Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

At the end of A Storm of Swords we saw Dany having used excessive amounts of violence to get her way. She had crushed three cities, but at the end realized that she needed to learn to be a Queen because everything was falling apart. I thought this was a fair point to make. Dany became a great and willful person who embraced her Targaryen identity at the end of Game of Thrones, had proven herself a military leader and capable of getting her way through violence as shown at Astapor and Yunkai. However I felt that the characters lack of experience and patience were going to be held against her. That the character would be faced with a challenge where the solution didn't just require simple application of force. So I assumed that would be what GRRM was aiming for with the next book once I finished ASOS and whilst I was disappointed that Dany wasn't moving to Westeros as this was logical for the story I felt it was a good idea.

The problem is that GRRM did completely the opposite thing. What we get is a rehash of GRRM pitting Danys idealism against realpolitic solutions;like with Ned Stark. Dany does face hidden enemies in Meereen called the Sons of the Harpy, however the problem is that she lacks the willingness to use violence against them. Her councilor Shakaz gives her a list of suspected conspirator families and she burns it because she is sick of the violence and death. So rather than a complex problem Dany can't solve through simple application of violence GRRM repeatedly stresses that Dany can get her way through obvious and easy application of violence. Another good example is her decision to chain her dragons and appease the Yunkish rather than fight them. We learn at the end that she was actually much stronger than the slavers and they were in fact afraid of her dragons. If she had been her old impetuous, unrestrained and violent self from the first three novels then they would have been easily cowed into submission. This just struck me as plain silly. Lots of diplomacy, being willing to make sacrifices for peace, listening to the other side and all of that doesn't work; whilst taking the easy route of violence is the path to success? A character should not be rewarded for taking the easy route and especially when its what they were doing before. To me this is just a weak point to make and feels very artificial given Danys track record of ruthlessness. Now shes suddenly unwilling to act against her enemies without evidence? What happened to the Dany who didn't blink when her brother had molton gold poured over him and in Astapor sentenced thousands of slavers to death? I know a lot of people really buy into the whole jaded idealism vs real politic thing; but it just doesn't work here with Dany because GRRM is just validating the easy option. Her final chapter makes it clear that all Dany needs to do is ride Drogon and kill anyone who gets in her way when she vows that all of her enemies will die screaming...

.

Daenarys is a well throught out character. She combines a lot of elements, extreme power and security on account of her loyal retinue, dragons and politcal bloodline.

Add to that her won actions which secured the love of Khal Drogo and her own khalisaar (sp) and above all how she managed to get a very large elite army of unsullied without having to pay for them.

However despite this she is still very very poltically naive. Sher has 'nice' ideas about ending slavery which due to the viscious realpolitik of the environment where she is flexing her might ends up doing more harm than good.

- She frees thousands, and they follow her into the desert unprepared
- She liberates a harsh city and places its rule in the hands of three innocents who as soon as she was far enough away are killed by a usurper who re-institutes iron rule and has to start a pogrom to ensure his own stability because the old order is gone.
- Dont get me started on the men she is attracted to because smart as she is, Dany is a hormone struck teenage girl and her closest advisors are either exiled or too rigid to say much about the snakes she clasps to her buxom.

Dany will last through the end, what she has built up will secure the throne of Westeros, but she might not be the one to sit on it. In fact I suspect she will either die in the last book or have a radical change of character, her personal journey is far from over even though she currently has all she needs to make an immediate and militarily plausible claim for the Iron Throne.

No I don't think that GRRM really focused on the characters political nievity. If he did, he wouldn't have given the easy option of using violence to solve all of her problems. Basically A Dance with Dragons for me is more about her being unwilling to take necessary action. Its fundamentally about morality rather than Dany lacking the solutions to her problems. She has the solutions presented right in front of her throughout ADWD but she runs away from the decisions. She could have used her dragons on the slaver ships, she chooses not to. She could have sent her Unsullied to help Astapor, she chooses not to. She could have purged the slaver lords as Shakaz and Daario urge her; she burns the evidence indicating them and refuses to do so. Instead Dany attempts to win the slavers over through peaceful means because she does not want to use violence for personal reasons. This is very different to Cerseis arc where she is willing to do whatever it takes but is too incompetent to make the appropriate decisions. If GRRM was focusing on Danys lack of politcal experience then he would not have presented the easy option of violence as a solution which all of her advisers tell her to take. Dany fails because she refuses to take the easy option of using violence in ADWD, she does not fail because she lacks the ability to form solutions.

Its also worth noting that the slavers are being really stupid here and at times inconsistent. They are attacking because they fear that their slaves are "sharpening their knives" and that Danys existence threatens revolt. However, when Tyrion asks about the rhollor worshippers, the Voltanese slave lord dismisses them as a nuisance even though they are publically inciting slave revolt as we see with Benerro. Not only that but they don't bother pursuing the Golden Company or attempt to suppress the people. So which is it? If the threat of slave revolt is so great then why not make that your priority and make efforts to suppress it? Plus, why is sending all of your soldiers thousands of miles away from you cities? Doesn't that massively increase the risk of slave revolt because you have less soldiers. Also, we're told its because the slavers want to loot Meereen. How? Dany keeps saying that she has no money and that the city is impoverished. Theres nothing of value to steal. They don't even intend to take slaves. As we saw with Astapor thy massacred the entire population and seem more intent on genocide. So why are they so eager to fight Daenerys. She has repeatedly said she does't want war and yet they are willing to increase the risk of slave revolt at home and spend vast amounts of gold hiring sellswords and troops to fight a war they don't need to fight. This is clearly a complex operation involving moving 10s of thousands of soldiers hundreds of miles by sea and supplying them with all the provisions, wood for siege engines and other supplies; but they are fine with taking that cost? Do they just believe Dany is lying to them? Her actions speak very loudly. Also, considering this is meant to be a world in which everyone is motivated by selfishness, I find it very hard to believe that all the slavers feel a sense of solidarity with Yunkai and all contribute armies for Yunkais desire for revenge. Surely its not their problem and they shouldn't be willing to spend gold on it. These are merchants in charge of seperate city states, not ultra nationalists who feel obliged to assist eachother in times of crisis. This feels like a very unnatural conflict that doesn't make a lot of sense. Basically the slavers all feel united in their desire to help Yunkai destroy Daenerys (who is no threat to them) and are willing to risk revolt at home to do it; whilst gaining nothing in the process beyond a few hundred thousand corpses.

