#like pov character can change the impacts and meeting but reduced to just the two options. which would you pick ??

[duckprintspress]

How to Edit an Over-Length Story Down to a Specific Word Count

One of the most wonderful things about writing as a hobby is that you never have to worry about the length of your story. You can be as self-indulgent as you want, make your prose the royalist of purples, include every single side story and extra thought that strikes your fancy. It’s your story, with no limits, and you can proceed with it as you wish.

When transitioning from casual writing to a more professional writing milieu, this changes. If you want to publish, odds are, you’ll need to write to a word count. If a flash fiction serial says, “1,000 words or less,” your story can’t be 1,025 and still qualify. If a website says, “we accept novellas ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 words,” your story will need to fall into that window. Even when you consider novel-length works, stories are expected to be a certain word count to fit neatly into specific genres - romance is usually around 80,000 words, young adult usually 50,000 to 80,000, debut novels usually have to be 100,000 words or less regardless of genre, etc. If you self-publish or work with a small press, you may be able to get away with breaking these “rules,” but it’s still worthwhile to learn to read your own writing critically with length in mind and learn to recognize what you do and do not need to make your story work - and then, if length isn’t an issue in your publishing setting, you can always decide after figuring out what’s non-essential to just keep everything anyway.

If you’re writing for fun? You literally never have to worry about your word count (well, except for sometimes in specific challenges that have minimum and/or maximum word counts), and as such, this post is probably not for you.

But, if you’re used to writing in the “throw in everything and the kitchen sink” way that’s common in fandom fanfiction circles, and you’re trying to transition only to be suddenly confronted with the reality that you’ve written 6,000 words for a short story project with a maximum word count of 5,000...well, we at Duck Prints Press have been there, we are in fact there right now, as we finish our stories for our upcoming anthology Add Magic to Taste and many of us wrote first drafts that were well over the maximum word count.

So, based on our experiences, here are our suggestions on approaches to help your story shorter...without losing the story you wanted to tell!

Cut weasel words (we wrote a whole post to help you learn how to do that!) such as unnecessary adverbs and adjectives, the “was ~ing” sentence structure, redundant time words such as “a moment later,” and many others.

When reviewing dialog, keep an eye out for “uh,” “er,” “I mean,” “well,” and other casual extra words. A small amount of that kind of language usage can make dialog more realistic, but a little goes a long way, and often a fair number of words can be removed by cutting these words, without negatively impacting your story at all.

Active voice almost always uses fewer words than passive voice, so try to use active voice more (but don’t forget that passive voice is important for varying up your sentence structures and keeping your story interesting, so don’t only write in active voice!).

Look for places where you can replace phrases with single words that mean the same thing. You can often save a lot of words by switching out phrases like “come back” for “return” and seeking out other places where one word can do the work of many.

Cut sentences that add atmosphere but don't forward the plot or grow your characters. (Obviously, use your judgement. Don't cut ALL the flavor, but start by going - I’ve got two sentences that are mostly flavor text - which adds more? And then delete the other, or combine them into one shorter sentence.)

Remove superfluous dialog tags. If it’s clear who’s talking, especially if it’s a conversation between only two people, you can cut all the he saids, she saids.

Look for places where you've written repetitively - at the most basic level, “ ‘hahaha,’ he laughed,” is an example, but repetition is often more subtle, like instances where you give information in once sentence, and then rephrase part or all of that sentence in the next one - it’s better to poke at the two sentences until you think of an effective, and more concise, way to make them into only one sentence. This also goes for scenes - if you’ve got two scenes that tend towards accomplishing the same plot-related goal, consider combining them into one scene.

Have a reason for every sentence, and even every sentence clause (as in, every comma insertion, every part of the sentence, every em dashed inclusion, that kind of thing). Ask yourself - what function does this serve? Have I met that function somewhere else? If it serves no function, or if it’s duplicative, consider cutting it. Or, the answer may be “none,” and you may choose to save it anyway - because it adds flavor, or is very in character for your PoV person, or any of a number of reasons. But if you’re saving it, make sure you’ve done so intentionally. It's important to be aware of what you're trying to do with your words, or else how can you recognize what to cut, and what not to cut?

Likewise, have a reason for every scene. They should all move the story along - whatever the story is, it doesn’t have to be “the end of the world,” your story can be simple and straightforward and sequential...but if you’re working to a word count, your scenes should still forward the story toward that end point. If the scene doesn’t contribute...you may not need them, or you may be able to fold it in with another scene, as suggested in item 6.

Review the worldbuilding you’ve included, and consider what you’re trying to accomplish with your story. A bit of worldbuilding outside of the bare essentials makes a story feel fleshed out, but again, a little can go a long way. If you’ve got lots of “fun” worldbuilding bits that don’t actually forward your plot and aren’t relevant to your characters, cut them. You can always put them as extras in your blog later, but they’ll just make your story clunky if you have a lot of them.

Beware of info-dumps. Often finding a more natural way to integrate that information - showing instead of telling in bits throughout the story - can help reduce word count.

