions were. They reference Targaryen madness. They show her commanders asking her to stand down if the city surrenders. They show the city surrendering, the bells ringing, and then have her pause, deliberately, and make a conscious decision to slaughter everyone in the city regardless. They show numerous close ups of terrified and suffering and dying civilians, just to make it abundantly clear how bad it is. Saying "Oh, its no different than anything she's done before" is ignoring that the show itself portrayed this as a major step over the line, a fall into darkness. It shows the contradiction in this, and the twists you have to go to to justify this writing.

Edit: This is so bad that I actually would have preferred if they had fridged Danny in episode 8.3, because even if she suffered the most random, pointless, cruel death in a show full of random, pointless, cruel deaths, at least she would have died with her character intact. I also feel bad for Emilia Clarke. I can't imagine, as an actor, devoting a decade of your life to a role only to have it trashed in the last three weeks.

[K. A. Pital]

Technically it wasn’t bad, if any monarch is a problem (if you aim to criticize the concept of a benevolent absolute monarchy, this would be something you have to do, plot-wise). It just went rough over the expectations of the viewers who started rooting for something like the Meiji Restoration - but turned out more than just some Samurai had to perish at the whim of the new queen. Heh.

More generally it shows the problem with trying to be subversive all the time. People get too invested in fictional characters.

It was just rushed, but that is a general issue with post-books sections of the show.

[Vendetta]

Is there some reason we should be assuming that it's D&D making up the ending and not GRRM?

Yeah. Whole characters are missing and different characters are present in their place.

Cersei is not going to be in anything like the position of prominence in the books she is in the show, she's mostly had Young Griff's storyline bolted on.


(Also, worth mentioning here that the writers and directors' justification for Dany deciding to burn down the city was that she "felt empty" despite having won and this is just what Targaryens do. "Take what's mine with fire and blood" apparently means "burn everything down because you got bored of winning". This is not a natural progression of a character arc which has, to date, been about inflicting severe vengeance with lots of fire against people who have wronged her and hers. There's no connection between Dany's actions and things that have happened to her or that have offended her sensibilities here, she just did it because the script requires her to be Mad Queen now.)

[Vympel]

I'm not familiar with the author's entire career. I am just responding to certain points that the article made, and to the events of the episodes themselves. The author could also be sincerely not sexist, and still be wrong in their interpretation of the episode.

I would also maintain that this contrived, rushed reduction of a complex character to a fandumb meme is plain old fashioned bad writing, regardless of whether or not its sexist.

This is clearly backpedalling, but its good that you're moving away from your original caricature argument nonetheless.

Yes, and that's a fair criticism. That does not automatically equate to "Mad Queen" or "Aerys 2.0".

Good thing Marcotte didn't say it did!

Except its not, because aside from the claim that her starting point is irrelevant to a discussion of her starting point being on its face laughable, a large part of the basis for the "Danny=Mad Queen" theory is "She's Targaryen, therefore its in her nature to go mad". Which ignores that her worst qualities as well as many of her best qualities are pretty clearly products of her experiences as much as or more than her genes, so looking at who she was before those experiences is absolutely relevant.

It is telling how much evidence you have to ignore to justify your position.

Please point out where in the article Marcotte says "she's Targaryen, therefore its in her nature to go mad."

Oh, its nowhere? So this is a totally irrelevant deflection that you threw into the field. Let's move on.

Funny, because it sounded like the article said- oh yeah:

Yeah, the article's definitely not saying that Danny murders people simply for not loving her. That's definitely just me being "reductive". Jesus Christ, if you're going to lie, at least don't insult the intelligence of everyone on this board by telling lies so obvious that they can be exposed simply by quoting your own posts from a couple pages back.

This is literally the equivalent of pointing to a red light, asserting its green, and then posting pictures of a red light to prove that its green.

Also, the article outright says that burning one woman who effectively murdered her husband and sacrificed her unborn child and destroyed her whole life is equivalent to slaughtering an entire city of innocent civilians after said city surrendered. Frankly, such an equivalency alone ought to destroy any credibility it has, as it means that the author is either a shameless liar to justify their position, or has no functioning moral compass whatsoever.

