turtle-paced

Writing at the speed of the race course paradox.

[turtle-paced]

do you have any thoughts on the “a brother I loved” quote from Bloodraven? I’ve seen speculation it was Daeron and speculation it was Daemon

Speculation only, but I like the terrible, tragic irony of Brynden genuinely loving Daemon, and having to choose between his brother and his principles when Daemon rebelled.

[turtle-paced]

What do you think is the significance of Dany forgetting Hazzea’s name?

For reference:

Her name had been Hazzea. She was four years old. Unless her father lied. He might have lied. No one had seen the dragon but him. His proof was burned bones, but burned bones proved nothing. He might have killed the little girl himself, and burned her afterward. He would not have been the first father to dispose of an unwanted girl child, the Shavepate claimed. The Sons of the Harpy might have done it, and made it look like dragon's work to make the city hate me. Dany wanted to believe that … but if that was so, why had Hazzea's father waited until the audience hall was almost empty to come forward? Daenerys II, ADWD

And then:

"Drogon killed a little girl. Her name was... her name…" Dany could not recall the child's name. That made her so sad that she would have cried if all her tears had not been burned away. Daenerys X, ADWD

I don't think she's actually forgotten. Her internal narration mentions Hazzea in Dany VIII and IX both. I think it's as the text says: Dany cannot recall. The name's there but not in her grasp. The passage in Dany X takes place when Dany is exhausted, ill, dehydrated, hungry, and as she appears to be right in the middle of a miscarriage.

But as the miscarriage is symbolic, so too is Dany's (probably temporary) inability to dredge up this information.

Cut for length. This gets a bit involved.

I think this is a key passage in understanding Dany's symbolic lack of recall.

No queen has clean hands, Dany told herself. She thought of Doreah, of Quaro, of Eroeh... of a little girl she had never met, whose name had been Hazzea. Better a few should die in the pit than thousands at the gates. This is the price of peace, I pay it willingly. If I look back, I am lost. Dany VIII, ADWD

Hazzea's death, and the cover-up, are part of Dany's suppression of her own desires, identity, and own better judgment in trying to keep the peace in Meereen. What follows Dany's failure to recall Hazzea is this:

"I will never have a little girl. I was the Mother of Dragons." Aye, the grass said, but you turned against your children.

Dany literally locked them up, in fact. And what we also find out in Dany X, with Drogon:

When she laid the whip across Drogon's right side he veered right, for a dragon's first instinct is always to attack. Sometimes it did not seem to matter where she struck him, though; sometimes he went where he would and took her with him. Neither whip nor words could turn Drogon if he did not wish to be turned.

By contrast, towards the end of the chapter, Dany can direct Drogon when she uses hands and knees.

In other words, dragons need guidance. Parents. Not a master. And for most of ADWD, Dany rejected her role as mother, instead acting as a master and gaoler.

There is no metric on which Dany did not fuck up bad here. She didn't think hard enough about how to raise large scaly predators or take precautions. Then, when that went wrong, she covered up the death and imprisoned her dragons, guilty of nothing but being dragons. She failed. She was weak on this point. And if she looks back on that failure...

This is not the end of Dany's character development, after all. This is part of it. A process. It looks to me like we're heading into one of the roughest parts of that process. After being too timid, I think she's going to overcorrect. Not being able to recall Hazzea's name allows for that overcorrection as she loses sight of the consequences.

If you think about it as an extended metaphor for freedom, it makes sense. Freedom is dangerous and difficult. There are consequences for poor decisions and lack of foresight, like a dragon killing a four-year-old. As with other issues, GRRM's honest about that. Sometimes freedom sucks and sometimes it involves truly difficult balancing acts. The solution isn't to take away freedom entirely, but to guide people into it.

To do it well, you need strength and courage and the ability to face up to your inevitable mistakes. Dany's not short on strength or courage - I think she'll face up to her mistakes in the end. I think she'll find that balance so that the people (and hopefully the dragons) she cares about can be free.

[turtle-paced]

During Kevan’s “Tywin is a just man” speech to Tyrion how do you think Kevan would have responded if Tyrion brought up the Red Wedding, the Sack of Kings Landing, Elia and her children, Tysha, and any of the other horrible things Tywin is responsible for and asking how just any of them were?