Alternatively - if you over-show, and never tell, this will vastly increase your word count, so consider if there are any places in your story where you can gloss over the details in favor of a shorter more “tell-y” description. You don’t need to go into a minute description of every smile and laugh - sometimes it’s fine to just say, “she was happy” or “she frowned” without going into a long description of their reaction that makes the reader infer that they were happy. (Anyone who unconditionally says “show, don’t tell,” is giving you bad writing advice. It’s much more important to learn to recognize when showing is more appropriate, and when telling is more appropriate, because no story will function as a cohesive whole if it’s all one or all the other.)

If you’ve got long paragraphs, they’re often prime places to look for entire sentences to cut. Read them critically and consider what’s actually helping your story instead of just adding word count chonk.

Try reading some or all of the dialog out loud; if it gets boring, repetitive, or unnecessary, end your scene wherever you start to lose interest, and cut the dialog that came after. If necessary, add a sentence or two of description at the end to make sure the transition is abrupt, but honestly, you often won’t even need to do so - scenes that end at the final punchy point in a discussion often work very well.

Create a specific goal for a scene or chapter. Maybe it’s revealing a specific piece of information, or having a character discover a specific thing, or having a specific unexpected event occur, but, whatever it is, make sure you can say, “this scene/chapter is supposed to accomplish this.” Once you know what you’re trying to do, check if the scene met that goal, make any necessary changes to ensure it does, and cut things that don’t help the scene meet that goal.

Building on the previous one, you can do the same thing, but for your entire story. Starting from the beginning, re-outline the story scene-by-scene and/or chapter-by-chapter, picking out what the main “beats” and most important themes are, and then re-read your draft and make sure you’re hitting those clearly. Consider cutting out the pieces of your story that don’t contribute to those, and definitely cut the pieces that distract from those key moments (unless, of course, the distraction is the point.)

Re-read a section you think could be cut and see if any sentences snag your attention. Poke at that bit until you figure out why - often, it’s because the sentence is unnecessary, poorly worded, unclear, or otherwise superfluous. You can often rewrite the sentence to be clearer, or cut the sentence completely without negatively impacting your work.

Be prepared to cut your darlings; even if you love a sentence or dialog exchange or paragraph, if you are working to a strict word count and it doesn't add anything, it may have to go, and that's okay...even though yes, it will hurt, always, no matter how experienced a writer you are. (Tip? Save your original draft, and/or make a new word doc where you safely tuck your darlings in for the future. Second tip? If you really, really love it...find a way to save it, but understand that to do so, you’ll have to cut something else. It’s often wise to pick one or two favorites and sacrifice the rest to save the best ones. We are not saying “always cut your darlings.” That is terrible writing advice. Don’t always cut your darlings. Writing, and reading your own writing, should bring you joy, even when you’re doing it professionally.)

If you’re having trouble recognizing what in your own work CAN be cut, try implementing the above strategies in different places - cut things, and then re-read, and see how it works, and if it works at all. Sometimes, you’ll realize...you didn’t need any of what you cut. Other times, you’ll realize...it no longer feels like the story you were trying to tell. Fiddle with it until you figure out what you need for it to still feel like your story, and practice that kind of cutting until you get better at recognizing what can and can’t go without having to do as much tweaking.

Lastly...along the lines of the previous...understand that sometimes, cutting your story down to a certain word count will just be impossible. Some stories simply can’t be made very short, and others simply can’t be told at length. If you’re really struggling, it’s important to consider that your story just...isn’t going to work at that word count. And that’s okay. Go back to the drawing board, and try again - you’ll also get better at learning what stories you can tell, in your style, using your own writing voice, at different word counts. It’s not something you’ll just know how to do - that kind of estimating is a skill, just like all other writing abilities.

As with all our writing advice - there’s no one way to tackle cutting stories for length, and also, which of these strategies is most appropriate will depend on what kind of story you’re writing, how much over-length it is, what your target market is, your characters, and your personal writing style. Try different ones, and see which work for you - the most important aspect is to learn to read your own writing critically enough that you are able to recognize what you can cut, and then from that standpoint, use your expertise to decide what you should cut, which is definitely not always the same thing. Lots of details can be cut - but a story with all of the flavor and individuality removed should never be your goal.

Contributions to this post were made by @unforth, @jhoomwrites, @alecjmarsh, @shealynn88, @foxymoley, @willablythe, and @owlishintergalactic, and their input has been used with their knowledge and explicit permission. Thanks, everyone, for helping us consider different ways to shorten stories!

[ansheofthevalley]

I strongly disagree with the endings for the Stark Pack. Sansa and the Northern lords along with the Vale and Riverland's lords and armies travelled to what was left of King's Landing to get Jon back against a few, what, hundred foreign invaders with no leader? And just let Jon be punished for saving them all? And Arya, who had finally learned that she had family and a home to go to and protect would just leave to go sailing, something that was never really a part of her arc other than an off...

