#inspiration mainly from the asoiaf series | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

horizon-verizon · 1 year ago

Note

https://www.tumblr.com/horizon-verizon/734012672751828992/you-should-absolutely-read-ursula-k-le-guins

This actually got me thinking.

Every House in ASOIAF are feudalist but the one that bares the grunt of hate are the ones with dragons.

I seems that are anti Targaryen on tumblr, saying, the only good dragon is a dead dragon, comparing the Targs to Nazis (?????) Comparing the dragons to nukes, etc. And i've always been confused bc I thought the fandom agreed that is was a fantasy series???? It takes from irl history yes, BUT there are dragons and magical elements. It's a bit ironic bc I KNOW these anti Targs would LOVE to claim and ride a dragon.

I hope you read the essay, anon it's pretty insightful and explains part of U.S. anti-fantasiness, but it's also:

D&D's fault by trying to erase, vilify, or reduce every element of magic for the sake of making the show more marketable to "soccer moms" and I think watchers of football or something. In other words, 2015 GoT's two producers/main writers thought that it'd be too "complex" or otherwise unappealing to the "ordinary", non- fantasy reading masses. Some people became inspired to read the books anyways after watching the first couple of seasons (for example, me) and some preferred the books to the show...as they would because it's just better written and most love Dany as long as they are brainwashed or incels. So you also have a lot of anti Targs justify that ASoIaF is either not a fantasy story (GoT was mainly seen a political struggle thing-focus) and dragons will not be necessary for the Long Night. It's mainly no thinking and incels people arguing the last bc they hate Dany.

They hate Dany, the strongest example of a woman using what is seen as masculine powers with a masculine confidence and willingness/ambition to rule in ASoIaF bc they are misogynist, so anything that is associated with or gives her her ability to have said power is also degraded (Valyrian dragonlord heritage). Nevermind that she is literally trying to use her dragons for pure good, is the most altruistic Targ to ever live, and is freeing slaves! And while slavery in the ASoIaF world of Essos is neither chattel slavery nor the kind of racialized slavery of the U.S. and Europe, bc GoT had slaves played by PoC or darker actors, people still tend to think slavery is racially located instead of class motivates as in the books. There are many blonde, blue eyes haired slaves everywhere in Essos. One was one of Dany's attendants and Dany herself was a bridal slave with pale hair and violet eyes. Some of the hate towards Dany is xenophobic in nature: she was displaced and not born nor raised in Westeros and she'd "just bring in foreign people into Westeros" as she did in the show...again, who looked physically darker and more PoC than the white-analogous FM & Andal people of Westeros. These people (and the few who remark similar in the series) seem to forget that the Lord's of Westeros paid fealty to the Targs as if the Targs were one of them for years, how some are descended from a Targ, and their own ancestors pushed out the giants and TWStSotE (children of the forest) to take their land for themselves in actually colonial patterns. The Andals even pushed about and fought against FM when they first arrived with their religious excuse/belief of Westeros being their "promised land", similar to how Pilgrims and Puritans thought the Americas were and their descendants would develop the "Manifest Destiny" to justify their expansion into the western parts of the continent and murders/land seizures of native people.

bc the Valyrians were most definitely a slave state/colonists and imperialists as ancient Romans were, the royal Targs of Westeros are seen the same. Dragons enabled Valyrians to dominate a lot of Essos and enslave large swaths of people after the Ghiscari (another but older enslaving society/people) were defeated, so dragons are seen as inherently, unequivocally, and irreversibly evil and there is no redeeming their flaws or ability to be used for chaos. Some use their supreme ability to destroy to say they are like nuclear weapons (Hiroshima type stuff), capable and have been inflicting mass incidents of lasting emotional & physical trauma on people. However, the royal Targs were not colonizers, imperialists, nor enslavers of Westeros AND dragons go by the will of their riders for the most part. GRRM implies that it matters more how the humans are used than the dragons exiting at all, and that humans can choose to not bring suffering. Also, there is a clear link to women gaining power and autonomy through dragons or overall Targ prosperity to female Targ-and-thier-dragons' fertility and happiness, which involves political autonomy. That view also completely ignores another line of nuance where dragons in Andal-Faith dominant Westeros and maesters look at dragons as evil not for their human lives so much as bc they are seen as demonic & uncontrollable, not in other lords' usage. And we see several times Westeros lords try to ingratiate themselves with the Targs for power; only one of them truly amassed a rebellion against them years after they lost their dragons partially, but heavily, bc the Targaryen were considered the rightful kings under the feudal patriarchal customs concerning inheritance, kingship, kinship, and oathtaking. Also, dragonfire hardly causes the same kind or level of devastation of a nuclear weapon. People suffer burns and wildlife is destroyed, but neither are hardly as poisoned and uninhabitable afterwards. As far as we know and by what's evident, dragonfires still fire, not a substance that could literally fuck up ones atoms for years down the line in radiation. Wildfire is actually the closest substance to a nuclear weapon by how difficult it is to weld or even store it, how it can go into nearly uncontrollable flames in the wrong environment or exposure; it's still not as expansive as radiation but it's has a wider scope of destruction than a flying dragon and is highly reactive. Like radioactive weapons.

Targ incest being too much for some fans to handle; them hating the Targs for pushing for sibling, avuncular, AND cousin marriage for the sake of maintaining their ability to ride dragons/keep that within select families -> some see this is Targs/Valyrian dragon lords being "naturally" incestuous and evil, but this is as close to an ethnocentric argument as any -> the Andal-FM Westerosi (before any Targs even set foot in Westeros) consistently married first cousins if they didn't marry people more distantly related. The Faith does not see first cousin marriages as incest AND we see two Stark marriages be avuncular much later on and the Faith nor maester say nothing about it (probably bc the Starks' power, distance, out of reachness from having Faith consequences, a bit of Andal xenophobia [northmen are seen as more savage & strange, so "of course" they'd do that], and the silent agreement that due to northmen worshipping different gods altogether some things are just more of Faith jurisdiction...and yet we know there were Stark-sothron/southern marriages....). And every single noble house that fans admire or hate for some reason or another marry themselves and their dependents to anyone is to ensure alliances, accrue future/present resources, rise in rank, etc. And only between nobles bc they believed they only noble "blood" with good lineages were inherently worth marrying--class=personhood and "aristocracy" literally comes from the Greek word for "the best". It is uncommon for love or attraction or voluntary on the marrying persons' part. In this way, Targs and Valyrian dragon lords are not really different from Andal-FM Westerosi in terms of WHY they have incestuous marriages and you can't argue for "Targs are worse" bc again no one (or very few) is thinking about grooming or genetics in these noble marriage customs in world...the Faith doesn't consider 14 yr old girls marrying 30 yr olds gross nor morally dangerous for the sake of the girl. Marriage is typically not about attraction b/t individuals, but about economic and political gain for the house. And if there was a serious issue about genetics in ASoIaF, nevermind the Valyrians and their descendants, the Westerosi FM and Andal descendants should have had serious physical deformities or congenital conditions from the sheer frequency and consistency of various first cousin marriages made over literally 1000s of years...but if such diseases exist, they never number crazily above their depicted numbers as they would in real life. Just like FM-Andal Westerosi AND real life nobles, Valyrians performed incestuous marriages for material purposes, not bc they naturally, already and from their beginnings had an unnatural attraction towards their own family members. This argument also refuses to acknowledge that many customs are decided on; marriage is historically and still has often enough a social institution, a social construct towards power and security. Not a dream of perfect and spiritually pure happiness with no material expectations or limitations nor something that springs from human consciousness without material purpose. They are essentially trying to essentialize Valyrians while leaving FM and Andal people's customs to be more human/humanizing than Valyrians. It is also a refusal to see how class develops to create lines of exploitation without Targ intervention. You do not need to be devoted or even be okay with Targ incest or ASoIaF incest in general, but if you are not giving the same energy for FM and Andals, you're probably not arguing for what you think and/or majorly biased. Hate Targ incest, hate Andal-FM incest too, bash those people. The nonValyrian Westerosi lords are not intentionally nor unintentionally better people and would rather use Targs and exploit smallfolk for more power (Alicent and the greens). And yes, you see a lot of green stans claim that green dragonriders have the best bond with their dragon over any black rider; they have specific green rider/dragon pfo& usernames; just claim that they are morally better or more interesting; etc.

In other words, ASoIaF fans (esp the majority of vocal men) are often misogynist bad faith arguers who ate fun, imagination, and certain people having a perceived edge over their FM-Andal white English-adjacent favs. Some will say that Jon, not Dany, should be Azor Again or be the one/primary actor to save Westeros when they do talk fantasy, that Jon is the only person who makes "sense"--thematically and traditionally.

#asoiaf asks to me #the evil Targaryens #fandom critical #asoiaf fandom #asoiaf dragons #asoiaf incest #targ incest

10 notes · View notes

arcielee · 1 year ago

Text

Interview With a Writer

Thank you @jacevelaryonswife for answering my questions and allowing us an in-depth look into how you created this wonderful story! 💜

This series is just a BTS of some of the talented minds on Tumblr and ao3; you can look over the masterlist to see the other amazing authors I have spoken with, with other writing tidbits.

Name: jacevelaryonswife

Story: Golden and Silver, my new colors

Paring: Aemond Targaryen x Wife!reader

Rating/Warning: Angst, mature content, pregnancy, some reader’s thoughts may be a little aggressive to the topic of pregnancy, spiteful reader, smut.

So, when did you being writing?

I started when I was 15. My first platform was on wattpad and my first fandom was The Vampire Diaries and The Originals. Most of it is archived now, but it was such a good time.

Where did the plot for Gold and Silver, my new colors come from?

Soooo, I always liked to create strong female readers and OCs that make men work to have them. I was coming across a lot of stories with Aemond where he’s always the dom, who has control over the whole situation, and don’t get me wrong, I love Dom!Aemond, but I also like the prospect of seeing him fight for something he wants and reveal his weaknesses.

I wanted to write to this reader who was a little mouse frightened by creation, what she received from her parents, but who gets tired of receiving such indifference from her husband and the people around her, and starts confronting these situations.

Did you already have the entire story planned out from the beginning?

Would you believe it was supposed to be a one shot?

I’m serious. It had been a long time since I wrote fics with more than one chapter and concluded them, so I thought of summarizing it all in a one shot and just leaving the rest to people’s imagination, but then I saw the potential of the idea and thought–Why fucking not? I knew where I wanted to go, but I never had a defined plot, so it was an adventure every chapter.

I really wanted them to end well, I never thought about leaving them fighting or that the reader wouldn’t forgive him. I think the story got exactly where I wanted it and that’s very gratifying!

Was there anything in specific that inspired your Reader portrayal?

I don’t think so, I just think my influence is from all the strong characters I’ve ever read, especially from asoiaf, who have a more solid and less restrained posture. The Dornish are my greatest inspirations. Meria Martell? Queen shit. Arianne? Love her. Aliandra? Nymeria? Please 💙

Can you explain your interpretation of Aemond. What drives him? Why is he the way he is in G&S?

He’s a mix between Fire & Blood and House of the Dragon, but mostly show.

He knows about his duty of get married and have a family, but it’s hard for him to expose his vulnerability and let you into his life and mind; he just can’t be a good husband for fear of being rejected mainly because of his appearance. He knows he’s neglecting the reader, he knows it’s wrong, but he thinks it’s the best way not to get hurt, until when the announcement of his pregnancy is made he tries to remedy things so as not to be a flawed father, but then it’s the reader’s turn to push him away and he really hates it, so the whole drama begins.

Do you feel your Reader complements Aemond well?

Difficult question. I don’t think they’re perfect for each other, but they strive for it. The reader imagines the insecurities that her husband may have and tries to comfort him about it, while Aemond knows his wife’s dissatisfaction with a woman’s position and although he has not gone through it, he tries to soften the situation and understand it.

I think this is the core of their relationship, trying to understand what’s going on with your partner so that the relationship works.

Will there be a sequel? Or another WIP you would like to share?

Not a sequel, but maybe a one shot with Naerys as a kid and her protective daddy 💙 I am also working on a one shot with dark!vampire Aemond.

#iwaw12 #interview with a writer #bts #of their brilliant writing

9 notes · View notes

branwendaughterofllyr · 1 year ago

Note

6. Are there any fics from others you reread all the time?

7. How many ideas for fics do you have right now?

13. How much planning do you do before writing?

6. I for sure have a couple of old favorites that I periodically come and revisit.

I Want Something So Impure by silentfrenzy is a classic in my mind. It's got loads of Jonsa angst, and was especially something I read a lot after s8 came and kneecapped me, personally. It's a one shot, and is actually a songfic, though I forget that all the time, and is mainly an extremely cathartic fight between Jon and Sansa, showverse

strike hard and true, crow (or i'll come back and haunt you) by Hatice is another dark Jonsa that I used to read all the time. Dark, angsty Jonsa was my absolute fav back in the day (still is, really). Really goes hard into implications of resurrection based on book canon, and I enjoy that immensely.

Of Ribbons and Barbarians by SainTalia is, unsurprisingly, another Jonsa fic, but this time set in an amazingly imagined AU where the Targaryens never came to Westeros. This is the kind of fic writing that I aspire to.

and to prove I do read fic other than Jonsa, there's also we get dark, only to shine by Elizabeth (aghraine), which is a LucreziaCesare fic, which mixes the showtime Borgias with the actual history

there are a couple others that I personally have on my laptop, but have been deleted from ao3 😩 Rip "your mess is mine" you will always be famous.

