#it’s like grrm always says… the human heart in conflict with itself… | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cappymightwrite · 3 years

Note

What draws you to incest ?

*sighs* Ok, here we go. I'm a real card carrying Jonsa now aren't I?

Anon, listen. I know this is an anti question that gets bandied about a lot, aimed at provoking, etc, when we all know no Jonsa is out here being all you know what, it really is the incest, and the incest alone, that draws me in. I mean, come on now. Grow up.

If I was "drawn" to incest I'd be a fan of Cersei x Jaime, Lucrezia x Cesare, hell Oedipus x Jocasta etc... but I haven't displayed any interest in them now, have I? So, huh, it can't be that.

Frankly, it's a derivitive question that is really missing the mark. I'm not "drawn" to it, though yeah, it is an unavoidable element of Jonsa. The real question you should be asking though, is what draws GRRM to it? Because he obviously is drawn to it, specifically what is termed the "incest motif" in academic and literary scholarship. That is a far more worthwhile avenue of thinking and questioning, compared with asking me. Luckily for you though anon, I sort of anticipated getting this kind of question so had something in my drafts on standby...

You really don't have to look far, or that deeply, to be hit over the head by the connection between GRRM's literary influences and the incest motif. I mean, let's start with the big cheese himself, Tolkein:

Tolkein + Quenta Silmarillion

We know for definite that GRRM has been influenced by Tolkein, and in The Silmarillion you notably have a case of unintentional incest in Quenta Silmarillion, where Túrin Turambar, under the power of a curse, unwittingly murders his friend, as well as marries and impregnates his sister, Nienor Níniel, who herself had lost her memory due to an enchantment.

Mr Tolkein, "what draws you to incest?"

Old Norse + Völsunga saga

Tolkein, as a professor of Anglo-Saxon, was hugely influenced by Old English and Old Norse literature. The story of the ring Andvaranaut, told in Völsunga saga, is strongly thought to have been a key influence behind The Lord of the Rings. Also featured within this legendary saga is the relationship between the twins Signy and Sigmund — at one point in the saga, Signy tricks her brother into sleeping with her, which produces a son, Sinfjotli, of pure Völsung blood, raised with the singular purpose of enacting vengence.

Anonymous Norse saga writer, "what draws you to incest?"

Medieval Literature as a whole

A lot is made of how "true" to the storied past ASOIAF is, how reflective it is of medieval society (and earlier), its power structures, its ideals and martial values etc. ASOIAF, however, is not attempting historical accuracy, and should not be read as such. Yet it is clearly drawing from a version of the past, as depicted in medieval romances and pre-Christian mythology for instance, as well as dusty tomes on warfare strategy. As noted by Elizabeth Archibald in her article Incest in Medieval Literature and Society (1989):

Of course the Middle Ages inherited and retold a number of incest stories from the classical world. Through Statius they knew Oedipus, through Ovid they knew the stories of Canace, Byblis, Myrrha and Phaedra. All these stories end more or less tragically: the main characters either die or suffer metamorphosis. Medieval readers also knew the classical tradition of incest as a polemical accusation,* for instance the charges against Caligula and Nero. – p. 2

The word "polemic" is connected to controversy, to debate and dispute, therefore these classical texts were exploring the incest motif in order to create discussion on a controversial topic. In a way, your question of "what draws you to incest?" has a whiff of polemical accusation to it, but as I stated, you're missing the bigger question.

Moving back to the Middle Ages, however, it is interesting that we do see a trend of more incest stories appearing within new narratives between the 11th and 13th centuries, according to Archibald:

The texts I am thinking of include the legend of Judas, which makes him commit patricide and then incest before betraying Christ; the legend of Gregorius, product of sibling incest who marries his own mother, but after years of rigorous penance finally becomes a much respected pope; the legend of St Albanus, product of father-daughter incest, who marries his mother, does penance with both his parents but kills them when they relapse into sin, and after further penance dies a holy man; the exemplary stories about women who sleep with their sons, and bear children (whom they sometimes kill), but refuse to confess until the Virgin intervenes to save them; the legends of the incestuous begetting of Roland by Charlemagne and of Mordred by Arthur; and finally the Incestuous Father romances about calumniated wives, which resemble Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale except that the heroine's adventures begin when she runs away from home to escape her father's unwelcome advances. – p. 2

I mean... that last bit sounds eerily quite close to what we have going on with Petyr Baelish and Sansa Stark. But I digress. What I'm trying to say is that from a medieval and classical standpoint... GRRM is not unique in his exploration of the incest motif, far from it.

Sophocles, Ovid, Hartmann von Aue, Thomas Malory, etc., "what draws you to incest?"

Faulkner + The Sound and the Fury, and more!

Moving on to more modern influences though, when talking about the writing ethos at the heart of his work, GRRM has famously quoted William Faulker:

His mantra has always been William Faulkner’s comment in his Nobel prize acceptance speech, that only the “human heart in conflict with itself… is worth writing about”. [source]

I’ve never read any Faulker, so I did just a quick search on “Faulkner and incest” and I pulled up this article on JSTOR, called Faulkner and the Politics of Incest (1998). Apparently, Faulkner explores the incest motif in at least five novels, therefore it was enough of a distinctive theme in his work to warrant academic analysis. In this journal article, Karl F. Zender notes that:

[...] incest for Faulkner always remains tragic [...] – p. 746

Ah, we can see a bit of running theme here, can't we? But obviously, GRRM (one would hope) doesn’t just appreciate Faulkner’s writing for his extensive exploration of incest. This quote possibly sums up the potential artistic crossover between the two:

Beyond each level of achieved empathy in Faulkner's fiction stands a further level of exclusion and marginalization. – pp. 759–60

To me, the above parallels somewhat GRRM’s own interest in outcasts, in personal struggle (which incest also fits into):

I am attracted to bastards, cripples and broken things as is reflected in the book. Outcasts, second-class citizens for whatever reason. There’s more drama in characters like that, more to struggle with. [source]

Interestingly, however, this essay on Faulkner also connects his interest in the incest motif with the romantic poets, such as Percy Bysshe Shelley and Lord Byron:

As Peter Thorslev says in an important study of romantic representations of incest, " [p]arent-child incest is universally condemned in Romantic literature...; sibling incest, on the other hand, is invariably made sympathetic, is sometimes exonerated, and, in Byron's and Shelley's works, is definitely idealized.” – p. 741

Faulkner, "what draws you to incest?" ... I mean, that article gives some good explanations, actually.

Lord Byron, Manfred + The Bride of Abydos

Which brings us onto GRRM interest in the Romantics:

I was always intensely Romantic, even when I was too young to understand what that meant. But Romanticism has its dark side, as any Romantic soon discovers... which is where the melancholy comes in, I suppose. I don't know if this is a matter of artistic influences so much as it is of temperament. But there's always been something in a twilight that moves me, and a sunset speaks to me in a way that no sunrise ever has. [source]

I'm already in the process of writing a long meta about the influence of Lord Byron in ASOIAF, specifically examining this quote by GRRM:

The character I’m probably most like in real life is Samwell Tarly. Good old Sam. And the character I’d want to be? Well who wouldn’t want to be Jon Snow — the brooding, Byronic, romantic hero whom all the girls love. Theon [Greyjoy] is the one I’d fear becoming. Theon wants to be Jon Snow, but he can’t do it. He keeps making the wrong decisions. He keeps giving into his own selfish, worst impulses. [source]

Lord Byron, "what draws you to—", oh, um, right. Nevermind.

I'm not going to repeat myself here, but it's worth noting that there is a clear through line between GRRM and the Romantic writers, besides perhaps melancholic "temperament"... and it's incest.

