#i do think this is what grrm excels at

[ilynpilled]

i truly do find it kinda silly when ppl dont grasp that u cannot act like the narcissistic and self-absorbed behavior thats present in lannisters contradicts deeply rooted and intense self-hatred or low self-esteem. like the former doesnt at all dispute the latter lol it showcases it more than anything honestly

[chocolatepot]

Hi! Can you elaborate on "Fuck GRRM's committment to 'historical realism' without knowing anything about medieval social history"? I would love to know about what GRRM gets wrong about medieval gender roles, specifically.

So Cersei learns at an early age that she has no agency, her only value is producing heirs and is barred from traditional routes of power so she has to use underhanded methods such as influencing men with sex or using underhanded magical means. I would love an explanation on why this doesn't reflect medieval queen consorts and noble women irl.

Sure! The basic summary is: GRRM "knows" the things that everyone "knows" about the middle ages, which are broad stereotypes often reflective of a) primary sources that deserve a critical reading rather than being taken at face value and b) the judgements of later periods making themselves look better at the medieval period's expense.

As Shiloh Carroll argues, building on the work of Helen Young, “readers are caught in a ‘feedback loop’ in which Martin’s work helps to create a neomedieval idea of the Middle Ages, which then becomes their idea of what the Middle Ages ‘really’ looked like, which is then used to defend Martin’s work as ‘realistic’ because it matches their idea of the real Middle Ages.”

Since you're mainly interested in Cersei here, I'd strongly recommend a book: Queenship and the Women of Westeros: Female Agency and Advice in Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire, edited by Zita Eva Rohr and Lisa Benz. It's an excellent read and speaks to exactly what you're asking about. The tone of the book is very positive and non-judgemental when it comes to GRRM and his depictions of women on the whole, but I think some of this is rhetorical positioning to not seem like "mean angry academics jumping on fiction for not being accurate," as the actual content turns the reader to thinking about how much agency and power medieval queens had in different European societies and how little of that worked its way into GRRM's worldbuilding.

It's true that women typically didn't inherit titles and thrones in their own right, and that they were usually given in marriage for political/dynastic reasons. However, they weren't seen as brood mares whose only duty was to pop out sons: both queens and noblewomen had roles to play as household managers, counselors, and lieutenants, actively participating in the ruling of their domains and in local and international diplomacy (women in political alliances were not just pawns sent to a powerful man's bed, but were to act as ambassadors for their families and to pass information back and forth), and they had to be raised with an understanding of this so that they could learn to do it. Motherhood was very important, don't get me wrong, but it's a mistake to assume as pop culture does that a wife's foremost duty being to provide heirs for her family meant that she was ONLY seen as a mother/potential mother.

Catelyn is a great example of what was expected of women in these positions. But in the books, Catelyn is basically the only woman who inhabits this role, and the impression given is that she's exceptional, that she's just in charge of the household because she's so great at it that Ned allows her to be his partner, and that he listens to her advice because she happens to be a wise person in his orbit - and also that Ned is exceptional for giving so much power to a woman, because in the world of ASOIAF, it takes an especially good man to do this. In GRRM's view of the medieval world, realpolitik and the accumulation of power are the most important things, so men in Westeros are extremely unlikely to give up any authority to their wives, even though this is historically inaccurate.

Cersei, on the other hand, is supposed to be a more realistic depiction of what would happen to an ambitious medieval woman. There's a chapter titled "Queen of Sad Mischance: Medievalism, “Realism,” and the Case of Cersei Lannister" in the book I've rec'd, and it deals with why this is problematic extremely well. (This is the source of the quote at the top of this post.) In it, Kavita Mudan Finn argues that Cersei embodies pretty much every medieval trope for the illegitimate wielding of power by a woman. She underhandedly gets people killed for opposing her, she seduces men into doing her bidding, she advances her family's interests and her own at the expense of the realm. She's made sympathetic through fannish interpretation and Lena Headey's performance, but in the text she's an evil woman doing evil things. Even when she gets to be regent for her son - a completely legitimate historical position that allowed women to handle the levers of power almost exactly like a king - she continues to do shitty things and not be taken seriously because she's just not good at ruling.

But even before then, from a medieval perspective she had access to completely legitimate power that she didn't use: she'd have had estates giving her a large personal income, religious establishments to patronize (giving her a good reputation as a pious woman and people she'd put in high positions being personally loyal to her), artists and writers to patronize as well, power over her household, men around her listening to her counsel. That she doesn't have that is a reflection of GRRM either deciding these things don't really exist in Westeros in order to make it a worse world than medieval Europe and justify Cersei feeling she had to use underhanded means of power, or not knowing that they were ordinary and unexceptional because he has a good working knowledge of the politics of the Wars of the Roses but little to no knowledge of social history beyond pop culture osmosis, and, imo, little to no interest in actual power dynamics.

There are a lot of books I'd recommend on this subject. There's a series from Palgrave Macmillan called "Queenship and Power" and nearly all the books in it are THE BEST. Theresa Earenfight's Queenship in Medieval Europe is a very readable introduction to the situations of queens in European societies across the continent. She also has a book, Women and Wealth in Late Medieval Europe, that also addresses non-royal women's power. I'm also a huge fan of English Aristocratic Women, 1450-1550: Marriage and Family, Property and Careers, by Barbara Harris, which really emphasizes the "career" aspect of women's lives as administrators and diplomats.

[visenyaism]

HOTD blog post GRRM posted and almost immediately deleted under the cut for archival purposes

Beware the Butterflies

SEPTEMBER 4, 2024

Profile Pic

Back in July, I promised you some further thoughts about Blood and Cheese… and Maelor the Missing… after my commentary on the first two episodes of HotD season 2, “A Son for a Son” and “Rhaenyra the Cruel.”

Those were terrific episodes: well written, well directed, powerfully acted. A great way to kick off the new season. Fans and critics alike seemed to agree. There was only one aspect of the episodes that drew significant criticism: the handling of Blood and Cheese, and the death of Prince Jaehaerys. From the commentary I saw on line, opinion was split there. The readers of FIRE & BLOOD found the sequence underwhelming, a disappointment, watered down from what they were expecting. Viewers who had not read the book had no such problems. Most of them found the sequence a real gut-punch, tragic, horrifying, nightmarish, etc. Some reported being reduced to tears.

I found myself agreeing with both sides.

In my book, Aegon and Helaena have three children, not two. The twins, Jaehaerys and Jaehaera, are six years old. They have a younger brother, Maelor, who is two. When Blood and Cheese break in on Helaena and the kids, they tell her they are debt collectors come to exact revenge for the death of Prince Lucerys: a son for a son. As Helaena has two sons, however, they demand that she choose which one should die. She resists and offers her own life instead, but the killers insist it has to be a son. If she does not name one, they will kill all three of the children. To save the life of the twins, Helaena names Maelor. But Blood kills the older boy, Jaehaerys, instead, while Cheese tells little Maelor that his mother wanted him dead. (Whether the boy is old enough to understand that is not at all certain).

That’s not how it happens on the show. There is no Maelor in HOUSE OF THE DRAGON, only the twins (both of whom look younger than six, but I am no sure judge of children’s ages, so I can’t be sure how old they are supposed to be). Blood can’t seem to tell the twins apart, so Helaena is asked to reveal which one is the boy. (You would think a glance up his PJs would reveal that, without involving the mother). Instead of offering her own life to save the kids, Helaena offers them a necklace. Blood and Cheese are not tempted. Blood saws Prince Jaehaerys’s head off. We are spared the sight of that; a sound effect suffices. (In the book, he lops the head off with a sword).

It is a bloody, brutal scene, no doubt. How not? An innocent child is being butchered in front of his mother.

I still believe the scene in the book is stronger. The readers have the right of that. The two killers are crueler in the book. I thought the actors who played the killers on the show were excellent… but the characters are crueler, harder, and more frightening in FIRE & BLOOD. In the show, Blood is a gold cloak. In the book, he is a former gold cloak, stripped of his office for beating a woman to death. Book Blood is the sort of man who might think making a woman choose which of her sons should die is amusing, especially when they double down on the wanton cruelty by murdering the boy she tries to save. Book Cheese is worse too; he does not kick a dog, true, but he does not have a dog, and he’s the one who tells Maelor that his mom wants him head. I would also suggest that Helaena shows more courage, more strength in the book, by offering her own own life to save her son. Offering a piece of jewelry is just not the same.

As I saw it, the “Sophie’s Choice” aspect was the strongest part of the sequence, the darkest, the most visceral. I hated to lose that. And judging from the comments on line, most of the fans seemed to agree.

