mouthporn.net
#existentialism – @horizon-verizon on Tumblr
Avatar

editorialized torpedo

@horizon-verizon / horizon-verizon.tumblr.com

she/her -- ASoIaF Enthusiast -- (I will be changing the title of this blog frequently just because I want to)
Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
branwinged

"dragons plant no trees" gets thrown around a lot as fact, but i think the veracity of that claim is still up for debate in the books. because dany (like bran and jon and many others) is a narrative symbol of hope and rebirth within the series because of her connection to dragons and fire, not in spite of it. this is because dragons in asoiaf have a much more expansive narrative function than simply 'nuke metaphor'. the 'exclusively weapons of war' image they have acquired breaks down immediately if you recall that the first thing dany does with them is begin dismantling an unjust status quo. she rallies the unsullied at the gates of astapor with cries of dracarys! dracarys! freedom! <- dragons as a symbol of hope and freedom for the persecuted. and obviously they've been built up as an oppositional force against the others. we're told when the last dragon died summers became shorter. in that respect the dragons, or more specifically, fire which is warmth which is passion—very much embodies life against the numbing, deadening threat of eternal winter that the others represent. but fire also consumes, which simultaneously makes dragons agents of destruction, or as adwd shows: the monsters who eat little girls and leave behind their bones. but when dany found herself chained to a false peace which effectively undid her cause in meereen, it was the dragon that rescued her and reignited her fire to fight back—which is to say that dragons represent a wealth of contradictions within the text and this is likely something grrm means to parallel with the others to some extent, by questioning their apparent narrative role as the one true evil. because i doubt the series is gearing up towards a spectacle-esque battle wherein our heroes get to practice righteous, easy violence on a monolithic army of monsters. that feels like it would undo a lot of asoiaf's preoccupation with investigating violence against socially acceptable targets, even if said target is ice sidhe. and this binary between a one true good and a one true evil, i.e. melisandre's philosophy ("if half an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. a man is good or he is evil.") is not something the story takes as given.

instead there's this exchange between bran, jojen, and meera in asos: "but you just said you hated them." / "why can't it be both?" / because they're different. like night and day, or ice and fire." / "if ice can burn. then love and hate can mate."—and i think it's talking about reconciling two conflicting ideas. because the dream of an eternal summer is just as unsustainable as the threat of eternal winter. i think the battle for dawn is more about questions of seasonal harmony. the first line from agot's summary says, "long ago, in a time forgotten, a preternatural event threw the seasons out of balance", so it's not totally out of question for the series to end with that seasonal balance restored once more. and that question of balance and how it can be achieved then works as a metaphor for a bunch of other things. because asoiaf at its core is very interested in exploring big contradictions, like love and duty? how do you keep all your oaths without betraying someone you love? how can one hope for a just, rightful ruler in a world where the systems in place can never allow such a thing? how do dragons plant trees?

you cannot frame dany's arc as a binary choice between planting trees or embracing (dragon)fire. because the fire is hers, it is a part of her, that's who she is. and her character has always existed outside of rigid dichotomies. at the end of agot she had two options, resign herself to a life of seclusion as a widow or die with the last of her family in that pyre, instead she performed a miracle. presently, i think grrm means to explore necessary, revolutionary violence with her arc because you cannot deal with institutional slavery by simply negotiating with slavers like she does in adwd. and the consequences thereof because she's also been set up to be more reckless with dragonfire in the future. but i think there will be an eventual reconciliation there, between her dreams "to plant trees and watch them grow." and her role as the mother of dragons, as a revolutionary figure. because if ice can burn, then maybe dragons can plant trees. they'll learn how to.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Sometimes I feel like when people use the argument that Stannis is “the rightful heir because the Baratheons overthrew the Targaryens…”, I feel like they’re kinda missing the point or at least like, being purposefully obtuse just because they might not like Targaryens or believe that the better a warrior/larger army you have = better fit to rule.

I could argue that just because something is stolen doesn’t necessarily make it legitimate. The same way people KNOW that Cersei stole the throne from Robert, and Joffrey isn’t the “rightful” heir, could use the same logic against Robert and Stannis. Robert stole the throne, he’s technically a usurper, so in that case is there a “rightful” heir? Is Stannis the “rightful heir” or is he just next in line for the throne?

I don’t know, that’s just some thoughts I’ve had, I could be way off base though

So I wrote about what "usurper" means for Westerosi society/simplified EU "feudal" societies HERE.

"rightful heir" is a cultural phrase more to define how, by custom or by "law", "deserves" the throne. "Fit to rule", can overlap with this, but it is not an equal synonym. Just bc you have more soldiers, doesn't mean that you are "fit" to rule, but if you use said army and you won...you are a "legitimate" ruler.

FIRST -- if there had been no suspicion thrown on Cersei's kids, Stannis wouldn't have gone out of his way to try to take the throne and thus he'd be 4th in line behind Cersei's kids...as he technically still is during the War of Five Kings.

