#anti asoiaf feudalism

[ride-thedragon]

NETTLES AND THE IDEA OF INNOCENCE

Innocence, especially for women in asoiaf has a particular place in their perception.

Innocence in our world holds a very similar place.

When a character is innocent, you want better for them because any turmoil they go through is undeserved, and by the rules of both societies, it should allow them to be exalted from hardships.

So when it comes to such a small character like Nettles the idea of her innocence is perpetuated past the character we have because she is exalted from the concequence of what she is accused of in the narrative and is redeemed from all the hardship she faces towards the beginning when she claims a dragon.

But I don't think that's fair or correct so I want to go over some things we know and hear about her that people use to defend this idea of innocence and come to the conclusion that even though she is innocent it's not in the way typically attributed to her.

1. Nettles and Sheep:

Her relationship to this animal is a fun metaphor to understand her. Nettles trades sheep to gain her dragon Sheepstealer. Nettles trades innocence for power.

"Lambs have always been sacrificial animals. From the Ancient Greeks and Romans to Christians and even later civilizations, lambs were used for sacrifice to a higher purpose. In most cases, it was the sacrifice to Gods.These are the qualities that make lambs so symbolic. "

"They are a sign of innocence, purity, vulnerability, and sacrifice. Many of these symbols overlap with the symbolism of youth."

The idea of innocence is something that her taming Sheepstealer inherently corrupts. She slaughters sheep every day to get close enough to establish a bond to him. It's a continued effort to trade innocence for power, and because dragons make Targaryens closer to gods than men, the idea is that she's offering a sacrifice to a 'god' to gain power.

I'll link my post about this parallel she has to sheep further.

Another thing is that she's young, and that plays a part in what she is absolved from in the narrative because of the nativity and ability to grow with the potential of youth.

2. Nettles and The Cost of Power:

The regression of this trade for power comes after Driftmark is sacked and burned. In the war effort that Nettles largely contributed to, she loses her friend and her home. We are told her reaction to the loss is crying through the soot on her face so hard it leaves streaks. As with what happens consistently in mythology, the protagonist reaps benefits and consequences in the quest for power. The cost of gaining that power was fighting in the war, something she knew would happen. The fact that it came at the cost of her closest known relationship at the time as well as the place she grew up and had to leave behind to join the war effort is conceivable but not predictable for anyone to know. Especially not a 16 year old girl.

3. Nettles and King's Landing:

A while back, I drew attention to the fact that in the book, we have no real evidence that Nettles had any of the promises made to the Dragon Claimers kept to her. No marriages, lands, or knighthood equivalents are given to her in the wake of the fight. A lot of people use this as a way to say she's innocent because she believes in a cause and is sticking by it. That doesn't seem accurate towards the situation. King's Landing is the capital at that moment for punishing treason. She's a young, grieving girl, experiencing the price of power in a place where her refusal to fight or her running away will be met with a death warrant. Nettles has a nose scar for stealing allegedly. She's one of the characters we know understands the cost of disobedience in this world. She is a cost they'd be willing to pay. Even with her dragon adding to her necessity during the war, they're executing Noble men at that time. Nettles' entire life in juxtaposition to their's is incredibly small. Whether or not she cared about gaining anything (I like to think they gave her money), it's very clear that it's a weary time with major consequences for defiance or treason.

4. Nettles and Daemon:

This is the one people use this idea of innocence the most frequently for. "Nettles was innocent of the accusation made against her (sleeping with Daemon, not witchcraft), and Rhaenyra was influenced and turned against her."

Nettles doesn't need to be innocent for what Rhaenyra did to be wrong. The men who defend Nettles against the decree say that Nettles is wrong but young and shouldn't be killed for that. They conceded that the idea of treason is fair, but the idea surrounding it with the spell implications is simply incorrect and will make Daemon kill them if executed. Daemon is the sole person who puts her in danger and saves her in this narrative for his own character arc. Nettles isn't innocent, but she is young. She has her life ahead of her and has done everything that is expected of her. She isn't punished for love by the narrative. It saves her life and allows her to escape the trapping of power altogether, something she never returns to traditionally.

She does return to it with the burned men, but entirely away from the system, she originally gained that power from.

5. Nettles and Treason:

She did commit treason. That's not an innocent thing. It quite literally required her sleeping with a married prince. Whether or not she's a virgin (we'll get to it) in this world, giving into sex outside of marriage or prostitution as a woman is framed as wrong because of the value of virtue for women. With someone like Nettles, she'd know it's a bad thing and still proceeds with it. While as prince consort and a man Daemon will never dare a lick of concequence for adultery, Nettles would, and treason isn't a far stretch for the crime. Even with the understanding that Daemon would protect her, that they seemingly have, it's not okay. (It is to me. She's completely innocent.)

6. Nettles and Virginity:

Virtue is a currency in this world. Sleeping with a girl and deflowering is seen as a commodity and milestone. Virtue for women is posed as an added value. Without it, as we see in the books, women without maidenheads are seen as a lesser offer often beneath the standard of noble men.

Nettles is not ever positioned as a virgin. In this world, it's a logical conclusion to draw that she is not and would've traded sex for food or money. I'm not saying that happened, but if it did, there seems to be a stigma that it makes her lesser character in the story and / or denies her own autonomy by demeaning her. With the way it is presented in the narrative, it's a fair conclusion to draw. It's said to deter the idea that Daemon would sleep with her because she isn't even worth it, and that's my issue with the she should be virtuous reading.

It falls into the temptation of a character doing what she must to survive being a way to demean her. Nettles was surviving every day before the sowing. Her having sex, prostitution or just because she could, should not shroud her character in any world. Nettles can exist as both a critical view of how Westeros treats girls like her and as an autonomous character who chooses whether or not to have sex given her situation without it being demeaning or derogatory towards her as a character.

7. Nettles and Sex Work:

To add on, sex work is often demonized in this world, and because of the poor class of women often in these positions who are quite young and have no real alternative. Nettles as a character would exist in contradiction to the narrative of not only sex workers who die or are brutalized in that life, think book Shae, Show Roz. She'd also be the one who is actively saved by the class of people who often perpetuate this system of abuse they exist in.

Nettles isn't in it anymore or has once been preyed on by the entrapping cycle that brothels perpetuate but escapes and makes her own way. She's foul-mouthed and marred because of it, but she also becomes a dragonrider, and then when she has sex it's because she wants to.

When the narrative tries to condemn her for it, she's saved by the person who puts her in that position, unlike the other girls, like Tysha, Nettles' value isn't placed on her past sexual partners, and she is like the other girls who fall victim to the predatory sex work establishments in ASOIAF, but she escapes and isn't punished in the narrative for sleeping with someone or trying to survive in the first place. Something we don't really see in this world.