Justifying that sort of behaviour is the entire point of the speech from Kevan.

"Tywin seems a hard man to you, I know, but he is no harder than he's had to be." Kevan to Tyrion, Tyrion IX, ASoS

I don't think Kevan's batting an eyelid if Tyrion brings up any of those other incidents.

"Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoat and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork." "They will burn, my lord," Ser Kevan said, rising. "I shall give the commands." Tywin and Kevan, Tyrion IX, AGoT

Because that's who Kevan is too. Justifying Tywin's behaviour is justifying his own.

[turtle-paced]

wouldn’t renly lord paramount of the Stormlands and brither ti the king find being an ambassador which most likely would be somewhere in essos, a huge insult than influence over the seven kingdoms and power? Wouldn’t that be making a huge enemy

This is why I caveated that with if Ned thinks Renly's a dumbass. It's not necessarily something you do to a smart enemy.

There are also ambassadorships and ambassadorships. A Westerosi ambassador to Vaes Dothrak? That's exile with extra steps. A Westerosi ambassador to Braavos or Pentos? That's got real scope for power and influence, usable in a Westerosi political career in future, and not necessarily an insult at all.

[turtle-paced]

A common criticism of Ned's actions in AGOT is that he could and should have replaced the entire Small Council. But who was he supposed to replace them with? Ned's been out of touch with southron politics for almost 15 years. How does he know who's trustworthy? And if he packed the council with northerners, was the business of the realm supposed to just stop for weeks while they made their way to KL? I don't understand what Ned's ideal course of action is supposed to be.

Ned doesn't know who's trustworthy - but he should have replaced people anyway, because he knew several incumbents to be untrustworthy.

Northerners are the best bet for Stark-friendly replacements. What happens there for the few weeks it would take the new appointment to arrive is the same thing that happens if the incumbent gets fatally struck by lightning: the next person in the hierarchy runs most things for the next few weeks, and yes, some things do pause. It's an absolutely routine aspect of public service. It happens in the real world, every year, every nation with even a halfway functioning bureaucracy. In an actually functioning bureaucracy people outside it never even notice. Westeros is big enough and modern enough to have some bureaucracy, however informal, however ill-defined its powers are, but there would be people in more powerful positions than others capable of informally taking over for a few months. Failing that, there would be people in those positions willing to take over informally for a few months.

If Ned's worried about this process, then what he should do is stagger dismissals - sack Littlefinger, formally announce Wyman Manderly's taking over, micromanage the temporary replacement a bit until Manderly arrives, sack Varys, repeat.

The other thing Ned can do is repurpose people. If he thinks Renly's not malicious, just a dumbass? Congratulations, he's now ambassador to [insert appropriate location here]. He needs wider experience! If Ned thinks he's a dumbass who might grow up? Maybe he gets Master of Ships or something, because he needs wider experience (and just moving Renly at all is politically disruptive to an extent).

It's important to note that there is no ideal course of action for Ned. Everything has its own drawbacks. Ned could end up with an entirely useless Small Council. The idea is that he doesn't end up with an actively malicious Small Council. Ned could go down to the stables and appoint a horse Master of Coin, and it would be an improvement over Littlefinger. He can replace the horse once he's in better touch with King's Landing politics.

[turtle-paced]

Is Stoneheart particularly evil by Westeros standards? All the people she has hanged so far are guilty of the Red Wedding, and it’s not like the Westerosi legal system will hold any of them accountable. Jaime is guilty of a lot of crimes. The one truly evil thing she has done so far is threaten to hang Pod and he is technically the enemy being in service to a Lannister. Plus I can’t think of anyone more traumatized in Westeros than Stoneheart. So should Stoneheart really be put in the same category as other asoiaf villains like Littlefinger and Cersei?

Unfortunately, I don't think it's correct to say that all the people Lady Stoneheart has hanged are guilty of the Red Wedding.

"Has some ill befallen Ser Ryman?" "Hanged with all his party," said Walder Rivers. "The outlaws caught them two leagues south of Fairmarket." Jaime VII, AFFC

A few lines later we're told that Ryman had three knights and a dozen men-at-arms with him. Were they involved in the Red Wedding? We can't be sure. It's likely, but we don't know. Someone could have been on another task, sent to run a message or participate in an escort. Someone could have been a recent recruit, a hedge knight who just wandered in. Someone could have spent that month critically ill with dysentery, it's not like disease is uncommon in an army. We don't know. And neither can Lady Stoneheart.

