Voice Posted April 10, 2017 Author Share Posted April 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, LmL said: @Voice, come on man. What's with the behind the back shit talking? You know I am a stand up guy. I don't hesitate to give credit where credit is due, including you in a couple of the older episodes - so if I've missed you somehow on something, you need only reach out to me. Talking crap about me when I haven't even spoken with you for months or said narry an ill word about you - that's lame. Passing it off as a joke? Also lame. If you are talking to me, you can make a joke about me. What I am seeing here is a repeated insinuation of stealing material without credit, behind my back, so that's not a joke. You've made this insinuation before, and when I press you about what exactly you might be referring to, you don't have a specific example. If you do, let me know. Otherwise, you're just taking cheap shots for no reason. I've been quite direct on this topic before. You've given me credit, and thank you for that. But I do think you borrowed heavily from some other folks who were not included in your acknowledgements (one that stands out to me is @wolfmaid7). But perhaps that has been remedied already. I couldn't say. The above was indeed an attempt at humor. If you read through, I think you will see that. People kept mentioning you without tagging you, and I thought that was funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted April 10, 2017 Author Share Posted April 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, LmL said: And dude, I'm sure you're thread is great, they always are. I would have read it if the first thing I freakin saw upon coming over here was you taking cheap shots at me. I saw someone tagged me in your thread and I thought "oh cool, voice has a thread," and then that's what I find. It's a bummer. Damn man. I'm sorry. It is a cool thread, because as you say, yes.... they always are. (That too is a joke. I can link to some very bad threads I've written as proof!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted April 10, 2017 Author Share Posted April 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Voice said: Damn man. I'm sorry. It is a cool thread, because as you say, yes.... they always are. (That too is a joke. I can link to some very bad threads I've written as proof!) Here's one here: And one at the Hearth: http://thelasthearth.com/thread/745/son-fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fattest Leech Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 9 hours ago, Voice said: I didn't mean to imply that they were first cousins. I would only remind folks here that Ned's mother came from House Stark, and Ned's father did as well. Rickard Stark married Lyarra Stark. Ok. Yeah, I see way too often people trying to validate incest by claiming the Starks did it "all the time" when they actually did not. There were two cases where it does come too close for comfort, one with Rickard and Lyarra, who are cousins once removed = new blood added to one side that the other does not have, but this could possibly fall in line with how George describes the Stark/Karstark familial relations. Also, there has been some discussion on here lately that it appears that two generations back is what makes your "blood". I am sure I am not explaining that very well, but it also goes along with how George describes the Stark/Karstark lineage. Incest is something that is built in to humans to avoid- unless you are purposely altering genetics like the Targaryens. Quote That is inbreeding. To a degree, yes, but nothing like brother-sister, first cousin to cousin, etc. George is fairly clear in this story, and many, many of his older stories, that the idea of blood purity and genetic purity is an elitist, crap idea that never works in the long run. I *think* it was you that recently asked if I read Dark, Dark were the tunnels. Well, in that one book alone a main character makes a point to say that even when the human race was dying off, the idea of in-breeding did not go over well. Incest in this ASOIAF story is a cautionary tale. Rickard is actually= Royce, Blackwood, Locke, Stark Lyarra is = Royce, Flint, Stark. She could actually be more Royce, Karstark, Flint, Stark if you want to put her on the same generational level with Rickard. Either way, the idea is that they are not first cousins, and they are not brother and sister, or niece-uncle, etc. House Stark link Quote It may not be considered incest, to most people here, but that begs the question as to when inbreeding ceases to be deemed "incest." Is an uncle+niece or aunt+nephew relationship incestuous? I would think so. But to each his own. I'm not here to judge people's sexual preferences. I'm not talking real life, because to me, in real life, any branch of the tree is too close . In real life, Dany should look like this. Seriously. But this is fantasy and George is twisting facts to tell a story. The story is first. In the books, incest is an abomination to both the old gods and the new. This seems rather consistent with any of the other smaller religions we have any background info on as well. More specifically, it is never mentioned that incest was common or allowed because if it was then it would have been noted by a maester (who are against incest) and/or someone of the old gods. Even if the information was delivered to the readers in the form of a jest by a character along the