The Queen We Chose

F*ck D&D

[asoiafdaenerysdaily-archive]

Why Daenerys Targaryen and Cersei Lannister are foils + Relationship with the truth (1/?)

Cersei and Daenerys are intended as parallel characters – each exploring a different approach to how a woman would rule in a male dominated, medieval-inspired fantasy world.—GRRM

[brideoffires-deactivated2023042]

Since you are a gem of a person who can explain Dany’s arc so beautifully do you mind going over what you think of Dany’s quote about being the “Mother of monsters” and “If they are monsters, then so am I.” I just saw someone use that quote to argue Dany’s apparent madness is foreshadowed and it really upset me because I don’t think that’s the point of that quote. Thanks!

I actually think the “mother of monsters” quote is so straightforward! All 5 of the key characters GRRM has identified identify with monster imagery in some way: 

This is most prevalent in Tyrion’s arc, as he is quite literally treated as a monster by everyone in Westeros because he is a dwarf; and so Tyrion comes to see himself as a monster, especially in his downward spiral in ADWD (which is caused by the betrayal he experiences at the hands of his family) 

Jon, Bran, and Arya are all compared to and paralleled with their direwolves (Ghost, Summer, and Nymeria, respectively). I really like Arya’s connections with direwolf imagery especially (”I am a direwolf, and done with wooden teeth”, “The one that leads them is a she-wolf, a bitch from the seventh hell”) 

Dany, of course, finds comfort in her heritage and her dragons (her only children left, her family) 

So all of the key five characters mythologize and self-identify with the animals/monsters associated with their Houses (the lion, the direwolf, and the dragon). Cersei and Jaime also identify with lion imagery. Sansa identifies with bird imagery more often than she does with wolf imagery. Oberyn is identified with snake imagery, as are his daughters, obviously. Identification with monstrosity and “monstrous beasts” is a prevalent theme throughout the novels, and applies to quite a few characters (not just POV characters), but it especially applies to the key five. 

I’m going to pull up something I’ve written about the key five from another meta I wrote: 

One of the main themes of ASOIAF is critiquing and deconstructing hegemony - be it patriarchal hegemony, ableism, homophobia, discrimination based on birth status classism and feudalism, absolutist monarchy and the divine right of kings, xenophobia, or slavery. 

Each of the key five characters is high-born and thus privileged under the feudal system. Yet each of them is unable to access the full spectrum of their nobility because they are marginalized or excluded in important ways. Jon Snow is a bastard, and must take the Black because he knows there is no place for him at Winterfell (and Ned himself, though reluctant about it, agrees that the Night’s Watch is the best place for him to go!). Bran Stark is forever changed when he becomes permanently disabled, and must learn how to use his senses in other ways to adapt to his new life. Tyrion Lannister was born a dwarf, and though he is wealthy because of his family name, he has been abused, mocked, and sidelined his whole life. Arya Stark knows the privileges of being a high-born girl, but she constantly questions femininity and the expectations forced upon women of her time, and chooses to be open-minded and to interact with people of all statuses. Daenerys Targaryen, though born royal and of the blood of old Valyria, grows up in poverty and exile with her abusive older brother, was sold into sex slavery, and has to deal with the stigma of being a Targaryen.

It’s not a surprise that the key five are all high-born, and yet cannot access all the benefits of their material positions. This makes their stories unique. It’s why we see their journey take them away from Westeros; Jon and Bran beyond the wall, Arya in Braavos, Daenerys in Essos, and Tyrion now in Essos as well. Those who don’t fit into Westerosi feudalism and who represent the ultimate thematic critiques of each aspect of Westerosi norms have to be exiled from Westeros in some way to properly understand why the hierarchies in Westeros are wrong, and what they need to do to change things.

The marginalization each of them faces gives rise to empathy, and yet it also gives rise to darkness. Dany is told that to touch the light she must pass under the shadow; yet this applies to all five of the key characters, not just her. Their critical arcs are about caring for the people, for the innocent, for gaining empathy and a unique, holistic perspective that gives them insights the other characters do not have, which will be so important in both the war against the Night King and in terms of abolishing Westerosi hierarchies. But their arcs are also about their personal identities - what will Jon do when he learns that he is Rhaegar and Lyanna’s son, knowing that he’s been a bastard his whole life? Who really is Arya Stark of Winterfell, and when will she return home? How are Bran’s abilities changing his very essence and how will they impact his future and those around him? How will Tyrion regain his love for life and his identity after his family has summarily thrown him by the wayside? What does it mean for Daenerys to embrace her family’s motto, and what will she do when she comes to Westeros to reclaim the throne? They face exile, trauma, and marginalization, and then use their abilities to do good things for innocent people and to try and help others in a world where the smallfolk are the collateral in the game of thrones; and yet they also will go through darkness because of how complicated and frustrating their internal conflicts are. Their identities are in turmoil, after all, perhaps more so than the identities of any of the other viewpoint characters.

So Daenerys thinking of herself as the mother of monsters, thinking of herself as fire made flesh, is in part identifying with/mythologizing with the monster/beast imagery that other characters do as well, is in part borne from her own trauma (how she has been treated as a monster by society), and is in part borne from her own tendency to self-deprecate and to berate herself.

A lot of people mistakenly assume that Daenerys is entitled and doesn’t reflect on her actions or their consequences. This is a lie, and in fact the “mother of monsters” quote directly exemplifies why it’s a lie. That it’s used to justify the mad queen theory shows how poorly Dany antis understand her arc. 

If this quote really meant that Dany is a mad queen, then Dany herself wouldn’t be thinking that her throne is built on quicksand, and that she’s the mother of monsters, fire made flesh. She wouldn’t care about the costs of the throne or the innocents that die because of Drogon. She wouldn’t say these things to herself because innocent lives would not matter to her, if she really was the mad queen or tyrant that people think she’s slated to be. The fact that she is quite literally, in this moment, reflecting on being “the mother of monsters” and how her throne is made on quicksand showcases her tendency to think about her actions and their impacts and to blame herself for what happens.

I also want to point out that Dany accepts that she is the mother of monsters because that’s how the world labels her; and in a world that is violent, patriarchal, and feudalistic, “monstrous” people like Dany, Jon, Arya, Tyrion, and Bran, who really aren’t monsters at all, will take pride in their “monstrous” identities, because it is those very “monstrous” identities that go against the status quo, that upend and uproot the horrible systems that cause the suffering and agony the smallfolk go through in Westeros. It’s a fuck you to the world that’s labeled her a monster –– you want to call me a monster? Fine, I’ll show you what my monstrous face. And she’s going to show those Meereneese slavers and rapist Khals exactly that monstrous face in TWOW. 

Of course, given the light/dark dualities present in all the key five’s character arcs, this monstrous identity is also going to affect their humanity, specifically in their dark turns. We’ll see just how far down they’ll go before they reclaim their humanity. It is also about identity struggle and turmoil; the world has labeled me a monster and I take pride in it, but just how far will I go before I lose my humanity? And I firmly believe, choose to believe, that all five of them will come back to the light, and will reclaim their humanity, before it’s too late. 

If Daenerys were foreshadowed to go mad, she’d have scoffed at this “monster” label and proclaimed herself as perfect and unable to be questioned. That her reaction instead is to self-reflect and to accept the identity specifically because it’s oppressors who bestow that title on her showcases the opposite of “mad queen” foreshadowing.  

[rainhadaenerys]

What is Daenerys without her dragons?

A great military strategist

A resilient woman

A hero with the courage to face a dragon with only a whip

A queen that is not petty and forgives people that spit on her or try to attack at her own court

A woman whose intuition and capacity for learning from experience enabled her to wake dragons out of stone

A revolutionary that fights to change the status quo and help the oppressed

A queen who plants trees, builds armies to defend her people, negotiates for trade, works on projects for irrigation, compromises for peace, but also a queen that is not afraid to turn to fire and blood if that’s necessary to protect her people’s freedom

A curious, intellectual mind that constantly seeks to learn more, that listens to Ser Barristan’s lessons in military matters, that goes to the House of The Undying seeking knowledge and stays in Meereen to learn and take responsibility for her actions

A bookworm

A queen that listens to all

A queen that values all people regardless of status, nobility, culture, gender or wealth

A polyglot

A person capable to adapt and respect different cultures, but also someone that tries to change things that are wrong

A sexually free woman

A girl who dreams of home, family and love

A compassionate person

A queen that puts her people before herself

[tomakeitbeautifultolive]

Kit apparently said that Dany was bad from the very beginning and "we're culpable. We cheered her on." I cannot stand by the cast painting Dany as evil for her ruthlessness against terrible people while saying nothing about Sansa, Arya, Jon, Jaime, Tyrion, or anyone else doing the same thing in the series. It's blatant hypocrisy.

