#even tyrions is not neutral

[ilynpilled]

We look up at the same stars, and see such different things.

A Storm of Swords - Jon III

[visenyaism]

Okay I simply must ask, what are Cersei and Rhaegar’s kids Aegon and Rhaenys(? - I assume that’s what they called the other daughter) like? Do they get along with their sister?

hmmm i think Rhaenys inherits her father’s melancholy and solemn sense of purpose, but very practical. not a big believer in magic or prophecy. why would she be. that’s all reserved for her brother who is going to save the world that’s what everyone says. has a genuine passion for statecraft that no one in her life humors or encourages aside from the occasional books sent by her uncle tyrion or her grandmother rhaella on a quiet day who might listen to her and nod quietly. her mother loved her when she was a little porcelain dress up doll toddler but has little regard for her any older. shunted between being betrothed to her uncle viserys and her brother aegon depending on if her father or grandfather has more power at court but really she’d be happiest as like. master of laws in her own right. neutral towards her brother, has a healthy amount of disdain for visenya ii because rhaenys recognizes the same thing in her that exists in viserys and aerys and maybe also her father as in there’s something living within you that makes you destroy everything you touch. she doesn’t understand it and doesn’t want to.

Aegon is pretty messed up given that Cersei is trying to groom him into the perfect extension of herself prince-king she was never allowed to be and Rhaegar is trying to groom him into being the messiah. Don’t think he ever gets the chance to be his own person or develop a personality outside of crushing pressure that externalizes as arrogance. when his parents’ marriage falls apart and both of them are trying to win Aegon over to have him be like their puppet heir he crashes out, is not seen at court for six months, comes back wrong. Not close with either of his sisters, not even the one he’s engaged to, because he’s not really close with anyone. readily apparent that he cannot take off the mask or turn off the messiah prince persona because there is simply nothing underneath. if Dany brings back the dragons in this at all it’s definitely his death that does it.

[daenerystargaryen06]

I saw a comment on another post about how fans of Daenerys (and those who also support TB) cannot accept criticism of Daenerys' character and go overboard with our love for her.

This statement is entirely false. Daenerys fans do entirely accept Daenerys' flaws and criticism to her character- so long as the criticism is done properly and makes sense. We only go against criticism when said criticism entirely misconstrues Daenerys' character in a false and gross way. Bending the text of the books or even early seasons of the show as an excuse to "criticize" Daenerys is obviously going to be ignored because it presents an entirely false narrative. The ones who do this mainly are Daenerys antis/Sansa stans/Jonsa stans. Most critical points/metas they make against her can be disproven (and have been many times) by reading the text of the books and analyzing Daenerys' show scenes early season before her character became entirely ruined by s8.

Daenerys fans do accept criticism of Daenerys and we do acknowledge her flaws. But the difference is that those who do criticize her often tend to paint her out to be 'evil' or the main villain for ASOIAF/GoT, when she isn't. Daenerys, like every other character in the ASOIAF series, is a gray character. Us fans see and know this. But Daenerys antis only look at her through a lens of black-and-white, which is an issue of itself, considering she isn't meant to be viewed that way. The reason why us Dany fans/stans go against criticism of Dany so much is because it's often wrong and entirely out of proportion, in which we make counter points/arguments backed up with actual textual evidence from the books or scenes from the show. The criticism against Daenerys isn't just critically analyzing her as a character, it's blatant hate and often misconstrued to paint her in a light that makes her seem worse than she is.

When we look in the world and setting of ASOIAF/GoT, Daenerys' actions are just like any other character in that world, only not as extreme, and when she makes the decisions she does within the books she questions the choices she's made and thinks heavily over them.

When you look at the men of ASOIAF and GoT, their actions are in line with/far worse than what Daenerys has done. Tywin has eradicated an entire house, slaughtered countless people, treated his son with disdain for being born a dwarf, etc. Robb executed a man for going against his orders. Jon killed a child (despite the child having taken part in his murder- it was still a child) and is much darker in the books. Tyrion has fantasies of violence towards Cersei, expects Sansa (a child) to want him when they're wed, etc. Robert nearly slaughtered and eradicated an entire House, laughed over dead bodies of children, r*ped Cersei often when drunk, etc. Ned executed a deserter of the Night's Watch. And we all know how terrible Euron and Ramsay are in the books/show.

And yet Daenerys receives more hate than these men over her actions, is viewed more critically, and is 'criticized' far more than said men. Which is unfortunately driven by misogyny. The difference between Daenerys and the men of ASOIAF is the fact that she is a woman. If she were a man, I doubt her actions would be so heavily analyzed and torn into by antis. Anyone could say that isn't true- and yet, it's evident in the way Daenerys is heavily hated and discussed most over compared to anyone else who has done far worse compared to her.

It's not the fact that we don't accept criticism over Daenerys. It's the fact that us fans have to always constantly defend her over hate that is unjustified to her character. Is it even so wrong that we show love and support to her character anyway? I'm sure everyone else does that for their own favorite characters as well and deny criticism to them often if the criticism is actual bullshit over a valid critical and neutral analysis. Why is it so wrong for us fans to do so?

A blog I will always recommend that actually does amazing metas character analysis- @rainhadaenerys.

[catofoldstones]

The thing about arya fans' argument that arya comes before sansa in the line of succession because robb disinherited her because of her forced marriage is the underlying misogyny and victim blaming of it, and their assumption that grrm thinks the same. We don't have jon [you know the actual person robb chose over sansa, and i think its time we start talking that the will specifically was about sansa and jon and that shit means something narratively] asserting that winterfell belongs to sansa despite everything and him not falling to the bait of stannis calling her a lannister, to just assume that according to grrm what robb did was OK. If people actually think grrm wants to show robb was right and girls truly are not important and thus his disinheritance of his sister's rights will be upheld, then they need their heads checked. Its not like he showed us that jaehaerys's sexism was what led to death of the dragons and downfall of targaryens even though grrm considers him a good ruler. Ultimately, catelyn will be validated when brienne saves either sansa or arya with oathkeeper and sansa will become lady of winterfell/qitn DESPITE robb's will. He [and arya fans] can suck it.

