Small things that annoy you ?

[HexMachina]

Never understood the dislike for Penny. I'd take her relentless optimism and forgiving nature over Tyrion's self-pity any day of the week

[The Killer Snark]

I love Penny. She's the one thing I'm going to miss in Season 5, because it seems that she's been written out of it.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

Don't dislike Penny, but I won't miss her.

[Shagwell Snow]

The more I hear about season 5 the less I look forward to it.Not really expecting much from it now.especially with no stoneheart.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

Yeah yeah I'm a feminist and all that, so "SJW" accuse away, but the absence of women in Westerosi history??

Ok, so Westerosi history does not exist before the Andals. We know through stories that the great houses Stark, Lannister, Gardener, Durrandon and Greyiron came to be, but that's mostly word of mouth, and a given since they still rule there. We can assume that the Age of 100 Kingdoms likewise existed, as many houses claim this to be so, and obviously the Starks etc. can't instantly rule a whole area. We also know the state of affairs with many great houses during that time. The Gardeners and Starks had absolute rule, while the Lannister's only expanded with the Andal Invasion. The Durrandon's lost lots during the Andal invasion. The riverlands, Dorne, Vale and Iron Islands (to some extent) were all a mixture of kings. KINGS. No queens.

The only female Durrandon we know is Argella. And we all know what happened to her.

There is no female Gardeners, besides some daughters who the Peakes and Manderly's tried to claim Highgarden with. The only Dornish woman is Wyla of Wyl. No northerners. One Lannister, who was promptly raped and disfigured. The only female in the Vale is Ursula Upcliff, who, go figure, was a witch. Arwen Upcliff and Teora Hunter married an Arryn king. There is some in the Age of Heroes, but from Age of Heroes to the Conquest there is none.

Then when the Targs arrive we get queens (god bless), but still the Stark daughter goes unnamed.

No queens? When Andal law explicitly allows for daughters to inherit? No daughters or wives who somehow influence history? When we know towards the end of Andal history there was queens?

And saying that there was no influential female figures in history is just well... No words for that. Laud Nymeria all you like, but she's pretty much the only one.

[Julia Martell]

Yeah yeah I'm a feminist and all that, so "SJW" accuse away, but the absence of women in Westerosi history??

Ok, so Westerosi history does not exist before the Andals. We know through stories that the great houses Stark, Lannister, Gardener, Durrandon and Greyiron came to be, but that's mostly word of mouth, and a given since they still rule there. We can assume that the Age of 100 Kingdoms likewise existed, as many houses claim this to be so, and obviously the Starks etc. can't instantly rule a whole area. We also know the state of affairs with many great houses during that time. The Gardeners and Starks had absolute rule, while the Lannister's only expanded with the Andal Invasion. The Durrandon's lost lots during the Andal invasion. The riverlands, Dorne, Vale and Iron Islands (to some extent) were all a mixture of kings. KINGS. No queens.

The only female Durrandon we know is Argella. And we all know what happened to her.

There is no female Gardeners, besides some daughters who the Peakes and Manderly's tried to claim Highgarden with. The only Dornish woman is Wyla of Wyl. No northerners. One Lannister, who was promptly raped and disfigured. The only female in the Vale is Ursula Upcliff, who, go figure, was a witch. Arwen Upcliff and Teora Hunter married an Arryn king. There is some in the Age of Heroes, but from Age of Heroes to the Conquest there is none.

Then when the Targs arrive we get queens (god bless), but still the Stark daughter goes unnamed.

No queens? When Andal law explicitly allows for daughters to inherit? No daughters or wives who somehow influence history? When we know towards the end of Andal history there was queens?

And saying that there was no influential female figures in history is just well... No words for that. Laud Nymeria all you like, but she's pretty much the only one.

Yeah, it’s annoying, but I think in terms of meta-fictional-history (Or whatever it is we’re doing when we discuss narrative in tWoIaF) I think it’s a feature, not a defect. I think for a dude like Yandel, unless the woman’s influence was so massive that there was no way to get around it, like Nymeria for example, he would rather not mention it, minimize it, or couch it in patriarchal terms.