But look, is choosing to explore the incest motif...well, a choice? Yeah, and an uncomfortable one at that, but it’s obvious that that is what GRRM is doing. I think it’s frankly a bit naive of some people to argue that GRRM would never do Jonsa because it’s pseudo-incest and therefore morally repugnant, no ifs, no buts. I’m sorry, as icky as it may be to our modern eyes, GRRM has set the president for it in his writing with the Targaryens and the Lannister twins.

The difference with them is that they knowingly commit incest, basing it in their own sense of exceptionalism, and there are/will be bad consequences — this arguably parallels the medieval narratives in which incest always ends badly, unless some kind of real penance is involved. For Jon and Sansa, however, the Jonsa argument is that they will choose not to commit incest, despite a confused attraction, and then will be rewarded in the narrative through the parentage reveal, a la Byron’s The Bride of Abydos. The Targaryens and Lannisters, in several ways excluding the incest (geez the amount of times I’ve written incest in this post), are foils for the Starks, and in particular, Jon and Sansa. Exploring the incest motif has been on the cards since the very beginning — just look at that infamous "original" outline — regardless of whether we personally consider that an interesting writing choice, or a morally inexcusable one.

Word of advice, or rather, warning... don't think you can catch me out with these kinds of questions. I have access to a university database, so if I feel like procrastinating my real academic work, I can and will pull out highly researched articles to school you, lmao.

But you know, thanks for the ask anyway, I guess.

#cappy's thoughts #I'm still on my break/hiatus #i just had some of this already written #jonsa #jon x sansa #anti bs #grrm and medieval literature #grrm and william faulkner #grrm and the romantics #grrm and tolkein #grrm and old norse literature #grrm and his literary influences #was this petty lmao?

181 notes · View notes

melrosing · 3 years

Note

I'm 99% sure JB are going to end up tragically (GRRM said he loves tragic love stories so I don't trust him.) My hope is that the relationship doesn't die, even if Jaime does, and Brienne knows he loved her. But I have a feeling that death might not be the worst thing to happen. For all we know, it might end up in betrayal and rejection and pain and I can't go through that again. Most heroine/villain ships are written like that, as cautionary tales about how naive the heroine was for trusting the villain and doesn't she know that he can't change, that he's only evil and will definitely disappoint her. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure if that happens, it won't be like the show and GRRM will write it well, and it'll be fleshed out and maybe even enjoyable to read. The only thing I won't forgive is if Jaime ends up being a corrupting influence on Brienne. That's how some heroine/villain ships are written too.

Yeah, I also tend to think they’ll end tragically, but D&D’s definition of tragic is… so different to GRRM’s. Like with D&D, their idea of tragedy is all based around the hopelessness and despair of the Red Wedding – that was the thing they were looking forward to writing, and it’s that horrified audience reaction they’ve been trying to win back ever since. Audience hurt is a measure of brave and disruptive writing in their view, and along with utter fucking carelessness, JB’s story fell victim to that.

Meanwhile, I remember this from an interview with GRRM:

One particular letter, sent by a waitress, remains fresh in his memory. “She wrote to me: ‘I work hard all day, I’m divorced, I have a couple of children. My life is very hard, and my one pleasure is I come home and I read fantasy, and I escape to other worlds. Then I read [the Red Wedding], and God, it was f–king horrifying. I don’t read for this. This is a nightmare. Why would you do this to me?'” the author recalled.

Martin wrote her back, “And basically said, ‘I’m sorry, I do understand where you’re coming from.'” (X)

I think GRRM has enjoyed some of the appalled reactions his biggest twists have earned – which is fair, and I do believe that the Red Wedding is a justified (if upsetting) twist. But his memory of this letter goes to show that he’s well aware people don’t read just to be upset: tragedy has to mean something, you can’t just deal out hurt and call it a story.

If Brienne, after a lifetime of rejection, is dealt a final blow by the man she truly loves, the man who truly knew her – what meaning is there? Because that’s the end of her story, it’s not some halfway point. I could go into how senselessly hurtful the rejection narrative is for Jaime’s story as well, but I think it’s always Brienne’s that gets neglected when we talk about this. Because it’s downright miserable ending if you’re Brienne, isn’t it? It’s downright miserable to read if you give a single shit about her, right?

And can anyone tell me why GRRM would even write such a thing? What he’d even be trying to say about people like Brienne with an ending like that? That people like her just don’t understand the way the world is and can’t know love? Something tells me that’s not what was on my dude’s mind when he wrote JB as his own personal BatB. He believes in tragedy, not pessimism.

In JB’s case, I can see their tragedy being Jaime’s choice between love and duty (that theme we keep seeing in ASOIAF) – maybe Jaime could live the rest of his life with Brienne, but he needs to save his children, or stop Cersei, or otherwise do his duty as LC of the Kingsguard. If his story starts with him choosing love (Cersei) over duty (to protect the innocent, i.e. Bran), perhaps his ending sees him having to abandon love for duty. That’s a tragedy, but a classic ‘human heart in conflict with itself’ that leaves Brienne’s narrative perfectly intact. The show, meanwhile, seems to get it the wrong way round.

As for whether Jaime would ever ‘corrupt’ Brienne, I really don’t think that’s on the cards. He’s not a classic villain in that he doesn’t represent some force for evil, and he’s never tried to recruit Brienne to his ‘side’, instead he’s shifted over hers. Plus her morals are steadfast as ever for having known him, he’s actually reinforced her belief in many of them. I imagine Brienne will enter greyer areas in the final books, but that will be more to do with her own arc of learning the complexity of the world, and perhaps discovering the things she’d do for love idk.

Anyway perhaps this sounds myopic but I genuinely don't even worry that book JB will end as the show did. Their ending in GOT made a lot of people feel deeply unhappy, but A) that was basically their sole intention and B) they really didn't give a fuck about these characters, it's not worth reading into it.

#ask #asoiaf #jaime lannister #brienne of tarth #jaime x brienne

173 notes · View notes

rainhadaenerys · 3 years

Text

Saying that Daenerys is "nothing without her dragons" is an insult to GRRM's writing

I've already made several posts about this topic (see here and here), talking about all of Dany's talents that have nothing to do with dragons, about how she accomplished many things without using dragons, about how even to get the dragons she had to work hard, and so on. But I just remembered one GRRM interview that is relevant to this discussion:

Magic should never be the solution to the problem. My credo as a writer has always been Faulkner’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech where he said, “The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself.” That transcends genre. That’s what good fiction, good drama is about: human beings in trouble. You have to make a decision, you have to do something, your life is in danger or your honor is in danger, or you're facing some crisis of the heart. To make a satisfying story, the protagonist has to solve the problem, or fail to solve the problem – but has to grapple with the problem in some kind of rational way, and the reader has to see that. And if the hero does win in the end, he has to feel that that victory is earned. The danger with magic is that the victory could be unearned. Suddenly you're in the last chapter and you wind up with a deus ex machina. The hero suddenly remembers that if he can just get some of this particular magical plant, then he can brew a potion and solve his problem. And that's a cheat. That feels very unsatisfying. It cheapens the work. Well-done fantasy – something like Tolkien – he sets Lord of the Rings up perfectly, right at the beginning. The only way to get rid of the ring, the only way, is to take it to Mount Doom and throw it in the fires from which it comes. You know that right from the first. And if we'd gone through all that, and then at the end of the book suddenly Gandalf had said, wait a minute, I just remembered, here's this other spell, oh, I can get rid of the ring easily! You would have hated that. That would have been all wrong. Magic can ruin things. Magic should never be the solution. Magic can be part of the problem. (source)

GRRM doesn't write characters who just get everything solved through magic. He criticizes just that, the use of magic to solve the problems of the characters, without the characters having to make choices, think on how they'll solve their problems, etc. He would have been an hypocrite to say this if he had written Dany like that.