Hi soulmate anon,

Before we start, I have to let you know that one our previous posts was screenshotted and circulated in the arya stans circles because “we’re spreading our agenda on a neutral public platform” or something along those lines. Idk if you’ve seen that or not but I had to let you know before we go off kicking another hornet’s nest lol.

Anyway, that out of the way, to the Arya stans who are so hellbent upon removing Sansa from the Stark succession, Robb declared Jon as his heir, pushing Sansa further down the line (not disinheriting her jesus fuck) because through her Tyrion may lay claim to Winterfell, landing it in the hands of the Lannisters, exactly what Robb and Cat are trying to prevent. Robb didn’t ��disinherit” Arya because he thought she was dead. Hope that helps.

WAIT!

the will being specifically about Jon and Sansa and that we need to start thinking about that narratively

SCREAM

Okay, I have now moved on (I have not). Though please feel free to talk about this more, I wanna know more. Guess I’ll now have to add jonsa tag to this answer hehe :P

I mean Robb did come from a place of “authority over the female members of his family” here with the will and that’s exactly the kind of thing we have to side eye. Taking it at face value and uncritically thinking about it is not a fair way to engage with the text I feel. You’re right when Jon himself reiterates Sansa’s claim over Winterfell, we are supposed to think twice whether Robb’s action was equitable or not. Stannis calls Sansa “Lady Lannister” to coax Jon into staking a claim over Winterfell so that Stannis gets a good reason to march to Winterfell and attack the Boltons (which he will anyway, but Jon’s, a member of the Stark family, support would mean political backing and reason). If we fall in the trap that Stannis thinks Sansa is now a Lannister, and therefore she is now a Lannister with no claim to Winterfell, then we’ve lost the plot and are coming from the same misogynistic hypocrisy (he wants Shireen on the throne if he dies but calls Sansa a Lannister, how does that work old man?) that destroys Westeros (your Jaehaerys example). And are no different from a crusty medieval era middle aged man btw.

It’s so fucking funny when the readers start emulating the same sexism that the author wants them to critique, and then start calling themselves feminists because they’re supporting a woman’s rights! Which woman’s rights besties? Because the one that clearly has them, you’re actively against her staking her claim. Wait till they read the books with their eyes open and realise that Arya comes at the end of the heirs to winterfell list, despite Sansa getting “disinherited” lmao. And I love Robb, he’s just a boy trying to do his best, but he truly made mistakes, especially with not listening to Catelyn. We also cannot deny the undercurrent of misogyny and chauvinism that Robb demonstrated with the will. Re Sansa’s rights and Jon’s decision to be with the Nights Watch. I will patiently wait for Catelyn to be validated and Sansa to be the Lady/QiTN not only because that subverts reader’s expectations and Westerosi patriarchal standards but because I want to see Sansa antis have a grand old meltdown.

[melrosing]

If Jaime was a girl? How will her relationship with tywin, cersei, and Tyrion will be like and how will she feel about brienne?

Will she still be the prodigious knight?

I might have answered something like this before but i can't find it again so i will share new thoughts....

CERSEI like w a previous hypothetical where the twins are brothers, i think as sisters they'd probably be quite distant. Tywin's yearning for a son to succeed over his eldest daughter really chafes Cersei but she doesn't confide that in Jaime, who can't really care less about the line of succession. I think they both want very different things. Cersei, like in canon, is grasping for whatever power she can find and hopes to be matched with a prince, Jaime has more romantic notions and I think would be a lot like Lyanna Stark. so the twins don't get each other at all and in this au I don't think they try to. they'd probably argue a lot if they weren't wandering off in completely different directions

TYWIN because this version of Jaime is a bit of a Lyanna, I think the relationship is coloured by Jaime's wilfulness and Tywin's displeasure at that. he still seeks a lot of control over her, but is more focused on Cersei so Jaime manages to avoid his full attention. probably Tywin is just generally a whole lot more focused on Cersei (as his eldest child and daughter) and Tyrion (as his only son who he despises), so in contrast to canon, Tywin is pretty disinterested in Jaime for the most part.

TYRION this is still the most positive Lannister relationship, but slightly different to canon. I think the upsides are that Tyrion doesn't have to feel jealous of Jaime, and maybe even feels protective of her as she does him. however, I think the fact that canon Jaime is this kind of westerosi platonic ideal of a man (supposedly) is something Tyrion takes comfort in besides the jealousy - because that's his brother, who loves him and looks out for him. Jaime's status bestows a kind of warmth in Tyrion's life by association. in the early books he's really reassured by the idea of this 'big, strong brother' on his side, and you kind of wonder if he'd feel as reassured by a sister. maybe the idea of a female Jaime who's good with a sword would make Tyrion feel a little worse - he's supposed to be the warrior, and yet his sister fits the bill more readily. and can a sister really protect him the same way as canon Jaime can?? etc. I think they're still fast friends but taking canon Jaime away leaves Tyrion with a new sense of vulnerability

BRIENNE v hard to imagine how they meet in this AU, like Jaime just wouldn't have anything resembling the history he has in canon and so that strips away the foundations of their relationship. to buy some of that texture back it would need a whole fic really bc otherwise i can only imagine them meeting on purely neutral terms at court which like.... as i say, would probably best resemble some kind of 'what if brienne met lyanna' scenario

oh yeah and would she still be a prodigious knight. i think again she would probably do a lyanna and enter tourneys as a mystery knight. so she wouldn't be known as such but she wouldn't settle to just put swords away

[a-d-nox]

web of wyrd observation: moments when actors/actresses fit their persona so well

the best thing you can do is to lean into your persona number when acting or playing a part in front of others. people naturally have a predisposition to seeing and assuming you are a certain way and it is all governed by that leading public persona number. the more you lean into it the more you are likely to be seen and even recognized/rewarded for your association to that energy.

