#sick!jon | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

babybells123 · 7 days

Text

On fandom hypocrisy...

Because there are insane double standards in the ASOIAF fandom...

"Okay, so the theory goes; Rhaegar had another secret Targaryen daughter (Val) which makes sense because her hair turned silver so she's actually Jon's half sister meaning they will be a couple because Night's King and Queen theory!"

Fandom: "Not sure I agree with it but it's a valid theory nonetheless..."

"Varys is a secret merman due to x y and z."

Fandom: Gives 200+ upvotes generating a healthy civil response."*

"Jon, D*enerys, and Tyrion are each going to have a dragon of their own and fly beyond the Wall and Jon + D*ny are going to have magical sex but then Jon is going to kill her dragon and Nissa Nissa her to save the world."

Fandom: "It's practically canon at this point."

"Aria is going to kill her sister and steal her face because her father once said something about Aria hurting Sansa with needle back in AGOT. Then Aria is going to rule Winterfell as QITN with Jon by her side."

Fandom: "Valid. Aria is clearly the sister who will become queen because GRRM loves subverting expectations and she has a direwolf called Nymeria. Also Sansa needs to pay for being mean to her back in AGOT!"

Jonsas: "Hey don't you guys think it's weird that there is a Jonnel Stark with a mother called Lyarra Stark, who married his half-niece Sansa Stark to pacify the Northern succession crisis?"

Fandom: 'It means NOTHING. They're just names, and they didn't have any children anyway!"

Jonsas: "But doesn't it make you question as to why GRRM added it in after revising the draft? Isn't it suspicious that this is the only other Sansa in canon? And that she also had a father who died in the South? And her claim was contested? Hasn't he foreshadowed Jon's parentage in the Frey lineage as well? Isn't this how GRRM plants his clues where he doesn't think fans will look? And why should it matter whether Jonnel and Sansa had no children? Jon and Sansa would obviously be a subversion of this whole situation, since Jon has already advocated for Sansa's claim so if anything they're foils..."

Fandom: "COINCIDENCE."

Jonsas: "You know it's certainly weird that the final champions of the ashford tourney align perfectly with Sansa's ASOIAF suitors... And the last Targaryen jouster was described as a black prince with a white guardian! That image certainly evokes Jon a 'prince' in clad in all black, with his white guardian Ghost."

Fandom: "Jonsas are STEALING because it's was originally a S*NSAN theory, and the Targaryen suitor is going to be Aegon!"

Jonsas: "But how can we 'steal' a theory when we're merely making an interpretation of it?? Where have we stated that we came up with the idea? And why would it be Aegon who has had no narrative impact on her story? And wouldn't it defeat the whole 'no one will ever marry me for love' issue? Wouldn't it just make Sansa go 2 steps backward by forcing her South again? What's the point of that?"

Fandom: "Sansa is NOT going North. There's absolutely NO foreshadowing for it. She's going to stay in the Vale forever and become Lysa Arryn 2.0! Sansa doesn't deserve to see her family again because she betrayed her father, and she isn't a Stark anymore because she lost her direwolf hahahah."

Jonsas and GRRM simultaneously: 'Resolve to be Sansa Stark and take the North..."

Fandom: "AHHHHH."

Jonsas: "It's strange that whenever Sansa's suitors are introduced to the story, Jon is narratively close. Five times this has happened (provides textual evidence). And why are Jon chapters consistently back-to-back with Sansa chapters about love, marriage, and children? It's probably intentional especially considering how GRRM's orders the chapters in the way he best believes tells the story... and he has done this foreshadowing with other chapters as well."

Fandom: "It's a COINCIDENCE! Chapter transitions mean NOTHING. Stop reaching!!!"

Jonsas: "You know, it seems significant that Jon dreams of restoring Winterfell from its ruins, becoming its lord, and having children, and in the next Sansa chapter, she builds a scale model of Winterfell in the snow and associates said snow with love, innocence, and dreams."

Fandom: "Just because Sansa builds a castle in the snow it doesn't mean ANYTHING! It's Bran that talks about restoring Winterfell. NOT SANSA, because she is NOT going North. And I guess if she associates snow with all those things that is foreshadowing her being with Ramsay HAHAH delusional Jonsas."