But the fact is that he didn't write Dany like that. GRRM gave Dany dragons, but he was very careful not to make dragons the solution to her problems, and sometimes, even make the dragons the source of her problems:

First, because Dany wasn't handed her dragons, she had to solve a magical puzzle (her dragon dreams and Mirri's clues about only death paying for life), make sacrifices and step into a pyre to hatch these dragons from petrified eggs.

Then, her dragons immediately cause problems: because she has them, Dany has to cross the Red Waste in order to avoid her dragons getting captured and her people slaughtered. The dragons didn't help to survive the Red Waste and to find a way out of it. Dany had to be resilient and show strength to keep her khalasar united to survive, and she had to be smart to send her bloodriders in different directions to find a way out of the desert (see details here and here)

In Slaver's Bay, Dany's dragons are not essential. In Astapor, her dragons were just a bargaining chip (it could have been anything else), and the success of her plan didn't depend on the dragons as weapons (because the dragons are still too small for that). In Yunkai and Meereen, Dany doesn't use her dragons at all, her plans come entirely from her own mind, from her own intelligence. She solves the problems on how to win those cities by herself (X, X, X, X).

In Meereen, her dragons don't help her to rule. And they cause problems. Dany has to chain her dragons because Drogo ate a child, she has to pay for the animals her dragons consumed, and she has to find solutions to all of those questions (how to hide that Drogon ate a child and how to pay for the lost animals) as well as solutions to how to bring peace and prosperity to Meereen all on her own (and she does this).

The dragons only help in isolated moments (like Drogon saving Dany in the House of the Undying, but considering that the Undying are also magical beings using magical power against Dany, I think that's fair). But GRRM has been faithful to what he said about magic, and he has not used magic and dragons as the solution to Dany's problems.

#daenerys targaryen #asoiaf meta #asoiaf #valyrianscrolls #grrm #my meta

131 notes · View notes

amuelia · 3 years

Note

How do you think Roose will meet his demise? Or will he survive? What's your best Roose end game predictions?

Thank you for the question! This will be a long post under the readmore, going into my thoughts on the show ending and exploring what the books may have set up in regards to themes and characterization, as well as a bit of general analysis of Roose' story arc in a Dance with Dragons (and some speculation about Ramsay as well).

If you click on the readmore i will have divided the post into sections with bolded Headers, if you want to only read my specific endgame ideas you can skip ahead to the "His Endgame?" section.

In The Show

The show had him get killed by Ramsay in s6, which informs a lot of the fandom speculation about this storyline.

I am not a fan of the show's scenario as it was both similar to tywin and tyrion as well as a mirror of robb's death; it would also be offscreen in the books since neither of the characters are PoVs and Ramsay would need to do the act in secret. This would ultimately undercut Roose' role and impact, being a death scene that is not very unique and also isn't shown to the reader directly. Since no PoV is even in Winterfell currently, we would just hear of it from afar and not witness the consequences.

The show also has a different dynamic in the Bolton storyline, emphasizing Ramsay as the "main character" of this arc, and elevating him to the main villain for s5-6 to fill Joffrey's shoes as an evil character played by a very charismatic actor. Ramsay's show writing is informed by the needs of a TV setting that wants shocking moments and capitalizes on "fan favourite" actors; his rising importance in the show thus is not necessarily an indicator of his book importance. The show was also missing many central characters like the northern lords and the Frey men in Winterfell.

The show had a tendency to kill off characters early when they wanted to cull storylines or had no plans to adapt more of the character's story (like Stannis, Barristan, possibly the Tyrells...); In Mance Rayder we have the most obvious example, where they killed him off for real in a scene that in the book was a misdirection. We also have characters like Jorah where it appears the showrunners had their own choice of how they want his storyline to end, even if Grrm has his own ending in mind.

"For a long time we wanted Ser Jorah to be there at The Wall in the end," writer Dave Hill says. "The three coming out of the tunnel would be Jon and Jorah and Tormund. But [...] Jorah should have the noble death he craves defending the woman he loves." - Dave Hill for Entertainment Weekly

So a death in the show does not need to be an indicator that the books will feature an equivalent scene, even if it gives a hint as to what may happen. By s5 the show has become its own beast, and the butterfly effects from radical changes they made as well as the different characterizations results in the show having to cater to its own needs in many cases when it gets to resolving a plotline.

"We reconceived the role to make it worthy of the actor's talents." - Benioff and Weiss for the s5 DVD commentary, on Indira Varma's casting as Ellaria

In The Books

(Since this post was getting out of hand in length a lot of these arguments are a little shortened/not as in-depth as i'd like! Feel free to inquire more via ask if something is unclear or you disagree)

In the books i find it hard to make a concrete guess as to how it will end. Occam's razor would be to assume the show sort of got it right and that it will vaguely end the same, which could very well happen and i will not discount the possibility; Ramsay is cruel, desires the Dreadfort rule, and is a suspected kinslayer and has no qualms to commit immoral violence.

"Ramsay killed [his brother]. A sickness of the bowels, Maester Uthor says, but I say poison." - Reek III, aDwD

Reek saw the way Ramsay's mouth twisted, the spittle glistening between his lips. He feared he might leap the table with his dagger in his hand [to attack his father]. - Reek III, aDwD

Arguments against this or for a different endgame come down to interpretations of the themes in the story arc and opinions on dramatic structure/grrm's writing, and are thus very subjective.

The way the story currently is going, Ramsay killing Roose treats Roose almost as a plot device; his death brings no change or development to Ramsay's character as we already know his motivations and cruelty align with such an act, and we can assume that he would feel no remorse about it either. The results of such a scene would be firmly on a story level, as it brings political changes and moves the plot along into a specific direction. Roose himself cannot have any relevant character development about it as he does not have a PoV and we would not be able to witness his reaction from the outside.

“The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself.” - William Faulkner, often quoted by Grrm

Further, killing his father is very difficult to pull off in secret (Roose is frequently described as very cautious, and employs many guardsmen). And even if Ramsay pulls it off (people often interpret Ramsay as Roose' blind spot, assuming he might be caught by surprise, not expecting Ramsay would bite the hand that feeds him), Roose is the one that holds his entire alliance together; The Freys would be alienated by Ramsay who would antagonize Walda and her son as his rivals, The Ryswell bloc appears to dislike Ramsay (especially Barbrey), and the other northmen are implied to not even like Roose himself. Killing Roose would quickly combust the entire northern faction, and hinder Ramsay's further plans (another reason why I am not convinced of a book version of the "Battle of Bastards"). Though this might of course, if we look at it from the other side, be grrm's plan to quickly dissolve this plot and move the northern story forwards.

"Ramsay will kill [Walda's children], of course. [...] [She] will grieve to see them die, though." - Reek III, aDwD

"How many of our grudging friends do you imagine we'd retain if the truth were known? Only Lady Barbrey, whom you would turn into a pair of boots … inferior boots." - Reek III, aDwD

"Fear is what keeps a man alive in this world of treachery and deceit. Even here in Barrowton the crows are circling, waiting to feast upon our flesh. The Cerwyns and the Tallharts are not to be relied on, my fat friend Lord Wyman plots betrayal, and Whoresbane … the Umbers may seem simple, but they are not without a certain low cunning. Ramsay should fear them all, as I do." - Reek III, aDwD

Roose' death at Ramsay's hand also removes him thematically from the Red Wedding, as we can assume such a death might have happened regardless of his participation in the event (seeing as Ramsay is getting provoked by Roose constantly in normal dialogue, and has a general violent disposition). Roose already took Ramsay in before aGoT started, and married Walda very early in the war, which is already most of the buildup that the show's scenario had. It also has little to do with the The North Remembers plot except set dressing, since the northmen are presumably neither collaborating with/egging on Ramsay nor would they appreciate the development.

