#remember ‘what was aragorn’s tax policy’? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

venusintheblindspots-blog · 10 months

Text

DECONSTRUCTIONS of Fantasy Archetypes in ASOIF

So, do y’all remember that one GRRM interview where he talks about Aragon’s tax policy?

The link to the interview is right here : https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/04/grrm-asks-what-was-aragorns-tax-policy/

I’ve always interpreted that quote as a critique of the endings that are given to most fantasy heroes, where they save the day, and continue to rule a happy kingdom.

Now, there are many characters in ASOIF that could be linked to the hero archetype,-Dany, Jon, Tyrion, Arya, Sansa, Davos, etc.,(literally almost every POV character is certain type of fantasy hero, or possesses traits of one, although most of them are reconstructions).

But the one character I’ve always linked to that quote, is Robert Baratheon.

Robert’s Rebellion, without the nuance, reads like a Disney fairytale. The young hero (Robert), saving the maiden (Lyanna),from the evil prince (Rhaegar) and his father (Aerys). In a Disney fairytale, Robert and Lyanna would have married, and rule as the King and Queen of a kingdom that adores them. Rhaegar and Aerys would have been disposed of, and most people would celebrate it.

But in ASOIF, that’s not what quite happens.

Romance

Robert and Lyanna were betrothed, yes, but based off of perception of Lyanna from Ned, her brother (and the only POV character who actually knew her), and what we’ve seen of Robert, their marriage would’ve been miserable for her and him ( eventually).

“You never knew Lyanna as I did, Robert,” Ned told him. “You saw her beauty, but not the iron underneath. She would have told you that you have no business in the melee.”

“ Robert will never keep to one bed,” Lyanna had told him at Winterfell, on the night long ago when their father had promised her hand to the young Lord of Storm’s End. “I hear he has gotten a child on some girl in the Vale.” Ned had held the babe in his arms; he could scarcely deny her, nor would he lie to his sister, but he had assured her that what Robert did before their betrothal was of no matter, that he was a good man and true who would love her with all his heart. Lyanna had only smiled. “Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man’s nature.”

In these two quotes from Ned Stark’s chapters in A Game of Thrones, Lyanna seemingly has no interest in marrying Robert Baratheon, despite the ‘interest’ he has in her.

Who Are Robert’s ‘Villains’ ?

Putting the ‘romance’ in Robert’s story aside, we’ll now focus on his villains : Rhaegar and Aerys Targaryen. Most book readers agree that Aerys, the mad King was not a suitable ruler during the time of Robert’s Rebellion and needed to be gone. But Rhaegar Targaryen has always been a polarizing character within the fandom, and the text.

“I vowed to kill Rhaegar for what he did to her.”

“In my dreams, I kill him every night,” Robert admitted. “A thousand deaths will still be less than he deserves.”

“Her brother Rhaegar had died for the woman he loved.”

“He had failed Prince Rhaegar once. He would not fail his son, not whilst life remained in his body.”

“Rhaegar, who would have been a finer king than any of them.”

“Your brother Rhaegar is still remembered, with great love.”

Now, it is important to note that all of these are opinions from different characters, most of whom didn’t know Rhaegar personally, so there is a lot of bias in some of these quotes. But the quote that stook out to me the most comes from Barristan Selmy :

“It was said that no man ever knew Prince Rhaegar, truly.”

Because as readers, we don’t really know him at all. We know of his actions, ( some of which I find truly selfish) and there are a thousand theories as to why he does what he does, but we truly don’t know.

But anyways, let’s get back to Robert because I don’t intend to dissect Rhaegar as yet.

Robert’s Rebellion

I’m going to just do a quick summary. Rhaegar ‘steals’ the woman that Robert is betrothed to, and in result, her brother and father are murdered by his father. His father, Aerys then calls for the heads of her betrothed, Robert Baratheon and her brother, Eddard Stark. After witnessing the deaths of Rickard and Brandon Stark, Jaime Lannister executes the mad King. Robert and Rhaegar face each other on the Trident, Rhaegar dies,- y’all should know this story by now.

Ultimately, Robert killing Rhaegar and saving the realm from the mad King and his son should’ve been a good thing. It should’ve secured peace and safety for everyone in the realm. The main reason most characters (Jaime Lannister) in the books wanted the Mad King gone is because his reign threatens the safety of the innocent people of Kingslanding, and the rest of Westeros. All of these things would have happened if Robert’s Rebellion was a simple fairytale, and Robert himself were a true hero (I sound a little like Sansa here, lol), but he isn’t and now we’re going to explore why.

Those Who Weren’t Protected By Our Hero

Let’s reign in Elia Martell, one of my favorite minor characters in the series.

The majority of the time we hear of Elia, we hear of the tragic ending she and her babies got. There are theories of her being on board with Rhaegar’s ‘plans’, (theories I absolutely do not buy into), or even her being so unsatisfactory of a wife that Rhaegar may have secretly hated her(quite extreme for a character we hardly know). But one thing is for certain : she did her duty as a wife in Westeros. She provided Rhaegar with two healthy children, a boy, Aegon, and a girl, Rhaenys.

“Princess Elia of Dorne pleading for mercy as Rhaegar’s heir was ripped from her breast and murdered before her eyes. ”

“Some said it had been Gregor who’d dashed the skull of the infant prince Aegon Targaryen against a wall, and whispered that afterward he had raped the mother, the Dornish princess Elia, before putting her to the sword. These things were not said in Gregor’s hearing.”

“It was said that Rhaegar’s little girl had cried as they dragged her from beneath her bed to face the swords. The boy had been no more than a babe in arms, yet Lord Tywin’s soldiers had torn him from his mother’s breast and dashed his head against a wall.”

What are Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon if not innocents?

Let’s see what Robert Baratheon has to say on that matter.

“Robert’s hatred of the Targaryens was a madness in him. He remembered the angry words they had exchanged when Tywin Lannister had presented Robert with the corpses of Rhaegar’s wife and children as a token of fealty. Ned had named that murder; Robert called it war. When he had protested that the young prince and princess were no more than babes, his new-made king had replied, “I see no babes. Only dragonspawn.”

Mind you, this man is talking about a toddler, a newborn and their mother. “I see no babes. Only dragonspawn.”

Robert’s take on Elia Martell and her children is not only cold and heartless, but goes against the ‘hero protecting innocents’ trope.

Robert Baratheon Almost Two Decades After His Rebellion

Now let’s look at the Robert that we meet in A Game Of Thrones.

He’s not the ‘Demon of the Trident’ who saved the realm from chaos, but rather a terrible has-been. I mean, just look at Jon Snow’s reaction to seeing him :

“The king was a great disappointment to Jon. His father had talked of him often: the peerless Robert Baratheon, demon of the Trident, the fiercest warrior of the realm, a giant among princes. Jon saw only a fat man, red-faced under his beard, sweating through his silks. He walked like a man half in his cups.”

He will probably be remembered as a good king for most people in Westeros, but only because of the small council that does the work for him.

“Perhaps we had best wait for Ser Barristan and the king to join us,” Ned suggested.

Renly Baratheon laughed aloud. “If we wait for my brother to grace us with his royal presence, it could be a long sit.”

“Our good King Robert has many cares,” Varys said. “He entrusts some small matters to us, to lighten his load.”

He’s a drunkard who abuses his wife and children and reminisces on a dead girl who had zero interest in him.

“The night of our wedding feast, the first time we shared a bed, he called me by your sister’s name. He was on top of me, in me, stinking of wine, and he whispered Lyanna.”

“The talk is you and the queen had angry words last night.”

The mirth curdled on Robert’s face. “The woman tried to forbid me to fight in the melee. She’s sulking in the castle now, damn her.”

“My son. How could I have made a son like that, Ned?”

“Ned touched her cheek gently. “Has he done this before?”

“Once or twice.” She shied away from his hand. ”

He’s kind of….pathetic.

George R. R. Martin plays with the idea that good people and good intentions do not always equate to good kings, vice versa. He uses a lot of common fantasy tropes and archetypes, but reconstructs them in a realistic way. Robert Baratheon, like most characters in ASOIF plays into the hero archetype, but him being a hero in the story is subjective and highly depends on who is perceiving him.

That’s it for now. I might do more analytical posts for some of my favorite characters but don’t take my word for it.