Virtually every main character in Game of Thrones has killed ‘evil men’ and we’ve cheered them on. By this logic, every viewer is ‘culpable’.

I want to clarify that this is not about whether or not these characters were justified in their actions, it’s just a list to show that the characters and fans gaslighting Daenerys are not and never were morally superior.

The point of this list is to prove that Daenerys is not that different from anyone else where morality is concerned, except that no one ever gave her the benefit of the doubt or considered whether or not her actions were justified.

What was Dany accused of prior to 8x05? (By characters and fans):

Having a temper

Killing her enemies in battle

Executing enemies

Executing traitors

Taking revenge

Executing ‘evil’ men guilty of what she deems a crime (slave owners)

Using a method of execution that ‘makes people uncomfortable’ (fire)

Not preventing her brother’s murder and not being sad enough as it happened

These are the things that the fans and the men conspiring against her insist were warning signs that she was 'going mad’.

This is going to be a long, ugly post that will probably cost me some followers, but simply typing them out is not good enough because most fans have shorter memories than goldfish. Y’all need visuals.

No, I’m not bothering to put it under a cut either, because I’m trying to prove a point and the fact that it’s long only helps my case. 👍

Let’s take a look at the deeds of the oh-so-morally-superior characters, shall we?

Jaime Lannister oathbreaking by slaying his king

Jaime Lannister attempted to murder a child

Jaime Lannister murdered Jory Cassel

Jaime Lannister killed his enemies in battle, tried to murder Daenerys in battle

Jaime Lannister kinslayed, strangling his cousin

Jaime Lannister sacked Highgarden and left no survivors

Jaime Lannister murdered his enemy, Olenna Tyrell

Tyrion Lannister killed his enemies in battle

Tyrion Lannister professed his regret in ever defending King’s Landing

Tyrion Lannister vowed revenge on his sister

Tyrion Lannister kinslayed by having murdered his father

Tyrion Lannister murdered his lover after her betrayal (Shae)

Tyrion murdered his enemies with Wildfire

Tyrion and Varys committed treason against their queen, Daenerys

Varys encouraged Tyrion to seek revenge upon his sister

Varys tried to murder Daenerys via poisoning her food

Varys kept a man in a torture box

Jon Snow broke his Night’s Watch oaths/vow

Jon Snow murdered Qhorin Halfhand

Jon Snow killed his enemies in battle

Jon Snow executed a man who disobeyed his order who cried and begged for his life (Janos Slynt)

Jon Snow executed men who committed treason and conspired to kill him, including a child

Jon Snow nearly killed a man with his bare hands

Jon Snow committed treason against his queen

Jon Snow kinslayed his aunt/murdered his queen in cold blood

Sansa Stark executed Ramsay Bolton with dogs

Sansa Stark committed treason against her family

Sansa Stark lied to prohibit justice for her aunt’s murder

Sansa Stark broke an oath she swore in front of the heart tree

Sansa Stark ordered an execution without a trial

Arya Stark recited a murder list of future victims

Arya Stark killed an entire family regardless of individual guilt

Arya Stark baked the remains into a pie and fed it to the father

Arya Stark delighted in the murder of Walder Frey

Arya Stark stabbed out the eyes of Meryn Trant before murdering him

Arya Stark relished in the death of Polliver

Arya Stark very brutally tore off the face of the Waif and put it on display

Bran Stark warged into Hodor against his will

Bran Stark, who confirms he is aware of the future, moved the chess pieces around to maximize lives lost so that he could seize power

Let’s take a look at other characters who are held in higher moral esteem than Daenerys Targaryen (prior to 8x05):

Robb Stark executed Rickard Karstark for disobeying him

Robb Stark knowingly sent thousands of his men to their deaths for a victory

Robb Stark killed his enemies in battle

Ned Stark executed a man for what he deemed a crime (Will)

Ned Stark killed his enemies in battle

Sandor Clegane murdered a child on an order

Tormund Giantsbane killed innocents in raids

Ygritte killed innocents (including women) in raids

Ygritte killed her enemies in battle

Tormund killed his enemies in battle (and ate their faces)

Randyll Tarly threatened to hunt and murder his heir

Randyll Tarly betrayed his liege lord Olenna Tyrell

Randyll Tarly sacked Highgarden and left no survivors

Melisandre poisoned a Maester for trying to kill her

Melisandre burned non-believers alive

Melisandre burned an innocent child alive

Stannis and Selyse Baratheon consented to murdering their child

Melisandre and Stannis burned a man alive for refusing to bend the knee

Melisandre and Stannis Baratheon (kinslaying) his brother via shadow demon

This list ain’t even exhaustive. This is just the shit I came up with off the top of my head!

Want to claim Daenerys Targaryen was always foreshadowed to be mad? Cool!

Now just admit everyone else in the series was foreshadowed as mad, too.

[chaos-of-the-abyss]

Here's my opinion if you're interested - I used to love Daenerys when I watched the show, up until season 4. I started reading the books then and I realized she was the villian. She went to cities with no idea how to rule, (mereen) and left those cities in poverty and fear of her and what she might do next, yet she claims to be a good queen. (In the books she tortured a slave girl/in the show she threatens people with violence if they disagree. "Ill burn you alive.") She's just as bad as Cersei

1. She went to cities with no idea how to rule

You make it sound as if she conquered Meereen solely so she could rule. She went to cities to free slaves, and in Meereen she decided to stay and be queen, both to learn how to rule and to prevent the slave masters from enslaving the freed slaves again. 

Dany turned away from them, to gaze out over the city once again. “My children need time to heal and learn. My dragons need time to grow and test their wings. And I need the same. I will not let this city go the way of Astapor. I will not let the harpy of Yunkai chain up those I’ve freed all over again.” She turned back to look at their faces. “I will not march.”

What was she supposed to do? You claim she’s wrong for wanting to rule Meereen when “she has no idea how to rule”. At face value, that’s a valid reason, but it’s not when you look at Daenerys’ situation. She has just freed the slaves in a city that’s economy is entirely dependent on slaves. 

If she leaves, the masters rise up again and enslave those freedmen. You might say she could have appointed someone else to rule. But who? The only people in Meereen that potentially have ruling experience are the Great Masters, who all owned slaves. If she appointed any one of them to rule, they would try to bring slavery back. She could appoint someone from her own court to avoid this, but none of them are equipped to handle ruling a city whose economic foundation has just been abolished.

Daenerys was working with limited options here. Staying and ruling was the best, and most responsible choice to make in her situation. That way, she won’t be leaving anyone untrustworthy or unequipped to rule Meereen. You could say that she’s not equipped to handle Meereen, either, but Daenerys plans to rule Westeros one day. It was smart of her to want to gain some ruling experience before she reaches that point. 

Also, Daenerys does have a pretty good idea of how to rule. She tries to rebuild Meereen’s economy, without slavery, and starts by creating irrigation systems, planting crops, and trading. She understands that the city must have a source of income, and an idea on how to establish that source of income. And she does all of these while having never received any formal training in how to rule.

“Not a hole. A ditch, to bring water from the river to the fields. We mean to plant beans. The beanfields must have water.”

Ser Barristan remained. “Our stores are ample for the moment,” he reminded her, “and Your Grace has planted beans and grapes and wheat. Your Dothraki have harried the slavers from the hills and struck the shackles from their slaves. They are planting too, and will be bringing their crops to Meereen to market. And you will have the friendship of Lhazar.”

2. Left those cities in poverty and fear of her and what she might do next

Oh yes, of course. Because Daenerys made the decision that she needed a vacation from all the drama unfolding in Meereen, jumped onto Drogon’s back, and went on an cruise to the Bahamas.

No, Daenerys made a move to protect Drogon and the people in the fighting pit. 

“Kill it,” Hizdahr zo Loraq shouted to the other spearmen. “Kill the beast!”

The spearmen were running too. Some were rushing toward the dragon, spears in hand. Others were rushing away, throwing down their weapons as they fled. The hero was jerking on the sand, the bright blood pouring from the ragged stump on his shoulder. […] As the other spears closed in, the dragon spat fire, bathing two men in black flame. His tail lashed sideways and caught the pitmaster creeping up beside him, breaking him in two. Another attacker stabbed at his eyes until the dragon caught him in his jaws and tore his belly out. 

Drogon’s presence in the dragonpit was causing pandemonium and violence. Some were trying to hurt him, and naturally, Drogon fought back. Do you honestly think this situation would have been diffused had Daenerys not flown away with Drogon? More people would have tried to kill him and Drogon would have retaliated, leading to more casualties. 

Meereen is not in poverty because Daenerys is a bad ruler. Meereen is in poverty because its economic foundation, slavery, has been abolished. When the ruler leaves with the city in such a precarious state, fear and chaos is natural. If you want to fault Daenerys for this “poverty and fear”, then you’d have to fault her abolishing of slavery in Meereen. And I would never fault anyone for abolishing a system that treats human beings as objects, Meereen, where slave soldiers are quite literally cheaper, and therfore seen of as having less value, than their own swords. Any economy that’s based on such an institution is disgusting and should be changed.

