mouthporn.net
#the starks – @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
Anonymous asked:

The sovereignty angle does not really hold to medieval societies. All the kingdoms Aegon conquered had themselves been forged through conquest and subjugation of other kingdoms: the Starks had subdued the Boltons, the Dustins, etc; the Martells had subdued the Yronwoods, the Daynes, etc; the Arryns had subdued the Royces, etc. Aegon did nothing the Andals and the First Men had not done earlier.

I know, anon, and I have said this for forever. Others have too. You can look at my "targaryens as colonizers" tag to see more.

Avatar
reblogged

I've been slowly obsessing more and more about asoiaf fashion in the past 6 month, and really developing in details how it would look in different regions, classes, etc (the North being the one I have the most complete picture on). And I wanted to put some of this to paper instead of endlessly turning it in my head before I go to sleep. Usually when I costume design it is confined to a specific character, I've never done like worldbuilding fashion design, but idk asoiaf really gets me going.

So here's the North ! I could have kept going and added more stuff, but if I try to spew all the shit that's in my head I'm never gonna finish this x) So I focused mostly on great houses/nobles fashion for this. Maybe I'll do a sheet for smallfolk or practical clothing like battle armour after I'm done with all the kindoms. I already have to continue the anti AI quest...

Avatar
reblogged

i feel like we could move forward as a fandom if we all understood that the only way the Targaryens are significantly different than any other noble house in Westeros is brother/sister incest and dragons. that’s literally it. not defending brother/sister incest or war crimes dragon edition but it really annoys me when people stumble across problems in house targaryen that are there because they are endemic to all noble houses in westeros because the patriarchal feudal system is in fact bad and then act like they’ve discovered something. “House Targaryen is rotten, every second son live sin his brother’s shadow and daughters are just seen as walking wombs” oh buddy wait until i tell you about ned stark and lysa tully. “they conquered westeros they’re colonizers descended from the evil slave owning valyrians” ah yes as opposed to the starks who ruled over the north for 8,000 years with the power of friendship and democratic election, descended from the andals who very politely asked the children of the forest to leave their land

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

There is a whole argument about the "indigenous" Starks vs Daenerys and Orientalism...Seriously, this fandom desires to inject real-world racial and cultural narratives into the fictional world... The Starks are portrayed as one of the "First Men" families, and though they are tied to the ancient history of Westeros, they are still depicted as unequivocally white, noble, and ruling over the North for thousands of years. They are not even "mestizos,' not an oppressed or "indigenous" group in any sense of the word. God!! When fans attempt to infuse these characters with modern identity politics, they overlook the fact that ASOIAF was created within the framework of Western fantasy traditions, where whiteness and nobility often go hand in hand.

Inject, yes, but it's also more or a different thing form just "inject". Because the Starks--if you tried to fit their history and transfer their relationship with nonnorthern Westerosi to a modern racial system--would never be PoCs or "mixed" race. Ever, as you already say. The modern identity politics, even when they try to affix and apply them, simply don't work because the systems and history are different !!!

So it's more they what white people have done for centuries: change the race of a certain group of fictional characters to add to a certain victim identity they wish to utilize against another group they wish to assign as inferior or Other. Or metaphorically.

People in this fandom really need to look over the definitions of a "Watsonian/diegetic" vs a "Doylist/exegetic" readings/explanations for phenomena in texts. Then I think they'd be able to better express this tactic that I describe better.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

The Stark succession crisis is set up to be the funniest thing in the world because it just doesn’t exist for its delusional fans.

According to grrm’s affc and adwd outline, Sansa resolves to take the North, which means it’s not just going to be Littlefinger doing it without her input, she’s actively going to want him to mobilize the Vale army. Then you have Jon who’ll have a faction supporting him + Robb’s will legitimizing him and declaring him his heir. Then you have Bran who is the actual heir to Robb, but no one knows he’s alive. Then you have Rickon, whom the Manderlys support. Then you have Arya, who has some of the Northern lords too.

Then you have the Northern lords wanting to use the direwolves to legitimize the identity of each Stark kid. Then you have the North who has always operated under an inheritance system of male-preference cognatic primogeniture. In short, it’s hilarious as fuck because unless each of these kids says “no you have it,” I doubt “Stark unity” will easily resolve it. But hey, since everyone says the Starks are immune to the problems that plague the other houses, I’m sure they’ll all sacrifice their claims to give to their siblings and usher in a communist and anti imperialist utopia! (but without giving back the North to the CotF of course).

And the push back to this is even funnier because it proves that the Starks are probably the worst written “heart” of a narrative in fantasy literature. None of the other families are immune to conflict and angst. The Lannisters and Targaryens may be extreme examples, but the Baratheons, Martells, and Greyjoys have internal conflict as a foregrounding aspect of their arcs too. Sibling rivalry is supposed to be a central theme of asoiaf. The resolution is there too, but none of the other families just get a “well we’re the protagonists and our genes bestow protection against conflict so we’re fine.” The notion that genetics produces a family of ontologically benevolent people who are incapable of moral harm or internal conflict is explicitly fascist, btw.