Jonsas: "But isn't it one of GRRM's favourite scenes he has ever written? Hasn't he blogged about it? Doesn't he have Sansa building Winterfell out of snow as a figurine? He must find it significant as well. And why would it foreshadow Ramsay? What narrative impact does he have on Sansa's story? Why wouldn't it be the 'Snow' just referenced in the last chapter? The same person who is consistently referred to as "Snow" not just by himself, but by other characters? Chett does it in the prologue of ASOS, is it so far-fetched to believe the final chapter of the series is also subtly referencing Jon? Wouldn't you guys do the same if it was an Aria scene? Or a D*enerys scene? Why the issue because it's Sansa?"

Fandom: "IT MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE SANSA ISN'T IMPORTANT. And Sansa doesn't even think of Jon did you know she bullied him as children hahaha."

Jonsas: "Well that is just a blatant lie. GRRM has since named Sansa as among the main characters through multiple sources (provides evidence) and her role + impact on the story has clearly evolved past the 30 year old outline. There's also no textual evidence to suggest Sansa ever mistreated Jon as children. The most she ever did to him was regard him as her "half-brother," which is something all the other Starks did. in fact, Robb calls Jon a bastard to his face, but no one seems to hold that against him. Jon and Sansa's childhood dynamic is undefined; definitely distant but still fond. If Jon was really bullied by Sansa, we'd hear about it as often as we hear about his torment over Catelyn never accepting him. It just seems as if GRRM is doing all he can to distance Jon and Sansa as siblings, so that not even the audience regards them as such. There's a lot of nuance and complexity to this situation which screams of intention rather than laziness on part of the author."

Fandom: *Crickets.*

Jonsas: "Isn't it strange that the first time the audience is introduced to Sansa, it's from Jon's perspective, and whilst he judges Myrcella on being 'insipid' for fawning over Robb, and dedicates an entire paragraph to bashing on Joffrey even though Joffrey hasn't done anything wrong at all, - he stops for a second and calls Sansa *radiant?* Even though she is likely fawning over Joffrey just as much as Myrcella is? Isn't it also strange that he just calls Cersei "beautiful" and nothing more? When canonically she is the most beautiful woman in the Seven Kingdoms? But it's Sansa who is deemed "radiant?"

Fandom: "Radiant? So what? That isn't proof of anything."

Jonsas: "Maybe so, it's certainly one of the more 'niche' hints, but when you consider how often 'radiant' is used throughout the series (4 times) - it's certainly striking. Especially as most of those references are used within a romantic context. Not to mention 'A Song for Lya,' GRRM's past work involving an auburn haired woman who is described as radiant by the male protagonist. There's also GRRM calling Liz Taylor 'radiant' in Ivanhoe, so it bears romantic connotations for GRRM. It's also noteworthy that many of GRRM's past works involve auburn/red-haired love interests, not to mention Sansa physically evoking the image of a Pre-Raphaelite painting, where the subject of such art is often beautiful and romantic red-headed maidens (GRRM's favourite art)."

Fandom: *crickets.*

Jonsas: "Don't you guys think it's weird that Jon and Sansa have practically mirrored dreams about having children named after lost siblings? In back-to-back chapters as well? Isn't it noteworthy that Sansa dreams of having a girl who LOOKS like Arya? Children named Brandon and Rickon but not Robb? And Jon has a similar dream except he wants a son called Robb? Isn't it strange that it is phrased similarly? That they both equate love with children and seem to desire quiet domesticity above all else? Their deepest and most intrinsic desire?"

Fandom: "Just because Jon has this dream it doesn't mean he is going to have it with Sansa! It's foreshadowing him starting a family with D*ny!"

Jonsas: "But Jon's dream is specifically about following in Ned's footsteps and living quietly at Winterfell. It isn't about continuing a dynasty in King's Landing, Jon doesn't even like King's Landing. And in any case, out of every other female character in the series, Sansa is the one most heavily associated with domesticity, who isn't lusting for power in any capacity. Would it not make sense for Sansa to be the girl that fulfils the other half of this fantasy? Because it fits in organically with her storyline and characterisation?"