...handed comment to a stranger in Essos? And Bran, who's motives and POV have been non-existent for SEASONS is made king by a group of people who don't know him or what he is capable of at roughly 17 years old when there are other, better, candidates in the Dragon Pit and elsewhere. And Sansa, who's whole arc has been about her status as the Key to the North and how she only wants the love and safety her parents had is entirely alone at the end of the show? All of the Starks should be together.

Hi there!

One of the things I'm still trying to wrap my mind around is the Starklings ending. LBR, season 8 was a mess and it didn't make much sense narratively, especially if compared to previous seasons. It's as if D&D discarded seasons-worth of character growth and development in favor of shocking twists *pretends to be shocked*

But you asked about the Starks and their ending.

The thing about the Starklings is that they’re deeply connected to the idea of home, but more specifically, going back to that home. Some left by choice, others by force or circumstance. But the thing is that all the Starklings have been uprooted from their home early on. Their journey (and I’m simplifying the hell out of it) is about going back home. All the characters have their distinctive aspects to their journeys to set them apart. But if we were to say what their journey is about in just a few words, it’s that: it’s about coming home. But there’s also another factor: family. All of them had to be stripped of their identity as a Stark in one point (or more than once) of the story. (*) Since the moment they’re stripped from their home and identity, they start their journey on regaining both (we could make an exception with Bran since he’s tied with magic and is in pursuit of a higher calling) (**). But the themes of identity, present in their arcs trough their home and their family name, are there. 

(*) I just realized that all the surviving Starks had to renounce to/hide their identity in order to survive. All those who didn’t (Ned, Robb, Cat and Rickon) ended up dead.

(**) Bran’s journey can be identified with two archetypes: the Sage and the Magician. Both archetypes are connected to the sense of self. The Sage is about knowledge and a yearning of paradise (which is connected to his fight against the Night King and the Others). Basically, his journey is to bring back Summer through knowledge and an understanding of his powers. The Magician is about power and wanting to leave a mark in the world. We can see this with him when he’s north of the Wall with the TER.

Jon

D&D screwed up Jon's character and his development, reducing him to a mere mouthpiece to justify Dany's actions. The problem with Jon in S8 (which started in S7) is that. He was no longer treated as a protagonist but as a plot device, which can be said about all of the Starks.

Jon has huge identity issues, mainly because of his bastard status. He’s automatically set apart, even if his siblings and father did accept him and treated him as a trueborn son. The fact that he’s a bastard is a huge cross he carries, and it’s because of this he makes the choice to leave his home. For him, going to the Wall is a way to prove himself, to make others see that even a bastard can be honorable, but also to escape from the name “Snow”. At the Wall, all men are equal: it doesn’t matter where they come from or who they were before. At the Wall, they’re all equal. Or at least, that’s what he thought. 

Of course, he found a place where he belonged, people that made him feel like home. But all of those always ended up being taken from him. So, there was only thing for him to do: to go back to his real home, Winterfell, and be Jon Snow again. Because in the Night’s Watch he was “Lord Snow” and a brother of the NW, later Lord Commander. With the Wildlings he was “a crow” and later a traitor. But he really found himself in S6, when he took back Winterfell with Sansa and when she “made” him a Stark (by cloaking him). Of course, that came crushing down in the S8 premiere, when he finds out he’s the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. And that’s it. We don’t see how the RLJ reveal affected him, how much of an impact it had on his identity, which already was complicated, how it changed his family dynamics or his relationships with certain characters. The reveal, along with his character, were used as plot devices for another character. We never saw the conflict of his true identity and home be resolved, not explicitly.

Jon's ending (him being sent to the Wall as "punishment" for killing Daenerys) makes little sense. As you said, he’s punished for killing Daenerys, instead of, IDK, punishing him for participating in the Sack of King’s Landing. That was a war crime, and punishing him for said war crime would’ve made more sense (since GOT and ASOIAF are basically politics with ice zombies and dragons). I could understand if the lords (and Greyworm, for some inexplicable reason) wanted to punish him for kinslaying. We know it’s bad and that it’s frowned upon in Westerosi culture. If that were the reason for his exile, I could understand it (and this is what D&D went with). But they completely undermine this by basically awarding Tyrion with everything he ever wanted for doing the same and admitting to killing his father in front of the nobility of Westeros five minutes earlier. It doesn’t matter if Tyrion suddenly sees these things as burdens. It doesn’t change the fact that these are the very things he was after when the show started. If the punishment for kinslaying is exile, then exile every person that committed that crime, which is both Jon and Tyrion. If the punishment for enabling and participating in the Sack of King’s Landing is exile, then exile every person that took part in it, that means Jon, Tyrion and Dany’s remaining army. You can’t punish some and award others when they did the same thing. That’s bad writing. But it’s known D&D are huge Tyrion fans (to the point of making him a completely different character), so...

