#all of GRRM's protagonists are young

[music-of-dragons]

New art by Justin Sweet depicting Rhaegar and Lyanna! It's so pretty 😍

Lyanna doesn't look distressed or kidnapped to me, in fact, she seems to be enjoying herself walking on the giant tree roots in the woods with Rhaegar watching over her.

[lucy-ghoul]

twice in less than 2 pages..... tolstoj sir i beg you ENOUGH with this pregnancy propaganda 😭😭😭

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

What do you think of Grrm's portrayal of religion?

Hi anon, this is a really interesting question, and it took me awhile to put together what I hope is a coherent answer.

For context, I think GRRM's background is important to keep in mind. George is almost exactly my parents' age and belongs to the same demographic of American anti-war ex hippies who aged into broadly liberal baby-boomers. Their radicalism has largely mellowed over the years, they may not be the most up to date on the appropriate terminology, and they tend to prioritize nonviolent solutions to systemic problems (my mom often tells me the younger generation needs to do another March on Washington). One thing liberal boomers also tend have in common is that often they grew up religious but, as they entered their 20s and went to college, broke away from the churches of their childhood. My family is full of ex-Catholic liberal boomers like George. They might have dabbled in Buddhism or Hinduism in the 70s, New Age mysticism in the 80s or 90s, and ended up settling into statements like, "I'm spiritual, but not religious." Almost invariably, they have a sort of disdain for organized religion, which they associate with a kind of yokel mentality, a place for anti-Choice anti-LGBTQ traditionalists. Although they will profess "to each his own," to the average liberal boomer, the church represents regressive values and they cannot imagine why anyone would willingly return to it. Even those who did remain religious take great pains to make it known they are not like those Christians. And to be fair, liberal boomers have a good reason to feel this way. The churches of their childhoods were not fun places for people whose own ideas and values went against post-WW2 broadly white middle class values. Unsurprisingly, SFF authors tend to fit into this category.

And this sort of bleeds into a lot of 90s SFF. You see a lot of worlds that have religion, but rarely do you have characters that are religious, and even more rarely do you have sympathetic young protagonists who are religious. You might have the occasional kindly priest or nun type, but far more often these characters will be abusive, mean spirited, or narrow minded (think of Brienne's childhood septas). Religion is often treated with the same disdain by in-world characters as it is by the authors themselves. You might even have worlds that are almost entirely secular, with vague references to "The Gods," but without any real religious traditions constructed around them (Robin Hobb's Realm of the Elderlings series, which features two vague dieties, Eda and El, who seem to have no religious traditions surrounding them whatsoever). You might have cultish religions that are actively dangerous and must be stopped, or you might have Catholic church analogues, existing in opposition to everything cool and fun. Protagonists tend to be cynical non-believer types, or they might start off as true believers and lose their religion along the way. Rarely are they allowed to have sincere and abiding faith.

And you can see a lot of this in George's writing, in the way he portrays the Faith of the Seven and other religions, and the way the fandom receives them. The Faith of the Seven is Westeros' answer to the Catholic church, but there are also the Old Gods, the faith of R'hllor, and others, often presented in opposition to each other. George himself sees religion as a divisive force, and in ASOIAF, we see religions in conflict with each other, we see them weaponized to fuel vendettas, we see them used to drive prophesies and start wars. There's a clip somewhere, of George at a panel, where he's talking about religious conflict and his take is very reminiscent of George Carlin's-- you can tell he knows the bit. "Are you really going to kill all of these people because a giant invisible guy in the sky told you too? And your giant guy in the sky is different?" George asks, receiving a round of applause from the crowd. It's a very modern view on religion, which is fair, I think. He's writing for a modern audience who have modern conceptions of the church, and he is making a deliberate point about the harm religion can do. .

What I do think is missing, or at least downplayed, are the ways in which the medieval church was really a driving cultural and social force in medieval Europe. We live in a secular society, so we have the luxury of disregarding the church in a way that medieval people did not. This is one major way in which the worldbuilding of ASOIAF departs from the real world middle ages. To portray the medieval church as a primarily regressive institution that mostly drove conflict is too simplistic. The Catholic church is what culturally unified most of western Europe into what was known as "Christendom." The clergy served political functions, such as providing an important check upon the power of medieval kings, and when the power of the church declined, despotism grew. Socially, for most western Europeans, the church was also the center of day to day life. Insofar as medieval peasants had any opportunities for leisure time and celebrations, most of these revolved around the church. The church was for centuries a driving force behind art, music, literature, and architecture, and it also performed important social functions, such as operating poorhouses and leper-houses, and providing educations for children.

And all of this was just extremely normal. Most people prayed multiple times each day, and sincerely believed in heaven a hell. The state of one's soul after death was such a real concern that the sale of indulgences-- a way that you could pay to get your dead loved ones whose souls were in purgatory into heaven more quickly-- became a major racket for the Church. I've seen the HotD fandom react to Alicent Hightower's level of devotion calling her a religious "fanatic" and I cannot stress enough how absolutely normal Alicent would have been in medieval times. This is where I blame the framing of the show more than George, because it does set Alicent's faith in opposition to Rhaenyra's seemingly more modern values, but does it in a selective way. For instance, Alicent comes off as prudish, and modern audiences hate a prude, but we never see how her faith would have certainly inspired her, as queen, to take other more progressive actions such as giving alms to the poor or bestowing her patronage upon motherhouses. In another post about the fandom perception of Valyrian culture, I talked about how this modern view of devout belief, particularly Catholicism, tends to cast anything that is presented in opposition to it as an unequivocal good, and I see this sort of rhetoric slung around the fandom a lot, "why would you defend the pseudo-Catholics who hate women??" But the pseudo-Catholics are really just normal medieval people, and they didn't hate women, they simply lived in a patriarchal society and the material conditions did not yet exist which would allow them to challenge that in any meaningful way.

[nightswatchdisbandmentera]

Hello! So i know that I am WAY! less knowleged than u re: asiof but I have a question about the Prophecy (AA/PTWP). I did a deep dive on it and GRRM spoke repeately about handling prophecy carefully/not too literally etc 3 weeks ago at Oxford he repeated: "you cannot have a prophecy that comes true way it was written and everbody understands it(..) it has to come true in a way you didnt understand(..)so it bites you in the ass" So rather than "who has the most obvious PTWP clues" shouldnt we theorize "how will the idea of AA/PTWP backfire on the believers" or "how can a unique/unpreditable element fill the role"? Since Im assuming GRRM stance will likely apply to the biggest prophecy in the books. What do you think? do you know theories like that? If anything, I only see "the prophecy is just nonsense!!" but that is clearly also not what GRRM says: not prophecy is bogus but has to be unexpected or "bite you in the ass".

Hey! No, you're far too kind 😭

I completely agree with you, and you raise some interesting and important questions, especially when considering how these ideas reflect back on our protagonists.

The tricky thing with interpreting prophecy is that the characters are operating on second-hand, third-hand, or even more distant accounts, all filtered through their cultural understandings of what a hero should be. Their beliefs are shaped by the information available to them, which is often incomplete or distorted. This means each character's idea of who is the subject of prophecy is largely subjective, influenced by their biases and specific cultural narratives and thus might never present the whole truth! So as readers, we should be very cautious about how we interpret the declarations presented by any character as absolute truth. We will probably never know until the final book is published, and even then it might be murky at best.

I saw GRRM’s comments a few days ago, and they really resonated with me because they align with how I’ve been feeling lately, particularly regarding Melisandre's role in all of this:

“[…] It is written in prophecy as well. When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone.” (Davos III, ASoS)

It's often amusing in fandom to discuss how wrong Melisandre is, and she certainly is almost all the time. But lately, I've been wondering: what if we're wrong too? We focus so much on Melisandre misidentifying Azor Ahai, but what if she completely misunderstands her own role in all of this—and we're too blinded to notice it?

Because the issue isn't just that she's chosen the wrong person. The bigger problem is that she's fixated on providing what she believes are the necessary tools to defeat the Others. She wants to "wake dragons out of stone”, repeatedly asserting that "two kings" are needed to wake the dragon so they can serve Stannis Baratheon. This thinking leads to the burning of Shireen—because someone must die to forge the hero's weapon. Melisandre even sees herself as expendable in this grand scheme. But what if her entire understanding is flawed—not just about who the hero is, but about the very dragon she is trying to awaken?

I've been considering all this because "dragons" in the text don’t always refer to actual winged creatures—they're often symbolic descriptors for Targaryens in visions. For example, Moqorro's visions show dragons old and young, true and false; Baelor Breakspear appears as a dragon falling on top of Dunk; and a dragon egg hatching essentially symbolizes Aegon V. So if we're taking prophecy at face value, just as Mel does, we're left wondering where in seven hells she expects to find her "sleeping dragons".

But the thing is, she already has one: Jon Snow. In fact, her visions in Dance suggest that Jon is the one she is truly searching for. And I often think of these visions as moments where I go, "Oh, come on, Mel! It's not that guy; it's the other one!" Yet I've come to realize that even if she identifies Jon correctly, Mel would still face the dilemma of needing another sacrifice to "wake" Jon's dragon. However, she is likely to resurrect Jon before reconnecting with Stannis, which means that by the time she and Stannis consider burning Shireen, she may have already awakened the dragon - and thus fulfilled the prophecy.