Cut for length!

Not to mention that the knights and men-at-arms are only the people who were counted. Were there pages or squires in that company? Camp followers? We know that Jaime explicitly told Ryman he could take the sex worker he was with when he dismissed him from the siege. Were there any other types of workers in the company? Did Ryman make off with any of them when he left? There's a whole range of work that needs to be done at an army camp. Smiths, carpenters, cooks, apothecaries (or at least some equivalent of medical care), farriers, bowyers, wheelwrights, coopers, tailors and seamstresses, laundry workers, wagoneers. Is it really okay to hang these people whose crime is making a living off the Freys and Lannisters?

And, of course, Lady Stoneheart hanged Brienne and Hyle. (Pod too.) It's not threatening when they're all in nooses and being lifted off the ground, it's just an unfinished job. Hyle's a jerk, but he's not guilty of the Red Wedding - only of being in Brienne's party, when Brienne is too sympathetic to Jaime for Lady Stoneheart's liking.

I do agree with Lady Stoneheart being one of the most traumatised people in Westeros, though. There is a reason why Brienne's PoV brings us the "broken man" speech and is the first main PoV interacting with Lady Stoneheart. The "broken man" speech is a big piece of context for Catelyn's actions, as Septon Meribald sets out how an ordinary man is yanked away from their life and thrust into a world of uncertainty and violence that the human mind is not equipped to withstand:

"The broken man lives from day to day, from meal to meal, more beast than man. Lady Brienne is not wrong. In times like these, the traveler must beware of broken men, and fear them... but he should pity them as well."

Brienne V, AFFC

It applies to Catelyn as much as it did to any of those common-born people. That happened to Catelyn. She's got plans beyond the next meal, but that break, that disruption of the world, that desperation - yeah. That applies.

I don't put Lady Stoneheart in the same category of villain as Cersei or Littlefinger or Tywin etc etc, and I don't think that's the most helpful way to analyse Lady Stoneheart's actions. The text all but comes out and says plain that Lady Stoneheart is not in that category, Lady Stoneheart is instead the product of trauma and injustice. She's not doing this out of greed or for pride or anything like that; she's a deeply hurt person deeply wronged in life, unlikely to get any justice even in death, and as justified as she is in her rage, it's blinded her too.

So as sympathetic as I am to Lady Stoneheart, as justified as her hatred of the Freys and Lannisters is, as guilty of other serious crimes as Jaime is, I have no hesitation in saying that what she's doing is wrong.

But with that said: it's the indiscriminate nature of what she's doing that I think is wrong. The collateral damage. The insistence on guilt by association. The refusal to hear any defence, from mitigating circumstances to actual innocence.

There's a strong element of what did you expect? when it comes to Frey and Lannister leadership complaining about Lady Stoneheart attacking their people and hanging them. This is a problem they themselves created. It's their greed and pride that's caused this trauma. It's their victims who are lashing out in pain. They are the source of these issues. They are the ones who poked the metaphorical bear. If they'd left well enough alone, Catelyn Stark would be home in Winterfell with her surviving family, not hanging people in the Riverlands.

[turtle-paced]

In the Epilogue Merrett Frey complains that he has no luck and that he participate in the Red Wedding because if Lord Walder dies he feara that he will be kicked out and will have no place.

Yet in the next book his daughter Amerei becomes the Lady of Darry to solodify Lancels claim, since Merretts Wife is next in line after the death of Lyman Darry, since she is his eldest Aunt.

Yet this Inheritance should have been avaible in ACOK, when the Freys where figthing for Robb Stark. So why did Merrett not press his wifes claim back then?

Lack of resources. Robb's got other major campaigns on for the duration of ACoK and ASoS, clearly more important than Darry. Then the Freys also start organising the Red Wedding on the side, and killing most of an army is not a minor logistical undertaking. It's only once Robb is out of the way and the Freys have Lannister backing that the Freys have the opportunity to start on their wishlist.