#asoiaf #game of thrones #robert baratheon #robert’s rebellion #ned stark #cersei lannister #george rr martin #prince rhaegar #lyanna stark #elia martell #rhaenys daughter of rhaegar #aegon son of elia #ramblings #fantasy

37 notes · View notes

apollo-cackling · 9 months

Note

🔥 is it cheating to give 3 options? anyways: sff, she-ra, or hollow knight?

oh, not at all I love rambling about things

Hollow Knight

idc how lore compliant or noncompliant it is, Hornet is transfem (transed her gender from genderless to female). to me.

She-Ra:

I think folks tend to make adora a little too perfect within catradora's dynamic lol it makes her less interesting like don't get me wrong I love her but for example let's take Taking Control (because it's the one where she's the most in the wrong)

ever since Corridors, adora is fixated on getting catra back to the extent that she forgets to consider the 'after' (sort of "if I can just rescue catra from Horde Prime [then everything will be as it used to be]", where 'as it used to be' is some version of perfect that exists only in adora's head and was never real), so when confronted with the messy aftermath (catra's reaction), adora reacts really badly. the resolution of their conflict that episode isn't as much catra asking for forgiveness as adora letting go of the idea of "perfect" in her head and taking a step back, and catra being given the space to figure out what she wants, and bridging the gap.

(pretty sure I wrote a post sometime ago about how Taking Control parallels Stranded that talks about this in more detail, but from my memory it's pretty bad lol so)

+ what I've said about the miscommunication in Promise. (the posts are from a few years ago but still mostly hold up)

like a lot of the actively fucking up is done by my beloved failgirl catra, but adora's not a passive agent. she has her own issues that conflict badly with both her feelings for catra and catra's issues (very clearly seen in Promise where the crystal castle plays them against each other)

SFF:

see, I have a bunch of opinions about SFF that's probably objectively unpopular, but if I say them on tumblr I'd probably get accused of saying anodyne things to clout-chase /j

(for example "I wish SFF, especially the ones with a focus on worldbuilding, would show more trans and/or nonbinary people bc a lot of them are rather fixated on gender, and it would've been soooooo interesting to see trans folks in there")

hm... here, have a few. one of these's got to be unpopular right

I don't think parts of a story being one dimensional/simplified is inherently bad I think the issue moreso comes from story elements with differing levels of simplification interfacing with each other. so for example I don't mind the Horde under Horde Prime being an evil empire that is evil bc it's the same level of abstracted and symbolic as everything else in She-Ra, but I hated the Liao Kingdom in Y u w u bc Y u w u at least nominally tries to flesh out a complex political system and to tell a story about a corrupt system, so any time the Liao Kingdom enters the story it acts as this vortex sucking out any and all potential complexity

a lot of the posts you see floating around talking about SFF books as a whole are clearly by folks whose only interaction with the genre is close to only LotR and GoT, likely not even the books but only the movies/show

a lot of the time, when folks here refer to GRRM, it feels like they're really invoking an idea of grimdarkness than anything to do with his work, I assume due to the show. like take the often mocked "what's Aragorn's tax policy" line. folks take it as meaninglessly pedantic when, if I'm remembering this correctly, GRRM's point is that a king being kindhearted and good doesn't always translates to that king being good at governing. shrug folks usually use it as a starting point to make good posts but yk. feels a bit unfair to the guy

in general, I have a rule of thumb that if something is often labelled grimdark but still has lingering popularity, it isn't actually grimdark (or specifically, 'grimdark as it exists in the popular consciousness'). it's worked more often than it didn't (malazan, berserk)

fantasy is watercolour. I have no justification for this but it just feels like fantasy should be drawn/animated in watercolour

#no idea if the she-ra bit makes sense at all ask me to elaborate if it doesn't #my rambles #thanks for the ask!#ask game #ask #spop #hollow knight #books #got excited and talked about all of them lol #there is no consistency to what I capitalise it's completely based on what I find aesthetically pleasing <3 #also I'm self censoring y u w u bc I don't want it to appear in tags #mutuals!

6 notes · View notes

shieldofrohan · 3 years

Note

Jaehaerys the douchebag was the real surprise of Fire & Blood. From him creating the whole Targaryen exceptionalism bullshit so he could bang his sister. And then of course there is his horrible treatment of his daughters. The callouness with having one hundred men strip naked in front of the one who was mentally disabled was just "dad of year". And this is the best king?

Hello @eonweheraldodemanwe ,

You have no idea how much I hated that Fire and Blood book and Jayjay was one of the biggest reasons. That annoying piece of sh*t lived that long just to p*ss me off.

This book made me rooting for Maegor. He really should have killed idiot Aenys' whole brood to save all of us from misery.

I don't even want to talk about that book. Yes it tells that ALL Targs suck but Martin really put very problematic and disturbing ideas in that book which totally ruined the series for me.

Anyway... That idiot Jayjay and fake feminist Alysanne were so fcking annoying and selfish. They married despite of the political situation Westeros in because of Targs' desire to fck each other and I was like: WHY? Selfish weirdos used their nukes to shut people up and came up with that Exceptionalism bullsh*t to shut people up for longer. Their daughter Daenerys dying of shivers and our beloved Khaleesi now shitting on grass really proved that TaRGs aRe sPeciaL.

What really bothered me with that book was that it felt like a joke. Yes, to certain degree that book was satire but written as a Targ propaganda. So it had two aspects of it.

1- This a Targ POV, therefore a propaganda so don't let it fool you.

2- This is a satire about how in subtext Targs sucked.

But it was also obvious that Martin tried to give an example of his ideal/good king with characters like Jayjay. Even though he makes sure that Jayjay was also an a*shole, he gives the hints of him being a good king.

I think (!) Martin believes that a good ruler doesn't have to be a good man and this is fine... I don't believe this idea, but I can respect it.

My problem was those hints of a good king. Because they didn't feel developed naturally.

[Btw, Martin sees Jayjay as a good king, I didn't come up with that idea: source]

Martin's attempts to paint Jayjay and Alysanne as good king and queen were laughable.

I know that Martin prefers the peaceful kings.. the ones who don't fight etc.

OK. But I find this idea unrealistic. Not all wars are for money and fame. His idea of a king who only cares about improving economy and good harvest is a little utopic.

And I think he cheated a little when he tried to show that Jayjay was a king who chose peace over fighting. Because that little sh*t didn’t have to fight in the first place. Meagor suddenly dies, so does Septon Moon, Joffrey Doggett starts serving him with tears in his eyes (WHY?) and Faith Militan got disbanded because let's incest weirdos who think they are gods defend the Faith. Aaaaand now you have a kingdom without any defiance. Wow Jayjay... you worked too hard dude, go fck your sister for a while.

Martin was like: "Hey this bloodpurist weirdo loves reading and talks about tax policy... obviously best king ever!".

Him wasting pages for his tax policy was such a weak attempt to make his point about Aragorn's tax policy. Because I didn't care about Jayjay's kingship in the first place. Yes a lot of awful leaders in the history managed to come up with good economical or whatever policies but those people actually sucked in the long run so we don't remember them as good leaders, therefore awful people can't be good rulers imo. Sorry not sorry. When I read Jayjay's reign, I didn't consider him as a good king for a second.

And his sister wife was even worse. She was like I HAVE TO BE HIS QUEEN!! Why? Because. Yeah ALIEsanne, only you can be a good queen, you freak. Let's be disrespectful and selfish to Westeros' people.

She was like: "I ended that barbaric first night tradition (I wonder why Martin insisted on some "myth" about Middle Ages...) because look at the poor women who suffered because of barbaric Northern Lords (she works on this after her visit to North was so?????). What would Westeros do without some white imperialist bloodpurists who are more sophisticated than barbaric Westeros lords???"

And she got surprised when Valyrian lords were also into prima nocta but HEY, women in Dragonstone were happy about it because Valyrians were not some simple lords! They were GODS!!! Such a blessing! Because women love being used by "gods".

She was like: "Women can RULE too" But she usupers her sister's right. And Martin tries to paint her as a good queen because she let women speak. She believes she is superior!!! Who cares about her fake woke white feminism?!

ANYWAY. Both Jayjay and ALIEsanne were awful and I didn't read them as good king and queen. I think Martin's philosophy of "bad people can be good rulers" wasn't for me. Because I believe that a ruler who believes he/she is superior than normal people can't be a good ruler. Ofc, good ones makes mistakes too but were talking about: Bloodpurism, racism, nuclear weapons and imperialism here. These are not some normal human faults. These are the recipe for a really awful rulership.

