#way to miss GRRM’s point

[dragondream-ing]

Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension knows GRRM’s message in F&B is, in large part, that misogyny = bad. It may sound obvious but it is actually crucial to make this point out loud, in fact louder than the naysayers. The shitshow gave cover to a bunch of losers who vocally and unapologetically spew their misogyny. They’re out here claiming that reinforcing and supporting sexist tropes is subverting them.

Show TG “arguments” summarized:

Alicent: pure, behaved as expected, duty and sacrifice, muh tradition

Rhaenyra: wh0re, should’ve r*ped her gay husband for pure-blooded legitimate children, used her vagina wrong, didn’t know her place

Not to mention they minimize book Alicent to an evil stepmother—another sexist af trope— because she was ambitious and ruthless. She was a schemer like Tywin and Roose and so many men in F&B and ASOIAF who are never described as one-dimensional. I’m sorry, a female character isn’t one-dimensional just because you can’t handle a woman that betrays and schemes and does evil. If you think making antagonistic women more moral and palatable is an improvement, I have news for you—that’s misogynistic af.

On top of that, we’ve all seen the vile things they say about Rhaenyra. They wish she died in childbirth, they call her fat and ugly, they relish the thought of her being subjected to intimate partner violence a la the shitshow, they salivate over the fact that her brother k!lls her because she dared to reject the notion that women can’t inherit.

It is hatred of women that do not perfectly conform in its baldest, most gleeful form, and these types think they should be safe from criticism because they’re aiming this loathing at fictional characters. Rhaenyra wasn’t even remotely a feminist, and in fact “conformed” in many ways, but the little bit she didn’t conform—that she had the audacity to believe she could be traditionally feminine and a mother and a lover and still be Queen in her own right—is enough for these people to wish death and abuse upon her. Because she’s not their perfect representation of a meek and dutiful woman, she deserves scorn, hatred, and violence. This is a sickness.

This level of hatred and the specifically gendered attacks don’t come from nowhere. Some people may be TG because they think the actors playing Aegon and Aemond are hot, or they aren’t doing anything more than consuming fast-food media, but there are enough people out there with hearts full of hatred for women and it shows. Then they come into the fandom and insist loud and proud that their vile interpretation is canon.

Like sweetie, you wouldn’t know canon if it smacked you upside the head, you’re just grasping so you can cover for the fact that you’re a misogynist. But we see you.

And yes, this was inspired by me seeing a thread of incredibly gross and sexist takes on Twitter.

[ladystoneboobs]

no of fence to jon snow fans who for some reason care about his exact age, but these discussions just annoy me no end. not only bc there's no way any weirwood flashbacks bran has to rhaegar/lyanna will come with time/datestamps, but also bc there's always comments like this:

SEVERAL turns of the moon (ie, months)?! have these people never seen a human baby before or just have no concept of their ages? even if we take into account travel time from the toj to wf, meaning jon was not a newborn too fresh out the oven when catelyn and robb arrived, there's still a difference between a newborn and a 3mo and an even bigger difference between those infants and an older baby 5-7mo. there's very good reasons these lines were cut. whatever birthdates can be worked out internally for jon and robb from when they're first mentioned as 15 and 16 don't matter in the end, bc grrm doesn't care about a consistent timeline and the actual text of catelyn's pov and ned's convo with robert about cheating on her should outweigh any guesstimates about jon's official nameday wrt robb's. catelyn may not have cared for jon, but she would sure as hell have noticed his nameday if it came before robb's and made him ned's firstborn. if jon's birthday canonically came before robb's then either ned's cover story would not involve adultery (not impossible for him to sire a bastard before his wedding), or he'd just give jon a new nameday along with his new name to fit the adultery lie. it makes no sense for him to lie about one and not the other, undermining the big lie with a little public clue of his story not adding up. whatever else she was as a stepmother, cat wasn't stupid and a bastard who was actually the eldest son being raised alongside her trueborn heir could be an even bigger insult than whether he was born of adultery or not.

BUT, the unknowability of jon's true birthday is not the only reason this annoys me, it's bc this is all based on the assumption that jon must be older since rhaegar/lyanna ran off together before ned married cat, as if both boys must have been conceived asap as robb canonically was when his parents consummated their marriage. and that's not how human reproduction works! even if you don't understand how fast babies grow in the first year, you should know that people who get pregnant do so through ovulation cycles and a lucky sperm finding an egg and all that, not just immediately getting knocked up as soon as one has p-in-v sex for the first time. not unless you only know mean girls sex ed where if you have sex you will get pregnant and die. (even tho lyanna did die, there's plenty of canon examples where pregnancy did not lead straight to death. also examples of people who did not get pregnant right away and even some who are/were sexually active and childless without always having moon tea on hand.) we can't know how long lyanna was having sex before that sperm+egg match happened or even how long she was with rhaegar before losing her technical virginity. if they were married, doesn't it make sense to think they didn't consummate their relationship until the wedding night either? that's the only leverage there is to ensure a status as wife rather than just mistress.

and while i just said grrm doesn't care about exact timelines and a lot is still foggy surrounding the rebellion and esp rhaegar, there is one timemarker wrt robert's rebellion he voluntarily threw in, time and time again: that stannis was besieged at storm's end for almost a whole year. that siege, which mind you, did not match the duration of the entire war. it only started after robert won his battles at gulltown and summerhall, returned to storm's end, and then went out and lost the battle of ashford, leaving his homeland open to the reachermen. the same siege which only ended when ned made a detour there after the sack of king's landing, before going to the toj. even if lyanna may not have given birth that exact day ned found her, she could only be waiting in that bloody bed for weeks at the most, not months. so if rhaegar knocked her up the very same night he carried her off and jon was still a newborn when ned found her after the siege of storm's end had ended, wouldn't that mean lyanna was pregnant for well over a year? that's not how human pregnancy works either! so, maybe that's proof that jon and robb, whichever order they were actually born in, were actually very close in age as babies, much closer than if they were both conceived asap.

and really, jon's actual birthdate does not matter imho, when he was raised not just as the bastard to robb's trueborn heir, but with robb also known by catelyn and the world as ned's firstborn (which he was, in any case, as jon was ned's nephew by birth). what difference could a birthdate before robb's make (even were there some means of discovery) after ned, cat, and robb are all dead? if one is looking only at his birth parents then he's only a firstborn child on lyanna's side, but definitely a second son on rhaegar's side. maybe he was always meant to be a second son with a not much older half-brother! even if the aegon fka young griff is not in fact rhaegar's son, he'll still be known as aegon vi targaryen, meaning jon will never be known as any father's elder son. if i may reference mean girls again, it's not going to happen.

