Hodor the Articulate

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Hodor the Articulate

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,142 profile views
  1. "I don't want to have sex" isn't always the same as "I don't consent to sex". For example, I've had sex when I wasn't in the mood for it, but allowed it anyway. I imagine this isn't an uncommon scenario for people who are asexual, or have low sex drives, or medical/physiological issues that can make sex uncomfortable. So I think to classify everything as rape broadens the definition of term too much, making it meaningless. I mean, if all sex in arranged marriages are rape, then so too is having sex with your sugar daddy/momma. Again, bad sex isn't rape. And there wasn't anything to say she was afraid to put an end to it.
  2. There are women writers who tend to write male characters as romantic ideals and stereotypes but they're pretty much confined to the new adult/romance genre. I don't think it's a problem elsewhere, whereas male writers, regardless of genre or skill, will try to bring lips and breasts to attention at as much as possible ("her arms crossed beneath her breasts", "her heaving breasts"). And there's always at least one cute girl with a heart-shaped face. Also, I've found that women write sex scenes far better than men do. Part of it is because of the technical writing, but it's also because a lot of male writers just don't seem to understand female sexuality or basic anatomy. And don't get me started on lesbian scenes. Well, it's mostly because of Dany's love interests, in particular, Daario with his three pronged beard.
  3. Yeah, and Tywin quite easily had that marriage annulled. We have enough annulments, plus real life history, to have a fairly good idea of what might be necessary for annulments and divorces. Plus, just plain common sense. It would take something like non-consummation or adultery or not being able to produce heirs, I would think. It wouldn't be as easy as "I like this other person better than you" because the spouse's family, inheritance issues, the church, etc. Plus, noble marriages aren't just marriages, they're political alliances. And I think you're overstating a crown prince's power. He could bribe or bully a septon into performing an annulment or marriage or whatever, but that doesn't mean the rest of the realm would recognise it. A King could just as easily dismiss the act as unlawful. So yes, laws and precedents can be broken, but you'd need political and military backing for it to stick.
  4. "no lord paramount could hope to go against all the rest in practicality" - well, isn't that exactly what I said? Once the Great Council makes a decision, enough lords will support that, and any dissenters also fall in line because they'd have little chance of winning a war against the rest. I think the legitimacy of claims is more than just looking at birth order, though that is the first thing people will consider. The King's explicitly chosen heir can be just as important (just look at the support claimants like Rhaenerya and Daemon have mustered through just implicit choice), and Aerys wanted Viserys to succeed him. There isn't any cut and dry answer because Westeros doesn't seem to have concrete laws regarding this. Right now, Dany still has the best claim because she's the only one who's Targ identity isn't in question. Of course, that could change if enough people start backing Aegon. Jon... I can't see why anyone would believe he's got a bit of dragon in him, or why they'd care.
  5. Who said anything about it being right? I'm not trying to romanticise a relationship between a 30 year old and a 13 year old. I said I found it problematic, especially because of how sexualised Dany is, but that doesn't mean Dany didn't genuinely love him, nor that she was wrong for loving him. Bodies responding positively isn't consent in itself, but Dany leading his finger to her vagina did strongly indicate consent. Well, as much consent you can give in an arranged marriage where you are expected to consummate your marriage on your wedding night, anyway. That was the whole point of Drogo asking her "no?", clunky as that scene was. It was clearly not in the same as, say, Tyrion raping Illyrio's slave. I mean, you can classify all sex that wasn't fully and undoubtedly consensual as rape if you want - and that's the definition I would use in real life cases - but I think that makes the term too broad, because of the extreme power imbalance for the different genders. You'd have to count all sex in arranged marriages as marital rape. And I don't consider their subsequent activities to be rape, either. Firstly, because it's out of character for Drogo to be asking consent the first time but then doesn't bother later on. But also because not enjoying sex or even painful sex isn't non-consent. I don't recall anything nothing to indicate she couldn't refuse sex.