Overall,

The overarching angle of innocence pushed on her character is extremely strange and does not benefit her as a character. Innocence in this world is based on patriarchal feudalism that commodifies women into property and places value on them like stock that depreciates with superficial nonsense.

Question this world.

Nettles isn't innocent and shouldn’t have to be to deserve the ending she gets. She can just escape because she learns and grows and is young enough to do it without major consequences for her.

Nettles is innocent however, in the narrative of a poor, homeless girl with nothing, accomplishing a tremendous feat and gaining power from it, being used in wars and fights that have nothing to do with her and having the threat of death looming if she doesn't comply.

In being used as a means to an end in a conflict between the two most powerful people in the realm and escaping without any permanent concequence to her. She's not guilty.

Let girls have fun and be complex characters in their narratives. Innocence isn't a necessity, but even if it was for you to like her, she is, in a sense, innocent.

#house of the dragon #hotd #a song of ice and fire #nettles #nettles asoiaf #netty #daemon targaryen #rhaenyra targaryen #shae #roz #tysha #nettles and sheepstealer #sheep symbolism #sheepstealer #innocence #my little war criminal #daemon x nettles #house targaryen #anti asoiaf feudalism #pro asoiaf women #innocence in this world doesn't ammount to anything #why should it deter good characterization? #men do the absolute worst things and still get redemption arcs #why can't she when she's just sort of not the best?

[fuckalicent]

alicent antis are like ok well she didn’t dismantle the patriarchy at 15 so she doesn’t deserve to ever complain about anything that happens to her because she allowed it. and the things that happen to her are forced child marriage and multiple pregnancies by a gaslighting hag

#anti viserys i targaryen #pro alicent hightower #hotd #alicent hightower #asoiaf fans love to hate women who ‘accept their fate’ as if they aren’t women living in a patriarchal feudal system with no traces or hints #of a formal feminist movement or anything. WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM THEM

[rhaenin-time]

Is it verging on tinfoil hat territory to laugh about how the egg Aegon II failed to hatch after murdering Rhaenyra was purple?

Or could it be an... easter egg?

#I'm so sorry you guys I'll see myself out #asoiaf #team black #rhaenyra targaryen #anti aegon ii targaryen #Amethyst Empress #Bloodstone Emperor #but seriously are we still pretending that the Amethyst Empress is some kind of puzzle and not an allegory for forsaking your women? #and that “lightbringer” is a literal sword and not Dany reviving magic when she hatched her dragons and came into HER OWN power? #Righting the wrong House Targaryen did by sacrificing generations of women to assimilate into a patriarchal feudal-monarchical system? #and by extension severing their connection to their culture and heritage that their magic came from? #and that it's telling that the Targs were the only ones to survive the doom with their dragons because they LISTENED to Daenys #And withdrew from a doomed realm to make their own place only to then assimilate into another doomed realm?

[daenerysies]

“the targaryen’s think they’re better than everyone else! they must be evil reincarnated!!”

i hate to break the news to you bestie but that’s like… EVERY house in westeros major and small. i guess in ur in-depth analysis you decided that the hightower’s are the *real* pinnacles of servitude and graciousness and don’t believe they are better than anyone else in opposition to the big bad evil targaryen’s who do how could this possibly not reach y’all’s itty bitty bite sized brains

#asoiaf #house targaryen #pro targaryen #anti targ antis #one chomp and it’s over #for an audience that preaches so much about ‘feudalism bad’ you’d think they’d understand how royalty/nobility work #the targaryens claimed and rode mf DRAGONS ofc they think they’re better than the average citizen 😭 #the starks think they’re better than everyone else too what does that say about them HUH #y’all’s is obvi a word don’t make fun of me #the idiotic discourse is back how are we feeling

[epsilonchi]

thinking about the way Rhaenyra answered verbally to Alicent’s attack. The way she nearly spat the words “Exhausting wasn’t it ? hiding beneath the cloack of your own righteousness”. Because for Rhaenyra, the abstract concepts of duty and sacrifice are moral scarecrows brandished by Alicent, constructs that mean nothing. Ultimately, she's right ! But it also shows how disconnected she became from Alicent. The girl who rationalized her own abuse as a duty, to be a good wife, a good daughter, a good mother. At this point, Rhaenyra has only contempt for her, because she became akin to the binds of society that she despises. When she says "Now they see you as you are", it's neither mockery nor fact ; it's wishful thinking. She hoped everyone could see how absurd Alicent's fight is, how absurd society's trappings are. But in the process, she proves all of Alicent's worst fears : she is in danger, her family and children are in danger, and Viserys will always stand for Rhaenyra rather than her (despite him marrying her FOR HAVING MORE HEIRS, let's not forget that)

They're both deeply flawed individuals, they're both right in their own twisted way, and I love them both so much

#house of the dragon #alicent hightower #hotd #rhaenyra targaryen #rhaenicent #rhaecent #viserys targaryen #y'all don't get it YOU SHOULDN'T TAKE A SIDE IN THIS !! #both rhaenyra and alicent make irreedemable mistakes in this scene and that's why it's so good !! #it's ridiculous to be an anti anyone (except Viserys) in this scenario #the situation is so twisted in the first place y'all : kids thought over adult matter to the point of one of them LOSING AN EYE #and because of what ? because feudalism is an awful system in the first place #you should not root for someone #but you must be a spectator of how patriarchy and feudalism break everyone whether prince or commonfolk #that's what asoiaf is about y'all !!!

[agentrouka-blog]

something I rarely see acknowledged the wider fandom (meaning never) when discussing outline sansa is just how utterly painful her situation must have been for her.

like I've fiercely defended this version of sansa's choice (it's not even a choice ultimately, as anyone with sense can see) but people don't really seem to realize that sansa believed that in order to protect her child, the only way to protect her child, was to turn her back on family that she loves.

People look at the outline, they read "dubious loyalty" and they think GRRM is pronouncing an ethical judgment on this barely developed character named Sansa.

What series have they been reading?

As if outline Sansa would not have been another scalding commentary on how their toxic feudal patriarchic society forces tragedy on everyone, but especially the ones pushed into vulnerable positions for the gain of others. Others here being Ned Stark, her father and legal owner who would have passed her into the ownership of her in-laws, the same way canon Ned used Sansa's betrothal as a front for his investigation.

