Hello!! I know that aside from Daemon/Rhaenyra, you are a fan of Baelon/Alyssa. I just wanted to ask, what is your opinion on Viserra, or on the whole Viserra seducing Baelon after Alyssa’s death? Do you think Baelon might have been able to save Viserra from her fate if he had agreed to marry her (even if he didn’t love her)? What is your opinion on this pair?
Hi there :)
Yes, after Daemyra Baelon and Alyssa are definitely my favourite Targaryen couple.
About the rest of your ask, I don't think Viserra fans will like my answer, but I don't quite care for Viserra. I have talked about it in the past that I see Saera and Viserra as very shallow characters with almost nothing to them. They were written as mean girls and that's about it, besides being Targaryens and physically very attractive, I don't actually see any redeeming qualities in them.
Saera at least you could argue was sort of funny, in a heartless, sociopathic Cersei kind of way, and I did admire how she later on in life wanted nothing to do with Westeros or the Iron Throne saying she had her own kingdom was a cool moment. But regardless she was cruel, unnecessarily so (e.g., Tom the Turnip anyone?), and worse with someone much weaker than her which also makes her a sort of coward. Like I said she had many sociopathic traits, and her behaviour itself is very congruent with a sociopathic personality type.
Viserra is a bit better in that regard in the sense that she was not needlessly cruel to anyone weaker than her for fun, even if she poked fun at young men who lusted after her, sometimes in quite dangerous ways (e.g., when she dares them to put their heads inside a dragon's mouth, I think the prize was her V card if memory serves right). But like Saera is mean and cold for the sake of being mean and cold, Viserra is ambitious and cold for the sake of being ambitious and cold.
We are both shown and told she wanted power and to be queen and F feelings and all that, but we are never really given a proper reason as to why. I would guess that being child #10 in a very large family would make you starved for attention, likely importance as well, since her only selling point in that family was being the most beautiful of the sisters. It was (VERY) unlikely she would ever be queen, so maybe because of that it became an ambition of hers? There was also something arrogant about her because of her looks, thinking that that would be enough to just give her what she wanted without having to rely on anything else. In that sense she has no depth, what you see is pretty much what you get and neither is very good or particularly compelling.
So, no, I wouldn't want her to marry Baelon, nor for Baelon to be interested in her. In fact, I loved that he wasn't and that after she spoke in such a nasty way about the sister she thought herself so physically superior too that Baelon gave Viserra a cold hard dose of reality of he's Baelon Targaryen, not a failed Baelon like Tywin Lannister.
Sure that some people find love again in life, and I am all for it. But some people aren't like that, and I found a lot of beauty in that aspect of Baelon's character, of how devoted he remained to the memory of his lady with the mismatched eyes. I would have hated for that to be ruined, especially in the name of such an ambitious and empty character like Viserra. If he was to marry her, whatever the reason, he would not be Baelon because that was a central aspect to his character.
All this aside I did feel bad about how Viserra was treated by Alysanne, almost like she was the final boss Alysanne had to defeat. I think this is a great example at times of George's incongruence with how he writers characters in F&B. Pretty much their end is decided so he just does whatever he has to to get there, at times with little regard with what he previously established. Are we supposed to believe that the same Alysanne who still loved and wanted to forgive Saera, even defended her, would be so cold and mean to Viserra? Sorry, I don't find it the least bit believable. Like show us on the doll where Viserra touched you Alysanne. Regardless of her not deserving this or her cruel fate, I still don't really care about Viserra nor think she had any redeeming qualities.
And that is my take.
Thank you for coming to my Tumblr Ted Talk!
Much love to you <3
55 notes
·
View notes
Pal.
Pal.
You are at the hardware store, screaming at the cashier to give you soup for free.
You are not being civil or polite to the person you want something from.
You are demanding a service for free from a stranger.
the stranger you are demanding a service from literally is unable to provide you with the thing you want even if they wanted to.
You are demanding I write fanfic about a show/game/novel I've never engaged with.
About a pairing I've never seen before. With characters who I don't even recognize the names of.
That is how lost you are, pal.
You sound like you need to check in with a friend regarding your mental health. I hope you feel better soon.
previous interaction
63 notes
·
View notes
For video game shaders, octopath traveler! Itd be interesting to hear your thoughts on a game with its unique graphics
octopath looks like its doing a few things!! for starters it has a tonn of post processing - depth of field (blurring stuff far from/close to the camera), vignette (darkening the edges of the screen), and bloom (taking the bright parts and making them Glow). it might also have some ambient occlusion (finding the parts that should be getting less light because theyre in corners and such and darkening them) but that might be build into the textures. here's a before and after!!
apart from that, a lot of the heavy lifting is being done by their art direction!! for all intents and purposes, apart from the character sprites it is a 3d game, but they make sure all of their textures are pixel art and have the same level of pixel density to give it the pixel art but 3d feel. on top of that they are running (possibly pre-baked?) lighting, shadows, realistic water shaders
the 2d sprites also have normal maps on them!! so if things get lit up around them, the light bounces off of them semi-realistically, even though theyre 2d
227 notes
·
View notes
Hello popcorn! Could you send me the link to the source that says that Daemon didn't exist in Martin's drafts? please
Hi there,
A very special thank you to @xenonwitch who helped me to answer this ask and retrieved most of the screenshots used here :) you rock lady!
