#and those inspirations are directly reflected in asoiaf

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

And remember kids, the next time someone tells you, "George R. R. Martin wouldn't make Jon Snow the typical fantasy hero because that's cliche".....

Oh yes he would!

One viewer wants to know what character would you play (on the show)? GRRM: If I could magically clap my hands and become a different person, it would be cool to play Jon Snow who's much more of the classic hero. Everybody wants to be the classic hero! ABC Interview, 2014

GRRM: And the character I’d want to be? Well who wouldn’t want to be Jon Snow — the brooding, Byronic, romantic hero whom all the girls love. Meduza Interview, 2017

In fact he already has ☺️

[crownsfm]

why are the velaryons white if they're poc in the show?

i  was  reluctant  to  respond  to  this  as  i  much  prefer  those  who  have  an  issue  to  message  me  directly  so  that  we  can  have  a  more  constructive  conversation  regarding  any  concerns  you  might  have  .  but  i  feel  like  i  want  to  defend  myself  .  the  velaryons  are  not  canonically  black  .  yes  ,  in  one  source  media  they  were  chosen  to  be  portrayed  by  black  actors  .  however  ,  in  other  asoiaf  source  media  their  ethnicity  differs  and their ethnicity is not tied to or reflected in their history .  houses  as  a  whole  in  the  roleplay  have  no  set  ethnicity  that  they  must  be  adhered  to  ,  any  house  can  be  of  any  ethnicity  .  meaning  that  even  those  who  have  been  known  to  be  portrayed  by  white  actors  in  source  material  can  now  be  portrayed  by  faceclaims  of  colour  .  this  especially  makes  sense  as  our  roleplay  is  au  and  set  centuries  after  the  source  material  it  is  inspired  by  ,  meaning  that  ethnical backgrounds  are  likely  to  have  changed  over  such  a  prolonged  period  of  time  .  in  respect  of  encouraging  diversity  and representation ,  we  already have  specified  that  more  than  half  of  our  great  houses  must  be  portrayed  by  faceclaims  of  colour  ,  with  the  specific ethnicity  left  for  the  first  applicant  to  decide  . as well as this we also have a strict 50/50 rule regarding white and poc faceclaims . as long as the representation is there then it shouldn’t matter which house . i won’t be responding to any further anonymous messages regarding the matter . so if you’d like to discuss things further then please message the main personally , thank you ! <3

[khaleesirin]

Hi, khaleesirin! I’ve read your “Daenerys Targaryen is the Great Other” analysis, I thought it was particularly amazing (because the standard is high as it is), it gave me a new lens to look at and analyze Daenerys’ story and it propelled me to reflect further about her arc and themes in relation to the other characters’. I’d like to know your opinion about my musings.

So, I think it’s obvious that the show - at least in its final episodes - had double standards when it came to Daenerys in order to paint her in a bad light. However, I wonder if that won’t also be the case in the books, to a lesser extent.

One of the major themes permeating FeastDance as a whole is false peace, which you can see with the Lannisters and the Tyrells squabbling over Tommen; the several factions in the Night’s Watch; the Freys in the Riverlands; the Boltons and the former Stark vassals (especially the Manderlys); Dorne’s supposed allegiance to the Iron Throne (and also Arianne’s years-long resentment); the situation in the Vale with Littlefinger as Lord Protector; Team Aegon out of public sight (for the most part); and, of course, Daenerys’ campaign in Slaver’s Bay. In all of these plots, people are trying to resolve their disagreements in vain: sometimes war is inevitable.

