editorialized torpedo

A)

The jonsa ship? Sansa stans who ship this seem to hope for Sansa to become Lady of Winterfell and be "compensated" for all her suffering in the bk or the show, and having Jon be married and/o emotionally devoted to her serves to make a moody pretty boy with skills be her commander, a la Daemon for Rhaenyra you might say. This is the priority from what I've seen so far.

It's another illicit or forbidden love as he's her brother and a bastard who her own mother who died for their older brother and them all disliked. It's also, I think, a fuck-you to GRRM's orig plan to have Jon fall for Arya not bc Arya was also his sister and even younger than Sansa, but primarily bec this, to them, places Arya as the "true" Lady of Winterfell.

I'd take a gander to say this is actually the issue and why some might say it's a Jonsa thing. Perhaps they make similar how Sansa's father has a hand in her encountering danger through her planned betrothal to Joffrey (Aerys continually endangering Rhaegar and his his family, Jon maybe in thei minds being the "cause" of Sansa/Rhaegar's family's destruction) or they posit an unwanted marriage parallel of Sansa-Tyrion and Elia-Rhaegar? There might be more, but I can't think of anything else?

B)

When you say "resemblance", do you mean to say Sara Snow x Jacaerys Velaryon as a true thing that happened, or this story of such meant to parallel the couple of Lyanna and Rhaegar? Perhaps it's the element of her also not having any hope to marry and--pursue a longer and enduring relationship due to the political circumstances--an unavailable noble man, like with Lyanna and Rhaegar? That Jace comes from a Targaryen royal lineage and Sara from a Stark one? Or is it that this ship is in close proximity to the Pact of Ice and Fire, which some people espouse had to do with the actual prophecy Aegon I is said to have had and maybe told to Torrhen Stark, the King who Knelt, that got him to surrender, and thus Creagn and Jace agreed to have their childrne marry--thus being some sort of precursor and affirmation of Lyanna-Rhaegar narratively & metaphorically "destined" to shape the history of their society throught their own singular action? That Torrhen might have already known, as others say? Which all, I believe , is an argument meant for Jon being the Prince that was promised?

Bc these latter two "ran off" bec their personalities and personal goals/values didn't jive with the "obligations" both had; those that were like stones set against their own and those around them (Lyanna with her marriage and the entire woman-must-obey thing/her being found out about being the Knight of the Laughing Tree and thus punished vs Rhaegar and the prophecy against the legacy of his house/wanting to build a different Westeros from his crazy father through said prophecy, to "fix" Westeros and/or the world in a way Dany is seemingly supposed to).

Whereas Sara Snow and Jace either don't have such obligations (Sara) or don't have such relationships or regards to their obligations (Jace). Unlike Lyanna Stark, Sara Snow--if she ever even existed. I don't think she ever did, Mushroom is Mushroom and was never there to witness what he said happened--was reported to be a bastard girl, who Cregan, her supposed brother, would never confront anyone about or for if she were to have pursued a relationship for precisely because she was a bastard girl who no one could leverage like Lyanna's father tried to when he betrothed her to Robert Baratheon. Rhaegar had to leave Elia with his father when said madman ordered Elia and their kids to return to KL/the Red Keep while Rhaegar was away; he also had several "engagements" that Jace did not have a like to before the war that Rhaegar was compelled to act on, presumably for the world and not just his own father, wife, etc. Jace was just living with Rhaenyra before the war, anticipating marrying a girl he had been close woth for ages since childhood, and he was barely in his own majority when he died not so late after the war broke out.

Jace's story, unlike Rhaegar, was that he was suspected as a bastard/not his father's son and that the Westerosi stigma against bastards and their character and ability to have loyalty is unsettled by his utter devotion to his family and mother's claim--in other words, he was all in both because of and despite the logic of those rumors, ironic bec of later when Rhaenyra's compelled and unethically chooses to arrest the dragonseeds when her council basically demanded that punishment--in a way, Jace's work was…troubled by this, even with Jeyne Arryn, the Manderlys, and Cregan Stark pulling through later but too late.

