#jon isn't necessarily a man but hes man aligned so

[cpyclopse]

Uni era Jon ft. The Admiral

My art (click for better quality)

[agentrouka-blog]

Do you think Sansa is attracted towards women? Her inner monologue towards Margaery, Mya or Myranda suggests me so or maybe George is just writing her thoughts towards these girls through the lens of a man.

I don't know? I know that many fans read her this way, and that's perfectly valid and lovely? It's not a vibe I personally got while reading, but that doesn't mean it's not notable for others.

I don't think GRRM The Author is intentionally writing her that way, not any more than I think he meant for Ned's infamous descriptions of Young!Robert to sound as bedazzled as they do. It's less ambiguious with Jon and Satin, where the descriptive language focuses on his scent and softness Very Repeatedly, but even there I think GRRM isn't necessarily trying to say something about the specific relationship between the characters and more about the aesthetic relationship of the POV to the world around them. Specifically with Jon, you also have his descriptions of Val, which certainly make note of her beauty but - to me(!) - feel notably devoid of any actual sexual component. Unlike, say, Sansa mentally undressing Loras or Cersei's immediately loaded language describing Taena Merrywheather.

Sansa, Ned, Jon, even Jaime, certainly Brienne, and Quentyn, probably others - most characters associated with a certain romanticism or (broken) idealism also have a distinct eye for beauty and imagery in the world around them, and strong opinions on it, their perception of the world is guided by a focus on where things align in a particularly striking way, or where they fail to, and they make note of it frequently.

Take this introductory paragraph in Jaime's first POV. He gets visceral pleasure from the sheer force of the natural beauty around him, and then immediately makes note of Brienne's imperfections to the point of imagining them in even greater detail, too. That's not necessary, neither thing, but it tells us a lot about Jaime's relationship with whimsy and ideals and how harshly he judges deviation.

An east wind blew through his tangled hair, as soft and fragrant as Cersei's fingers. He could hear birds singing, and feel the river moving beneath the boat as the sweep of the oars sent them toward the pale pink dawn. After so long in darkness, the world was so sweet that Jaime Lannister felt dizzy. I am alive, and drunk on sunlight. A laugh burst from his lips, sudden as a quail flushed from cover.

"Quiet," the wench grumbled, scowling. Scowls suited her broad homely face better than a smile. Not that Jaime had ever seen her smiling. He amused himself by picturing her in one of Cersei's silken gowns in place of her studded leather jerkin. As well dress a cow in silk as this one. (ASOS, Jaime I)

Whether that kind of focus on imagery has to intersect into attraction every time is for the individual reader to decide. I lean toward less so, others freely enjoy the appeal of it.

A good time for all.

[esther-dot]

He has all this king foreshadowing and training on how to be a good leader for what? He’s dead rn, has to suffer through taking down the Targs and defeating the Others, and then he’s just sent away?

This is exactly why it pisses me off because his arch must have a purpose. I don’t necessarily want him to end up as King (I am not an Arya stan), but all that training for nothing? So, he is going to be the hero defeating the Others and then he will ruin his life having to take down his fire loving aunt. The moral of the story is that Rhatgar’s cursed blood wins in the end and weighs more than his Stark blood. That is pretty awful. Children paying for his father’s sins. Not even GRRM can pull that off and make it satisfying.

(in reference to this ask)

I think the "sins of the father" is certainly an idea that Martin is playing with, but it's manifested in how kids adopt or reject things about their father figures and whether or not their choices align with them, not a destined by blood thing, but molded by mentors/experiences which is exactly why such an ending is offensive because it feels like we're ignoring all of that.

We see how others are taking dark paths (Dany who will ultimately fulfill her father's dream of burning KL) and we know that Jon has totally rejected taking what he wants at the expense of others (he won't take Winterfell, unlike Dany who will try to take Westeros), and he won't kill innocents (unlike Dany who doesn't purpose to but rationalizes it as a necessary evil). He can't do it. So, it makes no sense that he would bear punishment for the Targ legacy/sins of his father when he's rejected those tendencies completely. I mean, he's even already rejected marrying --stealing-- a woman even though he desperately wants a son. It's a bit pointed that he is not Rhaegar's son. I just can't see Jon adopting any of the toxic Targ stuff, he's already rejected all the aspects of it!