What makes me uncomfortable is that, as far as I’m aware, Daenerys is the only character whose choice of war (or, more precisely, Fire and Blood) is possibly being framed negatively. I say “possibly” because we don’t have TWOW in our hands to be sure, but you can see that’s a possibility considering how a significant part of the fandom has come to the conclusion that she just can’t be a peacetime queen, she has shown her “true colors”. This opinion never sat well with me because, as I said, lots of characters are heading towards this direction, and Daenerys herself only arrived at that place after having made many efforts to make amends, but they weren’t meant to last because some wars need to be fought on. It is a specific situation that will likely bring out her more violent impulses, yet it doesn’t define her character as a whole. I’ve read arguments about how the peace was worth it in Meereen and how Daenerys is now going backwards, but I simply disagree with them and, considering the pattern in the narrative and the anti-slavery ideas in Fevre Dream, I lean towards GRRM disagreeing as well (I’d really like to know if his main inspiration for Daenerys’ storyline was the American Civil War or the Iraq war, because knowing that would really clarify what he is trying to convey with her storyline). In any case, again, why is she the only character whose decision to fight the just (and inevitable) war is being framed as a step too far, a turn to the darkness?

a) In this case, I think it’s worth considering the Doylist viewpoint. ASOIAF was supposed to be a trilogy of books about Westeros first and foremost. Daenerys was supposed to live among the Dothraki, birth her dragons, get an army and get to Westeros in the beginning of the third book. As we know, GRRM is a “gardener”, so, as he had more ideas for the characters in Westeros, he had to create more stories for Daenerys as well, and one of them was her ruling in Meereen. This brings me back to your essay about her: being the fire of the song of ice and fire, why isn’t her anti-slavery war in Essos given as much importance as the War for the Dawn? Why should it be a mid-point for the character to realize that her endgame is Westeros? If Jon’s struggles against the Others represent the battle against the supernatural form of slavery and the ice part of the story, why shouldn’t Daenerys’ narrative be the battle against the human form of slavery and the fire part of the story? I’d argue both are just wars, though the WftD is an easier, more black-and-white, standard fantasy conflict, while the war in Slaver’s Bay has more nuance (one may argue that the characters revolving Daenerys are not fleshed out enough or dumbed down military speaking or one may point out the racist aspects of Daenerys’ story, but the socioeconomic situation is indeed complex) and is more controversial, which only reinforces the need to continue developing this story and, most importantly, Daenerys’ political career (which I’ll get to later).

These questions show that GRRM also has his architect side. Daenerys’ endgame is Westeros because he’s already said his story is about Westeros. Therefore, he needs to transition her to a mindset that’ll propel her to finally leave, but I don’t think he’s considered (or cared enough about) certain negative implications that I laid out above (and it’s not exhaustive, other writers have talked a lot more about it).

b) We also need to consider how the show factors into those speculations and how we look at the story, because, like it or not, GRRM still told the ending to D&D, even if in a very simplified manner. Before season eight aired, I was fine with the idea that all of the six main characters were going through the darkest phases of their journeys, but that Daenerys’ in particular would cause more collateral damage as a natural consequence of the power she wields. After season eight, however, I started to reflect if GRRM may have double standards against Daenerys as well. In any case, the show has made it very likely that her fire and blood phase will culminate with her burning of King’s Landing. On the one hand, this could be dramatically interesting, but on the other hand, it could amplify those very double standards against her. I’ll explain:

b1) As of ADWD, Daenerys hasn’t yet been exposed to the atrocities her father has committed (in part because she refuses to do so). What better (if deeply tragic) way to do so than have her directly confronting the legacy he’s left behind - namely, the wildfire caches all over the city? It would shatter her sense of purpose in life and lead her to question herself and her sanity. It would lead her to be critical of the Targaryen legacy and how she wants to engage with it and how she uses it to define herself. It would make her feel more lonely and isolated than ever, especially since one of her core wishes is to belong somewhere, to have a place to call home… And no one would embrace her if they think she did it on purpose. I can see this being dramatically really interesting.