EXAMPLE ONE elijah wood as frodo in lord of the rings (lead number / public persona number as 10, the wheel of fortune, which gives grand adventure vibes)

EXAMPLE TWO florence pugh as dani in midsommar (lead number / public persona number as 3, the empress, is 100% may queen energy - pugh even looks like empress in the scene depicted below)

EXAMPLE THREE daniel radcliffe as harry potter in the 8 movie franchise (lead number / public persona number as 5, the hierophant, where could you get better dark academia vibes than at hogwarts? potter even teaches his peers in the 5th book and movie)

EXAMPLE FOUR orlando bloom as will turner, particularly the best movie in that franchise, pirates of the caribbean: at world's end (lead number / public persona number as 13, death, "part of the crew part of the ship, part of the crew part of the ship" vibes for sure)

EXAMPLE FIVE peter dinklage as tyrion lannister in the tv series game of thrones (lead number / public persona number as 11, justice, i have never seen a more politically and morally neutral character thanks george r. r. martin but also THANK YOU casting crew because no could've picked a better tyrion)

like what you read? leave a tip and state what post it is for! please use my "suggest a post topic." button if you want to see a specific pac/pile next! if you'd like my input on how i read a specific card or what i like to ask my deck, feel free to use the ask button for that as well.

click here for the masterlist

click here for more web of wyrd related posts

want a personal reading? click here to check out my reading. options and prices!

© a-d-nox 2024 all rights reserved

[2maegor2cruel]

i've spent the last year getting my degree in genderbent theon studies so lemme say some shit real quick. i'll probably make a seperate post about The Themes, but this is about the logistics, babeyyy 🫶

"thea" vs. asha: pick your hostage

from the get-go, whether it is theon ("thea") or asha who is taken hostage, the intent would be to 1) shore up the power of the loyal regions in mainland westeros, and 2) "neuter "the iron islands. a northern or riverlands match is the best option, as both lack any significant fleet (which is bizarre in and of itself, but that's what grrm went with), balancing out the reach's naval superiority with the redwyne fleet.

in canon, we don't get any in-depth explorations of how women experience the hostage system. we know of dorna swyft, who was given to house lannister as a hostage until house swyft could pay off its debts. dorna would later marry kevan lannister, which tyrion describes as ser harys swyft's "greatest accomplishment". tyrion is naturally biased, but a relatively minor vassal getting to marry into the ruling house IS a serious step up. however, this is only one case, with it's own unique circumstances.

which brings us to my original question: would asha or "thea" be taken? asha is the obvious choice in a two-greyjoy-daughters scenario, as she's the legal heir, but asha is also a lot less malleable. she's around 13 by the end of balon's rebellion, and though women's opinions or identity wouldn't be given much weight or consideration in this context, the intent of a marriage pact would be to build a working alliance and mend rifts between regions. that's a lot more difficult when the conquering party doesn't have a mostly blank slate to work with.

also, theon was balon's last son and legal heir, but even he was essentially written off as dead in canon. i imagine a daughter would be regarded as similar to a salt wife, taken from her family by conquest due to her male relatives "weakness"/inability to protect her. it would be too much for balon's ego and sense of ironborn masculinity to bear, so i don't doubt he would consider her "as good as dead" as well, even if the conquering party (robert baratheon & co) couldn't have anticipated this.

most importantly, as we see AFFC, "the laws of the green lands" do not count for much on the iron islands. so let's get into it.

to start, the greyjoys themselves are relatively new major lords, having ruled for only 300 years (compared to the starks' alleged thousands of years of kingship). and, as we can intuit from the kingsmoot, the greyjoys do not command unquestioning loyalty from the ironborn. dunstan drumm, gylbert farwynd, and erik ironmaker all put forth their names at the kingsmoot, and some receive a levels of support that is surprising to the greyjoys in attendance, particularly aeron, who has a very skewed perception of balon (and therefore an overly rosy view of balon's legacy).

if it had been asha who was taken as hostage-bride, i honestly don't think any tully-greyjoy or stark-greyjoy children (who would have been ~9 years old MAX at the time of the kingsmoot in canon, assuming asha was forced to have children immediately after the rebellion) would have stood a snowball's chance in hell of inheriting. euron would likely have them killed in some clandestine way, and victarion, should he win, would be pressured to neutralize them in a less kinslay-ey way (though he could potentially take a male child on as heir, given his own lack of progeny).

all of this to say, the greyjoy line of succession is inevitably thorny. in my predominately vibes-based opinion, in the absence of a clear male heir like theon and knowing the ironborn's lack of deference to "green land law", "thea" might be taken over asha. i imagine lords like ned stark or hoster tully would be afraid that an asha match would basically be throwing their grandchildren into the greyjoy succession meat grinder, when asha/"thea" still have so many living and powerful male relatives.

anyway, thank you for coming to my female theon succession and hostage logistics tedtalk, and please tell me how wrong i am in the replies/reblogs 🫡

[agentrouka-blog]

Okay. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and vice versa.

Aegon VI is the natural enemy of any Lannister faction.

Edmure Tully is bound for an upward swing given he is miraculously not killed to secure the Lannister-Frey take-over and the transport column taking him west is known to the Brotherhood, while Lady Stoneheart is taking aim at all of House Frey. Tullys will be back in power before long, and will welcome enemies of the Lannisters.

