Follow TV Tropes
Could this entry on Unintentionally Unsympathetic be summarized? It\'s quite a Wall Of Text and against our policy to write examples in a Clear Concise Witty way.
How about this:
Tyrion is presented as deserving of sympathy for being the sole moderate voice of reason in Dany\'s council and someone whose faith in Daenerys is betrayed, while Dany browbeating him is treated as her being a Bad Boss. However, Tyrion has genuinely been a terrible Hand who has screwed up multiple times during his tenure, bearing responsibility for the siege of Meereen, the loss of Highgarden, the destruction of Yara\'s Iron Fleet, and the imprisonment of Dany\'s Dornish allies. Anyone in real life with as many military and civil service failures would have been removed from service and demoted; Daenerys keeping him around for as long as she has is indeed a sign of her mercy.
^ I like that! I would just propose one small wording change?
Tyrion is presented as deserving of sympathy for being the sole moderate voice of reason in Dany\'s council and someone whose faith in Daenerys is betrayed, while Dany browbeating him is treated as her being a Bad Boss. However, as Hand, most of Tyrion\'s advice has been genuinely awful and he has screwed up multiple times during his tenure, bearing responsibility for the siege of Meereen, the loss of Highgarden, the destruction of Yara\'s Iron Fleet, and the imprisonment of Dany\'s Dornish allies. Anyone in real life with as many military and civil service failures would have been removed from service and demoted; Daenerys keeping him around for as long as she has is indeed a sign of her mercy.
But if you disagree, I agree with the example you\'ve proposed!
Both are better than the current. Kudos for your efforts! :-)
^^ Yup, that\'s much better; not all his advice has been terrible. Thanks! :)
Thanks for considering it, guys, and for your efforts! :)
Okay, I pulled this because it really comes across as straight up apologia for the wholesale slaughter of innocents. Under incredibly flimsy pretenses to boot.
Okay, where to begin...
Okay, let\'s start with \"anger is understandable.\" Okay, honestly I\'m on board with that. The man\'s pissed off and angry because his lover just died. Except that isn\'t ACA, that\'s just... what happened.
Let\'s get into the xenophobia, which was... one scene of some people in the North snubbing him. Which is there and affects him. Which is Character Interpretation. Which leaps off the slippery slope into \"therefore he\'s justified in killing the people of King\'s Landing.\" Which... honestly, fuck, man.
So if this were to go it, I would say it would have to be more Alternative Character Interpretation than \"Character Interpretation\" and a lot less on the \"and this is why what they did was okay.\" The only thing \"alternative\" that I\'m seeing in the writeup is that he\'s committing Revenge By Proxy on the King\'s Landing people, and even that is filled with language like Create Your Own Villain is just... off.
Yeah, I\'d agree with this. I have similar feelings about the entry as written. Grey Worm\'s feelings are certainly understandable after seeing Missandei executed in such a brutal way but I don\'t it\'s reason enough to participate in a massacre against a) a city that\'s already surrendered and b) people who are not responsible for his grief.
The words \"therefore he\'s justified\" isn\'t anywhere in the paragraph.
ACI is about audiences trying to provide alternative interpretations of scenes. The slaughter at King\'s Landing feels excessive compared to stated reasons. If its Dany going mad, it doesn\'t explain why Jon\'s Northmen forces for the most part followed her along and not Jon. By the same token, Grey Worm\'s anger and hatred seems deeper than just \"they killed Missandei\", so I thought the racism that we saw in the first two episodes and his displeasure at the poor treatment the Unsullied got from the North was a deeper motivation. The intend is certainly to try and humanize him, in the same way people humanize and interpret villains across the spectrum. Like people offer up sympathetic motivates for Scar in lion king and other villains too. So I don\'t see why treating this as a real life moral issue works. This is a fictional work and we are allowed to express feelings and sentiments through fiction which we don\'t in real life.
Grey Worm clearly despises Tyrion and Jon Snow as seen in this episode. And he\'s given a lot of focus here so obviously we need to explain him. He\'s certainly more than a throwaway character in Dany\'s story at this point.