If Jon is the awakened dragon, that adds a tragic irony to the whole situation with Mel and Shireen. Legend has it that the woman (Nissa Nissa) dies for the hero’s glory. But if Jon is the dragon, then does that make Melisandre Azor Ahai in this case? After all, we don't know much about the original prophecy so who knows how much it has been distorted over time?

But wouldn't that be such a twist? Mel isn’t a noble lady or royal; she's a former slave, a mere priestess—a tool, a guide, but not the hero. She never considered that she, a woman, could be R’hllor’s chosen. Yet she would perform an actual miracle in bringing a dragon back to life. And if, like me, you believe that Jon will be born from a funeral pyre (inverting Khal Drogo and Dany's dragon eggs), then the prophecy is turned entirely on its head.

This also raises the question: what about Shireen? What does she, an innocent little girl, die for? Why should she have to die for a dragon that is already living? Why should she have to die to exalt a false hero, when the true miracle worker is actually the "expendable" woman who stands before her? Then we have Melisandre carry the baggage of killing a child for something she had successfully completed before...It doesn't matter if she's able to perform some bastardized miracle and create a shadow dragon, because it would all be all for naught and a wasted effort. To me, this is more satisfying from a character development perspective because Melisandre is no longer a background character. She’s got POV chapters now, which means she has an arc that needs to reach its natural conclusion. It cannot begin and end in service of the men around her. She must reflect on her role and come to terms with her actions—both good (waking the dragon in Jon) and bad (sacrificing Shireen for something she had already accomplished and for a prophecy she had already fulfilled); and this could lead to some compelling writing. This might also answer your question about "how will the idea of AA/PTWP backfire on the believers?”. Because “incorrect” interpretations not only hinder progress, but the cost of human life is perhaps too high :/

Oops, so sorry for the long tangent.....

[death-of-cats]

Looking at the series, GRRM has set up his main protagonists, the "true" heroes, with paralleling, "false" doubles. With Dany, it's Young Griff/Aegon, the mummer's dragon. With Jon, it's Stannis, the false Azor Ahai. And I would make a prediction that with Bran, the true greenseer-cum-god, his double is going to be revealed as Euron, with his raven dreams and ambitions to achieve godhood himself. Obviously this all depends on what goes down in the next book, but I believe the signs are there.

[thebeesareback]

The big Robert Baratheon thoughts

There are several characters within the ASOIAF universe who could comfortably be the protagonist of their own book/series, and GRRM has spoken about how, when writing a character, he tries to see all the major events through their eyes and how it would have affected their lives. Dany and Oberyn are good examples of this, and a shorter book/series could comfortably have either one of them as the main character. If a fic writer is looking for any inspiration, I think a lot could be drawn from Dany in Vaes Toloro.

Another of them is a character who almost seems like a false protagonist in GOT: King Robert Baratheon. The people who don't know him think he's amazing, the people who do know him despise him. He has a fleshed-out backstory, character and the power to influence the plot in many different ways. Yet he's killed off quickly, and I think the fan community often overlooks him as a simple drunken idiot. So I'd like to dig a little deeper.

Robert's life can easily be sectioned into three parts: pre-rebellion era, the rebellion era and the post-rebellion era. Most of what we see comes from Ned Stark, and later we have flashbacks from Cersei which show a much darker and thoroughly rotten man.

To start: Robert is the first born son of House Baratheon, a clan with significant power and influence. He's exactly the kind of young man the Westerosi patriarchal "might makes right" system rewards -- the sort of son Randyl Tarly would love to have. He's an excellent fighter, charming, good looking ("muscled like a maiden's fantasy", oh Ned). There's also a kindness there. When he's fostered at the Eeire he sends for a gift of oranges for Jon Arryn, and although the fruit goes bad, he's not upset and instead plays with the other teenagers. It's silly and funny and the most childish we ever see him.

He isn't always lovely, of course. In Stannis' memory, Robert is unpleasant. He mocks Stannis' falcon and, therefore, Stannis himself. However, Stannis is a miserable shit, and this comment comes after they've spent years disliking each other, so there's obvious bias. Robert seemed to be happy to be away from his family, and so some alienation from his brothers does make sense. Robert and Stannis go through the ordeal of watching their parents die, and it's understandable that this would cause issues in their relationship. Perhaps that's why they pushed each other away. Having a walking, whining reminder of that trauma can't have been pleasant, and the desire to pretend that everything is ok and ignore problems gets more persistent as the years go on.

The third thing we hear about from Robert's pre-rebellion era is his relationship with Mya Stone. I'm not totally clear on the timeline, so I don't know if it's 1. parents' death > 2. Mya's birth > 3. the rebellion or if 1 and 2 are the other way around. Either way, Robert seems to adore his daughter. Ned thinks about how frequently they visited her, and how much Robert enjoyed spending time with her. In a kinder story, Robert would have always been close to Mya. Then the rebellion starts.

There are, of course, lots of things which lead to the rebellion. I don't think Tywin was going to put up with the Mad King for much longer, and Rhaegar felt the same way. Then you have the coalition between the Starks, Baratheons, Tullys and Arryns, and at some point Varys and "Young Griff" would have popped up. For Robert, though, things were straightforward: he wanted Lyanna, and Rhaegar took her away. He remarks to Ned that "Seven Kingdoms couldn't fill the whole she left". It's clear that he didn't actually know Lyanna that well, and it could easily be argued that the reason he worshipped her memory was a mix of affection for Ned and a desire to return to a time where he wasn't traumatised.

Obviously, war is traumatic. That's kind of the point of the series. Everyone who fought in Robert's Rebellion is changed in some way and the scars, literal and metaphorical, run deep. Stannis broods over his "rewards". Ned misses his sister, brother and father. Catelyn is aware of the loss of her betrothed, and Lady Dustin crystalises her rage. Jamie is ostracised and bitter. Jon Connington promises more violence. The list goes on. The things Robert sees during the campaign clearly change him, and this brings us back to Mya.

One of the key themes of the series, most prominently in the first book, is the idea that the innocent should not be sacrificed. That's why Ned works so hard to protect Jon and why he resigns his handship when Robert wants to kill Dany. Something happened to Robert during the rebellion, where his hatred of the Targaryens solidifies so much that it becomes the only thing he really wants. Other things, like his love of his daughter or the belief that children should be protected, all go and he's left with Tywin Lannister and the corpses of Rhaenys and Aegon.

Robert doesn't have to make peace with the Lannisters. In fact, lots of people (the Starks, the Dornish and the people of King's Landing) would be much happier if he didn't. Tywin ordered a horrific thing, and Robert rewarded him. For me, this is where Robert becomes the man we meet in Game of Thrones. He's so broken inside that he does nothing, and tries to pretend that he's still the person he was as a teenager.

After the rebellion, Robert goes on to have plenty more children. If he loved Mya and wanted to see her all the time, after the rebellion he forgets her. And she's the lucky one! Robert must know that Cersei has his twins drowned, he ignores Barra and Gendry, and he only acknowledges Edric Storm because he has to. Then there are the kids who are legally "his", even if biologically they're not. I don't think we ever see him interact with Tommen or Myrecella, and his relationship with Joffrey isn't good. Sure, Joffrey is a little shit, but you could argue that it's partially because of Robert's treatment. Stannis thinks, at one point, that Robert might have killed Joffrey because he hit him so hard.

Why does Robert detach? Well, there's the trauma, the general depression, the loneliness, the disconnect between *conceiving* children and *the actual children*. I think, as well, there's the knowledge that, by allowing Tywin to get away with the murder of the Targaryen children, he's set a precedent whereby the same thing could easily happen to his own kids. If someone needed to get rid of Robert -- and there are people who would like him gone -- they would come after Joffrey, Tommen and Myrecella, and perhaps his bastards, too. He can't protect them, and it shames his chivalric ideals, so he disconnects, doesn't care, and drinks excessively. It might be a way of dealing with guilt, or a way he protects himself from losing anyone else. Ultimately, Joffrey, Tommen and Myrecella are doomed; Edric only escaped sacrifice because of Pylos and Davos, and might well get mixed up in a Varys/"Young Griff" scheme; all of the bastards in King's Landing are killed; and if Gendry survives, it's because of plot armour. Nobody cares about Mya, really.

There's plenty to say about the Robert/Cersei match. Firstly, I'd like to mention how much I enjoy the show-only scene where the two discuss their marriage. It's heartbreaking, well written and beautifully acted, and gives some depth which makes the experience richer.

None of the Lannisters like Robert, with the exception of Tyrion. Tyrion likes Robert because Cersei doesn't, but their creepy and destructive bond is a whole other issue. Ned thinks that Robert was a man with "big appetites", and a clear desire to be loved. It probably means he wasn't ever going to be a good husband, which Lyanna points out (in a line which I cannot imagine a 14-year old ever saying, but I digress). Robert loved the thrill of the chase and the first few weeks of a relationship, but wasn't willing to really emotionally attach to anyone. Perhaps it's because, like with his children, he had to keep people away in case he lost them, like Lyanna.

