#that happens even when the person isnt trying to argue that shes a mad queen/villain but that she has both 'good' and 'evil' in her#and is meant to fail#(e.g. that meta about how dany is a tragic shakespearean hero; which annoys me more bc it sounds convincing when you don't remember what#happened in the books very well...
Can you talk more about your problems with that essay? I thought that it sounded plausible... I don't want those things to happen to Daenerys, but I don't trust GRRM either.
Anon, thank you for this ask and sorry for the delayed answer. I was already planning to write several posts as a response to the arguments of âDaughter of Death: A Song of Ice and Fireâs Shakespearean Tragic Heroâ (which you can read here), but I couldn't find the time or motivation for that lately, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to counter-argue it in a single answer. I tried to be brief by summarizing some of my notes and by linking to a lot of metas instead of repeating all of their points, but the response unfortunately ended up becoming long anyway.
In the context of that essay, Dany is considered a Shakespearean tragic hero because the writer thinks she fits five requirements: 1) Danyâs chapters contain supposedly deliberate references to Shakespearean plays; 2) Dany is âtorn by an internal struggleâ, namely peace versus violence or companionship versus rulership or home versus the Iron Throne, all of which also drive the external conflicts. Choosing the second options will lead to her demise; 3) prophecies and âinfluential accidentsâ - that is, events that âhave roots in a characterâs motivationâ, as well as âthe sense of âif only this had not happenedââ - will âheighten and exaggerate [tragic flaws that] already [exist]â in Dany; 4) Dany will (according to the essayistâs speculations) take actions that produce âexceptional calamityâ and her demise will be âher own choice and doingâ; 5) Dany â[rose] high in positionâ and is âan exceptional beingâ, which sets her apart as a character that fits the mold of the Shakespearean tragedy because her reversal of fortune will highlight âthe greatness and piteousness of humanityâ.
I would argue that the points that the essayist made to justify how Dany supposedly fits these five requirements are all very skewed.
1) When it comes to requirement 1 (Danyâs chapters contain supposedly deliberate references to Shakespearean plays), the essayist is conveniently cherry-picking (as they often do throughout the meta). Bran Stark wants a dreamless sleep just like Dany: âSweet, dreamless sleep, Bran thought.â (ACOK Bran I); âThat night Bran prayed to his fatherâs gods for dreamless sleep.â (ACOK Bran II). Indeed, @marinabridgerton argues that thatâs most likely tied to the fact that theyâre the two characters most heavily associated with prophecies. Even Sansa is said to have a dreamless sleep: âSometimes her sleep was leaden and dreamless, and she woke from it more tired than when she had closed her eyesâ (AGOT Sansa VI). And yet, where are the essays about how these quotes are teaching the readership to interpret Branâs and Sansaâs characters, storylines and trajectories based on Shakespearean tragedies?
2) When it comes to requirement 2 (Dany is âtorn by an internal struggleâ, namely peace versus violence or companionship versus rulership or home versus the Iron Throne, all of which also drive the external conflicts. Choosing the second options will lead to her demise), the essayist is right to point out that those dilemmas exist. However, they portray Danyâs struggles in a way that makes it seem that 1) there are âgoodâ options (peace/companionship/home) and âbadâ options (violence/rulership/Iron Throne) for Dany to take and that 2) choosing the latter ones will lead to Danyâs downfall. There is a lot to question about these assumptions.
2.1) When it comes to Danyâs conflict between peace versus violence, the essayist takes everything that Adam Feldmanâs series of essays âUntangling the Meereenese Knotâ says for granted when it shouldnât be. Iâm not going to delve into all the problems/inaccuracies/double standards with those essays. For our purposes here, itâs enough to say that they: 1) dichotomize Danyâs identity into mhysa and mother of dragons to argue that the former represents her desire for peace and the latter her violent impulses; 2) assert that the peace was real; 3) conclude that, by rejecting the peace, the Dany of ASOS is gone and from now on sheâs going to be a very different person because she will have chosen to follow her violent impulses.
