don't call me an appliance @thesultrybraavosibard - Tumblr Blog

Please note:

The asoiaf ships for this particular account is strictly Jonrya and Rhaelya. 💖💖

There was a window in the covered bridge between the armory and the Great Keep where you had a view of the whole yard. That was where they headed. They arrived, flushed and breathless, to find Jon seated on the sill, one leg drawn up languidly to his chin. He was watching the action, so absorbed that he seemed unaware of her approach until his white wolf moved to meet them. Nymeria stalked closer on wary feet. Ghost, already larger than his litter mates, smelled her, gave her ear a careful nip, and settled back down. Jon gave her a curious look. “Shouldn’t you be working on your stitches, little sister?” Arya made a face at him. “I wanted to see them fight.” He smiled. “Come here, then.”

rock-cedar-mosquito

Sunrise in the mist of the falls

everythingfox

Wiggly boi

weirwood

arya fancast poll tournament?

yes

Voting ended onApr 5, 2023

#yes!

miladythewinter

They were not little boys when they fought, but knights and mighty heroes. "I'm Prince Aemon the Dragonknight," Jon would call out, and Robb would shout back, "Well, I'm Florian the Fool." Or Robb would say, "I'm the Young Dragon," and Jon would reply, "I'm Ser Ryam Redwyne."

You know, I'm not one of those people who thinks every single word in ASOIAF has a double meaning but in this excerpt the choice of names seems obviously important. In fact, I might not even be saying anything new here.

Robb calls out the names of Florian the Fool and the Young Dragon (Daeron I). First, Florian was a famous knight AND a fool who's strongly associated with Jonquil, a woman whom he fell in love with by chance. I don't think I need to explain the connections here. Then the Young Dragon is even more obvious - a teenage warrior who lost his life and his kingdom (the recently conquered Dorne = North) during that war. Both choices seem really apt for Robb.

Jon, meanwhile, chooses Aemon the Dragonknight which may be a hint to his parentage, Targaryen name if he had one (though i'm personally not an adherent to that theory) and his martial skills (and if we go deeper, then maybe a hint to a misplaced loyalty that results in his death? unrequited love?) but also Ryam Redwyne. And now, that's interesting because from what I recall Redwyne was the greatest knight of his age (serving in the Kingsguard) but he was a terrible Hand of the King. So good as a warrior, bad as a ruler. On the surface this could refer to Jon's stint as Lord Commander which results in his death but could be also to his future.

I personally don't think he will be king of anything or even remain Lord Commander after what happened to him in ADWD and I think that may be exactly what this is hinting at. Jon is not a ruler, he's a leader yes, but not a ruler*. And if you combine Ser Ryam with Aemon then you get this picture of a tragic great warrior who serves but doesn't rule. But does he serve well? And whom or what, truly?

*i do love the theory that he's basically become the king beyond the wall after he defeated Mance and Tormund and helped the wildings. But interestingly, a king-beyond-the-wall is a ruler insofar as he's strong and a leader, not because of heritage or wealth or anything, nor do other wilding chiefs consider him above them in a special way. So I think that in that case he could be a "ruler" because that's not really what he'd be.

jackoshadows

These are mostly the children calling out mythical heroes in their history and yes, it could be foreshadowing given Aemon’s love for his sister Naerys and vice versa and Jon’s love for Arya and vice versa.

However, I am not seeing the Ryam parallels here. Jon calls out Ryam precisely because he’s a great fighter and a knight and at that age, the youngsters want to be good fighters. It’s why Jon thinks he will be a good ranger and really wants to be one at the Wall. It’s why his friends think that Jon will be appointed to the Rangers. And yet, Jon is assigned to the Stewards because Mormont is training him to be a leader and not to to be a fighter. And Jon Snow trains as a steward.

The black brothers set new recruits to many different tasks, to learn where their skills lay…[F]or every day spent hunting, he gave a dozen to Donal Noye in the armory…Other times he ran messages, stood at guard, mucked out stables, fletched arrows, assisted Maester Aemon with his birds or Bowen Marsh with his counts and inventories. - Jon, AGoT

In the books, Jon is an average fighter. What he is, is an administrator trying to rebuild the Wall with the meager resources at hand because the rest of the rulers of Westeros are fighting each other for power. The show is not the books. I am only responding to your post because you tagged it asoiaf and valyrianscrolls.

If we are looking at the greatest knight/fighter parallels then that would be to Brienne of Tarth. If we are looking at worst hand of the king parallels then that would have to be with Jon Arryn.

I am not sure what exactly you are calling out as the difference between a leader and a ruler. It is true that Jon Snow is not a sovereign like Robert, Robb, Dany, Stannis, Cersei or Joffrey. It’s true that he is not a hand of the king like Ned or Tyrion. It is true that he is the leader of a military institution rather than a ruler of a kingdom.

However, you seem to be saying that Jon and Redwyne have parallels because Redwyme was a terrible hand and Jon is a bad ruler? If your assumption that Jon is a terrible ruler is because he gets killed then does that mean Tyrion is a bad hand because he gets framed as a kinslayer and put in prison? or that if Stannis gets eventually killed that he's a bad ruler?

