#I'm not doing Areo he has no character

[jozor-johai]

Dorne, Shown not Told: how Darkstar is more than his reputation.

Darkstar used to bug me as a character—not necessarily because of his edgy dialogue, but because the way he was written: he's not on-page for very long, so we're really told much more about him than we are shown anything.

I've seen this same complaint voiced before, and almost always it's brushed over as an inherent failure of Gerold as a character, or other arguments that presuppose a lack of faith in Martin.

I can understand why, without deeper analysis, some people try to make the Doylist argument that Darkstar must be lazy writing by Martin, something along the lines of "I have to introduce this guy quick, so here's a bunch of backstory told by a bunch of characters". Instead, though, I argue that this situation of being "told" so much about Darkstar is actually the Watsonian perspective of his character; it is Arianne who has been told so much about him, and we're experiencing her misconceptions.

I've come to realize that the feeling of being "told" about Darkstar, with a focus away from what we're "shown," is fully intentional. With this different approach to interpreting Darkstar's character, I've found that not only do I like him so much more as a character in-universe, but I also like him so much more as an element in George R R Martin's writing. Melisandre might be his "most misunderstood character," but I think Gerold Dayne must be up there too.

I don't understand why it took me so long to see it: ASOIAF is all about the way that information—or misinformation—spreads and changes the course of action and history. Of course this would be a theme to look out for. Once I started to dig more into this idea in relation to Darkstar, I realized just how prevalent this theme was in the Dornish arc, which is entirely about the way that people are told something, and the way that being told these things—even without evidence—has such an impact. That's what the companion post to this one is about.

If you've read that post already, and now I've got you on board to doubt the reputation that Darkstar has, and to doubt the story Arianne was told about him, this is the post where I rebuild Gerold's character from scratch, and convince you that he's actually an alright guy, a trustworthy one, and possibly even a true knight. Maybe, even, he's worthy of Dawn, and the title of "Sword of the Morning."

I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, as it's been so many years, but it's exciting to experience a moment of realization that makes me see the writing itself in a new light, so I wanted to share my thought process here.

2.0 Gerold Dayne, shown not told.

In this part, I attempt to look at Gerold Dayne as if I were Areo Hotah, not Arianne: to watch what he does and says, on page, rather than take anyone's word for it, and rather than interpret his actions against a prejudice that he is as dark and dangerous as Arianne thinks. This way, I want to see what kind of man Gerold Dayne actually shows us he is, through his actions and interactions, rather than who we're told he is.

Beyond just doubting Doran's story because I don't believe Doran to be trustworthy, here I'll be explaining why I think that once we get to know Darkstar as best as we can, maiming Myrcella doesn't even really sound like something he would do.

This is a long one too, like the other one, so the rest is after the cut

2.1 Early good impressions—by being early

We don't see very much of Darkstar on-page, so let's start with our very first impression of him, in the second paragraph of the chapter:

Arianne Martell arrived with Drey and Sylva just as the sun was going down, with the west a tapestry of gold and purple and the clouds all glowing crimson. The ruins seemed aglow as well; the fallen columns glimmered pinkly, red shadows crept across the cracked stone floors, and the sands themselves turned from gold to orange to purple as the light faded. Garin had arrived a few hours earlier, and the knight called Darkstar the day before.

We don't know when they arranged to meet, but I think there's room for a symbolic meaning to Arianne arriving just as the sun goes down. Symbolically, the day ending as soon as she arrives mirrors the way that her plan is going to end as soon as it begins.

In addition, it's a signature of Arianne's character this chapter, moving just slightly too slowly. In this way, Arianne is already more like her father than she wants to admit—remember the overripe oranges falling in The Captain of the Guards, or how Areo knew that Doran saying they would leave at dawn meant midday. Arianne is the same—she arrives to her own plan at dusk.

Even without that comparison, Arianne's late arrival is emblematic of her inability to structure a plan as carefully as she believes she can, which is also something that haunts her for the rest of his arc. Consider the meaning of this for her: she is the head of this plan, and yet she and her two companions are the last to arrive. Garin beats her to the rendezvous place by a few hours... and Darkstar is almost the opposite extreme. He gets there a whole day early.

Perhaps that's suspect, perhaps that's responsible; this alone is not enough to say. For a certainty, though, this clearly positions Darkstar as someone who is, say, the opposite of the "Late" Lord Walder Frey. He's a man who comes early, not late.

As the chapter continues, it's not the only time that Arianne lags carelessly while Darkstar vouches for a more responsible course of action, so keep this in mind. This passage sets the tone for the rest of the chapter.

2.2 What makes a man "Great"?

The next time we see Darkstar on page, we get his first line of dialogue and his first actual on-page action. He juts in while the others are talking about the storied hero who is Garin's namesake:

"Garin the Great," offered Drey, "the wonder of the Rhoyne." "That's the one. He made Valyria tremble." "They trembled," said Ser Gerold, "then they killed him. If I led a quarter of a million men to death, would they call me Gerold the Great?" He snorted. "I shall remain Darkstar, I think. At least it is mine own." He unsheathed his longsword, sat upon the lip of the dry well, and began to hone the blade with an oilstone.

There's a lot to unpack here for such a short passage. To begin with, we can interpret some of Darkstar's values from his additions to this conversation. He clearly has a certain pragmatism, because he chooses to see through the veneration that the stories have afforded "Garin the Great", and points out that his cause was actually poorly met. In this way, Gerold might come off like a humorless spoilsport, but we can also consider the fact that he's already learned some of the lessons that other characters, like Sansa, have been forced to face: reality does not match the songs, and not all "heroes" are good people.

Gerold also shows a concern for the ranks of the military. It's not about one man's veneration for him, it's about the success of the plan—and the survival of the men who act on it. This is actually the same concern for Dorne that Doran is obsessed with, at the end of The Watcher:

"Until the Mountain crushed my brother's skull, no Dornishmen had died in this War of the Five Kings," the prince murmured softly, as Hotah pulled a blanket over him. "Tell me, Captain, is that my shame or my glory?"

Doran has spent a lifetime hemming and hawing over this notion, unsure of whether to act or to wait, and choosing inaction over decision. By stark contrast, Gerold speaks with a casual certainty: "Garin the Great" was no good at all, because all his men died, and he lost. It might make him sound like a cynic, but Dayne knows what he believes in. Leading men to their death is no greatness at all.

