Anonymous asked:

Isn’t it kinda weird that people ship daemyra? I'm not targeting daemyra, but the shippers. Though their relationship was acceptable in their era, I see many fans using this as a pretext to actively endorse it, which is problematic. It's one thing to acknowledge the historical and cultural context of a relationship, but it's another thing entirely to romanticize or ship it when we now have the knowledge and understanding that one of the individuals involved is a child.

Need your opinion on this

DISCLAIMER: I am a Daemyra shipper. Read with caution.

You're essentially asking why it isn't a dealbreaker? You could refer to my post HERE, but here it is in short:

Perhaps I'm going to be flowery, exhaustive, and "purple prosey" again, but I think it is basically that that very context creating the exploration of a tragedy of forces stronger than oneself. People love tragic tales, esp doomed ones. It's almost always validating in that there is a persistence of self against outside pressures that may or may not (but usually does) have said pressures be compulsions to conform against one's own happiness or authenticity, even and sometimes especially when the couple dies at the end. That in of itself is a sort of "resistance" that's supposed to coincide with GRRM's whole thing of "choosing life in spite of death" or "we found love in a hopeless place" sort of thing in ASoIaF, but for royals and in a royal iteration.

#daemyra #asoiaf shipping #canon shipping #rhaenyra and daemon #fire and blood characters #daemon's characterization #rhaenyra's characterization #fire and blood #asoiaf

horizon-verizon reblogged

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

What do you think of those who, when you explain to them that it was the norm for girls under the age of 16 to marry in feudal times in different countries, retort that slavery was also a norm in era and that it was horrible and therefore that in our modern times, grooming should not be glorified...

I... Honestly, I don't know what to do with such jerks. These are two subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

But I loved finally seeing a post that dismantles this shitty argument in detail. At least, if you have the courage for it.

horizon-verizon answered:

EDITED POST (10/29/24)

The medieval period spanned from around the 400s to the 1400s so we are not using the Tudor period--a period much shorter than the medieval--to define the entirety of the European marriage vs consummation pattern.

Early Middle Ages – c. 476 [Fall of Roman Empire] - 1000
High Middle Ages – 1000 - 1300
Late Middle Ages – 1300 - 1500s

Consummation vs Marriage

This is the link to my personal post giving the link and info about the age of majority in Westeros, as told by GRRM.

And actually, as I've recently researched, medieval peoples (parents and "doctors" of medicine, philosophy, jurists/law writers, etc.) usually wanted daughters' marriages to be consummated when they passed 15 at least. So nobles'd usually arranged for their daughters to marry before they became 16 & later have them marry according to distance and resources and legalities & then later they'd actually have them consummate. So the time between marriage and consummation is shorter but both partners have reached the better ages to be married AND because the younger the brides were, the more dangerous childbirth would be for them and the child they'd carry. Lower classed people had more freedoms and thus married later--19-20s. More free-willed marriages, too.

So yes, marrying any younger than 16 and up was frowned on by at least a number of those writing medical texts, parents, and other people in the immediate community. Humans broadly would have knowledge of when it was best for a girl to start having kids since the beginning of human existence, so it follows that they would not usually marry/allow consummation b/t their children younger than 15 or 16.

Here is a post by enbycrip about the misconception of 12-year-olds marrying 30-year-olds frequently. And this is a post by joannalannister giving more details of marriage, ages when married, ideas about such, etc.

Age of Consent and "Adulthood"

Marrying before 15-16 was mostly an aristocratic thing for lineage-making, accruing resources, and alliances. People of other classes, in rural and urban locations, or of lower ranks/stations married--more than nobles--of their own volition AND older, at least in their late teens (Peter Laslett--1965; The World We Have Lost).

At one point, the Catholic Church made it canon that girls as young as 12 could get married, which comes from numerous 70s-80s written sources about Church canon law. This site informs that the "canon" age of consent for girls in late-13th century England was 12:

An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.

That part comes from the medieval tradition of following and using Roman law, which said to list 12 as the minimum for a girl to get married. People already didn't follow Church laws to a T or sometimes at all (sex, prostitution, drinking, festivals, etc.). For the medieval-only context--how people protected and made laws to protect more girls from getting raped by trying to make sure that the rule of the age of consent made it so that these girls could never be seen as giving consent to having sex with a man regardless if they fought back and resisted or not.

I am not saying it was ever okay for 12 year olds to have sex with older people! I'm pointing out there was a lot more room and social allowances to make room for nobles and royals to marry way too young, so it follows that they will form relationships pretty young and it was likelier than today that would pass if arranged. The feelings on part of the couple wouldn't as likely be tempered with fear and shame unless we got a really crazy age difference, which was uncommon.

However, the age of consent (Church) & marriageability for girls also didn't have to and didn't match the preferred, customary, or legal ages of marriageability and inheritance for boys (various by time, location of families, & practices of land) so much as gave a guideline. For the everyday practices vs the beliefs about childhood and maturity that sustained them concerning marriage, here are some things about boys vs girls and the age of "consent"/majority/adulthood (for boys) versus the age of marriage:

Humoral theory connected adolescent bodies with adolescent behaviour. The excessive heat and moisture of male youths predisposed them to hot tempers, lustfulness, courage and sociability. These physical and mental characteristics were considered to continue well past the age of physical puberty. It was in the late twenties or thirties that youths’ bodies cooled and dried sufficiently that they became reasonable, even-tempered, and ready to head their own households as husbands and fathers. How did this theoretical imagining of adolescence translate into practice? In legal terms, such a relaxed attitude towards the onset of adulthood was not possible; fixed ages were required for legal purposes, such as the age of consent and the age of inheritance. In canon law, boys were considered rational enough to give marital consent after the age of 14, but legal majority for the purposes of inheritance was usually reached at the age of 21.

AND

Marriage was understood in similar terms. While a boy might have the capacity to understand consent at the age of 14, resulting in the canonical minimum age for marriage, this was not the socially desirable age to wed. Age at marriage for males in medieval England varied across social groups, but among the gentry and mercantile elites we find a consistent avoidance of young adolescent marriage, with men marrying in their mid-twenties and women a little earlier. Where males married in early adolescence, it was usually because they were wards and their guardians had sold their marriages (a common medieval practice) or married them to their own children.

In comparison to girls:

The 13th-century jurist Henry of Bracton said a woman reached maturity when she was able to take on the responsibilities of a housewife, but few other writers concerned themselves much with the female life cycle. Women were believed to experience the prime of their lives during adolescence, as this was the age when they were considered to be most spiritually pure and physically beautiful. For a female youth, adolescence was tied to her ‘maidenhood’ – both her youth and her virginity – and so with marriage and the loss of her virgin status she was usually perceived to have exited the most ‘perfect age’ of a woman’s life. In short, girls usually became women because of their relationships with men: when they left their natal families and became wives. Boys’ transition to manhood was a longer and more variable process.

So according to those present, there could SOMETIMES be more concern with boys' younger ages-at-marriage-sex-and-consummation, bc they were the ones entrusted to inherit/lead the household and its resources one day. Reading this passage, I concluded that parents didn't want to give their businesses or titles/lands to their sons "too early" while also making sure their daughters were married off as soon as they felt they could birth children which are also considered "attractive" (appealing bc they can birth but also desirable bc youth=beauty + the longer birthing period) to other families/sons, which is why the women's marriage ages tended to be earlier still than their husbands...or you'd see that more often.

Again, it'd be more often that they wanted the girls to marry earlier than boys did (but still late enough to survive and able to reproduce again) unless they felt that they had to take an opportunity to "seal a deal" earlier for whatever economic, or sociopolitical reason. But it's an exaggeration to say all or most marriages were b/t 12 yr olds and 25 yr olds. And at the same time, the rules are not as tight on this, which for some people might as well mean that everyone was a pedo; the ole' fallacious "if it happened, then that means that they didn't care" argument.

So there would be 14-17 girls marrying 19+ men-boys but those types of marriages would occur more often in aristocratic and royal marriages/levels of society through most of medieval history and regardless of location because the lower the stakes a marriage has for the state/dynasties, the more the individuals have in choice of who and when they marry.

Again, generally, yes people tried & wanted to keep the age gap as small as possible...but:

it mattered what class, region, and time period you were in
were flexible according to the competing-influences matrix of perceived needs, relationship to those kids, how much/well they actually looked out for their needs over the "family's", and what they believed their kids' were obligated to do/the benefits from such marriages

After marriage, esp in noble/royal ones but you could find them in their "peasant" families, one could expect that consummation is not too long after if there aren't already careful arrangements for the couple to live apart in any sort of manner, or for there to be people monitoring their behavior if they did live together.

Sometimes noble people were engaged/betrothed/married as soon as they were born, before then, or a little later.

Sometimes noble people didn't even have the two marry and see each other for the first time, having instead people represent one or both of the persons in proxy marriages until the parents/guardians decided to put the two physically close together. The last was usually in the case where the two families had a broad distance between them or otherwise couldn't travel. Proxy marriages were considered as legitimate as nonproxy ones, but at one point the marriage still needed physical consummation to make that marriage more secure and safer from possible annulments.