Themes: Ned Stark and the rule over the North

Roose is treated as a foil to Eddard; They are often contrasted in morals and ruling styles, while also having many superficial similarities that further connect them (they are seen as cold by people, grey eyed, patriarchs of rivalling northern houses, etc...).

Pale as morning mist, his eyes concealed more than they told. Jaime misliked those eyes. They reminded him of the day at King's Landing when Ned Stark had found him seated on the Iron Throne. - Jaime IV, aSoS

They both have a "bastard son" that they handle very differently; Roose treating Ramsay in the way that is seen as common in their society. Ramsay and Jon as a comparison are meant to show that Catelyn had a reason to see a bastard as a threat (since Domeric was antagonized by his bastard brother), but also shows that her suggested plan for Jon would not have stopped any danger either (as Ramsay being raised away from the castle didn't help).

And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child's needs. He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the north to see. - Catelyn II, aGoT

"Each year I sent the woman some piglets and chickens and a bag of stars, on the understanding that she was never to tell the boy who had fathered him. A peaceful land, a quiet people, that has always been my rule." - Reek III, aDwD

It appears to me that Roose' story functions in some ways as an inversion to Ned. He makes an attempt to grab a power he was not destined to (becoming warden of the north), where Ned did not want the responsiblity thrust upon him ("It was all meant for Brandon. [...] I never asked for this cup to pass to me." - Cat II, aGoT). Where Ned rules successfully and his northmen honor his legacy ("What do you think passes through their heads when they hear the new bride weeping? Valiant Ned's precious little girl." - The Turncloak, aDwD), the Boltons are largely hated and there are several plots conspiring against them ("Let me bathe in Bolton blood before I die." - The King's Prize, aDwD).

It seems possible to me that in terms of their family and legacy, Roose might also live through an inverted version of Ned's story; where Ned died first, leaving his family behind, Roose already lived to see the death of his wives and trueborn heir, and might thus also live to see Ramsay's death. Ned leaves behind well raised children and a North who still respects his name, and even though he dies it will presumably all be "in good hands" in the end (in broad strokes, obviously this is all much more morally complex). Roose however built up a bad and toxic legacy, and also built his way of life around evading consequences; it makes sense to me that he would be forced by the story to finally endure all the consequences of his actions and witness the fall of his house firsthand. After all we already have Tywin who fulfils the purpose of dying before his children while his legacy falls to ruins, and a Feast for Crows explores this aspect thoroughly.

Roose' arc in A Dance With Dragons

The story repeatedly builds up the situation unravelling around Roose, and him slowly losing a grip on it and becoming more stressed and anxious.

Reek wondered if Roose Bolton ever cried. If so, do the tears feel cold upon his cheeks? - Reek II, aDwD

Roose Bolton said nothing at all. But Theon Greyjoy saw a look in his pale eyes that he had never seen before—an uneasiness, even a hint of fear. [...] That night the new stable collapsed beneath the weight of the snow that had buried it. - a Ghost in Winterfell, aDwD

Lady Walda gave a shriek and clutched at her lord husband's arm. "Stop," Roose Bolton shouted. "Stop this madness." His own men rushed forward as the Manderlys vaulted over the benches to get at the Freys. - Theon I, aDwD

It also directly presents him as a parallel to Theon's rule in aCoK, who similarly experienced a very unpopular rule and his subjects slowly turning against him. Presumably, the point of this comparison will not just be "Ramsay comes in at the end and unexpectedly whacks them on the head". Both Theon and Roose invited Ramsay into their lives, giving him more power than he deserves, and causing Ramsay to make choices that increasingly alienate others from them (the death of the miller's boys for example has repercussions for both Theon and Roose). Grrm is likely steering this towards a difference in how they will deal with this situation.

It all seemed so familiar, like a mummer show that he had seen before. Only the mummers had changed. Roose Bolton was playing the part that Theon had played the last time round, and the dead men were playing the parts of Aggar, Gynir Rednose, and Gelmarr the Grim. Reek was there too, he remembered, but he was a different Reek, a Reek with bloody hands and lies dripping from his lips, sweet as honey. - a Ghost in Winterfell, aDwD

"Stark's little wolflings are dead," said Ramsay, sloshing some more ale into his cup, "and they'll stay dead. Let them show their ugly faces, and my girls will rip those wolves of theirs to pieces. The sooner they turn up, the sooner I kill them again." - The elder Bolton sighed. "Again? Surely you misspeak. You never slew Lord Eddard's sons, those two sweet boys we loved so well. That was Theon Turncloak's work, remember? How many of our grudging friends do you imagine we'd retain if the truth were known?" - Reek III, aDwD

Roose' arc is deeply connected to the relations he shares to the other northern lords, which has been heavily impacted by the Red Wedding. It stands to reason that they are going to be an important part of his downfall, and we see many hints of them plotting to betray him.

The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done. My son is home." - Davos IV, aDwD

Themes: Stannis and kinslaying

The books set up Roose and Stannis as foils as well; Both lack charisma and have trouble winnning the people's support, Stannis and Roose both parallel and contrast Ned, Stannis appears as a "lesser Robert" where Roose is a "lesser Ned", Stannis represents the fire where Roose represents the ice, both struggle over dominion in a land that doesnt particularly want either of them, etc... What i find interesting is how they are contrasted over kinslaying:

"Only Renly could vex me so with a piece of fruit. He brought his doom on himself with his treason, but I did love him, Davos. I know that now. I swear, I will go to my grave thinking of my brother's peach." - Davos II, aCoK

"I should've had the mother whipped and thrown her child down a well … but the babe did have my eyes." [...] "Now [Domeric's] bones lie beneath the Dreadfort with the bones of his brothers, who died still in the cradle, and I am left with Ramsay. Tell me, my lord … if the kinslayer is accursed, what is a father to do when one son slays another?" - Reek III, aCoK

Stannis is set up as someone who is very thorough and strict in following his own code and his "duty", even if he does not like what it forces him to do.

Stannis ground his teeth again. "I never asked for this crown. Gold is cold and heavy on the head, but so long as I am the king, I have a duty . . . If I must sacrifice one child to the flames to save a million from the dark . . . Sacrifice . . . is never easy, Davos. Or it is no true sacrifice. Tell him, my lady." - Davos IV, aSoS

The armorer considered that a moment. "Robert was the true steel. Stannis is pure iron, black and hard and strong, yes, but brittle, the way iron gets. He'll break before he bends." - Jon I, aCoK

Roose however is frequently characterized as someone who tries to get as much as he can while avoiding negative consequences, and who does not have a consistent moral code and instead bends rules to his benefit to be the most comfortable to him.