I think it\'s still a moral issue because it\'s clearly wrong In Universe as well as in real life, given there was no need for this massacre. Plus, for me, it\'s super uncomfortable reading explanations to explain away mass murder of innocents when these things do happen in real life. This wasn\'t an execution or revenge against a person for their own specific actions, it was indiscriminate mass murder.
You\'re right, this is a fictional piece, but I feel this argument is a slippery slope and can be used to justify all sorts of atrocities that happen in stories.
Likewise, the language in the example does feel to me like it\'s trying to justify unfounded actions against those not responsible for those actions because of a character\'s anguish and resentment — Grey Worm was taking his anger out against people who have nothing to do with his grief.
Even the wariness and distrust the Northerners display to Grey Worm and Missandei because of their race (in the opening scene when Dany and Jon arrive at Winterfell in which they stare at Grey Worm and Missandei and in the 802 scene when Missandei tries to talk to two small girls and they rebuff her) isn\'t enough motivation, I think. Plus, those people are in the North — the people of King\'s Landing have nothing to do that.
The Northern soldiers hardly get a pass either — their behavior is not justified in any way either.
Okay how about this rewrite based on some of the feedback here:
I think I\'ll have to leave this for somebody else to give a better judgment on. For me, this still feels so uncomfortable because Grey Worm\'s participation in the massacre against a surrendered city feels like a Disproportionate Retribution x10000000 against people who have done nothing to him or — as far as he knows — nothing wrong. Also, as rude as those Northerners were to Grey Worm and Missandei because of their race, I don\'t think it is reason enough to massacre, even if Grey Worm grew to hate Westeros for it. Also, why would he hate Jon at this point?
That said, if Grey Worm had targeted Cersei, even if he killed soldiers who tried to fight him off on his way, I think that would be motivated. Likewise, Dany was fully within her rights to execute Varys because she was killing him for his own actions (treason). I also think she was in the right when she executed the Tarlys because they were her prisoners and she gave them a choice. They chose.
But this the massacre is different. Still, that\'s just my opinion and maybe others can better give their thoughts.
I am not saying Grey Worm didn\'t participate in that massacre and so on. I am simply trying to interpret why he did it. He\'s a character, he performed actions that are surprising to people who are familiar with him from earlier. The episode didn\'t provide a lot of explanations for why he did it. Obviously as viewers we have a right to try and understand why characters we thought we knew did horrible things we didn\'t expect? And the whole paragraph makes it clear that his attitude is disproportionate.
I see where you\'re coming from and what you\'re trying to get at but it still feels uncomfortable. Maybe others can offer up an opinion? Maybe I\'m too sensitive to this?
To me, I think the problem comes with \"But it makes sense if you see it as Revenge By Proxy as a result of Grey Worm\'s distaste towards Westeros as a whole.\" To me, it doesn\'t make sense. I don\'t think that\'s enough to motivate Grey Worm into these actions. Before this, Grey Worm wasn\'t a villain and even with his very human grief, it doesn\'t make sense as to why he\'d take actions like this. I think the same of Dany. If they had better built up their progression to the Dark Side (I mean, if Ramsay had a dragon and burned down King\'s Landing, I wouldn\'t bat an eye — he\'s evil!), I think it\'d make more sense...?
But that\'s just my opinion and I could be totally, totally wrong!
I agree with the removal.
I\'m with cherry. Genocide apologia aside, it seems like a shoehorn because it\'s less \"Alternative Character Interpretation\" as \"the character interpretation, but said out loud.\" The episode also didn\'t say why Dany did what she did, out loud either. But that doesn\'t earn an ACI entry because there\'s only one logical inference as to why she did what she did.
To be an Alternative Character Interpretation, it needs to differ from the given character presentation. And it doesn\'t, instead going just exploring the shown but not outright stated reasoning. This is more of an attempt at a character analysis (hence the wall of text).
The only thing that\'s really alternative is \"he\'s mowing down King\'s Landing because he\'s mad at Tyrion\" which... well it\'s a stretch, but at least it\'s alternative.
Fine. Everyone\'s voted so it goes. I do think people aren\'t getting into the spirit of fiction. I mean in The Iliad, \"heroes\" like Achilles or Kriemhild do horrible things and so on and we are meant to empathize and understand why they do those things. Separately from that I do have quibbles with people throwing the word genocide when what they mean is massacre, sack, bombardment, mass murder. Genocide is a separate specific thing. The reference the show used was the bombings of Dresden, which was done by the Allies to the Nazis (you know the people who did the genocide thing). But I\'ve made my say.
