Tolkien: and then the Good King came and cast out the Evil Stewards who were corrupt because they ruled without the correct bloodline. Everything was peaceful after that and there was no more evil. There are two women in this story. Monarchy is good. The actual singular God who created everything wants you to be ruled by a 300 year old nobleman. The End.
GRRM: Feudalism is inherently destructive. Even the Noble Good Guys cause unimaginable suffering due to the structures of the system they operate within. Women are no more than brood mares under Feudalism. There is a Good King whose father was deposed. This Good King has spent his life living amongst the common people in order to become a good ruler. He is being manipulated by cynical actors and will bring devastation to the world when he begins his conquest. Thirty years ago the Hero of Prophecy acted to save the world from the Great Evil. He unleashed devastation on the land, died, and destroyed his own dynasty, possibly dooming the world. There are no gods, only powerful forces beyond our understanding that operate through the power of blood. Once upon a time there was a Good King who ruled justly. He brought peace to the land and improved the common folks' lot tremendously. Due the nature of Feudalism, the succession crisis that succeeded his reign led to the most bloodshed in 300 years. No one who wants war understands its cost.
People who dislike things because they're popular: Wow these are exactly the same!
Yes because Daenaerys ruling in Essos is a story about a hypocritical white supremacist foreigner who wants to rule a continent by virtue of her birth and conquest, while looking down on brutal dynastic conquerors. She does not study the land or people she's trying to impose her will on. She fucks up by not understanding the power dynamics, listening to her chauvinist (literally) Western advisors, and conquering a state with nuclear arms, erecting a toothless council with no material basis, and then fucking off.
Then when she fucks off to Mereen, it becomes another illustration of class and power. She fucked up her last revolution, so this time she tries to please everyone by permitting those with power to remain in power.
You just framed my point further. Unless you're making a Thermian Argument for why the story happened the way it did because it had to happen the way it did, you just illustrated the fact that the one major revolutionary character against the status quo didn't just fight a losing battle, but didn't stand a chance to begin with.
You criticized Tolkien for his presentation of divine rights of kings, of destiny and of born-good and born-evil beings, all of that being valid ideological criticism that I actually agree with. In turn, I am presenting ideological criticism of not only what GRRM wrote, but how he wrote it, with the rather strongly implied message of "yes Westeros is a brutally backward and cruel place, but no meaningful change is really possible and efforts to make meaningful change are naive like this one naive character."
You even pointed out how Daenerys was hypocritically faulty. Yeah, great, so were all the people attempting to change society somewhat in Legend of Korra. That is a convenient, even lazy plot mechanism in Korra: every conflict was resolved neatly by presenting the revolutionaries as hypocritical villains, which was easy points for the status quo. What you said frames Daenerys the same way.
The other point I was making all along is that you're clearly being unflattering of Tolkien's work while demanding a generous and kind appraisal of GRRM's work, even adding a sort of "his narrative emphasis is necessary and good" the way that we were told for decades that news reporters are strictly "objective" and just report the news as it is and don't actually, ever ever ever, decide what is newsworthy and what isn't.
There is limited time even in a 24 hour news hour, and there is limited attention for a reader reading a book and there's limited words on a page. Subjective choices must be made, and after a while, after enough of those choices are made, "realism" claims or not, "illustrating the setting" and so on, the author is still deciding what is fit to print and what the audience is going to see (and, especially since 1995, expects to see and wants to see more of). There is valid criticism to be had when an author keeps illustrating the same thing again and again far beyond what is necessary to make whatever points were originally claimed.
Daenerys has never in the books expressed a desire to end the Feudal system of Westeros because she's not a revolutionary, she's a downwardly mobile noble who experienced hardship and now is capable of understanding that other people who experience that hardship also suffer like she did. You keep bringing up the breaking the wheel thing, which was never spoken in the books.
Moreover, depiction of failed revolution does not mean that revolution is inherently futile.
Yes, conveniently, the apparent revolutionary figure and the only one that was even presented with a plausible chance of improving society somewhat, hypocrisies and all, has the same downward trajectory as a Legend of Korra villain. It doesn't have to be a leftist revolutionary story, but because you took shots at Tolkein's status quo enforcement, I returned fire accordingly. Neither has to be a leftist work, but you made that claim for what you like, I did not.
So far, in GRRM's books, it certainly is. I'm sure lots of people are still waiting for Winds of Winter, and judging by how it's gone so far, I'm skeptical that revolutions against the status quo will be shown any differently, if they are shown at all. His focus and emphasis are elsewhere. In fact his focus does seem to be anywhere but finishing the book that so many apparently hope would fix whatever the show botched in Season 8.