7. At the moment, I really only have one major fic idea that I've been working on and off for ages. I've resolved not to publish it until its finished, which may be a long time, lol. A couple of years ago, there was a Jonsa week prompt set that used one of the Seven for each day. I ended up writing a short one for the Smith, and then shelved it because I wasn't happy with it. I ended up reopening it last year, and trying to write a multi part series with each chapter being themed after one of the gods. The main thing that inspired me to reopen it was, uh, some chats about Sansa bathing in the godswood a la Jonquil and how that fits the Maiden theme, hahaha. I have a couple of other Jonsa ideas that I periodically work on but I doubt will ever be posted. Oh, and there is a Maris/Aemond fic that lurks in the back of my ASOIAF fanfic folder. It predates "a poison tree", but I got sidetracked with that project, lol.

13. I actually plan a lot before I write. I do a ton of outlining and spitballing before I ever end up typing anything, and I also don't write chronologically. It's one of the reasons why I struggle to put out chapters regularly, because I am rarely writing in order, and am usually writing way out in the future, before circling back. I actually have more plans for my inactive published fics, but I haven't written the connecting pieces to what's already has bee published, lol. But I do spend a ton of time just thinking about what I want to write and where I'm planning to go. Which then gets frustrating when I end up scrapping a lot, lol.

#branwen answers #I actually have a LOT of unposted Jonsa fic that lives on my hard drive #a poison tree is kinda an outlier lol #I also have a twilight rewrite that I can't show you because too many of my irl friends know about so

8 notes · View notes

little-lazuli · 1 year ago

Text

Fic authors self rec! When you get this, reply with your favorite five fics that you've written, then pass on to at least five other writers. Let’s spread the self-love 💗

@risingsoleil WHY AM I ONLY SEEING THIS NOW 😭😭😭😭😭 Mahalo nui loa titah 🫶🏽🩵 and apologies for the long wait, for some reason I don’t get notifications about submissions from tumblr mobile.

Okie dokie, so I write for some K-pop groups I listen to, Asoiaf and Harry Potter. And going down the line from 1 to 5 my favorite fics I have written include:

1. Son || “Her family was shattered. And it was all her fault. She did it. She lost her baby boy. Her little Ronnie… her son was dead. Molly could only scream louder as that truth nestled into her soul.” ||

My baby, my jewel, my favor, my child. This fic was a result of my rabbit hole dive into Ronald Weasley fics that did his character justice cause wtf was that movie portrayal. They did Rupert dirty. So with this one, I built my own Slytherin Ron au (yes this was inspired by the icon themselves “Fate” by TheTrueSpartan) and the oneshot details a brief overview of moments in Ron’s life shared by Molly Weasley after she is led to believe that her son is dead. Son is part 1 of my Hiraeth series that details moments and other background notes following Ron’s sorting into Slytherin. Molly’s perspective for me was a critical aspect because I don’t think there anyone better that could convey the range of emotions one could feel without it ever being said/described. I mainly wanted readers to have a quick dive into Molly’s perspective to the whole dilemma and show a bit of how unconditional love may not be enough to sustain a relationship, I guess. But yes, by far my most cherished work to date.

2. Intruder || “His soul alone would have never forgiven himself if he didn’t exact the justice he deemed fit upon those that threatened or harmed what was his. And this home—the other members, Jongho—all of it was his.” ||

Ahhhhh! Thank you so much to a person going by the alias Inoxy on Ao3 for the motivation to do this one. Intruder was a sequel to my brief little oneshot called Alone, where Hongjoong realizes someone broke into their dorm where Jongho is alone and sick. Intruder follows up immediately with Jongho’s pov before jumping to Hongjoong’s and seeing how he reacts to what is left. This one was so difficult not in the sense that angst is hard to put from mind to paper, but rather I struggled to write certain actions scenes and instead opted to go another route. As the first work to be written out of complete motivation from such a kind and thoughtful reader, Intruder remains one of my babies forever and always.

3. Leave || “All of it was culminating, Donghyuck knew that for sure. Bound to rupture and ensnare both his heart and theirs. And Donghyuck was terrified of which way the coin was going to land.” ||

EEEEEEEE!! Where do I start with this one? Well, Leave follows the journey of Donghyuck who finds himself a portal between his world and the second dimension and let’s just say, it isn’t always bright where the sun shines. His members’ doppelgängers are not so okay on letting him go and things might just take a turn for the worst. I got this idea from a typical genre where I love watching my biases suffer and watching the world be served justice prior to the happy ending they deserve. And it was the first nct fic I ever wrote and loved the semi-open ending.

4. Verdict || “Daphne promised him something in those short and bitter moments before he was led away like some damn game waiting to be slaughtered. Promised she wouldn’t rage over him. Promised she wouldn’t exact some form of petty revenge on Dawlish, or Head Auror Robards or even that blasted excuse of a minister, Kingsley Shacklebolt for not stepping in sooner. Of course she didn’t keep that damned promise.” ||

Part six of my Hiraeth series, (my Slytherin Ron au) Verdict was a tough one for me because it was the first time I was writing for… essentially one of the npc’s of a major franchise. I wanted to find a set balance between a true canon character and a OC who’s life is forever changed because of my au. And I think achieved that with Daphne’s pov in this one as she awaits Ron’s verdict. It was also really fun to create the scene where Molly finally sees Ron again after believing him to be dead in this au and for that, Verdict holds a special place in my heart.

5. Sing || “Taeyong hated the mere thought of death having their way with his son. It was a cruel twist of fate on both ends.” ||

And finally Sing. This oneshot was originally a Deckerstar fic that I rewrote and revamped to be a nct vampire au. I enjoy a quick sucker punch of angst every now and again so I made this au where Taeyong has to say goodbye to his childe/son and his only spawn Haechannie :)) the original long au followed the basis of Taeyong being too dependent and passive of the things he has in his very long life and how all of that comes to an end after another magical being takes revenge on Taeyong through Hyuck. And yuppers, that was that.

Thank you for attending my Ted talk yall and lemme just say, this was so fun. I’m going to tag my next five, please don’t feel pressured at all and I hope y’all have a beautiful rest of you day 🩵

Tagging @atiny-piratequeen @jacksons-goddess-gaia @kimnamshiks @atiny-dazzlinglight @thelargefrye

#thank you so much 😭😭#lazuli answers #games #self promo 🫧#kpop fanfic #ateez fanfic #nct fanfic #hp fanfic #ron weasley fanfic

6 notes · View notes

phoenixofheaven · 2 years ago

Note

for the hypokits, maybe fireheart x tigerclaw?

also, how is your day going :3 ?

Just realized that I forgot to put the drawing there lmao 🤡😭

My day is going pretty well! I was not feeling well yesterday, but I'm doing much better today. Thank you so much for asking! :D I hope you are having a good day as well ♥️

...

Enemies to lovers. You know what time it is ;) Also, Tigerclaw is good here, so don’t worry!

Fireheart and Tigerclaw don’t like each other. Plain and simple. That is until Tigerclaw saves him during the battle protecting Windclan from Riverclan and Shadowclan. Then their feelings (specifically Fire’s) change a little. Then they change even more when Tigerclaw saves him again after he nearly falls into the overflowing river. It's after that when their relationship truly begins.

For a while the pair were very happy. But when the fire breaks out in Thunderclan camp, Tigerclaw dies in the flames trying to help others escape. Cherrykit is born to a heartbroken Fireheart in Riverclan, who is later made deputy. Bluestar, who is already going against starclan at this point, believed Cherry was a curse sent by starclan and hoped that making Fireheart deputy would stop them from ruining her clan any further. So ... a little bit of a harsh start for poor Cherryclaw.

...

Cherryclaw has had a tough attitude since she was little. Being the daughter of two of Thunderclan’s greatest warriors (her own words), she was very spoiled. In the nursery, she always made the rules of the games. Her bossy demeanor made a lot of the kits avoid her, and as an apprentice, she didn’t have many friends.

Of course, Cherryclaw got older and grew out of her “bossy phase”. Although, she can still be pretty overbearing sometimes. Few in the clan can see that what hides underneath her cold shell is a big heart. She genuinely cares for her clan mates and sometimes for the cats for other clans too.

Slowly but surely, more cats are getting to know more about this fiery molly. They’ll soon get to know her for who she truly is. All she wants is to care for her clanmates and make Thunderclan. She is definitely a mix of her fathers.

...

I'm currently working on a backstory for Cherry! For those who've read or are familiar with the A Song of Ice and Fire series, I got kinda inspired by the Tragedy at Summerhall haha! I feel like in every story I've read that includes a character being born outside a burning fire always becomes an absolute boss or is just a very important character 😂.

Cherry's backstory itself might be told from the persective of a character other than Fireheart or Tigerclaw tho. I'm still thinking. I hope you'll like whatever I eventually come up with!

#firestar #tigerclaw #warrior cats #hypokits #the fire in Rising Storm #inspiration mainly from the asoiaf series

6 notes · View notes

cappymightwrite · 3 years ago

Note

Hi! I've been asking around some Sansa-friendly blogs about this. May I know your take on Sansa's shortcomings and how it would play on the succeeding books? I'm not here to instigate hate. I feel really hesitant to ask others due to their knee-jerk reaction to dub me as some Sansa hater, I'm just here to have some discussion. Thank you very much!

Hi there!

I've certainly seen this discussion floating around, but I've purposely stayed out of it 😅 mainly because my current interest is looking at the Romanticism/Pre-Raphaelite influences in ASOIAF. As far as my own take goes, it probably closely aligns with @agentrouka-blog 's thoughts in this particular post and then also in this follow-up one. Although I'd disagree about the anon's point four in the first ask, since I think it's not quite right to critique anyone's handling of trauma in such binary terms as wrong and/or unhealthy...

The way I understand it moving forward... I think a lot of those shortcomings play into the bildungsroman aspect of the series, which is evident in several characters, chief among them the Stark povs. In bildungsroman novels the plot structure for its protagonist usually unfolds like this (according to masterclass.com):

Loss: The protagonist experiences a profound emotional loss at the beginning of the story, typically during their childhood or adolescent formative years.

We can see this most clearly in the loss of Lady, undoubtedly a precursor to the even more unmooring death of Ned. But also, this theme of loss, of disillusionment, continues to extend throughout the series so far, I'd argue.

Journey: Inspired by their loss, the protagonist sets out on a journey, either physical or metaphorical, to find the answer to a big question and gain life experience that will help them better understand the world.

A criticism of Sansa we often encounter is that she's too passive, and rouka touches on this reticence in her responses above. And yet we do see a physical journey for Sansa as she moves from KL to the Vale, and then in Winds we'll likely see her go north. Her metaphorical, or pyschological, journey is a lot more subtle, but it is still there through her disillusionment, her changing of ideas about chivalry, love, her attitude towards how she percieves people. She is trying to better understand the world... the difficulty is finding a balance between her youthful idealism and a mature pragmaticism, and not letting it swing too far into cynicism/pessimism.

Conflict and personal growth: The protagonist’s path toward maturity is not an easy one. They make mistakes and are usually at odds with society. But as the story continues, the protagonist slowly accepts the ideals of society and society accepts them back.

Like I mentioned, Sansa has been on a path of disillusionment, which has its positives and negatives, so she's reevaluating how she perceives the world — "no true knights", "no one will ever marry me for love" etc —whilst also clinging on to the old cultural mores for safety purposes, like deferring to elders (no matter how dubious), fulfilling the expectation of feminine passivity etc. I'd like to see, and expect to see, this reevaluation of her world come full circle, not in an outright rejection of everything she ever knew, but a reclaimation of the ideals she always held dear: honour, love, true chivalry etc.

Maturity: The protagonist demonstrates immense psychological growth, change, and maturity by the end of the novel. The story sometimes ends with them giving back and helping someone else on the path to maturity.

This is where we're headed in Winds, culminating in Dream, and I think it'll be a maturation we'll see in all the Stark children, though I'd argue particularly in Jon and Sansa. All in all, I think the Sansa shortcomings rouka noted will play-out/resolve themselves through this kind of bildungsroman structure.

I take it from the similar phrasing used that you're also this anon @fedonciadale received? I'm sorry you've felt hesitant to broach this subject, of course it's always valuable to get a well-rounded sense of a character you appreciate. As someone who is fairly new to being active in the fandom (I was a casual lurker for a long while), I don't have as strong a grasp on the history of Jonsas/Sansa stans, and their detractors, like others here do. But what I've gathered is that if there is a defensiveness to these kinds of discussion points it's not "knee-jerk" due to wilful blindness to her flaws, but rather well-honed prudence thanks to years of attacks and twisting of our words. I hope from rouka's answers though that it's clear that this is a topic people are open to talk about, but as fedon explained, there is good reason why such inquiries are received with wariness. I'm probably not the best person to talk to at the moment, since I'm off in my little Keats, Byron and Pre-Raphaelite world 😅 but thanks for the message!

#cappy's thoughts #sansa stark #bildungsroman structure

36 notes · View notes

hylialeia · 4 years ago

Note

I’m very interested in the arya and beauty debate in the fandom (although very annoying and misogynistic) and i was doing some soul-searching about the fact that i headcanon arya as more of an unconventienal beauty, not because i don’t think she could be beautiful or anything, but i like the idea of normal women that are still compelling characters without having to be beautiful, i think you said she was canonically beautiful when she grows up (i haven’t finished the books yet) sorry for this ramble but the point is, do you think if i can’t see her as beautiful it is because of internalized misogyny? I am asking to improve my views and think critically about your answer, sorry if you’re tired of talking about this

This isn't really a spoiler so don't worry about your limited book knowledge, but Arya is currently only eleven in the series, so her beauty is pretty irrelevant. I've noted that there's evidence she'll be considered beautiful as an adult (characters have called her a pretty child and Ned says she looks like Lyanna, who was a referred to as a "wild beauty"), but since she's so young in the actual story, it just boils down to comments from the adults around her.