2.3 Choosing one's own name

And, now knowing his thoughts on blind veneration, we might reinterpret his decision to invent his own nickname. Rather than grasping for approval from in songs (like Tywin's Rains of Castamere), his act of naming himself could be seen as a sign of honor, not blind pride.

"If I led a quarter of a million men to death, would they call me Gerold the Great?" He snorted. "I shall remain Darkstar, I think. At least it is mine own."

He does not believe in misjudged "bravery" for the sake of a title, and therefore is unlike so many others who we see across ASOIAF ready to die fighting in their desire for glory. Rather than dreaming of becoming immortalized in a song, Darkstar has no lust for public approval—he's given himself his own title, and means to prove himself against his own standard.

And at least it is his own. ASOIAF is a story where so much weight is put into names and epithets—Arya and Sansa losing their names and even their chapter titles, Brienne and Jaime fighting against the disparaging nicknames they are given. Here, Darkstar has already proven himself past all of those troubles with this one action—regardless of whatever names others should call him, or even remember him by, he shall go by this one, the name, and the fate, that he chose for himself.

2.4 Honing the blade

And then, immediately, Gerold starts caring for his blade.

He unsheathed his longsword, sat upon the lip of the dry well, and began to hone the blade with an oilstone.

Interestingly, the list of people who hone their blade on-page is surprisingly short. This shared action puts Gerold in league with the likes of Brienne:

I will, she promised his shade, there in the piney wood. She sat down on a rock, took out her sword, and began to hone its edge. I will remember, and I pray I will not flinch.

And also the likes of Yoren, Arya, Jon, Meera, Barristan, and Hotah himself; all of whom are dutiful if not also generally good-hearted. Ilyn Payne and Rakharo, care for their blades on-page, too, and though I'm not sure if they get enough story time to argue whether or not they are good-hearted, they are certainly pragmatic, skilled, and committed. Bronn, too, hones his blade on-page, and even if not good-hearted, he's these other positive qualities, the ones that make him likeable even in his scoundrel status: Bronn is skilled, pragmatic, dedicated to his craft, and even committed after his own fashion (he does name his adoptive child Tyrion, after all).

Better tying this to a morality case, the first time we see Sandor Clegane caring for his blade is after the Red Wedding, after he fully commits to taking in Arya. Similarly, Jaime is only seen caring for his blade in Feast and later, after he begins to have his own character turn towards searching for honor.

In stark contrast, Theon pulls out his blade to "sharpen" it before facing his father in Clash, but he only "gave it a few licks" with the whetstone ... what a total poser.

(It's a silly thing, but the most minor character we see sharpening a blade is a stray Blackwood... so you know these are the good guys, haha. Oswell Whent, too, which I don't make much of myself but I know others have.)

So, when we see Gerold Dayne start to sharpen his blade as his first on-page action, we might think: here is a man who is responsible, who is committed to duty, who believes in taking care of his person and his honor. Tying little actions like this to character qualities is the kind of thing GRRM does frequently.

2.5 Sober attitude

To a similar end, we also see that Gerold Dayne doesn't drink, preferring water with lemon.

Once the kindling caught, they sat around the flames and passed a skin of summerwine from hand to hand . . . all but Darkstar, who preferred to drink unsweetened lemonwater.

Which puts him in league with Brienne again:

"I would prefer water," said Brienne. "Elmar, the red for Ser Jaime, water for the Lady Brienne, and hippocras for myself." Bolton waved a hand at their escort, dismissing them, and the men beat a silent retreat.

As well as Stannis, paragon of "duty":

But not today, I think—ah, here's your son with our water." Devan set the tray on the table and filled two clay cups. The king sprinkled a pinch of salt in his cup before he drank; Davos took his water straight, wishing it were wine.

Again, this is the kind of quality that is associated with people who are attached to their sense of duty. (Note also that as Brienne feels increasingly lost during her search for Sansa, we see her increasingly drink wine. Roose, for his part, doesn't just drink wine, but wants wine sweetened with sugar and spices, which, like Littlefinger's minty breath, covers up his harsh reality).

So Gerold Dayne, in word and action, seems to have more in common with duty- and honor-bound characters, rather than being the heartless rogue which the Martells seem to believe he is.

2.6 Arianne's imagination versus Gerold's reality

Arianne asserts that Gerold would go so far as to exterminate an entire clan... but it's while she's fantasizing about ruling Sunspear with Myrcella as Queen:

Once I crown Myrcella and free the Sand Snakes, all Dorne will rally to my banners. The Yronwoods might declare for Quentyn, but alone they were no threat. If they went over to Tommen and the Lannisters, she would have Darkstar destroy them root and branch.

So we know what Arianne thinks he's capable of, but we also have heard Dayne's own thoughts that war for its own sake is not laudable. Would he really be the type to eradicate a whole family, like Arianne says? So far, he seems otherwise like an alright guy, and potentially even a true knight, so far: he takes care of his sword, he stays sober, he arrives early, he's not searching for glory from others, and he doesn't believe one should be rewarded for idiotic wars.

If I were to put this in a single quote—if I could create a single moment where I might show that Arianne's mental image of Darkstar is one way (hard, dangerous, mean) and his reality was a different way (dutiful, pragmatic, and good-hearted)—I might show it like this:

He has a cruel mouth, though, and a crueler tongue. His eyes seemed black as he sat outlined against the dying sun, sharpening his steel, but she had looked at them from a closer vantage and she knew that they were purple. Dark purple. Dark and angry. He must have felt her gaze upon him, for he looked up from his sword, met her eyes, and smiled.

Does he have a cruel mouth, and dark, angry eyes? Or does he have an easy smile? Arianne tells us the former... but so far, we are shown the latter.

And what does Gerold himself say with that "cruel tongue"? What counsel does he give, what courses does he suggest?

2.7 Gerold's bloody suggestion

Before Myrcella arrives, Gerold Dayne has the chance to offer counsel to Arianne. This moment comes directly following that moment where all of Arianne's other conspirators confide that they don't trust him, and that they don't need him for the plan. Immediately afterward, Darkstar returns and suggests that the plan isn't very good to begin with.

