They are hinting at it more and more. Threatening to burn varys. Telling Jon snow he "will bend the knee." Tyrion is one of the few characters on the show that I trust. And he has had to reel her in a few times. Now they have teamed her with melisandre, a woman who believes in burning people alive for her god.... I don't think dany winds up as queen of westeros at the end.
shareIt does seem like she will go mad and Tyrion is all that's keeping her in check. Something will happen (like Drogon being killed etc...) that will cause her to act out of emotion and that will be her undoing. She'll go mad just like her great grandfather (or whatever) the mad king did.
I think Dany definitely won't end up on the Iron Throne.
Aren't there rumors that Tyrion himself might be a Targaryan if his mom jumped the fence. Wouldn't blame her, Tywin seemed like such a tyrant. Maybe Tyrion will end up winning the game. Dany seems to be becoming nasty and perhaps unstable and I don't think it would take much to turn her completely. Certainly the death of one of more of the dragons. Jon is a great guy but too naive to rule. Tyrion would be the best choice for king. Maybe the best will finally win for once.
shareThe thing about books is that they can set up any situation and resolved it any way they want, whether or not reality might not agree with that. I think John, and maybe Denaris are both unstable.
shareI think it's good that the show brought up the topic. From Dany's POV it would seem that Varys (as helpful as he's been) does indeed have a history of going behind the King's back, and flip-flopping between loyalties. We (the audience) have a different perspective of Varys than Dany does. I think it was prudent of Dany to confront Varys about his intentions.
She doesn't seem "unstable" to me. I thought her conversation with Varys was reasonable: If you're thinking of betraying me, I'd at least like to know why you feel it's necessary; and if your betrayal is not in the interest of the people, well, then I'll have to kill you.
I do think that she feels that she must have a strong presence if she's to lead the 7 Kingdoms. It's very dangerous and back-stabby out there, and that's something she's been learning over 6 seasons now. Her presence has changed over the course of that time, but I don't think her intentions have.
Well I've certainly discussed her more here on other threads and although she does seem like every cruel act is a consequence of another (justified or not), it seems rather over the top and reminiscent of her father. And yes, her cruelties may simply be her ruthlessness as Ramsey or the Geoffrey were cruel but I notice the showrunners keep mentioning or referencing Aerys in reference to her and her acts. And they just can't be random scenes just like all those peppered clues in the show of Jon's parentage were purposeful and not random either.
But we will see. Many here don't see what I or others see and I'm sure they will post their case here too. So again, we have 13 episodes to find out either way i guess.
Well, at least I’m almost certain that before the show is done someone will say the words: »Burn them all!«
At the moment, my money’s on Cersei, but who knows…
I honestly don't see how she's even slightly reminiscent of Aerys. The reason he keeps getting brought up is because she's his daughter and people are advising her to learn from his mistakes. Aerys was genuinely insane, imagined enemies around every corner and exercised wanton cruelty and murder even to people who did nothing to deserve punishment. Daenerys hasn't done that. She's only punished people who did something to deserve it, people who hurt her or who hurt others. And Daenerys actually HAS a lot of enemies, as the crisis in Meereen showed. They aren't fictions conjured in her head. If anything, she's consistently underestimated how much danger she's in and how many enemies she has.
shareBut Aerys wasn't initially insane, he only became so afterwards. I doubt the people around him could've predicated that development initially.
Did every single master deserve such punishments though? Because they were slave masters?
I would say so, yes. I think the crisis in Meereen goes to show that she wasn't nearly hard enough on them. She also should have done other things, like organizing the liberated slaves into an army so they could defend themselves, and seizing the property of the slave-masters (not just slaves, but land and whatever else they owned) in order to eliminate their source of power and funding for their guerrilla war against Daenerys. Then she should have redistributed that property to the freed slaves, so that they could support themselves without having to sell themselves back into slavery as some of them became desperate enough to do. This would both give them a more than symbolic stake in the new order, and the means to uphold and defend it.
Instead, she freed the slaves but then just kind of left them as passive spectators with no way to defend their emancipation (the Unsullied seemed to be the main security force in Meereen), and she left the masters all their wealth and property so that their political and economic power was unharmed and the slaves were still subject to them in all but name. It's not enough to overthrow legal slavery without challenging its economic foundations. Hence the crisis in Meereen.
One thing I will say in criticism of Daenerys is that she's not much of a governor. It's a good thing she has Tyrion and Varys by her side now to help her with the political side of things.
Sigh. I'd written a long reply and it was all deleted when my computer ran out of battery before I could plug it.
I'll try to give a reply tomorrow. On GOT, I usually try to post/reply using my computer as I hate using my phone. It's such a hassle and so many typos and the autocorrect feature kills me!
Damn that sucks, I hate when that happens.
shareI think the crisis in Meereen is reminiscent of Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction after the American civil war. In fact, I wonder if it wasn't deliberately inspired by it. Legal slavery was overthrown, but the masters still retained the foundations of their political and economic power, their control of the economy. Without a large-scale redistribution of land (which some advocated at the time), the slaves remained essentially helpless and powerless, particularly once the Union army was withdrawn from the South. The freed slaves were dependent on that army and helpless without it, and its withdrawal set off a century of oppression and terror in the South by the former masters over the freed slaves, whose liberation was significantly curtailed. Daenerys made the same mistake the American Union did, going for reconciliation with the masters rather than thoroughly smashing the social and economic system that gave them their power. The Sons of the Harpy were similar to the Ku Klux Klan, the political expression of the masters after slavery had been legally abolished. It goes to show that formal legal equality is meaningless without concrete socioeconomic equality. A liberation from above, by a "foreign" army that sought to overthrow LEGAL slavery but not to challenge its social and economic foundations, is a limited and unstable liberation.