The fact that he was made to leave his home and spend his life at the Wall (even if there were people that respected him there) is underwhelming. He yearned for a home, for a family, for an identity. And what better way to give him all that than to have the people he loves to accept him for who he is, not the name he carries? If it were up to me, Jon would’ve ended up in Winterfell, stripped from all titles, both from his Targaryen and Stark lineage. I would’ve made him remain, Jon Snow because that’s who he is. Because, ultimately, it doesn’t matter who fathered him. His loyalties always were with the Starks. But in the end, he would’ve had a chance to show it, a chance to defend and fight for his family and House. All while remaining a Snow. But for that to happen Jon needed a POV; the Starklings needed their POV; their dynamics needed to be shown, not hinted at; Jon needed to be shown interacting with other characters, not just Daenerys; the RLJ needed to be centered around him, not Daenerys.

Because, ultimately, that’s why the final season failed to deliver a satisfactory end to the story: it was centered around the wrong character. Because D&D chose not to comment in-universe on Dany’s morally gray actions, they had to double down in the last two seasons, so the GA wouldn’t be caught off guard with her “turn to darkness”. And because they centered S7 and 8 around her, all of the plot points that were established in previous seasons were used as a means to explain her “turn”, even when they shouldn’t have. RLJ was never about her. RLJ would’ve served as a perfect explanation of why Jon did what he did if it had been used from his POV. But it wasn’t. It was used as a plot device for the Dark!Dany arc. And we ended up with an unsatisfactory S8 that felt off.

Arya

Arya’s complete arc was about family and how revenge and justice can blur a little bit. When she’s forced to hide her true identity, she embarks on a journey that’s related to defining herself as a person: she’s Arya Stark, then she’s Arry, then she’s No One and finally, she’s Arya Stark again. It’s a turbulent journey in which she deals with revenge and justice, and she manages to fight for justice once she reclaims her identity as Arya Stark of Winterfell. Her journey has always been about that: identity. We meet her as an outsider in her own family group, an outcast. It would’ve been reasonable to go full circle, and show Arya to the audience being with her family, show her being accepted just as she is (things that made her an outsider in the beginning). Arya’s journey is a typical Heroine’s Journey.

She starts the series with a separation of the femenine. We see her dislike for feminine things and her desire to do what her brothers do. And taking her ending to Winterfell would’ve displayed perfectly the integration of the masculine (her being a water dancer and a faceless man) with the femenine (her new relationship with her sister and playing a role in Sansa’s court). She’d be right where she started, but different. She’d be accepted and valued for who she is. But we know GRRM is going for the bittersweet ending, and that ending is too sweet an ending for George’s liking, I imagine. But in my opinion, you can always bring a bittersweet sense to the ending by showing how hard it is to rebuild their world. Because that’s what they’ll all have to do: rebuild. These characters started the series are children or teenagers, and by the end they have the responsability to rebuild what other people have destroyed. Give the audience a glimpse of the hardships to come, show them that once it ends it won’t be sunshine and rainbows, but actual hard work. But then again, that’s just my opinion.

Bran

It’s a bit complicated for me when it comes to disscussing Bran’s ending. The thing is, D&D never understood Bran’s character. That’s why his connection to magical elements are downplayed a lot. That’s why he was missing a whole season. Because D&D didn’t understand his character and ultimately treated him as a plot device, mainly for the RLJ reveal. That’s why so many people have problems accepting him ending up as King, I think. Because it feels out of nowhere.

TBH, I’m on the fence regarding his ending. Not because I can’t see him as King, but because of D&D’s inconsistent writing. From S1 he’s linked to the magical aspects of the story but D&D downplayed those aspects so hard that ultimately Bran’s story fell generic. Then you have the season in which he was missing, explained as “him training to be the TER”. But then he’s brought back because he’s important again. We see him train with the TER, understand his powers of greenseeing a bit more and his link to the Night King. But then again, his character does a one-eighty, and by the end of S6 and the entirety of S7 he turns out to be a soulless, omnipresent God rather than the boy that wanted to fly. Sure, it can be “justified” if you go with the “Bran died in the TER cave” way of thinking. But what bugs me the most of D&D’s writing of Bran is that he stated that he wasn’t capable of being Lord of Winterfell, simply because he wasn’t Bran Stark anymore. He did that twice: once in S7 when Sansa gave him the title back (his claim surpasses Sansa’s since he’s a man) and once again in S8 when Tyrion offers him the chance to be Lord and Warden if he wants to (to ensure little to no resistance from the North respecting Daenerys). He declines both times, he gives his reasons. But in the series finale, when Tyrion proposes him as King, he’s suddenly Bran Stark again and able to rule? It doesn’t make sense. The thing is that D&D fucked up when it came to Bran, and the story overall suffered for it.

Sansa

Sansa’s arc has been defined by family and belonging, as all of the Starklings. But what differentiates her arc to those of her siblings is the fact that time and time again, she was referenced as “The Key to the North” aka the future of House Stark. The fact that she starts the series as a dreamer, a feminine girl that yearns for a family of her own and a valiant husband that loves and respects her, only for those dreams to be beaten out of her almost immediately, leads you to believe her arc will come full circle in a way in the end. But since GRRM is going for the bittersweet ending, maybe it was never in Sansa’s cards for her to end up married and having the family she always wanted, but at least she could be surrounded by her remaining family or those she considers family.

