|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On May 27 2019 03:21 Rasalased wrote:
Ok, then having a major character in your story that is just 'mad' is a good thing or not is a matter of artistic taste. Not good or bad writing.
The line about a coin being thrown is straight pulled from GRRM's books. And we cannot call this season 'badly written' and then point to a think that GRRM wrote.
Oh we definitely agree here, a character can be "just mad" aka a more psychopathetic character. These characters are established as such. Ramsay is like that for example. Now these characters aren't as interesting or deep, but that is ok because it's mostly secondary characters.
There could also be a mental fall of daenerys, this would be character development. Now the show tried a little to hin at some things, but as i already argued, i don't think these steps were strong enough. Certainly not strong enough to justify daenerys to kill innocent people despite having an extremely easy path where this isn't required. You told me she doesn't see them as innocent people, can you tell me how the show manifested this belief in a way where people can see where it came from?
Noone is arguing that the line is bad, how you use it is fallacious though. It's about targaryen rulers falling either on the cruel side, or the benevolent one. There is always a high chance that the targaryen ruler will be morally questionable, "evil".
On May 27 2019 03:21 Rasalased wrote:
I said Daenerys never showed genuine empathy. And yes, she was portrayed as ambiguously being a sociopath from the very start. And Daenerys follows quite similarly the arch of her father. I kind of see the point about someone either slipping into madness gradually or someone who is just double-faced and finally chooses their true colors. But why can't a story be good when a character in said story is somewhere in between? I really think if this is truly the point then that is a bit nitpicky. Especially when they have scenes that d&d say about "Daenerys kind of forgot about the Euron's Iron Fleet" because that basically means "We kind of forgot" and "Don't think anymore about the Lord of Light or the Night King and just enjoy the story that is to come".
Or contrived plot where there are just as many Dothraki as needed to make the scene most dramatic. That is sloppy writing. Not the Daenerys or Jaime archs.
What about Bran? How can the story convince us that he has to be king because 'he has the most interesting story' when in fact he has the worst story of any character on the entire show?
What about "X happens offscreen" trick they keep pulling just to avoid a dialogue scene? Bran with Tyrion? Jon telling Arya and Sansa? Jaime getting captures off-screen. Jon turning himself in and admitting to killing Daenerys. etc etc That is the things you should complain about. Not the main thing the show actually got right. Or other strange mistakes like Grey Worm killing Lannister soldiers in one scene, and then Jon walks all the way up the stairs, only to meet Grey Worm again at the top of the stairs. Or plot holes like Tyrion not telling anyone about the secret passage into KL but letting Jaime go to use it to escape with Cersei and that not being portrayed as treason. Those are examples of bad writing. And there are many more. Either fundamental plot holes, or very disconcerting (for the suspension of disbelief) writing mistakes, usually related to continuity or consistency.
Things like complaining about how Daenerys turned mad queen are matters of taste. Not matters of quality. The writers deciding that they don't want the audience to have sympathy with Daenerys as she comes to a tragic end is definitely a matter of taste.
I completely disagree that dany was always painted as somewhat sociopathic, she shows empathy time and time again. Now you probably would argue that was a role, but i don't see how that manifests itself in the story.
The rest you mention here isn't revelant to the topic, you just do a form of "whataboutism".
You say it is a matter of taste not quality, if we agree that there can be a matter of quality in the first place (aka we don't argue the philosophical stance of art being subjective / objective) then i disagree. It was badly done because it is not believable no matter how one looks at it.
It made the climax of the series a bad joke (jon killing dany) because there was hardly any tragedy. As i reasoned before, that part is twofold. One because dany's character is simply totally evil from one second to the other, the audience doesn't have any empathy anymore and two, because the relationship of jon and dany was never convincing, so that part also didn't work.
On May 27 2019 03:30 Rasalased wrote:
Aegon Targaryan also wend mad. You also have a problem with that? Was that bad writing? Or is it ok there because he is a background character and not a main character we are arguable supposed to be able to relate to?
Which aegon? There were a few and am not sure what you are talking about here. Do you mean dany's father aerys?
In any case, yeah a background character falling into madness obviously is just a talking point and not part of an actual story on how it happened exactly, why would that be bad writing?