Dayne put a foot upon the head of a statue that might have been the Maiden till the sands had scoured her face away. "It occurred to me as I was pissing that this plan of yours may not yield you what you want."

While all of Arianne's friends have warned her of Darkstar, why is it that Darkstar is the only one to warn Arianne that this is a poor plan? It's important to remember that he's right, after all, because this plan gets thwarted, and as he goes on to say, was ill-concieved to begin with. If he can see it, why have none of Arianne's other allies considered this? Or, more interestingly, why have none of them told her?

This conversation continues, and notice how Arianne is never straightforward with Gerold about how she feels in response to his questioning. She says one thing, and then thinks another to herself. Already, we are being shown how we might be distrustful of what we are told—and again, Arianne has more in common with her father than she thinks. She knows how to speak carefully when she really has another objective.

"And what is it I want, ser?" "The Sand Snakes freed. Vengeance for Oberyn and Elia. Do I know the song? You want a little taste of lion blood." That, and my birthright. I want Sunspear, and my father's seat. I want Dorne. "I want justice." "Call it what you will. Crowning the Lannister girl is a hollow gesture. She will never sit the Iron Throne. Nor will you get the war you want. The lion is not so easily provoked." "The lion's dead. Who knows which cub the lioness prefers?" "The one in her own den." Ser Gerold drew his sword. It glimmered in the starlight, sharp as lies. "This is how you start a war. Not with a crown of gold, but with a blade of steel."

At first blush, it's easy to get caught up in the notion that Darkstar is simply offering to kill Myrcella for the ease of it all. We're told the whole chapter that Darkstar is a violent man, and here's the evidence.

Arianne herself only considers this interpretation, and it's how she remembers the conversation once she's imprisoned:

He wanted to kill her instead of crowning her, he said as much at Shandystone. He said that was how I'd get the war I wanted.

However, this conversation, though brief, is not so simple as that. Instead, while Gerold's advice to Arianne here at first seems unnecessarily violent, he's actually displaying wisdoms that we learn elsewhere in the story.

For a start, we see Gerold's disdain for vengeance for it's own sake—and his suggestion to Arianne that this quest of revenge and authority will not actually get her what she wants. In Gerold's words, she wants "a taste of lion's blood." He knows this song, as he says, as well as Ellaria, who gives an identical warning with far more impassioned language to the same audience ADWD The Watcher:

"Oberyn wanted vengeance for Elia. Now the three of you want vengeance for him. I have four daughters, I remind you. Your sisters. My Elia is fourteen, almost a woman. Obella is twelve, on the brink of maidenhood. They worship you, as Dorea and Loreza worship them. If you should die, must El and Obella seek vengeance for you, then Dorea and Loree for them? Is that how it goes, round and round forever? I ask again, where does it end?" Ellaria Sand laid her hand on the Mountain's head. "I saw your father die. Here is his killer. Can I take a skull to bed with me, to give me comfort in the night? Will it make me laugh, write me songs, care for me when I am old and sick?"

Gerold says it more simply, and more harshly: this quest for vengeance and lion's blood will not get you what you want.

He then tries another angle, saying that "Crowning the Lannister girl is a hollow gesture. She will never sit the Iron Throne. Nor will you get the war you want." This sounds, at first, like a complaint of the plan's futility, but he offers a suggestion of how to achieve said war instead: "Not with a crown of gold, but with a blade of steel."

I have to point out the metaphor at use in this moment:

Ser Gerold drew his sword. It glimmered in the starlight, sharp as lies.

A blade as sharp as lies—yet another allusion to this constant Dornish theme of lying and deadly misinformation. Seen from another perspective, we might put it another way: that lies are as deadly as a blade. This, too, is Doran's message: that the grass which hides the snake is just as deadly.

This too is Gerold's message, because in combination, his suggestion that crowning her is empty and to kill her is simpler sounds like an allusion to another wisdom we learn later in ADWD Tyrion I, given by Illyrio when Tyrion alights on the same bright idea as Arianne, to crown Myrcella:

"In Volantis they use a coin with a crown on one face and a death's-head on the other. Yet it is the same coin. To queen her is to kill her."

Gerold understands this, and he displays it in this conversation. His offer here, then, is to skip the trouble in between—the girl will never sit the Iron Throne in any case, so Arianne should just kill her and be done with it, and have your war that way.

Rather than a threat against Myrcella's life, the way Arianne remembers it, we might see this as a challenge: if Gerold sees that both acts end in Myrcella's death, and both in war, he's presenting Arianne reality of the lack of choice.

In a way, this is consistent with his earlier complaints about Garin the Great—was it worth it to make Valyria "tremble" at the cost of so many of his own? Gerold's question, though harshly put, makes Arianne face that question now, before they start off with the plans.

Like her father, though, Arianne defers the problem, preferring not to address it this night.

I am no murderer of children. "Put that away. Myrcella is under my protection. And Ser Arys will permit no harm to come to his precious princess, you know that."

Arianne makes the choice, but she does not say it aloud. Why? Because even she sees that it's contradictory to raise her up and expect her to live?

As we see so often with Arianne, she foolishly answers that it's not her responsibility. Myrcella may be under her protection, but Arianne relies on Ser Arys' action to keep it that way. Arianne tries to argue that the weight of this threat to Myrcella is not Arianne's burden to take, but rather Arys'.

Darkstar disagrees, pointing out the longstanding rivalry between the Dornish and the Marcher Lords.

"No, my lady. What I know is that Daynes have been killing Oakhearts for several thousand years." His arrogance took her breath away. "It seems to me that Oakhearts have been killing Daynes for just as long." "We all have our family traditions." Darkstar sheathed his sword. "The moon is rising, and I see your paragon approaching."

Finally, though, actions once again speak louder than words. Rather than pull his sword here against Arys, like he was just threatening to do, he sheathes his sword when he spots Arys, obeying Arianne's command. So far, whatever he's said, Gerold is still committed to following Arianne's wishes.

His threats about Daynes killing Oakhearts has another layer of meaning, though, in this complete context: Daynes have been killing Oakhearts, yes, but it's not just Daynes who wouldn't blink at killing a Marcher, it's all of the Dornish—as Arys is so intimately aware of in his one chapter.