As already argued before, though, 1) Danyâs character canât be dichotomized in that way because these facets - mhysa and mother of dragons - actually complement each other (as @yendany made clear in her most recent meta). Because Dany was the mother of dragons, she was able to act as mhysa way before she was hailed as such, which we see, for instance, when she kills the Astapori slave masters to free the Unsullied. Both of these identities manifest Danyâs fierceness when faced with great injustices. This is why, in ADWD, locking her dragon children prevented Dany from properly defending her human children⌠She needs to integrate both parts of her identity to be able to protect them. But Feldman couldnât recognize that because 2) he accepts the peace deal that Dany made with the slavers as valid. Doing so would mean, however, ignoring the re-enslavement and suffering of thousands of marginalized people, which GRRM continually emphasizes in Dany's and Tyrionâs final ADWD chapters (read more about this here and here) to hammer home that the peace is false for prioritizing the slavers over them. Finally, 3) Dany is not a violent person nor does she have violent impulses. Feldman decontextualized the moments in which Dany uses violence from the standards of her time and place (read more about this here and here and here and here) to portray them in a more negative light than how they are actually meant to be viewed. Additionally, he conveniently left out all the moments in which Dany chooses to be merciful, from when she spares Yunkai and most of the Meereenese slavers (she didnât do the same in Astapor because she was outnumbered and needed to protect her retinue) to when she doesnât punish people who threaten or disrespect her to her face (such an envoy who spits at her face, a boy who tries to attack her, Xaro after he says he wishes heâd killed her), to give a few examples (read more about this in @rainhadaenerys's comprehensive meta). I would argue that Danyâs conflict is less about peace versus violence and more accurately about her tendency to be merciful versus her desire for justice (which, especially in the particular context she finds herself in, is unattainable without violence). In fact, I would go further and say that itâs distasteful to characterize Dany as someone âviolentâ or with âviolent impulsesâ when, so far, sheâs only used violence to a) defend and protect victims of (physical and systemic) violence and/or b) in circumstances in which her actions are no more problematic than those of any other leader of her world. And yet, the essayist portrays them as if they were (âTo choose indiscriminate destruction over peace tends toward the evilâ).
Itâs also convenient that the essayist only talks about fire negatively (âDany wields unmatched power that can âmake or unmake at a wordââDracarysâvillages, armies and kingdomsâ, âin the words of Maester Aemon, âFire consumes.ââ) when it's also connected to life, rebirth, healing and enlightenment. And dracarys in particular is explicitly associated with freedom by the narrative while Dany frees the Unsullied (her decision, in turn, is associated with her future actions in the War for the Dawn). But acknowledging these things would make it harder to portray Dany as a Shakespearean tragic hero.
2.2) When it comes to Danyâs conflict between companionship and rulership ⌠Again, the dilemma exists, but not in the way that the essayist presents it. What I mean is that they go out of their way to make it seem that Danyâs loneliness was the main factor driving her decisions, such as the liberation of the Unsullied (âShe feels for the forced loneliness of the Unsullied, and it is loneliness that convinces her to commit violence in the plaza to free the slavesâjust as it is in loneliness she chooses violence amidst the Dothraki Sea.â)... And not, yâknow, her compassion and sense of justice (âWhy do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who canât protect themselves?â), which are rarely acknowledged in this essay even though itâs arguably the main aspect of Dany's characterization. Why does the essayist do that? Because, since they are arguing that Dany is a tragic hero, they need to present Danyâs loneliness both as the reason why she achieved greatness and as the reason that will lead to her demise when she (supposedly) starts distrusting people, closing herself off and choosing violence (âthe moral conviction she feels for her abolitionist crusade is part of the greatness that is also her tragic trait [...] She feels for the forced loneliness of the Unsullied, and it is loneliness that convinces her to commit violence in the plaza to free the slavesâjust as it is in loneliness she chooses violence amidst the Dothraki Sea.â). As I said, however, doing so requires downplaying Danyâs compassion, as well as ignoring the fact that she does not close herself off to people in ADWD, nor is there any sign that this was seeded as a serious issue for her in future books (especially considering that her governance is meant to be contrasted with Cersei, the character who actually does close herself off to people. But more on that below when I talk about why Dany doesnât fit the essayistâs third requirement).
Also, singling out rulership in particular as a reason for Dany to feel alone is conveniently selective (âReturning to Westeros means ruling Westeros - and ruling means lonelinessâ). All the major characters have reasons to feel lonely and isolated in their society because GRRM chose to focus on the underdogs. Their social standings are already enough to make all of them feel alone. As he said, âTyrion of course is a dwarf which has its own challenges. Dany is an exile, powerless, penniless, at the mercy of other people, and Jon is a bastardâ. You can also throw in Arya for being a young girl struggling to adhere to gender norms and Bran for being a disabled child. And that is just one example⌠There are a myriad of reasons and situations for various characters to feel lonely and isolated, but the essayist specifically chose to talk about how rulership causes that for Dany. And, considering that the essayist thinks that Danyâs rulership -> growing isolation and loneliness -> her ultimate downfall, it really feels like theyâre punishing Dany narratively for acquiring and wielding power. Which leads me to the next point...
2.3) When it comes to Danyâs conflict between home and the Iron Throne, I would argue that thatâs not really a conflict. Dany (like any feudal leader) believes she needs to retake the Iron Throne to stay in her homeland just like the Starks believe they need to retake Winterfell to stay in their homeland. Whether Dany finds herself at home in Westeros or not is irrelevant to that fact. And yet, the essayist only presents the former as being in the wrong for fighting for her birthright. However, as it's been already explained before, the Starksâ claim to the North isnât morally righteous. They only have dominance over the North because, for thousands of years, their ancestors fought against, drove away and killed most of its indigenous population (the Children of the Forest), as well as multiple families who were also vying for control over the region. With that in mind, Dany fighting for her birthright isnât any more problematic than the Starks enjoying the lands and privileges obtained with conquest and bloodshed, as well as the labor of peasants. One could argue that GRRM may have a double standard against Dany in this case (though it's been argued before that he doesn't intend to present the Iron Throne as a source of greed and evil like how fandom presents it) because of the order of the events and depending on whether he holds Dany accountable for more problems for waging her war than the Starks for having done/doing essentially the same thing, but thatâs not what the essayist is doing. Instead, they a) take for granted that Dany is doing the wrong thing for fighting for the Iron Throne ("To delay the call of the North and continue to divide an already weakened realm is to give into dark desires.") and b) center all their speculations about her eventual demise based on that belief.