Examples of (mainly) ages in noble marriages:

Margaret Beaufort (12) --- Edmund Tudor (24)
Eleanor of Aquitaine (14) --- Louis VII of France (16-17)
Margaret of Anjou (14) --- Henry VI of England (23)
Empress Matilda (8-betrothed; married-13-14) --- Henry V of Germany (24-betrothed; married-29-30)
Isabella of France (*13) --- Edward II of England (24-25)
*Isabella I of Castile (18) --- Fernando II of Aragon (17)

And these were outliers. For Margaret Beaufort, it is claimed that at least her own physicians were concerned over the effect on her body before and after childbirth at so young an age.

Most parents loved their kids as most parents nowadays love theirs, wanted what they thought was best for them, and wanted them to be physically healthy/alive, but even if they didn't they wanted them to stay alive after having kids if only to have even more kids--part of the point of marriage, to secure that bag and create a combined lineage. And they weighed their choices by what was told available to them to manipulate, influence, provide, resist, teach, etc. vs what they believed to be in their ability or their duty.

So while there were definitely girls married at 12 by:

noble/royal people
either anxious or greedy & ambitious and/or uncaring parents/guardians/hosts
forced to by a single, much older person who was head of his house

more often people preferred and arranged for their kids to have sex within arranged marriages in mid-to-late teens and they could/did take measures to make sure their kids consummated as soon as possible while also making sure that asap increased the mother's chances of survival...and as one could guess, even that would end up with below-18 marriages being consummated. Since a marriage could be annulled, if it wasn't consummated, so noble/royal parents/guardians/hosts could push for their kids to have sex as soon as possible to prevent that, and there were critics for that sort of thing from the Church writers, clerics, jurists, etc.

Going back to the age of consent, female consent, to the Church in the mid to late medieval period, was also important and often included in legal requisites for marriage even without parental consent (Noonan, John Noonan--1973; "The Power to Choose"). The Church's hold on cultural practices was not consistent, though it also grew more so towards the end of the period.

So, 8-12-year-old brides were more uncommon than not. And 8-12 is a huge difference from 15-16, no matter the time. Even with people dying earlier in comparison to modern Western peoples--because again, what's the point of further endangering someone who already made it past infant mortality, who you raised and watched grow up and endanger your economic prospects by making them give birth too young? Yes, they could die, but usually, if you saw no present signs of an illness or heard of any possible assassination attempts, if those dangers felt far enough, the host or guardian (if they truly cared) c/would and didn't push their kids into consummation if they didn't feel they had to.

Lots of self-contradictions in medieval marriage practices and beliefs. This actually opens them more to having more of those age gaps than what most of us 2024 moderns are comfortable with (I've seen some argue over 4 year differences, 20 and 24), but that doesn't mean that they were 100% avoided in various marital practices and laws.

ASoIaF and Age/Marriage and Sex

This is a post by @la-pheacienne about the age gaps of ASoIaF. And this one from @dragonsfromthemoon is about the same.

What is discomfiting for some people about GRRM's main romantic couples and their age gaps is that a larger number of the ones featured occur between people with 10+ age gaps and the girl is less than 17 in romantic AND nonromantic setups. In comparison, those romantic couples do not have as large a gap with the girl being above 17. Sansa and the Hound; Rhaenys and Corlys; Rhaenyra and Daemon, Brienne of Tarth and Jaime Lannister, etc. It's actually completely valid for people to be concerned and disgusted with such appearance of teen/child marriage and too-large age gaps in their marriages and relationships GRRM writes for their own sake.

A number of things could have happened after Daemon was giving gifts, singing/writing poetry, etc. and before Viserys kicked Dameon out that alerted Arryk into reporting them to Viserys. People/viserys would have likely already suspected Daemon bc they would think he's out to get the throne any way he can or otherwise stir up trouble. We don't know if Daemon and Rhaenyra had sex, if they were found kissing, or hugging erotically, or what have you. But, it's very clear that he wasn't "courting" her with Viserys' permission, that he was using Rhaenyra against Viserys (partly bc of what happened with Mysaria and the whole denial of having his own child and heirship), and Rhaenyra herself for a while didn't want him near before she traveled to Driftmark and befriended Laena Velaryon.

But I don't particularly agree with the idea that some characters in their own psyche/character are automatically pedophiles or groomers for marrying AND having sex with under-18s (as long as they remain in their 20s simultaneously, no matter how uncomfortable that makes me) when even in real medieval-Tudor societies:

some of those (noble or otherwise) marriages were arranged without asking either party, yes even when there are marrying parties in their 20s bc marriages involved delegating resources which involved the entire family and having that pressure on you would still exist
the court lords and ladies of power & parents sometimes pushed for consummation
(even if this was far less often) older women, though less often than the reverse, did marry younger men/boys--Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII
there were contemporary philosophical pretexts for women/girls to be married off below many modern societies' ages of consent (17-18) to either other children or adults versus men/boys marrying older, which shows a society and mindset meant to prey on girls/women's reproductive labor and make them sex

So the argument that there was no canonical romance or romantic feelings between Lyanna and Rhaegar or Rhaenyra and Daemon in the text itself can't be one-and-done.

In ASoIaF, GRRM made it a bit simpler & exaggerated in comparison to what occurred in real life for noble people BUT real-life noble girls were considered marriageable at the very least as soon as they got their periods and "beddable" only a few years after. Kids and adults get married and consummate early and at any time, while they can make decisions for the house at 16. It's also clear that he is aware of how girls vs boys could have their sexual maturity treated differently to the point where a girl's maturity is dependent on her sexual role of bringing about heirs and their overall roles within the economic household/noble house unit.

Once more, noble and common-born girls are considered their most "attractive" in their "midlives" (adolescence)--bodily and spiritual purity. Thus the focus is on wombs more than humors and the capability to retain their lives and embryos. Whereas boys' maturity is conceptually considered as how well and "cool" they will be to run households and make "executive" decisions, and not harm themselves through indulgence in sex ("hot-blooded" activities), thus throwing themselves off balance. But there are differences in when noble vs nonnoble people marry due to their marriages having different stakes on the whole.

So I feel that he wanted to emphasize the "girls get married young(er) and build relationships younger not far from self-preservation or being torn from their childhood through violence" motif but only for the purpose of focusing on its place under a war-context. (Sansa, again) Then again, I could be terribly wrong and giving too much credit, but I would like someone to bring forth some info or arguments for how GRRM is just being sick, keeping in mind my thoughts to counter.

Real--and assumedly some Westerosi--medieval/Tudor people do not conceive of "maturity" the exact same way moderns do, so we'd have to analyze more than just when they married but HOW they married and saw their sexual partners (who did not have to be the same as their married partners) to then see if they were pedophilic &/o sexually predatory. Again, arranged marriages and 15-16 year olds marrying.

At the same time, I also recognize how exposing people in their mid-teens and younger (mostly girls) to possible sex with older people (men) actively on a real-life legal scale lowering the ages of consent generates more pedophilic feelings because men are encouraged to seek out "sexually pure" girls as a commodity and a sign of personal masculine virility. Also to take advantage of their lack of life knowledge/emotionally isolate them from their families for continued abuse.

For the society of Westeros, as it gave the space for more sexual interaction b/t adults and children, the main intention & purpose behind arranged marriages amongst the nobility wasn't about keeping young girls as sex pets so much as power struggles between families and retaining properties/privileges, and young people became the devices of their parents/guardians more often than some would like. It definitely enabled men to make a "pet" out of their wives and gave them more power in general over women, yes, if they so chose, but it's too simple to say that was what the "first" peoples were going for. Resources.

One could say: yet wouldn't the result be similar? As I already stated a child of 12 could be forced to consummate by elders/spouse and a 20-year-old could be told they have to consummate such a marriage. The younger a spouse could be, the younger a prospective sex partner could be, and the more power one has, the less subject to a law a person could be the more likely they can indulge themselves...the more likely they will not be held accountable for raping/sleeping with too-young persons. I'd agree, because isn't that what happens with Robert Baratheon and Aegon II, who both sleep with 12 or 13 yr olds/rape them? These examples and it's phenomenon is "different" under the usual practice of political marriage amongst nobles in Westeros--even with comparatively (to real history) more prepubescent girls marrying and having relationships with much older men--also opens up the independent/consented/voluntary sexual and romantic relations between these people. Again, in Westeros, a dramatized and inaccurate portrayal of medieval Europe (actually England).

Once you enter another world, once you go another place it's not really about making sure you morally evaluate whatever happens there immediately in some sort of conformist agenda so much as see what the world is already like, what challenges it brings to its characters, how those characters rise or fall to the occasion and why, etc. This comes first, otherwise, how could one make any moral conclusions or evaluate the conclusions of ethics WITHOUT ignoring what conditions they had to answer to?

Conclusions (For Now)

it's weird. IDK.

Once again:

A number of things could have happened after Daemon was giving gifts, singing/writing poetry, etc. and before Viserys kicked Dameon out that alerted Arryk into reporting them to Viserys. People/viserys would have likely already suspected Daemon bc they would think he's out to get the throne any way he can or otherwise stir up trouble. We don't know if Daemon and Rhaenyra had sex, if they were found kissing, or hugging erotically, or what have you. But, it's very clear that he wasn't "courting" her with Viserys' permission, that he was using Rhaenyra against Viserys (partly bc of what happened with Mysaria and the whole denial of having his own child and heirship), and Rhaenyra herself for a while didn't want him near before she traveled to Driftmark and befriended Laena Velaryon.

