Wolf Child. Blood Child. Dark Heart.

Jaan. 20s. Telugu. INTP. This blog used to be an amalgamation of my varied interests but somehow it turned into a mostly Arya Stark appreciation blog.

[nerajaana]

~ At the Inn of the Kneeling Man, where Torrhen Stark bent the knee and swore fealty to Aegon the Conqueror~

"Harwin?" Arya whispered. It was! Under the beard and the tangled hair was the face of Hullen's son, who used to lead her pony around the yard, ride at quintain with Jon and Robb, and drink too much on feast days. He was thinner, harder somehow, and at Winterfell he had never worn a beard, but it was him—her father's man. "Harwin!" Squirming, she threw herself forward, trying to wrench free of Lem's iron grip. "It's me," she shouted, "Harwin, it's me, don't you know me, don't you?" The tears came, and she found herself weeping like a baby, just like some stupid little girl. "Harwin, it's me!" …..

…. His eyes went wide, "Gods be good," he said in a choked voice. "Arya Underfoot? Lem, let go of her."

"The Hand's daughter." Harwin went to one knee before her. "Arya Stark, of Winterfell." - Arya II, A Storm of Swords

​thanks for reminding me of this underrated yet iconic moment @thelustybraavosimaid 🫶

[timeforwolves]

Strange Love by Halsey // A Dance with Dragons, JON XIII

[nerajaana]

Bring her home, Mance……..You owe me this one little girl

[revfeminista]

[dazaicoree]

Kashmir: A glimpse into its Hindu roots

Kashmir, once called Sharada Peeth, was a sacred land of Hindus—home to sages, Sanskrit scholars, and grand temples like the Martand Sun Temple. It was a center of Shaivism, where spiritual wisdom flourished for centuries.

The name Kashmir originates from the ancient Sanskrit term "Kaśmīra." According to Hindu texts like the Nilamata Purana, the valley was originally a vast lake. The sage Rishi Kashyapa is said to have drained the water to make the land habitable—hence the name Kashyap-mir or Kashyap’s Lake, which later evolved into Kashmir.

However, starting in the 14th century, the region saw significant upheaval. With the arrival of Muslim rulers, especially under Sultan Sikandar (known as Butshikan or ‘idol-breaker’), temples were destroyed, and there was widespread persecution. Accounts from that period mention forced conversions, temple desecrations, and an intentional erasure of native culture. Over time, the once-flourishing Hindu identity was slowly erased.

Despite centuries of change, the echoes of its ancient past still linger in the stories, ruins, and memory of Kashmiri Hindus, many of whom were later displaced in the 1990s. The history of Kashmir is not just about conflict—it is also about resilience, identity, and the enduring spirit of a land that once thrived as a cradle of Indian civilization.

[nishabd-pdf]

[churrosandbrownie]

Hot take:

Characters like Arya, Dany, Brienne and Lyanna are loved so easily because of misogyny. All these characters symbolise masculine power, the idea of a hero saving the day with sword and fire and sheer power. They're the heroes because they save the world.

Counting the stores, calculating the food supply, uplifting the morale, all these functions of women are seen as inferior, and not worthy of respect, despite them being as important as being in the field because women's labour has always been undervalued and underappreciated. This is why Sansa is seen as useless despite her emotional intelligence and strength. She's a child, there's an army on the gate, and she still chose to console and help grown women around her.

[jackoshadows]

When will this bs about proactive female characters being called 'Masculine' ever stop in this sexist fandom....And to then call it a 'Hot Take' as if this was not the most popular take of Sansa stans in general.

Never mind that Arya and Dany are ALSO CHILDREN.

Never mind that Arya has cooked and cleaned and sewn wounds and scrubbed floors - and yet she is 'masculine' because all this is strangely not 'women's labour' - Arya can't win no matter what she does.

Never mind that it's actually DANY WHO IS COUNTING STORES, CALCULATING FOOD SUPPLY AND UPLIFTING THE MORALE!!

SANSA DOESN'T EVEN CARE ABOUT THE FOOD SUPPLIES!! She didn't care when LF was hoarding food and starving the populace and she didn't care when LF gave a 64 DISH FEAST in her honor and made a 12 FEET TALL LEMON CAKE especially for her.