  6. GRRM is a good character writer, so his female characters are pretty great overall. But I have to concur with other posters in this thread about the voyeuristic aspects in the POVs of female characters who are sexual. Just like every other male writer, GRRM can't help but focus on breasts breasts breasts. I swear, if I ever write a book, I'm going have a male MC and he's going to think about his balls every second page. Also, his idea of what women find attractive is clearly based on his idea of an ideal man. This is probably an uncommon opinion, but I don't have a problem with Dany loving Drogo, and I don't consider their sex, even after the first time, to be rape. I think people think it is because it's unpleasant and hurts her, but that alone doesn't imply non-consent. It's also a very limited view of what rape is "supposed" to look like. As for their relationship, Dany fell in love with Drogo because he was kind to her and respected her. Their relationship was problematic because of the vast power imbalance in the beginning, but I don't doubt that Dany's feelings for Drogo were genuine. That said, I'm not fond of "woman gains power through sexuality" storylines.
  7. And what discourages a lord from rejecting the new King? The threat of facing the combined force of the King's supporters. Military might is implied when the nobility swears fealty to the new King. Hence, it's always important for anyone pressing a claim. Yes, I'm counting Aegon. Aerys already had three male descendants to pass his crown down to, and was able have more. House Targaryen wasn't short of heirs. Thus, Elia's inability to birth more children wouldn't have been a huge deal, and it certainly wouldn't have been grounds for divorce, let alone annulment. Even if he succeeded in bribing the septon into agreeing to a divorce, such a thing would only hold if the rest of the realm recognised the act as lawful. Dorne certainly wouldn't stand for it. Recognition of an R + L marriage is even more unlikely, especially if it was done in secret. So it isn't impossible, I guess, but it is very contrived. Viserys was crowned by the Queen, in front of witnesses, cementing the King's wish for Viserys to succeed him, giving Viserys' claim a great of legitimacy. That they weren't aware of any other possible heirs is irrelevant (and I doubt Rhaella would have crowned a baby over her own, older son, anyway, even if she had known of Jon's existence). Jon or Aegon could certainly base their claim is more legit because o the birth order, though.
  8. Technically, anyone with Targ blood is in the line of succession and can press a claim, even bastards, but it's meaningless unless the claimant has sufficient military support. The idea that sullen, friendless Jon could rally enough support, or that anyone will buy that that Ned's bastard - who looks nothing like a Targ - is a legit Targ heir, or that people will just accept the validity of a second Rhaegar taking another wife, just feels contrived to me. I would think it would be exceeding difficult to press for divorce or annulment over Elia not being able to produce more heirs, seeing as Rhaegar was not the King, and never was. The actual King had 3 male heirs, and could potentially have had more. Just because Rhaegar would have inherited before Viserys under normal circumstances, doesn't mean his children would too, regardless of context. In this case, Rhaegar died before Aerys, so Viserys was formally crowned. Btw, that crowning makes Viserys' claim a great deal stronger.
  9. "Only when Robert died and Joffrey had been crowned king, Tywin dared to send an army against Riverrun." ...right, so he did start a war, and it was because Catelyn had taken Tyrion hostage. I'm not saying Tywin would have challenged Robert directly, but they wouldn't have had the mutually beneficial arrangement that they had in canon had Robert punished Jaime. And that would have been a big deal, given Robert's spending habits.
  10. Tywin started a war because Tyrion was kidnapped. I can't imagine he'd meekly accept the dishonor of having his "good" son sent to the Wall.
  11. Now that I think about it, why was Lyanna traveling alone? Anyway, You can probably tell that I'm strongly against this idea. Mostly because it makes the romantic framework that GRRM sets around R and L quite pointless if his motivation for everything is just !prophecy!, but also because he can't have been trying to recreate the original three headed dragon when he had Rhaenys, having thought himself as TPTWP. There are things, like how there's no reason Lyanna had to be the mother of the 3rd head of the dragon as opposed to some random Northern chick, but this isn't the right thread to get into it.
