every time someone says “““dany was just handed her dragons”” another bunch of my brain cells die

dany was handed three fucking rocks.

she got her dragons through fire and blood and ritual sacrifice and by walking into a blazing funeral pyre which could have burnt her into a crisp, but didn’t because she got the secret that her family’s tried to figure out for decades to no avail but tragedy

#you know who was handed their beasts the starks were handed their direwolves #but it’s not used to devalue their achievements because it is a stupid argument

I think the reason why the dire wolves aren’t mentioned is because the achievements of the Starks aren’t completely predicated on their ownership of dire wolves. Robb could’ve won the Battle of the Whispering Wood without Grey Wind being there, but without the dragons… Dany’s entire ACoK story after she leaves the Red Waste is off the table, she can’t steal the Unsullied army (and thus, no conquering, and thus her ADWD story is off the table), and it’d be basically unreworkable in a way the Stark story without dire wolves would not be. The direwolves are important to the Starks’ stories, but dragons are indispensable to Dany’s story.

While I agree with you that the dragons are an integral part of Dany’s story, I still disagree with the claim by the anti part of the fandom that Daenerys is nothing without them.

Would her story have been different without them? Most definitely, yes. But I still think she would have been able to get herself into a position of power without them.

Back in AGOT, Dany and Viserys didn’t have dragons and yet, Viserys was able to make a loose agreement with Drogo about exchanging Daenerys’ hand in marriage for an army. Dany still had her Targaryen name and that means something to people.

She could have wed again - not another Khal, obviously, but some powerful magister or other in Essos or a lordling in Westeros…or even fAegon. There was still the pact signed by Darry in exchange for Dorne’s allegiance… Dany had options and lots of them. She just didn’t need to use them because she had the dragons.

Would Robb have been named KITN had he not been Ned Stark’s son? Or Jon? No, absolutely not. Would anyone want to wed or offer help to Sansa if her last name was not Stark? Most definitely, NO.

Also, Dany’s story isn’t just about fighting wars and taking lands, like Robb’s is. Yes, yes, his war is “noble” because he’s fighting for his country’s independence and to get revenge on the Lannisters for what they did to Ned, whatever whatever.

But Dany’s path has always been about helping others along with trying to get back home. It’s a much bigger and frankly, more important narrative. She’s not just trying to take back her family’s throne. She’s trying to save hundreds of thousands of people from slavery. It takes more than a name and some cool moves with a sword to do that.

Also, we’re still leaving out the fact that, even without the dragons, Dany is magic. Yes, in the books her “fireproofness” works in a different way… but it still works at key moments - when she was hatching the dragons AND in the fighting pit in Meereen - Dany’s hair burns off again and she burns her hands but she is otherwise unharmed by the flames. When she gets to Vaes Dothrak, I’m willing to bet the book scene will go relatively the same as it went in the show - Dany burning all the Khals and emerging from the flames unharmed with the rest of the Dothraki bowing for her - a crucial Dany moment done without a single dragon present.

And aside from the magic and the name, Dany is a fucking amazing military commander and she’s cunning. Robb won the battle at the Whispering Wood yes, but Dany took a whole fucking city with only a dozen men lost on her end. THAT’S FUCKING IMPRESSIVE. And that absolutely wouldn’t have been possible had Dany not been clever enough to come up with the plan that got Yunkai to surrender. She did that. By herself. Without her counselors and commanders helping her plan it. She’s a badass.

So this whole argument that Dany’s story would be nothing without her dragons…is still…utter bullshit. The dragons just make everything way cooler.

Without the dragons, she probably would’ve died in the Red Waste. Without those dragons, she wouldn’t have gotten into Qarth, let alone stealing an army in Astapor.  All the military skill isn’t worth a damn if you don’t have an army, which Dany got by… offering a dragon.

Yes, if she had managed to get back to Pentos… she might’ve been able to scrounge something else up. But that’s a pretty big if, and whatever it was, it definitely wouldn’t be carving out a huge kingdom for herself. It’d be as a pawn of Illyrio’s, which is specifically why she doesn’t go back as soon as the option presented itself in the first place.

@citadelofoldtown please see @winelover1989‘s comments about GRRM originally not planning to include dragons in the story at all…and back then was when he had his five key characters, of which Dany was one. He would have had a plan in place for her without the dragons.

Also, if you remember, Dany only went through the red waste because she had dragons. She wouldn’t have gone through it if she didn’t. She was afraid they would run into a people who would try to kill them for the dragons…their existence presented a threat to Dany. Without the dragons, Dany could easily have disguised herself so she wouldn’t have been such a target and to travel more easily.