However, I also think GRRM is trying to point out how Daemon doing whatever he did with 14/15 year old Rhaenyra (that got him kicked out) was a line-crossed other than disobeying Viserys/the King's directives...we have Dany who was 13 and pregnant with Drogo's child, a line that was meant to be taken as objectively terrible. We can see that Daemon's actions were somehow not to be taken as neutrally moral, but him taking advantage of Rhaenyra, even if not exactly him seeking to have sex with someone he thought of as a child (Dany & Rhaenyra, different environments in-world, but simultaneously, OBJECTIVELY/OUT OF WORLD, not-good). So, Daemon is kicked out, marries someone else, grows to be a father/husband/they spend years apart, Rhaenyra has Harwin as a lover/they come back together and marry.

It's not that what was going on wasn't wrong so much as how do I use the moral indictment against men & women marrying teenagers--esp arranged by other authorities--as the fault of the individual alone when it's clearly a social practice. One that needs a total razing of the entire world (not just Westeros) to deal with.

Apart from critiquing GRRM for making a high number of girls marry in their early teens instead of the mid-to-late teens and thereby his normalizing such practices for the sake of just showing how it is war and patriarchal shit, but not enough on how this affects girls and women [joannalannister]. How there isn't some punishment that rests more than just on the dying woman; stories of Rhaena-Rogar and Rhaenyra losing her mom are there, but they don't match or at least come close to the number of dying/raped/assaulted women lost in the narrative.

I'm saying that if we critique the series concerning age gaps, even with GRRM bringing the "spirit" of noble marriages into fiction, that is more a critique of GRRM's writing. Should Daemon have pursued Rhaenyra or had access to her enough to do so? No. However, I also can't let that overtake the fact that Rhaenrya would have gained more agency in marrying him out of everyone her father would have rather stuck her with. With him, she practiced a lot more autonomy and room to be herself and feel safer than with others (even w/Harwin, he was attracted to her and had their affair with her when she was 17-ish and married to Laenor, hence how Jace came about so quickly after the marriage[both in 114 A.C.]).

Rhaenyra doesn't get to choose her first marriage/sexual "legal" relationship--her father does. This is true of most royal and noble marriages and becomes more common with the higher status.

"Grooming"--as a means to critique the character living in a world where girls marry very early, even if historically inaccurate, loses its neutral assessment of possible amorality on the character's part when the context for the accusation of grooming is not there. la-pheacienne says:

The problem with the word "grooming" is that it's not a neutral word. It's a word with a very heavy meaning, that frames an individual who has a perverse, unnatural sexual desire for children whereas the society this individual lives in has decided (fortunately) that these children are not to be considered in a sexual way.

Book!Daemon did do what we consider unscrupulous bordering on predatory in his gift giving and more "attention" spent after he comes back, and he does it so he can marry the girl. There are other ambitions for his approaching and spending time with Rhaenyra besides his probable genuine like for her personality. Watsonianly and Canonically, these two respect and liked and loved each other because they both were very similar and proud of their house & heritage. Using the term "grooming" makes it much easier for people to see and evaluate the characters and real-life persons as personally and independent evil actors without analyzing how regarding systematic contexts, things that are just bigger than the individual and actually create/affect the individual's decisions. Or at least that is the impression I get from some people who try to use Daemon as a gotcha for others for hating on Aegon...after they say Rhaenrya deserved to be usurped or to face femicide...because she "supported" a groomer.

It makes it as if the line that moderns draw is as obvious to these factors when it is not and has never really been, effectively making it as if "people back then" were just crazy people unworthy of examination.

It's almost like when we try to criticize Rhaenyra for asking for sex with Cole in HotD, when her position as a woman, even royal, is very different and treacherous than for a royal man asking sex of a non-knight noble woman, as noblewoman never become knights to even become Kingsguard. So Rhaenyra can be judged as exactly like a prince because she happens to be royal herself and there is some sort of possible power imbalance? Do power imbalances themselves, regardless of gender, at all make the relationship bad automatically? What if the entire society is built on power imbalances, does that mean that every single relationship, arranged or not, is an unhealthy and unreal one? That no one ever really fell in love or had real case-by-case satisfaction and a real sense of security in their partners? Can there ever be a true, loving relationship in such a world, or is every single person just kidding themselves?

Yeah, it appears GRRM is trying to convey that kids are made to grow up too soon and become victims/perpetrators (Dalton Greyjoy and Aegon II) faster and indelibly under such a hierarchical patriarchal society. Kids like Jaehaerys I when he came into kinghood become in charge of too much, they are entrusted with too much authority and privileges and power too soon, are exposed to violence too much too soon, become murderers and rapists, and are allowed to be and thus developed less empathy for others or even with similar aristocratic backgrounds, must learn how to survive on their own or on their own brain power, determination, etc (Arya and Dany).

I think that GRRM does do well sometimes to convey the nature or some basic principle (emotionally) of sexual violence through the power imbalances engineered through societal male-exclusive power over wives, daughters, mothers, etc., and their sexual liberties. But with sexual violence, it's not about naivete so much as:

he focused more on wars w/o investigating rape and sexual violence for their own sake and why sexual violence is used in war or right before/after wars; how rape is used
he wanted to create a fantasy story means to have us speculate more than actually glean facts about the actual medieval societies that existed as a historical fiction writer would more likely do...no matter what he says, bc that's simply not what fantasy fiction does as a genre, definitively
he's an old white man who wrote his stories in the 70s-80s and published them in the 90s, no matter what his politics; he was not really thinking about the age aspect as a primary thing in power imbalances so much as secondary or tertiary and a consequence of closely-knit marriages in a system of such marriage * heir-making business; apart from the Targs, the society of Westeros itself practices marriage between first cousins & uncles x nieces [2 Stark marriages] or aunts x nephews. The Targs had the exclusive "right" to marry their siblings that reflects a similar motivation between the Andal first-cousin marriages and feudal marriage itself: allocate resources to people as closely blood related as possible to reduce competition and reserve wealth. That Rhaenyra or girls like Arianne (who had a fat crush on Oberyn at some point, her uncle) surprise that Rhaenyra could fall in love with Daemon in such a societal setting. There is no social taboo on such a relationship, so she does not feel/think it as such; she wasn't "convinced" or groomed into being in a relationship w/Daemon. Again, this is IN-WORLD/Watsonian!

I still find truth and satisfaction in his conveying the message I already named; however, I think we can simultaneously acknowledge and criticize the misogyny that he also writes when it occurs. One doesn't succumb to the other.

horizon-verizon

I don't think show!Daemon is as...lets call it politically "impressive" as he was in the book, but it is also true he's far more palatable for wider audience in HotD than he is in F&B.

the distortion/revamp of what happened with the Blackwood invasions (in the book/orig canon, Daemon and some riverland houses take house Bracken while the Bracken army goes to deal with the invading Blackwoods...there was never a damn "trial" nor did anyone think there needed to be one bc this was strategy and the Brackens were Rhaenyra/their enemy)
how they somehow allow Daemon to continue to not believe that Alys is spelling him AFTER the Alyssa dream...(no Targs/Valyrians don't fuck their parents/children! This is taboo for them, too)
he drinks from a weird woman's cup after he himself calls her a witch and witnesses her make weird, unknown liquids themselves -> so he never confronts Alys
he never thinks of going after Alys but the very obviously nonmagical Old Man Strong after all this...said obvious and seen potion-crafter (if they wanted to convey Daemon was "spelled" into taking the cup, then they should have made some touches to the scene visually to convey she's spelling him)

No one or most people do not want to see a MAN court a 14/15 YEAR OLD -- even after years apart (Stepstones) before he comes back and spends time with her for a couple of weeks "courting"--no matter the age and setting. People could barely stand when episode 1 Daemon put a necklace around 14 year old Rhaenyra back in season 1 (Let's not pretend that there wasn't suggestiveness there in that scene. Several people noted it at the time, whether positively, inquiringly, or negatively).

That being said, I also don't think the writers liked Daemon so much, considering that even their own toned-down version was so shocking as someone beloved in the fandom (article where Condal and Hess say so even though these two are the same ones who try to make Aegon sympathetic despite making him outright a rapist in their own adaptation)

...AND they refused to really show Daemon as a father, going as far as removing shot scenes of him hugging his daughters and allowing tides to wash over him after Visenya's loss, etc....so.

#asoiaf grooming #daemon targaryen #rhaenyra targaryen #daemyra #asoiaf shipping #canon shupping #fire and blood writing #westerosi marriage #asoiaf writing #westerosi age of majority #daemon's characterization #hotd critical #asoiaf age gaps #fire and blood #asoiaf #hotd

horizon-verizon reblogged

pessimisticpigeonsworld

Anonymous asked:

In regards to GRRM and Rhaenyra its not that he hates her, its more so the fact he loves Daemon more so half way through the Dance he made it all about his favourite character instead of the ruling Queen fighting for her throne.

That being said however focusing on the people around the monarch rather than the monarch themselves is typical GRRM fashion. Rhaenyra basically got the Robb treatment, Richard Madden’s pretty face gave him extra screen time in GoT but if you actually read the books he’s barely in them.

pessimisticpigeonsworld answered:

Lmao yeah you can definitely tell Daemon is his favorite. Though I do really like your idea about the monarch treatment. It's a very interesting pattern GRRM has set up. Though I do think it serves to highlight the differences in his prospective monarch characters.

