#(there's no reason the main asoiaf plots and prophecies should be playing into it at all that's not what it's about it's a political drama)

[navree]

wait the house of the dragon trailer really had bitchass rhaegar’s “he is the prince that was promised and his is the song of ice and fire” line be given to a book for rhaenyra to read out of, god how much of this show is just the showrunners looking at asoiaf shit and going “oh d&d didn’t use that we’re gonna ape it instead”

#personal #this show is working real hard to make me angry at david and dan all over again and guess what it's working #i'm mad at them all over again #'a targaryen needs to be on the iron throne for the long night' ok but she wasn't??? #'everyone needs to be united' ok but they weren't?????? #'the targaryens will help end the threat' OK BUT ARYA KILLED THE NIGHT KING RANDOMLY AND THEY BARELY LET DANY DO SHIT??????????????? #this is a prequel to the stupid show so there should be some mild continuity with the stupid show #and the problem is that because the stupid show Kind Of Forgot about the prophecies and shit #i mean clea ain't having none of it which is great #(gonna be entirely honest i don't even know why we're bringing the dreams of the long night into it) #(like yeah aegon being able to predict it and conquering westeros as a countermeasure is pretty heavily implied in text and by george) #(but it has NO bearing on this story or the dance of dragons) #(the dance was a succession crisis meant to be part of a history and explain the decline of the targaryens) #(and flesh out both their own lineage and the world of westeros at large) #(there's no reason the main asoiaf plots and prophecies should be playing into it at all that's not what it's about it's a political drama) #(it's like making a movie about idk watergate or smth and then adding mystical predictions about judgment day)

[fortunatelylori]

Why the Jon/Daenerys romance doesn’t work (Part 1)

Are D&D really idiots?

Disclaimer: So ... my experience with Tumblr is veeeery limited ... as in this is my first post on here so if I fail to link things properly, give credit for gifs, caps or other people’s creations in an appropriate manner, I apologize in advance. Please let me know if you notice something like that and I will change things accordingly.

I have been scrolling around the site for about a week now, after having revisited season 7 of GOT. I will freely admit in advance that I ship Jonsa. However, for what it’s worth, when season 7 first came out, I was more than ready to abandon my Jonsa dreams and get on board with the Jonerys love fest, since everyone around me assured me that it was the end all be all of romance. After seeing the episodes for the first time, I was completely underwhelmed but I ignored my gut feelings because well ... everyone assured me that Jon and Dany were oh, so meant to be. Who am I to fight fate, I thought?!? So I just shrugged and moved on with my life.

However, part of the problem with this ship is that the more time passes, the more people like me, who actually enjoy watching and rewatching the same thing over and over again, start to see the cracks in it. I don’t mean to offend anyone that ships Jonerys, even though I probably will or anyone who likes Dany. Personally, I’ve had a whole host of problems with her character but I will refrain from commenting on my issues with her in this series and just give an opinion on why this story has the deepest scent of red herring since the invention of red herrings.

Before I get into it, I will keep these metas mainly focused on the story from a scriptwriting POV, since that was my job for a time. This series will be less focused on visual cues, camera angles and such. People with far more patience and experience have already done this so I will focus my observations around my area of expertise, such as it is.

In this first part I will try to dispel a few notions about  David Benioff, D.B. Weiss and their writing crew.

One of the common defenses for Jonerys, is that the creators of GOT are simply not every good at their job. They are unable to craft a decent love story for these two characters.

So the guys who created the most popular TV show on Earth, a show that HBO has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into, are hacks. Ok … 

Why do people believe that? Well, for a number of reasons:

1)      The show does not have the thematic scope and wealth of characters that GRRM included in his series

This is true. From the direwolves, to the missing characters, to entire plot threads, prophecies and themes upon themes, D&D have significantly simplified GRRM’s work.

But I would argue this is not because they don’t know how to do their jobs, but rather because they do know how to do it.

GRRM’s himself has said that he started writing ASOIAF out of sheer frustration with being a scriptwriter. Writing a book IS an extremely liberating experience after writing scripts. Why? Because words on a page cost nothing, aside from time and creativity. The sky is the limit.

The sky is absolutely not the limit when you’re a scriptwriter. You are constrained by all sorts of things like: money, sets, weather, daylight vs. night time, actors ‘availability etc. You’re always looking at what you can condense, tighten up. You’re always cutting words out of lines to make them sharper, regrouping scenes so you can maximize your locations, cut out all the fat so you can get an episode that is the required length.

And then there’s the all important element: the audience. People have different reactions to reading something vs. watching something. You read to get lost in a world, the journey is the main entertainment. In contrast, you come back week after week to watch a TV show to see what your favorite characters are getting up to.

Considering all of this, is it really surprising that they would cut out things like the young Griff or fArya from the show? Does anyone believe that the general audience out there cares about them? No. They want to see Jon, Arya, Tyrion, Dany … And they also want to see progression. A season of Tyrion on a boat thinking about stuff is not an option.

Also, GOT has quite a reputation for having a hellava lot of characters. Just watch the honest trailer that Screen Junkies have done:

At around the 3:20 mark they point out all the characters whose names you remember and all those you don’t. And it’s hilarious. Why? Because it’s true.

By season 3, people were still struggling to remember Littlefinger’s actual name. How do you think they’d fair with all the Greyjoys that pop up in the books like mushrooms after the rain?

So yes, D&D and their team cut out themes, characters and storylines for the sake of brevity. That’s what scriptwriters have to do, as sad as it may sound. That’s not to say they do everything right but by and large they’ve done a decent enough job for me not to assume they can’t write a proper love story for 2 characters that they’ve been working with for 6 seasons.

2)      Emilia and Kit have chemistry in real life so if that didn’t translate on screen, it’s because the scriptwriters were doing a terrible job at tapping into it

See, I would almost buy into that if it wasn’t for the fact that their scenes aren’t poorly conceived but rather are actively undermining the budding romance. You never get a sense of completion, of certainty from any of them. I will go through every scene in my next post, but for now, I’d just like to draw your attention to this moment:

(source: @dreamofspring )

We’ll leave aside character motivations on this for now, but if the script writers put that line in there to further advance the Jonerys romance, then they shouldn’t be in charge of writing commercials, let alone multimillion productions.

Are we to assume they simply forgot the other two instances where this line was used?

They revisited the Tower of Joy this season but apparently no alarm bells went off in the writer’s room at this:

(source:  @dreamofspring​)

They paralleled Jon’s arc this season to Mance Rayder’s but nope, simply forgot about this:

This script went through a dozen rewrites and probably 100 hands by the time it made it to the screen and yet at no point did anyone think: “Hey guys maybe we shouldn’t have Jon say good bye to his lady love by quoting Mance right before he was burned alive.” Those silly, silly writers.

3)      The show has taken a dive quality wise since they can’t follow GRRM’s source material any longer

There is some validity to this, I will admit. This season we’ve seen the likes of Tyrion, Varys and Littlefinger lose some of their vital energy and characteristics that have made them such interesting, fun characters to watch.

The Littlefinger plot, in particular, was poorly executed. In their desire to leave us in the dark about what was happening in order to have what amounted to a cheap twist at the end, we were given a convoluted, clunky mystery plot where everyone was playing everyone else but not really. While I’m glad, on principal, that the show established the Stark sisters coming together as a unit against a common foe, giving Littlefinger such a stupid ending left a bitter taste in my mouth. Not a worthy completion to the arc of one of the best players of the Game of Thrones at all. So yes, they dropped the ball on that one.

Tyrion and Varys are a different matter. The main reason why they’re rather ineffective and sidelined is because they probably shouldn’t be there in the first place. That’s because their entire vision on life, justice and good kingship comes directly at odds with Dany’s “Fire and blood” policy. They are just now starting to worry about this predicament but they’re both far too smart not to have noticed until now. The woman brought 3 dragons and a Dothraki horde into Westeros. What did they think she was going to do with them? Play boggle?!?

If I try really hard, I can find an explanation for Tyrion. I think, probably, he’s still reeling for the trial and murdering dad so he’s not in the best state of mind.

Varys however? He definitely shouldn’t be there. He should be with young Griff which makes much more sense since it’s very likely there is a deep, personal connection there that would make the usually cynical and skeptical Varys trust that the person he is actively supporting is actually best for the realm. But alas, young Griff doesn’t exist so he’s stuck with Dany, until he finally turncoats and gets burned alive. So brevity is at fault here.

All that being said, I think it’s unfair to assert that the show runners have dropped the ball. That’s because the more I think about it, the more season 7 looks like a part of a whole, instead of an arc on its own. There are too many open ended questions, too many character choices that don’t make sense (particularly Jon who is, by far, the central character this season) for it to feel complete.

Season 7 is like the Infinity War part 1 of Game of Thrones. You can analyze it on its own but you can’t really determine its true quality or meaning until you see Part 2.

I know this got very long so thank you to everyone that had the patience to read until the end. J

#jonsa #meta #my got meta #anti-jonerys #i wish you good fortune in the wars to come

[blindestspot]

No Bastard Ever Won a War by Dying for His Country

Over the past year I've gotten a lot of asks about Jon and what I think is going on with him. During that time I've also managed to calm down about the inconsistent number of redshirts during the Wight Hunt. Yes, I remember that this was a thing that happened, along with a bunch of other dei ex machina, like Cersei's brilliant strategies for everything, Jon's repeated, increasingly dumb survivals and the whole Winterfell plot.

