As someone who remembers the flak the Star Wars prequels got and, in particular, the complaints from certain fans about how those movies ruined Darth Vader retroactively
I find the fandom's initial reaction to Dark!D@any (aka D@ny for folks who aren't swimming in that river called The Nile) to be kind of amusing. In part because I think Lucas wanted to do something similar with Anakin in the prequels - basically, examine how power can sometimes corrupt a young, vulnerable person, putting them on a path of self destruction, especially when that person has been brought up to believe they're destined for something greater.
I wonder, sometimes, if Lucas had decided to tell the story of Anakin instead of Luke and Leia first, would the fans have reacted the same way they did to the prequels. Or, would there be a large contingent of Star Wars fans who defend or sometimes outright deny Anakin's villainous choices, like all the way up to the moment he literally chooses to serve the Sith instead of the Jedi (and in some cases after)? Would people still argue that Vader's legacy as an iconic villain was hampered by the prequels if we'd gotten to know his full story first?
I think I have to remember that there's a difference between how Vader/Anakin's story is told vs how readers see D@ny's story in ASOIAF. for the most part, D@enerys is the POV from which her story is most often told. We're in her head for a lot of it, and if we're not, then we're in the pov of someone like Barristan, who's little more than a sycophant. And I think what I'm getting at is that there's an interest in presenting D@enerys' actions as justified, maybe even noble or heroic. For D@enerys, it's self-interest, of course. People, in general, want to believe they're often acting in the right, so they'll look for ways to rationalize things to make themselves look better, even if the facts say otherwise. For Barry, well, he's an old knight who remains heavily invested in the customs and beliefs that lie at the core of Westerosi society. To admit that he has and continues to serve a dynasty that was responsible for years of violent conquest (among other things) is probably too much cognitive dissonance than the old man can take, or so I would suspect.
With Anakin, though, his story is told from a third person omniscient perspective. So, not only do we know more about the world of Star Wars than Anakin might be privy to, we also know (thanks to the non chronological storytelling) how these events are going to play out, and more importantly, how he will be perceived by the narrative (if that makes sense). We know where he's going to wind up is what im saying. We're getting his story, but not solely from his perspective. Thus, we're less tempted to fall into the trap of taking everything at face value and thinking that his reading of events is 100% accurate.
So, now I'm wondering - if seeing Anakin when he was more vulnerable after knowing him as a villain was received poorly, how will it look if and when D@ny's questionable decisions all come to a head and she goes full tyrant, as in she does terrible things while dropping all pretense of believing or caring whether her actions are seen as morally just? How will her descent be received when her actions aren't being filtered exclusively through the perspectives of her and her staunchest supporters? I'd argue that she's pretty close if not already at that point in her story, but it's a matter of seeing how she moves now that she's gone full tilt.
I know Show!D@ny got a lot of negative criticism, but I think grrm could still make her fall just as interesting (and especially tragic) should twow and ados get published. (Also, I attribute the flaws w that arc more to D&D and their rapidly waning interest in the show.)