[dragonseeds]

Yeah make it make sense, every day I log in here and see people cursing out Daemon while calling Aegon their silly little guy.

i rarely see this anymore because my dash is so curated and i have half the fandom blocked (i’m trying to be in my lucille bluth i won’t hear it and i won’t respond to it era) but lmfaooo i know what you’re talking about. many people absolutely incapable of being normal about daemon despite continually wishing everyone on team black was on his level!

no one has to like him—and i obviously get why some people wouldn’t—but the difference in the way people talk about him and aegon really is sooo funny because it always comes across to me as like “our sacred canonical rapist who is just a silly boy actually so we’re going to ignore that vs your vile groomer who shouldn’t be around children or on my blog and i WILL bring this up every time i am forced to mention him.” like…. the dissonance? anyway all of these characters are insane and fun and compelling to me. i love them all (rhaenyra alicent dameon most), so i really don’t get it.

[benjenren]

my new tinfoil theory, based solely on daemon mentioning unclaimed dragons and the camera cutting to rhaena, is that hotd is gonna delete nettles from the narrative and give her role to rhaena.

do I think this will actually happen? no. but it would be very funny if the answer to "how will they handle nettles??" is simply "no nettles."

buuut this shot is probably just setting up rhaena trying and failing to claim a dragon and then rando girl nettles coming in and claiming a badass dragon and rhaena looking vaguely sad in the background while nettles gets all the attention from her dad/actual characterization that she never got

[mxwhore]

I'm this fucjing close to doing an asoiaf/tma crossover where jon is a spooky king and martin his sworn sword or some shit

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

On the "Choose a Side" Discourse

With HBO leaning veryyyy heavily into "pick a side" for their promos, the "no team" people are crawling out of the woodwork. I want to preface this post by saying that I'm not saying people shouldn't have favorite characters who aren't mine, nor that people should just be totally invested in fandom discourse.

I already made a post about the issues with the arguments of the "no team" people, so I'll just summarize my thoughts from that real quick. A majority of their arguments and metas are thinly veiled anti Rhaenyra thoughts. That's still true of this new wave of this group.

Now, one thing I will agree with them on is: GRRM did not write this story to be one of choose a side. However, that is not because the Blacks and the Greens are equally bad or the Targaryens are all evil. No, it's because the Greens were always in the wrong and GRRM makes this abundantly clear to us in F&B.

Let's look at some facts from the Dance. While male primogeniture is tradition, it's not the law; the king's word is law, something ASOIAF has established time and again. The Greens took the throne through underhanded ways. They left Viserys' body to rot for days while they prepared for Aegon's coronation to prevent Rhaenyra from learning and coming to KL. They forced the smallfolk to attend and most didn't cheer for Aegon, with some even calling for Rhaenyra while most were confused and angry.

Aemond drew first blood by killing the unarmed thirteen year old envoy, Lucerys Velaryon. A majority of the realm declared for Rhaenyra; 53 houses supported her, while only 28 supported Aegon. The Greens committed the greatest atrocities of the Dance: Aemond burning the Riverlands and Daeron massacring Tumbleton. They also committed the greater number of atrocities.

The Greens also lost the war. The Blacks weren't just fighting for Rhaenyra, they fought for her heirs as well. This is why they swore to her and Jacaerys; later for Aegon III after the deaths of his older brothers. The Black forces continued to fight after Rhaenyra's murder and took KL. Aegon was murdered by his own men when the Blacks were marching on KL; in other words, the Greens knew they were beat, so they killed Aegon in an attempt to save themselves. Since Aegon left no heirs aside from Jaehaera, Aegon III was crowned and married to Jaehaera. The Blacks won the war.

Aegon the Usurper's bloodline is destroyed with the deaths of Jaehaera and Gaemon Palehair. This is the final affirmation of the Greens being in the wrong. GRRM's books punish usurpers by wiping out their bloodlines; Maegor and Robert Baratheon being the most obvious examples. Aegon and all the Greens have no descendants, their bloodline is dead.

Rhaenyra's bloodline, on the other hand, continues all the way through to the main series. Daenerys Targaryen, the most powerful character in the series, is her descendant, as is Jon Snow (unconfirmed as of now in the books) who is another of the key five. Rhaenyra may have died, but her faction won the war and her bloodline will save the world through her two greatest descendants (alongside the rest of the key five).

The Dance of the Dragons is, ultimately, a story of the damage the patriarchy does and how misogyny is destructive to the world. The Dance caused the death of the dragons and a great loss of power for women in the realm. Queen consorts after Rhaenyra had markedly less power and there was a drop in female leaders of the great houses. The loss of the dragons caused the weakening of magic in the world as a whole.

The Dance isn't about who your favorite war criminal is, nor is it about the evil of the Targaryens. It's about misogyny; something HOTD seems to have forgotten. Even before they started pushing TB vs TG so hard, they still missed the point.

It doesn't matter that Rhaenyra isn't a perfect, or even a good, person. It doesn't matter that Rhaenyra is non-conforming, plays the political game, and exploits her father's favor. Rhaenyra could have been as pious and well-behaved as Naerys and the Greens still would have usurped her. Rhaenyra could have had children with Laenor, and still the Greens would have usurped her. HOTD tries to paint the usurpation as partially being on Rhaenyra and her choices, but nothing Rhaenyra could have done would have been good enough.