I think we would have to define "mad" to get closer to a consensus.
madness noun [ U ] (MENTAL ILLNESS)
offensive the state of being mentally ill, or unable to behave in a reasonable way:
She felt as if she were sliding into madness.
That is what i meant with a rational/reasonable agent, we cannot reason anymore why the character does things. We always could with dany until that moment, it doesn't work, it makes us lose empathy instantly.
|
On May 27 2019 04:00 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Which aegon? There were a few and am not sure what you are talking about here. Do you mean dany's father aerys?
In any case, yeah a background character falling into madness obviously is just a talking point and not part of an actual story on how it happened exactly, why would that be bad writing?
I just checked some wiki for the mad king and there's a description
Out of all the kings to sit on the Iron Throne, none induced a level of tyranny, madness, and especially cruelty as Aerys Targaryen did during his rule. Dubbed the Mad King, Aerys seemingly began as a benevolent ruler until he was overwhelmed by the so-called "Targaryen madness" brought on by an incestuous bloodline. As a result, he began displaying traits of intense psychopathy, insanity, and sadistic intentions, exacerbated by hallucinations, schizophrenia, and paranoia regarding his own claim to the Throne, to the point where he burnt anyone he believed was against him, until half of the people whom he ruled were already against him.
I think it could be an interesting storyline if Dany started feeling early symptons somewhere in seasons 6-7 and struggles to hide them from the inner circle and all that. I'm not sure if it would somewhat spoil direction towards the ending too early, but there's definitely some potentially interesting dynamics going on there.
|
Yeah, I mean Aerys.
Sociopaths are perfectly capable of showing empathy. If you should have a sociopath character in your fiction show empathy, well that is another issue. I guess if you do, it will annoy at least some of your audience. I agree that Daenerys didn't show hallucinations, schizophrenia, and paranoia. But she did show signs of sadism and psychopathy. And I think many of her speeches pre-season 5 raised questions about her sanity. And I cannot really see how this can be denied.
And I never felt any empathy for Daenerys, because I saw her as a sociopath AND the story was foreshadowing quite strongly that she was going to burn KL (the Bran vision in season 4 sealed the deal on that). So while I guess you felt a break in empathy for Daenerys, all I felt was "Yes, d&d didn't abandon GRRMs intended ending". And when I saw the reaction video and the people arguing online, I knew it was definitely the best written part of the show in all of seasons 7 to 8.
I think it could be an interesting storyline if Dany started feeling early symptons somewhere in seasons 6-7 and struggles to hide them from the inner circle and all that. I'm not sure if it would somewhat spoil direction towards the ending too early, but there's definitely some potentially interesting dynamics going on there.
There were plenty of scenes where people around her questioned her sanity. Especially the ones with Barristan Selmy. That's probably one of the reason why they even had Barristan Selmy go join Daenerys. To create dialogue opportunities on the topic of the Targaryans and (in)sanity. But there were plenty scenes of others as well.
|
Northern Ireland25331 Posts
On May 27 2019 04:26 Bacillus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 04:00 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Which aegon? There were a few and am not sure what you are talking about here. Do you mean dany's father aerys?
In any case, yeah a background character falling into madness obviously is just a talking point and not part of an actual story on how it happened exactly, why would that be bad writing?
I just checked some wiki for the mad king and there's a description Show nested quote +Out of all the kings to sit on the Iron Throne, none induced a level of tyranny, madness, and especially cruelty as Aerys Targaryen did during his rule. Dubbed the Mad King, Aerys seemingly began as a benevolent ruler until he was overwhelmed by the so-called "Targaryen madness" brought on by an incestuous bloodline. As a result, he began displaying traits of intense psychopathy, insanity, and sadistic intentions, exacerbated by hallucinations, schizophrenia, and paranoia regarding his own claim to the Throne, to the point where he burnt anyone he believed was against him, until half of the people whom he ruled were already against him.
I think it could be an interesting storyline if Dany started feeling early symptons somewhere in seasons 6-7 and struggles to hide them from the inner circle and all that. I'm not sure if it would somewhat spoil direction towards the ending too early, but there's definitely some potentially interesting dynamics going on there.