Am I too late here? No matter, I\'ll sum my thoughts up:
1. It\'s \'xenophobia\', not \'racism\'. The Northeners dislike Dany as well, and she\'s lilly-white. And has dragons to boot.
2. Your counterproposal is still a Wall Of Text. There\'s no need to list every single time where Grey Worm and Tyrion butted heads.
3. Even if it were trimmed down, that\'s just one viewpoint (as was pointed out above).
Can I add an entry for this in the Fridge page. That seems more open to character-centric looks.
So long as it\'s not bashing other characters (especially Tyrion, whose actions you\'ve gone out of your way to critique in multiple entries), it\'s not a wall of text, and it\'s not excusing genocide, I don\'t see why you couldn\'t. Although, considering that Grey Worm\'s motivations are pretty obvious and telegraphed during this episode, I don\'t see how FB applies.
^ I agree. I\'d especially encourage avoiding character bashing, especially coming into the home-stretch, so it doesn\'t appear like Prescriptive Vs Descriptive Language or Righting Great Wrongs.
I agree with RoundRobin that I\'m not sure Fridge Brilliance would apply to Grey Worm\'s motives as I think what the showrunners provided was clear.
While we\'re on the subject of controversial edits, I\'d like to bring up this one:
Besides being a massive Wall Of Text, the second half [from \"The countervailing case...\" onward] strikes me as less of a documentation of medieval siege warfare and more like a justification of mass murder.
Should it be reworded to a more neutral (and much shorter) paragraph?
So to be honest, I kind of wondered whether it should be there at all. Values Dissonance, as I know it, is \"this was acceptable/unacceptable when/where this work was released, but time/distance exposed it to an audience that found it unacceptable/acceptable.\"
The argument here is medieval norms are different from modern ones. Which is true but... is it relevant? Because right now, we\'re not talking medieval norms, we\'re talking Westerosi norms. And given the wholesale slaughter and targeting of civilians is played for horror in this case and is a massive Kick The Dog in other sieges, I don\'t think they\'re exactly playing by Westerosi rules either.
I agree. I have those same concerns too. There was no basis or justification for Daenerys to go after a city\'s civilian populace when the city had already surrendered.
I\'m no expert on medieval warfare or laws and while I think these medieval laws can explain the correctness of other things (ie. executions of individual criminals and traitors — I agree with Daenerys\'s execution of Varys, for instance), I\'d be hesitant to use this trope to justify genocide.
Maybe it can be used to provide a neutral documentation of how it would be viewed in medieval times but Larkman brings up an interesting point of medieval norms vs. Westerosi norms.
non-example, because the trope is about stuff acceptable when the work was done becoming obsolete.
Additionally, the entry is implicitly relying on Like Reality Unless Noted , but as that other trope says, the assumption doesn\'t apply to Medieval European Fantasy because the established divergence is too wide.
Can I put it in Accidentally Correct Writing. A troper tried to put it in a trivia page and referred to here, but it was removed (rightly so) for being a ZCE?
I might be okay with that if A: The entry leads by noting the (seemingly obvious but apparently forgotten) fact that Westeros\' norms and customs are different than in the real world, B: Not sounding quite so much on the side of \"so they basically deserved to die\" and C: Trimming it (at the very least, putting the quote in a label note).
Under discussion (for now removed from the page):
ETA: The info about six-month waiting period was incorrect. I (and other tropes) got it mixed up with Broken Base.
Xfillo you may have jumped the gun. There is no six month waiting period for Internet Backdraft.
I explained on that same Ask The Tropers thread.
Yes, sorry about that. It got mixed up with Broken Base.
That said, we could wait for about two weeks — as is suggested in the very same thread — and add the examples back then when people calm down a bit.
I don\'t think so. Nobody took off the Internet Backdraft trope off when the last two controversial episodes came out, after all, and this one deserves every bit like those two. One week at best, since that\'s the finale (and thus a whole NEW backlash given where this season is heading).