  12. But this thread is specifically about Lyanna-Sansa parallels. What is the point of pointing out similarities between two characters when a dozen other characters also share said similarities? Also, adding Sansa on the list of "defying traditions for love" rather muddies the theme since she didn't break tradition. She may have disobeyed her father, but she was still doing as she was taught, viewing the King and Queen as the ultimate authority. She just chose one expectation over another. ETA: And Duncan, etc do have the same motivation: love.
  13. All of these are superficial similarities that crumble apart when you take in the context of these events and the motivations of the characters involved. - Sansa disobeyed her father, but she still took the side of her betrothed and of the Queen, as she was conditioned to do as a highborn lady. This is completely different to Lyanna who defied the rules of her society when she started an affair with her prince. I can't see Sansa ever doing that. - Lyanna wasn't crying over any song, it was Rhaegar's song. The whole point of the scene, other than hinting at R+L, was to show that it wasn't typical behaviour for Lyanna (hence Brandon laughing at her for it). Also, look at what she does after: she dumps her wine over Brandon's head. Totally an Arya move. You can still point out similarities between the characters, as you can for any two random characters, but there's little, if anything, to analyse if they were not purposeful inclusions by the author. Well, it could well have been her idea, or a mutual one. She was 16, not 6. We don't even know of it was planned - they could well have just bumped into each other on the way to wherever, and just gave into their passions.
  14. You can find similarities between any two characters, but unless it was intentional, it's all meaningless. Frankly, I don't find Lyanna and Sansa to be similar at all, and I don't think it makes sense for them to be. It's pretty obvious that Arya is meant to be Lyanna 2.0, given that we are explicitly told how alike they are, both in personality and in looks. And as Sansa and Arya are foils for each other, we should also see more differences between Sansa and Lyanna than similarities. I think people just want to make comparisons between S and L because they think L is more feminine than Arya. I'm sure 99% of this is because romance features so heavily in her backstory, and romance is, of course, girly. This ignores that romance is also a part of male/masculine characters' stories, and that Arya is not wholly masculine. As someone upthread pointed out, she likes flowers and songs too. What are either of these interpretations based on? Arya can be headstrong and she's been defying and challenging social norms throughout the story. I can totally see her running off a with a dude if she wanted to. As to Lyanna, I'm not sure we know enough about her to say that she's practical, but she certainly didn't seem like an ingenue. She recognised Robert for who he was, and knew what to expect of her marriage to him. And Ned attributes her death (and, it is implied, her running off with R) not to naivety, but to her "wolf blood". That's the complete opposite of Sansa, who tends to romanticise her betrothals, and would have stuck with marrying Robert like a proper lady. That Lyanna was 'coerced' is unsupported by canon unless you take the rape & kidnapping story at face value.
  15. I've always thought the fight was weird, too. I guess the KG could have thought a Ned might harm the baby or give it away. His reputation honor likely wasn't as well known as it was in later years. Or it could be as simple as the the KG displaying their tendency to follow orders a tad to rigidly, plus a massive amount of miscommunication. It's ridiculously frustrating that the one man who knows exactly what went down has not yet physically appeared yet. I'm going to be so pissed if Howland Reed dies before speaking to a Stark or a Targ. "There must be one more," he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. I think it's safe to assume vision!Rhaegar was speaking to Dany at that moment, and that it wasn't about Aegon or any of his children. My personal interpretation is that everything from "he has a song" to "The dragon has three heads" was a vision. The segment feels disjointed from the rest of the scene and everything Rhaegar says in that moment is nonsense to all the characters there. I mean, why does he say "He has a song [...] his is the song of ice and fire" but then proceed to pick up his harp afterwards, anyway? Or for that matter, why is even talking about prophecy stuff in front of Elia? The common theory that Rhaegar was doing everything because prophecy is based almost entirely on a literal interpretation of this scene, and it's why I don't buy it.