If I were to do it the mad angle I’d show Jon betray her or something to precipitate shit going down and the reveal being it was all in her head, get a twist in there and it makes Dany sympathetic while being a monster
I think it’d also fit her father’s symptoms too, which we didn’t get with what happened.
|
United States42689 Posts
"because she's mad" is just bad writing. It's a non explanation. Your character's motivations don't need to be consistent or logical, after all, they're mad, they just do stuff.
It's as if they were writing the season and it was pointed out to them that Dany suddenly becoming the bad guy doesn't make any sense and so they decided to try to justify the nonsense instead of fixing the story.
|
But Jon did betray her in the current story. They even had a "Did you betray me, Jon" "Yes, I did." scene in the beginning of episode 5.
Why would it be good writing for the audience to feel sympathy while Daenerys burns down KL. For one, I don't see how that is possible. And second, half of the audience did have sympathy for Daenerys, and their expectations were subverted as GRRM is a 'troll writer'. If you still felt sympathy for Daenerys, then the writers failed or something is very wrong with you.
Now I get many people felt tricked or even used or abused by this plot twist and the "Oh, I should have seen this coming, how was I so stupid"-reaction must be really annoying. But I don't really know how that would feel. So if you are mad about that, well GRRM is a 'troll writer'. He sets up tropes and then turns them on his head, as the did with Daenerys. It is not d&d's sloppy writing. That is all over season 7 and 8 and there is plenty of that as well in earlier seasons.
|
Northern Ireland25331 Posts
On May 27 2019 04:52 Rasalased wrote:
But Jon did betray her in the current story. They even had a "Did you betray me, Jon" "Yes, I did." scene in the beginning of episode 5.
Why would it be good writing for the audience to feel sympathy while Daenerys burns down KL. For one, I don't see how that is possible. And second, half of the audience did have sympathy for Daenerys, and their expectations were subverted as GRRM is a 'troll writer'. If you still felt sympathy for Daenerys, then the writers failed or something is very wrong with you.
Now I get many people felt tricked or even used or abused by this plot twist and the "Oh, I should have seen this coming, how was I so stupid"-reaction must be really annoying. But I don't really know how that would feel. So if you are mad about that, well GRRM is a 'troll writer'. He sets up tropes and then turns them on his head, as the did with Daenerys. It is not d&d's sloppy writing. That is all over season 7 and 8 and there is plenty of that as well in earlier seasons.
Who feels tricked here? Do you even read people’s posts and what they actually say? As Viper said there is no sense of tragedy with her downfall, because he doesn’t have any empathy towards her due to how it went down, which is basically my position.
It doesn’t even make sense with all this foreshadowing you speak of either. Aerys went mad over a period and was actually delusionally paranoid based on what snippets we’re given, there’s more in the books of course, Dany goes from sane to insane, how and why?
Her father burned people alive for betrayals real or imagined, she lets Tyrion off leaking her big secret that is her main future threat to ruling.
If he ever gets around to it I’m quite confident that GRRM will include at least some of the stuff that most posters here feel was missing in and around Dany’s heel turn
Evil for evil’s sake is the worst villain you can have, the best is the villain who has arguably better motives than the ‘good guys’.
Dany being driven to atrocity in an actual attempt to ‘break the wheel’, whatever that means is how I reckon GRRM will do it, maybe he won’t but that remains to be seen.
|
On May 27 2019 04:38 Rasalased wrote:Yeah, I mean Aerys. Sociopaths are perfectly capable of showing empathy. If you should have a sociopath character in your fiction show empathy, well that is another issue. I guess if you do, it will annoy at least some of your audience. I agree that Daenerys didn't show hallucinations, schizophrenia, and paranoia. But she did show signs of sadism and psychopathy. And I think many of her speeches pre-season 5 raised questions about her sanity. And I cannot really see how this can be denied. And I never felt any empathy for Daenerys, because I saw her as a sociopath AND the story was foreshadowing quite strongly that she was going to burn KL (the Bran vision in season 4 sealed the deal on that). So while I guess you felt a break in empathy for Daenerys, all I felt was "Yes, d&d didn't abandon GRRMs intended ending". And when I saw the reaction video and the people arguing online, I knew it was definitely the best written part of the show in all of seasons 7 to 8. Show nested quote +
I think it could be an interesting storyline if Dany started feeling early symptons somewhere in seasons 6-7 and struggles to hide them from the inner circle and all that. I'm not sure if it would somewhat spoil direction towards the ending too early, but there's definitely some potentially interesting dynamics going on there.