As for your question, though, I don't think the act of imagining a character as unconventionally attractive or anything other than traditionally gorgeous is anywhere close to an indicator of internalized misogyny. In fact, I'd argue almost the opposite: people's (mainly male viewers') obsessive need for female characters to be beautiful in order for them to be interesting or "worth" something is a result of misogyny, internal and external, in both media and society, and it's enforced by the stereotypical "beautiful = good, ugly = bad" idea. Beauty isn't and should not be an indicator of worth, which is something ASOIAF consistently shows in its storytelling (Joffrey and Cersei being attractive or "comely," Tyrion and Sam being considered unattractive or unappealing but both being incredibly intelligent, capable, and brave, Brienne being constantly pointed out as ugly and freakish while also actively being one of the few genuinely kind and heroic characters, etc).

Now, if you were only able to envision bad characters as ugly and good ones as attractive, that might be something to examine. As it stands, there is absolutely nothing wrong with imagining a well written and inspiring female character as unconventionally pretty, or plain, or normal, or what-have-you, just because it goes against the misogynistic idea that female protagonists need to be a certain type of beautiful.

#ask #anonymous #asoiaf #asoiaf meta #arya stark #ready to be drawn and quartered for this. again

13 notes · View notes

kellyvela · 5 years ago

Note

Love your blog💕 what would you say to the ppl who think GRRM didn’t write Fire and Blood as a precaution/warning about the Targaryens? IMHO it’s pretty blatant that he’s anti-Targ restoration but I see Targ fans saying the contrary and using quotes he’s said about relating to Dany in the aspects of not having a home, etc. Plus the fact that he’s made a whole book about them and they’re having their own prequel show (😩🙄).

Hi! Thanks Anon :D

About Targaryen restoration, I always wondered WHY and HOW so many people in the fandom firmly believe that ASOIAF is mainly about House Targaryen and its restoration. And because of that belief I had to read words like these: “The notion that Daenerys Targaryen and her House are not the collective heroes of this saga is ignorant to the point of idiocy.” Or I had to watch and listen to certain very popular spoiler youtuber saying that “if GOT doesn’t end in Targaryen restoration, the story has no sense”. This person even claimed several times in his videos that GRRM himself has affirmed that ASOIAF is in fact about House Targaryen and its restoration. And I always was like: HOW? WHERE?

Apparently GRRM once said that ASOIAF was about “the return to glory of a great family”, so people immediately thought that that great family was House Targaryen…

I don’t have the original source for that, but if GRRM has specifically said that ASOIAF is about “the return to glory of a great family”, that family is no other than HOUSE STARK; because even if he doesn’t use the exact same words, GRRM has actually said several times over the years that THE STARKS are the heart/center/main characters/heroes of the story. And this affirmation has been supported by Bryan Cogman and even D&D in several interviews/events.

About GRRM relating to Dany and House Targaryen, let’s read those quotes:

From an early age George was aware of a lost fortune on his mother’s side of the family, the Brady family, who once owned a successful construction business, a dock and a grand house, all lost in the Great Depression of 1929. “I had a walk past that house every day on my way from the projects on 1st Street to 5th Street, and it’s like, well, that used to be our dock, that used to be our house. Now we don’t have a house, we don’t have a yard, but I had always had the sense of, yeah I’m poor, but I come from royalty, or I come from greatness that somehow was destroyed by the depression, by corrupt politicians, by things like that. So maybe that gives me a little of the emotional temperament to understand somebody like Daenerys Targaryen.

Sources: [x] [x] [x]

More recently, while promoting Fire & Blood Vol. I, he repeated this part of his personal story with these words:

“From my mother’s stories, I always had this kind of sense that I was like disinherited royalty. Here was this dock that my great-grandfather built, it wasn’t ours anymore. Here was this house that my mother had been born in, we didn’t own this house anymore. We didn’t own any house, we had an apartment. So it was like, ugh, I came from greatness, like Dany! And (talking with a voice and tone similar to one of Dany’s outburst and banging the table) ‘I will take back what is mine with Fire and Blood!’ HAHAHAHAHA. So I think on some level, that must’ve gotten to me.”

—In conversation: George R. R. Martin with John Hodgman

But when he wasn’t promoting Fire & Blood Vol. I, this is what he said:

The house where my mother had grown up … the house her father Thomas had built (…) the Brady house. But of course it wasn’t. Someone else lived there now, someone we did not know.

I walked past that house twice a day, five days a week, for nine years. And every time I stepped outside my front door, I saw the dock across the street. The dock was surrounded by a chain link fence, but sometimes my friends and I would climb it. From the dock it was easier to reach the oily rocks along the shore when the tide was out. There was a watchman on the dock, though, and if he saw us he’d come out of his shed and shout at us. “Get out of here, you kids,” he’d yell. “You got no business here.” Yes, I do, part of me always wanted to shout back, you’re the one who’s got no business, my great-grandfather BUILT this dock. I was a shy kid, though, so I never said a word.

Sources: [x] [x]

And then I would walk to school; we lived in First Street, my school was on Fifth Street, I would walk to school and I would pass the house that the Bradys had owned. I would pass it twice a day going and coming from school. This big house my mother had been born in and her family had grown up in, but had lost. And other people lived in what had been our house. And I think it always gave me this, this sense of a lost golden age of, you know, now we were poor and we lived in the projects and we lived in an apartment. We didn’t even have a car, but God we were… once we were royalty! It gave me a certain attraction to those kinds of stories of I don’t know, fallen civilizations and lost empires and all of that.

Source: [x]

As you can see, GRRM took inspiration from that part of his personal story and applied it to Dany and House Targaryen. Thanks to that part of his personal story, GRRM can understand Dany to a certain extend (So maybe that gives me a little of the emotional temperament to understand somebody like Daenerys Targaryen); but he is not Dany, he hasn’t dedicate his entire life to re-take his family lost properties with fire and blood.

And at this point I think is relevant to state that a house is not a home.

Now, about Fire & Blood Vol. I. After finished reading it I said this:

*GRRM WROTE AN ANTI TARG BOOK*

As if the ASOIAF Books weren’t enough, GRRM gave us Fire and Blood.

He warned us all. He always did. It’s a good day to remember it.

GRRM said it himself:

Esquire: How will Fire & Blood deepen our understanding of Daenerys and her dragons?

GRRM: This is a book that Daenerys might actually benefit from reading, but she has no access to Archermaester Gyldayn’s crumbling manuscripts. So she’s operating on her own there. Maybe if she understood a few things more about dragons and her own history in Essos, things would have gone a little differently.

—Esquire - 2018

Even though he was promoting Fire & Blood Vol. I, and his interviewers were very enthusiastic about dragons, he wasn’t sharing their enthusiasm:

GRRM: “People read fantasy to see the colours again,” he says. “We live our lives and I think there’s something in us that yearns for something more, more intense experiences. There are men and women out there who live their lives seeking those intense experiences, who go to the bottom of the sea and climb the highest mountains or get shot into space. Only a few people are privileged to live those experiences but I think all of us want to, somewhere in our heart of hearts we don’t want to live the lives of quiet desperation Thoreau spoke about, and fantasy allows us to do those things. Fantasy takes us to amazing places and shows us wonders, and that fulfils a need in the human heart.”

THEM: And the dragons?

GRRM: “Oh sure, dragons are cool too,” he chuckles. “But maybe not on our doorstep”

—The Guardian - 2018

I mean, he is proud to be named after Saint George The Dragon Slayer:

John Hodgman: That’s how I can’t sue you, If you steal from history and add a dragon. I can’t sue you.

GRRM: I’m working off my own, you know, karma here, because I’m George, and what’s he known for? He killed the dragon, you know, come on. Come on, I was almost abolished at one point when the Catholic Church was reviewing all the saints, I was terrified that George would be abolished, because they abolish a lot of fiction, I said George is only known for killing a dragon, how can they keep him in, but they did so, that was, that was good.

John Hodgman: I’m glad you stayed anointed.

GRRM: That’s right.

—In conversation: George R. R. Martin with John Hodgman

Here a graphic representation:

And about the Targaryen having their own books (Fire & Blood Vol. I and II) and their own prequel show based on Fire & Blood, let me tell you a couple of things:

Last month GRRM attended an event in London #GRRMLive organized by Harper Voyager UK, and Adam Whitehead, a friend of GRRM, was present in the event and reported this:

Confirmation that Fire & Blood was written by accident: originally it was sidebar material for World of Ice & Fire that got out of control. He wrote hundreds of thousands of words in a few weeks and scared his publishers and had to stop so Elio & Linda could compress it down.

And the first prequel show actually ordered by HBO, that is already in post-production, is not about Targaryens and it has no dragons:

What’s it about? Taking place thousands of years before the events of Game of Thrones, the series chronicles the world’s descent from the golden Age of Heroes into its darkest hour. From the horrifying secrets of Westeros’s history to the true origin of the White Walkers, the mysteries of the East to the Starks of legend, only one thing is for sure: It’s not the story we think we know. [x]

Also, after the news of the “Targaryen prequel”, GRRM himself said this: I do want to point out that “moving closer to a pilot order” is NOT the same thing as “getting a pilot order.”

So that’s it Anon. GRRM is writing a series of SEVEN BOOKS and THE STARKS are the heart/center/main characters/heroes of the story. Meanwhile Fire and Blood was apparently an accident made of sidebar material…

And to finish this answer, I will leave you with one of my fave GRRM quotes:

Source [x]

#grrm #asoiaf #fire and blood #game of thrones #house targaryen #house stark

188 notes · View notes

vanimeldes · 5 years ago

Note

can you elaborate a bit what made you divorce from asoiaf/got as you say?

Ooof, so, after the G0T finale, I think my reasons should be obvious, but you also mentioned the books and yes, I lost my interest in books too and I will try to not make this answer too long, but in the same time, to convey all my thoughts on this matter.

*Putting it below cut because.... when I`ll explain the problem of Martin`s fans later, you`ll understand why*

It`s amazing that just a year ago, AS0IAF was my second favourite franchise ever, second only to Tolkien legendarium, but even then, I didn`t love it for the fantasy elements in it, but rather for its characters and some twists and how Martin does forshadowing and writes the dualistic nature of the human being, but...as I read other fantasy series that do these four things AND have fantasy elements, I paused a bit and thought that these series would be just as popular, if they had popular adaptations such as G0T. But I got that AS0IAF was the first that had the opportunity to be adapted and I accepted that. Yet the show highlighted (and in some cases, amplified) some of the very big issues of these books and yes, D&D have many things to be blamed of, but it`s not as if they didn`t have a basis for their fuckery in the books. Martin is just as guilty. So here we go.

1. I am not sure if Martin has ever seen a 13 year old girl, but he writes grown-ass men having fixations and being sexually attracted by Daenerys and Sansa, two prepubescent girl. Martin would call it the gritty realism of the medieval times, but last time I checked, he was writing fantasy, not historical fiction. Fantasy means you can do what you want in your world, so even if you are inspired by the medieval times, it`s still YOUR fictional world and no one will question your research or accuracy if you want to have a female character married when she is at least, say, 18, not FUCKING 13. Not to mention that even in our real world, child brides existed but, guess what, in most the cases, both spouses waited until the wife reached a certain age (16 or older) to consummate their marriage. @eyes-painted-with-kohl explained in the notes of one of my posts and even gave an example or two. I can think of Isabella of France and Edward II. They were married when she was 13 (according to some historical evidence)/16 (according to others). Yes, I know he was homosexual, but he still needed heirs, so they still had children...4 years later, when she was 17/20.

2. In this same vein, the treatment of his female characters (with the exception of Arya and, maybe Catelyn) is egregious. Daenerys and Sansa are sexualized by the male characters (don`t get me started of the bullshit that is S/ansan, because The Hound is still a murderous man who is aroused by a 12 year-old girl, who invaded her personal space and even pointed a knife to her; do not get me started on book!Jorah, who is a creep). Cersei is paraded naked on the streets and needless to say that during the walk of atonement for an adulterous woman in medieval times, she was never stripped naked; she only had her hair shaved and walked BAREFOOT. That`s it. What Martin did to Cersei is just disgusting. We are shown how Arianne uses sex to have Ser Arys help with her plans and it is implied that Margaery uses sex also. I get that sex is Cersei`s mechanism, but you have two more feminine (this is important) women in power and both of them explicitly use, or are implied to use sex as a mean to gain that power. I get Brienne`s point, her treatment bothers me the least, but it`s annoying from time to time how most of the other characters see only her ”ugliness” and nothing else. Of course, this is the result of the heavy patriarchy in Westeros world that I will discuss in the next paragraph.

3. The heavy patriarchy in Westeros world is nowhere similar to the patriarchy in the medieval times, and that was Martin`s choice and his only. A clear example is what was dubbed the Dead Ladies Club, namely a group of dead female characters whose only purpose was to serve as object of desire for one or more men, to give birth AND to die (gruesomely in some cases). Joanna Lannister is meant only to further fuel the enmity between Tywin and Aerys and Tywin`s hatred towards Tyrion. Elia exists solely to die gruesomely and motivate Doran`s desire for vengeance. Lyanna (the most explored dead lady still exists mainly to give birth to Jon and to be one of the reasons behind a war started by men. Rhaella exists solely to be raped by Aerys and give birth and die. Ashara Dayne exists solely to commit suicide. Ned, a POV character, spends chapters thinking about his father and siblings and never to his mother. Martin had the audacity to say that Tolkien himself didn`t left notes about Aragorn`s mother, but Tolkien had an entire story when Aragorn`s mother and her impact of his life is explored (more than his father, for that matter). The heavy patriarchy serves as reason for the utterly disgusting right of the first night (read Fire & Blood for more). I am not so versed into history as @mydaylightruyi who discussed this, but I too know that in our real world, this practice was a MYTH. But GRRM made it very present in his world because of reasons I guess.