Considering the above its not surprising that Dany can't negotiate with people like this. There whole motivation and goals are very forced and artiificial. I suspect that this is purely because GRRM wants half of Essos to be at war with Dany to speed up her conquest of Essos before moving onto Westeros. As I said at the top, negociating with these people was impossible and Dany should have confronted them using violence as all of her advisors were telling her; she refused to for moral reasons.


Plus, her ending is essentially the same one at the end of Game of Thrones way back in the first book. Dany embraces her identity as a Targaryen and swears fire and blood on her enemies. Rehashing the same material like this was just bad. To me Dany had all of this sorted out in the first book and was willing to do whatever it took to get to Westeros. But to stall the series GRRM decided to make Dany have a character reversion and need to come back to the same conclusion she reached in the first book. Its no coincidence that she goes back to Lhazar to make this exact same revelation "to go forwards you must go back" as Quiathe tells her. Its such a waste of time and it really lowered my estimation of the series as he repeated the same story as the first novel.

This thread is really making me realize that GRRM has no idea what he is doing.

OP, please tell me were I can read your multi-million-selling book series and watch the highly acclaimed tv adaptation of it.

 Monster Rain wrote:
This thread is really making me realize that GRRM has no idea what he is doing.

OP, please tell me were I can read your multi-million-selling book series and watch the highly acclaimed tv adaptation of it.

Fear not, I am sure Totalwar 1402 has misread the character, GRRM knows what he is doing.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
No I don't think that GRRM really focused on the characters political nievity. If he did, he wouldn't have given the easy option of using violence to solve all of her problems.

Dany understands violence as an option, she has issued dire threats and witnessed dothraki 'politics' first hand. Yet she repeatedly proved herself naive with regards to violence and its consequences.
Some examples:

- Her naivity led to the death of Khal Drogo.
- Her naivity left Astapor, and city known for its brutal militarism in the hands of peoiple totally unsuited to its governance, a scholar a priest and one other 'nice guy'. Thus she doomed the city for a bloody coup.
- Her gross naivity in choice of partners.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Basically A Dance with Dragons for me is more about her being unwilling to take necessary action. Its fundamentally about morality rather than Dany lacking the solutions to her problems.
She has the solutions presented right in front of her throughout ADWD but she runs away from the decisions.

Dany does not dither, she does act quickly and frwquently which is why she is where she is. But her naivity scrambles her actions. Its a recurring theme.
Morality does play a huge part and is the source of her naivity.

- She could have used her dragons on the slaver ships, she chooses not to.

By this time the dragons could not be controlled, they are also too young for combat and should not be risked against a fleet, which likely had bowmen.
Dany knows dragons, give her that. She only attacks soft targets with them.


- She could have sent her Unsullied to help Astapor, she chooses not to.

Astapor is a long was off and it would have fatally divided her forces.

- She could have purged the slaver lords as Shakaz and Daario urge her; she burns the evidence indicating them and refuses to do so. Instead Dany attempts to win the slavers over through peaceful means because she does not want to use violence for personal reasons.

Dany naively hopes to rid slavery from the bay via persuasion over time. As liberating a city then moving on has proven twice not to work.

- This is very different to Cerseis arc where she is willing to do whatever it takes but is too incompetent to make the appropriate decisions. If GRRM was focusing on Danys lack of politcal experience then he would not have presented the easy option of violence as a solution which all of her advisers tell her to take. Dany fails because she refuses to take the easy option of using violence in ADWD, she does not fail because she lacks the ability to form solutions.

Cersei is a poor comparison, she is incompent, merciless and ruthless. Dany can be harsh against those who deserve little mercy, but thats it.
Many of the options of violence are not solutions, just escalations. Most of her better advisors know this.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Its also worth noting that the slavers are being really stupid here and at times inconsistent. They are attacking because they fear that their slaves are "sharpening their knives" and that Danys existence threatens revolt. However, when Tyrion asks about the rhollor worshippers, the Voltanese slave lord dismisses them as a nuisance even though they are publically inciting slave revolt as we see with Benerro. Not only that but they don't bother pursuing the Golden Company or attempt to suppress the people.

The slavers are not inconsistent in intent, nor are they stupid. They are facing an awesome opposition which they can survive if they are cautious. Slavery in the bay will outlive Dany, they just need to keep their power. Dany is opposed indirectly at every turn either by undermining her, forcing her to compromise thus diluting her ethos or by waging asymetric warfare.

So which is it? If the threat of slave revolt is so great then why not make that your priority and make efforts to suppress it?

That would be suicide. GRRM understands the politics far better than you give him credit, everyone knows abusing slaves is the quickest way to get a visit from a slave army tipped with unsullied knocking down your door.
The slavers need to work indirectly against the salves also.