Jon ended up dying because he broke oaths sworn in front of the Old Gods, broke the NW's neutrality to save his little sister. He put his personal self interest above the good of the Watch - that actually makes him a bad leader of his people, not a bad ruler.

We can only speculate on if Jon will be a good ruler based on how he did during his tenure as Lord Commander in terms of administration and getting the Wall battle ready to face the threat of the Others. And based on that record, I think he did pretty damn well in trying to rebuild from scratch an institution that has been ignored over centuries by both the Starks and the monarchs on the Iron Throne.

juniperhillpatient

“apologist.” “critical.” y’all are doing too much. when my favorite characters do evil reprehensible shit I simply don’t fucking care cause it’s not real

forthegothicheroine

via @maddie-grove

#a while back i saw a whole thing about how we needed to acknowledge something bad a character did#and after a point i was like why? is he real? is he running for senator?

kitnrickon-deactivated20240322

you are arya of winterfell, daughter of the north. you told me you could be strong. you have the wolf blood in you.

kayra aleyna zabcı (🇹🇷) as arya stark.

writingquestionsanswered

Hi! I am in need of some gramatical advice if you don't mind.

To be quick about it, English is not my first language, and there are 3 things I can't seem to find out on how to get them to be grammatically correct/distinguish which one to use in a sentence. It's the following:

Was or were

Is or are

Has or had

I have consulted Google a couple of times regarding this, but I can't seem to figure out when which word is to be used a good chunk of the time.

Thank you for your time!

First, let's do a quick rundown of some terms you need to know:

"First-person" refers to "first-person point of view" meaning talking about yourself, or a character talking about themselves. In other words: "I went to the store yesterday, and then I went out to dinner with my friends." "Second-person" refers to "second-person point-of-view" meaning talking directly to a person, or a character talking directly to another character.

"Third person" refers to "third-person point of view" meaning talking about someone else, the narrator talking about characters, or a character talking about another character. In other words: "She went to the store yesterday, and then she went to dinner with her friends."

"Past-tense" refers to something that happened in the past, or in other words, before now. "I went to the store yesterday," is past-tense because it happened in a time before now.

"Singular" refers to only one of something, like one person, one character, or one object.

"Plural" refers to multiple of something, like multiple people, multiple characters, or multiple objects.

"Verb" refers to activity words, or in other words related to doing things. "Noun" refers to things, or in other words objects. --------------------------------------

Was vs Were

"Was" is used in both first-person and third-person to indicate singular past-tense of the verb "to be." In other words, "was" is used when referring to something you or another person did in the past.

I was shopping yesterday when I decided to go to dinner.

He was at the store yesterday, too, so I invited him to come along.

"Were" is used in second-person singular past tense, and plural past tense, of the verb "to be."

You were shopping yesterday when you decided to go to dinner.

--------------------------------------

Is vs Are

"Is" is used when a noun is singular. In other words, when there's only one of something: The dog is getting hungry. Its bowl is filled with food. There is one dog, so we use "is." There is one bowl, so we use "is."

"Are" is used when the noun is plural. In other words, when there is more than one of something: The dogs are getting hungry. Their bowls are filled with food.

-------------------------------------- Has vs Had

"Has" is used in present tense, or in other words when someone or something possesses something right now: The dog has food in its bowl.

"Had" is used in past tense, or in other words when someone or something possessed something prior to now: The dog had food in its bowl this morning, but it is now empty. I hope that helps! ♥

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

Learn more about WQA

Visit my Master List of Top Posts

Go to ko-fi.com/wqa to buy me coffee or see my commissions

#I still struggle with this #Thank you

writingquestionsanswered

I recently got peer feedback on a creative writing assignment saying that I over rely on nominalizations and that they make my writing confusing or passive at times. Do you please have any advice on how to avoid over-using nominalizations or passivity?

Nominalizations and Passive Writing

"Nominalizing" (also called "nouning") is when you transform a character's action from a verb (doing something) to a noun (thing.) It can also occur in description when you transform something from an adjective (describes) to a noun (thing.) Here are some examples:

Correct: Kara didn't intend to stay at the party long.

Nominalization: It wasn't Kara's intention to stay at the party long.

"Intend" is a verb that means "to have a plan."

"Intention" is a noun that means "a thing that is intended"

So, as you can see, the problem is we've over complicated the sentence by using the noun "intention" rather than the verb "intend."

Correct: The trumpet music distorted the otherwise peaceful park.

Nominalization: The trumpet music was a distortion of the otherwise peaceful park

"Distort" is a verb that means "to twist or corrupt."

"Distortion" is a noun that means "the quality of being distorted."

So, once again, we've over complicated the sentence by using the noun "distortion" instead of the verb "distort."

Correct: Kara promised to investigate the problem as soon as possible.

Nominalization: Kara promised to conduct an investigation of the problem as soon as possible

"Investigate" is a verb that means "to study by close examination."

"Investigation" is a noun that means "the action of investigating someone or something."

When we change from Kara promising to investigate (verb) to promising to "conduct an investigation" (noun), we over complicate the sentence.