We also have Tyrion who knows his father is evil and hates him, yet, can't seem to reject the mentality of his family, and in spite of being something of a decent guy and offering Sansa the chance to marry someone else, he is tempted by Tywin's schemes and does cooperate/seek to benefit from his father's crimes and become Lord of Winterfell. I suppose that's the point that as much as he hates Tywin, the repetition of the Lannister slogan and how Tyrion always talks about Lannister gold means he hates it, but hasn't/won't truly reject the harmful legacy.

That could connect with Jon’s upcoming story. If he does try to harness the dragons (with good intentions!) he may become entangled in the Targaryen legacy of destruction because he’ll be bound to Dany by oaths he can’t escape and then kill her when it's the only option left. That’s a possibility, the one we saw play out in the show, but like you, I object to how it seemingly ignored the distinction between intent. Dany and Tyrion did things for personal gain and cause suffering for others, they're out for revenge that will lead to the death of countless others, and Jon was trying to do what was right. It isn't the same thing at all, and we know book Jon isn't going to do a 180.

Jon was born the son of a Targ but raised by Ned. Since, he’s had several other mentors, including a man who made the weapon that was used to kill Rhaegar. The idea of the son killing the father is presented in Jon chapters again in Ygritte’s story of Bael the Bard, and Jon had these moments where new mentors challenge the old and he does revert to Ned’s teaching about looking into a man’s eyes before killing him. So, in spite of having a lot of additional influences, he hasn’t stopped being Ned’s son and it’s preposterous (to me) to imagine that he would upon the revelation of his biological dad.

Instead it seems that Jon will work to rectify some mistakes of his fathers (metaphorically killing them). Ned’s decisions left Arya and Sansa vulnerable, so I assume that Jon will be given the opportunity to rectify that mistake and protect the girls/the Starks. Rhaegar’s interest in Lyanna led to her death, so I assume Jon’s love for Sansa will save her. Instead of going to war against the Starks/rebels to secure Targ rule (like Rhaegar), Jon will be defending the Starks/Westeros (like Ned). I’m not sure if this is a total switched legacy idea, but part of this could be that Bran, son of a man who wasn’t concerned enough about the threat of the Others will defeat them while Jon, son of a man who was obsessed with it, won't be involved and instead kill the Targs, each picking up the other's father's role. I mean, I still have this fear Martin will romanticize Rhaegar in some way, but now that I think about it, Rhaegar's ambition was to grow the Targaryen family (prophecy baby) and Jon will end the Targs which feels like a direct repudiation of his father. And I mean that he will stop the Targ from reinstating the dynasty, I don't think rejecting his dad means he can't have children himself because Jon is meant (I think) to show us that it isn't about blood, it's about the beliefs/goals of these legacies/individuals.

All that interpretation aside, you're right. Jon has suffered for Ned's sin (fathering a bastard) for the majority of the series. If Jon is to be punished in the end, whatever circumstances Martin can concoct to justify it, it unavoidably will look like Jon suffered for something he couldn't help (and was a lie anyway), and then he will suffer for the truth, even though he can't help that either. I don't think Martin means to tell a story in which blood determines destiny no matter what your choices are, I think he's examining what people do with the legacies they're born into. Do they perpetuate it, reject it, redefine it? So it's a weird ending (if it his ending) since thus far, Jon is making selfless choices. He's the best of what Ned was and will only receive punishment for it. If we don't believe the show's endgame, all of that is different, obviously.

IMO, this mess of Jon learning he's a Targ and then having to fight them has always been the biggest argument for Jonsa. Something good has to be coming Jon’s way, something good has to happen as a result of parentage reveal or the next two books are just more misery for him. Jonsa is the one personally good thing that could come from this. Perhaps the only good thing if his ending is exile or going to the Watch. I would hate any ending in which Jon is punished, but that's because I'm not fond of tragedies. If Martin is determined to give Jon one, he would do his best to make it unavoidable, the price for peace and evidence of Jon's love and loyalty to the Starks, so I think he could make it something we cry over while thinking it's beautiful (in a way). The problem is the implication about blood damning characters that you highlighted and also the fact the he wants the Starks to be in positions of power. I don't know how he aovids the first and reconciles the second. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