#rouka ask

[agentrouka-blog]

"What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms? Or the memory of a brother's smile?"

I love how this applies word to word to Ned and Lyanna, but in a way that subverts expectations. Woman's love: yes but platonic not romantic. Newborn son in arms: yes but he is actually a nephew. Brother's smile: no sister's.

Hi there!

I love the way you think. The quote expands far beyond the moment and echoes across past and future, for many characters.

You can paste it straight onto Ned, trace it painfully over Catelyn and Robb, sprinkle it among the Lannister siblings, lace it through Dany's braids, and return it wholesale to Jon and his own choices and longings.

Another thing that I love about this quote is how wrong Aemon is, and how you can turn this quote around on itself. He indicts love as the enemy of duty and honor, as a destroyer of these pure motivations, am inhibitor of effective necessary action.

But, say, what motivation is empty honor, compared to love? What motivation is cold duty compared to love?

I will kill him if I must. The prospect gave Jon no joy; there would be no honor in such a killing, and it would mean his own death as well. Yet he could not let the wildlings breach the Wall, to threaten Winterfell and the north, the barrowlands and the Rills, White Harbor and the Stony Shore, even the Neck. For eight thousand years the men of House Stark had lived and died to protect their people against such ravagers and reavers . . . and bastard-born or no, the same blood ran in his veins. Bran and Rickon are still at Winterfell besides. Maester Luwin, Ser Rodrik, Old Nan, Farlen the kennelmaster, Mikken at his forge and Gage by his ovens . . . everyone I ever knew, everyone I ever loved. If Jon must slay a man he half admired and almost liked to save them from the mercies of Rattleshirt and Harma Dogshead and the earless Magnar of Thenn, that was what he meant to do. (ASOS, Jon II)

Honor and duty are empty by themselves. And Jon shows us that you do not need them. His most powerful motivation is love, and it leaves him flexible, too, because it allows him to adjust to the necessities of the moment. Look at Ned, all his best decisions are always motivated by love, where blind adherence to honor or duty lead him astray.

[agentrouka-blog]

I dislike how rarely it is discussed that Catelyn committed treason for Sansa by freeing Jaime, in comparison to Ned dishonoring himself for her or Jon choosing Arya over his duty to the Watch. When it is discussed, its in a negative way. Its as if people don't consider women's choices and sacrifices as worth mentioning as men's, or that like Robb they think girls are not important enough and Catelyn going behind her king renders her heroic act villainous. For me, Catelyn's choice is actually more poignant than that of Ned and Jon because Catelyn was choosing between her own children. I so want a scene where Sansa realizes that it was not her brother who ultimately tried to save her, rather her mother.

Let's put it this way: Sansa and Arya may never know that Robb refused to trade for them. But there is a tall blond knightly figure who will absolutely let them know that Catelyn risked everything to see them freed. ❤️

(Jon esentially did what Catelyn did and sent a king's prisoner to free "Arya". Just more secretly and with a less successful companion. Arya will appreciate it.)

[agentrouka-blog]

Do you think ‘Game of Thrones’ intended to build toward a romantic relationship between Jon and Sansa, or were Kit and Sophie’s on screen chemistry just that good? If the showrunners abandoned a Jonsa storyline, what is your theory as to why they did so?

I do think there was 100% intentional effort by various professionals that went into building romantic imagery around Jon and Sansa. Writing, lighting, costuming, the way they staged their interactions, dialogue choices - and the ton of visual parallels borrowed from other romantic couples in the series (Ned and Cat, Cersei and Jaime, Gilly and Sam, Robb and Talisa...) - that kind of stuff doesn't just happen accidentally because two actors have chemistry.

(In the same way, intentional choices went into undercutting and subverting romantic imagery between Jon and Daenerys. The "bad chemistry" is not accidental, either.)

As to why they abandoned a plan that still has archeological traces well into Season 8, I can't credibly guess. Probably a mix of things, partly a sudden unwillingness to invest the time into a pseudo-incest angsty romance that would heavily center Jon and Sansa and take away time from important things like Bronn, an imposed unwillingness to properly build Dany's villain arc to serve as a counter-weight in favor of giving the "romantic lead" plotline to Dany to camouflage her villain reveal. Who knows. Bad choices were made early down the line cutting things, and the puzzle pieces they had left they weren't willing or able to assemble into a balanced storyline that by then depended heavily on catering to fan favorite Dany.

[agentrouka-blog]

I often see this sentiment that Ned should have told Cat the truth about Jon and it would have solved all their problems. I disagree with this? I don't think Ned was being an idiot for not telling Cat. I think there were a multitude of reasons of why he didn't tell her, and all of them held weight in his decision.

1) he didn't know or trust her when they got married

2) a secret stops being one if you tell even one person about it. He promised Lyanna he wouldn't tell anyone and that included everyone, except obviously the people already present at the tower (Howland and the wet nurse I presume)

3) there is a possibility that Cat's behavior towards Jon would have changed knowing he was not a result of Ned's affair, but her resentment towards him also provided a cover. If she treated him, say cordially, then it would have been very suspicious considering Ned was already fostering him at his own home.