SECOND -- The thing with (mostly) successful overthrows of the past monarch is that....this is enough to establish the new, replacement ruling house as the "legitimate" ruling house...bc they won. It's weird, I suggest you read the post I'm linking.

Anyway, Cersei "stealing"--if we read how lines of succession of Westeros are customarily done--would be her "stealing" from Stannis, nor Robert. this is IF it were ever exposed that her kids were not Robert's, which it never was. Usurpations are a circumstance of force and greed or self-interested ambition or self preservation or, rarely, trying to steer the state into an envisioned "future"/"new world" come at force...not black and white "justice". I'm saying the ethical value of the motivation(s) behind usurping a sovereignty are not as moral as people sometimes want to believe or tout/misinform. You find this out while reading ASoIaF, when in the 80s-90s (remember this is when this series was first published) GRRM subverts the tale of the morally righteous ruler who supplants the evil ruling tyrant. Robert could have been the pure-driven knight who banishes the "dragon"...but we question how "good" or fit for rulership he really is when we get to know him and see what sort of priorities he has that are indicative of what sort of hierarchial society the lives and is a beneficiary of.

He regularly cheats on and beats his wife--a juxtaposition of the good, silent, behaviorally "pure" queen consort who supports her husband's every move or draws inspiration from the masses to follow them AND the her motives/relationship w/Robert show a darker, realer side to noble marriages in terms of the inequality. He cosigns on the rape and murder of a woman for power and in hatred for the past dynasty's "dragon" prince that began with a slight to his masculinity. He wants to continue to destroy that last vestige of the "dragon" family, its children (those who are one of the most vulnerable humans), not just bc he wishes to secure his seat but bc he genuinely sees them all, youngbloods and adults, as unworthy of mercy for descuring his sense of self--he dehumanizes them to do so. In a way, he reflects the past mad king in his excesses and malevolence that's only banked by his being more rational. It's even repeated and obvious with how we know Aerys raped and beat his sister-wife Rhaella/Dany, Rhaegar, & Viserys' mother but the Kingsguard didn't do anything bc she is essentially his property and they "legally" can't go against his wishes or prevent him from enacting his will...but rather serve him to carry out his will and preserve his ability to do so by protecting his life above all else unless he says otherwise. Robert, does he not do the same with Cersei, and is Jaime similarly unable to do anything for Cersei without inviting great risk to them both? He is not as unchecked as Aerys, but just as selfish and he still enables bad-to-evil actors around him and they do him AND the quality of that uncheckedness comes not from governmental checks for a protected realm but comes from other nobles moving in their self interests. Nothing really has existentialchanged with his rule expect he has a corrupt council and another person determining his bigger decisions bc how powerful they are, how much they have and can still supply his rule and maintain his seat (Tywin). And we see that partially shown in how a war immediately breaks out after he's killed/dead for the succession.

But despite all this, the "legal"/customary rules riles that he is "fit" for the throne bc he won. He is King/Monarch. Imagine if Dany and Viserys were dead, if FAegon and all the Blackfyres were gone...yes Robert would be rightful and he's established a new dynasty. If Dany comes back or any Targ scion, and they win, he's a usurper and not rightful.

So instead, the question more is: what makes a near absolute ruler "fit" to rule (and before modern scholars come for me, yes monarchies are not great, I'm talking abt the introspection of interrogating current sociopolitical systems...esp those where we see no potential for the rise of peasants or traders or a rise of "bourgeoise" insight...this is a noble-led story, so let off)? It can't just be cultural custom or law. Thus we are divided b/t what the society sees as "fit", how they define it and how rigid or flexible according to circumstance that really ("law" or an individual's actions) is VS what we the reader consider a fit leader. And why do we think so, from what moral, ideologies, or philosophical references do we vs the characters draw from?

All of this works to peel back the veneer of "order" and show just how messy governance can be, can get, etc. how cyclically violent it can be and esp without some sort of existentially higher purpose.

So absolutely, some of them are missing the point (bc idk what else beyong Stannis is rightful heir some say). In fact, they are really just perpetuating & reinternalizing feudal or authoritarian definitions of "deserving", "rightful", "fit", "blood=being", "(male/masculine/able-bodied)warrior = good/fit leader". Because they want absolute answers or a total shift into a new, closer to our own social "democratic" order...which yes people vote, but even the worth of that vote is not absolutely understood or substantial without political understanding and we're back to some sort of "square one".

Fire and Blood serves to highlight that and contextualize Dany through her ancestors and the Dance is a huge old question of "deserving" based on sexism. and to give us more clues-mysteries on the origins of dragons/the nature of the bond. These nobles who could be focusing on more important things and preserve the knowledge of the Others at least...not reject magic and instead maybe learn to use it and their ordinary weapons of war for good, mostly protective purposes. Instead, bc they (Targs [who also "rejected" magic when they rejected their women to assimilate] and other Westerosi houses) are the apex of their society by being nobles and are constantly trying to define lines of power, they fight for revenge and power. They can and do prey on relatively more socially vulnerable people.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

TG don’t understand that literature and art are meant to speak to us in the present about our own situations rather than comment on the times when they were created. Rhaenyra’s story has more to do with misogyny, mistreatment, neglect, and abuse and how the victim ultimately reacts to it all.

