#they missed the entire point of asoiaf

[leesielex]

So anti Dany's love to say that without dragons Dany would be nothing, that she relies far too much on her dragons, even in the books. I would like to say, you must not have read the books in a long time and are most definitely conflating that with the show and your own fanon. But also, tell me with a straight face the Stark's don't rely just as much if not MORE on their direwolves in the books than Dany does on her dragons?

Specifically Jon, Robb, and Bran but even Rickon as little as he is in the books, and Arya using her warging skills to give her an advantage as well. The only one who doesn't use their direwolf as much as Dany is Sansa b/c Lady dies so early.

The other point I heard made today in the same post was Dany relies too much on fire and blood and doesn't listen to her advisors and have any strategy. Which is a completely contradictory statement.

In the books, Dany uses her dragons exactly ONE time in Astapor to burn Kraznys. The dragons are no bigger than dogs with wings and barely can burn one man. It is the Unsullied she uses to sack the city (after coming up with the strategy to do so on her own). The only other time Drogon unleashes his fire is in Qarth. Dany doesn't order him to, doesn't say Dracarys in the books, that happens in the SHOW. In the books, Drogon sees what is happening to Dany and that these warlocks mean to do her harm and Drogon unleashes his flame and fury on the HOU on his own accord.

For the entire first book, Dany does not have her dragons and everything she accomplished was on her own and of her own merit. She gains the strength and power to stand up for herself and others. She eats an entire horse heart. As a 13 year old girl, she marries a 32 year old warlord from a completely foreign culture she is thrown into and doesn't even know the language. She acclimates and adjusts, learns the language, learns the culture; learns of her people; and becomes their khaleesi. She learns how to be respected by Drogo. And if she wasn't worthy she wouldn't have been able to hatch those dragons because Targaryens had tried to bring them back for over a century and failed until her.

It is entirely contradictory to say that Dany only knows Fire and Blood and relies on it and her dragons too much and that she ignores her advisors because it is her advisors that are telling her she is too gentle, too merciful, and she needs to use her dragons. Her advisors are the ones telling her to use her biggest advantage and bring fire and blood to her enemies! Even Ser Barristan! While Dany is missing on drogon, the Yunkaii having taken hostages including Daario, they want the dragons killed for the hostages return. When asked what Barristan will do when they refuse an alternate offer he replies "Fire and Blood."

It's preposterous to say she has no strategy because in the BOOKS every city she conquers is HER strategy. It was her idea to deceive and trick the slave masters and free astapor. Dany was the one who made them pack up all the slave collars into carts and lug them to the next city to shoot them into the city to inspire slave revolts. It was her who came up with every idea to take every city from Astapor to Meereen. She weighs all her strategies carefully and weighs every piece of advice offered to her and only ignores her advisors because she sees a better option. It was the SHOW that gave all her strategy to the MEN around her, whether it was Jorah or Daario or Barristan or Tyrion even.

And the main point, why is it always bad for Dany to use her dragons one time against like one person to take a city, yet Jon who uses Ghost often to fight and survive or Robb who always used Grey Wind in battle and used Grey Wind to scout the land are never mentioned how they would be nothing compared to any other Joe Schmo in the books without their direwolves? It's a Fricken fantasy series and while characters like Cersei, Littlefinger, and Sansa are meant to be political, characters like Jon and Dany and Bran (who uses his direwolf more than anyone uses their magical creatures) are the FANTASY characters, though they do intersect with political as well, their main focus will be on defeating the OTHERS who are also fantastical characters and won't be defeated by politicking but with the help of the fantasy companions by their sides!

The hypocrisy and ridiculous standards y'all expect Dany to live up to but your fave character couldn't do is just ridiculous and it needs to stop but I know it never will.

*I didn't come up with all these ideas all on my own. There was discussion about the post on another social media. I just needed to vent in one place.

[melrosing]

JAIME IN THE RIVERLANDS I: Exploring the 'Limits of Redemption'

Or: I HATE YOUR JAIME META AND HERE'S WHY

[Note: So this long fucking post is actually only the intro to what is (I think) a three/four part essay; the other parts are in editing stages at the moment but I figured if I don't post the first part now it'll be a WIP forever. Hopefully the rest will follow relatively soon as I'm literally sitting around with covid rn doing approx. nothing else but whatever watch this space I guess. anyway]

“I want there to be a possibility of redemption for us, because we all do terrible things. We should be able to be forgiven. Because if there is no possibility of redemption, what’s the answer then?” George R. R. Martin (!!!)

‘Redemption’ is broadly considered to be the most significant theme in Jaime Lannister’s narrative, with most arguing that the conclusion of his story must reach one verdict or another in terms of whether he has achieved it. For those that believe he won’t, Jaime’s chapters in AFFC and ADWD are most commonly used as evidence. 

However, Jaime’s Riverlands arc (which I will here distinguish as beginning in Jaime III AFFC, and ending in Jaime I ADWD) is one I think is too often broken down and compartmentalised, with few takes managing to consider it holistically. Scenes are often isolated from their context and from the preceding and succeeding chapters, with fans nonetheless reaching their verdict on Jaime’s broader story based on this limited analysis. So the arguments go, here’s Jaime doing bad things and fighting for the wrong side after all he went through in ASOS: after choosing to change, and then failing to do so. If Jaime truly wanted redemption, why is he still fighting for the Lannister regime? Why are all his efforts for good so pitifully small-scale? 

Here I want to consider this arc not just through isolated scenes, but within the broader narrative of Jaime’s story. For, as with everything else, GRRM is rarely interested in presenting a straightforward story of its type: Jaime’s struggle for redemption in the Riverlands is treated with as much complexity as other arcs in the story, such as Dany’s governance in Meereen, or Jon’s on the Wall. Characters are often trapped by circumstance, forced to compromise or made to contradict their own ideals in an effort to achieve their goals. The result can be ugliness and strife where a reader expects catharsis. In a series with two volumes to go, this is not to say that catharsis won’t come for Jaime’s story, but its delayed arrival has seen fans frequently contrast it with another POV: Theon’s.

Theon is another character for whom redemption is a guiding theme, though his is often favoured above Jaime’s owing to the more straightforward catharsis it affords. When we last see Theon in ADWD, he has fought sizable demons (both internal and otherwise) to escape Winterfell and save Jeyne Poole in the process. From here, a reader anticipates Theon will continue to fight for the right causes, and carve out a new identity separate from that as Balon’s heir, or Ned Stark’s hostage. No reader expects that Theon will turn around in TWOW to return to his old ways, because he has no cause to look back: the work is done, his old trappings gone, and the only direction left to him is forwards into something new.

Theon’s arc begins slightly ahead of Jaime’s, kicking off in the second volume where Jaime’s gathers pace in the third, but even accounting for this variance in pacing, the differences between their two redemption stories are notable. Theon begins the series as a relatively isolated character, estranged from his family and superimposed into one where the patriarch might take his head at any moment. For the most part, it doesn’t seem as though anyone even likes Theon all that much, apart from the mother he has largely forgotten about. It’s unsurprising, then, that over the course of several conflicts in ACOK we see Theon’s ties and allies diminished to practically nothing: he’s abandoned by his own house, becomes an enemy of the Starks, and is kept hostage by the Boltons who view him as a useful piece of dirt. 

Theon is ultimately removed from grander disputes besides as a pawn, too afraid to claim his autonomy for fears of painful consequences from Ramsay. He remembers his wrongs, but feels helpless to atone for them, left instead to ruminate in Winterfell. Theon’s redemption is then pursued through courage and reclamation of identity: a growing irrelevance to the new powers of the plot, his story is to reclaim his name and autonomy in the background, acting not for any house or name, but on his own renewed instincts for right and wrong. No family or political cause is left to rely on him, and so Theon ironically has the freedom to act on a purely individual basis, fighting instead for the single person who does need him now: Jeyne Poole. His act of heroism at the end of ADWD carves a checkpoint viewed by most readers as a decisive move towards redemption.

Jaime’s arc and Theon’s have more in common whilst Jaime is imprisoned by the Bloody Mummers in ASOS, where he too relies largely on instincts and courage, and develops the desire to change through tormented self-reflection. But the crucial difference is the scope each are afforded from here on. As discussed, Theon, on point of reflection, is essentially alone. The only choices he can make are those he makes for himself, and indeed he has nothing to lose but his life, for even his name has been stripped from him. 