But calming down about them meant that I could think about Game of Thrones again in a manner that kind of naively assumes that the work is coherent . That 2+2=4, not 5, or orange, or a tiger. And this is what I think is going on with Jon and why it is so crucial to the whole work.

George R.R. Martin once said that A Song of Ice and Fire is supposed to have a bittersweet ending. Now that phrase covers a lot of ground. A bittersweet ending might be just ASOIAF's Scouring of the Shire (which at this stage is assured) and a few good guys passing into the Great Beyond (also nearly certain) – which would be a copy of Lord of the Rings.

A bittersweet ending might also be Davos, Brienne and Sam emerging alone from the rubble like the unhappy winners of a Battle Royale. A few good guys surviving would technically make the ending not a complete downer and thus "bittersweet".

However, a more nuanced look at a bittersweet ending should look beyond mere survival and destruction but at an ending that irrevocably changes the characters and how and what we think of them.

An issue that strikes readers as unrealistic about Lord of the Rings is  that a lot of its human and hobbit-y heroes move on from the events of the story into psychologically very ordinary, uncomplicated lives that they would have lead even without the events of the story. Sam, Merry, Pippin's (and to a lesser degree Faramir, Aragorn and Eowyn's) easy passing into normalcy feels vaguely hollow.

If GRRM really plans to have a realistic take on Lord of the Rings and its "bittersweet" ending (and with his complaints about Aragorn's tax policy it appears that this is a crucial element of ASOIAF), then obviously he is going to continue what he has been doing all along and create an interplay between narrative events and characterization. Take Arya, for example. In the early parts of AGoT she would have not wanted to become a Faceless Man – for obvious reasons. But Arya from a few books later, after events have matured and traumatized her, wants to become one. And that choice will again impact her characterization and that will in turn impact future events. 
It is logical that this interplay will continue right up until the end. So speculation has to take into account that these characters are dynamic and can be pushed by events into new directions. And not just "can" – but will be.

The question is not who will be alive to experience the Scoured Shire but who they will be at this point. And that change shouldn't just be cosmetic or physical, it needs to be psychological, visible, noticeable and profound. We shouldn't get an Aragorn who just walks into a kingship after a two battles, marries the cute elf girl and then doesn't have a tax plan.

And obviously, I am not talking about Gilly. I am very much talking about ASOIAF's Aragorn. I am talking about Jon.

...

Now here is a hypothetical scenario for Season 8: Jon with the help of Dany and her dragons (and, to paraphrase Roger Ebert, the usual stock characters who fight every fictional war for us, even those in space), fight the White Walkers, win, then fight Cersei, then win (the order of this is might be reversed) and then Jon's revealed to be true heir and has to rebuild Westeros.

How does any of this really change and mature Jon as a character? How does being right about everything (the White Walkers being the real threat), then leading a righteous force to victory over evil make him a realistic take on Aragorn?

It doesn't.


What Jon needs after five books and seven season of making serviceable to great, sensible, ethical, right strategic choices (with admittedly a number of great tactical errors in between) is being wrong. And not just being wrong about failing to communicate to his sworn brothers what his strategy is, not just wrong about going on that Wight Hunt, not just wrong to send Sam away, not just lightly ethically challenged for exchanging a pair of babies against one mother's will or misleading his love interest on his commitment to her political cause... but wrong in a truly profound way that the audience cannot blame on stupidity or short-sightedness.

I admit that calling it "wrong" or even "profoundly wrong" is a bit of misnomer. What I am trying to get at is the character going into a direction where the audience cannot and should not easily follow. Those actions would be too alien as might be their rationalizations. These actions should strike the audience as questionable, reprehensible, immoral, unethical, or dishonorable.

A perhaps too perfect example of such an action is Cersei firing up the Sept. It's mass murder and it's intended by her to be mass murder. If anyone in the audience found it not reprehensible and immoral, I would have some questions for these people.

But Cersei firing up the Sept was a success. Her survival was at stake - and she survived. Before her kingdom was full of powerful enemies and afterwards it wasn't. And she even snatched the Iron Throne afterwards despite having no royal Targaryen or Baratheon ancestry.

In realpolitik terms, Cersei made the "right" choice. All other choices would have lead to her death. The first rule of anything is that you cannot do anything if you're dead.

And frankly, that's a lesson Jon desperately needs to learn. His twice-tried strategy of rushing alone against an army of his enemies is idiotic. It might be honorable for a war leader to be the first person on the battlefield but it's not a winning war strategy.

It's not a nice thing to say, but it's necessary for a war time general or commander to be willing to have other people die for him and his goal. And not just for him but in front of him, literally shielding him. An army commander who isn't willing to ensure his own survival, is gambling with such terrible odds that he has already lost the war.

Cersei's strategy of killing her enemies instead of allowing herself to be killed is profoundly wrong, immoral and yet Jon needs understand that when mankind's survival are at stake an immoral action like that might be a necessary choice.

His attempt to drown in an ice lake alone is a sign that at this point he hasn't understood the necessity of being alive to lead a war at all. As George S. Patton put it: "no poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb son-of-a-bitching bastard die for his country."

Out of all our main protagonists, Jon has never been willing to play as dirty as it should be necessary for an apocalyptic fight such as his. Unlike Sansa's willingness to go along with Littlefinger's nefarious plans for her cousin in the Vale, Arya's willingness to kill potentially innocent people for the Faceless Men, Tyrion raping a prostitute and killing Shae, the torture of innocents during Dany’s Slavers’s Bay arc, Bran warging Hodor... Jon has nothing in his arc that is as dark, dishonorable or questionable as these things. Jon appears to be a character class apart, like the hero of a more classic fantasy epic.

Is this because Jon's so special that his arc is a whole different genre or is this because he hasn't leveled up in realpolitik yet?

Or is there perhaps even a third option to deal with his relative over-the-top good guy characterization?

***

You know, when it comes to stories about morality like Game of Thrones a crucial factor for their success is not just the quality of the good guys but also the quality of the villains.

And what makes a compelling villain?

IMO, they hit more than one of these characteristics:

1. They are well-rounded, fully realized characters, drawn with the same care as the heroes.

2. They are able to win against the good guys. They are not a cardboard that will be blown over once the heroes wave a magic stick or sword around.

3. Their evil deeds get an emotional reaction out of the audience. (Most audiences tend to have a vague discomfort with CGI mass carnage while reacting to a well-executed scene of high school bullying with actual empathy or even horror.)

4. Their motivations are understandable, perhaps even sympathetic. At best they are a well-intentioned extremist, utilitarianism gone wrong, rather than setting stuff on fire because their mom was mean to them once.

Now looking at this list, it becomes obvious that GOT has a problem with its current crop of villains. Any of the three that are left (Cersei, the Night King, Euron) could be the Final Boss – to use a video game term. But none of them are very compelling villains. Two of them are inhuman monsters. To call their characterization shallow would be an insult to puddles.

And Cersei, the only one with a decent characterization (and some past Mean Girls bullying sins of her own) suffers from being incredibly stupid in the books, having a prophecy running against her and stealing Aegon from Essos' story in the show. In other words, Cersei's chances of success and survival and actually making it this far in the books are as good as that of a snowflake on a hot summer's day. One suspects that she is a show-only final-ish villain, so if one looks for GRRM’s final-ish villains, they would not find Cersei.

Talking about chances of success – the Night King isn’t winning this either. Because then ASOIAF would reveal itself to be a nihilistic mess in which all the human storylines were nothing but shaggydog stories. So the Night King is  bound to melt in the summer sun along with Cersei. There is little question about it. And is Euron "was he even mentioned in the first book?" Greyjoy  really going to win the Iron Throne in the end? Is anyone taking this possibility seriously?

And what are their motivations? Ambition, being evil and being anti-human. None of them are particularly sympathetic.

In one word, GOT's current crop of villains is not particularly exciting – especially if you compare them with some of the villains that came before them. And if one of these three is the Final Boss, he or she is gonna be lame.

But a lame Final Boss is actually a great tradition in the genre. In Lord of the Rings Sauron appears to be literally two-dimensional and about as interesting as a character. (Gollum gets to be the well-written villain and he is doing very little damage to the world at large.) Voldemort in Harry Potter is completely outshone as the most despised, scary villain of the series by the one-book-wonder Dolores Umbridge who excels at committing low-key evil deeds that make every reader/viewer wince in sympathy. The Emperor in the original Star Wars trilogy is... there and then dead and has fewer fans than a one-line bounty hunter. And the same fans that endlessly shout "Han shot first", don't even appear to care that he got a complete face replacement in the Special Editions. And if there is one consistent complaint about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it's that its villains tend to be boring and forgettable. Yet they're lame and forgettable to the tune of billions of box office dollars.

So a lame Final Boss for the heroes to fight... that is indeed a thing. And that might be just the thing GOT/ASOIAF is doing. This is what we have to seriously consider. We are likely to get a MCU villain... you know on the level of Ronan the Destroyer or Malekith, the Dark Elf. And you probably need to google in which movies those two turned up.

That would be a terrible let down.

Or maybe it's not actually that terrible of a thing? Because if our final boss and villain is not Cersei, the Night King, or Euron, it's a good guy gone bad. Someone who is currently fighting on the side of the living before becoming someone who needs to be fought.

It's possible that this is in the cards. After "Ozymandias", the penultimate episode of Breaking Bad, aired, GRRM wrote on his blog that "Walter White is a bigger monster than anyone in Westeros, I need to do something about that."  