So, there is multiple evidence highlighting that Daemon was not created until around 2012, which would mean his character was born only after the release of "A Dance with Dragons", more specifically around the time "The World of Ice and Fire" was being written by Elio and Linda with George's help. It was around this time that George wrote the Dance and created I would say most of the information and characters we know of today. He actually gave Elio and Linda so much material that they couldn't use it all and afterwards George published much of it in the short stories "The Princess and the Queen" and "The Rogue Prince", even later (around 2017) using it when he compiled his fake history in "Fire and Blood". If you go to the original link of the screenshot below here you can the sources listed in the text for yourself
It is no secret that since he began writing A Game of Thrones, that George has changed several aspects of the Targaryens. For instance, Rhaenyra was originally only one year older than Aegon II, though as confirmed by Elio that they were never meant to be fully-blooded siblings and from the first family tree in 1999 George meant for Rhaenyra to have an Arryn mom and Aegon a Hightower mom originally named Lysa (hehe). I think Alicent has a much better ring to it personally. Later he actually changed their age difference from 1 year to 9 years, and later still to a decade's difference. I do remember a time when it was 9 years actually instead of the 10. But with Rhaenyra being born in 97 AC and Aegon in 107 AC that would make it 10 years.
Aegon III and Viserys II have existed since the original family tree, but of the two originally only Aegon III was Rhaenyra's son. Viserys was meant to Aegon III's fourth son. George changed this when he realised timeline wise it wouldn't work.
I do own an edition in which this is shown in the appendix but currently I don't have it with me. However, if someone else has it feel free to add it to this thread.
There were other changes to the story being made throughout the years, including some confusion regarding who Alysanne's father was, and while doing the research for this I actually saw that it was never Maegor unlike I know many of us thought.
Critically, a number of changes were done to the character of Rhaenyra. First she had been given a Lannister husband with whom she had no children. This was no earlier than 1999. Later, that was changed for him to become Lyonel Strong, Hand of the King, with whom she would have three (legitimate) children that would all perish during the Dance.
Below you can see the information regarding House Strong while Lyonel was her husband and this is from “A Song of Ice and Fire Campaign Guide” published July 2010:
There was a male Targaryen she was known to have married after husband#1 who would father Aegon III and in this moment of time Viserys III. But no other information was known about him. This was Rhaenyra's wiki page from 2013. Once again, no Daemon.
In fact, around this time people were speculating what was her relationship with Targaryen Husband with suggestions ranging from brother to cousin.
Also note what Elio says regarding "A really notable figure or two are completely missing."
Discussion goes on, and yes, it does seem he only came to be as a character in 2012. There was evidence of some foundation being lain for him, but nothing concrete - i.e., no name, no specific relationship to her, no details whatsoever, just a male Targaryen figure who would be the father of Aegon III and Viserys II
And even more importantly and related to my point that Daemon did NOT exist in the first version of George's family tree has noted by Elio himself below:
Other evidence of him not existing comes from the main books themselves where although many characters are mentioned, including a Hand named Otto Hightower - you can look for this yourself, sorry I don't have the electronic copies and this was already a lot of work for me and xenonwitch so this is your homework hehe - there is no mention whatsoever of Daemon Targaryen.
This is particularly compelling since many other Targaryens are mentioned either when they are specifically talking about them remembering them, OR when something they created appears - e.g., the Sept that Baelor erected, the Red Keep Maegor had build etc. Yet there is no mention of Daemon anywhere with relation to the Gold Cloaks, something that would be mandatory given his established importance to them, critically the fact that he gave the City Watch their gold cloaks, which yes is a thing in the main books, but the same cannot be said of Daemon Targaryen. This would have been another great opportunity to mention him, as notable members of the City Watch, just like Prince Aemon the Dragonknight is mentioned as a notable member of the Kingsguard. But once again, no mention of Daemon is given.
Yet another opportunity would be in relation to Daemon Blackfyre who existed and who we are told in "The World of Ice and Fire" to have been named after Daena's grandfather who she admired. Yet once again, this does not happen. Related to this please see the point made by Elio above regarding him not existing when Daemon Blackfyre was created. That was added AD - After Daemon, whose earliest mention was, as far as evidence shows, at around 2012-2013.
Lesson of the day, like much the rest of what George writes, Targaryen history was a garden that he shaped along the way. Crucial aspects of the story were missing from "A Game of Thrones" all the way to the last book "A Dance with Dragons".
If one wants to talk about the books one needs to use and refer to "Fire and Blood" (Conquest to Dance) and "The World of Ice and Fire" (post-Dance) which holds up until now the most accurate and true information about the pre-asoiaf characters. Referring to books like "A Feast for Crows" is pointless and shows a lack of understanding of how the Targaryen history and pre-asoiaf history was written, and can only result in statements and information that used to be true and canon, but no longer are true or canon, and characterization of certain character becoming non-canon.
If a butterfly can change the course of history, try to imagine what you get when you base your Rhaenyra on an account where there was no Daemon.
In sum, no, George was not even close to having all of his history and pre-asoiaf characters during his writing of the main books. Yes, he changed a lot and we need to update content published before "The World of Ice and Fire". Daemon Targaryen remains a fairly new character in his universe, and one you will only get to fully enjoy and understand the genius of if you consider the ASOIAF version of his character.
60 notes
·
View notes