4. The racism is just rampant and disgusting and even I didn`t notice all the racism until I read @polysorscha `s insights. There`s a to be discussed here, mainly about the portrayal of the Dothraki and how they are reduced to barbaric rapists - interestingly, they are supposedly inspired by Huns, but guess what: the Huns formed a very permisive society, where any religion and culture had its places, where women were very respected and, while cruel in the European people`s POV, were never....like THIS.

5. The rape cultures. The Ironborn. Similarly to the Dothraki, their culture is reduced to pillaging and rape. That scene when Euron conquers that castle in the Reach ( I forgot its name) and how he had the daughters of that lord stripped naked and serve his men the meal, and how his men started raping them was....honestly, I wish I could have skipped this chapter. I still read fantasy books written by men more than I read fantasy books written by women, but never in my life did it occur to me to read something like this in a novel that is so hailed for fantasy (?) and realism (???????). I`m not saying that things like that didn`t happen in our cruel history but, again, Martin writes a fictional story. He could choose not to include the rampant violence against women, cultures whose practices are reduced to this utterly gross things, racist and orientalist elements, but he chooses not to. Why? I don`t know. I am not sure I want to know. And Victarion`s POV...oh boy. Or Theon, in ACOK, when he literally rapes that Kyra girl after takes Winterfell. Not only that it`s very disturbing, especially coming from a character that is supposed to be redeemed in some way (yes, I know how he`s been through in ADWD and I also know this is meant to be his redemption arc, but I personally still can`t get over this). And in the same time, while we`re still at the redemption discussion, Theon will surely undergo a redemption of some sorts, Cersei (a female character) will most likely be killed by her lover/brother, who will strangle her to death, most likely while he will embrace her, without a second chance of a droplet of redemption.

6. I love Tyrion and I love Tywin but in the same time, I acknowledge their misogyny, but Martin chose to write them as misogynists, but in the same time, writing them in such ways that they are inherently labelled as „badass”. He also says that Tyrion is his favourite, but his POV is utterly misogynistic. The reason he kills Shae is because she dared to sleep with his father, but let`s unpack the things a bit: she was a former sex worker with no power, who was forced by the most powerful man in Westeros. She had no choice. She couldn`t refuse him. Yet, for Tyrion, she is ”the lying whore” and that`s it. We are given no chance to try to see the things from her POV (I am not implying that she should have been a POV character, but Martin should have written Tyrion considering for a moment what other choices Shae had).

7. I discovered that Martin straightly ripped-off many plot points and themes from another series who isn`t half as popular, sadly.

8. Last, but not the least, the snake pit that is THE FANDOM. You know, as much as I tried to stay away from its toxicity because „it`s just an internet thing, it can`t affect me”, it did affect my online experience in ways that I hadn`t imagined. To sum up, if you don`t like a character or hate another, you are a pariah. You are dumb because you don`t understand that character or you are a misogynist (because, sadly, this discourse is mostly about the female characters). If you dare to voice up your thoughts about a certain event and/or a certain character and tag your post as #asoiaf or #asoiaf meta (you know, because this is it to me: a meta; plus, I want to have an ordering system in my blog so that whenever I want to look for a certain post in a certain topic or fandom, I would only look into the tag) or #my meta (highlighted „MY” because this is also important, as in it`s MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION), and those thoughts happen to not fit into the general consensus of the „great AS0IAF bloggers” (namely those meta writers with many followers who sound like they already read TWOW and ADOS), you are trashed and called an idiot. Granted, I met enough great people, meta writers included, in this fandom, and it was a real pleasure to chat with them, but I also had bad experiences with others and idk, I thought we were all mature people, but the way they reacted can hardly be described as mature. And in the same point, it`s just funny to see the hardcore Martin stans reacting in front of the clear evidence that Martin isn`t half as original as they thought (see 7) and acting like they are personally attacked.

Ok, it took me an hour. There is a lot more to discussed, but I got bored and I honestly want to shut the door to this fandom forever. To answer another question, yes, I will be reading the last two books if when they will come out. I invested many months in this series not to finish it. I`ll probably block all the ASOIAF-related tags to avoid any interaction with its fandom during those times.

#ask #anonymous #asoiaf criticism #grrm criticism #anti grrm #yes i tagged this as such #any hater will be blocked

69 notes · View notes

bisexualgendryas · 6 years ago

Note

i wanna fix so much about this season of got i’m considering rewriting it (which is a much tamer goal than my usual “novelise the entire ten-year run of a series at once” or “au where everything’s the same except one pivotal plot point from early season 1” fanfic ambitions) and honestly i’d start by making reasonable excuses for where the fuck ghost has been for the past however long and having him very present to remind jon he’s still a stark by blood, just not the way he thought he was

what a fucking mood, man

imo tho, that scene with Jon asking Ghost to protect Sansa is just off-screen (and considering Jon and Ghost are literally mentally bonded it’d happen anyway) so Ghost mainly stays around the people at Winterfell that Jon cares about and would want to be near - Sansa, Arya, Bran, Sam and Gilly and lil Sam, even Gendry and Davos, and Tormund and Edd when they’re there, but mainly Sansa and Bran and Gilly as he’s more worried about them protecting themselves. so Ghost is just a constant good boy in the background, quietly stalking after everyone he wants to make sure is okay at all times

I think that’s part of what they were going for with the Tormund scene, too - part of Jon wants to be above the wall, but he doesn’t see any way to do that without abandoning his goals, so he sends Ghost to be with his wildling friend so that part of him can be above. (I think it’s more reasonable that he would have stayed with Sansa, tho, and honestly, if the wall is open for transit, we gonna catch him coming home in reality if not in the actual series lol)

BUT

I think they also intend to use this as a note about his Starkness and Arya’s - if the south isn’t a place where a direwolf can thrive, how did Nymeria form a pack and choose to stay south with the wolves instead of following her girl north? Sansa, too, may be ‘stronger within the walls of Winterfell’, but much of the learning that’s lent to her great strengths and her ability to defend her pack happened in the south. The perfect, well-behaved, not-actually-attacking-people-even-tho-Lannisters-made-their-accusations Lady may have been killed there, but the wolfish woman who would lead and inspire people to battle did not.

(also, they just killed Rhaegal, so which badass attack animal is bonded with Jon now and in the south (Nymeria? cause lbr if they showed us her only to give fanservice instead of making a point about Arya I’m actually gonna lose some more of my shit))

Idk, I think they’re just doing a subpar job of symbolism and yeah, I’m bitter about it too

I need to actually finish my rewrite of season 7, but I’m already thinking I’m going to include a bunch of season 8 in it anyway (which I kind of have, bc I had Gendry arrive already, lol). some things I think they’ll ‘fix’ on-screen but I don’t really trust the team to do it well.

in my dreams, I’d be a well-known, well-loved writer by the time they eventually decide to do another version of it and I get to personally handle the next ASOIAF adaptation but we all know the likelihood of that is very low so rip my hopes and dreams

#queenvsbarton

2 notes · View notes

cognoscente · 6 years ago

Text

— 8 PEOPLE I’D LIKE TO KNOW BETTER !!

( repost, don’t reblog. )

ONE ( NAME / ALIAS ): Stella TWO ( BIRTHDAY ): June 21st THREE ( ZODIAC SIGN ): Gemini FOUR ( HEIGHT ): 164cm FIVE ( HOBBIES ): Dancing( ballet & contemporary ), photography, reading, writing SIX ( FAVOURITE COLOUR(S) ): White and red SEVEN ( FAVOURITE BOOKS ): The Harry Potter & ASOIAF series, anything Sherlock Holmes EIGHT ( LAST SONG LISTENED TO: ): Call out my name by The Weeknd NINE ( LAST FILM WATCHED ): Anastasia (rewatch) TEN ( INSPIRATION FOR MUSE ): LORENZO: I’ve been a history nerd for years but mainly focused on English history. The tv-show got me hooked and introduced to the renaissance world which i love and cant stop reading about. Lorenzo is so admirable and inspires me as a person, not only as a mun. AEGON: i’m a targaryen trash and im also mad they gave jon snow aegon’s name. Also the whole secret-prince-growing-up-in-exile got my heart since day one. UHTRED: I was introduced to him through the show and continued loving him by reading the books. I love the fact he represents a unity of Saxons and Danes and he made himself to a kingmaker from scratch. THE DRAKLING: A manipulative yet emotional traumatised character. He is just so fun to write! I love his pure darkness, but also the fact he is driven by a solid good goal but lost himself in the process. A proud villain boy that I simply adore writing. ELEVEN ( DREAM JOB ): Prosecutor ( or diplomat/ambassador) and writer TWELVE ( MEANING BEHIND YOUR URL ): ‘cognoscente’ has a latin/obsolete italian origin and it’s someone possessing superior or specialized knowledge in a particular field; a connoisseur. It was meant to characterise Lorenzo at first, but on a second thought it’s about me having special knowledge of all my darlings here. Maybe. jk

TAGGED BY: stolen from @iilmagnifico TAGGING: @soltsar @nikolacvnas @ravkralj @soughtlove @starblcssd @aelfred @fogmade + anyone else who wants to do it. steal it from me.

#| ➸ setting down the quill —— ⊰ out of character ⊱

4 notes · View notes

princess-in-a-tower · 7 years ago

Text

Sansa’s “Beauty and the Beast” Arc, Part 1

GRRM has drawn inspiration for ASoIaF from various other works of fiction as well as historical events. The Lord of the Rings and the War of the Roses are two prominent examples. Not far behind those two big ones though is another story, which happens to be one of the author’s favorites: Beauty and the Beast.

Sidenote 1: For those of you who have not watched the following two versions of Beauty and the Beast, I suggest you at least read their summaries before continuing reading this meta.

La Belle et la Bête (1946)

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Beauty and the Beast is a fairytale that has heavily influenced Sansa’s arc. Many have commented on the Beauty and the Beast theme in Sansa’s arc before me, and yet no one to my knowledge actually took a step back to look at the bigger picture GRRM has painted. The picture which makes it clear that the outline of Sansa’s story, stripped to its bare bones, is following faithfully the one of Beauty in Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast.

Sidenote 2: Even though GRRM holds Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast in high esteem, I believe he is also critical of it to a degree and subverts the plot points he would like to “fix” (for whatever reason), while at the same time taking care to remain as faithful as possible to the original story. This of course is just my own observation while composing this meta, but GRRM’s own words support it, since he admitted:

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple.

George R.R. Martin: The Rolling Stone Interview, April 23, 2014

Sidenote 3: This meta series is in no way a shipping manifesto, but rather a critical in-depth analysis of the ASOIAF text in relation to Cocteau’s “Beauty and the Beast” adaptation. As a result it ended up being extremely critical of ships like Sansa x Sandor and Sansa x Tyrion , because they, in no way, parallel the dynamic between Beauty and the Beast, but rather juxtapose it, as will be demonstrated in the following parts of this meta series. If you like those ships and still decide to read on, please remember that you have been warned.

In the very beginning of her story in AGOT it would have been impossible to guess Sansa would become asoiaf’s most prominent “Beauty” figure, mainly due to the fact that GRRM went to great pains to present her like an “evil step-sister” to Arya’s “heroine”.

When we are introduced to Sansa in Arya’s first POV chapter, and even later in her own first POV chapter, on a surface level she comes off as bratty, spoilt, superficial and snobbish. In other words, she is presented to us in a way that makes her look similar to Beauty’s step-sisters:

Beauty lives in the country with her father, a 17th-century merchant who has lost all his money; her brother, Ludovic, whose only interests are drinking and gambling; and her two sisters, Felicie and Adelaide, who are motivated entirely by spite, selfishness and vanity.

La Belle et la Bête (Beauty and the Beast) script

Not only that, but it can be argued that Sansa was Ned’s least favorite daughter with Arya as his favorite (proof of that can be found in the following series of metas: Ned, Sansa and Joffrey Part I, Part II, Part III) and it’s not a secret that Sansa looked forward to leaving her father and his protection for that of her husband’s. All of that links Sansa to Felicie and Adelaide and Arya to Beauty, as you can see in the following quotes:

BEAUTY: That wasn't the first time [Avenant has] asked me to marry him since we lost all our money.

THE MERCHANT (to Beauty): So you want to leave me.

BEAUTY: No, father, I'll never leave you.

[…]

THE MERCHANT: They're real little devils, aren’t they? Let them sulk; I'll soon console them. Tomorrow morning I'll go to the port to see to my business. Then one can marry a duke and the other a prince!

La Belle et la Bête (Beauty and the Beast) script

Another interesting scene is when Sansa wishes to join the queen in the royal wheelhouse, and Arya chooses to get her hands dirty instead:

"You better put on something pretty," Sansa told her. "Septa Mordane said so. We're traveling in the queen's wheelhouse with Princess Myrcella today."

"I'm not," Arya said, trying to brush a tangle out of Nymeria's matted grey fur. "Mycah and I are going to ride upstream and look for rubies at the ford."

A Game of Thrones - Sansa I

This echoes how Adelaide and Felicie wanted to attend the concert at the duchess’ court in the beginning of the film, while Beauty stays back and does chores around the house.

FELICIE(shouting): Beauty, you can wash the floor. We'll be late for the duchess.

La Belle et la Bête (Beauty and the Beast) script

The parallel here is anything but perfect, considering Sansa genuinely wanted Arya to join her in the royal wheelhouse and repeatedly tried to convince her to do so, unlike Beauty’s sisters, who wanted her to be their servant. That is because, as I said above, GRRM made both Sansa and Arya a mix of Beauty and her two “evil” sisters.