3. Yet she claims to be a good queen

When has Daenerys ever claimed to be a good queen? If anything, she starts thinking worse and worse of herself.

That morning she summoned her captains and commanders to the garden, rather than descending to the audience chamber. “Aegon the Conqueror brought fire and blood to Westeros, but afterward he gave them peace, prosperity, and justice. But all I have brought to Slaver’s Bay is death and ruin. I have been more khal than queen, smashing and plundering, then moving on.”

“You have brought freedom as well,” Missandei pointed out.

“Freedom to starve?” asked Dany sharply. “Freedom to die? Am I a dragon, or a harpy?” Am I mad? Do I have the taint?

If I look back, I am doomed. Dany told herself… but how could she not look back? I should have seen it coming. Was I so blind, or did I close my eyes willfully, so I would not have to see the price of power?

Bless me, Dany thought bitterly. Your city is gone to ash and bone, your people are dying all around you. I have no shelter for you, no medicine, no hope. Only stale bread and wormy meat, hard cheese, a little milk. Bless me, bless me.

4. In the books she tortured a slave girl

I don’t know what anti-Dany thread you’ve been reading instead of the books that you supposedly read, but I’m here to tell you the truth: It was not a slave girl she tortured. A soldier was murdered in a wineshop, and the suspects were the wineseller and his daughters. Naturally, Daenerys has them interrogated.

At first, she orders them questioned sweetly, but upon hearing that another murder has occurred, she orders them questioned sharply. Daenerys is running an investigation for murder(s), not randomly torturing a girl. There is a thing called context that antis are spectacular at forgetting.

Torture for information, especially during a murder investigation, is not considered an evil act in medieval society. The antis calling her “evil” or “mad” for this are hypocrites, considering no other character seems to be under such intense criticism for torturing for information. Even Jon has people tortured; why is he not suspected of being “a villain” because of it?

5. In the show she threatens people with violence if they disagree. “Ill burn you alive.”

“She threatens people with violence if they disagree”? Don’t you mean “she threatens people with violence if they’re her enemies”? Which is, you know, pretty natural in a medieval setting?

But ok, I’ll bite. Give me an instance that Daenerys threatens people with violence if they disagree with her and I’ll gladly discuss it.

6. She’s just as bad as Cersei

You mean Cersei Lannister? Cersei “I only love my brother because I see him as a reflection of me” Lannister? Cersei “it’s so unfair that I’m treated differently because I’m a woman so every other woman deserves to be mistreated” Lannister? Cersei “Hey Sansa the best way to deal with being married to Joffrey is to sit still and take it” Lannister? Cersei “Joff was strong, Tommen must be more like him but I punish Tommen if he shows any signs of resisting me” Lannister? Cersei “I raped Taena Merryweather” Lannister? Cersei “I had a girl less than a year old killed because she was Robert’s daughter by a prostitute” Lannister?

I have only one thing to say.

Lol.

[noybusiness]

Or as I’ve called her in my head, Cersei “You think I care about the poor?” Lannister?

Not to mention Daenerys came to regret the torture of the wineseller’s daughters and forbade future torture, which makes her the only one in the series to do so.

[rainhadaenerys]

I love how antis call Daenerys "mad" for killing enemy soldiers - and D&D treat that scene as being forboding in some way - but then they all turn around and make a joke of the fact that Davos says, "The last time I was here, you killed my son with wildfire" to Tyrion. Misogyny at its most blatant.

Yes, the sexist double standards are infuriating.There are so many things wrong with those arguments that I don’t even knowwhere to start.

First, Westeros is not a democracy. If Westeros was ademocracy, then I would be ok with people complaining about “Dany forcingpeople to submit to her”. But it’s not a democracy. I’ve said this before, andI’ll say it again: Dany can’t sign up for the next Westerosi presidentialelections. If she wants power, if she wants to rule, she needs to take it byforce. She can’t become queen of Westeros by asking nicely. This is what Olennatells Dany in the show, and this is something that Dany herself says in thebooks:

“Yet I must have some army,” Dany said. “The boy Joffrey will not give me the IronThrone for asking politely.” – Daenerys II ASOS

That’s just the reality of their world. Everyone doesthe same. Stannis was trying to take his throne through war. The Starks tookWinterfell by force too. They didn’t ask politely for the Boltons to give themWinterfell back. They didn’t hold elections to decide if the rulers of theNorth should be the Boltons or the Starks. Antis also try to say that Daenerysis evil because she was “killing innocent soldiers”. They argue that the peoplewho were fighting for the Lannisters and the Tarlys were innocent, that theywere forced to fight for their liege lords, that they were just poor farmersand Dany killing them makes her evil. But what about the Bolton soldiers? Weren’tthey innocent as well? Weren’t they just poor farmers forced to fight for theBoltons? Why don’t I see them complaining that Jon is evil for killing them?Why aren’t they calling Jon a tyrant? If Dany is a tyrant for taking powerthrough non democratic means, then so is Jon.

The antis also take issue with Dany saying “bend theknee or die”. There are also several problems with these criticisms inparticular. First, the Tarlys weren’t just any enemies. They were traitors.They betrayed the Tyrells, just like the Boltons and the Freys betrayed theStarks. They betrayed Dany, who was their rightful queen, who Olenna hadpledged to. And they also betrayed their previous queen, Margaery, bysupporting the woman that murdered her, and that led to the suicide of theirprevious king, Tommen. Dany was actually very merciful by giving them thechance to join her or to join the Night’s Watch. But they refused it. This iswhat Dave Hill, the writer of the episode, said about the incident:

“At leastDany offers them a choice. Everyconqueror offers the choice of ‘bend the knee or die.’ These lords disobeyed her and disrespected her in rebellion against therightful queen. Then she gives them a way out and they don’t take it. Herdeal wasn’t even ‘I’ll let you live.’ They could have kept all their titles andland. So, yes, in one way, it’s a horrible death. On the other hand, they kindof asked for it. It’s a win-win situation and they somehow managed to find the‘lose’ in that.” 

Here’s what Robb Stark says about traitors, a scenethat is very similar in the books and in the show:

And when Lord Umber, who wascalled the Greatjon by his men and stood as tall as Hodor and twice as wide, threatened to take his forces home if hewas placed behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns in the order of march, Robb toldhim he was welcome to do so. “And when we are done with theLannisters,” he promised, scratching Grey Wind behindthe ear, “we will march back north, root you out of your keep, and hangyou for an oathbreaker.” Cursing, the Greatjon flung a flagon of aleinto the fire and bellowed that Robb was so green he must piss grass. WhenHallis Mollen moved to restrain him, he knocked him to the floor, kicked over atable, and unsheathed the biggest, ugliest greatsword that Bran had ever seen.All along the benches, his sons and brothers and sworn swords leapt to theirfeet, grabbing for their steel.

Yet Robbonly said a quiet word, and in a snarl and the blink of an eye Lord Umber wason his back, his sword spinning on the floor three feet away and his handdripping blood where Grey Wind had bitten off two fingers. “My lord fathertaught me that it was death to bare steel against your liege lord,” Robbsaid, “but doubtless you only meant to cut my meat.” Bran’s bowels went to water as the Greatjon struggled to rise, suckingat the red stumps of fingers … but then, astonishingly, the huge man laughed.“Your meat,” he roared, “is bloody tough.” – Bran VI AGOT

And here’s what Jon Snow himself said about traitors:

Thepunishment for treason is death. – Jon, Dragonstone (7x01)

I don’t think that if any of the traitor lords hadsurvived, Jon would have left them alive. And this goes for the Karstark andUmber kids as well. Being a traitor in this world has a clear definition: ifyou don’t obey and bend the knee to your liege lord, you’re a traitor and arebel. If the Karstark and Umber kids didn’t bend the knee and remained defiantagainst the Starks, Jon would be within his rights to execute them. Dany isfollowing the same rules, she’s acting as this medieval society acts.

Besides, even if the Tarlys weren’t traitors, Dany isfighting a war for conquest. In any conquest, you kill the people that don’tbend the knee to you, you don’t let them go. When the Lannister king and theGarderner king refused to bend the knee to Aegon and went to battle againsthim, Aegon fought against them in the field of fire. When Harren the Blackrefused to bend the knee, Aegon burned him alive in his castle. I know what someantis would say to this: AeGoN wAs eViL!!!! But no, he wasn’t. He was aconqueror. As I’ve said, you can’t become King of an entire continent unlessyou go to war for it. The Starks didn’t become Kings in the North by askingpolitely, they conquered people and killed their enemies. Jon and Sansa didn’tget the North back by asking politely either. They had to kill their enemies aswell.

