mouthporn.net
#samwell tarly – @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

The Wall and the Waning of Magic: 1/2

(this was originally a Twitter thread; re-posting here for ease of reading)

The Wall is an edifice created, best guesses conclude, some 8000 years prior to the events of A Game of Thrones; it was constructed by some combination of the First Men, led by Bran the Builder, those they called ‘Children of the Forest’, more rightly known as those who sing the song of earth (hereafter ‘singers’) and giants. It is patrolled by the Night’s watch, who protect the realms of men from what lies beyond; notably the Others, although this mission has been forgotten until very recently, with the so-called ‘Wildlings’ (Free Folk) taking the place of the great foe.

It is commonly accepted that the Wall is a net good, both in-universe and without, and that any distaste we may have about the necessity of the Night’s Watch pales in comparison to the horror that will occur when the Wall comes down.

I propose differently; I propose that the Wall is sickening and weakening the world, and it coming down will be one of the greatest moments of the tale – and moreover that the Wall was potentially always intended by its makers to be thrown down.

Magic Lingers

ASOIAF takes place in a world where magic is waning, to the point that learned men will insist magic is gone from the world entirely – and many of them consider this a good thing. The disappearing of magic is largely attributed to the death of the last dragons, and the revival of magic following Daenery’s miraculous rebirth of dragonkind seems to be proof of that.

However, the truth is more complex; we learn from several sources that magic is not entirely gone from the world, even prior to the dragons’ cradle-pyre. It is simply gone from the west of the world following the Doom of Valyria – further east, we are told, magic still exists and its practitioners endure, and even thrive in places such as Asshai.

More intriguingly is this from Maester Luwin, that supposes magic was fading even before the Doom, describing Valyria (a magical empire lasting thousands of years) as merely an ‘ember’. It cannot therefore solely be the death of dragons that caused magic to fade in the West.

The Sad Fate of the Singers

Westeros was once home to a large number of magical beings; unicorns, mammoths, direwolves, ‘great lions’ and, of course, the giants and the singers. All of these are now believed to be extinct, as per Maester Luwin above. Those who venture or live beyond the Wall know that this is not the case; these beings cling on, albeit in scant numbers.

We know that the singers fought and lost a terrible long war with the First Men, and that they retreated to the deepest forests upon the Pact that saw the end of the war. We know also that they were still present in the South in some numbers when the Andals arrived.

However, common wisdom says the singers have been extinct for thousands of years; we know they still linger beyond the Wall...but why? The North remained a bastion of the Old Gods, yet even the northmen believe them gone. Why did they not remain in the deep forests of the North? Why did their numbers continue to decline even after the wars? Why go beyond the Wall, closer to the Others?

The Evil of the Wall Magical and Mundane

The Wall is made of ice. This is an obvious statement to make, but its curious to consider what it means in the context of this world, where cold is the enemy and ice represents death, darkness and crucially – the Others.

If we take as given that Bran the Builder built the Wall, why was it made of ice, when his other claimed works are all of stone? The magic of the singers likewise is in earth and tree and water. So why is the Wall made of ice, the very symbol and strength of the enemy the Wall was built, allegedly, to keep out?

The Wall has its own collection of spooky, disturbing myths that have grown up around it, many of them centring around the Nightfort, formerly the seat of the Night’s Watch. The one that concerns us here is that of the Night’s King, allegedly the 13th commander of the Watch who took to wife a woman commonly been believed to be one of the Others – and from the description of her, that’s highly likely.

However, observe that the Night’s King brings that woman back beyond the Wall to his fortress – it does not keep her out, any more than it keeps out the two wights that awaken in Castle Black in AGOT.

But the Wall was created to keep the Others out, no? Coldhands indeed asserts that he, almost certainly some kind of dead man, cannot pass beyond the Wall due to the spells it is imbued with, presumably those created by the singers; but there is a gate.

The Black Gate, situated beneath the Nightfort, is itself a source of much theorising; it is magical, made of weirwood, and a sad construction that sheds a tear as Bran passes beneath it. The use of weirwood – and the face especially – suggest that this is the work of the singers, who made a door that only the Night’s Watch could open.

It seems unlike that the singers, aiding in the building of an anti-Others defence, would create a door that an Other could pass through; Bloodraven’s cave seems thus warded, so far successfully. But why is the Gate blind? Why is it described as resembling a corpse? This could be a function of the sheer age of the Gate, but I believe it to be more significant than that.