As much as Arianne is dodging responsibility, she's also right that Arys is the final obstacle in anyone's way should they wish to do harm to Myrcella. Note, though, that despite the story Doran and Arianne later tell the Sand Snakes, it is not Darkstar who slays Arys—it's Areo Hotah. If we say that actions speak louder than words, hear this: Gerold sheathes his sword when Arys approaches, and it is Doran (through Areo) who kills Myrcella's most leal protector.

Given all the trouble Doran later goes to in an attempt to smooth over Arys' death, Gerold is probably right here that a dead Arys means war. Once again, Gerold is a pragmatic thinker, in theory. In my opinion, despite the cruelty of his suggestion, his conversation about the death of Myrcella is a reality check, not a call for wanton violence.

2.8 Gerold's good counsel and care

Later comes the second time where Arianne lags carelessly... and here, Gerold steps in to give Arianne good counsel.

Arianne had hoped to reach the river before the sun came up, but they had started much later than she'd planned, so they were still in the saddle when the eastern sky turned red. Darkstar cantered up beside her. "Princess," he said, "I'd set a faster pace, unless you mean to kill the child after all. We have no tents, and by day the sands are cruel."

Here, contradicting the stories of Gerold Dayne as a cruel man, Darkstar seems to show more direct concern for Myrcella's wellbeing than any of the other plotters. Arianne—like her father—moves to slow, and Gerold wants to make sure that the girl isn't killed. He's not just pragmatic in theory, he can also be pragmatic and considerate when it comes to the young girl with them.

Here, also, we see that Gerold does not actually mean the girl harm. The accusation that Darkstar slashed Myrcella implies this narrative where Darkstar took advantage of the chaos to finally take his chance to kill the girl and make good on his threat. If that were the case, then here Darkstar could have simply said nothing, and let the girl suffer or even die from the heat. Instead, he speaks up in order to spare Myrcella from the sand's cruelty.

2.9 Gerold's opinion of Arthur Dayne

With all of this context, I'll finally take a look at Gerold's opinion of Arthur Dayne.

As she led the princess to the fire, Arianne found Ser Gerold behind her. "My House goes back ten thousand years, unto the dawn of days," he complained. "Why is it that my cousin is the only Dayne that anyone remembers?" "He was a great knight," Ser Arys Oakheart put in. "He had a great sword," Darkstar said. "And a great heart."

He clearly loves the Dayne house, but seems to have less respect than most for Arthur. Many and more have taken this to be a sign of petty envy, that Darkstar is questioning Arthur's skill at swordplay, perhaps in comparison to his own.

But consider the quote another way: we know from his opinion of "Garin the Great" that Gerold resists the idea of blindly idolizing heroes only because they have become great in the telling. This newer hero, Arthur, is no more special to him. What has he actually done, not what stories have been told of him?

Once again, this is a return of our theming: being shown, not told. Gerold is quick to resist the allure of the songs of Arthur Dayne—to Gerold, there are plenty of other Daynes just as special, or perhaps even more so. This is not a lack of love for his house, nor for honor and glory—quite the opposite. Like with choosing his own name, Darkstar wants to create his own context to see Arthur in, as part of a ten thousand year old lineage of great Daynes (ha) and not some special, magic knight.

Perhaps Gerold Dayne is pointing out that there is more to a knight than having a sword; perhaps he is condemning the idea of equating "swordplay" with "greatness".

What we hear about Arthur is more often than not about his prowress with a sword, but consider the context in which Arthur Dayne was brought up in this chapter. When Myrcella brings him up, his reputation is marred by the fact it's own existence:

"There was an Arthur Dayne," Myrcella said. "He was a knight of the Kingsguard in the days of Mad King Aerys."

Not the most good-hearted of details to remember him by, truth be told.

I suggest that this passage instead serves to suggest that Gerold has a stricter sense of what is valorous than most. Even the great, seemingly infallible Arthur Dayne was a sword in defense of the Mad King. Does serving the Mad King still make for a "great knight"? Or only a "great sword"?

Of course, there's another interesting aspect to this quote: despite his disregard for the particular qualities of Arthur, Gerold is more than willing to acknowledge the greatness of the sword Dawn. I'll get into that at the end.

2.10 Gerold sues for peace

Finally, in his final appearance on-page, we get a last word from Gerold Dayne, who, this time, says exactly what Arianne is thinking... when she, again, is too slow to act, and is unable to say anything herself.

You reckless fool, was all that Arianne had time to think, what do you think you're doing? Darkstar's laughter rang out. "Are you blind or stupid, Oakheart? There are too many. Put up your sword."

Darkstar suggests to all that they surrender. He suggests they put up their swords. Yet again, this is a consistent characterization for Darkstar: a man who speaks against the honor of leading others in a death charge, a man who is a sober thinker, a man who plans to arrive early, and a man who considers heavily the consequences of the actions at hand, especially when they end in the death of a young girl.

After all this, I don't think it sounds like Darkstar to make a wild, reckless, opportune grasp for Myrcella's life, no matter whatever Doran says. Instead, Gerold Dayne has all the trappings of a dutiful knight, and even his brusque edges come from a certain brutal realism, not a sense of jilted pride. He may even be a good and caring man at times.

3.0 My predictions for TWOW: GRRM's next moves

I used to really not like Darkstar. I don't mind him being a little cringe, because this whole series, as well written as it is, still has plenty of pulpy 80s underpinnings which I love just as much as the highbrow stuff. I can handle a little melodrama, fine... but why is Darkstar so flat, I wondered. It felt so incredibly—uncharacteristically—clumsy to have this hurried introduction of a character, and have everyone in the chapter rush to tell the reader how dangerous he is, just so he could do the "dangerous guy" thing and run off to become the next MacGuffin of Dorne.

That is, if everything, or anything, that we were told about him is true.

If we understand that not all we're told is true, then GRRM hasn't actually spent a whole chapter telling without showing. Instead, he's been consistently playing with the same notions of actual reality vs. stories and lies that the rest of the Dornish plot revolves around (and the rest of the series, for that matter, but I'm staying focused here).