It is often theorized that Stannis will end up burning his daughter Shireen; the Ramsay issue might then serve to contrast the two men. If Grrm intends it to be compared by the reader, I can see it going two ways: Either Roose will be forced to finally act in a drastic way after avoiding his responsibility in regards to Ramsay and he will be forced to get rid of his son, making him break the only moral hurdle he has presented adhering to during the story (though analyzing his character, the kinslaying taboo is probably less a sign of moral fortitude and more him using the guise of morals to explain a selfish motivation). Or he might not act against Ramsay and suffer the consequences, presenting an interesting moral situation where some readers might consider his action "better" or more relatable than Stannis', breaking up the otherwise very black and white moral comparison between the two men. It serves as an interesting conflict of the morality of kinslaying compared to what readers might see as a moral obligation of getting rid of a monster such as Ramsay; contrasting Shireen whose death would not be seen as worth it by most. Ramsay as a bastard (who was almost killed at birth if he hadnt been able to prove his paternity) also makes for an interesting verbal parallel with the bastard Edric Storm, and might be used for a look at the utilitarian principle of killing a child (baby ramsay/edric) to save countless people from suffering that underpinned Edric's story.

"As Faulkner says, all of us have the capacity in us for great good and for great evil, for love but also for hate. I wanted to write those kinds of complex character in a fantasy, and not just have all the good people get together to fight the bad guy." - Grrm

"Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?" - Eddard VIII, aGoT

"If Joffrey should die . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?" - "Everything," said Davos, softly. - Davos V, aSoS

However Grrm decides to present these conflicts or which actions the characters will take in the end, it will result in interesting discussion and analysis for the readers.

His Endgame?

Looking at the trends of the past books, it is probably going to be hard to predict any specific outcome; every book introduces new characters and plot elements that were impossible to predict from the last book even if their thematic importance or setup was aptly foreshadowed.

Roose has a lot of plot importance and characterization that has, in my opinion, not yet been properly resolved in a way that would be unique and poignant to the specific purpose his character appears to fulfil. However I also have a bias in that i did not like the show's writing of that scene which makes me averse to see a version of it in the books, and i really like Roose as a character and want to see him have more scenes in the next book(s). This leads me to discount plot speculation that cuts his character arc short offscreen early. Roose is only a side character; however, i have trust in grrm's writing abilities and that he would give him a proper sendoff that feels satisfying to a fan of the character.

"…even the [characters] who are complete bastards, nasty, twisted, deeply flawed human beings with serious psychological problems… When I get inside their skin and look out through their eyes, I have to feel a certain — if not sympathy, certainly empathy for them. I have to try to perceive the world as they do, and that creates a certain amount of affection." — George Martin

Considering my earlier analyis, there is a case to be made for Roose killing Ramsay; however it appears grrm might have a different endgame in mind for Ramsay, foreshadowed in Chett's prologue:

There'd be no lord's life for the leechman's son, no keep to call his own, no wives nor crowns. Only a wildling's sword in his belly, and then an unmarked grave. The snow's taken it all from me . . . the bloody snow . . . - Chett, aSoS

I tend to think something might happen to Roose/the Bolton bloc later in the book that would cause Ramsay to attempt to flee the scene again like he did back in aCoK fleeing Rodrik's justice; perhaps Ramsay is sent out to battle but then flees it like a coward, or he sees his cause as lost. This time, the fleeing and potentially disguised Ramsay would not make it out to safety though, and get killed without being recognized as Ramsay, dying forgotten. This would serve as dramatic irony since Ramsay so strongly desired to be recognized and respected as a Lord of Bolton, without being too on the nose.

As for Roose, i could see him getting captured and somehow brought to justice (either when someone takes Winterfell or in some sort of battle). I see it unlikely that he will be backstabbed like Robb was, because it seems very "eye for an eye" and ultimately doesn't teach much of a lesson except "he had it coming"; But the various people conspiring against him could lead to his capture by betraying him (giving a payoff to the northern conspiracies and the red wedding). I would find a scene of him standing trial interesting since i believe we didn't have one of these for a true non-pov villain yet, and it would be an interesting confrontation that he cannot escape from (he also loves to talk so it would be a good read to see him make a case for himself).

I assume Roose will be out of the picture when the Other plot finally properly kicks into gear (whether dead or "in prison"). With Stannis as a false Azor Ahai and Roose as a false Other (with his pale, cold features), their struggle in the north seems to be a representation of the false "Game of Thrones" that distracts people from the "real threat" of the Others.

As always this is just my opinion, and it could all go very differently in the books! There could always be something that completely uproots my analysis and goes into a direction i did not expect from the material we had; But i have fate that Grrm as a writer will deliver and give me something i can be satisfied with.

#asks #asoiaf #asoiaf meta #roose bolton #valyrianscrolls #a song of ice and fire #not art #anonymous

119 notes · View notes

aerltarg · 3 years

Note

My personal favorite headcannon is that the brother that Brynden mentions to Bran that 'he loved' is, in fact, Daemon Blackfyre; of course, the obvious choice would be Daeron 'the Good', I mean, he fought his king against Daemon, and nevertheless, killed him and his heirs, going so far that he went to history as a quenched Targaryen loyalist, always dismantling any Blackfyre insurrection but, wouldn't be more interesting if Brynden was thorn between 'love or duty', as many characters in asoiaf are? He could have he's reasons for loving Daemon: I mean, how couldn't he? the head of the Blackfyre dynasty was the ideal that any bastard could dream of being: was raised at court, being acknowledge by the realm despite his status (maybe for the wrong reasons, as many of his supporters had conniptions with the dornish), being acknowledge BY THE KING. And, I imagine, that being raised at court, and having similar status as Daemon, Brynden could relate a lot more with him than with Daeron, who was the heir and prince, something that he never dreamed of reaching. I imagined that, by the end of the day, Brynden loved and idealized Daemon, and the fact that Aegor persuaded him to rebel against the crown was a dagger to his heart, this and the old adage that so many characters of the books try to follow: "love is the death of duty".

What do you think?? (Pls, bear with my english, this is not my first language g.g)

omg i love this headcanon too!!!

yes, as you've said it's very easy to imagine daeron as the "brother he loved" of brynden. he fought for him, he killed for him, he became kinslayer, he stayed loyal to house targaryen after he died, he served his sons. i also think it's very much likely was daeron who gave brynden the dark sister for all his accomplishments.

yet, however much i love to imagine brynden having friendly relationship with daeron, the concept of "brother he loved" being daemon... just strikes different. and indeed does feel like smth grrm would go after - as you've said, "love vs duty" kind of situation, "human heart in conflict with itself" trope that grrm likes so much. there's even enough basis for this in canon, imo. i rlly like how you pointed it out! bc YES, brynden had more in common with daemon, another king's bastard, than with daeron, the prince of dragonstone. they were even closer in age to each other while daeron was much older. e.g. daeron was already 17 when daemon was born and 22 when brynden was. such a big age gap, esp in the world where ppl are considered 100% adults at 16, doesn't seem to me like a sign of a close relationship. ffs, brynden was very much likely younger than baelor breakspear, daeron's eldest son, and probably younger or around the same age of aerys i, daeron's second son. and yeah, sure, we do know that brynden's mother, missy blackwood, befriended naerys, aemon the dragonknight and daeron himself, yet i can see this only as brynden being kind of a distant little nephew to daeron, not a brother close to heart. and when we have the combination of the age gap AND different social status chances of close friendship go to hell pretty much, imo.

another great bastard who was even closer in age to brynden was aegor. and well... we know they weren't friends for sure lmao. this blackwoods vs brackens thing as addition to everything else ig. it's kinda curious tho that aegor was growing up away from the king's landing while both daemon and brynden were raised at court, and yet in the later years aegor and daemon somehow bonded and bittersteel even managed to persuade daemon to fight for the throne...