Again, Dany still has her name and her own wits without the dragons. Viserys obtained an army of 40k with nothing more than the promise of Dany’s hand (he just wasn’t patient enough). Dany could have easily accomplished the same feat because Illyrio, regardless of his trustworthiness, still favored putting a Targaryen on the Iron Throne and Dany was the last of them. fAegon would have come along, she could have married him and had the allegiance of the Golden Company, which, with the 7K still torn up over the War of the Five Kings, would have been enough for her to take the throne.

Again, to reduce Dany’s accomplishments to “it’s because she has dragons” is ridiculous. No one ever reduces Robb or Jon’s accomplishments to “He’s Ned Stark’s son” or “it’s only because Jon has a Valyrian steel sword”.

I don’t understand what’s this constant need to diminish Dany’s accomplishments, it’s become almost pathological in certain sectors of the fandom. 

As others, have already mentioned, while the dragons are certainly an important part of Dany’s narrative they aren’t driving the narrative. The dragons are there, first, as a symbolic representation of Daenerys heritage and her inner-self, and second, as a tool to assist Dany, at times, to accomplish her goals.

The driving force in Dany’s story is Dany herself. Her ability to accomplish her goals using the tools she has at hand is what makes her such a successful character. I forgot who mentions it but someone notes that had Viserys had the dragon eggs, he could never have accomplished what Dany has been able to accomplish.

It is with her intelligence that she is able to decipher her prophetic dreams and create the magic necessary to hatch the dragon eggs. It is her bravery that gives her the strength to walk into the pyre. It is her fortitude that keeps her small khalasar together as they cross the Red Waste and might I remind everyone that she was only 14 years old at the time and grown men were depending on her for guidance.

It is her cunning that allows her to hatch the plan in Astapor to trick Kraznys and free the slaves of Astapor, Drogon was just a tool, she could have used another.

The dragons were not used in Yunkai and they were not used in Meereen. Here we see Dany’s military and strategic mind flourish.

It’s ridiculous to ascribe the successes Dany has accomplished merely to the fact that she has dragons.

A reminder that also; at that time the Dragons were Catsized, unable to feed themselves and bareley able to fly.

Not useful to take any city, in the purest practical sense they were rather a liability for a long time.

When she was marching to Astapor and Yunkai the dragons were indeed scary but bareley bigger than a golden retriever; again useless to a degree. The unsullied, taking Mereen, Yunkai, Astapor…it was all her, her wit, her strategy, her persuasiveness.

The Dragons didn’t become an advantage until A Dance of Dragons or season 5 of the Show, when they became large enough that she could ride them.

That time in the pit when Drogon rescued her became the first time the Dragons were useful, it was the first time the Dragons pulled her out of a situation like the antis claimed they did all the time.

The battle of mereen was the first time they prooved useful in battle.

Before they were simply too small.

The same can’t be said about the Direwolves thought.

And Drogon saving Dany in Daznak’s Pit is a show only scene. In the books, it’s Dany that saves everyone by taming Drogon.

And the thing is that everyone has some kind of advantage. Like, this argument that “Daenerys wouldn’t have gotten an army if she didn’t have a dragon to offer and therefore that makes her nothing” is a bullshit argument. Because literally every person has something that if you took away from them, they wouldn’t have what they have. Would Robb have an army if he didn’t have his family name? Would Jon be the commander of the Night’s Watch if he wasn’t Ned’s son? Would Sansa have anything if it weren’t for her beauty and Stark name? No, the Starks wouldn’t be where they are if you took those things away from them. And yet, I don’t see people calling them “nothing” without them. And why not? Because people still recognize that the Starks have their talents. But they refuse to recognize the same for Dany.

Because when you call someone “nothing”, what you actually mean is that this person has no talents, is worth nothing and that everything this person has in life is due to that one thing. This is what people are saying when they say Dany is nothing without her dragons. They mean that Dany has not merit in anything she has accomplished, that it was everything she has is solely because she has dragons.

And this is wrong. Having dragons alone isn’t what made Dany accomplish what she has now. Without Dany’s intelligence, without Dany’s brilliant battle plans, without Dany’s competent leadership, without Dany’s courage and wisdom, she wouldn’t be where she is. The dragons wouldn’t have made her accomplish anything if she didn’t have all of those other talents. Daenerys is much more than her dragons.