b2) But I have my reservations about this: 1) If this happens, Daenerys will be in need for redemption and this doesn’t feel right to me (similar to how I feel about Arya). 1.1) She is not and has never been morally flawed as characters like Jaime or Theon or even Tyrion and Sandor. As of ADWD, she’s only committed two morally ambiguous acts (ie crucifying the 163 masters and torturing the wineseller’s daughters). She’s always had her heart in the right place and, if this tragedy happened, it wouldn’t necessarily turn her darker, she’d be a victim of circumstance (and I say so because I don’t see how her actions are any different than the other leaders fighting in the Wot5K, again the double standards…). I dislike how this would frame her outcome in such a moralistic way, especially considering how her character and arc have been paralleled with Jon’s and I’ve yet to see any theories of his character taking a dark turn. 1.2) She’s one of the characters who better embody the books’ idea that you have to do the right thing even if you don’t get anything in return. And yet, not only her war in Essos will be given less narrative importance compared to the WftD (because it will be treated as a middle stage to her fire and blood phase), but when she arrives in the protagonist-centered Westeros, she will be committing war crimes (even if accidentally in the case of the burning of KL)? I’m not a fan of this scenario because it strengthens the idea that she can’t be a peacetime queen because her choice in her final ADWD chapter was fire and blood (which as I’ve said ignores all the time she spent trying to make peace). 2) Also, I’ve noticed a tendency of fandom also demonizing the Targaryen dynasty as a whole, the dragons and the Iron Throne (which to them serves the same thematic purpose as the Ring of LoTR) and I don’t buy their interpretation either because we’ve already seen previous kings who did right by Westeros sitting on the Iron Throne and using their dragons. Having Daenerys fail so spectacularly to restore her family’s dynasty and destroy its most important symbol (the Iron Throne) does not say much about the dynasty’s nature or even the corrupting nature of power as they’d like to believe, it mainly creates sexist implications (that I’ll discuss below). Of course, this depends on how it’s framed: if the dynasty’s end is meant to be a tragedy because of Aerys II’s actions, then I’d buy it; if the dynasty’s end is meant to be a better course of action for Westeros, then it does not work. I wonder why the Targaryens are so vilified when every other house is also working under the parameters of feudalism. Feudalism as a whole should be criticized. Why are the North or Dorne in any better conditions under the governments of House Stark and House Martell? And if GRRM wanted to make an statement about how it’s bad for one individual to accumulate so much power under a centralized government, he really failed, because the Targaryen dynasty is made of successes as much as failures. 3) I’d still expect Daenerys to choose a diplomatic course of action before ultimately deciding to use her dragons on Team Aegon. Heck, it’s still mind-blowing to me to know how the Yunkish masters have burned a lot more things in ADWD than Daenerys and then envision a scenario where she decides to go fire and blood and then accidentally burns everything. GRRM will have to be careful with how he executes this plot if this happens, precisely because it doesn’t gel that well with her previous characterization.

b3) If Daenerys burning KL comes to pass (and the show made it seem very likely that it will), then Daenerys is most likely another queen who failed, which is another tired plot point as well. Anyone who’s read F&B knows that Aerea and Rhaella Targaryen, Rhaena Targaryen, Rhaenys Targaryen, Rhaenyra Targaryen and Daena Targaryen were all considered as queens but were ultimately passed over for their male relatives. It’s a shame that GRRM had so many opportunities to let women rule and chose not to, so why can’t Daenerys be the ultimate change for the dynasty? Related to that point, why can’t she succeed in re-establishing her dynasty when Aegon the Conqueror could? You can’t escape the gender aspect of her potential failure, and having Sansa end as QITN doesn’t fix that, it only makes one question the double standard that plagues House Targaryen and not the others. Finally, in hindsight of the historical (and GRRM’s) pattern of setting female rulers aside and of everything that might happen to Daenerys in the books, having Aegon take the throne and get the love from the smallfolk Daenerys craves for only adds salt to the wounds.