Fandom: "Shut up. ARIA is more domestic and maternal than Sansa, since she learns how to cook and clean and she takes Nan under her wing in ACOK. she'll be the one to have that storyline if anyone does. Sansa doesn't even want that life. She's being superficial about it because her femininity is a performance."

Jonsas: "No one is denying that Aria may lean over to a domestic maternal life when she's older, but currently, she just doesn’t have any interest in that. Sansa however has been written to want and enjoy those things since her conception . She is a traditionally feminine character, and it isn't just because it's expected of her, it's also because she genuinely enjoys things like embroidery, poetry, music and singing. She naturally loves tourneys and stories of courtly love and beautiful imagery. It's her deepest desire to have a husband who loves her as much as she loves him. She's naturally empathetic and kind-hearted as well (provides textual evidence). Also, cooking and cleaning doesn't have anything to do with gender in Westeros. No highborn woman cooks or cleans because those roles are based on class."

Fandom: "So you hate women who don't conform huh? MISOGYNISTIC."

Jonsas: "There's certainly something to be said about both Jon and Sansa falling in love with people who resemble each other... Ygritte is red-headed, blue-grey eyed, plain looking, and called 'half a fish' but Jon is attracted to her smile, hair, and the way she sings and how she is sensitive towards songs. Though Jon has a clear aversion to her more brutal side (provides textual evidence). It seems to be implicitly evoking the image of Sansa. And Sansa's first love being Waymar Royce, who is described as a spitting image of Jon - though more handsome. (both of which are introduced in the first 25 pages of the series), has a similar personality, died in a similar manner, and is also a man of the Night's Watch. Also Sansa falls "wildly" in love with him, which evokes "wildling." And it seems a particularly random line considering Waymar has only been mentioned a total of 17 times throughout the series, 12 of which involve the prologue chapter and the rest concerning his whereabouts. Why would GRRM need to let us know this detail? We already know Sansa fawns over men. Maybe he is insinuating that Sansa could be attracted to this type of appearance and persona rather than the conventional 'golden' prince we expect from her - the connections between Jon and Waymar are just too strong to be a coincidence. *writes a full blown meta supported by a mountain of quotes.*

Fandom: "OMG STOP STEALING FROM ARIA. Why do Sansa Stans love to steal everything. Smh y'all are such clownsss. Jon literally says that Ygritte reminds him of Aria. And who cares if Sansa fell in love with Waymar? It means NOTHING."

Jonsas: "But doesn't the whole Sansa-Ygritte-Aria situation fit in with GRRM's self proclaimed foreshadowing style using a literary sleight of hand? Where whilst he is planting seeds in the background (implicitly and subconsciously), he is waving his other hand distracting you with more explicit clues and associations? Also, Jon makes those comparisons before he begins to show attraction to Ygritte. After that the comparisons stop. GRRM has even stated in the Balticon 2016 report that Ygritte-Aria comparisons are not references for romance, but rather refer to a comfort level of femininity. Jon just feels more 'at level' and comfortable with this type of woman, but he really dislikes her penchant for violence. In fact he is attracted to her softer more feminine qualities (provides textual evidence.)

Fandom: "UGH I can't believe you transparent Jonsas. You guys are the worst! You only view Jon as a trophy husband for Sansa because he's the hottest male of the series, so of course you want him all for greedy Sansa."

Jonsas: "What? It's often Jonsas who make Ned/Catelyn comparisons with Jon/Sansa, who are consistently described as the younger image of both. Ned is described as plain and somber looking, so most Jonsas don't view Jon as the pinnacle of attractiveness (and he isn't meant to be). So where is the 'trophy husband' sentiment coming from? And in any case, to Sansa, Jon would be the most attractive man to her simply because she loves him and he embodies all she has lost. He embodies, home, Winterfell, the North. (And Jon takes pride in looking Northern!). It almost evokes Cat's initial lack of attraction towards Ned as she found his brother more handsome(similar to Waymar being the more handsome version of Jon) but that eventually blossomed into a deep strong love built stone by stone. With Sansa, it'd be even more profound because she has suffered deep emotional wounds and wants nothing more than to be affiliated with her home and her identity, not to mention having moved past any superficial views she may have once held."

Fandom: "HOW DARE YOU INSINUATE THAT JON ISN'T HANDSOME!!!! He has valyrian beauty just like his father and he and D*ny will be the pinnacle of hotness hehe."