lines of, "those sister mounting Dothraki inbreds blah, blah, blah." The tradition amongst the Targaryens had always been to marry kin to kin. Wedding brother to sister was thought to be ideal. Failing that, a girl might wed an uncle, a cousin, or a nephew; a boy, a cousin, aunt, or niece. This practice went back to Old Valyria, where it was common amongst many of the ancient families, particularly those who bred and rode dragons. "The blood of the dragon must remain pure," the wisdom went. Some of the sorcerer princes also took more than one wife when it pleased them, though this was less common than incestuous marriage. In Valryia before the Doom, wise men wrote, a thousand gods were honored, but none were feared, so few dared to speak against these customs. As far as Tywin and Joanna, similar situation, people feared Tywin. He made sure he was not going to be laughed at like his father was. Also, there is a very, very good chance that this detail was reformatted with all of the other diversions from that outline and was shifted from one possible source to another. George and his gardener way of developing his stories... they grow in the telling. It was always meant as a caution or warning. The other example of Starks marrying to closely reflects what George says here about how and why Tywin did it. Q: We see marriages that are almost always between families seeking to ally themselves to one another. Given this context, it always seemed strange that the marriage of Tywin Lannister was to a first cousin, and even stranger when you consider how pragmatic and ambitious Tywin was. Or was it truly a love match? GRRM: Noble houses usually make marriages of convenience to build alliances. As a matter of fact, it's a common practice not only among the noble class, but also among the middle class and even among peasants: If somebody has a piece of land, he marries his daughter with somebody who has an even bigger piece of land, in the hope that all that land will belong to his grandchildren some day. About Tywin......Probably.,> It could be love, but there is another clear motive, which is to reinforce the family's bloodline. The Targayren are the extreme example of that policy: they only marry within the family to keep the purity of the blood, and that way you avoid the problem of having several candidates for the throne or the rule of the family. If you have a generation of five brothers and each of them has several children (sons?), after two or three generations you could find yourself with thirty potential heirs: there could be thirty people named Lannister or Frey, and that produces confict, because all of them are going to get involved in hereditary fights for the throne. That's what originated the War of the Roses; An excess of candidates for the throne, all of them descendants of Edward III. Laking a heir (like Henry VIII) is just as bad as having too many of them. If we ever get She-Wolves of Winterfell, this should be set around the time of either Serena or (elderly)Sansa Stark there to tell their tale (they would be old ladies by then), and/or set around the time of Lyarra and Rickard, and we know D&E books are all about power struggles. We could hear about how the marriages to Serena and Sansa were a struggle for power or inheritance claim, and how the resulting children were overlooked anyway, because not even the Starks are squeaky clean. They have their shades of grey Quote Notably, Ned was not offended in the least by Cersei's relationship with Jaime. Ned's only issue with their children was that they should not be considered legitimate heirs to the throne. If Robert's wife had been Robert's own cousin, or Robert's own sister, and they had children, then I think Ned would have been fine with that and considered them legitimate heirs. Ned Stark follows the old gods. Incest is an abomination amongst the old gods. That is said by a few characters over and over. Even other people around Ned call the Cersei/kids situation an abomination. No offense, but your statement seems a little skewed and you are jumping to a big assumption Ned would be ok with it. Ned did not call Cersei's children monsters to her face or threaten their lives, but that in no way means he condones incest. Especially brother-sister relations. During the secret meeting between the two, Cersei pulls a major bitch move and turns the conversation around to focus on Ned and his own dishonor and "bastard" and blames him for Ashara killing herself. This happens just as Ned is calling Cersei out for her and Jamie's children. And then Bran and the attempt on his life is thrown into the mix. It is a very heated and emotional scene where Cersei takes control and it all backfires on Ned... especially when you think of what Cersei does after. "Your brother?" Ned said. "Or your lover?" "Both." She did not flinch from the truth. "Since we were children together. And why not? The Targaryens wed brother to sister for three hundred years, to keep the bloodlines pure. And Jaime and I are more than brother and sister. We are one person in two bodies. We shared a womb together. He came into this world holding my foot, our old maester said. When he is in me, I feel … whole." The ghost of a smile flitted over her lips. "My son Bran …" ... She slapped him. "I shall wear that as a badge of honor," Ned said dryly. "Honor," she spat. "How dare you play the noble lord with me! What do you take me for? You've a bastard of your own, I've seen