Yes, in the end, she “won”. She’s home and she’s Queen in her own right. But her journey feels inconclusive. Her arc is the only one tied to the themes of marriage and family (in the sense of having her own children) in a romantic way. She was defined as a character through her womanhood, as @esther-dot said. But not once she has had a romantic partner. Which really leaves you thinking, since minor characters like Bronn and Pod had “romantic” partners. But not Sansa. She was punished by the narrative for wanting to be a wife and a mother.

She was married off twice, she was groomed and raped. We see her go from a girl with dreams to a suffering woman, all because of her name and her being “the Key to the North”. She has basically been put through all that suffering and pain because of her identity. And even after all that, she ended up alone. She has not known what a consensual relationship is, what a healthy romantic relationship is like.

Even if we abstain from talking about romantic relationships, ever since leaving King’s Landing, all she wanted was to go home and rebuild it for her family. Since reuniting with her siblings, all she wanted was to take care of her family, for all of them to be a pack. After having her isolated and surrounded by enemies, it would’ve been satisfying to know that at least she was now surrounded by family and/or friends. But no, she ends up alone, after just finding Jon, Bran and Arya, after feeling safe with Brienne.

TL;DR: D&D fucked up big time by forgetting that the Starks always were the heart of the story. They used them as plot devices to reach their ending, which is why the Starks’ endings feel hollow because it was not driven by the characters themselves but by the writers’ need to reach the finish line. So, even if they ended the Game alive and well and in places of power, it feels unearned in some ways, nonsensical in others.

Thanks for the ask!

[him-e]

anon asks:

Hi! I really enjoy your asoiaf m/eta - I was wondering, do you think that Jaime is on his best way to become Tywins "true heir", a scenario in which Brienne has a role similar to Joanna's? I.e. Jaime's genuine affection for her becomes his only sympathetic quality in the end, much like Tywin's genuine love for his wife appears to have been is only truly likable trait? Not to reduce Brienne (or Joanna) to that alone, but it would emphasize Jaime's doom and her rise nicely.

Hi, thank you! A couple things first, before I sink my teeth into the rest:

a) this is in no way an objective statement, but no matter how his arc ends, even if it goes the darkest way possible, Jaime has plenty of sympathetic traits (not necessarily qualities, mind) that allow me to find him relatable, and this makes him ALREADY incomparable with Tywin;

b) I don’t believe in love being a sympathetic quality or a mitigating factor per se, and I don’t think people who love are necessarily one step closer to *goodness* than people who don’t. For example, while I don’t see Stannis as necessarily incapable of love—I quite like the idea that under his stern facade there’s a lot of feelings, for his child, for Jon, for Davos, and maybe even for Melisandre, on top of his complex issues with his own brothers—even if we stick to the interpretation of Stannis as a loveless character, I don’t think this diminishes his fundamental goodness. On the other hand, there are the Lannisters, who are fifty shades of questionable, but they ALLL love so much!

The truth is that anyone can feel love. It’s not that special, you know? It’s just a human emotion—powerful, but not inherently moral. Not intrinsically a virtue, an end to be pursued at all costs, in itself and for itself, as traditional romantic narratives would want you to believe.

This is particularly true for a character like Jaime, who has been established as a lover since his first notable appearance in the books.

“The things I do for love (he said with loathing)” is probably his most iconic line, and it’s no coincidence that it’s associated to the TERRIBLEST, EVILEST THING he’s ever done (no irony). Jaime's debut in asoiaf is tied to the concept that lovers aren’t ALWAYS right just because they love, and to some extent the character himself is aware of it ("loathing” refers not to Bran, whom Jaime has really no reason to loathe lol, but to “the things I do”, aka the repulsive action he’s about to commit in the name of his love for Cersei). So the idea that Jaime’s ~one and only~ sympathetic quality can be his love for Brienne, when loving is both his original sin and virtually the only thing he’s done in his life, doesn’t work for me. (you might argue: but Jaime’s love for Cersei is incestuous and Badwrong, and Cersei herself is Bad whereas Brienne is Good! yeah, I think that line of reasoning is a slippery slope, because it places all the emphasis and the responsibility on who you love rather than how you love, as if the moral fiber and ~appropriateness~ of the object of your love is what makes your love noble. Mind, this is a very courtly-romance logic, so it’s nothing especially offensive, but I still don’t like its implications. It runs a bit too close to “bad people don’t deserve to be loved” to suit me).

with that said…

denying the centrality of love in these novels would be a terrible mistake. George is a romantic, and his attitude towards some romantic tropes isn’t deconstructionist at all, but rather a vibrant (albeit complex) celebration of them. Yet not all fictional depictions of romantic love are equal: I think Jaime/Brienne and Tywin/Joanna belong to two different genres. 