Antis are willing to judge the male characters thatthey love by the morality of their medieval world, but they are not willing toextend the same courtesy to female characters that get in the way of theirfaves getting what they want. Jon killing enemy soldiers and taking Winterfellby force? What a hero! Tyrion killing people? He’s a hero, he’s the voice ofDany’s conscience, if Tyrion wasn’t there to control that crazy woman Danywould just burn Westeros to the ground. Even dark characters like Jaime aregiven a pass. Jaime trying to kill Bran, trying to kill Arya because Cerseiwanted (in the books), killing innocent Stark men for revenge, threatening tocatapult babies and enforcing Lannister rule? What a hero! What a redemption arc!!!He will kill that bitch Deranged Tangerine and be accepted by the Starks!

The same thing also goes for male friendships. Tyrionkilled Davos son? No big deal. It was war, these things happen. They can putaside their grievances for the greater good. Everyone in the Wight Hunt partyhad reasons to hate one another? No big deal either, they’re all on the same side,they’re all fighting against the Army of the Dead. Dany killed Randyll Tarly,Sam’s abuser that chained him to a wall for daring to want to be a maester? SAMMUST HATE DANY FOREVER AND EVER!!!! THEY CAN NEVER WORK TOGETHER!!! DANY MUSTBE EXECUTED FOR KILLING POOR RANDYLL TARLY!!!

This isn’t just coming from the fans though. The showis also misogynistic. The show is also upholding double standards by havingTyrion and Varys worry if Dany is “the mad queen”, by having them think aboutneeding to control her, or by putting ominous music during the battle to makeDany look bad. The show is also misogynistic for having the male characterssettle their differences easily, while female characters like Arya and Sansahave a catfight over petty things (I mean, Tyrion killed Davos son, and yet it’sArya and Sansa that are having problems with their relationship and threateningto kill each other?).

But we, as the audience, should think critically. Weshould not buy into the show’s sexism. We should question those doublestandards. This fandom is full of misogynistic dudebros, so I can understandwhere a lot of the sexist double standards come from. But a certain part ofthe fandom (a part that dares to call themselves “feminists”) thinks that theirship being canon is more important than feminism. They ally themselves with themisogynistic dudebros just to vilify the woman that gets in the way of theirship.

Sorry for the rant. But yeah. It’s all very shitty andsexist.

[byclairs]

Daenerys:

Meanwhile all the lords and ladies in Westeros:

and yet daenerys was made the villain in the end and we were supposed to view these fuckers as better than her okay.

[slytarg]

I counted 16 in the Dragon Pit Council. Only 2 (Davos & Gendry) grew up lower class.

Arya & Bran lived deprived but spent their first 11 years in castles as Lady & Lord then were back to royal life by age 16-17 and the show!versions didn’t learn enough from it if the final 2 seasons are an indicator.

2/16 is 12.5%

Dany’s Council (Mereen): Daenerys, Daario, Missandei, Greyworm, Ser Barristan, Ser Jorah, Mossador, Hizdahr, Tyrion, Varys

lower class/former slaves: 60%

Daenerys went to Astapor, freed the people, set up a Council, then left.

Since she had killed all the Masters there, the Council must have been freed slaves & those who’d never been Masters (likely the lower class). None were her group or allies she’d gifted the region to. She was not ruling over Astapor. She made it so the Astapori could govern themselves without the cruel self-serving nobles in the way.

Daenerys went to Yunkai, freed the people, then left. She did not stay to rule. She even offered not to take the city if the Masters “free all your slaves, let every man, woman, and child leave with all the food, clothing, and property they can carry as payment for their years of servitude.”

Daenerys went to Mereen, freed the people, and then in 4x5 was going to leave. But as she was making plans to set sail, she heard Astapor & Yunkai were reenslaved. So she decided to stay long enough to retake them and stabilize Slavers Bay. It was about their future and not hers. She wanted to know they could survive & thrive without her. The whole point was their liberation. She gave free lodging & food to all the former slaves and brokered peace so the different classes could live together as a community.

In s1, Daenerys freed Drogo’s slaves and told everyone present if they stay as her Khalasar it’ll be “as brothers & sisters, as husbands & wives.” No hierarchy. One family. Equal.

She gave the Unsullied the opportunity to choose their own Commander. When Robb chose a Glover to lead the Vanguard, Lord Umber (wanted that position) said he should take his army & go home. Robb threatened “When I am done with the Lannisters, I will march back North, root you out of your Keep and hang you for an oathbreaker.”

In s5 Tyrion told Daenerys she couldn’t rule Westeros without the support of the nobles. She told him the nobles–or rather, the class divide that creates a system of oppression that hurts the majority of the people who aren’t born into privilege—were what she was fighting against. This very Council!

[khaleesiofthegreatdairystate]

I hate this fucking show.

[drxnkonsxnlight-deactivated2021]

What Should Have Been the Valonqar Scene

Right so I’ve watched the Jon and Dany scene from 8x06 a few times now and I’m 100% convinced that is was originally Jaime and Cersei. 

So there are some parts that obviously wouldn’t work for Jaime and Cersei such as the ‘break the wheel’, substitute that for ‘rule the world’ and wanting to make the world good, both Jaime and Cersei know thats not Cersei’s intention but everything else fits like a glove. 

Jon: I saw them executing Lannister prisoners in the street, they said they were acting on your orders.

Dany: It was necessary.

Jon: Necessary? Have you been down there? Have you seen? Children, little children. Burned!

Dany: I tried to make peace with Cersei. She used their innocence as a weapon against me. She thought it would cripple me.

Jon: And Tyrion?

Dany: He conspired behind my back, with my enemies. How have you treated the people who’ve done the same to you? Even when it broke your heart?

Jon: Forgive him.

Dany: I cant.

Jon: You can. You can forgive all of them. Make them see they made a mistake. Make them understand. Please Dany.

Okay so if you substitute ‘Lannister soldiers’ for ‘unsullied soldiers’ and ‘Cersei’ for ‘Daenerys’, this fits Jaime and Cersei absolutely perfectly. Cersei claiming it was necessary, Jaime talking about the innocents being burned (Mad King call back to ‘burn them all’?) but I think the thing about this that stands out the most is the Tyrion line. 

Dany: He conspired behind my back, with my enemies. How have you treated the people who’ve done the same to you? Even when it broke your heart?

This right here is the most Cersei Lannister thing I have ever read. Even using emotional manipulation to get what she wants. I can literally imagine her saying this line now. This feels really similar to how she talked about Tyrion to Jaime in 7x05 and how she spoke to Tyrion in 7x07

Dany: You cant hide behind small mercies. The world we need won’t be build by men loyal to the world we have.

Jon: The world we need is a world of mercy. It has to be.

Dany: And it will be. It’s not easy to see something thats never been before. A good world.

Jon: How do you know? How do you know it will be good?

Dany: Because I know what is good. And so do you.

Some of this isn’t very Jaime and Cersei so has obviously been tweaked, but the way Jon is acting here is very Jaime, almost begging her to get her to see that she’s wrong. 

Jon: I don’t.

Dany: You do. You’ve always known.

Jon: What about everyone else? All the other people who think they know what’s good?

Dany: They don’t get to choose. Be with me. Build the new world with me. This is our reason. It has been from the beginning. Since you were a little boy with a bastard’s name and I was a little girl who couldn’t count to twenty. We do it together. We break the wheel together.

Jon: You are my queen. Now and always.

This. This right here is the proof. ‘You’ve always known’. How does she know this they’ve know each other for five minutes. Cersei on the other hand will of course know everything about Jaime and is actually qualified to say this to him.  Jon/Jaime asking about everyone else, really reminds me of the 7x05 scene where Jaime asks Cersei who she will say is the father of their baby. Now this: 

Dany: They don’t get to choose. Be with me. Build the new world with me. This is our reason. It has been from the beginning. Since you were a little boy with a bastard’s name and I was a little girl who couldn’t count to twenty. We do it together. We break the wheel together.