Jonsas: "It's strange that Sansa's first flowering is book-ended by Jon chapters, almost like he is shielding her during a vulnerable time. And just before that pivotal Sansa chapter, Jon hears the story of the Blue Rose of Winterfell and how no flower is so rare nor precious than one that has just blossomed. It's also strange that Sansa has a discussion with Cersei about love, marriage, and childbirth and Cersei associates Sansa's moonblood with 'flowering,' and just after the 'love is poison' quote, it leads right back onto a Jon chapter..."

Fandom: "Stop stealing! This story is ONLY about Lyanna! It has nothing to do with Sansa. If anyone, it is foreshadowing Aria being 'rescued' in ADWD, and D*ny seeing the blue flower it has NOTHING to do with Sansa."

Jonsas: "Things don't exist in a vacuum, there is no singular meaning to anything, because literature will be interpreted a variety of ways. And how would it not concern Sansa? Who has just flowered and become a Stark maiden conveniently after Jon hears this story? All Stark women can arguably be associated with blue flowers, since they grow in the glass gardens at Winterfell."

Fandom: "Sansa doesn't even have any associations with flowers. That belongs to Aria and Lyanna! It's Aria that loves flowers, NOT Sansa."

Jonsas: "So then why does Sansa receive a red rose at the tourney from Loras Tyrell armoured in blue sapphire (a reverse of the Harrenhal tourney), who unofficially crowns her queen of love and beauty whilst she is also betrothed to a Baratheon? Why is Sansa described as sweet-smelling like flowers? Why does Sansa pick flowers in Myrcella's gardens? Why is she called the "Roadside Rose?" Why is her moonblood consistently associated with flowering, plucking, blooming? Why did an episode written by GRRM involve her receiving a rose? Why did BAEL-lish whisk Sansa (A Stark maiden) away from King's Landing leaving a metaphoric 'Rose' in return (and a blue bard that later attends to said 'Rose.') Why has GRRM stated that Sansa is a 'flowery' name, hence why he chose it? And no one is saying that Aria doesn't like flowers. Lots of people do! Of course Sansa would love flowers as well, in fact there's a heap more flower references/imagery in her chapters, so this is a silly, tired argument."

Fandom: *loses their mind bending over backwards trying to prove how un-feminine and un-romantic Sansa is..."

Jonsas: "It's pretty clear that Prince Aemon and Naerys are meant to parallel Jon and Sansa. Jon refers to himself as Prince Aemon, and Sansa refers to herself as Queen Naerys. Such references generally occur in back-to-back chapters, such as Sansa wishing for Prince Aemon to rescue her, and Jon's chapter following. Not to mention Jon calling himself Prince Aemon, which is then followed by a Sansa chapter. As well as Sansa reading stories about Prince Aemon and Queen Naerys in a chapter that precedes Jon's once again."

Fandom: "No they don't! Jon does share parallels with Prince Aemon, but Naerys is CLEARLY D*ny born again, since she bears a resemblance to her. So it's foreshadowing romance between them heheh..."

Jonsas: " But that's it. After the physical appearance is described, Fire and Blood proclaims that the D*ny/Naerys comparisons stop. It’s Sansa who is similarly gentle, timid, and pious. Who turns to her religion in order to cope with her situation. Who similarly has a passion for music, poetry, playing the harp, and sewing/embroidery. It's Sansa who is in a Naerys/Aegon type situation in ACOK and aspects of ASOS. It's Sansa's first chapter of the series where Naerys and Aemon are introduced as historical figures, and it is Sansa’s chapters where they are most consistently referenced. If anything, Naerys is modelled around Sansa, since she is was not fully fleshed out until fire and blood in 2018. Naerys came to fruition because of Sansa, so GRRM has made their personalities and situations similar. Aemon/Naerys were half siblings, like Jon and Sansa. Naerys was forced to marry an awful king who humiliated her sexually, just how Sansa is betrothed to Joffrey and he has humiliated her sexually. Jon joins a celibate order just as aemon does. Joffrey makes the comparisons to one of the bad Aegons himself. D*ny and Jon being Aemon/Naerys come again would make no sense since the situational context is important - D*ny and Jon did not grow up as half-siblings, they don't even know each other - so where is the angst? In fact, Jon shows a weird sort of jealousy towards joffrey when he sees sansa on his arm at the feast in AGOT (when the betrothal was just announced). He soon leaves the feast with tears in his eyes and later joins the nights watch. It certainly evokes the image of aemon shedding tears the day naerys wed aegon…”