The Blacks are the protagonists of the Dance. Are they perfect? No. Are they heroes? No. GRRM loves his gray characters, the Blacks are no exception. If you people want a story with black and white morality and perfect protagonists, go read another book. Just because people aren't perfect and don't operate exclusively in what's right according to our modern standards doesn't mean they aren't the protagonists.

In conclusion: there isn't a TB vs TG discourse in the Dance because the Greens are the antagonists and completely in the wrong. The point of the Dance is that the misogyny of the Greens damaged the realm. Rhaenyra is the rightful queen, there is no actual argument for Aegon or any of his allies.

Rhaenyra is the rightful queen to Westeros, go cry to George if you don't like it.

[racefortheironthrone]

Hello, I’ve a part asoiaf part medieval history question. So despite the strict gender roles, we know that women (at least noble women) can enjoy some “male” activities like horse riding and some kinds of hunting (Cat says Arya can have a hunting hawk). Are there any other “male” activities women can partake too without being judged about it, or even encouraged to do so (both in Westeros and real world)?

So as medievalists and historians of gender have pointed out, ASOIAF is far more restrictive for women than actual medieval Europe. I'm actually going to leave aside the situation of noblewoman for a second, because the vast majority of women were not nobles and their experience of gender would be radically different.

What counted as "male activities" for example would vary enormously by location (rural vs. urban) and thus occupation (farmer vs. artisan). Among the peasantry, while men tended to work in the fields and concentrated on cereal-crop production and women tended to do the manifold work of maintaining the home, the reality is that the irregular nature of agricultural labor meant that in times of high demand (especially spring sowing and autumn harvest) it was a matter of survival for every single member of the household to work in the fields. So women absolutely knew how to work a plow, and swing a scythe.

As for the urban worker, while there was also a high degree of gender segregation by occupation and guilds could often be quite misogynistic when it came to trying to masculinize trades (especially those involving higher rates of capital investment), it was also true that the entire household was expected to contribute their labor, so that wives, daughters, collateral female relatives, and female servants picked up the trade alongside their male counterpart. Moreover, as biased towards men as guilds could be, they were even more committed to the principle that guild businesses were family businesses, and so in situations where a master artisan had only daughters or died childless or died with underage heirs, it was absolutely routine for guilds to admit daughters and widows as guild members, indeed usually at the rank of master, all so that the business could remain in the same family. This is why medievalists can point to so many examples of women who worked in skilled trades, often at a high level.

That's what I think GRRM's portrait of medieval society is missing: an entire world of women in business, working elbow-to-elbow with men to make a living.

As for noblewomen, part of the difficulty is that a big part of being a noble was not doing stuff - not working for a living, chiefly - and instead engaging in leisure activities as much as possible. And women were very much a part of those activities (indeed, for many of them the point was to mingle with eligible people of the opposite gender), whether that's feasting, dancing, hunting, hawking, theater and other entertainments, fireworks, tourneys and jousts, etc.

However, women were also engaged in the main "occupations" of the nobility - estate management and politics - way more than GRRM really takes note of. To begin with, as even GRRM acknowledges to some extent, the lady of the house was expected to take an active role in running the house, which meant managing servants, keeping track of accounts payable and receivable, making sure the supplies arrive on time and in the right quality and quantity, keeping an eye on maintenance and repairs (with the help of servants, natch), etc.

Given that even the manor houses of the nobility were units of economic production, the lady of the house would also be responsible for oversight of how the house was doing with its pigs, goats, chickens and pigeons and geese, bees (because beeswax and honey were really important commodities), sheep, and so on, and what kind of figures they were pulling down at the mill and the weir, and so forth.

As medievalists have known for a long time, this list of duties got even longer whenever the lord of the house was away at war or on business, when the lady would be expected to pick up all his work too - which means making sure the rents and taxes get paid, deciding which fields to distribute manpower to and when, dealing with legal disputes in the manorial court, and so on. And if the war came home, the lady of the house was expected to lead the defense of the castle and there are many, many examples of noblewomen who had to organize sieges that lasted months and even years.

However, we also have to consider the impact of inheritance by birth and the inherent randomness of sex at birth - as much as they tried to avoid it, plenty of noble houses ended up with female heirs or in the hands of widows. Most of the time in most countries, women could and did inherit (or at the very least their male children and relatives could inherit through them) titles and fiefdoms, and while their husbands would often take on overlordship de jure uxoris, unmarried women and widows very much exercised their authority as the Lady or Baroness or Countess or whatever, and history is also full of women who were extremely influential in medieval politics and backed up their influence by any means necessary.

[fromtheseventhhell]

I'm not sure how to get it into people's heads that Arya is a female character. She's not a boy, not nonbinary, trans, agender, or genderless. I don't intend this in a way to be negative or wanky, but her girlhood is imbedded within her character. The problem isn't that Arya stans are missing the point by overemphasizing her femininity and wanting her to be a barefoot tradwife baby making machine, but that we're stating it exists when the majority of fandom and the show itself have gone out of the way to minimize the relevancy of her gender. I'm fully convinced there are a lot of people who think Arya would be the exact same character had GRRM created her as a male character named Arry instead, perhaps they'd do a better job at acknowledging her importance.

What's most ironic to me is how these same fans will gush and coo over the sisters being more alike than we think, but only if it involves giving Arya's characteristics to Sansa. Well acktually, Sansa likes to ride horses just as much as Arya does! They're so alike uwu! But dare acknowledge that Arya has traits and aspects commonly associated to Sansa then not only does that get accusations of wanting Arya to become Sansa, but that it's solely about showing Sansa up and wanting her to grovel in Arya's shadow and superiority 🙄 Hypocrisy and projection showing itself.

Somewhat of an aside, but I recently saw a post on reddit complaining about the fact that all four of Daemon's children survived the Dance specifically focused on the fact that both Rhaena and Baela lived. According to the OP, one of them should've died and their post-war roles in the story should've been given to only one of them. Which at its core is really the main conflict between Sansa and Arya stans, no matter how much the Stansas want to cover their ears and play dumb. It's not about Arya stans projecting their sibling squabbles onto the two of them but simply the fact that it's not possible for two characters to fulfill the same role in the story, specifically when it involves two female characters. The existence of two Stark sisters is an inconvenience for the people who want the story to revolve around Sansa.