Cersei is her own woman and, to be honest, not a very good wife. Robert thinks he would have been happy with Lyanna, Cersei thinks she would have been happy with Rhaegar: both are wrong. She starts her wedding day by having sex with her brother; she regularly cuckolds her husband, and then she finishes off by murdering her husband. You could argue that her behaviour is driven by Robert's physical and sexual abuse, and his emotional distance and obvious disdain. I don't think that's incorrect, per se, I just think there's a nasty mix with the two of them. They're bad alone and worse together. They're a toxic, unhappy, traumatised mix, and a solid argument for Westerosi divorce.

Finally, there's Robert's alcoholism and his love of food. There are a number of reasons for this -- the genre's enthusiasm for descriptions of feasts; parallels with Henry VIII of England; possibly GRRM simply likes adding his favourite meals, similar to how he created House Estermont so there could be turtles, because he had pet turtles. Obesity is the sort of thing that's pretty common in middle age men who used to be very physically active, because they had to eat lots to make up their calorie deficit, and when the exercise stopped, the food continued. As for alcohol, it gives Robert an opportunity to forget his (admittedly plentiful) responsibilities and woes, makes him feel like a hero, and gives him an excuse for his abuse of Cersei. He rapes her, and when she brings it up, he says "it was not me, but the wine", then REACHES FOR A BEER. I'm certainly not qualified to talk about addiction and trauma, so if anyone has thoughts on this, please add a comment.

In Shakespeare's Macbeth, the eponymous character snatches the crown at his wife's goading, and then finds that things disintegrate around him. There's a scene in the play where two servants talk about what's going on in Scotland, and one says that two horses fought, and one ate the other. When a monarch is usurped, in literature, nature goes against itself. In real life, revolutions are messy and complicated and difficult. Robert Baratheon fought a rebellion to get his fiance back, whilst others used him and worked alongside him for their own reasons. He was left holding a rotten crown. Abused and abuser, surrounded by toxicity and exuding his own hatred, one could easily create a novel about his disillusionment.

[goodqueenaly]

I just finished The Black Rose, a 1945 historical fiction novel (though I’m using the term somewhat loosely) written by Thomas Costain. GRRM has openly described his fondness for Costain (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) - not the least example of which is in his creation of House Costayne, whose sigil references both this novel and another, The Silver Chalice - and I thought it would be fun to read more GRRM inspiration books in the new year (although that’s not a demand for anyone to stop asking me about The Accursed Kings and ASOIAF, of course). As a story set in the 13th century across both England and the Mongol Empire, starring a young aristocratic would-be knight, this novel seemed like much more obvious grounds for comparison to ASOIAF than, say, The Silver Chalice (a Holy Grail origin story set in first-century Judea) or one of Costain’s (ostensibly) nonfiction Plantagenet histories, like The Conquering Family. (You might say I should have started with GRRM’s own Costain favorite, The Moneyman, but I didn’t, oh well.) 

Now, do I think The Black Rose is on the same level as, well, The Accursed Kings in terms of specific influence on ASOIAF? Probably not. While there were definitely elements to this book that I could reasonably believe were in GRRM’s mind while he was writing ASOIAF, these parallels remained largely surface-level, and in some ways indistinguishable from familiar tropes of romanticized medievalism.

For one, the novel’s hero, Walter of Gurnie, is a little bit of a Jon Snow figure. Like Jon, he is an aristocratic bastard openly recognized by his father (ostensible father, in Jon’s case), and perhaps like Jon, his (biological) father and mother had some secret pledge to marry prior to his birth (though unlike Jon, Walter’s father broke that pledge to marry another woman, the daughter of the Norman family that paid his Crusader ransom). The “Saxon” ancestry of Walter, derived from his mother’s family, compared to the “Norman” ancestry of his father, may likewise parallel the First Men ancestry of the Starks, and specifically Lyanna, versus the Valyrian ancestry of the Targaryens who had conquered Westeros in the same fashion as the Norman William the Conqueror. Too, each bastard son physically closely resembles his father (or, again, ostensible father for Jon): Walter shares the blue eyes, blond curling hair, and “Norman” nose of Earl Rauf, much as Jon shared the long face, dark hair, and gray eyes of the Starks. As with Jon, there is no love lost between the bastard son and his father’s wife, with “the Norman woman” (othered by her foreignness, very loosely akin to Catelyn and her southron origins) denouncing Walter as a “Saxon cur” (though the dowager Countess of Lessford is a tyrannical and openly villainous woman, in all other respects totally different from Catelyn). This is about where any real, even if minor, parallels to Jon end, to the extent they existed in the first place, but they’re worth noting as possible ideas for GRRM when the latter was first dreaming up Jon.

Additionally, Walter’s love interest, Maryam, has her share of parallels to Daenerys, though I think this comparison is even more limited than that between Walter and Jon. Maryam enters the story as the beautiful teenage sister (or, rather, ostensible half-sister) of the rich and thoroughly unlikeable Greek merchant Anthemus, who wishes to sell Maryam to Kublai Khan to be part of his harem - a plot point recalling Viserys’ willingness to sell his sister to Khal Drogo, into a position not too dissimilar from what Costain envisions for Kublai Khan’s harem slaves. It is worth noting, in exploring this parallels, that Maryam is revealed to be the biological daughter not of her and Anthemus’ Greek father Alexander, but of an English soldier-turned-slave in Alexander’s household, insofar as this ancestry marks Maryam (in the opinion of herself and the two main protagonists, at least) as “English” rather than foreign (much as Daenerys, though raised almost entirely in Essos, is still Westerosi in her birth and (recent, for the Targaryens) ancestry). Indeed, Maryam and Walter’s pseudo-familial connection - Walter believes that Maryam’s biological father was his own father’s faithful squire, captured during the Crusades - may link them to Jon and Daenerys, themselves related much more directly by their shared Targaryen bloodline. Again, these comparisons are pretty thin - Maryam certainly never comes into power in her own right as Daenerys does, and most of the novel consists of her either being rescued and/or protected and hidden by Walter or her attempting to reunite with him after being separated in China - but there may have been some limited inspiration here. 

There are, moreover, some other minor points of potential inspiration in the novel. Costain’s version of the medieval Oxford University, where Walter begins the novel as a student, might have resonated in GRRM’s mind when the latter was creating the Citadel (especially the divisions of learning among the students - Walter’s program of study focuses on languages, for example, while his comrade and secondary protagonist Tristram Gruffen studies math and science with Roger Bacon), though Costain hardly invented either Oxford University itself or the general idea of a medieval institution of learning. Bacon himself might have figured, or will go on to figure, into GRRM’s development of Archmaester Marwyn - an intelligent but controversial scholar, rumored to dabble in magic, fascinated with the technological innovations and learning of the east - although again, the smart, unorthodox teacher who Doesn’t Play By The Rules TM is not a trope unique to either Costain or GRRM. Overall, I think, this novel belongs to that same class of what I’ll call midcentury medievalism that seems to have had quite the impact on GRRM, without necessarily being foremost in the author’s mind. 

(Also, a friendly word of warning for anyone else who wants to delve into The Black Rose. If you thought ASOIAF occasionally falls into bad old orientalist tropes - and it does, no question - these tropes are magnified to the eleventh degree in The Black Rose. Maryam, for example, is initially introduced by Costain as having “skin of a slightly olive tint”, but consistently thereafter is referred to, and indeed defended as, “white” or “English”, specifically to negatively charged accusations of being “Greek” or “dusky”. The cruelty and barbarism depicted as normal for Mongol warriors make GRRM’s descriptions of the Dothraki appear subtle and nuanced by comparison: Costain spends several paragraphs in one chapter detailing the gruesome Crusade souvenirs carried by Mongolians (including “skin (flayed, presumably, from the hides of Western soldiers) … as saddle-cloths” and “a human skull … which had been converted into a drinking cup”) and the child-murdering game supposedly practiced by Mongolian riders, ending with the conclusion by the main character that “[t]hese Mongols are not human — [sic] not as we understand human nature”.  Even Costain’s attempts to portray one (real-life) Mongol, Bayan of the Hundred Eyes, in a relatively more positive light reflect the author’s general antagonism toward the Mongolians: Bayan is distinguished initially by Walter because his “eyes … lacked the cruel slant at the corners” and were instead “full and large … and warmly brown, glowing with a pleasant intelligence”, while Walter later informs Maryam (convinced that Bayan “must be as cruel as all the other Mongol leaders”) that Bayan “has been criticized for his leniency many times”. What’s more, when Bayan confronts Walter on the seeming hypocrisy of the Christian crusaders, who profess monogamous love while raping women in their campaigns, Walter never actually provides a defense; Walter’s later criticisms of the English feudal structure do not extend to either a repudiation of the sexual crimes associated with Western chivalry or a reconsideration of Mongolian society as anything other than terrifying and brutal.)

[spirit-meets-the-b0ne]

After the now infamous deleted GRRM blogpost it felt like a good time to bring up this rant that's been sitting in the back of my drafts for a while now. This is a long one so buckle in.

The adaptation discourse will be so much easier when the fact that an “adaptation” and “inspired by” are accepted as different things. Many of the things being argued as adaptations really end up fitting under “inspired by/based on” more than “adaptation.” The basis of the breakdown lying in “are you adapting for change in medium or are you adopting characters and worlds with new narratives and personalities?” Too often these terms are used interchangeably or amalgamated together.