b4) Of course, all I’m supposing that happened in the show and will also happen in the books is that Daenerys will burn King’s Landing. Will she be made a villain and implied mad as well after a lot of stupid foreshadowing in which male characters only told us what the writers wanted the viewers to see, rather than the writers actually showing signs of madness? Will she willingly burn a city full of innocents? Will she be robbed of her perspective by waving away all her actions as “Targaryen madness” (another way of the fandom demonizing the Targaryens, which the text doesn’t really support if you look closely)? Will GRRM not pay attention to how those actions could undermine the book series’ main themes (not that the fucking show has conveyed any themes in a consistent manner, but that’s a bigger issue)? Will he have it happen at a point that’ll leave Daenerys with no chance to redeem herself and end her story with her legacy forever tarnished in-universe, general awareness and pop culture? Will he make Jon Snow look good even after killing her (if that’s how she dies)? Will he make her work within a system that never gave her a chance and have her last appearance be drenched in Nazi symbolism? Because of the double standard that’s also present in the books affecting how Daenerys is perceived, I’m no longer a fan of the theory of her burning King’s Landing. But, if it happens (and it won’t happen without its share of issues), please, GRRM, let her voice be heard, pay attention to her previous characterization, reflect on how those actions will be tied to the book series’ themes and give her a chance to redeem herself and ultimately end on the side of the heroes (because that’s what she is, and that’s important to acknowledge because of her previous acts, the series’ themes and how she compares - or doesn’t - to the actual villains of the story).

Anyway, I agree with you that it was great to see Daenerys rule in Meereen and that it’d a shame if GRRM doesn’t recognize that in the future books. I’m not sure the original Daenerys as he envisioned was going to be as revolutionary as Daenerys is, but, considering the OTL as it is, if their trajectories have changed, then naturally their endgames must be different as well (fitting with GRRM’s gardener identity).

I’d argue that Daenerys’ ending should emphasize her as a political force. Therefore, if one must have her have her dark phase and then burn King’s Landing (and not allow her to continue the Targaryen dynasty, which I would have liked to see), then have Daenerys decide to turn back east with her three dragons to continue the good fight after concluding that Essos has never felt like home, but it was where she did put the effort to build trees, while Westeros was the dream and home of her ancestors, who do not need to wholly define her. It is the end of the Targaryen dynasty, but not with her death. Why I’d choose an ending like this: 1) The circular ending matches show!Jon’s, whose ending I thought would be fitting for book!Jon’s as well; 2) She ends her journey being more critical of external influences and more aware of her needs and actual experiences instead of simply taking on Viserys’ and her ancestors’ dreams to find an ultimately failed sense of belonging. She’s the one in charge of her journey from now on, which is an existential victory of sorts. The continent where she made and can still make a difference is Essos, and she’ll return aware of that, and with a more realistic and resilient sense of purpose; 3) It emphasizes her role as a queen and a revolutionary, not only as a savior (to people who have been in the abstract for her for most of her life); 4) It won’t be a totally happy ending. She’ll be left scarred from the events she witnessed in Westeros, from the burning of King’s Landing to the fight against the Others to the rejection she experiences from the lords and smallfolk alike. She’ll always feel like she needs to atone for her mistakes and she’ll be another Targaryen queen who failed. She still won’t have found a place and people to call her “home”. 5) That being said, she’s alive, in a position of power, more aware of herself and her place in the world and with the possibility of continuing to do good. And she’s also mentally stable and a hero, far from a villain.

So, what did you think? Do you think there are double standards against Daenerys in the books as well, especially in regards to how the inevitability of the wars is framed? What did you think of my observations about the (likely) upcoming burning of King’s Landing? Would you rather have her sit on the Iron Throne, go back to Essos or something else entirely? Please tell me what you think! I really enjoy your posts and they are the reason why I felt the need to gather my thoughts.

[savinscripts]

Name/alias: Liv

Age and timezone: 21 - GMT

Discord: Liv #7729 feel free to add me but just hit me up with who you are xD

Favourite ASOIAF character(s)?: I love so many of them but more recently with the release of blood and fire I actually love Queen Alysanne Targaryen and King Jaehaerys I Targaryen. The way in which they handled the Starks to prevent them from growing agitated at Royal decree and administration and brewing for independence by political manoeuvring without inciting war and bloodshed? Genius. The fact they took their dragons and journeyed directly to Winterfell to showcase their power and remind the Starks that even their distance from King’s Landing meant nothing with such beasts? Incredible. THEN how Alysanne cost the Starks 25 leagues of land just so she could forcibly double the size of Brandon’s Gift for the Night’s Watch? A move that not even the Stark’s could protest without appearing to be against the Night’s Watch? Inspired political wrangling of the Starks at its best. From the series though? I love Arianne Martell and I am both glad and still super bitter she wasn’t in the TV show. Glad mostly though because it meant her characterisation couldn’t be messed up. I also love Margaery, Olenna and Loras Tyrell. And Sansa Stark. Robb Stark. Arya Stark. Catelyn Stark. Tyrion is also a favourite of mine. Barristan. Maybe unpopular opinion but I also find Tywin’s characterisation and background really interesting?? The way he came to be the way he is? Fascinating honestly. Just all of them okay. All of them.