What actually makes the above parallel interesting and layered is exactly this mixing. Once you consider that it was Beauty and Sansa who chose to stay back and do what was right/expected of them (which are two vastly different things for each girl because Beauty is a commoner and Sansa is a noble maiden), while Arya and Beauty’s sisters decided to run off and do something more or less selfish for their own pleasure (which again are two anti-diametrical things for the same reason as above).

To wrap up this parallel between Sansa and Beauty’s sister, we see that she never got to ride with the queen:

“Sansa, the good councilors and I must speak together until the king returns with your father. I fear we shall have to postpone your day with Myrcella. Please give your sweet sister my apologies. Joffrey, perhaps you would be so kind as to entertain our guest today.”

A Game of Thrones - Sansa I

Just like Felicie and Adelaide never got to attend the concert

FELICIE: We were told that the duchess was not receiving, though the court rang with laughter and music.

La Belle et la Bête (Beauty and the Beast) script

Another thing that makes the connection between Sansa and Beauty more pronounced is the introduction of an “Avenant” figure, who is of course Joffrey: the blonde, dashing suitor with a not so hidden affinity for violence and an all around terrible character, with whom Sansa got to spend a whole lot of alone time in her first chapter. Unlike Beauty though, Sansa (and her father) accepts his marriage proposal and delights in spending time with him.

As we can see, by the end of Sansa’s first chapter, GRRM has established both similarities and differences between Sansa and Beauty. In my opinion GRRM decided to keep the core of Beauty’s character intact in Sansa (dutiful, kind, gentle, protective and romantic) and make her work towards the rest. That was accomplished by giving her some “undesirable” traits shared by Beauty’s sisters, which she would shed in later books through her negative experiences that would in turn result in positive character development.

From here on things only get more complicated, because, as I mentioned in the beginning, GRRM liberally subverts the things he disagrees with in Cocteau’s story. Not only that, but he uses a plethora of characters as stand-ins for Sansa’s “Beast” to move the story forward, all of them his foils in different ways each.

They all have one thing in common though, which establishes them as the Beast’s foils: They don’t care about Sansa’s consent. And the fact that men like Sandor Clegane and Tyrion Lannister could have taken more from Sansa but didn’t in the end, doesn't undo the abuse or lack of agency that Sansa suffers in those situations they put her into.

The most powerful force in Beauty and the Beast isn't magic, or even love, but consent. Most retellings of Villeneuve's version are careful to keep it. The Beast is clear that Beauty must know what she's getting into. (In Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch's 1910 version, it's still more explicit: The Beast warns Beauty's father to "be honest with your daughter. Describe me to her just as I am. Let her be free to choose whether she will come or no...") Later, the Beast asks Beauty herself if she comes willingly. And that first dinner is marked by the Beast's deference to her wishes. Beauty's earliest surprise is how much power she wields. Even in his nightly request that Beauty marry him, he defers. Andrew Lang emphasized the power dynamics in 1889's Blue Fairy Book:

"Oh! What shall I say?" cried Beauty, for she was afraid to make the Beast angry by refusing.

"Say 'yes' or 'no' without fear," he replied.

"Oh! No, Beast," said Beauty hastily

"Since you will not, good-night, Beauty," he said.

And she answered, "Good-night, Beast," very glad to find that her refusal had not provoked him.

Lang was one of many who used marriage proposals for the nightly request (Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont's 1756 retelling was the first), but Villeneuve was under no illusions about the story's undertones. In her original, Beast asks Beauty to sleep with him. Beauty's power is the ability to withhold sexual consent.

Beauty doesn't admit love for the Beast until after he releases her (which permits her to rejoin him on her own terms). But this regard for her will is what first softens Beauty's heart. The story's not just reminding young women to look beyond appearance but reminding young men how to conduct themselves. Fairy-tale scholar Jack Zipes outlines the story's social mandate in Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion: "The mark of beauty for a female is to be found in her submission, obedience, humility, industry, and patience; the mark of manliness is to be found in a man's self-control, politeness, reason, and perseverance."

Disney takes that out, and the story becomes significantly darker. Besides their rocky introduction, he punishes her for refusing to eat with him ("If she doesn't eat with me," he bellows, "then she doesn't eat at all!") and physically threatens her. His temper must be tamed before he can love or be loved—that, not his appearance, is the barrier. It's a decided departure from the courtly Beast, and Beauty's now required to forgive his outbursts before friendship can begin—an additional emotional burden. In this, Disney's more akin to 1978 Czech horror Panna a netvor (in which the Beast barely curbs his appetites and Beauty's drawn to him only through loneliness) than it is to the dreamlike tension of Jean Cocteau.

[...]

But Disney's retelling doesn't acknowledge its darkness. Covering threats with musical numbers doesn't count as exploration of subtext. This wasn't the first Beauty and the Beast adaptation to feature a Beast with rough edges, either; a story centered on power dynamics in relationships will shift to include contemporary concerns. But Disney's retelling asks Beauty to forgive abusive behavior, both ignoring the sovereignty of her consent and erasing the Beast's own obligations. And it's such an influential retelling, it's affected how the archetype has applied. By now, the label of a Beauty and the Beast story applies as much to a relationship in which the woman's love "tames" the man as it does to one about looking beyond appearances. (The CW's recent Beauty and the Beast updated the 1987 series(*) but replaced the scholarly, leonine hero with a handsome man with uncontrollable bursts of violent anger; these abusive undertones are the new beastliness. These days, Beauty is trapped in the Beast's S&M penthouse, and his understanding of consent is decidedly murky.)

How Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast' Became the Darkest Tale of All

(*) The 1987 series with the scholarly leonine hero mentioned above is the CBS TV adaptation, which was written amongst others by GRRM himself.

The above article was written in order to criticize the dark retelling of Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast”, but I believe that everything that has been said there about Disney’s version could also be said for Sansa’s “Beauty and the Beast” arc in ASOIAF up until ASOS. And everything that’s been written about the audience’s faulty perception of the archetype can be applied to the readers of ASOIAF as well.

Beauty’s consent is of paramount importance in the original Beauty and the Beast fairytale written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villenueve, which is something both Cocteau’s film and the CBS TV adaptation stayed true to. And yet, the men who took on the Beast’s role in Sansa’s storyline showed minimal to no respect towards her wishes and an equal amount of concern for her lack of consent. On the contrary, they all used and abused her, each of them in their own way, behaving more like villains than romantic interests. And that is because those men serving as the Beast’s foils are meant to be viewed as villains and not romantic interests, which can be supported by the words of the author himself:

Amazon.com: Do you have a favorite character?

Martin: I've got to admit I kind of like Tyrion Lannister. He's the villain of course, but hey, there's nothing like a good villain.

George RR Martin, Amazon.com, 1999

Martin: I am sometimes surprised by the reactions of women in particular to some of the villains. [unintelligible] Over the years who have written me that their favorite characters are Jaime Lannister, or Sandor Clegane the Hound, or Theon Greyjoy, you know. All of these are deeply troubled individuals with some very dark sides who have done some very dark things.

George RR Martin, interview with Geek and Sundry, June 2012

Commenter 1: Oh please don't cast an old guy for the Hound, his scenes with Sansa are so romantic and erotic, I couldn't bear if it'd feel creepy all of a sudden. Well, that's me making demands. LOL

Martin: Old guy? No, but... the Hound is still a whole lot older than Sansa, and was never written as attractive... you know, those hideous burns and all that... he's a lot more dangerous than he is romantic.

[...]

Commenter 2: LOL, you're such a man. To many of us women, dangerous *is* attractive.

Martin: But no one has any love for poor old Sam Tarly, kind and smart and decent and devoted…

Comments on GRRM’s Not A Blog, August 2009

But why would GRRM decide to change his Beast from the kind and decent Beast archetype into the obviously much more problematic and villainous new one when he started writing AGOT in 1991, just one year after the CBS TV adaptation ended? Considering that 1991 was the year Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast” came out and that one of GRRM’s favorite movies is Cocteau’s “Beauty and the Beast”, I believe it’s not that far-fetched to assume this change can be attributed to the author’s discontent with Disney’s adaptation.

In my opinion, the subversion of the “Beauty and the Beast” trope in Sansa’s arc is the author’s in-text critique of Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast”. By having the Beast figures in Sansa’s arc be dark, abusive and villainous, GRRM wished to showcase how the new “Beauty and the Beast” trope, where Beauty is required to forgive the Beast’s abusive behavior and “tame” him with her gentleness, should not be romanticized, because, in real life, Beauty not only won’t be able to tame the Beast, but she also shouldn’t be required to.

So in away, I believe he is deconstructing this very dark and problematic version of the trope in order to reinvent the original one. And for the deconstruction part he needs foils, but for the reconstruction he needs the actual Beast. And there are foils of the Beast aplenty in ASOIAF, but only one Beast.

The first foil of the Beast will be discussed in the second part of this meta series.

Special thanks to @kellyvela and @lostlittlesatellites for their help in the writing of this meta with their invaluable input and constant support.

EDIT: The rest of the series can be found in the following links part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5

#sansa stark #beauty and the beast trope #sansa stark meta #asoiaf meta #asoiaf and beauty and the beast #jonsa #jon x sansa #jonsa meta #jonsa book meta #princess speaks

222 notes · View notes

shinylitwick94 · 7 years ago

Text

Overall thoughts on the Malazan: Book of the Fallen series, now that I’ve finished TCG

The good:

-large scale

Probably one of my favorite aspects of this series was its scope and ambition. This series does not keep the action small and confined. When things happen, they happen on a gigantic level, be it because of the magic, the battles, or just the stakes at play and the players involved. It’s not a small story, even though it’s full of smaller stories, and I feel like I needed that. A lot, actually. I picked up Malazan because I wanted fantasy - BIG fantasy, not just “the king is evil and something must be done” fantasy. And it delivered time and time again

-magic

I love the magic system in this. I like the gods, the warrens, how much can actually be done with magic, how spectacular it can be. I like that it’s pretty vague. I hate it when magic has rules that are so set they can be pretty much be summarized in trading cards. I love that different kinds of magic and magic users are introduced all the time and that they don’t draw from the same sources and achieve very different results.

-compassion and emotion

This is one of the most important things about this series for me, especially if we take the recent trends into account. Compassion is the overriding theme of the entire series and I’m so happy that that is the case. I’m tired of stupid grimdark stuff that is considered more “mature” because it’s grimdark. I’m sick of maturity being measured only in “how many shocking events can I fit into this story”, instead of making an attempt to actually think about the meaning of those events and their consequences. I’m sick of stories that don’t actually say anything - where it’s just the characters jumping through hoops without stopping, without reflecting, without making moral choices. I love that emotion is so central to this story and that decisions made on a moral and sometimes emotional basis are not automatically derided as childish or immature.

-characters

Malazan has a very large cast and it’s a very impressive one too. I like how many characters we get to know in this story- this would never have worked as a single POV book series, but it goes well beyond the ordinary in just how many POVs it manages to fit in. And the vast majority of them are interesting and unique - characters have different backgrounds, different insights, different ways of reacting to the challenges that come their way. Do some feel a little unnecessary and flat sometimes? Sure. This is not necessarily a series that devotes as much time to individual characters as, say, ASOIAF. But I do feel like there are so many impressive and fascinating characters that I have grown to love, that I would be a shame not to consider this a net positive for the series.

-cultures

So as we all know, Steven is an archeologist and anthropologist by trade and it shows. He has a gift for describing how comunities work, how they live, what makes them tick, and he makes that information feel very organic in the story. I feel like the cultures he creates are in many ways less sterotypical than your usual fantasy stuff. I really appreciate that, it made the world feel more real and more alive to me than when people just go “and here you have the mongols, and the romans, and the arabs, and the vikings”. Obviously his cultures draw inspiration from real-world counterparts too, but that’s what it feels like - inspiration, not copypasta.

-the importance of the past

Connected to the above is the idea that the past in these books, is not really past. Cultures and species thought extinguished early in the series play major roles throughout several books and well into the finale. The relationships those cultures formed with each other and with the “present” cultures is of crucial importance to determine how their interactions will go. “Younger” cultures learn things from “older cultures and vice-versa - so we don’t have the whole “oh we’re the remnants of a fallen civilization, they had everything back then” going on all the time. That sort of attitude does come into play sometimes, but it is usually countered by how little those ancient cultures themselves understand of the “modern” world and how it has changed and things are very much not what they used to be. Also, I like all the pottery shards.

-it’s finished

Which pretty much makes it worth its own weight in gold, given it’s 10 books of 700+ pages each. I would never have gone anywhere near it if it weren’t finished.

The bad:

-too much philosophy

Yep, I’m one of those readers. I find philosophy interesting, but in small doses, and SE doesn’t really do philosophy in small doses. Which makes some parts of these books (and some characters altogether) a pain to read. To make it simple: I find some of the questions posed interesting, but I don’t have the patience to sit through a character going through all of their possible answers to a moral dilemma/existential crisis. It becomes exhausting.

-too many threads that don’t really go anywhere

This is a pretty big one for me. I know why SE chooses to let some stories drop - not all stories have to go somewhere after all and that itself is an interesting point to make. But sometimes it just feels like set-up for nothing, as in Bottle being hyped up as QB’s “shaved knuckle in the hole” for all of DoD and then doing nothing of importance in TCG. Same with Draconus, Grub, or even Tavore herself, in a way. I remember mostly TCG examples because those are the freshest in my mind, but this is a problem I feel stretches across the whole series. Silverfox is another case, even Karsa, under a certain light. And it’s just frustrating to read - mostly because I would have been fine with them doing nothing special, if it hadn’t been hyped up so much! It’s like the opposite of a Chekov’s gun. And no, “it’s explained in the ICE novels” isn’t good enough. The series should be able to answer the questions it raises, not just tell you to go and read more books. You can’t just set up Laseen as much as you do in the earlier books and do that reveal in book 9 as if it were nothing. You can’t make us spend 2-3 books following the Tiste Edur and then just erase them from the story.