So, either GRRM is writing a fascist narrative that privileges the Starks based on their bloodline and genetic destiny, against all of these other families and houses that apparently aren’t blessed with Honorable Unity Genes (tm), or he’s showing that no feudal house is immune to the effects of the game of thrones. Moreover, even beyond the reactionary optics of highlighting one specific house as unique among a sea of selfish warmongers, it’s just not good or interesting writing.

In short, it’s hilarious as fuck because unless each of these kids says “no you have it,” I doubt “Stark unity” will easily resolve it. But hey, since everyone says the Starks are immune to the problems that plague the other houses, I’m sure they’ll all sacrifice their claims to give to their siblings and usher in a communist and anti imperialist utopia!

Well, I think many fans whatever conflict that might or inevitably brew between the remaining Stark siblings with what you bring up will have it "quickly" resolved and all of a sudden it'll be bc "Winter is Coming"/the Others' encroachment on their "home".

The notion that genetics produces a family of ontologically benevolent people who are incapable of moral harm or internal conflict is explicitly fascist, btw.

Really love this bit. Bc, yeah.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

The Nettles “not being a Valyrian” debate hinging entirely on the fact she doesn’t look like a Valyrian making no sense considering that half the ammo against Rhaenyra is that…neither do her sons.

Nettles gaining the trust of Sheepstealer also means nothing against her being a Valyrian and infact supports it as a call back to the Valyrians potential origin of being shepherds.

Why do people accept that only First Men can be wargs but hate the idea that only Valyrians can bond with dragons ??

They saw an opportunity, I think, of the "not-needing-blood-to-be-a-rider" and ran with it.

Perhaps they mistook the more class-diverse pool of wargers and greenseers, etc. (as opposed to Valyrians and Targs having most dragonriders be exclusively upper class or royalty by political intent and design, restricting access) as it being bc First Men chose to not restrict warging to their elite classes...meanwhile if this is true of those who feel this way, it's a fallacy.

Because we never hear or see histories of elite classes or houses actually using warging for any war efforts--not even the Starks--. OR they see warging as so mysterious (which yes it is), warging is not a socially recognized and organized exclusive ability the way the Targs made sure to keep certain Targs have access to dragons. However, unlike dragonriding, you can't stop a warg from wargng, they don't need to access anything external to warg. They are the warg, their ability lives within them, so there is no possible way any ruler could try to exclude a warger from warging to limit wargers to a specific line.

Plus, people think the Starks are the "good" house bec of of its current members...as if Robb himself wasn't displaying typical patriarchal messiness before and during the war. As if Ned wasn't relying on his own class and gender privilege and handled Cersei stupidly from said privilege, as well as his double-edged privilege of being Robert's "best" friend. As if the Strarks were not also a house that have waged wars for power, money, glory when it suited them.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
rhaenin-time

Okay I'll say it:

Targaryens ≠ Colonizers ❌️

Targaryens = Conquerors ✅️

Martells = Conquerors

Valyrian Freehold = Colonizers in practice

Westerosi Andals = Colonizers in essence

"First Men" = Ambiguous and debatable

Starks = Colonizers

This came up in comments and was actually a pretty good prompt for some elaboration.

Do the first men count if there are no people to colonise? Or do we consider the children of the forest humans? 🤔

For clarity's sake, I'll first say that it is possible to "colonize" land that isn't populated by a sentient species e.g. colonizing the Moon. But that falls into a more broad interpretation of colonization than the one we usually talk about when we're trying to measure the crimes of a civilization/power structure. Especially re: asoiaf.

As far as the Children go, it's not about whether they're "human" as much as whether they are "people" in our eyes. Do they have the same "active" relationship with their environment as humans and our extinct/absorbed cousins would? If aliens pulled a Europe, or we pulled a Europe on sentient aliens, that would still be "colonization." The reason I still call it "ambiguous" is because we don't know enough about the initial migrations. And migration does not equate to colonization.

For example, I wouldn't consider the Inuit migration into North America "colonization." Even if it did result in conflict with Algonkian/Dene peoples and they did end up absorbing the Dorset. Because they weren't monopolizing land use nor were they tools serving the interests of a "foreign" power by importing their authority and exporting resources back to them.

Which is also why I leave First Men ambiguous because initially it mostly seems to be a migration where they adapted their ways to the new land.

But whether or not First Men as a whole engaged in colonization, there is absolutely no question about whether the Starks did — and still do by upholding that system through violence. Even if not the Children of the Forest, then definitely other First Men. Public education does us a (very intentional) disservice by downplaying the connection between "feudalism" and colonization. But to keep it simple: Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Although, I do think that the FM eventually started activities that are closer to "colonization" to the CotF and not just other FM that the claims of Targs doing such things to the nonTarg Westerosi.

Bc they destroyed their religious figures, forced them out of lands inot more extreme climates, killed 1000s of CotF. Not exactly colonialism, but nothing the Targs did AND sharing some things that actual colonizers have done to take over a land for themselves.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

It's amazing how much easier it would be for the writers to... write a good story, if they could just admit that the Blacks are the protagonists. If they focused on depicting complex narrative heroes against complex narrative villains echoing the Starks against the Lannisters.