When Ryan Condal first told me what he meant to do, ages ago (back in 2022, might be) I argued against it, for all these reasons. I did not argue long, or with much heat, however. The change weakened the sequence, I felt, but only a bit. And Ryan had what seemed to be practical reasons for it; they did not want to deal with casting another child, especially a two-year old toddler. Kids that young will inevitably slow down production, and there would be budget implications. Budget was already an issue on HOUSE OF THE DRAGON, it made sense to save money wherever we could. Moreover, Ryan assured me that we were not losing Prince Maelor, simply postponing him. Queen Helaena could still give birth to him in season three, presumably after getting with child late in season two. That made sense to me, so I withdrew my objections and acquiesced to the change.

I still love the episode, and the Blood and Cheese sequence overall. Losing the “Helaena’s Choice” beat did weaken the scene, but not to any great degree. Only the book readers would even notice its absence; viewers who had never read FIRE & BLOOD would still find the scenes heart-rending. Maelor did not actually DO anything in the scene, after all. How could he? He was only two years old.

There is another aspect to the removal of the young princeling, however.

Those of you who hate spoilers should STOP READING HERE. Spoilers will follow, at least for the readers among you. If you have never read FIRE & BLOOD, maybe it does not matter, because all I am going to “spoil” here are things that happen in the book that may NEVER happen on the series. Starting with Maelor himself.

Sometime between the initial decision to remove Maelor, a big change was made. The prince’s birth was no longer just going to be pushed back to season 3. He was never going to be born at all. The younger son of Aegon and Helaena would never appear.

Most of you know about the Butterfly Effect, I assume.

Yes, there was a movie with that title a few years back. It’s a familiar concept in chaos theory as well. But most science fiction fans were first exposed to the idea in Ray Bradbury’s classic time travel story, “A Sound of Thunder,” wherein a time traveler from the present panics and crushes a butterfly while hunting a T-Rex. When he returns to his own time, he discovers that the world has changed in huge and frightening ways. One dead butterfly has rewritten history. The lesson being that change begets change, and even small and seemingly insignificant alterations to a timeline — or a story — can have a profound effect on all that follows.

Maelor is a two year old toddler in FIRE & BLOOD, but like our butterfly he has an impact on the story all out of proportion to his size. The readers among you may recall that when it appears that Rhaenyra and her blacks are about to capture King’s Landing, Queen Alicent becomes concerned for the safety of Helaena’s remaining children, and takes steps to save them by smuggling them out of the city. The task is given is two knights of the Kingsguard. Ser Willis Fell is commanded to deliver Princess Jaehaera to the Baratheons at Storm’s End, while Maelor is given over to Ser Rickard Thorne to be escorted across the Mander to the protection of the Hightower army on its way to King’s Landing.

Willis Fell delivers Jaehaera safely to the Baratheons at Storm’s End, but Ser Rickard fares less well. He and Maelor get as far as Bitterbridge, where he is revealed as a Kingsuard in a tavern called the Hogs Head. Once discovered, Ser Rickard fights bravely to protect his young charge and bring him to safety, but he does not even make it across the bridge before some crossbows bring him down, Prince Maelor is torn from his arms.. and then, sadly, ripped to pieces by the mob fighting over the boy and the huge reward that Rhaenyra has offered for his capture and return.

Will any of that appear on the show? Maybe… but I don’t see how. The butterflies would seem to prohibit it. You could perhaps make Ser Rickard’s ward be Jaehaera instead of Maelor, but Jaehaera can’t be killed, she has a huge role to play as Aegon’s next heir. Could maybe make Maelor a newborn instead of a two year old, but that would scramble up the timeline, which is a bit of a mess already. I have no idea what Ryan has planned — if indeed he has planned anything — but given Maelor’s absence from episode 2, the simplest way to proceed would be just to drop him entirely, lose the bit where Alicent tries to send the kids to safety, drop Rickard Thorne or send him with Willis Fell so Jaehaera has two guards.

From what I know, that seems to be what Ryan is doing here. It’s simplest, yes, and may make sense in terms of budgets and shooting schedules. But simpler is not better. The Bitterbridge scene has tension, suspense, action, bloodshed, a bit of heroism and a lot of tragedy. Rickard Thorne is a tertiary character at best, most viewers (as opposed to readers) will never know he is gone, since they never knew him at all… but I rather liked giving him his brief moment of heroism, a taste of the courage and loyalty of the Kingsguard, regardless of whether they are black or green.

The butterflies are not done with us yet, however. In the book, when word of Prince Maelor’s death and the grisly manner of his passing (pp. 505) reaches the Red Keep, that proves to be the thing that drives Queen Helaena to suicide. She could barely stand to look at Maelor, knowing that she chose him to die in the “Sophie’s Choice” scene… and now he is dead in truth, her words having come true. The grief and guilt are too much for her to bear.

In Ryan’s outline for season 3, Helaena still kills herself… for no particular reason. There is no fresh horror, no triggering event to overwhelm the fragile young queen.

And the final butterfly follows soon thereafter.

Queen Helaena, a sweet and gentle soul, is much beloved by the smallfolk of King’s Landing. Rhaenyra was not, so when rumors began to arise that Helaena did not kill herself, but rather was murdered at Rhaenyra’s command, the commons are quick to believe them. “That night King’s Landing rose in bloody riot,” I wrote on p. 506 of FIRE & BLOOD. It is the beginning of the end for Rhaenyra’s rule over the city, ultimately leading to the Storming of the Dragonpit and the rise of the Shepherd’s mob that drives Rhaenyra to flee the city and return to Dragonstone… and her death.

Maelor by himself means little. He is a small child, does not have a line of dialogue, does nothing of consequence but die… but where and when and how, that does matter. Losing Maelor weakened the end of the Blood and Cheese sequence, but it also cost us the Bitterbridge scene with all its horror and heroism, it undercut the motivation for Helaena’s suicide, and that in turn sent thousands into the streets and alleys, screaming for justice for their “murdered” queen. None of that is essential, I suppose… but all of it does serve a purpose, it all helps to tie the story lines together, so one thing follows another in a logical and convincing manner.

What will we offer the fans instead, once we’ve killed these butterflies? I have no idea. I do not recall that Ryan and I ever discussed this, back when he first told me they were pushing back on Aegon’s second son. Maelor himself is not essential… but if losing him means we also lose Bitterbridge, Helaena’s suicide, and the riots, well… that’s a considerable loss.

And there are larger and more toxic butterflies to come, if HOUSE OF THE DRAGON goes ahead with some of the changes being contemplated for seasons 3 and 4…

GRRM

[aegoneggon]

GRRM's post since he deleted it

Back in July, I promised you some further thoughts about Blood and Cheese… and Maelor the Missing… after my commentary on the first two episodes of HotD season 2, “A Son for a Son” and “Rhaenyra the Cruel.”

Those were terrific episodes:  well written, well directed, powerfully acted.   A great way to kick off the new season.   Fans and critics alike seemed to agree.  There was only one aspect of the episodes that drew significant criticism: the handling of Blood and Cheese, and the death of Prince Jaehaerys.   From the commentary I saw on line,  opinion was split there.   The readers of FIRE & BLOOD found the sequence underwhelming, a disappointment, watered down from what they were expecting.   Viewers who had not read the book had no such problems.   Most of them found the sequence a real gut-punch, tragic, horrifying, nightmarish, etc.   Some reported being reduced to tears.

I found myself agreeing with both sides.

In my book, Aegon and Helaena have three children, not two.  The twins, Jaehaerys and Jaehaera, are six years old.  They have a younger brother, Maelor, who is two.   When Blood and Cheese break in on Helaena and the kids, they tell her they are debt collectors come to exact revenge for the death of Prince Lucerys: a son for a son.  As Helaena has  two sons, however,  they demand that she choose which one should die.   She resists and offers her own life instead, but the killers insist it has to be a son.  If she does not  name one, they will kill all three of the children.   To save the life of the twins, Helaena names Maelor.    But Blood kills the older boy, Jaehaerys, instead, while Cheese tells little Maelor that his mother wanted him dead.    (Whether the boy is old enough to understand that is not at all certain).

That’s not how it happens on the show.   There is no Maelor in HOUSE OF THE DRAGON, only the twins (both of whom look younger than six, but I am no sure judge of children’s ages, so I can’t be sure how old they are supposed to be).   Blood can’t seem to tell the twins apart, so Helaena is asked to reveal which one is the boy.  (You would think a glance up his PJs would reveal that, without involving the mother).  Instead of offering her own life to save the kids, Helaena offers them a necklace.   Blood and Cheese are not tempted.  Blood saws Prince Jaehaerys’s head off.   We are spared the sight of that; a sound effect suffices.   (In the book, he lops the head off with a sword).

It is a bloody, brutal scene, no doubt.  How not?  An innocent child is being butchered in front of his mother.