Can't you read the situation? Its like they are saying. "You get your freedom now, but we will keep control and when the dragon woman finally leaves with her army we will be back." The slavers have time on their side, sooner or later Dany will lead hewe followers away from the bay area, then it business as usual. People are taught by underhand means that the old order will return so don't oppose it. This is the central message of the Sons of the Harpy. They dont vocalise it though they arent dumb.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Plus, why is sending all of your soldiers thousands of miles away from you cities? Doesn't that massively increase the risk of slave revolt because you have less soldiers. Also, we're told its because the slavers want to loot Meereen. How? Dany keeps saying that she has no money and that the city is impoverished. Theres nothing of value to steal. They don't even intend to take slaves.

They want to proive they still have power in the bay, so once Dany leaves they will be people with power people to fear. This needs to be demonstrated. All the slave cities are ruled by fear, Dany has taken the fear away from the slaves, they need to put it back.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

As we saw with Astapor thy massacred the entire population and seem more intent on genocide. So why are they so eager to fight Daenerys. She has repeatedly said she does't want war and yet they are willing to increase the risk of slave revolt at home and spend vast amounts of gold hiring sellswords and troops to fight a war they don't need to fight. This is clearly a complex operation involving moving 10s of thousands of soldiers hundreds of miles by sea and supplying them with all the provisions, wood for siege engines and other supplies; but they are fine with taking that cost? Do they just believe Dany is lying to them? Her actions speak very loudly. Also, considering this is meant to be a world in which everyone is motivated by selfishness, I find it very hard to believe that all the slavers feel a sense of solidarity with Yunkai and all contribute armies for Yunkais desire for revenge. Surely its not their problem and they shouldn't be willing to spend gold on it. These are merchants in charge of seperate city states, not ultra nationalists who feel obliged to assist eachother in times of crisis. This feels like a very unnatural conflict that doesn't make a lot of sense. Basically the slavers all feel united in their desire to help Yunkai destroy Daenerys (who is no threat to them) and are willing to risk revolt at home to do it; whilst gaining nothing in the process beyond a few hundred thousand corpses.

By this time it was common knowledge Dany lost control over her dragons and could not use them, her main force was the unsullied which is tied up in a policing action.
Meanwhile politrical force is being used to wear her down. Prove to her by incessant confrontation that she is getting nowhere and should leave. This offer is constantly presented to her. Go to Westeros! Leave the bay. She was even offered a fleet so she could take her army and slave followers and go.
The slavbers cant fight her unsullied directly so they harass, besiege, and make it known they will be the ones ruling the bay long term.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Considering the above its not surprising that Dany can't negotiate with people like this.

Dany isnt intended to be able to negotiate unless its a safe conduct out for herself and her followers, for which she would quickly be given a clear road, ships and good provisions.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

There whole motivation and goals are very forced and artiificial.

No, it makes a lot of sense.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

I suspect that this is purely because GRRM wants half of Essos to be at war with Dany to speed up her conquest of Essos before moving onto Westeros. As I said at the top, negociating with these people was impossible and Dany should have confronted them using violence as all of her advisors were telling her; she refused to for moral reasons.

Martin is a skilled storyteller and experienced student of human political dynamics. If you cant fathom out the politics consider first if you lack understanding before assuming Martin doesnt know hopw to write political characters.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Plus, her ending is essentially the same one at the end of Game of Thrones way back in the first book. Dany embraces her identity as a Targaryen and swears fire and blood on her enemies. Rehashing the same material like this was just bad. To me Dany had all of this sorted out in the first book and was willing to do whatever it took to get to Westeros. But to stall the series GRRM decided to make Dany have a character reversion and need to come back to the same conclusion she reached in the first book. Its no coincidence that she goes back to Lhazar to make this exact same revelation "to go forwards you must go back" as Quiathe tells her. Its such a waste of time and it really lowered my estimation of the series as he repeated the same story as the first novel.

Dany is a queen, is rightful ruler of a whole continent and has a major destiny concerning the return of both magic and the most powerful known weapon, dragons.
Its no surprise she is a prophecy magnet.
Still she is just a teenage goal cracking under the pressure, she looks at life with her youthful polarised 'right and wrong' idealism in the most unlikely place for it to work. These books have been her moral journey.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
At the end of A Storm of Swords we saw Dany having used excessive amounts of violence to get her way. She had crushed three cities, but at the end realized that she needed to learn to be a Queen because everything was falling apart. I thought this was a fair point to make. Dany became a great and willful person who embraced her Targaryen identity at the end of Game of Thrones, had proven herself a military leader and capable of getting her way through violence as shown at Astapor and Yunkai. However I felt that the characters lack of experience and patience were going to be held against her. That the character would be faced with a challenge where the solution didn't just require simple application of force. So I assumed that would be what GRRM was aiming for with the next book once I finished ASOS and whilst I was disappointed that Dany wasn't moving to Westeros as this was logical for the story I felt it was a good idea.

The problem is that GRRM did completely the opposite thing. What we get is a rehash of GRRM pitting Danys idealism against realpolitic solutions;like with Ned Stark. Dany does face hidden enemies in Meereen called the Sons of the Harpy, however the problem is that she lacks the willingness to use violence against them. Her councilor Shakaz gives her a list of suspected conspirator families and she burns it because she is sick of the violence and death. So rather than a complex problem Dany can't solve through simple application of violence GRRM repeatedly stresses that Dany can get her way through obvious and easy application of violence. Another good example is her decision to chain her dragons and appease the Yunkish rather than fight them. We learn at the end that she was actually much stronger than the slavers and they were in fact afraid of her dragons. If she had been her old impetuous, unrestrained and violent self from the first three novels then they would have been easily cowed into submission. This just struck me as plain silly. Lots of diplomacy, being willing to make sacrifices for peace, listening to the other side and all of that doesn't work; whilst taking the easy route of violence is the path to success? A character should not be rewarded for taking the easy route and especially when its what they were doing before. To me this is just a weak point to make and feels very artificial given Danys track record of ruthlessness. Now shes suddenly unwilling to act against her enemies without evidence? What happened to the Dany who didn't blink when her brother had molton gold poured over him and in Astapor sentenced thousands of slavers to death? I know a lot of people really buy into the whole jaded idealism vs real politic thing; but it just doesn't work here with Dany because GRRM is just validating the easy option. Her final chapter makes it clear that all Dany needs to do is ride Drogon and kill anyone who gets in her way when she vows that all of her enemies will die screaming...