Oh, and if this is about the trash, garbage TV show then even there Daenerys spend some 4 seasons actually ruling city states compared to Sansa asking everyone to bring their grain to Winterfell for 10 seconds and then spend the rest of her time snarking and sabotaging her brother so that she could wear a crown.

It's especially funny because Daenerys is a female character in a role traditionally reserved for men in the deeply sexist fantasy genre - ruling is not 'Masculine power' - and that's where most of the hate for the character from chuds and reddit dudebros comes from because how dare a girl be more important than Jon Snow or Stannis Baratheon. And still Sansa stans keep going back to the - 'Dany gets love because she is a man 🤓' takes.

Sansa is the favorite female character of the asoiaf reddit demography that is 95% male and that should tell everyone something.

[ghostinwinterfell]

acok, arya iii // asos, daenerys vi

[gorbehism]

Fuck the Islamic Republic, finally a few moments of internet after 2 whole fucking months of this shitty country blocking our access to it.

This is all I have to say after 2 months of radio silence

Fuck the Islamic Republic of Iran and how it treats us citizens making us live in conditions like these under their dictatorship.

Fuck everyone who's silent about what's going on in Iran

Down with the ayatollahs and down with the Islamic Republic of Iran and down with the IRGC

And fuck everyone who supports this horrible regime

Sincerely,

A person born , raised and living in Iran

[insert-some-url]

Leftists got SO mad that Iranians, Venezuelans and Cubans don’t confirm their skewed views of their countries until they found the word “diaspora” as way to get a pass at racism and dividing the people inside and outside countries run by dictators

Speaking about the Iranian diaspora, since I’m Iranian myself, the majority of Iranians living outside Iran spent most of their lives INSIDE occupied Iran. We know more about the harsh life under Islamic republic’s tyranny that any leftist who just watched a few travel blogs or maaaybe spent one vacation in Iran. Yet the leftists feel entitled to lecture us about our own country:))

[thelustybraavosimaid]

I think that's what draws me to Jonrya. The unmitigated devotion the two of them share; ADwD is a testament to that. Their relationship is so beautiful and compelling—separation absolutely does not impact their bond, and it's fascinating because the distance seems to be strengthening it instead. This is in direct opposition with Jaime and Cersei, who were joined at the hip for most of their lives yet their bond became fraught the more they stayed away from each other.

So, yeah. If anyone wants to know what the healthy version of Jaime and Cersei is, it's Jon and Arya.

[afortoru]

I have watched dhurandhar for the plot

the plot -

[mahi-wayy]

for the LAST FUCKING TIME dhurandar is a movie about TERRORISM and tries to show inner workings, corruption and rot of Pakistan - A COUNTRY FACTUALLY PROVEN TO SHELTER TERRORISTS - its not some kind of religious propaganda.

it's not fucking Islamophobic or shit. like it has nothing to do with religion. it's not talking about a community based on religion it's about a disgusting community based of violence for their own twisted beliefs.

we have enough issues of religious disagreements as it is, jeez people.

[tyriongirl]

People are truly so afraid of liking ugly characters. you see it all the time with Arya specifically, but also targs who all have to be The Prettiest. Rhaenyra femininity discourse comes to mind (and of course there's a lot to say there about equating beauty with femininity / gender conforming but that's a whole other thing). Arya is definitely the most egregious example though. Like, so many of her fans feel compelled to find whatever evidence they can (or can make up) that Actually she's extremely pretty or will be extremely pretty or pretty by the north standards or pretty by our real world standards or whatever, and I truly think that they just can't conceive of liking a character who's not pretty, or worse, ugly. Some of it is equating beauty with goodness (which is wild, especially when it comes to asoiaf as and its themes as a series) and some of it is just... they can't like a character who's ugly. I don't know if it's a self insert thing, a patriarchal thing, a misogyny / internalized misogyny thing or what. So when you say Arya is not pretty, or 'worse', ugly, they take it as an insult to her worth in-story and to her worth as a character, as if not being pretty means she's not written well

Disney fairytale mindset fr

[oh-look-words]