After all, you don't see many complaints that the Starks/Lannisters lack "nuance." You see people liking characters on both sides, understanding people on both sides, but mostly agreeing that the Lannisters are more in the wrong. And I do have to wonder how much that refusal to do the same with the Blacks and Greens comes from a refusal to engage with the ideologies in conflict. Because in a lot of ways, the Dance is a lot less "rich people and their personal quarrels" than the Stark/Lannister conflict is.

And I do have to wonder how much that refusal to do the same with the Blacks and Greens comes from a refusal to engage with the ideologies in conflict. Because in a lot of ways, the Dance is a lot less "rich people and their personal quarrels" than the Stark/Lannister conflict is.

Oh, it absolutely is! Misogyny is a definitely shown in the HotD universe and it as the impetus behind Rhaenyra not being accepted as a rightful heir. However, much of the pathos of the sexism gets easily directed towards how Alicent is implied to be somewhat justified in trying to get Rhaenyra to conform or at least to obey the authority she seeks for herself bc she, Alicent, "deserves" to be compensated after being raped into birthing 4 spares for the Targ dynasty. AND it dilutes the ambition from both of these women, relegated them to reactors to their power taken from them more than makes them reason to find more agency and authority. Tries to focus more on how they both think they are doing the morally right thing instead of trying to reveal Alicent's desire for power not just over Rhaenyra but desire for status through her son AND for Rhaenyra to have the pride of heritage and experience of real rule to and Viserys choosing her to have the throne. Not to mention how both women think they are also following viserys' direction, the male authority's direction more than their own desires/interpretations.

So the show contradicts itself and reaffirms feudal paternalism.

Avatar

List of Non-Targ Westerosi In*cest Marriages

Tywin Lannister x Joanna Lannister (1st cousins)

-- Issue: Cersei, Jaime, and Tyrion

Rickard Stark x Lyarra Stark (1st cousins)

-- Issue: Brandon, Eddard "Ned", Lyanna, Benjen

Cregan Stark x Lynara Stark (just says "distant cousins")

-- Issue: Jonnel, Edric, Lyanna, Barthogan, Brandon

Serena Stark x Edric Stark (uncle-niece)

-- Issue: Cregard, Torrhen, Arrana, Aregelle

Sansa Stark x Jonnel Stark (uncle-niece)

-- Issue: NONE

Paxter Redwyne x Mina Tyrell (1st cousins)

-- Issue: Horas, Hobber, Desmera

Samantha Tarly x Lyonel Hightower (previously step mother-stepson)

-- Issue: 6 unknown children, all illegitimately born before their marriage

POSSIBLE CLOSE RELATIONS (exact degrees unknown)

Jon Arryn x Rowena Arryn

-- Issue: NONE

Shella Whent x Walter Whent

-- Issue: 4 unknown sons & 1 unknown daughter

Benfrey Frey x Jyanna Frey

-- Issue: Della & Osmund

Alys Frey x Jared Frey

-- Issue: Tytos & Kyra

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

The fact that so many people think the Starks are honorable anticolonial fighters and the pinnacle of morality is absolutely insane, they literally built a massive wall to isolated a bunch of people they considered as “savages”, they hunted and slaughtered the Free Folk, the Children of the Forest, giants, exterminated whole houses and clans and took their daughters as “prizes” while conquering the North, etc. The Blackwoods were originally from the North and ruled most of the wolfswood, before being driven out by the Starks and forced to flee south. The Starks are the OG COLONIZERS in ASOIAF.

Even this did not give Winterfell dominion over all the North. Many other petty kings remained, ruling over realms great and small, and it would require thousands of years and many more wars before the last of them was conquered. Yet one by one, the Starks subdued them all, and during these struggles, many proud houses and ancient lines were extinguished forever. — The World of Ice and Fire – The North: The Kings of Winter.

I recently finished a Tiktok series that will probably just be as lost to the internet if we lose TikTok but I had to get out in response to a particular creator who bashes Rhaenyra while also proclaiming themselves as black stans. I think they are really more black stans because they hate Alicent personally and feels the thrill of the side-taking, but that's neither here nor there. 😏

It just rings so familiar to the way so many people view the other in real life. Because the Targaryens are overtly, and intentionally written as the other. It's the reason so many people identify with them, and it's the very same reason that other people vilify them. They're not just the in-universe other to the 'default' culture established in the text, but they're also given characteristics that we, the reader and audience, can recognize as other and even sometimes anathema to Western Christian culture. To paraphrase the annoying people that love to cite Ramsay when they feel like it: If you look at a morally complex family surrounded by other morally complex families in a morally complex world in a story that's famed for seeking to challenge your underlying assumptions, and think that their association with fire and brimstone is meant to signify their singular satanic evilness, rather than say... challenge that very Eurocentric assumption, you haven't been paying attention. This vilification mindset where the Targaryens are the singular evil of Westeros is so common to people who seem to want to consume ASoIaF without engaging with the criticisms of the Eurocentric worldview of history at the heart of it. And they end up using the convenient “others” to project all the wrongs of that world onto so they don't need to examine it any deeper. ........... It comes from the same place with how someone pointed out that the baffling bastardphobia that would have medieval peasants giving the side eye is so often people jumping at the chance to “cosplay” as bigots who base their arguments in misogyny and bio-essentialism. Because it's an acceptable channel to indulge in that mindset in a way that they'd often otherwise question, or at least hold back from expressing out of caution.
Avatar
reblogged
Anonymous asked:

I mean... Of course, Cersei hates Robert, he routinely rapes and beat her. It wouldn’t be a problem if Robert was only a cheater, he’s a wife-beater and rapist.

