#(again that's why i think northern independence is messy because the most logical way out of this is just bringing the north back) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wayward-hatchling · 5 years

Text

Another TED Talk About My Undying Support for Daenerys Targaryen

One of the only things I do enjoy about Daenerys’s arc on Game of Thrones is the conversation it has generated regarding governance, leadership, and morality. I’ve been reading and reading trying to wrap my head around this ending in a way that doesn’t feel so *ick*, and I’ve seen about a 50/50 split between camps of people who believe Dany represented war and violence in a story about how war and violence is very bad, and then people who think Dany represented revolutionary processes in a story about how central politics and nepotism will always reject sincere change. I think the conversation alone is profound enough for me to find some solace and closure in the finale.

Option 1 (War/Violence Dany) is *at least* satisfying in that it teaches us about the pointlessness of trying to bring positive change through violence. Even where we--the viewer--have had a full scope on Dany’s intent, background, and thought processes for almost her whole life, we know that there was a pointlessness to killing the entirety of King’s Landing (and potentially all of Westeros). We knew Dany could’ve just settled for taking the throne and engaging in revolution the hard way like she did in Slaver’s Bay, and we were all shocked and disappointed that she chose not to in the end--but narratively it can’t have been too surprising, because she absolutely hated the political process in Meereen.

We saw first-hand her hardship in trying the slow-burn method in Essos--a situation in which she was considered morally good because she was only trying to free slaves and create equality between classes. We saw how resistant the existing, remaining government was to change. We understood how messy making that type of change happen was for all involved (what with economic struggle, plagues, riots, coups, etc.), so there may have been a level of logic to trying her second revolution in Westeros a more ruthless way.

It was also made immediately clear to Dany that Westeros was not as interested in revolution as Slaver’s Bay was, since the poorest classes were technically free and independent and have consistently cared very little for their central government no matter what--this is a point made throughout the series and it was directly mentioned to Dany by Jorah Mormont.

"The common people pray for rain, health, and a summer that never ends. They don't care what games the high lords play."

In Essos, the poorest class was very emotionally invested in Daenerys’s success, which helped her launch her initial revolution. Add this into the fact that the smallfolk are much more invested in their nobility and local government, and that same local government consistently rejects any type of a central government to rule over them (Robert is killed by high lords plotting, Joffrey is killed by high lords plotting, Myrcella and Tommen are killed in the middle of high lords plotting, Robb Stark, Jon Snow, Margaery Tyrell and her family)....and well....Dany’s campaign would be a cocktail for failure if she tried to install herself as queen in a peaceful way. So instead, Daenerys asserting a forceful rule backed by a powerful, unstoppable weapon is definitely a way to bring the lords of Westeros to heel. You can’t plot against a mothaf**kin’ dragon! What she fails to realize is that doing so alone and unsupported and misunderstood is what makes her tyrannical--the people she’s trying to “save” are not in on the plan, and inevitably reject her and remove her too, because they think she’s just trying to come to power for power’s sake. She’s given them no reason or evidence to think otherwise yet. The nobility would also never want her revolution if it means the destruction of the status quo, and the people don’t care what happens either way if it doesn’t affect them.

Option 2 (Revolutionary/Che Guevara Dany) is interesting because it leaves Dany in the role of a tragic, misunderstood hero even more so than Option 1. In this vein of thought, Dany offered Cersei the chance to surrender, and Cersei instead tried to display herself as a threat. She tried to use innocents and weapons-manufacturing to deter Daenerys, and Dany made an example of her--she sent a clear message to Westeros that nothing would save them if they did not fall in line. There would be no plotting against her, and there would be absolutely no mercy if they engaged in their old games. The wheel would be broken whether the existing lords liked it or not. Perhaps this is cruel and forceful, but it would prevent the high lords from using their smallfolk again (”a mercy to the future generations”)--and would help the smallfolk see the invalidity of their existing government (a government that uses its people as an ineffective meat shield against a dragon queen.) The lords may not ever love her, but they wouldn’t be using their smallfolk to maintain their own power ever again. That is what’s important. The Starks showed us that love and loyalty does not a leader make. Ned Stark, Robb Stark, and Jon Snow all inevitably failed their people and directly caused them long-term suffering via war and unrest (right before the Great War wiped out an already-weakened north, no less!) Even our “just and good” northern lords have not helped the conditions of the smallfolk at all. They are inept.

The stellar thing here is that all of these points are corroborated by the most stable and just king Westeros has had in generations--Robert Baratheon!

He knows how the incompetent lords of Westeros would react to a Targaryen invasion.

From the smallfolk wiki page:

When Cersei Lannister asks Robert why he is so worried about the prospect of a Targaryen-aligned Dothraki army, he explains that should the Dothraki cross the Narrow Sea, the nobles can retreat to their castles, but then a great many of the smallfolk would be slaughtered and those that are left will turn on their absentee king and possibly decide to join Viserys.

He also knows how to keep them abiding by his rule:

"Honor? I've got Seven Kingdoms to rule! One king, Seven Kingdoms! Do you think honor keeps them in line? Do you think it's honor that's keeping the peace? It's fear! Fear and blood!"

Let it be fear!

I like this the most because it solidifies The Battle of King’s Landing as more-Hiroshima less-slaughterhouse--it immediately ended a long, horrifying war and prevented the escalation of worse types of warfare purely out of fear for an overwhelming weapon. This also implies that had Dany lived, she wouldn’t necessarily have to continue burning up cities, because the lords would already know what was coming for them. The central character perspectives in the finale made us believe Dany intended to burn other people, but that’s a relatively baseless assumption. (For example, she only crucified the masters when they crucified children to deter her campaign. She did not crucify masters when they revolted against her. She did execute one of them as a statement but could have slaughtered all of them to negate all opposition against her, if she were truly a mad, power-hungry queen. We also can’t even compare the two situations, since Daenerys was considerably less powerful at the time--having no Dothraki army, no extra allies or naval fleet, and no fully-grown, trained dragons yet. Her power at the end of GOT is enough to bring the lords in line on its own, without political statements and maneuvering.)

Furthermore, her disdain for the existing smallfolk of Westeros is explained when in comparison to those of Slaver’s Bay. These people really don’t give a s**t about making the world better, whereas the people of Slaver’s Bay follow Dany’s dream to the very end (and beyond).

The citizens of King’s Landing are completely indifferent towards supporting a disgusting human being like Cersei, whereas the people of Slaver’s Bay displayed passion and morality similar to what Dany is feeling. All these things together explain why Dany decides that “they don’t get to choose [what’s good.]” Because they just don’t care about good or bad for everyone else. They are the ones who let people like Joffrey, Cersei, and the Boltons take power with apathy. So only the people who do care get to decide what’s good for the world.

And FINALLY, for some additional thoughts, I like either of these points of conclusion for Dany’s arc and motivations because it helps create an idea of cosmic destiny. She was on the trajectory towards something massive and world-changing--the birth of her dragons, her visions, and epic journey full of magic and supernatural guidance all were pointing her towards some type of world change. It is the existing status quo--the darker, political side of humanity....the game--that kills her for it, despite her intentions and abilities.

(Perhaps there’s some divine intervention about to happen a la resurrection anyways!)

#game of thrones #daenerys #daenerys targaryen #i really am just making a dany stan blog rn #jesus i'm sorry #it's not my intention

21 notes · View notes