Character(s) you’re most interested in at TKAK: Robb’s my weakness but I’d love to see Sansa around too. Tormund, Cersei, Theon, ALL THE STARK BABIES.  I’d also love to see some of the elder characters be picked up as well!! Especially those like Cat, Tywin and Olenna. I just want everything okay??

What you’re most looking forward to in the group: Honestly just seeing everyone’s characterisation and interpretation of the incredible bios the admins have put up. Like?? How incredible is all the work those guys have put into this roleplay?? I will forever shout about it. The biggest thing that I REALLY want is the development and exploration of character/family dynamics that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred either in the show or the books. The Martells and the Starks or WIldlings, Tyrells and the Starks or Wildlings etc etc JUST EVERYTHING.

What you’d really love to happen in game: Political intrigue. DRAMA. Verbal and physical assassination attempts. DRAMA. Family dynamics, family quarrels. BREAK UPS. HOOK UPS. GET TOGETHERS. Did I mention drama? Honestly I just want to see everyone having a good time.

Describe what the aesthetic of this verse is to you: Skyscrapers speckled white at night. A city that seems too clean; masking a grittier underground. Hushed tones behind closed doors. Walks of shame at the crack of dawn. Black cabs and buses. Morning suits on the rush to work. Neons flashing against brick while clubbers seek their next high. The West End district packed with performers and tourists. Churches tucked amongst high rises. Memories of abandoned dreams. City walls echoing sirens. Lights flickering to life as dusk falls. A feeling of unexplained dread.  Sobbing in the dark.  Insecurity obscured by layers of painted confidence and the latest fashion line. Round sunglasses reflect the chrome and metallic hue of the world.

Who killed Ned Stark?: Ned Stark likely caused his own death by choosing to try and stay honourable. To not learn the intrigue and game-playing of the London Elite. Honour limits adaptation in the turbulent ever-changing waters of British politics and Ned likely drowned for want of learning to swim. (copoutanswer.jpeg xD)

Is there a meme for the state of TKAK’s London right now?

I’m not good with memes but here have this

[calamity-bean]

“they’re all liars here”

I know this is old, OLD news, but it turns out I’m actually never going to get over The Show giving Sandor Clegane’s backstory explanation & “they’re all liars here” line to Littlefinger. I mean ... bad enough that you deprive a character of a scene so staggeringly significant to his characterization that you literally auditioned the actor by that scene ... but of ALL the characters to then transfer those lines to ... Why. WHY.

Because, okay. This is just a rough and unedited spilling of thoughts, so forgive me for not being terribly academic and thorough here, but look: the themes of truth and lies are central to Sansa’s character arc in the books. (Unless otherwise specified, everything I discuss here is from book-canon, btw.) Sandor and LF likewise both play significant roles in her storyline and are both involved in the truth/lies theme, but in rather different ways. When the Hound says that line about liars, it’s coming from the established context that he’s a guy who supposedly abhors lies and liars; a guy who — when alone with her, at least — often tries to break through Sansa’s armor of courtesy and elicit truthful reactions, even if they’re unpleasant ones. And yet, despite the famous “a hound will die for you but never lie to you” line ... Sandor actually lies a lot. Especially in public. Regardless of whether he completely buys his own cynicism when he says shit like “killing is the sweetest thing there is,” he definitely lies more than once in service of protecting Sansa. And so here, as he calls Sansa out on being a bad liar, it’s hypocritical but also extremely reflective of the fact that Sandor is a deeply broken former romantic: he disdains lying because he was made to feel that the honest, honorable world he once believed in was itself a lie, but he feels that lying is necessary because the world’s terrible, so you have to be terrible to survive in it, so better get good at being terrible. It’s a worldview directly opposed to Sansa’s own idealism / romanticism and her tendency to show humanity even to those who frighten her or have harmed her ... And ultimately, I think Sansa — and the narrative — pretty definitively prove Sandor’s cynicism wrong. 