The conflict in the Stark family that GRRM wanted to provoke by creating (literally any version of) Sansa is not about her flaws. It's about exposing the flaws in their own midst. The flaws in the toxic system they are a part of, that even generally loving relationships can't erase. The Starks are problematic because they are part of the same system, and Sansa is the character who highlights that - because she isn't a rebel against it like Arya, and she isn't an obvious victim like Jon the bastard, nor does she have (potential) power like Robb or her other brothers. Sansa is dutifully doing everything that is required of her, she even is undeniable the daughter of a man who loves his children and is even quite lenient with them - and still nothing saves her from being used as a pawn, from having no power to defend her own interests, from eventual catastrophe. THAT is what she exposes.

But people are just unbelievably dumb and allergic to nuance and think GRRM wants us to blame the girl child. Over the system. Over the men in power. Over, you know, the point of why he is telling the story.

#sansa stark #original outline #anti asoiaf fandom #patriarchy #feudalism #misogyny

[dwellordream]

"she's patriarchy-pilled" and why it doesn't apply to fictious pseudo-medieval women

a pretty common meta commentary leveled at certain female characters in ASOIAF is that you can divide the women of the setting into two groups.

the first group is full of strong feminist women who resist the patriarchy in all corners, and who refuse to submit to victimhood. the second group is full of placid, smug sheep, who enjoy being weak and condescended to by men.

reasons why this is bullshit:

comparisons between modern day 'trad wives' or 'red pilled women' who advocate for rejecting feminism and returning to lives of happy homemaking and female submission and fictional characters living in a pseudo medieval world just... don't work well.

Westeros has never had a feminist movement. there is no sense of 'getting back to tradition' because they are still living in a feudal patriarchy. while internalized misogyny can still be displayed in the books, and women certainly judge other women, these characters aren't actually 'rejecting their own freedom', because they quite literally have no choice in the matter.

for example, while a woman in 21st century America might willingly quit her job or drop out of school for a relationship with a man, a female character like Catelyn or Alicent or Cersei... isn't actually sacrificing hopes of a career or an education. they are being shunted down a path with little to no alternatives.

sometimes fans go "well, they could have run away! they could have joined the Faith?" how? with what money and resources? who is going to protect them on the road? how are they going to subvert the will of their fathers/brothers/etc?

don't get me wrong. there are absolutely unironic examples of internalized misogyny in ASOIAF. Cersei, for example, spends much of her time sneering at and degrading other women for being victims or weak-willed. HOWEVER, what many fans don't seem to grasp, is that being sexist towards other women doesn't magically make Cersei 'win' at the patriarchy. she herself is still abused, demeaned, and used as a political pawn, well into her tenure as Queen Regent.

in the endless battle of Sansa versus Arya stans, for example, Sansa stans will often claim that Arya is 'not a victim' and 'deserves less sympathy than Sansa', because Arya for a time is treated as a young boy and has training with a sword. yet this ignores the fact that Arya is still constantly threatened with or exposed to sexual violence, even while masquerading as a boy, and while she can defend herself in some instances, is far from this super-powered action chick on a 'fun road trip in the Riverlands'.

conversely, Arya stans will insinuate that Sansa 'deserves less sympathy than Arya' because 'being at court is what she always wanted' and 'the patriarchy favors her due to her self-serving, submissive ways'. yet this ignores the fact that while Sansa has more material privileges than Arya, being afforded regular meals, a soft place to sleep, and the veneer of civility, she is still regularly viciously abused by Joffrey and his Kingsguard, and ostracized and isolated from the rest of the court. Sansa's not winning any competition here.

to move on to Catelyn, many of Catelyn's proud 'antis' will claim that Catelyn is a woman who willingly and knowingly profits off the patriarchy while condemning women who do not fit that mold. yet while Catelyn and Arya's relationship is complex, we also see Catelyn treat Brienne and the Mormont women, all female warriors, with warmth and kindness, and there is an underlying current of resentment and anger in her chapters towards the men in her life, even though she is in many ways the 'ideal Westeros wife'.

finally, to dabble briefly in HOTD, Rhaenyra and Alicent's different reactions to the prospect of marriage and motherhood are often compared to triumph Rhaenyra's strong will and sense of rebellion. while Rhaenyra's determination to choose her own spouse and her disregard for the ridiculous notion of 'virginity' should be admired, she is also actively groomed by her uncle, a man thrice her age, and she ultimately does agree to an arranged marriage with Laenor.

meanwhile, Alicent is often derided by fans for 'allowing herself to be used as a pawn', yet this ignores the fact that Alicent is a 14/15 year old girl with no incomes or property of her own, who does not even have the threat of a dragon to demand respect. what was Alicent meant to do? kick and scream as she was dragged down the aisle? defy her father and the King, and be, best case scenario, permanently ostracized from court and her family for it? this sort of blatant victim-blaming dominates in the tumblr HOTD fandom.

in conclusion: to claim that women play no role in promulgating patriarchal and misogynistic views is silly.

women do play an active role in shaming and abusing other women, and this is often handed down from mothers to daughters. it allows patriarchs the veneer of genteel nature, in that the 'dirty work' of berating young girls for not conforming is passed off on mothers, sisters, and aunts.

however, in fandom discussions, the the woobification of male characters is so strong that we spend most of our time blaming women alone for patriarchal restrictions and values, as if it were something girls developed in their free time, purely for their own amusement.

to imply that a character in a fictional feudal patriarchy has the same range of choices and autonomy as modern day women do is absurd. the trad-wife movement is defined by its knowing, pseudo-intellectual rejection of second and third wave feminism. the entire point is to turn away from abortion, from birth control, from reproductive and LGBT rights, to leave behind women's suffrage, sex positivity, and criticism of gender roles.

but what do Westerosi women have to 'reject', exactly? they're not playing with the same full deck.

#valyrianscrolls #hotd #gender

[la-pheacienne]

What do you think is what causes this absolutely unhinged Targ hate? Like, I totally get if the Targs aren’t someone’s cup of tea, they can be a lot, but the way Targ haters talk about the Targs is just scary. I had this unhinged Targ anti reply to my comment on Reddit with an absolutely unhinged essay on why the Targs aren’t magical at all and that it’s just “supremacist propaganda.” It’s just really weird.

Idc if someone just doesn’t like the Targs, but what bothers me is when they act like they invented feudalism, are the most evil family ever, and when they demonize them for their dragons. Targ antis act as if the Targs are the only problem in Westeros and that getting rid of them is the solution. They must have watched GoT and read asoiaf with their eyes closed, because the war of the five kings was a war that was started just fine without help from the Targs.

The Targs did not create feudalism or war. It’s just strange how Targ antis fixate on the Targs and only blame them for feudalism as if feudalism wasn’t the system Westeros had for thousands of years before the Targs appeared. Sorry for the rant, I’ve just seen some really dumb comments on Reddit about the Targs and wanted to say this.