-it could use some extra editing

Mainly because of the two issues above. Each book, but especially the later ones, could be some 300 pages shorter if you cut out a lot of the philosophizing and the stories that don’t really go anywhere. IMHO it would have made them a better paced and more cohesive read. The series was amazing anyway, but some trimming would have helped a lot.

#malazan #malazan book of the fallen #shinylitwick reads books

10 notes · View notes

cappymightwrite · 3 years ago

Text

Jon Snow, Manfred & The Byronic Hero: Part 2

Previous Posts: PART 1

Hopefully Part 1 served as a good introduction on the topic and characteristics of the Byronic Hero, as well as how Jon Snow in particular is likely an iteration of this figure. But now we come to the real meat of this meta series — a closer look at Byron's dramatic poem Manfred (1816–1817), and more importantly, its titular character in comparison to Jon Snow. I was originally going to do an analysis and comparison of two key episodes in Manfred and A Storm of Swords, Jon VI, but have since decided to give that its own post... that's right kids, there will be a part 3!

(Detail from Lord Byron, Thomas Phillips, 1813)

So... why Manfred? Why not Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, or The Corsair, or Don Juan, or any other work by Lord Byron? Well, I'll tell you why, my sweet summer children. It's because of THIS:

Manfred/Manfryds and Byrons in ASOIAF, by order of first appearance and publication:

Ser Manfred Swann (ASOS, Jaime VIII)

Ser Manfred Dondarrion (The Hedge Knight)

Manfred Lothston (The Sworn Sword)

Manfryd o' the Black Hood (AFFC, Brienne I)

Manfryd Yew (AFFC, Jaime V)

Ser Byron the Beautiful (AFFC, Alayne II, TWOW, Alayne I)

Ser Byron Swann (ADWD, Tyrion III)

Manfryd Merlyn of Kite (ADWD, Victarion I)

Manfryd Mooton, Lord of Maidenpool (The Princess and the Queen, TWOIAF)

Manfred Hightower, Lord of the Hightower (TWOIAF)

Manfred Hightower, Lord of the Hightower (Fire and Blood)

Like... what the hell, George?

I find this very interesting, very interesting indeed! *cough* intentional, very intentional *cough* And I have to thank @agentrouka-blog for reminding me of the existence of these Manfreds/Manfryds, and thus pointing me in this particular direction. This evidence is, for me, my smoking gun, it's why I feel justified in exploring this specific work. In my opinion, it really strongly confirms that GRRM is aware of Manfred, he is aware of its author — as a literary name, it is pretty much exclusively connected to Byron, it's like Hamlet to Shakespeare, or Heathcliff to Emily Brontë. In fact, GRRM likes it enough to use this name several times in fact, its frequency of use aided by a slight variation on its spelling.

So, as we can see, there are a striking number of Manfred/Manfryds (9!!) featured in the ASOIAF universe, whereas Byron (2) is used a bit more sparingly — perhaps because the latter, if more liberally used, would become far more recognisable as an overt literary reference? Interestingly, though, we can see a direct link between the two names as both bear the surname Swann: Ser Manfred Swann and Ser Byron Swann (note the exact spelling of Manfred here, as opposed to Manfryd). Ser Byron was alive during the Dance of Dragons and died trying to kill the dragon Syrax, whereas Ser Manfred was alive during Aegon V's reign and had a young Ser Barristan as his squire. So, in terms of ancestry, Byron came before Manfred, which makes sense since Lord Byron created the character of Manfred; he is his authorial/literary progenitor, if you will.

But why Swann, though? Is there any significance to that surname? Well, I did a little bit of digging and turned up something very interesting, at least in my opinion. In Percy Bysshe Shelley's poem Lines written among the Euganean Hills (1818), in its sixth stanza, the poet addresses the city of Venice... the “tempest-cleaving Swan” in the eighth line is clearly meant to be his friend and contemporary, Lord Byron, that city’s most famous expatriate:

That a tempest-cleaving Swan Of the songs of Albion, Driven from his ancestral streams By the might of evil dreams, Found a nest in thee;

(st. 6, l. 8-12)

Ah ha! But let's not forget that the Swanns are also a house from the stormlands — stormlander Swanns vs. "tempest-cleaving Swan." It seems a nice little homage, doesn't it? You could also argue that the battling swans of House Swann's sigil are a possible reference to Byron's fondness for boxing (he apparently received "pugilistic tuition" at a club in Bond Street, London). But to make the references to Byron too overt would ruin the subtly, so it isn't necessary, in my opinion, for the Swanns to be completely steeped in Byronisms.

All in all, it would be very neat of GRRM if the reasoning behind Byron and Manfred Swann is because of this reference to Lord Byron by Shelley. How these names and the characters that bear them might further reference Byron and Manfred is a possible discussion for another day! It's all just very interesting, very noteworthy, and highlights how careful GRRM is at choosing the names of his characters, even very minor, seemingly insignificant ones.

(Illustration of Villa Diodati from Finden's Illustrations of the Life and Works of Lord Byron, Edward Finden, 1833)

Now onto the actual poem, and the ways in which Jon Snow could being referencing/paralleling Manfred. First things first, a bit of biographical context. Take my hand, and let's travel back in time, way back when, to 1816, the year in which Lord Byron left England forever, his reputation in tatters due to the collapse of his marriage and the rumours of an affair with his half-sister, Augusta Leigh (plus he was hugely in debt). No doubt, most of us are familiar with the story, but in 1816 Byron travelled to Switzerland, to a villa on Lake Geneva, where he met the Shelleys and suggested that they all pass the time by writing ghost stories.

The most famous story produced by them was, of course, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818) — which may have served as the partial inspiration behind Qyburn and Robert Strong! Byron himself did begin a story but soon gave it up (yesss, we love an unproductive king); it was completed, however, by his personal physician, John William Polidori, and eventually published, under Byron's name, as The Vampyre (1819). But Byron didn't completely abandon the ghost story project, as later that summer, after a visit by the Gothic novelist M. G. Lewis, he wrote his "supernatural" tragedy, Manfred (1817).*

*I've seen it dated as 1816-17, but the crucial thing to rememeber, in terms of Byron's own biography, is that unlike The Bride of Abydos, he wrote it after his departure from England... this theme of exile will come up later.

Manfred is what is called a "closet drama", so is structured much like a play, with acts and scenes, though it wouldn't have actually been intended to be performed on stage. Indeed, Lord Byron first described Manfred to his publisher as "a kind of poem in dialogue... but of a very wild—metaphysical—and inexplicable kind": "Almost all the persons—but two or three—are Spirits... the hero [is] a kind of magician who is tormented by a species of remorse—the cause of which is left half unexplained—he wanders about invoking these spirits—which appear to him—& are of no use—he at last goes to the very abode of the Evil principle in propria persona [i.e. in person]—to evocate a ghost—which appears—& gives him an ambiguous & disagreeable answer..."*

*As in Part 1, more academic references will be listed in a bibliography at the end of this post.

To sum up the narrative for you, Manfred is a nobleman living in the Bernese Alps, "tormented by a species of remorse", which is never fully explained, but is clearly connected to the death of his beloved Astarte. Through his mastery of poetic language and spell-casting, he is able to summon seven "spirits", from whom he seeks the gift of forgetfulness, but this plea cannot be granted — he cannot escape from his past. He is also prevented from escaping his mysterious guilt by taking his own life, but in the end, Manfred does die, thus defying religious temptations of redemption from sin. He therefore stands outside of societal expectations, a Romantic rebel who succeeds in challenging all of the authoritative powers he faces, ultimately choosing death over submission to the powerful spirits.

According to Lara Assaad, the character of Manfred is the "Byronic hero par excellence", as he shares its typical characteristics found in Byron's other work (as discussed in Part 1), "yet pushed to the extreme." As noted above, there is a defiance to Manfred's character, which is arguable also found in Jon. Certainly though, in all of Byron's works, the Byronic Hero appears as "a negative Romantic protagonist" to a certain extent, a being who is "filled with guilt, despair, and cosmic and social alienation," observes James B. Twitchell. I'll come back to those characteristics presently.

As noted by Assaad, "Byron scholars seem to agree on this definition of the Byronic Hero, however they focus mainly, if not exclusively, on the dynamics of guilt and remorse." Indeed, it is only in more recent years that the incest motif, as well as the influence of Byron's own biography, have been more widely discussed. But perhaps the most compelling aspect of the Byronic Hero is his complex psychology. Although trauma theory only really started to flourish during the 1990s, thus providing deeper insight into the symptoms that follow a traumatic experience, it nevertheless seems, at least to Assaad, that "Byron was familiar with it well before it was first discussed by professionals and diagnosed." As we know, GRRM began writing his series, A Song of Ice and Fire, during the 1990s, and character trauma and its effects feature heavily in his work, most notably in the case of Theon Greyjoy, but also in the memory editing of Sansa Stark in terms of the infamous "Unkiss".*

*The editing, or supressing, of memories is not exclusive to Sansa, however. E.g @agentrouka-blog has theorised a possible memory edit with regards to Tyrion and his first wife Tysha.

But if we return back to that original quote, in which GRRM makes the comparison between Jon and the Byronic Hero, his following statement is also very interesting:

The character I’m probably most like in real life is Samwell Tarly. Good old Sam. And the character I’d want to be? Well who wouldn’t want to be Jon Snow — the brooding, Byronic, romantic hero whom all the girls love. Theon [Greyjoy] is the one I’d fear becoming. Theon wants to be Jon Snow, but he can’t do it. He keeps making the wrong decisions. He keeps giving into his own selfish, worst impulses. [source]

As noted by @princess-in-a-tower, there is a close correspondence between Jon and Theon, with each acting as the other's foil in many respects. In fact, Theon does sort of tick off a few of the Byronic qualities I discussed last time, most notably standing apart from society, that "society" being the Starks in Winterfell, due to him essentially being a hostage. Later on, we see him develop a sense of deep misery as well due to his horrific treatment at the hands of Ramsey Snow. Like Theon, his narrative foil, Jon is also a character deeply informed by trauma (being raised a bastard), but the way they ultimately process and express that specific displacement trauma differs profoundly — Theon expresses it outwardly through his sacking of Winterfell, whereas Jon turns his trauma notably inwards.*

*Obviously, I'm not a medical professional — I'm more looking at this from a literary angle, but the articles I've read for this post do include reference to real medical definitions etc.

Previously, I observed how being "deeply jaded" and having "misery in his heart" were key characteristics of the Byronic Hero, as well as Jon Snow — this trauma theory is a continuation of that. Indeed, to bring it back to Manfred, Assaad goes as far as stating that the poem's titular hero "suffers from what is now widely recognised as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)." I am purposely holding off on discussing what the origin of that trauma is, in relation to Manfred specifically, because, well... it needs a bit of forewarning before I get into it fully. Instead, let's look at the emotions it exacerabates or gives rise to, as detailed by Twitchell, and how they might be evident in Jon and his feelings regarding his bastard status.

(Jonny Lee Miller as Byron in the two part BBC series Byron, 2003)

Guilt

Does Jon suffer guilt due to him being a bastard and secretly wanting to "steal" his siblings' birthright? I'd say a strong yes:

When Jon had been Bran's age, he had dreamed of doing great deeds, as boys always did. The details of his feats changed with every dreaming, but quite often he imagined saving his father's life. Afterward Lord Eddard would declare that Jon had proved himself a true Stark, and place Ice in his hand. Even then he had known it was only a child's folly; no bastard could ever hope to wield a father's sword. Even the memory shamed him. What kind of man stole his own brother's birthright? I have no right to this, he thought, no more than to Ice. – AGOT, Jon VIII He wanted it, Jon knew then. He wanted it as much as he had ever wanted anything. I have always wanted it, he thought, guiltily. May the gods forgive me. – ASOS, Jon XII

But I think Jon's sense of guilt also extends to the high expectations he sets for himself, his "moral superiority" in the face of his bastard status, as discussed in Part 1. He feels guilt pulling him in two different directions, in regards to Ygritte: guilt for loving her, for breaking his vows, and potentially risking a bastard, but also guilt for leaving her, for abandoning her, and potentially leaving her unprotected:

His guilt came back afterward, but weaker than before. If this is so wrong, he wondered, why did the gods make it feel so good? – ASOS, Jon III Ygritte was much in his thoughts as well. He remembered the smell of her hair, the warmth of her body... and the look on her face as she slit the old man's throat. You were wrong to love her, a voice whispered. You were wrong to leave her, a different voice insisted. He wondered if his father had been torn the same way, when he'd left Jon's mother to return to Lady Catelyn. He was pledged to Lady Stark, and I am pledged to the Night's Watch. – ASOS, Jon VI "I broke my vows with her. I never meant to, but..." It was wrong. Wrong to love her, wrong to leave her..."I wasn't strong enough. The Halfhand commanded me, ride with them, watch, I must not balk, I..." His head felt as if it were packed with wet wool. – ASOS, Jon VI

This guilt surrounding leaving the women/girls he cares about unprotected also extends to Arya. Yet it was his need to prove himself as something more than just a bastard, by joining the Watch, which initially prevents him from acting, and which also makes him feel guilt for being a hyprocrite:

Jon felt as stiff as a man of sixty years. Dark dreams, he thought, and guilt. His thoughts kept returning to Arya. There is no way I can help her. I put all kin aside when I said my words. If one of my men told me his sister was in peril, I would tell him that was no concern of his. Once a man had said the words his blood was black. Black as a bastard's heart. – ADWD, Jon VI

I think there is a lack of reconciliation between Jon and his bastard status, between what being a bastard implies in their society: lustful, deceitful, treacherous, more "worldly" etc. Deep down, subconsciously, Jon really rebels against it. You can see that rebellion more clearly in his memories as a younger child, less inhibited:

Every morning they had trained together, since they were big enough to walk; Snow and Stark, spinning and slashing about the wards of Winterfell, shouting and laughing, sometimes crying when there was no one else to see. They were not little boys when they fought, but knights and mighty heroes. "I'm Prince Aemon the Dragonknight," Jon would call out, and Robb would shout back, "Well, I'm Florian the Fool." Or Robb would say, "I'm the Young Dragon," and Jon would reply, "I'm Ser Ryam Redwyne." That morning he called it first. "I'm Lord of Winterfell!" he cried, as he had a hundred times before. Only this time, this time, Robb had answered, "You can't be Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born. My lady mother says you can't ever be the Lord of Winterfell." I thought I had forgotten that. Jon could taste blood in his mouth, from the blow he'd taken. – ASOS, Jon XII

But Jon knows this truth about himself, he knows that he has "always wanted it", and that causes him so much guilt because he can't allow himself to be selfish in that regard, because to do so would confirm for him his worst fears... that he truly is a bastard in nature as well as birth — treacherous, covetous, dishonourable.