I still believe the scene in the book is stronger.  The readers have the right of that.   The two killers are crueler in the book.  I thought the actors who played the killers on the show were excellent… but the characters are crueler, harder, and more frightening in FIRE & BLOOD.   In the show, Blood is a gold cloak.   In the book, he is aformer gold cloak, stripped of his office for beating a woman to death.    Book Blood is the sort of man who might think making a woman choose which of her sons should die is amusing, especially when they double down on the wanton cruelty by murdering the boy she tries to save.    Book Cheese is worse too; he does not kick a dog, true, but he does not have a dog, and he’s the one who tells Maelor that his mom wants him head.   I would also suggest that Helaena shows more courage, more strength in the book, by offering her own own life to save her son.   Offering a piece of jewelry is just not  the same.

As I saw it, the “Sophie’s Choice” aspect was the strongest part of the sequence, the darkest, the most visceral.   I hated to lose that.   And judging from the comments on line, most of the fans seemed to agree.

When Ryan Condal first told me what he meant to do, ages ago (back in 2022, might be) I argued against it, for all these reasons.    I did not argue long, or with much heat, however.   The change weakened the sequence, I felt, but only a bit.   And Ryan had what seemed to be practical reasons for it; they did not want to deal with casting another child, especially a two-year old toddler.  Kids that young will inevitably slow down production, and there would be budget implications.   Budget was already an issue on HOUSE OF THE DRAGON, it made sense to save money wherever we could.   Moreover, Ryan assured me that we were not losing Prince Maelor, simply postponing him.   Queen Helaena could still give birth to him in season three, presumably after getting with child late in season two.   That made sense to me, so I withdrew my objections and acquiesced to the change.

I still love the episode, and the Blood and Cheese sequence overall.   Losing the “Helaena’s Choice” beat did weaken the scene, but not to any great degree.  Only the book readers would even notice its absence; viewers who had never read FIRE & BLOOD would still find the scenes heart-rending.   Maelor did not actually DO anything in the scene, after all.   How could he?  He was only two years old.

There is another aspect to the removal of the young princeling, however.

Those of you who hate spoilers should STOP READING HERE.   Spoilers will follow, at least for the readers among you.  If you have never read FIRE & BLOOD, maybe it does not matter, because all I am going to “spoil” here are things that happen in the book that may NEVER happen on the series.   Starting with Maelor himself.

Sometime between the initial decision to remove Maelor, a big change was made.   The prince’s birth was no longer just going to be pushed back to season 3.  He was never going to be born at all.   The younger son of Aegon and Helaena would never appear.

Most of you know about the Butterfly Effect, I assume.

Yes, there was a movie with that title a few years back.   It’s a familiar concept in chaos theory as well.   But most science fiction fans were first exposed to the idea in Ray Bradbury’s classic time travel story, “A Sound of Thunder,” wherein a time traveler from the present panics and crushes a butterfly while hunting a T-Rex.  When he returns to his own time, he discovers that the world has changed in huge and frightening ways.  One dead butterfly has rewritten history.  The lesson being that change begets change, and even small and seemingly insignificant alterations to a timeline — or a story — can have a profound effect on all that follows.

Maelor is a two year old toddler in FIRE & BLOOD, but like our butterfly he has an impact on the story all out of proportion to his size.   The readers among you may recall that when it appears that Rhaenyra and her blacks are about to capture King’s Landing, Queen Alicent becomes concerned for the safety of Helaena’s remaining children, and takes steps to save them by smuggling them out of the city.   The task is given is two knights of the Kingsguard.   Ser Willis Fell is commanded to deliver Princess Jaehaera to the Baratheons at Storm’s End, while Maelor is given over to Ser Rickard Thorne to be escorted across the Mander to the protection of the Hightower army on its way to King’s Landing.

Willis Fell delivers Jaehaera safely to the Baratheons at Storm’s End, but Ser Rickard fares less well.   He and Maelor get as far as Bitterbridge, where he is revealed as a Kingsuard in a tavern called the Hogs Head.   Once discovered, Ser Rickard fights bravely to protect his young charge and bring him to safety, but he does not even make it across the bridge before some crossbows bring him down,  Prince Maelor is torn from his arms.. and then, sadly, ripped to pieces by the mob fighting over the boy and the huge reward that Rhaenyra has offered for his capture and return.

Will any of that appear on the show?   Maybe… but I don’t see how.   The butterflies would seem to prohibit it.  You could perhaps make Ser Rickard’s ward be Jaehaera instead of Maelor, but Jaehaera can’t be killed, she has a huge role to play as Aegon’s next heir.   Could maybe make  Maelor a newborn instead of a two year old, but that would scramble up the timeline, which is a bit of a mess already.   I have no idea what Ryan has planned — if indeed he has planned anything — but given Maelor’s absence from episode 2, the simplest way to proceed would be just to drop him entirely, lose the bit where Alicent tries to send the kids to safety, drop Rickard Thorne or send him with Willis Fell so Jaehaera has two guards.

From what I know, that seems to be what Ryan is doing here.   It’s simplest, yes, and may make sense in terms of budgets and shooting schedules.  But simpler is not better.   The Bitterbridge scene has tension, suspense, action, bloodshed, a bit of heroism and a lot of tragedy.  Rickard Thorne  is a tertiary character at best, most viewers (as opposed to readers) will never know he is gone, since they never knew him at all… but I rather liked giving him his brief moment of heroism, a taste of the courage and loyalty of the Kingsguard, regardless of whether they are black or green.

The butterflies are not done with us yet, however.  In the book, when word of Prince Maelor’s death and the grisly manner of his passing (pp. 505) reaches the Red Keep, that proves to be the thing that drives Queen Helaena to suicide.   She could barely stand to look at Maelor, knowing that she chose him to die in the “Sophie’s Choice” scene… and now he is dead in truth, her words having come true.   The grief and guilt are too much for her to bear.

In Ryan’s outline for season 3, Helaena still kills herself… for no particular reason.   There is no fresh horror, no triggering event to overwhelm the fragile young queen.

And the final butterfly follows soon thereafter.

Queen Helaena, a sweet and gentle soul, is much beloved by the smallfolk of King’s Landing.  Rhaenyra was not, so when rumors began to arise that Helaena did not kill herself, but rather was murdered at Rhaenyra’s command, the commons are quick to believe them.   “That night King’s Landing rose in bloody riot,” I wrote on p. 506 of FIRE & BLOOD.   It is the beginning of the end for Rhaenyra’s rule over the city, ultimately leading to the Storming of the Dragonpit and the rise of the Shepherd’s mob that drives Rhaenyra to flee the city and return to Dragonstone… and her death.

Maelor by himself means little.   He is a small child, does not have a line of dialogue, does nothing of consequence but die… but where and when and how, that does matter.   Losing Maelor weakened the end of the Blood and Cheese sequence, but it also cost us the Bitterbridge scene with all its horror and heroism, it undercut the motivation for Helaena’s suicide, and that in turn sent thousands into the streets and alleys, screaming for justice for their “murdered” queen.   None of that is essential, I suppose… but all of it does serve a purpose, it all helps to tie the story lines together, so one thing follows another in a logical and convincing manner.

What will we offer the fans instead, once we’ve killed these butterflies?   I have no idea.   I do not recall that Ryan and I ever discussed this, back when he first told me they were pushing back on Aegon’s second son.   Maelor himself is not essential… but if losing him means we also lose Bitterbridge, Helaena’s suicide, and the riots, well… that’s a considerable loss.

And there are larger and more toxic butterflies to come, if HOUSE OF THE DRAGON goes ahead with some of the changes being contemplated for seasons 3 and 4…

GRRM

[agentrouka-blog]

“I will never have a little girl. I was the Mother of Dragons.”

I can’t tell if this is dramatic irony from GRRM and he means to subvert it or it’s a statement that may come to fruition ? Targ restoration seems very unlikely but I look at how “no one will ever marry me for love” and the willowy creature line is so obviously dramatic irony but can the same be said for the Dany line? Lot’s of Dany stans think so and obv think it’ll her and Jon’s child…I do find it funny that they’re the same people who claim that Jon’s willowy creature line isn’t ironic at all and that Sansa’s despair over only being chosen for her claim won’t be subverted at all 💀

I think that context here is a key in explaining why the line is begging to be subverted for Sansa, while acting (at best) as false bait in a broader metaphor of doom for Daenerys.

How would you like to marry your cousin, the Lord Robert?" The thought made Sansa weary. All she knew of Robert Arryn was that he was a little boy, and sickly. It is not me she wants her son to marry, it is my claim. No one will ever marry me for love. But lying came easy to her now. "I . . . can scarcely wait to meet him, my lady. But he is still a child, is he not?" (ASOS, Sansa VI)

For Sansa, the line plays on two things: 1) her disillusionment with an innocent but character-defining dream is already complete in the perfect middle of the series. What an excellent moment to set up an ironic hint where her arc will go from there. 2) Easter egg of an as of yet unknown fact: there is another cousin to whom marriage is going to be on the table. "It would be so sweet to see him once again" she later thinks of that not-yet-cousin, "but of course that could never be." Another never. What could possibly ensue down the line? It's pretty blatantly begging to be subverted.