Another yikes about that book was that all anti Targ people were AWFUL or they died while they were fcking a horse!?. Only perverts, mad people, sexist pigs and bigots were anti Targ during the whole book. And people of Westeros were ok with Targs... Yeah who wouldn't love some white people with nukes come to invade your land? This is some white American thing, I guess...

When people of Westeros killed some geckos because some old smelly mad man provoked them to do, they felt bad afterwards!?!??! Literally all book was a joke and you can't force it to make sense by only saying that this was written as a Targ propaganda because Martin CHOSE to write this way. And I can't unsee the problematic aspects... This book screamed: "AN OLD WHITE AMERICAN WROTE ME".

I love Martin, but I wish he didn't write this book at all. If I sound bitter about him lately, this book is the reason. I wasn't expecting sth this awful.

And the book wasn't even pleasing to read. It had no literary value. Just bunch of unnecessary information (like the Septa who wrote a naughty book) about annoying and awful people.

It lacked the aspects that made Asoiaf great like the psychological side of the characters or character developments and arcs and beautiful POVs...

But it shares one of Asoiaf's weak points: NO POV from anti Targ people. He failed to give a POV to people in Essos against Dany in main books and this created the DANY THE WHITE SAVIOUR. He makes the same mistake in this book too and I hated it... I wish he wrote this book from different perspectives in Westeros. But too late.

In conclusion: I HATED THAT BOOK. But at least it showed one thing clearly: ALL TARGS SUCK.

Thanks for the ask.

#mine #ask #answered #reply #asoiaf #anti targaryen #anti fire and blood #grrm critical #anti jaehaerys targaryen #anti house targaryen #anti daenerys #just to be safe

89 notes · View notes

fedonciadale · 3 years

Note

I read the books years ago so dont exactly remember if Bran can have children in books or not but assuming asoiaf also follow same system of choosing their future rulers after Bran like show did, how feasible do you think it will be? Bran's ending is confirmed by Martin so even if I think he is too young to rule, I have accepted it. Bran is good person who will do what is best for Westeros. I am sure we will see some very good advisors helping him till he reaches legal age in the end. But what's the guarantee that whoever is chosen even decades after Bran will be best candidate to rule Westeros? Isnt it possible that someone like Baelish or Tywin, with more than enough money and tricks up their sleeves, can very well sway the selection process in their favor? Martin criticized LOTR for Aragorn's tax policy thing but doesn't this type of way to choose the new ruler even more chaotic? I cant imagine how it will be realistic in current Westeros or how different houses will even agree to this. I am happy that their wont be any Targ restoration happening in the end like most ppl assumed but is this really the perfect solution for Westeros after House Targ goes extinct?

Hi there!

It’s not stated in the books if Bran can have children, but I do think it is likely that GRRM will establish a proto parliamenat at the end of the books. We have foreshadowings of royal elections (The election of the Lord Commander of the NW, the Kingsmoot on the Iron Islands, Braavos, Robb being raised by his lords).

In a way you’ve come to the right blog with your question, lol. Because here in Germany (or rather as it was called at the time the ‘Roman Empire’) there was royal election for several centuries and they system worked and it was not worse than inheritance (only the points where there was a civil war about the succession would obviously be different). The system worked as long as the lords could agree on a candidate. And if there was a son they usually would choose the son. The system ensured that the great lords had a say in the politics and it was far more stable than you would assume. The single fact most people know about the election in the ‘Holy Roman Empire’ is that Charles V (or Charles I in Spain) actually bribed his way to the crown. But that was shortly before election was abolished, after about six centuries.

The only problem is, that a royal election that deviated from an existing dynasty always went to the abled mature man with military experience. A child king could be chosen if he was the son of the former king, but a free royal election (as would happen at the end of ASOIAF after the failure of the Targ dynasty) would never result in a child being chosen, and not even a young man. Usually the candidate would be in his prime. So however GRRM will go about it, the example of Germany does not give him a blueprint.

So, to sum up: Royal election works far better than people assume, but it does not work as GRRM needs it to work if he indeed wants Bran on the throne in the end.

Sry, not sry. Bran should not even be put forward as a candidate in a ‘realistic’ royal election : a child, no military experience, disabled (yes I know it’s ableism, but the king needed to ride all day to govern his kingdom), and he is not even the son of the king before him.

It does not add up.

I agree though that Bran as king is Martin’s endgame and several things point towards it. I wait how he will make it believable. But he will have a hard time convincing me. But then I probably know more about royal election in the middle ages than he does. And as long as the majority of readers can accept it, it should be o.k.

Thanks for the ask!

#anon ask #Bran Stark #Royal election in Westeros #It does not add up #But I think GRRM will go that way #Curious how he will do that #Foreshadowing of royal elections #Proto parliament in Westeros

20 notes · View notes

sayruq · 4 years

Text

King Bran Meta

Bran Week 2020| Day 4: Politics or Magic

This is essentially part 1 where I’m going to be replying to common complaints about Bran Stark becoming King of the Six Kingdoms while also offering up reasons why GRRM chose Bran as the endgame king. This part is structured loosely and does not feature proper analysis of the text. The next part will include analysis of Bran’s chapters and the final installment will be a prediction post (if TWOW isn’t released first). It’s a long post so I’m putting it under the cut.

bran is going to be exactly like bloodraven. he is going to become the three eyed crow and lose touch with humanity

Bran Stark wants to walk again. He misses his family, he starves and grows weak as he travels Beyond the Wall. He has a crush on Meera, he sees his father and he cries. Bran wanted to be a knight and he remembers the last kiss his mother gave him. He gets attacked and he bleeds. All of these things are present in the fifth book when Bran meets Bloodraven. In every chapter, we're reminded of how human Bran is despite his power. Bloodraven wants him as an heir, the Children hope that he will learn to see with a thousand and one eyes but this is no guarantee that Bran will do as expected. In fact, like his siblings, Bran will chose his own humanity. He will chose his family, he will chose his disabled body, he will chose the limitations of humanity- the sickness and pain- and he will still save the world.

Bloodraven chose to become the corpse that is part tree. He has always wanted power for himself, no matter the risks and he is known to grow obsessed- he was obsessed with Bittersteel and he had an obsession with controlling people which led to the creation of a police state. People’s personalities and histories matter when it comes to the decisions they make. Bran is nothing like Bloodraven. The only power he wants is the ability to walk. He has no interest in learning how to control people and the main reason he sought out Bloodraven was so that he could learn how to walk again.

grrm subverting fantasy tropes

Bran is the undercover king. The action hero and magical girl don't get the throne, the disabled boy does. The one no one thought to look for because he's not as flashy as the other candidates. In fact Bran was just learning how to fight before Jaime pushed him. He is more often than not a sweet boy who tries his best to do his duty despite his young age. Bran could be the Fischer King, there to help the Westerosi people rebuild without micromanaging every move they make. We have seen what little power people had stripped off them due to the wars waged throughout Westeros. Bran is not there to rebuild the entire country brick by brick but to guide them by maintaining balance in nature and politics. Essentially Bran is there to bring peace and through that peace that his people would heal and prosper.

He could also be a traditional king, one who has proven himself to his people by saving them. Kings in Westeros generally don’t interfere in local politics. Taxes are their chief concern and of course adherence to the law but Lords Paramount have leeway to act as they fit. Bran, as Lord of Winterfell, was concerned with the Hornwood succession crisis because it was a crisis that needed intervention. It was his job to resolve it, not the Iron Throne’s. Whenever monarchs or members of the royal family interfere, it often leads to issues. For example Alysanne Targaryen demanded that a New Gift be made despite Lord Stark disagreeing with her and the land ended up neglected as a result. Bran will do better than that I think.

aragorn's tax policy

There are two ways I plan on answering this. The first is to counter the ridiculous notion that Bran will have no tax policy. Just because D&D chose to end the show the moment Bran became king doesn’t mean that GRRM has the same plan. Here’s the actual quote:

“[…] And there is always this presumption that if you are a good man, you will be a good king. [Like] Tolkien — in Return of the King, Aragorn comes back and becomes king, and then “he ruled wisely for three hundred years.” Okay, fine. It is easy to write that sentence, “He ruled wisely”.