.

To quote the Somali warlord in Black Hawk Down: "Killing IS negotiation."
She has three dragons. She's the best negotiator since Genghis Khan. Surrender or die should be your motto.

I remember reading that GRRM didn't know where to take Dany's character. This is why is appears to seem that she is up to nothing the whole book.

Her biggest problem is that she is still naive. That and she is surrounded by people who know she is naive.

But at least she gets somewhere at the end of the book.

The answer, naturally, is to kill her off. In a strikingly ironic/inglorious fashion, preferably.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
The answer, naturally, is to kill her off. In a strikingly ironic/inglorious fashion, preferably.

I think Dany is one of the characters who wont survive. If she does survive and finally gets going towards Westeros there will not be much of a story left, nothing in Westeros could stand against her armies or her claim., and Dorne would immediately also rally to her which of itself is equal to any other claimant in power.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
The answer, naturally, is to kill her off. In a strikingly ironic/inglorious fashion, preferably.

I think Dany is one of the characters who wont survive. If she does survive and finally gets going towards Westeros there will not be much of a story left, nothing in Westeros could stand against her armies or her claim., and Dorne would immediately also rally to her which of itself is equal to any other claimant in power.

You know, I consider her one of the few to truly be cloaked in plot armor. She's survived an army, a band of sorcelators, numerous assassination attempts (often by deus ex machina of strangers coming to her aid) and is currently the only one able to control dragons. For the penultimate fight, we need controlled dragons vs ice zombies, and until Dany teaches some riders she's bulletproof.

Much like Jon Snow, who undoubtedly is even less dead than his mother.

Gitzbitah wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
The answer, naturally, is to kill her off. In a strikingly ironic/inglorious fashion, preferably.

I think Dany is one of the characters who wont survive. If she does survive and finally gets going towards Westeros there will not be much of a story left, nothing in Westeros could stand against her armies or her claim., and Dorne would immediately also rally to her which of itself is equal to any other claimant in power.

You know, I consider her one of the few to truly be cloaked in plot armor. She's survived an army, a band of sorcelators, numerous assassination attempts (often by deus ex machina of strangers coming to her aid) and is currently the only one able to control dragons. For the penultimate fight, we need controlled dragons vs ice zombies, and until Dany teaches some riders she's bulletproof.

Much like Jon Snow, who undoubtedly is even less dead than his mother.

Close to what I beleive, except that Jon Snow's mother is probably genuinely dead or she would have taken her baby into hiding.

Dany certainly has plot armour, until.....
The point is the until, I think she will die in the last book or the vety end of the next book. Dany is of herself a fulcrum for a Deus Ex Machina ending, and I dont think GRRM wants things to end up as clear as that.
Besides there are other ways to claim a dragon than with her approval, the horn for one, and someone else was making good progress right until he turned his back to a second dragon.

I think there will beat least one dragonfight in the series, to best preserve plot balanmce the dragons will likely not remain united. Victarion Greyjoy helps with this. I think Jon is intended to get the third dragon, but might not.

R + L = J



IMO, Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen are the two most important characters in the entire series. That doesn't of course ensure their survival, but I do think that they each have an important destiny to fulfill before they die.

The slavers are being stupid and are destined to fail. The only thing keeping the Red Worshippers and slaves down is that they have large garrisons in their home cities. These people are already being agitated and of rebellious sentiment without any encouragement from Daenerys. She isn't telling Benerro the High Priest to call on the people to cast down Volantis which we see him doing in broad daylight. The slavers completely ignore this threat and instead send their forces thousands of miles away to fight somebody who doesn't want a war? That is a weak motivation, especially since there supposed reason is that they fear slave revolts in their home cities. Plus its an act of suicide, when Dany or Tyrion wipe out the slaver army this will cause slave revolts. They are picking a fight with a woman with three dragons. This is not a fight they can win. Everyone has stated this, even Tyrion and he is never wrong about these things. I don't think a competent enemy would have soldiers on stilts or menageries of troops. Also, I am refering here to the slaver army which is outside Meereen with tens of thousands of soldiers; not the Sons of the Harpy inside the city itself. I am also not sure what you mean by abusing the slaves is a quick way for unsullied to come knocking on their door. Slaves are abused in Volantis and across Essos. Dany makes plain that she does not want war with these people and is fine with them trading slaves outside Meereen. She is not (yet) making an active war of conquest. So I am not sure where you're getting this idea that the slavers are being underhand and hiding their abuse of slaves. They aren't they have put 100,000+ soldiers outside Danys walls. Thats not subtle resistance and putting a slave market outside her walls where they can abuse the slaves in view of her isn't exactly hiding the abuse.