Fandom: *Crickets.*

Jonsas: "It's intriguing that Jon and Sansa experience reverse parallels. Sansa going South, Jon going North - both with naive expectations for the respective worlds that they are joining, but then they get a harsh dose of reality. And then they both become captives during 2nd book. Not to mention having to associate with the enemy in book 3, with Sansa becoming a "Lannister" and Jon becoming a "Wildling." And around the same time, both of them are deemed traitors to their respective enemies and flee for their lives, but while Jon rises up and becomes a Lord, Sansa becomes a Bastard. That certainly paves the way for a unique bonding experience, since no one else in the story has gone from Lady to Bastard, so it means Sansa better understands and empathises with Jon's experiencing growing up, unlearning prejudices she may have held..."

Fandom: "That doesn't mean anything. It's Jon and D*ny that have the parallels NOT Jon and Sansa! They never even think of each other."

Jonsas: "But that's our point. Why do all this as an author? Why make Jon and Sansa so intrinsically similar but visual, cultural, societal opposites on the surface? Why not develop some sort of a relationship between two key POV characters? Jon and Sansa aren't side characters, they're apart of the central family of the series and have been awarded major POV roles since book 1. We're sure GRRM would have noticed he'd failed to create a strong (or hateful) bond. But he didn't, he made them fondly distant. He made a lot of their associations romantically coded. He doesn't even want the audience to associate Jon and Sansa as siblings, rather as something ambiguous and undefined, which makes sense if it were eventually to transition into romance. It also helps that he's made them quite compatible in their dreams, desires, and romantic/idealistic nature."

Fandom: "But it isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the text! If Jon would be with any sister it'd be Aria because of the og outline also Sansa dies in it hahah."

Jonsas: "You know, the outline is actually a good piece of evidence because it proves that GRRM has entertained the idea of Stark x Snow love, incesty-angst, and tormented passion. And considered it a major plot point within the narrative. We also don't know much about outline Aria, whether she was more romantically inclined or not (and she'd have to be for this to work organically). We don't know if Jon and Aria look similar in this, or if they're visual opposites? We don't know how old she is, assuming there is a time jump. And GRRM has since stated that he was making shit up in the outline. It's quite possible that he kept certain aspects but gave the storylines to different characters, as with Theon, Tyrion, Jaime etc. Is it so far fetched to presume that he may have given Aria's romantic storyline with Jon in this outline to Sansa? The most romantically inclined character of the series? Who does not resemble Jon? Who is closer in age to him? Who doesn't have a defined relationship with him?"

Fandom: "GRRM would NEVER make Stark siblings fuck each other! They're the heroes of the story!"

Jonsas: "Well now you're contradicting yourself, since you just previously stated that if Jon were to be with anyone, it'd be Aria since they're super close and thus understand each other. But then when someone brings up Sansa as a candidate you guys scream that they're siblings so it'll never happen. Which is it? Seems like selective bias to me... And really? GRRM would NEVER entertain an incest storyline concerning the Starks? Why? Because they’re the heroes of the story? But how do you think GRRM makes such situations grey and complex. Giving such conflict to two morally good characters who are (mostly) well loved challenges the readers greatly. And anyway, between cousins who barely had a relationship growing up? The outline is literal proof that GRRM is a-okay with it. And you may want to take a look at his literary influences (Byron, Faulkner, Tolkien) all of which explore the incest motif. But then, y'all seem to bear very surface level readings of the text. Funnily enough, GRRM has referred to Jon as a Byronic romantic heroine. Byron was infamously rumoured to be in love with his half-sister Augusta who was a stranger to him growing up. And this angst caused him to write a number of works pertaining to this motif, such as the Bride of Abydos involving half-siblings turned cousins turned lovers, as well as 'Manfred' to which Jon shares a number of parallels with. There are multiple Byron and Manfred references sprinkled in throughout the series as well (9 and counting) as well as two 'Byron the Beautiful' references in Sansa's chapter; So to assume that GRRM doesn't give any notion as to what he is writing and his potential literary influences is incredibly disingenuous to him as a writer."