This is not so in Jaime’s case. Far from Theon’s reduced existence, halfway through ASOS Jaime has returned to all his old trappings, as well as new positions of power he never asked for. He’s now in a position to make choices that were never his before, whether they concern the makeup of the Kingsguard or the safety of his house, and each choice has a domino effect that can ripple throughout the realm. Indeed, rather than estranged from his family, Jaime is inserted directly into the midst of their affairs - at precisely the time when the threat to their house proves existential. This is not a character who can look only to his own personal hopes, ambitions and wellbeing for guidance - rather, this is someone in a prime seat of governance. Ironically, this sees Jaime’s  personal autonomy greatly diminished as a result.

Not all of this is new, of course. Jaime has been born with stakes in these institutions - or acquired them at 15, in the case of the Kingsguard. The fate of House Lannister has always mattered to Jaime because the Lannisters are his own family, and owing to the precarious position Tywin has left them in, that same family are now in mortal danger. Plenty of words are shed amongst the Lannisters on the importance of maintaining Tywin’s legacy in keeping the security of their House, and unfortunately, Jaime has inherited this legacy at precisely the time he has hoped to escape it. Though he emerges from ASOS with personal ambitions to rescue Sansa, become a knight like Brienne, reclaim his fatherhood to his children and restore peace in the realm, what he wants has to be balanced alongside the security of the Lannisters collectively, and the delicate regency that sustains them.

As Ned tells Cersei as early as AGOT, there is no safe escape for House Lannister now: Robert would’ve hounded them to the ends of the world if he knew the truth, and certainly by AFFC both highborn and smallfolk alike long for their downfall. It is here that Jaime finds himself upon his return to King’s Landing. So from ASOS onwards, we see Jaime attempting to continue the arc he began with Brienne, and struggling to do so within the confines of his new elevated roles, risking undermining his family even as they undermine him at every turn. What deeds he does manage, such as instigating rescues for both Tyrion and Sansa, need to be done covertly, whilst everything he does in the public sphere is subject to Cersei’s whims. 

By Jaime III AFFC, Cersei declares that Jaime’s role now is to restore peace in the Riverlands (that is, to quash the Tullys), and Jaime, reluctantly, gathers his men and goes. So begins a balancing act between his private ambition and public persona, where he knows the slightest misstep might be the downfall of his family. 

(Of course, the grim truth is that the fate of House Lannister was sealed by Tywin long ago.)

JAIME AND THE LANNISTER LEGACY

As mentioned, readers often simplify all this to argue that Jaime is simply fighting for ‘the Lannister regime’ in AFFC; that he is flying the colours for his family because that’s the easier thing to do than pursue redemption and the greater good. I’d disagree. 

Firstly, we should note that Jaime has always had a healthy disregard for Lannister rhetoric and his father’s view of the world. This is not to say Jaime is not aware of the power his name holds, and that like his brother Tyrion, he won’t use it occasionally as a crutch, performance or excuse:

"White is for Starks. I'll drink red like a good Lannister." [JAIME V, ASOS]

"If you know me, Urswyck, you know you'll have your reward. A Lannister always pays his debts.” [JAIME III, ASOS]

He was a Lannister of Casterly Rock, Lord Commander of the Kingsguard; no sellsword would make him scream. [JAIME III, ASOS]

That would show the realm that the Lannisters are above their laws, like gods and Targaryens. [JAIME III, ASOS]

“The Father Above has more time than I do. Do you know who I am?" [JAIME IV, AFFC]

And to say the least, Jaime is no stranger to a gold plate armour. Simply put, this is a character quite capable of talking the talk and walking the walk when it suits him, but his broader POV shows one far more sceptical than Tywin or Cersei. 

To start with, Jaime actually shirked his lead role in House Lannister at fifteen, giving up Casterly Rock and the propagation of his house for the promise of his sister’s love. He declines Tywin’s offer to restore him to this position in ASOS (even despite his disillusionment with Cersei) and immediately sets about undermining both his father and sister by rescuing Tyrion and Sansa. Jaime has also from a young age rejected Tywin’s diatribes on his brother, spending his life regretting the one instance he aligned himself to them (see: Tysha). As a young Kingsguard he does not advocate allowing Tywin into the city, even knowing his father would win decisively, does not join his father at the last minute either - and in fact did not even raise Tywin as King given ample opportunity:

"Shall I proclaim a new king as well?" Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain: Shall it be your father [...]?”

[...]"Proclaim who you bloody well like," he told Crakehall. Then he climbed the Iron Throne and seated himself with his sword across his knees, to see who would come to claim the kingdom. [JAIME II, ASOS]

At this crucial moment, Jaime adopts a neutral stance, leaving the politicking to other men - and this is a stance that comes to define him up to AGOT: given all he has seen, Jaime no longer has faith in the rights of Kings nor the honour of good men, and so retreats inward where the only rules are his own. Ultimately Jaime’s natural inclination is to stand as an individual: for his own values, rather than as a representative for his house or any institution. 

And his general disdain for his father’s doings and teachings is seen everywhere in his POV - or occasionally, by omission. Whilst Cersei and even Tyrion frequently reflect on Tywin’s methodry and lessons, Jaime, the key subject of those lessons, seldom considers them - except with resentment or reluctance:

"Father," he told the corpse, "it was you who told me that tears were a mark of weakness in a man, so you cannot expect that I should cry for you." [JAIME I, AFFC]

Indeed, in much of AFFC we see Jaime wandering the Riverlands, disturbed by the ruins his father’s campaigns have left behind. This is a character reiterated throughout his POV as one who runs on passion: he entered the war for Cersei and Tyrion, albeit recklessly and in the midst of a conflict of his own making. Meanwhile, Tywin’s work is cold-blooded, calculated and brutal, and reminds Jaime of his enemies rather than his allies. 

In fact, the only aspect of House Lannister that Jaime seems especially concerned with seem to be his loved ones within it. In the beginning this appears largely limited to Cersei and Tyrion, the two he asks after when seeking news from Catelyn. News of a distant uncle and his losses at war are dismissed out of hand, and Tywin himself is asked after as essentially an afterthought:

"It's Cersei and Tyrion who concern me. As well as my lord father." [CATELYN VII, ACOK]

Later, of course, we encounter family like Genna and Daven representing Jaime's broader emotional stakes within his house, and his growing cares for his children make him more intent on its survival. But his remote affection (or entire lack of it) for his own father never seems to waver.

When Tywin does die, we see Jaime holding vigil beside his corpse out of a sense of obligation as Tywin’s son, but after spending much of it scowling at Tywin’s corpse and thinking ill of him, he abandons the vigil early to chase after a distraught Tommen. In the same scene, we even see Jaime attempting to counsel his son differently to how his father did him: where Tywin taught Jaime a man does not cry and should never show weakness, Jaime does not ridicule his son’s distress (as Cersei notably does), but tries to offer him support (albeit with only a sad coping mechanism of his own):

"A man can bear most anything, if he must," Jaime told his son. I have smelled a man roasting, as King Aerys cooked him in his own armour. "The world is full of horrors, Tommen. You can fight them, or laugh at them, or look without seeing . . . go away inside." [JAIME I, AFFC]

In short, Jaime has no apparent interest in upholding his father’s teachings or values, and all signs point to a man who hopes to raise his son differently, to undo cycles of tyranny, and to begin anew. This is all sadly compounded by the inheritance Tywin has left behind.

TYWIN'S LEGACY

Jaime’s nobler intentions unfortunately have little place for manoeuvre in the preservation of House Lannister. In fact, the family are essentially left with two options: they can sustain the 'Lannister regime', or they can vanish completely - and the latter isn’t altogether realistic for the most famous family in Westeros, in a narrative that always strives to be.

So for the Lannisters to maintain their security, they are left with largely the former - maintaining the outward appearance of power that Tywin has fostered for his house. The trouble is that maintaining that appearance, when it was previously sustained by the severity of the actions one man was willing to take.

Since he rose to the head of his family, Tywin has ruled by fear: he has made enemies of powerful people, false friends of others, and they only cower because of the ultimate threat that Tywin has showed more than once that he can act upon - given cause, he will demolish a house completely. Tywin’s method essentially runs opposite to his father’s: where Tytos offered lenience, Tywin determines to offer none: you are with him, or you are nothing.

Whilst this has been effective in removing smaller targets such as the Reynes and Tarbecks, it has done outsized damage in ruining the good faith and trust that others might have in House Lannister: certainly a Lannister will pay his debts, but what it takes to accrue one is the fear that Tywin rules with.

Tywin’s demolition method was attempted on House Stark in ASOS, and by AFFC, it may seem to have been successful on the surface level. The northern forces are in pieces, the Lannisters are allied to the Tyrells, and there is a new Lannister king on the throne. The threats from overseas seem vague and obscure, and Tommen holds tomorrow. 