The thing is that White appeared to start out as a sympathetic if flawed hero you were rooting for even as he was making meth. What made White monstrous is not doing depraved psycho shit beyond comprehension (like nailing a living, pregnant woman to a ship like Euron Greyjoy) but that he appears to evolve into this monster before the audience's eyes.

Breaking Bad tricks the audience into liking a character for much longer than he ever deserved and that becomes crystal clear in that penultimate episode. If GRRM wants a monster like White he can't use his old, repetitive trick of making a one-dimensional psychopath do depraved stuff. He has to logically progress a character we root for into a monster.

(Of course, GRRM might also not be able to pull it off, however much he wants to. It could be that he has not prepared the ground to make a main character go Walter White and thus it will always fall short of Breaking Bad's accomplishment. Sure, Greyworm or Dolorous Edd could become evil and monstrous but even GRRM should know that's not quite the same as making your main protagonist evil.

I might also be wrong on GRRM understanding what makes Walter White feel so monstrous. The first big sign that White took the road down to hell is not an act of murder or sadism but simply not helping someone who is choking to death. His monstrosity is based in a three-dimensional characterization, not in particularly outrageous acts of evil. He is monstrous because he used to be likable. If GRRM doesn't see that, he might actually think that one-dimensional psychopath Euron nailing his pregnant girlfriend to a ship is nailing the same kind of monstrosity.

He also could be talking about a plot point we now know about but that he has not published yet – like Stannis burning Shireen. So one should be careful looking for ASOIAF's Walter White.)

Interestingly enough, the trick Breaking Bad is pulling is quite old. White isn't making meth by chance, it was the worst thing his creator could think of besides him becoming an arms dealer. The twist of Breaking Bad's "Ozymandias" is actually not that White becomes bad but that he has always been bad. You'll find a similar character in Humbert Humbert in Nabokov's Lolita where his monstrosity is barely a plot twist and even Milton's Paradise Lost where it's none at all. (The trope of the protagonist being a piece of shit throughout the whole story usually goes down as "villain protagonist" and the list of stories containing one is pretty expansive.) But the plot twist of a surprise villain protagonist is such an old one that Aesop already codified it in his fable "The Farmer and the Viper" around 600 B.C. (Farmer helps harmless looking viper, then viper bites him because it's a viper. And has been a viper all along. Duh.)

Now if Dany, for example, turned into a villain then she would fall squarely into villain protagonist territory. But the fun thing is that doesn't mean that she is already one. The viper is not a villain until Aesop has it biting the farmer. If Dany decides to slaughter her future subjects by the thousands just so she can have the Iron Throne (and this is portrayed as despicable) then this will be in line with the Dany from the first season/AGoT who wanted the Dothraki to wage their type of warfare (pillaging, raping, enslaving, killing) onto thousands of her future subjects, so she could have the Iron Throne. But that doesn't mean that Dany will cross this particular moral event horizon.

Whether Dany will turn out to be a villain protagonist is not a question of foreshadowing. It's a question whether the authorial intent will will it into existence. The viper is a poisonous snake but if the author hasn't it biting the farmer, that poison doesn't matter at all.

Now Dany is a well-rounded character (same as Cersei) and might be difficult to defeat but her most likely, hypothetical, evil deed (mass carnage via dragon) is not particularly compelling and neither is ambition as her motivation. Villainous Dany is about as compelling as Cersei. Keeping Cersei for so long when there is Villainous Dany in the wings strikes me as a weak narrative choice: “Meet your new villain, same as the old villain...” The difference would be the element of surprise but that's a paltry surprise, especially since Villainous Dany was supposed to be The Big Plot Twist.

Honestly, Dany as the mass-carnage causing, ambitious type of villain is a low-hanging fruit. Call me edgy, but it's just nowhere near "Ozymandias". It's Boromir getting seduced by the Ring.

And there are not a lot of precedents for that storyline in ASOIAF. You know the story of a good guy gone beyond redemption evil. There is Theon, whose ambition, jealousy and insecurity drove him into sacking Winterfell and killing two children – but even he turned out to be not to be beyond redemption. There is Catelyn, but she goes crazy and becomes a zombie, so it's hard to compare.

But there is, of course, the most compelling, interesting and meaningful character arc of a good guy gone bad: Stannis Baratheon. But he isn’t a good precedent for a mass-carnage causing, ambitious type of villain.

***

You see, Stannis starts out as not exactly the most sympathetic character: he burns people and places of worship, he is a religious nut, he has his brother killed. But after getting defeating at the Battle of Blackwater, his arc does a 180. He gets the call from the North to save the realm, and out of all of the five Kings involved in the war of the same name, he is the only one he realizes that in order to "win the realm, you have to save the realm."

That isn't a coincidence. Stannis is also the only king who fights for a higher purpose. Joffrey, Balon, Robb, and Renly just fight for power (be it the power over all of Westeros or the power that lies in independence). Stannis is fighting not just for power but also for his religion, for his one true god; he is fighting a crusade. That out of all the kings, the king who believes that his religion will save Westeros ends up wanting to save it from a supernatural threat is not a coincidence. One thing clearly causes the other.

And once he makes this choice, Stannis, the Mannis (as he was lovingly called by his fans once upon a time) always fights the bad guys, he fights for the living. Of course, he doesn't stop being a religious nut, he doesn't stop burning people, he is inflexible in his beliefs, he still thinks he is the chosen one, he is Azor Ahai, he is the One True King, he belongs on the Iron Throne. But he is also the man who executes soldiers of his army who rape. He has good sides. But what weighs so heavily in his favor is that out of all the people in power in Westeros, he is fighting the bad guys.

And that matters – until it doesn't when Stannis strikes out to fight the Boltons. The Boltons are special because they are despicable without exceptions. Even the Freys have Robb's squire in their midst to have that one decent family member/bannerman that all of Westeros' notable houses appear to have. All but the Boltons anyway. There is not a good or decent living Bolton. They are the literal worst Westeros has to offer.

And yet, Stannis manages to cross a moral event horizon that makes everyone forget that he is doing it to fight the Worst. And that moral event horizon is not the sacking of a city, the killing of hundred of thousands. He is not extinguishing a house or a people. He manages it, doing something every single GOT character could do right now (save for little Sam.) He kills a single person.

And he doesn't come back from that. Like a proper Ozymandias, his hubris, his pretension to predestined, prophecied greatness is followed by his inevitable decline. Killing Shireen has Stannis losing his real world fans and his in-story followers, his wife, his fight, his priestess, his army, his purpose and consequently his life. He proves very quickly that not all ends justify all means. He is the living embodiment of the Friedrich Nietzsche quotation that "those who fight monsters should take care that in the process they do not become monsters themselves."  

Stannis' final turn into villainy is actually paralleled by something another character does in ASOIAF. Except he is not a character we meet; he is a story-within-a-story; a legend, a prophecy or both. He is who Stannis thought he was: he is Azor Ahai.

And Azor Ahai absolutely does what Stannis did to turn into a villain, a monster: he murders... sacrifices an innocent to forge Lightbringer to end the Long Night. The way the story gets told makes that murder necessary, but Azor Ahai as the hero and winner of the Long Night gets to tell that story, gets to tell history his way. It's a legend and of course Azor Ahai is its hero. But remember the first person who claimed that "only death can pay for life" was a liar who wanted to make sure that "The Stallion Who Mounts the World" died in the womb. (The second was Melisandre who tends to be wrong on a lot of things and whose track record on human sacrifice is abysmal.)

So there is absolutely a chance that Nissa Nissa's death was as necessary as Shireen's. We won't get the opportunity to fact-check the legend, the ancient history. But if it's a prophecy we might see its reality.

Of course, if GOT really goes the way of making a good guy go bad, then they can do this the middling way, the mediocre way. Theon's Sack of Winterfell Redux or Catelyn's descent into madness and murder. Or by making Dany a villain protagonist who is basically just another Cersei with dragons. And despite not quite measuring up to Stannis' dark turn – ambition, grief, fear, insecurity, jealousy, vanity, or disappointment leading to mass carnage delivered onto a hundred-thousand computer-generated extras is still more interesting than the Night King Sauron with his ice dragon.

But the reality is that we don't care about the 100,000 inhabitants of King's Landing. We will cry over a single Hot Pie before ever giving a fuck about a massive number of fictional people without any characteristics. Mass carnage is easy to oppose morally because it's something we oppose in real life but emotionally there is no difference between 10 fictional people or a billion fictional people – if they are simply there to be nameless, featureless cannon fodder. The ability to cause mass carnage doesn't make you the most emotionally effective villain by default. Quite the opposite.

If Bran were to warg a dragon and set King's Landing on fire, we would get that this whole Three-Eyed Raven thing didn't work out well for his ethics and be, like, "okay". If Bran set fire to Arya, he would immediately become the most hated character ever on GOT. (And that isn't an exaggeration for effect). And any good intentions regarding defeating evil would matter as much as the fight against the Boltons did once Shireen started screaming.

I would like to add that Stannis died pretty much immediately after killing Shireen, blown over like a cardboard once Brienne showed up. But who would defeat or want to defeat a Stannis, an Azor Ahai who succeeded at ending the Long Night?

The ultimate story subversion when it comes to the classic "good vs. evil" plot is that the bad guy wins.