In addition, all of that telling we got about Gerold Dayne wasn't at all for the purpose of giving us a quick, surface level introduction to the character (which makes sense, because George is otherwise so good with character). Instead, all that telling is part of a larger, longer plot about Doran's scheming and lying, and Arianne's own susceptibility to Doran's stories.

Finally, and most of all, it all sets up one of GRRM's favorite things to do: a subversion of a character in a twist that involves a sudden change of perspective.

If Arianne and Doran have spent 4 (or 5, including TWOW previews) chapters now telling us what a nasty guy Gerold Dayne is, won't it be a shock once he's granted Dawn rightfully and is named the next Sword of the Morning? What's even better is that, looking back, it will be clear to see how much he isn't a nasty guy—he's actually a pretty good candidate, dutiful, smart, aware of the consequences. He's the kind of guy to take care of himself, keeping his mind and blade sharp, and to be considerate of those lesser than him, as with Myrcella or Garin's army. He may not be a nice guy, but being nice and kind are not always the same. That character of Darkstar, the knight worthy of Dawn, was there all along—except that it was all obfuscated under Arianne internal narration and Doran's repeated lying.

After all, he is of the night... which sounds super edgy, but is foreshadowing too. What comes after the night? The Morning.

Being "of the night" might not be Darkstar being an antihero, but instead being anti- heroes, he's against the concept of the overinflated hero. Like Sandor Clegane, who starts to seem more and more a true knight despite despising knights, Darkstar may be set up to take on a legendary mantle, like Sword of the Morning, despite his utter disdain for legendary heroes, like Ser Arthur and Garin the Great.

And actually, I suspect that Darkstar is quite familiar with Dawn already—after all, despite his cool words about Ser Arthur, Gerold Dayne does seem to recognize the greatness of Dawn. I expect that he's seen its value for himself.

Gerold is the type of man to take himself seriously ... and while that's very easy to make fun of from a reader's perspective, it's a very admirable quality in a knight. It's the same trajectory Jaime has been on: everything used to be a joke to him, but no longer: Jaime is learning how to shed that shield of humor and to take himself and his honor seriously. Can we begrudge Ser Gerold the same?

Rather than hunting down a villain, Areo Hotah, Obara, and Balon Swann are on Doran's truth-suppression mission. For after all, as Lady Nym pointed out, loose ends make for exposed lies. If I replace some of the names of her cautionary message from The Watcher:

If Gerold Dayne is alive, soon or late the truth will out. If he appears again, Doran Martell will be exposed as a liar before all the Seven Kingdoms. He would be an utter fool to risk that.

And so Doran sends his unbeatable Hotah, with his massive and lethal axe that already killed one Kingsguard and might well kill another. How is Gerold Dayne going to match up against that?

Well, he'll have a great sword.

[kingsmoot]

How do you feel about POVs with under five chapters? Which is your favorite? (For reference, counting TWOW chapters, that’s Melisandre, Arys Oakheart, Jon Connington, Areo Hotah, Aeron Greyjoy, Quentyn Martell, Asha Greyjoy, and Arianne Martell.) I hope this question isn’t too long!

this is an absolutely lovely question ty!!! and also ty for providing the list so i didn't have to google who has under 5 pov chapters

melisandre - i love mel and i love the incredible perspective her pov chapter gives on her. when i first read it as a kid i remember being really disappointed that she was a total fraud but that was a very childish reaction that i no longer have. i think it's an incredible choice that totally recontextualizes her entire existence in westeros and i really look forward to seeing how her and varys' plotlines develop parallel to one another. i wouldn't say her chapter is one of my favorites in the series, though. i really look forward to her appearances and she is the only way i am able to tolerate the dragonstone polycule plotline which i otherwise find extremely dull. but her chapter itself, while it's very good! it doesn't actually stick out for me

arys oakheart - OH BROTHER THIS GUY S T I N K S. i am so glad he's dead and i don't have to worry about his pov popping back up in twow/ados. having sex with princess arianne martell and complaining about it the whole time? bye.

jon connington - i absolutely adore jon's chapters. they're an excellent subtle character study and they're very sharply painful for me in a way i didn't expect going into them. the way he speaks about his father's contempt of him, the way he approaches his own fatal illness, the incredible web of relationships we see from his past as he reunites with the golden company. absolutely an adwd highlight for me, i always really looked forward to his povs when reading. i really hope we get him in twow AND ados, it would break my heart if we didn't hear from him again.

areo hotah - areo scored extra points for me because in hbo got he is played by deobia oparei who i am in love with (i haven't seen any of the episodes he is in but i have seen screencaps which is enough for me). i found areo pretty annoying (i don't actually like the kingsguard i find knights sort of uninteresting in general unless it's like... other characters' perspectives on knights! the knights themselves i'm like i don't like it when you guys talk go find a wall to prop up) BUT i really love his perspective on doran martell, who is one of my favorite characters. i loved getting to see doran in his garden through areo's eyes. so areo doesn't interest me at all but i like the dornish perspective we get in his chapters. and yes i do visualize him as deobia while i read which helps immensely.

aeron greyjoy - one of my top povs in the whole series i LOVE his chapters. i love that we see how broken and flawed and lost he is (much like we see in mel's chapter) and i love getting to see his solitary religious practice and i love hearing the dark twisted contradictory bullshit he cooks up in his head to make sure that balon is always centered as like a shining light that can do no wrong in his mind. what i wouldn't give for an aeron pov of theon's arrival on the iron island i TRULY believe this would be the one time grrm started slinging "faggot" around

quentyn martell - i found his povs to be a nearly unbearable slog tbh i listened to them all on 1.5x or 2x speed because i just couldn't wait for them to be over. i'm actually stunned he has under 5 povs because if you had asked me a minute ago "how many pov chapters does quentyn have?" i would have confidently answered twenty. it's like they never fucking ended.

asha greyjoy - ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE SHOW STOPPING NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE ETC. she's my second favorite pov after theon and it's a CLOSE second. i love her chapters i wish we'd gotten SO MUCH MORE OF HER in affc and adwd. she's perfect and her chapters are perfect when will grrm publish what the people (me) truly want which is just a perfect beat by beat of the entire series but from asha's perspective of like whatever she was doing at the time. not who i ever would have pegged for a noncon fetishist like as the victim in the noncon so wrow the complexity of women.

arianne martell - tbh i found her chapters to be sort of a slog too i'm not big on the dornish plotline. they're way better than quentyn's which i was actively trying to skip but in general this subplot doesn't grab me. i find it to be convoluted in a way that i don't find the rest of the series to be? i like arianne a lot and i enjoy her pov but the actual events of her chapters i find dull. her ploy to kidnap myrcella and instill her as queen of the seven kingdoms was dope and i find her pov of how everything is falling to pieces around her compelling. but she's not one of my favs and i don't find her chapters particularly memorable.

this was so fun to think about thank you for your lovely ask!