I have to believe there's some bubbles that they don't want to admit will burst if TWOW will ever be released and that's why they cling to the idea that Arya stans are the delusional ones. They have to believe that the parts of Sansa's seasons 5-8 storyline they like came from GRRM instead of D&D or else their Jonsa and QITN fantasies will fall apart. I have no idea how someone can watch the scene where Sansa tells Arya she couldn't survive what she had while Arya can only sputter out that she was training and believe 1) it makes sense for their book characters and 2) D&D didn't blatantly favor Sansa and Sophie over Arya and Maisie.

This ask came literally seconds after I drafted a post talking about this exact topic and it's so wild to me that we were both up thinking about Arya + her girlhood and wanting to discuss it 🥹

As for this ask, you really hit the nail on the head. Arya's gender is an essential aspect of her journey but fandom ignores that because they've decided that there's only one "right" way to exist as a female character. Arya's self-esteem issues stem from her being a non-conforming Lady in a misogynistic society, she has to disguise herself as a boy in part because of the threat of sexual violence, in Harrenhal she is assigned gender-specific tasks/labor, political matches are made without her knowledge/consent, she is threatened with sexual violence multiple times, and even her role within the FM is influenced by her gender. Her being non-conforming doesn't mean she's the complete antithesis of everything feminine. The obsession with propping up Sansa has ruined people's ability to perceive complex female characters, ironically including Sansa herself. They genuinely would've respected Arya more if she had died passively rather than fight for her life and you can't tell me that isn't misogyny.

That Reddit post is a great example of how people genuinely can't (or refuse to) comprehend the idea of two female characters occupying the same space. Cause you're right, that is the root of the issue. I think the only reason they bother with the fake "Stark sisters uwu" crap is because they've backed themselves into a faux-feminist corner and they don't want to look hypocritical for disliking Arya. So instead, they pretend to care all while rewriting her to serve as Sansa's prop. This is also why so many Queen!Sansa truthers are also anti-Dany + think that Sansa becoming Queen depends on Dany's downfall. They desperately cling to the show as canon, when D&D have openly admitted they changed the story because they favored Sansa/Sophie. They're fine with how show!Arya is written because to them, that's exactly how she should be; a subservient lapdog for Sansa. TWOW is definitely going to ruin that illusion, and one of the reasons I'm optimistic about it being released is getting to see fandom's reaction.

[agentrouka-blog]

Dany fan here: I think other Dany fans think Jonsas are over the top with Dany hate because of pol!Jon. I follow many Jonsas because I’m perfectly fine with Jonsa. It’s not for me but I see the vision. That said I’m a bit of an unusual Dany fan in the sense that I’m a big fan of the Meereenese Knot essays and think the interpretation of Dany presented there is pretty spot on. I personally think Dany has a good heart but that circumstance and experience and terrible coping mechanisms have led her to act in villainous ways and whether or not a character is a villain is determined by their actions regardless of whatever goodness is in their heart. But anyway I do not like the pol!Jon theory. I think it’s out of character for Jon and needlessly cruel to Dany. I think it’s possible that he ultimately kills her and that could be fine and I don’t reject that theory, but I think the idea of Jon deceiving and sexually abusing Dany and then killing her for the sake of Sansa is what Dany fans think of when they think of over the top hate because they assume every Jonsa shipper also believes in pol!Jon.

I do understand why people thought Jon was deceiving Dany in the show though because their relationship was just so poorly executed and Kit and Emilia had no chemistry on screen. Imagine fucking up your show’s romance so badly that people think the script confirming that the love was mutual must have been tampered with.

Hi there!

(I think Dany is a compelling tragic villain, and it's lovely seeing someone loving her for it!)

I do think that pol!Jon (under duress, esentially) is a not unreasonable theory that grew out of the way the show presented their relationship. If there was sexual abuse I think it's fair to say it was in the hands of the more powerful party, though.

That said, I don't see it happening that way in the books at all and I think all characters will be better off for it. I agree it wouldn't feel right.

Certainly not in a punitive "you thought he would love you but he really loves Sansa, now die!!!" way. That cheapens jonsa as much as it cheapens the complexity of the conflict between Dany and Jon.

It's just a deeply uninteresting way to explore their existing conflict or their respective strengths. Not to be a hater but it's not exactly riveting literature watching Dany be manipulated by Daario and it's unlikely to be more so in a repeat performance with Jon who isn't even her type. Same as watching Jon go through a repeat of the abusive Ygritte plotline would be less than compelling.

We'll have instances of romantic manipulation. Littlefinger is practically begging Sansa to use his own obsession against him, and Arya gives us a preview when she lures Raff to his death wearing "Mercy's" face. That's been set up since the first book, and it works as a satisfying response to the way everyone has been telling Sansa how weak and simple she is. It's very personal, very steeped in their respective histories, very poetic.

But for Jon and Dany I think we can expect something more universal and even-handed than that. They are both at varying points manipulative and earnest, highly clever or unexpectly outmaneuvered. And neither will be in this conflict all alone and without advice. Not to mention, we have both of their POVs and watching one just miss all the clues of the other manipulating them would be flat. This only ever works with one POV withheld. The show tried that with Jon Snow live on the screen, to disastrous results. No way is that GRRM's plan.

I'd rather watch two clever adversaries play a big game of chess. And given GRRM's love for that game, I am certain it's also what he would prefer to write.

[jackoshadows]

The most ridiculous aspect of all this 'it's just sisters being sisters' nonsense is that we actually do see an example of siblings being siblings with the other Stark kids.

The affection and concern for each other amongst the Stark brothers - Robb and Jon embracing each other fiercely in their parting goodbye, their care and concern for each other, Robb telling Bran they can visit Jon at the Wall, Jon nearly deserting the NW for Robb and Robb telling Catelyn - “You forget. My father had four sons.”