In other words, the stakes are too different and the characters are not so similar for Jace to act like Rhaegar or have the room & circumstance to do so. Whether you think Rhaegar was chaotic good, chaotic evil, or just pathetic. This is also not me sayign that Rhaegar wasn't devoted to his family/family's legacy, but that his motivations were layered and has a chance of being more about, again, saving the world. The Pact of Ice and Fire was bt Cregan and Jace also, again, was for their kids to marry, not Jace to marry a Stark bastard girl and disobey his mother at a time when she needed

What exactly are we meant to take away from Jace being with Sara Snow for the narrative apart and what does this contribute or explain exegetically or diegetically apart from it from the pattern of in-world speculation in F&B? Yes they share those that I listed, but they hardly have similar narratives or "points"?

Anon responds to a slew of talk about the Jonerys/Snowstorm ship (any iteration of this particular couple) that starts HERE.

This one, this I felt. Caught me off guard. This and your assertion that this ship has a strong potential to set sail in canon. I don't entirely disagree with it, though. How will GRRM--a question posed to fans--create snowstorm/jonerys where Jon is safely subordinate? i would like to hear more about how/why even with Jon being in such a state--which you seem to imply--it would be an inherently dangerous thing for Dany?

Since I don't know exactly which "antis of Dany" you're saying I'm acting like, I don't know if I can take this ask's points to heart, anon. I was under the impression that I've been fair to Jon Snow, Helaena, Alicent, Catelyn, any of these characters that you could be saying that I am not very fair towards; the last Jon snow post (at least my own answer) was about him not being TPTWP...bc he isn't. It's quite obvious in-text. If that anon who said that he was boring offended you and you were offended that I didn't say that they were being too extreme, I can't really help you there. I still said in that post that Jon was important...just not in the way some people try to say. And yes, i still read his PoV chapters, I have said that I just tend to read Dany's and reread them more often. Not that I never read him, that's a gross exaggeration.

Jon Snow is not and never will be Azor Ahai. And never was/never will be TPTWP. This is fact, not "opinion". It's not about "favorites", it's about reading the books and understanding patterns of thoughts and references and reading mythologies and seeing patterns of human behavior within the text. And this isn't "extremism", it is simply reading the books. (As if I ever tried to tail Dany antis in the first place?)

If not about Jon and about how I refute TG's numerous and various points about Jaehaera or Helaena or Alicent, do you expect me to agree with their factually incorrect statements? you know that some even think Jaehaera was supposed to be Azor Ahai or GRRM means to invalidate his entire years worth of writing Daenaera to be mother to Aegon III's kids, right? Am I supposed to say nothing to these egregious absurdities?

All to say that since you still remain vague about what exactly your point is coming from and which character(s) you think I'm being grossly unfair to, I can't really take your points under any advisement. It certainly makes it look like I don't bring up material to back up my claims for all my thoughts about ASoIaF and its fandom, which is certainly not the case. You may look under my "example of green stan nonsense" to see what people say from their own posts.

And I ooop!

That's the thing, much the hype for Jon being the prophesized and successful tptwp needs to clear Dany out, and esp in the femicidal way those people dream and you're right. All the basis for Dany being it instead doesn't depend on Jon having to be killed; it's all based on what has already happened , is happening, was written in AWoIaF and the main books before Jon is even betrayed. one side needs the extra mile and Jon doling out violence against a women they all lie on, the other does not. Is this not pathetic?! Is that what people wish to reduce Jon to, if they actually "love" him?

There are those people who argue Jon is tptwp entirely based on misreadings of what ""a song of ice and fire" refers to, too. As if ice meant Lyanna and Rhaegar fire, or Jon is ice and Dany is fire., but ice means the Others and fire means Dany/her dragons/humanity.