Of Silverwing

Queen Alysanne Targaryen made a visit to the Wall and visited the Nightfort in particular. The castle gave the Queen such bad vibes that she arranged it to be abandoned – immediately – paying for the replacement herself.

That’s quite a reaction, and one that should be contrasted with Stannis, who plans to make the place his seat (and note that Sam considers the possibility that the Black Gate is not permanent – which is very intriguing).

More interesting than Alysanne’s reaction to the Nightfort is her dragon Silverwing’s reaction explicitly to the Wall itself. She is disturbed by the winds from it – and I reject the notion that this was solely the cold, as the cold at Winterfell makes Vermax ‘ill tempered’, not disobedient and disturbed.

It is suggested that the Wall is anathema to creatures of fire – and yet Melisandre is seemingly stronger at the Wall than she is Asshai!

It is also suggested that Silverwing feared not the Wall but what lay beyond – but the Others had not yet begun to stir, so what was she sensing? I posit that the Wall was drinking in the magic that Silverwing generated, effectively draining her.

Also pertinent is the fact that Jon Snow loses all sense of Ghost when the Wall is between them. An unbreakable powerful bond that endures over great distances is rendered inert due to the Wall. This could be a matter of inexperience on Jon’s part, but it is worth bearing in mind.

Waning of Magic

Taking everything together, I propose that the Wall is draining the magic from the world. The magical peoples and creatures of Westeros exist only beyond the Wall, having died out everywhere else, notably the singers who have disappeared even from presumably safe strongholds.

Dragons, whose mere existence makes magic stronger (and possibly what is actually empowering Melisandre), mislike and possibly even fear the Wall, to the degree that Alysanne was deeply disturbed for long after. It needs must be noted also that the dragons of the Targaryens did not reach the size and strength of their forebears in Valyria, dwindling ever more with the years. Perhaps this was due to the Dragonpit, to the betrayal of the house’s women, tied so completely to its dragons. Perhaps it was something more insidious.

Where magic does exist still, it exists in the further East; in Qarth, Asshai and so forth. These places also had a lack of dragons post-Doom, also endured the Long Night, so it cannot be solely these factors. But they are much further away from the Wall; their magic is weakened but endures.

To touch also on the seasons as an aside, WOIAF offers some further credence to the Wall-as-problem. The seasons used to be normal, we are told, only in the most ancient tales. Tales presumably predating the Wall.

If the issue of seasons were solely one of balance between Ice and Fire, when why were there no world-ending catastrophes when Fire was ascendant? The Doom impacted only Valyria, after all.

We must return to the symbolism; where Ice is death, silence, darkness and inhumanity and Fire is life, song, light and passion.

TBC

My Questions:

  • in light of the Black Gate being, in this theory, being a door that only the night's Watch could open...and the Night's King obviously being a traitor to humankind canonically...could the night King have asked a singer/"child" or a group to create such a door for his mysterious lover? It still baffles me that a singer would create a door that can let an Other in when they helped to create the Wall? Why be so careless (even if we say they trusted the Night's Watch) unless they were tricked? But what exactly, then, could the singers believe this door would be made for? A door within the Nightfort or some other castle, thereby not needing an anti-Other element? Or has the Night King corrupted the Gate into allowing an Other to pass after he acquired it from a singer/singers? And then, if so, how? By the instruction form his lover/an Other?! Or were the children/singers forced/coerced to create the Gate?
  • When we see the Undying, we see they hunger for Dany/her dragons/the magic here and also try to drain Dany. Is it possible that even if in Essos magic is more or less "flourishing" that that emptiness is not just their greed but also their way of trying to "replenish" a core/huge element of their own magic, thus suggesting that they have lost so much from the dragons' loss years ago and slowly became what they were, unmoving mono-colored evil beings resembling ice in their seeming immortality? Or is it that they have corrupted themselves either through slavery/exploitative destruction and it's just greed and the self attrition created by their greed that increases their "hunger"? In other words, I'm still very unclear how how different these two entities--the Undying and the theorized magic-eating Wall--have different mechanisms AND purposes of energy-draining. If at all.
  • So if the purpose of Dany bringing the dragons back is so much more for Westeros then for the "entire world"? If so, all this Wall-as-drainer feels like material for the Dany-loses-most-or-all-her-dragons-during-the-new-Dance theory.
  • Why then, does Melisandre's powers get more potent, as noted? If the dragons can't be that close to the wall and even get drained by it if closer, then how would Melisandre be getting stronger even if she is passively using the dragons' magic?
  • If we go by the theory that the Wall as always meant to go down [in part 2], then it'd have been a temporary solution against the Others to be addressed by later generations OR it'd be foretold already amongst the first builders that magic would decrease and they were desperate; it'd then be a little more feasible to suspect that it was created to ward off the Others and got corrupted to then be too potent/overpower/outpace the now-scant magic from the severely decreased/disabled numbers of the children, giants, and magic practitioners in the West, which kinda works nicely with the implied idea of the "balance" of the world not being the entire world's magical system point blank, but that there is a mistake in how the Westerosi understood there needed to be a "balance" that they interpreted as keeping their exploitative systems alive, their man-made boundaries and classes present? Or is this something more meta, that we the readers are purposefully confounded on what sort of balance the dragons restored/begin to restore. in other words, what exactly kind of "balance" have people been misunderstanding and what the Planetos/Westeros needs? And what was the purpose of the Amethyst Empress/The Blood Betrayal and the implied imbalance from that in Essos?
Avatar
Anonymous asked:

I was going to send you this great post talking about Asoiaf inheritance laws and traditions, but it seemed unfair to you instead I'm going to summarize what I wanted to say.

I'm so tired of seeing TG using Sam Tarly as some kind of "gotcha" to rebut TB's argument that the heads of houshold (HH) have the authority to name an heir because that contradicts the laws.

In reality, the fact that children (male) are the ones who inherit from oldest to youngest is a tradition, not a law.

The things that are laws are children from the first marriage come before children from the second marriage with the heads of household normally using their authority to name heirs to bypass the daughters of the first marriage and choose the sons of the second marriage .

The other thing that is law is that daughters come before uncles, which cements the tradition (but not the law) that the linear lineage must first become extinct before passing to the next in horizontal lineage.

That is why Rhaenys' claim had weight, she was not wrong that it was her turn to inherit before Baelon and that is why Jeyne Arryn inherits before her cousin Arnold and Rhea Royce before her nephew Gunthor. There we see how the tradition normally works for the benefit of women (and yet Jeyne was almost usurped several times by Arnold, having won Aegon It was a genuine concern that Arnold's supporters demanded that he let the true heir leave)

If Sam had been overlooked instead of looking for a legal way to disinherit him he could theoretically have gone to an authority higher than his HH (the Tyrels or the crown) and presented his case where they probably would have ruled in favor of Sam due to tradition because being a bad swordsman is not a reason to legally disinherit a de facto heir and even if he disinherited him in his will Sam could have refuted him and gotten his inheritance back.

Rhaenys was disinherited by the highest authority, the man who could make and break the law with his will. Who is Rhaenys supposed to appeal to? This is also Ariadne's fear in the main saga.Doran who is still the main authority in Dorn could change the inheritance law and other than revealing himself and deposing him and her brother (the heir presumptive she thought) there was nothing she could do.

Viserys by naming Rhaennyra is NOT breaking the law, in fact the widow's law SUPPORTS Rhaenyra being the daughter of the first marriage.

The authority to appoint heirs is only valid in cases that do not contradict the law and their can always appeal to a higher authority, but when the higher authority decides against it? Their word is law. Sam's case is not proof against Rhaenyra when Sam would have had the law and tradition on his side, Rhaenyra had the law and the highest authority on her side, she would have only been breaking with tradition because until then all the HH had chosen male over female when it was convenient.

The only two person I can think of in the books who broke tradition and in theory the law are a. Jeyne Arryn who named Joffrey Arryn (a distant cousin) over Arnold (a close cousin) and there we see the highest authority (the council of regents) works in favor of political objectives

Theoretically Arnold is a traitor like Jorah Mormonth which allows for legal disinheritance, which gives Jeyne a legal base to ignore him and both Arnold and Joffrey were cousins like Rhaenys and Viserys for which there is tradition but no law (They are normally guided by proximity to the last HH but it is the HH or the higher authorities who end up having the last word)

And b. Walder Frey who was literally setting up a succession crisis for shits and giggles in which the Tullys or the king probably would have had to intervene who was the real heir.