Daenerys, Jon, Arya, and Bran are all major pov characters who are all going through leadership arcs. They are growing to be great rulers/leaders. This is in stark contrast with Young Griff, who is treated like the other monarchs we've encountered. Hence why he isn't meant to be a future ruler, he is just another in the old cycle of rulers; a cycle that needs to be broken.

#asoiaf asks from others #daemon targaryen #daemon's characterization #grrm #fire and blood writing #rhaenyra and daemon #rhaenyra targaryen #rhaenyra's characterization #asoiaf writing #asoiaf comment #robb stark #asoiaf rulership #asoiaf #asoiaf fav posts #hotd #fire and blood #character comparison #pessimisticpigeonsworld

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

House Strong is one of the most enigmatic families, not because of the power they wield or the ambitions they pursue but because of the actions they exhibit without any obvious agenda/reason. In a world where every action is driven by personal gain, the Strongs stand apart. Their decisions appear to lack self-interest or ambition, which makes their loyalty and actions unsettlingly "pure." The setting of Harrenhal only deepens the intrigue. Despite the ruinous effect the castle has on others, the Strongs seem impervious to its influence. The members, I'm sure, are aware of the dark magic that lingers within its walls, but as I said, the Strongs carry no visible inner torment for the castle to exploit. This immunity might suggest that the Strongs are transparent about who they are; they neither pretend to be more than they are nor carry any hidden shame. Their honesty, though unsettling at times, acts as a kind of armor, shielding them from the castle’s curse. Larys Strong embodies a different kind of authenticity that is both unsettling and deeply rooted in chaos rather than loyalty. Throughout the Dance, his actions appear incomprehensible; he acts against the Blacks, the Greens, and even against his own self-interest. It becomes clear that Larys serves no master but himself. What makes Larys particularly fascinating is what it seems the absence of ambition in his scheming. Unlike Littlefinger, who sees chaos as a ladder to power, to Larys, chaos is chaos, and that's good enough in itself. Carefully avoiding the spotlight, Larys seems to prefer to operate from behind the scenes. Even when Aegon returns to the throne and power vacuums emerge, he makes no attempt to seize control. His behavior suggests a primary interest in influence rather than outright power; he allows others to act as figureheads while he manipulates events without attaching himself to any particular regime. In the show, Larys orchestrates the fire that kills his father and brother, framing it as both an act of liberation and a strategic move (Lyonel). This differs from the book, where the fire's origins remain ambiguous. By murdering his family, Larys frees himself from the bonds of familial loyalty, much like shedding the skin of those who both protected and constrained him. By committing this act of kinslaying, Larys secures Alicent's involvement in his plot. This act forges a bond of secrecy between them; because she knows what he has done, she cannot confront him without risking her own exposure. He casts suspicion on Alicent while simultaneously removing a piece (Harwin) of evidence that could prove Rhaenyra's children are bastards. He also appeals to her base nature. The fire at Harrenhal shows Alicent that he can embrace the cold detachment she professes to embrace (sever ties to achieve greater objectives). There is an unspoken agreement between them. “What are children but a weakness?” - Larys This bond, however, is tested as the series progresses. Alicent’s commitment to the harsh ideals she once espoused begins to waver (season 1, part of season 2). Larys’s approach to death further distinguishes him. While Cole clings to honor and seeks a final confrontation to affirm his ideals, Larys accepts the inevitability of his own demise with indifference. When Cregan Stark arrives to impose justice at the end of the Dance, Larys offers no explanation for his actions and makes no attempt to negotiate exile. Instead, he requests execution, choosing to end his life on his own terms. This stark contrast to Cole’s desperate struggle for meaning reflects Larys’s fundamental detachment from the world and the people within it. Heh...or maybe I'm wrong, but Harrenhal's arc and the Strong were fun!

Not lifted, yes? If not, thank goodness.

Despite the ruinous effect the castle has on others, the Strongs seem impervious to its influence.

The Strongs lost their lord and heir in Lyonel and Harwin before the war AND during the war [SPOILERS!!!] they will be totally destroyed Aemond. I wouldn't say that whatever effects that are told to have ruined all the other houses who took over skipped over the Strongs. Not at all. Perhaps HotD's making it so that the bulk of Harrenhal's bloody history can be chalked up to magic is leaving the impression that the castle exploits its inhabitants' "inner torment" (and that's the curse), but that's really unlikely when all or most of the inhabitants historically were killed bc of political intrigue or abusing their power over those in their lands. (I talk about it here) Like the other houses, the Strongs die and very violently bc of political intrigue and alliances. Plus, I don't think the Towers were ever "inauthentic".

I mention the book bec, again, the Strongs even in the show do still experience and will likely still experience total annihilation or violence without ghosts being the architects of such.

As for Larys, I personally speculate that he's with the greens for advantage until he's not and, yes, he didn't care all that much for family loyalty or obligation. Book and show.

Throughout the Dance, his actions appear incomprehensible; he acts against the Blacks, the Greens, and even against his own self-interest. It becomes clear that Larys serves no master but himself. What makes Larys particularly fascinating is what it seems the absence of ambition in his scheming. Unlike Littlefinger, who sees chaos as a ladder to power, to Larys, chaos is chaos, and that's good enough in itself.

I think that's is in the shadows so neither side can anticipate what's he's going to do next and thus be wary of him, which in turn makes it easier for him to perform secret tactics in contingecy of when either side fails/falls. So this:

Larys’s approach to death further distinguishes him. While Cole clings to honor and seeks a final confrontation to affirm his ideals, Larys accepts the inevitability of his own demise with indifference.

is likely coming from his ruthless pursuit of power, playing the "game", and conceding to his own loss when finally cornered. Yes,

Larys offers no explanation for his actions and makes no attempt to negotiate exile. Instead, he requests execution, choosing to end his life on his own terms...

There's, to me, a sort of fatigue here. He, canonically asks to leave behind his clubfoot when he's slotted to be executed, showing that he very likely pursued power in spite of what expectations for a disabled second son there was. But after it caught up with him, he took death as a new way out or a real chance to "rest" after all the scheming but as you say, on his own terms. A sort of parallel to how people just wanted the Dance to be over at the end.

Criston desperately wanted payback and was contrastingly attached to his status as an enemy against Rhaenyra or having some sort of BIG ENEMY bc he's defined himself his whole life by those things that are inaccessible to Larys: conventional knighthood masculinity and the physicality required to obtain such status. Alicent also desperately wished to validate herself through the conventions of womanhood that directly contradict the ruthlessness she wants to take advantage of:

The fire at Harrenhal shows Alicent that he can embrace the cold detachment she professes to embrace (sever ties to achieve greater objectives). There is an unspoken agreement between them.

For me, the Harrenhal sequence didn't appeal and wasn't all that fun both because of:

how Daemon incentives the Blackwoods with no success against the Brackens (like in canon) as if he's some sort of chaos-gremlin instead of the tactician he was
Daemon somehow being able to talk to and confront Alys in the cool, "normal" tones (when we see there's no vision of mind-fuckery happening) about everything else, but not figuring out she is likely the one to have poisoned his cup once he starts accusing people of doing so
this post AND this post explaining my thoughts about their famous argument on the show (bk!Daemon & Rhaenyra over B&C; how they went about getting Daemon there to Harrenhal (again, the argument b/t him and Rhaenyra; he also should have already been at Harrenhal before Luke's murder)

Therefore, I dislike how the entire Harrenhal plot in HotD is predicated on the supposed necessity of guiding Daemon to fight for/and believe in Rhaenyra AND her believing he would fight or plan well for her after their several years of growing a family together…

Even with the argument that bk!Rhaenyra might have felt something about B&C degrading her reputation or credibility in its viciousness. BECAUSE Daemon got many riverlords to follow him against the Brackens during and after the Battle of the Burning Mill not long after B&C -- those lords would have known what he did. As I said in one of the linked posts, these lords would not have cared that much over Jaehaerys as to stop supporting Rhaenyra altogether, esp after it was Aemond/a green who killed her son to provoke a response (not moral, but certainly falls within the parameters of how their general ethics work) OR as to forgo their sworn oaths to her.

There was no uproar about Daemon and the Blackwoods in canon…ever. Nor was any Tully a part of the war until much later. Bc the Blackwoods were destroying Rhaenyra's enemies, the Brackens…alone. (Yes there were villages ruined and sacked, I'm saying it wasn't treated as a war crime bc it was relegated against a green supporter and this was a conflict bk!Daemon had already enlisted various riverlords to fight against the Brackens, so there wouldn't be any sort of council called against him when he's performing exactly what he was supposed to do as Rhaenyra's consort and sorta-vassal):

"A Son for a Son"

"The Red Dragon and the Gold"

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

I think it’s interesting how Daemon takes Harrenhal without bloodshed, paralleling another wielder of Dark Sister who had a lot of dreadful rumours about them, Visenya, who took the Vale without bloodshed despite that being the kind of thing you’d expect them based on reputation to not really care about.

Daemon is basically the male version of Visenya. Ruthless and pragmatic but also fiercely loyal to his family.

Yes, exactly! And it bothers some people, but it tickles me with its irony.

#character comparison #asoiaf asks to me #visenya targaryen #visenya the conqueror #daemon targaryen #daemon's characterization #fire and blood characters #asoiaf #fire and blood

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

I don’t know if this is only my impression, but in my opinion, people started questioning Daemon’s status as a grey character only when HOTD worked very hard to villanize him (like having him straight up murder Rhea Royce while in the books he was still in the Stepstones and she very unambiguously had a riding accident).