Ultimately, I would argue that none of these three dilemmas - peace versus violence, companionship versus rulership, home versus the Iron Throne - come with easy answers. When it comes to the first conflict, itâs important that Dany prioritizes the lives of the slaves over the privileges of the masters, but that causes more war and bloodshed. When it comes to the second and the third conflicts, itâs worth noting that the first options (which the essayist presents as the âgoodâ ones) are actually the selfish paths for Dany to take. After all, she would rather live a normal life with a husband (companionship) in the house with the red door (home) - âShe would rather have drifted in the fragrant pool all day, eating iced fruit off silver trays and dreaming of a house with a red door, but a queen belongs to her people, not to herselfâ. But, as the quote shows, instead of choosing these selfish goals, Dany accepts the burden of rulership and the fight for the Iron Throne because of her duty towards her people and ancestors. And, while this path leads to war (either in Meereen or in Westeros, though the former is morally righteous and the latter, while not inherently justified, is not any more problematic than Robb fighting for Northern independence), power is also the means through which Dany can make changes that benefit the common people.
With all that said, itâs ironic that Dany fans are often accused of flattening her character or her choices when itâs actually her detractors or âneutralsâ (like the essayist) who do so - they are dead set on portraying Danyâs available options as either âgoodâ or âbadâ and on speculating that choosing the latter ones will lead to her downfall, but the text actually gives her conflicts in which all the options have their pros and cons.
The essayist also makes a mistake that isnât really up to interpretation or difference in opinions. They say that, in AGOT Daenerys III, âafter admitting this difficult truth [that Viserys will never take back the Seven Kingdoms], Dany assumes the goal for herself (and at the time, her son)â. That is incorrect. In AGOT Daenerys V, moments before Viserysâs death, Dany says she would have allowed him to have the dragon eggs because âhe is my brother ⌠and my true kingâ. Jorah doesnât think she should still acknowledge him as such, but she tells him that âhe is all I haveâ. So no, Dany hadnât assumed the goal for herself at that point, she only took over his campaign in her son's name (not hers) after Viserys's death. But the essayist needs to exaggerate Dany's ambition to justify her demise, since they speculate that âin that hurt and betrayal, all that will be left - she will think - is the crownâ.
3) When it comes to requirement 3 (prophecies and âinfluential accidentsâ - that is, events that âhave roots in a characterâs motivationâ, as well as âthe sense of âif only this had not happenedââ - will âheighten and exaggerate [tragic flaws that] already [exist]â in Dany), the problem is not in cherry-picking or in double standards against Dany, but rather in the essayistâs lack of knowledge about Danyâs characterization. Itâs simply not true that Danyâs distrust of people grows to the point that she closes herself off to them. Instead, I would argue that Dany is actually portrayed as someone with a healthy distrust of people. We know from the books (1, 2, 3, 4) that she finds it unlikely that Barristan, Grey Worm or Missandei would ever betray her, but that she doesnât think she can rely entirely upon Reznak, the Green Grace, the Shavepate, Hizdahr and Daario. Do Danyâs doubts about these peopleâs intentions lead her to, as the essayist says, âpush people awayâ? No. Through almost all of ADWD, she (wrongly, though understandably) believes that "until [freedmen and former masters stand together, Meereen will know no peace". Accordingly, Dany is willing to listen to the counsel of all of her advisors (both the ones she trusts and the ones she distrusts) to ensure that she makes informed decisions. To give some examples:
Dany allows âwell spoken and gently bornâ people (i.e., not the typical condition of most former slaves, who are glad that Dany freed them) to sell themselves into slavery and imposes a tax each time men chose to do so like how it happened in Astapor (ASOS Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with both Missandei and Daario.
Dany employs the Unsullied to ask the Blue Graces if someone showed up with a sword wound and to ask butchers and herdsmen whoâs been gelding goats (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany chooses not to punish any noble in response to the murder of Stalwart Shield and only increases the amount of gold for whoever gives information about the Sons of the Harpy (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she agreed with Reznak and disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany gives up on banning the tokar and wears it herself (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace.
Dany (rightly) refuses to reopen the fighting pits for a while until she later relents in the name of the peace with the Meereenese nobles (ADWD Daenerys I, II, III, VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Hizdahr, Reznak, the Green Grace and the Shavepate and agreed with Missandei.
Dany delays the choice of a husband until it becomes necessary later (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak, the Shavepate and the Green Grace.