[redwolf17]

4 for Sansa I Part V

Hi anon! I was kinda confused, I’m guessing you’re referring to this ask prompt from a couple days ago?

4. Whose is your least favorite character for this chapter/fic?

To be honest, I’m not sure I have a least favorite character for Sansa I? Like, Septon Ulf is a bit of a fanatic, and Mellario hits poor Rosamund, but they’re both interesting characters to write, who think they are very reasonable from their own perspective?

Let’s do a deep dive!

Mellario

In canon, we know Mellario is a noble of Norvos, a slaver city. She's short, and her marriage with Doran curdled at some point after Trystane's birth. In canon, this is attributed to her fury over Doran sending away Quentyn to foster, and then trying to send Arianne away too. GRRM has also said in an interview that Doran/Mellario started as a "oooh, sexy foreigner" sort of love match, but couldn't stand the test of time and cultural differences.

I think that's a solid basis for a character, although I definitely side-eye Doran for casually marrying a member of slaver nobility. We get zero about Mellario's views on slavery, so I'm not comfy just handwaving her as a Grimke sister type, especially as she brought Areo Hotah from Norvos as a slave.

(...side note, is Areo still a slave??? Does Doran pay him wages??? Uhm....)

Anyway, Mellario should NOT have hit Rosamund, but I thought it was a very understandable, if violent and shitty, reaction from a terrified, furious mother, especially given she was separated from her children for years during the canon era.

Septon Ulf

Oh, this guy. Dragonstone's smallfolk had a VERY WEIRD time during the WotFK in canon! Stannis takes up with a fire witch, who he allows to burn the sept of Dragonstone as a sacrifice to R'hllor. Several nobles are killed defending the sept, or burned later by Selyse and Melisandre. Davos mentions in passing that the smallfolk briefly converted to R'hllorism, then went back to the Seven.

Uhhh... that's a pretty huge deal? Medieval people took religion VERY seriously! The destruction of septs would have been a HUGE deal! So, I sat and thought, and realized that there were probably a decent number of smallfolk on Dragonstone who blamed Stannis's fall on Melisandre and her red god, who lured him away from the Seven. But given that the smallfolk also converted to R'hllor... well. Better prove their true devotion to the Seven by disassociating as much as possible from anything that even vaguely goes against the Seven or reminds them of Melisandre.

I don't have a full backstory in my head for Septon Ulf, but he was definitely born on Dragonstone, and a septon there for quite a while. Ulf's faith wavered during the Melisandre era; he either temporarily gave up the Seven and worshipped R'hllor, or remained silent rather than risk his skin by opposing Melisandre. Either way, ever since she left, Ulf has been DETERMINED to overcorrect by being super mega pious, to the point of listening to the similarly fervent members of his flock who believe violent action is necessary to cleanse their former sin.

[ebitachy]

short indigo disk thoughts under the cut (just kidding this ended up being long) (i am a little frustrated with the story bits)

while i'm having a lot of fun with the post-story stuff and the clubroom and i thought resolving kieran's issues in areo zero rather than at the school through battling was a good way to do it i felt kinda... idk... reminded? of what i felt was the weakest aspect of scvi's main story/the way home, which is that important characters cannot do things that can't be easily walked back or forgiven, even if it's honestly really small or petty in the grand scheme of things. and important characters ESPECIALLY cannot be implicated in someone else's wrongdoings. team star's story is so weak because to give the bullying plotline any sense of weight they'd have to implicate their shiny new characters at the school that they want the audience to care about, and that's no good. so instead all the bullying is a vague formless nothingness and none of the staff we actually know have any stake in it because they weren't there and even the biting back against it didn't even really happen. it's vapid. the consequences of sada and turo's obsession is pretty much the only thing this doesn't apply to-- because they're dead! even the AI has vanished! death resolves!

in the dlc it kind of felt like part two of this with the entire School Drama thing. kieran says some mean things and is pushy and rude blah blah blah ok cool. he's in a bad place mentally and is punishing himself and others because of it. wow that's so sucks. the resolution of this being that we fight our way to beating him down AGAIN, not helping at all, before finally figuring things out in area zero is even a good resolution to that i think!! i'm not against any of this!! it feels very gx the way our only solution to getting him to enjoy battling again is to make him hate it more by being too op as the protagonist (lol) and then go on a dangerous adventure with him.

but all the jokes people are making about how oh everyone actually liked kieran all along and and oh he didn't even have any problems at the academy he was just like that is like... Yeah? it's the same issue with penny and team star's entire plotline? in that a problem that should be there... seemingly isn't?

drayton is presented as manipulative and a schemer but his grander goal isn't to actually make kieran go back to being a bottom of the food chain wannabe or something by having you shove his face into the dirt. because then your cool new elite four member would be mmmmmmmmeean.

if kieran's issue was just that he truly struggled to make friends and felt too reliant on his sister and not that he was actively ostracized by anyone at blueberry academy, making it so everyone could clearly see that his 180 was bad and being upset with it feels a bit like a slap in the face. it's not like they knew what caused it! like, really! you're saying the majority of non-carmine people wouldn't see that in-universe and start flocking to kieran, the guy who shot up to champion seemingly over night? if you're going to write it like that, you couldn't make it so everyone but carmine and drayton (who don't get along!) see it as a good development, that everyone at the academy wouldn't either ignore or excuse or not see his roughness with the other club members who aren't "getting stronger", and not see how clearly unwell it all is? you're saying everyone saw this shy kid rise up from some average rank to the champion and went, "no, that's not your place, that's bad"? come on!

if they didn't want to risk you not liking the members and faculty of blueberry academy by having one of its students be actively ostracized, why was this not a story about going against the majority's belief that this is "good" for kieran or anybody else in the league club? give me something. anything. these kinds of writing decisions are so frustrating-- it is an active denial of the slightest weight.