Dany, meanwhile, is thinking this while in the process of fully embracing her dragon identity in the grasslands at the end of the fifth book (happening almost concurrently with the fourth book, so chronologically between the middle and the end). She is exiting her Mhysa-arc, abandoning the maternal role she took on at the end of ASOS, which had quickly entailed locking up her dragons for killing a little girl.

"Drogon killed a little girl. Her name was … her name …" Dany could not recall the child's name. That made her so sad that she would have cried if all her tears had not been burned away. "I will never have a little girl. I was the Mother of Dragons." Aye, the grass said, but you turned against your children. (ADWD, Daenerys X)

Her children being the dragons.

Dany is torn between these idea of motherhood. Mother to the people, mother to dragons, mother to her own children. But, crucially, this chapter ends with a decision. She avoids examining the thought of her "moonblood", she divests herself of her commitment to Meereen, she summons and mounts Drogon, turns him away from Meereen, hunts on dragonback and gorges on the charred flesh of a horse that died screaming, calmly awaiting Jhaqo's khalasar to find her. She chooses the dragons.

The pregnancy she miscarried in the grasslands during her bout of starvation and dysentery was conceived in Meereen. Fairly soon after she started having sex with Daario and Hizdahr, even. Is it miscarried in the process of choosing to leave Meereen.

“To go forward I must go back,” she said.

She has chosen a new direction, back to her dragon identity, her personal quest. Nothing about this invites the idea of an ironic twist on motherhood being her future after all, which always stands in opposition to the dragons. The imagery is utterly consistent on that front.

In order to thematically reconnect to motherhood for herself, she would have to utterly reject the dragons, and that's going to be both extremely unlikely, and also increasingly meaningless the more she already achieves for herself through them. It's not much of a sacrifice if they have already given her power, devotion, armies, vengeance, the path to Westeros and the means to achieve all her goals. If Hazzea is not enough to convince Dany of what matters more, where is the meaning in being given "a little girl" for herself down the line, after yet more little girls will have died? Thematically, the time to earn this reward passed the moment she chose Drogon.

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

HotD seems a bit kinder to Ser Otto and Queen Alicent and now even Ser Gwayne. Granted the Hightowers we meet in the main story are only just briefly mentioned by other characters, but what do hear of them like Leyton or Lynesse aren't that great. The Lannister get a lot of (not undeserved) flack from within the fandom, but are under-the-radar terrible as Houses like the Lannisters or even the Freys or Boltons?

I wouldn't say HOTD is kinder to the Hightowers, as much as it allows them to be real people and not just historical caricatures or empty shells. (The biggest failure of F&B's history book conceit, more than any of the other problems with that book.)

For example, Gwayne in the book gets assigned to the Gold Cloaks to keep an eye on them in case some are still loyal to Daemon, and then during the Fall of King's Landing gets murked by his own men because indeed they are still loyal to Daemon. That's it, that's all there is to him, there's no there there. (Although the "You turncloaks!" "Daemon gave us these cloaks and they're gold no matter how you turn them." is a great line, and I hope it's kept even if Gwayne may not be involved.)

Gwayne in the show, however, is a prissy classist racist aristocrat, who is still brave in battle and protective of his sister and caring for his nephew; he's a knight who helps depict GRRM's knighthood themes with Criston; he's an actual person, both good and bad as a GRRM character should be. I have hopes that Gwayne takes the Ser Hobert Hightower role for the Caltrops and Second Tumbleton, that would be a great ending (especially considering his relationship with Daeron) for an excellent actor.

Re the main story Hightowers -- well, generally GRRM goes by Tolstoy's principle of "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Or as he put it, "happy families are boring." Not everyone always gets along in real families, and even the most beloved king and queen can be real assholes to their daughters. I imagine that when we actually meet Leyton in TWOW and find out exactly how complicated his family is -- four wives and ten children, you know there's friction there -- we'll see something imperfect, but different from the Lannisters, Freys, or Boltons. Maybe more dysfunctional the way Cregan Stark's family was dysfunctional or the Tyrells are dysfunctional. (If you think they're a perfectly happy family, then you entirely missed Olenna's relationship with Mace, Mace's relationship with Willas and Loras, Mace's relationship with Margaery, Olenna's relationship with Alerie, and so on and so forth.)

I can see Leyton as a patriarch who became increasingly distant as he got more into esoteric research (he hasn't come down from the top of the Hightower in more than a decade), leaving the eldest son Baelor to manage everything practical in the absence of his father. Was Leyton already half-distant the year before he stopped leaving the Hightower, and that's why he let his youngest daughter (only 16 or 17 years old) marry a newly knighted 35-year-old poor-ass lord from the back of beyond just because he did well in a tourney? How did the rest of the family react to that? The people of Oldtown don't think much of Lynesse now, but how did they feel when their young golden lady was taken away by a bear? These kinds of complicated relationships are the sort of detail GRRM loves to sink his teeth into, and is one of the reasons I'm so looking forward to Sam's Oldtown chapters almost more than anything in TWOW.

[una-hopeless-romantic1118]

⋆.˚ ☾⭒.˚of wolf's blood and dragon's wrath — Aemond Targaryen⋆.˚ ☾⭒.˚

"If a she-wolf is what they fear, then a she-wolf I shall be."

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. Aiana was always a guest at King's Landing, as the honorable Lord Rickon Stark's darling daughter. But whenever she was in the warmth of the Capital, the Prince Aemond and her shook hand in hand and took an oath of camaraderie in the cruel world that surrounded them, hiding away under tables as they created a world of their own.

But a child's conflict left them both wounded deeper than the rest.

Aiana Stark grew up to be the notorious Huntswoman of the North. The She-Wolf, with her chin held high and her spine straightened against the hurling insults of men, just as she was called the Hearth to the Cold for her unwavering kindness and personal work as a healer to the sick and wounded.

Aemond would come to be known as the "One-Eyed" Prince, and feared for his dragon Vhagar. He might excel in swordsmanship and studies of the histories, but he hid behind his eyepatch, miserable his comrade no longer thought the same of him. A fucking Targaryen Prince, who longs for the She-Wolf in the North. ⋆.˚ ☾⭒.

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. Tropes:

childhood best friends, to strangers, to lovers

oblivious puppy love

unequal social status (prince and lady)

soulmates

best friend's brother

second chance

sharing emotional scars

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. Inspired songs (*wink wink*):

Let her go by Passenger

The One That Got Away by Katy Perry

Chemtrails Over the Country Club Lana Del Rey

Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want by Deftones

How to Save a Life by The Fray

I Will Always Love You by Dolly Parton

Somebody that I Used to Know by Gotye, Kimbra

Now That We Don't Talk (Taylor's Version) by Taylor Swift

Mr. Brightside by The Killers

All I Wanted by Paramore

illicit affairs by Taylor Swift

The Great War by Taylor Swift

Forever and Always (Piano Version) (Taylor's Version) by Taylor Swift

Rescue by Lauren Daigle

Let the Light In by Lana Del Rey

Work Song by Hozier

Evermore by Josh Groban

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. a/n: major canon divergence bc who doesn't want to feed their delusions accordingly and go above and beyond for it, for example:

narrative will switch back and forth between aemond and aiana, and aiana will have a whole thing happening in winterfell. i don't want to spoil much lol

little sister to cregan, big sister to rodrik (not at all a real character to GRRM's work during this timeline, as well as so many more characters.)

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. LINK TO BOOK ⋆.˚ ☾⭒.

⋆.˚ ☾⭒. only posted on ao3 (4 chapters so far), but idk if i should also post here? i think it'll be more aesthetically pleasing but idk what do you guys think? ⋆.˚ ☾⭒.

[liesmyth]

anon! I see you! same for the other anon I got 3 weeks ago and left on read — I was trying to decide how to phrase this.

I'm not publishing these in full because I'd rather talk about cool fandom theories I like instead of singling out specific takes I don't agree with.

The one thing I really feel like saying publicly re: TLT fandom discourse is that I think we could all benefit from, like, taking a step back from invoking Tamsyn when it comes to discussing theories or interpretations. I think the tone of the discourse and the fandom as a whole would be a lot healthier if we just agreed that we're getting a lil' bit silly with it, which is 100% what Tamsyn wanted when she started writing, anyway.

There are many fandom posts that EYE would find very compelling if they were presented as "This is a cool idea I had and the lenses through which I choose to engage with this story and these characters..." but often take the tone of "This is CLEARLY what the author means to do, listen up..." — with the implications that people who see things differently are getting a bad grade in lockedtomb reading, and then it stops being fun and it starts getting pretty hostile pretty quick.