[turtle-paced]

One of GRRM greatest talents is making people feel sympathy for characters who have done horrible things and have horrible personalities as we see with Theon and Cersei in Dance. Do you think he did something similar with Joffrey death since that was what he was aiming for? On the one hand Joffrey is still a teenager suffering a horrible death but on the other hand in that same chapter and the one before it we get reminded of what a twisted monster Joffrey is and he was clearly never going to get better plus the Tyrells had justified reasons for wanting him dead and his death helps Sansa escape in the confusion.

Yep.

Ser Meryn pried the king's mouth open to jam a spoon down his throat. As he did, the boy's eyes met Tyrion's. He has Jaime's eyes. Only he had never seen Jaime look so scared. The boy's only thirteen. Joffrey was making a dry clacking noise, trying to speak. His eyes bulged white with terror, and he lifted a hand... reaching for his uncle, or pointing... Is he begging my forgiveness, or does he think I can save him? "Noooo," Cersei wailed, "Father help him, someone help him, my son, my son..." Tyrion VIII, ASoS

Yes, Joffrey's a murderer, a tyrant, and an abuser. Yes, Joffrey's death solves several problems for various characters. But that's still a thirteen-year-old boy, betrayed and murdered, in pain and fear, dying on the floor while his distraught mother cries for her own father to save her son. Terrible as Joffrey is, he's a human being with feelings and someone who loves him.

The readers also know, of course, that Joffrey grew up in an abusive family. His father ignored him at best and hit him at worst; his mother indulged him but provided no meaningful discipline; between the two, nobody provided Joffrey with education or guidance, leaving Joffrey to model himself after his parents' examples of raging misogyny, domestic abuse, and outright tyranny. Whatever underlying mental health problems Joffrey had that Westeros couldn't detect or treat, this could not have helped. There is a sense in which Joffrey was a victim too - as usual for the series, it's an explanation, not an excuse.

GRRM is doing this deliberately, and does this repeatedly, to make the point that terrible people are still people. This is because 1) it 'demystifies' human evil, attributing it not to evil magic or anything like that, but to human minds, human hearts, and human ways of living, and 2) reminds the readers that terrible people still aren't the (explicitly supernatural) Others.

Saving humanity means saving Joffreys. ASoIaF does not look away from that fact, and it's still out there arguing that it's worth it.

[turtle-paced]

Why do you think Jaime doesn't think about Shae being in Tywin's bed? Do you think it closer to Cersei's POV where he's in denial, or do you think its guilt over Tysha?

Remember Catelyn and Jaime's question-and-answer game?

Do all my kin still live?" "Ser Stafford Lannister was slain at Oxcross, I am told." Jaime was unmoved. "Uncle Dolt, my sister called him. It's Cersei and Tyrion who concern me. As well as my lord father." Catelyn VII, ACoK

I think the pattern holds. Jaime loves his immediate family and only his immediate family. Who's Shae to him? Why should Jaime care? It doesn't surprise him that his father would hire her services; it doesn't surprise him that Tyrion would kill her; there isn't anything of note in Shae's murder for Jaime at all.

Especially when Shae's death is stacked against the other facts: Jaime's brother killed their father, after Jaime himself organised the jailbreak.

This is a massive, family-destroying event, and I'm not surprised that Jaime focuses on that one aspect of it. Honestly I think just about anyone in those circumstances would be focused on that part of it; I'm super not surprised that Jaime, whose only meaningful relationships in life until mid-ASoS are with his shitty abusive family, would think about Tywin's death at Tyrion's hands to the exclusion of the other victim of this double murder.

The specific relationship dynamics plus the social hierarchy - Shae's a sex worker, just about as low as someone can be in that pecking order - are what I think results in Jaime just not thinking about Shae.

[turtle-paced]

What is your view of Addam Velaryon leading the attack on the Greens at the second battle of Tumbleton? I know we’re supposed to praise him for his loyalty but honestly Rhaenrya wasn’t worth dying for especially after she already betrayed him and Westeros might have been better off if Prince Daeron had ended up taking the throne.

War, huh? What is it good for?