Also, funny how nobody talks about all the times the direwolves helped the Starks accomplish things. Bran would be dead without Summer. Jon would have been killed by the wildlings if Summer hadn’t saved his life. Jon was feared by the wildlings because of Ghost. Nymeria protected Arya from Joffrey. Grey Wind found a goat track that was responsible for one of Robb’s military victories (and that isn’t even counting the advantage that a direwolf’s protection during all of your battles gives you, and also the boost of morale that is to have such an animal at your side). The direwolves are also indispensable to the Stark’s stories. Without the direwolves, many of them would be dead. And yet, I don’t see people using this to dismiss the accomplishments of the Starks the way I see people trying to dismiss Dany’s accomplishments, even though Dany almost never uses her dragons. They didn’t help her in the Red Waste, they were only a bargaining chip in Astapor, and Dany didn’t use them at all to conquer Yunkai and Meereen. In ADWD, Dany also doesn’t use her dragons. The only time she is saved by them is in ACOK, in the House of the Undying, but Jon and Bran are also saved by their direwolves and people don’t call them “nothing” because of this.

In the end, people just want to dismiss Dany’s accomplishments, dismiss her strength and intelligence, and reduce her to just some dumb girl who got lucky to have dragons, which is completely incorrect.

Bran would probably be dead after the fall from tower , both Jon & Robb have been helped by their direwolves countless times . Literally there are only 2 Starks that accomplish things without direwolves and those are Sansa and Arya . And even Sansa had she not been a Stark she would probably end up like Jeyne Pool and Arya wouldn’t be able to escape if she wasn’t trained by Sirio ( and she only got trained by him BECAUSE she was a nobleman’s daughter and her father could afford that ) Stannis on books won at least two times without battle - and had it been a battle both of the times he probably wouldn’t have enough armies to attack king’s landing - using Melisadra’s magic but no one say’s he’s nothing without Melisadra . Obviously that doesn’t dismiss anyone’s accomplishments but that’s the thing : all characters have been helped in some way because of their name or magic ( or magic animals ) And dragons ( just like characters last names ) are a double edge sword : they do cause Danny plenty of troubles too , they aren’t some magical deus ex machina whatever fans like it or not . They had cause Daenerys as many problems as they’ve been help

#this x character would be nothing without their powers / money / status / privilege#also a lot of you cream your panties at the thought of Jon or Tyrion or anyone else getting dragons#and yet you hate Daenerys for having them#also I’ve been seen the argument#be done for male characters#like Batman or superman#but surprisingly it is made for female characters#so yeah mysogyny much ? (tags by @gothamsharls)

As at the end of ADWD, the dragons have not meant much, in military terms, in any case.

Dany defenders: point out that Dany’s story could have continued without dragons because she still had her Targaryen name and could have leveraged that to make an alliance by marriage

Dany antis: Totally forget that Robb never would have been able to get to the Battle at Whispering Wood/the rest of the war had he not made a marriage alliance with Walder Frey for passage through the Twins.

Antis like to make this whole thing about “the dragons” but the truth is, all of the characters mentioned have something of value that’s not just a plucky personality. 

And Dany wouldn’t have been “just a pawn” had she made an alliance and gained an army through marriage. After Viserys died, she was the fucking HEIR. Anyone she would have married would have been her consort. Hell, she had a betrothal all lined up with Quentyn that would have gained her the Dornish army. THAT’S power. And it’s the same kind of power all the Starks have/are capable of as well. She wouldn’t have had the same saving slaves storyline, but she would have eventually made it back to Westeros to fight for the throne. 

Which is one of the reasons why I think the dragons are in her story, because Dany was destined for more than fighting for an ugly old chair. She needed that extra bit of magic to try and rid her world of its most vile injustice. And she would have had that extra bit of magic with or without the dragons because George was originally just going to give the Targaryens some sort of firepower. Dany would have been like, a fire bender or something. But a friend of his convinced him dragons would be cooler. 

“Dragons in Asshai, dragons in Qarth, dragons in Meereen, Dothraki dragons, dragons freeing slaves…” -AFFC. The dragons have become a symbol of freedom.   

So take that antis. 

GOT/ASOIAF fandom: sexism in the Google Search

It’s no secret that the GOT/ASOIAF fandom is full of misogyny. I’ve seen horrible sexist things being said in several forums about many female characters, like Arya, Catelyn, Sansa and Daenerys. I think one of the things that helps illustrate this hate against female characters is the Google Search autocomplete. The autocomplete show us what are the most searched terms in relation to a subject, and I think that it helps us understand more about what the general audience thinks (after all, it’s not just hardcore fans that use the Google Search). So I typed “CHARACTER IS”, and took a screenshot of the results. Warning: this might make you very depressed, especially if you’re a Dany fan. So read it at your own peril.