*EDITED POST* (3/3/24)

I assume that you are talking about this recent REBLOG I just put up about Rhaegar, Elia, Lyanna, and Tywin.

The entire point(s) of that post was to:

  1. point out how Rhaegar's cheating was not the cause of Elia and their kids' death.
  2. argue against the idea he was entirely or mostly responsible and also want to say that the entire dynasty's collapse was only caused by his infidelity. That such a thing could be caused by such.
  3. argue some people have conflated Victorian (a hyperbole) family values of fidelity or their own personal past with a bigger, interconnected political condition that was a maelstrom in Rhaegar's case. While ignoring his concerted attempts to even get rid of his own father before.
  4. argue that some people think that somehow, just staying with Elia would have prevented her death, or that it was easy to ascertain that Aerys and Tywin and everyone else would act as they did if we were him -> as I already listed in that post.

And this is what I said about Cersei:

The text never once explains or indicates how Elia herself feels about Rhaegar or Lyanna, but we have people claiming that she was emotionally wracked by this? Maybe upset for her reputation or shocked, but we still don't know who this woman was by personality, this all the guesswork based on her heritage, her health and the arrangedness of the marriage itself. One also cannot claim that she was something like Cersei was/would be, feeling totally humiliated, jilted of a perfect and glorious life, hating Rhaegar, etc. Nothing in the text gives strong evidence of that.

She is not only hateful towards Robert because he beats and rapes her (completely justified); she hates him for treating her as second place to someone she sees as inferior to herself and someone who "stole" Rhaegar from her. BUT she is hateful toward Robert & compares him to Rhaegar specifically bc for years she has wondered what life would have been like for her if she married Rhaegar instead of this man who she thought would at least appreciate her for the qualities she's told to have/be the best for a woman...but instead gets an abusive, self-deluded man who lusts for a girl who never even liked him AND was not the idea of a "perfect" woman to Cersei, but is still her competition for male favor (a woman's political key to access to power).

(*I must bring a more nuanced point about this, though and note that aside from Robert whispering some other girl's name on their wedding night, Cersei also has had an issue with not "measuring" up to the masculinized standards of competent personhood, so Robert's revealing that he wants and continues to want Lyanna over her pokes at Cersei's deepest insecurity. GameofThronesHistorian on TikTok notes how Cersei expected to marry Rhaegar after Tywin dumbly got her hopes up and she spent a lot of her time fantasizing about being with him and being Queen but he marries Elia, Aerys basically insults the entire house along with Tywin, and her hopes are dashed along with a bit of her pride ostensibly (nobles get a lot of their pride from their house identity). She finally gets to be Queen (the position dangled in front of her like a prize since childhood, snatched away, and now she "has" it back), but she discovers that the queenship doesn't make up for Robert's clear preference for the same girl "her" Rhaegar got himself supposedly killed for. When Cersei married Robert she expected to finally overcome the haunting legacy both girls left behind her own insecurities & ruined hopes. When she actually gets to be Queen, she discovers that this thing she thought would fix everything and that has been long promised to her cannot make up for the slight Robert gives her and thus traps her in a marriage that quickly becomes abusive. For someone like Cersei, who grew up hearing that she is the most beautiful person around while having almost nothing for herself other than that and later being queen as Tywin always promised to her name [bc her patriarchal society affords way less in terms of prestige, value, and recognized respect to women as it does men & boys AND makes physical features comparatively final measure of worth for girls and women], it's not that hard to see that Cersei's feelings are not baseless or totally irrational. Her already existing insecurities mushroomed into a plague that also sharpened her need to be "perfect" and counteract the feeling of never measuring up. Therefore, her classist-generated need to self-empower evolves into her stomping on others to get power and the self-satisfaction always distant from her*)

Neither her feelings nor Catelyn's for Robert/Ned cheating on them are things one could automatically guess are the exact same as Elia's toward Rhaegar being with Lyanna. Even without the beating/raping, because they are unlikely to be similar women w/exactly the same experiences.

I say this to point out that Cersei, while definitely being a victim of domestic abuse, still has a specific personality, history before him, and expectations of herself from her class position and gender. From those expectations, an idea--and the need to constantly reaffirm that idea bc of how little room it leaves one for developing a constant sense of self apart from it--of her exceptionality. Cersei is a NLOG and very much by a social-inspired inner compulsion.