Are the 'this is just how sisters are' folks implying that the boys can be loving and affection brothers with each other while 'sisters being sisters' is just bullying, shaming one's appearance and nonconformity and not caring that their little sister has been literally attacked with a sword? How very sexist of them.

Jon and Robb have that complex and very human sibling bond, where when they were little children Robb hurts Jon with his words and now in their teens, Robb has a deeper empathy for Jon than anyone else.

There's a reason Arya felt really alone and missed her brothers while in King's Landing - that was where the real sibling love was.

That was when Arya missed her brothers most. She wanted to tease Bran and play with baby Rickon and have Robb smile at her. She wanted Jon to muss up her hair and call her "little sister" and finish her sentences with her. But all of them were gone. She had no one left but Sansa, and Sansa wouldn't even talk to her unless Father made her. - Arya, AgoT

She went back to the window, Needle in hand, and looked down into the courtyard below. If only she could climb like Bran, she thought; she would go out the window and down the tower, run away from this horrible place, away from Sansa and Septa Mordane and Prince Joffrey, from all of them. Steal some food from the kitchens, take Needle and her good boots and a warm cloak. She could find Nymeria in the wild woods below the Trident, and together they'd return to Winterfell, or run to Jon on the Wall. She found herself wishing that Jon was here with her now. Then maybe she wouldn't feel so alone. - Arya, AGoT

So we do see siblings being siblings amongst the love the brothers have for each other and their love for their sisters, especially Jon's concern and love for Arya. Bran is concerned for Sansa's well being and Sansa is confident that Robb will win. This is all siblings being siblings - not bullying and throwing siblings into danger for selfish reasons.

So it's not that GRRM cannot write affectionate and complex sibling dynamics and siblings being siblings - he has done so with the rest of the Starks. It's just that the character of Sansa was created specifically to create that discord amongst the Starks and so we end up not getting a loving sisterly relationship between the Stark sisters like we do with the brothers.

Now one can criticize the author for choosing a female character to create that discord or for not writing in a strong sisterly female relationship like he did with Jon and Robb or Robb and Bran or even the beautiful brother/sister relationship we get with Jon and Arya.

That's perfectly legitimate to critique the narrative from a Doylist perspective and, if Sansa is one's favorite character, to call out GRRM for not giving Sansa the same sibling dynamics he has done for Arya, Jon and Bran.

What is not okay is to equate Sansa's treatment of her little sister Arya in AGoT as 'just sisters being sisters', or even more egregiously 'that's just how older sisters are' and attempting to normalize the bullying and mocking of one's appearance.

An elder sister is typically one of the most protective in a family, IMO and we see that in Arya's concerned thoughts about Bran and Rickon in Winterfell after she goes on the run and in how Bran clutches Arya's hand for protection when Robb/Jon prank the younger ones with a ghost.

We have Sansa's POV chapters and at no point is Sansa ever concerned for Arya the way Jon and Bran are concerned for their sisters in King's Landing in their POV - which is what siblings being siblings means in my books. Quite the opposite - Sansa victim blames Mycah and Arya for sadistic Joffrey's actions, throws Arya under the bus by telling Cersei that it's Arya who is the traitor and forgets to even ask where Arya is and what happened to her when things go south in KL.

AGoT Sansa is a rather shitty elder sister to have. However, Arya has loving brothers in Jon and Bran and I can't wait for her to reunite with characters who genuinely love her, want to protect her, look after her and have showed concern for her well being.

And wanting Arya to be with characters who have shown her that love and affection in the actual text of the books instead of a sister who bullied her and didn't care a bit for her is not sexism, no matter how much one attempts to gaslight the fandom with faux feminist nonsense.

[nogoodsheepstealing-greatgrandma]

Team Green: Sorry your faves are boring 😊🤷‍♂️ Sure you're supposed to root for the Blacks but the Greens are just more fun. Jace is boring I'm here for my angsty disaster mess 💚

You realise that's bad writing, right? This is a family civil war drama. One side of that family civil war shouldn't be populated with blank slates. If no effort is made into making Rhaenyra and Daemon's children as fleshed out as Alicent's children then that is bad writing.

Some people find the Lannisters more fun than the Starks, but the Starks are still fleshed out characters (and considering in the books Jace is 14/15, Luke is 13, Joffrey, Baela & Rhaena are 12, Aegon the younger is 9 and Viserys is 7 - these kids ages almost map straight onto the Starklings so they were so meant to be our Targlings). It didn't have to be a zero sum "you can only have ONE side that's interesting". The show is poorer for it. Game of Thrones was a disaster in many ways, but at least the different sides of the conflict had equal screen time and attention.

How hard would it have been to flesh out Jace, or at least give him a half-decent haircut? He could have been a mirror to Jon Snow (they technically have the same initials). One is a bastard who does not know he's a targaryen prince, the other is a targaryen prince who discovers he is a bastard. In a world that hates bastards, that insists they are 'wanton and treacherous by nature', there was plenty of potential to explore some complicated emotions, to give weight to how he feels about being a bastard. The whispers that would have followed him, the scrutiny he would have felt, the internalised guilt and shame, his protectiveness over his little brothers and wish to spare them the truth. Maybe after Alicent confronted Aegon over the pig there could have been a shift where Aegon turns his bullying away from Aemond and towards Jace (more in keeping with book canon). Maybe Jace could feel anxious about lessons with Criston Cole due to his open hatred of him. Maybe he could be equal parts devoted to and resentful of his mother over his parentage, maybe he could be driven to perfectionism to prove himself worthy.

The show made Jace more violent in the fight with Aemond than in the book, by changing who started the fight (from Aemond to Rhaena and co.), by narrowing the age gap to make Jace more of a match for Aemond, and by having him draw a knife instead of a wooden toy sword. But they didn't earn that moment. How much more satisfying would it have been if both Aemond and Jace were given equal emotional weight in the build-up to the fight? If the hurt and anxiety at discovering he was a bastard had been building and building until it burst out. The entire reason the show changed the age dynamic between Rhaenyra and Alicent to make them peers and best friends was supposedly to make their conflict more dramatic - why would you then drop that approach with their kids? How does it make the civil war story better if one half of the next generation of characters aren't really characters?

