MovieChat Forums > Game of Thrones (2011) Discussion > Daenerys “I burn more people than Melisa...

Daenerys “I burn more people than Melisandre” Targaryen

posted 5 years ago by SyphiliticHobbit (367)
7 replies | jump to latest

Her heart is probably in the right place but I’m a bit unnverved at how the producers and many of the fans paint her as this beacon of morality and justice. She is good hearted at her core, this I respect, but she’s unintelligent, crucified thousands and burned many people she held to be enemies or POWs. She kind of freaks me out.

I know we are in an era where women empowerment (which in and of itself everyone should support) is taken to supercharged heights everywhere we look, to the detriment of story narratives and other characters.

Anyone else think she gets too much love and should be written and talked about more ambiguously, as her actions would logically conclude? Lest we talk about leading an army of foreign rapists to Westeros. I think she means well but it’s uncomfortable. So many people I talk to are like LOLZ Jon is boring Dany is the pure hero of the story. Idk.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Like Tyrion, she's written as possessing an uneasy mixture of modern and medieval beliefs. Both will express modern ideas like applying ethical standards to absolute monarchs, and then turn around and engage in Medieval-style politics, the kind that called for burning people alive and the extermination of enemy clans down to the last infant.

That's how politics are played in Westeros. Robb Stark deliberately sacrificed the lives of 2,000 soldiers in order to capture Jamie Lannister. Tyrion burned thousands alive at the battle of the Blackwater. Catelyn Stark started a war for an unjust cause and got thousands of innocents killed. Jon Snow executed a twelve-year-old boy. And yet, nobody complains about the ethical standards of Westeros, until Danerys goes as medieval as everyone else.

[–] SyphiliticHobbit (367) 5 years ago

With respect, none of this addresses my point and seems to be a bit discontinuous. I will wait for others to reply.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Well, you might consider thinking about the writers giving her an uneasy mix of modern beliefs and medieval methods. That's one reason she seems so inconsistent, she's written that way.

Feel free to ignore the rest.

[–] Jamfo (408) 5 years ago

You have to remember that in war, even good people will be forced to do many, many horrible things. What Daenerys is doing isn't any different than any number of real-life war-time heroes.

The Allies snuffing out roughly 200,000 civilians in the two A-Bomb deployments in World War II? Totally necessary, yes. Morally ambiguous? Definitely. Does Harry S. Truman freak you out for authorizing that decision?

Abraham Lincoln, presiding over a war where brother killed brother? General Sherman marching through and burning down any town he passed through? They needed to win a war... their actions were definitely morally ambiguous (especially Sherman), and yet both were heralded as heroes: one is one of the most beloved U.S. Presidents ever and the other has a model of tank named after him.

You could go through the whole of history and look at the winning leaders on any side and realize they all had to do horrible things in order to bring victory to their side. What makes the difference is what they are fighting for: freedom vs. tyranny, etc.

It always reminds me of the Star Trek TOS episode "The Savage Curtain", where Kirk, Spoke, and two other characters who represent all that is good fighting against four characters who represent evil. The good guys win, of course, but those who forced the conflict don't initially understand the difference between good and evil because they had to use the same methods in conflict and fought equally as brutally. It was when Kirk pointed out that "evil" was fighting to gain power, "good" only fought to save the lives of Kirk's entire crew that everything made sense.

So... as Daenerys is fighting to liberate the enslaved and wants to bring justice back to Westeros, we understand she may have to do some horrible things and that's just an unfortunate aspect of any war.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

In Westeros, absolutely everyone does terrible things in war. Sansa starts a war to get revenge on her husband and gets thousands of innocents killed. Arya poisons hundreds of Freys, without caring which ones are innocent. Jon attacks Winterfell with inadequate forces, and gets hundreds of his own followers killed. Tyrion burn tens of thousands alive at the Battle of the Blackwater.. and does it in an unjust cause! He kills tens of thousands of innocents in order to keep Joffrey on the throne, and keep the rightful king from taking the throne that is his by law and custom. And these are the good guy!

And nobody has a problem with any of this mayhem until Danerys goes there. I'm not sure if that's because she's a pretty girl, or because they mistakenly think she's written as some sort of ideal monarch. She isn't, she's written as flawed, but as good a ruler as Westeros is likely to get.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

"The Allies snuffing out roughly 200,000 civilians in the two A-Bomb deployments in World War II? Totally necessary, yes."

Even this former certainty we all learned in grade school as "totally necessary" is no longer seen as such among historians because there's been quite a bit of evidence uncovered to the contrary. This doesn't detract from your larger point (in fact it complements it) but signal intercepts by US code breakers revealed the US was fully aware Japan would surrender when the Soviets entered the war. Truman even knew this and wrote so in his diary and to his wife after getting Stalin's assurances at Yalta. The US president rushed to drop the bombs anyway even as Soviet troops amassed on Japan's border preparing to invade. Truman did so to send a message to the Soviets of US nuclear superiority and tactically to keep Japan a vassal state of the US out of Stalin's control. Totally necessary to win WW2? Absolutely not, it was already won. To gain an edge towards winning the oncoming cold war with the Soviets? Possibly. At least the ultimate merits of this tactic as part of a larger anti-Soviet strategy is debatable even while morally indefensible. Yet Truman is still regarded as one of the greatest US presidents we've ever had.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

[–] illnagas (457) 5 years ago

“we are in an era where women empowerment (which in and of itself everyone should support) is taken to supercharged heights everywhere we look, to the detriment of story narratives and other characters. “

Firstly, ^ this

Also I agree they seem to
gloss over the moral ambiguity of Dany and still paint her as some messiah.
That’s what I loved so much about earlier seasons: even good guys had a dark side and even the scumbags had a relatable motivation.

I can’t see any interesting follow thru with Dany. I’ll be absolutely shocked if she isn’t on the throne at the end.