There were plenty of scenes where people around her questioned her sanity. Especially the ones with Barristan Selmy. That's probably one of the reason why they even had Barristan Selmy go join Daenerys. To create dialogue opportunities on the topic of the Targaryans and (in)sanity. But there were plenty scenes of others as well.
Sociopaths are capable insofar they play a role to fits societal standards. Daenerys goes out of her way to break these standards because she has empathy for slaves for example.
She showed a lot of signs of entitlement and a form of heavy narcissism / god complex. You still need to close the gap between her doing cruel things to "bad people" and doing it to innocents while already having reached her goal when the bells rang. You cannot, all there is left is "madness" which means there doesn't have to be any reasonable explanation. That is weak. That is not how her character ever worked.
We are talking about a narrative level here, madness on that level is simply arbitrary actions of characters for no good reason. When they talk about it in the show they basically mean high cruelty they cannot explain, none of the characters is any psychologist who would be able to define someone as sociopath/psychopath, these concepts don't exist in westeros.
On May 27 2019 04:52 Rasalased wrote:
But Jon did betray her in the current story. They even had a "Did you betray me, Jon" "Yes, I did." scene in the beginning of episode 5.
Why would it be good writing for the audience to feel sympathy while Daenerys burns down KL. For one, I don't see how that is possible. And second, half of the audience did have sympathy for Daenerys, and their expectations were subverted as GRRM is a 'troll writer'. If you still felt sympathy for Daenerys, then the writers failed or something is very wrong with you.
Now I get many people felt tricked or even used or abused by this plot twist and the "Oh, I should have seen this coming, how was I so stupid"-reaction must be really annoying. But I don't really know how that would feel. So if you are mad about that, well GRRM is a 'troll writer'. He sets up tropes and then turns them on his head, as the did with Daenerys. It is not d&d's sloppy writing. That is all over season 7 and 8 and there is plenty of that as well in earlier seasons.
Jon betrayed her in a sense (not truly because he never promised her iirc), but sure. What matters is the perceived betrayal anyway. But that is exactly where the show would need more work, more time to make these things stick with the audience, to show us more and more paranoia after losing the people closest to her, isolation, etc. Again, the show kinda tried but they rushed through these steps in basically a handful of scenes. That's not good enough. If it was well established that she is mentally weak at that moment, all of this could potentially work, we even could feel empathy for her (you confuse empathy and sympathy btw)
Empathy is crucial for the audience to feel anything, we have to understand where people are coming from, why they act the way they do. That involves us into the story, that would give the climax of the series gravitas, right now there is none (do you actually disagree? You thought jon stabbing dany was satisfactory as the climax of the series?)
|
Yes, maybe because I anticipated Jon to kill Daenerys and not be king before Daenerys reached Westeros. I found the last two seasons rushes, because they were, and their romance unconvincing.
And Jon betrayed Daenerys not by telling Sansa, but by rejecting her as a lover.
I don't know more what to say. You are asking for more empathy when I find it strange you found her empathic in the first place, because she was a clear sociopath from day 1.
What I found silly were 10s of other things most people don't seem to care about.
What about Bran? He won the Game of Thrones!
|
Northern Ireland25331 Posts
And nobody feels the need to say ‘em Bran you know the way you can see the future and stuff? You didn’t think it was worth telling us that King’s Landing was going to be torched?’
Seems kind of odd that nobody raises that, even if it’s just to get a ‘this was the best possible future as painful as it was to get to’ kind of Bran answer
|
On May 27 2019 07:07 Rasalased wrote:
Yes, maybe because I anticipated Jon to kill Daenerys and not be king before Daenerys reached Westeros. I found the last two seasons rushes, because they were, and their romance unconvincing.
And Jon betrayed Daenerys not by telling Sansa, but by rejecting her as a lover.
I don't know more what to say. You are asking for more empathy when I find it strange you found her empathic in the first place, because she was a clear sociopath from day 1.
What I found silly were 10s of other things most people don't seem to care about.
What about Bran? He won the Game of Thrones!
No dany was not, that is just wrong and i already pointed out why. You reject that explanation i guess?