And wouldn't that be something if it was surprise villain protagonist? We get someone winning that we would have been okay with winning until they turned into GOT's least liked character? Wouldn't that be bittersweet? Getting who you were okay with, perhaps even wanted on the Iron Throne, who might even know which is the right tax plan and what to do with baby orcs...  except they suck now?

Now who could that true Azor Ahai possibly be?

Is there someone who has been fighting monsters longer than anyone else has? Who has been so corrupted by that fight that he has tried and sacrificed already everything he could and had to defeat them? A man on quasi-religious crusade? A man who has the sort of righteous hubris and single-minded focus on the White Walkers that makes him often deaf to good advice? Who who has already laid down his life for a chance... and even a "no-chance-at-all-now-let-me-drown-in-an-ice-lake" at defeating the Night King? Is this possibly the same guy who we think is going to be crucial to the defeat of the White Walkers?  The one who has the perfect bloodline to claim the Iron Throne in the end? The one who is shown to Melisandre when she looks for her prophecied chosen one in the fire? The one who appears to be the straight hero of the story, the Luke Skywalker, the only major character where pulling a Stannis would actually shock us?  The one who has never been "profoundly wrong"?

I am not saying, we are getting "Aegon, the Worst of His Name". I am saying that if I wanted to create a villain who subverts all expectations while fulfilling them, a villain who is truly compelling and whose turn emotionally wrecks the audience, I would not make it happen by having Daenerys or Bran roast King's Landing. I simply would choose a more likable and successful version of Stannis and have him doing something terrible, wrongfully believing it's the right thing to do.

Now theoretically this could be anyone but little Sam. And regardless of that character's identity, they would be a great, compelling villain. Practically though, the best candidate for going off that particular deep end is not some random second tier character. And it's not Daenerys "What Even Are White Walkers?" or Bran "I'm a robotic, omniscient plot device now the Three-Eyed Raven now" Stark either.

It's Jon.

***

There is an issue with this though. Stannis murdering a family member/sacrificing a child for their royal blood to win a battle was simply a continuation of Stannis' previous actions. Stannis had no issue with his wife's uncle being burned as a sacrifice to R'hllor, had his brother murdered to win a battle, and attempted to have his underage nephew (Edric Storm in the books, Gendry in the show) sacrificed for his royal blood.

Killing Shireen is Stannis taking this to its logical extreme. Everything he does is simply something he has done before. Except this time the audience isn't given an out: Shireen doesn't escape like Edric/Gendry, we care for her (unlike Alester Florent) and she isn't Stannis' opponent in battle (Renly).

What Stannis is doing, is not surprising or entirely unprecedented. It is ultimately just a darker twist on something he has done before. Which is weird because you would think that something that crosses a moral event horizon would be a real departure from his previous actions. But it's not and that is really crucial if we want to discuss Stannis 2.0.

If a good character goes bad then having them simply do something they've done before –  except this time it's just too much – makes sense. Just like the road to hell is paved with good intentions, escalating villainy should be a slippery slope of ever indefensible bad deeds.

And this is why it makes no sense to look at Jon and wonder who he is going to burn at the stake for R'hllor – because he won't.  What he would do to incur the audience's disdain needs to be something he has kind of done before. And that he has done on the show before, because it stands to reason that the show would want to keep its foreshadowing. (Hence Gendry's slightly pointless kidnapping by Melisandre in the show.)

So the the baby swap is out since it didn't happen on the show. Breaking a vow is a bit too generic and on its lonesome will not evoke any emotional reaction. And making high-handed, impulsive decisions that end up with terrible consequences has been already done with Jon making a series of high-handed, badly thought through decisions that netted the Night King a dragon and destroyed the Wall and yet netted Jon no audience disdain at all. So probably not that one either.

That leaves his relationship with Ygritte. In the books, we only see this relationship from Jon's point of view with all his justifications and inner struggles and his self-knowledge that while he lies about his allegiance to the Wildlings' cause, his feelings for Ygritte are real.

Now if one imagines that relationship from Ygritte's point of view (as she is in the books), Jon would come out of that as a supreme douchebag. He lead her on, lied to her, pretended to have feelings for her, then left her, publicly humiliated her and finally participated in a battle with her on the other side. Jon doesn't kill her but he is willing to do so by fighting her.

Now a real neutral point of view that doesn't vilify Ygritte to prop up Jon as a cool dude (as the show has done with her allying herself with cannibals and the village massacre), would be more of a wash, ethically speaking. Jon lies to Ygritte but his life is at stake and it wasn't even his own idea in the first place. There are consent issues with their relationship and Ygritte is as willing to kill Jon when she participates in that battle as it's the case the other way around.

But then Stannis wasn't that unjustified to go after Renly who was willing to fight and kill him in battle after all. Killing Renly nearly rates as self-defense. And Edric Storm got away. The question is not how horrible Jon's actions towards Ygritte were. But rather what the escalation of that sort of overall action would be like.

Now due to time constraints the only relationship where Jon could pull an escalated "Ygritte" is his relationship with Daenerys. And here I am kind of puzzled by the discourse around the idea. Because as passionately as people argue about it, they actually agree quite fundamentally: that Jon is doing it/not doing because he is the quintessential good guy.

That he either betrays his lover or the plutocratic will of his nation is disregarded as some sort of higher purpose collateral that doesn't at all reflect on his moral character.

But isn't Occam's Razor to the question of how a "good guy" manages to betray either lover or nation simply to question the "good guy" part?

But let's step back a bit. The theory that Jon is playing Dany proposes that Jon initiates this emotional manipulation because she wonders aloud about two things (while he wants her commitment on the fight against the White Walkers): 1. Her ability to achieve her overall strategic goal of winning the Iron Throne 2. What happens to her rear if she pulls all of her forces north.

Now, Jon never actually answers any of these questions (or any questions on how to get the Northern Lords to remain loyal to him and Dany) and that is a bit problematic. Because the second question of what happens in a war if you leave one side open to your enemies is an enormously important one.

What Jon appears to do, is rely on a truism about the North: that it cannot be conquered in Winter (and Winter is here.)

*beleaguered sigh*

This truism exists in our world about two countries. One is considered unconquerable in Winter, the other unconquerable in general. And while these truisms have held true for few centuries now, the reality is that attempts to conquer them have devastated both countries on more than one occasion to the sound of millions of dead inhabitants and bombing it to the bottom of the HDI.

If Jon relies on Winter to protect him and his allies from Cersei, he is an idiot. If Cersei attacks the unprotected North from the South, his ability to fight the White Walkers will be profoundly diminished even if Cersei fails at conquering the North itself. Dany is right to ask this question and he is wrong to ignore it.

And if that theory pans out and Jon took these strategic, legitimate concerns as a sign that he needs to loverboy it up instead of thinking how to protect the North from the South, then that's next level mansplaining.

But forget that point for a bit and go back to the situation in which Jon supposedly initiates it. He is recovering after the Wight Hunt and Dany swears to avenge her dragon while musing on her overall strategy of winning Westeros. And while Jon isn't in good shape, he is not in mortal danger. Not in general, not specifically by Dany. She is letting her hair down and she's pledging her support to his cause.

Jon's life is not the least on the line and the question whether Dany would or would not have pulled out of the war against the White Walkers if Jon hadn't started flirting with her in that moment is an unanswerable hypothetical. No matter how you slice or dice it, it's not certain at all (not to the audience, not to Jon) that she would have pulled out.

So Jon had three choices in this moment: not initiate a romantic relationship with Dany, initiate a romantic relationship out of genuine feeling, initiate a romantic relationship to manipulate her.

None of these choices would spell certain doom. It's not at all like the relationship with Ygritte, where not going along with it would have blown his cover and cost his life. It's also distinct from that situation insofar as he didn't choose to go undercover with the Wildlings in the first place but was commanded into the situation by his superior officer.

If Jon initiated the relationship to manipulate Dany, he chose to do this voluntarily without true necessity. It's, in fact, as necessary as Littlefinger manipulating Lysa into intrigue, murder and ill-fated marriage was. Of course, without that manipulation Littlefinger would have never advanced at court and become Master of the Coin, Lord of Harrenhall and Sweetrobin's guardian. But none of these things were necessary to grant his survival at any time.

The key difference between Jon and Littlefinger is that Jon allies himself with Dany to ensure mankind's survival instead of personal gain. But on the balance, another difference between Littlefinger and Jon's situation is that the romantic relationship wasn't necessary to ensure Dany's support. In fact, even the idea that Dany's concerns are sign of her wavering in her commitment is a minority if not fringe opinion among GOT's audience.

And that makes the idea of Jon manipulating Dany very unpalatable. The lack of necessity makes him a Littlefinger, rather than a Robb or a Ned or even the Jon who lied to Ygritte. And audiences prefer to see their heroes as honorable fools rather than manipulative, emotionally abusive jerks.

Because there is the heart of the problem. If Jon is truly manipulating Dany, he is an emotionally abusive jerk. He is profoundly wrong. He is the guy that your BFF has warned you about. "He is just using you for [something.]"

And that hits home in a way shadowbabies and Frey Pies and Qyburn doesn't. We don't know any necromancers who vivisect people. But we know the kind of jerk that Jon would be. It's not theoretical, it's something we know and because of that will not appreciate.

***

But while this absolutely checks off “make the evil deed painful to the audience” point in the “compelling villain” check list, it’s still nowhere near as ethically questionable as Stannis burning Shireen.