[a-room-of-my-own]

Have you read "An Apology to JK Rowling" by Petra Bueskens on Areo? I'm pathetically grateful to read something so clever and well articulated on the subject after the amount of abuse JK has been subjected to

It's a great piece so here it is, thank you anon!

 Rowling recently published an eminently reasonable, heartfelt treatise, outlining why it is important to preserve the category of woman. There’s only one thing wrong with it: it assumes a rational interlocutor. Rowling outlines why the biological and legal category of sex is important: in sports, in rape crisis shelters, in prisons, in toilets and changing rooms, for lesbians who want to sleep with natal women only and at the level of reality in general. Rowling marshals her experiences as an androgynous girl, as a domestic violence and sexual assault survivor and as someone familiar with the emotional perils of social media, in ways that have resonated with many women (and men). Her writing is clear, unpretentious, thoughtful, moving, vulnerable and honest. At no point does she use exclusionary or hostile language or say that trans women do not exist, have no right to exist or that she wants to rob them of their rights. Her position is that natal women exist and have a right to limit access to their political and personal spaces. Period.

Of course, to assume that her missive would be engaged with in the spirit in which it was intended, is to make the mistake of imagining that the identitarian left is broadly committed to secular, rational discourse. It is not. Its activist component has transmogrified into a religious movement, which brooks no opposition and no discussion. You must agree with every tenet or else you’re a racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, etc. Because its followers are fanatics, Rowling is being subjected to an extraordinary level of abuse. There seems to be no cognitive dissonance among those who accuse her of insensitivity and then proceed to call her a cunt, bitch or hag and insist that they want to assault and even kill her (see this compilation of tweets on Medium). She has been accused of ruining childhoods. Some even claim that the actor Daniel Radcliffe wrote the Harry Potter books—reality has become optional for some of these identitarians. Rowling’s age, menstrual status and vagina come in for particularly nasty attention and many trans women (or those masquerading as such) write of wanting to sexually assault her with lady cock, as a punishment for speaking out. I haven’t seen misogyny like this since Julia Gillard became our prime minister.

The Balkanisation of culture into silos of unreason means that the responses have not followed what might be loosely called the pre-digital rules of discourse. These rules assume that the purpose of public debate is to discern truth and that interlocutors on opposing sides—a reductionist bifurcation, because, in fact, there are many sides—engage in argument because they are interested in something higher than themselves: an ideal of truth, no matter how complicated, multifaceted and evolving. While in-group preferences and biases are inevitable, these exist within an overarching deliberative framework. This style of dialogue assumes the validity of a persuasive argument grounded in reason and evidence, even if—as Rowling does—it also utilises experience and feeling. By default, it assumes that civil conflict and opposition are essential devices in the pursuit of truth.

Three decades of postmodernism and ten years of Twitter have destroyed these conventions and, together with them, the shared norms by which we create and sustain social consensus. There is no grounding metanarrative, there are no binding norms of civil discourse in the digital age. Indeed, as Jaron Lanier shows with his bummer paradigm (Behaviours of Users Modified and Made into an Empire for Rent) social media is destroying the fabric of our personal and political lives (although, with a different business model and more robust regulation, it need not do so). The algorithm searching for and recording your every click, like and share, your every purchase, search term, conversation, movement, facial expression, social connection and preference rewards engagement above all else—which means that your feed—an aptly infantile descriptor—will quickly become full of the things you and others like you are most likely to be motivated to click, like and share. Outrage is a more effective mechanism through which to foster engagement than almost anything else. In Lanier’s terms, this produces a “menagerie of wraiths”—a bunch of digitised dementors: fake and bad actors, paid troll armies and dyspeptic bots—designed to confect mob outrage.

The norms of civil discourse are being eroded, as we increasingly inhabit individualised media ecosystems, designed to addict, distract, absorb, outrage, manipulate and incite us. These internecine culture wars damage us all. As Lanier notes, social media is biased “not towards the left or right but downwards.” As a result, we are witnessing a catastrophic decline in the standards of our democratic institutions and discourse. Nowhere is this more evident than in the contemporary culture wars around the trans question, where confected outrage is the norm.

This is why the furore over Rowling’s blog post misses the point: whether we agree with her or not, the problem is the collapse of our capacity to disagree constructively. If you deal primarily in subjective experience and impulse-driven reaction, under the assumption that you occupy the undisputed moral high ground, and you’ve been incited by fake news and want to signal your allegiances to your social media friends, then you can’t engage in rational discussion with your opponent. Your stock in trade will be unsubstantiated accusations and social shaming.

In this discombobulating universe, sex-based rights are turned into insults against trans people. Gender-critical feminists are recast as immoral bigots, engaged in deliberately hurtful, even life-threatening, speech. Rowling is not who we thought she was, her ex-fans wail, her characters and plots conceal hidden reservoirs of homophobia and bigotry. A few grandstanders attempt to distinguish themselves by saying that they have always been able to smell a rat—no, not Scabbers—and therefore hated the books from the outset. Nowhere amid this morass of moral grandstanding and outrage is there any serious engagement with her ideas.

Those of us on the left—and left-wing feminists in particular—who find trans ideology fraught, for all the reasons Rowling outlines, are a very small group. While Rowling is clearly privileged, she has also become the figurehead of a rapidly dwindling and increasingly vilified group of feminists, pejoratively labelled terfs, who want to preserve women’s sex-based rights and spaces. Although our arguments align with centrist, conservative and common sense positions, ours is not the prevailing view in academia, public service or the media, arts and culture industries, where we are most likely to be located (when we are not at home with our children). In most of these workplaces, a sex-based rights position is defined a priori as bigoted, indeed as hate speech. It can get us fired, attacked, socially ostracised and even assaulted.

As leftist thinkers who believe in freedom of speech and thought, who find creeping ideological and bureaucratic control alarming, we are horrified by these increasingly vicious denunciations by the left. The centre right and libertarians—the neo-cons, post-liberals and the IDW—are invariably smug about how funny it is to watch the left eat itself. But it’s true: some progressive circles are now defined by a call out/cancel culture to rival that of the most repressive of totalitarian states. Historically, it was progressives who fought against limits on freedom of speech and action. But the digital–identitarian left split off from the old print-based left some time ago, and has become its own beast. A contingent of us are deeply critical of these new directions.