They didn't even have to put much effort into Baela, as GRRM already had her brimming with personality on the page, but they just... ignored that and made her a non-entity. Oh she gets one punch in, and there's a blink and you'll miss it background shot of her trying to hit Aegon (at this point I don't think the actors were even directed to do that I think they just took it upon themselves). Meanwhile Baela in the books is wild and fearless and deliberately provocative and quick to anger and fiercely defensive of her loved ones and wrestles squires in the training yard and has a pet monkey and sneaks out in search of adventure and brings home 'unsuitable' friends. Including a legless beggar, a blacksmith's apprentice whose muscles she admired, a street conjurer, twin prostitutes and an entire troupe of mummers. And she alarms everyone due to being 'overly fond of boys' and gets epic lines like this when it is suggested she marry Lord Rowan:

“I’ve bedded two of his sons. The eldest and thirdborn, I think it was. Not both at once, that would have been improper.”

She could have been an absolutely chaotic presence onscreen. Rhaena meanwhile is a little more like Sansa to Baela's Arya, but would have needed more work to flesh her out onscreen. Her insecurities and wish for a dragon seemed promising at first, but they were dropped as soon as Aemond lost his eye. Because that was ultimately the narrative purpose she served - to provide a new reason for the fight to start that wasn't Aemond hitting and pushing a toddler into a pile of dragon poo. She helps Aemond's image by being the one to start the fight instead of him, and from then on she becomes a voiceless non-entity. We watch Aemond fly away victoriously on Vhagar, we don't see Rhaena tearfully watching the last link to her mother vanish over the horizon.

Considering the prominent role of bastards during the dance (especially the dragonseeds), the uninterest in exploring bastardy in Jace makes little sense. Considering the centrality of gender to the story (and considering a certain event involving key players during the dance), the lack of effort into Baela and Rhaena makes zero sense (the show doesn't even bring up their right to Driftmark in an episode dedicated to discussing the rightful heir to Driftmark).

Considering especially that in fantasy black women are so often consigned to minor Missandei roles, the fact that we were robbed of Baela and Rhaena as main characters particularly stings. Baela in particular was an easy fan favourite in the book, and its a role that black women and girls so rarely get to play. If you had told me before the show that Helaena would be a fan favourite over Baela, I wouldn't have believed it. And don't get me wrong, I like that they fleshed out Helaena in the show, like Rhaena she didn't have much of a presence in the book. But it is so typical that the relative non-entity that they kept white gets to be fleshed out, while the more fleshed out character that they made black becomes a non-entity. And Helaena is skinny now, of course (all love to Phia Saban, but I am mourning plump Helaena).

And don't get me started on Kylo Raemond.

[la-pheacienne]

I will never understand people insisting that it was Jaime's fault Elia and the children died and that he didn't do his job. I don't understand why people cannot acknowledge that the multitude and diversity of factors working simultaneously and opposite to each other is precisely what creates the tragedy of the event(s), these factors being slowly morphed into a mechanism functining on its own accord, beyond any power individual decisions could have. Every single individual in this tragedy (the sack and the rebellion in general) had entirely different motivations and aspirations, and no individual had the full picture at any occasion whatsoever, and this is precisely because of the broader mechanism that was in motion that I mentioned above. And there lies the whole point, the concept of not knowing, not being able to know in advance. The idea of actions, choices, decisions having unexpected consequences that a character could not be able to imagine in advance. Things could have been different if at any point any of the individuals implicated in this event(s) knew the whole picture, or at worst, if they were more careful, more diligent, if they had made a better assessment of the situation at hand. I don't believe what happened was technically inevitable of course. It could have been avoided, which is something that amplifies the tragedy. Of course the individual decisions of any of the factors involved shaped the result. But we need to take into account all these parameters that were at play leading to each and every decision, prior to the decision itself, in order to avoid a bad faith reading of the text. We know everything that happened. The individuals did not know what would happen prior to making the decisions they made.

Rhaegar running away with Lyanna seems suspicious in general and there is definitely a lot of info missing there (which has been confirmed by grrm, meaning there was probably a reason they run away together - and i'm NOT talking about the braindead fanon theory of rhaegar collecting dragon heads like pokemons). Aside from that big hole of info we don't have that would give a solid context for this otherwise pretty inexplicable action, R and L could not have expected in advance that the events would play out in the way they did, they could not know in advance that someone (Baelish?) would spread the news of a literal kidnapping, they could not know in advance what Brandon would do, what Aerys would do, and so forth, and we don't even know when exactly they found out that all these things happened since they were isolated. They for sure could absolutely not know that Tywin, who didn't even take part in the rebellion, would eventually think it would be a great idea to randomnly order the rape and murder of Elia and the murder of the children. Nobody could ever imagine that in their right minds, yes, not-even-jaime-hello, which is precisely why this is an act of TREASON (and treason is an understatement), which is precisely why that act has such an impact and such an aura of horror and shock surrounding it, because of how unexpected and inconceivable it was, and also, how unneccessary it was, at a moment where the war was already won.

The power Rhaegar had in changing these events in any way shape or form was minimal to none, faced with the mad king that could go off the rails at any moment, the treason, the unprecedented cruelty of his enemies that were supposed to be allies, and more than that, the general mechanism already in motion leading to this tragic outcome.