What does that mean, “He ruled wisely?” What were his tax policies? What did he do when two lords were making war on each other? Or barbarians were coming in from the North? What was his immigration policy? What about equal rights for Orcs? I mean did he just pursue a genocidal policy, “Let’s kill all these fucking Orcs who are still left over”? Or did he try to redeem them? You never actually see the nitty-gritty of ruling.”

Aragorn spent the entire LOTR trilogy acting as a warrior. Then he became king and the series ended. Suffice to say, GRRM does not plan on making Bran king and then ending the series. I think there will be a significant amount of page time dedicated to Westeros slowly rebuilding.

What does GRRM mean when he says, ‘What are Aragon’s tax policies?’ Most people think it means we need to see some paper pushing but they also ignore the rest of the quote. GRRM wants to know what a king can offer his subjects. How will he deal with a post war country? What will happen to the soldiers who fought for the enemy? How will he resolve any conflict that arises? With the right Small Council, Bran could easily have a viable tax plan, post war recovery plan, and the ability to ensure that war doesn’t break out in his life time.

While Bran was acting as Lord of Winterfell:

With the help of his advisors, he handled the Hornwood crisis which sent Ramsay into hiding. (Conflict resolution)

Welcomed the lords for the harvest feast. (Diplomacy)

Peacefully handed over the castle to Theon to protect his people. (Put his people first).

All at the age of 7. I’ve seen people dismiss this because it’s not on the same level as what Jon and Daenerys are doing but Bran’s political act was disrupted by Winterfell’s destruction. Not to mention, there are still two books left. Like Sansa, Bran isn’t staying with Bloodraven for long. His training was short but he managed to get the basics. He can warg better than the most powerful wargs and now he knows how to look through weirwood trees. If Bran stays longer than I expect him to, it’s because GRRM will likely utilize Brynden Rivers, a former Hand of the King, to resume Bran’s political arc.

There’s much more to Bran’s political arc than people realise and there’s still two more books to cover. I’ve seen people claim that Bran’s kingship would be a magical solution to political problems which is ridiculous imo. Bran’s magical powers cannot solve every problem. The show’s biggest mistake was reducing Bran to his powers to the point of erasing everything about him and so the only way he could contribute to his Small Council is by chasing Drogon. GRRM isn’t going to do the same thing, you don’t write a book about the heart being in conflict and turn the closest character to a protagonist into a vessel for magical powers. Anyway, if having powers makes everything Bran does magical, then shouldn’t the same criticism be lobbed at Dany and Jon? Dany performs magic and controls magical beasts, Jon is a warg who will be resurrected. Their powers are a core part of their character, you can’t dismiss those powers anymore than you can dismiss Bran’s. It’s a criticism that doesn’t make much sense.

bloodraven

Bloodraven represents two different things in the books and the show. In the show, he was Bran's mentor and seemed relatively well meaning. We don't really learn his backstory and we don't get the sense that Bran was becoming a darker person due to Bloodraven’s influence. In fact Bran was the one framed negatively. His attempts at becoming independent from Bloodraven ended up killing most of his friends and led to his ‘death,’ in some ways. Bloodraven is framed positively in the show but in the books, he is a Machiavellian character who lost everything because of that. Bran is not meant to follow in his footsteps and Bloodraven is not meant to have a massive influence on Bran for the rest of his life. That is what Bloodraven would want, GRRM would be rewarding him if that hapens. This is a man who killed children, who forced people to go back to drought stricken land, who broke oaths (he left his position as Lord Commander to chase power beyond the Wall), who uses magic as a shortcut, etc. He is not a man meant to win.

Look at Littlefinger, he is trying to make Sansa his partner in crime but we all know that, Sansa will ultimately reject him and bring him down. While I don’t know if Bran will bring Bloodraven down, Brynden Rivers is already is a pathetic state, Bran will reject him. Bloodraven’s core beliefs are not compatible with Bran’s beliefs. If he tries to possess Bran’s body like some people have theorized, he will fail. Bran is incredibly powerful, he beat up Varamyr Sixskins and didn’t even know it. He is not someone who’ll get easily possessed and possession has no place in his story.

Politically, there’s a lot Bran can learn from Bloodraven, mostly what not to do. Bloodraven is corruption personified. If there’s an underhanded way to do something, best believe Bloodraven has considered it. He was exiled to the Wall without an uproar for a reason. He is a bad person whose methods can be teachable moments for Bran considering that he will become King. That’s as far as it will go.

power to hurt other people

Bran is very powerful, more powerful than almost anyone in the world. Bran was stronger than a powerful skinchanger despite lacking the training and only acquiring his power a few years prior. Bran will grow more powerful as time goes on. His magical powers are somewhat the equivalent of a King's power- the power to bend other beings’ wills. Bran in ADWD has been abusing his power by using Hodor's body. He is also currently being taught by Bloodraven, a man with such control issues that he created a police state. Bloodraven is an authoritarian. By spending time with him, Bran will begin to form his own value system when it comes to his powers, he'll realise that using to hurt and control others is a terrible thing and good people don't do that. By the time, Bran is given the throne, he'll essentially be able to control himself and act within the bounds of the law. This is called an arc. You don’t introduce a hero with issues like this if you don’t resolve it by either turning them into a villain (which won’t happen) or making them repent and become a better person (which will happen).

We have seen him wield political power as Lord of Winterfell. He could have easily used it against Little Walder and Big Walder because they annoyed him but he didn’t. He didn’t mistreat Osha despite being raised to hate and fear wildlings. Instead, he got up every day and did what was expected of him.

fighting the others

Bran has been accused of having no connection to the other six kingdoms (you know like Jon and Daenerys) but Bran does. He leaves Winterfell in the very last chapter of ACoK and travels North to find Bloodraven. It becomes clear that Bran's destiny is more than just being Prince of Winterfell, he is going to save the world. The Others are a global threat with many cultures having stories about heroes vanquishing the Others thousands of years. The frozen wasteland where the Others currently are in the books is close enough to the eastern coast of Essos that the Others could cross it if they made it close enough.

Bran was literally chosen in the first book to become one of the heroes who will end up stopping the Others. He won't be fighting for the North alone but for all Westeros as well. We know from the show that Bran will lose everyone he met during his journey and we know from the show that despite this, Bran will still try to find a way to the Others and given how long his storyline has involved them (his chapter came after they were introduced), I very very much doubt he's not instrumental to their destruction. After all we know from the show that the Children are involved in their creation and Bran has met them.

he took after his mother and followed her culture more- has a connection to the south

Besides fighting for the realm, Bran was raised by a southerner. He knew the North well but he followed the southern religion and wanted to be a knight. The North was largely isolated but it was considered part of the Seven Kingdoms so a northerner becoming King of six southern kingdoms is not impossible or unheard of especially if said northerner made a name for himself (by helping people). Not only that, Bran has ties to three southern kingdoms just like Robert Baratheon. In the show, he chose (or rather accepted) southerners for his Small Council so it's not like they are being alienated by his government. When he was made king, Sansa made it clear the North will secede, and maybe in a different time period, that would have led to an uproar but the North had been fighting for this for years so it was easy for everyone present to accept that they have a northern king and six kingdoms instead of seven.

Bran's storyline happening before he's made king shows how he serves the realm without any expectation being placed on him. Like his sister Sansa, Bran proves him before he was given the throne. In the show, Bran has the memory of all of humanity. He has seen every war, every act of evil but he has also witness peaceful efforts and the work of good people. He has seen the world when it did not have feudalism, when there were no lords who oppress the smallfolk. He watched terrible kings and good kings. More than that, Bran knows the story of each and every commoner who ever lived. In a world where only the nobility have their histories written down. Bran can't be the king of the nobility alone, he has seen too much to ignore the smallfolk. This makes me confident that both versions of Bran will do right by their people.

war mongering and tribalism

Bran's story is one about war. He doesn't see battles directly but he witnesses atrocities. He sees hostages being mistreated, he sees an army destroying Winterfell, he hears about the things that have happened there while he and his brother were hiding in the crypts. Bran has no desire for war nor does he have he temperament for it. I think he would be dedicated to peace which separates him from the monarchs who came before him.