What we know about Elia apart from her having kids and being married to Rhaegar comes from Oberyn and her Martell family members. And we get barely much from there (compared to other characters) aside from how she had had her own mind (her voicing her desire against a potential match by his farting). We have her in her early/mid-teens at the Lannisters wanting to see baby Tyrion and thinking/acting like she thinks him cute and witnessing child Cersei pinch baby Tyrion's penis (which already shows us a deep resentment against male privilege at such a young age and how it turned to who her father blamed for the absence of her mother). We don't have a PoV from Oberyn, so we get a few sentences of his feelings towards her in dialogue and dialogue is not as rich as the direct inner thoughts of characters. He does not have a reflective view of who Elia was as much as current/adult Ned Stark for Lyanna (who had PoVs) because he's focused on revenge. Even Ned could have thought more about other things that showcased Lyanna's personality independent of her engagement to Robert, but Oberyn seemed much more aware of who Elia was than Ned with Lyanna.

We don't know who adult Elia really is like we do Cersei, just her position, she was sick most of the time, and that she was Dornish. We do not get her life with Rhaegar, we do not get details nor suggestions in-text of her dynamic with Rhaegar as much as we get with him & Lyanna.

In a Con, GRRM has reportedly gone on to state that Elia and Rhaegar's relationship was "complex". Does this mean that there was affection but a mutual understanding that there was no deeper romance? Does this mean that if Elia were healthier, she would want to develop one with him? Either way, would she want it to be monogamous or not? Again, she's from Dorne, she's more likely to be more okay with it being an "open" marriage AND it being known Rhaegar has a side lover as she has enjoyed more body autonomy and a stronger sense of her own political autonomy from childhood.

But while she is Dornish, after she married Rhaegar she had to live in a nonDornish court in a nonDornish region while raising children, knowing that a man versus a woman having extramarital lovers are treated very differently. [a fuller explanation by dwellordream HERE]. For her own image and social standing, would she want him to be discrete even more than if they were just minor nobles? Or is she secure in the knowledge that her kids will always inherit before any of Lyanna's bastards (would she be, how likely is this) and de-prioritize how bad Rhaegar's cheating makes her look for her own safety (she nearly died the last time she gave birth)? We simply don't know for sure, even though I believe that Elia knew about Rhaegar and Lyanna bastard and wasn't against it.

this is essentially just a reception, so you could scroll past if you need. I basically free-write these things.

The answers to all these questions for Cersei are too obvious. We have Cersei's PoVs and her interactions with multiple people with both PoVs and with none--either dead or still alive by the last published book. And we get her own PoVs to draw her motivations and psychological processes and make better, credible conclusions.

Cersei's Lannister self-defensive-exceptionalist mindset feeds into her believing herself to be the paragon of any living woman, especially paramours, and mistresses. That PLUS her own need to have something close to or the same authority and power a man could have in her world, which she buys through sex, giving up some of her agency during some sexual encounters, and making herself NLOG to (mistakenly) gain men's loyalty or at least obedience to her commands. All of which is always in flux and depends on the person. To repeat myself, she very much cares about and is emotionally dependent on her nobility, her titles, her rank, her Lannister name, etc to accrue power for herself to her own detriment and to the abuse of others, which worsens or gains justification under Robert's abuse.

On the other hand, Cersei, her whole life, has been externally defined through a sexual lens. Yes, even in childhood. Sex and reproduction. She isn't a "whore" or a "slut" for then using what people used to objectify her into a weapon or device for her own intentions when she has learned that that is a direct way of accruing others' interest in her own and her kids' advancement. Cersei, while loyal & protective to her children, also--from her own experiences with powerlessnes from her gendered value in her family and society--tends to be less patient with them and be less able to address their emotional distresses. She seems abusive towards at least Tommen. And yes, in a feudal world, one can gain much political power & resources through their kids' claims and/or positions of power -> Tommen or Joffrey were kings and she could be Queen Dowager/Mother, the highest female rank a noblewoman could have...at least how GRRM wrote Westerosi society.

This is the crux of her motives: she learned that power-as-masculine AND power = male sexual dominance. Unlike the Tyrells, who have a better grasp of using both actual soft power and hard power (mostly yhr first) to maintain social dominance, Tywin is more the silent, golden rock that intimidates you into following him. Power, she learned from her father, is less diplomatic and more forceful and fear-inspired, violent, physical, and from Robert, sexual. All traditional qualified as masculine and assigned to men, who are given the privilege to hold/lead armies and wield weapons in battles:

In medieval times a woman could not bear arms; therefore a woman could not take on a role which, even symbolically, required her to carry arms. In medieval times a woman who took on an overt military role was an aberration. Lyon, A. (2006). "The place of women in European royal succession in the middle ages."

From childhood, she absorbed this ideology and "decided" to essentially prove she was "not like the other girls." And the loss of her mother to childbirth, how her father never truly coped, would have had her rush to gain his love, and when that didn't work, to gain his respect. But she is female, so Tywin never will. She learned that being anything "feminine" is inherently "weak", and so she tried her entire life to differentiate herself from the "weak" women around her. Cersei is the ultimate NLOGs.

She gave up her sexual agency for her children (yes, the same ones who she abused at one point) to shore up defenses for their/her own position and safety, as she wouldn't in a hundred years have sex with some people willingly if it did not come with the expectation of their support, resources, etc. Class/masculinity-perceived-through-hypersexuality is to her, strength even as it puts her at a disadvantage as a woman, as she's that much more open to scandal if the odds go out of her favor and the Lannisters lose much of their power and the others' fear of them.