Much comes from cultural conditioning in how storytelling in fairytales and folklore have been presented. In old stories, especially those that feature morality and ethics, so often the "good" characters are beautiful, while the "evil" ones are ugly. Some scholars theorize that it was because beauty was considered a marker of good health and therefore virtue, whereas scarring, deformities, etc. would be indicators of depraved behaviors or habits. Humans unfortunately have had a long history of unconsciously assuming positive traits (intelligence, kindness, generosity, talent) of people with high levels of personal attractiveness (PA), while also assuming negative traits (low intelligence, laziness, aggression, cruelty) to those with lower PA, without any evidence of the individual's personality, traits, thoughts, beliefs, habits. Literally just assuming things based on how they look without any interaction. A number of sociological and psychological studies have been conducted on this subject. Plenty of academic books and journals have been written about the topic. This unfortunately goes back way further than Disney, though they, and literally all other media sources (TV, movies, even the music industry) have perpetuated this idea. (Seriously, compare actors in TV shows from the 70's and early 80's to today. Even bands from the 60's - 80's. Video really did kill the radio star.) Old folk and fairy tales, even myths have very similar themes: the hero is always attractive - this detail signals to the audience that they are also in possession of other heroic traits (strength, virtue, goodness, they make an excellent sourdough). Villains, in contrast, at least in the standard stories up until about 15-20 or so years ago, were generally ugly, signaling their negative traits. The "attractive villain" was usually used as a twist to throw off the audience's suspicions, but has become more common now.

Villains nowadays are...mixed. Sometimes they're gorgeous, especially when the plot twist is to convert/redeem them later, have a seductive betrayal subplot, or to establish them as a sympathetic villain. However, usually when the story is going to establish them as a villain that needs to be straight up eliminated and not otherwise befriended, they are cast or described as unattractive, plain, fat, or weak-looking, reaffirming the cultural beliefs that virtue is linked to PA. (Though tbh, you're seeing more attractive villains largely because it's currently marketable.)

How does this relate to OP's assertion? It supports it. Martin's choice to write both Arya and Brienne as physically plain at best was a deliberate choice. Their positive personality traits in written text elevate the characters in your expected heroic light. They are plain, but they are not evil, or weak. Instead they possess the same traits one expects of a hero, but without the culturally expected markers of beauty that we are so used to seeing. This creates a disconnect because we are so conditioned to expect our protags to be attractive on top of everything else, that it's difficult to mentally picture them as anything but.

It's an internalized prejudice for sure, but one that has been reinforced so many times through most every story, book, movie, TV, anime, etc. that we consume that it's difficult to shift the mental paradigm. It's not an excuse, but it's an explanation.

[jackoshadows]

Oh look, an entire 'analysis' based on false and racist, sexist fanon interpolated from characters who bully Arya as ugly because she looks different to them that will now get reblogged by the casual fans with the wrong canon that Arya is 'ugly'. This is how fanon gets formed and widespread.

In old stories, especially those that feature morality and ethics, so often the "good" characters are beautiful, while the "evil" ones are ugly.

This is especially funny because this is a fandom where a canonically selfish, classist, patriarchal, pro-status quo bully like Sansa is seen as 'good', the champion of the poor, the most compassionate character with the most empathy, the 'embodiment of hope for the future' because she is classically beautiful, fits into Eurocentric beauty standards and represents white female fragility and the canonically white Arya is headcanoned as poc because they see her as ugly, violent, impulsive, stupid, tribal, barbaric, savage, uncouth, unicivilized and unfit to have a family and love.

What you are writing here is the exact opposite of what is happening. Where, it is not the author, but the fandom that is headcanoning a canonically pretty, white girl as ugly and poc because they see her as violent and uncouth.

Where a nine year old, skinny little girl is masculinized, her femininity stripped and she is always headcanoned as bigger and being an executioner and body guard for her older, bigger sister in popular fanart. Notice also that both characters are white, but Arya is always drawn in darker shades. Again, this goes back to that concept of white female fragility which is rooted in white supremacy where a woc cannot be envisioned as vulnerable or worth protecting.

And the most mind boggling fact is that Arya is white!! But because the racist/sexist fandom want to project all their white femininity onto Sansa, this means for them, Arya has to be masculine, ugly, violent and poc.

Just looking through OP's tags for example, this is some art of how they envision Sansa in their mind:

This is one of the Arya fanart they reblogged:

Notice the difference between the so called beautiful and ugly characters for the OP? I did look back a bit of on tags could not find any art of dark skinned Sansa by herself like the Arya art above.