I think a lot about Tamsyn's quote "I am writing for my younger self and it would be disgusting of me to try to teach her anything." That's the spirit in which I think it's most fun to engage with her writing. She's an excellent author and her books have a lot going on and many angles you can look at... but they aren't flawless, and she can't have accounted for all the theories the fandom is coming up with. I think we should stop trying to look at these books as though they are That Serious, and give ourselves more credit that maybe we're coming up with stuff the creator never considered, and that doesn't mean your stuff is less valid, but it does mean you shouldn't flex on other fans because you see it and they don't. From everything we know about Tamsyn, she'd probably be the first to say "It's not that deep, unless you want it to be."

For comparison, I've been in ASOIAF fandom for 15 years and we haven't had new material for almost as long and silly theories and renewed interpretations are flourishing every month, and nobody gives a fig about what GRRM was really trying to say because maybe the author's intention isn't the ultimate value of a work, and the author is dead anyway.

IDK. I think we should all get a little sillier with it. I've been guilty of some Not Silly in the past, though hopefully not much, but ultimately I'm here to have fun and so are most people. Especially since TLT is still ongoing, and many interpretations WILL get debunked, we're probably just better off now putting less stock on authorial backing to avoid disappointment later on, and to have more fun as a fandom during the #alectopause.

ANYWAY my askbox is always open specifically to get silly with it. I haven't hornyposted about lyctor sex in a while

[darklinaforever]

People who complain that we not have others fantasy shows like the first 4 seasons of GOT (even if they were generally good adaptations, in terms of adaptation of the magical aspect in the show itself was minimal, and I don't understand the problem with directors of fantasy productions who always try, if they can, to minimize the fantasy / magical aspect of the base work... Why adapt from fantasy if you have a problem with the magical elements ? It's ridiculous...) well actually the thing is that there are plenty of literary stories as good as GRRM's ASOIAF saga, even better !

Except that either the directors didn't get their hands on it, or they did and... adapted it any way they wanted.

The Witcher is a perfect example. The books make for an excellent fantasy saga, but its adaptation is absolutely slammed into the ground.

It's the same with rings of power. Tolkien's universe has tons of stories that could be adapted, but instead the directors went with fanfiction (and poorly done one at that).

And I don't understand why these people aren't able to properly adapt the nuggets they find.

Even at the youth level, we saw the disaster of the attempted adaptations of Eragon and The Wardstone Chronicles.

It's still crazy.

The problem once again is those who try to adapt fantasy works. They either don't seem to like them, or think they're doing better by the original author, or both. And it's frankly tiring.

House of the Dragon itself is a show that ends up being more of a Fire and Blood fanfiction than an adaptation. Borderline a parody at this point.

And I don't understand people who praise this show as an example of good adaptation or good fantasy.

I mean... you saw what Ryan Condal said as bullshit to explain that the Targaryens don't have purple eyes in HOTD beyond simple technical problems that he should have just stuck to instead of continuing to open your mouth ?

Once again, why adapt fantasy by people who don't like its elements ?

It's stupid.

In addition, it also has almost all the flaws of the rings of power, and of the seasons of GOT after the first 4.

The fact is that I drifted. But the main point being, there are plenty of excellent fantasy stories out there. The problem is that they haven't yet been discovered by people working in the field, or when they have them on hand, they adapt them haphazardly.

And sorry, but so far, I haven't seen any fantasy adaptations that could really be described as good (except the trilogy LOTR by Peter Jackson, His Dark Materials - not perfect but still pretty good -, and Arcane for now... of course)

[racefortheironthrone]

I understand that knights normally followed a fairly set career path: start as a page, get taken on as a squire, and then if they merit it and have resources, knighthood. How did it work for other classes of soldier? How would one go about becoming say, a man at arms, or a specialist like a long bowman or a crossbowman or a pikeman for example?

Ah, excellent question!

One preliminary thing, you do have to be mindful of the distinction between actual training and social organization. Let's take your "career path" for knights, for example - at its heart, the whole page/squire thing was essentially a two-stage apprenticeship, but there was both a mix of actual martial training (I'll get into the curriculum in a bit) and what we would think of as socialization into the noble class - things like music, dancing, literacy, manners, and so forth aren't really directly related to the job of an armored heavy cavalryman, after all.

Importantly, when it comes to the distinction between various ranks, we have to keep in mind the importance of both material resources and sociocultural status. As you note, the difference between a squire and a knight was really about whether the squire could afford the full complement of arms, armor, and a horse, and there were more than a few grown men who were squires their whole lives (this is the inspiration for characters like Squire Dalbridge) because they just didn't have the money to advance to knighthood.

At the same time, the difference between a knight and a man-at-arms came down to social class - in order to be a man-at-arms, you had to have the same training as a knight and own the same equipment (arms, armor, and horse), which is why a lot of the written sources simply call all such men men-at-arms whether they were knights or not - although some sources took more pains to distinguish between the milites gregarii (the plain man-at-arms) and the milites nobiles (which, as you probably have guessed, refers to actual knights).

The former tended to be from the gentry rather than the nobility, and as a result of their lower status, they were usually paid half the wage rate of knights despite doing the same work and taking on the significant risk of providing their own equipment. (The fact that they were cheaper also explains why the proportion of actual knights on the campaign rolls dropped rather rapidly between the 13th and 14th centuries - knights were more expensive, so hiring men-at-arms instead meant you could stretch the budget for heavy cavalry.)

The Knightly Curriculum

As I suggested above, the training for knights was essentially an apprentice system where the page and then the squire provided service to their master in exchange for education. When it comes to the actual content of this training, the curriculum was actually pretty ecletic:

As you might expect, training in arms was an important part of the program. However, this training included a lot more than just swordsmanship. While the sword was very culturally important, when it came to the actual military function of a heavy cavalryman, the lance was arguably of greater importance. Training also tended to include other sidearms - axes, maces, and the like. In later periods, as armor got a lot better and mounted frontal charges tended to be de-emphasized in favor of having men-at-arms fight as dismounted heavy infantry, the curriculum expanded to include new weapons like the poleaxe and other polearms that Gary Gygax was obsessed with.

Training in horsesmanship was also a core part of the curriculum. GRRM is not wrong when he says that "jousting was three-quarters horesemanship," and this is why pages and squires were not only taught formal equestrian lessons, but were also taught how to hawk and hunt as part of their training. Hawking and hunting were the past-times of the nobility in no small part because they involved riding horses very fast through difficult terrain while simultaneously handling either a dangerous animal or weaponry, and were thus were considered good training for future cavalrymen. As Hillary Mantel puts it, "la chasse...we usually say, we gentlemen, that the chase prepares us for war."

Training in armor tends to get downplayed or overlooked, but it was considered so important that a major portion of what pages and squires did was deal with armor - carrying it, maintaining it (scrubbing with abrasives to prevent rust, oiling the straps to keep the leather straps supple, polishing - it was really endless labor), repairing it, putting it on their master and taking it off, and so on and so forth - so that they would understand every step of the process and be able to fend for themselves later on if they didn't have attendants of their own. The famous French knight, Jean "Boucicaut" le Maingre, was held up as an example to pages and squires for constantly wearing full armor while undertaking exercise:

What About the Man-at-Arms?

As you may have noticed, I've been mostly talking about how knights trained rather than men-at-arms. So how did your gentry-born homme d'armes train? Essentially the same as a knight, but with less of the aristocratic bells and whistles of ritualized service and socialization to the nobility. So a son of the gentry would probably be training under the tutelage of their father or other male relative - and given that we're talking about a society in which the overwhelming majority of people did the same jobs as their parents, often being legally bound to do so, this was a very common phenomenon all the way from peasants upwards - or perhaps from a professional tutor who would most likely be a veteran in working retirement.

Towards the later Middle Ages, as literacy rates increased and book production expanded to match supply to demand, your more traditional systems of apprenticeship and one-on-one tutoring became supplemented with written manuals of arms. While this genre of military literature goes all the way back to classical antiquity - and indeed, Roman manuals like De re militari were very popular in the Middle Ages, as were translations of Byzantine manuals - these lavishly illustrated manuscripts were both practical teaching tools and status objects for the families who owned them.

Specialists: Longbowmen, Crossbowmen, and Pikemen

Ok, enough about the upper classes, what about the commoners who served as specialist infantry in Medieval and Renaissance armies?

Well, I've already written a bit about longbow training, but the gist of it is that what started out as a (Welsh) hunting tool was recognized by the English royal government as a vital aspect of military readiness, so laws were promulgated that required essentially all but the poorest to own a longbow and that "that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows… and so learn and practise archery." This training started at a fairly early age and lasted at least a decade, because it involved both the acquisition of technique and the development of the body (not just the arms, but also crucially the back muscles, as the "special sauce" of the English longbowman was his ability to "lay my body in my bow" rather than relying solely on the arms) - such that archeologists can identify longbowmen from the over-development of the shoulder and arm bones.