Unbiased answer: hate is stupid in general and i've seed batshit takes for every single character I like in asoiaf. It's a general phenomenon, if it makes you feel any better.

Biased answer: targs get extreme hate because they are the coolest house in the asoiaf universe and the very reason for asoiaf's popularity. they get hate because, while not everyone is familiar with the asoiaf universe, everyone and their mother knows the targaryens and recognizes asoiaf precisely because of the targaryens. they get hate because george decided to keep writing about the targaryens and they get an insane backstory where other houses get nothing. they get hate because dany is the reason game of thrones got popular and the reason hotd exists. that's why they get hate. loving the targs on SOME level is the norm and hating on the norm simply makes you seem cool and different in online spaces, which gets you clout.

Actually this is in sync with my unbiased answer because every character/house/trope that is popular and well liked will get an insane amount of very loud and stupid hate, it's just the way it goes. It is not something that only concerns the targaryens. I hope that covered you.

#the real answer for the current state of affairs is jo/nsa shippers and generally st/ansas though #house targaryen #daenerys targaryen #anonymous #asoiaf

[katy-89]

asoiaf fandom is anti monarchy only when they want the targs or daenerys dead

but if their fav are rulers in the same feudal system? that's fine

#asoiaf #game of thrones #daenerys targaryen #house targaryen #house stark #house tyrell #house lannister

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

TG stans loves to mock the targaryen blood with babies that are born looking like dragons just like visenya for example when they have jaehaerys with 6 fingers (which in the book the green are ashamed of that btw) and from jaehaera's sigil in the opening of the series it is also a hand with six fingers just like his brother's lol I don't know if they just have the same sigil because they are twins but it would be funny if the girl had the same problem as her brother after all... they are twins LOL

TG stans are majority Targaryen antis. They want to distance their favs from the rest of the Targaryens so their hypocrisy is less obvious. So they'll write posts calling the blacks incestuous dragonspawn while blatantly ignoring that the greens are every bit as incestuous.

Aegon and Helaena are siblings, like you can't get more incestuous than that. Daemyra's kids actually have less genetically similar parents than Jaehaerys, Jaehaera, and Maelor. Rhaenyra's parents were first cousins, something not acknowledged as incest by Westeros.

Then there's the Helaemond shippers who criticize the Velaryons' legitimacy while theorizing that Helaena's kids are Aemond's. How exactly is Jace succeeding Rhaenyra wrong but Jaehaera succeeding Aegon is good? How is Jaehaera a more legitimate heir than Aegon III (who is trueborn)? These people are still in the same camp as other TG stans who hate the blacks for incest. They ship a brother and sister, wtf is happening in their brains?

Joffrey Baratheon and his siblings are talked about more respectfully than Rhaenyra and her children. It's so disgusting how this woman and her children are being called subhuman by these hypocrites.

The TG stans hate House Targaryen (most of them anyway), it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to justify liking the greens. It's insane seeing them do that, but it's also so fucking frustrating. They don't seem to realize that TG are the most cartoonishly evil Targaryens in ASOIAF who are all guilty of the things they hate the house for.

It shows the true reason they support the greens. It's not about how "cool" they are, because there's a lot of Targaryens who are "cool" in the same way but are still hated. It's not because they're interesting villains, because they bend over backwards defending them. It's not about hating feudalism or caring about the smallfolk, the greens committed worse atrocities than the blacks and were hated by the smallfolk more. It's not about being morally against incest (in a fictional world for some reason), because they love the incest of their favs. It's about misogyny, it's about not wanting a woman to inherit the throne or have agency in her story.

#anti team green #anti team green stans #team black #house of the dragon #asoiaf #rhaenyra targaryen #anti targaryen antis #anti rhaenyra antis

[bidonica]

Getting tired of the "GRRM writes incest as a total negative" vs "GRRM is a little freak who wrote asoiaf around his incest kink" discourse... not to be democristiana on main but both things can be true! He can use incest to make a larger thematic point about these dynasties self cannibalizing to retain their power/identity while also using it to make the story sexier (I always point at how different the ultimately consensual, while still dysfunctional, targcest or j/c are written vs the abject horror of Craster's keep). He can make anti war points while also being blatantly fascinated by the spectacle of (magnified) medieval warfare with a side of dragons. He so obviously revels in making up family trees and sigils and OTT castles and whatnot but I struggle to see a message of Feudalism Is Good, Actually in asoiaf. 

I guess we wouldn't be having all of these tiring discussions about whether he is endorsing [whatever problematique element is recurring in asoiaf] if he strictly stuck to his intended Message regardless of what he personally finds fun, hot or simply dramatically engaging, but let's be honest, we probably wouldn't be reading asoiaf if it was a straight up moral pamphlet, even though some people act like they wish it was. 

Asoiaf is more than pulp fiction; asoiaf is ALSO pulp fiction. I think analyzing it while ignoring either side makes it less interesting and diminishes the experience! But that's just me. Do whatever, this is a tumblr post not a cop

[drakaripykiros130ac]

I don't understand how anyone can like the Greens in the series. I like them in the books because they are good villains, specifically Alicent. I would have given anything to see her come to life on screen rather than the pathetic thing we were treated to. That doesn't help with the fact that apparently Ryan Condal has finally confirmed he's team Greens... I'll never understand this guy. How could he read the book and say that no, the Greens were justified in any way ?! Also, the guts you have to have, even within this fandom, to openly say you support the group of misogynistic and blood purist usurpers... In the sense of saying that they are completely right or that Blacks are just as horrible! But in what universe ?! Ryan Condal would also have said that we would probably change preferred camps in season 2... Man, you can still dream, even with your stupid supporting documents for TG everyone still prefers the Blacks team. It's distressing that the director of the series himself doesn't understand anything he's adapting and that so many people are going in this direction. The number of idiots who tried to explain to me that both teams were equally horrible, that the Greens can't be pure villains because GRRM only writes complex characters, it's obvious. Like GRRM has never written a pure villain ? Are you sure you've read the books he wrote ? No but I swear that since the release of the series, asoiaf fans are worse than before in their unjustified hatred of the Targaryens... These people think they are moral by wanting to put the two teams on the same level or by saying that the Blacks are worse. That revolts me.

Essentially what neutrals think ;

“Yes, it’s not good what the Greens did, but the Blacks are no better seen as they dared to fight back for their rights.”

Like... What dimension did I land in ?!