Alongside the Tyrells switchings sides and the support of the Martells, this puts three kingdoms straight into Aegon's pocket, four if you count the recently conquered Stormlands.

House Tully is the natural ally of House Stark, due to family ties, so even if the Riverlands decline to continue allegiance to the King/Queen in the North, the North would be well-placed to regard Aegon as a credible alliance partner IF he shows himself competent in removing the Lannisters from power and stabilizing the South for winter.

Add the previously neutral Vale, which will likely ally with the North against the Boltons and the Others (honor, family ties, Royce-First Men-Night's Watch connection) and Aegon has... peace if not outright fealty with all but the Westerlands and the Ironborn.

Enter Dany. With Tyrion Lannister and a probable Ironborn alliance. And dragons.

Exit stability for winter. Replace with more war.

And Jon's parentage is going to be such a fun political complication!!!

[esther-dot]

I'm sorry, that's gonna be a really weird ask from one jonsa stan to another but I'm genuinely curious - is there any anti jonsa argument/claim that actually made sense to you? I'm really asking for the sake of, well, civilised discussion - because if there are arguments there ought to be reasonable counterarguments. And all that I see is the same tired old crap - "she's not his favourite sister" and "but they are relatives!" and all the other stuff. Given, of course I'm not hanging around jonry@ and jon@erys side of this fandom (dark things happen to any sansa and jonsa stans there) and have no idea if they have any reasonable metas. Or maybe if there was a moment that made you actually question possibility of jonsa happening in books? (once again - because I'm anxious like that - I'm not asking this to disprove something or make people question jonsa but because I wonder if you personally had this sort of experience).

Thank you and hope you're having a nice day!

No worries! I enjoy looking at things from different angles, so I don’t mind at all. Unfortunately, I haven’t read anti jonsa stuff that isn’t exactly what you described, so I can’t actually have the convo you want about this. I tried to go to some jonerys blogs but their anti tags weren’t what we’re looking for. There’s a blogger people view as neutral who other Sansa fans/Jonsas put on my dash, and a BNF who people I follow also reblog from, so I went over to their blogs to look around and they’re less rabid, but I can’t say they offered though-provoking pushback. I’ll share some snippets though, in case you’re interested.

There was the old "but their siblings" argument:

I, ah, I do not think Jon marries Sansa in any scenario. Regardless of biological relationship, they think of themselves as siblings. The people around them are also quite likely to consider them siblings or as good as, having been raised as such (see also Theon being accused of kinslaying over his apparent murder of Bran and Rickon). Nor do I think either would be in a rush to go back to the traditional “but the Targaryens practiced incest,” again considering that their society is strongly anti-incest. Jon and Sansa were raised together, in the same house, as brother and sister, and that makes a material difference.

But you know, raised as siblings and please nobody try the “but they weren’t close” with me, that’s so not true.

It’s interesting to see someone say they were close, that’s not something I’ve seen before. I suppose my biggest issue with this line of thought is that it feels true for a generic fantasy maybe, but hardly convincing when talking about ASOIAF? Martin wants to talk about incest. So far, we have all the bad, abusive variations covered. I think he’s gonna work some shades of grey into it the same way he tries to do with everything he discusses, and to pretend like he would never feels disingenuous to me. Even if he ultimately abandoned the initial draft, from the author’s mind came the idea of a Jon / Stark girl romance. He has entertained it. Secondly, Jon is a Targ and it’s reasonable to expect that to manifest somehow, or at least, for Jon to experience the fear that there’s something latent there. And third, if we’re gonna get a romance, I think Martin would write it with the complexity and inner struggle that he writes everything and fauxcest offers him that opportunity, not to mention all the parallels it would allow as well.

Let's see...I also saw that they object to the Beauty and the Beast reading of Jonsa:

And I've been searching but apparently I never posted the rest of my "Bear and the Maiden Fair" thoughts, but that's the in-world Beauty and the Beast story. Through that and looking at bears elsewhere in the story, you can track this idea of the beast not being a monster, but being perceived as one by society, an outcast, which is why the Hound, Tyrion, and Jon all fit the role/are related (in a way), and why Jon will be the final suitor or real bear/beast.

The next one, I’m just gonna post the whole thing:

I’m not sure if the best part is the implication that Jon/Dany (which they believe is inevitable) have what’s required to allow for “quick deep emotional connections” or if it’s reading the Hound insult and threaten and then finally put a knife to Sansa’s throat and deciding “romance! chivalry!” The Hound may be disillusioned, but the fandom has got to stop pretending like some of his espoused beliefs aren’t self-serving, a defense because he is a monster. We have Brienne and Jon showing us different versions of knights, true knights, so acting like the Hound is in the right is just bizarre.

Anyway, no, I’ve not read an anti argument that made me doubt it. I do doubt what Martin is aiming for at times, so I’ve vacillated between potential paths/endgames for them over the years, but the anti arguments generally are coming from a reading of characters and dynamics that’s disturbing to me which means I’m usually alienated, not compelled.

[fromtheseventhhell]

Saying this an Elia Martell fan from what little we know of her, but I'm really sick of how fandom sees her as nothing but a perpetual victim and/or hater of Lyanna and Rhaegar. Where's fandom content of her being kind to baby Tyrion or headcanons of her plotting with Rhaegar against Aerys? Makes me wish GRRM would write more Fire and Blood books to flesh her out more outside of the "pretty victim" fanon Sansa stans want her to be.

It's actually so frustrating cause there are great conversations + theorizing that could be going on surrounding her character because we know we're going to be learning more about her in the future, but a lot of her "fans" are just stuck on using her as a prop. And honestly? That's because the more we learn about her, the more she moves away from being fandom's favorite passive self-insert character. If George has her doing anything it breaks their idea of her being the perfect victim which is what they love about her. They don't even like her character organically, they just like that it gives them a justification to hate Rhaegar and/or Lyanna. I'm personally neutral-positive about Elia, but I am very interested in learning more about her character. George has kept that portion of the story intentionally vague for a reason and I can't wait to see why.