^ That\'s not much of an argument. I considered snipping Internet Backdraft in S8-04, but I wasn\'t certain whether that would be in accordance with wiki policy.
To put it really, really bluntly: there\'s a lot of complaining going on in both YMMV.TheBells and YMMV.TheLastOfTheStarks. IMHO, both pages are in dire need of some trimming.
^ Agreed (about YMMV.TheLastOfTheStarks as well).
There is lots of complaining, lots of nitpicking, arguing with other entries, posting links to negative reviews, exaggerating — none of this is wanted.
Let\'s not forget that YMMV entries still need to be about reactions of the majority of the fandom and viewers (not this one reviewer plus me plus trolls). There are also positive reviews and positive comments about this episode.
This is a high profile show. It seems like lots of people have had their pet theories, personal head canons, favourite ships and ideas how it should end and now can\'t handle when it\'s ending differently. There are definitely problems with writing and there is definitely some backlash (considering how almost universally the show was praised earlier), there\'s no denying it, but posting three entries about every single character and complaining about every single scene is excessive.
I\'ve said before the problem is Internet Backdraft is by definition complaining, and as is it lacks any rules to what isn\'t an example. The problem is bigger than this episode.
I\'ve said the same. A two-week waiting period is a band-aid, but the problem is that you\'re trying to put a band-aid on a fire. It\'s inherently a complaint-magnet and the low set standards don\'t help.
... which is why when an entry manages to not reach said set standards it\'s an incredibly bad sign.
It\'s very true that this is a complaint-magnet. I think Narm is the same, especially regarding GoT.
I guess it\'s more or less okay for shows that are less in the focus when people post one entry for Internet Backdraft about a particularly bad decision or poorly received episode, or describe one narm-y moment that really stands out (and that really fits the current definition), but with a show this popular, it\'s really, really bad.
Personally what I dislike most about those examples is that it describes the episode from every angle and how certain people/fans/reviewers didn\'t like it, while claiming it wouldn\'t be problematic in itself if only things had been done differently.
Could we summarize the whole wall of text of nine examples and make it into one paragraph?
How\'s this? Tried to summarise the main points.
edit: No idea how to get rid of all the forward slashes after every apostrophe
^ That looks great.
Edit: Don\'t worry about the forward slashes; they\'re some kind of bug in discussion pages.
^ I like it. Not bad at all.
I removed this example from Catharsis Factor:
Because this is YMMV, I thought I\'d bring it to Discussion in case there\'s a reason it should be re-added and to get other thoughts on this?
Agreed. Applying collective responsibility/ guilt on smallfolk is in poor taste.
I\'d say that it can be modified into an entry for Rooting For The Empire or Unintentionally Unsympathetic, but not so much Catharsis Factor.
Unintentionally Unsympathetic it is.
Wouldn\'t Unintentionally Unsympathetic apply to specific characters for specific actions they have done? In contrast, this is applying collective responsibility to everybody just because they live in the same city and it feels sort of like it\'s justifying something as extreme as genocide.
Are they all responsible for the crimes of the assholes in their city, for Cersei\'s decision to back out of their alliance, for rapists living among them? For believing what their monarch told them when Ned Stark was labeled a traitor? The smallfolk don\'t have the same information we do, they are acting with what information they know, which is what they\'re told by Cersei, by Joffrey, by the High Sparrow. But even still, does everyone deserve to die because they live in a city where people are assholes?
This is an audience reaction, not a real-life one. If you say in real life that Hitler is cool and so on, people would rightly call you a far-right nut. But if you say the Galactic Empire is cool, that Moff Tarkin is cool, that Palpatine or Kylo Ren is cool, even if all of them committed genocide multiple times in Star Wars then it doesn\'t really have the same weight to it.
Saying that people didn\'t care for King\'s Landing because of how the show have depicted the smallfolk in a fairly 1-dimensional way, falls in with that.
I don\'t think it really meets the trope\'s criteria. Unintentially Unsympathetic seems to a trope specific to individual characters for the actions they themselves committed, as opposed to the actions their community committed.
The show\'s episode certainly treats King\'s Landing and the civilians as characters and that falls in with the trope — When a character\'s purpose is to get sympathy or motivation from the audience which fails because their story or personality is written badly.