Because an adaption from text to film should boil down to; okay we may not be able to show this grand explosion or wild fight so we will make it as similar in tone as possible with the right tension and have a choreographer work around our physical limitations. For example, if you tried to make a live action Naruto (which I vehemently condemn for the record) almost every single fight has to be changed because outside of overusing CGI you could simply never display the key moments of those battles. So while the resounding retort of, "aN aDapTatiOn iS nEveR gOinG tO bE a 1:1" is obvious, but that phrase is commonly being used as a blanket response to any and all criticism regardless of how valid the point is.

An inspired by on the contrary CAN deviate from the canon in ways that an adaption should not. Inspired by is categorically like what Disney did with 90s animated movies, they were inspired by myths, folktales and legends but changed to make palatable for young audiences and of course there’s subtextual references (Scar holding the skull as in Hamlet) through out. You would never call them adaptions however. A production inspired by Shakespeare (Lion King inspired by Hamlet) and an adaptation (Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo & Juliet) are inherently different because of this fundamental distinction. Because the adaptation of Romeo & Juliet kept faithfully to not only the themes in a modern setting but Luhrmann being a madman left the play's dialogue unchanged, only the setting and props suited to the new format. Which is the case in point. THAT was an adaptation.

I always come back to it but with Avatar the Last Airbender adaptations are really categorically more suited for the label of “inspired by” because an adaptation doesn’t mean “okay let’s jam 3 separate story lines into one episode” like absolutely NO. If you don’t “have the time” to explore an arc fully then YOU NEED MORE EPISODES. Sokka not wearing Kyoshi makeup and therefore changing the entire dynamic and the entire point of that plot is NOT an adaption, it was something both physically and metaphysically that could and should have happened. Changing a character and their relationships is not adaption, it’s adoption, and listen it’s okay to want to do that. It’s the foundation of fan fiction. And it’s also okay to say, I like the stories as they’re presented because I don’t have a relationship/love for the source. However, the people who do have every right to take issue with the changes, even those you enjoyed.

Whereas the inspired by category gets a lot more leniency with the plot and characters. To go back to the Disney animated films of the 90s, Hercules is one of the cases referenced most often. Of course you can’t make a Greek mythological adaption for children with today’s ratings and restrictions - that was what made them stories to inspire not adapt. It’s why what Rick Riordan did was a great effort and worked to make complex mythology accessible to kids. It’s why tumblr nerds often laugh about the portrayal of Zeus being a faithful and loving husband and Hera being the loving mother of Hercules. In that case of course you have to change those dynamics and principles for the intended audience. Or sometimes inspired by requires you to introduce a different setting and protagonist inspired by a source. Detective Pikachu for example isn’t an Ash Ketchum led live action it’s something completely separate from that universe while following most of the main principles. Similar to the “based on” film/television that might also keep some foundational material but present a new plot or different tone. Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy is a fantastic example of this where the protagonist and antagonists are all familiar and they’re in Gotham City as fans would expect but their stories and relationships might not have been what the audience expected.

All that to be said, when a writer themselves is entering the ring to defend their work from the "adaptation" being put forth with their name on it - it is completely justifiable. GRRM isn't new to television or film, he's been doing this for decades and has worked on projects before, all of which had budgets and production teams to be considered. The other blanket response of "well THE BUDGET" is really fallible because we've seen low budget films pull off incredible results on screen. The reoccurring issue here and in the television media landscape really all doubles back to executives being the downfall. You have calculating business wads who wouldn’t know creativity if it bit them in the ass making creative choices for shows. Most of them being qualified only in business and not in media or entertainment by any other way. This is not exclusive to television we can see cases of this happening in music as well (see Sabrina Carpenters label not wanting to release “Espresso” the arguable song of the summer) when these people are more often than not dead wrong.

GRRM's main focus in the blog post was around Maelor's exclusion which was purported to be a budget/casting issue. To me this is a very fallible excuse. Mainly because, not wanting to cast another toddler when you already aged down the other children is an easy one. A. You could have had used an infant (also would have added more emotional tension in B&C if Haelena was alone holding the baby) because it's pretty easy to interchange infant actors. B. use a doll. I mean this is like elementary but seriously a swaddled baby doll and some sound fx could have been easily done. Still works for later scenes if you have the doll in a crib "sleeping" and that's me accepting a relatively lazy inclusion of Maelor. Considering there's no way to introduce him now after the explicit details of Aegon's dick being destroyed. Some of these changes or mashups of plot points are more than just budgetary issues they’re logic and continuity based issues.

My point being, the very purpose of an adaptation is to take the source material and doing what you can to present the best version of this story to the audience with the tools you are given. There are of course ways this won't mean every single line of dialogue or action is going to be followed to a t. However, if you were going to adapt a recipe let's say, to make it a vegetarian dish - you can swap out the meat for another source of protein or veggies and make the sauce/foundation of the recipe exactly as it's called for but adapt it to your palette or preference. Inspired by is when white people make shit like “lasagna tacos” where you’re like well that’s … nice I guess? But definitely not authentic. Or just ask an Italian chef if you put heavy cream in your Carbonara and watch them start foaming at the mouth.

So while I understand not everyone may agree with GRRM about his response - he is completely justified in doing so, as is anyone else critical of this adaptation. Because it barely adheres to what an adaptation is supposed to be. Some of you may not like that either but this production should have been labeled as "inspired by" or “from the world of” for a lot of reasons considering the liberties they took and omissions they executed. This goes far beyond the scope of this case but I truly applaud George for making a stand and calling out the failures of this production. If I had one more person try to tell me to basically accept shitty adaptations for the sake of them being adaptations I was going to start screaming at the sky. If you're one of the people that likes the changes to HoTD or ATLA or Witcher then god bless I'm happy you have that but the suggestion that fans of the source material are supposed to shut up and accept them is asinine. Discounting the majority of a fanbase is grossly disrespectful and dismissing their criticisms is truly unjustifiable. When an author has to throw their hat in the ring to explain this it's time to look at the bigger picture. He nailed it in a previous blog post:

it does not seem to matter whether the source material was written by Stan Lee, Charles Dickens, Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl, Ursula K. Le Guin, J.R.R. Tolkien, Mark Twain, Raymond Chandler, Jane Austen, or… well, anyone.   No matter how major a writer it is, no matter how great the book, there always seems to be someone on hand who thinks he can do better, eager to take the story and “improve” on it.   “The book is the book, the film is the film,” they will tell you, as if they were saying something profound.   Then they make the story their own. They never make it better, though.   Nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand, they make it worse. (x)

Not to sound like a Boomer but making a story your own is not an adaptation. It just isn't. If you aren't clever or creative enough (*cough* Ryan C*ndal *cough*) to make an original work I personally do not see any validity in taking someone else's work and implementing your own artistic choices that fundamentally contradict the source material. Unless you want to call it something else. I have no problem with taking a concept and reinventing the story ie: Kurt Sutter basing Sons of Anarchy loosely on Hamlet or Diablo Cody's Lisa Frankenstein. I actually rather enjoy re-imagined stories whether they be parodies or more creative interpretations. Those are all well and good. Not to be mischaracterized as adaptations tho.

"Adaptations" and "inspired by" works can and should coexist but there needs to be a clear distinction to the production teams and audiences respectively.

While some people have had negative responses to George's post, on the website flooded with creators whether they make art or write, I find it rather a suspiring reaction. It's an odd position to take even if the justification is that he sold the material - how many of you wouldn't take that opportunity? Who wouldn't want a major media corporation to offer to adapt your work. Shit, I would sell my work for pennies on the dollar to see a television show produced from it. That being said, I would be devastated beyond belief if the changes that I never accepted or approved were implemented and put out there under the name of my work. So whether it be from the point of view as a fan or an author I simply cannot subscribe to the notion that disappointing adaptations are in and of themselves a compliment undeserving of criticism. Nor can I accept some of the television productions being marketed as "adaptation" when they're categorically "inspired by" in nature. If that distinction was acknowledged I could at least justify some of the changes we’ve seen and dismiss book purists as well, but as the show is purported to be an adaptation I cannot see this as a success. It fails in ways an adaptation would not, for reasons that frankly have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. George deserves better and the fans deserve better.

[centrally-unplanned]

i’d be really interested in your thoughts on GRR Martin’s latest blogpost going at the HotD writers and showrunners

(Spoilers for all of the Dance of Dragons)

I went to look, not knowing it was out, and it was fucking deleted! That promises some spice, fortunately you can't escape the Internet Archive if you are a name as big as GRRM. So let's see what we got...

Ah, I see why it was deleted:

In Ryan’s outline for season 3, Helaena still kills herself… for no particular reason.  There is no fresh horror, no triggering event to overwhelm the fragile young queen

GRRM!! You can't leak script details!! That is definitely somewhere in your contract. Very minor of course, but still, if you made me bet this line got him a call from the PR rep at HBO. Anyway, onto the meat of the post.

So to summarize he outlines two points: one is the removal of the "Sophie's choice" plot with Blood & Cheese's murder of Aegon/Helaena's child, and the other is the butterfly effect of removing their third child, Maelor, whose later death triggers Haelena's suicide and other events at King's Landing. I see where GRRM is coming from but overall I think he is a bit too beholden to the trees of his story to see the forest here?

