#targ stans know exactly what I'm talking about | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

esther-dot · 5 months

Note

I'm sorry, that's gonna be a really weird ask from one jonsa stan to another but I'm genuinely curious - is there any anti jonsa argument/claim that actually made sense to you? I'm really asking for the sake of, well, civilised discussion - because if there are arguments there ought to be reasonable counterarguments. And all that I see is the same tired old crap - "she's not his favourite sister" and "but they are relatives!" and all the other stuff. Given, of course I'm not hanging around jonry@ and jon@erys side of this fandom (dark things happen to any sansa and jonsa stans there) and have no idea if they have any reasonable metas. Or maybe if there was a moment that made you actually question possibility of jonsa happening in books? (once again - because I'm anxious like that - I'm not asking this to disprove something or make people question jonsa but because I wonder if you personally had this sort of experience).

Thank you and hope you're having a nice day!

No worries! I enjoy looking at things from different angles, so I don’t mind at all. Unfortunately, I haven’t read anti jonsa stuff that isn’t exactly what you described, so I can’t actually have the convo you want about this. I tried to go to some jonerys blogs but their anti tags weren’t what we’re looking for. There’s a blogger people view as neutral who other Sansa fans/Jonsas put on my dash, and a BNF who people I follow also reblog from, so I went over to their blogs to look around and they’re less rabid, but I can’t say they offered though-provoking pushback. I’ll share some snippets though, in case you’re interested.

There was the old "but their siblings" argument:

I, ah, I do not think Jon marries Sansa in any scenario. Regardless of biological relationship, they think of themselves as siblings. The people around them are also quite likely to consider them siblings or as good as, having been raised as such (see also Theon being accused of kinslaying over his apparent murder of Bran and Rickon). Nor do I think either would be in a rush to go back to the traditional “but the Targaryens practiced incest,” again considering that their society is strongly anti-incest. Jon and Sansa were raised together, in the same house, as brother and sister, and that makes a material difference.

But you know, raised as siblings and please nobody try the “but they weren’t close” with me, that’s so not true.

It’s interesting to see someone say they were close, that’s not something I’ve seen before. I suppose my biggest issue with this line of thought is that it feels true for a generic fantasy maybe, but hardly convincing when talking about ASOIAF? Martin wants to talk about incest. So far, we have all the bad, abusive variations covered. I think he’s gonna work some shades of grey into it the same way he tries to do with everything he discusses, and to pretend like he would never feels disingenuous to me. Even if he ultimately abandoned the initial draft, from the author’s mind came the idea of a Jon / Stark girl romance. He has entertained it. Secondly, Jon is a Targ and it’s reasonable to expect that to manifest somehow, or at least, for Jon to experience the fear that there’s something latent there. And third, if we’re gonna get a romance, I think Martin would write it with the complexity and inner struggle that he writes everything and fauxcest offers him that opportunity, not to mention all the parallels it would allow as well.

Let's see...I also saw that they object to the Beauty and the Beast reading of Jonsa:

And I've been searching but apparently I never posted the rest of my "Bear and the Maiden Fair" thoughts, but that's the in-world Beauty and the Beast story. Through that and looking at bears elsewhere in the story, you can track this idea of the beast not being a monster, but being perceived as one by society, an outcast, which is why the Hound, Tyrion, and Jon all fit the role/are related (in a way), and why Jon will be the final suitor or real bear/beast.

The next one, I’m just gonna post the whole thing:

I’m not sure if the best part is the implication that Jon/Dany (which they believe is inevitable) have what’s required to allow for “quick deep emotional connections” or if it’s reading the Hound insult and threaten and then finally put a knife to Sansa’s throat and deciding “romance! chivalry!” The Hound may be disillusioned, but the fandom has got to stop pretending like some of his espoused beliefs aren’t self-serving, a defense because he is a monster. We have Brienne and Jon showing us different versions of knights, true knights, so acting like the Hound is in the right is just bizarre.

Anyway, no, I’ve not read an anti argument that made me doubt it. I do doubt what Martin is aiming for at times, so I’ve vacillated between potential paths/endgames for them over the years, but the anti arguments generally are coming from a reading of characters and dynamics that’s disturbing to me which means I’m usually alienated, not compelled.