Just last time, I received comments from someone supposedly accepting that the Greens were worse, but trying to explain to me that Daemon groomed Rhaenyra (which is false book or series), that the murder of 'a Greens child is unjustified (while the Greens shed blood first and we are in a feudal context) that Lucerys taking Aemond's eye is unjustified (Wtf ?!) ah and the best thing was to me say at face value that Daemon was not a gray character and that he was like Aegon IV... (Again... WTF ?!)

https://www.tumblr.com/darklinaforever/701570671006875648/i-hate-when-people-say-greens-and-blacks-are-on

(Afterwards I wasn't gentle in my answers either, but I'm fed up with this type of people)

I personally never liked the greens in the book. To me, they were always the villains. Always. I never viewed Daemon and Rhaenyra as pure innocent angels, don’t get me wrong. I recognize the few mistakes Rhaenyra makes in the book, as well as Daemon’s many, many faults.

For instance, yes, Rhaenyra should not have had Vaemond murdered (even though what he spoke was treasonous and threatened her position as well as the lives of her children). She should not have gone so far with the taxes during her reign (even though she was left with no choice).

However, in this story, despite all their faults, I always felt Rhaenyra and Daemon were perfectly justified. Because their good qualities kind of eclipse the bad stuff. The Blacks are the anti-heroes of the story. They have done some questionable things, but all of them have been justified/done with good reason and good purpose.

The Greens are a whole different story. Everything they have done (mainly Alicent and Otto), they have done out of jealousy and pure greed (hence why they were given the color “green” - the color of greed and envy). 95 % of the war crimes are done by the Greens. Literally the only thing the Blacks are to be held accountable for is B&C. Other than that, every crime was courtesy of the Greens.

To me, the Greens have always been split between those who are anti-villains (Aegon, Helaena, Daeron), and those who are pure villains (Alicent, Otto, Aemond).

For the anti-villains: The one time Aegon presents some goodness is when he has reservations about usurping his half-sister. Other than that, he is pure evil; Helaena can’t be considered a pure innocent soul either. She has good qualities, but she is extremely underdeveloped as a character in the book and we don’t know her thoughts, her motives. She didn’t protest the usurpation and accepted the position of queen consort easily; Daeron is somehow given a free pass by certain people because he is “the daring”, and while that’s true, these people forget how he burned a whole village of innocent people alive.

For the pure villains, not much need be said. Alicent and Otto are a bunch of opportunistic hypocrites and vicious upstarts. I haven’t sensed any bit of goodness in them. Aemond is a psycho with zero redeeming qualities.

Now, in the show, I don’t feel as if the Greens are portrayed better than they have been in the book. I feel like the show writers (mainly Ryan Condal) are trying to come up with lame excuses for them, and it’s just not working. The great majority of the viewers still hate Alicent as much as they did in the book, regardless how many times she presents those “doe eyes”, and the great majority still believe the Greens are in the wrong.

In the show, when it comes to the Greens, there’s always some sort of “reason”, some sort of “accident”. Alicent didn’t mean to shoot her mouth off and convince Larys to murder the current hand, Lyonel Strong, so that her father could return as Hand (even though that is exactly what she wanted). Aemond didn’t mean to let Vhagar know that he wants Lucerys dead (even though his pursuing and direct attack showed his intentions to murder the boy). Crispin somehow didn’t mean to crush Beesbury’s skull in that ball, even though he acted aggressively towards the man for simply speaking the truth and nothing but the truth at that treasonous Council meeting.

These excuses the show writers make for the greens make no sense whatsoever. They should have stuck with the actual canon portrayal, because it’s just ridiculous at this point.

So what if the two sides are not evenly matched?

They’re not supposed to!

GRRM doesn’t write purely good vs bad in his universe, that is true. He loves the complexity of the characters and the stories. However, that does not mean that he intended for the Blacks and the Greens to be evenly matched in this story.

He himself admitted that he wrote the book more in the Blacks’ favor because that’s how he felt (ironic, considering that Fire and Blood is told from the point of view of green supporters). It’s his story. I have seen people accuse him of being biased, always in favor of the Blacks.

Yes, he clearly wrote the Blacks as the protagonists, with better developed characters, with the best allies, the most heroic/epic deaths, most dragons, most Houses supporting them.

I mean, the Starks are TB, while the Lannisters are TG. That alone should give you a clue as to which side you’re supposed to be rooting for.

Clearly GRRM is Team Black, but who says he can’t be? Who says that the sides have to be evenly matched? It’s his story! If he says the Blacks are right, the Blacks are right.

TG stans are just in denial at this point.

#team black #rhaenyra targaryen #house of the dragon #pro team black #hotd #daemon targaryen #anti team green #anti team green stans #anti green stans #anti alicent hightower #anti greens #anti alicent stans #queen rhaenyra #team rhaenyra #pro rhaenyra #the blacks #canon asoiaf #asoiaf #asoiaf meta #pro daemon targaryen #anti aemond targaryen #anti aegon ii targaryen #anti daeron the daring #anti helaena targaryen #anti otto hightower #fire and blood #a song of ice and fire #anti aemond stans #anti hotd

[jackoshadows]

Hi, so I watched GoT+ am on asoiaf 1 rn and I have a Q about Dany; why is her character so divisive? I read meta by pro Dany fans and its "Dany's compassionate, self critical, a good ruler, a political reformer, frees slaves she'll be a hero at the end" and the antis "shes entitled, vengeful, profiter of slavery, a coloniser and GRRM wont validate a foreign invasion with nuclear weapons; hes anti war!!" Like, wHAt? Surely her character cant be THAT ambigious?! These are popular opposites??

Alright, I'll try to explain this from my perspective as a Jon Snow fan. However, this will be spoilery if you have read only one book. I would suggest reading all the books before joining in on discussions about the character.

It's a combination of things.

One is most definitely sexism. I don't throw that word around lightly having been constantly attacked as a ‘sexist dudebro who hates women’ for simply critiquing a female character.

Sexism in fandom is when female characters are held to different standards compared to their male counterparts. When female characters are critiqued or disliked for doing the same thing that male characters are often praised for doing. Daenerys is subjected to a lot of this which is especially evident in the books because she has a parallel arc of leadership with Jon Snow over at the Wall - the two characters at the ends of the world. 

An example is right there in your ask. GRRM is anti-war and hence why would he validate Dany's invasion - She is therefore in the wrong. Okay. In which case why not extend that argument to every other main character in the series? GRRM is anti-war and therefore Robb Stark was wrong to wage war for Northern independence. GRRM is anti-war and therefore Jon Snow is wrong to help Stannis in his battle against the Boltons. GRRM is anti-war and therefore Tyrion is wrong to use wildfire and defeat Stannis at the battle of the blackwater. GRRM is anti-war and therefore Jon Snow is the villain of the battle at Castle Black.