4) after he came to know Cat, he would have realized that she was fiercely protective of her family, she wouldn't have thought twice before giving up Jon for her children if it came to that. A choice no sane person, including Ned, can fault her for. By not telling her, he removed that option for her, saved Jon and also saved her from the guilt that would have haunted her.

5) he was committing treason that would have endangered Cat and his children. In case it ever got out there was plausible deniability for his family that they didn't know and it might have saved them.

His actions hurt both Catelyn and Jon but it was a very complicated situation overall so I understand him too. I don't know what would have been the alternative because I don't think telling Catelyn would have solved anything. What is your opinion on this?

I don't think people generally claim it would have magically fixed "everything", but many also misunderstand how Ned is mishandling the situation. He isn't actually handling it well by himself, he isn't handling it the way he would have if Jon was actually his bastard. His inability to be "normal" about it and come up with a convincing lie created most of the avoidable problems we see, which is Catelyn's eternal insecurity about Ned's feelings for Jon (and his mother) which feeds her anxiety about her own children being usurped, plus Jon's complete trauma over knowing absolutely nothing about his mother. Both are left hanging for no logical reason from their POV, and that's an absolutely insane path for Ned to go down.

True, and then he chose to go the worst way about it and never fixed it later.

Howland knows. The Daynes know. Wylla probably knows. Benjen probably knows. Come on. And we don't know what she made him promise and it's more likely to be along the lines of protecting her son than specifically never telling anyone who could have helped him handle this better.

Catelyn being "nice" to Jon isn't even half of it. She could have advised Ned on how to handle the situation in a realistic way with the least harm done. Which is likely to foster Jon somewhere, make plans for his future instead of leaving him aimless, create a believable lie about his mother that doesn't shame him, have a harmoniously accepted situation instead of making his kids grow up with this unresolved conflict warping their emotional well-being.

What situation could realistically arise where Cat could "sell out" Jon to "save" her children that specifically depends on her knowing this and also wouldn't mean they are all already in deep trouble? It's nonsense. Also, Catelyn "Family Duty Honor" Tully would not fault Ned for wanting to save his sister's child. It's a perfectly decent choice on his part and a dilemma she could easily understand. Come on!

How is this (thin glaze) of plausible deniability not equally achieved by simply lying (and lying better than Ned can, especially)?

It's just that Ned left both Cat and Jon deeply anxious and traumatized, respectively, because his decision was to lie very badly and then refuse to answer all reasonable questions. It has repercussions for all of them. From Cat to Sansa to Jon to Robb.

Plus: Ned may have actually had an opportunity to heal from his horrific trauma if he had talked to literally anyone about it. He may have been less likely to cling to Robert as a vestige of his lost youth, blinding himself to the man's monstrous faults and sticking around to his own doom.

It would not have "fixed everything" but you can't convince me it wouldn't have fixed some things.

[agentrouka-blog]

Do you think Sansa’s arc in the books will be very similar to the one in the show? but executed differently

Hi there!

Broad similarities (girl in grey, reunion and strong relationship with Jon, big role in retaking the North and bringing in the material support of the Vale, bringing down Litttlefinger with Arya, proving herself in a leadership position in the North, supporting Northern independence, becoming Queen in the North).

But also big differences (nothing resembling the Ramsay plotline, a plot-relevant and character-defining exploration of her relationship with Jon as a pseudo-incest romance with an escape clause through the parentage reveal, an actual exploration of Northern politics and the Northern succession, probably pregnancy and childbirth, a proper exploration of Sansa's analytical and diplomatic abilities, Rickon exists and matters).

I definitely do not see her ending the same as the show, in essence isolated and with the continuation of the Stark line or her marriage an utter open question. I also don't see her character development arresting itself at disillusionment and snappy one-liners and brittle sadness, when one of her defining traits in the books is her ability to find motivation and beauty in the world around her in spite of it all. Sansa will look for joy and find it.

[agentrouka-blog]

Do you think Sansa was ever a girlboss (derogatory context)? Some dude is lamenting that the ending of Battle of the Bastards (where the Knights of the Vale ride in) was her “girlboss moment”, even though she was the only female in sight and her screentime was very limited in that part. Did she… smile at the Bolton line breaking? Oh, the malice!

I think D&D considered the "girlboss" concept as a credibly attractive way to showcase Strong Women Characters, usually by the way of Dany standing triumphant after scenes of violent victory, which is a pose they usually didn't give to their male characters, who were usually given more nuanced/tragic "war is complex and bad for us manly warriors" angles (Jon, Jaime, Tyrion, Robb...) so giving Sansa the triumphant smile at the sight of the carnage was true to form for them.

That said, it's not very girlboss to be belittled by every ally they encountered, be barely included in the planning, beg to contribute insight, be condescended to, and then given no public credit for the entire army she did manage to contribute while watching her bastard half-brother be crowned after he doomed them all to be slaughtered in battle. Sansa was Lady of Winterfell and didn't truly desire that Northern crown but it was a very telling moment nonetheless. To top it off, she was made to apologize again.