ROFLMAO. Are you actually trying to assert that Mirri, the poor Lhazarene healer who had her people murdered by Drogo's khalasar and was then raped repeatedly before being 'saved' as Dany's slave - had it coming from Dany?

Of course not, because you're incapable of not using ad hominems every time I disagree with you.

Literally doesn't even make sense as a response. Not at all.

Ah, yes, her being born in Westeros to Westrosi parents, raised by Westerosi, and then being subjected to murder attempts by a Westerosi King because she was guilty of the crime of Living While Targaryen are totally just nitpicks. Obviously none of that has any relevance to the argument of her being a foreign conqueror.

Why are you making this stupid ass irrelevant argument about what she has 'to do' with Westeros if you concede - as you allege - that her war of conquest is illegitimate? Is it because you can't keep arguments straight, or what?

She's a foreign conqueror. It doesn't matter who the fuck she was born to. She hasn't spent a day of her life in Westeros or been part of its culture, and being raised by some dude in Braavos, or being subject to an assassination plot, doesn't change that. She knows nothing about Westeros and it knows nothing about her.

Also- I know that assigning me positions that are the opposite of what I actually hold and then attacking me for them is standard debating procedure on this board, but if you're trying to turn this thread into "TRR supports absolute monarchy!", so help me God I will nail your ass to the fucking wall for it (metaphorically speaking). Yeah, it would be nice if Westeros had a republic, but that isn't happening, so between a strong monarchy and feudalism... well, pick the least shitty option. Or you could pick "Faith Militant Theocracy", I guess, but that's shit too.

ROFLMAO. "I don't support absolute monarchy, but Dany is clearly the best absolute monarch!"

What a totally meaningful distinction!

So in TRR's bizarro world, if you fancy yourself - with your bullshit blood right to rule - the best ruler - because of just how good your intentions are - its totally ok for you to launch a war of conquest in a foreign land and kill thousands of people so you can sit your ass on a throne.

Fantastic.

Yeah, because his successors were so much kinder and more understanding.

Daenerys was born into a civil war she had no choice but to be a participant in. Sucks to be her.

What a collection of stinky bullshit. Are you fucking serious? Where in GOT or ASOIAF, at any stage, did Dany couch her war as being in self-defence? She could've gone as far as Asshai and lived in peace if she wanted to, with all the security being a rich noble could afford.

Your argument is so completely fucking stupid it beggars belief - every jackass who's been the victim of an assassination plot is 'born into a civil war' and so they really have 'no choice' but to raise an army and kill thousands of peasants.

Again: amazing.

Wow, you're really going to try to derail this thread into "TRR supports absolute monarchy!"

I mean, I'm not really surprised, I've been called much worse on this board with no factual basis, and derailing any thread I participate in to make it about abusing me personally rather than debating arguments is SOP on this board, but still, that's pretty fucking low.

TRR: "Saying I support absolute monachy has no factual basis except the way I repeatedly apologise for someone launching an aggressive war of choice so they can attain personal power as an absolute monarch."

[Vendetta]

So in TRR's bizarro world, if you fancy yourself - with your bullshit blood right to rule - the best ruler - because of just how good your intentions are - its totally ok for you to launch a war of conquest in a foreign land and kill thousands of people so you can sit your ass on a throne.

Question: Do you think the show has done enough groundwork to establish an ending where there is not an ass on a throne at the end of the series?

Because I do not think it has. (Especially because it has put a lot of time into establishing and cheering on its new "King in the North").

The contrast, in the show, therefore is Daenerys' blood right to rule vs. that same right in someone else, not a refutation of the idea of the blood right to rule.

[Vympel]

Question: Do you think the show has done enough groundwork to establish an ending where there is not an ass on a throne at the end of the series?

No, but so what? The question is not whether the show ends with someone on the throne or not, but whether it should be considered a worthwhile endeavour. Like the tweet thread I posted earlier said - when this is done well, you are left asking why you ever wanted this thing in the first place. However, its hard to do well, and you'll have people instead wondering why they can't get the thing they think they want.

Because I do not think it has. (Especially because it has put a lot of time into establishing and cheering on its new "King in the North").

