Indeed. See: Castro and Guevara among many other historical figures.
Agreed on all counts.
Because she wanted to break cycles of oppression. What she wanted to stop was people in power killing innocents because they felt like it, not stop people in power killing others period.
IIRC, Jon struggled over multiple episodes to try to convince her to help him. He convinced her over time that there was a bigger threat coming and that there would be no throne to fight over if they didn't deal with it + pledged loyalty as the King of the North to her as the new Queen. And IIRC he still barely convinced her to go to see it for herself. But it's been some years so my memory may be fuzzy.
Wait this was on the first page and perfectly sums up my
So of you like both Dany and the starks it would be bitter-sweet......
DEAD, I can wait for the books to come out because this shit is right in people face but they keep ignoring it.
Ceresi was a different monster entirely. Ceresi has no known limits. No reason to compare them as if to suggest one isn't as invested in the goal of victory as the other. It's just that one is willing to fight far dirtier.
It is, but nevertheless her rulership is distinct from those around her.
agreed. Some were willing to read the signs and the tea leaves. The rest...are having a hard time today.
Holy fuckin shitballs.
They made Dany the face of the show, something that she wasnt in the books. The dany that they made would never work with the final that she was getting in the books but they brute forced it regarless.
To complete the blood magic ritual to awaken the dragons from the stone eggs.
She thought it was the horse that was used in Mirri's ritual. Mirri then laughs at her naiveté.
Oh come on, blaming her for the fate of the Lhazareen is completely unfair here and you know this.
It's true that she's not in the right, and Mirri points that out to her quite strongly, but to frame this as Dany deliberately being responsible for the Lhazarren massacre and maliciously enslaving the survivors, rather than her being a naive teenage girl vainly attempting to try to make some good out of a horrible situation, is not an honest assessment of the character. Even if Dany is a bit older in the show, this was clearly shown as her being naive, not complicit. And that's how she learns an incredibly harsh life lesson out of it, too, and pays a hefty price. In the books (forgot if the show has this line) Dany even thanks Mirri for the "lesson", heh.
He's referring to her actions before this massacre and why that massacre was not narratively justified as people claim. Like how people use the killing of slavers as evidence that "she was always evil".
She is not distinct. She is still a conqeuror. The kings and lords of westeros aren't even know that well to the common person.
The slavers came back, though, if I recall.
Yep. It's the execution they flubbed it, not the fact
*sigh*
Yup. The entire point of this is how much of a character assassination this was.
Well, when Dany leaves they would come back. She literally knocks them down but doesn't stop the system of slavery.
"Dany was wrong for executing slavers. But she was wrong for letting them come back too, even though she had nothing to do with that. Gawd, fuck you Dany, why are you ruining the world by not having it be effortlessly perfect"
I'm talking at this point in the story - Dany has slaves (her three handmaidens are slaves bought by Viserys and I don't think she ever thinks of freeing) and she then makes more slaves. AT this point in the story, Dany is morally dubious, she does have kind instincts but she is surrounded by first a brother that teaches her abour her "blood of dragon" supperiority and then by the Dothraki, a culture that sees it's right to conquer and destroy and also sees themselves as superior to others. Dany does have good instincts but this does leave an imprint on her and unfortunately with being given dragons and then gaining immense power very quickly she has so many people worshiping her and calling her a saviour that I think it will affect her temperment again - she already is shown (in the books atleast) that she's very good a t conquering cities but struggles at ruling them and leaves two cities in a shambolic mess where they are pretty much dying. She decides to rule Meereen but she struggles to be a ruler and finds it boring. Dany has good impulses but she has violent ones as well - I think the Lhazzareen village and Mirri's burning is showing of this, it's morally grey, especially as burning her alive is a cruel punishment.
Oh I'm not saying she's completely evil or responsible for it all at this point but she is being negatively influenced by the Dothraki's conquering ways and I think it shows she's not always good at understanding people that aren't on "her" side. There's morally grey there, and it just seems wrong. I also don't think burning a person for Dragons is a moral act, it's wrong.
lol, I don't think I said it was a moral act? You asked why Dany did it and I answered, that's all.
So how about burning someone who lied to you, killed your unborn child, and ousted you from the one position of power you had in your life, whom you kill not out of cruelty or spite or even vengeance but so that you can get something, some form of life out of the death they have wreaked on you?