People talked about other flaws of the show already, on a nitpick level, on an anger management level, on a little more nuanced level as well.
Dany and Jon had the climax of the series, so everything around that is the most crucial in a sense. Which is why i am mainly interested in their relationship + dany's character development right now.
|
Northern Ireland25331 Posts
Yeah can you please explain how Dany is sociopathic, I really don’t get this?
We already have a comparable arc already, come to think of it; bits I’m not 100% happy with mind, in Stannis. Ruthless when he needs to be, not wantonly cruel really, gradually destroys himself and everyone around him in pursuit of what he thinks is his right.
I don’t recall people complaining that burning Shireen didn’t make any sense (perhaps some people did), some may not have liked it but it was a shock that was actually earned.
They gave us some conflict between things we already knew about the man, that he wanted to be the King and his motivations as to why, plus that he did love his daughter through various scenes. They also had some conflict between him, Davos and Melisandre too in there.
As a Stannis fan it was a kick in the balls for him to make the decision he did and for it to be made worse by being a sacrifice without the prize so to speak, but it did feel like something not completely out of left field.
My main quibble is that I think even Stannis’ end was rushed and flawed due to it, my first real issue with some major plot lines I had in the series mind, so you can imagine how rushed I think the later stuff is.
Things went from OK to super desperate way too quickly and because somehow Ramsay at this point was a super genius of both psychological warfare, guerrilla operations etc, somehow, and Stannis ‘the best military mind in Westeros’ was well, not in this period.
|
I'd just like to point out that a "sociopath" isn't really a thing. It's a made-up term describing a super broad set of symptoms that caught on and was used incorrectly for awhile (still is, I guess). To quote this article from 2014, "The term sociopathy is not used in modern academic circles anymore."
|
As long as the word 'sociopath' exists and has a meaning, it can be used. I deliberately use the term 'sociopath' rather than 'psychopath' for this very reason; we are not in a clinical context here.
Did you watch the video I linked made in 2015 predicting that Daenerys would go Mad Queen? I mean, it is basically there in half the Daenerys scenes from season one to season 5. And then signs of insanity are there ever after. I don't get how people can say that the Daenerys line wasn't too subtle to them and they agree it shouldn't be 'on the nose', but at the same time claim they didn't get that something was very wrong with the mental state of Daenerys.
|
On May 27 2019 10:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
Yeah can you please explain how Dany is sociopathic, I really don’t get this?
We already have a comparable arc already, come to think of it; bits I’m not 100% happy with mind, in Stannis. Ruthless when he needs to be, not wantonly cruel really, gradually destroys himself and everyone around him in pursuit of what he thinks is his right.
I don’t recall people complaining that burning Shireen didn’t make any sense (perhaps some people did), some may not have liked it but it was a shock that was actually earned.
They gave us some conflict between things we already knew about the man, that he wanted to be the King and his motivations as to why, plus that he did love his daughter through various scenes. They also had some conflict between him, Davos and Melisandre too in there.
As a Stannis fan it was a kick in the balls for him to make the decision he did and for it to be made worse by being a sacrifice without the prize so to speak, but it did feel like something not completely out of left field.
My main quibble is that I think even Stannis’ end was rushed and flawed due to it, my first real issue with some major plot lines I had in the series mind, so you can imagine how rushed I think the later stuff is.
Things went from OK to super desperate way too quickly and because somehow Ramsay at this point was a super genius of both psychological warfare, guerrilla operations etc, somehow, and Stannis ‘the best military mind in Westeros’ was well, not in this period.
stannis had like 40 troops at the end tho didn't he? the final battle showed literally 40 troops. everyone else deserted. i thought it was pretty weird having 40 guys, i didn't expect to see that, but i GUESS he just put everything down to being saved by the lord of light at that point. also i think they should have showed him being killed, why cliffhanger that, it's just annoying
most other characters are more sociopathic than danarys (if you insist on using that term), she's just a bit feisty , got a lot on her shoulders, and like 15, that's all
|
On May 27 2019 10:27 Wombat_NI wrote:We already have a comparable arc already, come to think of it; bits I’m not 100% happy with mind, in Stannis. Ruthless when he needs to be, not wantonly cruel really, gradually destroys himself and everyone around him in pursuit of what he thinks is his right.