him. Who was the mother, I wonder? Some Dornish peasant you raped while her holdfast burned? A whore? Or was it the grieving sister, the Lady Ashara? She threw herself into the sea, I'm told. Why was that? For the brother you slew, or the child you stole? Tell me, my honorable Lord Eddard, how are you any different from Robert, or me, or Jaime?" ----(Classic Cersei ) "For a start," said Ned, "I do not kill children. You would do well to listen, my lady. I shall say this only once. When the king returns from his hunt, I intend to lay the truth before him. You must be gone by then. You and your children, all three, and not to Casterly Rock. If I were you, I should take ship for the Free Cities, or even farther, to the Summer Isles or the Port of Ibben. As far as the winds blow." Quote Ned saw nothing wrong with twincest, because incest and inbreeding is extremely common in nobility (if not the origin and bedrock of it). That seems to be the crux of the common misconception in these books. See the GRRM quote above. In the real world, it was, but it has evolved, expanded in branches, and even died out all together. How common was it truly amongst the book nobility... besides the Targaryens? Like actual names to show it is extremely common. It is much more common to make arranged marriages outside of the family line because that is how you secure loyalties. You bring two different houses together through marriage for strength. Even when the husband and wife don't like each other, and then they usually take other lovers and Westeros is covered with bastards. Even the "primitive" free folk know this "He's of my village. You know nothing, Jon Snow. A true man steals (marries) a woman from afar, t' strengthen the clan. Women who bed brothers or fathers or clan kin offend the gods, and are cursed with weak and sickly children. Even monsters." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LmL Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 9 hours ago, Voice said: I've been quite direct on this topic before. You've given me credit, and thank you for that. But I do think you borrowed heavily from some other folks who were not included in your acknowledgements (one that stands out to me is @wolfmaid7). But perhaps that has been remedied already. I couldn't say. The above was indeed an attempt at humor. If you read through, I think you will see that. People kept mentioning you without tagging you, and I thought that was funny. Wolfmaid's ideas? Thats unlikely, particularly since we disagree on most everything. She turned up her nose at my horned Lord ideas when I first mentioned them to her a year ago, and I ran with my own take on that mythology, and honestly I haven't read her posts in a very long time. I think perhaps you make the mistake of thinking that a lot of people are reading your discussions at last hearth and if anyone has an idea you folks have discussed, they must be taking it from you. But of course it's only your small group over there, and most people have no idea what you talk about. And dont forget, a ton of people know their mythology, and Cerrunos ideas in the story are pretty easy to spot. Same for any other line of myth used heavily in ASOIAF. Do you think I run around telling everyone that figured out that dragons might be meteors that they're stealing my idea? No, of course not, anyone could figure that out. In short, piss off, enjoy your thread, spare me the gaslighting and feigned incredulity. If you have something to say to me, be an adult and tag me or message me and say it directly instead of talking behind my back. I guess this is the thanks I get for posting a prominent link to your forum at the top of my page for last year? I am considering this finished, if you have anything else to say, message me. I don't come here to bicker about stupid shit but I do have to defend myself when slandered. But this is not what the threads are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted April 10, 2017 Author Share Posted April 10, 2017 4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Ok. Yeah, I see way too often people trying to validate incest by claiming the Starks did it "all the time" when they actually did not. There were two cases where it does come too close for comfort, one with Rickard and Lyarra, who are cousins once removed = new blood added to one side that the other does not have, but this could possibly fall in line with how George describes the Stark/Karstark familial relations. Also, there has been some discussion on here lately that it appears that two generations back is what makes your "blood". I am sure I am not explaining that very well, but it also goes along with how George describes the Stark/Karstark lineage. Incest is something that is built in to humans to avoid- unless you are purposely altering genetics like the Targaryens. I couldn't agree more that humans are built to avoid incest, but "Nobility" is, at its core, a exercise in inbreeding. Sure, the Targaryen version in Westeros was far more proximal, and one that is accurately labeled as "incest," but that does not mean other houses had a strict aversion to it. As I will discuss below, House Stark has been a notable advocate of the practice. So while I take your point, and agree that House Stark has not been practicing a Targaryen-level of incest generation after generation, I can appreciate the other side of that debate too. Honestly, I didn't realize it was even a matter of contention. Nobility itself if predicated on selective breeding within an exclusive and closed gene pool. One only need look at the demonization of bastards in 7K culture, and the sanctity of marriage pacts, to see this is remains true in asoiaf. 