Book!Daemon really is no worse than Jaime “I pushed a child out of the window and never once felt remorse over it and raped my sister in front of our dead son” or Oberyn “I beat women, drove them to suicide, steal their children and have sex with teenagers.”

I remember that before HOTD started airing, show runners were bragging about how HOTD won’t have gratuitous violence against women the way GOT was accused of having. My immediate reaction was “press X to doubt” and I really hate being vindicated: Aemma being butchered, Alicent being an abused child bride, Daemon murdering his wife and then chocking Rhaenyra, Larys assaulting Alicent... and none of this was in the book. Like, what was the point outside of Condal and Sapochnik having this massive hate boner for Daemon ?

Jaime didn't rape Cersei in that scene canonically, but yes Daemon is that sort of man/character, this suave, charismatic, action-oriented, extremely loyal, highly martially skilled bulwark of his claimed group. This character doesn't really have to a be a down on his luck sort of "bad boy" (Oberon has had the best of luck really, he has very little to no family drama other than Elia's murder and Obara's mother, and it's really the first that is a tragedy against him form an external agent rather than Viserys befuddling Daemon or Tywin making his "love" for Jaime so obviously conditional).

Once again, Daemon and certainly none of the men we listed are good men nor feminists, and they all displayed misogyny or traumatize relatives that makes one want to grip their necks until they choke out. But we certainly didn't need to make up lies abt Daemon to make Rhaenyra seem better; why do women seem "better" only after they are abused & unable or don't choose to try to "punish" the man while they have the political chance to after all the examples of Targ women before her not having similar conditions but still always trying (sometimes succeeding) to push back or avenge themselves on a man (Rhaena-Rogar)?!

And again, this is a thing not to victim blame but to point out that it is a trend established in HotD for women to get even MORE and not-canon abuse form their male partners BEFORE we even get to Daemon choking Rhaenyra out, so we can safely assume this is how the writers are characterizing their female characters.

I think the point, therefore, is to sell through whitewashing, or really declawing feminism & reversing it through making/banking on the idea of "women-are-natural peacemakers/men are natural chaos makers and women need to keep men in check". Which still makes the value of women male-centered under the guise of infantilizing men, which makes men less accountable for their own actions. Daemon is one of the more brashly violent men and is a prime male character in this event AND he's a Targ, so there's also the element of Targ-antis being very popular in the fandom who Condal wishes to write the story toward (Targs are violent colonizers, yada, yada)...again for $ and a misunderstanding of feminism or a desire to show off how much he "gets it" and we are the ones who don't really.

Repackaged benevolent sexism to sell to the masses who don't really understand these concepts. Honestly, this show is insufferable marketing of a story with strong performances more than a story/"adaptation" of the original. And part of why he's maybe so insistent on making his "own" story from the story he still claims he is "faithfully" adapting is that apparently today's media industry has execs push for more sequels, prequels, etc. of things and writers who want to write original stuff can't and thus try to make adaptions "theirs" from that deprivation. Maybe Condal falls under this category, or maybe he simply is trying to capitalize on this consumerist nonsense. It it what it is.

#asoiaf asks to me #daemon targaryen #character comparison #oberyn martell #jaime lannister #asoiaf masculinity #book vs tv comparison #daemon's characterization #hotd characterization #hotd marketing #ryan condal #hotd writing #capitalism #hotd misogyny #hotd #asoiaf

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

I am genuinely concerned--with how HOTD has gone so far and George's recent warnings on his blog--that Condal and Co. will replace Nettles with Rhaena and then still go the romantic route. It would be abosolutely disgusting, but they've proven they were willing to cross boundaries with the scene of him and Alyssa. And Condal and Hess dislike Daemon so much, and despise that the audience enjoys him as a character. So, I could see them making his future storyline about him grooming and abusing Rhaena. I'm really hoping they don't do it, but I really have no reason to trust them or hold out hope.

I, like I've mentioned, don't really want to think about how the showrunners/writers will write this particular thing if the alleged plans are true. AND I have no "hope" for the show, so I don't really have much to contribute to the speculation and discussion of what Ryan & Co could do with Daemon and Rhaena without Nettles. But, I believe what you describe could happen. I have no plans to watch season 3, I've left that for its most ardent enjoyers.

#asoiaf asks to me #nettles #rhaena of pentos #rhaena targaryen #rhaena-nettles merging #grrm #hotd critical #hotd comment #hotd characterization #daemon targaryen #daemon's characterization #rhaena targaryen (daemon's daughter)#rhaena of pentos' characterization #hotd #asoiaf

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

A lot of fics characterize Daemon as someone who would struggle to tell Rhaenyra he loves her but I actually think he probably was always telling her that and giving her compliments in Valyrian. In F&B it says he would spend hours with her reading her Valyrian poetry and telling her tales. I think he was probably very comfortable expressing love verbally. What do you think?

I don't think it's a guarantee that he was able to freely verbalize his emotions when they aren't angry, sarcastic, or about challenging people. We're talking emotional vulnerability versus action, and for a lot of people, these don't come with each other for a matrix of reasons.

Daemon romantically loved her....that doesn't mean that if someone loves you and shows so, they're going to say so. At the same time, we know that people have often done and said romantic things (esp men) to just get others in their beds for a bit or a "night", doesn't mean they actually love them. Victorian or earlier courtships in of themselves can't also be said to come from a place of love or intended to fall in love when often there were economic transactions being made simultaneously or anticipated.

Back to Daemon and people who act like those fanfic versions of him you describe:

Doing romantic things versus naming the reason/motivation for why they do them and thus affirming that motivation are two very different things (for them). Bc when they are verbally acknowledging that motivation ("love"), they feel they either have finally, fully devoted themselves to the bond they've created OR that they will begin to be in a relationship of obligations they do not want. For the long haul.

That they will take on all or most of the emotional-social responsibilities of looking after that person's emotional well being even if it may mean having to put oneself back in some ways and thus risk getting hurt or losing something(s) else, whether that may mean respect from one's other peers, wealth, other relationships platonic, familial, or otherwise. That they will hold themselves accountable for wrongs they've committed and work toward being compatible with their partner through any and most changes they will encounter. "I love you", to them, is a pledge or a seal more than an acknowledgement. And sometimes, this reluctance to affirm devotion even to oneself is accompanied by people who are more action driven OR have had some issues of abandonment or heavy disappointed form past loved one and thus saying that you "love" someone is like giving them access to material they can belittle or use against you. Again, family, romantic, or otherwise Or from said verbal affirmations being treated as worthless. Which then could become a disbelief or rejection of that sort of love's existence at all...but it's also kinda denial that's meant to shield them from truly tying themselves to people while still benefiting from the practice of intimacy itself (it's a little complex). Why commit if it's going to be thrown at your face, and why anticipate or plan to say "I love you" when it isn't or may not actually even be true?

Daemon hits some of the boxes I mention: his family has disappointed him enough times. He's very action-driven. He expresses love mostly through actions--consider the 101 council that occurred bc he was willing to battle Corlys for Viserys' claim and raised a "band" of soldiers.

Add in the context of his probably trying to entice Rhaenyra into a relationship so Viserys could be either/both embarrassed or be forced to marry Rhaenyra to Daemon, and while he may have sincerely enjoyed reading those poems and told those tales in 111 A.C., when he was basically picking up where he's been doing since she was a child but then making it more romantic, and we see he's been, as I said, ALSO trying to make himself more attractive to her and had an ulterior motive. Basically, it wasn't totally "fair play". There's definitely a major overlapping element of him trying to take back some control more than be totally romantic when he courted/gave gifts, read poems, etc. in 111 A.C. (I don't mention the gift-giving and attentions before this year, bc in all those, they were clearly just familial).

#asoiaf asks to me #daemyra #asoiaf fanfiction #daempn targaryen #daemon's characterization #fire and blood characters #fandom commentary #fire and blood #asoiaf

horizon-verizon

A Little More on Daemon, Nettles, and Rhaenyra from this last ask

Even though I also have said what I am going to say below many, many times about this thought anon presents, I will bring them up anyway, along with those links jic there are other new people reading from me:

Daemon stayed behind to kill Aemond/Vhagar when he could have run away with Nettle if he loved Nettles so much more than Rhaenyra
how if he wanted to kill her first three boys who aren't his and are before their shared boys in the line f succession, he would have at least tried once and/or he wouldn't have gone out of his way to avenge Lucerys' death through an act that would have always made him "unfit" to be seen as a ruler in his own right to other lords so it could only have been about true love for both Rhaenyra and her first 3 boys...you may argue that this was more out of pride and to hate the enemy, except you'd also have to underestimate Rhaenyra's regard for her own kids and herself as there was at one point where she was angry and kept herself at a distance form Daemon (or seemingly so) after 111 A.C. where he couldn't even be welcomed by her on Dragonstone
how it was Septon Eustace--who hates and twists a lot of shit abt Rhaenyra to make her seem "worse" through stuff and descriptors that are actually not really morally bad but are actually but sexist shit meant to diminish woman (pregnancy weight, throne cut that even Aegon I had atp, Mysaria who Daemon hadn't seen in years and point blank said was a "lying whore" with no demonstration of pretense to the most objective, then-observing maester mentioned in the Dance era, Norren)--who says Rhaenyra "allowed" the "cheating" b/t him and Mysaria...so she never "lost" her beauty or her looks or whatever, Septon Eustace simply said that to diminish her as much as he could...and you yourself, anon, buy into that fatphobic misogyny, so really should anyone trust how you reason things? Relying on misogyny and fatphobia, etc. can indicate low intellectualism or just plain stupidity (fatphobic sexism is closely related to racism as EUs used "fatness" to further impose standards of superiority through their years long processes of colonization but before such, "fatness" or really "thicker" bodies, esp amongst wealthy or nobles, was considered attractive bc it showed how you didn't have to work yourself to the bone to live as luxuriously or have any economic means)
Daemon didn't exist in the first few drafts of F&B/Rhaenyra's story...she was married to Lyonel Strong...Daemon was literally created specifically for Rhaenyra to function as one, if not one of the only, most devoted supporters and family members...yes Daemon and Laena had a good marriage and loved each other, but why exactly does that mean he "hated" the woman he literally died for? Weird.