A proper girlboss moment this is not.

Of course, to D&D her "girlboss" arc was probably done justice by having her walking away smiling from another moment of carnage letting Ramsay be eaten alive by his dogs in a dark dungeon (another Dany mirror).

I don't know what drives the critic you refer to but I can say that I am not a fan of these moments precisely because they glorify the violence that the same writers decry as complex and damaging for male characters, they are superficial momentary triumphs that don't address actual power dynamics or trauma, and they should be considered out of character for Sansa. It's lazy storytelling, and if "girlboss moment" is meant to criticize that, I would actually agree.

[agentrouka-blog]

Dany & Co going to North in later bookks is still unlikely. Especially the winters will be harsher than previous ones. Plus the problem of food and other resources will be there.

GRRM: Jon, quick, say something that hints how dragons could help in the fight!

Jon: "Boy, it sure would be fun to have dragons around here. Or three. To warm things up. Sammy mentions dragonsteel." Like that?

GRRM: Perfect. Incidentally, while we're on the subject..!!! Did you know Alysanne's dragon HATED the Wall and refused to cross it? Wow, look at all those horses just dying in the winter storms. Oof. Food sure is a massive issue in the North, how will they feed all the people? Alysanne's intervention at the Wall actually managed to weaken and depopulate the area in the long term, isn't that hilarious? Stannis fantasizes about having a dragon too, btw.

Jon: I know. Mel goes on about it. I do not condone human sacrifice for such purposes, actually. I sent a whole baby away from his mother, did I mention?

Tycho Nestoris: I feel compelled to remind everyone that dragons represent oppression. It's symbolism. Check Arya's Braavosi chapters for more.

GRRM: Thanks, everyone! Okay, Jon, now make another dragon reference!

Jon: Mmm'kay. Um. "Ooh, I used to want to be The Young Dragon and be a conqueror!" Can I get back to counting turnips now, I have things to do.

GRRM: Go right along, lad.

[agentrouka-blog]

Dany fan here: I think other Dany fans think Jonsas are over the top with Dany hate because of pol!Jon. I follow many Jonsas because I’m perfectly fine with Jonsa. It’s not for me but I see the vision. That said I’m a bit of an unusual Dany fan in the sense that I’m a big fan of the Meereenese Knot essays and think the interpretation of Dany presented there is pretty spot on. I personally think Dany has a good heart but that circumstance and experience and terrible coping mechanisms have led her to act in villainous ways and whether or not a character is a villain is determined by their actions regardless of whatever goodness is in their heart. But anyway I do not like the pol!Jon theory. I think it’s out of character for Jon and needlessly cruel to Dany. I think it’s possible that he ultimately kills her and that could be fine and I don’t reject that theory, but I think the idea of Jon deceiving and sexually abusing Dany and then killing her for the sake of Sansa is what Dany fans think of when they think of over the top hate because they assume every Jonsa shipper also believes in pol!Jon.

I do understand why people thought Jon was deceiving Dany in the show though because their relationship was just so poorly executed and Kit and Emilia had no chemistry on screen. Imagine fucking up your show’s romance so badly that people think the script confirming that the love was mutual must have been tampered with.

Hi there!

(I think Dany is a compelling tragic villain, and it's lovely seeing someone loving her for it!)

I do think that pol!Jon (under duress, esentially) is a not unreasonable theory that grew out of the way the show presented their relationship. If there was sexual abuse I think it's fair to say it was in the hands of the more powerful party, though.

That said, I don't see it happening that way in the books at all and I think all characters will be better off for it. I agree it wouldn't feel right.

Certainly not in a punitive "you thought he would love you but he really loves Sansa, now die!!!" way. That cheapens jonsa as much as it cheapens the complexity of the conflict between Dany and Jon.

It's just a deeply uninteresting way to explore their existing conflict or their respective strengths. Not to be a hater but it's not exactly riveting literature watching Dany be manipulated by Daario and it's unlikely to be more so in a repeat performance with Jon who isn't even her type. Same as watching Jon go through a repeat of the abusive Ygritte plotline would be less than compelling.

We'll have instances of romantic manipulation. Littlefinger is practically begging Sansa to use his own obsession against him, and Arya gives us a preview when she lures Raff to his death wearing "Mercy's" face. That's been set up since the first book, and it works as a satisfying response to the way everyone has been telling Sansa how weak and simple she is. It's very personal, very steeped in their respective histories, very poetic.

But for Jon and Dany I think we can expect something more universal and even-handed than that. They are both at varying points manipulative and earnest, highly clever or unexpectly outmaneuvered. And neither will be in this conflict all alone and without advice. Not to mention, we have both of their POVs and watching one just miss all the clues of the other manipulating them would be flat. This only ever works with one POV withheld. The show tried that with Jon Snow live on the screen, to disastrous results. No way is that GRRM's plan.

I'd rather watch two clever adversaries play a big game of chess. And given GRRM's love for that game, I am certain it's also what he would prefer to write.