i must say i especially love the part of brynden idealizing daemon and feeling betrayed when he got persuaded by aegor to rebel!!! ah, ol' good targ drama, we love it. but personally i'm especially delighted to see this (and adapt this hc pls 😂) bc it reminds me so much of brynden & jon snow parallels that i enjoy a lot! it gives me the vibes of robb and jon: a close brother who has the love of their father while you are otherized and you still love this brother (even if are jealous in some way?). surely, i think there are greater parallels with daeron & robb / brynden & jon aka bastard bros staying loyal to their legitimate siblings despite everything. yet, now i cant unsee daemon & robb / brynden & jon! like yeah daemon got papa's love and was that perfect targaryen prince (except for the name) while brynden was otherized not just bc he was a bastard but bc of his looks as well. yes, jon and robb are the illegitimate vs legitimate kids situation but daemon being all that except for being waters and brynden also being rivers but still far from the perfect prince(TM) imagery gives us so many opportunities to wonder what their dynamics rlly was! bc i believe this basis of being able to relate to each other could make it so super interesting!

agsvxvsh idk if i'm making sense rn so the main point i wanted to lead to. brynden "he had sacrificed his own personal honor for the good of the realm" rivers chose duty and did what he thought right - put an end to blackfyre rebellions, got the kinslayer attire for this and was sent to the night's watch after his last attempt to end blackfyres. he paid for his choice. jon "i am the sword that guards the realm of men, and in the end, that must be worth more than one man's honor" snow chose love. his decision to march for arya is one of the main reasons he got assassinated. he paid for his choice too.

these parallels with jon that only shine brighter when you consider daemon as "the brother he loved" of brynden are one of the main reasons i love this hc! but ofc the whole complexity and potential of their story and situation that you get play the huge role too. it's a very rich concept that i enjoy so so much!

21 notes · View notes

fedonciadale · 3 years

Note

Hello! I get really tired of non-asoiaf fans act like the series is just boobs and dragons and nihilism. I feel like they're wrongly judging the books for the show's flaws (and it seems to always be lotr stans for some reason? Like that series is amazing, why must they trash ours?) So I was wondering, what would you say are the true themes of the books? I don't think at all that Martin is a nihilist who enjoys miserable endings and hates love. Thank you.

Hi there!

As a LotR fan myself I feel called out. haha!

Well, jokes aside. I think that it is of course rubbish to judge a book by how it is done on television/in a movie. It should be obvious that D&D made ASOIAF to be about dragons, boobs and nihilism and that you can't judge the books by the adaptation.

There is one thing though where GRRM is certainly at a disadvantage - especially in regard to Tolkien. He himself said that he wanted to address some of the things he had problems with in LotR, the notorious quote about "Aragorn's tax policy" and therefore, sorry, not sorry, GRRM set the stage himself, the stage where he is compared with Tolkien.

And there is one thing you can say about Tolkien: His books might be shorter than ASOIAF but he finished them and with a satisfying ending as about everyone can agree on. Bittersweet in the best sense of the word.

So, GRRM has himself to blame for being compared to Tolkien. And as long as the books are unfinished, GRRM is going to fall short. It might well be that his ending is bittersweet in a good way, that it will be satisfying, that he will address the problem of resurrection and of everyday politics in a better way than Tolkien did. But he has yet to prove that!

I would actually argue that the whole character of the books is so different that any comparison is moot, but that is my opinion. And I would certainly not put them "against" each other. And in my experience LotR fans do not attack GoT? I mean experiences on tumblr can be very different, but apart from the occasional frustrated ASOIAF fan (and I'm one of them) who praises LotR they are not pitted against each other?

I actually happen to agree with you that GRRM is not a nihilist and you can argue in favour of that. You can quote that he himself said that he wants to write about the "human heart in conflict with itself" and he has already done that and done that very well. But as long as we don't have his ending (not an ending, but his ending) we can make and argument and even a solid argument but the ultimate proof is not to be had.

I think that every one of the main characters has a main important theme: Love and Duty for Jon, Mercy and Revenge for Arya, Selfishness and Altruism for Dany, Use and Abuse of Power for Sansa, Loyalty and Betrayal for Jaime and so on. And the way GRRM approaches that is not nihilistic, there is hope (like when Eddard said: What if we prevail?) but it's not as visible as in LotR. No flower crown on the head of a fallen statue of a king touched by a single ray of sunshine in GRRM's world. That does not make it better or worse. It makes it different.

But it also means that many people do not see it. Many people do not see that Ned's "The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword" is a parallel to Gandalf's: "Many who live deserve death and many who die deserves life? Can you give it to them? Then don't be so rash in condemning them to die" (quoting from memory here).

So, there is humanity and hope in ASOIAF: I think that all the people who were saved or spared by the Starks will have a severe impact on the story (not necessarily all of them good, because that would be very unlike GRRM: Good actions don't always have good consequences, but they have good consequences often enough that it makes a difference if people are good!). I think the Stark legacy of good rule will prevail but as for now we don't see that yet.

I mean the last book will be called "A dream of Spring" which should tell you all, but before GRRM does not finish the books, you can argue all you want. The ultimate proof that it is not a nihilistic grimdark novel nobody will want to read in fifty years is just not there. And that's on GRRM.

Sorry, not sorry. JRRT cannot be dethroned by a man who set out to write better and didn't accomplish the most basic thing of all - which is finishing his story, so that it can be judged as a whole. LotR is still one of the most read books in the world and it will continue to be read.

Just being "promising" is not enough to pass the exam.

And that he let D&D finish the story in such a frustrating way does not help his case. I mean it's not necessarily how GoT ended it is mostly how it was told, and season 7 and 8 were a waste of money.

So, I would say: O.k. GRRM I believe in you: I believe that ASOIAF is not just dragons and boobs and grimdark story telling:

Do me a favour and PROVE ME RIGHT!

Thanks for the ask!

#anon ask #jrr tolkien #GRRM #GRRM and Tolkien #Sorry not sorry #I mean this became a bit of a rant #This is on you GRRM #The ball is in your half of the field #Stop bragging about how you address Tolkien's problems #And show us that you can actually do it #As for now JRRT remains the king #If you even want to compare #Which is a bit ridiculous because It's not as if the writing style is very similar

43 notes · View notes

kellyvela · 3 years

Note

yes Ive actually read most of GRRM's work and he isn't particularly subtle with his symbolism, he's never had readers be in illusions about the characters, and he pretty much always kills the heroes

Kudos to you for reading most of GRRM's works, I guess.

In your previous message, you asked me this: "Why do you think GRRM is trying to get his characters into certain illusions? He hasn't attempted that in any of his other works."

Your question was about the characters, not about the readers.

So, I answered that GRRM writes about the human heart in conflict with itself. And some of those conflicts consist in the dichotomy of desire and reality, because some humans, tend to delude themselves and live willingly blind, or some are narcissist that believe their own ravings about themselves, etc.

And I asked you, if you were sure that GRRM never wrote characters that delude themselves before writing ASOIAF.

Because I think you must read or re-read his novel "The Armageddon Rag," then.

I'm pretty sure his idea that "a villain is the hero of the other side," is something previous to ASOIAF.

. . .

Now you are asking me about the readers, not the characters. Then I think you are asking me about this other post where I said that he is trapping the ASOIAF readers into some illusions, like the dragons being the good guys that will save the world.

You said this: "yes Ive actually read most of GRRM's work and he isn't particularly subtle with his symbolism, he's never had readers be in illusions about the characters, and he pretty much always kills the heroes"

Before answering your particular question, I must say that ASOIAF has its difference from GRRM's previous works. Because ASOIAF is his magnum opus, it's a fantasy series, not science fiction, not short stories, not about vampires, etc. ASOIAF is written by POVS and most of the POVS are unreliable narrators. So it's easier to trap the readers into some illusions and prepare the ground for some twists.