I would say that these fans collectively make Jon to be that reduction of "a list of classical hero tropes and a wish fulfillment project for the incels who self insert through him and the heterosexual and male-centered women who want to fuck him", even though i myself am not that interested in Jon. Because he and those close to him/working for him do a play a role in this coming Long Night, otherwise we wouldn't have been following his arc and others' discoveries up at the Wall. and his arc does bring up a conflict of how those who have been excluded from the rest of Westeros must "team up" with those they've fought for centuries to survive, under the leadership of a dude who both enjoyed the privilege of living at his "father's" house/trained in swordplay/having the room to develop AND still live with some stigma of being a bastard.

They are so male-centered that they don't even realize they've reduced their own beloved character, smh.

I've been thinking that if there ever was a Bloodstone Emperor figure to be Dany's enemy, it would be Euron Greyjoy and not Jon Snow bc Euron has many materials and intentions for becoming a magical enemy to dragons with his horn and goal to basically conquer Westeros. one user remarks that he might instead tear down the Wall and thus usher in the new Long Night--paralleling and repeating what the Bloodstone Emperor did to bring about the first. I don't see Jon bringing about the Long Night, even with how intimidated I am about the possible effects of his resurrection.

We shall see.

I have a post explaining why I do not think Rhaegar was THE devil with how he handled stuff w/Lyanna and Elia HERE AND why Lyanna is and never was his "war prize" HERE. And in it, I also make it clear how/why Rhaegar actually did not canonically (bk) abandon his kids...but it was more that he couldn't be at 3 places at once.

🤗. Thank you, anon, another take I agree with! I can't totally blame those Elia stans either for how they feel abt Rhaegar of either book or show when yes his affair with Lyanna--even if he had never loved Elia that way--is an social affront to Elia, and the show made it worse with Rhaegar somehow deciding to fuck over his own kids Henry VIII style in the way you describe (idw to repeat myself or you). And for some reason, I haven't really ever come to the realization that he'd be "giving" his leg son's name to his ileg son in the context of his having emotionally/politically affronted Elia. If it is just about the "sanctity" of marriage and a misunderstanding of what marriage is, I lean towards @faintingheroine's (deactivated) reblog:

I def understand some's arguments for why Elia could have been totally against Rhaegar for his liasion w/Lyanna both for her own sake and their kids. But the show's explanation for Rhaegar and Lyanna being for Jon having legitimacy is not for Elia but for Daenerys and the show's attempt to mitigate her role for said Jon Snow. Because the narrative is about the misinterpretations of the kind of heroism as in who we should love but who is using their power for a "greater good". Rhaegar was trying to balance the immediate political landscapes with future possible events that he likely thought had to be addressed as soon as possible, but it also didn't mean he didn't also make more personal self concerned choices but even this doesn't mean that he was always selfish when we see clearly canon evidence of the reverse.

I do "blame" those who think Rhaegar abandoned Elia and his kids to his abusive father for Lyanna or that he legitimized/tried to legitimize his child by Lyanna BY CANON. That shit's annoying.

I suppose the reason why people like you and I have been "indifferent" to whether Elia knew abt the affair and how she'd take it and whether or not she "agreed" is that:

a) we simply don't know yet/GRRM has only ever said it was a "complex" relationship b/t her and Rhaegar...whatever that means

b) GRRM's handling of age gap relationships IN WORLD reflects both strange medieval-ish ideas of youth and sexuality AND how he's not really "in the know of" how such relationships work, thus they don't really materialize "realistically" in the book as they would other than with Dany and Drogo (Dany and Drogo is a slave-master situation...Lyanna chose Rhaegar under no compulsion from him)...so IN WORLD, it's far more likely that Rhaegar didn't actually seek prey in Lyanna for her youth/vulnerability (as Robert, Craster, some slave masters, Walder Frey, etc. do) nor "hated" Elia. But that he just really fell for Lyanna AND wanted to make sure the prince that was promised prophecy come to fruition at the same time. That he felt torn between these two--