But Jon's Ygritte storyline doesn't end with him duping, betraying and leaving her. It ends with her getting killed. And not just killed, but killed in battle against Jon and his brothers. While Jon is not directly responsible for her death – he neither instigated nor executed the killing – he was willing to risk that his actions would kill her in that battle. The goal of a battle is to win and to use the Patton quote from above "make the other bastard die for his country." Of course, Jon acted in self-defense, Ygritte was fighting that battle against him and the NW voluntarily, fully willing, ready and able to kill him.

But then, to go back to Stannis, Stannis was also just acting in self-defense when he send the shadowbaby assassin to kill Renly. Renly had the superior force and showed himself fully willing, ready and able to kill Stannis in battle. The question whether Stannis' assassination of Renly is justified is a digression too far because that is not the point. The point is that Jon and Stannis got some person killed who was really close to them (brother, lover) and that was kind of, maybe, perhaps justified self-defense. You can argue for it in both cases.

However, as I mentioned before, Stannis' ultimate escalation of Renly's murder is killing Shireen. There is no maybe, perhaps, kind of, about the lack of justification for it. Stannis did not act in self-defense, Stannis was not provoked. The true necessity was also absent... although the proof for that is just hindsight. The sacrifice was supposed to save Stannis and his army. It did not. Thus it was never necessary. The whole thing is just wholly indefensible.

Now would an escalation of Jon's Ygritte storyline limit itself to the affair and betrayal or would it go all the way down to that self-defensive arrow that Jon wasn't directly responsible for? Except for a Stannis-like escalation that arrow could not be self-defensive, it would have to be undeserved, unjustified, unnecessary and Jon's responsibility.

The audience doesn't even have to like Dany at that point. That would be just crossing all moral event horizons, turning Jon into a villain and serving a "King Arthur Aragorn Jon  Snow is the final villain" plot twist that makes R+L=J look like child's play in comparison. It would be truly an epic twist, ending up in the plot twist pantheon next to "Bruce is a ghost" and "Soylent Green".

However, I don't think this is gonna happen. A villain protagonist on that level would have been foreshadowed much, much more, both in the books and the show. "The villain wins" is also really nihilistic and ends up on a quite bitter note with very little sweetness. Davos, Brienne and Sam emerging alone from the rubble would be a more positive and happier ending. It's also the sort of plot twist you think of five books and seven TV seasons later (too late), not when you conceive the story.

So what will happen to Jon instead if he doesn't become a villain?

There are really only two options: his characterization remains in a class of its own and he remains the only truly good guy protagonist or he takes a level in realpolitik and starts to play as dirty as necessary in whatever way. Not quite Jon, the villain but Jon the ethically challenged, Jon the Utilitarian.

(By the way, I am not saying that he has to play dirty with specific characters to qualify, just that that he has to play dirty somehow. In fact, playing dirty with certain characters might evoke a negative, emotional audience reaction that is not in proportion to the ethics violation it presents and thus the whole Utilitarianism bit might accidentally devolve into perceived villainy.)

The really fascinating bit about this is that Jon's characterization will define ASOIAF quite significantly. Jon is so crucial to the story's most fundamental conflict, that even if you discard the idea that he is The Protagonist, you would still have to agree that he is one of the most important protagonists. His characterization will contribute and lead to the resolution of that conflict. If he resolves it by playing dirty, the moral of the story will quite different than it is if he resolves it by always taking the heroic, high road.

And it's not just the moral of the story. Once the story decides to land on "Jon, the moral" or "Jon, the Utilitarian", the question whether we are consuming "Lord of the Rings with boobs" or a true deconstruction of Lord of the Rings will answer itself. And that will reflect on more than just Jon's storyline. If Jon stays heroic, Night King Sauron, our final, two-dimensional villain and other neat and flat resolutions become much more likely.

As such I would argue that the Jon’s characterization will define how good ASOIAF's famed realism truly is, what ideals it propagates, and what kind of story ASOIAF is.

I honestly can't predict how this will play out. But I remember that Ned and the Red Wedding promised a deconstruction of the genre, an acknowledgement that taking the high road constantly can be a dead end in real life. Jon not needing to be smarter than them in the end would break that promise.

#A Song of Ice and Fire #Jon Snow #Aegon Targaryen #ASoIaF #meta #Game of Thrones

[a-super-evil-cat-who-murders]

I’ve been tagged to do a writing recap by @positivelyamazonian (and @luluvonv but I didn’t see that post nor the notification because tumblr hates me and suffering is the essence of my existence) Now, I’ve not read too much lately, as I’ve struggled find books that interest me, and because I just can’t focus on them, even ones I love)

BTW: imma go with past year as if I just did this year, I’d be limited to the Six of Crows duology.

Best book you read so far this year

I’d have to say The Last Olympian by Rick Riordan. The final book in the original Percy Jackson & the Olympians series. This book was a ride. The tension of this book was so great I had to put it down every few minutes just to stave off an actual heart attack. I could feel my heart being crushed and torn inside me chest it was great. I was panting and hyperventilating the whole time, I’ve never had a book do that to me. Like, if you watch any of the battle episodes from Game of Thrones, the entire book is that and it is just marvelous. I knew that Percy and Annabeth and Grover would live, was pretty sure Nico would too, but the other campers I didn’t and when any of them died, and mind you all the campers are kids, Percy is like, 14 or 15 in this book, Luke Castellan was the oldest of all the campers and if I remember he was 23 in this book, the rest are children. And each time they died, and often in not pretty ways, my heart would just shatter for these poor innocent children. The plot is great so I won’t spoil any more of it, but yeah, best book I’ve read in the past year, probably the best I’ve read ever. If you read anything I write about in this post, read the first PJO series, because I cannot say enough how incredible this book is.

Worst book you read so far this year

Hhhmmmmm… I’d say The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson. I’d heard such good things about Sanderson but good gods did I not like this book. The biggest issue I had with it was a lack of quality time with any characters. The book opened with an assassin character, but I spent most of the chapter with him, trying to learn what the fuck he was talking about, what the names were tied to and how his magic worked. I didn’t start getting into him until the end of his chapter. But then, the next chapter is from a completely different characters perspective, in a completely different place at a completely different time. Now this new POV character, is like 15, a novice soldier on a battlefield, so I ofc feel sorry for him and want to hold him and protect him so OKAY! I have a character I can care about, great. Then the battle happens and it’s okay, tbh ASoIaF and TLO kinda ruined battles for me. Then the battle goes awful the kid gets injured, then the battle goes well, and he’s at a medical tent when a surprise army fall upon them. So now I’m thinking “Oh gosh, did he live?” but now we’re stuck with a person who I think was mentioned in the prev. chapter, but he’s a complete asshat so now I’m wondering if the one character I liked and cared about is alive. He died and so did my patience with this book. In A Song of Ice and Fire, and The Heroes of Olympus, Martin and Riordan introduced multiple POV characters at once by having them all in the same place. If you ask me, that’s how you should introduce multiple POV characters, because in that way, even if you only like one of the characters, you still get that character, just form someone else’s perspective. It keeps you from having to repeatedly shift gears, which is the last thing you want at the beginning of your novel if you ask me.

In addition, I had an issue with him using names or words without explaining the meaning of them. He’d talk about a certain ethnic group, and say they’re from this place, but then I’d look on his map, and find no such place. Then we only get a slight description, of their place in society, but I don’t know anything about that society, so that place is without a reference point. He also used the names “lighteye” and “darkeye” but didn’t explain upfront what those descriptors mean, so I’m sitting here trying to ask what that means, but not getting anything. However, they are clearly described as rather important traits in the story, but I don’t think you should introduce such consequential, important parts of your world, and then not explain them. At least, not without good reason.

Completed any series?

Yep, last fall I just slammed through Percy Jackson & the Olympians and its sequel series, The Heroes of Olympus, both by Rick Riordan again. I also read through in 2018 I believe, Leigh Bardugo’s Six of Crows duology. Loved all three to death.

Anticipated read for the second half of the year? 

Nothing in particular. I checked out the first Mistborn book by Brandon Sanderson (hopefully it’s better the Way of Kings), I’ve also though about reading through some history books or something, to see if those catch my interest.

A book that disappointed you 

I’d say The Hidden Oracle, or just all of the Trials of Apollo series by Rick Riordan. I’ve only been able to read through The Hidden Oracle, and that was really just because of Nico and Will. Nico is easily my favorite book character (sorry to my former first place, Bran Stark) and his relationship with Will is so fucking cute and funny I just adore every second of it. However, making Apollo, the actual god, Apollo, the main character was a really stupid idea. The Olympians are by and large the most vain, sadistic, self-centered deities I’ve ever heard of, and making one of them his protagonist was just stupid; those aren’t likable traits, and a lot of the times, it seems like the inflated ego of Apollo is played more for laughs than as an actual character flaw. In addition the other main character, Meg, I find to also be rather annoying. A bratty little kid. No thanks.

I tried to read the second book, The Dark Prophecy, but I just couldn’t. The story left Camp Half-Blood, and thus, Nico and Will aren’t there. Instead we get Leo and Calypso. I never really cared for Calypso, and often found her just kind of meh... and since she hates Apollo, and the book is from Apollo’s perspective, she’s either mean and angry, or just really bland. Regarding Leo, I liked Leo, but, his character arc got resolved in The Blood of Olympus from the previous series (The Heroes of Olympus); he’s learned to fully accept his pyro-kinesis and to stop blaming himself for his mom’s death. Other than that however, Leo’s other defining characteristic is him being a joker. Constantly cracking jokes, and being an all around goofball, and a bit of a ladies boy, but all of that has been dulled quite a bit from the previous series. He’s grumpy, serious, and in a relationship with Calypso, and just lacking in the charm he had from the previous series.