Then there is this post of an anon who explains to the purposefully illiterate Daemon's reaction to Rhaenyra's letter and how it shows how he def loved her and very likely did not cheat on her. I also mention some of that anon's thoughts abt Daemon and the letter along with others in this post.

These are most of the arguments I and others had for Daemon having truly loved Rhaenyra AND her sons. they have circulated on Twitter and Tumblr for MONTHS now.

It can only be that anon hates Rhaenyra themselves and are projecting, hoping, praying canon!Daemon does as well instead of writing a fanfiction about it.

Even when we're talking about Rhaenyra's treatment of Nettles and how it mirrors Jezebel misogynoir shit--even if we can prove w/o a doubt that this was really Septon Eustace again muddling shit, as he also makes it seem Mysaria "bewitched" Rhaenyra, as he hated Mysaria as well--it'd still be projection. I know some people wish to believe and realize the idea that Daemon didn't love Rhaenyra as a sort of self-comfort and sticking it to the racist/misogynoirist white woman who some might have genuinely experienced in real life (I certainly have), but we really need to call a spade a spade and read with our eyes open.

And the narratively desired man sometimes loves/cares for the woman we hate or judge to be "unworthy" of any sort of love, that's just how it be sometimes.

Daemon loving either Rhaenyra or Nettles does nothing--inherently--to their worth as people. At least it shouldn't...or you'd just be buying into more sexist shit, which I suspect anon is already in as they also try to upset me.

#fandom misogyny #fandom critical #daemon and nettles #daemyra #nettles #daemon's characterization #fire and blood characters #rhaenyra targaryen #asoiaf #fire and blood

horizon-verizon

btw, Daemon actually planned to trick at least one of the green brothers (Aegon or Aemond) by depending on their eagerness to win and prove themselves in battle...as he once did.

("The Blacks and the Greens") / ("Rhaenyra Triumphant")

#daemon targaryen #daemon's characterization #fire and blood characters #fire and blood writing #fire and blood #asoiaf #harrenhal #book vs tv comparisons #daemon and aemond #daemon vs aemond

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

Not people jumping to blame DAEMON'S influence for Jace calling bastards "mongrels." When has Daemon EVER been bastardphobic? His attitudes towards Jace's parentage include some possible jealousy while he and Laena were both being good natured about it, seeming kind of proud of Rhaenyra when she admitted it, seeming pretty enthusiastic about wedding his daughters to "bastards", and literally killing a man for insulting Rhaenyra and her boys. I just simply don't get where this "Daemon is a blood supremacist" (more than any other noble is) comes from when he gives no fuck aside from jealousy about Rhaenyra "sullying" their Valyrian blood with Strong blood and putting her bastards on their precious dragons. Alicent is the most likely source of Jace's internalized insecurities (because that's what that was) so why do people keep pretending otherwise? Am I missing something?

I think that it's an opportunity to slam Targs, use the less-than-great reputation Daemon has amongst some fans--which includes his supposed "special" pride, and finally to incorporate Jacaerys into that to "prove" Targ-evil and unique amorality. That is pretty much all, aside from how Condal & co have written their version of a Jace to be less secure in himself and have less...I guess "family" as its truest phenomenon. Again, Daemon lived w/Rhaenyra her her co on Dragonstone for abt 1o or a little more with both Baela & Rhaena. Before that, it had been Harwin with occasional & then more frequent visits from Laenor. He more or less grew up away from the court Alicent presided even as he experienced some of the stigma of being even suspected as a bastard, esp from Alicent's supporters, here & there. But more so from his uncles: Aegon, Aemond, perhaps Daeron, too who'd follow his older brothers.

I also think it's bc Daemon has a lot of pride in his house that they are bound to think are white supremacists/colonizers and has disliked Rhea Royce from the beginning while being more amenable to Laena and Rhaenyra, who are both much more Valyrian-by-lineage than Rhea, who has none. Nobles are engrossed in making sure their marriages afford them the best possible access to resources and the prestige associated to whatever house so that they may have issue who can brings usch things into the "home" house or out to the house(s) chosen and favored. It's a way to organize wealth and power. Targs on Valyria and the rest of Valyria saw strength in their dragons, the pinnacle of such power matter of fact. So--as they too, maybe, didn't have that much knowledge about genetics work outside of the magic that in Planetos is more unpredictable than other magical systems--they decided that to preserve their power/dragon bonds, they must do as many other aristocracies did--marry closely and keep that line towards power amongst themselves. I said all of this before, but it bears repeating. Daemon & the Westerosi ruling Targs , however, has never gone out of their way to create a racist system except maybe Daeron I with Dorne if he had ever succeeded in conquering it (in which case, the Dornish are not nonwhite in GRRM's lore, so that racial system would not really mirror out own very well and be its own thing entirely).

Daemon has never even displayed true blood purity the way Alicent was closer to in 1x06 when she commented on how she called them "plain-featured" and groused abt how she couldn't understand how they could have hatched their dragons...while 3 of her kids had to wait till they were much older to bond with one. Daemon never called anyone anything that espoused he thought them as lesser in the exact degree or way that Lord Celtigar does in I think 2x06? 7? (I recently ___ epi 7 and watched w/ a few friends) when he protested against Alyn getting a dragon and even called it "theft". And we see in how he interacts with Alys how he was never actually blood purist with her...an actual unrelated bastard. Daemon just cares about whether you can be trusted to not supplant family, and the Targtowers are too mired in Seven/Faith influence to be "trustworthy".

It also stems from people not truly understanding what blood purity is & its elements or what it looks like when practiced and in the open, active. You hear people make the mistake of assuming the Targs are all blood purists bc they dislike how "keeping the blood pure" thru sibling marriage for dragonriding sounds to them like the Valyrians were ready for phrenology and eugenics and all that...If this were true, however, every single society (or at least most)--and that includes many non-white societies like the Egyptians, some Polynesians, East Asians, etc. as that particular kind of "blood purists". I list of these out bc you will find such "keeping blood pure" practices in nonwhite ancient societies as well. Often. Class=/= race, though it definitely laid the frames for race as we know it; racial systems have inherited ideas of racial difference from class assumptions of difference b/t aristocratic classes and the have-nots. To put it oversimply.

Still, they are not the same. Or we wouldn't have "white" people of real life AND Westeros also hate or abuse the other in their systems. If the Westerosi ruling Targs were that sort of "blood purists", they would have never allowed themselves to marry outside of their own family for fear of "dirtying" their "blood", or lineage. And they, more than the Starks, have had quite a diverse set of outer marriages through their entire dynasty.

I think Daemon just has a lot more expressed pride and arrogance that puts people off and leads them to make wrong, well-meaning conclusions. Oh, & of course HotD hasn't helped, with how they reduced his character at every turn possible.

#asoiaf asks to me #jacaerys velaryon #hotd season 2 #westerosi bastards #daemon targaryen #daemon's characterization #jacaerys velaryon's characterization #asoiaf race #asoiaf class #classism #racism

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

Why is Daemon getting all this Old Gods magic thrown at him when... he's a Targaryen? He comes from a family with their own magic, not just dragon dreams but probably some sorcery that was conveniently lost after the Dance and/or Baelor, and even if it was more rumor than anything else, the writers had the power to make it more than rumor, AND a kind of magic that would make sense for the Targaryens AND help show what they would lose in the Dance. So why all the woods witch and old gods magic then? Am I missing something?

But probably some sorcery that was conveniently lost after the Dance and/or Baelor, and even if it was more rumor than anything else, the writers had the power to make it more than rumor.

Like they did with Aegon's Prophecy, which I think if it was "lost" amongst the Targs, it'd be when Maegor killed his nephew Aegon...bc Aenys would have told Aegon and Aegon the Uncrowned had no sons/declared heirs. Aegon I might not have told Maegor but maybe Visenya did. And even then Visenya died way before Jaehaerys took the throne so why would she tell Rhaena, Jaehaerys, Alysanne, or Alyssa Velaryon? Maegor likely didn't either.

Anyway, to your question. To "fix the toxic man" (superficial claim to feminist writing here & not bc men shouldn't grow but bec Daemon already showed loyalty to her & gave up chances to rule several times even in the show but they chose to fuck it all up) and give Daemon an arc this season. And to introduce Alys' magic/her role in the Riverlands/hype her up. Esp for Aemond's arrival and their own messed up relationship they know people are going to gag over. finally, bc they are in love with PARALLES-PARALLELS, in this case, Daemon's parallel to Rhaenyra's religiousity arc as well as juxtaposition to Aemond's own selfish rise to power.