Dany will win next book through the use of dragons and violence. What you are saying is that the characters main flaw is her neivity and that this is what GRRM will address next book. But this is purely a moral question which comes down to Dany employing violence for the greater good rather than having naive notions of peace. To me, this is itself a cheap and over simplistic view. Dany uses dragons and wins just like that? Wheres the intelligence in that sentiment? Does using violence work for dictatorships? Do the most brutal regimes always survive? No. Indeed the use of violence has often been a cause of the downfall of many governments and been a cause of rebellion. Now, she kind of has to win in order for GRRM to get her to Westeros in time for the final book. Hes already said shes going and I doubt he would have sent Tyrion to her if she wasn't going back to Westeros. She will win and the slavers days are numbered. I don't see any other way of inventing a scenario where she can't do this. It would be like saying, "Dany lays waste to her enemies, kills them, takes their cities and sacks them so that nothing opposes her move to Westeros...but is defeated and unable to impose her will on the continent". I can't imagine that happening. She can't go Genghis Khan on the slavers and not get her way on these things.

To me, a more nuanced and interesting story would stress that Dany CAN'T get her way using violence and that the world requires tact, negociation and compromise. Instead GRRM repeats the Ned story of nievity vs real politic/violence. Dany fails in ADWD becuase she wants a peaceful solution and GRRM tells us this was her downfall. Next book we will see her use violence and succeed. It simply has to be that way. If she loses her army and dragons will be destroyed.


BTW, if you look on a map Astapor is very close and hence why hundreds of thousands of starving Astapori refugees were able to walk to Meereen where they are now camped outside. Its certainly a lot less far than the thousands of miles the Volantines have travelled to move their army and navy. Plus you keep saying that the slavers have an interest in "the bay". This makes no sense, these are merchants, not nationalists with a shared sense of identity and willing to set aside their own needs for the skae of others. This is a contrived conflict to put half the armies of Essos in one place so that Dany can destroy them in Winds of Winter and effectively conquer Essos. Theres no way the Free Cities will or can stand against her once she has the strength to wipe out the tens of thousands of soldiers amassed outside Meereen.


Call of Duty also sells millions of units but that's not indicative of its quality or that the current titles are as top quality as previous ones. GRRM wrote three excellent novels to start off and yet the two latest installments were derisory. There was no effort to advance the plot, nothing happened and for that to be the case for 1000 page novels is beyond belief. He then ends ADWD just as we finally appear about to get some payoff. Instead, we don't get two big battles that were building since AFFC and Tyrion doesn't get to meet Daenerys along with Vic and everyone else who spent the whole book travelling to her. After the Red Wedding there is also no single unifying conflict which is driving the story, just a lot of separate sub plots that aren't going anywhere. He should have put Daenerys in Westeros and made her effort to restore House Targaryen the main plot driver; at least until the Others come. Instead, it looks like he wants to take his dam time setting up this Targaryen civil war and to simultaneously have the Others invasion all crammed into the final book. Which leaves everyone and the entire plot waiting for Dany to get to Westeros; which is a huge problem. Literally, the plans of Ironborn, Dornish, Aegon, minor characters arcs like Sam and all the POVs with Dany all center around her return to Westeros. That should have happened in book 4, dragging her exile is harming the story and adds nothing to it. He made an absolute wrong decision. The only reason Dany is in Meereen is because GRRM was going to write a five year gap into the story and needed an excuse to keep Dany there. However, he changed his mind and decided he really wanted to talk about what happened in the interlude for other characters; even though this doesn't remotely work for Daenerys. He is on the penultimate book. Her arc is about Westeros and restoring the Targaryens; not Essos. Put her in Westeros. But no, GRRM wants to really wants to sell me all these extra POVs and secondary characters when really they should never have been added because they're unnecessary. The Dornish plot for instance is just a long winded explanation of why "they side with Aegon because he gets there first"; so is it really neccesary to add three POV characters and a host of secondary ones with attendant sub plots?

GRRM does not understand how these things work in history. For instance, he expects me to believe that in Meereen, where 80% of the population were slaves are being left at the mercy of an organised band of murderers without any retaliatory effort. In the real world, the Ghiscari population would lack the military means to defend itself (Dany destroyed their army) and would be slaughtered by the freed slaves once it became clear that Dany would not be willing to oppose the slavers. Instead GRRM simply ignores the existence of the freed slaves entirely and acts as though everyone in the city is Ghiscari and hates Daenerys. He also acts as though the former slaver lords still have power, when really they owe everything to Daenerys because without her implicit mercy and protection the slaves could and would have massacred them. But instead GRRM ignores this and acts like Dany is ruling a city just made out of Ghiscari who hate her; when in fact these people should form a tiny cowed minority under constant threat of being exterminated by angry slaves. The only protection they have is Daenerys and her Unsullied. So GRRM just does not appraise or look at this situation in a realistic manner given what he has told us about Meereen. If 90% of the population (deduced from us being told that in Volantis the ratio was 4;1 and that all the slaves from Yunkai are living there on top of that) are freed slaves and we are even told that many of these are now armed; that is a huge thing to overlook in your story. What should be a dominent feature is instead ignored and we are left simply to assume that the freed people either don't exist or have such total faith in Dany that they never consider breaking her peace to take matters into their own hands and murder the Ghiscari; which is well within their power to do because they don't have an army any more.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


To me, a more nuanced and interesting story would stress that Dany CAN'T get her way using violence and that the world requires tact, negociation and compromise. Instead GRRM repeats the Ned story of nievity vs real politic/violence. Dany fails in ADWD becuase she wants a peaceful solution and GRRM tells us this was her downfall. Next book we will see her use violence and succeed. It simply has to be that way. If she loses her army and dragons will be destroyed.

Are we reading the same story? What character in any of the GRRM books has succeeded with wit and tact? That's how . Arguably the most witty character in the saga, although not remotely the most tactful, solves his biggest problem with a bloody crossbow bolt, not any agreeable deals. Stannis begins to negotiate and compromise . Compromise and negotiation will get you killed. The game of thrones is a live or die proposition.

