arya-underfoot-blog

[arya-underfoot-blog]

I agree that I don't think she's incapable of seeing what slavery does to people. I think just about anyone can see the evils of slavery, rich or otherwise. Having led a life of privilege does mean that the realities of living as an enslaved person (or just a lowborn person in general) don't immediately occur to her, unfortunately often at the expense of other people. It's why I think Dany really did believe that the slaves had total free will once she liberated them even though it's obvious to most people that the evils of systematic servitude can't be eradicated by simply saying "you're free to go." As a highborn woman, she didn't know any better. She did what she felt was right with no plan for what comes next. She didn't consider the fact that after living as a slave for their entire lives, they were in no way prepared to live as free men. The fact that they didn't have anything before Dany is kind of the point. With no experience living life for themselves, how likely was it that they would turn away from a powerful and benevolent leader? I agree that Dany was coming from a good place and wasn't acting in an especially manipulative manner, but she's ignorant of things like social class and power dynamics that influence just about every interaction we have. And those power dynamics are the difference between soldiers and slaves. It's the ignorance that makes people liken her to a modern day "white savior" and while it's frustrating, I wouldn't say that it makes her a bad person, just a naive one. 

Well, I should probably clear up where I stand on two issues first:

1. “discussing a work of literature in such a heavy fantasy setting with in such modern terms seems a bit pointless to me. “

I disagree that it’s pointless or that “highborn” and “lowborn” are the only relevant or usable terms���.

[arya-underfoot-blog]

RE: acornfuckinghall

Well, I should probably clear up where I stand on two issues first:

1. “discussing a work of literature in such a heavy fantasy setting with in such modern terms seems a bit pointless to me. “

I disagree that it’s pointless or that “highborn” and “lowborn” are the only relevant or usable terms. Criticizing Mad Men characters for sexual harassment isn't pointless even though the term wasn't even coined until nearly 20 years later. While terms like “privilege” or “racism” might not mean anything to Dany, they’re meaningful today and today is when the fictional world of Westeros is being consumed by real people. Privilege and racism have been problems long, long before they had names and it’s okay (and necessary) to have meaningful criticisms aimed at characters who engage in problematic behavior.

2. “of course it’s logical to choose what a character and what an author is responsible for. andrea in the walking dead wasn't responsible for the butchering of her story line, was she?”

Do I believe Andrea was responsible for the butchering of her story line?  Yes, to a degree. I think there are two distinct types of critiques: critiques of the author’s intentions and critiques of the actions of characters within the fictional universes they inhabit. To me, it’s illogical to respond to criticisms of in-universe behaviors with real world justifications that have to do with the author. So the laziness in dealing with Andrea’s story line and the poorly executed resolution? That’s a criticism of The Walking Dead’s creators. Making selfish decisions to prove a point or being short sighted? That is a problem with Andrea as she exists in a work of fiction. As far as in-universe Dany is concerned, GRRM does not exist. Calling out choices that creators make is fine, but (to me, at least) they don’t serve as responses to criticisms of the actions of the character herself (that is, criticisms that don’t seek to extend into the real world).

That being said, Dany isn't “responsible” for her race or her birth status, exactly, but she is responsible for her lack of foresight regarding what will become of the lives of real human beings beyond the exciting moment of liberation. I don’t think that’s reason enough to hate Dany (and I certainly don’t, she’s one of my favorite fictional characters in general) but it’s definitely a valid critique of her character. 

You’re right that she’s seen both polarities, highborn and lowborn alike, but the fact is she’s always seen them through a lens of privilege and entitlement. She was an orphan, but an orphan who was raised in a beautiful home with all of her needs met. She had no more agency than any other Westerosi woman, but she was raised believing that she had rights to a land that she did not earn. She still believes she has the right to rule a land that she has little to no knowledge of, not of what the people need or want. 

I don’t know whether GRRM intended for Dany to be a metaphor for real life well-meaning ignorance or not. I think he probably did it knowingly, but if not, then that’s a valid critique of the creator rather than the character. When people are discussing the characters as they exist in the fictional universe, though, good intentions that fall short are the responsibility of the character themselves. Not looking beyond their own privileged birth to consider the ramifications of their actions for people who don’t have any of the resources that they do is a character flaw. It doesn't make Dany a bad person or even a bad potential leader, it makes her a realistic depiction of a person with flaws and inexperience. 

Dany’s motivation IS important, but it isn't the only important thing. Race and birth status is not as meaningless as “the color of the sky”, especially when discussing the actions of a person who comes from a place of privilege. Dany’s birth status as a high born woman (one born to former royalty, no less) is part of who she is and influences everything she does. She was cared for growing up because of who she was, she was able to hatch dragons because of her heritage and people who provided her with invaluable resources and guidance did so because of both her dragons and her ties to the Seven Kingdoms. So Dany’s intentions are good but not “pure”, exactly. She freed the slaves because she knew that their condition was wrong, yes. She also freed them because in doing so, they would fight for her if they so chose. And like real life American slaves who were freed but continued to work for their slave masters because they had nowhere else to turn, how much of a choice did those slaves really have? With nothing to their names, where else could they have gone? We see the story from Dany’s POV, and to her, I’m sure the freed slaves truly did have free will enough to make a voluntary choice. In reality, that may or may not be the case. 

With all that said, I still think Dany is one of the best options for the Iron Throne (if the Seven Kingdoms can't wind up as several independent democracies in the end, which is unlikely but would probably be for the best). Like you said, her motivations are good and as she goes, the more she learns how to care for people who depend on her. I think she’s learning (at great cost to herself and others) that good intentions ultimately aren't enough. The choices she makes in the meantime are flawed and interesting and should be critiqued. I think her character holds up under all of it.