I think her arc will resemble Stannis's even further. She will choose to "save the kingdom to win the throne" only to lose everything in the process and have the throne snatched by fAegon anyway. The people of King's Landing will show no gratitude for Dany's sacrifice and they'll fully support fAegon. This would also allow Dany to see them as ungrateful and complicit in all of this once she finally snaps.
|
I loved the Stannis angle and was surprised to hear it is not from the books. You also think that was badly written? Especially that it was then all for nothing. Loved the way Mellisandre reacted to it all.
|
On May 27 2019 16:05 Rasalased wrote:
As long as the word 'sociopath' exists and has a meaning, it can be used. I deliberately use the term 'sociopath' rather than 'psychopath' for this very reason; we are not in a clinical context here.
Did you watch the video I linked made in 2015 predicting that Daenerys would go Mad Queen? I mean, it is basically there in half the Daenerys scenes from season one to season 5. And then signs of insanity are there ever after. I don't get how people can say that the Daenerys line wasn't too subtle to them and they agree it shouldn't be 'on the nose', but at the same time claim they didn't get that something was very wrong with the mental state of Daenerys.
Yeah and under that common meaning people use it on, you use it the wrong way. You neglected my argument two times now...
Dany showed very clear signs of empathy, she literally went against the social norms and tried to free slaves, she was against her soldiers raping women, etc.
I already gave things she showed signs of, narcissism and a strong entitlement / god complex.
I even already engaged you in your claims of the argument of "on the nose" which you also completely ignored. Are you actually interested in this discussion and care about what other people have to say? So far it doesn't seem like it
|
Northern Ireland25331 Posts
On May 27 2019 17:42 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2019 10:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
Yeah can you please explain how Dany is sociopathic, I really don’t get this?
We already have a comparable arc already, come to think of it; bits I’m not 100% happy with mind, in Stannis. Ruthless when he needs to be, not wantonly cruel really, gradually destroys himself and everyone around him in pursuit of what he thinks is his right.
I don’t recall people complaining that burning Shireen didn’t make any sense (perhaps some people did), some may not have liked it but it was a shock that was actually earned.
They gave us some conflict between things we already knew about the man, that he wanted to be the King and his motivations as to why, plus that he did love his daughter through various scenes. They also had some conflict between him, Davos and Melisandre too in there.
As a Stannis fan it was a kick in the balls for him to make the decision he did and for it to be made worse by being a sacrifice without the prize so to speak, but it did feel like something not completely out of left field.
My main quibble is that I think even Stannis’ end was rushed and flawed due to it, my first real issue with some major plot lines I had in the series mind, so you can imagine how rushed I think the later stuff is.
Things went from OK to super desperate way too quickly and because somehow Ramsay at this point was a super genius of both psychological warfare, guerrilla operations etc, somehow, and Stannis ‘the best military mind in Westeros’ was well, not in this period. stannis had like 40 troops at the end tho didn't he? the final battle showed literally 40 troops. everyone else deserted. i thought it was pretty weird having 40 guys, i didn't expect to see that, but i GUESS he just put everything down to being saved by the lord of light at that point. also i think they should have showed him being killed, why cliffhanger that, it's just annoying most other characters are more sociopathic than danarys (if you insist on using that term), she's just a bit feisty , got a lot on her shoulders, and like 15, that's all
It just felt a bit quick was all, if it was a bit more gradual I think it would have worked better for me, was still largely prerty good though.
Having Ramsay manage to sabotage shit with a few good men though, that was a bit silly IMO.
You can still have the same results while keeping Stannis as a military mind feared in Westeros if you get me?
|
Northern Ireland25331 Posts
On May 27 2019 20:18 Rasalased wrote:
I loved the Stannis angle and was surprised to hear it is not from the books. You also think that was badly written? Especially that it was then all for nothing. Loved the way Mellisandre reacted to it all.
No largely that it was pretty good, unlike Dany. It was to contrast all the elements that are in Stannis’ and not hers in terms of a decent arc vs a bad one, perhaps didn’t make that clear.
There’s plenty of changes made for the medium that are good changes and are well-written IMO, Jamie/Brienne being one, the expanded character of Bronn etc, so it’s not like DnD are incapable of it like some make out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