I think the main thesis of GRRM’s argument in regard to his protagonists has been that there is no good or bad and instead they are all morally gray? Yeah war is bad and most of our protagonists engage in war and they are therefore morally grey characters. I mean, Jon Snow is over there taking child hostages that he has promised to behead - does that make him a baddie? Ned Stark took Theon as a child hostage. Is he a baddie? Our main characters all belong to noble houses in a feudal monarchy - a system of governance that GRRM relentlessly critiques in the books. Are they all baddies?

This double standard is particularly glaring when Dany's battles in Essos is about helping the little guy - the slaves who are under the worst kind of oppression. The WOT5K (War of the 5 Kings) on the other hand was about personal power, ravaged the land and lead to much devastation and suffering. However, for some strange reason when fandom discusses the books and the author being anti-war they focus particularly on Daenerys - that strange reason is sexism.

If you have watched GOT, I am sure you would have noticed those obvious  double standards yourself.

Tyrion standing there making sad faces makes it look like Daenerys is doing something wrong when she executes the Tarlys - two treasonous traitors. However every other House does the same! Jon Snow executed the mutineers at the wall - even a child. After the battle of bastards, he mentions the Karstarks and Umbers having been killed in battle or else they would have been executed. Sansa wants to punish even their children!! But for some strange reason [(i.e) sexism] a female leader executing traitors is evil. That she does so without crying (Something the show runner David Benioff points out in an BTS interview) means she is evil. Jon not crying when killing people = badass, Dany not crying when killing people = evil.

Daenerys in battle with Jaime Lannister to get the Iron Throne = evil. Starks fighting against the Boltons to get Winterfell = Yay! Awesome. Thousands die in both battles - in one battle they die, burned by dragonfire. In the other one they are hacked to death and die with their guts hanging out. In both cases, people die.

The show quickly moves past Jaime Lannister, the Tarlys and their men massacring everyone of Olenna's men and piling their bodies high and sacking and looting the place. However, the show takes time to linger on Tyrion's sad face with the sad music and the men dying when Daenerys is attacking those same men on the battlefield.

I am not even getting into season 8 because it was so, so bad and full of puke inducing sexism that will need 10 pages to outline. I think you have got the gist of why sexism is such a large factor in how Dany's character is otherized and analyzed by fandom at large and made worse by Benioff and Weiss' rampant misogyny shining through in the show's writing.

I mentioned this in another post and I will say again - removing show Tyrion from show Daenerys' narrative would reduce the sexism in her story arc ten fold. He was D&D's mouthpiece in the series after season 5 - there to tell us that Dany was evil for doing all the things the male characters did.

And yes, Nuclear weapons are bad. Nuclear weapons can also be a deterrent and prevent war. Nuclear weapons can also be useful in a fantasy, magical world dealing with an existential apocalyptic threat. This is why I find one to one comparisons like these to be ridiculous. The Starks also have some fiercesome beasts that the author has indicated will be used in battle. Are we calling them evil?

The rest. Colonizer? They should look up what that means and whether it applies to Dany's story in Essos. Profiting off slavery? If one reads the books one knows this is blatantly untrue. Entitled and vengeful? No more than any of the other main characters who belong to noble houses in Westeros.

Daenerys has her flaws, not saying that she doesn't. That's what makes her a three-dimensional and relatable character. It's easy to criticize the character because she does self-reflect and introspect, is sometimes crippled by self-doubt and wants to do things differently and try different options - something that makes her human and real and very well written. Leadership is not easy and she’s 15 in the last book.

The other aspect is a flaw in the writing with respect to the setting of Daenerys' story in the series. She's the only main POV character in Essos until Arya and Tyrion get there in ADwD. And there is a lot of orientalism in GRRM's writing for Essos - meant to represent the East while Westeros represents the West.

There's much to say about how he writes the Dothraki as savage barbarians. While he gives POV characters for the Ironborn with Theon and Asha and characters like Mance, Tormund and Ygritte for the Freefolk, where's the equivalent of all that for the Dothraki? Oh but look, they are eating honeyed locusts! How exotic! There's lots of cartoonishly evil slavers who kill puppies! GRRM keeps otherizing their customs and culture as being savage and cruel and different - highlighted by the fact that we don't have a single Essosi POV giving us their side of things.

I do find GRRM's orientalism distasteful and off putting, especially as Essos is just a prop, a stepping stone for the characters before they move onto Westeros where the real story is happening. That is however a critique of the writing, not of the character. People tend to conflate the two. A middle aged white man writing in the nineties about a fantasy eastern world does not make Daenerys a 'white savior' or a 'colonizer' and it's clear from various interviews the author has given that this was not his intention either.

Daenerys is also the only Targaryen POV in the books. Think about that. The Starks have 6 POVs in the first book. The Lannisters get 3 by AFfC. The Greyjoys have 4, the Martells have 2. The only major house worse off than the Targaryens are the Baratheons with no POV characters.

We see Jon Snow through Arya and Bran’s POV. We see Arya through Jon’s. We get none of this for Dany. The Starks have a home and a loving family. Dany meanwhile is starting off the story at her lowest point - an abusive brother and forcefully married off to a Dothraki. While the Starks then end up losing that security, family members die, one of them is a hostage and the other is on the run - they still have memories of each other. Danerys meanwhile, slowly and painfully works her way to the top. 

Reminds me of a post I responded to the other day, where the OP said that Arya and Jon cannot be underdogs because they are winners (Whatever that means). That’s the attitude that a lot of fandom has towards Daenerys - now that she is queen and has power, she has it easy compared to the likes of Sansa and the rest of the Starks. Ignoring that when the books started Daenerys was in a way worse position than any of the Starks.

This is a fandom that thinks that Sansa Stark deserves to be Queen in the North because she’s beautiful, has good manners and is a Stark. And this is the same fandom who think that Daenerys, who worked her way to the top - with no family to help, no happy childhood, no teachers, no security of food and shelter, who were beggars and on the run at one point - the Daenerys who is currently spending an entire book ruling a city state, making trade deals, dealing with an insurgency and famine, engaging in marriage diplomacy to sue for peace for the slaves she freed, that Daenerys is entitled. Do you agree?

I am a Jon Snow fan and even I can see how utterly ridiculous the fan discourse around Daenerys is. When the show was on, I was only posting about Jon and there was so much anti Dany stuff on the Jon Snow tags I had to wade into discussion about the character. And the more I defended her, the more I ended up re-reading her chapters, the more I ended up loving the character. There’s so much hypocrisy and sexist double standards where the character is concerned.