(not that he used Lyanna for the prophecy, but that these two things AS WELL AS HIS KIDS, likely came at odds in terms of "what can I do to make these two things happen without compromising the other"...perhaps, after a life of performing "duty" towards his family, dynasty, the "world", Lyanna is the "love" that NARRATIVELY becomes his "weakness" in a long career of putting "duty" first [when he also has been emotionally distant and set against by his own father's paranoia and abuse for years by this point] bc he finally gets to perform something not intertwined with a sense of this great pressure of "duty". Even though I def headcanon he was attracted to Lyanna for how she views/acts out justice and all that --THIS DOESN'T MAKE HIS ACTIONS NOT "STUPID" OR HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH LYANNA ANY LESS EXRAMARITAL. I'M PROVIDING CONTEXT PEOPLE MAY NOT BE INVESTIGATING IN THEIR ASSESSMENTS AND ANSWERING THE QUESTION THEY MAY HAVE FOR WHY HE WOULD SUCH A THING, FILLING IN BLANKS HERE, PEOPLE AND SAYING THAT THE TRAGEDY HERE IS THAT THE LOVE COULDN'T BE BECASUE OF POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS)--

bc I think he left Dragonstone with some of his crew to explore some secrets for said prophecy AND to possibly meet up with Lyanna, maybe partly to keep her safe from his own father and/or Robert, and while there are many fans who have cited he was "obsessed" with prophecies and not enough on his own family, I think they forget that the entire series is devoted to what and how one transforms their own privilege or suffering into "duty" towards those needing protection on a wider scale, and the prophecy is critical towards that--to "save the world" has been Rhaegar's most enduring goal. Perhaps there are those affronted by the idea that he was more "torn" abt the prophecy vs Lyanna versus the prophecy/world-saving versus Elia, or as they interpreted was happening

c) even if Rhaegar had stayed with his part of the family, he'd been called to arms for his father and if he didn't that's treason/endangers his part of the family...this is in answer to those arguing how Rhaegar's infidelity puts Elia's and their kids' lives in danger

The prophecy is about saving the world, yes? It's also very possible Rhaegar was "melancholy" all his life bc:

Tell these things to any stan still rooting for him and him lord, not Dany, for xyz, but definitely misogyny. 🤷🏿‍♂️

Because she's a woman and Jon is a man that even in-world lords would rather have to follow than Daenerys, the female Essosi-lived ex-bridal slave of a Dothraki savage. Young Griff, also male even though he, too, might as well be "Essosi".

Not only did the Dance strengthen the preference and seeming validity of male leadership, readers themselves who are inclined towards female victimhood, male herosim, hype for hype's sake, etc. will also continue to be unserious.

People are more desensitized towards a man doling out violence, even (or esp) against women and children, abused or not. Violence or destroying boundaries is the way a man affirms and/or obtains authority and respect from his male peers and in this system, it literally gets romanticized as necessary for those he is in charge of or wishes to be or others perceive him to be: "greater good" and all that. Because they say that he had to do what he had to do...but then argue Dany is "proving" how evil or unstable she is if she were to do anything similar, and they already try to by saying her violence against raping, pedophilic, dehumanizing slavers was "too much"...think about it. They don't say similar about male prisoners raping pedophiles or those who hurt kids, they even openly wish for the pedos to get "roughed" up in their cells. Oh, but a teenager former bridal slave killing slavers is too much.

That been the exact opposite for when women dole out violence for similar or even just to defend themselves or others. you see female monsters and monstrous characters take on a particular pattern of being more...simple, inhumane in stories with male heroes through the history of Western literature, but esp so from Victorian literature, the society/era where us Westerners inherited most of our ideas of sexuality and gender roles/expression--from the bourgeoise class to the working.

I hope you and anyone reading looks up the "monstrous feminine" theory first elucidated by Barbara Creed: horror film both have women as needing to be victims so they don't materialize as "castrators" (unmanners) of men AND positions mothers near bestial matriarchal figures, as monstrous because of their primal maternal instincts and reproductive capabilities. Think Grendel's mother in Beowulf. All in all, it's about abjecting women and esp their passion, or trying to "explain" something innately terrifying about them that presents, sometimes, an eternal and necessary, order-affirming challenge to male heroes or masculinized heroes/perceptions.