The contrast, in the show, therefore is Daenerys' blood right to rule vs. that same right in someone else, not a refutation of the idea of the blood right to rule.

The show has kept this idea as subtext at best. You have subtle hints like Jorah's comments about the common folk being victimised by the game of thrones, wishing they'd be left alone (and they never are), but it never rises above that. But that doesn't mean that when analysing Dany as a character, we're limited to the show's flawed execution of where it was going.

You may think from the title of this article its exculpatory of the show's handling of Dany's arc - but the opposite is true.

https://www.bustle.com/p/daenerys-turni ... g-17870347

On the books and Dany going 'mad':

The problem with the show writers' portrayal of Dany is that even in the books the HBO series has strayed from in recent seasons, it's clear her story always ends here. Take it from creator George R. R. Martin himself: at a Life in Fandom panel at Archipelacon, GRRM praised Adam Feldman's essays about Dany's final moments in A Dance with Dragons, the last published book. "I was really pleased with them, because at least one guy got it. He got it completely," said Martin. Feldman writes that by the end of the novel, Dany's madness has taken over. She rejects Meereen and the endless difficulties of keeping the peace and fully embraces her propensity for destruction — because in the end, war is easier.

"It seems that Martin started off by giving Dany a seeming moral justification for her violence, that he always later planned to undercut," writes Feldman. "Now, Dany’s in it for herself — for her own power, for her own throne, and for becoming who she’s made to be...This is the tragedy of Dany. She achieved peace. And then she decided war felt better."

In Dany's final book moments, Martin writes, "Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. Remember your words." To which Dany responds, "Fire and blood."

The article then goes on to argue over several paragraphs that the show failed to effectively show this descent in favour of keeping it as subtext - going for shock value in the final stretch.

On the other hand, Benioff and Weiss' writing and positioning of Dany as an unequivocal feminist hero allowed fans to remain in the dark, and uphold their queen as something that GRRM always meant to undermine. It's not the fans' fault that the show's writer' kept Dany's dual nature as subtext, leading to Khaleesi becoming a popular baby name and politicians like Hillary Clinton co-opting Khaleesi imagery. It's the show writers' fault for actively misleading everyone to begin with. And for what? Final season shock value? Yawn.

TL;DR - through D&D's poor choices, they allowed the audience (not all of them, mind - particularly, it argues, PoCs) to fool themselves about what Dany was.

But it should be read in its entirety.

[Vendetta]

Question: Do you think the show has done enough groundwork to establish an ending where there is not an ass on a throne at the end of the series?

No, but so what? The question is not whether the show ends with someone on the throne or not, but whether it should be considered a worthwhile endeavour. Like the tweet thread I posted earlier said - when this is done well, you are left asking why you ever wanted this thing in the first place. However, its hard to do well, and you'll have people instead wondering why they can't get the thing they think they want.

Because the argument about Daenerys being an illigitimate ruler are hollow if the only contrast is another ruler whose claim is exactly the same.

The only difference between her and other claimants is that she's doing the conquering now, herself, instead of riding on her ancestor doing it a thousand years back or her dad doing it in a rebellion.

The show has kept this idea as subtext at best. You have subtle hints like Jorah's comments about the common folk being victimised by the game of thrones, wishing they'd be left alone (and they never are), but it never rises above that. But that doesn't mean that when analysing Dany as a character, we're limited to the show's flawed execution of where it was going.

But what people are complaining about is the flawed execution. Because the execution in the show does not convey the idea that this was where the character was "always headed", it's skipped steps that would have been required for that.

In order to have gone from a character who will enact quite extreme violence either in revenge or when her sense of rightness is affronted to a character who just burns down a city after it has surrendered because, apparently, the victory was not sweet enough needs a strong proximate cause the audience can point to and say "this is the reason this character took the crucial step into darkness".

The show didn't give us that.

It gave us a Martha. A dumbass answer that most can't sensibly accept.

Daenerys' arc has always included extreme acts of violence, but they were driven by either revenge (Mirri, Qarth, etc) or her sense of justice (Crucifying one master of Mereen for every child they crucified to try and dissuade her from the city).

This doesn't follow that arc. It just happens because the script says so.