TG don’t care that there are women like Rhaenyra who are being mistreated out there in the real world in exactly the same way she was and, sometimes, even being murdered for it, too. I would love to hear their opinions on honor killings, genital mutilation, abortion bans, and rape-related pregnancies, but they probably think that it’s unimportant.

Yes, and I also want to clarify that while GRRM's ASoIaF is not meant to be "literary", as in "concerned with or connected with the writing, study, or appreciation of literature//making direct social or atistic commentary in critique", it still is a very political AND fantastical work working existentially (the philosophical belief we are each responsible for creating purpose or meaning in our own lives).

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
dragonseeds

love and light to everyone but if i see one more post that’s like “the point of asoiaf is that feudalism is BAD” i’m going to rip out my hair and start eating dirt and worms. like yes, it is bad. yes, monarchies are bad. yes so true it’s annoying when people ignore all of that and focus on who they think deserves the throne more. but that’s not the point—that is the premise? it’s the beginning of the exploration and deconstruction. functionally this system is rigid (specifically in terms of gender and class) and horrifically violent: so what it’s really like to live in it? to try to be a hero, a knight, to be a lady in a world where your body belongs to your family, your lord, your order? is it possible to be a good person in a hierarchal world like this, with such vast power imbalances woven throughout it and every relationship and interaction that you have informed by that? how do you navigate that imbalance in order to have meaningful relationships—can you every truly do it? and who decides what is good? how do you know if it’s truly right or it just felt right because it’s what you wanted to do? what about the people who have no name, no family, no order: what happens to them? don’t they matter? what if in a lifetime of looking the other way or actively causing others harm, you do a few things—maybe one thing—that’s objectively good: does it mean anything? does it matter, even if no one ever knows? what if the best thing you ever did broke every vow you made, every law that governs your society? how do you live with that dissonance?

what’s it like to be a ruler, to be a king or queen—is it possible to be a good one in such an unequal system? to wield power justly? who decides what is just? who decides who should rule? at which point does the amount of power someone can have cross the line into too much? is it when you stop trying to figure out how to use it correctly and worry only about how to keep it? if holding onto it costs you everything, your family and all your relationships, is it still worth it? what if having that much power available is necessary to the survival of your people, maybe even your world, but when it’s misused the carnage left behind is beyond articulation—is it still worth it? are the lives it saves worth the lives it took? how do you measure that? who carries the weight of that choice and how? how do you live with it? how do you go on living in a world that can be harsh and cruel and unfair, a world where your good intentions and your personhood seem to matter very little in the face of someone else’s greed or when compared to the yoke of your duty? and the questions never stop and the answers when and if they come are rarely easy, but the point is that you keep asking and keep trying because that’s what it means to be alive lol

Avatar
ilynpilled

“I think all literature has ideas. […] Ideas about the human condition, and love, and God, and sex, and all of these things are ideas. But the truth is, fiction is not a good vehicle for presenting abstract ideas. I mean, non-fiction, journalism, my profession, in which I had my professional degrees, is actually a better way to explicate if you have an idea about some political or scientific method. That’s why scientific journals are full of research reports, they're not full of science fiction stories. What fiction is good about is presenting emotion. Fiction is good about replicating the human experience, and the human heart in conflict is central to all of that. If the story you're telling me doesn't have characters in it that I care about in a situation that's going to engage my emotions, I'm not gonna find it very interesting.”

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
ilynpilled

i wish we truly moved on from the whole “this is what a character deserves or is entitled to” thing when it comes to this series. first of all, this is fiction. and sure, it is relevant in terms of the clear antagonists getting what is coming, and certain choices having consequences, the narrative is obviously not about to endorse some characters and their ideologies, methods, and roles from a thematic perspective, but when it comes to rewarding the heroes i doubt it is at all meant to be clear cut in the way some of you argue it is. the whole point is that trying to be a good person, fighting the horrors no matter the cost, is inherently meaningful. it does not have to be rewarded in a direct way with characters being entitled to happy endings by virtue of being heroic and making the right choices. according to george even the attempt, despite the results, holds meaning. that is what makes it truly profound. not getting clear personal rewards from heroism makes it a more profound triumph. the text already explores this a lot. the rewards of that are deeper and more existential, and is a big theme of defining true heroism. i especially do not think death is meant to be an indictment of certain characters, and i dont get why a lot of people seem to still argue on the pretense that it is lol. all men will die, but first they will live etc. you can absolutely prefer survival (or other specific things) for certain characters, and think it would be more moving and would work with their respective arcs better, but i do not really care for arguments that treat this text as something entirely karmic. george has said he does not believe in karma. he is also obsessed with covering the cost of triumph.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net