[jackoshadows]

It’s impressive the way GRRM has two characters make different decisions and still end up at the same place in order to highlight how there are no easy solutions to the hard choices these young leaders have to make.

As KITN, Robb Stark decides to put the North and his campaign above personal self interest and refuses to exchange a high-stakes hostage like Jaime Lannister for his sisters. He still ends up getting betrayed by his men and killed.

As LC, Jon Snow selfishly puts his personal interest above the interests of the Watch and decides to attack the Warden of the North to save his sister. He ends up getting betrayed by his men and killed.

As Queen, Daenerys tries to negotiate diplomatically and sue for peace with the powerful masters because their insurgency is killing people. She even goes so far as to marry one of them, Hizdahr, and stay in Meereen to help the people instead of leave for Westeros and Iron Throne. And still, the Slave Masters (and most likely Hizdahr) try to kill her.

As LC, Jon Snow refuses to meet his deputies half-way on their complaints and disagreements, he ruthlessly overrides their objections  and instead depends more and more on the Freefolk to get things done. And still, those deputies end up killing him.

Which is why, as much as us readers can debate on what this or that character should have done and why this character is a terrible leader because they did action A instead of action B or why that character would have survived if they had only done action C, there are always external circumstances beyond the control of these characters and their other actions that push them to that ending.

All these ‘Well he would not have got killed if he had only talked to them more!’ critiques never made sense to me. Even when Daenerys conceded so much ground (There were literal slave markets outside the gates) to the slave masters in order for them to stop their attacks and insurgency, them being utterly terrible people means all that ultimately meant nothing.  Daenerys did talk to the slave masters and they were still trying to kill her.

Even if Jon Snow had charmed his men with tea and crumpets, he would have still ended up breaking NW oaths and neutrality to save Arya, leading to the same conclusion of that being the straw which breaks the camel’s back for his men. Even when Robb refused to exchange Jaime for Sansa, his mother ended up freeing Jaime and his own marriage and breaking of promises doomed his campaign.

As GRRM himself puts it:

And whether it be Ned Stark or Tyrion Lannister or Tywin Lannister or Daenerys Targaryen or Cersei Lannister trying to deal with the real challenges that affect anyone trying to rule the 7K or even a city like Meereen and it’s hard. You know, we can all read the books or read history and say oh, so and so was stupid and made a lot of mistakes and look at all these stupid mistakes they make. But these kind of mistakes are always much more apparent in hind sight than when you are actually faced with the decision about, oh my God, what would I do in this situation. How do I resolve this thing? Do I do the moral thing? But what about  the political consequences of the moral thing? Do I do the pragmatic, cynical thing and kind of screw the people who are screwed by it? I mean, it is HARD. And I want to get to all of that.

Even worse is when people go, well, character A did this wrong and that wrong  and are therefore totally unfit to be a leader, but look character B who has never had to make decisions as a leader that affects thousands of lives would totally be an amazing leader because they haven’t done anything yet. The total lack of logic to make these kind of statements is just simply incomprehensible to me.

[racefortheironthrone]

I was just reading your Tyrion 4 ASOS essay and man, the section where you're talking about Tywin dismissing the Night's Watch... god that scene always infuriates me. And the way he wanted a Lannister toady in charge while dismissing Mallister and Pyke as LC choices cause they were, well, a Mallister and an Ironborn and thus unsuited to his purposes, even though the NW has always been neutral the entire time... it makes me wonder if he in part wanted Slynt in charge so he could turn the NW into a Lannister army that he could use to instill Lannister control in the North in time

I think that's a bit strong (I don't think he thought they would actively fight for him), but certainly I think Tywin wanted to transform the Night's Watch from a neutral institution that de-facto allowed the North to mostly ignore its largest border into a royalist institution that would even just through its passive existence force the North to guard its northern flank rather than turn all of its forces to the south.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

What makes you interested in book!Aegon? (didn't read the books)

Thank you for asking this anon!

There is a LOT I could say about book!Aegon. To start, I think if you haven't read F&B it's kind of hard to understand that even moreso than with ASOIAF, there are almost no "good" characters unless you count people who are the completely innocent victims of other characters' actions, so choosing a character to like isn't really some moral or ethical issue the way a lot of show fans seem to make it out to be. In the actual historical Anarchy, I 100% think Matilda was done dirty and should have been queen. She was usurped by one of her cousins, not a brother, a guy who wasn't even the oldest male of his family, and beyond being her father's choice, her legal claim was stronger and she was a pretty impressive woman in her own right. But Rhaenyra is no Matilda, and F&B as a whole just doesn't have any Brienne of Tarths, or even Robb Starks. Hell, it's even pretty low on Jaime Lannisters. The most social-justice minded character is a five year old bastard and his lesbian sex-worker mothers who try to put him on the throne. You have characters who do one good or heroic thing like Addam Velaryon, and characters who are blandly inoffensive, like Jacaerys, but they are not really compelling dynamic characters either. You also have a lot of really loathsome assholes. Book!Aemond, for instance, doesn't even have the childhood bullying backstory to soften him, he's just violent, and often a liability. Aegon is one of the very few characters who actually has a dynamic character arc and a few redeeming qualities. He changes over the course of the story, shows a lot of resilience and tenacity, and ultimately, what happens to him is tragic. (This is long, I'm sorry. I'm incapable of being concise on this topic and I honestly could have said even more. Also, book spoilers ahead, obiously).