But of course, this is not actually the case. Sansa is not dead, nor Arya, nor Bran and Rickon. They’ve survived through their parents’ memory and teachings, and their father’s vassals are already conspiring the Starks’ return to the north. It goes without saying that the power of Winterfell is sustained through security and loyalty, not fear, and that fear is infinitely more fragile, with a great deal more work required in sustaining it. 

Of course, Tywin's reasons for ruling with fear are, despite his pretences, rooted in his own feelings of inadequacy rather than political practicality: this is a man who has grown up feeling humiliated and undermined by his own father, and is desperate to regain the power and respect he believes he's entitled to - by any means necessary. Still, such is the state of the legacy he leaves behind for his own son: an unsustainable campaign of fear, with no-one left to uphold it:

Tywin was big even when he was little." She gave a sigh. "Who will protect us now?"

Jaime kissed her cheek. "He left a son."

"Aye, he did. That is what I fear the most, in truth."

That was a queer remark. "Why should you fear?"

"Jaime," she said, tugging on his ear, "sweetling, I have known you since you were a babe at Joanna's breast. You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg, and there's some of Kevan in you, else you would not wear that cloak . . . but Tyrion is Tywin's son, not you." [JAIME V, AFFC]

Ironically, what is here identified by Genna as a weakness of Jaime’s is really a weakness of Tywin’s. He has an heir who might have carried the torch forward for House Lannister, might just have managed to build enough bridges for whichever Lannister came next… but Tywin’s view of the world is such that that heir is an abused, embittered man more interested in their downfall. The force that might have once sustained them will now be turned against them as Tyrion joins with Daenerys Targaryen - and regardless, whatever progress and good faith Tyrion fostered for House Lannister in ACOK was quickly undone by Tywin in ASOS with the Red Wedding.

So what’s left is only a hopeless, toxic mess: House Lannister has no true friends and no true allies. They have only a host of enemies, small and large, who desire the utter demolition of a house that sought the same of others. And the man left to carry the torch is one without conviction in anything it stands for.

Nonetheless, the torch still rests with Jaime, with the stakes high as they’ve ever been for he and his loved ones. In AFFC, GRRM shows Jaime attempting a performance as Tywin’s heir, all whilst giving away vital ground, leading without conviction and resenting his role. By the end of ADWD, Jaime will have all but abandoned the Lannister cause for the pursuit of redemption, and the collapse of his house will enter overdrive.

[PART TWO: Bluffs, Bargaining & Baby Trebuchets - Why Jaime Can't Win in the Riverlands]

[racefortheironthrone]

Hello, I’ve a part asoiaf part medieval history question. So despite the strict gender roles, we know that women (at least noble women) can enjoy some “male” activities like horse riding and some kinds of hunting (Cat says Arya can have a hunting hawk). Are there any other “male” activities women can partake too without being judged about it, or even encouraged to do so (both in Westeros and real world)?

So as medievalists and historians of gender have pointed out, ASOIAF is far more restrictive for women than actual medieval Europe. I'm actually going to leave aside the situation of noblewoman for a second, because the vast majority of women were not nobles and their experience of gender would be radically different.

What counted as "male activities" for example would vary enormously by location (rural vs. urban) and thus occupation (farmer vs. artisan). Among the peasantry, while men tended to work in the fields and concentrated on cereal-crop production and women tended to do the manifold work of maintaining the home, the reality is that the irregular nature of agricultural labor meant that in times of high demand (especially spring sowing and autumn harvest) it was a matter of survival for every single member of the household to work in the fields. So women absolutely knew how to work a plow, and swing a scythe.

As for the urban worker, while there was also a high degree of gender segregation by occupation and guilds could often be quite misogynistic when it came to trying to masculinize trades (especially those involving higher rates of capital investment), it was also true that the entire household was expected to contribute their labor, so that wives, daughters, collateral female relatives, and female servants picked up the trade alongside their male counterpart. Moreover, as biased towards men as guilds could be, they were even more committed to the principle that guild businesses were family businesses, and so in situations where a master artisan had only daughters or died childless or died with underage heirs, it was absolutely routine for guilds to admit daughters and widows as guild members, indeed usually at the rank of master, all so that the business could remain in the same family. This is why medievalists can point to so many examples of women who worked in skilled trades, often at a high level.

That's what I think GRRM's portrait of medieval society is missing: an entire world of women in business, working elbow-to-elbow with men to make a living.

As for noblewomen, part of the difficulty is that a big part of being a noble was not doing stuff - not working for a living, chiefly - and instead engaging in leisure activities as much as possible. And women were very much a part of those activities (indeed, for many of them the point was to mingle with eligible people of the opposite gender), whether that's feasting, dancing, hunting, hawking, theater and other entertainments, fireworks, tourneys and jousts, etc.

However, women were also engaged in the main "occupations" of the nobility - estate management and politics - way more than GRRM really takes note of. To begin with, as even GRRM acknowledges to some extent, the lady of the house was expected to take an active role in running the house, which meant managing servants, keeping track of accounts payable and receivable, making sure the supplies arrive on time and in the right quality and quantity, keeping an eye on maintenance and repairs (with the help of servants, natch), etc.

Given that even the manor houses of the nobility were units of economic production, the lady of the house would also be responsible for oversight of how the house was doing with its pigs, goats, chickens and pigeons and geese, bees (because beeswax and honey were really important commodities), sheep, and so on, and what kind of figures they were pulling down at the mill and the weir, and so forth.

As medievalists have known for a long time, this list of duties got even longer whenever the lord of the house was away at war or on business, when the lady would be expected to pick up all his work too - which means making sure the rents and taxes get paid, deciding which fields to distribute manpower to and when, dealing with legal disputes in the manorial court, and so on. And if the war came home, the lady of the house was expected to lead the defense of the castle and there are many, many examples of noblewomen who had to organize sieges that lasted months and even years.

However, we also have to consider the impact of inheritance by birth and the inherent randomness of sex at birth - as much as they tried to avoid it, plenty of noble houses ended up with female heirs or in the hands of widows. Most of the time in most countries, women could and did inherit (or at the very least their male children and relatives could inherit through them) titles and fiefdoms, and while their husbands would often take on overlordship de jure uxoris, unmarried women and widows very much exercised their authority as the Lady or Baroness or Countess or whatever, and history is also full of women who were extremely influential in medieval politics and backed up their influence by any means necessary.

[vampire-exgirlfriend]

Let's talk about Daemon Targaryen and his resentment of Rhea Royce and their marriage

*gif by @emilykaldwen (who is so brave for watching me scream about this)

I think so many people are happy to tie it all up neatly with a bow that says "he hated her because she wasn't a Targaryen and Daemon is a racist/blood purist." There is no question that Daemon is a very proud Targaryen, and that the Targaryens (and Velaryons, to a seemingly lesser degree) are blood purists, but to reduce Daemon down to this single fact is, in my unhumble opinion, incredibly lazy, and erases some of the more obvious and interesting things that I see frequently getting overlooked when it comes to his marriage with Rhea.

Daemon was knighted at 16 and basically immediately, Alysanne had arranged a marriage to Rhea Royce of Runestone. I would say, in part, it was because they were trusted vassal lords and that any children Daemon had with Rhea would have something to inherit due to his status as a second son (which we know is a major problem with the Targaryens, who had no plans for any kid that’s not inheriting the throne). But there is the flip side of that coin - Jaehaerys' I and Alysanne's child were dropping like flies, and it's made clear in the text that Daemon was more the Targaryen ideal than Viserys was, taking after their mother, Alyssa. "Maester Yandel said he was dashing, daring, and dangerous, but mercurial and quick to take offense. Archmaester Gyldayn wrote that Daemon was ambitious, impetuous, and moody, as charming as he was hot-tempered." He was strong. He was handsome. He was skilled with a sword and held in highish esteem for these things. And by this point, he was third in line for the throne (as Rhaenyra was a) a girl and b) an infant). And if we choose to follow the idea that Alysanne would attempt to have Rhaenys reinstated as heir, removing power and influence from other male Targaryens makes sense.

So he was essentially dragged into this marriage by his grandmother as a stop gap to any power or influence that he might attain being so close to the throne, when he was still a child (yes, I know 16 is considered adulthood in Westeros, but let's take a minute to remember the hormone soup our brains are at 16), and much like women of the time, was used as a way to shore up alliance/allegiance/military backing (let's ignore that the Vale was already locked into an alliance due to Aemma's marriage to Viserys). Daemon very solidly fits the “sold bride” trope that we see so much in ASOIAF (Sansa, Dany, etc). Now add into that the weird and fucked up incest bits and the Valyrian/Targaryen idea that if he had been a daughter, he would have been married to Viserys and not shipped off. He would not have been abandoned in this way had he been a daughter; his place within his family would have been secured, untouchable. He would not be alone.