For example, yes Andal Law allows for daughter to inherit (when they have no other choice but to resort to the extremity) but it also seems like they inherit, but it’s their husbands who actual rule, so all those mentions of Andal warriors and heroes taking over a place by marrying the daughter of the last king were probably instances of that, or at least of him killing all her male relative and them marrying her to gain some legitimacy. Like Argellla. This is still how a lot of people are thinking in the timeframe of aWoIaF from Lancel being granted Darry and marrying a Darry woman to smooth the transition, to Tyrion assuming that he would rule the North “in Sansa’s name”.

And when a woman gains soft power by being influential or acting as a councillor, yeah, she gets called a witch. That particular trop is hardly unique to Westeros either.

Word on the SJWing. :cheers:

[Ramsay's Penguins]

Yeah, it’s annoying, but I think in terms of meta-fictional-history (Or whatever it is we’re doing when we discuss narrative in tWoIaF) I think it’s a feature, not a defect. I think for a dude like Yandel, unless the woman’s influence was so massive that there was no way to get around it, like Nymeria for example, he would rather not mention it, minimize it, or couch it in patriarchal terms.

For example, yes Andal Law allows for daughter to inherit (when they have no other choice but to resort to the extremity) but it also seems like they inherit, but it’s their husbands who actual rule, so all those mentions of Andal warriors and heroes taking over a place by marrying the daughter of the last king were probably instances of that, or at least of him killing all her male relative and them marrying her to gain some legitimacy. Like Argellla. This is still how a lot of people are thinking in the timeframe of aWoIaF from Lancel being granted Darry and marrying a Darry woman to smooth the transition, to Tyrion assuming that he would rule the North “in Sansa’s name”.

And when a woman gains soft power by being influential or acting as a councillor, yeah, she gets called a witch. That particular trop is hardly unique to Westeros either.

Word on the SJWing. :cheers:

First of all :cheers:.

There is a nice little Westerosi invention I have to show to Yandel, which is called a sword. If you put one in a maester they bleed!

I think it is both a feature and a defect. It's a fantasy, it's not hard to have women in power. If it's done in the main series, then the history neglects this feature, that doesn't feel right. And what reason would Yandel have to neglect women in history? He did nifty write ups on Johanna Westerling, the Black Brides, Aegon's Mistresses and the female Targs, plus randomly Sabina Vypern and Joanna Lannister, so why before the Conquest do these sort of figures not exist? It doesn't seem like he wouldn't brook to write women.

And what Yandel does can be traced back to the authors. Do they not think to write about women and then pretend the maester doesn't want to, which justifies it? That's not cool. Lhazar, Ghiscar and Qarth were all ignored, and in world reasons given, but it stems from author disinterest on those topics (book restraints... really?). If the same is true for women, well then...

I would not call it an extremity. When you put daughters quite high up in succession (after sons is the only thing) then why do none of these daughters not inherit? It's not one big uncle knocks the niece off fest.

Darry is more like a Lannister power grab, and not the norm (House Hayford remains Hayford after Tyrek marries Ermesande). For great houses, the man seems to change his name to the womans (Joffrey Lydden-> Lannister (whose wife was not named...)), so I don't see this female to male being the norm. Otherwise, why does House Lydden not rule the Westerlands?

And Orys also didn't kill all of her relatives to sieze the lordship. He killed her dad, and she was the last one left. Plus it was during an invasion, not just a normal marriage. He wanted to found House Baratheon, not continue Durrandon, while Lydden was happy to continue Lannister. And he was supposedly somewhat Valyrian, so may have completely ignored such laws.

[Julia Martell]

I think both the Hayford and the Darry examples are the norm, in different ways. The Darry thing could only happen in times of war or treason, since it’s a bad idea for a king or liege lord to just randomly reassign lordships, I imagine, but the whole "marrying the last female survivor thing” seems to be a common tactic in these situations, as it was with Argella. And if the woman’s family name is particularly old or prestigious, like in the case of Lydden, they might keep it. Or not.

And in the case of Hayford, no one seem to doubt that it would have been Tyrek who actually ruled Hayford, even after Ermesande came of age. The point of the whole exercise was so that “the Lannisters might claim her lands”.

Both these things probably happened all the time before the conquest, so if you were to write about Hayford in the in-universe future you may not have cause to mention Ermesande, even though she’s technically ruling and her children will probably have her name, because she’s still not in a position to actual do stuff. It would all be about Tyrek, Lord of Hayford.