Just to get it out of the way, the show did Aegon pretty dirty in adapting Mushroom's accounts about the "guttersnipes" selectively. Mushroom talks a LOT of shit, and the stuff he says about Rhaenyra is almost more abhorrent than the stuff he says about Aegon, and he was actually on her side. Is Aegon a good, decent, honorable guy? Not really. Aegon is written as a hedonist. He's a drinker, he's gluttonous, and he sleeps around. The more neutral non-Mushroom sources say that Aegon was handsy with the maids (not great, to be clear), and we know he has a couple of bastards and likely at least one paramour, but there's no really credible suggestion that book!Aegon is some serial rapist. Is it plausible that he could have been? Sure. I'll give the haters that, it's not a huge stretch to say a guy who was handsy with the maids might have taken other liberties, but I'll also say this: George does not have a problem outright stating that someone is a rapist or an abuser when that is his intent, even characters he likes (hell, book!Tyrion is explicitly written as a rapist and George loves him), but he did not have anyone but Mushroom say anything like this about Aegon. But Aegon's got a lot of vices, and they start pretty young. If we look at other Targaryens, drinking problems are pretty rampant. Aegon is also called "sullen," and "pouty" but Aegon is in a unique position. He's the eldest son, but his father chose his elder sister as heir, and this is pretty unheard of in this world, an eldest son who gets second son treatment. And unlike other second sons, like, say, Daemon, he doesn't even have an advantageous marriage arranged for him. Daemon might not have liked Rhea or wanted that marriage, but the point of it was to give Daemon holdings of his own and lands he could inherit so that he would not always be beholden to whomever sat the throne. There is just zero provision made for Aegon or his siblings' futures. Instead, Viserys (not Alicent) marries Aegon to his sister, sealing both Aegon and Helaena's fates. It means that when Rhaenyra becomes queen, he and Helaena will be entirely at her mercy, and will basically have to be charity cases, dependent on her continued willingness to support a brother that she hates, who poses a considerable threat to her rule, and his family of dragonriders, all of whom are legitimate unlike her older sons. And book!Rhaenyra is not a great person, the show softens her considerably (I won't get into Rhaenyra in this post because it's not about her, but I have Rhaenyra thoughts too), so there's really no indication that she'd do this. But, in spite of all this, Aegon is not particularly keen to take the throne. He does it because he becomes convinced his family's safety depends on it (and in my opinion, this is true, except taking the throne also, ironically, dooms them. This is a no-win situation for Aegon and his siblings).

Aegon is a reluctant king who is young and inexperienced and he makes mistakes, but he does his best to step up for the sake of his family. And he suffers greatly as a result. There's this idea that gets thrown around a lot that Aegon didn't care for his family, but there's really no suggestion of that in the book. Was he a hands on, present dad? Was he in love with Helaena? I mean, he's an alcoholic teen dad whose father made him marry his thirteen year old sister at sixteen, but he clearly did love his kids. Aegon is devastated by Blood and Cheese. He has to be stopped from immediately taking off on Sunfyre and storming Dragonstone and is forced to wait while Otto keeps trying to win supporters and make alliances. During this period Aegon "drinking and raging." He's upset. But when Helaena falls into depression and can't take care of Maelor due to the guilt of having chosen him to die, Aegon is the one who notices and puts Maelor into Alicent's care. And Otto's lack of decisive action after B&C is what leads to him firing Otto and naming Criston as Hand, and then Aegon joins battle himself and winds up horrifically injured as a result. And Aegon battles back from injuries that really should not have been survivable, which leave him in incredible pain. There are points he's begging for death, the pain is that bad, and no one really thinks he'll survive at first, but he does, he fights back, and when King's Landing falls he and his children are spirited away.

Where does that well of strength come from, if he doesn't have anything or anyone worth fighting for? He shows incredible resourcefulness and resilience, rehabilitates himself and his dragon, kicks milk of the poppy, and infiltrates Dragonstone, Rhaenyra's stronghold. And at what should be his moment of triumph, finally taking Dragonstone's keep, he's injured again by Baela, and his dragon, which he worked so hard to rehabilitate, dies after being wounded in that same battle. Aegon will live out the rest of his life disabled and with chronic pain. By the end he has lost nearly his entire family including both his sons, he's ill, he's drinking again, he's disabled, and he's got an entire clownshow of a council at each others' throats and pulling him this way and that, and still he doesn't give up. Then you get a lot of frankly ableist nonsense (again, mostly from Mushroom) about how Aegon was sitting on dragon eggs and watching other people fuck because he couldn't, there's a strong effort there in Gyldayn's narrative to build up his poisoning as being somewhat justified because Aegon was "not a well man," but it's tragic what happens to him.

Finally, and I might catch some slack for saying this, but in a war that is notably devoid mercy, book!Aegon is one of the few characters that shows any, even when he has every reason to be vengeful. Does he spare Rhaenyra? No. But she would not have spared him at that point either. He does spare Aegon III and Baela, some would argue to his own detriment. He spares Gaemon Palehair, and he grants Trystane Trufyre's last request to be knighted before he dies. His more ruthless actions are also relatively justified in the context of Westeros compared to some of the other completely wanton killings that we see from others in the Dance on both sides. Again, is he a great person? No. He's a impetuous young man with a lot of issues who was not raised for the throne, making some questionable decisions but also showing a lot of bravery, resilience, and yes, mercy.

And you know, just to get it out there, I've been accused of being a book purist and of being oh so above it all by anons before, but it's not that I think the book!Dance is really all that great. F&B has its problems too, and I know that if an adaptation were to follow it completely faithfully, it would not be a very good show. But Aegon is one of the more complex and interesting Dance characters, one of the few who is present and active until the end, and it's a pity that a lot of show watchers and wiki readers have written him off because how the show handled Aegon in season one. (tagging @aifsaath on this in case she'd like to share Aegon thoughts!)