The alphabet always ends with Z, but it's not satisfying to skip there from L when reciting it.

[Vympel]

Because the argument about Daenerys being an illigitimate ruler are hollow if the only contrast is another ruler whose claim is exactly the same.

The point is not about whether or not someone is an illegitimate ruler. It's that Dany's war of conquest for the throne is an inherently illegitimate endeavor.

The only difference between her and other claimants is that she's doing the conquering now, herself, instead of riding on her ancestor doing it a thousand years back or her dad doing it in a rebellion.

Who gives a shit about the other claimants? No one should be stanning for them, either.

But what people are complaining about is the flawed execution. Because the execution in the show does not convey the idea that this was where the character was "always headed", it's skipped steps that would have been required for that.

In order to have gone from a character who will enact quite extreme violence either in revenge or when her sense of rightness is affronted to a character who just burns down a city after it has surrendered because, apparently, the victory was not sweet enough needs a strong proximate cause the audience can point to and say "this is the reason this character took the crucial step into darkness".

The show didn't give us that.

It gave us a Martha. A dumbass answer that most can't sensibly accept.

Daenerys' arc has always included extreme acts of violence, but they were driven by either revenge (Mirri, Qarth, etc) or her sense of justice (Crucifying one master of Mereen for every child they crucified to try and dissuade her from the city).

This doesn't follow that arc. It just happens because the script says so.

The alphabet always ends with Z, but it's not satisfying to skip there from L when reciting it.

Where have I argued the show's execution isn't flawed? I've said quite the opposite. That doesn't mean that Dany's war wasn't illegitimate and pointless (and herself capricious, cruel and unjust) even if the show didn't properly reckon with that. In relation to her 'sense of justice' though, in the show's defence, Dany's sense of justice is clearly quite monstrous and the show actually does engage with this point in Mereen. It's specifically noted that she killed people who had nothing to do with the execution of the children, and the fact she fed some random dude to her dragon on literally no evidence purely to intimidate others in the room is patent in its injustice. Most people just didn't really care, or were willing to excuse it.

Again - that is not to say the show has portrayed Dany's tyrannical turn well. It hasn't.

[The Romulan Republic]

Apparently a petition to have season eight remade with different writers has got over 30,000 signatures.

I'm curious as to how many of those are because of Mad Queen Danny, and how many are because "WAAAHHHH, Arya MARY SUE!!!"

[Vendetta]

Who gives a shit about the other claimants? No one should be stanning for them, either.

But the article by Amanda Marcotte you quoted as an argument, and which we are now discussing, explicitly does. It calls out Daenerys specifically as Illegitimate because conquest, whilst calling the rest of the characters "the good guys" despite their claims and thus reasons for action against Cersei also being descended from conquest.

It's a bad critique of the character because it ignores the context of the show against which its critiques are drawn. Daenerys isn't unique in doing what she does, she's just doing what everyone else is doing but the article says that she's the especial bad one for doing it because it's not "legitimate" for her.

(Also, in the context of the sort of history the show is based on, using an army of mercenaries and foreigners to enforce a claim was fairly normal.)

[LaCroix]

The thing is, any writer is going to be an a bad situation:

You end at season 6 with all existing material used up and the plotlines as they are.

The only guy really albe to write the stories to feel like they were is hemming and hawing for acouple of years, not being able to provide new books to extend the series for a couple more seasons.

You only have some key scenes that he provided you with, and a plotline of everything else and a script of the last episode. So the whole thing is in danger of being unfinished, and people making decisions started to look at it like the first attempt of Lord of the Rings, that resulted in 'Willow' being made, instead, when they just stopped the project.

You get 2 Seasons (13 Episodes) to wrap the thing up and get on with the spinoffs.
Start writing.

They had a kind of outline until the white walkers are killed, and then had to pretty much had to reverse engineer the end towards the battle at winterfell.

It all came down to not enough time for too much plot left over after the battle. Most likely, GRRM had envisioned to have all the white wlker things to happen in the next book, and the march south and the fall of Kings landing, whith Danny'S character arc to be taking up the whole last book.