The setting of King\'s Landing is supposed to command some kind of emotional sentiment in the manner of the famous Scouring of the Shire episode from LOTR but for some audiences the opposite effect happens.
I think the key word is (a\') character\'s purpose, not an indiscriminate mass of characters living in a city under impoverished conditions which happens to contain a fair amount of assholes and jerks. There are those who are not participating in the actions you\'ve cited and are operating with limited knowledge of the situation at hand (ie. Ned\'s execution). I think holding all responsible for the actions of the city\'s jerks isn\'t really in the spirit of Unintentionally Unsympathetic. However, we seem to be reaching a stand-still. I\'ll bring this to Ask the Tropers.
I think trying to compare this to real-world stuff is breaking the spirit of YMMV of a fictional work. It\'s possible for the bad execution of a particular scene or moment in a fictional world to override and suspend the moral concerns that people have in real life. As Oscar Wilde said about a sentimental scene where Dickens showed a poor girl dying, \"One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing.\" Perhaps other tropers here can make a call.
We\'ll wait on other responses! :)
As I said in ATT, I think that the audience reaction is there (I\'ve seen a version of it on my social media), but it\'s currently written as an argument, not documenting an opinion. It skews heavily on the \"so fuck the smallfolk\" side and seems to be trying to convince the reader that\'s the correct side, rather than maintaining anything resembling neutrality.
Yeah, that\'d be a compromise. If it was rewritten to document an opinion in a neutral POV.
Agree with the rewrite. Here\'s my proposed draft. Too big but it\'s a start.
I don\'t think it\'s quite neutral enough as it\'s still making some judgments more akin to personal opinion rather than documentation. I\'d like to propose this as a possible suggestion, asking for thoughts?
I hesitate to add their non-participation in the fight against the army of the dead because a) that was Cersei\'s choice and this isn\'t a democracy so I struggle with how they\'re responsible and b) if Cersei had held up her end of the deal, she\'d be sending their military forces, not civilians, so I don\'t think they\'d be part of the Lannister army anyway...?
OK. I\'ll keep that in. I think you need to mention Apathetic Citizens though and the capital being a Wretched Hive.
Thanks for considering it! I hesitate to classify all the inhabitants as Apathetic Citizens or say the city was established as a Wretched Hive as that seems to be painting them all with the same brush, I think. Because this is a difficult subject, fictional or not (particularly as it\'s drawing from the real life bombings), I think Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment should be in play. I\'d stray from language trying to push a certain point of view and stick with bare-bone facts.
Perhaps I\'m being too cautious about this — if I am, I\'d definitely welcome other views on this.
Anyway, for your review :)
Let me know your thoughts and yes, I\'d certainly welcome all views on this :)
Okay, fine, I\'ll keep this.
Thanks for being open with this, Revolutionary_Jack. Likewise, if there are other thoughts and views on this — if people disagree with me and think I\'m being too cautious (which is totally possible) — I\'d definitely encourage more voices on this.
I put Wretched Hive in reference to how Olennas commets about the people in the city when she talks with High Sparrow, in part due to his treatment of her grandkids. He doesn\'t refute her statements, but is making a point that the nobility aren\'t above the rules of the Faith. Which would, hopefully, in turn make the populace realize as well.
As for large numbers of people getting massacred can fall flat, it\'s part of how A Million Is A Statistic works. There have even been videos on the lack of characterizing the populace makes the Sparrow movement come out of nowhere.
^ Thanks for clarifying where the quote came from, OmegaRadiance. Maybe we can add in how Olenna views the city? I don\'t think Olenna is an expert on the people of King\'s Landing because she hasn\'t lived among the smallfolk there so I don\'t think her view is a certainty but I don\'t doubt that viewers have referred to Olenna\'s statement so I think it can be documented as part of a viewer reaction.
As for the High Sparrow, I think it\'s tricky to put much into a character failing to refute a statement because that doesn\'t mean either agreement or disagreement. I feel it\'s hard to put meaning into a non-response because the character doesn\'t say what it means.
I see what you mean with A Million Is A Statistic but even so, I don\'t think the massacre of large numbers of people fell flat with all viewers though. I think that is tricky to say definitively.