I've seen people say Bran's arc is only about the North so he can only be Lord of Winterfell or King in the North. When he fights against the Others, Bran isn't fighting for the North alone but all of Westeros. In his very first vision after his fall, Bran sees all of Westeros and other parts of the world for a reason. He went beyond the North into the world beyond the Wall. He is not limited to just the North like some people assume, he sees through weirwood trees in the North more than any other region because the Andals destroy nearly all the godswoods, not because he's wholly focused on the North alone. Everyone agrees that Bran will be very instrumental in stopping the Others and yet every few people think he's going to try and protect the world despite the fact that the Others are a threat to humanity. They're not going to stop in the North after all.

We've witnessed people in Westeros fighting only for their families or the ruling families or their kingdom or their ethnicity. Bran is a child who is both a Northerner and a Southerner, who is young enough to unlearn any tribalism he has, who is the only candidate for the Iron Throne (besides Jon) who is trying to protect all of Westeros.

learning the true meaning of justice

The first time we ever see how justice is dispensed, it's through Bran's eyes. A man is executed by Ned for deserting the Night's Watch. We know why that man deserted and Bran can tell how scared that man was. Even though it's quickly established that Ned is honorable and takes his duties series, we're also meant to doubt the validity of that execution because we're presented with the deserter's side first. Throughout the series we're meant to see the error of following the law to the T, just as we're meant to witness numerous injustices. Bran is compassionate and empathetic, he was the only one it seemed was uncomfortable with the idea of the man being executed. That's because ignoring injustice is bad but inflexibility is also bad. Just because someone broke the law doesn't mean they're automatically bad people. Last words are not enough for a defense, only the nobility are given trials in the south. The smallfolk can't adequately defend themselves when they're accused of a crime.

That powerlessness is important because though Bran is very powerful, he's learning how to wield that power gently. Bran's ability to see into the past allows him to see stories he has heard from another perspective. For example he heard that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna but he'll see Lyanna leaving with Rhaegar *but* he'll also consider her young age and naivety. Basically Bran's powers will teach the importance of seeing both sides of the story. Ned executed the Night's Watch deserter for, well, deserting. He was following the law to a T and doing what was expected him of as a Lord. Bran will learn to be a little more flexible because unlike his father, he has the ability to see how certain things have occurred. That allows him to have room for mercy.

Bran has been learning about how to treat other people. He learnt how to perform executions, breaking guest rights (the Rat Cook story), what rights people have (you can't force someone to marry you like Ramsay forced Lady Hornwood), how to treat hostages, etc. He is also learning how historical injustices like how the wildlings were forced to live hard lives beyond the Wall. This information is going to be utilized when he is crowned.

he is chosen because he lacks a claim so no entitlement

Bran has no claim to the six kingdoms, he is a Stark from the North and that's why he was he was chosen. it's no secret that entitlement is one of the big sins in GRRM's book series. Daenerys spent years trying to get to a continent she has never seen before because she felt entitled to the Iron Throne. The war of the five kings involved four kings who felt entitled to thrones and land and were willing to harm civilians for it. The only exception is Robb who went to war because his father was executed illegally and because Tywin Lannister was trying to destroy the Riverlands. The war was devastating to the continent, it left thousands dead and it depleted resources right before winter. In the books the Others are meant to bring the worst winter of all time and humanity was ill prepared for it because they were fighting over thrones.

Bran does not have this entitlement to any throne, despite being a prince, the biggest issue Bran has is how he treats Hodor. That came from a place of ignorance and childish selfishness rather than a genuine believe that he was worth more than Hodor. GRRM has already set up a situation where Bran realises what happens when he feels entitled over the labor of one human being so Bran ends up both remorseful and wiser. He'll understand his privilege and he'll use that experience while ruling because he knows he'll impact people's lives even when they can't tell him that themselves.

This means that Bran won't view his kingship as something that was always his or even something that he took, it's something that he was given and therefore he must constantly prove himself worthy.

direwolves tell us the future arc-

Bran will be king of summer. All his life he has never seen winter and the first winter he lives through is going to be the worst winter possibly ever. Not only will bran help defeat the Others (essentially ending the winter), he will rebuild Westeros. Winter kills life, summer nourishes it.

jon's failures

I’ve also seen people acting like Bran stole a slot belonging to Jon when he was crowned. First things first, Jon was crowned King in the North in the show and he’ll be crowned in the books so the idea that all his king foreshadowing was for nothing is kind of ridiculous. The North is the largest kingdom in Westeros and it’s a sizeable territory compared to the other states so becoming a KITN isn’t something to look down on.

Furthermore book Jon’s claim to the throne is very weak. He is the bastard son of Rhaegar, House Targaryen has lost its claim to the throne and Aegon VI will claim it through conquest. No one outside of the North would fight in his name. If the North, the Riverlands, and the Vale somehow decided to fight in King Jon’s name after a grueling war with the Others, there’s no indication that Jon will win. Aegon will have the armies of the south backing him, Daenerys will have three dragons and the Dothraki. It’s more likely that Jon will give his support to either Daenerys or Aegon.

After King’s Landing’s destruction, no one will want a Targaryen as a ruler, not even a bastard who was raised by the honorable Ned Stark. If Daenerys is tainted by her father’s legacy, then Jon will be tainted by his aunt’s actions.

When I wrote the outline for this meta (as you can see above), I planned on going into detail about Jon’s failures in leadership since people were acting like Bran is somehow a big downgrade but I don’t want any discussion to be derailed by this. Instead I will say if Jon’s endgame is not in the Night’s Watch, it’s in Winterfell.

dorne and the ironborn's situation

GRRM uses the nine Free Cities to show what would happen should the Seven Kingdoms fracture- constant war and disunity. Dorne does not want independence, I wish they did, it would make a lot of sense, but that’s not what GRRM is writing. Arianne, Doran, even Oberyn have not expressed any goals to secede from the Seven Kingdoms. What the ruling family and the Dornish smallfolk want is justice for Elia, her children, and Oberyn Martell. Arianne and Oberyn wanted to crown Myrcella and recognise her as their queen by fighting to put her on the throne. They wanted justice, not Dorne separating from the other kingdoms. Aegon is going to provide that when he uproots the Lannisters from King's Landing. As long as Bran does his best to be just, the Martells can recognise him as king.

As for the Ironborn, both Euron and Victarion preached separatism while Asha wanted the Ironborn to live on Northern land. She wanted to make a deal with the Northerners. This might end up happening- the Ironborn being autonomous and yet part of the Six Kingdoms, like Dorne. We'll see.

Here's the thing, when you read Fire and Blood, you'll see that Aegon I is being criticized for using weapons of mass destruction, for invading, for marrying his sisters, for killing civilians, etc. but not for forming the Six Kingdoms which is a contradiction I know, how can you criticize imperialism and accept the Six Kingdoms? But GRRM does it. He doesn't seem to think it's the worst thing in the world and he doesn't make the case for any other kingdom seceding except the North. Dorne being forced to join the Six Kingdoms through colonialism is clearly wrong but Dorne joining after Mariah Martell and Maron Martell married Daeron II and Daenerys II Targaryen is probably going to be depicted positively in Fire and Blood vol 2.

The Riverlands joined the North in its secession war because Robb is half Tully and because the Lannisters are destroying their lands but the latter isn't as emphasised in the text as the North's reasons for seceding which tells me the Riverlands will remain in the Six Kingdoms, after all Bran is half Tully and Aegon will defeat the Lannisters, freeing the Riverlands.

I've seen people say, 'Bran will be a god king and he'll let the other kingdoms do their own thing,' which I disagree with. Bran's entire story is that he is human despite his powers. He wants to walk, he wants his family, and he wants Winterfell whole again. He doesn't want to become like Brynden Rivers and the Children, barely alive corpses with massive powers, he wants to be a knight, and he wants to be Bran Stark.

As for how he will rule, do you guys not understand that the Seven Kingdoms are fairly autonomous? The king and his council will collect taxes but they don't tell the Reach which crops to grow, they don't tell Lannisport how to conduct its business. Tywin wiped out 2 houses without the crown or the other kingdoms interfering. The Vale has a huge amount of food currently, Tommen's council hasn't demanded the Eyrie hand over their grain. The North is isolated, no one tells them how to deal with winter. There's a fair amount of freedom for lords paramount to act. Bran's kingship and his small council won't change that

grrm's 'if a kid is going to end up as king then fine.'