Which leads me to Jaime. Jaime feels guilty for what happeend to Elia and her children, of course he does. He was there, in KL, he was sitting on the iron throne (i think that's when it happened) while the events took place and he didn't prevent them. I would also feel guilty if I were him. Who wouldn't? He was there. If he had thought this through, if he was more diligent, smarter, quicker idk, more perceptive maybe he would have figured this out sooner, maybe he would have done something, maybe he would have been able to save them. That's undoubtedly what he tells himself. Rhaegar would undoubtedly feel extreme guilt if he was alive after the sack of KL (which is a mere hypothesis since the sack of KL wouldn't have taken place had he been alive). Hell, even Ned feelts guilty for what happened to Elia and her children. That doesn't mean these people (i'm talking mainly about R and J) are actually responsible for what happened. That it is their fault that it happened. That they willingly wanted it to happen, or expected it to happen and didn't care, or let it happen in Jaime's case. Jaime's guilt stems from an error of judgement at worst, the fact that had he known every single parameter at play, had he imagined the exact motivations and intentions of a multitude of people and how far they were willing to go, had he expected what would happen in detail, he would have acted differently and maybe, maybe the result would have been different. That's not even certain, given, again, the multitude of factors at play that were beyond Jaime's power. But Jaime of course cannot help but think about the what if. The result could have been different had Jaime acted differently but Jaime acted according to the specific situation he had at hand, according to the specific problem that he had to face. He did what he thought was right in that precise moment. He didn't and couldn't possibly know what was going on outside from his sphere and if he did, we do not know for sure that he could have actually prevented the worst from happenning.

And I'm being exceptionally strict here by attributing an error of judgement to Jaime because I could have just said he was entirely innocent for what happened to Elia and the children, and it wouldn't be false. Again, error of judgement doesn't equal responsibility for what happened, it doesn't equal "moral flaw". An error of judgement does not give the reader a reason to morally judge a character. It is an entirely different thing.

I got this from Britannica :

I don't get how people can be so dense when reading anything related to the sack of KL and/or Robert's Rebellion in general. "Jaime didn't do his job", "Rhaegar led Elia and their children to their deaths" like, can you actually read? I was unnecessarily thorough here for something that is not all that complicated. It is pretty straightforward actually. It's sad that people do not get it. Like, I see BNFs being all deep and analytical about Jaime's moral struggles and dilemmas and overall tragedy and how he was in a situation that exceeded him and then they're like "rhaegar is the reason elia and the children died". From the other side I see people saying that Rhaegar couldn't have known what would happen and then they're like "Jaime didn't do his job!!!", guys. Guys. I'm begging you. I IMPLORE YOU : correcting a mischaracterization (Rhaegar was stupid/selfish for leaving """""all that responsibility""""" to Jaime) with another mischaracterization (Jaime "didn't do his job" because he's a moral coward) is not the way to go, it is done in bad faith, it erases the entire point of Robert's Rebellion along with a bunch of very important themes in asoiaf (the impossibility of choice, the fact that moral codes are actually a construct and don't always apply/sometimes contradict, and the feeling of powerlessness of an individual when faced with a monstrous mechanism, a system that is beyond their control).

[thevelaryons]

unpopular opnion but I was never too bothered by Addam’s death because I thought it’s a fitting writing choice no matter how tragic. It’s showing his lost potential. He’s the most perfect of Corlys’ kids and the ideal heir Corlys would’ve always desired for himself. That was why Addam was meant to die. A child with a great future ahead of him cut short because of the war his family is fighting. The Dance of the Dragons is a tragedy and Addam Velaryon’s storyline fits the mould of tragedy.

YOURE RIGHT BUT ALSO SO WRONG FOR THIS. 😭😭😭

But yeah, Addam’s story is all about lost potential. There’s a reason why Addam died around the time of his 16th nameday, just on the cusp of manhood.

I’ve mentioned before, but Addam, more than any other Velaryon, is the embodiment of their house’s words. All the core aspects of his characterization are tied to his identity as a Velaryon. The most Velaryon to ever Velaryon. Yet despite all that, he never becomes Lord of Driftmark. Again, that same lost potential.

Addam can be compared to the other heirs, Laenor/Lucerys/Alyn, and each of them ends up falling short in some way or other. But Addam being the perfect heir doesn’t save him. Corlys’ greatest show of strength and also his downfall are linked to Addam.

In the future, Addam may have become an even greater Lord of Driftmark than Corlys. He’s certainly shown to have inherited all the best traits of both his parents and none of the flaws. But just as Corlys lost High Tide and all the wealth he accumulated, he also loses Addam who could have taken Corlys’ legacy to new heights.

While I would’ve preferred if Addam lived, I understand GRRM’s intentions here. I always see fans lamenting that Addam died instead of Alyn. 😂😂 But that’s kind of missing the point. Alyn’s story is defined by trying to measure up to Addam (with characters in universe even commenting on it) but still falling short. Also, Alyn as Corlys 2.0 was always meant to succeed Corlys. Addam is just the one who exists in between as the most promising one whose greatness never came to be.

[themotherofhorses]

I think it’s time to be real, Vic. I am genuinely very disappointed at the fact that you decided to murder handmaid, despite so many of your readers begging you to not go through with it. I read through your “handmaid” tag and it seems like a good majority voted against it. Do you not care for them? Do you not value their own input and opinions? Honestly, what was the point of building up such a gorgeous romance only to butcher it at the very end? Plus the violence you shared in that snippet is equally disturbing and unnecessary, especially being aimed at small children.

“Her twins are dead – their tiny, broken bodies strewn near their father’s desk. One is missing his head, if she is correct. Was it Aemion? Aenar?”

Yikes.

I think this is very telling. But, in the end, you are an adult. Do what you want to do, but just know that this decision will cost you some of your biggest fans, myself included.

Hello anon! I’m gonna use proper capitalization and punctuation to answer this because …. woah. LMAO.

I hear you, I see you, I feel you.

But let’s have a friendly little conversation: at the end of the day, this is fucking FANFICTION. It is NOT real! There is literally no need to be this upset over something as silly as words being typed up in a word doc. I promise you that it does not equal the ending of the world.

(But also let’s be real, if handmaid was canon in F&B, GRRM would’ve probably killed her off too. It is rare that something so good and pure actually survives within the world of Westeros.)

Listen, I understand that many people didn’t want handmaid (and her children) to meet such a horrible fate; that is why I decided to offer two “canon” endings — an angst and a happy one. That way you can easily ignore the angst ending in favor of the happy one!! Problem solved.