Keep reading

Women's Suffering in HOTD

One of the most common criticisms of GOT was the excessive abuse (usually sexual) of women. They injected needless and very graphic rape scenes and excessive female nudity (coupled with a pointed lack of male nudity and sexualizatio). Every single female character was sexualized at some point, even if it wasn't written in the books.

HOTD creators expressed how they wanted to cut down on the frankly disgusting treatment of women in their show. They have made a massive deal about this being a "feminist" story that targets the damage of the patriarchy. Which is all well and good, one of the Dance's primary themes is the damage the patriarchy does. However, the way HOTD portrayed it is extremely hypocritical.

From the very first episode, the suffering of women in HOTD was glorified. Aemma and Laena's deaths were changed in the show to be more humiliating to the women. We are shown in detail how traumatic and awful their final moments were.

Now, showing the horrors women were subjected to is not a bad thing. HOTD, however, doesn't necessarily portray this as wrong. The suffering is almost fetishized by the writers and is fully fetishized by certain parts of the fandom.

The moments of great suffering of the women are shot in a way that is meant to make them look delicate and pretty. Again, this isn't necessarily bad, but there's never a moment where the true devastation and horror is shown apart from that. The lines about the injustice women face are paired with messages about the honor of suffering.

The fandom's perception of this is especially telling I think. Certain groups in the fandom glory in how the suffering of women is made pretty. They love how Alicent is reduced to the victim who cries pretty. They revel in Helaena's perpetually sad eyes and lack of agency. They hate Rhaenyra for fighting and wanting to change her circumstances.

Rhaenyra is made to be smaller and more "palatable" so that she may fit the idea of a "good victim" better. Rhaenyra's decision to fight the standards forced on her are what make her into a "gray" character, rather than her morally ambiguous decisions. She is made to be wrong by both the story and the fandom because she isn't suffering prettily enough.

HotD sorta poses sexism's depth and meaning much more from the physicality.

Physical violence sells more bc it is instant impetus towards conflict while still being simple, making it ultimately nonconfrontational when you're using it to "make up" for the removal of nonphysically/sexually violent depictions of sexism. What also helps is that physical and sexual violence against women is also taken to be lot more acceptable/"normal" for a "savage" era of a remote human period/experience (here the medieval/medievalesque) AND for a modern audience with how we're informed to characterize "woman", which is the receiver of stress and mental/physical laborer for the family unit, the microcosm of society/foundation of future citizens.

People think ASoIaF is like their rest stop for excusing their own conscious and unconscious biases they don't express often or at all in real life instead of GRRM trying to show how one tries to defend their own lives or right to live and "deserving" of respect and resources that others are privileged to receive with little to no effort. Which includes credibility and social trust to be and have an authority of a skill, cognitive ability, intelligence, competence, honesty, etc.

But as you remove important quotes or actions--maybe saying they are "too extreme" & "unbelievable"--& strip the story of those moments that indicate what drives characters to act violently against women (or those closely associated with them under gendered terms), you inevitably make as if sexism wasn't as much as an impetus for the Dance until it was never the "real" point. No, it was WAR ALONE, class selfishness.

You are actively suppressing the character and supremacy of sexism, therefore even with all the ramped up violence, that ramped up sexual violence IS one of the critical ways they sanitize the Dance apart form removing or distorting the sort of ambition Rhaenyra/Alicent had.

Dany antis' "metas" about how Dany is totally naive about Westeros really shows they just haven't read the books, or at least not her chapters. They'll rant about how she expects the people to just bow down to her, when in reality that was how Viserys (and later Young Griff) thought due to Illyrio's words. Meanwhile Dany, "mistrusted Illyrio's sweet words as she mistrusted everything about Illyrio." (AGOT Daenerys I) Dany knows that it takes more than a name or even dragons to be worthy to rule. That's a major piece of what sets her apart from other rulers in ASOIAF.

Robert took the throne because he was the foremost head of the rebellion and had some Targaryen blood. Joffrey and Tommen rule(d) because of their perceived relation to Robert. Stannis laid his claim based on being Robert's brother. Renly laid his not only because of blood, but also popularity with the lords and sheer number of troops. Robb was crowned because he was his father's son.

Dany knows she how fickle allegiance owed to a name is, she knows how the lords turned on her family and saw the hospitality in Essos fade when she and Viserys had nothing. She also knows simply scaring them into following her with dragons and armies won't work, she scared the shit out of the masters in Astapor and Yunkai, yet as soon as she turned her back they went back to slaving. In Meereen, she had her armies and her titles, yet the Sons of the Harpy constantly defied her.