Christ alive, did they really think we wouldn’t notice? ‘They don’t get to choose. Be with me’, This is Cersei and Jaime in a nutshell, think to 1x03 ‘until you and I are the only ones left in this world’. Jaime/Cersei has always been a ‘fuck everyone else we are the only ones that matter’ relationship, whereas Jon/Dany has been nothing like that, Jon always put his family first and they have been together for five minutes. ‘This is our reason’, what is? How does she know/think they have a reason? ‘It has been from the beginning.’ From the beginning of what? Their two month long relationship? ‘Since you were a little boy with a bastard’s name and I was a little girl who couldn’t count to twenty.’ Okay, so this makes absolutely no sense. Why is she talking about their childhoods? They didn’t even know each other existed until like last season so why would their reason, since childhood, be to rule together? Jon was never meant to rule, especially not from childhood. Ned hid his identity, lying to everyone, even his wife, to keep Jon safe. Ned Stark, the most honourable man in the world would tarnish his honour with a ‘bastard’ in order to protect Jon’s identity, but somehow this means Jon was meant to rule? With someone on the other side of the narrow sea? And it’s only been Dany’s ‘reason’ since Viserys died. Before that he was the one who was meant to reclaim the Iron Throne. So saying that their reason, from the beginning, was to rule together is straight up wrong. But you know what does make sense? Twins talking about their childhood. Especially the Lannister twins. That was always what they were meant to be, rulers. Cersei was always meant to be the queen and Jaime was always meant to be Lord of Castely Rock, thats what Tywin wanted for them. ‘We do it together. We break the wheel together.’ Except instead of ‘break the wheel’ it’s ‘rule the world’, that is so Cersei its unbelievable. Them being ‘together’ is the essence of Jaime and Cersei so if Jaime killed her after she says that, it would complete his arc that he’s had for the past 8 seasons, Cersei being a part of him and him finally putting and end to that and destroying that part of him. 

Basically, I am 100% sure this scene was originally written for Jaime and Cersei and they changed it and I will never not be bitter about it. 

[vardaelcntari]

Sandra is the most anti-feminist character in AS0IAF

Ok, so some people (including my dear friend @hermajestythebomb) asked me to do unpack my reasoning why Sandra is an anti-feminist character, so I’ll try to voice my opinion as clear as I can (as in not to turn it into a long rambling, which I fear it will).

I am not going to explain what feminism is because we all know. At its core, it refers to equality between men and women, women’s rights to vote and choose (what to do, whom they will marry, if they want to divorce, what to do with their bodies etc.). The feminism movement was the result of so many years were women were only ascribed the role of wives and children makers. The feminism movement was the result of women’s perfectly understandable desire to have more roles in the society than wives and mothers (not that being a wife and/or a mother makes you less than a strong woman). The feminism moment was meant to be a change: a change in society’s (men’s) perception on a woman’s role.

Westerosi extremely patriarchal society echoes the medieval patriarchal society of our world. In this patriarchal society, GRRM creats several female characters that deal with the patriarchy in their own way.

Tomboysh Arya has a complicated relationship with the classic feminity, since she doesn’t feel like fitting in those standards, so she survives and deals with obstacles in her own way. She doesn’t resent the traditional feminity, not even in the slightest, but she doesn’t consider herself a traditional lady.

Same wirh the gender non-comforming Brienne, who is shunned and criticized for not fitting the patriarchal standards of feminity. She respects and admires the classic feminity, but she herself can’t conform to those standards. But hey, in her gender non-comforming, unique way, she makes Jaime fookin Lannister appreciate her for who she is. She earns his respect through her own way!

Daenerys is a very feminine girl, but fierce,assertive and self-determined, who takes all the issues in her own hands and deal with the obstacles in her own womanly fierce way and earns her titles and achievements, warning the respect of her khalassar, Unsullied, Barristan and Missandei.

Margaery, a very feminine girl, is skilled in politics and navigates the courtly intrigues through her courtesy, girly charm and wit.

Arianne, likewise, a feminine woman, fights to prove that she is the best heir to Dorne and deserves to be the best heir to Dorne. She is assertive, self-confident, both charming and cunning.

Even the utterly misogynist Cersei wants to make herself heared and seen and to show that being a woman doesn’t make her less fit for a position of power. Sure, we saw that her incompetence had nothing to do with her being a woman, but her intentions is the same: challenging the patriarchal society to show her respect and acknowledge her authority, even if she is a woman.

And then there’s Sandra. Sandra survives (so her stans claim) through her courtesy that she wears like an armor, but this statements, at its core, as well as her coping mechanism, is fucked up because Sandra doesn’t make an effort to challenge the society so see her as something more than what is expected from her. As late as in AFFC, we see her in the same role that we have seen her since AGOT, namely the perfect bride with the perfect name, and she seems satisfied with this label. And again, wanting to get married and have children and live happily ever after with your husband doesn’t make you less of a strong independent woman. You can be both wife, mom and independent. But Sandra doesn’t make a single effort to raise herself above this status that is imposed on her as a noble lady in a patriarchal society.

Furthermore, feminism is about supporting other women, helping other women and, most important, acknowledging that there are other types of womanhood beyond the cute traditional lady, who likes dresses, knitting and stories about valiant knights. Sandra bullies Arya and sees her as an unsatisfactory sister because Arya doesn’t fit in her standards of a perfect lady. She also doesn’t do anything to help other women. She barely thinks about that poor Jeyne Poole, and only because she’s feeling alone. Daenerys helps other women and offers Missandei a place beside her. Arianne and her cousins are so supportive to each other. Margaery is close to her cousins as well. Arya befriends all those kind of children, most of them being lowborn.

Sandra is the product of her very classist upbringing and she doesn’t change that. She is still confined in these standards and she still acts as if someday, a handsome lord will solve all her problems. She still acts like a damsel, eveb after all she’s been through, expecting a valiant knight to off Joffrey and seeing that Dontos guys as the rescuer Florian from God knows what ballad. And again, daydreaming of valiant knights is not bad, but after everything Sandra’s been through, you’d expect her to at least think if trying to be more assertive and more confident in her own forces, rather than others. You’d expect her to make less differences between nobles and commonborn and to appreciate all types of feminity, something which she doesn’t. As late as AFFC, she is still a damsel in distress whose fate is decided by a man. She got away from shit because she was rescued by some (grown ass) men who had a creepy crush on her (the Hound and LF). And this is not bad either, being helped by a man doesn’t make you weak (though admittedly, neither the Hound, nor LF are the paragons of manly virtue, and men with pure intentions). But when the merits for your survival are mostly the result of men’s involvement (and in LF’s case, he saved her not only because he had a creepy crush on her, but also because he needed her in his games), you are not a paragon of womanly strength. You are damsel. And last time I checked, damsels in distress were not role models for the power of women.

So, this is my unpacking, a result of my own opinion. You are free to have yours. Just because I’m saying these things, doesn’t mean that I am right, but it means that this is how I interpret the things. I would kindly ask you to take note of this.

[draqonelle]

Its complicated because Sansa was actually the MOST refreshing feminist character at first because her character was literally unpacking and showing the effect of the patriarchy on women and their self esteem as a woman. Lets face it Arya is a male fantasy about feminism.  A naive beautiful little girl who acts like a boy and is more worthy of respect.  Cersei is a male fantasy villain. Daenerys is just a female power fantasy.  Catelyn is a fantasy about an ideal mother which is a little more real then most and shows its downside, but it is sort of still basically a trope. Sansa and what we are supposed to get, without confronting the damage that patriarchy does to our self-esteem, our world view and ultimately how it makes us less safe and vulnerable to the ravages of misogyny in the wrong environment. I see at first as a victim of the patriarchy on its own terms could be interesting.  But the ending ruins the story.  She never confronts the fact what made her miserable.  She never actually gets to deal with her world view and gets rewarded for submitting.  At least Catelyn for all her fuck ups is punished for upholding the sexist value that a woman should only care about her children and nothing else.  Cersei is seen as sympathetic as a women abused by the patriarchy. ANd Arya (and even Brienne to a small extent) are just sort of not realistic anyway… but given more realistic traits (Arya is haunted by mental illness and trauma… Brienne looks ugly which is super rare) What makes Show!Sansa such garbage is that she is a victim of not only sexism but straight up abuse because of misogyny.  And yet she still derives strength out of the institutions that literally enslaved and brutalized her. It is disgusting.  THe men on the North betrayed Sansa at every opportunity The second they got a chance instead of securing her safety… they made Robb King, signing her death warrant if necessary. Unwilling to secure her release because she was only a girl, leaving her with the lannisters. THe Lannisters and Tyrells were smarter then that and only kept her alive out of a high stakes political ploy. After they failed to win that war sold her to a serial killer just to return to the Status Quo (the one they destroyed by declaring independence for bad reasons). And using Petyr Baelish to trick her into being abused. THey refused her a birthright, because there was a more suitable make candidate (who she was informed her whole life was not fit to be in charge.) Sansa is incredibly good natured letting Jon even be king of the North but not because she wants it…. but how family was so important. So important that being bitchy to the leader of a fucking legitimate threat to a foreign military force is okay, because it puts her family at risk. So that Daenerys and Sansa can have a cat fight for no reason over JON. Either Daenerys was a fucking threat who could have destroyed the North in a hale of dragonfire (which everyone know was unlikely) and they should have treated her with respect…. and Daenerys was never a threat and she shouldn’t care who she fucked. The North has betrayed Sandra over and over and over. Degrading her… selling her Ramsay Bolton, refusing to fight to win back Winterfell, refusing to fight to stop the Others, refusing to take her side when BIG BAD DAENERYS brought her three dragons North and threatened to kill people. (Which we knew wasn’t going to happen) SHe is supposed to abandon her family to not only lead these people who have fucked her over….  BUT also depend on them to save her.  In two months they will be selling her to Robin of the Vale or Tormund Giantsbane and ignoring her because she has a vagina. And she will have no where else to go.  Sansa will have turned into Ned Stark and regret all the decisions in the war and being isolationist… or Tywin Lannister and become a cruel militaristic  monster and brutalize her subjects to get her rebellious people in line. I am Daenerys too my dying day.  Why doesn’t Sansa become Hand of the King…  Why Doesn’t she be QUeen?  So she can avoid the scumbags who held her life in little to no regard and have betrayed her over and over. She is literally rewarding these scumbags for treating her like shit, by being an able and capable Queen and will sell her out to the first person with a penis they think is cool. FUCK THIS SHOW

[queenmiriamele]

You are mixing up two very different characters. Show! Sansa is not book! Sansa since season 4, when D&D thought she was boring and passive and gave her other personality that came out of nowhere and a complete different plot.