First, Blood & Cheese: in the "book", the two assassins find Helaena and her two sons, and to fulfill their mission of "a son for a son" make her choose which one they will kill. She chooses the younger Maelor, and then they kill the older Jaehaerys instead, and mock/shame her with the knowledge that she chose to kill the surviving child. In the show this doesn't happen - Helaena's "choice" is about identifying which of her two children is the boy, which honestly is dumb. The show should have just cut the "choice" angle (watching your son be murdered is trauma enough), or make it instead some actual choice, like her giving up her son's location to spare her own life or something. GRRM is right to say the book scene is more coherent.

However! The book scene is also...just Sophie's Choice? The 1982 film starring Meryl Streep? Like it is...exactly what happens in that film, beat for beat. That is now so famous as to be its own trope? It isn't a twist or a play on the concept, it is just the concept ported in wholesale. And to be clear, in the "book" that is fine. Because the "book" isn't a book; it's a chapter in a history retelling, it is like 40 pages long, this event is maybe two paragraphs. In something like that, a little bit of a nod to a famous movie is fine, right? The scene isn't relevant or big enough to require a bespoke identity.

But in a 4 season TV adaptation of that ~40 page story, these scenes are way bigger. This moment is very "drama central" in the episode. And I don't know...I kind of think a 1-for-1 copy of the Sophie's Choice plot would be, hm, a little weak? Like I might roll my eyes a little bit watching it, now that it is front and center. I can't say Condall was thinking that - GRRM mentions things like budget & hiring child actors for the change, totally valid concerns ofc. But it would be my instinct as Condall, and I also maybe wouldn't want to say that directly to GRRM if that is what I was thinking lol. So I think Condall had the right idea to try to give the scene a unique "twist", even if he failed on the execution.

As for the butterflies, GRRM is concerned that removing Maelor will have distinct consequences down the line that can't be undone, a "butterfly effect". And to not beat around the bush, he is being stubborn here - in real life you can't control butterfly effects, but stories are fictional. You can bend the currents of destiny to your will. Helaena can have other reasons to commit suicide (her relationship with Aemond is already fuel for that), and she isn't that important of a character, you can have other reasons the townsfolk turn against Rhaenyra.

And those reasons are already going to be different, they have to be, because in the TV show Rhaenyra is the good-natured protagonist; in the books she is a cruel tyrant. The butterflies are already here to roost; you can't hold sacred to any of these plot points, the show is too different from the books. As an artist you have the power to figure that out, and while canon is very important it can't rule all, not this far down the river of changes at least. It is the same with those other changes he hints towards at the end of the essay; of course there are changes at the end, they changed the beginning!

At one point he mentions that you can't replace Maelor's death with her daughter Jaehaera dying, because:

Jaehaera can’t be killed, she has a huge role to play as Aegon’s next heir.

And, no? No she doesn't. GRRM what are you talking about, no she doesn't! She is married off to Aegon III as part of the piece deal and then kills herself a few years later out of grief over her family at the age of 10. This is a minor plot beat, this can easily be changed. You gotta kill your darlings man. If they wanted to do this swap they totally could.

All that said, I myself love the death of Maelor at Bitterbridge; it is one of the peaks of the Dance's theme of the way war makes monsters of its participants. A town of smallfolk, split between blacks and greens and fear of reprisals from both sides, spirals out of control and tears the child apart in the fight. It is a great scene in the books and I would be sad to lose it. Though with only 4 seasons of runtime, and after the way they burned sunlight wastefully in Season 2? You gotta cut some stuff, and I can't blame them for trimming side stories like these.

But I do, truly, get why GRRM is upset at these changes. It is just very hard to separate yourself from the things you create like this. I really don't expect that of him; for that reason this critique is quite a soft one.

[zumurruds]

Do you mind if I ask your top 10 favorite characters (can be male or female) from all of the media that you loved (can be anime/manga, books, movies or tv series)? And why do you love them? Sorry if you've answered this question before.....Thanks...

Hello, and thank you for this ask!

It's really tough to pick just a few… I'll have to split this into two posts due to tumblr's word limit, but here are some that immediately come to mind. Remember, this list isn't exhaustive and isn't in any particular order. (Here's part two.)

(Warning: this list may include spoilers!)

Tyrion Lannister - His wit, intelligence, and resilience make him one of the most entertaining and tragic characters in ASOIAF. Despite being born into one of the wealthiest and most powerful families in Westeros, he faces discrimination and cruelty due to his dwarfism. He didn't inherit the beauty of his siblings, nor is he tall, handsome, or skilled with a sword, and he's not particularly well-liked by others. But Tyrion holds a pivotal role in the series for good reason, and it's rare to encounter such a masterfully crafted and captivating protagonist who also grapples with disability. As Varys once said, "ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow."

Arya Stark - She stands as one of the most compelling and complex female characters in ASOIAF, yet she often remains underappreciated and misunderstood within fandom circles. While some may see her as a tomboyish archetype (forgetting that GRRM penned the books in the early 90's, a time when Arya's character was quite revolutionary in fiction), Arya's character transcends clichés to embody a raw and heartbreaking portrayal of a girl thrust into the brutality of war and forced to navigate a world torn apart by conflict as a child soldier. Separated from her family and faced with unimaginable challenges, Arya's unwavering determination to survive is both inspiring and heart-wrenching. What sets Arya apart is her multifaceted nature. She embodies a mix of magic, cunning, animalism, spirituality, and femininity, making her a rich and dynamic character. Her connection to her direwolf Nymeria and her training with the Faceless Men add layers of mystique to her narrative, while her unwavering sense of self and identity challenges traditional gender roles which modern readers can relate with.

Eugenides & Irene (because I can't mention one without the other) - In The Queen's Thief series, Eugenides, known as Gen, isn't just a master thief; beneath his sharp wit and roguish façade lies a man burdened by profound grief and the challenges of his disability. His journey through pain and loss adds intricate layers to his character, making him all the more compelling. As for Irene, the formidable queen of Attolia, her intelligence and resourcefulness are matched only by her inner turmoil. While she deftly navigates political challenges, the weight of her responsibilities and the harm inflicted upon her loved ones weigh heavily on her conscience. Their intertwined destinies and the magnetic pull between them form the heart of their portion of the series, making their romance a standout element of the story.

Ella of Frell - The curse placed upon Ella in Ella Enchanted, one of my cherished childhood books, serves as a powerful metaphor for the struggle many girls face in asserting their agency and setting boundaries. Forced to obey any command given to her, Ella's curse robs her of control over her own actions and decisions, leaving her vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation. Ella's struggle to assert her independence and reclaim her agency is a central theme of the novel, and it highlights the importance of standing up for oneself and setting boundaries. This aspect of her character resonates deeply with readers, particularly young girls, who may relate to the feeling of being powerless in certain situations.

Achilles - One of the most powerful moments in the Iliad is Achilles' encounter with Priam, Hector's grieving father. Priam's act of kissing Achilles' hands, despite them being responsible for Hector's death, demonstrates remarkable humility and shared grief. This profound display of empathy moves Achilles to return Hector's body to Priam. In this moment, Achilles transcends his own ego and recognizes the universal experience of loss and mourning. By agreeing to return Hector's body, Achilles symbolically abandons his pursuit of personal glory, finding redemption and closure.

[agentrouka-blog]

Hi Rouka! I love your blog! I had a question and I'm not sure whether you've answered this before. Why do you think GRRM made the Stark siblings all so young? Even Robb and Jon seem a bit too young in the first books for their arcs to really make sense? I've been wondering about this for a while. What do you think?

I could only speculate. I think he definitely wanted a coming of age story for the Starklings, he originally wanted time to pass more quickly, letting them grow up on the page, sort of depict how the young generation takes over from the older one, really work that theme of inheritance (titles, family dynamics, political and personal legacies) into the progression of the story.

They have to be children in the beginning in order to be shown growing up. The show made the - in my opinion - mistake of making Jon and Robb "adults", they have an age difference of, what, ten years to the oldest child actors? More? It hurts the substance of their arcs far more than the young ages of the book characters, I think. A fourteen-year-old baby being sullen and lashing out and making tragic life choices is a different animal from a 24-year-old "teenager" doing those things. Same with a boy forced into the role of a king vs. Richard Madden exchanging badass repartee with a Jaime Lannister who looks near his same age and then marrying some random lady without the tremendous excuse of being 15 when he does it. It's supposed to be the tragic loss of their youth to war and trauma, not a parade of Adult Confusion.

The Starklings are six children, only two of whom are the same age, so in order for the oldest to be still quite young enough to be kids (14) without creating an abusively close birth order for poor Catelyn, the younger ones ended up spanning from 11 to 9 to 7 to 3.

The passage of time and their ageing stalled, though, so we are left with baby protagonists in the latter stages of the book series. Yay.

[jackoshadows]

The way GRRM writes Arya around Jon Snow in AGoT:

He would always ask her that. “In the kitchen, arguing about names for the wolf pups.” She spread her cloak on the forest floor and sat beside the pool, her back to the weirwood. She could feel the eyes watching her, but she did her best to ignore them. “Arya is already in love, and Sansa is charmed and gracious, but Rickon is not quite sure.” - Catelyn, AGoT

“Come,” she whispered to Nymeria. She got up and ran, the wolf coming hard at her heels. There was a window in the covered bridge between the armory and the Great Keep where you had a view of the whole yard. That was where they headed. They arrived, flushed and breathless, to find Jon seated on the sill, one leg drawn up languidly to his chin.