But ….. but you are also treading through the Game of Thrones/House of the Dragon fandom.

Major character death, extreme acts of violence, and heartbreak is expected. Have you actually read F&B? Literally everyone DIES in the book. They all meet such gruesome fates, including the children. Just look at Helaena! At Jaehaerys! No one is safe.

One of the most common themes found inside ASOIAF is “the innocent always pays the price for the actions of their rulers.”

In my handmaid series, handmaid/Anya (+her children) endure the consequences of Aemond’s actions at Storm’s End (and, by extension, the actions of the Greens usurping the throne following the death of Viserys). I’d argue that her death ventures incredibly close to canon-level material.

You do not need to read this upcoming fanfic update. I will not hold you responsible for such. No feelings will be hurt, I promise. As I mentioned in previous replies, the happy ending will soon follow; in fact, “hair braiding” and “family picnic” are canon to the happy ending!

So let’s all chill out. Take a deep breath, eat a snickers bar, go scratch a dog between their ears.

[dwellordream]

Sansa, Dany, and the Fandom's Shit Takes on Child Marriage

'12 is considered an adult in ASOIAF! stop projecting modern morals onto the series!'

first of all... it's not lol. multiple characters in ASOIAF express disgust and reluctance at the idea of marrying off children, particularly in the case of kids marrying adults. Tyrion himself brings up how young Sansa is. Ned describes Lyanna as a 'child-woman' at 15/16. Viserys expresses doubt that Drogo would find Dany, who is only 13, appealing. adults being sexually attracted to kids is not seen as a 'norm' or 'standard' in the series.

second of all, even though child-marriage does occur in the series, if your takeaway is that anyone critiquing this is 'missing the point', you are so tragically stupid i literally don't know what to say. do you think GRRM included this to celebrate it? to argue that in a morally dubious setting, the onus is on the victim to ‘make the best of it’? that the system can't change, and might makes right? really? that's your takeaway?

third of all, the idea that, had a character like Sansa actually 'embraced' the older men preying on her, she would have succeeded politically and become a 'player' is fucking ludicrous. Littlefinger would not hand Sansa significant power the moment she 'allowed' him to assault her. that's not how he operates.

he has never intended to let her become his equal or co-ruler in any regard. he views Sansa as a plaything and an emotional replacement for her mother. he might actually come to believe he loves her, he might show her affection and support, but he would never regard her as an equal or let her dominate the relationship in any way.

finally, in the case of Dany, if you view her relationship with Drogo as in any way healthy, triumphant, or an assertion of feminist power... I literally don't know what to tell you, lol. yes, Dany is able to use Drogo's affection towards her to secure some safety for the enslaved women of the khalasar.

however, at no point does she begin to actually command Drogo, and the second she displeased him the tables would have turned immediately. bargaining with your rapist is not the same thing as a consensual alliance of power between equals. Dany had as much autonomy within the khalasar as Drogo permitted.

[featherymalignancy]

Okay like if you agree, but….

here are 3 trends that I wish the fantasy genre would take a break from for a little while.

*Quick disclosure, this isn’t meant to feel overly negative, I mostly want to hear other people’s opinions on these trends and others!*

Hungry Games-esque “a competition with deadly stakes” plot lines. On the one hand, I get it, because like the rest of the world, I was totally enthralled by this premise when it was first introduced in the 2000 Japanese film Battle Royale and later, the Hunger Games. However, at this point the idea of the main character entering into a deadly competition feels a little tired and predictable, and unlike Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, the many of the latest iterations lack the searing social commentary which made the premise so compelling. Notable Examples: Serpent and the Wings of Night, Lightlark, The Jasad Heir

Motherfucking EPIGRAPHS. You know, that line or paragraph of text which proceeds every chapter. In the fantasy genre, often it is an except from a historical or religious text from the world in which the book is set. And here’s the thing—it’s not that I hate epigraphs, or that I don’t understand their purpose. They can be an elegant way to add context to the story without burdening the main narrative with too much exposition, and they can also help the created world to feel more “lived in”. Having said that, I feel like they are starting to get way overused, and for me, they’ve gone from feeling like a cool way for the author to provide context and add meta commentary to their story to serving as a slightly less clunky vehicle of info-dumping. Like…am I supposed to be remembering the characters of this lore which I only ever hear about through these epigraphs, because I can assure you, I am not. In other instances, they can feel like an authors lack of faith in the reader, as if they are afraid we might miss the point if they don’t include an unsubtle cue as to where we ought to focus our attention at the start of every chapter. I respect the role epigraphs have played in fantasy classics like Dune and Wheel of Time, but I currently feel the number of novels employing them has become fatiguing, and I hope the trend of including them decreases, at least in the short-term. Notable examples: Fourth Wing (Empyrean Series, Swordcatcher, Furyborn (Empirium series)

A [Blank] of [Blank] and [Blank] Not much to say here other than…when are romantasy authors going to let this go?? 😮‍💨😮‍💨 While you could argue the true genesis of this title naming convention could be GRRM’s A Song of Ice of Fire, I think we can all agree that—for better or worse—it was the popularity of ACOTAR that sent this title style into the stratosphere, and at this point, it has become ubiquitous to the point of literal disorientation. To me there is nothing inherently wrong with this title style (though I would also argue there is nothing particularly gripping about it, at least not enough to warrant a trend of this size) but it basically renders all of these books—which are already of a similar vibe and style—virtually indistinguishable. As a reader on the hunt for new books to scratch that romantasy itch, it’s nearly impossible to tell the dozens of titles bearing this title apart, which means I have no sense which which ones I’ve read, which I haven’t, which caught my interest, which I started and didn’t care for, etc. I have idea how much of this is a consequence of publishers trying to capitalize on a known entity in order to make the most money and how much is just the fact that naming a book is really fucking hard, but good lord, what is it gonna take to stop this madness? Notable examples: quite literally too many to name

What do yall think? Do you agree, disagree? What are some fantasy trends you’d like to see go away/make a comeback