So a beloved and revered member of their family ships him off to a strange place with zero Valyrian culture, which he had spent his entire life surrounded by and proud to be a part of, always told that Targaryens are closer to gods than men, to be the Lord Consort to a girl that he had never met, who seemed to feel the same disdain toward him that he later showed toward her. Within this universe, we see so many meta posts and fics where women/girls are forced into marriages they didn't want and the rightful resentment and anger that grows there, and we don't fault them for it. Why are we suddenly faulting Daemon for that same thing? At this point in his life, the guy is basically any other child bride, forced to consummate a marriage against his will in a strange place, removed entirely from his family.

Now this isn't to say that an idiot, angry, petulant 16 year old boy missed the big picture. With Caraxes at his side and any potential children inheriting Runestone, he could have absolutely taken Runestone and the Vale (which may have been what Alysanne intended). But he is an idiot, angry, petulant 16 year old boy who has been ripped from everything he knows, everyone he loves, and dumped into what he considers some backwater town and he's not fucking having it. Which says a lot about who he is. We see in both the show and the book that Daemon is fiercely loyal to House Targaryen, to his family, to the blood of the dragon. He craves that closeness, that proximity to them. Daemon is a lot of things, good and bad, and as GRRM likes to say, "an equal mix of dark and light."

The Dance of Dragons isn't just the house of the dragon tearing themselves apart, but a continuation of the stupidity and inaction of Jaehaerys I by Viserys. Everyone was let down by these men, and it resulted in the beginning of the end for their empire (we can dive into Valyrian/Targaryen supremacy another time). Daemon and Aemma were the start of it, the first of Viserys' victims. Then Rhaenyra and Alicent, Aegon and Helaena and Aemond and Daeron.

They failed everyone around them - Jaehaerys in his inaction in choosing a female heir under the appearances of keeping the realm placated and not disturbing the inherent misogyny of the lords of the realm, and Viserys for choosing not to understand his younger brother's emotional suffering nor protecting his daughter after he undid the tradition of male primogeniture for the Iron Throne (tradition, not law) and again when he didn't have oaths re-sworn to her after Aegon's birth and not codifying absolute primogeniture. 

As for Daemon, morally gray characters aren't for everyone, even as much as we like to pretend they are. And that's what Daemon is - he is, at his core, incredibly morally gray. There is nuance there, and it's important. You don't have to like every character. But you can at least try to have a base understanding of the nuance that makes them them, and not be lazy about it.

[visenyaism]

Eh, I don't think it's really a problem to say that Sansa and Dany will probably have opposing political goals and might not be braiding each others hair. One of them wants to rule the 7 kingdoms, the other one will want the north to be independent. The idea that woman should just get along because they're woman and they've had similar live experiences is kinda reductive and it wouldn't be said about them if they were men. This is asoiaf, not a slumber party. People aren't gonna get along because some fans want them to.

i was joking earlier but i do disagree with a lot of this. i think saying that dany and sansa’s goals are ruling the seven kingdoms versus northern independence so they are definitely going to oppose each other is just missing the point. the reason daenerys is still in essos after five books is because her actual goal, the thing she wants to accomplish and the thing that motivates her, isn’t ruling westeros. what dany really wants is to find a home for herself, and to make the world a better and kinder place for everyone who had to grow up living in fear with no freedom like she did. she’s been told her entire life that the only way to accomplish that goal is to conquer and rule the seven kingdoms, but it’s not the only way, because she’s still doing all of that to some extent in mereen.

likewise, sansa doesn’t even express any sort of political inclinations towards northern independence in the books. what SHE wants is to go home as herself, and also for the world to be a better and kinder place. obviously she’s not doing the whole breaker of chains worldwide liberation thing dany is (sansa does not have the lived experience of growing up on the streets) but she very clearly does also have this sense of empathy and concern for the people she meets who are downtrodden by the political system.

obviously their goals aren’t unilaterally the same but they do clearly align with each other. they have the same ideas about what power should be used for: it’s not having it for power’s sake but to improve the lives of the people you rule over, loving them and having them love you back. they’re both idealists, which gets dismissed as teenage-girl naivety by the gross older men in their lives, but it’s very real and there. saying they’re entirely oppositional is just wrong

[unknown-terrain]

It's wild to me how INCEST was just normalized on this godawful show — to the point that the showrunners/actors really EXPECTED us to see the Jaime & Cersei ending as ROMANTIC????? Like, no, that scene was ridiculous. A ceiling killed them. The only thing that evoked from me was laughter.

GRRM never paid show!Twincest any compliments either but instead reminded us how in the books they're effectively estranged. He did compliment show!J/B though by saying Gwendoline and Nikolaj had amazing chemistry together as Jaime and Brienne aka the couple he said he based on his favorite romance Beauty and the Beast and I think that's a pretty big deal. So we know which pairing GRRM is building up to be the true love one....something D&D failed to comprehend all because of their egos with bad taste.

Dumb & Dumber and HBO went above and beyond for years to try to encourage people to root for Twincest something that GRRM never does in ASOIAF. D&D completely missed the point of their relationship and because of their weird gross obsession with J/C, they turned the relationship into something else entirely....and still flopped. In the books the deterioration of their relationship was more compelling than whatever show tried to do. Till this day the majority of people still don't see that Twincest ceiling death as romantic....more like a waste of two characters and is infamously known as some of the worst writing ever. Considering how D&D went into hiding after S8, even they must know how much they fucked up. Anywho their little pro-Twincest experiment failed spectacularly. They were so out of touch their writing failed to consistently resonate with audiences on several different fronts not just the Twincest. I'm satisfied af at the backlash D&D/HBO got. Also very satisfied at how well loved Jaime/Brienne continues to be, like D&D wanted us to dislike that relationship but the people said nope, we're going to love them even more!

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

Daenerys was the Key

Not for him, thought Tyrion, not for the Nine Mages, nor Baelor the Blessed, nor any of the others...till Daenerys.

This quote is from an early draft of ADWD back when it was still combined with AFFC. Just because it didn't make it to the final draft doesn't mean that it's not still true. By the way, the him is Maelys Blackfyre, who, in the early drafts, killed his son in a blood sacrifice to hatch dragon eggs.

After the Dance of the Dragons and the death of the last dragon hatchling, attempts were made by the Targaryens to bring back the dragons. First was sanctioned by Aegon III, who had mages (the nine from the quote) from Essos brought to KL to try to hatch some eggs with their magic; clearly they failed. Baelor the Blessed prayed over his dragon egg for a year to try and make it hatch.

The next recorded attempt was by Aegon V. After Aegon's reforms to better the lives of the smallfolk, the lords began to get restless and unhappy. This, compounded with the Baratheons revolting over Duncan's marriage to Jenny of Oldstones, caused Aegon to attempt to bring back the dragons in order to keep the lords in check. Aegon attempted to hatch the dragons using wildfire and mages at Summerhall, causing the deaths of almost the entire family, with the exception of Aerys, Rhaella, and the newborn Rhaegar. The eggs did not hatch. Aerys the Mad also attempted to use wildfire to hatch eggs, with the same results.

It wasn't until Daenerys Targaryen that dragons were brought back into the world. And it wasn't because of a fire, a blood sacrifice, or a magic ritual, it was because of her. There was plenty of fire at Summerhall and in KL, yet the eggs didn't hatch. Much blood was spilt at Summerhall, much of it king's blood, yet the eggs didn't hatch. The mages used magic rituals and it could be argued Baelor's prayers were an attempt at a ritual, yet the eggs didn't hatch. In the original draft, Maelys burned his son alive, yet the eggs still didn't hatch.

Daenerys is the one component missing from the past attempts, she is the key.

The whole point of the scene in A Game of Thrones where Daenerys hatches the dragons is that she makes up the magic as she goes along; she is someone who really might do anything. (George R. R. Martin)

There it is from the man himself: Dany is the reason the eggs hatched. If it had been anyone else, not Jon Snow nor Young Griff not any other character in ASOIAF, the eggs wouldn't have hatched. She was the key for the ritual to work, she is the Mother of Dragons, and no one else could have replaced her.