But GRRM is an author that HATES to be predictable, so I doubt he never trapped his readers into some illusions before, in order to hide the final twist.

He is also an author that writes his heroes making difficult, dark and dubious actions, and his villains doing some good deeds. And that makes an impact in his readers. That's why many of his ASOIAF readers truly LOVES his villains and consider them innocent people, like Theon, Jaime and the hound.

Having said that, now I will answer your particular question.

While I do think he can be straightforward with symbolism and foreshadowing, I don't think that most of the ASOIAF readers get him and his ways.

For example, for some readers "Stormborn" is a good omen, since water and rain are associated with life and help the crops to grow, etc. But for some other people is a bad omen, since it's not just water and rain, but a reference to a particular storm that was so destructive that made fleet disappear.

Another example, for some readers the ASOIAF dragons are associated to some mythical creatures like the Chinese Dragons, that are sacred and a symbol of good fortune. But that's not correct, because Chinese Dragons are mostly associated with water, not fire. ASOIAF dragons are based on European Dragons that are a representation of the devil, that's why in the Catholic ichonography Saint George slaying the dragon represents the triumph of the Catholic faith against the devil, and the rescued princess represents the Virgin Mary and/or the Catholic Church itself.

Then you said that: "he's never had readers be in illusions about the characters," and in the same sentence you also said: "and he pretty much always kills the hero". Do you read yourself before clicking the send button, anon? lol

He doesn't always kills the hero. Robb was pretty alive and making love with Laurie at the end of A Song for Lya. Abner Marsh and Joshua York were happily making a toast after beating their foe at the end of Fevre Dream. Abner died a couples of years later because he was an old man and Joshua never died because you know, he's immortal. Sandy Blair was also alive at the end of The Armageddon Rag, with his book published and listening to music.

Maybe you are too smart for GRRM, and he never trapped you, anon. More kudos to you.

But I'm pretty sure that, after reading The Armageddon Rag, not only some ASOIAF readers would consider Ananda the hero and Sandy the villain.

Now, if you are trying to say that at the end of ASOIAF, GRRM gonna kill your fave and her nuclear weapon babies, because they are the heroes (lol), well, OK. You can believe that if you want. You can also go to other blogs' inboxes and share your similar opinions with them. But here you won't see me comparing Davos cheating on his wife to your fave fire bombing a city "by accident," but learning from her mistakes.

I'm sorry I posted this answer before even finishing it. But now I finished it.

👋

#anon asks #grrm

24 notes · View notes

secretlyatargaryen · 4 years

Text

Because I just had this referenced at me re: Arya discourse:

And that’s another of my pet peeves about fantasies. The bad authors adopt the class structures of the Middle Ages; where you had the royalty and then you had the nobility and you had the merchant class and then you have the peasants and so forth. But they don’t’ seem to realize what it actually meant. They have scenes where the spunky peasant girl tells off the pretty prince. The pretty prince would have raped the spunky peasant girl. He would have put her in the stocks and then had garbage thrown at her. You know.

I mean, the class structures in places like this had teeth. They had consequences. And people were brought up from their childhood to know their place and to know that duties of their class and the privileges of their class. It was always a source of friction when someone got outside of that thing. And I tried to reflect that. (source)

It’s not a stretch at all to connect GRRM’s statement here to what he depicts in the Trident incident in A Game of Thrones. This is a scene close to my heart not just because I love Arya, but because this is one of the scenes that drew me to the series, and immediately signaled to me that this was a fantasy series unlike most. As GRRM says, his fantasy world “has teeth.” Arya’s action of defending Mycah from Joffrey has consequences, and ultimately fails at protecting the butcher’s boy. But it’s absolutely wrong to stop there and say that this means that Arya shouldn’t have reacted the way she did, shouldn’t have tried to defend Mycah or shouldn’t have played with him to begin with, that she somehow messed up by stepping out of her assigned social role because her actions had consequences.

Because this is how GRRM writes conflict. To understand why this scene happens the way it does, let’s look at what else GRRM says in the interview.

Yeah, I’ve always been attracted to grey characters. I’ve always taken it as a code, William Faulkner’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech from the early ‘50’s, where he said that the human heart in conflict with the self was the only thing worth writing about. And I think that’s true.

The battle between good and evil is a theme of much of fantasy. But I think the battle between good and evil is fought largely within the individual human heart, by the decisions that we make.

I’m also going to keep harping on this particular point because I also love Faulkner and, like Martin, I believe that the only conflict truly important is the human heart in conflict with itself. And that’s where GRRM’s reasoning behind the creation of his world and characters comes in. It’s clear that Martin isn’t interested in writing about spunky princesses who easily tell off the prince, similarly to how he isn’t interested in writing about “the princess who rides off with the stable boy” without any consequences (and we can easily see his reaction to this trope in Lyanna, who is another female character that fandom likes to blame for being “impulsive”).

Martin is absolutely NOT saying that these female characters are wrong for going against an oppressive system. He’s saying that it’s HARD, but more importantly, he’s saying with these characters, that even though it’s hard, we do it anyway. To quote John F. Kennedy, we do it because it’s hard. Otherwise what is the point? What is the point of writing (or reading) about spunky princesses who face no consequences for going against the system? What is the point of a character who gets their way all the time, easily defeats every challenge and every conflict, and is only allowed to stagnate, never to grow? What is the point of writing about an oppressive system if it is never challenged by the characters and narrative? What is the point of writing about conflict if it is not about the decisions that we make, the choices that we have to make, not because they’re easy and free of consequence, but because they’re hard?

I’d also say that another important theme in Martin’s work is that it’s hard to do the right thing, but do it anyway. Oftentimes he also writes about characters who are victims of their circumstances, and of course those characters should not be blamed for their inability to “rise above,” but that makes it more powerful when a character does stand up for what’s right, even if they fail spectacularly. To believe anything less is to believe in the grimdark justifications that lesser authors make for including rape and misogyny in their novels, simply because it’s “realistic.” GRRM sometimes falls into this defense and his fans often do, but I don’t believe that’s what we’re supposed to get out of this series overall. In particular, I think it’s a misogynistic reading that is disappointingly popular in “feminist” circles because fans of the more feminine-presenting characters think they’re defending women this way, ironically. And on one level, I understand the impulse. Female characters should not be blamed for being victims of a system that oppresses them, but nor should they be blamed for standing up against that system, despite the consequences. ASOIAF has all sorts of female characters in it, ones who accept the system and ones who are defeated by it and ones who are able to break free to an extent, and ones who speak out against it and face consequences, but not a single one of them is unaffected by it. And to read this as a sign that the characters in their medievalish fantasy society (and by extension, we in our own society, because the society depicted in this fantasy series is really not that different from our own) should just stay in their assigned roles and not try to rock the boat is a serious misread. If the only conflict worth exploring is the human heart in conflict with itself, then we as readers must also look into our own hearts. We can’t avoid it. Not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard.

Seven, Brienne thought again, despairing. She had no chance against seven, she knew. No chance, and no choice.

She stepped out into the rain, Oathkeeper in hand. "Leave her be. If you want to rape someone, try me."

#arya stark #rape cw

107 notes · View notes

aegon · 4 years

Note

“I’ve always agreed with William Faulkner—he said that the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about. I’ve always taken that as my guiding principle, and the rest is just set dressing.” - George RR Martin. It's exhausting that stans are competing for who the purer, less imperfect character when GRRM says this. Lyanna, Arya, Jon, and everyone is flawed. And Jon trying not to break his vows for several books, and then breaking them for Arya is a very beautiful flaw.