I mean, we have two non-Dornish examples of women who seem to be suo jure lords in aSoIaF, Lady Oakheart and Lady Wainwood, and both of them appear to be widows. Were they able to exercise any kind of actual authority while their husbands were alive? :dunno: Although Lady Oakheart’s son’s attitude is slightly suggestive.

As for the daughter vs. uncle thing: Alys Karstark. But yeah, we don’t know how typical of a situation that is. But basically, a woman “ruling” means some other man is in charge.

I don’t know why were arguing, since I think we 99% agree.

[John Doe]

Tyrion.

Just kidding, he's awesome.

[Bironic]

Tormund's member

Just Kidding, it isn't small.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

Even with these instances, why would there be no instances of Anya Waynwood or Arwyn Oakheart? (Ermesande Hayford and Mary Mertyns also come to mind) Arwyn and Anya both have sons who didn't inherit, so it's clear that she was of that family. Barbrey Dustin is different, since her husband died and she has no children. It may be that Barbrey is indeed heir, (obviously Ryswell and Dustin blood are mixed) and after she dies one of her brothers/cousins takes the house over, and they'd become a Ryswell, or a cousin called Ryswell become head (not having done so since the Dustin's essentially siezed it). No one would let it become another house Dustin.

I don't think Darry is the norm, or Lannister cousins would be marrying left and right to claim lands, and Daven is marrying a Frey with no castle to rule (doesn't get the Twins or Riverrun). Plus, it's back to House Darry again now, with Mariya Darry.

I think it must be that houses keep the name no matter what, unless it's a seizure situation, like Darry or Argella.

It's not a matter of who actually rules, but who the head of house is. It's still Ermesande, just like Stokeworth is still Lollys. House Hayford endures, House Lannister is the husband.

I don't think that a man always rules through the woman. That's just cruel, especially given it is fantasy, and it's unrealistic too. Every queen is ruled through by a man... F*ck that noise.

And even if that situation occurs how come there is no wives, who always did something in history. No martyrs or warriors? No daughters over which these crisis's occoured? Something's amiss.

[Mrs.Grumpy]

@Ramsay's Penguins

Actually, there was a Gardener Queen Regnant. But we don't know her name :p

[Ramsay's Penguins]

@Ramsay's Penguins

Actually, there was a Gardener Queen Regnant. But we don't know her name :P

Go figure! Couldn't find her though? :P

[MhysaTeresa]

I would like to have a nickel for every time GRRM uses the word "padded". She (Dany) padded barefoot through the grass to her terrace pool. Ghost does it , too. Maybe, I've read the books too many times and we need the WOW!

[The Killer Snark]

Mhysa - It's a bit more bearable than Tyrion 'waddling' everywhere. I can't count the amount of times Martin uses the word 'waddled' in ADwD.

[Hangover of the Morning]

Wholeheartedly agree on the "waddling". So overused. I don't really remember "padded" that much. Some of the really popular words and phrases don't pop up until AFfC/ADwD, which ruins the continuity a bit.

I swear there's not a single paragraph in TWoIaF without the word "prowess".

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Padded:

aGoT: 17

Clash: 18

aSoS: 10

Feast: 3

Dance: 16

(feast doesn't have direwolves, maybe that's why)

Padding: 4

Clash: 1

aSoS: 1

Feast: 2

Waddled:

aGoT: 5

Clash: 8 (all Tyrion)

aSoS: 14 (all Tyrion)

Feast: 2 (1 about Tyrion)

Dance: 8 (all Tyrion)

[StannisForKing299AL]

Waddled:

aGoT: 5

Clash: 8 (all Tyrion)

aSoS: 14 (all Tyrion)

Feast: 2 (1 about Tyrion)

Dance: 8 (all Tyrion)

Tyrion is part penguin maybe? Heh, still beats the mad king theories

[Julia Martell]

Tyrion is part penguin maybe? Heh, still beats the mad king theories

A Jackass Penguin maybe. (Sorry...)

[Ramsay's Penguins]

A Jackass Penguin maybe. (Sorry...)

On the article the top picture I thought the penguins were having sex, so I thought yeah, I guess that works for Tyrion. But then I realised you meant Tyrion is a jackass aha.