She imagines herself as Robert/in the male/"dominant" position (she herself imagines that position as male, the place of power she internalized as prime her whole life) when she's sexually rubbing and fingering Taena of Myr. She continues to finger her painfully despite Taena protesting in pain, thus herself becoming a sexual abuser so she can feel the power and defy Robert/men. Power that she learns directly resides in using sexual ties or performing sexual abuses. Taena also, as Cersei's "spy" on Margarey, and as one far beneath her rank, is also a person who acts as socially lower than Cersei herself, which feeds into Cersei's ego. So Cersei banks much of herself and self-worth on her class to a dangerous fault.

She has basically felt compelled to buy into that exceptionalism at full speed to compensate for her lack of power and feelings of inferiority from that lack. Cersei is rather a pretty complicated woman, while also being very simple. Her class position as aristocratic and Queen Dowager/Mother and her desire for power in the aristocratic space are directly related and inspired by her long sexual objectification. This is where gender and class intersect. Her hatred of Robert is obviously justified and comes from her long struggle to gain and keep autonomous power from men; that doesn't mean that she also doesn't eventually use her class and internalize female inferiority as her final crutch.

Cersei's personality and her abuse from others and against others are two related and unique things informing each other from her young childhood, especially evidenced by her thoughts and actions of her youth before she married Robert, how her father & those others around her treated her, and her observations of the events before Robert rebelled concerning women's abilities. Elia is, by contrast, a silent victim so it's easier to project a lot onto her the way it isn't for Cersei. Or Catelyn.

Even with the societal setup of misogyny put up against her since birth and her trying to collect power for herself, the consequences of how she does it, the carelessness of it, and the losing control of her impulses are going to be reasons for her downfall anyway.

Avatar

Reposted bc of changes to the original ask/answer #3

A)

You: “U know there is difference between keeping a normal peasent mistress and  noble lady mistress? keeping a mistress is not a problem, keeping a highborn mistress is a problem. Before rebellion,Robert sleep's with a peasent women and if u see rhaegar situation, he's going to keep a f*cking stark as a mistress and again like i have said it first time, if lyanna was a peasent women or even a minor lord daughter, then elia wouldn't have any problem from rhaegar relationship.

A woman does not mean they are mistress or a "paramour". You need to provide them some means of living or money as well as consistently go to them for intimacy/sex for them to constitute an actual mistress/"paramour."

I already explained what I thought about mistress-keeping in the specific case of Lyanna-Rhaegar and the entire Stark-Targ-Martell case (in the scenario that Rhaegar deposed Aerys successfully).  You're talking in general without looking at the specific case here.

Yes, Rhaegar sleeping with OR having a noblewoman as a paramour/mistress presents more potential political problems than sleeping with a peasant.

However, when we're talking about Elia, Lyanna, and Rhaegar and the court politics that you specifically brought up to say would influence Elia into hating Lyanna or just hating Rhaegar & Lyanna's relationship, I (as of 11/1/23, semi-)disagree. Again, the court politics. BTW, court politics do not have the same settings or circumstances and actions as "politics" as those played between lords in different locations.

HOWEVER, I think Rickon Stark--Lyanna's father--would have never accepted Lyanna being Rhaegar's publicly know mistress or lover of any kind not just because she is his highborn and eminently esteemed daughter for being the scion of a Lord Paramount, but bc he arranged her to marry Robert clearly for an alliance or political bond with the Baratheons for whatever reason. He would have done what he already did if RhaegarxLyanna had "come out"; really, only his & both of Lyanna's brothers' freak deaths could have allowed Lyanna a credibal possibility of being Rhaegar's public mistress and have a relationship for Elai to be okay or not okay with.

B) [i don't think this one matters anymore; already made the change in repost above abt--ironically--the misreading of Lyanna's words vs "Northern"-unique sentiments abt bastards]

You: “I can't really understand what are you really trying to conveying to me ? That I'm bastardphobic in real life????

I said that you do not have a grasp on how you yourself think about people born out of wedlock. So, yes. You can reread if you need to.

C)

You: "If visenya really think that aegon was also going to be like aenys then she should have simply choose aenys other children and groomed them into a powerful ruler and keep maegor as hand of the king."

To "choose" & "groom" another of Aenys' kids to become the next monarch would still be usurping Aegon the Uncrowned because Aegon was Aenys' chosen heir, not Maegor!

And Visenya doesn't have the "legal" right to "choose aenys' other children" because in Westeros Queen Dowagers or any sort of Queen (except regnants) do not have the legal authority to choose heirs...this would still be an usurpation.

You're suggesting a usurpation...to stop the actual usurpation that happens already in canon? You're contradicting yourself, bc with your suggestion, Visenya still ends up usurping someone!

D)

You: "Why elia as a dornish women who are already prejudice by the entire Westeros going to accept lyanna and her children wholeheartedly without any of her own benefit? I'm using the term lord paramount again and again because in Westeros coming from a higher position means more power, support and prestige that peasent people can't afford for themselves.when did I say that rhaegar is also held the prejudice against dornish?"

And I already explained why I think she could. Operative word.