Dany chooses to pay the shepherds for the animals that they say their dragons ate (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak.
Dany pays Hazzeaâs father the blood price (i.e., one hundred times the worth of a lamb) for her death, lays her bones to rest in the Temple of the Graces and promises to pay for his children each year so they shall not want (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany allows the Shavepate to torture the wineseller and his daughters for information about the Sons (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate.
Dany imposes a blood tax on the noble families to pay for a new watch led by the Shavepate, takes the gold and the stores of food of any nobleman who wishes to leave the city and keeps two children from each pyramid as hostages instead of letting the nobles go unpunished after nine freedmen were killed by the Sons (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate and disagreed with Reznak.
Dany has Barristan and Groleo and his captains and sailors to inspect Xaroâs ships (ADWD Daenerys III). By making this decision, she agreed with Barristan.
Dany chooses not to go to Westeros despite being offered ships to do so (ADWD Daenerys III). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany doesnât kill her child hostages despite the Sonsâ ongoing attacks (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace and disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany agrees to marry Hizdahr if heâs able to give her ninety days of peace in Meereen (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr, the Green Grace and Reznak and disagreed with the Shavepate, Barristan, Missandei and Daario.
Dany refuses to gather the masters and kill them indiscriminately (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she disagreed with Daario.
Dany doesnât allow the Shavepate to continue his tortures due to their unreliable results (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr and disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany refuses to use her dragons in battle (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with Reznak.
Dany decides not to take the field against Yunkai (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate and disagreed with Barristan.
Dany brings the food to the Astapori refugees instead of sending someone else to do it (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak, the Shavepate and Barristan.
Dany burns the dead among the Astapori refugees, bathes an old man and shames her men into helping her (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany refuses to allow Hizdahrâs mother and sisters to inspect her womb and to wash Hizdahrâs feet before he washes hers (ADWD Daeneerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with the Green Grace and Reznak.
Dany decides to marry Hizdahr by Ghiscari rites and to wear a white tokar fringed with pearls (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace and Reznak.
Dany allows Hizdahr to reopen the fighting pits (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr, the Green Grace and Reznak.
Dany goes along with a peace agreement with the Yunkish slavers in which sheâll let Yunkai and Astapor reinstall slavery if they leave Meereen intact (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr.
Dany holds court in order to, among other reasons, meet the Westerosi men that came over from the Windblown (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she agreed with Daario.
Dany doesnât accept Quentynâs marriage proposal because she doesnât want to abandon her people (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany doesnât ride a horse in a tokar to meet Hizdahr (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she agreed with Missandei.
Dany decides not to sound out the Company of the Cats (even though she wanted to) because Barristan says he's untrustworthy (ADWD Daenerys VIII). By making this decision, she agreed with Barristan.
Dany attends the reopening of the pits (ADWD Daenerys IX). By making this decision, she disagreed with Missandei.
Dany allows the Brazen Beasts to guard her because she wants to show that she trusts them so that her people can trust them as well (ADWD Daenerys IX). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany prevents Tyrion and Penny from fighting against lions with wooden swords. By making this decision, she disagreed with Hizdahr.
I didnât include all of Danyâs decisions because she makes many of them on her own and/or without someone explicitly supporting them or opposing them (in fact, many of the ones above were made without any advisor giving her their feedback, but I listed them if theyâre seen agreeing or disagreeing with her onpage anyway). That being said, note that Reznak is the one that Dany is most suspicious of (because he perfectly fits the description of one of the treasoners), but that five of her decisions follow his recommendations, in contrast to Barristan (the knight who she actually trusts and who keeps all her secrets) only having his advice followed twice. Also note that Dany âtrusted Skahaz more than she trusted Hizdahrâ, but she agreed with the former three times and disagreed with him eight times, in contrast to having agreed with the latter four times and disagreed with him twice. The list clearly shows that Dany listens to everyoneâs feedback (including from people she distrusts), considers it carefully, makes her own decisions and handles dissent extremely well. Her actions reflect her own words (âA queen must listen to all. [...] One voice may speak you false, but in many there is always truth to be foundâ, âIt seems to me that a queen who trusts no one is as foolish as a queen who trusts everyoneâ).
There is, however, one character who is seen only listening to people who agree with her and who distrusts and closes herself off to almost everyone - Cersei Lannister. And itâs especially worth noting that Cersei is meant to be âdirectly contrastedâ with Dany, that the author was âdoing point and counterpointâ with them and that each of them is meant to show âa different approach to how a woman would rule in a male dominated, medieval-inspired fantasy worldâ. In other words, Dany and Cersei are narrative foils, but Cerseiâs traits are being transferred to Dany in this essay.