I added in Olenna\'s view of the city. If there are problems with this edit, please feel free to voice them/edit/etc.
Why was Ass Pull deleted? Was it misused?
[Gah, started discussion post in wrong place!]
Yes, there is a discussion on Ass Pull just below :)
why is the Internet Backdraft entry a 3 paragraphs explanation of how \"daenerys was right\"? in the best of cases that is not the place nor the entry.
This whole page needs to be trimmed and I wouldn\'t be opposed to locking it, at least temporarily. It\'s getting messy and if I\'m not mistaken, there is an early stage of edit war over some entries.
I\'d agree with a lock and clean-up — things seem to be getting pretty passionate.
I\'m thinking that the Ass Pull needs to be trimmed.
As much as I didn\'t like the direction they took, it was (oftentimes poorly) foreshadowed and thus can\'t be an Ass Pull.
Dany going Mad Queen has been constantly teased since S1. Jaime\'s conflicting loyalties has been major, and as dumb as it was, he did go back to Cersei last episode.
I think both of these were done poorly, but they were set up. If anything, the set up was so heavy handed that that audiences didn\'t think they\'d go through with it.
I think the issue with Dany is that they kept foreshadowing her being too ruthless/obsessed with justice, or too set on the throne. Neither one of those things foreshadows her going \'mad\' particularly well, at least not in terms of a jump to torching an entire city of innocent people when before she had been the one to insist that they had to do the right thing in the face of opposition from her advisors (i.e. not leaving her cities in Essos in a bad state, helping Jon out instead of sailing for King\'s Landing) and her goal was to break the wheel, not just rule for power\'s sake (or at least, not solely). They could have had her show paranoia where none was needed, but her paranoia in s8 has been justified since the Starks refuse to accept her despite relying on her military aid, and Tyrion and Varys are ready to throw her over for the first male alternative that comes along. For something like the sound of bells to set her off, the sound of which indicated her victory, then she should have shown instability before, on top of an overactive sense of justice, righteousness and entitlement.
With Jaime I think the greater upset is it walks back on his character development.
I second zoopyDoopy
I disagree. As much as I dislike Jaime\'s actions in this episode, they don\'t really fall under Ass Pull. Character Derailment, perhaps?
And as for Daenerys\'s actions... They\'re also not an Ass Pull. Remember that she\'s always resorted to burning things and/or people in order to get what she wants. Astapor, Yunkai, Meereen, the Tarlys... It\'s the (poorly foreshadowed, perhaps) culmination of her character arc.
Exactly. I dislike the direction taken, but calling it out of nowhere is disingenuous.
Jaime\'s decision being an asspull here is utterly nonsensical since it\'s a decision he made last episode. We just hoped for a twist to it that never came.
As for Dany, the argument of \"this particular bit of Mad Queen\" falls flat to me because... yeah. Never mind those particular examples RR cites, but people In Universe have been comparing her to the Mad King since the first season. Not in absolutes, but as a possibility. There\'s a reason the \"Previously On...\" is basically a recap of people questioning whether or not she\'s going to be a Mad Queen.
I agree that Ass Pull entries should be pulled or trimmed.
I already took away the Dany part because the example context itself was contradictory (something like \"it was foreshadowed, but not very obviously and it was heavy-handed\"). I\'m sorry for not participating in this discussion earlier, but I forgot to check it, I only looked into the page\'s history to make sure I was not edit-warring.
Honestly, I\'m tired of all the negative audience reactions and complaining.
Now, there are definitely problems and there is some backlash, but the nitpicking is getting pretty bad.
So I removed the Dothraki example.
The Dothraki isn\'t an Ass Pull because it A: Doesn\'t actually resolve anything, B: Doesn\'t actually contradict anything in the show itself. It\'s only Word Of God that said they\'re extinct, in the show some made it back, and in discussing their forces on the big war board, IIRC they say they lost half their forces at the big war board and remove half of the Dothraki pieces, and the entry itself posits a justified reasoning.
I believe the Ass Pull entry regarding the bells signaling surrender seemed like a valid example, regardless of troper\'s agenda. It is major plot point, never established before and contradictory to the show, made to justify what happens in what is more or less the climax of the show\'s narrative.