Despair

As he grows up, learning to curb his emotional outbursts from AGOT, Jon appears more and more stoic upon the surface. But beneath that, buried in his subconscious in the form of dreams, you have this undyling feeling of despair, this trauma connected to his bastard status, his partially unknown heritage:

Not my mother, Jon thought stubbornly. He knew nothing of his mother; Eddard Stark would not talk of her. Yet he dreamed of her at times, so often that he could almost see her face. In his dreams, she was beautiful, and highborn, and her eyes were kind. – AGOT, Jon III

These recurring dreams, sometimes explicitly involving his unknown mother, sometimes not, represent a clear gap, a gaping blank in Jon's personal history and his perception of his identity:

"Sometimes I dream about it," he said. "I'm walking down this long empty hall. My voice echoes all around, but no one answers, so I walk faster, opening doors, shouting names. I don't even know who I'm looking for. Most nights it's my father, but sometimes it's Robb instead, or my little sister Arya, or my uncle." [...]

"Do you ever find anyone in your dream?" Sam asked.

Jon shook his head. "No one. The castle is always empty." He had never told anyone of the dream, and he did not understand why he was telling Sam now, yet somehow it felt good to talk of it. "Even the ravens are gone from the rookery, and the stables are full of bones. That always scares me. I start to run then, throwing open doors, climbing the tower three steps at a time, screaming for someone, for anyone. And then I find myself in front of the door to the crypts. It's black inside, and I can see the steps spiraling down. Somehow I know I have to go down there, but I don't want to. I'm afraid of what might be waiting for me. The old Kings of Winter are down there, sitting on their thrones with stone wolves at their feet and iron swords across their laps, but it's not them I'm afraid of. I scream that I'm not a Stark, that this isn't my place, but it's no good, I have to go anyway, so I start down, feeling the walls as I descend, with no torch to light the way. It gets darker and darker, until I want to scream." He stopped, frowning, embarrassed. "That's when I always wake." His skin cold and clammy, shivering in the darkness of his cell. Ghost would leap up beside him, his warmth as comforting as daybreak. He would go back to sleep with his face pressed into the direwolf's shaggy white fur. – AGOT, Jon IV

"That always scares me", he says quite tellingly. From this key passage, in particular, we can see that Jon feels a deep rooted despair at essentially being unclaimed, unwanted... being without a solid (Stark) identity around which to draw strength and mould himself. He's afraid of being a lone wolf, because as we all know, "the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives," (AGOT, Arya II).

This dream points him in the direction of the crypts — "somehow I know I have to go down there, but I don't want to" — which actually does have the answers he seeks because that is where Lyanna Stark is buried. Yet Jon is "afraid of what might be waiting for [him]", and wants to "scream" with dispair because of the darkness. So, this need for a confirmed identity is a double edged sword, which will no doubt be further complicated when his true parentage is revealed.

Elsewhere, Jon's dreams continue to have this despairing quality to them, often involving Winterfell, the Starks, and especially Ned, which is very interesting on a psychological level:

The grey walls of Winterfell might still haunt his dreams, but Castle Black was his life now, and his brothers were Sam and Grenn and Halder and Pyp and the other cast-outs who wore the black of the Night's Watch. – AGOT, Jon IV

Last night he had dreamt the Winterfell dream again. He was wandering the empty castle, searching for his father, descending into the crypts. Only this time the dream had gone further than before. In the dark he'd heard the scrape of stone on stone. When he turned he saw that the vaults were opening, one after the other. As the dead kings came stumbling from their cold black graves, Jon had woken in pitch-dark, his heart hammering. Even when Ghost leapt up on the bed to nuzzle at his face, he could not shake his deep sense of terror. He dared not go back to sleep. Instead he had climbed the Wall and walked, restless, until he saw the light of the dawn off to the east. It was only a dream. I am a brother of the Night's Watch now, not a frightened boy. – AGOT, Jon VII

But it is never "only a dream", is it?

And when at last he did sleep, he dreamt, and that was even worse. In the dream, the corpse he fought had blue eyes, black hands, and his father's face, but he dared not tell Mormont that. – AGOT, Jon VIII

Even Jon's conscious daydreams in AGOT revolve around his dispairing search for a solid identity:

A lot of these early dreams occur in A Game of Thrones, probably in response to his removal from Winterfell... his self exile. But later on in the series Jon continues to have dreams that tie him to the Starks and to Winterfell, ominous and sometimes despairing too. There's honestly too many instances to list, but if you want to understand the root of Jon's existential despair... it's in his dreams.

Cosmic Alienation

Cosmic alienation, now that's an interesting one in regards to Jon, since he definitely hasn't reached this state... yet. Life and his belief in the divine (the old gods) still hold meaning for him, but then he gets murdered by his black brothers. In the show, the writers hint at some cosmic alienation through Jon stating that he saw "nothing" whilst dead, but then they take it no further and generally do a piss poor job of post-res Jon. This characteristic of Manfred coming to the fore in Jon depends on what happens in The Winds of Winter, but I don't think it is at all that far fetched to assume that Jon will return to his body with a darker, altered perception of things.

Social Alienation

In Part 1, I discussed how Jon, like Byron's heroes, could be read as a "a rebel who stands apart from society and societal expectations." On a more psychological level, we can see how this Otherness, stemming from his bastard status, deeply affects Jon and his perception of himself and the world:

Benjen Stark gave Jon a long look. "Don't you usually eat at table with your brothers?"

"Most times," Jon answered in a flat voice. "But tonight Lady Stark thought it might give insult to the royal family to seat a bastard among them." – AGOT, Jon I

In his very first chapter, we see him quite literally alienated from the rest of his siblings, made to sit apart from them, an apparent necessity he seems fairly resigned to. Also in Part 1, I gave examples of instances in which Jon is mockingly called "Lord Snow," as well as a "rebel", "turncloak", "half-wildling", all of which serve to alienate him from the rest of the brothers of the Night's Watch.

Stannis gave a curt nod. "Your father was a man of honor. He was no friend to me, but I saw his worth. Your brother was a rebel and a traitor who meant to steal half my kingdom, but no man can question his courage. What of you?" – ASOS, Jon XI

The above interaction may seem on the surface to be about one thing — whether or not Jon will be of help to Stannis, offer him loyalty etc. — but tagged onto the end we have quite a poignant question: "what of you?" What are you, essentially. Who are you? The truth of his parentage may, in part, solve these questions... but it may also serve to alienate Jon from his perception of himself further. Ultimately, who exactly he is — what he believes in, who and what he fights for, etc. — will be solely his decision to make going forward.

So, the Byronic Hero, certainly in Manfred's case, but also in later iterations, is arguably traumatised by his own past. But regardless as to whether his trauma is related to a mysterious past, a secret sin, an unnamed crime, or incest, aka "secret knowledge", what is clear in Assaad's interpretation, is that the Byronic Hero is "living with the traumatic consequences of his own past and so suffers from PTSD." But why is Manfred traumatised, what is the specific cause of this trauma, or how might it reveal something deeper about Jon's own trauma? Now, here we come to the unavoidable... I'm going to start talking about Byronic incest and the pre-canon crush/kiss theory, and how it potentially parallels certain aspects of Manfred.

I should preface this by stating that I don't think Jon is suppressing trauma because he committed intentional incest with Sansa, but I do think (or at least somewhat theorise that) Byronic incest does come into play regarding his intense feelings of guilt and existential despair.

But still, stop reading now if are opposed to discussions of the pre-canon crush/kiss theory and the literary incest motif as a whole!

(Detail from The Funeral of Shelley, Louis Édouard Fournier, 1889)

Hey there to the depraved! If you aren't already familiar with the theory, here are some previous discussions/metas on the subject:

Full Blown Meta:

A Hidden and Forbidden Love by @princess-in-a-tower

Ask Answers (Long):

Jonsa as a more positive mirror to Jaime and Cersei? by @princess-in-a-tower, with additional comment by @jonsameta

Discussing the theory by @jonsameta

Evidence for pre-canon Jonsa? by @agentrouka-blog

Kissing in the godswood? by @agentrouka-blog

Why don't we read about Jon's reaction to Sansa and Tyrion? by @agentrouka-blog

More on Jon's supposed non-reaction by @agentrouka-blog, with additional comment made by @sherlokiness

A Jonsa "Unkiss"? by @fedonciadale

A hidden memory? by @fedonciadale

Sansa's misremembering by @fedonciadale

Descriptive parallels between A Song for Lya and Jonsa by @butterflies-dragons

Ask Answers (Short) & Briefer Mentions:

Jealous Jon by @princess-in-a-tower

Your new boyfriend looks like a girl by @butterflies-dragons

Like in Part 1, I've tried to cite as much as I could find, but as always, if anyone feels like I've missed someone important or that they should be included in the above list, please just drop me a line!

Now, it's a controversial theory, and not everyone's cup of tea — I think that's worth acknowledging! I myself am not wholly married to it, I'd be fine if it wasn't the case, but that being said, I can't in good faith ignore it when considering Lord Byron and the Byronic Hero. The incest is, unfortunately, very hard to ignore, both in his work and in his personal life. It's pretty hard to ignore in Manfred, for that matter, which is why I've held off talking about it... until now!

All aboard the Manfred incest train *choo choo* !!

First stop, Act II, scene one. Oh, wait, an annoucement from your conductor... apologies everyone, I purposely neglected to mention quite a key detail. Remember "Astarte! [Manfred's] beloved!", (II, iv, 136)? Yeah... it's heavily implied that Astarte is in fact Manfred's half-sister. *shoots finger guns* Classic Byron! *facepalms*

Oh, and that's not all! Let's consider the context surrounding the writing of this work for a moment, shall we? Unlike The Bride of Abydos (1813),* Manfred was written notably after the fallout of his incestuous affair with his half-sister, Augusta Leigh, composed whilst in a self-imposed exile. *spits out drink* Woah, woah there cowboy... what in tarnation?! EXILE?!

*As referenced in Part 1, @rose-of-red-lake has written an excellent meta on the influence of Lord Byron's work (and personal life) on Jonsa, paying special attention to the half-siblings turned cousins in The Bride of Abydos.

Although, as noted by rose-of-red-lake, The Bride of Abydos bears strong parallels to the potential romance of Jon and Sansa, as well as Byron’s own angst regarding his relationship with Augusta Leigh, the context surrounding Manfred seems... dare I say it, even more autobiographical. Because like Byron himself, Manfred wanders around the Bernese Alps, solitary and guilt ridden, in a state of exile heavily evocative of Byron's own — as I mentioned earlier, the beginnings of Manfred occured whilst Byron was staying at a villa on Lake Geneva, in Switzerland... the Bernese Alps are located in western Switzerland. In light of this, I think it's very understandable that some critics consider Manfred to be autobiographical, or even confessional. The unnamed but forbidden nature of Manfred's relationship to Astarte is believed to represent Byron's relationship with his half-sister Augusta. But what has that got to do with Jon?

Look, I don't know how else to put this:

Byron self-exiles in 1816, first to Switzerland, to Lake Geneva, where it is unseasonably cold and stormy — his departure from England is due to the collaspe of his marriage to Annabella Milbanke, unquestionably as a result of the rumours surrounding his incestuous affair with his half-sister.

Displaced nobleman Manfred wanders the Bernese Alps, in a kind of moral exile, where "the wind / Was faint and gusty, and the mountain snows / Began to glitter with the climbing moon" (III, iii, 46-48), traversing "on snows, where never human foot / Of common mortal trod" (II, iii, 4-5), surrounded by a "glassy ocean of the mountain ice" (II, iii, 7). He feels extreme, but unexplained guilt surrounding the death of his "beloved" Astarte, who is heavily implied to also be his half-sister.

In A Game of Thrones, Jon Snow chooses to join the Night's Watch, with the reminder that "once you have taken the black, there is no turning back" (AGOT, Jon VI). By taking the black, Jon arguably exiles himself from the rest of the Starks, from Winterfell, to a place that "looked like nothing more than a handful of toy blocks scattered on the snow, beneath the vast wall of ice" (AGOT, Jon III). But we aren't given any indication that he does this due to incestuous feelings regarding a "radiant" half-sister, akin to Byron/Manfred, are we? And it's not like we have several Manfreds/Manfryds AND Byrons namedropped within the text, is it? Oh wait... we do. *grabs GRRM in a chokehold*

What the hell, George?!