“A shade more exhausting than needlework,” Jon observed. “A shade more fun than needlework,” Arya gave back at him. Jon grinned, reached over, and messed up her hair. Arya flushed. - Arya, AGoT

She giggled at him. “It’s so skinny.” “So are you,” Jon told her.

Arya ran to him for a last hug. “Put down the sword first,” Jon warned her, laughing. She set it aside almost shyly and showered him with kisses. - Jon, AGoT

Arya giggles and blushes, she’s shy when hugging Jon. The language GRRM uses is feminine and portrays Arya as a young girl who really likes the boy.

It’s a pity that this sexist fandom tries to strip away Arya’s femininity from her at every point because she’s not the right kind of girl for them or does not fit into their idea of what a woman is because she wants to play in the mud or mingle with the workers or likes the wrong kind of entertainment or wants to learn how to use a sword.

It really is incredible that fandom has adopted Westeros’ incredibly patriarchal mindset of what a woman is and how a woman should behave and spend their time writing on how Arya, Dany, Asha,  etc. will not be leaders or wield power at the end, will not dictate policy and be politically involved, will not have romance or marriage and healthy relationships and will all end up lonely, sad or dead. All because these female protagonists actively try to effect change instead of doing what the men think they should do. And it’s truly incredible that there is no kind of pushback on this kind of thinking in the fandom.

[horizon-verizon]

I hate how GRRM use Nettles’s sexuality to undermine her accomplishments just to shake things up. Here’s a 16 years-old girl who relied on her intelligence instead of a pedigree to tame a dragon and succeeded in becoming a dragonrider, but her taming of Sheepstealer gets prefaced by a statement about how “worse was yet to come with dire consequences for the Seven Kingdoms” to preemptively blame Nettles for Rhaenyra’s own cruelty and Daemon’s subsequent abandonment of her cause (a statement not made any better by talking about how “the power young maidens exert over older men is well-known” when discussing Daemon’s affair with Nettles as if to cast her as a seductress), and that’s when her dragontaming is not getting framed as something she traded sex for as suggested by Gyldayn’s speculation about how she traded sex for the sheep she fed Sheepstealer. He makes sure to treat us to his thoughts on the state of Nettles’ virginity when she began her affair with Daemon while he is at it as well.

Likely responding to this post.

You can take a look at this post and this one for more context.

Answer: GRRM has Gyldayn do all that. Gyldayn is the in-world maester who writes Fire and Blood to be published and stored within the Citadel so the maesters could compile knowledge about the Targaryen dynasty. It is meant to show the consequences of Rhaneyra's paranoia.

How is it that we should look at an invisible character GRRM created to be the book's in-universe writer over GRRM to blame for Nettles when GRRM is the real-life writer of Fire and Blood? Didn't he decide that Nettles should receive said treatment in this story?

Fire and Blood works as a pseudo-frame narrative within the larger world of the main ASoIaF series/narrative and has its own unique unreliable narrator from the main series. An unreliable narrator, is when a/the narrator's credibility is compromised by clear inconsistencies of events, perceptions, and their own biases and/or psychological processes. They are more often found in first-POV or limited third/deep third POV narratives because we are in the actual mind of the protagonist and there is no real 100% unbiased narrator because the fictional character or entity narrating has agendas, desire to lead someone/the reader towards a specific perspective, biases, etc.

That underpins the entire narrative. However, when real-life writer intentionally and consciously uses in-world or a voice that is distinct from their own, they are trying to establish that there is another, overarching entity that tells the story with their own agenda and in-world audience.

GRRM's history book is itself pretty unique for a popular audience. Gyldayn is that unreliable narrator with a kind of "3rd-1st person omniscient POV", where the narrator is a character in the world but is still external from the characters being focused on.

I say "kind of" because the omniscient part of Fire & Blood is really Gyldayn's attempt to be as neutral a histographer or collector of historical accounts as possible while making reasoned conclusions from missing or suggestive but ambiguous material--speculating & trying to solve mysteries. But it is seems 3rd person bc Gyldayn is not a participant in the events and stories he's describing in Fire & Blood--he's writing of times he wasn't even a conception of, writing them either right before or during Robert Baratheon's reign that begun in 283 A.C. He is writing in the perspective of a person who has read multiple accounts of multiple events and generations that have themselves been debated over, parts lost, etc. When Gyrladyn writes of characters/past people's personalities, thoughts, feelings, etc., it's coming from external observations of them, recorded dialogue or other sorts of speech, or their own firsthand recordings (Daemon & Otto's writing in The Rogue Prince).

The book is unreliably narrated not only because of this amalgamation, the anecdoters' own biases or agendas, & narrative holes in some places, but because it's written by a man who comes from an institution that upholds sexist, classist, mores AND one that has been in opposition to the Targs & dragonlords since its dynasty's inception. So he should be also scrutinized in how he writes about the Targs, esp towards its women who do not, in some way, conform perfectly to Andal-FM gender performance in its patriarchal, feudalist system.

The maesters are not septons, but they--like every other Westerosi--come from the Faith and the Citadel itself rests in the exact same town that the High Septon (a sort of pope) and the cultural/religious epicenter of the Faith resides: Oldtown. Where the Hightowers are based, have patronized the Citadel, supplied both the Citadel & Faith institutions with their own members for generations (like Ceryse Hightower's uncle, who was the High Septon in Aegon's & Aenys' times), and have gathered for themselves high prestige in Westeros for centuries for being the ones preserving the Faith and with it, whatever counts for "Westerosi values".

The purpose of an unreliable narrator is to:

LINK ...create a lot of grey areas and blur the lines of reality, allowing us to come to our own conclusions. Fallible storytellers can also create tension by keeping readers on their toes — wondering if there’s more under the surface, and reading between the lines to decipher what that is. Unreliable narrators can make for intriguing, complex characters: depending on the narrator’s motivation for clouding the truth, readers may also feel more compelled to keep reading to figure out why the narrator is hiding things.

Fire & Blood is not really this, but to just sohow that there are layer sof narration...

A frame narrative is a story told through layers of other narratives like a Russian nesting doll's structure. One overarching narrator tells a story, say to another character, and we do not get details about them as much as we do about the characters of their story:

The Framing Device is a narrative technique in which a story is surrounded ("framed") by a secondary story, creating a story within a story, often through Separate Scene Storytelling. The inner story is usually the bulk of the work. The framing device places the inside story within a different context. Framing devices typically involve outer story characters as the audience of the inner story, such as a parent reading a bedtime story to a child. Other times, the outer story character is the author of, or a performer in, the inner story. Occasionally, the inner story is a hallucination or delusion experienced by one of the outer story characters. The inner story does not need to be a work of fiction from a frame-story character's point of view: letters, journals, and memoirs can also be used as framing devices, often in the form of Day in the Life.

There is a reason why Gyldayn is compiling all these accounts, secondary or primary, bound or loose, into this one book. That's a story right there.

So there are GRRM -> Gyldayn/all the maesters who wrote about the Targs' and their interactions/decisions -> the Targs and those around them, whose first POVs we do not often get and must inspect since the masters are the ones collecting accounts of their words and dialogue. Some dialogue had been recorded in the then-declarations, some are reported by individuals, and some by many individuals at the scene of the event.

GRRM is rather "telling" us stuff--implying, showing, and not just telling--about how the Targs are perceived not just by the maesters, but by larger Andal-FM Westerosi society at their time as well as after their end. Intermingled in that are perspectives of Targs themselves, but you'd have to investigate and weigh the context of their actions.

If you clicked on the link to the post I made a long time ago about how Gyldayn writes and relates Nettle's character, it's clear that he's looking at her as more a young brown, low-classed slut, or allows that interpretation, to subsume her impressive brave acts to explain why she would in any way be attractive to Daemon. And the thing is that this is exactly how misogynist men who've enjoyed male privilege (there are no female maesters) often interpret a female person's value in various ways to discredit them and the men, but more often the women/girls. Rhaenyra nor Mysaria get away with his misogyny either. Helaena could have had a stronger personality, but along with her own family likely sidelining her unless it has to do with kids, Gyldayn also merely characterizes her as "pleasant", "would-be good mom" and "less attractive than most Targs" as if these were the primary qualities they are looking for from a royal woman/Targ woman. Motherhood, socially undisruptive, and looks.

Side note: And anyone else who visits the Citadel could read one of the copies of Fire and Blood, but I think most copies would be in the Citadel because I haven't found evidence of books in Westeros spread to many regions in mass production and cheaper paper or if they use paper, what it is made of and how expensive it is. Without said evidence, they'd likely paint words manually into books and that takes time, so you're not going to see as many copies as you'd see in real-life Renaissance countries and later eras. (medieval books and illuminated manuscripts, pic below, were also made of animal skin [often sheep], called "vellum". Are most, if not all, books in Westeros made of vellum, or paper, IDK)

[hollowwhisperings]

"Speaker For The Dead": Bran Stark as a Reference to Ender Wiggin.

I read the first two Ender books when FAR too young to handle their themes of, y'know, the intimacy of xenocide when you're a child soldier. Scary stuff for a kid of age with the protagonist.

So colour me Unsurprised upon relearning that the language the aliens of SFTD's aliens to speak with humans... is named "Stark".

Because of course GRRM would find joy in a conveniently horrifying-by-implication Pun.