I don’t know if I’ll just try and power through it in the future, because I’m sure Will and Nico will be back towards the end of the series, and because a... cataclysmic event happened in the latest book (the third i think) and... imma have to read that... but... I don’t know.

How many books for have read so far this year? 

???? IDK!?!? 13?

A book that made you laugh 

... Every book by Rick Riordan has made me laugh. Sometimes the normal wheezing i do, sometimes and actual guffaw, and sometimes I’m having to lie down and contain myself before I die from laughter.

Estimated read count for the year? 

Don’t know, don’t care, not like I’m getting paid for it.

Tagging: @inarticulatefox , with Navi gone, you’re the only person i know who likes books ( you do like ‘em right?) and hasn’t done this yet so yeh. I tag ye.

#reading recap #the last olympian #the way of kings #the hidden oracle #the dark prophecy #percy jackson and the olympians #the trials of apollo #percy jackson #leo valdez #calypso

[mykingjon]

Rhaegar, Elia, Lyanna and the matters of succession

*DISCLAIMER: This post does NOT take Rhaegar’s morality, or the outcome of Robert’s Rebellion into consideration, I judge no one and keep my opinions to myself; I’m merely searching for a reasonable truth about why the writers created this plot. I do not tolerate any kind of hate speech; I am a fan of constructive criticism, though.*

Hey guys! There are so many metas about the news of Rhaegar/Elia’s marriage annulment, I know. It definitely set sparks among the fandom. I am not here to defend Rhaegar, or call him names. However, for the past year, I’ve been mostly digging into the history of law on my university. Marriage law heavily included. There are many aspects of the annulment we might not be taking into consideration, as long as D&D read about the matter in the medieval history of course, as well as read the books carefully (Y E A H), which eventually led them to the route they took. Again, I am not trying to defend their decision with this plotline, or the character’s actions, merely wondering about what lead to it in showmakers’ minds. I might be reading too much into it and they simply wanted to make Jon legitimate, and were not very sensitive about Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys, as well as the future of royal dynasty, but all I can do is hope it was otherwise (might be proved wrong in 7x07, but hell, I want to get it off my chest). Healthy discussion and pointing out mistakes in my logic is encouraged.

So, we certainly know Elia’s and Rhaegar’s marriage has been consummated (obviously). It could not be set aside by the High Septon as an unlawful one. Their son, Aegon, was second in line for the throne before the Robert’s Rebellion. The two children Elia and Rhaegar had were securing the dynasty’s position, and Rhaegar believed they both had a great part to play in the Great War. Later on, Rhaegar decided he has to get out of his marriage for some reason, be it love, prophecy, anything you want to name. I want to discuss something entirely different, which is: how would the Faith actually grant his request, if the Prince and the Princess already had children? And also, how would the line of succession look after such a turn?

I’ve seen many people deem it absolutely impossible for a consummated marriage be set aside, and from the religious (New Gods) point of view it probably is, to some extent. However, royalty rules their own lives as they please, and the Faith have been eventually forced to agree to many compromises (just like in medieval Europe), based on Targaryens’ Valyrian heritage (the overused example: brother/sister marriage). So, although the relations have been complicated at first, after hundreds of years of Targaryen rule, Faith was not really considered as a force to be reckoned with, but rather a neccessary ally Kings had to create dialogue with if they needed their blessing in something exceptional. Therefore, in the times of Robert I, among Westerosi nobles it is widely believed that if a King wishes to set aside his wife, even if they both have children, he can easily do that. In AGOT, we have proof for that. 

First one, we can find in Bran II, just before he sees Jaime and Cersei together. Cersei complains about the fact that Ned agreed to become the Hand of the King. She’s scared that Robert will actually listen to him out of love two men bear for each other, and that she will be set aside for the sake of “another Lyanna”. Robert is known to have many mistresses, and father many bastards, so surely she is not speaking merely of that kind of relationship between her husband and a woman Ned would choose for him. She is actually speaking of Ned Stark finding Robert a new wife. Now, if she is presumably the mother of his three children, how could her position be endangered by something like Lord Stark’s opinion of her, or her house, if she is protected by how lawful her marriage is in the eyes of gods? Clearly, if the King wants to set her aside for another woman, he can. The Faith’s opinion is not even considered.

“ My husband grows more restless every day. Having Stark beside him will only make him worse. He’s still in love with the sister, the insipid little dead sixteen-year-old. How long till he decides to put me aside for some new Lyanna?”

Some might argue that Cersei is paranoid, because she is scared of a potential enemy, as well as of the reveal of Joffrey’s real parentage. However, there are also the members of the two great houses who share her opinion, and even found a potential new Lyanna Cersei fears. In AGOT, Arya III, after trying to catch the cats, our girl overhears a conversation which proves the same point. Two unknown to her figures speak of how close Ned is to discovering the truth, for he has a bastard and a book. Before they start this topic, they also mention that lord Renly Baratheon and ser Loras Tyrell plan to bring 14-year-old Margaery to the court. She’s believed to be sweet, meek and beautiful. Both men want Margaery to be bedded and wed by King Robert, although he has a Queen, as well as heirs.

“The Knight of Flowers writes Highgarden, urging his lord father to send his sister to court. The girl is a maid of fourteen, sweet and beautiful and tractable, and Lord Renly and Ser Loras intend that Robert should bed her, wed her, and make a new queen. “

They even hope that Robert will see Lyanna in Margaery:

“The maid was Loras Tyrell’s sister Margaery, he’d confessed, but there were those who said she looked like Lyanna. “No,” Ned had told him, bemused.”

So, to conclude: during the reign of Robert I, there undoubtedly is a possibility for a lawful wife of a King, with whom he (presumably) has children, to be set aside, with no solid reason at all. Surely, just before his reign, there also was such a possibility. One can argue that Rhaegar was no King; yet, he was the Crown Prince of house Targaryen, and his ascention has been long awaited by the most of Westeros, because of his Father’s ways. I would not be surprised if he was treated like a King by the Faith under such circumstances, even if he did not have Aerys’ support in that matter. According to ASOIAF wiki, neither wife nor husband have to be present to make such an annulment, and just one side of the marriage (read: a man) can request it (presumably by sending a raven, if neither of them have to be present). It is uncommon; but not impossible, even book-wise.

Okay, so we know that Rhaegar could somehow persuade High Septon to annul his marriage to Elia, and he didn’t have to travel all the way to Tower of Joy, even if the Prince didn’t start his preparations for running away with Lyanna during the year between Tourney of Harrenhal and the actual event. I imagine that his official reason could be, of course, the good of the dynasty. Elia couldn’t have more children, or else she would risk her life severely, and in the terms of royalty, the more the heirs, the more secure they feel on the throne. Sure, Aegon and Rhaenys would be more than enough for house Targaryen to have a bright future after Rhaegar’s death. But we know there was also something else driving the Crown Prince, and that kind of official reason for an annulment could be accepted by the Faith, instead of “I need a third head of the dragon to save this godforsaken land”, “I love Lyanna Stark, I have to marry her asap”, or anything else you want to name. In medieval Europe, the inability to bring children to the world, or even as much as not being able to have sexual intercourse, was believed to be reason enough to annul marriage among the high-born. The main god-given task behind all the marriages was for the husband and wife to want to bring as many children as possible into the world. Conclusion: the annulment could be arranged in the world based on our medieval one.

But what kind of sense would it have, right? If Rhaegar annuled his marriage to Elia, he would bastardize his “promised prince” Aegon, and his daughter Rhaenys. He would risk his dynasty all the more with taking two heirs out of the line of succession, especially in the turbulent times of the Mad King. It just wouldn’t make sense, for the dynasty, Rhaegar, and even High Septon.

In medieval times, there were many obstacles to subdue in Catholic marriage law. I will not name them all, ‘cause there are a lot of them, but they were divided into those which annuled the marriage the second they were discovered (example: kinship to some extent), and those which could prevent the very existance of the marriage  ONLY before the sacrament, vows, etc. took place (example: age; yes, in medieval times people were sometimes not sure how old were they). The inability to provide more children could be used as an obstacle to annul the marriage by someone as important as Rhaegar (especially with the fact Robert could set Cersei aside with no reason at all, or the made-up one), yes, we know that already; but even in this series of events, in medieval Europe, there was an institution to protect the children from such a marriage. They were said to be “conceived in a good will”, so, in a belief that a marriage was and always will be valid. Aegon and Rhaenys could still be kept in the line of succesion, even if their mother would never become/stop being Queen (which is a bummer, of course, but hear me out). 

This seems like the most logical option that writers could follow if they decided to erase Elia and Rhaegar’s marriage completely. It was a HUGE compromise on the Faith’s side - the dynasty would not loose its heirs and the Realm - two heads of the dragon, and Rhaegar was free to do what he wanted, for whatever the hell reason he wanted. But then again, we already decided that Targaryens were bending everyone to their will, Faith included.

So, the line of succession then, would be: 1. Aegon, 2. Jon, 3. Rhaenys, 4. Viserys, 5. Daenerys. Pretty secure, huh?