(Lord Byron on His Deathbed, Joseph Denis Odevaere, c. 1826)

But lets get back on track here and take a closer look at that section of Manfred I mentioned at the beginning — Act II, scene one, aka the part where all the incest and supressed trauma really JUMPS out.

So, early in Act II, in the chamois hunter's abode (a chamois is a type of goat?), according Assaad's analysis, Manfred is "hyper-aroused by a cup of wine." The wine is offered in an attempt to calm Manfred; however, to the chamois hunter's great dismay, it instead agitates him and makes him utter words which are "strange" (II, i, 35). Rather than wine, Manfred sees "blood on the brim" (II, i, 25). His sudden agitation and erratic behaviour confound the chamois hunter, who observes that Manfred is losing his mind: "thy senses wander from thee" (II, i, 27). Assaad's analysis of this scene, which she believes "is the most revelatory in the entire play" discloses "a bitter truth: Manfred's traumatic past informs his present life."

We might compare this with Jon, in particular, how his dreams reveal certain bitter truths to do with his past, now subconsciously informing his present. I've already looked a bit at his crypt dream from AGOT, Jon IV, but we see a sort of recurrence of this dream again in ASOS, Jon VIII. The imagery of being in a crypt, somewhere underground, buried, in the dark, a place of ghosts and spirits, is extremely evocative. Indeed, to go back to Byron's own description of Manfred, the setting of a crypt is extremely suggestive of certain bitter truths "left half unexplained", of secrets buried... and we know that's true because the secret of Jon's parentage is hidden down there, in the form of Lyanna Stark.

He dreamt he was back in Winterfell, limping past the stone kings on their thrones. Their grey granite eyes turned to follow him as he passed, and their grey granite fingers tightened on the hilts of the rusted swords upon their laps. You are no Stark, he could hear them mutter, in heavy granite voices. There is no place for you here. Go away. He walked deeper into the darkness. "Father?" he called. "Bran? Rickon?" No one answered. A chill wind was blowing on his neck. "Uncle?" he called. "Uncle Benjen? Father? Please, Father, help me." Up above he heard drums. They are feasting in the Great Hall, but I am not welcome there. I am no Stark, and this is not my place. His crutch slipped and he fell to his knees. The crypts were growing darker. A light has gone out somewhere. "Ygritte?" he whispered. "Forgive me. Please." But it was only a direwolf, grey and ghastly, spotted with blood, his golden eyes shining sadly through the dark... – ASOS, Jon VIII

I don't think it's outlandish to state that, unquestionably, Jon's bastard identity is a source of ongoing pain for him. I talked about the theme of despair in Jon's characterisation and it is very evident in the above, and it stems from this "bitter truth" of not being a trueborn Stark, of not being "welcome", or having a true place. The emotions/mindset this trauma, concerning his birth and identity, evokes in Jon is arguably what brings him, on first glance, so closely in line with the Byronic Hero:

Their grey granite eyes turned to follow him as he passed / The crypts were growing darker = A mysterious past / secret sin(s)

You are no Stark / I am no Stark = Deeply jaded

There is no place for you here / I am not welcome there / This is not my place = standing apart from society and societal expectations / social alienation

He dreamt he was back in Winterfell / He walked deeper into the darkness = Moody / misery in his heart

He fell to his knees / Forgive me = Guilt

He walked deeper into the darkness / Please, Father, help me / He fell to his knees = Despair

These aren't all the Byronic characteristics I've addressed in relation to Jon, but it is a substantial percentage of them, all encapsulated, in one way or another, within this singular dream passage. As far as what is fairly explicit in the text, being a bastard is Jon's "bitter truth", it is the "traumatic past inform[ing] his present life." But what is Manfred's "bitter truth", what past trauma is informing his present? And can it reveal a bit more about another layer to Jon's trauma? Because there is a key distinction — Manfred's trauma, his PTSD, stems from a specific event, notably triggered by the (imagined) "blood on the brim" of his wine, whereas for Jon, we have no singular event, we have no momentus experience, we just have this "truth."

As mentioned previously, Assaad has recognised the character of Manfred as displaying symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In Assaad's article, she remarks that "an experience is denoted as traumatic if it completely overwhelms the individual, rendering him or her helpless," and this is quite evident in the interaction between Manfred and the chamois hunter. Sharon Stanley, an educator and clinical psychotherapist, writes that "the word trauma has been used to describe a variety of aversive, overwhelming experiences with long-term, destructive effects on individuals and communities."

So, if trauma is related to an experience, or experiences, is it still accurate to say that Jon experiences trauma, connected to being a bastard? Because there is seemingly no singular or defining root experience, or event that it stems from, it just is… it is a compellation of several moments, revealed to the reader through Jon’s memories and/or dreams. What is being "left half unexplained” here?

Assaad makes reference to the American Psychiatric Association's definition of PTSD, in which it observes that for an individual to be diagnosed with PTSD, they have to suffer from one or more intrustion symptoms, one or more avoidance symptoms, two or more negative alterations, and two or more hyperarousal symptoms. The dreams Jon has certainly suggest something, but it seems like a stretch to say that, like Manfred, he is suffering from PTSD, right? We and Jon are very much aware that he is "no Stark", at least not in the sense that he is Ned's trueborn son, this isn’t something Jon is actively suppressing. By comparison, it is incontrovertible that Manfred committed something in the past, which he deeply wishes to forget and disassociate from:

Man. I say ’tis blood—my blood! the pure warm stream Which ran in the veins of my fathers, and in ours When we were in our youth, and had one heart, And loved each other as we should not love, And this was shed: but still it rises up, Colouring the clouds, that shut me out from heaven, Where thou art not—and I shall never be. C. Hun. Man of strange words, and some half—maddening sin

(II, i, 28-35)

However, we cannot be sure what this traumatic point of origin is, though we know that it is related to something he has done to his beloved Astarte, which subsequently led to her death. Many critics have suggested that his sin is that of incest, and as I noted earlier, that Manfred as a whole is more than just a bit autobiographical and/or confessional in nature. Manfred's incestuous sin therefore re-enacts Byron's incest with his half-sister Augusta. But regardless of the true cause, Manfred is traumatised by his past and cannot overcome it. Is there something in Jon’s past, that may have subconsciously, or consciously, influenced his departure to the Wall — his self exile — which he cannot overcome, and which is closely tied to the issue of and pain he feels due to being a bastard, not just the illegitimacy, but also the negative characteristics it assigns? Is there an event, or experience, we can pinpoint as the origin of Jon’s trauma and potential PTSD?

To circle back to Jonsa, there is some, not unfounded, debate amongst us concerning the validity of the pre-canon crush/kiss theory. I've always found it an interesting theory, but until now, I haven't really given it too much thought. In light of the Byron connection, however, as well as the textual analysis I have for Part 3, I think this scenario, as detailed by agentrouka-blog, seems more and more likely. And I don't say that lightly, I really don't. It is a somewhat uncomfortable speculation to make, even if the interaction was more innocent rather than explicit (this is the side I firmly fall down on), however, it’s ambiguity does potentially parallel Byron’s Manfred and Astarte. This post would be even longer if I included my side-by-side text comparisons, so you may have to trust me for the moment that there are some very striking similarities between Act II, scene I of Manfred, and Jon's milk of the poppy induced dream in ASOS, Jon VI, as well as the actual buildup to that vision.

But, that sounds frankly terrible doesn't it? And it doesn't bode well for his future relationship with Sansa, does it? And what does it mean if Jon is suffering from PTSD due to an incestuous encounter with Sansa? What does that mean for Sansa, Sansa who is doggedly abused and mistreated by men within the present narrative? This is awful, why would GRRM root their romance in something traumatic? Oh I hear you, and these are questions I needed to ask myself whilst compiling this. But you see... now bear with me here... it isn't the actual encounter itself that was traumatic, for either Jon or Sansa, and that is reflected in both their POVs, because, though they think about each other sparingly (explicitly at least), it is never done so negatively. No, the potential PTSD Jon suffers from this experience isn't connected to Sansa, to whatever occured between them. Rather, I believe, it's connected to either the fear, or the reality, that Ned, his assumed father, saw and/or caught him (either Sansa had left at this point, or didn't fully grasp the issue), and this fear, this guilt, this sense of despair, is made evident in this passage:

When the dreams took him, he found himself back home once more, splashing in the hot pools beneath a huge white weirwood that had his father’s face. Ygritte was with him, laughing at him, shedding her skins till she was naked as her name day, trying to kiss him, but he couldn’t, not with his father watching. He was the blood of Winterfell, a man of the Night’s Watch. I will not father a bastard, he told her. I will not. I will not. “You know nothing, Jon Snow,” she whispered, her skin dissolving in the hot water, the flesh beneath sloughing off her bones until only skull and skeleton remained, and the pool bubbled thick and red. – ASOS, Jon VI

That's the traumatic experience, I believe, not the kiss — yep, I strongly suspect there was a kiss. Moreover, Jon's recurring assertion, throughout the series, that he "will not father a bastard" is tied to this in some way, it’s tied to Ned, it’s tied to some sense of guilt and shame. It’s not tied to Sansa. But we'll look at this passage, what it means, what it parallels, and what directly precedes it, in comparison to Manfred, a lot more closely next time.

I'll leave you with a slight teaser though — the parallel that made me really sit up and take notice:

C. Hun. Well, sir, pardon me the question, And be of better cheer. Come, taste my wine; 'Tis of an ancient vintage; many a day 'T has thaw’d my veins among our glaciers, now Let it do thus for thine. Come, pledge me fairly. Man. Away, away! there’s blood upon the brim! Will it then never—never sink in the earth?

(II, i, 21-26)

Note this imagery!!!

Maester Aemon poured it full. "Drink this."

Jon had bitten his lip in his struggles. He could taste blood mingled with the thick, chalky potion. It was all he could do not to retch it back up. – ASOS, Jon VI

In both instances, a drink is offered, with "blood upon the brim", and "blood mingled". In Manfred's case, this is an explicit trigger for him, whereas for Jon? Well, it bit more hidden, a bit more buried, but this moment is, to my mind, the catalyst, because its imagery strongly evokes the colours of the weirwood tree — "blood" red and "chalky" white — you know, the "huge white weirwood" he later on envisions.

*spits out drink*

Maybe the magnitude of this parallel isn't completely evident as of yet, but it will be... or at least I hope it will be, so stay tuned for Part 3!

(Starting to run out of Byron pics so... I dunno, here's Rupert Everret, from The Scandalous Adventures of Lord Byron, 2009)

In Conclusion

To summarise, why is the Manfred connection so monumental to me? Why do I find the pre-canon kiss theory, specifically the scenario detailed by agentrouka-blog, now very hard to dismiss? Because:

The nine (!) Manfreds/Manfryds included within the text, as well as the two Byrons, one of which, the first mentioned in fact, first appears in Sansa's POV. But crucicially the direct link made by GRRM between Byron Swann and Manfred Swann.

The strength of the similarities that can be observed between Jon and the Byronic Hero, but also notably to Byron's Manfred, the "Byronic hero par excellence", according to Assaad. Especially the recurring emotions of guilt and despair, the latter exemplified perhaps most clearly in Jon's dreams.

The prominent theme of self-exile to escape something, something that perhaps cannot be openly stated, present in Manfred, Byron's own life, and Jon's narrative.

Those pesky half-sisters: Augusta, Astarte, and Sansa.

The PTSD symptoms clearly present in Manfred, but left "half unexplained", and seemingly not explained at all in Jon's POV — I'll dig more into this in Part 3.

The "blood upon the brim", and "blood mingled" — more on that in Part 3, I hope you guys like in depth imagery analysis!

Obviously, this is all still just speculation on my part, and it's speculation in connection to a theory that is understandably controversial. I'd be happy to dismiss it... if it weren't for the above. So, I suppose I'm in two minds about it. On the one hand, however you look at it, it's more trauma in an already traumatic series... which is *sighs* not what you want for the characters you care strongly about. But on the other hand, that literary connection to Manfred (and by extension to actual Lord Byron), the way it's lining up, plus that comparison GRRM himself made between Jon and the Byronic Hero... that's all very compelling and interesting to me as a reader, as a former English literature student. So, I don't want it to be true because... incest hell. But then, I also want it to be true because then it makes me feel smart for guessing correctly.

But anyway, we're going to be descending into incest hell in Part 3, so... we'll just have to grapple with that when we come to it. I hope, if you stuck with it till the incesty end, that you enjoyed this post!

Stay tuned ;)

Bibliography of Academic Sources:

American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edn (Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013); online edition at www.dsm5.org

Assaad, Lara, "'My slumbers—if I slumber—are not sleep': The Byronic Hero’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder", The Byron Journal 47, no. 2 (2019): 153–163.

Byron, George Gordon Noel, Byron’s Letters and Journals. Ed. Leslie A. Marchand. 12 vols. London: Murray, 1973–82.

Holland, Tom, "Undead Byron", in Byromania: Portraits of the Artist in Nineteenth- and Twentieth- Century Culture, ed. by Frances Wilson (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000).

MacDonald, D. L. "Narcissism and Demonality in Byron’s 'Manfred'", Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal 25, no. 2 (1992): 25–38.

Stanley, Sharon, Relational and Body-Centered Practices for Healing Trauma: Lifting the Burdens of the Past (London: Routledge, 2016)

Twitchell, James B., The Living Dead: A Study of the Vampire in Romantic Literature (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1981).

#jonsa #jon x sansa #jonsa meta #jon as the byronic hero #byronic hero #lord byron #tw: incest #cappy's thoughts #grrm and the Romantics #Jonsa and Romanticism #percy bysshe shelley #romantic poets #literary references #damn this was a long one!#glad a split it into another part!#i started to get a bit unhinged by the end not gonna lie

98 notes · View notes