[sunnysssol]

I see Alfred as House Lannister coded and Ivan as House Stark coded, tbh. Suzie could be a Blackwood, or a Tully maybe, idk.

I love that!! I agree so much with Alfred as a Lannister, but to mirror canon I think he'd be really miserable after years of disagreeing with Arthur contending with things like his own pride and maybe even out of resentment for being such a shit father. Maybe he'll kill him the same way Tyrion did Tywin, LOL 😭 as for Ivan, I see parallels between him and Aegon the Conqueror (two sisters, plagued with visions, etc.), but I can't deny that the Targaryen I compare him the most to is Maegor. Before his injury, anyway. I love Ivan neutral and complicated and all that, but I really do enjoy villains 😈 By god he'd make a dashing Stark though– tall, strong and cunning with just the right amount of iciness. Winter is coming and so am I 🫣🫡 LMAO

And for Suzie !! As a Targaryen stan first and foremost, I drew inspiration from Rhaena. Or even Mya Stone! But that's just my bias for mountains talking. I can absolutely see her as a Tully though– proud and strong like Hoster Tully was in his youth. And definitely protective of her children (if any) like Catelyn, barring the bastardphobia LMAO but oh, you mentioned the Blackwoods and I had the strongest urge to draw Suzie like Alysanne 😔💖 it's also become perfect since I darkened her hair hshfjshf

[ilynpilled]

im curious how you envision bran and jaime's reunion going down? or at least your thoughts on their future relationship? if jaime is making it to winterfell to fight in the long night which i think he does he will certainly have to fight his case. i personally think whats gonna bridge the gap between dany + the starks and jaime is brienne, tyrion and JO bringing the lannister army). but jaime's adwd chapter and the whole idea of forgoing blood feuds is definitely foreshadowing for the starks and lannisters in my opinion. anyway i kinda went off track but yeah bran lol

i do desperately want a bran jaime interaction in the books. and not really like the one in the show. though in some ways the show version is the worst thing jaime can get because it is so ‘neutral’. it is not forgiveness nor is it damnation and judgement/punishment. and from what we have seen in the books and his confessions it does drive him crazy if he does not get an answer. because then he has to fill up the blanks. and that leads to worst case scenario. so that is kind of torturous and sexy to me personally, but what bugs me about the show version is just the handling of bran’s character in general, and also how none of this was fleshed out on jaime’s part either really. in terms of book canon, i actually would really like jaime not receiving forgiveness from him necessarily. bran being unable to fully give it. like i do not think it is necessary for bran for catharsis, though george has his own view of forgiveness, and he expressed it regarding jaime in specific a lot:

“he said something like he wanted to explore the concept of forgiveness (with jaime) and whether it's ever possible to be forgiven for doing such horrible things, and that his goal was to ask the question, not give an answer.” (2006)

“One of the things I wanted to explore with Jaime, and with so many of the characters, is the whole issue of redemption. When can we be redeemed? Is redemption even possible? I don't have an answer. This is one of the areas where I'm asking the next question-just the two of us talking here, but also in my fiction. Is there the possibility of redemption? How do we forgive people? When do we forgive people? You see it all around in our society, in constant debates. Should we forgive Michael Vick? I have friends who are dog-lovers who will never forgive Michael Vick. Michael Vick has served years in prison; he’s apologized … Our society is full of people who have fallen in one way or another, and what do we do with these people? Can they have redemption? Can they rejoin society? Does a good act make up for a bad act? How many good acts make up for a bad act? If you're a Nazi war criminal and then spend the next 40 years doing good deeds and feeding the hungry, does that make up for being a concentration-camp guard? I don't know the answer, but these are questions worth thinking about. I want there to be a possibility of redemption for us, because we all do terrible things. We should be able to be forgiven. Because if there is no possibility of redemption, what's the answer then?” (2014)

Interviewer: Your books have a very strong storyline associated with the atonement of sins. For example, the way of Jaime Lannister, do you yourself believe in karma?

GRRM: “I don't believe in karma per se, although sometimes I have my doubts because sometimes I think I see things that could be explained by karma. [Laughs.] But no, I don't really have any beliefs in the supernatural. I do believe in the possibility of redemption. And I believe that human beings, all human beings are gray. And I try to remember that when I write my characters. We are all heroes, we are all villains, we all have the capacity for great good and we all have the capacity to do things that are selfish and evil and wrong. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. In your lifetime, you can be both. And it's making choices that defines us as human beings…There's this sensation of compartmentalism. This eagerness to judge everybody based on the worst thing they ever did, not the best thing they ever did. And you know, I think Shakespeare in Julius Caesar wrote the evil that men do lives after them. The good is often interred with their bones. And sadly that's true. And I think it should be the reverse. We should remember the good things and the noble things that people did, and forgive them for their failures and moments of selfishness or wrongdoing because we all have them. When we forgive them we are essentially forgiving ourselves. Redemption should be possible.” (2018)

the whole concept is a prevalent motif all throughout his chapters very obviously, has been explicitly mentioned since his second asos chapter, and interrogated a lot through his journey in affc. but what i think i would personally like is the reality that sometimes changing does not result in absolution. some actions you cannot come back from like that. you are not entitled to the forgiveness of the individuals you hurt so drastically, even if you have changed. certain things cannot be reversed or undone. but that puts the weight back on you. you might have done things that are unforgivable to certain people. and i like the question that poses. like what then? what is reformation truly about? that should not mean you stop changing. anyhow, the result i would want from a jaime/bran interaction is jaime psychological torture chamber of his own making and some kind of catharsis for bran 😁 jaime is a very mature interrogation of redemption, and george so far did not simplify it or make it easily digestible. despite his personal beliefs, and how they have evolved a little bit over time slightly it seems, i do think george is still posing a question rather than giving a clear cut answer, and i do believe someone like bran not fully forgiving him would fit that. as for the rest, i wont extrapolate that much. we will see, i might change my mind depending on what things happen

[branwendaughterofllyr]

What's the deal with these BNFs like JoLa and such lmao? Sorry I wasn't chronically online during GOT so I had no idea this was a thing until recently LOL.