Also, I could just as easily create an entire narrative about how Sansa will end up closing herself off to people based on what we see on canon. She thought she could trust Joffrey, but she ultimately couldnât. She thought she could trust Cersei, but she ultimately couldnât. She trusted Sandor, but he left her. She tried to trust the Tyrells, but they ultimately disposed of her after she was no longer necessary. She tried to rely on Dontos, but he was a disappointment and was ultimately murdered. She doesnât trust Littlefinger, but she needs to stick to his side because she has no better option. She considered telling the Vale lords her identity, but she doesnât trust them. All of this feeds into Sansaâs distrust of others and will lead to tragic consequences. Indeed, as Sansa herself says, "In life, the monsters win". I bet that the essayist would find this whole speculation biased considering that they favor Sansa's character. But then, why is only Dany singled out as the one who is going to meet her demise even though itâs made clear that she continues to trust people through and through?
The essayist needs to say that Dany starts distrusting people to an unhealthy degree (âAs Dany gains more power, [...] her focus on the treasons causes her to push people away, widening the gap between rulership and companionshipâ; âThe more power she gains, the greater her isolation and likely her fear of betrayal. The fear of betrayal is, of course, human. But GRRM has stated that he likes to turn dramatic situations up to 11, which is necessary to create the Shakespearean tragic hero. Danyâs fear must be larger than life.â), as well as to judge her campaign to take back the Seven Kingdoms based on double standards (âDanyâs great sin within the storyâs moral order will have been focusing on the war for Westeros against Aegon VI before she turns to the enemy of the Northâ) compared to the Starks. If they didnât do so, there wouldnât be a reason to justify Danyâs demise. If they didnât do so, the entire speculation that sheâs a Shakespearean tragic hero falls apart. But saying that something is true doesnât necessarily make it true, you need to provide the textual evidence (which they barely do ⌠They assume that the reader will take almost everything they say for granted. After all, since thereâs a prophecy foretelling that Dany will be betrayed three times, of course sheâs going to distrust people way too much from now on).
Thereâs also another aspect of Danyâs relationship with prophecies that the essayist portrays inaccurately. They say that âthe effect of this prophecy on Daenerys is multifacetedâ for â[promising] greatnessâ (which, along with the also inaccurate statement that âpart of Danyâs pursuit of the Iron Throne is born from a sense of destinyâ, implies that Dany wants to be great or that she thinks of herself as great, none of which are true) and pushing her âfurther from the people who surround herâ. I already questioned the latter statement, and the former is inaccurate too. After all, Dany has doubts that there are men in Westeros waiting for the Targaryens to return. The birth of the dragons has to do with the fact that Dany was able to put two and two together with clues from dragon dreams and Mirri's words, not because she thinks she's exceptional. Dany is not really sure that the red comet was meant for her. She followed its direction because the other paths weren't reliable and, even in Qarth, she's unsure that it was meant to guide her to success. Then she never thinks about it again. I'd expect otherwise from someone who thinks they're exceptional. Dany is surprised when told by Quaithe that she's the reason why magic is increasing in the world and never thinks or brags about it after their interaction. I'd expect otherwise from someone who thinks they're exceptional. Dany doesn't think she won any victories in the House of the Undying, she credits Drogon for burning the Undying Ones. She only allows Jhiqui to add a bell to the end of her braid because "the Dothraki would esteem her all the more for a few bells in her hair". Dany refuses to sit on the throne inside the Great Pyramid's audience chamber and chooses to sit on a simple ebony bench that the Meereenese think does "not befit a queen". Dany refuses the offer to have a statue in her image to replace the bronze harpy in the Plaza of Purification. I'd expect otherwise from someone who thinks they're exceptional. Dany is highly self-critical and, later in ADWD, thinks that she "was as clean as she was ever going to be" after taking a bath because she holds herself accountable for the upcoming slaughter in the opening of the fighting pits. I'd expect different from someone that thinks they're exceptional. Dany doesnât think that the people who came to the reopening of the pits wanted to see her - âit was my floppy ears they cheered, not meâ. I'd expect different from someone that thinks they're exceptional. Most of Dany's titles (the Unburnt, Mother of Dragons, Mhysa, Azor Ahai, etc) are given to her by other people, they're not self-proclaimed (not that there's a problem if they were, I'm only saying it to reiterate that Dany doesn't think she's exceptional). The ones that she assumes on her own are the ones that anyone who believes in birthright (i.e., everyone in her time and place, regardless of family, regardless of whether they're Targaryens) would assume.