It is you who refuses to actually counterargue with a different argument bc you cannot think of anything to counterargue with. Which is how you keep repeating yourself. And when you brought up Aerys' words against Rhaenys to indicate that the anti-Dornish sentiment was strong, I countered with the argument that this sentiment is not as strong or consequential as you think & gave why I thought so.

We're pretending that the Starks and Baratheons are not connected or strongly and haven't built an army against the Targs with the Arryns' support. You think that a succession crisis is inevitable between Elia's kids and Lyanna's. And you think a succession crisis is inevitable because you think that Lyanna's father/brothers would, what, push for Lyanna's kids to inherit the throne by killing Elia's kids?

Meanwhile, no, Lyanna and Rhaegar are not proven to have married in the original story (forget the show, we're talking about the actual story) and even if they had married & it was ruled/accepted enough as a "legitimate" marriage, this, more than Rhaegar having an illegitimate child with Lyanna, could have triggered more dissension and a real Stark protest against the Targs or Aerys because:

  1. it would call into question how "valid" Valyrian marriages were in the realm of Westeros -> thus a perception of the chance of Lyanna being made the "exception" and being the second legitimate wife of the heir to the throne aside from her no longer being available to marry Robert and the final seal to a Stark-Baratheon alliance -> by your own theory, it is then Lyanna's family would try to pressure her into being a rival against Elia -> but even still, Elia's kids would always be both older than Lyanna's hypothetical kids with Rhaegar so whether they are married or not THUS every which way & regardless of gender, Lyanna's kids with Rhaegar--legitimate or not--has less claim to the throne than Elia's kids....them being bastards would give less incentive for the Starks to try to get them to be the next heirs or to kill off Elia's kids; no one would be on their side bc bastards do not ever inherit before their legitimate siblings unless they were legitimized -> they'd be more incentivized to have Rhaegar punished for "sullying" Lyanna & interrupting the Stark-Baratheon alliance through her marriage to Robert
  2. Maegor's name would be brought up and Idk if Rhaegar really would have wanted to make things harder for himself by bringing that up for his own plans to use others' support to take the throne and keep it for himself for the long term -> which means if we go along with the idea that he'd want to make this as smooth a thing as possible for himself AND his kids if he doesn't marry Lyanna

Why do you think Rickard would want to go into actual war for Lyanna's kids to become Rhaegar's only possible heirs and become the next monarch? What about Rickard's actions show you that? He confronted Aerys specifically to get Rhaegar punished, not to stir up things for Elia. And it still doesn't prove he would try to get Lyanna's kids on the throne.

We still do not know his aims, other actions, or perception of the political climate but it certainly wasn't for his grandkids to be royals.

E)

You: "Even a favoured lowborn peasent mistress can hold some power ,see Tytos Lannister mistress and here we are talking about a highborn noble lady mistress from a great house."

And I do not see why you haven't answered my question/addressed my statement as to why you think Lyanna would be willing to contend with Elia for her children to sit on the throne?

You keep speaking in general and with assumptions. Yet the text suggests to us that by Lyanna's own character, it is unlikely that she would actually be the plotting kind or try to fight with Elia specifically to get her bastard/legitimized/legitimate kids on the throne.

Like I said above, what makes you think Rickard Stark would want his bastard grandkid(s) to be the next monarch? And why would Lyanna--if Rickard does--be willing and follow his directions, to contend with Elia if all she really wanted was to live comfortably with Rhaegar and their kids? Lyanna, while willing to stand up for the downtrodden and wanting to be a swordswoman in some capacity herself, doesn't want war itself. Just because you can fight, doesn't mean you want to fight or will find an excuse to fight for its own sake.

Unless we're talking about Elia's calculations about Lyanna?

Again, while of course it's possible that she wouldn't like/hate the hit to her reputation or the further alienation from society (she had been bedridden after Aegon's birth), Lyanna's kids can't inherit before hers. Whether they are legitimized or existed in an unlikely legal marriage b/t her & Rhaegar. Her kids would always be younger than Elia's, so in the event that she does care about the possible rivalry b/t the kids over claims and inheritances or social graces, this is one of the only but important factors that could bring some comfort. We'll have to see how Elia felt in Winds of Winter.

Avatar
reblogged

Ok, I normally don't screen shot people's deleted posts but since this was a reply to my own post and I actually spend time to reply back but Tumblr ate my post (bc meanwhile they had deleted their reply) I'll post my thoughts here:

Highborn kids learning some skill (embroidery, swordfighting etc) isn't the same with lowborn kids doing actual labor working as farmers, apprentices, servants or worse being slaves ( this applies mostly to Essos).

The only part I agree with the above post is that Bran and Rickon were supposed to shoeing horses. Neither where any of the other Stark kids.

All the Stark kids ( Jon and Arya included) enjoyed a life of certain privileges while living on Winterfell.