There is Tywin bemoaning how he couldn't just leave Casterly Rock to Jaime...but then he breaks tradition by saying that Jame will inherit CR despite being Kingsguard anyway, in which case is actually breaking Law, as Kingsguard legally cannot inherit lands by their vocation of an institution that was created by a monarch, which makes this a legal question instead of a custom one. Tywin could even name Cersei because she's just a Dowager "Queen"...but he chose not to. There is a history where women, as you say, inherited before lateral male relatives, so he could have named her before his disabled and hated youngest son...but no, he chose the hard way. And he had both the power and the potential for more social grace (since even though Jaime was KG, he's also still male).

Sam's case is not proof against Rhaenyra when Sam would have had the law and tradition on his side, Rhaenyra had the law and the highest authority on her side, she would have only been breaking with tradition because until then all the HH had chosen male over female when it was convenient.

That part-that's-really-a-summary.

Theoretically Arnold is a traitor like Jorah Mormonth which allows for legal disinheritance, which gives Jeyne a legal base to ignore him and both Arnold and Joffrey were cousins like Rhaenys and Viserys for which there is tradition but no law (They are normally guided by proximity to the last HH but it is the HH or the higher authorities who end up having the last word) And b. Walder Frey who was literally setting up a succession crisis for shits and giggles in which the Tullys or the king probably would have had to intervene who was the real heir.

I will tell you, I literally forget about Walder every few seconds. Thank you for the reminder and for applying him here! And I didn't even think to parallel Jorah to how Jeyne picks an heir!

Avatar

another interesting interview on outsiders in ASOIAF; reposting the transcript:

Interviewer: Tyrion Lannister, the dwarf character in asoiaf, he probably is one of everybody's favourite characters and he has this really memorable moment where he says: "I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples, bastards, and broken things". Many, so many-- some of your characters are these outsiders, they are different or they are disabled in some way, and they seem to be the only characters that are capable of true compassion, and yet they seem to suffer for it-- is this something you are conscious of doing, George, when writing the book?" GRRM: Yeah, definitely, I mean, I have a large caste of viewpoint characters, but, for the most part they all have something that makes them a bit of an outcast, you know. Tyrion is a dwarf. Jon Snow is a bastard. Dany, who is beautiful, is a penniless exile who's being essentially sold off into marriage. Arya is born to a noble house, but she's kind of this wild child where she doesn't conform to her proper gender role. Brienne of Tarth even more doesn't conform to her proper gender roles and because of that she suffers a lot of scorn and rejection because she is not a proper woman in the terms of her society. Uh, Sam Tarly is fat and bookish, when a lord is expected to be warlike and strong and fierce and good with a sword and Sam would rather read and dance and listen to music and so he suffers a lot of rejection and I could go on and on, but--" Interviewer (interrupting): All of these people have this honour code, within themselves, that they almost need to hide-- and that seems to make life even more difficult for them-- GRRM (interrupting back): Even a character like Theon Greyjoy, who's not a character that a lot of people are fond of, because he's a weak character-- I mean he's physically strong, he's very skilled with a bow, he's a good warrior, but he's a character who is suffering a lot of confusion about his place in the world. Cause, you know, he's born of a noble family, but his father rised in rebellion, and his elder brothers were killed in that rebellion, and he was handed over as a hostage at the end. Theoretically a "ward" they called it, but still a hostage. If his father creates trouble, he's to be hung, you know, so. That was a frequent practice in the middle ages, when you didn't really trust one of your underlords, or enemy who had bent the knee, you took some of his children as "wards", or hostages, and, uh--- So he's a Greyjoy by birth, and by some standards he's the heir to the Iron Islands, but he's been raised in the household of Eddard Stark and there's part of him who, you know, he has these two fathers looming over him, neither one who he can ever quite please. And he's desperate to find his place in the world, as one or the other, but from that confusion a great drama arises! I mean, you know, I think the best fiction, the best stories, arise out of conflict. I've always taken as my mantra, Willian Faulkner's nobel price acceptance speech where he said: The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself.
Avatar
Anonymous asked:

“Viserys neglected Aegon and Aemond and that’s why they are sad little meow meow serial rapists and mass murderers.”