4) When it comes to requirement 4 (Dany will (according to the essayistâs speculations) take actions that produce âexceptional calamityâ and her demise will be âher own choice and doingâ) ⌠Well, we now enter the realm of speculation. Itâs not impossible that Dany âwill feel like a villain to the Westerosi, as she burns their villages and crops ahead of a hard winterâ in the future. The problem here, once again, is in the double standards. Look at the way the essayist describes the likely reascendance of the Starks in the upcoming books - âWith the death of âgoodâ characters like Ned, the injury of innocents and moments such as the Red Wedding, ASOIAF as a story is not concerned with justice. But as the story progresses, we see that the way Ned ruled his people and raised his children contrasts with characters like Tywin and his methods. Much of the North seems to continue to rally behind the idea of the Starks, some with less âhonorableâ methods than others, while Tywinâs legacy begins to fall apart. Like in Shakespeareâs tragic world, there appears to be an order that arcs towards a higher idea of goodness that instills a dramatic satisfactionâ. Like I said above when I questioned requirement 2, the Starksâ claim to the North is no more justified than Danyâs to the Seven Kingdoms. They have the advantage of having had their rule normalized throughout the thousands of years they ruled the North, but it doesnât change the fact that, because theyâre feudal lords, they still maintain a system rigged in favor of the nobles that promotes social inequality and extreme lack of social mobility. It doesnât change the fact that there's no righteous form of feudalism. But only Dany is criticized in that sense by the essayist - âBy nature, power breeds inequality, when one party has the ability to decide the fate of another. That inequality creates distance. As a queen Dany wields absolute power over the rest of her subjects and her courtâ. Which is pretty infuriating not only because the Starks are also morally grey in the sense that the essayist describes, but also because GRRM specifically mentioned that Daenerys is the ruler "who wants equality for everyone, she wants to be at the same level as her people". Additionally, if Ned left a legacy that motivated his people to fight against his enemies, so did Dany with the former slaves. But the essayist needs to ignore all of that to paint Dany as a Shakespearean tragic hero.
Even if we donât take into account what TWOIAF reveals about the Starksâ ancestors, the main story itself often paints House Starkâs actions in a negative light. We see a peasant spitting at the mention of the Starks and saying that things were better with King Aerys II in power. We're told that Northmen looking for Jaime on Edmureâs orders burned a village called Sallydance and were guilty of rape and murder. Itâs no wonder that the High Sparrow mentions the wolves along with the lions as threats to the septas. Also, thousands of soldiers died indirectly because of Robbâs decisions, as well as lots of people who remained north and became vulnerable to raping and pillaging due to his inability to hold Winterfell. And finally, when winter comes, the smallfolk will be affected by the actions of the northmen, who (like Dany might do in the future) already helped to disrupt the harvest and to leave the continent short on food. And yet, why is their future success framed as âan order that arcs towards a higher idea of goodnessâ? Why is Dany the only one who is said to be âgiv[ing] into dark desiresâ by âdivid[ing] an already weakened realmâ when the Starks (framed as the heroes in the essay) did the same thing? This double standard gets infuriating when one remembers that Dany is the one fighting a war in the name of the disenfranchised (even though she is not connected to them by blood or lands or oath of fealty and doesnât gain anything by helping them), while the Starks are (and will be, if they want to retake Winterfell) fighting a war because of personal injury (which, sympathetic as it may be, doesnât justify the damage that they caused to the smallfolk). It gets even more infuriating when, as @rakharo pointed out to me, one remembers that, while Dany is trying to right the wrongs of the Valyrians by ending slavery in Slaverâs Bay, none of the Starks have acknowledged, much less tried to make amends for injustices perpetrated by the First Men against the Children of the Forest. It gets even more infuriating when one remembers that Aegon the Conqueror united Westeros in preparation for the War for the Dawn (something that GRRM himself confirmed), while the Starksâ ancestors conquered the North solely because of their greed. That's why Danyâs story canât be effective as a tragedy: sheâd be punished for starting to do what everyone else was doing after doing more than almost everyone else was doing.
5) When it comes to requirement 5 (Dany â[rose] high in positionâ and is âan exceptional beingâ, which sets her apart as a character that fits the mold of the Shakespearean tragedy because her reversal of fortune will highlight âthe greatness and piteousness of humanityâ), again, weâre in the realm of speculation. But there are some things to question as well. First, the essayist validates the criticisms that Dany âtoo easily ascends to a position of powerâ by using them as proof that sheâs a tragic character. But thatâs not really true, which becomes clear with a few comparisons: the Starks lost their father, mother and older brother throughout the story because of the Lannisters, which Dany also did; but her losses go beyond them: she also lost another brother, her first husband and her first child. The Starks had their direwolves given to them, Dany had to use her intuition and then literally walk into a fire to birth her dragons. Aegon the Conqueror used dragons to take Westeros, Dany conquered three cities without barely using hers. Jon Snowâs conflict in ADWD involves conciliating the Free Folk and the Nightâs Watch after he makes decisions favoring the former group, while Danyâs involves conciliating the freedmen and the slavers after she makes decisions favoring the former group, which has a worldwide impact; Jonâs conflict has relatively low stakes (because it hasnât involved the Others so far), Danyâs conflict leads to âhalf the worldâ wanting her dead. As these examples show, Dany suffered more losses than the Starks. Dany had to do a lot more than the Starks to find her animal companions. Dany became a conqueror primarily because of her military strategies and resourcefulness without relying on dragonfire like her ancestor. Dany faced greater opposition than her male counterpart Jon so far. As we can see, gaining power and retaining it has not been easy for Dany at all. Every single one of her accomplishments has been earned. But it sure is interesting that Danyâs supposed future tragedies must stem from her actions, but that her victories arenât given the proper credit and acknowledged as being a result of what she also did as well.