The only person who lost social position in this, was of course, Princess Elia. But whether you morally accept with what was done to her in the terms of her marriage, or not, that kind of option seems like the most possible one. *prayer circle Rhaegar was not batshit crazy and actually took Realm, his children, and his whole life before Lyanna and Jon into consideration before doing something like that to Elia, all the while bending High Septon to his will, even in the show-verse*

Of course, we all know that the war ruined Rhaegar’s plans, whatever they might have been. I am just trying my VERY best to understand what was the writers’ logic behind that decision, because frankly, as somebody who watches the show, as well as read the books, I never took that option into consideration. Polygamy, the royal decree to legitimize Jon - yes, that was on my mind. But annulment? That was quite a shock to me, as it must have been for everyone. At first I completely couldn’t get my head around that, but the deeper you get into that, the more sense it makes. Well, I hope we’ll see how George handles it!

#got meta #rhaegar targaryen #lyanna stark #elia martell #rhaegar x lyanna #house targaryen #aegon targaryen #rhaenys targaryen #jon snow #game of thrones #season 7 reveal #my meta

[kateofthecanals]

For The (Not)Watch: Episode 7.2

Exposition Theatre Presents...

Apologies for the lateness of this recap, I assume many of these topics have already been covered elsewhere, but I have things to say nonetheless!!! The episode was far from the worst, though far from the best. Inoffensive for the most part and even included some rather nice moments (if you ignore the broader context... so, you know, the usual). Let’s start at the beginning...

It was a dark and stormy night. Tyrion was regaling the Dragon Queen about the circumstances of her own birth, which was a treacherous omen of things to come. Dany and Varys then decide to have a conversation that should have happened before he had even stepped aboard her ferry to Dragonstone. She confronts him about plotting to assassinate her back in Season 1 and he’s just like “whaddayagonnado?” and she makes him swear that he’ll actually tell her she sucks before actually betraying her. I’m sure that’ll work out swell. Varys assures her...

And Tyrion vouches for Varys because he’s “an excellent judge of character.”

Then Grey Worm has some kinda psychic episode and suddenly jumps in to tell Dany that Melisandre is in da house to say welcome to the neighborhood. Dany is cool with her being there because apparently the red priests helped bring “peace” to Meereen (really? when did that happen?) and Mel starts speaking to Dany in High Valyrian.

**We interrupt this program to bring you a prophecy that should have been mentioned 7 seasons ago. Had D&D realized this was actually an important plot point, they would have seeded it earlier. We now return to your regularly scheduling programming.**

Dany’s bummed that she’s not the Prince That Was Promised because she’s not a “prince”, then Missandei interrupts to tell Dany, WHOSE FIRST LANGUAGE IS HIGH VALYRIAN, that her interpretation of the prophecy is wrong -- the PTWP is totes gender-neutral, y’all! Mel won’t confirm or deny if Dany is the PTWP because even she is apparently skeptical of her own bullshit; instead she just tells Dany that she NEEDS to hook up with this cat Jon Snow, who “defeated” the Boltons and became “King in the North”. Dany’s like...

So is Tyrion, tbh. He jumps in and vouches for Jon too (remember, Excellent Judge of Character!) and because Dany has no opinions or thoughts of her own and can’t even properly translate her own mother tongue, she’s like okay cool, send a raven to Jon (where did they get ravens?).

Well, it must have been a FedEx Express Overnight™ raven cuz we cut immediately to Winterfell where Jon is already reading Tyrion’s letter. Sandra questions whether or not it’s really Tyrion but Jon says it’s legit because he included a Book Quote from the first season. And even though Jon got to know Tyrion pretty well on their journey to the Wall, he decides to be Condescending Ally and asks Sandra her opinion. Sandra then fulfills her “Tyrion’s such a nice guy!” quota for the season before Davos strolls up to finally deliver some dialogue. He has a “eureka” moment when he realizes that dragons can kill white walkers. Jon asks if he thinks he should meet with Dany as she Tyrion requested, and Davos says no, it’s too dangerous, but they should keep that shit in their back pocket for future consideration...

Then we hop to King’s Landing... Side Note: not only do all the main female characters dress alike this season, they all sound alike too. Seriously, watch these first three scenes with your eyes closed -- they all sound exactly the same!

Anyway, Cersei is in the throne room addressed Randyll “What Sword?” Tarly and some leftover Tyrells to try and convince him to join her cause against Dany, and Randyll doesn’t seem at all bothered by being ordered around by a woman. (So, I guess it’s cool for Arya and Brienne to be retconned as misogynists, but actual canon misogynists like Randyll Tarly are suddenly super cooperative and tolerant? Okay.) Cersei then starts throwing mad shade at Dany and her dad: “You remember the Mad King and the horrors he inflicted on his people...” <-- says the woman who literally did the thing that Jaime KILLED Aerys for only THREATENING to do. At this point, I began to wonder if it was actually common knowledge that Cersei blew up the sept; I guess there’s some plausible deniability, but Cersei herself doesn’t exactly seem like she has anything to hide in that regard...

After the meeting breaks up, Jaime takes Randyll aside and introduces himself to Dickon, who seems to be played by a new actor now. (BTW, how many times do you think D&D giggled like 10-year-olds at the name “Dick-On”?) Jaime questions why they even came, and Randyll says, “If my queen summons me, I answer the call. And I’ve heard what she does to those who defy her.” Which answers my question above -- he DOES know about the sept. Yet, just like kinslaying and Guest Right, terrorism is just NBD anymore. Randyll then waffles in his allegiance to Cersei and Olenna Tyrell, and I’m just.... Please. If Olenna, who is not even a Tyrell by blood, was really the only Tyrell left, do you REALLY think Randyll wouldn’t bounce at the first opportunity?? Then Jaime makes Randyll an offer he can’t refuse (Warden of the South) because the King’s Landing plot is basically The Godfather now.

Down at the Citadel, Archmaester Slughorn has a terminal prognosis for Jorah and he suggests that he just fall on his sword and get it over with. Jorah, I assume, is too busy wondering how he’s gonna make sweet love to Khaaleeesiiii with a stone wang...

Then we jump back to KL where Qyburn and Cersei are taking a little stroll through the dungeons where the dragon skulls are. Cersei says that Robert would come down there sometimes to look at them, or to band random whores, which seems extremely unlikely since Robert had an aneurysm every time the Targaryens were even mentioned. Cersei questions how they’re actually gonna be able to defeat Dany’s dragons, and Arnold Qyburnegger insists that “If it bleeds, we can kill it.” He then reveals his TOP SECRET MASTER PLAN!!! A really big crossbow. Somewhere Daryl Dixon just got the most massive boner...

Then we’re back on Dragonstone where Yara and Ellaria are yelling at Dany to just attack Dragonstone now while they have the opportunity and the forces. Tyrion’s all, “I got this, babe” and proceeds to lay out Dany’s plan for Dany (is it even Dany’s plan?), because why should the supposed leader and aspiring Queen be the one to give her troops their marching orders herself? The few lines she did have were just direct quotes from Tyrion. Anyway, Dany Tyrion tells Yara to escort Ellaria back to Dorne for some reason I don’t remember and I couldn’t help but wonder why they didn’t think of this before dragging Ellaria and Olenna all the way to Dragonstone just to send them back south again. BTW, D&D thought this scene was super Feminist because 4 women were in one scene together. I’m not making that up...

Then Dany and Olenna have a one-on-one in which Olenna delivers the first meme of Season 7: “You’re a dragon! Be a dragon!” T-shirts are now available in the HBO store. (Yes, I’m serious.)

We then take a break from “Game of Thrones” to bring you a very special episode of “As the Grey Worm Turns”. So, blah blah blah, Missandei visits Grey Worm in his quarters, whines about him leaving, he calls her his “weakness”, kisses her, she immediately disrobes -- seriously, that shit came off QUICK like

...and then he goes down on her. SIGH okay look... Yes, it was a lovely scene in and of itself, and I know this was D&D’s attempt at something “sweet” for a change, and YES it was the first CONSENSUAL sex scene we’ve gotten since, what, Season 3? But here’s the problem... First of all, there are so many other actual CANON romances in ASOIAF that have gone completely or virtually unexplored on this show, so for them to just invent this “romance” between a eunuch and a character who is actually supposed to 10 just feels utterly inane. Let’s be honest, guys, this scene happened for 2 reasons: (A) they wanted to see Nathalie Emmanuel naked again, and (B) penises are for sexual assault and comic relief ONLY on this show.

So, back at the Citadel, Slughorn is droning on about one thing or another when Sam says he found a couple of recorded cases of greyscale being cured, but Sluggy says don’t believe the hype because the procedure is too dangerous and risky and was outlawed. But... you guys... greyscale is like Westerosi AIDS, so even if the procedure is “risky”, don’t you think it’s worth maybe EXPLORING at the very least??? Anyway, I’m sure you can already guess what’s gonna happen next...

Yes, Sam sneaks into Jorah’s quarters with an assortment of paraphernalia, and the same dude who spent a solid 5 minutes last episode dry-heaving over some turds has suddenly decided he’s now Doogie Howser. He offers Jorah some rum to drink to dull the pain, since apparently milk of the poppy was outlawed while we weren’t looking, and it turns out that the cure for greyscale is to just scrape it off like an old paint job. Huh.