Bran is going to be at most 11 years old when he becomes King. Daenerys will be either 17 or 18, Jon would be either 18 or 19 during the final books. People would accept that they would sit on thrones, they wouldn't benefit from a 5 year time jump like Bran would. GRRM was clearly talking about Bran (and Sansa too since she's also very young).

why should bran's reign be perfect

The other claimants only had to be good people for fans to be satisfied. Guess what? Bran is a good person. I do think he’s a smart, resilient kid who loves people, and who takes his responsibilities seriously. If Westeros is going to be ruled by anyone, I’m glad it’s in Bran’s hands.

the great council (what about democracy?)

Bran was chosen by a Great Council, which historically worked to avoid civil wars. Great Councils don't usually include commoners because Westeros is still a feudal society. It wouldn't have included commoners even if Jon or Daenerys or Gendry were being elected. In order for Westeros to become a more equitable society, reforms have to be made. These reforms are going to be made by the monarch who needs to be elected by a group of people who have been in conflict for years. The Great Council was meant to end that conflict and it did, Bran was chosen unanimously, he arranged for the Unsullied to leave Westeros and agreed to let the North secede peaceful. Then after Bran was made king, he accepted into his Small Council a woman, a disabled man, who is heir to one of the important seats in Westeros, and people from lower class. D&D included Bronn for fanservice but doesn't change the fact that Bran has made significant changes to the way things are being done simply by appointing minorities to his small council.

Expecting democracy in a feudalist state is ridiculous. Even the way that they look at their history is dictated by their current politics. Chiefs become petty kings, warriors become knights of the faith, young girls are maidens, old love stories are framed as courtly romances, etc. It will take a while for the culture to move on from this. I tend to think of Bran’s kingship as a buffer or as a transition period. Westeros is currently considered backward by the rest of the people, a giant leap forward is unrealistic but small steps towards a better world is likely what we will get.

#bran stark #branweek2020 #king bran meta #asoiaf meta #song of ice and fire

56 notes · View notes

morwensteelsheen · 3 years

Text

@khokali replied to this post:

Faramirs life sounds like a study in abject misery tbh. Maybe it is genetic.

yeah, absolutely!!!! i think it’s really easy to focus on boromir as the ultimate tragic figure (and he is, of course, and the terrible extent of his tragedy really can’t be overstated), but there’s so much to be said for faramir as this tragic hero too.

like there’s the easy stuff about him outliving everybody he loves; in the book he obviously outlives his entire nuclear family, but if he lives to 120, he’s definitely outliving éowyn, maybe even a couple of their kids. by the time he dies it’s very likely that the only people around him who remember the war are aragorn and arwen — maybe some of the younger dol amroth brood are still kicking, but who knows.

but then there’s faramir’s kind of brutal self/situational awareness. he’s the one that gets the imladris dream (multiple times), and seems to be pretty embittered about not having been chosen to go on that particular quest, which no doubt brings its own kind of misery especially after boromir’s death. then there’re the awful implications of him being aware of everything being a bit Shit. like yeah, cool that aragorn’s around and the king has returned, which seems to be the shit he’s into, but is it really? like once you live past the sheen of the heir of elendil, what does that actually look like in practice? and not in GRRM’s dumbass “tax policy” way, as in, what of faramir’s numerous critiques of gondor would actually improve with a king at its helm? from what little context we’re given — not much! there’s still war, war that actually seems reasonably unnecessary. and faramir, who is bitching about that sort of thing when he’s 36 (and probably younger, lbr) is going to have to keep bitching about it at 56, and 76, and 96, etc etc like god, talk about some cassandra-level tragedy.

lmao i am making myself so sad about this!!! why couldn’t jrrt have done some wacky elfy shit and said that éowyn lived to 108 or whatever so i dont have to think about faramir outliving her by so many years!! fuck!

#emily your dissertation will not write itself go do it you goblin #sob

5 notes · View notes

starksinthenorth · 4 years

Note

Just curious, what's your opinion on Daenerys lack of action or attempt of making any sacrifices in order to save Missandei? She doesn't seem to give any thought of trying to negotiate for Missandei's life. Dany doesn't do anything it seems to try and save Missandei. What's your take on that? And can you offer an explanation/excuse that doesn't include "Dany knows that Missandei wouldn't want her to give up her claim just to save her life"

It’s stupid and one of the things that falls into the category of “D&D can’t write themselves and don’t understand GRRM’s characters.” By mid-episode 4 it was clear that they were trying to force the ‘Dany is bad and mad’ ending without trying to make it work.

It was incredibly OOC for her to not agree with Sansa about letting the armies rest. Time and time again in the books, she remembers that she needs to feed her people, not just her armies but her dragons and the group of freedmen who follow her:

"But how can I rule seven kingdoms if I cannot rule a single city?" He had no answer to that. Dany turned away from them, to gaze out over the city once again. "My children need time to heal and learn. My dragons need time to grow and test their wings. And I need the same. I will not let this city go the way of Astapor. I will not let the harpy of Yunkai chain up those I've freed all over again." She turned back to look at their faces. "I will not march."

AFFC, Dany VI

That reaction was out of character and started a spiral that just didn’t work with what they have developed and shown on the screen, and especially in context with the books.

GRRM has talked a lot about how ruling is hard and he wants to know about Aragorn’s tax policy. The three characters that show us this the most are Jon, Dany, and Cersei. Also, to lesser degrees, Stannis (via Davos) and Tyrion. Specifically, Dany and Cersei are explicitly contrasted by the text as women ruling in a man’s world and what that is like. IMO, it seems pretty clear that Cersei is the one who rules ineffectively and Daenerys is the queen who cares about her people and has a goal besides holding power.

Cersei alienates her gooddaughter's family (who are providing food to King's Landing), sends Loras to die, funds a religious militant group, ignores the kingdom's debt, and still thinks she's smarter than everyone around her. In comparison, Dany sets aside Westeros time and time again to take care of her people, taking in the sick Astapori freemen, feeding people, etc. She’s also constantly trying to work with people to make their world work: she bargains with the masters, tries to with the Qartheen, the Yunkai’i, the Lhazareen.

Yes, Dany is taking a dark turn in TWOW. She’s going to turn away from bargaining and working with people and embrace fire & blood. But that’s because she’s going to burn the masters, fully liberate slaver’s bay, and stop trying to work with evil men. Yes, Cersei is evil. But she’d also still do something to save someone worthwhile - her person.

Alternatively, she’d try a recon mission. THere’s no reason a task force couldn’t try to save Missandei.

#daenerys #anti got #anti d&d #missandei #ask

20 notes · View notes

blindestspot · 6 years

Text

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

304 notes · View notes

tatticstudio55 · 5 years

Note

A significant part of Dany hate comes from our uneasiness of seeing women wielding power and not being perfect. A lot of people feel more comfortable cheering for female rulers or female politicians on the way up, while they're still struggling to reach the position and haven't done anything to disappoint them by not being perfect. Which explains the endless posts about what a great queen Sansa will be. She hasn't actually ruled as queen, so people can idealise her reign as much as they want.

Hi anon!

I think you laid it out perfectly. If ASoIaF followed a more traditional narrative, Dany’s story would be over by ASOS, after she conquered Meereen. Ah, but this doesn’t resolve the much talked about “Aragorn’s tax policy”, doesn’t it?

Honestly, I have no problem with people wanting to compare Dany to Sansa... when it’s not done in bad faith, that is. If you want to compare season 7 Dany to Sansa, go with season 6 Sansa, who was in a similar position back then (at war, trying to retake her home). If you want to compare season 7 Sansa to Dany, go with Dany’s rule in Meereen. I understand that it might be convenient for antis to compare the two women based solely on season 7, but... remember that in season 6, Sansa already knew about the threat North of the Wall, and her focus was yet still on regaining her home first. I discussed this matter more in detail HERE.

And, I mean, there are still some of them who insist that the show “purposely” presented Dany and Sansa as “foils” in season 7. Those are the same people ridiculing us for falling for the “fake Jonerys romance” and “Dany is a fake hero” tricks, though, so it looks to me like they want to have their cake and eat it too, no?

4 notes · View notes

mebongster87 · 6 years

Text

Kill the boy, Jon Snow

I have been rewatching GOT Season 5 and I must admit, that it is chockful of foreshadowing for whats going to happen in Season 8.

One of my favorite scenes from Episode 5X05 is Jon and Maester Aemon’s scene about Kill the boy and let the man be born...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu6jzYWKhys

I love this scene especially because it summarises the essence of pretty much all the hard choices that Jon has had to make or will make in his life, especially now that he has been thrust into a leadership position and really puts the “conflict of the human heart” concept front and center.