Show! Sansa is the most antifeminist character! ever, thankful for learning of her rape, cause she was stupid, look woman, accept that a rape makes you stronger, let yourself be raped and you’ll became strong and smart. So is show! Arya, simplified to tomboy to appeal straight white male audiences, HBOs and fantasy main public. And because they don’t know how to write.

OP was talking about book!Sansa. While i don’t agree Sansa is antifeminist, she is quite inactive, she’s dragged by the plot, doesn’t move it. She has potential, but i’m not sure Martin will know how to explore it. I really don’t know about Arya cause i find her chapters boring as hell and just drag through them (nothing against her, the whole assasin training and her arch in general doesn’t interest me) and, yes, Cersei is a male fantasy villain, just with a little more depth than it’s usual. Brienne is your estereotypical shieldmaid that Martin praises himself for making her ugly and big, instead of delicate and thin(which he had done with Arya anyway…)

Every woman in asoiaf suffers patriarchate, but Sansa is the one who suffers it less. Why? Because until the age of eleven she was perfectly happy with the patriarchal role assigned to a woman of her class. She excelled at it! Sansa knew no suffering until that point. And after that she suffered the Lannisters and Joffrey, but she was lucky enough to escape marital rape (unlike Dany or Cersei).

She of course has feminine virtues that should be valued: courtly manners, education, charm and i think she’s behaving more down to earth in Feast, even while keeping her dreamer nature, what i think is fine. But she’s definetely far from Daenerys empowering herself on daily basis.

Why do you call me princess, ser Jorah? I’m queen, refer to me as such.

Woman? Is that meant to insult me?

I don’t desire you, Jorah Mormont, and i know you are trying to gaslight me.

Daenerys could be a male fantasy(if she fails, goes mad, becames evil) or male’s worst nightmare if she succeeds. Because men want empowered woman to fail. They don’t want a woman taking the male role of major hero. They don’t want a woman having sexual confidence and they don’t want a woman commanding an army and winning. Not while she doesn’t reject or has problems with femininity, which Dany doesn’t have.

[draqonelle]

@eyes-painted-with-kohl​ I will have to argue with that idea that Sansa is not effected by the Patriarchy, just because she is passive  Because she not only has to suffer the consequences that all women do, she is also a small brainwashed girl who is literally robbed of her power, but not even sure that it isn’t her fault. Being married and beautiful princess is so important to her that she sold out everyone she loves, and didn’t realize it.  Now she’s bopping around assuming that her obsession with marriage and her circumstances is her fault That is so goddamn refreshing after a bunch of nerds have been writing attractive virginal tom boys they can project their values on. There is no doubt what Sansa’s problem is.  There is no sugar coating her abuse, there is no vacillation, Sansa is going through pain and misfortune… because she is a woman.  It is a brutal look of the effects of misogyny with no holds barred for once.  She is actually the most unique carefully written, sympathetic female character. George wanted to make her a villain, but when he saw things from her perspective he fell in love with her down to earth character. Sansa is the one who proves beyond a doubt that the misogyny in Westeros is the worst problem everyone faces, and in fact the one reason we need Queen Daenerys. We aren’t giving Sansa a sword or teaching her magic or giving her feminist catch phrases. There is no escape from Sansa’s plight by convenient narrative hooks.  Daenerys and heck even Brienne, Arya are role models.  It was just interesting to have someone that we could relate to.  I’ve read sooooo  much bad fiction with strong female characters… as long as they acted like men. It was just fun to have a weak female character who was still treated with respect and empathy and not valued for how perfect she was, but by how her life was. The problem is I think is that D&D are thoughtless and gave Sansa what she deserves, because it is all women get.  That just encapsulates the casual sexism they had.  That women should not be given power because they might exceed their potential. I have no faith Daenerys will live… but I do have faith that someone who genuinely loves Sansa as much as George will allow her to do not only what she wants but in the end shock us all and bring everyone foreward.  I am still rooting for her to be Hand of the King or Queen of the 6 Kingdoms (minus Iron Islands)  

[queenmiriamele]

Of course is good not to force male narratives to make a woman interesting and valuable. I find Sansa interesting in her own way. But she hasn’t suffered the patriarchy more than anyone else as you have said, none is that the main point in her story at all. If it is Martin’s intention he hasn’t succeded.

Sansa is there to show us how the expected world values don’t operate as a high class protected girl would expect, and that’s when all her beliefs crumble down, and her perfection doesn’t matter. But until that moment she hadn’t suffered a bit. In fact she caused suffering to Arya for not being as perfect as she believed herself to be. Showing feminine traits is not bad, imposing them is. It’s as sexist as the other way around. Sam suffered the patriarchate more than Sansa for not being as masculine as he was expected, than Sansa, who was lucky enough to be married and escape marital rape.

Sansa became a survivor by her own means. But a survivor is not a hero. A survivor itself is loable in an individual basis, but affects nothing on the general espectrum.

What could be interesting is what is she gonna do after surviving. I still see her worried about no one else by herself, and her courtesy could easily be translated in a manipulation skill. That would make her more active, but not entirely feminist, since the manipulative seductress is far from a feminisg trope.

You talk about her exerting power and that being what she wants, but book Sansa doesn’t want power at all. She wanted to be queen as a decorative reproductive thing and hasn’t conceived other ways of being queen either. Certainly not for doing good for the people, she has no revolutionary ideas. Certainly not as a personal ambition cause her ambition is still being a knight’s lady, she still believes in good knights even if she doesn’t believe all knights are good any more.

So, while i don’t think she’s antifeminist, and i believe that feminine (in both qualities, identification and roles) characters should exist, that doesn’t make them empowering or particularly feminists. Being a victim of the patriarchate in itself doesn’t make you feminist. Being a victim, not even the one who had it worst, is not feminist, it’s just representative, which is good, but far from being empowering.

Whether Daenerys lives or no, has nothing to do with Sansa having power, because, again, why would she hold power? She has no interest, nor projects, nor a desire to make the world better… Sansa is an individualist. Has no mind of general building of things at all. Nor the people who are next to her have it either.

If Sansa was to hold power in a majority of the kingdoms in the books, D&D would have done that. They could justify it by her being more clever than anyone according to scripts dialogues, even though no real screen sequences proves it.

If Sansa lives in the books, she would probably be regent of Harry’s child on the Vale. That is if her way and Sandor’s don’t cross again and she doesn’t elope with him, now that she’s not entirely sure if she did well not doing it the first time and dreams about him kissing her… That would end so tragically. That if Littlefinger doesn’t use her as a puppet in his Northern interests that would make her enemy of both Jon and Rockon’s claims. Sansa’s story could go through multiple scenarios. But being a powerful queen of the 6 kingdoms is not one of them. Not in any coherent plot or character development that could go in the two books that are still to come. Please, remember she’s a secondary character, and if Martin’s main ending hasn’t changed since the 90s when she almost didn’t come to exist, she’s not going to be that important in the ending still to come.