#asoiaf asks to me #daemon targaryen #daemon's characterization #hotd characterization #hotd writing #hotd critical #hotd comment #asoiaf sorcery #asoiaf magic #greensight #hotd #asoiaf

horizon-verizon reblogged

heavybreathingswift

My BIGGEST GRIPE is their character assassination of Daemon. I didn’t think it was intentional at first, I just thought they didnt understand the morally grey/wild card aspects that make up his personality thus were writing him poorly. But after reading an interview from ryan, he essentially admitted theyre choosing to completely ruin Daemon’s character just because ryan doesn’t like Daemon….GRRM’s favourite character….

LIKE FUCK OFF DUDE

deus-sema

Condal and Hess are literally rewriting and changing every detail from canon, big or small. The excuse of F&B being a faux history book with unreliable narrators is no excuse. First, unreliable narration isn't equivalent to lying. Secondly, there is gossip, theories on how events transpired and characters behaved in private and personal feelings and intentions which can be subjected to speculation and have contrasting versions in the book. Then there are events which undeniably occurred on specific dates, statements that were made in public, locations, alliances, ages and relations that were recorded and whose objectivity within canon can't be questioned. There also exists distance and time. One needs to weigh whatever theory they entertain against facts in the book in order to assess the characters and situations. Then, it can be compared with the show's take.

As an example:

Theory: Criston Cole turned against Rhaenyra either because, if you go by Eustace's version, he wanted her to run away with him and she rejected or if you go by Mushroom's, she wanted him to take her maidenhead and he refused.

Fact: Criston Cole, Rhaenyra Targaryen's former sworn shield who served by her side since she was eight was dismissed from her service just before her marriage, gained the favour of the Queen after being denied hers, injured Harwin Strong and Joffrey Lonmouth,causing the latter's death six days later, in a tourney where several people were present and was later recorded badmouthing Rhaenyra after participating in the usurpation.

Show: Criston Cole brutally murdered a royal guest during a feast under the king's roof who had accompanied the groom's party and attacked the future Prince Consort before witnesses and got away without facing any consequences.

With regards to Daemon's characterization, they are going out of their way to twist events to make him look bad when it's improbable for them to have occurred in canon. It seems personal when it comes to this character.

1) Theory: Daemon Targaryen disliked being married to Rhea Royce. So, he must have contemplated murder. Or, he likely had her murdered for her inheritance.

Fact: Rhea Royce died nine days after falling from her horse and was well enough to walk for one last time without mentioning any assailant that could have implied foul play was involved. At the time of her accident, Daemon Targaryen was present in Bloodstone trying to defend his kingdom where obviously a number of people would have seen and interacted with him. He traveled to the Vale after receiving news of his wife's death which reached him through a messenger from Lord Baratheon who had traveled via ship. Lord Baratheon himself received that news through a raven.

Show: Daemon Targaryen appears in the Vale out of nowhere on one fine day and murders his wife after smashing her head with a rock and she died on the spot.

2) Theory: Daemon Targaryen was a violent warmonger who most likely craved for war and wanted to burn down the Greens at once after hearing of the usurpation.

Facts: Daemon Targaryen advised against his cousin Rhaenys Targaryen's strategy of unleashing the dragons in war stating the hazards of dragons fighting each other and suggested alternate strategies of negotiation and diplomacy during the war council of the Blacks which was a publicly recorded incident and involved the participation of every notable member and Queen Rhaenyra Targaryen herself.

Show: Daemon is the one who wants to take the dragons to war while Rhaenys is mum.

3) Theory: The assassination of Aegon and Helaena Targaryen's son Jaehaerys, which was ordered by Daemon in retaliation of his stepson Lucerys Velaryon's murder and the killing of his dragon Arrax at the hands of his uncle Aemond Targaryen and his dragon Vhagar, was an objectively cruel act. So, it is possible that the realm would be angered by it and that Rhaenyra's support would dwindle and she won't be able to raise an army.

Facts:

- In accordance with the strategy formulated and agreed to by the entirety of the Blacks, Daemon Targaryen flew to the Riverlands which was an unruly region to rally the riverlords in Rhaenyra's favour and gather their allies to fight for her with her leave. Jacaerys Velaryon left to treat with the Vale and the North while Lucerys made his way to Storm's End.

- Daemon was already present in Harrenhal by the time the news of Lucerys' death reached him after which the retaliation was planned.

- Daemon succeeded in his endeavor of raising a host to fight for Rhaenyra and almost the entirety of the Riverlands raised her banners due to his efforts. The noble houses which he rallied to her cause include the Blackwoods, Freys, Darrys, Pipers, Mootons, Rootes, Mallisters and Vances of Wayfarer's Rest.

- The Brackens, the last of the Green loyalists in the Riverlands, were defeated in the Battle Of the Burning Mill which happened after the Blackwoods raided the Bracken lands which happened after the murders of Lucerys and Jaehaerys. Their defeat was sealed for while they were busy with Burning Mill, Stone Hedge fell to Daemon and his host comprising of Freys, Darrys, Roots and Piper in their absence.

- How everyone personally felt or reacted to the death of Jaehaerys is left to speculation. But none of Rhaenyra's major allies withdrew their support to her cause after the assassination.

- The deaths of both Lucerys and Jaehaerys are consequential in the sense that the allies on both sides called their banners and marched to war.

Show:

- The Black Council is in disarray. Some members don't even realise they are at war.

- Daemon leaves to Harrenhal after quarreling with Rhaenyra because she thinks the assassination has weakened her position and ability to raise an army. His departure is framed not as a mutual strategy which would work in her favour but as his 'coming and going' or whatever it is.

- The Battle Of the Burning Mill happens before Daemon's arrival at Harrenhal.

- The Blackwoods seem to have declared for the Blacks on their own without Daemon's intervention.

- The raid on Bracken lands happens after the Battle Of the Burning Mill on Daemon's instigation.

- The Frey alliance is handled by Jacaerys.

- Lucerys' death and its significance as the first kinslaying has kind of been erased.

4) Theory: Harrenhal is useless. Daemon wasted his time over there and did nothing during the war.

Facts: Harrenhal was chosen because of its strategic importance as a geographical location. The Blacks needed a base large enough for their allies to convene and strong enough to hold against enemy attacks. Daemon also captured the wealth of House Strong after taking them as hostages.

Show: Repeatedly talks about how Harrenhal isn't of any use because Larys "already moved the gold" out of there.

5) Theory: Meleys rejected Daemon for Rhaenys.

Facts: Daemon was six years old when Meleys was claimed by Rhaenys.

Show: Daemon was 'furious' because Meleys wouldn't let him ride her.

6) Theory: Daemon felt haunted in Harrenhal by his crimes, real and presumed. Probably because of Alys Rivers or the Old Gods.

Fact: Daemon displayed no strange behaviour during his stay at Harrenhal. No noteworthy interactions between him and Alys were recorded.

Show: Daemon is shown to be affected by Harrenhal. Either because of Alys or whatever magic is supposed to be in that place. He also zones out from time to time.

7) Theory: Daemon never cared for Rhaenyra and only for the throne. He wanted to crown himself king.

Facts:

- Daemon fought under Rhaenyra's banners until his death.

- Daemon and Caraxes killed Vhagar and her rider Aemond One Eye.

- Vhagar, under Aemond's control, was being used to terrorize the Riverlands and was the biggest dragon in the Greens' possession.

- Alys Rivers, who was Aemond Targaryen's paramour at the time, was the primary source of Battle Above God's Eye, the battle between Daemon and Aemond. She makes no mention of any conversation she might have had with Daemon otherwise.

Show: Has Daemon openly confess to treason before Alys that he is planning on crowning himself king and that Rhaenyra would never be accepted as queen.

So, either Condal and Co haven't read the book at all or they have read it but not only do they have no interest in it but are hell bent on altering it or they read it but couldn't understand it because of poor reading comprehension. But, by now, all doubts should regarding this show's faithfulness towards the source material and its interpretation of the characters should be quelled by now.

It's one thing to make necessary changes for the sake of adapting in a different format. It's another to replace the author's characters with OCs and change significant details and still go around claiming that they understand GRRM's book with a straight face

#daemon targaryen #daemon's characterization #hotd characterization #hotd writing #hotd critical #hotd comment #ryan condal #hotd articles #hotd #asoiaf #asoiaf fav posts

horizon-verizon reblogged

la-pheacienne

Why is it so difficult for you guys to admit that book!Daemon with his qualities and his flaws makes for a better, more solid, more truthful character and also a better narrative overall? You are so far down your hating spree that you can't see how objectively bad and cringe his show portrayal is compared to his book counterpart. Where is the duality, where are the extremes, where is the strong family bond where is the ruthlessness? Where are the flesh and bones of the character? Where is the nuance you all keep yapping about? What side of show!Daemon could you possible call nuanced?