And here's an example using an adjective instead of a verb...

Correct: Kara was happy when she found a solution.

Incorrect: Kara found happiness when she found a solution.

"Happy" is an adjective that means "being joyful or delighted"

"Happiness" is a noun that means "a state of joy or delight"

When we change from describing Kara with the adjective "happy" to the noun of describing Kara finding the state of being happy, we over complicate the sentence.

Active Voice vs Passive Voice

In active voice, the subject performs the action:

Kara buys an apple.

In passive voice, the target of the action (in this case, the apple) is placed before the action (in this case: buying):

The apple was bought by Kara.

Active voice: Kara patted the bunny.

Passive voice: The bunny was patted by Kara.

Active voice: Kara went to the store.

Passive voice: The store was went to by Kara.

Active voice: Kara read the book.

Passive voice: The book was read by Kara.

When Passive Voice is Okay...

Sometimes passive voice is okay, particularly when:

1 - The action is more important that the subject who did the action:

My window was broken by one of my kids.

2 - The perpetrator of the action is unknown:

The car was stolen overnight.

3 - The action is perpetrated by more than one person:

The book was well reviewed by a number of critics. I hope that helps!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

Learn more about WQA

Visit my Master List of Top Posts

Go to ko-fi.com/wqa to buy me coffee or see my commissions

sworcery-vibes

“Uploading the Megatome” - illustration by Beldo Baumann.

#This gives me sotha sil vibes

queenaryastark

In somewhat connection to Ned Stark being more aggressive and assertive and stubborn in the books than he's given credit for in fandom, I think it's silly that it's heavily assumed by fandom that nothing happened between Ned and Ashara. The rumors are that the two were romantically involved during the Tourney at Harrenhal. What we have thus far:

They're noted as dancing together during the Knight of the Laughing Tree story. To be fair, Ned was too shy to ask her himself so Brandon did it for him.

Edric Dayne said they were in love and that this is a story told by Ashara's family.

Harwin said there were either words and kisses or maybe more between them.

Catelyn heard rumors from the servants that Ashara was Jon's mother. While this isn't true, it suggests that there was enough between Ned and Ashara for assumptions to be made. Since Ned put a stop to that talk rather than use it to hide Jon's identity, that means the rumors weren't started by him.

Cersei also knew enough about Ned/Ashara to suspect that she might be Jon's mother.

Barristan wishes Ashara had turned to him instead of Stark and that she was dishonored at Harrenhal. I have trouble seeing these two as necessarily the same thing ... unless Barristan wanted to dishonor Ashara himself. But I don't see how it's enough to overwhelmingly dismiss the rest of the evidence and prove that it was Ned's brother rather than Ned himself who had a relationship with Ashara. Besides, what Barristan sees as dishonor might be very different from what actually happened and from what Ashara herself would see as dishonor.

Anyway, I don't think Ned was too honorable not to have an infatuation with someone when he was a teen. Besides, the Vale isn't that far from Dragonstone and King's Landing by ship. There's nothing to say Ned and Ashara didn't interact to some degree after the tourney. Since GRRM said Ashara was out and about during Robert's Rebellion ... well, I've always wondered if she was the one to tell Ned where Lyanna was, which is one possibility for what Barristan could have meant about Ashara turning to Stark instead of him. Had he been the one to arrive at the tower, it might not have turned into a fight in the way that it did.

I'm not saying this was a grand live story. Just that more seems to have been going on.

formerlymaustown

From

blueandbluer

You’re doing amazing, sweetie. 😍

that1girlarreis

I laughed so hard I actually have tears in my eyes. Oh my god 😭

queenaryastark

You heard it here first folks: non-conforming women belong on boats. It doesn't matter if spending their lives on boats doesn't fit their character arc, skill set, hopes, or goals. If they are non-conforming they must board a boat and ... I guess die bc they don't know how to sail nor have any interest in it. But so long as the status quo is upheld, that's what matters. Bye Arya! Stay out of my fav's way!

queenaryastark

Most who don't fit within the rigid rules set for them do not end up as seafarers. We have Arya, Brienne, the Mormont women, Lyanna, Alysanne Blackwood, Sabitha Frey, Mya Stone, Rohanne Webber, Jonquil Darke, Alysanne Targaryen, Alyssa Targaryen, Baela Targaryen, Nettles, Melony Piper, Visenya Targaryen, Rhaenys Targaryen, Jeyne Poore, Rhaenyra Targaryen, Samantha Hightower, most of the women in Dorne, etc, etc., etc.

These women don't fit within the rules of most of Westeros (except for Dornish women who can be leaders/fighters/exert sexual autonomy without it breaking any rules), but not one is a seafarer. They didn't try to captain ships that they had no knowledge of using and sail to their certain deaths. They stayed in Westeros, lived as they chose, and many effected change and weilded a level of power. This happens bc GRRM has a preference for women who buck the system. So he filled his story and backstory with them. Rather than shipping them away, they lead lives both long and short in Westeros. The only ones who are seafarers are ones who have seafaring backgrounds like Asha and Elissa.