And the Dance of the Dragons is prime pointless war. Whatever we might think about Addam Velaryon's loyalty and valour on a personal level, the entire thing is a waste of lives and depicted as a waste of lives. A pretty basic inheritance dispute between daughter and stepmother turned into a monster that killed thousands. It's not just the particular people involved who do this - not just Rhaenyra to blame - it's the entire system of monarchy.

[turtle-paced]

Follow up on the love as basic need. Couldn’t you argued the zombie apocalypse is saying that even with the relatable character problems of wanting love and acceptance there are far more bigger important things than the problems of the individual in the crazy world?

You could, but I don't think it's great argument. I think the ultimate point is going to be more nuanced than that.

Why fight the cold and uncaring reality of death? For love. I think we're likely to see that exemplified with Jon Snow in TWoW, once he's experienced being actually dead.

How do you build that team to fight zombies? Acceptance. Everyone who wants to live all on the same side - claimants to the throne who can get their shit together, their supporters, Free Folk, the former criminals of the Night's Watch, every Bran and Sam and Sansa who might not be able to fight physically but who can support the effort in other ways.

So, less that the zombies are a bigger problem and the need for love and acceptance must be put aside, more that love and acceptance are for most people prerequisites to fight zombies effectively.

[turtle-paced]

Any guesses on what happens to Mance Rayder?

With the infiltration mission, Theon's escape, and various bullshit that seems likely to go down in Winterfell early in TWoW? I think Mance will be hard pressed to survive up to the end conflict in ADoS.

After faking his death and taking such a ludicrously dangerous mission, I struggle to see a role for Mance in the story going forward. His death or survival would make a difference to the setting, but less so for the plot. It would have an impact on Jon Snow, but Jon Snow is also going to have a few more things to worry about than whether he got Mance killed.

[turtle-paced]

do you think lady taena merryweather is insincere with cersei?

1000%.

It's even in the name. Merryweather = fair weather. Not a true friendship. Taena's not standing by Cersei.

[turtle-paced]

what kind of stuff or overlap do you think maesters had with the faith? the maesters seem like they tend towards the philosophical views in Islam where rationalism (everyday meaning) and stoicism are used to define the boundaries of theology. That kind of thinking seems really common among the maesters overall and people who are well read in westeros.

I am very much not the right person to ask about this. I will contribute what I can - analysis of the book as it's written.

From what I see, GRRM's Faith of the Seven is theologically undercooked. We know a bit about how it's performed, and the names and the rites certainly give us a few indications about values etc, but the rest is left for the reader to think on because the author hasn't. There aren't many devout followers of the Seven amongst the PoV characters. The most notable is probably Sansa, who's a child and who is also experiencing a bit of religious questioning. Catelyn and Davos appear to believe, but the plot does not allow them regular observance of their religion (and regular observance does not appear to be a priority to them, honestly).

Religiosity is one of those things that I think GRRM is well aware of... in how it affects others, how it can channel other political views, and how it looks from the outside. Lancel turning to religion as the only means to deal with his guilt and trauma rings true to me. Aeron Greyjoy to a somewhat lesser extent, which I'll get to in a second. Selyse, turning to extremist religion in the midst of an unsatisfying marriage and personal life, rings true to me. Even Septon Meribald feels authentic to some of the more devout people I've known, the ones who are deeply dedicated to their religion not just as a belief but as a trade, a community service, and an everyday practice.

But I also think there's a reason most these characters have no PoV. I'm markedly less convinced by GRRM's depictions of religiosity from the inside out. How it affects internal narratives around morality and ethics, some of the interpersonal relations (including how someone might approach or think of a religious authority), the dynamics with a community of faith that doesn't necessarily overlap with the community at large, things like that. I don't think GRRM could, or even wants to, develop a theology that underpins that sort of human thought or human dynamics. Running off the vaguely Catholic vibes works for the most part.

All this to say: I have no idea about your question and I don't think you'll ever get an answer from the author. The author's not in the business of developing theology, let alone its philosophical boundaries!

[turtle-paced]

Do you find Lancel to be the most pitiful of the Lannisters? The poor kid gets abused, manipulated, blackmailed by everyone and when he finally makes his own decisions his father basically disowns him and now he lost his father as well as one of his younger brothers and I find it very unlikely that he will survive the series.