[fromtheseventhhell]

Interesting how the Trident incident is the only moment where people question Joffrey's capacity for cruelty. He is almost universally considered one of the worst asoiaf characters, with no redeemable qualities. No one ever attempts to justify his actions when he abuses Sansa, orders Ned's executions, or any of his other many acts of violence. It's only this moment, a moment meant to introduce us to his cruel nature, that people seem to believe him to be a rational character with limits. It's honestly laughable. It's evident that the people who think like this are just biased against Arya; the majority of these arguments are centered not around Joffrey's violence, but Arya's actions to defend Mycah. People seem to truly believe that the better option would have been to let Joffrey "have his fun" and torment Mycah.

Debating how badly Joffrey would've hurt Mycah misses the entire point of the moment. Joffrey attacks Mycah because he's lowborn, he finds amusement in tormenting others, and he knows he can get away with it. He was quick to pull his sword and draw blood and, from what we know of his character, he undoubtedly would've taken it further. Arya stands up to him because she thinks that Mycah is worth defending which is significant considering she is the only one to do so. She is also the only character who mourns him and is affected by his senseless death, even books later (Ned is affected by his death but I wouldn't say he mourns him, although it is a moment that influences his feelings towards the Lannisters and Robert). Even if, which is a very big if, Joffery hadn't intended to go any further he had already crossed a line by attacking Mycah. The only alternative would be that Arya simply sits by and watches Joffrey further injure Mycah...and that's somehow the "better" option?

The people coming to the conclusion that Arya was the one who escalated the situation (and that it's somehow not Joffrey pulling his sword on an innocent boy) are coming from the perspective of the classist society that they live in. Joffrey attacking a lowborn boy wasn't an issue worth action, but harming a prince is "wrong". Mycah being attacked, and later murdered, is seen as inconsequential to the other characters (and readers) because he is lowborn. That's the thing though. You aren't supposed to look at this situation where a young boy is murdered for no reason and think that the only one who defended should've behaved differently. This moment is a criticism of the classist society these characters live in. It is significant that Arya is markedly less classist than a majority of other characters and cares when no one else does.

Further, if Arya were truly in the wrong for her actions then Joffrey wouldn't have needed to lie about what happened. From the very existence of the "trial" and Arya being given the chance to tell her version of events, we know that there wouldn't be any punishment if the truth of the situation had been told from the very beginning. The only reason there was an issue is because Joffrey decided to attack Mycah, and then later lie about what happened. Arya is not responsible for Joffrey's cruelty, Cersei's enabling, or Robert's subsequent apathy. The fact that people can't seem to comprehend this is maddening. I've never seen people have the same attitude towards Sansa for speaking up for Dontos, even though it incurred Joffrey's wrath and would've escalated had Sandor not spoken up. Why are Sansa's actions brave and kind, but Arya's are seen as stupid and reckless? What happened to not blaming young characters for the actions of others?

This is one of those things where the fandom decides for themselves that they know the story being told, without actually looking at how it's written. They would rather debate on (baseless) hypotheticals than look at why George presented the story to us the way he did. It takes an insane amount of misinterpretation to decide that Arya's actions are the reason for Mycah's death and misses a, rather large, point being made by the author. Notably, none of these people can ever provide evidence from the book to support their insistence that Joffrey would've simply left Mycah alone. You would think that since that's the basis of their argument and they're so adamant that their analysis is correct, they would be able to support their reasoning. It's almost as though the books don't support their interpretations...

[vivacissimx]

vivacissimx meta masterpost ✧˖°

We're about at the time where a post like this makes sense. If you see any missing metas it's likely because I no longer (entirely) agree with either a premise or phrasing and I'd like to rework it at some point—or I forgot. Feel free to ask!

I've bolded metas which I believe to be the most sound or that highlight a critical point which is overlooked by most ASOIAF analysis I have read. I also use the tags #text and #gender-in-asoiaf.

The Starks and the North

how jon being a bastard shaped the relationships between ALL members of house stark

on the abuse debate

how jon snow internalized catelyn tully stark's ideals

jon snow's heroes: an evolution from AGOT to ADWD

on jon snow and the R+L=J reveal

on jon snow's attraction to men

on jon snow forgiving theon greyjoy

on jon snow weaponizing his own competence

jon snow & women at the Wall: the question of rape

sansa stark & foreshadowed false testimony

sansa and ned have a foil relationship to lyanna and rickard

arya IS like other girls

arya stark: death and balance

arya & jon underrated parallels

the textual significance of the arya/lyanna parallels

the importance of lyanna stark's crypt statue

how lyanna influenced ned's acts of love for his daughters

how ned stark would perceive daenerys targaryen

what would happen to ned if robert discovered R+L=J?

Daenerys Targaryen

every daenerys ever: how dany's claim of a throne is foreshadowed throughout house targaryen's history

on the healing power of fire

on the myth that daenerys targaryen ruined meereen's economy

on the myth of a diplomatic solution in meereen

daenerys & ser barristan selmy: found family!

daenerys & bran: putting the first/last chapters of AGOT in conversation

daenerys & tyrion: how their TWOW alliance may come about

House Targaryen

on rhaegar targaryen and the prophecy of TPTWP

on alysanne targaryen, and how viserra's betrothal/the aftermath unfolded

viserra, alysanne, & baelon: a web weaving

viserra & saera

Theon Greyjoy

theon's gender: always broken, always under construction

[NOTE: this is the meta on which all my other theon meta relies. If you read nothing else I have ever said about theon, please read this.]

roose bolton as (another) father figure to theon

why theon greyjoy did not go visit his mother

theon greyjoy and the myth of return

theon greyjoy and winterfell's mirroring in ADWD

House Lannister

jaime & tyrion's awareness of cersei being abused

cersei lannister's brothers rationalization of cersei as being complicit in her abusive relationship

on cersei lannister's idealization of rhaegar, & also her dysphoria

ASOIAF Misc

breakdown of the grand maester conspiracy

unreliable narrators (and why we NEED arianne martell POV)

jon connington's memory

Dance of the Dragons Era

rhaenyra targaryen's maladaptive relationships due to abuse

rhaenyra & daemon's gender troubles

on viserys naming (and keeping) rhaenyra as his heir

on the legality of claims of bastardry

on queen alicent hightower

alicent, criston, & daemon as rhaenyra's formative (abusive) influences

[rappaccini]

do we need to like. talk. about how grrm taking so long to complete asoiaf means the original subversion of daenerys targaryen's character has been basically lost.

because aside from the show massively fucking the ending up, you also have to consider the seismic shift of the perception of fantasy as a whole since asoiaf hit the mainstream and since more intersectional perspectives and deconstructions of white saviorism have risen in prominence.

like it's a good thing that we're collectively critiquing and sideeying dany's storyline for the questionable, orientalist and often outright racist elements, and that the girlboss dany idea is being challenged. but uh guys. take a look at grrm. do you really think he was setting out to write a paul atreides style deconstruction of white saviorism with dany. or is it not more likely that he put those things into his story by mistake and didn't realize those problematic elements were there until decades later-- especially since girlboss feminism didn't fucking exist when he started writing asoiaf. is it not more likely that he missed the points he was trying to make about dany being a foreigner interfering in eastern politics and the white savior vibe her story sometimes puts off is completely accidental.

people do not seem to realize what the climate of fantasy was when grrm was writing asoiaf in the 90s-00s. the moral grays and grimdark elements of modern fantasy were in part popularized by asoiaf. grrm wasn't subverting the idea of dany being a good ruler. dany being a good ruler was the subversion.

daenerys targaryen is a deconstruction and subversion of the almost comically evil sorceress-queen antagonist of a fantasy novel that would never be written today.

think through what dany looks like from the outside:

she's the daughter of the mad incestuous king who terrorized westeros only a generation ago, and she's back to get his throne for herself.

she's going to make her arrival by invading from the Savage East and killing the one true lost heir, the son of the prince everyone loves and wishes were king, who was raised among the people, who's a boy, who practices the faith of the seven and will marry a westerosi lady. and she's going to destroy the shining city that he's going to rule from.

she rides a black and red dragon that spits black and red fire. she has two other dragons with her and used blood magic to hatch them. she killed a house full of warlocks, has prophetic dreams, talks to mysterious sorcerers and is linked with magic.

she comes from a family of incestuous, weird-looking, magic-using, dragon-riding conquerors who are the last survivors of an empire that conquered half the world and decimated and enslaved an entire continent by using dark magic, dragons and horrifying experiments. and her family in particular is infamous for having a tendency to go insane.