Samwell Tarly’s father forced him to wear his mother's clothes, bathe in blood, had him chained and manacled to a wall for three days, and threatened to kill him unless he joined the Night’s Watch yet he didn’t become rotten because of it and is one of the kindest men in the entire series. Sam went through HORRIFYING abuse and humiliations at the hands of his incredibly cruel father, infinitely worse than anything suffered by Aegon and Aemond, and he still managed to keep his heart pure, no matter how traumatized he was.

Good example, I'm stealing it. I already mentioned Jon and Dany and others, but this is a really good one.

Some might say we shouldn't compare people and berate them for not measuring up to others, but this is about the idea that the greens' entire personality and justification for being horrible is because their dad wasn't nice to them, when he could have been so much worse. Show!Alicent was the one to neglect/abuse Helaena and Aegon. She and Otto performed direct harm.

Also, the point is to show that it's not impossible to be a better person than your parents and that Alicent and Otto infused a sense of superiority in these boys that they also had the ability to reflect on for all the time they've been alive. You're telling me that Aemond supposedly read "philosophies" to be a consummate ruler or leader...and he couldn't bring forth the calm to not go after Luke and chase him for more than 6 minutes, laughing and terrorizing him?! Please. And if he and Aegon truly were inclined, they could have reached out to Rhaenyra of their own volition as they grew older, but they didn't. Especially, Aegon, who had many more years over Aemond. They chose to keep their distance, while Alicent was the one to enforce that distance and make sure Rhaenyra's kids wouldn't have a relationship of any kind with her own since R's kids were born.

In the book, the same goes about the superiority bit. The green boys genuinely felt that the throne belonged to them because they were male, end of story.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
jackoshadows

Just to reiterate how Arya and Sam have these parallels of not being able to comfortably fit into Westorosi society’s patriarchal ideals unlike their ‘perfect’ siblings and yet while the theme of toxic masculinity is acknowledged and recognized in Sam’s narrative by fandom, Arya gets hit with nonsense like being ‘male coded’.

In this too we can see the inherent misogyny in this fandom, where Samwell is allowed to be different and like different things and he is appreciated for loving songs and dancing. He gets sympathy for the abuse and toxic masculinity that he faces. His relationship with Gilly is celebrated, he is deserving of love and romance.

And yet Arya gets the hate simply for wanting to learn how to use a sword (And it’s not about using a sword either considering the male characters are badass for using a sword!).

She gets labelled ‘NLOG’, there are popular posts about how her journey is ‘masculine’ or how she is ‘masculine-coded’, posts about how she has ‘internalized misogyny’, where she will never be a Lady because she is not ‘feminine’ enough. How fans only like her because she’s ‘male coded’. How she is not ‘realistic’ or a boring character because she’s ‘male-coded’.

Posts on how Arya will never get love or romance, even when older, because she’s the wrong kind of girl. There are essays about how Arya did not try hard enough to fit in, that she’s equally at fault for the contentious relationship between her and Sansa because she did not spend enough time sewing and doing things that Sansa liked. That Ned not punishing Arya for picking flowers from the marsh or getting her a ‘dancing’ master is him showing ‘favoritism’ implying that Arya should have been punished for stepping outside the bounds of patriarchy dictated femininity.

Arya is treated by fandom like she is flawed for not being the right kind of girl. That she is not important in the narrative because she’s not the right kind of girl. The compassion and kindness so very clearly inherent in the character and embedded in the narrative is ignored in favor of her being a violent killer because she’s not the right kind of girl. Her intelligence, perceptiveness, quick thinking, critical thinking skills ignored because she’s not the right kind of girl. Also ignored widely by fandom that Arya too has taken abuse and kept silent because what good would it do to react and be killed?

These sexist double standards have only widened with the TV show’s horrendous misogyny in the way they wrote and depicted Arya Stark, stripping the character of all the nuance, complexity and everything that makes Arya, Arya in the books. Instead we got an one-dimensional trope in GOT, the complete opposite of book Arya Stark. As GRRM has stressed again and again, the show is not the books and the show characters are not the book characters. Take your ‘Arya has a masculine journey’ posts dripping with misogyny, elsewhere.

[Note:I am not denying the fatphobia with respect to Samwell which is indeed a thing and the reason for why, despite being one of those rare good guys in Westeros, he gets used the least for shipping. Something that GRRM himself bemoaned in one of his blog posts. I am just referring to the difference in how toxic masculinity and femininity are treated by this fandom because while the toxicity of one is recognized, the other is celebrated as a good thing]

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