Like this is stuff one sees in the fandom:

Another blogger who thinks Arya is ugly and Sansa is beautiful reblogs art like this of both characters - remember both characters are canonically white in the books...

Notice the difference?

Humans unfortunately have had a long history of unconsciously assuming positive traits (intelligence, kindness, generosity, talent) of people with high levels of personal attractiveness (PA), while also assuming negative traits (low intelligence, laziness, aggression, cruelty) to those with lower PA, without any evidence of the individual's personality, traits, thoughts, beliefs, habits.

The way this applies exactly to the racism and sexism of this fandom and how they treat the characters of Sansa and Arya is amazing and and that's what's funny about your entire post. Like, this gets to the heart of all this and yet it's the complete opposite of what you are implying.

This is why despite Arya being more intelligent that Sansa, more political then Sansa, more compassionate than Sansa, having more empathy than Sansa, being the victim of bullying from her sister Sansa, despite standing up for the powerless, despite all this, the character of Arya is constantly put down as a sociopath, violent, impulsive and stupid, while Sansa is seen as the compassionate Mother Theresa, the smart politician, the only girl who can be 'Lady of Winterfell' because she's the right kind of woman.

And this is why Arya is contantly headcanoned as ugly - despite the text making it clear that she is not!! There are several characters who call Arya pretty. Are they wrong? Are the bullies right?

You mention Brienne. This is a canonically 'ugly' character who is the embodiment of GOOD. She is exactly what you are talking about. The author goes into great detail about how ugly she is. NOTE: HE DOES NOT DO THIS WITH ARYA BECAUSE ARYA IS NOT CANONICALLY UGLY. The author even has a romance arc with Brienne who is ugly on the outside and beautiful on the inside and Jaime who is beautiful on the outside and ugly on the inside, his take on beauty and the beast. This is his inversion of the traditional fairy tale tropes.

But why is Arya being grouped into this, when she has an entirely different exploration - The Ugly Duckling - of looking different, about being non-conforming, of not fitting in amongst the Tully looking Starks as opposed to the Stark looking Starks.

'LYANNA WAS BEAUTIFUL' 'SO ARE YOU'

This is right there in the text!! Again, why is this being ignored in favor of what two bullies are mocking a little girl for? Are bullies right?

How does this relate to OP's assertion? It supports it. Martin's choice to write both Arya and Brienne as physically plain at best was a deliberate choice.

Except this nine year old is not old enough or taken care of her appearance enough for us to know whether she is plain or not. We know this of the 17 year old Brienne - and the themes you mentioned are explicitly explored with her in terms of good and evil being connected to a character's looks.

And Tyriongirl should know as a Tyrion girl that if Martin wants the readers to know a character is ugly he will make that damn clear by mentioning every other page how ugly the character is which he does with Tyrion. Never with Arya.

This creates a disconnect because we are so conditioned to expect our protags to be attractive on top of everything else, that it's difficult to mentally picture them as anything but.

EXACTLY! Conditioning on top of the racism and sexism, means that white tradfems who see Sansa as the embodiment of white femininity expect Arya to be ugly, brown, primitive and violent.

And this is what is happening and this is why there is a backlash everytime there are posts like this primarily from Sansa fans about how Arya is ugly and how that should be accepted for ugly representation when Arya is canonically not ugly and there is already an amazing, great character in Brienne for ugly representation.

But the the 'ugly' discourse has never been about representation or even Arya as a character. It's always Sansa fans digging this up because they need Sansa to be special and unique and feminine and blue eyed and beautiful and romantic and lady like and they don't want Arya to encroach on all that ever.

Here's a question. Why is Jon never at the center of ugly discourse given he is older, supposedly plain looking and has the Stark look just like Arya. He and Arya look so much alike. Sansa who thinks Arya is ugly also calls out Jon Snow for his looks and her classism is on display when she thinks they are both ugly because they are bastards.

Where are all the 'Why is Jon drawn so handsome when he is ugly in the books' arguments and discourse? Why are you not writing your 'fairy tale' analysis for Jon Snow and good and bad and beautiful and ugly?

I will give you a clue - because it's never about ugly representation and instead a desire by Sansa fans who need Arya to be ugly because the bully should always be right.