she's so beautiful men are throwing themselves at her. she dominated one husband and killed another. her dragon set poor sweet quentyn martell on fire when all he was doing was trying to honor a betrothal agreement. she has sex with both men and women where she's in control of the encounters. she had a sexual relationship with her brother. she 'bewitched' the most powerful warlord in essos with her sexuality, convinced him to kill her brother for her, took over his following, and will come to westeros with control of the most deadly cavalry in the world who are already considered to be 'savages' -- and her association with them has already started rumors that she fucks horses because she's so insatiable.

she's infertile and sacrificed her one pregnancy to hatch her dragons.

she has very tanned skin, spooky silver hair (that's very short) and purple eyes, a tyroshi accent and wears revealing clothing that would scandalize westerosis.

she's the savior figure for a Foreign Religion that's spreading in westeros and competing with the faith of the seven.

she's leading an army of foreign (brown) slave soldiers, sellswords and 'barbarians.' she's being advised by foreigners. her handmaids aren't Nice Noble Girls-- they're nomadic horsewomen who are stereotyped as unmannered and promiscuous.

and the westerosis in her camp are the ones westeros hates: pirates that just destroyed oldtown, westeros's beloved center of trade and knowledge. specifically euron, who wants to marry her. the dwarf that killed king joffrey and escaped and is now back because he wants to burn down king's landing. a massive, ugly westerosi lord who was banished for selling slaves. a westerosi knight who refused to accept the king's wishes for him to retire and ran off to serve the opposition... and probably marwyn, a controversial maester.

she destroyed the essosi economy, has sacked multiple cities, turned the ruling class out of their homes, crucified a bunch of nobles, and will probably burn the volantene tower full of nobles on her way west.

she's a woman, specifically a teenage girl, who has power in her own right, who wants to claim more of it. and who has no more powerful man in her ear telling her what to do with it.

daenerys is the embodiment of everything westeros hates and fears to such an extent that even if she does everything right, or doesn't do anything at all, westeros will never accept her.

we spent five books following dany off on her own in essos because that plotline's all about giving you context before she arrives: here's the Evil Queen's backstory, so by the time she does what she does, the reader completely understands and empathizes with her, even if they disagree with her actions. and when all our heroes hate her, and she decides to strip them of their power like she did in essos with the slavers, we don't know what to do.

the subversion is: what if our view of this evil antagonist is xenophobic and sexist, and all the things we're scared of her for were taken out of context or twisted to villainize her. what if the foreign culture she's from isn't evil, and what if her slave army is actually freedmen who chose to follow her, and she opposes the legacy of slavery her family sources their power from. what if she's 'mad' because she's understandably angry and upset, and not ~craaazy~. what if the nobles she was killing deserved it, what if the system they depend on was evil and deserved to be destroyed. what if our system that we've been fighting to preserve isn't much better and needs to go too. what if she's a teenager who doesn't always make the right decisions, especially when much older people with their own motives are manipulating her.

the subversion is: what if the evil sorceress-queen who's going to invade our wonderful fantasy realm and bring all her big bad scary changes with it is a complex person with good intentions who actually has a completely legitimate reason to burn it all down.

so if dany genuinely does go evil when she gets to westeros... there's no subversion anymore because the trope is played straight. therefore, she won't. but it won't even matter. we'll know that dany isn't a monster, but nobody else will see her that way.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

7 & 20 for asoiaf/f&b

okay, back to haterism! thanks for the asks, I actually had a response typed up the other day but then my computer restarted randomly and tumblr didn't save my post. So here's take 2.

#7 what character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because of how fandom acts about them?

So there are a lot of candidates for this one, and it's probably more because of the shows than the books to be honest. I'd have to say pretty much all of the Targaryen characters, but particularly Dany, Rhaenyra, and Daemon. These characters are fine in and of themselves, but their fans often really really miss the point when it comes to the Targaryen family and Old Valyria. Like, Valyria is not supposed to be aspirational! Dragons are cool, I get it, but the segment of the fandom leaning into blood purity discourse unironically has genuinely lost the plot, and that segment definitely has some overlap with the equally misguided portion of the fandom fandom that thinks the Targaryens are the progressive feminist alternative to the dirty smelly old Westerosi houses. Sometimes I feel like these people read an entirely different series (or more likely, watched entirely different shows).

#20 part of canon you find tedious or boring?

In asoiaf (and this is probably a kind of basic answer), but Bran's chapters. There's just so much traipsing about and it takes a long time for that to develop into anything really, and while there is some payoff eventually, it just takes so long to get there and in the books we still haven't even gotten to the Hodor stuff. And in F&B it's got to be Aegon III's regency which manages to be both really depressing and really boring at the same time.

[leesielex]

So warning time, I am about to go on a rant. I am so sick of anti-Dany incels saying Daenerys will go mad and burn KL and Jon will kill her. There will be 3 parts to this rant, 1 discussing Targ madness, 2 defending Dany which we have all heard before with the arguments they use, then lastly comparing her to other lauded characters who are never questioned or vilified like her. If you don't want to hear a pro-Dany rant, then stop now.

So let's start with, are Targs more likely to go mad? I don't believe so, In fact very few Targs have ever been mad. Maegar for example was ruthless and cruel, much like Tywin, but he wasn't truly mad. The faith of the seven was about to kill and murder (and quite possibly succeeded in doing so with a few) the rest of their line. Yes, he went overboard and his cruelty was unmatched, he was evil, but mad? No.

King Baelor was a religious zealot, does that make him mad? We see what religious extremism can do and it's prevalent even today in Christianity with the alt-right white nationalist extremist and in Muslim extremists like Isis. I will say, we could arguably say this is a form of madness, though many sane people can take this route.

Prince Rhaegal was considered mad for dancing naked in the Red Keep. Um, is this really a sign of madness? Have we not all danced naked when home alone? Have we not all gotten drunk and done something stupid. I definitely wouldn't define that as mad and more so label it as anti-Targ propaganda from the Seven and Maesters.

Aerion was also pretty mad since he thought he could drink wildfire and survive. I also have to wonder if with what we know now if he wasn't driven mad by dragon dreams and the knowledge of the others returning. But we will go with yes cause that is not a sane thought and action.

Aerys was cruel and evil, and paranoid, and by the definition, absolutely mad. Though after duskendale, can we really blame him for being 'paranoid'. People were truly out to get him, they already had, and rebellion was brewing long before he burned and murdered people. Though arguably I would consider him mad.

Viserys? Yeah, I also hesitate to label him mad. He was cruel and weak and a narcissist obsessed with returning home and gaining his birthright, but he wasn't insane. Nor more than any other cruel and selfish character in ASOAIF. But even if we include Viserys, that makes 4 mad Targaryen's out of hundreds over 3 centuries. You can't tell me in 300 years no other families had 4 members who were mad. They just didn't have the power and popularity for it to be well known or for it to matter much to anyone else. Its a bit ridiculous that people think Targs will go mad no matter what when only 4 previous ones have.

SO, Part 2, Why people think Dany is foreshadowed as going mad. She watched Viserys die, didn't try to stop it or care. Oh, you mean the brother who abused her for years, would have raped her had Illyrio not planned for it and had guards posted to maintain her virginity for her wedding, then sold her into slavery for an army? Yes, Dany was a slave, viewed only as property, to produce sons for a warlord. Then, he continued to beat her as she tried to acclimate to the life he forced upon her, tried to steal from her, even as she tried to help him acclimate as well. Viserys never had to come with the Dothraki, as Illyrio offered for him to stay with him in his manse until they were ready to go to Westeros. But he couldn't relinquish his control over Dany. What led to his ultimate death, and Dany's reaction, or inital lackthereof, he drew steel inside their city where no weapons can be drawn, breaking Dothraki law and already a death sentence. He could have been saved, but then he threatened to murder Dany and her unborn child, in front of Khal Drogo so also threatening him and his property. The Dothraki follow strength. If Dany had stood up against Drogo in favor of her brother, or shown any emotions at all, she would have lost favor with her people and Khal Drogo, she may have even been punished in some way for questioning his authority, and Viserys would have been killed anyway. She was smart enough to know this. What we do see is her regret later on, her guilt, and love for her brother. This in no way foreshadows cruelty or madness, as she had no choice but to stand by and we see her remorse throughout the books, even in ADWD.