What Dany is struggling with is the knowledge of when and how to apply violence. She only knew how to fight straight battles coming into Dances. Leaving it, she is beginning to learn that violence is an integral part of ruling. This is not the same as Ned's arc. It is actually rather the opposite of the Tomen arc. He rules with casual, capricious violence, like his mother and is hated by his people for it. The Starks are hard, but responsible about their application of violence against their subjects. Dany is too reluctant to kill her subjects and servants, and pays for it by losing her power and momentum. I expect we'll see her more ready to feed some folks to her dragons, and creating more fear along with her appeal to humanity when she reclaims an army (not necessarily the one she left behind) and crosses the sea with her dragons.

Gitzbitah wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


To me, a more nuanced and interesting story would stress that Dany CAN'T get her way using violence and that the world requires tact, negociation and compromise. Instead GRRM repeats the Ned story of nievity vs real politic/violence. Dany fails in ADWD becuase she wants a peaceful solution and GRRM tells us this was her downfall. Next book we will see her use violence and succeed. It simply has to be that way. If she loses her army and dragons will be destroyed.

Are we reading the same story? What character in any of the GRRM books has succeeded with wit and tact? That's how

Spoiler:

Jon got stabbed by his brothers

. Arguably the most witty character in the saga, although not remotely the most tactful, solves his biggest problem

Spoiler:

his Lannister daddy issues

with a bloody crossbow bolt, not any agreeable deals. Stannis begins to negotiate and compromise

Spoiler:

at the wall, and immdeiately gets his whole army lost in a snowstorm and abandoned by his goddess

. Compromise and negotiation will get you killed. The game of thrones is a live or die proposition.

What Dany is struggling with is the knowledge of when and how to apply violence. She only knew how to fight straight battles coming into Dances. Leaving it, she is beginning to learn that violence is an integral part of ruling. This is not the same as Ned's arc. It is actually rather the opposite of the Tomen arc. He rules with casual, capricious violence, like his mother and is hated by his people for it. The Starks are hard, but responsible about their application of violence against their subjects. Dany is too reluctant to kill her subjects and servants, and pays for it by losing her power and momentum. I expect we'll see her more ready to feed some folks to her dragons, and creating more fear along with her appeal to humanity when she reclaims an army (not necessarily the one she left behind) and crosses the sea with her dragons.

What I am saying is that GRRM uses this premise of nievity vs violence. However, its a ridiculously over-simplified view. There are many occasions in history where the use of violence or being strong has created disaster where negotiation and compromise could achieve much more. To take just one example, the British Parliament tried to bully the American colonists by forcing the issue of taxation and when they protested by making the Coercive Acts on Boston. These things directly caused the American Revolution which they subsequently lost. If you compare this to British Colonial rule of Australia or Canada where it was much looser and eventually they granted effective self government during the 19th century it was much more effective in maintaining British interests. So GRRM is being ridiculously simplistic to say that using violence like a dumbass gets you your way and yet being patient and trying to take measured responses is the wrong way; but worse he goes so far as to say that its the path of weakness. What I find so strange about this is that he seems to be playing to the readers expectations that this is the case rather than challenging it. People like the idea that violence solves their problems and don't want negotiation because it is simple and means they don't have to weaken themselves in front of others. But GRRM simply uncritically accepts this in his books. The more violent and less hindered by morality you are the more you will win. Did the Nazis win WW2 because they were less hindered by morality than the Allies? No. Taking the path of violence is simple and easy; it is not a virtue of the greater good as GRRM really wants you to believe as you read the series.

You see, you're making out as if Dany needs to accept the deaths of innocents in order to go forward. But those aren't the lives she spends most time dwelling over. Its the lives of her avowed enemies she refuses to take. She refuses to march on Yunkai. She refuses to oppose the slave armies landing or use her dragons on the ships. You might say that releasing the dragons could cause some other civilians to die but that was only Drogon and shes got no reason to assume the other two are like that. She refuses to use violence to root out the slaver nobility and actually burns the names Shakaz provides her. Dany is consistently refusing to use violence against her enemies here not innocents or her own subjects. The reason is that in ASOS when she saw the crucified enemies she wondered whether her actions were just and basically Dany fears herself and what she might become. So she tries to walk the other way and take the path of peace.

I was very disapointed with Dance with Dragons in all respects.

I love Dany - she is my favourite character in the novels and I had enjoyed her journey from scared girl to confident Queen and Mother of Dragons.

These two books gave lip service to the idea that they would be about her and instead introduced a number of new and anoying characters rather than actually have her progress. Both books seemed to be filler and avoiding the whole issue of what actually happens if Dany arrives in Westros. Oh and we still had suffer stories about dullards like Jon Snow.....if only he was actually dead (together with the stupid wood people)

That coupled with the artifical attempts to ensure that Dany and Tyrion did not meet where very annoying.......

I would have much prefered her to act as she had acted in previous books building on what she had learnt and experienced - she has after all, lost her husband and child - partially due to trying to be merciful.

The Dragons are everything - she has previously understood this - they don't have to actually burn cities - the fact that they could is what she needs, chaining and neglecting them just struck my as completely against her character

 Mr Morden wrote:
I was very disapointed with Dance with Dragons in all respects.

I love Dany - she is my favourite character in the novels and I had enjoyed her journey from scared girl to confident Queen and Mother of Dragons.