The Premise of "Speaker For The Dead" (the sequel to "Ender's Game", a Differently Horrifying inspiration for some of my childhood nightmares) is this: human colonists and the local alien species had been more-or-less at peace until a human is Suddenly & Inexplicably Murdered by the aliens who considered him a Friend.

Due to [the Plot of Ender's Game], Humans are wary of Jumping To Conclusions as to this seemingly Senseless Violence and Ender Wiggin (of Ender's Game) stops at the planet to Speak at some Funerals. To properly Speak for the Deceased, Ender investigates the Murders and because of [the plot of Ender's Game] feels certain that there has been a Fatal Translation Error.

Spoilers for SFTD & comparisons to Bran's POV Arc under cut.

He's Right.

The Piqueninos (the aliens) are still learning to communicate with the humans they're sharing a planet with, using a language named "Stark". The deceased men were both held in great esteem by the Piqueninos, one of the primary reasons why [A Xenologist Expert] was sought after: why kill someone who was their Friend?

It turns out that Ritualistically Vivisecting respected males of their society is how the Piqueninons Evolve: they had spent the entire book calling Trees their "Fathers" and they had meant that literally.

The gratuitously violent murders of their human friends were efforts by the Piqueninos to honour these men by making them Fathers, using the same method of Deification on the human men as they would to their own kind.

Cue the Horrific Revelation that, no, Humans Do Not Transistion From Life Phases via being Ritualistically Killed to Become Trees: the Piqueninos efforts to "honour" their Human Friends actually Killed Them. Permanently.

Now let's reevaluate what Bran Stark's been up with the Singers in ASOIAF.

Brynden Rivers has been sending Dreams to kids with Greenseer Potential and directing them North.

Jojen & Bran, inspired by such Dreams, go Beyond The Wall to seek out this "Three-Eyed Crow" who will teach Bran how to "fly".

Bran & Company end up in a magically warded Cave populated by the mythic "Children of the Forest" (Singers) and someone they call "The Last Greenseer", a man who has a weirwood tree growing through him & introduces himself as a Man Formerly Known as Brynden.

contextual clues identify him as "Brynden Rivers": one of three Great Bastards of Aegon IV had with Lady Melissa Blackwood*, Hand & Spymaster to Kings Aerys I & Maekar I, a Disappeared Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.

the Singers confirm the religious beliefs shared with the First Men as being Literal: the trees are gods and the gods are trees. Incidentally, Jojen brings up how Revered Greenseers are by those who worship the Old Gods.

Jojen has Greensight and Bran, as someone who can both Skinchange AND Greendream, qualifies for "Greenseer" status. Except... the Singers Very Consistently call Brynden "the Last Greenseer" even with Bran Stark right there contradicting that There Can Be Only One (the Singers also mention greenseers as existing in Plural, historically, & that those of their Own Species have "died out/[faded?]").

Brynden "The Last Greenseer" takes Bran as his [apprentice]. Part of this Training is going into the Weirwood Tree [Hivemind], a network that transcends Time & Space (because Roots, i guess?) and allows Bran to see all sorts of varyingly traumatising Visions.

Bran's lessons require his sitting on a Weirwood Throne beside Brynden who is, incidentally, a body horror Weirwood Tree-Human hybrid now.

BTW, Bran's "training diet" features an Ominously Described "Paste" fed to him by the Singers. It's made from Weirwood Seeds, apparently.

(hey isn't everyone stuck in this spooky underground cave because leaving it means getting eaten by zombies? whete are they getting these Weirwood Seeds from- oh. Hi there, Brynden the Tree-Man Abomination)

wait, if Bran's a Greenseet now then how come the Singers still call Brynden the "Last" Greenseer? is this, perhaps, an instance of, say... interspecies life phase transitions being Poorly Translated to humans due to Trees Being Gods and Trees Transcending Time & Death?

has Jojen, perhaps, Made An Assumption about "when" that Title of "Greenseer" is gained? He had said that Greenseers were Deified as Weirwood Trees, implying they were entombed upon death...

...but what if Dying is part of the deification process?

(well, for a given value of "dying"... *looks at Brynden The Tree-Abomination Rivers*)

...the Cave Singers are totally going to ritualistically vivisect Bran and make him their new Tree God, aren't they.

(and, from the looks of Brynden, some decades into HIS initiation... this process will Not Be Quick nor "Pretty")

Brynden is probably complicit in the Singers' Scheme to Make Bran A Tree, if only due to Brynden being the "Weirwood" Bran's Paste Training Diet is made from.

Brynden might also want Out from the whole "Unnaturally Alive & Conscious This Whole Time" thing because WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BE ALIVE AS YOU ARE TURNED INTO A TREE.

let us Not Recall the descriptions of: Brynden's current appearance, the many non-peaceful expressions carved as Faces for Heart Trees, the states of humans "honoured" by the Piqueninos in SFTD, any descriptions of what Becoming A Tree involves...

...and any investigation into what, exactly, a Weirwood's "seeds" may be. I stop at "Horus in Set's Salad" and THAT WAS ENOUGH.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG, when Not Being A Tree Hivemind, Brynden & thus Bran seem to fulfil a role not dissimilar to that of "Speakers For The Dead": they examine historic events as Outside parties. Brynden instructs Bran on evaluating his Visions objectively, without reverance nor judgement. At least, I think he did. Again: preservation of own sanity > exact visuak descriptions of events in ASOIAF.

Interestingly, being an effective Speaker for the Dead requires much of the same skillset as a Competent Kingmaker (or, at least, a King UnMaker).

To Conclude, the Similarities*** between Bran's interactions with the Cave Singers and those of Human Friends & Piqueninos in "Speaker For The Dead" are Multiple &, knowing GRRM, probably Deliberate. Let's just hope Meera and Jojen have gone AWOL because Meera is Plotting Arson, not because they're of Interest to the Cave Singers' reproductive purposes too. Both series do enjoy subjecting female characters to Grim Maternity &/or Horrific Relationship Revelations.

Arson is my Ideal Plotline for Meera, Grand Elk Larceny as a distant second. All those "Last Hero" parallels Bran Stark has going on should be Recognised (by Meera) and AVOIDED (by Meera) WITH FIRE. I'm lowkey convinced Brynden would actually prefer being burned alive to "indefinitely trapped in rotting human flesh as he slowly becomes a Tree (potentially for the purposes of interspecies repropogation)".

Footnotes

*Lady Melissa Blackwoof was likely an aunt or sister of Lady Melantha Blackwood of Winterfell, Bran's great-great grandmother: there is almost certainly at least one other Blackwood in Bran's family tree, likely as one of his 4 unnamed great-grandmothers through Grandpa Hoster Tully & Grandma Minisa Whent.

It's also possible that all the Movement at the end of Brynden's reign as Hand (the Lords going to KL for the Great Council that made Betha** Blackwood Queen of Westeros & Grand Escort from KL to The Wall to send off Maester Aemon & Ser Brynden) was how Lord Beron Stark's Heir, Edwyle, ended up married to a Riverlander like Melantha Blackwood.

**Queen Betha & Lady Melantha were almost certaingly "cousins" of some sort to Brynden through his mother, Melissa Blackwood. The exact degree of relation is unknown but It's There.

The degrees of relation from "Lady Melissa, Paramour of Aegon IV" to "Lady Melantha of Winterfell" connect Brynden (through his Blackwood mother) to EVERY living Stark, courtesy of their one unanimously agreed shared Grandpa (Lord Rickard Stark, of "murdered by Aerys II & Part 3 of 4 Extremely Valid Reasons for Ned's Rebellion").

Lady Catelyn's being a Riverlander, specifically a Tully & a Whent of Harrenhal, make it likely that Brynden's related to HER too.

Jon, of course, has Black Betha as all 4 of his paternal great-great grandmothers AND Lady Melantha as one of his maternal ones (the others being Marna Locke, Arya Flint, & Lorra Royce): Jon's somehow being "5/8ths Blackwood" is how I got distracted by the blood ties of Brynden & Bran in the first place!

[nightswatchdisbandmentera]

Me seeing the ask game: *cracks knuckles* Let's go.

I hope you don't mind answering all of these 😅.

1.

6.

8.

9.

10.

12.

13.

16.

20.

21.

22.

24.

25.

Have a nice day!

I won’t answer all of them haha. I had no time to write that much plus I wanted to actually give hOt TaKeS.

8 common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

I’ll start of by saying that I’m not one who wants to police other people’s interpretations of the text. BUT I will say this: Jon is not a below average swordsman! He’s not even average. He may not have many on page feats, but he’s only been in less than a handful of serious fights and they were against middle aged men with decades of experience over him. People like to bring up his loss to Mance, but this fight was against a man who managed to unite the wildling tribes under his rule; Mance is a highly skilled warrior.

Remember, Jon is 15-16 years old when most of these fights are happening. So he’s still young and growing. People will also say “oh, but Jaime Lannister was a god at that age”. Honestly, who cares? How many characters are comparable to Jaime at any age? It’s such a dumb comparison. I’ve even seen people argue that a 13 year old Peck is better than Jon and huh? Jon hasn’t won over any knights….because he’s not encountering them in the first place.