Oh man, nonny, you are really taking me back. BNFs or “Big Name Fans” are one of the worst aspects of ASOIAF/GOT fandom in my humble opinion. I think the fact that there has been such large gaps in between books, a lot of fans are really desperate for content and thus BNFs are created to fill that need for new ASOIAF content, their word only being surpassed by George. Most BNFs have one or two good takes/theories that got them big and then are uniformally idiots in everything else they say, but the fandom takes them as gospel because they’ve been around so long or were right about one really important thing. A lot of the biggest of the BNFs originated on the westeros.org forums and actually interacted occasionally with George back when he still did stuff like that, and now are considered authorities on the series. The most successful BNFs are probably Elio and Linda who now actually work with George and co-wrote AWOIAF with him (and they’ve had their own very stupid drama that I cannot be bothered to remember. @starkmaiden probably remembers it though. She’s my go to fandom drama lorist)

A lot of the worst but most widely accepted theories can be traced back to a BNF, and since the books have been so slow in coming, these theories ended up just becoming part of the fabric of the fandom. It also doesn’t help that most BNFs are absolute divas that hate it when they end up being wrong or having pushback. I remember rolling my eyes at BryndenBFish who had particularly influential (but often very dumb) theories who I believe left the fandom in a huff and deleted all his stuff. The worst BNF fans in my opinions are the ones who made super long videos or podcasts about the most inane details (I’m taking specifically about Lucifermeanslightbringer here since I ended up listing to like ten hours of the Bloodstone Compendium trying desperately to understand why he was so popular)

On tumblr during GoT, most of the BNFs here were part of the asoiafuniversity account, (including the lovely JoLa) which branded itself as neutral but was decidedly not lol, and had particular drama with people who asserted the Dark Dany theory, which ended up being true, lol. I think they even straight up banned contributions that supported “Mad Dany” at one point. Most BNFs tend to be pro-jonerys, pro-Tyrion, pro-Dany, intensely into Targaryen history (and weirdly a lot of them were really into Stannis before he bit it. The Stannis the Mannis faction was crazy but also kinda fun lol) I’ve always been pro-Bran, pro-Catelyn, and pro-Sansa, so I never really got too into the BNFs, but I did accept that Tyrion, Jon, and Dany were the three heads of the dragons before I read ADWD because everyone else seemed to think that was the case.

And that to me is the biggest problem with BNFs, that a lot of them still espose theories and takes that they came up with before AFFC/ADWD were published and they refuse to budge even though there’s clearly been a shift. (This was before the show ended, which changed a lot of the fandom landscape)

(I also think that a lot of them couldn’t analyze their way out of a paper bag, but that seems to just be me lol. The POV trap is very real for most of these people.)

I’ve also noticed that a lot of BNFs are also Wheel of Time fans, and sometimes use that series to theorize about the end of ASOIAF, which is uh, a strategy I guess. (I know George likes it and all but I think the series have very different vibes, and George has listed series he was drawing on and I don’t think WoT was on that list. Somebody somewhere compiled it, and I think LoTR and The Dragonbone Chair were on it.)

The greatest hits of the BNFs in my opinion are that Tyrion, Jon and Dany are the three heads of the dragon and are going to save the world, which was widely accepted as the ending to the series, by pretty much everyone who was anyone. Season 8 killed that stone dead though, big lol from me. Some people still believe it though for some reason. Some three heads of the dragon propenents also believed it in conjunction with the “Tyrion is secretly a Targaryen” theory which has like one piece of actual evidence, that Aerys had a thing for Joanna, and the weight of Tyrion is Tywin’s son thematic narrative against it.

My favorite offshoot of the three heads of the dragon theory is the curtain of light one, which is simply *chef’s kiss* Basically the curtain of light that Bran sees at the edge of the world is entirely literally and in no way a metaphor, and Bran will have nothing to do with it. Instead, Jon and Dany are going to fuck in the curtain of light to save the world while Tyrion awkwardly watches, and the baby they conceive will be the messiah. AMAZING stuff right there. And because this brilliant take was thought up by a BNF, it actually gained a fair amount of traction.

Other highlights include screeching about the “Main Five” in which they only grudgingly include Bran in order to exclude Sansa from having any relevance to the big endgame, that Catelyn is an absolute bitch responsible for all evils in the world, that Tywin is the biggest mastermind in Westeros, that f!Aegon is definitely fake with no room to debate, Val will be plot relevant to Jon somehow (as his future Queen for those who aren’t super into Jon and Dany endgame), Stannis will take WF, Jaime is going to be redeemed, and Azhor Ahai is some eleborate metaphor for the nature of the universe.

Say what you will, but BNFs really did fill some of the content void while we all wait for TWOW but a lot of them were absolutely batshit and their insane takes were taken extremely seriously by most of the fandom. Some of them even did rounds at conventions I believe. There are some BNFs still around and kicking but a lot of them left permanently after the show ended, which fair enough. The meltdowns during s8 were spectacular and many. Almost makes up for how shitty the show’s writing was lol.

My pet BNF was JoLa, and I even had some civil interactions with her about non Jonsa metas, related to her one good contribution to the fandom, the Dead Ladies Club. She had some of the wildest takes about Dany despite her constantly claiming she wasn’t that invested in non-Lannister theories and ships.

The BNFs were a fascinating phenomenon that you really had to experience in real time to get the full breadth of insanity. The most crazy takes being taken as basically canon really made me feel like I was losing it, or straight up reading different books.