And I have not even touched upon the obnoxiousness that is ‘Jonsa’ - group of morons who think Sansa is the main character in a book series called A Song of Sansa and Sansa and Jon is secretly in love with Sansa who is going to be Queen with executioner/personal spymaster Arya Stark and her consort Jon Snow who will sexually manipulate and murder Daenerys for his great love Sansa.

Sansa fans make up the vast majority of asoiaf fans on Tumblr and the majority of them dislike Daenerys and Arya or see Dany as Sansa’s antagonist - even though these two characters have no connection in the books and I doubt they would ever interact. If you look at most of the anti Dany posts on here, they will be made by someone with a Sansa pfp. There are posts about how Jon will kill Dany or how Arya will kill Dany, and if you look at their blogs they will be big Sansa fans.

These are the same people who write essays on how Arya is not a real girl or is ‘male-coded’ or who write essays on how Daenerys only uses ‘threats and force’ whereas Sansa is apparently a political genius who uses ‘Soft Power’ - a foreign policy concept - because she talked down 13 year old idiot Joffrey that one time. When in the actual books, it’s Daenerys who has used Soft Power in her marriage diplomacy with Hizdahr and Sansa has never engaged in any kind of politics with actual adults.

Notice that these kinds of ‘metas’ are popularized by fandom bnfs using blogs like asoiafuniversity. There’s this very popular idea that’s propagated in fandom that Sansa is kind and compassionate when in the actual books there are more instances of kindness and compassion from Arya and from Daenerys. This is once again an example of how sexism and misogyny in this fandom has worked to give the wrong impressions of these characters. Arya and Daenerys are seen as more violent compared to Sansa even though Daenerys’ entire arc for two books has been about helping an oppressed population. The mind boggles!

It’s the same when it comes to love and romance. Arya and Daenerys are not considered worthy of love, romance and marriage because they are the wrong kind of girls. And let’s not bring age into this considering Sansa is 11 at the start of the books and she is the fandom bicycle shipped with every Tom, Dick and Harry.

I am not even getting into the slut-shaming and victim blaming that Daenerys gets in the fandom. There was actual discourse in this fandom on how Dany was not a good rape victim like Sansa because she brought up her rape in conversation! Daenerys is somehow seen as less than because she can’t possibly have children - that apparently makes her less of a woman and a bad partner for Jon Snow unlike Sansa Stark who will surely have ten babies!

The worst part is that’s it women who engage in this kind of discourse and the same women who turn around and gaslight the fandom into thinking that Sansa is unfairly targeted because of sexism.

There’s also the usual dislike from the fans of other characters.

There are Jon Snow fans who see him as the prophesied hero and main protagonist, who don’t like Daenerys coming over and taking away main character status. I personally think there is no one main character. IMO, Jon, Dany, Arya, Bran and Tyrion are all tier one main characters, who will work together against the Army of the Dead. [Note: This works the other way as well. I have seen Dany fans who dislike Jon Snow as well and think he is unimportant in the grand scheme of things]

There are Stannis Baratheon stans over on the Asoiaf subreddit who will excuse everything Stannis does - including burning people alive for his God - and then nitpick every single policy decision of Dany’s in order to argue she is evil or a bad ruler. 

There are house Stark fans who hate House Targaryen and see them as in opposition to each other. There are fans who believe in Northern exceptionalism i.e the North is special and Dany is a threat to that specialness because she wants the 7K etc. etc.

This turned out to be a long post. On the whole, the answer to your question on why Daenerys is such a polarizing character is mainly because of sexism. There are other factors like the setting and isolation of her story, the lack of other POVs etc. The main reason though is sexism and ship wars.

#asks #ask

[daenerysies]

it’s hard to take some individuals seriously on this app (or ANY social media app since they use the same talking points that can be disproved with a quick google search or idk OPENING THE BOOK) when they go on and on and on about how the series as a whole is only about ‘feudalism BAD’ which YES it is but this is a fictional f a n t a s y series and deliberately choosing to ignore that grrm is known for using his work to critique multiple points of interest and maybe, just maybe, he can critique the monarchy and still bring up other talking points; like how rhaenyra was usurped due to misogyny (it’s also weird the number of people that don’t seem to care about grrm creating the amethyst empress and the bloodstone emperor as direct parallels to rhaenyra and aegon and how each event affects the world of asoiaf but whatever).

it’s ridiculous to claim you’re team green (which means you want aegon to be king, not that you like tg characters) and in response to those on the other side try to take the ‘moral high ground’ by ONLY mentioning how the monarchy is bad when rhaenyra, a potential female ruler, is involved (which is a bit on the nose, don’t you think?) stanning team green and being anti targaryen is almost point blank the definition of hypocrisy. trying to claim you support them bc they were being neglected/abused (even though most of the abuse came directly from their mother and grandfather) which apparently gives them the ‘right’ to steal the throne, or the use of andal tradition (not law) as a way to demean rhaenyra’s position as heir, or even how they only want what’s ’best’ for the realm and aegon is that; despite how he very much would have been aegon the unworthy before we even made it to aegon iv’s generation; and no, you can’t use ‘he had a better council!’ when he fired anyone who didn’t immediately give him what he wants i.e. removing otto as hand bc of him not wanting to resort completely to bloodshed during the dance.

so feudalism is fine if it benefits alicent? aegon? aemond? but i thought all targaryen’s are evil and should go extinct? and aren’t alicent’s children TARGARYENS? so by spreading anti targaryen rhetoric you should be happy that the green’s entire bloodline was wiped out, right? it’s normal to like/dislike certain characters but to state that an entire house should be obliterated whilst liking the characters that exacerbate the worst traits of said house (or are enablers of said behavior) is especially rich, and would really be downright hilarious if it didn’t showcase how insincere and sanctimonious some can be in this fandom. stop constantly moving the goalpost and just admit that your views contradict one another regularly, it would make it a million times easier to engage with you.

#asoiaf #f&b #hotd #rhaenyra targaryen #anti team green #anti targ antis #anti alicent hightower #anti aegon ii targaryen #anti aemond targaryen #anti team green stans #you cannot be anti targaryen #and anti feudalism #and proudly wave your team green banner #AT THE SAME TIME #*mindblown* #the amethyst empress #the bloodstone emperor #fandom critical #rant post #pro rhaenyra

[dontbotherwiththepronunciation]

🕊️ 💛for Jeyne Poole, please

Sorry for the very late answer, life has been ver busy right now and I haven't had much energy left in me. Also sorry this got long and probably isn't very satisfactory either.