Jaime/Brienne is essentially a fairytale. It’s, of course, Beauty and the Beast. A tale about transformative love—love as acceptance of the other, love as understanding of the other, love as healing, love as the driving force for a radical viewpoint shift, a change of attitude and lifestyle (symbolized in the original tale by the physical metamorphosis of the Beast), love as having an actual positive impact on the world. As everyone knows, Martin loves the trope and makes it integral, more or less subtly, to several dynamics throughout the books. It has been stated repeatedly, even by the author himself, that Jaime and Brienne is one of those; the only question is whether there will be a subversion, and to which degree. Personally I’ve always seen as subversive the way GRRM gets rid of the problematic goodness = beauty equation (that exists in the original because fairytales are highly archetypal and symbolic and they rely heavily on simple visual associations, but they’re also inevitably intertwined with societal/cultural biases and the primordial fear of the imperfect and the deviant) and throws in the mix a Beauty who is actually Super Ugly! and a Beast who is a splendid, glorious, golden lion. When the Beauty is the Beast and the Beast is the Beauty, and the gender stereotypes inherent to the trope are repeatedly broken, the metamorphosis is necessarily mutual.

Can this fairytale have a tragic ending? Absolutely. Martin is a master at this—it’s actually what his deconstruction is about, taking fantasy/fairytale tropes and adapting them to completely different genres, causing that sort of cognitive dissonance in the reader, who isn’t used to see THAT trope take THAT form (see: “Martin kills all the heroes!”). However, whatever the deconstruction at work is in JB’s case, i doubt it will end up completely negating the transformative nature of the trope itself. But let’s set this aside for now, because it’s not relevant to the discussion.

Tywin/Joanna is different in genre, scope, meaning, basic tropes. To begin with, I don’t see Joanna as the Beauty to Tywin’s Beast. There’s no clash between two conflicting worldviews here; their love isn’t of the transformative kind, it’s a love that cemented their established identity, rather than challenge it. I think this pairing is written around a completely different cluster of tropes—the power couple, the “behind a powerful man there’s always a powerful woman”, and the dead mother/wife. I like to think of Joanna’s death as transformative in the sense that it represents the loss of the feminine---it creates an unbalance in an already awfully masculine-coded family, whose aftershocks still affect the lives of all her children even decades later. In short, Tywin/Joanna is a tragedy.

(seriously: if you’re looking for a parallel to Tywin/Joanna in Jaime’s narrative, a “humanizing the monster” kind of love, look no further than Jaime/Cersei. Jaime’s love for Cersei humanizes him, and Cersei’s love for Jaime (and her children) humanizes her. Unfortunately, the narrative makes it clear that theirs is a (figuratively) sterile, doomed kind of love. Like in a greek tragedy, we feel sympathy as we clutch our chests in anticipation for its inevitable collapse. Fate did to Tywin/Joanna what a downward spiral of irreconcilable differences, deep-seated grudges and destructive actions did to Jaime/Cersei, but the end point is equally tragic.)

Also: Jaime’s BATB dynamic with Brienne is not a “sympathetic” footnote squeezed in between his villain arc A and villain arc B, nor something that can be reduced to “his only likable trait” and waved off. It’s a crucial aspect of his arc (and Brienne’s, who is—let’s not forget—a major player from AFFC on) and has ramifications on the overall plot (Oathkeeper, sending Brienne after Sansa, Lady Stoneheart, not to mention the discussion around honor and oaths that is a central theme in asoiaf). It’s not a coincidence that Jaime is introduced as a pov only after he meets Brienne. This dynamic is integral to the story George is telling.

In comparison, Joanna (and by extension Tywin/Joanna) is something that belongs to the past, and only affects our story indirectly. It’s a dead character and a dead relationship. And that’s what marks the biggest differences, not only with Jaime/Brienne but also with Jaime/Cersei. Joanna, in the context of the narrative, is remarkable for her ABSENCE. It’s her death, the void that she created much more than her life, that has an impact on the characters. It doesn’t help that Tywin, the one person who’s able to remember her as a fully fledged human being, isn’t a pov either. GRRM gives us only scraps, and it’s up to those of us who care to put together the pieces of the puzzle of who Joanna used to be. This is, of course, a despicably convenient treatment of a female character on the author’s part, even more despicable since it’s not an isolate case in asoiaf. There’s no easier way than a dead mother to fabricate a sad background for your protagonist, and it also solves the problem of making her fit within the narrative, giving her an actual personality and things to do, etc. We expect better from a writer of Martin’s calibre, and that’s where the criticism comes from.

But lazy sexist writing aside, why does George give us so little?

I think it’s (in no small part) because he understands the power of certain romantic tropes, how they seduce the reader’s imagination—how humanizing they are. Tywin’s love for Joanna and Joanna’s love for Tywin, if explored in depth, would humanize Tywin to the nth degree.