It’s clear that GRRM holds Jon’s skill in high regard. I mean the first Jon POV chapter established him as a noted swordsman. It also clear that Jon isn’t meant to be the warrior type. He’s a deconstruction of the archetypal fantasy protagonist. GRRM has chosen to build his political skills, so he’s not putting much of a focus on how well he swings his sword. That doesn’t mean though that he doesn’t have any skill at all. Just that it’s not the main focus of his character. But I think this fandom generally has the most wretched discourse when it comes to this stuff. Like people on Reddit this past week tried to argue that Brienne is overrated…Brienne, of all people. It’s just insane to me that people think they know more than the guy who wrote the damn books.

13 worst blorboficiation

Has got to be Kevan Lannister. Not so much on tumblr, but it’s a disease in some of the other communities. For whatever reason, he’s quite beloved. And this is rather strange because he is very much complicit in the corrupt Lannister regime. And as far as we know, he’s also fully supported Tywin in everything (which includes legitimate war crimes). He has his moments where he is shown to actually care for family members (e.g., Lancel, Tyrion), and that makes him a delightfully complex character. He’s also really funny. But we shouldn’t ignore his really bad traits. I’ve had to suffer a bunch of “Kevan Lannister is the best guy ever” posts on Reddit, and it’s absolutely maddening. That’s not to say that we can’t like “bad” people! Heck, Cersei is one of my faves. But it’s weird how certain characters get a pass for doing problematic things (e.g., Kevan or even Bobby B), and other characters get lambasted for the most tame things imaginable. It’s just the hypocrisy that’s annoying.

16 you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

Powerscaling lol. It can be fun, but the people who engage in these discussions can be so tedious and boring. Tiktok and Reddit are full of this. “Who is the greatest fighter”, “who is the best warrior”, “this is why prime Robert low diffs Barristan Selmy”, and it’s the same old arguments every time. I think we should get more creative with powerscaling if we have to do it. Like “who has the best 🛌 skills”. Let’s at least argue over something fun, damn.

22 your favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores

This is going to be twofold:

- On tumblr? Easily Jon’s relationship with magic. In fact, people on here will go out of their way to argue that it’s actually not important to the plot, which is absolutely bonkers. Beyond warging, there’s a lot of weird magical stuff going on with Jon that should be put under the microscope. And I’d even argue that Jon’s a pretty special warg and cannot be compared to the other Stark kids (even Bran) because of how his powers manifest. Ghost is also obviously one of the most special animal familiars in the series (maybe even THE most special one), but no one ever talks about how special he is. A lot of people seem to believe that Jon will be KiTN, but it’s insane how we don’t talk about why it’s magically important for him to rule the North, considering his deep connections to Northern mysticism, religion, and lore.

- Elsewhere: the parallels between Jon and Bran. They’re essentially the same character base split into two (Seoman Snowlack, Frodo, King Arthur, Paul and Leto Atreides, Odin, etc). Both arcs parallel each other and are heading to the same destination, but the details will be different. This is getting to my last point, but I firmly believe we’re getting an ending with both King Jon and King Bran. I like to think of them as two competing but complementary sides of King Arthur’s tale. Jon is the one that is true to legend, as he follows the archetypal hidden prince-to-king trope. Jon is essentially “what if Arthur actually went on his hero’s/knightly quest?”Bran is the subverted one, where young Arthur gets a little detour; so “what if Arthur didn’t go on the hero’s/knightly quest but instead had to take up a job as a part time wizard?” Both will end up kings, just as Arthur did, but it will be different versions of the legend.

- Also: WTF is up with the Watch/Wall? What magic was used to build the Wall and who built it? Why can’t dragons cross? And why can’t wights cross either? What magic dictates that? What’s up with the Nightfort? Why does one only need to say part of the vows to open the gate? And what’s up with the NW vows? Why do they give Lightbringer vibes?! Is the NW Lightbringer? The NW is directly credited with the ending of the Long Night so was the last hero a member of the original group? Who was he? What happened to him after? If the last hero inspired AA then did the NW (and their vows) inspire tales of his flaming sword? And why did the relationship between the Watch and the CoF fizzle out? When did it fizzle out? And who are the LCs whose tenures have not been recorded? Why did they only start recording in the 600s (iirc)? What other history has been lost over time? Who was the Night King? Where did his half-human children go? Need that old man to answer these stat

25 common fandom complaint that you're sick of hearing

Several people will block me for this…but King Bran. Look, I get that Bran isn’t the most popular character out there. But so many people convinced themselves that he would die in that cave or he would amount to nothing which is very, very strange. And it also doesn’t help that a lot of the complaints reek of ableism.

GRRM obviously considers Bran to be central to this series. He is the first viewpoint character (and potentially the last one). He is the most magical character in the story. The scene that birthed ASOIAF came about because of Bran. It’s also said that GRRM considered writing the books through Bran’s POV but decided against it pretty quickly.

Anyone who paid attention to Bran’s story would know that we’re going to get some huge payoff to his story. In fact, I think it’s safer to assume that kingship has always been in the cards for him. I think most of us Bran stans thought he’d be KiTN (actually some of us over at Westeros.org thought he’d end up as the final Lord of Harrenhal). I never once considered King of all Westeros but I’ve had time to think about it ever since the show ended and I’m like, “duh!”. It’s thematically relevant and sound for Bran to end up king. We’re about to enter into a winter apocalypse but Bran’s direwolf is called Summer. Not only is he the representation of summer (which means renewal, rejuvenation, etc.), but he’s also fashioned after the Fisher King. He is also the second coming of Brandon the Builder - who constructed castles all over Westeros, not just the North; and if legends are true, this happened after the Long Night. He’s following after the footsteps of the Last Hero, and is the only other character apart from Jon who is actually fighting in the front lines against the Others. He’s going to be super important!

I can understand some of the questions people having regarding King Bran, mainly those of a political nature. But we’re left with two books. And two books is plenty to move the necessary pieces for Bran’s crowning. Hell, did people expect that Dany would be Queen of Meereen as they started reading ASOS? Most didn’t. A lot can happen in two books. A lot can happen in a singular book. GRRM has enough time to set up a scenario on which Bran is the only one left to rule.

I personally think that the apocalypse will essentially destroy Westeros as we know it, leading to the creation of a new kingdom(s). D&D botched the GoT ending so people have a hard time seeing the thematic weight of a boy who represents summer rising to kingship, but the books lay enough groundwork imo. And I think ACOK shows us that Bran, despite his age, would make a wise ruler. So I’m all for King Bran. Not only is it thematically sound, but I love the idea of a disabled kid rising to power at the end since we don’t see that in a lot of fantasy.

[spectrum-color]

New theory: Ice will be reforged and given to Jon when he becomes the King in the North. Renewed will be the blade that was broken and the crownless will again be king. I apologize in advance for the length.

Reasoning: Jon as KitN is almost certainly happening. The show made a mess of that plotline by making everyone collectively decide he should be because he’s awesome and technically Ned Starks offspring (so they think at least,) but in actuality, Robb named him as heir in his will. By legitimizing him, he also put him on top of the line of succession as the oldest male. There is tons and tons of foreshadowing from the very beginning of the series that Jon will be a king (Lord Commander Mormonts raven even calls him king.) I don’t really see him as King of the Seven Kingdoms because I’m not confident that position will even exist at the end of the series, and even if it does his character is strongly tied to the North.

I think he will die, spend some time living in Ghost (GRRM is a big fan of Realm of the Elderlings and Fitz manages to escape death by swapping his consciousness into a wolf,) and be resurrected, likely by Melisandre. “Kill the boy and let the man be born” were Jon’s arc words for aDwD, and I do think that was foreshadowing and he will come back much fiercer, fitting his legacy as the blood of the dragon and the wolf. His first action will probably be to march to Winterfell to retake it from the Boltons. At this point, the Chekhovs gun of Robb’s will is going to come into play. By law, he is king. Of course what will happen when he discovers Ramsays bride “Arya” is a fake and the real one still missing will be very interesting, but that is another topic entirely. At this point Ice comes in.

It’s a common misunderstanding that GRRM is dismissive of Lord of the Rings because of the famous “what was Aragorns tax policy” quote. He actually reveres Tolkien and I think he’s going to borrow the Anduril storyline from him. Aragorn is the descendant of a lost royal family who had been living as a ranger (hmmm.) When the great evil from the distant past returns (hmmmm,) he embarks on a journey to destroy this evil once and for all and uses the shards of his families ancestral sword to recreate it and reclaim his throne (HMMMM.) This sounds a LOT like someone we know. Jon more than any other character borrows a lot from other fantasy protagonists, like Aragorn, the aforementioned Fitzchivalry Farseer, or Simon Snowlock from Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn (this is a great series that you should read and was also a huge inspiration for aSoIaF.)

As for what happens beyond this, I honestly don’t know for sure. I do think Jon will play a key role in defeating the Others and survive the series but I am not sure what his ultimate fate will be. The big question mark is what happens when his parentage is discovered. How many people will find out? Identity is a major theme in the series; will he become known as Aemon Targaryen (I can’t get over a young Jon playing with Robb saying “I’m Prince Aemon the Dragonknight” because GRRM loves burying meaningful hints like that, not to mention some of the parallels with the historical Aemon, Naerys, and Aegon and Jon, fArya, and Ramsay) or Jon Stark? How will the War for the Dawn be won? How much will Westeros change in its aftermath? The theory I think is most likely is that he and his cousin Arya become the King and Queen of the North (“you will marry a king and rule his castle”) but I am not going to pretend I know for sure because it depends on a lot of factors.