It matters why Daenerys is “crazy”
My thoughts about last night’s episode of Game of Thrones are many and a jumble, so I’m going to do my best to sort through them with the limited spoons I have on hand.
Firstly, I’m not going to talk about whether or not Mad Queen Dany is OOC. I feel like that’s kind of beyond the point. It’s not about whether this turn for her character makes sense or has been supported by the narrative so far; it’s about the very different way this narrative has been treating Daenerys Targaryen as opposed to her male counterparts.
Jon Snow losing his sh*t at having his baby brother murdered in front of him and charging recklessly into the Bolton forces, throwing his army into disarray, and resulting in the deaths of thousands is framed by the narrative as justified. He even gets bailed out of his unsound tactical decision by the last minute arrival of his sister’s cavalry.
They storm the castle of Winterfell, their ancestral home, and Jon in a wild-eyed rage pummels Ramsay Bolton senseless. He stops just short of killing Ramsay…so that later Sansa can feed Ramsay (alive and fully conscious) to his own hounds.
This is framed as a victory for the Good Guys. We, the audience, are not meant to condemn Jon in the slightest. Ramsay is a tyrant after all, he’s done terrible things, and the North needs to be saved from his tyranny at all costs. (And those costs are HIGH, even though the narrative completely glosses over them.)
But something funny happens when Daenerys Targaryen is on a quest to free the land of a tyrant and take back her ancestral home at all costs. The narrative turns on her so fast it gets whiplash.
Dany reaching her rage breaking point after watching the brutal deaths of two of her children, her most trusted advisor dying in her arms, and her best friend being murdered in front of her is framed as insanity. Dany is not justified in her rage; she is condemned for it. (I’m not arguing over moral authority here, or whether or not she should be condemned. I’m pointing out the double standard in how the narrative handles male and female rage.)
Dany storming King’s Landing and plowing through thousands of extras to reach Cersei in order to kill this tyrant at whatever cost is framed as horrific (which it is, but again I’m not concerning myself with moral arguments; I’m focusing exclusively on uneven narrative framing). Suddenly we’re very concerned with the nameless extras on the ground getting crushed and burned alive. Where was this concern when it was guys doing this, though?
And sure, Dany deciding to destroy the city before destroying the Red Keep, instead of just flying straight to the Red Keep, is horrific.
But so was the sack of King’s Landing during Robert’s Rebellion and yet Robert, who was a terrible king, bankrupt the realm, abused his wife, was complicit in the murder of the Targaryen children (or at least did nothing about it), and started a rebellion that got thousands killed ‘cause he was too much of a manbaby to accept that the girl he wanted didn’t want him back, does not receive the kind of villain framing that Dany is getting. In fact, Robert is framed as tragically sympathetic.
What worries me is that GoT is showing male rage and violence as justified, whereas it frames female rage and violence as insanity. This is just another in a long line of narratives opining that women having emotional responses to things, and especially if they also wield more power than men (that distinction is important for understanding why the narrative isn’t currently doing this to Yara and Sansa, whose powers are comparatively small), are hysterical, unfit to rule, and must be put down. Because make no mistake, we are building toward Jon “mercy killing” Dany, which is gross on more levels than I have time for.
(I would also point out that the sack of King’s Landing during Robert’s Rebellion, the murder of the Targ children, and all the other horror from that conflict was not used as a moral imperative to compel Ned to murder his best friend. And yet that is exactly what we’re seeing with Jon and Dany. Gosh, what could be the difference here?)
I’ve maintained for years now that whether or not Dany is framed as a villain by the narrative is beyond the point. What concerns me is why the narrative is framing her this way. And would that framing remain if, say, the story had been about Viserys Targaryen being abused by his sister and sold to a warlord, struggling to gain power for himself, and finally returning home to take back his kingdom at whatever the cost? Food for thought.
Why is Dany framed as innately susceptible to the “crazy” in her Targ blood, like she just can’t help but go batsh*t insane, whereas Jon is strangely immune? Even though they’re both Targs? I am reminded strongly of the Dune Chronicles framing Alia, and women specifically, as more susceptible to abomination than men because…vaginas??
The thing is, Dune was originally published in 1965. Game of Thrones S8x05 “The Bells” was released in 2019. In 54 years the portrayal of women in storytelling has progressed by 0% apparently.
Well, if Daenerys Targaryen must join the ranks of Alia Atreides and all the other fictional women condemned as crazy for having power and the wrong genitalia, then at least she is keeping good company.
vaporwave
jimmyeatworldofficial
2087
stormborns