And then the essayist declares something even more inaccurate: that Dany âovercame each obstacle that came her wayâ and that âRobb and Jon paid for their mistakes while Dany did notâ (which, to the essayist, is evidence that âDanyâs fall is meant to stand in contrast as something grander than just one slip-upâ).
First of all, Dany clearly did not overcome every obstacle that came her way. Saying so means ignoring all of her ADWD storyline (and itâs funny how Dany's detractors go from saying that sheâs overpowered and hasnât suffered consequences to accusing her of being a bad ruler precisely because she dealt with the negative consequences of her choices, lol). To recap, Dany had an indirect part in the wars outside Meereen because she left the Yunkish slaversâ wealth intact, which leads to terrible consequences - multiple city-states and sellsword companies joining forces against her, Astaporâs fall, the pale mareâs outbreak, the emergence of refugees from Astapor outside her city and the upcoming Battle of Fire. Dany had an indirect role in the wars inside Meereen because she left most of the Meereenese slavers alive with most of their wealth intact, which leads to terrible consequences - the Sons of the Harpyâs attacks and dozens of freedmenâs deaths. Additionally, Dany had an indirect role in Hazzeaâs death because Drogon was allowed to roam freely and she had no way to train him or her brothers. All these problems culminate in Dany agreeing with a peace deal that, as already explained here, was inherently unjust for prioritizing the slavers over the freedmen. Dany had to learn that, as much as she wants peace and to plant trees, there are situations in which she canât be merciful because violence really is the only way to achieve justice for the disenfranchised. (On the flip side, thatâs one of the reasons why Iâm critical of the theory that Dany accidentally burns Kingâs Landing. When she was merciful, as I just listed, great tragedies occurred (which is fine, it was a realistic exploration of what happens when you abolish slavery and try to do good). When she used fire and blood, great tragedies will occur too? Even though she would be acting just like the Starks or any other feudal lord by fighting for her birthright? The theory narratively punishes Dany in a way that it doesn't do with the Starks, which is why it's no wonder that it was created by someone with Stark/Stannis biases. Additionally, it validates the common belief that Dany is only meant to be a wartime queen, even though sheâs already showed that sheâs a good peacetime ruler.)
Second, is dying the only way to pay for oneâs mistakes (considering that only Robb and Jon are listed as examples of characters who did)? I donât think so. Consider Sansa. Didnât she pay for the mistake of going to Cersei to tell her of Nedâs plan? I would say she did. I would say the author agrees - âSansa was the least sympathetic of the Starks in the first book; she has become more sympathetic, partly because she comes to accept responsibility for her part in her father's deathâ. Similarly, Dany had to accept her indirect responsibility for the tragedies that I just listed (Hazzea, forgive me; No marriage would ever bring them back to life, but if a husband could help end the slaughter, then she owed it to her dead to marry.; âI shouldâve gone to Astapor. [...] I am the queen. It was my place to know.â; âWhat kind of mother has no milk to feed her children?â). I would argue that Dany and Sansa both paid for her mistakes, which were acknowledged, made them suffer and influenced their character developments. But the essayist needs to say that Dany didnât pay for them (or that she had an easy rise to power) to help to paint her as a Shakespearean tragic hero.
6) Now that the essayistâs five requirements have all been questioned, I would also like to mention positive prophecies and speculations related to Dany that are never brought up in this essay.
First, Dany is AA/PTWP/SWMTW. That was heavily foreshadowed (read more about it here) and built up to and, if it doesnât happen, it frankly would be bad writing. After all, havenât readers praised GRRM for the foreshadowing of Nedâs death (e.g., a stag having killed the mother direwolf in the beginning of AGOT)? Havenât readers praised GRRM for the foreshadowing of the Red Wedding (which we see from Tyrionâs to Theonâs to Danyâs chapters)? And yet, the essayist thinks that Danyâs death will cause âthe forces [to] become more even, making victory less sure, or the Others surpass the side of the living in strengthâ and that âthe White Walkers gain Drogon, becoming one-on-one but with the White Walkers having the larger dragon.â
Second, Dany and Bran both have dreams in AGOT leading up to their magical awakening. Bran needs to fly to escape from the âcoldâ of the darkness below, while Dany needs to run from the âicy breath behindâ. Both of these dreams culminate with Bran and Dany learning to fly and accepting their magical destinies, which will be important in the War for the Dawn. And yet, the essayist thinks that âby understanding that the concept of warmth is tied to companionship, we can understand that the cold, âicy breathâ must represent the opposite: lonelinessâ to justify Danyâs demise. Instead, it's clear (especially considering the parallels with Bran) that "icy breath" is an allusion to the Others. But they can't acknowledge that Dany will have a crucial role in the War for the Dawn, otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.
Third, Quaithe was presented as the third of the three Qartheen envoys (after Pyat Pree and Xaro) that came to find Dany in Vaes Tolorro, which heavily implies that she breaks the norm and is the one person that Dany can trust. And yet, the essayist takes for granted that Quaitheâs ânarrative connection to betrayal is already establishedâ.