Anyway, back to Jon. The issue is this double standard; even if Jon "had to do" what he did to Gilly (he didn't), why isn't it when there is a slew of enslaved people (that these people imagine as brown bc of GoT even though they are pretty diverse in ASoIaF but either way are not Westerosi or "Westerners"), then it's not that serious as to leave hundreds of slavers dying on poles along a path to a city the same way they did to the enslaved? Because Americans and white people of today's world already don't care that much about trafficking, slavery, etc. unless it happens to them of course. And Gilly was not a Westerosi, either, but a wilding whose only role is to be there so Jon and Samwell can do whatever to become better versions of themselves in their minds.

I said it once and I'll say it again here: sexism really just rots the brain and holds us all back. They will do just about anything to preserve their male superiority and we find this out pretty early on in our childhood. Bc how the hell do you see a teen girl bring back dragons with magic and conclude she has to die for there to be real order in either/both society or the entire universe when males throughout the story have done actually horrible things without magic?!

Like i said in my previous post that I don't remember where it is exactly, I genuinely can't see him outlasting Dream of Spring, at least amongst civilizations in or very close to Westeros. If he remains, I am curious and interested in how GRRM handles that which is why yes he owes us nothing, but I NEED these fucking books!

"Have you ever loved somebody so much it makes you CRY?!" [song lyrics]

I think that the desire to see Jon--as he is instead of a potential Prince Consort (no, not even "King Consort", such a thing can never be a thing in Westeros as it is and Dany is trying to claim Westeros not some fantasy of Westeros)--show himself as "one of the good ones" is pretty incompatible with how Jon's been murdered and brought back, bc he's going to be very different from the already not-revolutionary-rily-written male character that he is.

I also think that the only way they could ever be a "safe" couple--or as close as it gets--is if Jon has literally no way to access authority or his claim in any way. Does it sound extreme, well...women have been in that position for thousands of years in Westeros and rulership in Westeros can only change in its gender dynamics if the society has a greater shift in all other houses. You know when you have to go ham sometimes on men to get them to leave you alone or to see your side of things, think of this on a macro level: yes, you need to "match" the inequality in this specific context of rulership in order for people to be forced to see women as viable rulers. Which can't happen without there being a female regnant ruler...Dany.

*distant chants as all put down their iPads* cut them off, cut them off, Cut Them Off, CUT THEM OFF!

Again, all, this is lieu of the recent anons arguing that Jon is the most dangerous candidate (aside from Euron Greyjoy) Dany could have as a husband and even just an unmarried romantic partner because of the baggage of his lineage that could present huge issues for her attempts to claim the Iron Throne, even if he was never seen or made to be legitimate. And anon brings up sexuality and Dany regressing back to a destructive heterosexuality when it's Jon I THINK (plz correct me if I am wrong) Jon is very typical of a heterosexual man even with his repeated preference for behaviorally nonconforming women AND his maybe-crush on Satin in that he stands to gain so much more from being with Dany and may likely demand more form her than she can and from him for his political goals and she already will have to deal with how the Westerosi will work against her. Why hetero when she has relationships with Hid Loraq (not really) and Daario (yep)? Because Loraq proved having a male ruling "equal" was dangerous for Dany while Daario was not any sort of equal, ruler, or competitor for authority, and Jon being closer to such than both of these men through his lineage and having lived as a sort of higher authority while having done what a lot of Dany fans have not seen as sacrificing something for a woman & sublimating himself presents a likely development into a fantasy-conventional-power-man using a powerful woman's assets to become more powerful...very much a power fantasy favored within the patriarchy that uses heterosexuality to subjugate women..

Her having a child adds a whole other sort of layer it bc another pressure is patriarchal systems trapping women or binding her materially and psychologically to the father. Which is what I am assuming why this anon wants Dany to never have a kid with Jon, which, fair. Perhaps anaon, you also think that a child from DanyxJon would also still endanger Dany? If so, and only if so, please explain, I think iI heard this arguement before and I haven't really understood it.