#dot chat #jonsa #anti asoiaf fandom

58 notes · View notes

horizon-verizon · 1 year

Note

Please learn how the tagging system works. Nobody wants to see your anti Sansa/Aemond takes in their tags. That's what anti tags are for. I'm tired of Targ stans pitching fits about other fans not tagging correctly (they do) while you guys freely tag your hate and then complain when fans object to this.

How about this: both sides both put anti tags and do not put anti tags sometimes (because that is the actual truth of it, since I don't think every single Targ anti or Targ pro tags their stuff as you say "correctly"). Or that when people argue their arguments against Rhaenyra/Dany/Arya etc's characters and morals, they sometimes do not put "anti-" blah, blah there.

Which one of us are right is about how people can tag, anon? Rhetorical question. The answer is the both of us. Sometimes you have people on both sides not use anti tags and continue to not to despite people like you telling them to. And we can't forget that whatever "sides" there are, people disagree passionately and see the other side as the "troublesome" or "bad" one. Both together which results in more and more complaints until it seems to each side that one side is not doing what the other tells them to do as if it were a group symptom of one side

In the past, I have said that I do not put "anti" in front of "Sansa" posts writing against her because I do not actually despise Sansa with every fiber in my being as the words "anti" implies (like I do Otto, Alicent, Aemond, Aegon II) BUT it is mainly because everything about Sansa, etc. that I say is backed up by the actual text (which I give) and the context (which I explain) and the definition of bullying/war prize, blood purity, etc.

Feels disingenuous to then put "anti-Sansa" or whatever just to make people feel comfortable when people could just skim the post and go on their merry way like I have. I also have never, not once, complained about other Rhaenyra/Dany/etc haters NOT putting in "anti" tags. And I already explained why here.

I also chose not to even filter that stuff out, because I actually want to know how these people think from time to time, but that is just me.

I honestly am not sure why exactly this bothers people so much other than they and you are angry that you get to see posts talking and arguing in ways and about things you don't like or passionately disagree with. But if you don't like a thing, you have the choice to either read it or not to read it. It is not as if I am publishing graphic pictures or NOT trying to put trigger warnings and content warnings in my tags. You, know, things that are actually serious and could harm users' psyches if there were no tags.

Therefore I know how it works now. I see it as pretty much dumb, though. (Except for the idea of trigger warnings and content warnings for actually serious things.)

#not asoiaf #anti tagging #tagging #controversial tagging #tumblr culture #will use this post as reference for the future

3 notes · View notes

fedonciadale · 2 years

Note

Hi there! Randomly sliding in your ask box, but do you think GRRM overglorifies D and the Targsa bit too much? Right now, the son of an ousted dictator is dangerously coming close to being the next president of the country. I've noticed that some relatives of mine who blindly support him were also D stans, and while I understand GRRM's intention was too study how tyrants are made, some people just don't seem to get that and think that this type of character is what we should look for in a leader. Do you think the show or GRRM himself failed to get that point across to viewers and readers by glorifying the Targs for popularity and profit?

Hi there!

And the son of a dictator even made it. Yikes... 😑

I don't think GRRM failed to be honest. He hasn't finished the books and it remains to be seen how he'll bring Dany's arc to an end. I think people actually see the red flags and there is the famous Meereenese essay whose author was praised by GRRM for "getting it right". And it's not as if "Fire and Blood" glorifies the Targs. Even Targs we might have thought beforehand were pretty decent (like Jaeherys the Old), we now know to be almost as bad as the others. I don't think anybody can read Fire and Blood and stick to the believe that the Targs are good.

I think it is a bit different for the show. D&D prioritized the hiding of the DarkDany twist over everything else and then they managed to even botch that. They did such a bad job that people just refused to believe that Dany burning King's Landing will be canon and accused D&D of doing "fanfiction".

They postponed Dany's fall to the very last moment, by alternating her "red flag" moments with triumphant moments. They wanted to milk their cash cow to the last moment and that is why they failed. They should have committed to really depicting Dany's fall.

So, I would say that D&D failed to unmask Dany as a tyrant in a convincing and compelling way. But that does not alter the fact that the character is a tyrant and that people just refuse to see it. And sadly enough this is what happens sometimes as well.

One of the most haunting experiences I ever had was reading the diaries of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda minister. These are not personal diaries but were meant to describe Hitler's ascent to power. And despite knowing that he was an evil man, that he supported an evil dictator, I could still feel the pull of his words and was always on the edge of catching myself to nod at the easy explanations, the black- and white painting of political problems, the disdain for the slow procedure of democratic politics. To this day I shudder how easy it would have been to be lured in, if I had not known who wrote these books.