Dany was a slaver who murdered her slave. Ugh, just, it's always white people who say this BS, I swear. Oh, you mean she murdered a woman she tried to save, who then tricked her into sacrificing her unborn child for Drogo's life, knowing full well what Drogo would be when he returned, then happily told her she would never carry another child, bragging about what she had done to her? Miri Maz Duri killed her child and cursed her womb and bragged about it. Was Dany naive in thinking she could save Miri and that she would be grateful? Absolutely. She didn't know she had already been raped many times, she was naive and ignorant. Is it a sign of madness or cruelty? Only if you consider every noble character who carries out an execution when someone commits murder. "But she told Dany not to go in the tent." Yes, knowing full well the sacrifice would cause Dany to go into pre-term labor and she would have to enter the tent. That was Miri's plan from the beginning. Oh, but Drogo didn't listen to Miri and it was Dany's fault for asking her to save Drogo. Yes, Dany was naive and she has to live with her part for being naive, but again, Miri knew what she was doing and knew it may not work and he would probably not listen to him. Miri isn't stupid, nor naive, and knows Drogo won't listen to a woman, especially a lamb woman.

Dany massacres the slave masters. REALLY??? So you think its a-ok for those slave masters to enslave, torture, mutilate, sell, buy, and murder men, women, AND LITTLE CHILDREN, including babies! They had slaves murder slave babies and PAID the other slave masters! They crucified 163 children alive and let them die a slow, torturous death. But, some of them were against crucifying children! Yes, but they still owned people, and even a well-treated slave is still viewed as disposable property and punished or killed when they disobey. And for those that said their family member was against the crucifying of the children, she gave the family full honor burial rights, paid them for their loss, and tried to make it right. Because Dany cares, and when she makes mistakes, she owns up to them and tries to make them right. Mad people do not do that.

In Qarth, and other times, she threatened to burn cities to the ground. Well, no, she didn't. The show made that change. Qarth welcomed her in immediately, happy to host her. The show made a lot of changes to Dany, especially from season 3 on. They made all her intelligent and successful strategies in Essos go to the men around her, like Ser Jorah and Daario. In the book, we see her make those decisions and weigh them all carefully. And she doesn't just lose her temper and want to massacre and burn entire cities. She does get angry, when her own people are being murdered by the Sons of the Harpies, and make mistakes. But again, she rectifies them as soon as she realizes she messed up and tries to do better.

She let the Shavepate torture children. No, she did not. They worked in a tavern, where whores worked. The father owned the tavern, and they tortured his adult children. Dany has shown over and over again she will not harm children. She takes children of the masters hostages, a common practice in ASOIAF (Jon Snow does this with the wildlings on the Wall), and even when those families continue to rebel against Dany, she refuses to harm those children, though many are telling her she must, including the Westerosi council she keeps. And when the torture yeilds no results, she ends it and feels guilt and remorse. Again, not something a mad person does.

Irri is her slave that she rapes. No, Irri is her handmaiden, that Dany doesn't ask to please her, but Irri starts it entirely. Dany immediately feels guilty, worrying that Irri may be conditioned to think she must do this and not actually want to and it makes Dany feel sick. Irri tries again and tells her it is a great honor to please her, basically begs her to. Dany does slip one time, and does let Irri do it, who is pleased to do so, but again, Dany feels guilt and remorse, and disgust, and tells her no and to leave her be, something a mad person wouldn't do. Let's not pretend almost any other character in asoiaf, save for Jon but only because HE is thinking of his bastardy, would ever decline.

Dany free slaves, and always tries her best to be fair. In her POVS we see her constantly weighing her actions, trying to be the best person, to help the most people, and be as kind and just as possible, which is actually her biggest weakness. We see her worry about ever becoming like her father or Viserys and how heavily her power and responsibility and the actions of her family weigh upon her, which is something mad people won't do, they don't weigh their actions, think of every possible way to be as kind and just and to make the world better. Mad people don't know they are mad, and she constantly worries the things she must do to lead will make her a monster. And as she rightly points out, power is terrible, and she must sometimes do terrible things, even be a monster. She locks her children, her dragons up, FFS, because they MAY have harmed an innocent child. Personally, I think it was BS by the Sons of Harpies to neuter her biggest weapons, but either way, she did that and felt horrible for the child and father, and did her best to rectify it, though she knew nothing could replace the child.

Here is GRRM's own quote about the heroes in ASOIAF; "My own heroes are the dreamers, those men and women who tried to make the world a better place than when they found it, whether in small ways or great ones. Some succeeded, some failed, most had mixed results...but it is the effort that's heroic, as I see it. Win or lose, I admire those who fight the good fight."

This quote fits Daenerys better than anyone else. She is actively trying to end slavery. We know her intentions are to make the world a better place than anything else. She has succeeded and she has failed, she has mixed results, but she is fighting the good fight.

Well, she went mad and burned KL in the show. GRRM has stated he gets further away from season 8. That after season 3ish, they consulted him less and less, and after season 4, they consulted him basically none. In Season 3, D&D asked GRRM how it all ends and they state; He told us 3 shocking moments, the Hodor scene and where the name comes from, the burning of Shireen, and King Bran. That's it. They were quick to point out, especially after the burning of Shireen, that George gave them that.

What do they say about Daenerys burning KL and Jon killing her? They take the credit themselves! They say, "we came up with that around season 3", ironically the season they stepped further and further from GRRM. Coincidence? LOL! I doubt it. That is never accredited to George and they always take credit for that. Just as they do for Sansa taking Jeyne Poole's place with Ramsay. If King Bran is the ending that came from GRRM what do you think is the different ending? Well, Arya killing the night king will not happen in the books. It's another thing D&D take credit for, and Dany will not be a Mad Queen that Jon will kill.

Even if Dany did go mad and burn an entire city to the ground, Jon would NOT be the one to kill her. How do we know this? Well, Jon is the one most like Ned Stark, the one who emulates his honor as best he can. Ned Stark despised Jaime Lannister for KILLING THE MAD KING. Why would Ned Stark dislike Jaime for killing the Mad King when Ned was actively rebelling against him after he murdered his brother and father and called for his own head? Because Jaime was pledged to serve King Aerys, and said vows to protect him! In the world of Westeros, the manner in which Jaime killed Aerys is dishonorable. Not only did he break his vows, he did not kill Aerys the 'proper way', which Ned Stark says 'we owe it to a man to look him in the eye and hear his last word as we give the sentence and swing the sword.' In other words, they must know they are being sentenced to die, and we must be able to look them into their eyes and hear their last words to swing the sword. Jon would never kiss Dany and break his vows.

Jon would also never become a kinslayer. Cursed is the kinslayer, a law of the GODS, as egregious as the Frey's breaking Guest Right. Ygritte tells Jon the tale of Bael the Bard, whose own son, a Stark, kills him not knowing he is his father. But Ygritte says, cursed is the Kinslayer, even the unknowing ones. Jon will know Dany is his kin, and would never be the one to kill her. Ygritte's entire storyline shows Jon likes warrior women and can't kill her because of what his father (Ned Stark) taught him.

Which brings me into part 3, comparing Dany's so called foreshadowed madness and cruelty to other characters. Jon Snow executes Janos Slint for simply not obeying a command. He doesn't stop his execution when Janos begs forgiveness and says he will obey. He murders him anyway. Jon blacks out in anger and almost beats his black brother to death all because he is thinking of Robb telling him he can't be Lord of Winterfell and is a bastard. He bullies and threatens Gilly into taking her baby and switching it with Mance's, putting her own child at risk to save the King Beyond the Wall's babe. Jon is more ruthless, more angry and volatile than Dany has ever been. Why is it that he is never once considered to go mad? Even before season 8? Even though we know he is also a Targaryen and will ride a dragon?

Arya murders the entire male Frey line in GOT Season 8, in the books she is a cold blood killer by ADWD and the WOW released chapter, but she isn't considered mad or cruel.

Sansa in GOT Season 8 kills Ramsay by letting his dogs rip him apart, why is this not dissected over and over again? Dany just doesn't stop her brothers execution and she is mad for it, but Sansa killing her abuser is YAS Queen, take your power back! She never once takes accountability for getting Ned killed (Its not her fault that he did, but her actions ultimately led to his death and she doesn't once think on her part in it). She isn't considered cruel for not caring Mycah was killed, takes no responsibility for LYING to protect getting power, becoming queen, and in return Lady is killed, instead she blames Arya. And as far as the books only, Sansa isn't considered mad or cruel for caring more about marrying Harry Hardyng and the plot to make him Lord and her Lady of the Vale, and gaining the North back in her power, giving her 2 kingdoms, knowing full well Sweetrobin has to die for that and in WOW released chapter, she knows Robin Arryn is being slowly poisoned and only hopes he has enough poison to not make a scene when she dances with Harry, even after she cared for and bonded with him and he tells her he dislikes Harry because he wants him dead to usurp him.

Stannis burns people alive, has helped raise his nephew as of late and his daughter loves Edric Storm (Gendry in the show), her cousin, yet he is planning to burn him alive and would have had Davos not saved him.