Whatever The Show may be, I think that ASoIaF is not a grimdark, cynical work on the whole. There’s a lot of awful, terrible things in it, yes, but I think we’ll see a triumph of kinder values in the end. After all, "The North Remembers” is not a statement just about revenge, but about honor and loyalty. Ned was merciful and honorable and he died an unjust death for it, and in the short term, that seems to make a good case for being cynical and ruthless ... but in the long term, we see that House Stark and its silly honor have inspired a loyalty that unites and motivates and endures. Likewise, the promise of healing/renewal trumps cynicism/destruction with the “death” of the Hound persona and the claim that Sandor Clegane has found peace. “The Hound,” now an identity currently being shuffled around between some pretty bad dudes, proved to be 1) a persona false enough that Sandor was able to shed it and survive without it, and 2) far worse than the actual man underneath.

The way Sandor uses falsehoods is actually not unlike Sansa’s porcelain / ivory / steel sentiment or her aloof, self-effacing “armor of courtesy.��� Both are means of protecting oneself against the dangers (both physical and emotional) of a world that has proven itself to be far crueler than Sansa believed it to be before Ned’s death or that Sandor believed when he was just a kid who wanted so badly to be a knight. I do think it’s possible LF started out with something of the same mindset; there’s some indication he too might’ve been a romantic as a child, the underdog dueling for the sake of true love and all. If Sandor wields lies as a shield, however — a means of protecting Sansa from physical threats and himself from emotional ones — then to Littlefinger, lies are a dagger hidden in his sleeve. Far from viewing it as a necessary evil, he’s weaponized mendacity and made manipulation into an art. And, of course, he too has the duality of a “true face” and a persona ... but which is which?

“Littlefinger was only a mask he had to wear. Only sometimes Sansa found it hard to tell where the man ended and the mask began. Littlefinger and Lord Petyr looked so very much alike. She would have fled them both, perhaps, but there was nowhere for her to go.” Sansa doesn’t know which identity is LF’s true face (if indeed either is), nor whether EITHER face can be trusted. It’s a pretty big difference compared to the way she always managed to get under the Hound’s skin and, even without seeming to know that she was doing it sometimes, connect with his true self (see: “he was no true knight,” the Mother’s Hymn, etc.). And it’s under LF’s tutelage, of course, that she (necessarily) develops her own persona of Alayne the bastard girl — an ability which grows out of the skills she developed in King’s Landing, where she improved her armor of courtesy and her ability to remain impassive and seemingly docile for the sake of survival. LF, however, encourages her to take a more proactive role in plotting and scheming, to be on the offense rather than the defense, treating her as something of a protege — a protege he still controls for now, though of course it’s widely speculated that she may prove his undoing in the end.

Truth and lies, questions of identity, etc ... It’s all very tangled. And maybe on the surface it seems like there’s not much difference in having Sandor say “they’re all liars here” versus Petyr saying “we’re all liars here.” But they’re just such different characters that I think the line carries a very different weight depending on who the speaker is, what his attitude about lying is, and why (or whether) he wants Sansa to improve at it. It’s just kind of wild to me that The Show gave that line to a character who plays such an opposite role in that thematic aspect of Sansa’s arc. Not to mention that it’s one of those lines that, even fairly early on, hints at the fact that Sandor is much smarter than most other characters give him credit for. Pity the show stripped him of moments that show his insight and complexity like that.

And, I mean, goes without saying that giving Sandor’s backstory monologue to LF 1) made no sense, how does LF even know any of that, has he been gossiping with Gregor, god knows Sandor wouldn’t tell, and 2) erased the foundation of Sandor having any particular bond with Sansa, making their season 2 scenes kind of baffling, but whatever, the show didn’t adapt half their ACoK scenes anyway and also seems to have forgotten that they ever knew one another, so I guess it doesn’t matter in the end. 

