Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
No, I'm not.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/game-of-thro...dev-1834712025
She believes that their sacrifice is worth it if future people are prevented from suffering. She has also, in a previous conversation hinted that if the people shouldn't have supported Cersei. She already sees them as guilty. So when the bells ring, her first thought isn't to save the innocents, it's that there are no innocents. At that moment she sees betrayal by Tyrion, and the only solution is to burn it all down.
I'm not suggesting this was executed perfectly, but I stand by "if you didn't see Danarys turning like this, you haven't been paying attention." Yes, some of it was only in the past few episodes. But a lot was kinda there through the seasons looking back on it.
If she hadn't went after the whole town, and had specifically only targeted Cersei we wouldn't really have a conclusion, it would just be more of the same ambivalent Danarys. I'm excited to see what that conclusion is next week. I'm less excited to read about your wingeing about it after. |
I think you nailed problem, it is that they made Dany not ambiguous.
She is clearly a tyrant.
This makes it easier for Jon and company to oppose her. If instead she had to slaughter innocents to win as oppose to choosing to slaughter innocents because she could.
It would make the choice that Tyrion and Jon now have to make difficult as opposed to easy.
I think most people saw Dany burning Civilians coming and were concerned it would be ham fisted rather than nuanced. Her character did not support mass slaughter without gain.