The scene starts with Sam reading a scroll about Daenerys and whats going on in Mereen and Maester Aemon says a bunch of stuff and ends on “A targaryen alone in the world is a terrible thing”...just as Jon Snow is entering the room...yeah that foreshadowing was a bit too on the nose (lol!!!)

Then we have Jon and Maester Aemon talking about his decision to let the wildlings in throught the wall...and one of the most important things he says is..

”You will find little joy in your command but with luck you will find the strength to do what needs to be done....Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born”

Great piece of advice given to ..and this show version is shortened from whats in the books in ADWD..but the part that always struck me was this bit:

“... with luck you will find the strength to do what needs to be done”..its almost like “luck” here symbolizes a person.

And i remembered that the free folk always called people blessed with red hair or hair kissed by fire to be LUCKY!!!!

In my mind, this always symbolized Sansa, with hair kissed by fire and thought to consider lucky... I always read this line as ”You will find little joy in your command but with Sansa you will find the strength to do what needs to be done....Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born” but i could be just a delusional Jonsa.

So when I was rewatching the scene, I was hoping the next scene would show me Sansa..but wishful thinking amirite...Guess what the next scene is though...

TORMUND!!!!

Red-haired Tormund talking to Jon Snow!!!!!

That was a sneaky foreshadowing..but I will take it because I really believe that Jon and Sansa as the endgame ruling couple is the best way to answer “What’s Aragorn’s tax policy” in the ASOIAF universe. Jon and Sansa also have a whole lot of King Jaeherys and Good Queen Alysanne parallels and these two were thought to be the best rulers of Westeros by many.

#Jon x Sansa #jonsa #actuallyjonsa #jon snow #Sansa Stark

50 notes · View notes

turtle-paced · 7 years

Note

I was trying to explain to a friend why I like Jon in the books, but not the show. However, I had a hard time putting my thoughts into words. How do you think the show has changed jon from the books?

In three key ways that will force me to insert a cut for length.

First, and at this point in the show’s run most obviously, book!Jon is a smart guy.

Almost the first thing Jon Snow had done as Lord Commanderwas institute daily archery drill for the entire garrison, even stewards and cooks. The Watch hadbeen placing too much emphasis on the sword and too little on the bow, he had said, a relic of thedays when one brother in every ten had been a knight, instead of one in every hundred.

- Samwell I, AFFC

The Night’s Watch takes no part, avoice said, but another replied, Stannis fights for the realm, theironmen for thralls and plunder.

- Jon IV, ADWD

I see that one called a mistake a fair bit. Jon is inclined to support Stannis for personal reasons, and Jon’s lack of transparency is a real problem. We see here, though, that Jon’s got an appreciation for the reality that the Watch can’t stay out of the realm’s politics in these circumstances, and that everyone’s better served with Stannis ruling from Winterfell rather than the Ironborn or the Boltons.

Glass, Jon mused, might be of use here. Castle Black needs itsown glass gardens, like the ones at Winterfell. We could growvegetables even in the deep of winter.

- Jon VII, ADWD

The Lord Steward glanced back. “Women too? Our brothersare not accustomed to having women amongst them, my lord. Theirvows … there will be fights, rapes …”

“These women have knives and know how to use them.”

“And the first time one of these spearwives slits the throat ofone of our brothers, what then?”

“We will have lost a man,” said Jon, “but we have just gainedsixty-three. You’re good at counting, my lord. Correct me if I’mwrong, but my reckoning leaves us sixty-two ahead.”

- Jon V, ADWD

“Might I ask about these corpses in the ice cells? They make the menuneasy. And to keep them under guard? Surely that is a waste of twogood men, unless you fear that they …”

“… will rise? I pray they do.”

[…]

“Can they talk?” asked Jon Snow. “I think not, but I cannotclaim to know. Monsters they may be, but they were men before theydied. How much remains? The one I slew was intent on killing LordCommander Mormont. Plainly it remembered who he was and where to find him.” Maester Aemon would have grasped his purpose, Jon didnot doubt; Sam Tarly would have been terrified, but he would haveunderstood as well. “My lord father used to tell me that a man mustknow his enemies. We understand little of the wights and less aboutthe Others. We need to learn.”

- Jon VIII, ADWD

And, most importantly of all,

“I know what I swore.” Jon said the words. “I am the sword inthe darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burnsagainst the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakesthe sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. Were those thesame words you said when you took your vows?”

“They were. As the lord commander knows.”

“Are you certain that I have not forgotten some? The onesabout the king and his laws, and how we must defend every foot of hisland and cling to each ruined castle? How does that part go?” Jonwaited for an answer. None came. “I am the shield that guards therealms of men. Those are the words.So tell me, my lord— what arethese wildlings, if not men?”

- Jon XI, ADWD

That last one’s worth the long quote because this is what Jon’s been after all of ADWD - a fundamental overhaul of the Watch’s purpose. He’s not there to guard the realm or the North or even the Wall. He’s there to guard humanity itself. A good chunk of Jon’s big political mistakes lie in not slowing down and explaining what he’s doing to the people who aren’t keeping up with his thinking - who aren’t able to keep up. He’s genuinely one of the series’ most radical thinkers, eyes firmly on the big picture and the long term.

In the show, a lot of these ideas weren’t adapted, and most of the rest were put in Sam’s mouth.

Second, despite his introversion and somewhat standoffish demeanour, Jon Snow is an extremely caring and loving individual. It’s everywhere in his narration. He loves his dad. He loves his brothers. He loves his sisters. He loves his uncle. He loves Sam. He loves Ygritte. He cares about his peers and his mentors and the Free Folk he travelled with. He cares about people in the abstract.

This is the other big source of Jon’s political problems, actually. He cares for the lives at risk at Hardhome, and arranges a textbook lesson in the Sunk Costs Fallacy to try and save them. He cares about Arya, and, well, we see how that turns out for him. The caring isn’t bad, mind you, but how he handles it is suboptimal to say the least.

Oddly enough, we’ve started to see that demonstrated beyond his affection for Sam in recent seasons - in Jon’s interactions with Tormund, Dolorous Edd, and Sansa - but usually Jon’s love and care is only demonstrated to the few characters in front of him, at dramatically appropriate moments. This is as opposed to book!Jon who walks through a random part of forest and thinks “Arya would love this I miss my whole family so much.”

This also extends to Jon’s recurring problems with his temper. Jon gets angry over slights to Ned, to Ygritte, and over his bastardy, because they matter to him. Should he fly off the handle as he does? No, but the fact that he gets angry shows the reader how deeply he cares about these people and issues. Show!Jon rarely gets angry or bitter over his bastardy - a bit pouty from time to time, but since season one, nothing remotely like the fit of rage that forced people to pull him off his sparring partner. (Jon XII, ASoS)

Third, where Jon fits in the series’ deconstruction of fantasy tropes. Book!Jon is one of GRRM’s deconstructions of a classic fantasy protagonist. If there’s a single character who embodies the critique encapsulated in GRRM’s “What was Aragorn’s tax policy?” line, it’s Jon Snow.

Season one does a pretty good job of depicting the first crucial step in Jon’s character development - shaking him out of the better part of his entitlement issues, culminating in Jon riding off to go be a tragically misunderstood anti-hero only to be dragged back to the Watch, and then given a talking to by Jeor Mormont. What’s telling are the lines from Mormont the show didn’t adapt:

“Your brother is in the field with all the power of the north behind him. Any one of hislords bannermen commands more swords than you’ll find in all the Night’s Watch. Why do youimagine that they need your help? Are you such a mighty warrior, or do you carry a grumkin inyour pocket to magic up your sword?”

- Jon VIII, AGoT

This is a blunt statement of where book!Jon’s character development will not and should not go. That’s how we got to the Jon Snow capable of seeing those big necessary changes I outlined first. Seasons four and five gave hints of this in places, with Jon talking in front of tribunals, arguing about policy, and making decisions about Stannis, and since “Hardhome”, the writers have thrown it out almost entirely. What Jon accomplishes in the show, he’s been accomplishing by the sword. And because he’s been such a mighty warrior, in the individual sense rather than a command sense, he’s been rewarded with kingship.

It’s exactly what GRRM was trying to say shouldn’t happen with this character archetype.

In sum, show!Jon isn’t as smart as book!Jon, he isn’t as kind as book!Jon, and he’s a trope played straight in a series that’s supposed to be deconstructing that trope.