[thelegendofclarke]

I was reading your excellent writeup on Sansa's soft power. I was reminded of another instance where Sansa convinces Joff to not run over a woman w/ dead baby;instead to show her mercy&charity (Tyrion POV) There's also contrast b/w how Cersei's&Sansa's response. Cersei's advice provokes. Sansa shows noteworthy exercise of soft powers&maneuvering and influencing through her wits&words throughout the series

Hey Anon, thank you so much! I am really glad you enjoyed it :)

I have a lot of issues with how GRRM writes, treats, and represents females in his stories. But one of the things that I find myself being really fascinated by is the sheer variety of types of women he writes and how dynamic their characters and personalities are.

Like I talked about in my last answer a little bit, I think its easy to view the hard vs. soft power dichotomy as very gendered, with men employing the former and women the latter. It’s even easier to see these stereotypes in a setting like Westeros, which is a patriarchy and therefore inherently an extremely and prescriptively gendered society. And in many ways, the series DOES play into the implied male and female constructs of hard and soft power techniques. But in some subtle and really interesting ways, GRRM kind of flipped that on its head with female characters who have no trouble making threats and using coercion, intimidation, or force (for e.g. Cersei, Dany, ect.); and with male characters who are completely at ease manipulating and co-opting others, and relying on intellectual tactics as opposed to physical force (for e.g. Petyr Baelish, Varys, Tyrion, ect.).

The scene that you brought up is a really intriguing and enlightening one . You’re definitely right about the difference between how Sansa and Cersei react to the situation; its a really striking outsider perspective of the stark contrast between their characters. 

They crossed Fishmonger’s Square and rode along Muddy Way before turning onto the narrow, curving Hook to begin their climb up Aegon’s High Hill. A few voices raised a cry of “Joffrey! All hail, all hail!” as the young king rode by, but for every man who picked up the shout, a hundred kept their silence. The Lannisters moved through a sea of ragged men and hungry women, breasting a tide of sullen eyes. Just ahead of him, Cersei was laughing at something Lancel had said, though he suspected her merriment was feigned. She could not be oblivious to the unrest around them, but his sister always believed in putting on the brave show.Halfway along the route, a wailing woman forced her way between two watchmen and ran out into the street in front of the king and his companions, holding the corpse of her dead baby above her head. It was blue and swollen, grotesque, but the real horror was the mother’s eyes. Joffrey looked for a moment as if he meant to ride her down, but Sansa Stark leaned over and said something to him. The king fumbled in his purse, and flung the woman a silver stag. The coin bounced off the child and rolled away, under the legs of the gold cloaks and into the crowd, where a dozen men began to fight for it. The mother never once blinked. Her skinny arms were trembling from the dead weight of her son.“Leave her, Your Grace,” Cersei called out to the king, “she’s beyond our help, poor thing.”The mother heard her. Somehow the queen’s voice cut through the woman’s ravaged wits. Her slack face twisted in loathing. “Whore!” she shrieked. “Kingslayer’s whore! Brotherfucker!” Her dead child dropped from her arms like a sack of flour as she pointed at Cersei. “Brotherfucker brotherfucker brotherfucker.”Tyrion never saw who threw the dung. He only heard Sansa’s gasp and Joffrey’s bellowed curse, and when he turned his head, the king was wiping brown filth from his cheek. There was more caked in his golden hair and spattered over Sansa’s legs.

—ACoK, Chapt. 41, Tyrion IX

The part I highlighted is also one that I have always found interesting… It’s true that Tyrion is Cersei’s brother and therefore likely knows her better than most; but regardless, it’s even clear to other people that Cersei is putting on a display. It’s a display where Cersei is saying “We are in control here. We are in charge. We have the power. The unrest around us doesn’t matter.” I don’t know if Cersei’s reaction was necessarily intended or designed to provoke, but it was definitely reflective of her perception of the situation at hand. She doesn’t think she needs to watch what she says around these people because in her mind they have no power here. That’s one of the things about Cersei, she has such faith in (hard) power that she views it as essentially indestructible; and in a way, she views herself as indestructible in turn.

