(SPOILERS) A Song of Ice and Fire

Oct 2011
202
Croatia
#1
While I am aware that we have a thread on TV series:
Game of Thrones (SPOILERS)

I believe that a separate thread for books would do good, simply because of how different TV series has become. Also, books > TV, vast majority of the time; they are much more detailed and nuanced.

---------------------------------------------------------------

OK, to start with, Daenerys seems to be kinda delusional. And it is not a new thing. In fact, indications of that can be seen as early as her marriage to Khal Drogo. But the clearest indication is her Messiah complex, where she believes she can just overturn thousands of years of slavery. And once that doesn't work, she breaks. "Dragon does not sow". Right now, in the books, Daenerys is well on her way to becoming a moustache-twirling villain, going all "fire and blood" on her enemies. Even earlier, she nearly crucified thousands of people in Mereen.

EDIT: Further, Daenerys is a hypocrite:
https://anti-daenerys.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F166603793594 She is perfectly fine with Drogo enslaving people, she is fine with owning slaves, and she only "liberates" the Unsullied because she cannot afford them. Essentially, her anti-slavery campaign is a case of rationalization: she freed slaves for her own economic gain, but she did not like what that said about her as a person. And in her campaign of "liberating slaves", she brings ruin to whole societies, because she does not understand the economic underpinnings of slavery. She is on an ego trip. She also doesn't pay the Unsullied, and her stay in Essos is a "learning process" for ruling Westeros - but she doesn't understand that her Essosi experience will be useless in Westeros, because cultures are completely different. She doesn't even care about the culture of the people she is "ruling", is too busy f***ing her boyfriend to rule, etc.

Another important plot point where books diverge from the show: Dragons are seemingly incapable of crossing the Wall.
What we learned from George R. R. Martin's new book 'Fire and Blood'

This likely has to do with Wall's magical properties. Both dragons and the Others are creatures of magic, and the Wall was built as a defence against the Others. Therefore this inability of dragons to overfly the Wall is not really surprising. So no, Daenerys is not going to fly a dragon, let alone three, to save Jon Snow - not unless the Wall is destroyed somehow, which is where Horn of Winter comes in. Question here is what it means for other places? The fortress of Storm's End was IIRC also built by the First People in a manner similar to the Wall, and it is believed the fortress might play an important part in upcoming War for the Dawn.

Article above also points out that house Baratheon is born our of bastard Targaryen blood. Targaryen blood is strongly connected to dragons and magic (and dragons are connected to magic), hence why Melisandre went all gaga over Gendry's Baratheon blood. But does that mean that Baratheons can ride dragons as well? Jon Arryn, as article points out, said that "the seed is strong". What if that refers to their connection to magic? Could Gendry become a dragonrider? Also, Targaryen blood does not make one fireproof.

Original Danerys Targaryen died of the plague called "the shivers". Now, it has been assumed in some circles that Aegon (a.k.a. Young Griff) will die of Greyscale contracted from Jon Connington. But what if same/similar fate awaits Daenerys as well? Or, as the article assumes, Daenerys will become an Ice Queen?

And regarding Young Griff and Jon Snow, both of them are likely going to fight Danerys. And there might be parallels with history: at least one of them may tame a dragon and face Daenerys in the sky in repeat of history. If it truly is the parallel with history, interesting part is the result. It seems that the outcome might be Aegon getting torched by Daenerys, and Daenerys getting torched by Jon Snow.

Some more reading:
Dany's Story In The 'Game Of Thrones' Books Is VERY Different From The Show
 
Last edited:

Edratman

Ad Honorem
Feb 2009
6,602
Eastern PA
#2
In 1996 I purchased "A Song of Fire and Ice" after checking the book jacket to make sure that it wasn't part of a series. With about 50 pages to go I realized that it was a series and got a little angry. An internet search indicated that it would be a three volume series and the release schedule would be one a year; small solace, but it was enough for me. HAH!

Three years later (!!!!), the second book was published and I purchased that one. After reading the book the number of story lines that were generated made it obvious that this was not going to be a three volume effort and I just quit the series. And vowed that I would never take up the series again, nor do a thing that might put a single cent into George R. R. Martin's pocket.

I have kept that oath. Naturally the TV series is off the table also.

And here we are, 23 years after the first volume was published and the book series is unfinished and there is no guarantee that it will be finished other than posthumously. Exactly like the Wheel of Time series which initiated my resentment for authors expanding their original vision for the ka-ching!
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
9,327
USA
#3
That tumbler post is utterly ridiculous. A bunch of whiners angry that she's not perfect?