Fandom: "GRRM is not a romantic! He's a nihilist!"

Jonsas: "GRRM has stated in interviews that he is a Romantic in the classical sense, but he is compelled by the darker more melancholic side of it, and particularly likes to explore how harsh realities can impact someone who is intensely romantic. Which fits in not just for Jon, but Sansa (most pertinently) as well. But ASOIAF isn't about giving up on romance and dreams because the world is cruel and awful, it's about enduring despite the darkness and war and chaos. It's why Sansa has remained kind and empathetic despite what has happened to her, why Jon continually believes in honour and Brienne exists as the embodiment of a true knight and wishes to uphold those ideals. There won't be a bitter ending, there will be a bittersweet ending. The last book (which was originally meant to be titled 'A Time for Wolves' will now be titled a "Dream of Spring." That title denotes hope, if anything."

Fandom: "Even IF Jonsa did happen, Jon and Sansa won't be happy about it. It'd be purely political.:

Jonsas: Perhaps, but if this were the case, GRRM wouldn't have written them to have such compatible dreams and desires, an equal appreciation for beauty and the world, and a certain indulgence in soft traditional romance. But there's the conflict that would ensue which is why the incest aspect is there. Jonsas acknowledge the angst that would occur regarding Jon and Sansa; shame and "torment." Religious guilt and disillusionment etc. It would cause unbridled internal conflict for the both of them and affect their psyche undoubtedly. But that is why the parentage reveal exists - it offers them peace of mind that could only be remedied by such a reveal - This is what GRRM was intending to do if you're going by his OG outline. But the parentage reveal allows for this concept of enduring hope to be kindled. It would be a complex dynamic, but due to their shared desires, idealism, and respective romantic natures - it would work. They'd have deep and mutual respect for each other after having matured and progressed past childish indifference, they could heal each other uniquely and would treat each other with love and respect. They would both benefit from such a relationship. Jon is not being 'punished' by being with Sansa, because she represents everything he wishes he could have, but has denied himself due to his societal position and intrinsic inadequacy issues. Jon who believed he'd never be loved purely due to his bastard status, and Sansa who has become more cautionary and despondent about love due to everyone wanting her claim. There'd be a sort of poetic beauty to that, but it wouldn't exist without it's "melancholy" and it's angst, at least at first. GRRM has always intended to subvert expectations - and this is a perfect way to do so, since not even the general fandom is open to the idea, that is is how interwoven into the text it is. It's something only the most astute of readers who have a deep understanding of their respective characters could grasp. "What does Jon want deep down? What does Sansa want deep down?" It would be grounded in reality, but there'd be a sort of fantasy too it as well - and that is the whole point. But it's not just that, There'd be R + L = J payoffs, political solutions, and narrative/character solutions. It'd be like a full circle if anything - THAT'S compelling and unpredictable whilst making a lot of sense, having been there since the beginning."

Fandom: "UGHHHH SHUT UP YOU DELUSIONAL JONSAS. JON AND D*NY ARE ICE AND FIRE AND WILL HAVE AN EPIC ROMANCE, YOU GUYS DESERVE TO BE STONED IN THE STREET AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO COLLECTIVELY SEND ANON HATE AND CREATE ANTI BLOGS HAHAHAHAA IT'LL NEVERRRR HAPPEN!!!"

*Jonsas and GRRM collectively sigh in unison....*

#God help us #I've turned into a spiteful Jonsa idc I'm sick of experiencing bullying in this fandom #the way the group think treats the most outlandish theories with civil respect but as soon as Jonsa is brought up NOOOOOOO #This isn't even the tip of the iceberg literally every single anti argument can be countered #Like I've NEVER come across an anti who has seriously made me rethink my interpretations because it generally falls into:#“they're siblings!” Or “They don't care about each other at all!” Or “GRRM would never make Starks do incest” Or “J/D are the epic romance!#jonsa #jon x sansa #fandom stupidity #anti asoiaf fandom

72 notes · View notes