One book of him usually is enough for almost two seasons worth of epiodes. They had only one left for that, and with pretty much no info on it but rought outlines and the end. that's why you get the sharp turns in character, and stupid errors like overloking the whole iron fleet. Or not placing anwhere close to 20000 men into the visual golden company at the gates an the walls of Kings landing. And why they tried to make stuff look epic and cool, instead of using time for character development apart from some hints (which they used a lot, but to quick and subtle to impact the viewers and make them believe them), since that would have taken a lot of screen time with not moving the pieces forward towards the end.

If they had had a half season worth of extra episodes of setting up the march to the south between season 7 and 8, with the dragons getting ambushed at some point where Denaeris had taken then out on, say, a pleasure ride because she was stressed out (and not thinking about the iron fleet as she was in deep thought) about realizing that Jon was taking over her position by just being a born leader, the scheming of Varys and stuff, and a couple of episodes of her slowly going crazy as her insecurites and guilt fester, ending with Missandei's capture and execution, everything would be better.

Instead, we get about two or three episodes worth of Danaeris in panic as she sees her right to the throne taken from her, her lover rejecting her due to being blood related, him betraying her after she begged him in tears to support her and keep the secret, which resulted in her trusted advisors, both, betraying her and discussing and one of them even commiting treason. (And then the other did as well, releasing a prisoner). And that after a father/oedipus love figure died in her arms after fighting to keep her alive in a desperate last stand, another of her 'children' surviving a battle to then be violently assassinated whle flying along next to her an a supposedly mostly save passage south, which also resulted in her only female friend and confidant she could trust completely and without doubt (and also was a kind of lover in at least the books, if I recall correctly) to be captured, probably mistreated, and then executed right in sight, with her last wish being to 'burn them all for me'.

Stretch this out over twice the episodes with her getting more and more agressive and hostile towards everyone, and it would be a viable character arc, but then people would have complained about the show again crawling at a snail's pace, even if they were to argue the armies would take so long to march down, and they would need to wait for them (which would make Danearis more angry , as she festers in her hate and wish for revenge... and then, when all is over in a few minutes, whit relatively little bloodshed and a clean surrender, she just says 'not enough punishment' and goes off...)

But these people exhausted themselves into somehow wrapping things up in a too tight schedule(of maybe their own making, but who knows if they would have gotten another season out of HBO and the cast, who also already would have wanted to go on onother projects after 10 years), and because it was to be done in secret, couldn't really have it reviewed a couple of times by someone with an outside view, and consented that they did a passable job.

Which they did, given the circumstances. It just wasn't a great job liek the first seasons were.

To me, most of the blame for the lack of quality is on GRRM, for not getting off his ass and giving them the finished works.

[FaxModem1]

[Vympel]

But the article by Amanda Marcotte you quoted as an argument, and which we are now discussing, explicitly does. It calls out Daenerys specifically as Illegitimate because conquest, whilst calling the rest of the characters "the good guys" despite their claims and thus reasons for action against Cersei also being descended from conquest.

It does nothing of the sort - first of all, why are you saying thatit calls out Danerys specifically as illegitimate because conquest as if that buttresses your point? That's my point. Your point was erroneously tying 'illegitimate' to whether she'd be an illegitimate ruler re: her claim. Second - huh? The descriptor of "the good guys" has absolutely nothing to do with their claims. It has to do with them a. wanting to stop the apocalypse (Jon) and b. being against unnecessary carnage (Tyrion, Varys).

I also have yet to see a rebuttal to the article's point that its pure luck of the draw that Dany ended up allying with who she did rather than any sort of principle - which again, goes to the core of the actual argument the article is making rather than this 'claimant' distraction.

It's a bad critique of the character because it ignores the context of the show against which its critiques are drawn. Daenerys isn't unique in doing what she does, she's just doing what everyone else is doing but the article says that she's the especial bad one for doing it because it's not "legitimate" for her.

Of course Dany is unique in what she does. Who are these other characters in the show that are held up as good who are doing what she's doing, for the reasons she's doing it? Who else could match Dany in her crusahding? Jon? His campaign to take back Winterfell was based entirely on it being essential to save the North from the threat of the White Walkers. And I literally cannot think of anyone else who fits the bill.