#ASoIaF #anti got #jon snow #a game of thrones #a storm of swords #a dance with dragons #season one #season four #season five #season six #season seven #asks

1K notes · View notes

empiregalaxy · 7 years

Text

Why Sansa would make a great Queen In The North

A huge misconception is that the supporters of 'QITN' Sansa Stark only support her due to reasons such as 'inheritance', etc. I personally think it is much more deeper and complex than that. So here I list some reasons why I'm pro-queen Sansa.

1. She's kind I have written in depth about Sansa's kindness. Her saving Dontos, telling Sandor that his brother was 'no true knight', praying for Margaery, helping Sweetrobin cross the bridge, helping the Stokeworths during the Battle Of Blackwater and even helped Lancel, who is a Lannister. I don't know about everyone else, but I would want the rulers to be kind. Although being kind doesn't necessarily guarantee a good ruler, it certainly is a start. Hence why Sansa's kindness is my first point.

Another reason why I love Sansa’s kindness- is that she is kind when other characters fail to be. In A Game Of Thrones, there is this moment:

They all laughed then, Joffrey on his throne, and the lords standing attendance, Janos Slynt and Queen Cersei and Sandor Clegane and even the other men of the Kingsguard, the five who had been his brothers until a moment ago. Surely that must have hurt the most, Sansa thought. Her heart went out to the gallant old man as he stood shamed and red-faced, too angry to speak. Finally he drew his sword.

Sansa’s kindness is not only just goodness, but strength.

2. She's perceptive & (politcally minded!) There are two amazing essays on this which say it much, much better than I possibly could. Sharing them because they are superb.

The first one is by @turtle-paced and can be found here. The other is by @goodqueenaly and can be found here. Well worth a read.

Sansa is a smart person, and that is a huge thing when it comes to monarchs. I'd like to talk about George R.R Martin's comments about Aragorn, who we all know as a key character in Tolkein's Lord Of The Rings

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

As much as I love Tolkein's world, GRRM's insistence on having leaders who are precise in their methods, are good people AND good rulers is absolutely important. What does this have to do with Sansa? Well, I've made it clear I've found her wise and good. I also think she is well equipped to handle hardships the North would face, because of the following traits:

ability to show mercy (for instance, in A Clash Of Kings she shows mercy to Lancel Lannister). Forget the show rubbish of her wanting blood and punishment, Sansa does show mercy in the course of the series

atttentive to detail. She's good with banners, people's houses, statuses, etc- so she would be able to assess how an action would impact on others. I don't think Sansa is oblivious at all. She's grown alot.

willingness to learn. Not only is she engaged in what other people have to say (Sansa rarely interrupts others). Military may not have a huge role in her arc, but it could be. She could learn battle strategies and tactics. Not saying she would necessarily be on Stannis-level, but I truly believe Sansa would not shy away from learning about battles and war.

It's those three traits that are integral to Sansa's personality that she'd make a great, perceptive ruler. And she’s also has a BS detecter: once Cersei shows her true colours, Sansa figures out how she works

She heard the door open as her maids brought the hot water for her bath. They were both new to her service; Tyrion said the women who'd tended to her previously had all been Cersei's spies, just as Sansa had always suspected.

3. There are parallels with some of the strongest leaders in the series

Good Queen Alysanne Targaryen is probably my favourite parallel for Sansa. Alysanne showed generosity, kindness, good will and tactical skills. She is looked on throughout the series with love- after all, she's the 'good queen.'

Sansa also has incredible respect for her father, Eddard and her brother Robb.

I must be brave, like Robb, she told herself, as she took her lord husband stiffly by the arm.

Yes, I do admire Robb and consider a comparison between Sansa / Robb a high compliment. Robb Stark was a military prodigy, someone who whilst flawed acted with integrity and greatness. He inspired his people. The fact Sansa wants to be like Robb, she doesn't want to be like Cersei or Littlefinger does go a long way.

4. To quote show! Varys.....

The Seven Kingdoms need someone stronger than Tommen, but gentler than Stannis. A monarch who can intimidate the high lords and inspire the people. A ruler loved by millions with a powerful army and the right family name.

I think Varys is being unfair on Tommen (he is young), and Stannis (a very complex character who can't be reduced to not being gentle)- but these words really do fit Sansa.

Strong? I don’t think I even have to explain Sansa’s strength. She’s gone through absolute hell. She also shows ability to challenge characters- even the terrifying likes of Joffrey

"It does not please me," Joffrey said. "Mother says I'm still to marry you, so you'll stay here, and you'll obey." "I don't want to marry you," Sansa wailed. "You chopped off my father's head!" "He was a traitor. I never promised to spare him, only that I'd be merciful, and I was. If he hadn't been your father, I would have had him torn or flayed, but I gave him a clean death." Sansa stared at him, seeing him for the first time. He was wearing a padded crimson doublet patterned with lions and a cloth-of-gold cape with a high collar that framed his face. She wondered how she could ever have thought him handsome. His lips were as soft and red as the worms you found after a rain, and his eyes were vain and cruel. "I hate you," she whispered.

Intimidate the high lords?

"Ah, and what a castle it is. Cavernous halls and ruined towers, ghosts and draughts, ruinous to heat, impossible to garrison . . . and there's that small matter of a curse."

"Curses are only in songs and stories."

That seemed to amuse him. "Has someone made a song about Gregor Clegane dying of a poisoned spear thrust? Or about the sellsword before him, whose limbs Ser Gregor removed a joint at a time? That one took the castle from Ser Amory Lorch, who received it from Lord Tywin. A bear killed one, your dwarf the other. Lady Whent's died as well, I hear. Lothstons, Strongs, Harroways, Strongs . . . Harrenhal has withered every hand to touch it."

"Then give it to Lord Frey."

She's also gentle- see what I wrote about kindness in the first section.

Inspiring the people and being loved by millions?

“I will remember, Your Grace,” said Sansa, though she had always heard that love was a surer route to the people’s loyalty than fear. If I am ever a queen, I’ll make them love me.

Right family name? We learn in A Dance With Dragons, that people are willing to wage war for the Stark name. Sansa takes strong pride in being a Stark.

“She wondered where this courage had come from, to speak to him so frankly. From Winterfell, she thought. I am stronger within the walls of Winterfell.”

Powerful army? Of course, this is where I think the marriage between Harry The Heir and "Alayne" will come in. Remember, Houses such as Royce of Runestone (Yohn wanted an alliance with Robb). Sansa could potentially make use of the Vale / North alliance.

Here's more about the power the Vale wields. We get mention from Robb in A Storm Of Swords about their power:

"The knights of the Vale could make all the difference in this war," said Robb.

George R.R Martin is also quoted from "The Citadel" as saying (as a response to a fan):

Quick question - We have seen all of the seven kingdoms in action in one way or another except Dorne and the Vale. I am trying to get an understanding of the various strengths of the different realms. When Robb calls the Northern Banners he gathers a host of about 18 thousand men. How do Dorne and the Vale compare to this (I don't expect numbers, just general feeling)

I'd say these three kingdoms were roughly equal in the force they could assemble... but the north is much bigger, so it takes longer for an army to gather. And life is harsher there as well, so lords and smallfolk both need to think carefully before beating those plowshares into swords.

The image of a 'perfect ruler' that Varys paints does apply to Sansa. I disagree with the show on many, many things yet a ruler does need to be strong, does need an army yet have gentleness and love.

6. Concluding Thoughts

To me, Sansa being Queen used to be about continuing Ned and Robb's legacy and her being the oldest true born sibling. But now, it's more than that. To me, saying Sansa should be Queen is wanting the best for the North. My attachment to 'QITN' does not just stem from my love for Sansa, but taking into account the political atmosphere of the North, and the need for rulers who are both strong, perceptive and kind.

It also makes alot of narrative sense for Sansa to be Queen. She starts off the series with notions of what being a Queen means, only for them to be shattered by seeing the ugly realities of the likes of Cersei. For her to become Queen, would give her much needed agency.

Wanting Sansa to be Queen is not an attack on any other character like Bran, Arya, Rickon & Jon. Otherwise, it's simply ludicrous and unfair on Sansa. Fandom really needs to stop that toxic way of thinking.

Sansa would be a fantastic queen, and I’m willing to stick by that statement.

#asoiaf meta #sansa stark

181 notes · View notes