💛 Familial relationships

Admittedly not very creative of me but I like to imagine that she and Vayon were close. I know GRRM's tendency of simply not writing mothers and not even mentioning whether they are dead is often fixed with characters like this but for some reason I like the idea of her being an only child from a single/widowed working father. Girldad/j. Girldad who probably doesn't have a lot of time or power to make her content with her lot in life. It contrasts nicely to the Stark family and Ned's relationship towards Sansa & Arya and in my opinion also works with her being low on the aristocracy (all major feudal families in Westeros having multiple children, larger homes being encouraged for those who want to escalate). It also gives her and Beth Cassel something to bond over.

🕊️ Platonic relationships (friends, enemies, etc).

I like to think that her behaviour towards Arya was mostly influenced by projection and some envy.

I've talked about it before and was deemed a Sansa anti but I genuinely think that Sansa associating Arya's looks to bastards and common people only for Jeyne to later be forced into playing Arya (among other things because of her looks) is too much of a fun concept to ignore. Imagine your bff trash talks her sisters appearance to you, a person who looks like that sister.

I like to think she was better at sums than Sansa but worse than Arya, and that this too influenced her behaviour for the later given how her father is the literal steward of Winterfell so why was wild Arya Horseface better than her at something she was supposed to have an advantage?!

No canon at all and I doubt we will ever get to have more information on it but I like to think that through her time at the brothel(s), she managed to make some friends or at least positive connections with other women there. I am not trying to pretend that it wasn't traumatising, it was, but usually in spaces like those you find a lot of very supportive women who will protect and care for each other and I like toying with that.

Also, not something that can be applied to canon and it only exists in my daydreams and fics but, I like to think she and Falia could eventually become friends. They both have fairy tale imagery, twisted wish fulfilment and a sad and traumatised ironborn companion who treats them surprisingly well given the circumstances. They should be friends.

Not really a headcanon but more of an observation: I really would love it if she actually gets to the Wall because I want her to interact with Melisandre (hello fellow (possibly csa +) slavery victim) and also because I think seeing whether she becomes close to Shireen or Val could be really interesting for all the discussions surrounding childhood & adulthood in the cases of our many pre-teen/teen girls and maybe for less aggressive discussions of the "don't ship adults with children!" thing that is often loudly yelled by adult/children they adultified shippers. Adolescence isn't really a thing in asoiaf society so I genuinely think that seeing what sort of interactions she develops with Shireen (considered a child in and out of story universe) or Val (considered a woman in story universe with not enough information or interest for this to be debated out of story universe) could be somewhat telling of how GRRM is intending to treat her in the future.

#thank you for the ask #I always feel positively complimented when someone asks me stuff about any of my three unimportant girls #so writing this was a thing that made me very happy. #redrikki #speaking #Asoiaf #jeyne poole

[bbygirl-aemond]

bbygirl-aemond, I have thoughts, I will reread chapter 32, but I do have thoughts if you dont mind me asking them. I think initially, my question is, how do you balance the role of Valyria historically with the nature of their colonialism? Only because it seems like the picture presented is that ultimately Valyrianness is a good thing? It seemed like despite the Firstmen not wanting Valyrian conquerors who desecrated their land with fire, Harrenhal did? And that seems off to me? I mean if your pro-valyrian then totally disregard this but I had got the impression that you were rather critical of them but maybe I was conflating your critique of Viserys with your critique of Valyria and the Valyrian Freehold? Also, side note I very much enjoyed the complex relationship everyone had with Viserys and how it wasn't reconciled and that Helaena stood her ground. Your interpretation of her is my absolute favourite because she is a fully fleshed woman with her own motivations, and her distance from Rhaenyra is that wonderful icing on the cake. Coming from someone who doesn't like my own half-sister, it's very understandable Helaenas weariness but also her stubbornness not to forget what Rhaenyra put her and her brothers through. It's just chefs' kiss.

No that's a fair question! Ultimately, I think my answer is that my opinion on morality of canon is separate from what I choose to play around with for fun. For example, I don't think we're meant to read ASoIaF and come away like "yes monarchy is good actually." I'm very anti-monarchist in my everyday life, but it's tons of fun to lean into the grand imagery related to monarchy and divine right in a fantasy world. This applies to the themes of colonialism and feudalism as well.

Stormbreak is, fundamentally, a Targaryen Restoration fic, so it's not going to be doing any heavy lifting related to concepts of monarchy, feudalism, and colonialism. I do address parts of these themes, but not in full, and it shouldn't be taken as a perfect mirror of my own views outside of the Stormbreak sandbox.

As for Harrenhal--I think there isn't necessarily a moral endorsement of the Valyrian magic there. Just because something exists doesn't mean that it's good that it exists, but it is a reality. Jace's Valyrian-ness is useful in its ability to protect the members of House Strong from a curse that would otherwise kill them off. Jace's arc here also isn't finished, and we haven't seen the final form of the agreement(s) he'll have with the land he rules. This is because the First Men are, you guessed it, also originally colonizers! They invaded Westeros, slaughtered the children of the forest in spades, and destroyed their sacred spaces. They were eventually forced to stop and coexist, but only after a massive display of force (the children of the forest literally broke Westeros and Essos into two separate continents), so it wasn't out of realization that their colonizing was wrong, and they still successfully stole most of Westeros from the children of the forest, relegating them to small patches of land here and there where Weirwood trees grew. I can't spoil too much here, but let's just say the Valyrians weren't the first ones to think of imbuing the land with spells to drive out the First Men… and that Stormbreak will ultimately treat the children of the forest as the only true natives of Westeros.

I'm glad that Helaena's characterization has resonated with you! She's been so fun to write. In general, I've had so much fun with the female characters in this fic, particularly ones like Helaena, Baela, and Alys whose personalities were kind of neglected in the book and/or the show. I also have this pet peeve around the idea that women inherently always have to like each other because of girlboss solidarity, so I deliberately called attention to Rhaenyra's mistake in thinking that Helaena would side with her because they were both women. Helaena isn't necessarily always going to agree with Rhaenyra on things, which is understandable. They had vastly different upbringings, and Helaena's experience with dreaming gives her an entirely unique perspective. In this chapter, Helaena doesn't try to stop Aemond and Aegon, because she agrees with them! Regardless of how much fear she personally felt (since I think her dreams provide a lot of reassurance to her that others aren't able to access), she still spent her entire life surrounded by her family, who were very much impacted by that fear.

#ask #asks #answered #fic: stormbreak #fic #stormbreak #stormbreak chapter 32 #first men #children of the forest #valyrians #hotd #house of the dragon #fire and blood #fab #house targaryen #asoiaf