[draqonelle]

I don’t think Sansa is a main character.  And I think its super easy to play suffering Olympics… especially because Sansa was an annoying child.  But that is why I sorta kin her.  She has no clue what was going on and had no idea what she was talking about… and thought she had privilege because she behaved right… which is a trap that I think almost every girl falls into, whether you like 1 D or the Cure…  black or pink nail polish. Its a truly unfiltered look at the effects of the patriarchy and pyschology of misogyny.  With not attempt to make men feel better about themselves.   The bullshit and anger I have over the ending is that the deprived Sansa of her humanity. When she comes to be wiser, Sansa is a spirited clever girl who holds onto a sense of self during a horrific time, still trying to do naive kindnesses when she can even when they backfire. Making a minor side character leaders in the new world order, having retained her kindness warmth and spirit, would prove not only the quest for the Iron Throne was pointless, when even Sansa could be a good leader, but that anyone can redeemed from toxic thinking. It doesn’t matter who sits the Iron THrone, what we needed was for Sansa to learn to use her privilege for something other then the selfish and short sighted gain of herself and her family.  She is supposed to be the Stark with a redemption arc… to be crass. She has a more simple low key narrative where she grows from a bratty child into a woman who is a great leader and responsible and makes use of her suffering. Making her Queen in the North just hordes her privilege, shows that she is responsible for her own child abuse, and that its okay for it to make you cruel and bitchy as long as you get what you deserve in the end and close yourself off from what really matters.  Friendship, loyalty, small kindnesses, faith and just being smart. And not even that smart when she is openly rude and stupid around a woman with three fire breathing dragons. I can suspend my disbelief that Sansa is clever.  I can’t suspend it that far that Sansa would be rude as shit to a woman who could kill her and burn winterfell to the ground. (You think Petyr wouldn’t suck up to daenerys… or Olenna or Cersei before her kids died.  You are dumb.) It would have been a powerful symbol if Daenerys’s death resulted in people like Sam and Sansa and Tyrion having power to know change the world even if they were all TOO human. And be Daenerys’s true legacy. Instead all these people get thrown into this untenable stupid war inducing situation makes no sense and proves Daenerys was right to want to destroy Westeros for defying her social reformation agenda… Sansa hordes her power, and like her ancestors, like Ned buries her head in the snow, selfishly allowing the cycle to spin out of control and downwards.

[queenmiriamele]

Fuck, i don’t want people like Tyrion or Sansa in power. They wouldn’t change a thing. They are a product or their society and they still long to be part of that society. I don’t think that’s a good ending at all.

Daenerys doesn’t want to destroy westeros in the books. Stop mixing up different canons!

I’m not playing Olympics suffering, cause if we guided ourselves for suffering then none of the POV deserve anything. Lots of smallfolk in Westeros and Essos have had it harder than them. Suffering doesn’t make anyone a deserver of anything.

Fighting for common good makes you worthy of power, rising up for the defenseless makes you chivalrous, thinking outside of your box and your individual problems makes you empathetic, having higher moral standards and will of sacrifice makes you a worthy leader. Having all those qualities makes you exceptional, not perfect, it doesn’t guarantee you succes and it doesn’t make you unhuman. I’m not hopeful to think Daenerys will have a much better ending than in the show. He’s said main characters have similar destinies. And i don’t have reason to think he’s straight up lying. I’ve said that i won’t like the ending of the books. The only thing i expect is for it to be minimally coherent. If they get finished. And if i read them, which i don’t know if i will. And i don’t see how having in power the same kind of people who had it before is hopeful.

And of course side characters are going to have an important role. But it won’t be something as being sole ruler of the only geographic space G. R. R. Martin takes care of worldbuild properly.

[vardaelcntari]

Ok, this post became quite long and I really really want to stop this Sandra flood on my blog, because I really want to focus on the things I like.

But first, I have to bow to @eyes-painted-with-kohl because you articulated the problem just perfectly. It migjt sound really nasty but suffering doesn’t make you worthy of being a queen/ruler/in a position of power. If so, then all the Westerosi commoners who suffered because of the war should be kings and queens. An ending with Tyrion and Sandra in charge doesn’t change basically anything. I like Tyrion a lot, but he is the product of an extremely mysogynist upbringing and is utterly misogynist, as well as corrupt, treacherous, vengeful and selfish himself. Sandra, too, is a product of a classist upbringing and denying her classism is denying the canon.

I still have faith in Martin and I am confident that he is smarter than D&D and knows his own work well enough to realize that characters such as Tyrion and Sandra won’t bring any significant change in Westerosi society if they will be in a position of power. None of them every truly fought against the standards of the Westerosi society.

And let’s not mistake the show and the books. In the books, Sandra is not this political mastermind D&D sold to us under the label of Empowering Female Character™️, which was actually a travesty and a big fat bad writing in the form of the “tell, not show”. I don’t think Sandra will ever end in a position of power because this is just not the point of this character. Sandra is not a main character and will never be. She hasn’t truly undergone some significant changes that will allow her to see the world in a different light. She still is overtly classist, as well as oblivious and naïve.

And I want this post to be the last time I am talking about Sandra because, again, while I lile discussing certain topics, in the end, I want this blog to focus on the things I like.

[daenerysthebetrayed-deactivated]

Sam should have been executed as a deserter

[instantbouquetface-me]

I assume Bran must have pardoned him or something. Nice reward for forgetting about Jon forever and never even speaking up for him.

[reganx2]

More like Bran/3ER didn’t care one way or the other.

The rest of the Lords of Westeros rightly recognized that pretty much every member of the Small Council was incompetent and/or corrupt, and knew better than to expect that a King who gave his sister a kingdom for no reason other than that she had her selfish little heart set on wearing a crown would deal justly with a deserter who was a friend of the family.

[amaximumtastemakercollection]

@instantbouquetface-me​ I don’t know whether Bran pardoned Sam or not, but maybe the reason Sam didn’t speak up for Jon was so that he wouldn’t draw attention to himself.  If Sam doesn’t even mention Jon’s name then the others might conveniently forget Sam was ever a member of the NW in the first place.

[reganx2]

That makes a lot of sense.

[instantbouquetface-me]

@amaximumtastemakercollection​ That solution may make sense for the duration of a meeting or so. But Sam is also a thief from the Citadel. The Citadel which has the authority to nominate an Archmaester to be the Gradmaester. And Sam never even qualified as Maester. Moreover he went to the Citadel on Jon’s authorization as someone who would be trained for the Night’s Watch. So this information cannot, realistically be ignored for long. He needs to have been pardoned at some point.

@reganx2​ Why the lords of Westeros wouldn’t insist that the King should be one of them rather than a Stark when the North is separating is the more confusing issue. If the North is separating then having a King from the North makes as much sense as getting a King from Braavos. Moreover why would the lords of the Reach accept Bronn as their Lord Paramount? Ulf White had the ambition to get Highgarden. He was a dragon rider and had fought well. Yet he was assassinated (by Ser Hobert Hightower who killed him by giving him poisoned wine and drinking the poisoned wine himself–thereby killing himself as well–as well to convince him that it was not poisoned). The lords of the Reach would not tolerate a no name sellsword being raised to their Paramount lord.

[aweseeds]

@amaximumtastemakercollection Sam’s status & the likelihood of a pardon by Bran is a really interesting issue. Bran made Sam Grand Maester despite that status not being conferred by a King, but by the Citadel, and Sam’s utter lack of qualifications by having only a single link. Sam isn’t even qualified to be Maester to a noble house as Luwin was. Moreover, Sam’s appointment to be at the Citadel as a student was only made by Jon to serve the Night’s Watch, so Bran’s pardon would be huge.

A pardon for deserting the Night’s Watch should only have spared Sam from execution. It would not absolve him of his lifelong vows to the NW. I think it is just another example of Bran & Tyrion stacking the Small Council of ones they consider yes men or those with a previous loyalty to House Stark, although both Davos & Sam’s loyalty was to Jon specifically, not to House Stark itself.

@reganx2 I completely concur the Westerosi lords would not consider Bran their rightful king. He does not rule by blood or conquest. House Stark is a Northern house & the Northern houses were immediately removed from southern rule, thus making any Northerner ineligible for consideration as King of the 6 southern kingdoms.

The Starks committed a coup just as the Lannisters did. Both murdered the King/Queen who ruled the kingdoms by a blood connection to Targaryens & by defeating the existing ruler of the Iron Throne in open warfare. The Starks/North never defeated Daenerys in a war or even declared war on her. The Starks got crowns via a treasonous Lannister putting the King they wanted on the throne. Sansa threatened the Lords at the Dragonpit with death packed by a Northern army’s presence in KL after the Northerns had raped & killed the smallfolk, then murdered their sworn ruler only to switch loyalties after a Targaryen was murdered in the throne room, just as the Lannisters did in the Sack of KL. Any other King would have executed Tyrion on multiple charges, showing he & the Starks were working together to benefit themselves.

Sansa’s threats to Yara were made when the Lords would have be present under a vow of safe conduct & likely under guest right as well. That threat was made solely for objecting to the Starks’ preferred narrative of Daenerys’s murder. That shows the Lords present that any objection to what the Starks wanted would get them killed. The Lords would not have brought their own armies, instead trusting the meeting serves as a Great Council, which was immediately disproved. Sansa silencing her own uncle proves the Starks refused to allow any open discussion.