BTW, what the hell is with this new obsession with juxtaposing bodily fluids with food all of a sudden?? New fetish?? Anyway, that pie looked AMAZING. We’re not at what I assume is the Inn at the Crossroads where Arya is chilling waiting for her meal, special delivered by Iron Chef Hot Pie! She begins to eat and drink like a pig in the manner of her soulmate The Hound and makes a joke about baking one or two pies (BECAUSE SHE’S THE MARIE CALLENDER OF MURDER PIES GET IT); there’s also another brief reference to Briennebowl (sigh). Turns out, even fucking Hot Pie knows about Cersei blowing up the sept, ffs. He also knows something else that, for some reason, Arya doesn’t -- that the Starks took back Winterfell from the Boltons. Arya is SHOOK and frankly so am I because she spent 2 whole weeks at the Twins and NO ONE mentioned this?? Even the Lannister soldiers from last episode never brought it up?? Anyway, Arya’s like “oh shit I gotta go” and Hot Pie tells her that he prefers her as a girl because she’s “pretty” and OH how I wish she would have gotten more of a reaction from that, but then again this is GoT where only “idiot” girls would respond to being called pretty... When she leaves the inn, she hangs a louie north instead of south, having decided to keep her murdering more local.

This actually wasn’t that bad a scene, to be honest. I liked how Arya looked genuinely detached as she casually made references to murders she committed or would be committing... and then how she completely snaps out of it when she hears that Jon is in Winterfell. I think the success of this scene rests solely on Maisie’s shoulders though.

Speaking of WF, we then cut to Jon who is doing the thing where the scene opens on someone just staring blankly at a map. Maester Whatshisnameagain comes in to deliver Sam’s raven, cuz the Citadel is cheap as fuck and only uses UPS Ground. We then IMMEDIATELY jump to another council meeting where Jon announces Sam’s “news” that Dragonstone is lousy with dragonglass, and that this info has confirmed his decision to answer Dany’s Tyrion’s summons after all. And because Jon can NEVER seem to clue Sandra in on his plans BEFORE meetings, he blindsides her once again, prompting her to ONCE AGAIN speak up in defiance. Yes, it’s all just lame, manufactured, forced tension on D&D’s part, and what makes it even more infuriating is that it frames Sandra as a brat Every. Time. Though, in this case, everyone else in the room seems to agree with her, including Feminist Icon™ Lyanna Mormont -- Jon is their King and should NOT abandon them when winter is upon them. Jon’s like, “Hey YOU guys are the ones who wanted me to be KiTN, I never asked for it!” Which is a super cool thing to say in front of the rightful heir whose claim you stole. But hey, all is forgiven I guess when Jon oh-so generously declares that he’s leaving WF in Sansa’s hands while he’s gone. Hey, I kidnapped your child, would you mind babysitting for me for a bit? So, basically Jon abandons the North like he did the Night’s Watch, and aren’t we so glad that Sansa’s claim was completely ignored in favor of this super reliable dipshit?

Before he leaves, Jon ducks down into the crypts to meditate in front of Ned’s effigy when Littlefucker rolls up on him like a creep and Jon’s just OVER IT before it’s even begun...

LF then declares that he “loves” Sandra (cue every puking gif ever), and Jon immediately knocks his gross ass into the wall and tells him he’ll kill him if he ever touches his sister. Frankly, LF seemed kinda into it... ;-P

Jon then leaves and mounts his horse, waving goodbye to Sandra from her permanent perch on the walkway, and she’s all

Out in the woods, Arya’s building a fire when she notices her horse acting freaked out. She suddenly finds herself surrounded by VERY BAD BOYS snarling and growling at her when a huge figure comes up behind her and then...

Yeah, I admit it, I straight up cried seeing Arya and Nymeria together again. Of course, this is GoT, though, and we can’t have nice things, so it was shortlived. Yes, in the grand tradition of D&D reintroducing forgotten characters just to kill off/get rid of them again, I present: NYMERIA. So I went from tears to rage in less than a minute. These fucking assholes are more concerned about $$$$ than the VERY CRUCIAL FACT that the Stark kids are bonded to their wolves FOR LIFE and are GODDAMN WARGS, period. I hate them so much.

The next scene was filmed through a dirty coffee filter and I couldn’t see a damn thing, but horrible accents + cattiness = must be the Sand Snakes! Oh joy! I dunno what those fucking accents were; they sounded like fucking Apollonia when she first learned English, and I wanted to kill myself. Things just got worse from there when we jumped to another part of the ship (oh yeah, we’re on a ship btw) where Ellaria and Yara are cozying up to each other in front of Theon and begin to taunt him by feeling each other up and MAN I can’t wait for these bitches to die. The gropefest is mercifully interrupted then by the ship getting rammed, and they all run outside to see Euron’s sails in the firelight. Euron Both-Hands himself then makes one helluva entrance before getting down to some good ol’ murderin’. It’s a complete clusterfuck that’s not very well lit but I could see enough to know that he killed Obara and Nym...

PRO TIP: If you’re trying to establish the next big villain on your show, don’t have him kill off 2 of the most universally despised characters.

Not surprisingly, they spare Ellaria and Tyene “Bad Pussy” Sand (AKA the one Sand Snake most willing to take her top off), meanwhile Euron and Yara face off against one another. Euron gets the upper hand and is holding a knife to Yara’s throat as he calls to Theon. Theon looks back and forth between his shitperson sister and his psychopath uncle and decides mmmmmm NOPE

I’ve seen plenty of people criticizing Theon for this, and I think it’s utter bullshit. Like, I honestly believe that scene was intended to show us that Theon was still highly traumatized and triggered in that moment, much like Sandor during the Blackwater. I do not think that we, as viewers, were meant to look at that and come away thinking that Theon was being shitty or a coward. BUT HERE’S THE THING: you cannot spend 6 seasons conditioning your audience to believe that experiencing genuine trauma is a “weakness” or “foolish” and then expect everyone to be all cool and understanding when you suddenly decide to go for “realism”. Especially when last season featured a scene in which Yara told Theon to either get over it or just kill himself and it was framed as LEGITIMATELY GOOD ADVICE (which D&D even confirmed as such)!! So yeah, a retcon in which Theon’s trauma is addressed in a very logical and meaningful way is obviously going to receive backlash. This is the same show where Sansa had to be raped in order to be “strong”, so clearly a male character who’s experienced similar trauma should just “get over it” too, right? THAT is the lesson GoT is teaching its viewers, so it stands to reason that they would revolt when a character has a genuine PTSD episode. Not to mention the fact that Yara totally did not deserve Theon’s help or protection after the way she had treated him. Not to mention how SHE left HIM behind with Ramsay!! And later blamed HIM for it! Shit, I would leave her ass too. So, yeah, this scene was, I believe, intended to show that, no, Theon is NOT over it, because yelling at someone to just stop being sad about their trauma is not a magical cure. But it’s too late for this show to try and be sensitive about these sorts of things, because your viewers have been programmed NOT to accept it. So the one time D&D&Co choose to be authentic, it falls on deaf ears. No surprise there.

Quite a note to end on, for sure. Next week looks to be more of the same, so I’m stocking up on Red Bull now...

#got #got shit #shame of thrones #for the (not)watch #got spoilers #got season 7 #got episode 7.2 #stormborn #daenerys targaryen #varys #tyrion lannister #melisandre #jon snow #sansa stark #davos seaworth #cersei lannister #jaime lannister #randyll tarly #dickon tarly #samwell tarly #jorah mormont #qyburn #arya stark #hot pie #nymeria #theon greyjoy #yara greyjoy #ellaria sand #grey worm #missandei

[sly2o]

Re: “Your name is?”

don’t you think your meta/speculation is kind of reducing arya stark into a plot device? lightbringer and the war for the dawn is primarily jon snow’s storyline, and while i do think arya has a role to play in it, why should that role be as the sacrificial character to service jon’s character growth? when arya is a character in her own right and is so fully rounded and fully realized that you can take her out of the asoiaf context and still be left with a compelling character mostly intact. her story has always been about her journey and her alone, so much so that you can create a complete novel out of only her book chapters. that’s how complete her hero’s arc is. i think when you say that “she has no other purpose to the story” but to “literally become a weapon” you’re disregarding the complex character building that went into developing her as a hero of her own story, you’re only thinking of what role she has to play in the war and in the overall plot, when you should also be considering what function the war will serve to further arya stark’s growth as a person/character. 

Submission by @tangerine-silhouette regarding this post.

Answer:

Yes, yes I do think I am reducing her down to a plot device. (I know, I know, hang on with me a moment here).

My spec was about a prophecy that has been discussed a lot but was meant to be a different take on the usual answers (Daenerys and Sansa usually get tagged as the most likely to be sacrificed by Jon and I really don’t think those are options that make much sense).

I personally hope that the whole Lightbringer thing doesn’t happen for all the reasons you said. She is an amazing character and I want her to live. I want GRRM to write spin-off stories about her adventures 20+ years after the books end. 

...but if the Lightbringer prophecy does come true? I think Arya is the one who makes most sense (for the reasons I outlined before). 

But beyond this - I really am struggling to find a way to merge her journey into the main plot of the books, and I don’t think we can just disregard her as having some critical role in the final story. 

You’re right in that she has had an amazing stand alone journey that could be its own novel, but it has to thread back in eventually. Otherwise why include her in the books and show at all? GRRM could have just written her story as a short-story in one of his many compendium books. 

I can’t find another endgame for her that makes her journey fit into the main plot. But I’d love to be inspired by others thoughts/ideas on this.

#asoiaf #game of thrones #asoiaf meta #game of thrones meta #game of thrones speculation #arya stark #submission