The difference between those two and the rest of their siblings is that they actually had to work once they left Winterfell. Jon when he joined Night's Watch and Arya when she became servant ( basically a slave) at Harrenhal and later when she joined the House of Black and White.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

stark stans are something lol "GRRM decided to make House Stark the focus of his main novels and give them the most emotional and iconic moments of the entire books"

I had to read that targs aren't important to the story because they don't have POV in the books like what? dany's POVs are boring, when you have bran's POVs lol It would be so interesting if in the end, the Starks weren't the heroes this fandom thinks they are imagine the plot twist lol

Rhaegar & the Targs haunts the entire narrative, outside of Dany. Cersei (Rhaegar), Tyrion (the dragonriding), Ned (Rhaegar, more thinks of, not "haunts"), Sansa (Naerys & Aemon), Jon (Daeron), Aerys I (various peasants and I'm sure Tywin), etc. the fact that High Valyrian was considered the "literary" language to be used in "high" art and study in the seven Kingdoms. There are still songs sung of Targaryen conflicts, affairs, arguments, etc by bards looking for a room at whatever lord. We got the criminalization of the right of the first night AND the rule of thumb/rule of six criminalizing severe wife-beating from Targaryen women. We have had a new, more accessible sept through the Sept of Baelor in Kingslanding due to a (zealous) Tagr. We got the Kingsguard through a Targ, Visenya, of which group/institution Ned Stark & many others use to criticize Jaime Lannister's action of killing Aerys II despite it being the best thing for everyone's survival. Valyrian steel swords are the most precious swords to have bc of their high craftsmanship, and the Free City of Qohor is one of the only places you can go to have your Valyrian steel sword reworked. The Doom is considered one of the--if not THE--most cataclysmic events in Planetos, forever changing the landscape surrounding the remnants, introducing new horrors and diseases like greyscale. People literally can't travel too close or risk a fatal disease or being taken by infected "zombies", if we take GoT's scenes for what they were, realizing the implications of what AWoIaF tells us. After the Valyrians are gone, we still have Essosi people speak Valyrian in whatever iteration, along with governments & systems of power along with the negative, slavery.

The first book starts with the sighting of the Others, and ends with Dany reawakening the dragons, of such will be used against the Others in the coming Long Night. And Dany's arc of learning how to use her dragons for good and abolition is intrinsic to the themes of the entire narrative.

The end of the Targaryen dynasty is also critical to overlay the very necessity of their existence, to show how deeply the Valyrians AND the Targaryens affected & shaped the world the Starks live in to be what it is. The lack of chapters from more than one Targ and the rejection of Dany as being both a positive or a legitimate POV character is sheer misogyny and stupidity; it is through that very absence we get a near poignant and urgent significance to the Targayrens' absence. Thus, the haunting.

Avatar
reblogged

I don't understand why we have to get all technical about whether or not Cat's treatment of Jon constitutes an abuse. You don't think the label of abuse technically, strictly applies to the situation? Okay, fine. Let's say it's not abuse because GRRM says so, whatever.

Cat, the lady of the house, intentionally inflicted misery on an innocent, helpless kid, out of spite for things that were not his fault. She intentionally caused him immeasurable suffering, she intentionally made him feel inferior to her kids and a pariah. She intentionally turned her kids against him and thank god it only worked with one kid (Sansa). She intentionally rejected his very presence to his face by refusing to call him by his name, as if he was merely a fly to her. She intentionally told this kid to his face that she wishes he was in a coma instead of her own son. She intentionally made sure this kid had no home. She was pleased when this kid was sent off to die.

But sure she didn't abuse him. Okay. She just made the life of this kid a living hell, traumatizing him forever.

Avatar
reblogged

No, Ned did not, in fact, give TEDx lectures on Lyanna's astrology chart in front of his entire family every Sunday. This didn't happen, it is true. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that this means there was "silence" over Lyanna.

It is just so uninspired to reduce this "silence" surrounding Lyanna to this pity dead ladies club narrative of a poor little innocent girl who lived and died for men Rhaegar and nobody remembers anything about her apart from her being beAuTiFUL and raped by Rhaegar. NO. What about Ned's emotional response to the extremely traumatizing war that cost him half his family? What about his secrecy because of Jon? What about him not wanting to delve into that aspect of Lyanna because of fear that Arya might end up like her which is literally.stated.in.the.text? What about grrm wanting to keep a certain allure of mystery around Lyanna only to reveal the entire story later on? What about Arya's arc and Lyanna's characterization? Arya's "fixation" (if we can call it that) on Lyanna's beauty is because of her shock at Ned's comment that they look alike, since she believes herself to be ugly. Not because all she knew about Lyanna was her beauty. We know Lyanna is pretty and we know she was fierce and Arya knows too. It adds dramatic depth and texture to both characters and is thought provoking because it gets the reader to ask questions such as "Who is this girl? Why does she have wolf blood? Why did that cause her death? What does that mean for Arya that her father draws this double comparison between her and her aunt? Will they have the same fate? If both looked alike why is Arya bullied for her appearance? Maybe she too is pretty after all so she is bullied for other reasons (behavior, mentality) than strictly physical appearance. What could this mean?". So many questions, so many interesting paths to take.

But noooo, Lyanna was JUST a pretty sex slave raped by evil Rhaegar and remembered ONLY as Rhaegar's baby factory and Arya doesn't know jack shit about her apart from that because patriarchy and Rhaegar periodt.

This stupid take does such a disservice to Arya, Lyanna and Ned. It's sad.

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