But Tywin isn’t supposed to be given the sympathetic treatment. Of course, GRRM knows better than make him a cardboard villain, so he gives him nuance, he gives him contradictions, among which there’s a dead wife he loved fiercely. But he doesn’t flesh it out. He doesn’t give us a detailed story, only scattered bits and pieces, generally second and third hand information. This relationship isn’t made for the stage but for behind the curtains, because Tywin’s ~feelings~ need to remain veiled and largely inaccessible to us, just as his inner monologue is: we aren’t supposed to sympathize.

Jaime, on the other hand? Jaime gets a pov and TWO romantic relationships fleshed out in depth, one of which is a BATB dynamic with a heroine. His heart is on stage for everyone to see in a way Tywin’s heart isn’t—cannot be. I think it’s essential to recognize that Jaime and Tywin occupy different spaces in the narrative, and their potential to be seen as sympathetic characters is largely different. It’s hard for me not to see authorial intent in the way Jaime is perceived VS how Tywin is perceived.

This brings me to the other question you raised, if Jaime is on his way to become Tywin’s true heir. I can only try to answer this is by looking at what motivates him, at what could be a significant and satisfying resolution of the issues his character raises. 

Jaime never cared for power but, like every Lannister, he strives for greatness. Now that that greatness is unachievable through his swordfighting skills, he’s looking in other directions, other possible fields to excel in. One of those is certainly Tywin: family. The other is knighthood: his other family. Both failed him, and he failed them both. The way Jaime failed knighthood is obvious to everyone, but the way he failed his ~responsibility~ towards house Lannister is subtler: by trading his birthright for a place at Cersei’s side, he basically washed his hands clean, giving Tywin free rein to further hate and abuse Tyrion in an escalation of desperate and delusional attempts to avert the latter’s ascension as heir to Casterly Rock, that climaxed with Tyrion being accused of regicide and Tywin’s death. There’s a great image in Jaime’s narrative, of the crimson and gold Lannister sigil VS the white shield of the kingsguard, but the real question isn’t which one Jaime will eventually /choose/... it’s whether he’ll ever realize he can be NEITHER. 

The great lion of Lannister? That’s Tyrion. Every attempt to turn the clock back is futile. The Rock is Tyrion’s by right since the moment Jaime chose to step back and join the Kingsguard for life.

And the white shield… is Brienne. It’s always been her.

a scenario in which Brienne has a role similar to Joanna’s […] would emphasize Jaime’s doom and her rise nicely

But is Jaime Tywin in this scenario, or is he Joanna?

Because Joanna died so that Tywin could rise as the character we all know (once again, I side-eye the idea of Joanna being Tywin’s “conscience” or her death being his ~villain origin story~, but it certainly made him more unbalanced). For the parallel to work, Brienne has to die for Jaime to rise (as a true villain, as his father’s heir, as Cersei’s valonqar, whatever), which has been speculated, and which I’m aggressively AGAINST. Because Brienne is the next generation, Brienne is a character who can have a REAL positive impact on the world, while Jaime… let’s be real, Jaime is a relic. He’s a relic of Robert’s rebellion, of a time that doesn’t exist anymore. The “Greatness” ship has sailed for him long ago: 

he’s never going to do anything as remarkable and controversial as murdering Aerys (oh sure, there’s Cersei, but I wouldn’t consider killing her an accomplishment. A mediocre rehash of his one and only teenage hit, at best)

he’s never going to be Arthur Dayne, either. Who the fuck wants to be Arthur Dayne anyway? That guy kept a pregnant girl prisoner. Being THAT guy would be only a regression for Jaime. He understood that there are orders you can’t follow at seventeen, why should he revert to performing his duty uncritically at thirty-five?

oh, and of course, he’s not going to outmatch Tywin. DUH, he’s TRYING, but it isn’t a primary concern or a central motivation for him the way it is for Cersei, for example. Everything he accomplishes in his military campaign in the Riverlands, he does only because people fear Tywin’s shadow, not his own. We can talk until next week about whether the trebuchet threat crowns him as Tywin’s true successor, or is actually a strategy more similar to the way Jon and Dany (and Ned) use their enemies’ children to maintain THEIR peace terms (which are fair and righteous whereas Jaime’s aren’t, and that makes all the difference of the world, or not, ymmv!), but what really matters is how his military campaign ends: he dumps garrison, orders and all without a note as soon as girlfriend shows up with a missing cheek and a quest to fulfill. It’s not that he lacks the intelligence or the ferocity to follow Tywin’s steps—he lacks the resolve. He lacks the commitment, because he’s always, perpetually, split in two.

I think it’s that split, and his ultimately futile attempts to become great at one thing or the other when BOTH are no longer available for him, that is the central obstacle that Jaime needs to overcome. Because Jaime wants Honor and Glory, but you know what Honor and Glory are?

Two horses.