In the book, she just turned 14 years old when she got knocked up by Khal Drogo. She is barely even a teenager. Think about where most of you were at 14.

Why would she have a problem with the customs of Slaver's Bay after seeing them but not before? Because by description of the book and tv series both, she was utterly ignorant and sheltered in her upbringing, with zero understanding of the complexities of the world, or that she'd ever be in any position to do anything. She was terrorized by her brother, who she thought would someday be king, and she was surprised he married her off to Khal Drogo because she figured her brother would marry her, as Targ custom. She knew nothing about slaves or anything else, the first slaves she ever saw were the "presents" of the two Dothraki girls and the one former pleasure slave, given to her as handmaidens right before she got married.

Everything she learned was "on the job" through experience. The one thing she did have to judge her actions was morality, and a few quasi competent advisers for most of it, Mormont (who wasn't that bright or honest), then Barriston Selmy, then some other individuals of questionable value, long before Tyrion or Varys ever showed up.

She wasn't perfectly fine with Drogo enslaving people, she just could do nothing to stop it. However, because of her hold on Drogo, she could do something to stop the raping, which is why she intervened that way. Later, she did other things to help other people.

She had no clue about what the Unsullied went through until she dealt with that city state and how messed up it was. By the time it got around to contract time, to give a dragon away to buy some Unsullied, she was thoroughly disgusted with them. She didn't do what she did simply to get an army, she did it because she saw what slavery really meant.
 
Likes: Picard
Oct 2017
86
South Australia
#4
"from a superficial moral pov liberating slaves is a really really good thing, but you can’t just say ‘and now you are all free’. Very little has changed in the actual lives of these people Dany ‘freed’, which only shows how little Dany-I-know-what-it-is-like-to-be-bought-and-sold-Targaryen understands of slavery. She delcares them free and believes the issues are gone, but that’s of course not at all how it works. Being a slave doesn’t just mean you’re the property of someone else. You can’t take slavery out of society by just banning it. Slavery is part of Essosi culture, it goes very very deep"
"Let’s be real, Dany’s real, main and true goal is the Iron Throne. She’s not planning on staying, she’s in no way planning on dedicating her life to it. Odd right? To think freeing a society is something that doesn’t have to be someone’s life’s work. Liberating slaves, their freedom, is a stop along the way to her. She takes it so seriously that she didn’t even come up with a long term plan. She’s using this as a way to ‘learn’ how to rule. Think of that… liberating thousands and thousands of people is not something she sees as her life’s goal, it’s just a learning process to Daenerys before she goes for the real price."
Just thought I'd point out that the point made by this Tumblr post is supported by the fact that in the real world, although Lincoln banned slavery in the American South, in the following decades African-Americans still lived in a situation almost like slavery where they were oppressed - not quite the same as slavery, but hardly better - because of the Jim Crow laws etc.

Obviously, unlike our discussion about Game of Thrones slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment was truly a wonderful piece of legislation, I wouldn't speak against that for a minute. I'm just pointing out that the Jim Crow laws, related oppression, and the plight of African-Americans in the American South until the civil rights movement prove that just freeing slaves, although itself a good thing and the first step in the right direction, is not enough to restore them to full equality and rights - that takes, as the post mentions, a lifetime of work.

Daenerys only frees the slaves for her own gain and because it seems like the right thing to do, she is not truly committed to the great amount of work it would take to truly help those people.
 
Jul 2016
9,327
USA
#5
Daenerys only frees the slaves for her own gain and because it seems like the right thing to do, she is not truly committed to the great amount of work it would take to truly help those people.
That may be your interpretation, but the books especially, and the show too, both made it pretty clear that she was fundamentally opposed to slavery, and that was the reason she went after it, even though it caused far more conflict than she wanted, or that her advisers wanted (who were not trying to take over Slaver's Bay, but seeing it as a short pit stop on the way to Westeros).
 
Oct 2017
86
South Australia
#6
That may be your interpretation, but the books especially, and the show too, both made it pretty clear that she was fundamentally opposed to slavery, and that was the reason she went after it, even though it caused far more conflict than she wanted, or that her advisers wanted (who were not trying to take over Slaver's Bay, but seeing it as a short pit stop on the way to Westeros).
I don't think you follow me, I agree that Daenerys was fundamentally opposed to slavery and this was a key reason for her freeing them:

Daenerys only frees the slaves for her own gain and because it seems like the right thing to do
(emphasis added)

However, it was also for personal gain. My main point was that she wasn't committed to the work it would take to fully integrate the freed slaves into society as freedmen.

To be honest, more than anything I wanted to point out the real world parallel.
 

Similar History Discussions