These two books gave lip service to the idea that they would be about her and instead introduced a number of new and anoying characters rather than actually have her progress. Both books seemed to be filler and avoiding the whole issue of what actually happens if Dany arrives in Westros. Oh and we still had suffer stories about dullards like Jon Snow.....if only he was actually dead (together with the stupid wood people)

That coupled with the artifical attempts to ensure that Dany and Tyrion did not meet where very annoying.......

I would have much prefered her to act as she had acted in previous books building on what she had learnt and experienced - she has after all, lost her husband and child - partially due to trying to be merciful.

The Dragons are everything - she has previously understood this - they don't have to actually burn cities - the fact that they could is what she needs, chaining and neglecting them just struck my as completely against her character

I didn't like how Dany - after riding away on Drogon - was all like 'oh, lol, guess I'll just stay here on this rock for a while'.

I'm no longer a very big fan of Tyrion - which started a couple of books earlier, with his obsession with Shae, and his daddy issues that haunted him even after leaving King's Landing for a nice little holiday.

Though I'm not particulary fond of most of the story arc in A Dance with Dragons. Jon Snow getting stabbed sucked IMHO, I thought cool stuff was finally to happen! I also don't really like what's happened with Jorah Mormont - I quite liked him. As a supporter of Stannis, his part of the book wasn't very satisfying, either. The throne is his by all rights, damnit!

The epilogue, though. The horror! I thought Kevan Lannister really was an alright guy. He's fixing a lot of the problems there are in Westeros currently, but he's less ruthless than his brother Tywin. But well, we all know what happens. And don't talk to me about the whole 'Oh yeah, there's this other Targaryen. Say hi!' stuff. Atleast Gregor Clegane's dead, revived body is rather cool.

Yeah the whole reveal that there is another Targaryen is abrupt and makes no sense. I don't know how HBO is going to tackle that one.

He just feels to have came out of nowhere without any foreshadowing beyond Varys n Illyrio being up to something. Surely an important character like this should be introduced early in the story not in the (presumably) final act. Especially since our main Targaryen who has been with us the whole series is being kept out of Westeros and the main story for the almost total entirety of the series.

Agreed that was just a WTF moment.

Jon Snow and Kevan Lannister were actually the first two characters of whom I really hated that they died. I'm not a very big fan of the Starks, and Tywin is only cool in the series

And, again, I'm still horrified by the books ending.

Oh you think Jon Snow is perma-dead?

How cute.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh you think Jon Snow is perma-dead?

How cute.

We can but hope

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh you think Jon Snow is perma-dead?

How cute.

'Hurrah, he may return as his direwolf, or as a zombie. Huzzah.'

Jon Snow isn't dead. Fairly obvious he is coming back or wasn't killed in the first instance. Likely that he will inhabit Ghost (I mean COME ON!) for a while as this ability of wargs is explained in the ADWD prologue. This could very well mean that he inhabits another body as his own will have been destroyed. Of course GRRM could come up with an excuse that means his body can be restored.

Plus, I think its getting a little silly that GRRM is leaving it so late to reveal Jon Snows parentage. This has been clear since at least the second book that he is Rhaegar and Lyannas son. If GRRM wants to make him a claiment for the Iron Throne then he really should be doing that a lot sooner than the penultimate book. atm Jons plot has had nothing to do with ruling or politics or war. Hes leaving it very late to totally shift the focus of the character.

Never mind the out of the blue confirmation that he is Azzor Ahai and not Daenerys. So, all the symbolism, biblical references and magical experiences as Dany looked for her destiny for five books was all just a red herring? Jon was actually the guy this whole time? There was nothing to suggest that at all for five books. He was just some kid on the wall for five books. Could this shift in tone not have been foreshadowed or introduced sooner than the penultimate book rather than actively mislead readers with Danys red herring plot?

I'm really wondering if we have been reading the same books...

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Plus, I think its getting a little silly that GRRM is leaving it so late to reveal Jon Snows parentage. This has been clear since at least the second book that he is Rhaegar and Lyannas son. If GRRM wants to make him a claiment for the Iron Throne then he really should be doing that a lot sooner than the penultimate book. atm Jons plot has had nothing to do with ruling or politics or war. Hes leaving it very late to totally shift the focus of the character.

Never mind the out of the blue confirmation that he is Azzor Ahai and not Daenerys. So, all the symbolism, biblical references and magical experiences as Dany looked for her destiny for five books was all just a red herring? Jon was actually the guy this whole time? There was nothing to suggest that at all for five books. He was just some kid on the wall for five books. Could this shift in tone not have been foreshadowed or introduced sooner than the penultimate book rather than actively mislead readers with Danys red herring plot?

GRRM has been writing ASOIAF for nearly two decades.

I reckon for most of those two decades he was just making it up as he went. Hence the plodding storylines that go nowhere and peter out, or get dragged out for several books with nothing of any real significane happening.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Plus, I think its getting a little silly that GRRM is leaving it so late to reveal Jon Snows parentage. This has been clear since at least the second book that he is Rhaegar and Lyannas son. If GRRM wants to make him a claiment for the Iron Throne then he really should be doing that a lot sooner than the penultimate book. atm Jons plot has had nothing to do with ruling or politics or war. Hes leaving it very late to totally shift the focus of the character.

Never mind the out of the blue confirmation that he is Azzor Ahai and not Daenerys. So, all the symbolism, biblical references and magical experiences as Dany looked for her destiny for five books was all just a red herring? Jon was actually the guy this whole time? There was nothing to suggest that at all for five books. He was just some kid on the wall for five books. Could this shift in tone not have been foreshadowed or introduced sooner than the penultimate book rather than actively mislead readers with Danys red herring plot?

GRRM has been writing ASOIAF for nearly two decades.