It's an internalized prejudice for sure, but one that has been reinforced so many times through most every story, book, movie, TV, anime, etc. that we consume that it's difficult to shift the mental paradigm. It's not an excuse, but it's an explanation.

It's definitely an internalized prejudice for sure, one full of misogyny and racism. And posts like this that disingenuously interpret what is actually happening does not help at all in challenging these age old stereotypes of beauty, race and sex.

[theaisyapping]

@jackoshadows your answer is great. I couldn't state it better

[bitter--blooms]

It's amusing how the relationship between Jonrya is treated as the most absurd and impossible hypothesis when it's a plot line written by George himself and explicitly characterized as romantic initially. Whether it remains in the story or not is the question. The point is that these characters were created to complement each other emotionally and have this absurd and intense connection from the beginning. The love they feel for each other is a big part of the characterization of these characters. They speak in union and have spent so much time together that they are able to guess what the other is thinking. Their souls are so intertwined that even their respective wolves (extensions of their souls) are in tune with each other (Wolves and women wed for life). And within the main characters, no other relationship is established as this indestructible force, being overly emphasized so many times, despite the time and vows or any forces that can separate them.

The first 13 chapters of AGOT were sent with the 1993 outline. Fans who have looked through the manuscripts have noticed few differences compared to the published version. All these iconic quotes and the relationship between Jon and Arya settling in between major narrative plots have always been here.

Girls get the arms, but not the swords. Bastards get the swords, but not the arms. Different roads sometimes lead to the same castle. The memory of her laughter warmed him on the long ride north. Stick them with the pointy end. These passages were thought with them in a romantic relationship in mind :) Got a problem with that? Go take it up with George.

Plus, “You,” Ned said, kissing her lightly on the brow, “will marry a king and rule his castle, and your sons will be knights and princes and lords and, yes, perhaps even a High Septon.” > Arya kissing the cat in the brow, who is the real king of the castle and the black bastard > Jon being called the black bastard in the wall in ADWD. Grrm subtly returning to old foreshadowing? Oh interesting I guess!

Textually, Jon and Arya are platonic soulmates. They are each other's heart, home and priority. Their bond defies death, is unique within asoiaf and is magnificently written as something no one else has. Trying to level down their relationship only reveals an inability to read the text and the narrative arc of these characters, who have been deeply connected since book 1. They yearn so much to be reunited, regardless of any factors, that it is painful. These are feral loves that simply shake the readers and imply visceral emotions and actions. Like Jon breaking his vows to rescue "Arya" and suffering the consequences for it. It is insane, but this is the true representation of love. An unstoppable force that can drag anyone down. The things we love destroy us every time. He, along with Nymeria, are the reasons that allow Arya's identity to be preserved and that's why she never loses herself. Her desire to reunite with him, even before all the tragedy, is the factor that motivates her to continue living. And she has such overwhelming faith in him (Jon will want me, even if no one else will.) that she knows she will be safe in his arms. Arya's physical home as it was... simply doesn't exist anymore, but JON is her home. And most of all, her pack. In Braaavos she never thinks of any other alternatives besides him. And she would never abandon him.

The abundance of love between them not only brings significant transformations to their internal and external worlds, but also resonates in the narrative. The forbidden love between them would defy logic, social and moral conventions. This is the kind of conflict that George loves to explore and enhance. George is not a conventional writer. His more vanilla romances are not overly explored by the text. He likes drama, complex and contradictory feelings, relationships that involve some degree of moral complexity and that torment his characters. That's why it's so funny to see fans so shocked by his initial ideas because his text itself reveals where he takes things, to the utmost of the heart in conflict with itself. He seeks to address these issues because he likes it. Asoiaf would be much less fun if he only cared about the readers' feelings.

In a scenario where the zombie apocalypse has wiped out everything and everyone, why wouldn't they be together? If, even when they're apart, they still yearn for each other? Why wouldn't they choose to live their lives together, if that's already a desire expressed by both of them? And share their pains and joys with each other. And grow old together? I'm not even talking in a ship sense. It's just that these two characters explicitly inform readers that they love each other above all else and unconditionally. If they have no hope because they've changed so much and nothing will ever be the same, what relationship does asoiaf have a chance of thriving? No one else? If 90% of the relationships established in the books don't have even half of this devotion, loyalty, and affection. How would they be in a better position to thrive?