User Tuvok has argued it was part of that troper\'s shilling of Dany, which I agree with, but I don\'t believe it\'s relevant. In isolation, the example as written isn\'t advocating sympathy for Dany, just saying that it came out of nowhere in order to make it clear the Lannister soldiers have surrendered and Dany\'s actions were therefore knowingly needless. They have also argued it isn\'t and contradiction, but it is still listed as an example of Series Continuity Error and either way it hasn\'t been established until this point.
The simple breakdown is thus:
I think adding back ass pull that bells mean surrender in hindsight is right. It was just recently mentioned so that seems valid. Danys fore shadowing of ruthlessness and meglomania however is not an ass pull. We have seen it prior but as Tyrion pointed out we cheered it because before it was against \"bad\" people. Fact is her fall was because she was frustrated and felt unloved. We saw her execute a former slave and former member of the inner circle when he disobeyed her in Slavers bay. She had one former master burned by Dragonfire and watched pleased and only spared the other when he begged for his life appeasing her. Then said he would be her trophy husband to prove a point. She has threatened blood and fire and delivered when she felt it was warranted even when it wasn\'t. Same with Sam\'s ass of a father and noble brother for example. I think the ass pull should be added to the meaning of the bells, foreshadowing left untouched as it doesn\'t matter if she knew what it meant as in her rage she targeted a city that had no ability to defend itself including it\'s citizens as the final episode pointed out to break them.
About the \"bell means surrender\" Ass Pull:
The definition of Ass Pull is, by the trope\'s entry, \"a moment when the writers pull something out of thin air in a less-than-graceful narrative development, violating the Law Of Conservation Of Detail by dropping a plot-critical detail in the middle, or near the end of their narrative without Foreshadowing or dropping a Chekhovs Gun earlier on.\"
Is the information dropped \"in the middle or near the end of their narrative\"? If you define the narrative as just within the episode, then it may arguably count as \"early\". However, the fact is that it is ~30 minutes between Tyrion\'s proposal and the surrender i.e. less than half of the episode. This makes the Chekhovs Gun argument less convincing.
It\'s also a fact that throughout the entire 7 seasons of the shows and all the novels, there isn\'t a single mentioning of bells meaning surrender, despite there have been many city/castle sieges and assaults in both Westeros and Essos (Blackwater, Yunkai, Meereen, Riverrun, Casterly Rock, Highgarden). The show could\'ve added a bell sound for had the attacker demand to ring the bells in any of the aforementioned occasions, but it didn\'t.
The quote in S 02 E 09 by Ser Davos is that \"I have never known bells to mean surrender.\" It is as unambiguous as it could be.
Therefore, I found the original paragraph that you deleted to make sense and supported by facts (I wrote half of it lol).
Finally, this is a separated issue from whether Daenerys understood the bells. Tyrion said that directly to her so of course she got it.
Can I restore it?
^ Not as it is right now. A short and concise paragraph would be acceptable, but that Wall Of Text won\'t fly.
I think the bells-surrender thing is the definition of Ass Pull inserted to rake Dany over the coals. My advice, just add in the Davos entry at Blackwater, and add in the stuff never expressed before. Never expressed before + One direct verbal claim rejecting it = Ass Pull.
^ If you\'re looking for a not-Ass Pull example demonstrating that what Dany did was not okay, here it is: The Lannister soldiers had dropped their weapons, and she and her army killed them anyway. Bells or no bells, the Westerosi (and indeed, universal) sign of surrender is dropping your weapons.
If there\'s consensus to add Ass Pull again, then it\'s going to: a. be confined in this page, and not on other episodes\' YMMV pages, and b. be only about the inconsistencies between what was stated before about the bells and what Tyrion is saying now.
Speculations about the writers\' intentions, Dany\'s thoughts, etc, have no place in this particular example.
^ Sounds good.
How about: \"There is no in-universe precedence of tolling the city bells to signal surrender. Back in S02E09 Ser Davos, who grew up in King\'s Landing and participated in the siege of Storm\'s End, even said to his son: \"I\'ve never known bells to mean surrender\"\"?
The rest of the lore is to be put in a note.
^ Looks really good to me.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?