What about crossbowmen? Well, as I've already written a bit about, one of the major advantages of the crossbow over the longbow is that you could train someone to be a crossbowman in as little as four months, compared to the decade at minimum for a longbowman, because most of what you were teaching them was accuracy in shooting (hence why the recruitment process often involved eye exams) and the procedures for loading and cocking the crossbow - which required a certain amount of physical strength to pull back the string to the nut that would hold it in place, or to work the winch or the lever or the gaffe or the windlass if you were using a heavier crossbow, but nothing like the physical conditioning required for a longbow.

One of the reasons why the term "Genoese" is so often associated with the crossbow is that the Republic of Genoa established a corps of crossbowmen to serve both in the army and as marines in the navy and these experienced soldiers in turn provided a ready supply of labor for mercenary companies. While the captains who recruited on behalf of the great companies might have to put in the up-front investment of equipment (the crossbow and its accessories, pavise shields, armor,and sidearms), they were able to essentially outsource the training costs to the Republic.

When it comes to training, pikemen were somewhere in the middle between the longbowman and the crossbowman. Because pikemen have to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with lots of other pikemen without stabbing one another accidentally or getting their polearms tangled up, coordinating movement and action was vitally important. Hence, pikemen learned a series of quite complicated drills to teach them how to move in formation in different directions, how to change formations from line to square and back, how to switch from pike to sidearm and back, how to work with missile infantry, and so forth.

As I've talked about before, a big part of the reason why Swiss pikemen were so feared on the battlefield is that, because they were very well-drilled and disciplined due to the policies of universal military service adopted by the Swiss cantons, they could execute these drills very quickly, which meant that the Swiss pikemen could turn on a dime from an impenetrable defensive pike square to a shockingly fast and aggressive deep column which beat the ever-loving shit out of the Burgundians, the Hapsburgs, the Italians, the French, and pretty much everyone - until the Swiss ran up against a nasty combination of the German Landsknecht and the Spanish tercio.

[thebeesareback]

The big Robert Baratheon thoughts

There are several characters within the ASOIAF universe who could comfortably be the protagonist of their own book/series, and GRRM has spoken about how, when writing a character, he tries to see all the major events through their eyes and how it would have affected their lives. Dany and Oberyn are good examples of this, and a shorter book/series could comfortably have either one of them as the main character. If a fic writer is looking for any inspiration, I think a lot could be drawn from Dany in Vaes Toloro.

Another of them is a character who almost seems like a false protagonist in GOT: King Robert Baratheon. The people who don't know him think he's amazing, the people who do know him despise him. He has a fleshed-out backstory, character and the power to influence the plot in many different ways. Yet he's killed off quickly, and I think the fan community often overlooks him as a simple drunken idiot. So I'd like to dig a little deeper.

Robert's life can easily be sectioned into three parts: pre-rebellion era, the rebellion era and the post-rebellion era. Most of what we see comes from Ned Stark, and later we have flashbacks from Cersei which show a much darker and thoroughly rotten man.

To start: Robert is the first born son of House Baratheon, a clan with significant power and influence. He's exactly the kind of young man the Westerosi patriarchal "might makes right" system rewards -- the sort of son Randyl Tarly would love to have. He's an excellent fighter, charming, good looking ("muscled like a maiden's fantasy", oh Ned). There's also a kindness there. When he's fostered at the Eeire he sends for a gift of oranges for Jon Arryn, and although the fruit goes bad, he's not upset and instead plays with the other teenagers. It's silly and funny and the most childish we ever see him.

He isn't always lovely, of course. In Stannis' memory, Robert is unpleasant. He mocks Stannis' falcon and, therefore, Stannis himself. However, Stannis is a miserable shit, and this comment comes after they've spent years disliking each other, so there's obvious bias. Robert seemed to be happy to be away from his family, and so some alienation from his brothers does make sense. Robert and Stannis go through the ordeal of watching their parents die, and it's understandable that this would cause issues in their relationship. Perhaps that's why they pushed each other away. Having a walking, whining reminder of that trauma can't have been pleasant, and the desire to pretend that everything is ok and ignore problems gets more persistent as the years go on.

The third thing we hear about from Robert's pre-rebellion era is his relationship with Mya Stone. I'm not totally clear on the timeline, so I don't know if it's 1. parents' death > 2. Mya's birth > 3. the rebellion or if 1 and 2 are the other way around. Either way, Robert seems to adore his daughter. Ned thinks about how frequently they visited her, and how much Robert enjoyed spending time with her. In a kinder story, Robert would have always been close to Mya. Then the rebellion starts.

There are, of course, lots of things which lead to the rebellion. I don't think Tywin was going to put up with the Mad King for much longer, and Rhaegar felt the same way. Then you have the coalition between the Starks, Baratheons, Tullys and Arryns, and at some point Varys and "Young Griff" would have popped up. For Robert, though, things were straightforward: he wanted Lyanna, and Rhaegar took her away. He remarks to Ned that "Seven Kingdoms couldn't fill the whole she left". It's clear that he didn't actually know Lyanna that well, and it could easily be argued that the reason he worshipped her memory was a mix of affection for Ned and a desire to return to a time where he wasn't traumatised.

Obviously, war is traumatic. That's kind of the point of the series. Everyone who fought in Robert's Rebellion is changed in some way and the scars, literal and metaphorical, run deep. Stannis broods over his "rewards". Ned misses his sister, brother and father. Catelyn is aware of the loss of her betrothed, and Lady Dustin crystalises her rage. Jamie is ostracised and bitter. Jon Connington promises more violence. The list goes on. The things Robert sees during the campaign clearly change him, and this brings us back to Mya.

One of the key themes of the series, most prominently in the first book, is the idea that the innocent should not be sacrificed. That's why Ned works so hard to protect Jon and why he resigns his handship when Robert wants to kill Dany. Something happened to Robert during the rebellion, where his hatred of the Targaryens solidifies so much that it becomes the only thing he really wants. Other things, like his love of his daughter or the belief that children should be protected, all go and he's left with Tywin Lannister and the corpses of Rhaenys and Aegon.

Robert doesn't have to make peace with the Lannisters. In fact, lots of people (the Starks, the Dornish and the people of King's Landing) would be much happier if he didn't. Tywin ordered a horrific thing, and Robert rewarded him. For me, this is where Robert becomes the man we meet in Game of Thrones. He's so broken inside that he does nothing, and tries to pretend that he's still the person he was as a teenager.

After the rebellion, Robert goes on to have plenty more children. If he loved Mya and wanted to see her all the time, after the rebellion he forgets her. And she's the lucky one! Robert must know that Cersei has his twins drowned, he ignores Barra and Gendry, and he only acknowledges Edric Storm because he has to. Then there are the kids who are legally "his", even if biologically they're not. I don't think we ever see him interact with Tommen or Myrecella, and his relationship with Joffrey isn't good. Sure, Joffrey is a little shit, but you could argue that it's partially because of Robert's treatment. Stannis thinks, at one point, that Robert might have killed Joffrey because he hit him so hard.

Why does Robert detach? Well, there's the trauma, the general depression, the loneliness, the disconnect between *conceiving* children and *the actual children*. I think, as well, there's the knowledge that, by allowing Tywin to get away with the murder of the Targaryen children, he's set a precedent whereby the same thing could easily happen to his own kids. If someone needed to get rid of Robert -- and there are people who would like him gone -- they would come after Joffrey, Tommen and Myrecella, and perhaps his bastards, too. He can't protect them, and it shames his chivalric ideals, so he disconnects, doesn't care, and drinks excessively. It might be a way of dealing with guilt, or a way he protects himself from losing anyone else. Ultimately, Joffrey, Tommen and Myrecella are doomed; Edric only escaped sacrifice because of Pylos and Davos, and might well get mixed up in a Varys/"Young Griff" scheme; all of the bastards in King's Landing are killed; and if Gendry survives, it's because of plot armour. Nobody cares about Mya, really.

There's plenty to say about the Robert/Cersei match. Firstly, I'd like to mention how much I enjoy the show-only scene where the two discuss their marriage. It's heartbreaking, well written and beautifully acted, and gives some depth which makes the experience richer.

None of the Lannisters like Robert, with the exception of Tyrion. Tyrion likes Robert because Cersei doesn't, but their creepy and destructive bond is a whole other issue. Ned thinks that Robert was a man with "big appetites", and a clear desire to be loved. It probably means he wasn't ever going to be a good husband, which Lyanna points out (in a line which I cannot imagine a 14-year old ever saying, but I digress). Robert loved the thrill of the chase and the first few weeks of a relationship, but wasn't willing to really emotionally attach to anyone. Perhaps it's because, like with his children, he had to keep people away in case he lost them, like Lyanna.

