#and how I've been able to explore more aspects of them & more dynamics with other muses | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cappymightwrite · 3 years

Text

Jon Snow, Manfred & The Byronic Hero: Part 2

Previous Posts: PART 1

Hopefully Part 1 served as a good introduction on the topic and characteristics of the Byronic Hero, as well as how Jon Snow in particular is likely an iteration of this figure. But now we come to the real meat of this meta series — a closer look at Byron's dramatic poem Manfred (1816–1817), and more importantly, its titular character in comparison to Jon Snow. I was originally going to do an analysis and comparison of two key episodes in Manfred and A Storm of Swords, Jon VI, but have since decided to give that its own post... that's right kids, there will be a part 3!

(Detail from Lord Byron, Thomas Phillips, 1813)

So... why Manfred? Why not Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, or The Corsair, or Don Juan, or any other work by Lord Byron? Well, I'll tell you why, my sweet summer children. It's because of THIS:

Manfred/Manfryds and Byrons in ASOIAF, by order of first appearance and publication:

Ser Manfred Swann (ASOS, Jaime VIII)

Ser Manfred Dondarrion (The Hedge Knight)

Manfred Lothston (The Sworn Sword)

Manfryd o' the Black Hood (AFFC, Brienne I)

Manfryd Yew (AFFC, Jaime V)

Ser Byron the Beautiful (AFFC, Alayne II, TWOW, Alayne I)

Ser Byron Swann (ADWD, Tyrion III)

Manfryd Merlyn of Kite (ADWD, Victarion I)

Manfryd Mooton, Lord of Maidenpool (The Princess and the Queen, TWOIAF)

Manfred Hightower, Lord of the Hightower (TWOIAF)

Manfred Hightower, Lord of the Hightower (Fire and Blood)

Like... what the hell, George?

I find this very interesting, very interesting indeed! *cough* intentional, very intentional *cough* And I have to thank @agentrouka-blog for reminding me of the existence of these Manfreds/Manfryds, and thus pointing me in this particular direction. This evidence is, for me, my smoking gun, it's why I feel justified in exploring this specific work. In my opinion, it really strongly confirms that GRRM is aware of Manfred, he is aware of its author — as a literary name, it is pretty much exclusively connected to Byron, it's like Hamlet to Shakespeare, or Heathcliff to Emily Brontë. In fact, GRRM likes it enough to use this name several times in fact, its frequency of use aided by a slight variation on its spelling.

So, as we can see, there are a striking number of Manfred/Manfryds (9!!) featured in the ASOIAF universe, whereas Byron (2) is used a bit more sparingly — perhaps because the latter, if more liberally used, would become far more recognisable as an overt literary reference? Interestingly, though, we can see a direct link between the two names as both bear the surname Swann: Ser Manfred Swann and Ser Byron Swann (note the exact spelling of Manfred here, as opposed to Manfryd). Ser Byron was alive during the Dance of Dragons and died trying to kill the dragon Syrax, whereas Ser Manfred was alive during Aegon V's reign and had a young Ser Barristan as his squire. So, in terms of ancestry, Byron came before Manfred, which makes sense since Lord Byron created the character of Manfred; he is his authorial/literary progenitor, if you will.

But why Swann, though? Is there any significance to that surname? Well, I did a little bit of digging and turned up something very interesting, at least in my opinion. In Percy Bysshe Shelley's poem Lines written among the Euganean Hills (1818), in its sixth stanza, the poet addresses the city of Venice... the “tempest-cleaving Swan” in the eighth line is clearly meant to be his friend and contemporary, Lord Byron, that city’s most famous expatriate:

That a tempest-cleaving Swan Of the songs of Albion, Driven from his ancestral streams By the might of evil dreams, Found a nest in thee;

(st. 6, l. 8-12)

Ah ha! But let's not forget that the Swanns are also a house from the stormlands — stormlander Swanns vs. "tempest-cleaving Swan." It seems a nice little homage, doesn't it? You could also argue that the battling swans of House Swann's sigil are a possible reference to Byron's fondness for boxing (he apparently received "pugilistic tuition" at a club in Bond Street, London). But to make the references to Byron too overt would ruin the subtly, so it isn't necessary, in my opinion, for the Swanns to be completely steeped in Byronisms.

All in all, it would be very neat of GRRM if the reasoning behind Byron and Manfred Swann is because of this reference to Lord Byron by Shelley. How these names and the characters that bear them might further reference Byron and Manfred is a possible discussion for another day! It's all just very interesting, very noteworthy, and highlights how careful GRRM is at choosing the names of his characters, even very minor, seemingly insignificant ones.

(Illustration of Villa Diodati from Finden's Illustrations of the Life and Works of Lord Byron, Edward Finden, 1833)

Now onto the actual poem, and the ways in which Jon Snow could being referencing/paralleling Manfred. First things first, a bit of biographical context. Take my hand, and let's travel back in time, way back when, to 1816, the year in which Lord Byron left England forever, his reputation in tatters due to the collapse of his marriage and the rumours of an affair with his half-sister, Augusta Leigh (plus he was hugely in debt). No doubt, most of us are familiar with the story, but in 1816 Byron travelled to Switzerland, to a villa on Lake Geneva, where he met the Shelleys and suggested that they all pass the time by writing ghost stories.

The most famous story produced by them was, of course, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818) — which may have served as the partial inspiration behind Qyburn and Robert Strong! Byron himself did begin a story but soon gave it up (yesss, we love an unproductive king); it was completed, however, by his personal physician, John William Polidori, and eventually published, under Byron's name, as The Vampyre (1819). But Byron didn't completely abandon the ghost story project, as later that summer, after a visit by the Gothic novelist M. G. Lewis, he wrote his "supernatural" tragedy, Manfred (1817).*

*I've seen it dated as 1816-17, but the crucial thing to rememeber, in terms of Byron's own biography, is that unlike The Bride of Abydos, he wrote it after his departure from England... this theme of exile will come up later.

Manfred is what is called a "closet drama", so is structured much like a play, with acts and scenes, though it wouldn't have actually been intended to be performed on stage. Indeed, Lord Byron first described Manfred to his publisher as "a kind of poem in dialogue... but of a very wild—metaphysical—and inexplicable kind": "Almost all the persons—but two or three—are Spirits... the hero [is] a kind of magician who is tormented by a species of remorse—the cause of which is left half unexplained—he wanders about invoking these spirits—which appear to him—& are of no use—he at last goes to the very abode of the Evil principle in propria persona [i.e. in person]—to evocate a ghost—which appears—& gives him an ambiguous & disagreeable answer..."*

*As in Part 1, more academic references will be listed in a bibliography at the end of this post.

To sum up the narrative for you, Manfred is a nobleman living in the Bernese Alps, "tormented by a species of remorse", which is never fully explained, but is clearly connected to the death of his beloved Astarte. Through his mastery of poetic language and spell-casting, he is able to summon seven "spirits", from whom he seeks the gift of forgetfulness, but this plea cannot be granted — he cannot escape from his past. He is also prevented from escaping his mysterious guilt by taking his own life, but in the end, Manfred does die, thus defying religious temptations of redemption from sin. He therefore stands outside of societal expectations, a Romantic rebel who succeeds in challenging all of the authoritative powers he faces, ultimately choosing death over submission to the powerful spirits.

According to Lara Assaad, the character of Manfred is the "Byronic hero par excellence", as he shares its typical characteristics found in Byron's other work (as discussed in Part 1), "yet pushed to the extreme." As noted above, there is a defiance to Manfred's character, which is arguable also found in Jon. Certainly though, in all of Byron's works, the Byronic Hero appears as "a negative Romantic protagonist" to a certain extent, a being who is "filled with guilt, despair, and cosmic and social alienation," observes James B. Twitchell. I'll come back to those characteristics presently.

As noted by Assaad, "Byron scholars seem to agree on this definition of the Byronic Hero, however they focus mainly, if not exclusively, on the dynamics of guilt and remorse." Indeed, it is only in more recent years that the incest motif, as well as the influence of Byron's own biography, have been more widely discussed. But perhaps the most compelling aspect of the Byronic Hero is his complex psychology. Although trauma theory only really started to flourish during the 1990s, thus providing deeper insight into the symptoms that follow a traumatic experience, it nevertheless seems, at least to Assaad, that "Byron was familiar with it well before it was first discussed by professionals and diagnosed." As we know, GRRM began writing his series, A Song of Ice and Fire, during the 1990s, and character trauma and its effects feature heavily in his work, most notably in the case of Theon Greyjoy, but also in the memory editing of Sansa Stark in terms of the infamous "Unkiss".*

*The editing, or supressing, of memories is not exclusive to Sansa, however. E.g @agentrouka-blog has theorised a possible memory edit with regards to Tyrion and his first wife Tysha.

But if we return back to that original quote, in which GRRM makes the comparison between Jon and the Byronic Hero, his following statement is also very interesting:

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

As noted by @princess-in-a-tower, there is a close correspondence between Jon and Theon, with each acting as the other's foil in many respects. In fact, Theon does sort of tick off a few of the Byronic qualities I discussed last time, most notably standing apart from society, that "society" being the Starks in Winterfell, due to him essentially being a hostage. Later on, we see him develop a sense of deep misery as well due to his horrific treatment at the hands of Ramsey Snow. Like Theon, his narrative foil, Jon is also a character deeply informed by trauma (being raised a bastard), but the way they ultimately process and express that specific displacement trauma differs profoundly — Theon expresses it outwardly through his sacking of Winterfell, whereas Jon turns his trauma notably inwards.*

*Obviously, I'm not a medical professional — I'm more looking at this from a literary angle, but the articles I've read for this post do include reference to real medical definitions etc.

Previously, I observed how being "deeply jaded" and having "misery in his heart" were key characteristics of the Byronic Hero, as well as Jon Snow — this trauma theory is a continuation of that. Indeed, to bring it back to Manfred, Assaad goes as far as stating that the poem's titular hero "suffers from what is now widely recognised as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)." I am purposely holding off on discussing what the origin of that trauma is, in relation to Manfred specifically, because, well... it needs a bit of forewarning before I get into it fully. Instead, let's look at the emotions it exacerabates or gives rise to, as detailed by Twitchell, and how they might be evident in Jon and his feelings regarding his bastard status.

(Jonny Lee Miller as Byron in the two part BBC series Byron, 2003)

Guilt

Does Jon suffer guilt due to him being a bastard and secretly wanting to "steal" his siblings' birthright? I'd say a strong yes:

When Jon had been Bran's age, he had dreamed of doing great deeds, as boys always did. The details of his feats changed with every dreaming, but quite often he imagined saving his father's life. Afterward Lord Eddard would declare that Jon had proved himself a true Stark, and place Ice in his hand. Even then he had known it was only a child's folly; no bastard could ever hope to wield a father's sword. Even the memory shamed him. What kind of man stole his own brother's birthright? I have no right to this, he thought, no more than to Ice. – AGOT, Jon VIII He wanted it, Jon knew then. He wanted it as much as he had ever wanted anything. I have always wanted it, he thought, guiltily. May the gods forgive me. – ASOS, Jon XII

But I think Jon's sense of guilt also extends to the high expectations he sets for himself, his "moral superiority" in the face of his bastard status, as discussed in Part 1. He feels guilt pulling him in two different directions, in regards to Ygritte: guilt for loving her, for breaking his vows, and potentially risking a bastard, but also guilt for leaving her, for abandoning her, and potentially leaving her unprotected:

His guilt came back afterward, but weaker than before. If this is so wrong, he wondered, why did the gods make it feel so good? – ASOS, Jon III Ygritte was much in his thoughts as well. He remembered the smell of her hair, the warmth of her body... and the look on her face as she slit the old man's throat. You were wrong to love her, a voice whispered. You were wrong to leave her, a different voice insisted. He wondered if his father had been torn the same way, when he'd left Jon's mother to return to Lady Catelyn. He was pledged to Lady Stark, and I am pledged to the Night's Watch. – ASOS, Jon VI "I broke my vows with her. I never meant to, but..." It was wrong. Wrong to love her, wrong to leave her..."I wasn't strong enough. The Halfhand commanded me, ride with them, watch, I must not balk, I..." His head felt as if it were packed with wet wool. – ASOS, Jon VI

This guilt surrounding leaving the women/girls he cares about unprotected also extends to Arya. Yet it was his need to prove himself as something more than just a bastard, by joining the Watch, which initially prevents him from acting, and which also makes him feel guilt for being a hyprocrite:

Jon felt as stiff as a man of sixty years. Dark dreams, he thought, and guilt. His thoughts kept returning to Arya. There is no way I can help her. I put all kin aside when I said my words. If one of my men told me his sister was in peril, I would tell him that was no concern of his. Once a man had said the words his blood was black. Black as a bastard's heart. – ADWD, Jon VI

I think there is a lack of reconciliation between Jon and his bastard status, between what being a bastard implies in their society: lustful, deceitful, treacherous, more "worldly" etc. Deep down, subconsciously, Jon really rebels against it. You can see that rebellion more clearly in his memories as a younger child, less inhibited:

Every morning they had trained together, since they were big enough to walk; Snow and Stark, spinning and slashing about the wards of Winterfell, shouting and laughing, sometimes crying when there was no one else to see. They were not little boys when they fought, but knights and mighty heroes. "I'm Prince Aemon the Dragonknight," Jon would call out, and Robb would shout back, "Well, I'm Florian the Fool." Or Robb would say, "I'm the Young Dragon," and Jon would reply, "I'm Ser Ryam Redwyne." That morning he called it first. "I'm Lord of Winterfell!" he cried, as he had a hundred times before. Only this time, this time, Robb had answered, "You can't be Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born. My lady mother says you can't ever be the Lord of Winterfell." I thought I had forgotten that. Jon could taste blood in his mouth, from the blow he'd taken. – ASOS, Jon XII

But Jon knows this truth about himself, he knows that he has "always wanted it", and that causes him so much guilt because he can't allow himself to be selfish in that regard, because to do so would confirm for him his worst fears... that he truly is a bastard in nature as well as birth — treacherous, covetous, dishonourable.

Despair

As he grows up, learning to curb his emotional outbursts from AGOT, Jon appears more and more stoic upon the surface. But beneath that, buried in his subconscious in the form of dreams, you have this undyling feeling of despair, this trauma connected to his bastard status, his partially unknown heritage:

Not my mother, Jon thought stubbornly. He knew nothing of his mother; Eddard Stark would not talk of her. Yet he dreamed of her at times, so often that he could almost see her face. In his dreams, she was beautiful, and highborn, and her eyes were kind. – AGOT, Jon III

These recurring dreams, sometimes explicitly involving his unknown mother, sometimes not, represent a clear gap, a gaping blank in Jon's personal history and his perception of his identity:

"Sometimes I dream about it," he said. "I'm walking down this long empty hall. My voice echoes all around, but no one answers, so I walk faster, opening doors, shouting names. I don't even know who I'm looking for. Most nights it's my father, but sometimes it's Robb instead, or my little sister Arya, or my uncle." [...]

"Do you ever find anyone in your dream?" Sam asked.

Jon shook his head. "No one. The castle is always empty." He had never told anyone of the dream, and he did not understand why he was telling Sam now, yet somehow it felt good to talk of it. "Even the ravens are gone from the rookery, and the stables are full of bones. That always scares me. I start to run then, throwing open doors, climbing the tower three steps at a time, screaming for someone, for anyone. And then I find myself in front of the door to the crypts. It's black inside, and I can see the steps spiraling down. Somehow I know I have to go down there, but I don't want to. I'm afraid of what might be waiting for me. The old Kings of Winter are down there, sitting on their thrones with stone wolves at their feet and iron swords across their laps, but it's not them I'm afraid of. I scream that I'm not a Stark, that this isn't my place, but it's no good, I have to go anyway, so I start down, feeling the walls as I descend, with no torch to light the way. It gets darker and darker, until I want to scream." He stopped, frowning, embarrassed. "That's when I always wake." His skin cold and clammy, shivering in the darkness of his cell. Ghost would leap up beside him, his warmth as comforting as daybreak. He would go back to sleep with his face pressed into the direwolf's shaggy white fur. – AGOT, Jon IV

"That always scares me", he says quite tellingly. From this key passage, in particular, we can see that Jon feels a deep rooted despair at essentially being unclaimed, unwanted... being without a solid (Stark) identity around which to draw strength and mould himself. He's afraid of being a lone wolf, because as we all know, "the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives," (AGOT, Arya II).

This dream points him in the direction of the crypts — "somehow I know I have to go down there, but I don't want to" — which actually does have the answers he seeks because that is where Lyanna Stark is buried. Yet Jon is "afraid of what might be waiting for [him]", and wants to "scream" with dispair because of the darkness. So, this need for a confirmed identity is a double edged sword, which will no doubt be further complicated when his true parentage is revealed.

Elsewhere, Jon's dreams continue to have this despairing quality to them, often involving Winterfell, the Starks, and especially Ned, which is very interesting on a psychological level:

The grey walls of Winterfell might still haunt his dreams, but Castle Black was his life now, and his brothers were Sam and Grenn and Halder and Pyp and the other cast-outs who wore the black of the Night's Watch. – AGOT, Jon IV

Last night he had dreamt the Winterfell dream again. He was wandering the empty castle, searching for his father, descending into the crypts. Only this time the dream had gone further than before. In the dark he'd heard the scrape of stone on stone. When he turned he saw that the vaults were opening, one after the other. As the dead kings came stumbling from their cold black graves, Jon had woken in pitch-dark, his heart hammering. Even when Ghost leapt up on the bed to nuzzle at his face, he could not shake his deep sense of terror. He dared not go back to sleep. Instead he had climbed the Wall and walked, restless, until he saw the light of the dawn off to the east. It was only a dream. I am a brother of the Night's Watch now, not a frightened boy. – AGOT, Jon VII

But it is never "only a dream", is it?

And when at last he did sleep, he dreamt, and that was even worse. In the dream, the corpse he fought had blue eyes, black hands, and his father's face, but he dared not tell Mormont that. – AGOT, Jon VIII

Even Jon's conscious daydreams in AGOT revolve around his dispairing search for a solid identity:

A lot of these early dreams occur in A Game of Thrones, probably in response to his removal from Winterfell... his self exile. But later on in the series Jon continues to have dreams that tie him to the Starks and to Winterfell, ominous and sometimes despairing too. There's honestly too many instances to list, but if you want to understand the root of Jon's existential despair... it's in his dreams.

Cosmic Alienation

Cosmic alienation, now that's an interesting one in regards to Jon, since he definitely hasn't reached this state... yet. Life and his belief in the divine (the old gods) still hold meaning for him, but then he gets murdered by his black brothers. In the show, the writers hint at some cosmic alienation through Jon stating that he saw "nothing" whilst dead, but then they take it no further and generally do a piss poor job of post-res Jon. This characteristic of Manfred coming to the fore in Jon depends on what happens in The Winds of Winter, but I don't think it is at all that far fetched to assume that Jon will return to his body with a darker, altered perception of things.

Social Alienation

In Part 1, I discussed how Jon, like Byron's heroes, could be read as a "a rebel who stands apart from society and societal expectations." On a more psychological level, we can see how this Otherness, stemming from his bastard status, deeply affects Jon and his perception of himself and the world:

Benjen Stark gave Jon a long look. "Don't you usually eat at table with your brothers?"

"Most times," Jon answered in a flat voice. "But tonight Lady Stark thought it might give insult to the royal family to seat a bastard among them." – AGOT, Jon I

In his very first chapter, we see him quite literally alienated from the rest of his siblings, made to sit apart from them, an apparent necessity he seems fairly resigned to. Also in Part 1, I gave examples of instances in which Jon is mockingly called "Lord Snow," as well as a "rebel", "turncloak", "half-wildling", all of which serve to alienate him from the rest of the brothers of the Night's Watch.

Stannis gave a curt nod. "Your father was a man of honor. He was no friend to me, but I saw his worth. Your brother was a rebel and a traitor who meant to steal half my kingdom, but no man can question his courage. What of you?" – ASOS, Jon XI

The above interaction may seem on the surface to be about one thing — whether or not Jon will be of help to Stannis, offer him loyalty etc. — but tagged onto the end we have quite a poignant question: "what of you?" What are you, essentially. Who are you? The truth of his parentage may, in part, solve these questions... but it may also serve to alienate Jon from his perception of himself further. Ultimately, who exactly he is — what he believes in, who and what he fights for, etc. — will be solely his decision to make going forward.

So, the Byronic Hero, certainly in Manfred's case, but also in later iterations, is arguably traumatised by his own past. But regardless as to whether his trauma is related to a mysterious past, a secret sin, an unnamed crime, or incest, aka "secret knowledge", what is clear in Assaad's interpretation, is that the Byronic Hero is "living with the traumatic consequences of his own past and so suffers from PTSD." But why is Manfred traumatised, what is the specific cause of this trauma, or how might it reveal something deeper about Jon's own trauma? Now, here we come to the unavoidable... I'm going to start talking about Byronic incest and the pre-canon crush/kiss theory, and how it potentially parallels certain aspects of Manfred.

I should preface this by stating that I don't think Jon is suppressing trauma because he committed intentional incest with Sansa, but I do think (or at least somewhat theorise that) Byronic incest does come into play regarding his intense feelings of guilt and existential despair.

But still, stop reading now if are opposed to discussions of the pre-canon crush/kiss theory and the literary incest motif as a whole!

(Detail from The Funeral of Shelley, Louis Édouard Fournier, 1889)

Hey there to the depraved! If you aren't already familiar with the theory, here are some previous discussions/metas on the subject:

Full Blown Meta:

A Hidden and Forbidden Love by @princess-in-a-tower

Ask Answers (Long):

Jonsa as a more positive mirror to Jaime and Cersei? by @princess-in-a-tower, with additional comment by @jonsameta

Discussing the theory by @jonsameta

Evidence for pre-canon Jonsa? by @agentrouka-blog

Kissing in the godswood? by @agentrouka-blog

Why don't we read about Jon's reaction to Sansa and Tyrion? by @agentrouka-blog

More on Jon's supposed non-reaction by @agentrouka-blog, with additional comment made by @sherlokiness

A Jonsa "Unkiss"? by @fedonciadale

A hidden memory? by @fedonciadale

Sansa's misremembering by @fedonciadale

Descriptive parallels between A Song for Lya and Jonsa by @butterflies-dragons

Ask Answers (Short) & Briefer Mentions:

Jealous Jon by @princess-in-a-tower

Your new boyfriend looks like a girl by @butterflies-dragons

Like in Part 1, I've tried to cite as much as I could find, but as always, if anyone feels like I've missed someone important or that they should be included in the above list, please just drop me a line!

Now, it's a controversial theory, and not everyone's cup of tea — I think that's worth acknowledging! I myself am not wholly married to it, I'd be fine if it wasn't the case, but that being said, I can't in good faith ignore it when considering Lord Byron and the Byronic Hero. The incest is, unfortunately, very hard to ignore, both in his work and in his personal life. It's pretty hard to ignore in Manfred, for that matter, which is why I've held off talking about it... until now!

All aboard the Manfred incest train *choo choo* !!

First stop, Act II, scene one. Oh, wait, an annoucement from your conductor... apologies everyone, I purposely neglected to mention quite a key detail. Remember "Astarte! [Manfred's] beloved!", (II, iv, 136)? Yeah... it's heavily implied that Astarte is in fact Manfred's half-sister. *shoots finger guns* Classic Byron! *facepalms*

Oh, and that's not all! Let's consider the context surrounding the writing of this work for a moment, shall we? Unlike The Bride of Abydos (1813),* Manfred was written notably after the fallout of his incestuous affair with his half-sister, Augusta Leigh, composed whilst in a self-imposed exile. *spits out drink* Woah, woah there cowboy... what in tarnation?! EXILE?!

*As referenced in Part 1, @rose-of-red-lake has written an excellent meta on the influence of Lord Byron's work (and personal life) on Jonsa, paying special attention to the half-siblings turned cousins in The Bride of Abydos.

Although, as noted by rose-of-red-lake, The Bride of Abydos bears strong parallels to the potential romance of Jon and Sansa, as well as Byron’s own angst regarding his relationship with Augusta Leigh, the context surrounding Manfred seems... dare I say it, even more autobiographical. Because like Byron himself, Manfred wanders around the Bernese Alps, solitary and guilt ridden, in a state of exile heavily evocative of Byron's own — as I mentioned earlier, the beginnings of Manfred occured whilst Byron was staying at a villa on Lake Geneva, in Switzerland... the Bernese Alps are located in western Switzerland. In light of this, I think it's very understandable that some critics consider Manfred to be autobiographical, or even confessional. The unnamed but forbidden nature of Manfred's relationship to Astarte is believed to represent Byron's relationship with his half-sister Augusta. But what has that got to do with Jon?

Look, I don't know how else to put this:

Byron self-exiles in 1816, first to Switzerland, to Lake Geneva, where it is unseasonably cold and stormy — his departure from England is due to the collaspe of his marriage to Annabella Milbanke, unquestionably as a result of the rumours surrounding his incestuous affair with his half-sister.

Displaced nobleman Manfred wanders the Bernese Alps, in a kind of moral exile, where "the wind / Was faint and gusty, and the mountain snows / Began to glitter with the climbing moon" (III, iii, 46-48), traversing "on snows, where never human foot / Of common mortal trod" (II, iii, 4-5), surrounded by a "glassy ocean of the mountain ice" (II, iii, 7). He feels extreme, but unexplained guilt surrounding the death of his "beloved" Astarte, who is heavily implied to also be his half-sister.

In A Game of Thrones, Jon Snow chooses to join the Night's Watch, with the reminder that "once you have taken the black, there is no turning back" (AGOT, Jon VI). By taking the black, Jon arguably exiles himself from the rest of the Starks, from Winterfell, to a place that "looked like nothing more than a handful of toy blocks scattered on the snow, beneath the vast wall of ice" (AGOT, Jon III). But we aren't given any indication that he does this due to incestuous feelings regarding a "radiant" half-sister, akin to Byron/Manfred, are we? And it's not like we have several Manfreds/Manfryds AND Byrons namedropped within the text, is it? Oh wait... we do. *grabs GRRM in a chokehold*

What the hell, George?!

(Lord Byron on His Deathbed, Joseph Denis Odevaere, c. 1826)

But lets get back on track here and take a closer look at that section of Manfred I mentioned at the beginning — Act II, scene one, aka the part where all the incest and supressed trauma really JUMPS out.

So, early in Act II, in the chamois hunter's abode (a chamois is a type of goat?), according Assaad's analysis, Manfred is "hyper-aroused by a cup of wine." The wine is offered in an attempt to calm Manfred; however, to the chamois hunter's great dismay, it instead agitates him and makes him utter words which are "strange" (II, i, 35). Rather than wine, Manfred sees "blood on the brim" (II, i, 25). His sudden agitation and erratic behaviour confound the chamois hunter, who observes that Manfred is losing his mind: "thy senses wander from thee" (II, i, 27). Assaad's analysis of this scene, which she believes "is the most revelatory in the entire play" discloses "a bitter truth: Manfred's traumatic past informs his present life."

We might compare this with Jon, in particular, how his dreams reveal certain bitter truths to do with his past, now subconsciously informing his present. I've already looked a bit at his crypt dream from AGOT, Jon IV, but we see a sort of recurrence of this dream again in ASOS, Jon VIII. The imagery of being in a crypt, somewhere underground, buried, in the dark, a place of ghosts and spirits, is extremely evocative. Indeed, to go back to Byron's own description of Manfred, the setting of a crypt is extremely suggestive of certain bitter truths "left half unexplained", of secrets buried... and we know that's true because the secret of Jon's parentage is hidden down there, in the form of Lyanna Stark.

He dreamt he was back in Winterfell, limping past the stone kings on their thrones. Their grey granite eyes turned to follow him as he passed, and their grey granite fingers tightened on the hilts of the rusted swords upon their laps. You are no Stark, he could hear them mutter, in heavy granite voices. There is no place for you here. Go away. He walked deeper into the darkness. "Father?" he called. "Bran? Rickon?" No one answered. A chill wind was blowing on his neck. "Uncle?" he called. "Uncle Benjen? Father? Please, Father, help me." Up above he heard drums. They are feasting in the Great Hall, but I am not welcome there. I am no Stark, and this is not my place. His crutch slipped and he fell to his knees. The crypts were growing darker. A light has gone out somewhere. "Ygritte?" he whispered. "Forgive me. Please." But it was only a direwolf, grey and ghastly, spotted with blood, his golden eyes shining sadly through the dark... – ASOS, Jon VIII

I don't think it's outlandish to state that, unquestionably, Jon's bastard identity is a source of ongoing pain for him. I talked about the theme of despair in Jon's characterisation and it is very evident in the above, and it stems from this "bitter truth" of not being a trueborn Stark, of not being "welcome", or having a true place. The emotions/mindset this trauma, concerning his birth and identity, evokes in Jon is arguably what brings him, on first glance, so closely in line with the Byronic Hero:

Their grey granite eyes turned to follow him as he passed / The crypts were growing darker = A mysterious past / secret sin(s)

You are no Stark / I am no Stark = Deeply jaded

There is no place for you here / I am not welcome there / This is not my place = standing apart from society and societal expectations / social alienation

He dreamt he was back in Winterfell / He walked deeper into the darkness = Moody / misery in his heart

He fell to his knees / Forgive me = Guilt

He walked deeper into the darkness / Please, Father, help me / He fell to his knees = Despair

These aren't all the Byronic characteristics I've addressed in relation to Jon, but it is a substantial percentage of them, all encapsulated, in one way or another, within this singular dream passage. As far as what is fairly explicit in the text, being a bastard is Jon's "bitter truth", it is the "traumatic past inform[ing] his present life." But what is Manfred's "bitter truth", what past trauma is informing his present? And can it reveal a bit more about another layer to Jon's trauma? Because there is a key distinction — Manfred's trauma, his PTSD, stems from a specific event, notably triggered by the (imagined) "blood on the brim" of his wine, whereas for Jon, we have no singular event, we have no momentus experience, we just have this "truth."

As mentioned previously, Assaad has recognised the character of Manfred as displaying symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In Assaad's article, she remarks that "an experience is denoted as traumatic if it completely overwhelms the individual, rendering him or her helpless," and this is quite evident in the interaction between Manfred and the chamois hunter. Sharon Stanley, an educator and clinical psychotherapist, writes that "the word trauma has been used to describe a variety of aversive, overwhelming experiences with long-term, destructive effects on individuals and communities."

So, if trauma is related to an experience, or experiences, is it still accurate to say that Jon experiences trauma, connected to being a bastard? Because there is seemingly no singular or defining root experience, or event that it stems from, it just is… it is a compellation of several moments, revealed to the reader through Jon’s memories and/or dreams. What is being "left half unexplained” here?

Assaad makes reference to the American Psychiatric Association's definition of PTSD, in which it observes that for an individual to be diagnosed with PTSD, they have to suffer from one or more intrustion symptoms, one or more avoidance symptoms, two or more negative alterations, and two or more hyperarousal symptoms. The dreams Jon has certainly suggest something, but it seems like a stretch to say that, like Manfred, he is suffering from PTSD, right? We and Jon are very much aware that he is "no Stark", at least not in the sense that he is Ned's trueborn son, this isn’t something Jon is actively suppressing. By comparison, it is incontrovertible that Manfred committed something in the past, which he deeply wishes to forget and disassociate from:

Man. I say ’tis blood—my blood! the pure warm stream Which ran in the veins of my fathers, and in ours When we were in our youth, and had one heart, And loved each other as we should not love, And this was shed: but still it rises up, Colouring the clouds, that shut me out from heaven, Where thou art not—and I shall never be. C. Hun. Man of strange words, and some half—maddening sin

(II, i, 28-35)

However, we cannot be sure what this traumatic point of origin is, though we know that it is related to something he has done to his beloved Astarte, which subsequently led to her death. Many critics have suggested that his sin is that of incest, and as I noted earlier, that Manfred as a whole is more than just a bit autobiographical and/or confessional in nature. Manfred's incestuous sin therefore re-enacts Byron's incest with his half-sister Augusta. But regardless of the true cause, Manfred is traumatised by his past and cannot overcome it. Is there something in Jon’s past, that may have subconsciously, or consciously, influenced his departure to the Wall — his self exile — which he cannot overcome, and which is closely tied to the issue of and pain he feels due to being a bastard, not just the illegitimacy, but also the negative characteristics it assigns? Is there an event, or experience, we can pinpoint as the origin of Jon’s trauma and potential PTSD?

To circle back to Jonsa, there is some, not unfounded, debate amongst us concerning the validity of the pre-canon crush/kiss theory. I've always found it an interesting theory, but until now, I haven't really given it too much thought. In light of the Byron connection, however, as well as the textual analysis I have for Part 3, I think this scenario, as detailed by agentrouka-blog, seems more and more likely. And I don't say that lightly, I really don't. It is a somewhat uncomfortable speculation to make, even if the interaction was more innocent rather than explicit (this is the side I firmly fall down on), however, it’s ambiguity does potentially parallel Byron’s Manfred and Astarte. This post would be even longer if I included my side-by-side text comparisons, so you may have to trust me for the moment that there are some very striking similarities between Act II, scene I of Manfred, and Jon's milk of the poppy induced dream in ASOS, Jon VI, as well as the actual buildup to that vision.

But, that sounds frankly terrible doesn't it? And it doesn't bode well for his future relationship with Sansa, does it? And what does it mean if Jon is suffering from PTSD due to an incestuous encounter with Sansa? What does that mean for Sansa, Sansa who is doggedly abused and mistreated by men within the present narrative? This is awful, why would GRRM root their romance in something traumatic? Oh I hear you, and these are questions I needed to ask myself whilst compiling this. But you see... now bear with me here... it isn't the actual encounter itself that was traumatic, for either Jon or Sansa, and that is reflected in both their POVs, because, though they think about each other sparingly (explicitly at least), it is never done so negatively. No, the potential PTSD Jon suffers from this experience isn't connected to Sansa, to whatever occured between them. Rather, I believe, it's connected to either the fear, or the reality, that Ned, his assumed father, saw and/or caught him (either Sansa had left at this point, or didn't fully grasp the issue), and this fear, this guilt, this sense of despair, is made evident in this passage:

When the dreams took him, he found himself back home once more, splashing in the hot pools beneath a huge white weirwood that had his father’s face. Ygritte was with him, laughing at him, shedding her skins till she was naked as her name day, trying to kiss him, but he couldn’t, not with his father watching. He was the blood of Winterfell, a man of the Night’s Watch. I will not father a bastard, he told her. I will not. I will not. “You know nothing, Jon Snow,” she whispered, her skin dissolving in the hot water, the flesh beneath sloughing off her bones until only skull and skeleton remained, and the pool bubbled thick and red. – ASOS, Jon VI

That's the traumatic experience, I believe, not the kiss — yep, I strongly suspect there was a kiss. Moreover, Jon's recurring assertion, throughout the series, that he "will not father a bastard" is tied to this in some way, it’s tied to Ned, it’s tied to some sense of guilt and shame. It’s not tied to Sansa. But we'll look at this passage, what it means, what it parallels, and what directly precedes it, in comparison to Manfred, a lot more closely next time.

I'll leave you with a slight teaser though — the parallel that made me really sit up and take notice:

C. Hun. Well, sir, pardon me the question, And be of better cheer. Come, taste my wine; 'Tis of an ancient vintage; many a day 'T has thaw’d my veins among our glaciers, now Let it do thus for thine. Come, pledge me fairly. Man. Away, away! there’s blood upon the brim! Will it then never—never sink in the earth?

(II, i, 21-26)

Note this imagery!!!

Maester Aemon poured it full. "Drink this."

Jon had bitten his lip in his struggles. He could taste blood mingled with the thick, chalky potion. It was all he could do not to retch it back up. – ASOS, Jon VI

In both instances, a drink is offered, with "blood upon the brim", and "blood mingled". In Manfred's case, this is an explicit trigger for him, whereas for Jon? Well, it bit more hidden, a bit more buried, but this moment is, to my mind, the catalyst, because its imagery strongly evokes the colours of the weirwood tree — "blood" red and "chalky" white — you know, the "huge white weirwood" he later on envisions.

*spits out drink*

Maybe the magnitude of this parallel isn't completely evident as of yet, but it will be... or at least I hope it will be, so stay tuned for Part 3!

(Starting to run out of Byron pics so... I dunno, here's Rupert Everret, from The Scandalous Adventures of Lord Byron, 2009)

In Conclusion

To summarise, why is the Manfred connection so monumental to me? Why do I find the pre-canon kiss theory, specifically the scenario detailed by agentrouka-blog, now very hard to dismiss? Because:

The nine (!) Manfreds/Manfryds included within the text, as well as the two Byrons, one of which, the first mentioned in fact, first appears in Sansa's POV. But crucicially the direct link made by GRRM between Byron Swann and Manfred Swann.

The strength of the similarities that can be observed between Jon and the Byronic Hero, but also notably to Byron's Manfred, the "Byronic hero par excellence", according to Assaad. Especially the recurring emotions of guilt and despair, the latter exemplified perhaps most clearly in Jon's dreams.

The prominent theme of self-exile to escape something, something that perhaps cannot be openly stated, present in Manfred, Byron's own life, and Jon's narrative.

Those pesky half-sisters: Augusta, Astarte, and Sansa.

The PTSD symptoms clearly present in Manfred, but left "half unexplained", and seemingly not explained at all in Jon's POV — I'll dig more into this in Part 3.

The "blood upon the brim", and "blood mingled" — more on that in Part 3, I hope you guys like in depth imagery analysis!

Obviously, this is all still just speculation on my part, and it's speculation in connection to a theory that is understandably controversial. I'd be happy to dismiss it... if it weren't for the above. So, I suppose I'm in two minds about it. On the one hand, however you look at it, it's more trauma in an already traumatic series... which is *sighs* not what you want for the characters you care strongly about. But on the other hand, that literary connection to Manfred (and by extension to actual Lord Byron), the way it's lining up, plus that comparison GRRM himself made between Jon and the Byronic Hero... that's all very compelling and interesting to me as a reader, as a former English literature student. So, I don't want it to be true because... incest hell. But then, I also want it to be true because then it makes me feel smart for guessing correctly.

But anyway, we're going to be descending into incest hell in Part 3, so... we'll just have to grapple with that when we come to it. I hope, if you stuck with it till the incesty end, that you enjoyed this post!

Stay tuned ;)

Bibliography of Academic Sources:

American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edn (Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013); online edition at www.dsm5.org

Assaad, Lara, "'My slumbers—if I slumber—are not sleep': The Byronic Hero’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder", The Byron Journal 47, no. 2 (2019): 153–163.

Byron, George Gordon Noel, Byron’s Letters and Journals. Ed. Leslie A. Marchand. 12 vols. London: Murray, 1973–82.

Holland, Tom, "Undead Byron", in Byromania: Portraits of the Artist in Nineteenth- and Twentieth- Century Culture, ed. by Frances Wilson (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000).

MacDonald, D. L. "Narcissism and Demonality in Byron’s 'Manfred'", Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal 25, no. 2 (1992): 25–38.

Stanley, Sharon, Relational and Body-Centered Practices for Healing Trauma: Lifting the Burdens of the Past (London: Routledge, 2016)

Twitchell, James B., The Living Dead: A Study of the Vampire in Romantic Literature (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1981).

#jonsa #jon x sansa #jonsa meta #jon as the byronic hero #byronic hero #lord byron #tw: incest #cappy's thoughts #grrm and the Romantics #Jonsa and Romanticism #percy bysshe shelley #romantic poets #literary references #damn this was a long one!#glad a split it into another part!#i started to get a bit unhinged by the end not gonna lie

96 notes · View notes

lilmissbacon · 4 years

Text

Adding Characters to the Big Four (RotBTD)

I've already made a post about just "How the Big Four Work so well (discussion)" which talks about their personalities are and what their stories have in common, as well as what criteria they follow.

So if you want to understand exactly what I'm talking about I'd recommend you read this first:

Now I'm gonna go into what characters would fit and why. So if you want to add other movies to this world, I would recommend Moana, Epic, The Croods or maybe even Hotel Transylvania and here's why:

Moana – Begins with narration but ends with a song. Although it's a song that sums up what Moana had learned and what her people have now become. So it is, its own form of narration. She also goes through the journey of finding herself by becoming a wayfinder like her ancestors.

Moana definitely adds to the groups resources with being friends with the ocean, knowing about the realm of monsters and being friends with Maui & Te Fiti. She would definitely get along great with the big four friend dynamic in many ways.

Hiccup: through their ability to lead and quick thinking. They also both understand what it's like to grow up on an island with their fathers being the leader who expects certain things from them.

Rapunzel: because they understand going against a parent's wishes and working to make their dreams/wishes come true. They also have the same type of bubbly personality and would converse well.

Jack: they both understand what if feels like to be chosen for something they feel they're not ready for and what it feels like to be an outsider from the people around them.

Merida: their tough and somewhat playful nature as well as their diplomacy skills match each other so well. They'd definitely be the closest of the group because of their strong personalities.

Out of a friend group consisting of: the girly-girl, a troublemaker a nerd and a tomboy, she fits into the literary dynamic through being the 'athlete.' In battle, consisting of: a leader/strategist, a healer, a sniper(bow and arrow) and a speed fighter, Moana fits in as the 'close combatant' in battle.

The magic also can still follow the guidelines of rotg. They speak about Gods but what if there really aren't any? The only 'God' we see is Te Fiti, who is the bringer of life. Or in other words; Mother Nature. The God that had raised Maui could've actually been the man in the moon and that would be how Maui was given magic and doesn't age. He goes around, calling himself a demigod but in reality, he's a spirit. And of course he's able to be seen since everyone on Motunui believes in the demi/gods.

Seasonally, Moana would most obviously be put in summer. But there are a lot of people who feel that adding more characters to the big four kind of breaks the seasonal aspect and that's fine.

But here me out.

The seasons effect the land on earth but if Moana is a spirit of the ocean, then she's effecting the rest of the earth's surface. The ocean doesn't necessarily have seasons so you don't need to apply one to her in order for her to add to the group. BOOM! Loophole!

I believe she's the BEST additional choice out of them all. Plus she'd definitely be chosen to become a guardian because *cough cough* SHE SAVED THE WORLD FROM DECAY.

Eep – A lot of applications for Moana fit for Eep too. She has narration at the beginning and end of her film. She'd fit in literarily as the 'athlete' and battle-wise as 'close constant/brawler.'

She also kind of has an arc of finding herself by leaving her cave days behind and following the light with her family. And being that she's from the caveman days –a time even before Moana– she could definitely add to the group with her survival skills.

Eep's dynamic with the others would be:

Hiccup: he understands overly strong women and would be able to keep up with her. She also has an innocent side to her and would be enthralled with his inventions. She'd just sit there and watch him work 😆

Rapunzel: being that Eep is getting a new friend in Dawn (who reminds me of Rapunzel) in "The Croods 2," I would imagine Rapunzel would also be intrigued with Eep's scars/adventures and Eep would be more than happy to boast.

Merida: their roughness and competitive nature would make them the best frienemies. They'd be closer than ever but do nothing but wrestle and compete.

Jack: like how Eep would boast with Rapunzel, Jack would boast with Eep. She would be in love with Jack's magic and he'd be more than happy to show off.

There really isn't a magical aspect to compare with rotg so the world can still fit into the dynamic here.

Eep is witty, optimistic, energetic, speaks without thinking and fails to plan ahead a lot. Therefore, as a seasonal spirit, Eep would bring spring.

MK – Begins with narration but doesn't really have any at the end. She can add to the groups resources by knowing about the leafmen and the whole mini society, of course.

The magic also stays in line with rotg and it probably helps that the creator of Epic was also the author of the Guardians of Childhood books that inspired rotg. The moon is what blooms the pod, so it's possibly the man in the moon passing his magic into the pod so it gives the next queen her powers.

In the literary dynamic, MK would be the 'city girl' friend-wise and the 'reanforcement' fight-wise. Getting along with the rest would be:

Hiccup: she would be a sense of familiarity with MK's dad being a scientist and Nod's sarcastic nature. Hiccup would also be very intrigued to learn more about the Moonhaven kingdom.

Merida: their stubbornness and being able to understand having a parent that doesn't listen.

Rapunzel: their (new) love for nature and exploring. As well as being able to understand the pain of losing a loved one.

Jack: understanding the feeling of being invisible to the people around you. MK definitely felt this way after her mom died and when her dad wasn't listening. She mentioned how she felt alone to Ronan when he brought up the "many leaves, one tree," line.

I believe she could've been chosen to become a guardian because she did save an entire society and forest. Seasonally, I believe MK would be made into a fall spirit. There are certain places that relate to or even represent the seasons. When you think of Fall, you think of trees. Spring relates to a field/garden, summer relates to a beach and winter relates to just about everything being in snow, but usually frozen bodies of water. She's also very dependable, willing to work, disagreeable and easily irritated. All traits that relate to Autumn.

Mavis – Probably the least workable candidate. There really isn't any narration in this movie and she also doesn't really "find herself" either so her movie criteria don't really work here.

But her character criteria still does. The magic still fits because we know that spirits are created by the man in the moon. If we go by the GoC books, the mim is alien magic. But who's to say that earth didn't have its own magic in the form of monsters (which can also fit for the realm of monsters from Moana.) So the magical dynamic still works.

She could also add to the group by knowing about monsters as well as being a vampire herself. She could turn into a bat or travel as smoke to sneak around places to find information if need be.

She'd fit in literarily as the 'gothic (not so much as personality but by style)' friend-wise and the 'sneak attacker' fight-wise. Getting along with the rest would be:

Jack: there are many takes on the Jack Frost myth and in a few of those takes, he's a monster. The reason for this could be because Jack has come across Hotel Transylvania and the monsters could see him (not being human and all) and he befriended Mavis, knowing she was lonely. They have the same type of fun personality and are both great with balancing tricks. I can imagine Jack getting Mavis into trouble through pranking the hotel guests.

Rapunzel: they'd both be able to understand being locked up in some way by a parent and wanting to travel the world. They both also have naiveties about the real world and would be learning things for the first time together.

Merida: through their daily activities and love for food. I could imagine them trying each other's scream-cheese and haggis😂 I'd also imagine Merida being the one to help Mavis socially catch up.

Hiccup: much like Eep, she'd be incredibly intrigued by Hiccups inventions. I think she'd even try anything to assist him while he's testing certain things. I can imagine him also being the one to help Mavis socially catch up as well.

She's very curious, friendly, energetic and tender-hearted as well as undecided and talkative. So seasonally, she too, would go to spring. She unfortunately can't go into sunlight but there are plants that actually do better in darkness. That would be where she specializes.

I hope you all like this. I hope you find this whole thing very interesting and informational. If you have any other characters you think could add to the big four, I'd love to hear it.

#the big 4 #the big four #rise of the guardians #rise of the brave tangled dragons #rotbtd #how to train your dragon #httyd #tangled #brave #hotel transylvania #the croods #epic #moana

47 notes · View notes

not-delicious-milk · 3 years

Note

yo I'm gonna be a coward. I've read fan fiction since middle school, and during that time I've read some truly cursed things. I personally have tried to avoid reading mentor/student relationships cause they squik me the f out. But I've always been more treat the immortals like they are their apparent physical age for shipping. So people trying to lewd the pre pubescent with the excuse that they're immortal are obviously full of shit. pt 1.

pt.2 but shipping like Rukia/ Ichigo is fine cause they're the same apparent physical age and act with about the same lvl of maturity. While shipping him with Yoruichi would be sketch. So full disclosure I don't ship Sukuna and Megumi, I don't really see them having chemistry, and no one has written anything good enough to change my mind. But it doesn't freak me out like Megumi and Gojo. Would you be willing to write why you don't consider the vampire rule to apply here?

i’m not completely familiar with the vampire rule, but i would assume you mean that apparent age trumps actual age when it lines up with mental and emotional development?

personally, i’m not a huge fan of that train of thought -- i agree that it’s important to consider mental age when it comes to immortals or very, very old entities, but actual age is still important. and that’s because of the whole reason why big age gaps are fucked up, i.e an imbalance of power that can easily be exploited. adults have more experience, influence, and physical maturity than children or teens do, which they can leverage to groom or abuse a younger partner. as much as i will admit to not hating twilight that much (breaking dawn made me want to give myself a lobotomy though) and honestly sort of liking the trope of “human girl in love with an ancient supernatural being” or any variants of that, there’s an important distinction that needs to be made with it so it’s not awful.

the answer has little to do with mental age. it has to do with power dynamics.

for a vampire romance (which i’m just going to use as a general term for these sorts of relationships) it is absolutely necessary for there to be some caveat in place to prevent the supernatural party from just taking advantage of the mortal one. usually we don’t even think about that when reading or watching vampire romances, because how could such a charming creature of the night stoop so low?

but it’s important to note that vampires, in gothic literature, existed to fulfill a very specific role. the repressed victorians loved incorporating taboo subjects into their stories, for the steamy scenes i guess, but couldn’t easily do so within the confines of proper literature. one of those taboo subjects was r*pe, which they both found very hot in a forbidden sort of way and longed to explore in their writing without societal backlash, and if you cast an eye upon dracula or carmilla it’s quite easy to guess where those subjects ended up.

so, for a proper vampire romance, it can’t just end in a straight up kidnapping or taking by force, both because that would be narratively uninteresting and morally corrupt. sometimes there’s a supernatural reason for it, like a protection that the mortal party has to prevent the immortal one from abusing their powers. for example, bella in twilight is immune to telepathy and later develops a shield power against all vampire powers, preventing edward from being able to take advantage of her or invade her privacy any more than he was already doing, fuck you stephanie meyer. sometimes the mortal party has a power of their own that, while relatively useless in situations where the immortal one can swoop in and save them dramatically, is very useful against said immortal party for whatever reason. for example, kagome’s status as the reincarnation of the priestess migoriko would theoretically prevent inuyasha from harming her; in a more explicit example, nanami from kamisama kiss holds absolute divine control over tomoe and could order him to stop if ever he tried anything she didn’t like. although there’s an age gap in those stories, it doesn’t feel like it, not just because of the immortal party’s mental age but because of their inability to take advantage of said gap.

can you see where this is going?

megumi/gojo is absolutely foul -- there’s the grooming aspect, the fact gojo knew megumi when he was five and practically raised him as a father, and the implicit power imbalance of a teacher/student relationship. there’s no question as to why it’s so repulsive to think about.

megumi/sukuna is equally repulsive, but really only when it exists in fan works. in the canon, sukuna doesn’t have the opportunity to so much as interact with megumi most of the time, let alone take advantage of him, and yuuji would stop that before it ever happened. it feels like a classic vampire romance because the power imbalance should, theoretically, be nerfed by outside circumstances. of course this isn’t the case in any sukufushi fanworks, because it would obviously be boring for sukuna to respect megumi’s boundaries and also to not date a fucking 15 year old from inside the body of another 15 year old, jesus christ. in sukufushi fanworks, which as i’ve stated is the only place sukufushi even exists, there is always something cancelling out the restraints placed on sukuna’s power, whether it be that he has his own body, takes advantage of “enchain”, is able to take control of yuuji’s body on his own, yuuji lets him out for whatever reason, it doesn’t matter.

there’s always something like that because sukufushi doesn’t exist as a vampire romance, it exists as something more like tentacle p*rn.

that’s not a sentence i ever thought i’d write, but i think it makes sense? it’s not supposed to be an actual relationship, it’s more like wish fulfillment for people with degradation and pain kinks. in sukufushi fan works, sukuna wields absolute power over megumi and takes full advantage of the age gap and power gap between them. just like how tentacle p*rn strips away the right to refuse in the face of absolute alien power and a language barrier that keeps consent from being withdrawn, sukufushi strips away megumi’s right to refuse in the face of absolute curse power and sukuna’s inability to take “no” for an answer. this is why all explicit sukufushi fics end with megumi being r*ped or nearly r*ped.

please don’t ask me how i know all of this. sometimes good fanfics have sukufushi scenes in them and i have to like, scroll past the paragraphs really fast to get back to the plot. it’s just that omnipresent.

in other words, megumi/gojo is more grounded in “reality” (not the reality of a functional teacher/student relationship, but the reality of a 28 year old man really being 28 years old) and absent of vampire romance justifications for the age gap. it feels gross because it is and also because there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be.

megumi/sukuna doesn’t feel that way at first, especially if you mainly see sort of canon compliant shipping of it. it’s really common and also never commented on when people joke about sukuna having a “crush” on megumi based on his lines of dialogue when he says he’s curious about him or whatnot. that obeys vampire romance rules, so it doesn’t feel weird. sukuna really doesn’t want to kill or harm megumi because he’s important to his plans later, so that’s out. yuuji would never let sukuna touch megumi with a 10 foot pole either, so that’s out. really their only interactions are hypothetical, besides that one time in shibuya, and even then literally nothing happened. sukuna didn’t want his pawn to break yet, that’s all. even when people overanalyze it they can’t really get any farther than “looks like someone’s got a crush on fushigurooooo” because that’s the farthest it can go.

if you start looking into sukufushi fanart or fanfics, which is about 95% of the content for sukufushi anyway because again, it’s not supported by the canon at all, vampire romance is replaced unceremoniously by tentacle p*rn. which is why i hate it so much.

thank you for coming to my ted talk

22 notes · View notes

aelinbitch-archive · 5 years

Note

You've probably said this before but what's your favorite aspect of the TOG series? I've only read like ten pages of the first book lol

aaaaa thank u for asking!! this sort of leads into something i’ve been meaning to talk about for a while so i hope you’re prepared for An Essay No One Wanted By Me. anyway this is a two-part answer, read below:

1. Aelin. Celaena. The main bitch, whatever you wanna call her lol. Without her I probably wouldn’t have cared about the series at all and wouldn’t currently be trapped in ToG tumblr hell reluctantly stanning a racist and homophobic series, but unfortunately when I was like twelve years old or whatever and read the first book I literally imprinted on Celaena like a baby duckling. To the extent that she became, like, the default avatar for all my maladaptive daydreaming and If I Don’t Project On Her At All Times I Will Die. It’s not like she’s the only thing I like about the series (I loooove a lot of the other characters, especially the gals, and the writing can be really great and engaging and cinematic) but Aelin has always been the supermassive black hole at the center of it all for me. I wouldn’t know how to even begin untangling her character from my psyche at this point. It’s honestly a little disturbing. Anyway.

2. Part two is a quality of the series that I feel was unprecedented in its strength in the first five books of the series (ToG-QoS plus the prequel novellas) and really really disappointingly weak in the last two books (EoS-KoA). Like I said above, Aelin has always been my main interest in tog so I read and enjoyed the last two anyway, but I definitely felt the loss of this - “this” being the detail and attention paid to all different types of relationships between characters, and how rich and unpredictable those relationships were as a result.

That sounds like kind of a broad, vague thing, but what I mean is that (in my opinion) rarely are romances and friendships and rivalries explored with such nuance, complexity, drama, and realism in most YA as they are in ToG. I remember reading Cassandra Clare’s books (lmao.) as a pre teen and loving those as well, but totally being able to predict who was going to end up with who, and finding the character dynamics to be pretty cut and dry.

In ToG that’s not the case at all. Like, you’ve got Celaena and Sam, a really complex example of enemies to lovers to….. Tragically Dead Boyfriend Whose Demise Fuels My Guilt and Self-Hatred For Seven More Books, Lysandra and Aelin, two girls pitted against each other by their abuser who team up a year later to unlearn their internalized misogyny and kill him, and Aelin and Chaol, who… how do I even describe the ups and downs (and downs. and more downs) of their relationship.

And that’s just three pairs! Pull the names of two characters out of a hat and I can almost guarantee essays worth of material could be written about them. Arobynn and Aelin? Aelin and Nehemia? Chaol and Dorian, as much as I hate both of them and feel that their relationship as been widely mischaracterized? All fascinating!!! No two people in those first few books are just friends, or just lovers, or just enemies. It’s always more complex, there’s always a history or tension or competing agendas or viewpoints that Fuck Shit Up.

And benefit of that is twofold: one, everything that happens between the characters just…. lands so well. The betrayals and triumphs and losses and victories of The Assassin’s Blade and Crown of Midnight and Queen of Shadows (especially TAB) are fucking heart-stopping. It’s great character-driven entertainment!! Gripping and engaging and vivid to the point of being painful.

And two, there’s no way to predict where a relationship is going to go. Aelin and Lysandra teaming up in QoS instead of returning to their rivalry? Who would have thought! Ansel and Celaena’s summer fling (they were in love. fight me.) ending like That? Holy fuck. Nesryn and Chaol breaking up in ToD? Oh shit! I fell for it again! Rowan and Aelin ending up together after everyone swore they were brotp in HoF? Hell yeah! Chaolaena seeming like endgame and then ending forever, with Chaol and Aelin realizing that the rift between them that began in CoM was something that would never sufficiently heal? Unprecedented. Fucking badass for a YA book to curve everyone like that. Tween me was shook out of her mind.

(Important to note, though, that the downside of this style was that SJM couldn’t tell where ~unpredictable relationships and characters~ ended and fridging began, and as a result, not one but two woc were killed off to make white characters sad and it sucked beyond belief).

Aaaaaand then QoS, the peak of literature, turned into EoS, and SJM just… gave up on all of that. I remember the first time Dorian and Manon met, and I was like oh, okay. So they’re going to end up together. And I was right. I remember that on this site, before EoS came out, before Lorcan and Elide ever fucking MET, people predicted the existence of Elorcan!! And they were right!! Like how fucking boring? Everyone is just paired off into completely predictable heterosexual ships and those are now the only relationships we get to read about (with a few exceptions, like Aelin/Aedion, Aelin/Fenrys, etc.).

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: my least favorite thing about Manorian is not that I find the relationship to be shitty (although I do, I really do). It’s that Dorian is suddenly the only character Manon gets to interact with in any meaningful way.

Like, are you kidding?! I want to read about Manon and Elide, Manon and Asterin, Rowan and Lorcan, Aelin and Lysandra, Aelin and Nesyrn, even if it’s not romantically (although some of them, like Manon and Elide, absolutely should have been, and the fact that not only was that ship very thoroughly sunk, but also they didn’t even get to TALK after QoS, felt like a real slap in the face to gay fans, but I digress), because those pairings previously had hella complexity and drama. But we don’t get to.

And this trend that’s so painfully present in the last two books Sucks for two reasons: one, every relationship that isn’t romantic (which were previously some of the most interesting ones) is abandoned so that more time can be made for The Hets™ and two, the relationships that are romantic, now the only ones left, are totally fucking boring and predictable!! If two characters are interacting at any point (if one is male and the other is female, of course) then you know for a fact that they’re not only love interests, but endgame.

And that makes me not care even when there is drama between them. Elide giving Lorcan the cold-shoulder for three hundred pages, and Manon and Dorian arguing, and Aedion being cruel to Lysandra weren’t compelling narratives to me like they should have been, because the whole time I was just thinking “but it doesn’t matter. I know it’s still endgame. There are no stakes here whatsoever; it’s a done deal.” Whereas Chaol and Celaena’s devestating breakup in CoM felt like (and was) suuuuper Real. An all-in bet on the wrong person. Crazy shit.

And not that I think two characters should never have a happy ending together (I really like rowaelin and nestaq and I would have loved malide!) but imagine how much cooler and subversive and entertaining it would have been if Elorcan, which seemed soooo totally cute and endgamey and borderline like fanfiction throughout all of EoS just ended forever right there and then on the beach, with Elide turning to Lorcan and saying “I hope you spend the rest of your miserable, immortal life suffering. I hope you spend it alone. I hope you live with regret and guilt in your heart and never find a way to endure it” - and BAM. She never speaks to him again. He’s dead to her.

I mean, talk about shock value! (See, Sarah, you can have shock value without killing of a person of color to make a white character sad 🙃). And I totally get that relational twists like that alienate fans more than just going the expected route and having them kiss and make-up does (I mean, the ending of Chaolaena in QoS certainly did, Jesus Christ) but I, Bella aelinbitch, personally live for that shit, and isn’t it only fair that all media cater directly and specifically to me? Lmao. But seriously, I do think it’s objectively more interesting, and that it keeps readers on their toes (I was on my ASS in EoS and KoA. Like. I was flat on my back sinking into the Earth).

And there are still sort of… glimmers of the old way she wrote in the first few books, but it just feels like a tease rather than something that’s really explored and indulged in the way it was before, and it just ends up being more frustrating (like what was the point of Manon and Dorian not getting married at the end of KoA if I would bet my life savings that in World of Tog it’ll be confirmed that they’re either married or still together) and sometimes downright problematic? Like to return to a previous example, I think all the drama between Aedion + Lysandra was a result of Sarah’s previous (good) instincts to shake stuff up and complicate the character dynamics, but it backfires because when they end up together, it’s not ever… worked out? Or addressed? If you create really intense drama between two people, then that needs to show up in their relationship, no matter how happy they end up together. It doesn’t just disappear.

And despite the fact that her understanding of that concept (that shit between two people doesn’t just disappear like magic) is one of my absolute favorite things about the first few books, Sarah even went as far as to use the last two books to retcon some of the original complexity away, which makes me want to rip out my hair!! Like Aelin at the end of KoA just going “Love you Chaol and Love you Dorian xoxoxoxoxox best friends forever!!!” instead of having, like, any type of mixed feelings about the way these boys treated her? I mean, come on! 100 pages earlier Chaol was openly saying she should die instead of Dorian! Why is everything just peachy-keen instead of fraught with tension!! (I know why. I know. It’s because she introduced way too many characters/POVs/storylines as the series went on and didn’t know what to do with them all besides sideline the nonromantic ones and pair off everyone else boy-girl boy-girl down the line). Or if it has to be peachy-keen, why is the peachy-keeness never critically examined as, perhaps, a repressive mechanism for Aelin to avoid dealing with painful truths from her past? Now that would be interesting.

(My ideal World of ToG would be just a transcript of the characters’ therapy sessions where Aelin realizes that her insistence that “Chaol and Dorian Are Her Friends!” is actually a way to keep herself safe emotionally and that she has plenty of reasons to hate them, and Lysandra realizes she should divorce Aedion lmao).

Anyway tldr: The variety, complexity, depth, and unpredictability of the relationships in Throne of Glass was simultaneously the most realistic (sometimes relationships of all kinds fall apart or veer off in unexpected directions and love is temporary and the boy you met in the first chapter isn’t actually your soulmate and it doesn’t mean he’s a villain) and the most gripping and dramatic (I would have been totally chill if maeve and erawan weren’t a thing and tog was just like a medieval soap opera, that’s how entertaining the character dynamics were) thing about the series, and to lose that in the last two books because of Heterosexuality (and introducing too many POVs and not knowing what to do with them all)…. kinda devastating.

This ended up being waaaaaay more complaining than it was talking about what I loved, but the only reason it bothers me so much is because it used to be so good!!! So just imagine the inverse of all the frustration I just vomited into this ask and you’ll have a good idea of how much I loved the series when things weren’t this way.

#im SO sorry for how shittily worded/ranty/emotional/long this is but *antoni from queer eye voice* a shitty YA series is actually something #that can be so personal...#greatest hits: hot takes

27 notes · View notes

kingofthewilderwest · 7 years

Note

I've thought about "the Astrid thing" quite a bit too, and realized something. Astrid is only the 'stone cold dragon-killer' in the beginning of the first movie because that's what she thinks she has to be. She isn't a little kid anymore, so she has to be like the other adults. Once she isn't forced by circumstance to be a 'tough warrior woman', her real personality and interests start to shine through. Hiccup gave ALL the people of Berk the opportunity to be more than just warriors.

Ooh, nice! Thank you so much for sharing these good thoughts! One of the things I have always found fascinating about Astrid is her adaptability. One of Astrid’s key strengths is being able to meld and succeed in society.

As you point out, in the first HTTYD, Astrid was in the midst of war and she took that very seriously. She trained from a young age preparing for the day when her parents’ war became her personal responsibility. Thus, Astrid became the very model of a warrior - because that was also the very model of a Berk citizen at the time.

But as you also wonderfully point out, when those war circumstances change, Astrid adapts, too. She becomes talented, successful, and gifted in Berk’s remodeled dragontopia society. Other Vikings like Mildew and Gobber struggled to transition from a culture of war against dragons to a culture of bonding with dragons. Astrid, however, continued forth to be one of Berk’s most spectacular, model citizens again... this time as a woman promoting peace between humans and dragons, and as a woman with some of the greatest dragon riding skills of her tribe.

That said, it is to note that even though Hiccup revolutionized Viking society in many ways, he didn’t replace it with something wholly new. The Hairy Hooligans still retain many aspects of their warrior ways. Even after finding peace between humans and dragons, it’s clear the Hairy Hooligans still train for dangerous times... in Riders of Berk and Race to the Edge we see Hiccup and his friends sparring... in How to Train Your Dragon 2 itself we notice a marked increase in Hiccup’s abilities to handle weapons like the bow and arrow. That would only occur if Hiccup had continued to use these skills (and while bows can be used for hunting, the main meat consumables on Berk have clearly been shown to be fish, livestock, and livestock products). When Drago is sighted near Berk, Stoick’s first reaction is to prepare for war... and the Hairy Hooligans certainly are prepared for this possibility. The dragon bunkers, while convenient in peace time, also work amazingly well for an island under siege or attack. Old habits are going to die hard, and society isn’t going to be completely rewritten in five years.

Astrid is no longer limited to a life of fighting dragons, fighting dragons, fighting dragons. I totally agree! And she is able to explore other personal interests that appear to make her calmer and happier. Astrid by HTTYD 2 is much more relaxed, carefree, and upbeat than in the first HTTYD when she was so adamant to defender her people. So drifting away from a purely warrior society has helped her emotionally.

The reason Astrid was so upset and tetchy in HTTYD is a complex thing and we likely don’t know everything. But we do at least know Astrid had personal desires to regain family honor (Defenders of Berk’s Fright of Passage). She still carried the residue with her even a year after Hiccup and Toothless bonded. To get beyond that painful legacy of dishonor was one big thing that helped Astrid relax.

Astrid is also a competitive individual. It’s possible that anyone besting her at different things - not just to become the greatest warrior - would have gotten her grumpy. Of course we know that she was snappish at Hiccup at the start of HTTYD in large part because she took the war seriously, but the competitive side of her also played out (as we can see when Hiccup started getting good at Dragon Training, and she still didn’t get along with him).

I also might suggest that Astrid - while she hung out with Fishlegs, Tuffnut, Ruffnut, and Snotlout - at first did not seem very invested in their company. Watching the first HTTYD, it’s to note that she’s with them but not extremely invested in the group dynamics. When Astrid and Hiccup became closer, and the dragon riders grew into greater friends, Astrid would have been able to loosen up more due to bettered social circumstances. Again, that’s not from being in a warrior society, but a different matter.

Last is also just when we mature, we tend to be able to handle certain circumstances better. That which aggravated Astrid when she was a teenager she was much better equipped to handle at an older age.

Anyway! It’s still a point that moving beyond a world where Vikings fought dragons helped Astrid emotionally - both through direct and indirect ways.

Of course being a warrior is still within Astrid’s legitimate personal interests. She’s no longer the angry warrior woman she was at the start of HTTYD, but she’s still a dedicated warrior and loves to live that side of her. She practices hard, she has incredible athletic stunts to show it, and she pursues a life in many ways that shows her as a warrior. In Race to the Edge she joins the Berk guard. And it’s even implied at the end of The Serpent’s Heir that Astrid may step up to be one of Berk’s leading war strategists.

So Astrid will always be a warrior in her soul and will step up to fight when she needs to fight. But Berk is more than a world of torched houses and daily battles. And as Berk has grown, so also has Astrid.

#long post #httyd2 #httyd #Astrid #httyd 2 #How to Train Your Dragon 2 #How to Train Your Dragon #analysis #my analysis #ask #ask me #awesome anonymous friend #Anonymous

70 notes · View notes

ramajmedia · 5 years

Text

Kingdom Of The White Wolf Interview | Screen Rant

National Geographic photographer and explorer Ronan Donovan talks with Screen Rant about his journey to the arctic for the three-part event series Kingdom of the White Wolf. The series provides an unprecedented look into the lives of some extraordinary animals, as Donovan gets up close and personal with a species integral to the Arctic’s complex eco system, and also one that is misunderstood, or perhaps not understood enough. The result is a series that turns its subjects into real characters and their survival into one of the most compelling narratives on TV.

But Kingdom of the White Wolf is more than another nature documentary. By making Donovan and his photography a central part of the series itself, the program becomes a hybrid of sorts, fusing top-notch filmmaking with some truly gorgeous photographs, captured while the series itself unfolds. As such, Kingdom of the White Wolf offers a fascinating viewing experience, one that simultaneously tells the story of a pack of white wolves and the individual documenting them.

More: This Way Up Review: A Sweet, Sad, & Funny Look At Starting Over

In addition to speaking with Donovan to hear firsthand how the series came together, Screen Rant has two exclusive clips from the series. The first demonstrates how the wolves communicate, with their familiar and seemingly pensive howls. The second, offers a rare glimpse at a wolf pack forming and becoming a formidable hunting party. As Donovan notes, the predators are put in a strange predicament where, in order to eat, they must first venture into harm’s way. Check out the pack formation and wolf calls clips below, along with the interview with National Geographic Explorer Ronan Donovan.

youtube

I wanted to start off by congratulating you on having the coolest job in the world. I also wanted to ask, is that notion difficult to process when you're out there actually doing what I assume is the difficult work of exploring and documenting nature in this way?

I mean the actual work is very hard, like physically, emotionally demanding. I mean, this last assignment in the Arctic, I tore the meniscus in both my knees throughout the assignment. The first one in my left knee in the first month of the project. I just had to walk it off and get on with it. And then I tore the second knee like three weeks before the end. I knew I did awful things to them, but I didn't really have much of an option to get help or stop working, because I had a lot of pressure on myself. So you know, it's a common sentiment that it's like, you know, this is a really amazing job, but it also has its great challenges as well. And that was definitely one of them for this last assignment.

How long are you actually out there following these subjects and what does that experience give you in terms of understanding these animals in their habitat? And then conversely, what do you learn about yourself when you're out there?

Just following the animals and the subjects, the set up was, essentially there were two other guys on the team and we had a base camp that we set up that was about 20 miles away from the core range of this main pack of wolves. And so basically we had four wheelers to be able to keep up with the wolves, as well as carry the equipment, you know 150 pounds of equipment. Food, tent, your sleeping stuff and then another two full gas tanks in fuel cans to be able to keep up. So everything dictated how much the wolves were going to move. I had about 250 miles that I could get out of all the gas that I had in the machine that I would carry.

youtube

You could do three or four days typically, because the wolves would just travel and then you'd have to make sure you didn't run out of fuel before you got back to camp. The longest day was 65 miles following the wolves continuously, while they hunted over the course of 40 hours. And that was the longest day that I did out there and it was just utterly exhausting. You know the sun's up the whole time. So you have this weird kind of ball of energy that never sets, and that's backed by all the continuous movement. You're on this machine, you're not sitting down, you're in the horse riding stance, getting bucked around on awful terrain. So you can't exactly fall asleep. It's not like driving a car where I could never last more than 20 hours driving a car straight because you're comfortable and you fall asleep.

The machine and the pace and following the wolves just keeps you up; it propels you to keep going. And they're hunting and you're having to try to document that, because it's one of the peak physical, mental evolutionary aspects of the animal's life that makes them what they are, and you're trying to capture all this. So that was what would keep me up and driving and doing horrible things to my body. What I learned about myself from doing this project is some of the things that make me really good at my job, which is kind of a stubborn drive to achieve and succeed and document and share these animal stories. That stubborn drive is also ... it can be a bit self-defeating in the sense that self care is really challenging, I think, on these longterm field projects. Just the physical aspects of it. I've harped on that a lot, but it's ... For this assignment it was by far the hardest all around and most demanding, physically and emotionally.

Additionally, I've never done television before and there was a lot of pressure involved; people went to bat for me a lot on this project, to give me this opportunity. It's big budgets. There's obviously big expectations and so there was a lot of that in my mind throughout. But that was interspersed with these incredible wildlife moments where you get to witness an animal that's rarely seen by anyone and even more rarely seen in its relaxed state, essentially just being wild wolves and ignoring my presence the whole time. And that was just an incredible opportunity and treat to be able to have that experience.

It's incredibly interesting watching the way the wolves were aware of you being there but didn't seem to really react to you all that much. Can you talk about the process of following the wolves around and getting to know them individually, and eventually earning their trust enough that you can insert yourself into situations they're in without distracting them from what they're trying to do?

Initially, locating wolves, you're trying to find a wolf den. We used a helicopter for that process, just trying to cover a bunch of ground looking for these green patches in the landscape, which are indicative of a den that's been fertilized by urine and feces for hundreds of years on a pretty barren tundra desert-like landscape that doesn't have very much in the way of nutrients. So the wolves, just by being there and creating a den, create this lush little Eden spot on what's typically a brown landscape. So you find the den and then maybe it'll be active, maybe not. In this case, in the first episode, all the dens we found were all iced in and there were no wolves.

That added a freakout of like, 'Oh gosh, I just said I could do this project, that I can find wolves, and I can't.' And then once we did find a den with pups, it was in this far away valley, and it was pretty sandy soil, so it must not have had the same weather event. The rain event didn't affect it and it wasn't frozen in. That's why they were able to use that den. After that, it was just... gaining their trust is just a series of neutral encounters with them, because there's nowhere to hide, you're not trying to sneak up. It's not like you're sitting in a blind or a hide, which is typical of some of the other wildlife work where you're actually trying to keep yourself hidden.

You just present yourself and they react accordingly. They're going to be curious probably about what you're doing because they've never been shot at or they've never had a negative encounter with people. Some of the wolves maybe have never seen people, especially the younger ones, at least the pups. They have no reason to fear anything other than other wolves and the occasional polar bear. So therefore, they're going to be curious about anything else. So that's how they saw me. And that's how they see humans as just kind of this interesting third animal in a landscape. We're not a threat, we're not seen as prey; we're just kind of another animal out there in some ways. It's a fascinating perception of what wolves think of humans in this part of the Arctic. They're not scared of us and they don't see us as prey.

Much of the first episode delves into the ways in which the pack has a social dynamic and cares for one another or shows affection toward one another. It also underlines the role that the wolves play in maintaining the ecosystem around them. In what way do you think the series will help dispel some misconceptions about these wolves and help create a new image for them?

Yeah, I mean the main goal is to showcase a wild family of wolves that can exist in its own ecosystem, its own place, be a positive force in the landscape and have no negative encounter with people. Which is the honest story about how wolves have lived for tens of thousands of years and that it's only in recent times in human history where we as humans started to domesticate the animals that wolves prey on: sheep, goats, cattle. And then we came into conflict with the wolves because we wanted to eat the same thing. And so, on Ellesmere Island, there're no people who live there and raise livestock, and there is no competition with human hunters there, which is another conflict of the wolf/human relationship. And so it's this really exciting place just to show what wild wolves are like, without this haze, this cloud of human interaction.

What I hope people will take away from it is seeing how intimate wolves can be among themselves, just in their family structure. How sweet they are to the pups, how sweet they are with each other. They have need to communicate and cooperate in order to achieve something together that they can't do on their own, which is why people live in social groups, because we can do greater things as a group than we can on our own. Trying to highlight those similarities, which is kind of the first step in empathy and understanding that humans are capable of when we're trying to understand other people, other cultures, and extending that into animals as well.

You were out there for quite some time documenting these wolves, and I'm sure you had a lot of experiences that maybe didn't make the actual final cut of the series. For you personally, what was the most surprising thing you came across in the process of making this series and in your time documenting these wolves?

One of the most incredible experiences and striking that didn't make it in, was the longest follow day where it was, 40 hours straight and 65 miles that we covered. This was after the matriarch female had disappeared from the pack, so the pack was in a little bit of disarray. They waited around for a number of days to see if she'd come back, and they got hungry so they had to go out and hunt. They brought the pups along that were about 12 weeks old at that time. And they went on this 65-mile jaunt, which is a really long way for little pup legs, and the adults were exhausted and the pups were dragging behind, whimpering and howling while they're running, and having this really, really hard experience.

Later, the adults were hunting multiple herds of muskox, just testing them and failing. One of the wolves actually got smashed and steamrolled and stampeded, before getting up and trying to find another herd of muskox to test. And this was over 40 hours. They killed two Arctic hares that the adults wouldn't share with the pups because the adults were ravenous at that point. And kind of the code is: if the adults don't eat then there's no way the pups are going to get food. So the adults have to be strong and healthy in order to find more food for the pups.

Then there was this really tense moment where [the wolves] went from sea level up to 2,500 feet over this mountain dropdown, this dramatic icy chute on the edge of this mountain. I thought they all died because it was ice. I couldn't follow them. It took me an hour and a half to get around the mountain to get back to them. I was thinking that at least a few of the pups must have died in this avalanche chute, basically. But I found them again, and they were all just curled up sleeping and taking a nap. They were totally fine.

That was just one of the most impressive feats of animal physical fitness, as well as seeing how they stay together as a cohesive pack. They didn't leave any pups behind. They didn't leave any other adults behind. They stayed together through a really challenging session and eventually they made another kill a couple of days later and had a really good feed. That was kind of heartwarming to think that they were able to keep going and function as a pack without their matriarch.

One of the things that's really interesting about this series, is that it;s about the wolves, but on another secondary level, you and your photography become another aspect of the story. How does that work and how do you balance directing the audience and becoming a part of the story in this way. How does that work for you?

Yeah, I mean that's not my happy place I would say [laughs]. This whole project came out of my wanting to do a magazine story as a photographer for National Geographic Magazine. The editor that I've worked with my entire five years at National Geographic, said to me, 'I would love to do this story. We just no longer have the budget to do this.' She said, "But you know, TV has those budgets. They're right across the hall. Let's go over and see what's possible.' So this whole project came out of our desire, myself and the editor, to do a magazine story, a photography story. And then it went through a couple of iterations and they asked would if I would be willing to go up there with a big crew and do this whole production and all this, and that's not the way to do it.

So they turned that down and then eventually they asked if I would be willing to be on camera as one of the characters and be filmed doing the process. And I agreed. But you know, I never aspired to do television, to be on TV. I don't own a TV. I don't watch Nat Geo WILD. It's not like it was this goal of mine, to always do something like this. I wanted to tell the story of wild wolves, but I realized that television is the widest audience for consuming these types of wildlife stories. I wish the magazine had more of a following than it currently does, but that's just the nature of print media. And so I saw an opportunity in agreeing to be on camera and to be filmed doing my process as a photographer and filmmaker as a way to reach a wider audience.

One of the hardest balances for me in this project was that I'm also a wildlife cameraman, so I filmed half of the natural history for this series. And trying to juggle photographing for the magazine - because there's a story out in the current [September 2019] issue on the wolves - then also having to film for this TV series was really hard. There was another full time dedicated director of photography up there, his role was to film me during the process and then also to film natural history. And so the two of us would kind of shift back and forth. But that was hard. That was hard for me. Additionally, I was by myself a lot, so I wasn't able to do side-by-side video and photo. As a result, there were several moments where I had to choose what it was going to be. 'Is this going to be a sequence of photos or going to be a sequence of film?' That was a balance that was hard for me.

Where do you go from here? What is your next project that you're working on, if you are working on anything at the moment?

Yeah, well the immediate project is going back and trying to find that same pack again, but in winter. I always wanted to go see the wolves in winter. The powers that be were cautious about that, and they wanted to do this initial round in the summer and to see how it goes. It really comes down to how well this show rates. If it does well then I am going to push to go back in winter because these Arctic wolves, they're white wolves, they evolved on a predominantly snowy white landscape and they're at their strongest in winter, when their prey, the muskox, are at their weakest. So I want to see that. I want to go up there when it's negative 30 in February and the sun is just coming up from the horizon for the first time in five months when the wolves have these big, huge, bushy winter coats, and they're hunting muskox, which are tired and weak and there's breath and blood and white landscape. It would would just be gorgeous.

Next: The Righteous Gemstones Review: Pitch Perfect Performances Elevate An Overstuffed Premiere

Kingdom of the White Wolf premieres Sunday, August 25 @8pm on Nat Geo WILD.

source https://screenrant.com/kingdom-white-wolf-interview-ronan-donovan-nat-geo-wild/

#screenrant

0 notes