Thread by @Darren_Mooney

One of the most dazzling and confusing pieces of discourse around #GameOfThrones is the idea that Jaime Lannister could ever be anything other than a privileged and handsome dirtbag.

theringer.com/game-of-throne…

One of the strongest recurring trends of "Game of Thrones" is that Jaime *wants* to be the hero of a narrative, but without actually putting in the work to be heroic.

He occasionally comes close, but he'll always relapse. Because Jaime's self-image is always his primary concern.

This is why I'm always surprised when the internet is horrified that Jaime does a stupid/bad/grotesque thing.

Because Jaime's consistently more concerned with presenting himself as a good man than *being* one.

This is, incidentally, why the "Kingslayer" thing messed him up as badly as it did.

Jaime did the right thing in that situation. He saved thousands of people.

But that isn't what Jaime wanted. Jaime wanted to be *seen* as a hero.

It's notably that Jaime's biggest heroic sacrifice - losing his hand to save Brienne - came at a point when he assumed that his privilege would protect him.

Jaime assumed (correctly) that they wouldn't kill a hostage as valuable as him. So why not present yourself as noble?

Similarly, it's weird how many people watching "Game of Thrones" seem to have bought into the idea that Daenerys should rule the seven kingdoms.

It's particularly strange how much of this hinges on the assertion that her claim is "rightful."

theatlantic.com/entertainment/…

"Game of Thrones" has repeatedly emphasised that the "right" to the throne is incidental to the "might" to enforce a claim; the former often bends to the latter.

If Daenerys has a claim, it's only because her ancestors invaded and occupied Westeros through force of arms.

"Game of Thrones" has repeatedly suggested that one's right to rule is nothing more than a reflection of one's power to secure the throne in the first place.

Anything can be legitimised, if it is politically advantageous to do so. Even bastards can be legitimised.

Like Jaime, Daenerys is an appealing, well-realised character. She talks a good game, and is capable of making just decisions when those do not get in the way of her ultimate objective.

But "Game of Thrones" has also been very clear what that objective is.

But, as with every other vanquished contender for the Iron Throne, Daenerys cares not one whit for the consent of the governed.

And she will not tolerate anything that intrudes on her path to power.

"Game of Thrones" has made this clear repeatedly and consistently.

None of this makes Daenerys a "villain" in the relative terms of the show. It makes her deeply, profoundly flawed. But everyone on the show is.

It's just strange that fandom seems oblivious to this. Daenerys claiming the throne is not a "happy" ending.

It's a tragedy.

After all, despite what the online fandom sometimes suggest, rooting for *anyone* to take the Iron Throne on "Game of Thrones" is rooting for a despot and the continuation of a system of oppression and violence.

Just a *different* shade of oppression and violence.