“I, myself, am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions.” - augusten burroughs

such is the human condition. if art imitates life, then few actually want to read about someone so infallible and perfect and untouchable, they may as well be a marble statue going through the motions. if mythological gods were made to be flawed, then why not characters who are painfully human?

people often confuse being a good person with purity. like the most untainted and white-washed character gets a medal for being the best. which is just bullshit. the darkest times breed the brightest lights, and sometimes people make difficult decisions or do bad things out of survival or to save someone else but they can still be good people with good intentions.

and you know what, sometimes it might be for a little selfish reasons, like jon getting all angsty over arya when he has a duty to the night’s watch and needed to put aside his personal concerns for the greater good. I doubt anyone thinks he’s a bad person for doing so, but he’s hardly some sparkling king without flaws. and that’s beautiful.

so anyway, purity is boring and I love me some damage.

#anonymous #answered

17 notes · View notes

jackoshadows · 1 year

Note

I wouldn't say Sansa will outsmart Baelish. I think it's because she is his blindspot, he is obsessed with her and yeah he is smart but clearly she is his weak point because of the Catelyn connection. I don't know what will happen exactly but there's something there. It would be a nice parallel to how he tricked Lysa because he was her blindspot (and perhaps Catelyn's too because she saw him as childhood friend and wouldn't suspect him)

As much as he loved Catelyn, he did not lift a finger to help her towards the end. He, in effect, started the ball rolling towards the destruction of Cat's family and I am sure this is something that LSH may figure out at one point.

So yes, LF is infatuated with Sansa (Ugh!) because of her resemblance to her mother and wants her to be part of his life on their way to the top, mentoring her and teaching her. However, he also keeps a lot of the plotting and secrets close to his heart and I am not even sure if everything he tells Sansa is true - if Sansa knows then the readers know because we are reading her POV and GRRM likes to keep the plotting of characters like LF and Varys secret for as long the plot requires it.

All this about Sansa being LF's weakspot etc is a bit overrated IMO. He would throw Sansa under the bus in a second if it helped him in any way. For LF, he always comes first - that’s why he’s survived for so long. No ‘the human heart in conflict with itself’ for evil ol’ LF.

What I think will happen and what I want to see happening is Sansa starting to connect dots and form ideas and opinions independent of what LF is telling her. Start questioning in her mind when he tells her about what he is doing.

Make it a little mystery with Sansa as a detective unravelling LF's plotting in the Vale - that would surprise Littlefinger because thus far Sansa has been lead by the nose and following his orders, and is not proactively analyzing LF's actions as it concerns herself, her aunt and her family. She knows that LF last saw Jeyne Poole and that Lysa Arryn poisoned her husband and then wrote to Catelyn on LF’s say so.

“Tears, tears, tears,” she sobbed hysterically. “No need for tears . . . but that’s not what you said in King’s Landing. You told me to put the tears in Jon’s wine, and I did. For Robert, and for us! And I wrote Catelyn and told her the Lannisters had killed my lord husband, just as you said. That was so clever . . .- Sansa, ASoS

Why did he do that? Start from there. And then follow that thread to it’s ultimate conclusion. Maybe she figures it out by herself, or maybe it happens when Arya gets to the Riverlands or the Vale or meets Sansa and Arya is simply so quick at logical analysis she is like ‘Duh!’ And this time, this time, Sansa actually listens to her sibling in contrast to siding with Joffrey against her in book one.

#asks

6 notes · View notes

moonlitgleek · 5 years

Text

For my darling @maesterleia. We seem to have a common interest and you know I’ll take any chance to babble about Jon’s arc. Hope you like it, dear.

-----

Are you a brother of the Night's Watch … or only a bastard boy who wants to play at war?"

For all that many of us talk about the possible effects of the paternity reveal on Jon’s arc in TWoW, the fact that his crisis of identity goes way deeper than his discovery of his true paternity often goes unappreciated. Being Ned Stark’s son is one of the pillars of Jon’s identity but so is his place as a man of the Night’s Watch. Being a Watchmen and the Lord Commander in particular was never an easy choice for Jon but it is still one that he kept making. It was a conscious decision on his part to lead the charge in the War for the Dawn at a personal price. His ADWD arc crystallized GRRM’s favorite theme of the heart in conflict in itself as it pitted Jon’s identity as a son of Ned Stark against his place as the Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch. It was a constant struggle between “let them say that Eddard Stark had fathered four sons, not three” and “I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls”.

While being Ned’s son is a source of fierce pride for Jon, his interest in the Night’s Watch has always been about finding a place that is his where he doesn’t have to be defined by his status as a bastard. He made the hard choice to keep his watch and be the first line of defense against the Others over and over. The Wall was his. But come TWoW, that won’t be true.

And so for all that we talk about Jon’s journey to define himself in light of his bastardy and the negative association it inherently gives his character in the eyes of Westeros, it strikes me that his upcoming struggle in TWoW will bring an unprecedented feelings of loss that Jon has never factored in before. There are several layers that make who Jon is: he is a bastard, he is Ned Stark’s son and he is a man of the Night’s Watch. The last two historically and magically tie Jon directly to the War for the Dawn, and he is going to lose them both in short order.

But Jon’s loss of identity and place might also be accompanied by a loss of self. We still don’t know what effect his death and resurrection will have on him, but I find myself increasingly fascinated by Ghost’s possible role in Jon’s identity crisis. It is a bit ironic that the one part of Jon’s identity that will probably end up reaffirmed in TWoW is being a warg. I say ironically because that is one part of himself that he never managed to embrace and indeed basically shut out completely by sequestering Ghost in his chambers and ignoring the direwolf’s warnings prior to his assassination. What’s interesting to me is that the connection to Ghost is both a danger and a saving grace for Jon. Jon’s last words indicate that he has warged into Ghost upon his death which offers some semblance of protection of Jon’s consciousness against the loss of memories and self other resurrected characters like Beric Dondarrion or Lady Stoneheart experienced, but the longer Jon stays in Ghost, the more the lines between man and wolf become blurred. Jojen kept warning Bran about Summer consuming him if he stays in the direwolf too long, and that’s when Bran still had a physical body to return to. Jon’s identification with Ghost will be deeper due to the absence of a physical body for Jon to return to, and due to the traumatizing nature of Jon’s warging. Jon was forced into Ghost and he will be forced out as well after a yet undetermined period of time that could see Jon either losing memories or struggling to separate himself from Ghost like Bran does sometimes.

Jojen told Bran to remember who he is to help him separate Bran the boy from Summer the wolf, but who is Jon? Who is the person Jon should remember to help ground him in his own memories and experiences? He is not Ned Stark’s son, neither is he the Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch or a fighter for the dawn. Would he even be fully human by this point, or half a boy half a wolf? Or a fire wight powered by magic for a magical purpose just as he was born for one?

And so the crisis of identity Jon will face might not be limited to questioning who he is but also what he is. It could include Jon questioning his very humanity so that the story could explore the existential horror of Jon’s experience. We’ve met Beric and Stoneheart but we’ve never had a PoV on what resurrection does to a person, much less on what warging into an animal after death does. The connection to Ghost in particular might just play into the theme of magic being a sword with no hilt with how it simultaneously plays as a window to the horrors magic could cause and as a link to an identity immersed in the war against the Others with how Ghost serves as a connection to the old gods, Jon’s Stark heritage and a outward representation of Jon’s identity. And for a character whose very existence ties into that theme, Jon’s arc is an excellent fit for this exploration of magic.

#asoiaf #valyrianscrolls #jon snow #ghost #twow #asoiaf speculation #asoiaf meta

214 notes · View notes