I'm not saying it will happen exactly as he initially planned. There are obstacles, of course. However, I think those obstacles are magnified to the extreme even in hypothetical scenarios. If the lack of time skip is a hindrance (in a saga that is still ongoing and can last for years), then it is a problem for other relationships as well, in Arya's case perhaps except with Ned Dayne. "But, he can write off-page around the end or in an epilogue". In other words, this narrative device can also be used for Jonrya? Right? "Oh, it's so controversial". Since when did this stop George from writing anything? I find it funny when people say they can't see her reciprocating the feelings. When GRRM totally can and wrote it that way initially 😁 He is a writer fully aware of the universe he created, you don't need to tell him. Platonic soulmates falling in love after a reunion and being horrified by it is exactly the kind of emotional mess that GRRM likes to explore. Regardless of whether they end up together or not.

I am of the radical opinion that, if George wants to write something, he will simply find a way and do it. If Jon and Arya somehow end up together in the end, it's part of the endings he's been dreaming up since 1991 and he won't change them, so it's going to happen. We can only wait for the end of the saga to know for sure. I'm not very creative, but maybe Arya looking for Jon north of the wall, spending some time with him, an open ending with the two of them together or maybe implying that the Stark bloodline continued with them and that they had several Stark looking children. Maybe she could be like the Mormont women, claiming that the fathers of her children are bears, in Arya's case, a wolf. Or, for magical reasons, Jon making a pact with The Heart of Winter and being able to meet her only in the spring. If he wants, there are so many narrative paths that can be presented.

It's very obvious to me how much George loves and values ​​their relationship. His favorite quote is something between them. And he constantly elevates and builds on. He revisits old ideas, makes these characters think about each other all the time. He puts extra emphasis on their bond. Like Jon was supposed to die at Hardhome, but he went there and wrote the Pink Letter, just to put more focus on the relationship between him and Arya once again. Idk, but it doesn't seem like he's written off Jon Arya the way ppl think and I think their fates are more intertwined than fans believe. The guy has tripled down on their relationship. So it's going to be very impactful and relevant.

Arya is the most important and beloved person to Jon. While he is the most important and beloved person to her. And that is why it is difficult to visualize them voluntarily separating. Regardless of the direction their relationship takes, they are undeniably made for each other and are the true soulmates of asoiaf.

Granny: Are you trying to say something to the reader by drilling into us how much Arya and Jon love each other?

George RR Martin: “Say something to the reader?” No, I’m just reporting how the characters feel. Of course, everything in the book says something to the reader. -GRRM

[nerajaana]

~ At the Inn of the Kneeling Man, where Torrhen Stark bent the knee and swore fealty to Aegon the Conqueror~

"Harwin?" Arya whispered. It was! Under the beard and the tangled hair was the face of Hullen's son, who used to lead her pony around the yard, ride at quintain with Jon and Robb, and drink too much on feast days. He was thinner, harder somehow, and at Winterfell he had never worn a beard, but it was him—her father's man. "Harwin!" Squirming, she threw herself forward, trying to wrench free of Lem's iron grip. "It's me," she shouted, "Harwin, it's me, don't you know me, don't you?" The tears came, and she found herself weeping like a baby, just like some stupid little girl. "Harwin, it's me!" …..

…. His eyes went wide, "Gods be good," he said in a choked voice. "Arya Underfoot? Lem, let go of her."

"The Hand's daughter." Harwin went to one knee before her. "Arya Stark, of Winterfell." - Arya II, A Storm of Swords

​thanks for reminding me of this underrated yet iconic moment @thelustybraavosimaid 🫶

[queen-of-andor]

It baffles me that Dany gets the most criticism for punishing some of the Great Masters of Meereen. You know, people who not only benefit from slavery but who also crucified slave children in order to spite her. Instead of having meta on how inhumane these actions of theirs are, people are focusing on whether Dany's punishment on them was cruel or not. In my opinion, it wasn't. She could have killed all the Great Masters, like she did with the Good Masters ( again slavers) in Astapor. It would save her a lot of trouble dealing with them later ( see ADWD). However, she only orders the killing of the exact number of slavers as the slave kids that was killed by them. And kills them exactly the same way, they killed those kids. She's sending a clear message that such horrible acts of violence against those who can't defend themselves won't be tolerated on her reign in Meereen.