He's not a hero, that's for sure. He's not an anti-hero either since he barely does anything heroic to begin with, and you do need that for an anti-hero whose premise is usually a mix of heroism with questionable motives. But that guy has no redeeming qualities since he doesn't give two shits about his family. On the other hand, he makes for a very hollow antagonist because he has a trajectory we cannot relate to, his motivations are flimsy and cartoonish. Narrative-wise, an antagonist is supposed to cause problems to the protagonist, and that particular antagonist is spending half of the season trapped in a horror house whining about his vassals not addressing him with the proper title and dreaming of his mother's pussy. He's just a looser. As a villain, he's a joke. He can't even unambiguously order the murder of a child to avenge his kin. What kind of villain is this lmao. Result: a pretty lame, unrelatable, cartoonish and anti-climatic character. Bad, very very bad TV.

What is the problem with showing book!Daemon's duality, the evil side of a proud, ruthless, competent prince and family man who is devoted to his house and his family, a man that raised a lot of kids and had two loving marriages? Isn't this just a better, more entertaining, richer character portrait ? Doesn't this character, this antagonist, if we insist on treating him as an antagonist, this villain even, feel more real and more relatable this way? You think that cheapened, neutered down, cartoonish portrayal has more life and nuance than the book y'all call boring? "He was made of light and darkness in equal parts" do you think show!Daemon can really convey this as he is right now? Come on. I would be embarrassed to actually praise such a bad portrayal. As team black I actually like the greens this season, even Alicent, I think the show did a good job at humanizing them and making them feel real, fully-fledged and nuanced. I don't understand why Daemon didn't have the same treatment. The only possible explanation is that if he had the same treatment (and he did have it in the beginning of the first season), his popularity would have been so big that nobody would actually give a fuck about the greens lol. Sad though.

#daemon targaryen #daemon's characterization #hotd characterization #hotd writing #hotd critical #hotd fandom #fandom critical #hotd #asoiaf

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

Why do you think they didn't even bother to get Alyssa right? Were they afraid of pointing out that genetics can be weird and that not every Valyrian looks "Valyrian?" Did it interfere with the angle they were trying to push for Daemon? Do they just think they audience is too stupid for it to click that she's his mother — but then also, what about the BOOK readers they must have known they'd confuse? Or were they just lazy? Can't tell.

Because Alyssa is only there to further Daemon's "toxic man must be fixed uo for our morally pure female protagonist" arc....even though Daemon canonically both in show and book had "settled" down enough to prove a reliable supporter of Rhaenyra long before the war.

Like I said in this post, Alyssa is a tool for a man's development similar to how rape in many male-centered stories are there to just signal the man or men are good or bad. Such female devices are reduced, thus there's more likeihood they will not be represented as themselves and that can often include down to their very appearance. Because even if you try to argue Daemon was too young to know what she looked like, that is even highly unlikely. Even without portraits and paintings of Targ family members, his father, Baelon, would eventually tell him. His grandmother would eventually tell him. His uncle Aemon or aunt Jocelyn Baratheon could tell him. He could hear of her appearance from random people growing up as he lived in the Keep whenever they talked of her at some point bec she was so singular in appearance that people would likely always include her heterochromia if not her broken nose and hair color--anyone could have dirty blonde hair and even Alysanne didn't have Valyrian pale hair/gold-silver hair and anyone could have a broken nose...but heterochromia? Nah. Alyssa's eyes could be described as some working servants as even "demonic" or just a way to "show" how ugly she could have been perceived to be. Point is, all these features, and esp her eyes coupled with her nonconforming "unfeminine" behavior--all of them together really set her apart...so much that Daemon would INEVITABLY have known what she looked like as he grew older.

Because she'd just be so talked about. again, even IF you argued there were not portraits of her, which I think is very unlikely.

And finally, there is the possibility of Daemon having seen as his mother suffered for months after her labors with Aegon and had that image imprinted on his 3/4 yr old mind forever.

But the writers don't take any of this into account bc their aim was not to humanize a character but to use her to further their faux male-improvement plot. It's also possible that they simply don't remember Alyssa when they read F&B or they simply didn't care to internalize Jaehaerys' years to separate that from the Dance's unique sort of "unreliability".

BTW, I am very aware that the writers wanted it as Daemon seeking out pure faith in him from someone in his family...but this kinda contradicts the claim of him not being responsible for the dream's contents bc Alys Rivers makes him dream it. Aside form how the dream male gazes Alyssa when she could have had other depictions for their Daemon-at-Harrenhal-for-self-discovery arc.

#asoiaf asks to me #hotd misogyny #hotd critical #hotd comment #hotd characterization #hotd male gaze #male gaze #alyssa targaryen #daemon targaryen #hotd s2 epi5 #daemon's characterization #alyssa targ's characterization #fire and blood characters #book vs tv comparisons #fire and blood #hotd #asoiaf

horizon-verizon

deus-sema asked:

https://www.tumblr.com/horizon-verizon/756487959478452224/condal-truly-said-that-he-sees-daemon-as-someone?source=share

Usually when a work of fiction, or any topic in general, is discussed, it's only expected for people to come up with theories of their own. The next step is to validate a theory by weighing them against valid sources and, in the case of fiction, the canon and then debate on its plausibility.

But when one has to outright disregard canon and alter several details about it in order to fit their interpretation, then it ceases to be a discussion related to that topic and goes into fanfiction territory. This is precisely what Condal is doing with the show and, specifically, for some reason, with Daemon.

Had Condal been a fanboy lurking on tumblr or in Reddit spaces and said stuff like Daemon teleported into the Vale to smash Rhea's head with a rock or that he arrived at the Riverlands after the Battle Of the Burning Mill and didn't do much during the war, he would either be ignored or downvoted or called out because the aforementioned events cannot be refuted even with the now misused excuse of F&B being an unreliable narration. They happened on specific dates, in a particular sequence and were witnessed by people. Daemon was present in the Stepstones at the time of Rhea's accident and Rhea being alive for nine days after that without mentioning any foul play rules out the possibility of an assassin. Regardless of what people personally thought of B&C within their closed doors, it did not affect Rhaenyra's position among her allies in canon or hindered their efforts to raise an army.

Unfortunately, Condal isn't just some biased fanboy harboring elaborate canon defying fantasies but the showrunner in charge of adapting F&B and its characters. And, there are several instances in which one can see his and Hess' bias permeating through the script, not just with Daemon but with other characters too. The characters on the show aren't the ones GRRM wrote but what C&H want them to be.

Though, with Daemon, it's amusing because they didn't even spare the smallest of details such as Daemon capturing Harrenhal and House Strong's 'not so inconsiderable wealth' which is expressly stated in the book and had to make a point to say twice on the show that Larys had the gold moved out and it is an empty castle.

One would think Condal feels personally aggrieved by this fictional characters. Hess does too, for different reasons. But in Condal's case,specifically, I just can't help but feel he is one of those disgruntled fans who dislike Daemon just because he sincerely supported Rhaenyra instead of opposing her just like how he probably begrudges Rhaenyra for not giving up her claim in Aegon's favour.

So, ultimately, it all boils down to Rhaenyra.

I do wonder how GRRM fumbled the bag once more with the showrunners. One would think he would be more cautious after what happened with D&D.

@deus-sema

And people wonder why people have called HotD not an adaptation but fanfiction? Hmmm....

And I agree that Ryan feels like one of those fans--who seem to be the very dim majority of "book" fans who just skim--who resents Daemon for being at her side and for her claim even if they won't admit to themselves; this has been a point people have said many times as and after S1 ended. Too lazy to pull up examples & posts I reblogged or made right now.

#asoiaf asks to me #hotd critical #hotd comment #asoiaf fav posts #daemon targaryen #daemon's characterization #hotd writing #hotd characterization #book vs tv comparisons #hotd fandom #asoiaf fandom #fandom critical #fandom commentary #hotd #asoiaf

horizon-verizon

Anonymous asked:

So... the writers decided to ADD scenes of both Alicent and Daemon being raped. Alicent's was added to lend her sympathy and make it easier for her stans to justify all all the misogynistic, destructive things she does. And Daemon's was added so... the audience can laugh about how he deserves it is because of how fucked up he is while already kinda condemning him for not maritally raping Rhea and also to make Alys, Aemond's rape victim, a rapist herself so presumably Condal can hope that people will have an easier time seeing Aemond as "complex" if they can pretend he's not a rapist. Is that what you're getting from this? Because that's kind of what I'm getting.

I just can't believe how badly a show that's based on a story about the patriarchy manages to fumble the topic of rape at every turn. At this point Lady Footley is going to be a seductress who's glad to be rid of her husband.

These are great points, anon. That is what I'm kinda getting but haven't put into words yet even after I explained my thoughts about Aemond's own sexual violations in season 1. and I doubt Sharis Footly will even be in this show, as I don't know if they will even go with the Four Widows storyline for their show.

#asoiaf asks to me #hotd characterization #hotd critical #hotd comment #daemon's characterization #alicent's characterization #alicent hightower #daemon targaryen #alys rivers #alys rivers' characterization #daemon and alys #hotd season 2 #hotd misogyny #hotd and SA #hotd #asoiaf #sharis footly

*EDITED POST* (10/29/24)

Consummation vs Marriage

Age of Consent and "Adulthood"

ASoIaF and Age/Marriage and Sex

Conclusions (For Now)

Rhaenyra doesn't get to choose her first marriage/sexual "legal" relationship--her father does. This is true of most royal and noble marriages and becomes more common with the higher status.

A Little More on Daemon, Nettles, and Rhaenyra from this last ask

EDITED POST (10/29/24)