I think it can be really tempting to view “hard power” as power exercised by traditional means and through overt acts. For example, with the use of physical force, violence, bribery, ect. But the distinction isn’t that cut and dry. You can really see that in ASoIaF where power manifests itself both as tangible (money, military force, ect.) and coercive means, and in contrast more conceptually as the ability to inspire and attract others in non-violent ways (through manipulation, collusion, intellect, ect.).

Soft power is all about making (or letting) other people think/know that THEY have the power. Its the ability to influence others with out threats, its getting others to want the same outcome you want, its planting the little seed of an idea in their mind and then telling them ~what a brilliant idea~ it is when they come to the conclusion on their own, its co-opting people instead of coercing them. Hard power is all about telling (or showing) other people that YOU have the power. Hard power strategies include a wide range of measures geared toward coercing or threatening others into compliance.

Cersei is pretty clearly a fan of hard power and hard power displays; and she’s not illusive or inconspicuous about it. It’s like she tells Sansa, “[t]he only way to keep your people loyal is to make certain they fear you more than they do the enemy” (ACoK). And I know that this is a show example, but that “Power is Power” scene between Cersei and Peter Baelish was such a classic hard power demonstration. Yes, Cersei is obviously capable of using manipulation and machinations to get her way. But her instincts usually seem to be more toward outright expression and exhibitions of power and intimidation. 

I think one of the clearest examples of Cersei’s gravitation towards and preference for hard power is how she basically weaponizes the Faith of the Seven and restores the Faith Militant/Warrior’s Sons in A Feast for Crows. Yes they technically serve the will of the High Septon, but the High Septon was directly aligned with Cersei. She hopes that this new religious army will help her fight enemies like Stannis Baratheon, the northmen, and potentially the Tyrells whom she is highly suspicious of. The Faith Militant is clearly a military power: they are armed forces, they use violence and strength to enforce the law of the Seven and to punish those who they deemed to have broken it. They also created their own tribunals where the they utilize the practices of the Inquisition: imprisonment, isolation, threats, torture and public confession. Cersei sees this as the best strategy, she sees this as the most effective means by which she can achieve her desired ends.

Do you hear that, Lord Stannis? Cersei could not help but smile. Even her lord father could have done no better. At a stroke, she had rid King’s Landing of the plague of sparrows, secured Tommen’s blessing, and lessened the crown’s debt by close to a million dragons. Her heart was soar-ing as she allowed the High Septon to escort her back to the Hall of Lamps.

Lady Merryweather shared the queen’s delight, though she had never heard of the Warrior’s Sons or the Poor Fellows. “They date from before Aegon’s Conquest,” Cersei explained to her. “The Warrior’s Sons were an order of knights who gave up their lands and gold and swore their swords to His High Holiness. The Poor Fellows … they were humbler, though far more numerous. Begging brothers of a sort, though they carried axes instead of bowls. They wandered the roads, escorting travelers from sept to sept and town to town. Their badge was the seven-pointed star, red on white, so the smallfolk named them Stars. The Warrior’s Sons wore rainbow cloaks and inlaid silver armor over hair shirts, and bore star-shaped crystals in the pommels of their longswords. They were the Swords. Holy men, ascetics, fanatics, sorcerers, dragonslayers, demonhunters … there were many tales about them. But all agree that they were implacable in their hatred for all enemies of the Holy Faith.”

Lady Merryweather understood at once. “Enemies such as Lord Stannis and his red sorceress, perhaps?”

“Why, yes, as it happens,” said Cersei, giggling like a girl. “Shall we broach a flagon of hippocras and drink to the fervor of the Warrior’s Sons on our way home?”

“To the fervor of the Warrior’s Sons and the brilliance of the Queen Regent. To Cersei, the First of Her Name!”

—AFfC, Chapt. 28, Cersei VI

Obviously it doesn’t work out ~exactly~ how Cersei had planned… But that’s another important thing about both hard and soft power: they both have their fault lines and limitations. Neither is an infallible or unbreakable institution.