I firmly think that once the Lords were safely home surrounded by their own bannermen & armies, they would reject being ruled by Bran on basis he was an illegitimate King. An independent North means no Northerner can rule the south. A Stark could only be King in the North. But then the last two Kings in the North were only made by free proclamation of the Northern lords. No King or Queen in the North could lawfully be made by a southern king. That’s why they banished Jon to the Wall & Tyrion only empathized the part of the NW’s oath about not marrying or having children. The Starks & Tyrion wanted to end House Targaryen, the house that created a unified Westeros. Any trueborn Targaryen has a superior claim to rules Westeros & Jon was the last KitN chosen by the Northern lords. Jon would be the last legal King of Westeros (Varys was certain Jon’s identity would make the southern lords recognise him as King) & the North & the Starks wanted to remove him & any of his descendants from contention for their illegally obtained thrones.

[my-arya-underfoot]

The problem with the show's Northern Plot

It amazes me how replacing Sansa’s Vale plot with the Northern plot has fucked over every one of the Stark siblings.

The Northern plot of the books encompasses Jeyne Poole’s story, the North actually remembering, Stannis rallying it’s lords, Davos going to find Rickon, armies marching for “Ned’s little girl”, Jon’s personal connections with Ramsay and dying to save Arya…. all of which was wrapped into Sansa’s mishmash of a plot in s5-7.

And god did that screw everything up for the Starks.

I mean on Sansa’s side she loses her entire training arc. Post ASoS/s3-4 is so clearly the “training montage” phase for the Starklings preparing them for the next stage of their journey. (Which makes sense with the original 5 year jump). Bran’s training with the 3 Eyed Raven, Arya with the Faceless Men and Jon with the Night’s Watch as Lord Commander. Cutting out Sansa’s Vale plot means skipping the part where she actually learns things – politics, manipulation, “playing the game”, even running a freaking household – in favour of being abused for yet another season.

Sure D&D still gave her all those skills – and more – in s6 and 7. But all that ended up doing was raise criticisms of Sansa being a Mary Sue and that she was pulling all these random abilities out of a hat. How is Sansa this amazing politician? Why should she be Lady of WF with no experience? How does she know how to prepare WF for winter? Or lead all the Northern lords? Why is she the only person who knows how to design armour?

Which leads on to the screwing over of all the other Starks roles. Putting Sansa in the North has completely undermined all her sibling’s importance to the Northern plot. What’s more, D&D removed attachments Jon, Arya, Bran and Rickon have to the North and Winterfell, while increasing Sansa’s despite her having the least in the books.  

Because, and I can’t believe this is still a debate, in the books Sansa was always the least Northern and most Southern of all her siblings. That’s not an insult or implying she’s lesser because of it. That’s how her character was designed.

Let’s play Which of these characters is the most logical to become ruler of Winterfell and the North:

a) The Builder: Every-Stark-generation-must-have-a-Bran, training in ancient Northern magic basically, been in the North the whole time, was actually taught how to rule WF as it’s lord, was “the Stark in WF”, knows parts of WF that no one else does and literally compares himself with it, trueborn son, warg, wolf living.

b) Literal Queen of the Wolves: Only trueborn child to inherit the Stark look, her wolf/other half leading a giant pack, has the most wolf imagery/association of all the Starklings, has “the wolf blood” refers to people as her pack, Northerners marching in her name, has casual chats with the old gods, dislikes the South and Southern ways, constantly meeting and helping Northeners on her journey, warg, wolf living. 

c) Lord Commander: Spent the whole time in the North, had a ton of leadership training, serving Northern institution, alliances with Wildings, inherited the Stark look, warg, wolf living.

d) The Lady: Learned Southern ways and Southern politics, married off to a Southerner, struck out of succession, few references/connections to the North,  no warg, dead wolf. 

I mean really, how is this a discussion.

But in the show, Sansa is the one who returns first, gets speeches about how Winterfell is her home, persuades Jon to retake their home, attempts to rally the Northerners, kills Ramsay, gets a shit ton of focus as Lady of Winterfell and negotiates with the Northern lords. Her Southern connections, Robb striking her out his will and even as far back as her actions betraying Ned to Cersei are removed.

Meanwhile her siblings…

Rickon – Plot with Davos searching for him to rally the Northern lords? Gone. Rickon is a pawn to get Sansa and Jon to face Ramsay and killed off.

Bran – Intimately connected with Winterfell and still clinging to his identity? The significance of having the Stakiest of Stark names? References to his place as heir to WF? Gone. Bran of the show is a living google search bar, largely it seems to justify why Sansa remains Lady of WF/Ruler of the North when he rocks up again.  

Arya – Jesus christ where to start. “The lone wolf dies, but the pack survives,” Jeyne Poole posing as her, the Northern lords rallying for ‘Ned’s little girl’? Even further back, every Northener she meets along her journey, her warging abilities, link with Nymeria, her taking on Northern justice of passing the sentence/swinging the sword and her conversation with the actual old gods of the North? Gone. But Sansa gets the lone wolf line, passes judgement, reclaiming WF, leading the charge against Ramsay.

Jon – Implication he was made Robb’s heir, his personal hatred of Ramsay because of Arya, dying because he tried to save Arya from Ramsay? Gone. Yes he was made KitN but in a way that made him look like a dick and to get the audience on Sansa’s side thanks to her moving with no justification because Sansa was in the North instead of the Vale and they removed Robb’s will which would give Jon justification. Instead of working against Ramsay to rescue Arya, it’s connected to Sansa and what Sansa suffered at Ramsay’s hands.

Also, the general fact that Sansa sets up home base at Winterfell with all its people…. while Arya and Bran just get welcomed home by her then fade into the background so she can get on with being ruler of Winterfell.

Not only does is all the pack/family emphasis of the Starks go to Sansa but she’s acknowledged as the leader as well. Which utterly undermines the rest of the Starkling’s abilities, characterization and importance.

Now, obviously not every removal of Jon, Arya, Bran and Rickon’s Northern connections was because of Sansa. But it’s pretty damn obvious that D&D weakened all of their significance to prop up Sansa. Because apparently her actual plot wrapped up in the South and politics and the game wasn’t good enough.  

So, when people ask why I get pissed off at the idea of Sansa as QITN? Because D&D had to take down every single one of her more Northern-leaning siblings to justify her getting that position.

[cateyesinlove]

@syfygirl1998

[syfygirl1998]

The absolute fucking tea here

Show Sansa SUCKS, it displaces literally all the other northern plots. They make her Jon’s new favourite sister instead of Arya (his literally favourite sibling gets a total of two scenes with him), they give her literally 10 characters plots including Arya, Jeyne, Theon, Alys, Wylla to make her seem interesting. Just- show Sansa stans ARENT SANSA stans, because show Sansa is NOT Sansa, she’s a creation by D&D and Sophie.

[aegon]

i just read a very long post about how daenerys was very well written because it exposes people who rooted for her as the people who would cheer for horrible, but at the beginning kind seeming dictators in real life and it kinda upset me that so many people seem to agree with this? are we daenerys fans horrible and just refuse to see it? i wish stuff like that didn't get to me but it does

That’s…that’s unbelievable bullshit. I’m sorry but no, what an absurdly simplistic view of why people support such a complex character. Also good on them for wildly misinterpreting her arc and the reason we defend her.

Keep reading

[midqueenally]

requested by @kirwani

[lookingforasphodels]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH.

Excuse me.

[vol-au-vending-machine]

If Dany wanted Jon dead, why didn’t she try to off him during the Long Night? Oops, he fell off Rhaegal. Oops, he got caught in Drogon’s fire. There would be A MILLION WAYS to make it look like an accident, like friendly fire, like fog of war. Also, by offing him during the Long Night, she could stop him from revealing his parentage to other interested parties *cough* Sansa.

But no, she saved his life. AFTER the reveal. DELIBERATELY.

[luminiesbackup]

[yocalio]

If you’re ever curious about whether someone is easily manipulated or not, ask them if they think Daenerys Targayen was always “mad.” If they say yes, you have your answer.

[winterlorn]

It’s actually so funny that there’s a theory that Daenerys’ story was some kind of social experiment to make people realize how easy it is to be tricked into supporting someone or something that is actually bad.

When you look at that idea, and then you look at season 8, it’s like, “that’s actually not that far off in terms of what message you could get from GoT, only you’ve got it completely backwards.” Between Dany and the narrative that was spun about her in season 8, which one do you think would logically trigger a realization that you shouldn’t buy into everything people tell you? Which one should make you critical of the stories that have been told, over and over again, about women in power?

Sorry to break it to you, hun, but I’m not the one getting tricked here. 😂

[lookingforasphodels]

Misogyny is humanity’s oldest lie.

[targaryen-stronghold]

Jon stans think it’s okay D&D turn him into a kinslayer? That’s a capital offense by westerosi standards.

[winterlorn]

To be fair, Westerosi standards seem to have sunk surprisingly low in the later seasons. Not sure whether they have standards anymore.

[caroldanversenthusiast]

ah yes, the mad queen has been hinted at from the beginning….