This is imho exactly the reason why we need to unmask dictators - fictional and real ones. We shouldn't fall for their "everything will be solved once I'm in charge" or their "I'll do this a lot more efficiently". They spoonfeed us easy explanations. We should reject them and talk about the complexity of the world that doesn't have easy solutions.

Thanks!

#anon ask #DarkDany #Sorry it took me so long #haven't been at my best lately #tyranny #How to see it #How to unmask it

79 notes · View notes

miazeklos · 3 years

Note

I think I know what fic you're talking about in that post and can I just say thank you for it? I'm so tired of post-canon stories where Sansa spends the entire thing in some sort of groveling apology for all of her unidentified sins, as if Jon doesn't know who she is and doesn't accept it completely. Between them and the people who want her to be an uwu sweet forgiving girl despite everything because ThE BoOkS and let everyone keep walking over her, I get no rest.

Honestly, Anon, thank you. ;D I too am tired of those. She doesn't really have anything to apologise for? Jon isn't even mad at her lol. And even if he was, it wouldn't make her somehow guilty.

Like, not to go on a rant, but people act as if he has no idea that Sansa wants him on the Iron Throne just because Dany spells it out for him and tells him his sister has 'changed' but IMO the two of them only developed any real substantial dynamic after they reunited at Castle Black, so Jon only really knows Sansa post-everything that's happened to her and he doesn't mind it at all. I hesitate to use this specific wording but, Jon knew exactly who she was and loved her anyway. She was no longer who she was before they were separated (and people mad about it can miss me with the 'trauma doesn't define you' refrain because sadly, it very often does) and he knew her better now than he did before. He didn't need to be told this; he knew what to expect from her.

Even her telling his secret is twisted into this careless pointless thing as if she didn't only tell one (1) person after she assessed that Tyrion was literally scared of the ruler he's supposed to be following and at this point isn't really that on board with Dany's entire situation because she's definitely going to kill what's left of his family this time, so she used the opportunity to sway him in Jon's direction if she could and was still visibly torn up about it. Again, I don't remember Jon being at any point surprised that she did this, even when Dany told him that it was a move against her rather than a move in his favour.

Also you didn't hear it here but the people criticising her for all that and the people who supposedly love her book characterisation and are concern troll mad about how the show ~ruined her are the same people, haha. Okay, she's like that in the books, but she's also a kid in a terrible position where her life depends on an abusive 'carer' who doesn't give her a moment to breathe. She won't be that kid forever, and I sincerely hope she grows to be the Sansa from the show. The only thing I can imagine being improved upon is reading about her cutting his throat herself instead.

And I mean, as someone who ships both, uh, most popular Jon oriented ships (and interacted with both 'sides' before half the Targ fandom blocked me for Cersei stan crimes), I've seen what the people who don't like Sansa very much have to say and it's very obvious that they're only saying it because they just genuinely want her to be more irrelevant in the books than she is on the show. Sure, she can survive but she doesn't matter that much and she'll just stay Lady in the Vale and she's not that connected to the North, really guys, she's never going to be Queen there or anywhere. I don't hate her tho, promise. She's just ~not that crucial to the plot~. And I was always like, all right, if you're so sure, why are you this pressed about it?

(I know the answer and it has nothing to do with her being Queen in the North and everything to do with the specifics around why Jon finally agreed to kill Dany, but they'd die before admitting it, so let's not go there at this time.)

I honestly just think she's a very fun character to write because she does what she has to be done and isn't faulted for it in-universe. Like, the fic in question was inspired precisely by the fact that it was revealed that at the end she's apologising to Jon not for spilling the Targaryen beans, but for not keeping him on the Throne and I thought that was absolutely stellar because their conversation is basically just, 'Hey, sorry I couldn't make you King of the Seven Kingdoms' 'That's okay, at least the North has you!' as if their brother, who is now king, isn't right next to them the entire time like guys? Hello?

Anyway, yeah. I said I wouldn't rant and ended up ranting but bottom line: not only does Sansa have nothing to apologise for; no one in the narrative expected her to apologise for anything, and I think that's great.

#Sansa Stark #meta #I guess #fanfic #got #asks

9 notes · View notes