Enter the valonqar impasse, and a lot of speculation on Jaime focuses on how he will ~choose violence~. He’ll drop all pretenses of honor, forget about Goldenhand the Just, (optionally) embrace his role as a Lannister commander and dig his own grave in a pointless, doomed last stand to hold Casterly Rock from Tyrion’s attack, and when it falls, kill Cersei and himself. And to be honest, a lot of this sounds plausible enough—I think it’s almost a given that at some point he goes back to Casterly Rock, has a last confrontation with Tyrion, and yeah, likely kills Cersei. 

But it’s a tad too close to Tywin’s wishes to suit me: sure, Tywin would never want Jaime to kill Cersei and commit suicide, but would he want him to defend Casterly Rock against Tyrion? Fuck yes. He’d be DELIGHTED to see Jaime step up as his ~heir~ and fight against his own paranoia of Tyrion the monster child eating the Rock from the inside just like he devoured Joanna’s life. The greatest irony about Tywin is that the kid he wanted to be his heir couldn’t be more ill-suited for the role, whereas it’s the other two—the girl and the dwarf—who deserve to claim that role for themselves. Why change that in the end? More to the point, how does Brienne factor in this? What kind of impact does she leave? Jaime’s resolve to embrace his role as the heir to Lannister does not, in any shape or form, need Brienne to happen. Nor does his choice to fight against Tyrion, or to murder Cersei. Tyrion confessed Joffrey’s murder, and the relationship with Cersei was meant to go to shit since the moment Jaime lost his hand and stopped being her perfect mirror, possibly even earlier. Remove Brienne from Jaime’s entire timeline, and you still have basically the same arc. OF COURSE, Brienne’s importance on the story doesn’t hinge on her impact on Jaime’s narrative. But I wonder what’s the point---like, structurally---of writing a BATB dynamic where transformative love is a crucial aspect, and end it with “and so they parted ways and each one continued to do the shit THEY WERE GOING TO DO ANYWAY, Brienne as the knight who believes in vows and Jaime as... whatever Jaime’s up to”. Bruh, what a waste of narrative space.

And this is where I switch to purely speculative/wish fulfillment mode, so, HANDLE WITH CAUTION, lol. I think Jaime will reject both Honor and Glory and die as the Kingslayer, as nobody’s heir, as the Lannister who lost the Rock, unredeemed… in the eyes of everyone but us, and whoever will be holding his hand in the last moment.

A few weeks ago, I went to see Logan. As I watched Wolverine sacrifice himself so that his daughter and the new generation of heroes could, well, inherit the world, so that they could have a chance for redemption when it’s too late for him, I thought, THIS, this is I want from Jaime. To die, but not before he’s pushed HIS heir forward, the person who will save the world, who will be the hero he cannot be. To “plant seeds in a garden you never get to see”. Unlike Joanna, who had no choice in this nor any idea of how important Tyrion was going to be for the world, I want it to be Jaime’s decision. This is the only way we can go back to “the things I do for love” and redeem that statement.

Because it’s that statement, even more than Jaime himself, that needs redemption. What matters isn’t the “for love” part, it’s the “do”. See, Jaime has already done something unequivocally good for love. He jumped in a bearpit and saved Brienne. So why are we still having this debate? Because, well, the scope of that action was limited to him and Brienne, to that particular circumstance, and to the relationship between them. There’s still something egotistical in saving the life of someone you care for—it’s still a “I’m doing this because you are important to ME” logic. Me, me, me. The real heroism, the real sacrifice, is renouncing to the person you love—renouncing to your “dream of spring”, so that others can have it. It’s what Brienne does, when asked “sword or noose”. It DESTROYS her, but she INSTANTLY gets that her feelings of loyalty, devotion and, yes, love for Jaime are no justification for letting two innocent people die.

AND THIS IS WHAT MAKES HER THE REAL DEAL, FOLKS.

We still have to see how Jaime receives the choice she made. Badly, some argue, he’ll be pissed and she’ll fall from grace in his eyes, because what else can the Lady Stoneheart ordeal be if not a plot device to make Jaime go finally berserk, a set up for the valonqar? But I think the whole incident is going to leave Jaime genuinely Shook (TM). Not only because he’s suddenly getting all the receipts of why he’s a bad person in his face, not only because he’ll see what his father’s brilliant military logic has done to a formerly admirable woman like Catelyn, but also because Brienne’s lesson will HURT the way TRUTH hurts. He’s a person who’s sacrificed a lot for love, thinking it was worthwhile; Brienne’s choice will prove that it’s not. That he should have sacrificed his love to do the right thing, instead.

You need to serve something greater than your own emotions. This is the most important of Brienne’s lessons, and I think there’s a possibility that Jaime actually UNDERSTANDS it, because that would be the ULTIMATE change, for him. (so powerful that it could potentially break that thrice damned prophecy, even.) To see that his feelings, desires, hopes and dreams aren’t important. It’s neither Honor nor Glory, and in the end, it’s not even Love. It’s about doing the right thing, full stop.

I realize this is very fanficcy, but boy, do I love Jaime Lannister and want his arc to end in a not completely nihilistic way. :)

(sorry it took me so long!)