4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: To a degree, yes, but nothing like brother-sister, first cousin to cousin, etc. George is fairly clear in this story, and many, many of his older stories, that the idea of blood purity and genetic purity is an elitist, crap idea that never works in the long run. I *think* it was you that recently asked if I read Dark, Dark were the tunnels. Well, in that one book alone a main character makes a point to say that even when the human race was dying off, the idea of in-breeding did not go over well. Incest in this ASOIAF story is a cautionary tale. Rickard is actually= Royce, Blackwood, Locke, Stark Lyarra is = Royce, Flint, Stark. She could actually be more Royce, Karstark, Flint, Stark if you want to put her on the same generational level with Rickard. Either way, the idea is that they are not first cousins, and they are not brother and sister, or niece-uncle, etc. House Stark link Sure. But were you see genetic diversity, I see First Men and Stark blood by other names. The gene pool is closed. At a certain point, everyone is a cousin. Compounding that, Rodrik and Edwyle, uncle and nephew, decided that their children ought to marry. And yes, it was I who mentioned Dark Dark. Great story. And again, I agree with your point. I am only pointing out that the family tree gives us very direct evidence that, unlike the race of people living on the moon in DDWtT, House Stark was not against the idea of marriages between fellow Starks. And, in my opinion, this evidence shouldn't surprise us. 4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: I'm not talking real life, because to me, in real life, any branch of the tree is too close . In real life, Dany should look like this. Seriously. But this is fantasy and George is twisting facts to tell a story. The story is first. In the books, incest is an abomination to both the old gods and the new. This seems rather consistent with any of the other smaller religions we have any background info on as well. More specifically, it is never mentioned that incest was common or allowed because if it was then it would have been noted by a maester (who are against incest) and/or someone of the old gods. Even if the information was delivered to the readers in the form of a jest by a character along the lines of, "those sister mounting Dothraki inbreds blah, blah, blah." The tradition amongst the Targaryens had always been to marry kin to kin. Wedding brother to sister was thought to be ideal. Failing that, a girl might wed an uncle, a cousin, or a nephew; a boy, a cousin, aunt, or niece. This practice went back to Old Valyria, where it was common amongst many of the ancient families, particularly those who bred and rode dragons. "The blood of the dragon must remain pure," the wisdom went. Some of the sorcerer princes also took more than one wife when it pleased them, though this was less common than incestuous marriage. In Valryia before the Doom, wise men wrote, a thousand gods were honored, but none were feared, so few dared to speak against these customs. I think it is surely seen as an abomination to gods, old and new, when Westerosi nobles have a political reason for viewing it as an abomination. But the reverse is also true. When people have a political reason to see it as fine, they see it as fine. Craster keeps the old gods, and isn't against the idea. Sure, he is an abomination, but Jeor Mormont didn't mind breaking bread with him. 4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: As far as Tywin and Joanna, similar situation, people feared Tywin. He made sure he was not going to be laughed at like his father was. Also, there is a very, very good chance that this detail was reformatted with all of the other diversions from that outline and was shifted from one possible source to another. George and his gardener way of developing his stories... they grow in the telling. It was always meant as a caution or warning. The other example of Starks marrying to closely reflects what George says here about how and why Tywin did it. Q: We see marriages that are almost always between families seeking to ally themselves to one another. Given this context, it always seemed strange that the marriage of Tywin Lannister was to a first cousin, and even stranger when you consider how pragmatic and ambitious Tywin was. Or was it truly a love match? GRRM: Noble houses usually make marriages of convenience to build alliances. As a matter of fact, it's a common practice not only among the noble class, but also among the middle class and even among peasants: If somebody has a piece of land, he marries his daughter with somebody who has an even bigger piece of land, in the hope that all that land will belong to his grandchildren some day. About Tywin......Probably.,> It could be love, but there is another clear motive, which is to reinforce the family's bloodline. The Targayren are the extreme example of that policy: they only marry within the family to keep the purity of the blood, and that way you avoid the problem of having several candidates for the throne or the rule of the family. If you have a generation of five brothers and each of them has several children (sons?), after