I reckon for most of those two decades he was just making it up as he went. Hence the plodding storylines that go nowhere and peter out, or get dragged out for several books with nothing of any real significane happening.

AFFC and ADWD were bad books. They are plodding and nothing happens. We just get a series of cliffhangers with no sense of payoff for the amount of time invested in reading them. If you are a writer and can't move the plot forward in two books of that length then you are clearly doing something wrong. I think blind faith in GRRM isn't warranted when his last two books were by his own admission more about the characters than the plot. This isn't a monthly comic series where you have the talkie one and then the action one. The first three books were actually very long and not to everyones taste. My Dad who I lent the books to hated the feeling that nothing was happening and I had to encourage him that A Storm of Swords does eventually pay off towards the end. But to then write two huge volumes and argue that these are the talkie ones and we're just going to not move the plot forward is a stunning thing to say. It should not take two books of that length to set the stage. Even Wheel of Time was never this much dross and at least had the grace to provide some sense of something happening in some of the subplots.

If you are eager to defend AFFC and ADWD then why don't you list the major battles, deaths and moments which have permanently changed everything that don't end in a cliffhanger or simply moving the pieces around? Its like he was actually trying to write the boring middle act here that plagues a lot of fantasy series or really wanted to repeat what Robert Jordan did with Wheel of Times middle books when he should have been working to avoid that pitfall.

Jons parentage is meant to be a central mystery of the series. If everyone has already guessed this two books (or even less) into the series and the author keeps making cryptic references to this without making it part of the plot then you aren't getting it right. The point of mystery is that it isn't immediately obvious and to drag this out for so many books doesn't serve any purpose; even with lazy efforts to throw people off this conclusion. He is Rhaegar and Lyannas son. He is a royal bastard and heir. Why not make this a part of his story rather than maintaining the "mystery"? Mystery is supposed to be mysterious. Not "oh blue rose in a wall of ice. Like the ones Lyanna wore. Oh Jon is Rhaegar and Lyannas son. Duh".Such a mystery.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


What I am saying is that GRRM uses this premise of nievity vs violence. However, its a ridiculously over-simplified view. There are many occasions in history where the use of violence or being strong has created disaster where negotiation and compromise could achieve much more. To take just one example, the British Parliament tried to bully the American colonists by forcing the issue of taxation and when they protested by making the Coercive Acts on Boston. These things directly caused the American Revolution which they subsequently lost. If you compare this to British Colonial rule of Australia or Canada where it was much looser and eventually they granted effective self government during the 19th century it was much more effective in maintaining British interests. So GRRM is being ridiculously simplistic to say that using violence like a dumbass gets you your way and yet being patient and trying to take measured responses is the wrong way; but worse he goes so far as to say that its the path of weakness. What I find so strange about this is that he seems to be playing to the readers expectations that this is the case rather than challenging it. People like the idea that violence solves their problems and don't want negotiation because it is simple and means they don't have to weaken themselves in front of others. But GRRM simply uncritically accepts this in his books. The more violent and less hindered by morality you are the more you will win. Did the Nazis win WW2 because they were less hindered by morality than the Allies? No. Taking the path of violence is simple and easy; it is not a virtue of the greater good as GRRM really wants you to believe as you read the series.

You see, you're making out as if Dany needs to accept the deaths of innocents in order to go forward. But those aren't the lives she spends most time dwelling over. Its the lives of her avowed enemies she refuses to take. She refuses to march on Yunkai. She refuses to oppose the slave armies landing or use her dragons on the ships. You might say that releasing the dragons could cause some other civilians to die but that was only Drogon and shes got no reason to assume the other two are like that. She refuses to use violence to root out the slaver nobility and actually burns the names Shakaz provides her. Dany is consistently refusing to use violence against her enemies here not innocents or her own subjects. The reason is that in ASOS when she saw the crucified enemies she wondered whether her actions were just and basically Dany fears herself and what she might become. So she tries to walk the other way and take the path of peace.

For every example of nonviolence working, there are ones of violence working. It is the route to seize power- using your examples, America was born from a bloody revolt, after a great deal of diplomacy and compromise got the colonist shafted. Fast forwarding, it took the Americans their only civil war to free all of their slaves. The North then had a very difficult time making sure the South did not strip them of their rights and continue to exploit their former slaves.

The British fought the French and Indian War in order to gain control of Canada.

Australia was not founded through violence, I will grant you that.

Violence is not the solution to many individual problems, but if you'd like to take over a country or throne, it is the best way.

The Nazis were not compromised or negotiated into ceasing their imperialism or genocide, either. It took the proper application of violence by the Allies. On a national level, violence is often the only way to stop another nation or ruler that has contradictory goals. The Koreas and Vietnams amply demonstrate the inefficiency of compromising nations today.

I'm sorry I should have been more clear. Yes, I meant the Sons of the Harpy and her slave lords. She has a huge problem committing to suppressing insurgency. At the time of her list burning, those slavers were her subjects. We agree they should have suffered mightily- I thought she should have started feeding them to the dragons. If they are to weapons of war, they must become accustomed to devouring enemies foreign and domestic,

Australia was not founded through violence, I will grant you that.

Not sure the Aborignees would agree with that? Same as the native Americans and the US? South America etc etc

We agree they should have suffered mightily- I thought she should have started feeding them to the dragons. If they are to weapons of war, they must become accustomed to devouring enemies foreign and domestic,

I totally Agree

Australian history is far from my area of expertise. If it was indeed founded through violence, then I am happy to be wrong for the sake of the central argument, and saddened for the suffering of her native population.

That's more stylized than I would have had the first one- I would have had her feeding her dragons right in the middle of the audience chamber. Your version is far more poetic.