I don't feel the need to rank this sort of thing and I wouldn't use the word pitiful due to the connotations. Lancel was the victim here; what was done to him doesn't reflect on him but on his abusers. Anyone can be vulnerable to emotional manipulation in the right circumstances and particularly when young.

I also think Kevan's got bloody good reason to worry about Lancel as of AFFC - and I do not have a high opinion of the septons he's been seeing. In that book, Lancel's using religion to self-harm (lack of food, lack of sleep). It seems likely to me that he got the idea about penitence through physical deprivation somewhere. He's still sixteen years old. Of course his dad's worried about him. Any adult who gave two shits about Lancel as a person should be. And like many a real-world parent over the years, Kevan doesn't know what to do when his near-adult child starts making objectively terrible decisions that are objectively self-destructive for reasons he doesn't understand. All he knows is that something bad happened to his son.

But yes, Lancel's in a very bad way indeed. I don't think anyone's there to actively safeguard Lancel's interests now, which I think he still needs. More than that, I suspect he'll be testifying against Cersei, and I don't think he's likely to survive the experience.

[turtle-paced]

Almost all characters( heroes, villains, and in-between) in asoiaf motivations boiled down to wanting love and acceptance. But isn’t that shallow, these people just want the bare minimum in life, shouldn’t they strive for more, want more than just sex/love and home, greed with their lives? Aren’t these conflict the character have almost too personal and petty compared to the world around them? Is there absence of the intrinsically interesting behavior and deeply motivated cast?

I don't think I could disagree more strongly with the idea that wanting love and acceptance is the 'bare minimum'. The bare minimum is stuff like food, water, shelter, heating, etc (homeostasis). Maslow's hierarchy. Next up is security, then relationships, then esteem, then self-actualisation.

The characters of ASoIaF are mostly nobles, almost always deeply connected to the nobility. They're past those basic needs, they mostly have security, and so the drama comes from their search for those higher-Maslow-tier items.

Love and acceptance? Peace in yourself? Can't buy that. You can't take it from others at the point of a sword either, or demand it in a treaty, or receive it as tribute from your subjects.

In terms of storytelling, there's also a greater variety between people in what the search for meaningful relationships, respect, and self-actualisation look like compared to the search for enough food to eat. A series where everyone is facing Arya's ACoK and ASoS struggles is probably not half as compelling to us.

Of course, everyone's going to be looking at the lower tiers of Maslow's hierarchy as winter rolls in. Security from zombies is kind of an overarching plot thread, and homeostasis is far from guaranteed.

But as for why the characters all, at root, want love? It's because their society tops them out at having security and maybe community. GRRM's showing the limits of feudal monarchy and a bigoted society: characters can have as much material wealth, power, and security as a human being can have, and it doesn't add up to happiness. They cannot get to those higher tiers of Maslow's pyramid, not the ways they've used to climb up past the need to focus on food and security. The means to get that security, in fact, result in misery. Not just for the people upon whose backs the system is built, but for the material beneficiaries as well.

So I don't think the characters are after the bare minimum, or anything petty. I think they're after some of the most profound things a human being can desire - and, variously, not recognising their true needs, not able to pursue their true needs for what they are, not using helpful methods, looking in the wrong place entirely, ignoring the cost to others, struggling with the cost to others, or just flat out thwarted in their desires and need to start again.

[turtle-paced]

What do you think of the parallels between Jon/Sansa and Aemon/Naerys?

Personally? Underbaked. The best case there is a Sansa-Naerys comparison, but the Jon-Aemon the Dragonknight comparison is not something I see. And to extrapolate from those not terribly well developed character comparisons to compare the relationship... yeah. Nah.

I've said it before, but I just don't think there's any foreshadowing of a Jon/Sansa romantic relationship in the text - while the foreshadowing and groundwork for Jon/Dany is definitely there, and the exploration of Sansa's first experiences of sexual and romantic attraction is focused on Sandor Clegane (which does not equal shipping it or mean that they'll end up together). The presence of the other two threads makes the absence of romantic foreshadowing with Jon/Sansa all the clearer to me.

That said, this is just what I think about the text. Agree or disagree, whether I end up being right or not, you don't need evidence to find a fictional, hypothetical relationship appealing or enjoyable. Go nuts. I'm not the shipping police.