Robert kills for sport, enjoys killing, talks about it gleefully, like he gets off on it. And he didn't give one F that little innocent babes were brutally murdered for the throne he sat upon and refused to punish the Mountain and Amory Lorch for their brutality.

Tywin isn't considered mad, though he orchestrates the burning, pillaging, raping of the Riverlands and its people, the ending of the lines of Reynes and Tarbecks, the Red Wedding, nor the deaths of Elia and her children (And Elia's rape). He is just ruthless, and a great strategist.

Joffrey is rarely ever considered mad, though he kills and tortures for sport and fun. Though some consider him so, and of course blame the incest though Myrcella and Tommen aren't like that.

Cersei is the only other one considered mad. Truly, she is a bit mad, though a lot of it is her circumstances, her upbringing, her arrogance and cruelty, and little to do of anything else.

OH but Targs and incest make them mad. Then every character in GOT would be a little mad, cause have yall paid attention to their family trees? They are all incestous with Starks marrying Starks and Lannisters marrying Lannisters.

There is a reason that the only characters regularly considered mad are the only 2 Queens in the story. Its pretty obvious why, and its obvious why D&D got Dany's story so wrong. Like they thought it was subverting expectations that when women gain power they become hysterical mad women like that isn't the oldest trope in our patriarchal misogynistic world.

There is a reason HOD opened with 172 years before Daenerys Targaryen is BORN (IN THE BOOKS) and doesn't go by the show timeline. Otherwise, it would say 170 years before Daenerys Targaryen is born, as she was older and born earlier in the show. And there is a reason why they didn't go by the year of her DEATH. Because GRRM's ending is different! She is no meant to go mad, though she may end up becoming darker! She was always meant to be a hero! The story has always been about Jon and Dany coming together to defeat the Others; the song of Ice and Fire, and the farther we get from GOT, the more GRRM divulges that makes it more obvious to anyone paying attention and not wrapped up in their biased hate would easily see.

If you made it this far. By the Old Gods and the New you are a saint and a true Dany fan!

[leulah]

Gender Roles in the ASOIAF Fandom

There is a lot of discourse going around about female roles and femininity in ASOIAF and how certain characters are less than for fitting into traditional ideas about gender roles in the series. And while there are so many things fucked about this discussion of "who is the better victim of misogyny", I also think a lot of people are missing the point entirely.

I see a lot of accounts saying that it is backwards or "tradwife" to defend certain female characters because they quote "uphold the patriarchy", and defending them is regressive because it is what is viewed as the expectation and standard in the real world for real women- which is true it is the expectation. But it is a very black and white view on a very complex problem to just write off all "soft female" characters as misogynistic because they fit into this real world standard. This discussion runs a lot deeper than "feminine good/masculine bad", because at the end of the day female roles are still viewed as being lower than male roles in society. In the eyes of the patriarchy being masculine is always better because it's about power and control, and in order to have this power women and femininity have to be viewed as beneath them. You can see this when men get emasculated because their partner makes more money than them, or they make fun of girly things- these gender roles are less about "promoting femininity" than it is about promoting a power dynamic.

That is why are characters who are more masculine and don't fall into these expectations of gender roles like Dany or Arya, are generally viewed better in the larger fandom space than those that do. It is because being masculine is always viewed as being better than being feminine, and in a fictional world where these women in power pose no actual threat to real men's masculinity they are viewed as being stronger and better people. Being masculine makes these women more worthy of respect in the eyes of the fandom. This is also similar to how when discussing history people often say: "Look women were also warriors! They're important too," as if a woman's worth only comes from her proximity to masculinity, and the women who were just mothers and wives and weavers are unworthy of our admiration and respect. Even though it is true that real society promotes and expects women to fit into a traditional female role, being masculine is still viewed as superior to being feminine.

By contrast, female characters in ASOIAF like Catelyn and Sansa who do not fall into this warrior women archetype are often berated and hated by the fandom. On one side, because they are viewed as weak and by being traditionally feminine they are seen as "upholding the patriarchy" in Westeros- disregarding the fact they are victims of it as well. But on the other hand, a lot of the complaints about Cat and Sansa come from men who feel as though they threaten men's power in the series. A common complaint about Catelyn is that she undermined and questioned Robb's power- because how dare she have a say in what happens to her family. Sansa the eleven year old is often criticized for "betraying Ned" by going to Cersei and writing the letter, with people often saying its her fault for the war and not the various adults and men in power. If a male character like Jon or Ned questions or goes against those in power it is seen as necessary and strategic, but when a female character takes any action or autonomy in their own narrative, it is viewed as a threat.

And of course there is more nuance to this, because not everyone does like the characters who break out of gender expectations, and these women in power are still viewed as a threat when their story intertwines with men. Daenerys gets respect insofar as she is not a threat to other main male characters, but the second she stands in the way of Jon's supposed claim or being Azor Ahai, she is discarded by the fandom and must be sacrificed as "the Nissa Nissa for Jon's heroic storyline". These women in masculine roles are celebrated in the fandom space, but when they too begin to question male authority their support crumbles under the same misogyny the feminine characters face.

There are many reasons why someone would prefer the female characters that fight and break out of gender roles over ones that are more traditional, but if your reaction to femininity is one of weakness and worthlessness I think you need to do some self reflection on your relationship to women. Yes, the "let women be soft" argument is reductive due to irl expectations, but that doesn't make feminine women deserving of your hate and harassment. Fiction is not reality, and people don't have the same expectations and reactions between them, and trying to boil down a complex discussion on power dynamics and gender roles in the series to "feminine bad" is reductive and not at all the message. Both sets of women deserve respect and both suffer under the rules and traditions in their world, but you have to remember there is no "better victim". There is no winner under the patriarchy.

[ewanmitchellcrumbs]

Hi! This is my first ask and I love your fic so much! I've marked your entire masterlist to read too! You write beautifully :)

I'm new to the fandom, and I see a looooooooot of fics on my dash. I don't know where to start. What do you recommend?

Hello, welcome!

Thank you so much for your lovely words, that's super sweet of you.

If it's specifically fics for Aemond you're after then I would recommend everything written by @oneeyedvisenya @valeskafics @sapphire-writes @exitpursuedbyavulcan @targaryenrealnessdarling @humanpurposes @randomdragonfires and @chrispumpkin

For Daemon @em-writes-stuff-sometimes & @ruby-dragon are both excellent writers who get his characterisation spot on.

For other characters in the Ewanverse @assortedseaglass and @in-a-mountain-pool are both super talented.

For Aegon @osferthsbussy @sunfyresrider and @lovelykhaleesiii

Other assorted HotD and ASOIAF characters @ilikeitbetterangsty @fairysluna @corporalicent

I hope that gives you a decent starting point - apologies to anyone I may have missed, it's not a deliberate snub, I'm just forgetful. Would also recommend having a look through the fic recs tag on my blog.

Enjoy!

[amphipolitan]

Many unformed thoughts on how The Last of Us actually managed to have. like. themes and character arcs and meaning rather than just senseless violence, while Game of Thrones missed the entire point of the work it was adapting. like TLOU made me think a LOT about similar themes in ASOIAF, particularly "men's lives have meaning, not their deaths" and "what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom? - Everything."

[ludcake]

insane about how like. people constantly miss the point of the Others and how they’re portrayed and shown in ASOIAF

Not to be a hater but. If you think the lead-up of this series is a big violent battle against faceless zombies where the characters prove their might through violence and war and kill all the Others and save the world it seems like we’re not reading the same series?? The fundamental critique of systems of violence and hierarchical predation in asoiaf isn’t solved by that, the characters’ conflicts aren’t solved by that, that just reaffirms the base assumption that prophecy is true, that warring is the ultimate solution, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

I’ve been on my reread recently and I was really struck by how the Others are actually described on page. They’re always prefaced by cold, and trees rustling, and sentinel trees watching. Tormund talks about how they disappear entirely during the day, and suddenly reappear at night. There’s the entire plotline of the desecration of tombs by Mance in search of the horn. They talk and laugh and mock and have their own tongue, they have their own armor and weapons, they’re *people* in every meaningful way - and the characters who disagree are Melisandre and Old Nan!

The Others *are* the Winds of Winter. They are alien and beautiful, they are ice made flesh, they’re described along similar lines to how the Valyrian characters are, they *melt* under dragonglass the same way dragon blood boils and smokes

Relying on prophecy and hearsay instead of the actual on-page evidence to understand them is so weird and honestly I feel like it’s a huge part of why people reach so wild conclusions as to how the series should end