Only a few on the left have had the gumption to speak up for us. Few have even defended our right to express our opinions. Those who have spoken out include former media darlings Germaine Greer and Michael Leunig. Many reader comments on left-leaning news sites claim that Rowling is to blame for the ill treatment she is suffering. Rowling can bask in the consequences of her free speech, they claim, as if having a different opinion from the woke majority means that she is no longer entitled to respect, and that any and all abuse is warranted—or, at least, to be expected. Where is the outrage on her behalf? Where are the writers, film makers, actors and artists defending her right to speak her mind?

Of course, the actors from the Harry Potter films are under no obligation to agree with JK Rowling just because she made them famous. They don’t owe her their ideological fealty: but they owe her better forms of disagreement. When Daniel Radcliffe repeats the nonsensical chant trans women are women, he’s not developing an argument, he’s reciting a mantra. When he invokes experts, who supposedly know more about the subject than Rowling, he betrays his ignorance of how contested the topic of transgender medicine actually is: for example, within endocrinology, paediatrics, psychiatry, sociology, and psychology (the controversies within the latter discipline have been demonstrated by the numerous recent resignations from the prestigious Tavistock and Portman gender identity clinic). The experts are a long way from consensus in what remains a politically fraught field.

Trans women are women is not an engaged reply. It is a mere arrangement of words, which presupposes a faith that cannot be questioned. To question it, we are told, causes harm—an assertion that transforms discussion into a thought crime. If questioning this orthodoxy is tantamount to abuse, then feminists and other dissenters have been gaslit out of the discussion before they can even enter it. This is especially pernicious because feminists in the west have been fighting patriarchy for several hundred years and we do not intend our cause to be derailed at the eleventh hour by an infinitesimal number of natal males, who have decided that they are women. Now, we are told, trans women are women, but natal females are menstruators. I can’t imagine what the suffragists would have made of this patently absurd turn of events.

There has been a cacophony of apologies to the trans community for Rowling’s apparently tendentious and hate-filled words. But no one has paused to apologise to Rowling for the torrent of abuse she has suffered and for being mischaracterised so profoundly.

So, I’m sorry, JK Rowling. I’m sorry that you will not receive the respectful disagreement you deserve: disagreement with your ideas not your person, disagreement with your politics, rather than accusations of wrongspeak. I’m sorry that schools, publishing staff and fan clubs are now cancelling you. And I’m sorry that you will be punished—because cancel culture is all about punishment. I’m sorry that you are being burned at the digital stake for expressing an opinion that goes against the grain.

But remember this, JK—however counterintuitive this may seem to progressives, whose natural home is on the fringe—most people are looking on incredulously at the disconnect between culture and reality. Despite raucous protestations to the contrary, you are on the right side of history—not just because of the points you make, but because of how you make them.

[sayruq]

Do you think Tommen is going to die like he did in the show? Will Cersei be responsible for her children's deaths?

that is a possibility but i think he'll be murdered in a similar way to rhaenys. in the show, myrcella was poisoned and right now in the books, tyene has been sent to infiltrate the faith so myrcella might get poisoned but joffrey was also poisoned. 2 of cersei's children getting poisoned while the third one gets stabbed matched grrm's love of setting a pattern of 3 and then subverting the 3rd one. myrcella could get poisoned and live long enough to die in cersei's arms. maybe even as cersei is escaping from the red keep.

still i don't think myrcella will be poisoned. something about that doesn't seem right to me. myrcella was maimed on her head, she's a smart and tough kid, she's not afraid to stand up for herself. idk if she's being set up to die by being poisoned or if she's set up to die fighting her killer like rhaenys did.

also cersei being present when myrcella dies doesn't seem right. cersei has been focusing so hard on making sure that tommen doesn't die that i feel like she'll be present when he dies and someone else will be there when myrcella dies. maybe someone like jaime. myrcella has the maturity to talk to jaime about the incest rumors and it would be just grrm to have jaime bond with one of his children only for that child to die moments later.

ok i'm starting to come around on the poisoning theory. it will likely be much more subtle than the tv show. areo and doran suspected that tyene could poison with just a touch and while that didn't happen, it always felt like chekhov's gun. a pov character will see the most innocent look septa with blonde hair touching myrcella and every reader who remembers tyene's introduction will start to have an inkling of what is going to happen next.

[hylialeia]

I love the Martells and their culture very much. During the previous books I was looking forward to them and it was worth the wait, I loved the characters and I loved the plot until recently. I don't like how they're relying on Dany or Aegon. I wanted them to have their own goals and own story. I don't like the idea of Arianne becoming queen consort for Aegon. I'm hoping there will be a twist since both Doran and Arianne have suspicions over Aegon but I'll be very disappointed if that's the case

I’m definitely conflicted about the Martells’ storyline, because while on one hand I appreciate the tragic elements being woven into their arcs, it still feels like such a waste. The POVs we’re given (a hyper-observant and viligant Areo Hotah, a passionate and stubborn Arianne, the tragedy that is Quentyn Martell) are as fascinating to me as that of the Starks and the Lannisters. GRRM isn’t in the habit of writing stale characters, and the Martells have been a prominent family since the first book, even if they weren’t actually present.

I don’t mind, exactly, that Arianne’s journey is about to intertwine with Aegon’s, but I do mind the end that’s linked to it. It’s not that it wasn’t foreshadowed; there’s plenty of textual and thematic evidence that the Martells fate isn’t a good one. It’s that it’s a waste, and not only that, but it’s a decision that has some very negative implications. GRRM is an amazing writer, but he doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to race, and this definitely isn’t convincing me otherwise.

House Martell is unique; they stood against the Targaryen dynasty while they still had dragons, something not even the Starks can say. Yet now they’re in a position where they’re expected to accept the war crimes that were committed against them without any form of compensation. Elia’s death was repulsive, and years afterwards her murderer is still alive and living as a knight. Robert never offered House Martell anything, instead turning a blind eye to the horrors they suffered and making a Lannister his queen.

The Martells deserve justice, they deserve to come out of the series Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken.