#asoiaf youtubers

[horizon-verizon]

A Response to Ozymalek’s Video on HotD’s Alicent Hightower

LINK to Video on Youtube, “Let's talk about Alicent Hightower...”

This was my comment on their video, specifically responding to them answering the hypothetical of a company asking them to make Alicent a more “sympathetic” character than she was portrayed in the book (skip to 9:07):

Your "sympathetic Alicent" sounds much better. If Alicent were Aemma's lady in waiting and another mother figure to Rhaenyra or at least matronly towards her, Rhaenyra's loss of a mother would make her emotionally more needful of Alicent's presence and they would spend more time together. Perhaps Alicent even becomes Rhaenyra's l-i-w. Viserys, in visiting Rhaenyra, sees Alicent and has more conversation with her than before when she was serving Aemma as Alicent as Aemma's "peer" of age. Having been physically closer to her, Alicent can regale Viserys with moments and memories of Aemma, which would comfort Viserys and bring them closer. 

Thus we still have the element of semi-seediness and feeling conflicted for both parties (maybe in this version, Alicent loved or cared for Aemma very much). Thus they have a noncoercive emotional bond that still presents an uncomfortable storyline that audiences contend with: the show could have asked: “Is this right, when Alicent was Aemma's l-i-w? But they like each other, but then Alicent may have a son. Is Rhaenyra going to be disinherited before she ever reaches adulthood, and through her own mother figure? Will Rhaenyra lose another mother? Was this Alicent's plan (even semiconscious) all along? Where does her ambition start and her love for him end?” Etc. 

As for Rhaenyra, I think that to some people, the sense of betrayal may not come as sharp as between childhood friends because she already sees Alicent as a mother figure and just lost her mother, she might be grateful for that. Or because they think that mother-daughter figures where "mother" betrays the "daughter" is somehow less poignant or serious than two female peers doing it....but no, it has its own pain and is still a mighty betrayal. It's an adult hurting a child AND having had some sort of genuine connection with her before. Which makes the betrayal as damaging and as terrible as it is. But what makes up for that (or what else, rather than "makes up, "to the careful observer) is Rhaenyra's fear of being replaced--politically and emotionally, being “abandoned” by both matron figure, actual mother, and father all at once.

And what about Alicent, now smarter, thinking of the future and the happenstance of her birthing a boy? Does she now spend less and less time with Rhaenyra, semi/intentionally separating herself from her? To make it juicy, yes she does, and intentionally. Thus the break between "mother-daughter" occurs even before Viserys marries Alicent, as each woman sees the other's ambition and priorities. She and Alicent can get into actual public debates and confrontations even before Alicent marries Viserys because 15-year-old Rhaenyra sees the writing on the wall. If she is 9, like in the book, Alicent could still try to separate herself from Rhaenyra, or a change worth exploring is that she actually does try to foster goodwill between them so that later when she fights for Aegon's claim, Rhaenyra is more conflicted and caught off guard (in Alicent's perspective). 

What's even juicier is that 9-yr old Rhaenyra perhaps feels more and more, as she grows, Alicent's duplicity and lack of earnestness in her regard and affection before and after marrying Viserys. Children are people, they can still feel ill will or impatience from adults and this itself could make a stifling environment for Rhaenyra, and set up her self-doubt. This woman has always cared for me and she loves my mother, aren't I betraying her by questioning her intentions? That sort of thing. The queen's party is small and discreet until Alicent accidentally shows her hand or Rhaenyra hears what happens with Otto's dismissal and hears Alicent vie for Aegon. 

 The point is there is a break. Here is still room for feelings of betrayal that are also suppressed, by both women/girls. After Viserys shows how he doesn't want Aegon despite Alicent caring for him and building an actual relationship with him, she grows resentful while also feeling it her duty to be emotionally accommodating to a degree and out of Viserys' line of sight. Most of the time. Sometimes, she can't help but direct her resentment to Rhaenyra through innuendoes, subtle insults, recriminations for slouching, looking a certain way, acting "unseemly", etc. Because maybe she convinces herself that as the Queen and Rhaenyra's stepmother, she has a duty to "guide" her toward that only "right" way of dress, thinking, etc. Meanwhile, she's not being totally honest with herself and is actually trying to break Rhaenyra down while gathering her own supporters. Before Viserys dismisses her suggestion to marry Rhaenyra to Aegon, she thinks that she's molding Rhaenyra to be a good woman for her son. 

Thus leading to Rhaenyra's red/black dress moment, and Alicent reacting to that by also declaring her party's color, green. I think we can still have Otto being emotionally abusive towards Alicent from her childhood, and inserting even more motivation for her wanting power, some of her attraction for Viserys, and wanting her son on the throne. It doesn't have to be all about Otto hurting her and wanting power over him, escaping him, or surpassing him (though that would be still part of it). 

So then we’d have a better narrative and concrete scenes in her childhood/adolescence of her anxiety growing and growing, more than what we got in the show. She may also just want power that the average noblewoman/woman of Andal-descent families get and feel justified in wanting such power by serving Aemma, being Rhaenyra's role model (in her eyes), and bringing comfort to Viserys. Like Catelyn, Alicent could have had a living contradiction in her belief that she, as a woman, was entitled to decision-making power, but through her son and husband being paths to that power denied to her. Using as well misogynist principles to place herself on top. That need for power would itself be corrupting.

blankwhiteshield says this:

You can have an irredeemable and evil character that the patriarchy still suppresses and affects the psychology of immensely, rendering her a bigger monster. The commentary on the destructive capacity of static social constructs is not lost as a result. A character can turn into the devil of the story due to a world that ceaselessly strips her of her humanity, as well as as a result of the choices she actively makes.

[hylora]

Daenerys hypothetical meeting with Young Griff/"Aegon", commissioned by Crusader Chris for his amazing video about Daenerys.

Please follow him, his content is amongst the best ASOIAF on Youtube !!!!

[marwyn]

Daenerys by Katherine Dinger for A Game of Thrones card game

[catofoldstones]

Even if grrm had gone through with his original outline and had sansa marry joffrey and have his kids, I would still be defending sansa with my breath and blood, if not more vehemently. She’s still a prisoner of war, trapped and caged, and still forced to marry her political enemy, but this time someone who is sadistic and a million times more entitled. Even worse, she’s forced to have his kids and then when she tries to protect their interests, she’s labelled a traitor. Which she still is in TikToks labelled “did you know sansa betrays her family by having Lannister children in the original outline” and then there will be comments like I knew I always hated this bitch for a reason and salsa was only made for conflict within the starks and she’s so annoying at least George had the correct idea first, and all of that will make you rage bite your pillow so hard your jaw hurts but still won’t make it any better. All I meant is, original outline sansa is a much sadder story and still not the fucking villain. That girl is the priest’s favourite sacrificial lamb.

[rise-my-angel]

So uhhh...is every asoiaf youtuber just allergic to meaningfully criticizing the Targaryeans? Everytime one of these people says something negative about any of them they go "now dont get me wrong I LOVE THE TARGARYEANS AND ALL....BUT...."

And I'm just sitting here like...

If you're going to critize the Targaryeans just critize them, I beg of you.

[visenyaism]

yeah they got me here see y’all in the summer

[witchy-v1xen]

𖤐⭒๋࣭ ⭑♛𖤐𝕋ℍ𝔼 ℚ𝕌𝔼𝔼ℕ 𝕄𝕆𝕋ℍ𝔼ℝ 𝔸𝕃𝕀ℂ𝔼ℕ𝕋 ℍ𝕀𝔾ℍ𝕋𝕆𝕎𝔼ℝ 𝕆𝔽 𝕋ℍ𝔼 𝕊𝔼𝕍𝔼ℕ 𝕂𝕀ℕ𝔾𝔻𝕆𝕄𝕊𖤐♛𖤐⭒๋࣭ ⭑

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘦? 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘶𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺? 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦? 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯!" - 𝒜𝓁𝒾𝒸𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝐻𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉𝑜𝓌𝑒𝓇

ℂ𝔻: ℍ𝔼𝕃𝔸𝔽𝕀𝕃𝕄𝕊

┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ˚★⋆｡˚ ⋆ ┊ ┊ ┊ ⋆ ┊ ┊ ★⋆ ┊ ◦ ★⋆ ┊ . ˚ ˚★ 𝑀𝓎 𝓅𝑜𝑒𝓂 𖥔 ݁ ˖ִ ࣪⚝₊ ⊹˚

ᴵ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ᵈᵒⁿᵉ ᵐʸ ᵖᵃʳᵗ , ᴴᵃᵛᵉ ʸᵒᵘ ᵈᵒⁿᵉ ʸᵒᵘʳˢ? ᴵ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ᵈᵒⁿᵉ ᵐʸ ᵖᵃʳᵗ , ᴴᵃᵛᵉ ʸᵒᵘ ᵈᵒⁿᵉ ʸᵒᵘʳˢ? ᴵ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ᵈᵒⁿᵉ ᵐʸ ᵖᵃʳᵗ , ᴴᵃᵛᵉ ʸᵒᵘ ᵈᵒⁿᵉ ʸᵒᵘʳˢ?

ᴵ ˢʰᵃˡˡ ˢᵗʳⁱᵛᵉ ᶜᵒⁿᵗⁱⁿᵘᵒᵘˢˡʸ , ᴵ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ᵏᵉᵖᵗ ᵐʸ ᵖᵉᵃᶜᵉ , ᴴᵒʷ ᶜᵒᵘˡᵈ ᴵ ⁿᵒᵗ ᵇᵉʰᵃᵛᵉ?

ᴵ ˢᵃʷ ᵐʸ ᶠᵃᵗʰᵉʳ ᵃˢ ᵐʸ ˢᵃᵛⁱᵒʳ , ᵒⁿˡʸ ᶠᵒʳ ʰⁱᵐ ᵗᵒ ˡᵉᵃᵛᵉ ᵐᵉ.

ᴵ ᶜᵃᵘᵍʰᵗ ᵘᵖ ᵗᵒ ʰⁱˢ ᵗᵒˣⁱᶜ ᵗʳᵃⁱᵗˢ , ᴹʸ ʰᵃʳᵈ ʷᵒʳᵏ ᵐᵉᵃⁿᵗ ⁿᵒᵗʰⁱⁿᵍ , ᶠᵒʳ ʰᵉ ʰᵃˢ ᵈᵉᶜᵉⁱᵛᵉᵈ ᵐᵉ. ᴵ ᵃᵐ ᵃⁿ ᴵᵐᵃᵍᵉ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᵃᵗʰᵉʳ , ᴬᵐ ᴵ ⁿᵒᵗ?

ᴹʸ ᶜʰⁱˡᵈʳᵉⁿ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ᵐʸ qᵘᵃˡⁱᵗⁱᵉˢ ᵃⁿᵈ ˢʰᵃʳᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵃᵐᵉ ᵈᵉˢᵖⁱˢᵉ ᶠᵒʳ ᵐʸ ˢᵖᵒᵘˢᵉ ʰᵃˢ ᶜᵃᵘᵍʰᵗ ᵗʰᵉⁱʳ ᵗᵒⁿᵍᵘᵉ ᶠᵒʳ qᵘᵉˢᵗⁱᵒⁿ. ᵂⁱˡˡ ᴵ ᵈⁱᵉ ᵃˡᵒⁿᵉ , ˢʰᵃˡˡ ᴵ ᵍʳⁱᵉᵛᵉ ᵗʰᵉᵐ ᵇᵘᵗ , ⁿᵒⁿᵉ ᵒᶠ ᵗʰᵉᵐ ᵃʳᵉ ˡᵉᶠᵗ ᵗᵒ ᵍʳⁱᵉᵛᵉ ᵐᵉ?

ᴵ ᵃᵐ ᵃˡʷᵃʸˢ ᵃʷᵃᵏᵉ ᵇᵘᵗ ⁿᵉᵛᵉʳ ˢˡᵉᵉᵖ. ᴹʸ ˢᵃᵈ ᵉʸᵉˢ ᵃ ᵖʳᵒᵐⁱⁿᵉⁿᵗ ᵃᵉˢᵗʰᵉᵗⁱᶜ. ᴴᵃʳᵈˢʰⁱᵖˢ ᵗʰʳᵒᵘᵍʰ ᵗʰᵉ ʸᵉᵃʳˢ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵗʰᵉ ᵍᵒᵈˢ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ᵃᵗᵗᵉˢᵗᵉᵈ.

ᵀʰᵉ ᵍʰᵒˢᵗ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ʸᵒᵘᵗʰ ʰᵃˢ ʰᵃᵘⁿᵗᵉᵈ ᵐᵉ ᵗᵒ ⁿᵒ ᵉⁿᵈ , ᴵ ʷᵒᵘˡᵈ ⁿᵉᵛᵉʳ ᵍᵒ ᵇᵃᶜᵏ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵉˣᵖᵉʳⁱᵉⁿᶜᵉ ⁱᵗ ᵃᵍᵃⁱⁿ.

ᴵ ˢᵉᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ᵍⁱʳˡ ᴵ ᵒⁿᶜᵉ ᵏⁿᵉʷ , ˢʰᵉ'ˢ ᵃ ˢᵗʳᵃⁿᵍᵉʳ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ , ᴵ ʰᵉˡᵈ ᵃ ᵖᵃᵍᵉ ᶠᵒʳ ʰᵉʳ. ᵀʰᵉ ˡᵒⁿᵍᵉʳ ˢʰᵉ ᵏᵉᵖᵗ ⁱᵗ , ʰᵃᵈ ⁱᵗ ᵇᵉᶜᵒᵐᵉ ᵃ ᵇˡᵘʳ?

ᴵ ʷᵃⁿᵗ ᵗᵒ ᵇᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ˡᵃᵈʸ ᴵ ᵒⁿᶜᵉ ʷᵃˢ ʷⁱᵗʰ ⁿᵒ ᵐᵉᵐᵒʳʸ ᵒᶠ ᵗʰᵉ ᵗʳᵃᵍᵉᵈⁱᵉˢ. ᴵ ᵃᵐ ᶠʳᵒᵐ ᵃ ᵈⁱᶠᶠᵉʳᵉⁿᵗ ᵖᵃʳᵗ , ᵃⁿ ᴵˡⁱᵃᵈ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᵒʷⁿ ᵒᵈʸˢˢᵉʸ.

ᴡʜʏ ᴀᴍ ɪ ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴍɪꜱɪɴᴛᴇʀᴘʀᴇᴛᴇᴅ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴇɴ ᴀʀᴏᴜɴᴅ ᴍᴇ? ─ ⊹ ⊱꒰☆꒱⊰ ⊹ ─

ᴛʜᴇ ᴡᴀʏ ɪ ᴀᴍ, ɴᴏᴛ ꜱᴛʀᴏɴɢ ᴇɴᴏᴜɢʜ ᴛᴏ ʙᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴍᴀɴ ɪ ʟɪᴇ, ɪ ᴀᴍ ᴊᴜꜱᴛ ʟᴏᴡᴇʀɪɴɢ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴇxᴘᴇᴄᴛᴀᴛɪᴏɴꜱ ʜᴀʟꜰ ᴀ ᴍɪɴᴅ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴋᴇᴇᴘꜱ ᴛʜᴇ ᴏᴛʜᴇʀ ꜱᴇᴄᴏɴᴅ ɢᴜᴇꜱꜱɪɴɢ?

ᴄʟᴏꜱᴇ ᴍʏ ᴇʏᴇꜱ ᴀɴᴅ ᴄᴏᴜɴᴛ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ᴀʟᴡᴀʏꜱ ᴀɴ ᴀɴɢᴇʟ, ɴᴇᴠᴇʀ ᴀ ɢᴏᴅ

ɪ ᴅᴏɴ'ᴛ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ᴡʜʏ ɪ ᴀᴍ ᴛʜᴇ ᴡᴀʏ ɪ ᴀᴍ. ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ'ꜱ ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ ꜱᴛᴀᴛɪᴄ, ɪ ᴛʜɪɴᴋ ɪ'ᴠᴇ ʙᴇᴇɴ ʜᴀᴠɪɴɢ ʀᴇᴠᴇʟᴀᴛɪᴏɴꜱ ᴄᴏᴍɪɴ' ᴛᴏ. ɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ ꜰʀᴏɴᴛ ꜱᴇᴀᴛ, ɴᴇᴀʀʟʏ ᴇᴍᴘᴛʏ ꜱᴋɪᴘ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇxɪᴛ ᴛᴏ ᴏᴜʀ ᴏʟᴅ ꜱᴛʀᴇᴇᴛ ᴀɴᴅ ɢᴏ ʜᴏᴍᴇ , ɢᴏ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴀʟᴏɴᴇ.

𝜗𝜚 ‧₊˚ ⊹ ℕ𝕠𝕥 𝕊𝕥𝕣𝕠𝕟𝕘 𝔼𝕟𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕊𝕠𝕟𝕘 𝕓𝕪 𝕓𝕠𝕪𝕘𝕖𝕟𝕚𝕦𝕤

[lycorim]

I was recently reminded of the first time I read ADwD, with it being the only book in the series that I listened to via audio book, and I chose to do so during my shifts working food-service. Anyway, don't do that, friends!

(The artist, c. 2021, retraumatizing herself every three chapters over shortbread cookies:)

[ms-queen-c]

In another universe Daemon Targaryen and Alicent Hightower end up married...

[theprincessandthepie]

ned stark's daughter will speak for them.

[azureflight]

"Nettles does not/may not have Valyrian blood" is a fandom misconception

I keep seeing this argument that "Nettles proves you don't need Valyrian blood to tame dragons" all over social media, including the so called book fandom. I apologize for raining on your parade, but that entire sentence, and the logic its built upon, is a complete and an utter farce. Allow me to elaborate:

First of all, this entire argument is based on a whole another misconception. This second, underlying misconception goes like this:

"People in asoiaf universe/westeros/essos, think/believe only Targaryens/Valyrians can ride dragons, and that's why no one tries to claim them."

THERE IS NO SUCH BELIEF IN THE SETTING! NONE!

I am sure, there are people in that universe, who believe that. But they do not represent a universal consensus, especially not one that is ever accepted by maesters, lords, various other mages or anyone with any ambition on any continent really. The way in universe sources talk about dragonriding is that "Valyrian were the first". First, not only, never only.

Now, no one else has yet succeeded, but they still believe it can be done. And motivated by this belief, they keep trying. Yes you have read that one right. PEOPLE CONSTANTLY TRY TO CLAIM DRAGONS.

Before Dance, during Dance, after Dance, they have never stopped. In main asoiaf era alone, we have Euron, Victarion, Warlocks of the House of the Undying, Slaver Masters of Astapor all trying to get their hands on dragons, all thinking they could control them. If certain book theories are correct, then even the Faceless Men are trying.

Before Dance, we have Elissa Farman stealing three eggs from Dragonstone. During Dance we have multiple people with no blood relation, some we know to be brazenly lying, try to claim dragons. After the Dance there are others trying to get eggs, hatch them, get living dragons etc.

People never stopped trying. And perhaps, even more importantly, there was never any claim by even house Targaryen itself, that you just had to be one of them. Never. They passed legal edicts to forbade people from claiming dragons without the king's permission/claiming ownership over all dragons and eggs in westeros but... That didn't stop people, and of course it didn't, because any other form of "theft" is already illegal and yet people still do it.

Even Jaehaerys I, with his exceptionalism politics, made no such claim that "you had to be a Targaryen". And it would be absurd of him to make such a claim, because Targaryens weren't the only dragonlord family in the first place. There were plenty more in old Valyria, up to 40 houses. It was never a "Targaryen only" thing, and everyone and their mother knew. Valyria was around for thousands of years, and their demise is not so old. Everyone still knows.

Targaryens are the only house to survive the Doom and the following Century of Blood. But even that does not mean what it first sounds like. Something Targaryens were well aware of and again, never denied.

Why? Because adultery exists, that's why. Official, properly named members of a house may die, but that doesn't mean all relatives did. And the Free Cities are full of Valyrians. Most of them are former colonies of Valyria, and their population is significantly made up of Valyrian descendants. Furthermore, Dragonlords themselves have shitton of bastards, running all over Essos and Westeros. Even before the doom, people with dragonlord ancestry were not "rare". Now in asoiaf era they are in the millions.

That brings me to our thirds, yes third, misconception. The claim that the in universe belief is "you have to be a Valyrian to ride a dragon." Again, no. But from a different angle.

Being Valyrian was never a condition. Why? Because not all Valyrians were dragonlords. In fact, among the Valyrians themselves, dragonlords were an extremely small, tiny, miniscule minority. Just around (probably less than) 40 houses, within an entire nation, an entire empire. That is a very, very select few.

"But wait, isn't that a contradiction? You just said dragonlord blood isn't rare and now you are claiming they are an exceptionally small group!"

No. What I am saying is that being a dragonlord, was never a normal, standard aspect of being a Valyrian. Dragonlords all were Valyrians, sure. But among Valyrians, those who were NOT dragonlords, far, far exceeded the number of those whole were. And being a descendant of a dragonlord, requires you to have a single dragonlords as your ancestor. It does not require non-dragonlord Valyrian ancestry. And it doesn't matter if your every other ancestor is from some other nation or ethnicity. A dragonlord's child with an Andal, with a First Men, with a Rhoynar, with a Dothraki, with a Lharazeen, with a Ghiscari, with a Summer Islander, is no less a descendant, and has no less dragonlords blood, than one with a regular Valyrian.

There is a reason, dragonlords performed such intense incest. They never wanted to risk weakening or losing the ability to ride dragons. Because you may not inherent the lucky genes from your dragonlord ancestory if there are non-dragonlord genes in the pool of possibility. Like any other hereditary trait, it can be lost. The other angle, was of course to deny spreading of the power, but that was futile and doomed to fail lmao.

There is a fourth misconception fueling all of this. Yes, there are layers to this. The fourth one being that there was some concentrated effort by Targaryens to deceive and lie about who could posses the magical power to ride dragons, in order to manipulate public and maintain their monopoly. Again, no such thing ever happened.

Targaryens never claimed you had to be a Targaryen, or a Valyrian to ride a dragon. In fact, they very openly accept the possibility of some other, as of yet unknown, sorcery to also achieve the same result. That's one of the reasons they tried to regulate who could own and try to claim dragons (unsuccessfully).

In fact, this last possibility, is raised as an accusation against Nettles. Loudly. By the maester which Fire & Blood uses as source and later by Rhaenyra herself! It is a public accusation and a hostile racist slander, not a dire truth anyone is trying to keep a secret.

Now that we have cleared the underlying misconceptions, let's return to the very first one. The one that claims Nettles isn't a Dragonlord by blood, but a completely random commoner who just got a dragon through courage and cunning.

For this one, we will once again need to go step by step. First things first, where does the idea that Nettles may not be a dragonlord even comes from?

Well, it comes from an in universe accusation. The basis of which is racist envy and rage of betrayal. The clown of a maester disparagingly calling her "skinny brown girl" never even saw her. When Rhaenyra accuses her of using some other dark magic to bind her dragon, she also accuses her of seducing Daemon with magic, because Rhaenyra is busy losing her marbles at that moment.

But, none of that means anything. We already do know, you don't have to look like an archetypal Targaryen to have Targaryen ancestry, let alone any other dragonlord. Rhaenyra's own first three sons don't look like Targaryens, yet we all know they are proper dragonlords. We have Baelor Breakspear and Duncan the Small as other examples of obvious Targaryen princes who simply look like their non-Targaryen parent. We have, and I cannot emphasize this hard enough, Jon Snow.

This is a recurring pattern in the story. People who are obviously Targaryens, get accused of, or are seen as, not real Targaryens, just because they don't have the "looks". And each and every single one of those are bullshit moronic bigotry. Nettles is no exception. It is indeed sad, to watch so many of the fandom fall into the same trap as generic westerosi rumormongers and racist dipshits, when it comes to Nettles.

To expand upon this further: Narratively speaking, Nettles' position is pretty much the same as Jon Snow. They both have the blood. Neither of them have the looks. They don't have the papers to prove their heritage neither. And yet, we know Jon Snow is Rhaegar's son and as such, has the possibility of claiming a dragon. Nettles is there to show us two things: Yes, you can claim a dragon even if you don't have the knowledge, the education or the papers to prove your ancestry, because blood is what matters. And no, even if you were to claim a dragon, that does not mean people will now automatically accept you as a true dragonlord, let alone a Targaryen. You will always be doubted, questioned, challenged, accused.

And yet, even with all these misconceptions dismissed, one can still argue the original statement may remain true. That just because underlying fandom "logic" and speculation was demonstrably false, does not mean the final point and the main claim is also false. Reaching the correct conclusion through the wrong way, still results in the correct conclusion. Right?

Not this time. Because, we have access to meta knowledge about how these things work, straight from GRRM's mouth. Something the people of asoiaf, in universe, will never reach.

What's that meta knowledge? It's the knowledge that:

Dragons are magical creatures.

Dragonriding is a magical bond.

Magic in asoiaf is innate and hereditary.

Magic in asoiaf is not procedural, it is not something you can learn and replicate by following instructions.

GRRM, throughout the years, have repeatedly talked about this. As late as his special videos for Max, for House of the Dragon tv show, and interviews he gave around the first season of HOTD.

And over and over again, he repeated the same thing. He doesn't like Dungeons & Dragons style procedural magic. He doesn't like the concept of "magic system". He wants magic to be rare, chaotic and innate. Barely under control, dangerous, unpredictable with unforeseen drawbacks. For asoiaf specifically, he talked about how this magic is all about who you are. Specifically talked about how words, recipes and rituals don't matter. The person who performs them does. He specifically talks about how Daenerys "makes it up as she goes" because magic, in this setting, is innate and instinctual.

He also specifically talked about dragonlords and their practice of incest. And explained that while these people don't know "genes" in the way we do as a modern scientific concept, they are perfectly capable of comprehending what a hereditary trait is and thus acted to preserve it.

None of these are assumptions or interpretations from books. They are straight from GRRM's mouth. Dragons, and the ability to ride them is magic. That magic is innate and hereditary.

So, the irony really is, that while people in the setting think there may be another way and keep trying, it's actually all futile. There is no other way. You have to have that dragonlord blood. You have to get that lucky magic gene. You have to get lucky with your choice of dragon so that it accepts you. Genetics and luck. Both, not either or, certainly not "ackchyually genetics don't matter at all, anyone can do it with a bit of courage and cunning!"

What's really funny is that, this isn't even the only hereditary, innate magic. Skinchanging, greensight, both are hereditary and innate. You are born with it, or you aren't. You cannot learn it from a book, acquire it through hard work and study. Power to transfer your mind into various other creatures, spy on perhaps the whole world, see through past and present, mind control humans, perhaps even time travel. All innate, all luck of birth. Yet I have never seen anyone in this fandom get their panties in a bunch about this, or constantly grasp at various tin foil straws to claim how ackchyually anyone can just skinchange into whatever animal they like/time travel at will with a bit of courage and cunning.

I will not extrapolate further as why I think that is. You all know who you are and know your own inner motivations. All I'm going to say is this:

Life is unfair, so is asoiaf. People are not all made equal in talent and innate capacity, in either world. Some people are born with peek health, a high intelligence and to loving families of means. Others with disabilities, as mediocre midwits or into piss poor abusive parents. And in this magical setting, some guys are just born with the power to own and command flying napalms, and others are born with no magic at all.

Again, sorry to rain on your parade.

Some selection of sources for GRRM's meta info:

[bestofgrrm]

It's the same Update I've been giving for a long time - I'm continuing to work on it, I continuously get longer and longer - I mean, I was working on it the day i flew back here, 3 or 4 days, but i was, i was rereading some chapters I wrote earlier, and I didnt like them well enough, and uh, so I kinda ripped them apart and rewrote them, and I had some ideas before I went on this trip, I gotta get back and I hope I'll get to it while the ideas are still fresh in my head... Um, it's a big big book, I've said that before, it's a challenging book...

 It's probably gonna be a larger book than any of the previous volumes of the series, [...] I think this one is gonna be longer than [1500 manuscript pages] by the time I finish it, and I think I'm about 3/4 of the way done.

- GRRM, October 24 2022, A Virtual Celebration of the Targaryen Dynasty: A Conversation with George R.R. Martin

[dragondream-ing]

Just saw a comment on YouTube saying S*nsa is the “hope” of ASOIAF and the “only reason to keep reading” because she “never resorts to hate and violence” and is “selflessly taking care of her cousin in the Vale” (apparently they missed the part where she’s part of the poisoning sweetrobin situation???) This comment went on to describe Arya as “basically a child soldier with an AK” and that her fans won’t admit she’s “fallen” and “lost her humanity,” basically arguing Arya shouldn’t be viewed as an aspirational figure.

Is there any other fandom with as many people who’ve very obviously never read the books or, if they did, skimmed and supplemented with bad metas? And that have extremely loud and wrong and insulting interpretations they insist are the Truth™️?

Anyway, I’m reminded daily why I do not engage with the ASOIAF fandom on YouTube lmao

[ride-thedragon]

While we are here and well, there is a really good Nettles video out on YouTube.

Thank you to my moot @qyburnsghost for putting me on.

I love David Lightbringer, and this is a good intro to her character and / or video if you like her. It addresses the leaks and her plot in the books and doesn't boil her down to Daemon and that plotline alone. It's just a really good video on her, I love it when people match my geek. We also get a Dany/ Netty comparison mention, so it's 100% valid on that if nothing else.

[witchy-v1xen]

This fandom funny as hell , Lawd have mercy.

They done turned this to a comedy.