Cersei is her own woman and, to be honest, not a very good wife. Robert thinks he would have been happy with Lyanna, Cersei thinks she would have been happy with Rhaegar: both are wrong. She starts her wedding day by having sex with her brother; she regularly cuckolds her husband, and then she finishes off by murdering her husband. You could argue that her behaviour is driven by Robert's physical and sexual abuse, and his emotional distance and obvious disdain. I don't think that's incorrect, per se, I just think there's a nasty mix with the two of them. They're bad alone and worse together. They're a toxic, unhappy, traumatised mix, and a solid argument for Westerosi divorce.

Finally, there's Robert's alcoholism and his love of food. There are a number of reasons for this -- the genre's enthusiasm for descriptions of feasts; parallels with Henry VIII of England; possibly GRRM simply likes adding his favourite meals, similar to how he created House Estermont so there could be turtles, because he had pet turtles. Obesity is the sort of thing that's pretty common in middle age men who used to be very physically active, because they had to eat lots to make up their calorie deficit, and when the exercise stopped, the food continued. As for alcohol, it gives Robert an opportunity to forget his (admittedly plentiful) responsibilities and woes, makes him feel like a hero, and gives him an excuse for his abuse of Cersei. He rapes her, and when she brings it up, he says "it was not me, but the wine", then REACHES FOR A BEER. I'm certainly not qualified to talk about addiction and trauma, so if anyone has thoughts on this, please add a comment.

In Shakespeare's Macbeth, the eponymous character snatches the crown at his wife's goading, and then finds that things disintegrate around him. There's a scene in the play where two servants talk about what's going on in Scotland, and one says that two horses fought, and one ate the other. When a monarch is usurped, in literature, nature goes against itself. In real life, revolutions are messy and complicated and difficult. Robert Baratheon fought a rebellion to get his fiance back, whilst others used him and worked alongside him for their own reasons. He was left holding a rotten crown. Abused and abuser, surrounded by toxicity and exuding his own hatred, one could easily create a novel about his disillusionment.

[alicentsgf]

Nobody really excels as a parent in the show, which is actually quite realistic given the power dynamics and decision-making imbalances inherent in a patriarchal society. It makes sense that the adults in the show suck at being parents. Personally, I’m not bothered by whether they’re good parents or not—nobody in this show is supposed to be a “good” person to begin with, except the kids and babies. Season 2 should have shifted focus to Aegon, Aemond, Helaena, Jace, Baela, and Rhaena. The dynamics between these characters alone could have driven the show in a much more interesting direction.

Yeah I think it goes without saying ‘good’ is relative. These are not good people and they’re certainly not great parents. I love Alicent but shes a bad parent in a lot of ways (even excluding the end of season 2), the fact she had very good reasons for it doesn’t change that - but people using Daeron as way to claim shes in some way innately poisonous as a mother, when Daeron to me seems like some of the best evidence of her being able to be a ‘good’ parent under certain conditions, irks me. The differences in Rhaenyras and Alicent situations when it comes to motherhood in terms of age, influence, sense of security, ability to choose the father, etc make it so obvious why there’s a disparity in their abilities to parent. It’s really just a dick measuring contest for a lot of fans. ‘My horse is bigger than your horse’ = ‘my fav is a better mother than your fav’ And it’s like fine yeah she is, can we discuss WHY tho? or do you just want to jerk off to it?

I’m half with you on the shift in focus. I would have preferred what we’ve got so far to have been 3 seasons, with much more detail, where alicent and rhaenyras children are more slowly introduced in more depth through season 2 after season 1 ends with Aemond losing an eye. I just think we need more time pre-dance. We needed Alicents wedding, Aegons birth, Laenor and Rhaenyra failing a having children, Rhaenyra and Harwin, perhaps Alicents reaction to Jace or Luke’s birth, aka having it confirmed in her mind that Rhaenyra’s birthing bastards, Daeron being sent away. So much is missing. I still think rhaenyra and alicents childhood friendship was a great choice, i think there’s a reason that was one change grrm actually liked, because it helps tell the story. It helps say ‘it doesnt matter, they love each other and it doesnt matter, they all kill each other anyway’, it makes clear it was all inescapable, which is much more tragic and interesting than a couple of the other routes they could have gone. But I also think they went too far with it. it was a great basis, and it could have been revisited in interesting ways throughout the series, but the direction they took it after Driftmark will never sit right with me.

[juniorfor2]

The amount of hatred specifically towards Emma this season, a non-binary person, and Olivia last season, a woman…I swear people think they’re not obvious but they so are.

But interestingly enough, it feels like most of the people being vitriolic towards Emma are LGBTQ themselves. And when they’re questioned if they are being transphobic or not, their only defense is ‘no I’m queer that’s impossible’…

Cause of course none of us have ever heard of a queer person excluding other parts of the community.

I get that the actors can say things totally off base from their character. I get that it’s frustrating. But most actors do not operate under the assumption that the writers absolutely hate a character or want to tell an original story when they are supposed to be writing an adaption. So if you’ve got a criticism of the writing, maybe blame the writers - you know, the ones hired to write this show?

The Dance of Dragons doesn’t have a lot of good characterization, least of all for Rhaenyra, whose whole narrative is absolutely engulfed in misogyny. And its parallels and connections don’t just span across Fire & Blood, but GRRM’s entire series, from The World of Ice and Fire to his main series around Daenerys. It’s not a light book in the slightest, so the actors were always going to need to trust that the writers knew what they were talking about.

I don’t know why people are trying to say that the actors should know the book characters inside and out - that is quite literally not possible for this book. They were always going to need to go off of what GRRM told the writers along with whatever creative license the writers took. That was always how it was going to be. Obviously Condal and Hess went off the rails here, but that’s not something the actors can control.

Would it be awesome if all the actors did not trust Condal and Hess, and did know exactly what their characters were like, and fought super hard to keep that characterization? Yes, obviously, but that wasn’t going to happen the moment C&H started to write their own misogynistic, essentially original story. How was Emma supposed to portray the book character when their show character is now a religious fanatic? How were they supposed to portray an excellent mother when every one of Rhaenyra’s lines is doubting her family? How were they supposed to portray a great love story with Daemon, when they’ve only got 1-2 scenes post S01E06 where they aren’t arguing with each other?

Matt Smith couldn’t do anything either to save Daemon this season, the writers changed him so badly. There was no way to make him better once he was made to be a completely different person.

Even when it came to Emma’s suggesting a kiss between Rhaenyra & Mysaria - if that had never happened, would it have suddenly removed all the romantic tension that the writers had already written in purposely beforehand? No, of course not - because they only suggested that scene when it went along with what was already implied. I wasn’t particularly a fan of the kiss when it should have been Laena and Mysaria should have been kept the sort-of-side villain, but that wasn’t going to happen regardless.

Emma is not at fault for the terrible writing this season. People have seriously got to let go of the transphobia, cause otherwise I know it’ll be off the rails next season. Why people view it as more acceptable to blame the non-binary actor rather than the writers who wrote the damn show, I will never understand, but people have got to quit.

[daenystheedreamer]

Am I the only one who gets Hadrian vibes from Renly?

mm in that theyre gay king (or emperor in hadrian's case) but really only from the gay bit 😭 and idk i think the power dynamics between renly and loras are a little less intense? their levels of power are relatively equal despite renly being royal. like the tyrell wealth + the fact its the major backing for renly.

BUT there's certainly the age gap with loras being 15/16 and renly 21 in agot/acok and the fact loras is his squire and the ages for squire are about ten and up which like. can imply something of a pederastic element even though i dont personally believe this is the case nor do i think grrm wrote it that way. honestly loras' age in general comes across like part of the grrm age blindness quirk? then again loras is an important parallel to jaime, himself knighted at 15, so his youth is certainly important both within the narrative itself (loras being brash) and thematically ("He’s me, Jaime realized suddenly. I am speaking to myself, as I was, all cocksure arrogance and empty chivalry. This is what it does to you, to be too good too young.")

but thinking it through now, including antinous in this analysis makes it more vivid. antinous was a boy and a slave and has become this leering symbol of youthful male beauty. loras is a boy who is angry and wroth and full of grief he does not understand. but he's also this beautiful boy lusted for by women, revered as the greatest swordsman, a symbol of tyrell and feudal excellence. this kind of narrative on perception really fits with a person/character like antinous, who was a real person but in death (and life!) lost all rights to how he was seen. though TBH if anyone were to deify their dead lover and erect monuments to their greatness it would be widower arc loras LOL

apologies for the ramblings and tangents! this ask made me think lots thank you i need to think about loras more i forgot how fun he is<3 short answer im not sure long answer yes question mark

[throwawayasoiafaccount]

magic in asoiaf is genetic. and that is intresting. and the fact that grrm doesn’t shy away from the implications of this makes me love asoiaf even more.

because it’s very understandable that these people who could ride dragons would see themselves as more gods than men. it’s understandable that the practice of sibling-sibling incest would become common in order to keep this ability in the family/to not lose said ability. it’s also understandable that these people would see their race as superior because they are able to do these things that others could not.

it also makes complete sense that this human civilization collapsed in a horrific magical event due to their own hubris because they saw themselves as gods when they were always only men.

and that is peak world building.

some more peak world building is that the noble houses of westeros also clearly gained power and held onto their power through the use of their magical abilities inherited from their ancestors.

a godlike existence like Garth the Green being the ancestor of all the oldest and most noble of the reach houses makes perfect sense for this world!and it also makes sense that the lords without this ancestry are discriminated against in this region that still holds onto the values their society cultivated in the past in order to maintain their magical superiority, even though most of these noble and old houses no longer exhibit these abilities.

and it also makes sense that these people no longer have access to these abilities as they no longer practice the religion that was centered around these powers; plus their blood is simply diluted at this point as these houses have married into a different ethnic group so often that the magical gene just doesn’t surface anymore.

but the fact that it still matters if you can trace your ancestry back to Garth the Green? peak! peak! peak!

george does such an excellent job showcasing the stagnation of westerosi society here because why should it matter if you’re connected to this magic guy if magic is no longer commonplace? however, it also makes total sense that the ruling class of the reach still harps on and on about this as it’s how they maintain the status quo and differentiate themselves from those they consider lesser now that they no longer have access to magic themselves.

and this is also why it’s very important that the Starks still retain the blood of the first men. because the first men interbred with the children of the forest and other elder races, which is what gave these humans these powers. it’s also worth noting that before the direwolves connected with the Stark children, none of our current Starks were able to awaken their abilities by themselves, which shows that even now they are very far removed from their ancestor who’s genetic makeup gave this bloodline these abilities. and it makes sense that the Starks experienced this slow magical decline because magic itself was declining in the world after the doom of valyria.

another reason for this decline is because Andal culture started heavily influencing the North and slowly changed the way magic was perceived. so now in the present, a warg/skinchanger/greenseer has become something to fear being because that’d make you different and therefore puts your life at risk, which means that there’s now practically no safe environment to cultivate these abilities and no secure way to pass down any knowledge you do have about said abilities.

i can’t help but be reminded about how Jon Snow has rejected his nature and how that has led to the stagnation of his abilities, and then i think about Arya and Bran and how their new environments have led to an astonishing growth in their abilities, which shows that it’s not just genetics that matter, environment is also just as, if not more, important.

i bring all of this up because magic being genetic in asoiaf is not as problematic as people try to make it out as. in real life, sometimes people just have genetic gifts. some people can become olympians, and some people are disabled. some people are born 10 times smarter than the average human, and some people believe that covering their faces in lemon juice would turn them invisible. that is reality. and in this universe, some people have access to magic and some don’t, and it’s all based on genetics. it’s unfair! and that makes it realistic.

not everyone gets to ride dragons and not everyone gets to travel back in time, and that grounds asoiaf, which is what grrm was going for.

and how these societies have organized themselves in response to these genetic abilities and the dangers they pose makes absolute sense. on one hand we have the valyrian freehold, which was a magic hotspot and the people who lived there used magic to propel their society to new heights, and on the other hand we have the seven kingdoms that demonize anyone too different, and all magic practitioners are different from normal humans.

and the fact that george decided to go this route with asoiaf is so juicy to me cause:

we have characters like Varamyr and Euron who use their abilities to commit great evils and we know that their powers have influenced the way they see and interact with others. on the other hand we have characters like Dany who use their abilities to fight against evil violent institutions. and through characters like her we learn how vulnerable fledgling magic practitioners/characters with these abilities are to these older and more dangerous institutions and individuals who are perfectly aware about the knowledge gap between them and these younger characters and know exactly how to exploit them.

so, while it’s understandable that the fandom is uncomfy with the practices and values that grrm has written about, this isn’t bad world building by any means. it’s logical and well thought out. and i truly enjoy that grrm doesn’t shy away from writing about the more worrying aspects and implications of magic being a matter of genetics. i also like how the seven kingdoms and the valyrian freehold are kinda extremes on the matter of magic and how this is/was detrimental to both of these societies and at the individual level. a horrific magical firey doom is not any better nor any worse than a slow drawn out icey decline.

imo, what is important to remember is that in the world of asoiaf, people with magic are the ones who are discriminated against (bc most POV characters are in Westeros and magic is a no no there). so they are the ones who are in danger if they out themselves as magic users. now, it is true that some societies are more tolerant (Qarth is a great example of this and Valyria before the doom was likely the most tolerant to have ever existed in this world), but as of now most societies simply aren’t. remember jojens warning? he didn’t pull that out of his ass. bran would’ve been in a lot of danger if he came out and told the wrong people about his dreams/abilities. also, jon’s assassination may have been partly motivated by the mutineers fear of wargs. this is the life-threatening danger magic practitioners are in for simply existing in an intolerant society.

tbh the reason i typed all this up is because it’s very annoying when people try to ignore the reality, which is that the dragonbond depends on genetics. now, i’m sure there are other ways to ride a dragon, as dragons are magical animals so of course there may be a one in a million chance of a dragon allowing some rando to ride it, but this doesn’t change the fact that there is such a thing as a genetic ability that gives these certain humans the ability to form a connection with a dragon.

(another example that i can’t help but remember is that melisandre was able to get ghosts approval by using some of her tricks. of course there could be other reasons for ghost to have done this, but the most likely reason is that ghost simply fell for melisandre’s trick and this influenced how jon saw mel. but this doesn’t change the fact that melisandre will never have the kind of bond jon and ghost have because melisandre is not a warg. this is also another example of how vulnerable fledgling magic practitioners are to older ones.)

so, sorry not sorry that george decided to create a realistic representation of what a society would look like if only certain bloodlines were able to ride dragons <\3.

[agentrouka-blog]

do you think the meereenese blot guy is right when he says that jon will come back darker and might not care about civilians deaths?

The Meereenese Blot Essays are excellent reads and I recommend them so much!

I don't think that what you describe is necessarily the conclusion/prediction presented in the final Jon essay. It's more of a very potential path that heavily depends on how Jon will react to several potential variables (the situation at the Wall, Melisandre's influence).

My personal take is that GRRM will probably not veer too far into that direction.

The essays give three factors that might influence a dark turn: 1) conditions at the Wall becoming catastrophic, 2) a turn toward prophecy, 3) Ghost's influence.

We can't yet know how 1) will turn out, but Jon has been investing in institutional structures outside his own person even if the wildlings have sworn their oaths to his person. They are manning castles together, training people together. The assassins do not represent a known large mutinous faction that Jon has been oppressing all this time. Like with Caesar, the "liberators" may soon discover their act to be unwelcome by the "masses". The destructive chaos may not be as huge as the essay anticipates. We're likely to see a mirror to Meereen in Dany's absence.

Regarding 3), Ghost specifically is a remarkably chill direwolf with a pronounced solitary streak and a gentleness with various humans. The human-eating exploits of Summer and Nymeria specifically mirror their human counterparts rather than negatively influencing them. The same went for Grey Wind. Ghost represents escapism rather than abuse of power but probably also a strong reminder of his wolf and human families.

Regarding 2), Jon already knows that Melisandre has magical and prophetic powers (Mance's glamor, the murdered rangers), so the mere fact of the correct prediction of his assassination attempt will not suddenly make him trust her. He already took steps based on trusting her and learned to question the reliability of her predictions/interpretations of her visions.

Jon's ethical troubles have always been tied to concepts of identity, rather than destiny. Always "Who am I, who do I want to be", rather than "this is a goal I must inevitably achieve, no matter the cost". So given his always ambivalent relationship with Melisandre and Stannis, I don't suddenly see him outsourcing his ethical grounding to a prophecy.

He'll more probably be torn between harmful personal desires (impulsive wrath, the peace of freedom as a wolf) and competing frames of identity (man of the Night's Watch, a Stark, a human) and through those pick a path forward that will likely culminate in leaving the Watch and fully engaging in Northern politics against the Boltons who threaten the Watch and the North and the wildlings combined.

None of those options tie him to Azor Ahai or to a sudden disregard for innocent human life. That one is (to me) likely to remain Stannis's story, all the way up to the senseless burning of Shireen, which will end the influence of that storyline in the North for the foreseeable future and release its focus over towards what the Essosi slaves see in Daenerys.

So that would be my opinion. 😊