I would say that the only real significant difference (aside from the fact that Daenerys' government is a feudal kingdom rather than an oligarchical republic as was the US) is that slavery in Meereen didn't appear to be racial in character, but was more along the lines of ancient Roman or Greek slavery.
Removing all of the property of the previous Masters, meaning the lords & ladies, their Houses & etc would only encourage descent & rebellion regardless of stealing all of their wealth, lands, houses. Because in an essence you would be replacing one type of slavery system with another. And as with any colonial power/transition like this of sorts, rebellion still cannot be prevented. Instilling a legacy of cruelty, thievery, slavery of the masters, and mass punishments and oppressions on the families of the Masters will only promote and create a parallel society as it once was.
It's funny you mentioned the US Civil war because I mentioned it on my reply before it was deleted. I'm not an American so we didn't study US history in school but I am aware of it from films but that's it. So I guess your suggestion is for the whole of White US America to have been enslaved in a sense with every property or ownership taken from them and redistributing it to all the Black slaves, if someone like Dany invaded with the same intent. From the films I've seen, some documentaries (not books since I've never read a Civil war book nor read much of US society/livelihood back then), it's my assumption that not all slave owners mistreated their slaves. I'm not excusing slavery, but simply stating that not all Masters were the same and I don't believe every single one deserved such a punishment nor do their children. It's very easy for people to succumb to the same cruelties as those they despise.
cont.....
I'll give this a more personal opinion if you don't mind. I'm from the Philippines & our country has been struggling economically (though it seems to be on the rise these past 10 years) due to corruption, ever since President Marcos took over. We have a new president now: Rodrigo Duterte. Poor & rich people alike voted for him, why? Because they want to believe that his tactics (shoot first, ask later) will finally eliminate the pervading Drug Lords and corruption within the country. But their means focuses on violence a& cruelty alone, no due process, & anyone who opposes it is deserving of punishment, must be a drug lord/a drug addict. Now 90% of Filipinos are pro Duterte, Filipinos assume the remaining 10% are the corrupt, the drug lords or drug addicts. I'm part of the 10% and I don't drink nor do I smoke, in fact I am extremely conservative & my family & I are very straight middle class, yet to others, we're probably the enemy, corrupt from within.
I see this type of character flaw in people, I see many once bullied people become the bullies themselves, the oppressed become the oppressors. How does shifting one power in continuance & promotion of sheer inexplicable violence & cruelty subjected to every slave owner, their families, and children - change the fundamental immorality Dany is supposed to detest? Her father himself became the embodiment of misuse of Westeros justice of immorality in Dany's crusade of principles, your suggestion would've promoted what the Lannister and Robert condoned in the raping of her mother and the attempts to kill the children simply because they were Targaryans. She & her family would be very similar to the slave masters yet she fails to see that, she excuses herself & not these masters.
People say that the values of Westeros and today are very different, & they are right. But people like the Starks & Tyrion, & even Varys are not alien anomalies, these are people that represent Westeros views of right from wrong.
Dany is NOT unstable, she shows no signs of anything that would be called mental illness in real life. Her actions are consistently those of a totally sane person, who happens to be head of one of the great houses of Westeros. To us her actions seem power-hungry and ruthless, to a Westerosian aristocrat they seem totally correct, understandable, and honorable.
Because I'm a beeyotch, I'm going to say that some fans just don't get that, they don't understand how harsh a ruler has to be in a place as lawless as Essos. Other fans do seem to have a problem with a pretty girl using the methods of an autocratic ruler... but the fact is, Danerys's perceived "instability" is more of a problem with the writing than the fans' perceptions. I don't mean the writers are trying to portray her as nutso, no, they're obviously trying to make her sane, but they're trying to make her both a ruthless conqueror and a likeable girl! A person can't be a conqueror or an autocrat and likeable, they're trying too hard to cover both bases and falling well short on both grounds. It does create a bit of cognitive dissonance.
while I understand her desire to be queen of westeros is what moves the show along, it also makes her a power hungry egomaniac intrinsically. No different than stannis Baratheon. its hard to believe any stable person would want to sit on the iron throne.
share»its hard to believe any stable person would want to sit on the iron throne«
heh… kinda reminds me of Dogulas Adams’ quote from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
;-)
I still have to read that book. Reading fountains of paradise by Arthur c Clarke right now -
"Politics and religion are obsolete; the time has come for science and spirituality."
I can sort of sympathize with her desire to get the Lannisters off the throne, I'd probably throw my support to her if I was a Westerosi noble. She frees slaves and allows freedom of religion, Cersei fucks her brother and blows up inconvenient churches.
I just think that all the writers' attempts to make her a Nice Conqueror make her the lest believable character on the show. If she believes in letting the people choose their own rulers, what the hell does she want to go around conquering city-states for? Really, the writing on this show is excellent, but it's not perfect.
I agree completely!
shareI agree. She was my favorite character for a long time, but frankly....I'm starting to dislike her. She's acting really arrogant and rather nasty towards people she should be friendly towards if she wants allies. I did not like how she treated Varys in the last episode, and I don't like how she treated Jon. She seems very threatening, like she could turn on a dime. Personally I don't think I'd trust her.
share