Fourth, Dany might as well be the prophesied betrayer, not the one whoâs betrayed by three people (after all, sheâs already been betrayed by more than three people - Jorah, Mirri, Pyat Pree, Xaro, Brown Ben, the person that gave her the poisoned locusts, etc). It would fit with the pattern of Dany being an active participant in the prophecies rather than a passive one (e.g. Dany is AA/PTWP, not the one who gives birth to the AA/PTWP or the one who dies as a sacrifice to AA/PTWP) even though, at first, the readership is expected to think otherwise. And yet, the essayist takes for granted that Dany will be betrayed because otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.
Fifth, Dany is foreshadowed to have a positive relationship with Jon because âthe blue flowerâ from the âwall of iceâ filled the air with âsweetnessâ. And yet, the essayist needs to say that Dany "[will push] Jon away [...] from fear of betrayal and hurtâ and from worries that he might be a âusurperâ (nevermind that they are mischaracterizing Dany as someone overfocused on retaking the Iron Throne and who closes herself off due to prophecies, none of which are not true, as I already showed above) because otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.
7) Finally, I would also like to ask: whatâs the point of giving Dany a storyline like this? Not only because it would be unearned due to the double standards and the changes that would have to occur in her characterization, but also because Dany has a special place in the narrative. She is 1) one of the two women (along with Asha) claiming power in her own right and the only one that we actually got to see rule, 2) one of three Chosen Ones (along with Bran and Jon) and the only female one, 3) one of two POV revolutionaries (along with Jon) and the only female one (and the one whose storyline arguably has the most political messages since sheâs fighting against human slavery), 4) one of two POV female rulers (along with Cersei) and the only one whoâs been depicted as competent (because she subverts the Good Princess Evil Queen dichotomy), 5) one of two Targaryen conquerors (three, if Young Griff does indeed take Westeros) and the only female one - âAegon the Conqueror with teatsâ, 6) the only major mother who isnât sure to be doomed and/or hasnât gone mad, 7) one of two Targaryen queens regnant (along with Rhaenyra) and the only remaining Targaryen woman who gets to have power after a long line of Targaryen women - Rhaenyra herself, but also Rhaena, Aerea, Rhaella, Daenerys (Alysanneâs daughter), Rhaenys the Queen Who Never Was, Baela, Rhaena of Pentos, Daena - who were disempowered. GRRM already has a terrible history with female leaders in particular. If he causes the downfall of another one (especially one who is also one of the five main protagonists) for such unearned reasons like the ones that the essayist laid out, there would also be sexist implications. It would make the only she-king that we saw wielding power onpage overly defined by violence and destruction in a way kings don't have to be depending on their actions, it makes the only competent POV female ruler look incompetent in comparison to the other POV male rulers and it makes her conquest a disaster while the other male Targaryen conqueror (two, if Young Griff takes Westeros) gets to succeed. And yet, death by childbirth is the only speculation that the essayist calls out as problematic (âdeath by childbirth is a uniquely biologically female phenomenon and would be punishing Daenerys for her sexualityâ).
8) What I find insidious about essays like this one is that they pretend to be unbiased (I do not argue for the death of Daenerys as a judgement on her ethical/moral goodness as a character nor of the world she inhabits. I argue it on the strength of her characterization and story, that she should be able to encompass such intensity and greatness as to be considered as complex as all these other single-name headliners in literature.) even though they really aren't. To recap, the essayist portrays Dany as someone with "violent" impulses even though she's a merciful person in general, accepts the peace deal with the slavers as valid even though it prioritizes the slavers' privileges over the lives of marginalized people, only talks about the negative connotations of fire, downplays Dany's compassion and sense of justice, argues that Dany is losing her ability to trust others even though she isn't, says that Dany is negatively affected by promises of greatness even though she isn't, argues that Dany had an easy rise to power and didn't pay for her mistakes even though she did, paints Dany's campaign to take the Iron Throne in a negative light without doing the same with the Starks having dominance over the North and ignores Dany's foreshadowing as AA/PTWP, as well as her special place in the narrative. So itâs not that Dany stans are unable to accept Danyâs mistakes and flaws, itâs that people who dislike her canât understand her characterization or acknowledge the double standards against her or accept her particular place in the story. At the end of the day, an essay like this one is no better than jonsa metas mindlessly hating on Dany because, just like them, as @semperty and @niniane17 made clear, it also creates speculations with the intent of making Dany self-destruct and become irrelevant to pave the way for their preferred characters. The only difference is that it's more successful at appearing "neutral" to someone who doesn't remember what happened in the books very well, especially because Dany has become a polarizing character for a variety of reasons and it's easy to buy into the Appeal to Moderation fallacy.
Also, as I said before, the fact that these Twitter 'neutrals' all misunderstand Dany's characterization, downplay her struggles and judge her by different standards actually makes me somewhat hopeful that she's getting a better ending, because how can their speculations come true if they don't know Dany at all? But then, it's hard to trust GRRM.