Dany knows the Westerosi people won't just bow to her when she arrives (though stories of her are causing quite a stir lmao), she knows she will have to fight for her throne and make alliances. She understands that she will have to prove herself to the people and lords, after all, why else would they follow her? Her Khalasar only followed her after she proved herself strong, the Unsullied followed her when she proved just (after she freed them), Barristan Selmy swore himself to her only after observing her for a long period, and the rest of the Dothraki will follow her only after she proves herself once again.

Every time Dany has lead, it's because she proved herself to be worthy following, not because she's a Targaryen or the Mother of Dragons. Why would she suddenly forget this when she gets to Westeros? Well bad writing is the answer in the show, which is why in the books, she won't just become entitled.

There's different character who already has that characteristic: Young Griff. He expects the lords of Westeros to follow him against the Lannisters and Baratheons without question and for Dany to swear herself and her dragons to him and even marry him simply because he is (supposedly) the son of Rhaegar. Young Griff is a subversion of the lost prince trope, he is not only a fake but also exhibits qualities reminiscent of Joffrey (according to Tyrion), so not exactly a great candidate for king. Yet Dany antis insist on putting the sense of entitlement on Dany while portraying "Aegon" as a true heir and worthy king that evil Dany will kill in her lust for power.

Dany antis will formulate arguments against her purely out of thin air and shitty writing. They will ignore any and all actions she has done when ruling and when talking about it, rather choosing to force their fanon ideas on her and give her true qualities to their favs instead.

People who say that Dany should've tried to end slavery "peacefully" are saying that incidental physical violence is worse than systemic violence. Sure Slaver's Bay may have been "at peace" before she came there, but your definition of "peace" is very different from mine if that peace constitutes violence perpetrated every day against a large part of the population. Dany could not have ended slavery without starting a war. She tried and look how that ended up. To the people who are saying that she should have tried to do it peacefully, I want to ask: or what? Or what if she couldn't have done it peacefully, or without bloodshed? If the implied answer is, "or not at all", what you are saying is that systemic violence is not violent enough to warrant physical violence to end it. Which shows that you don't know much about slavery at all.

This is essentially the reason many have considered GoT as an endorsement of the status quo against any revolutionary violence. Because the message seems to be that no matter how heinous the systematic oppression and violence inherent in a prevailing system, violence that tends to disrupt the system is always worse than it. Only under such a logic can Daenerys’ campaign in Slaver’s Bay be seen as the genesis of a villain. Notice that violence done in accordance with the logic of the status quo (e.g. Robb Stark declaring war to seek revenge which works perfectly in a feudal context) can still be heroic in the show’s portrayal. It is the sort of system-upsetting revolutionary violence that we find in Daenerys’ arc that is being singled out as being of the same species as mass murder. Not the numerous wars fought in Westeros (starting with the War of the Five Kings). Not even the earlier conquests by Aegon and his sisters (which still work within the logic of feudal society). No, it is Daenerys who tried to change the system altogether whose violence is of a special sort, i.e. the sort that should tell us that she is capable of the worst atrocity in Targaryen history. So what is so particularly bad about her violence? Except for the fact that it is meant to overthrow the system completely?

When Robb declares war, everyone cheers because he has “a reason”.

When Daenerys declares war, everyone boos her and call her a villain.

Robb lost his father.

Daenerys was a slave.

They both have justification for their wars, yet Robb is hailed as a hero and Dany as a villain... Is it because Daenerys isn't a man? Sexism plays into why it's okay for Robb to wage war against the South, but it's not okay for a sexually abused, raped young woman who had been sold as a glorified sex slave to wage war against masters, people who enslave entire people and think they get away with it? Lol okay fandom.

Not people calling Rhaenyra "lazy" for not flying into the Gullet when she had five other dragons to send and traumatized little Aegon was probably crying for her not to leave him as he watched little hero Stormcloud die. 😿

Oh, and also, if Rhaenyra is not a feminist and she has to be, they espouse she could never be in the right for self-defending or asserting herself against something that upholds male supremacy, which is fallacious since then young girls just living around the world who may not have any knowledge at all can never be correct or valid when they defend themselves, "act out", or have goals & seeds of ambitions that their community doesn't grace young girls to.

The same for women are aren't feminists but also are not exactly NLOGs or live with an entire pick me persona nor neither conservative nor leftist.