two or three generations you could find yourself with thirty potential heirs: there could be thirty people named Lannister or Frey, and that produces confict, because all of them are going to get involved in hereditary fights for the throne. That's what originated the War of the Roses; An excess of candidates for the throne, all of them descendants of Edward III. Laking a heir (like Henry VIII) is just as bad as having too many of them. Tywin and Joanna are a great example. People do not call their children bastards born of incest, because it isn't at all uncommon for nobles to marry within their own house. As GRRM stated, it serve the purpose of "reinforcing" the family's bloodline. Genetic diversity is not a priority in the Seven Kingdoms, the way it is north of the Wall (i.e., theft a girl from a distant village) or in most real-world societies. 4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: If we ever get She-Wolves of Winterfell, this should be set around the time of either Serena or (elderly)Sansa Stark there to tell their tale (they would be old ladies by then), and/or set around the time of Lyarra and Rickard, and we know D&E books are all about power struggles. We could hear about how the marriages to Serena and Sansa were a struggle for power or inheritance claim, and how the resulting children were overlooked anyway, because not even the Starks are squeaky clean. They have their shades of grey More than shades, imo, but I agree. My point is that they do not see it as a matter of cleanliness or uncleanliness at all. Nobility prizes such unions as a "reinforcement" of the bloodline. 4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Ned Stark follows the old gods. Incest is an abomination amongst the old gods. That is said by a few characters over and over. Even other people around Ned call the Cersei/kids situation an abomination. Ned's silence on the matter doesn't strike you as odd by comparison? Ned put himself at a great disadvantage for the sole purpose of protecting Cersei's twincest children. If Ned believed the children were abominations to the Old Gods, would he have done that? Ned quit the Handship when Robert planned to kill Dany, another child born of sibling-sex, and her unborn child. And again, this shouldn't surprise us. What one man deems the eradication of dragonspawn, another names murder. 4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: No offense, but your statement seems a little skewed and you are jumping to a big assumption Ned would be ok with it. Ned did not call Cersei's children monsters to her face or threaten their lives, but that in no way means he condones incest. Especially brother-sister relations. During the secret meeting between the two, Cersei pulls a major bitch move and turns the conversation around to focus on Ned and his own dishonor and "bastard" and blames him for Ashara killing herself. This happens just as Ned is calling Cersei out for her and Jamie's children. And then Bran and the attempt on his life is thrown into the mix. It is a very heated and emotional scene where Cersei takes control and it all backfires on Ned... especially when you think of what Cersei does after. "Your brother?" Ned said. "Or your lover?" "Both." She did not flinch from the truth. "Since we were children together. And why not? The Targaryens wed brother to sister for three hundred years, to keep the bloodlines pure. And Jaime and I are more than brother and sister. We are one person in two bodies. We shared a womb together. He came into this world holding my foot, our old maester said. When he is in me, I feel … whole." The ghost of a smile flitted over her lips. "My son Bran …" ... She slapped him. "I shall wear that as a badge of honor," Ned said dryly. "Honor," she spat. "How dare you play the noble lord with me! What do you take me for? You've a bastard of your own, I've seen him. Who was the mother, I wonder? Some Dornish peasant you raped while her holdfast burned? A whore? Or was it the grieving sister, the Lady Ashara? She threw herself into the sea, I'm told. Why was that? For the brother you slew, or the child you stole? Tell me, my honorable Lord Eddard, how are you any different from Robert, or me, or Jaime?" ----(Classic Cersei ) "For a start," said Ned, "I do not kill children. You would do well to listen, my lady. I shall say this only once. When the king returns from his hunt, I intend to lay the truth before him. You must be gone by then. You and your children, all three, and not to Casterly Rock. If I were you, I should take ship for the Free Cities, or even farther, to the Summer Isles or the Port of Ibben. As far as the winds blow." Indeed. But Ned never seems at all emotional or turned around, at least, not to me. To me, he seems as calm as still water. He is speaking with the calm authority of the Hand of the King, and with the calm authority of a Stark in the godswood. He believes he has finally won the tilt against the Lions of Casterly Rock. Most interesting, to me, is that Ned is taking this time to protect a woman who had been f*cking her brother, and their offspring. And, he has chosen to protect these children in a godswood: She came to him at sunset, as the clouds reddened above the walls and towers. She came alone, as he had bid her. For once she was dressed simply, in leather boots and hunting greens. When she drew back the hood of her brown cloak, he saw the bruise where the king had struck her. The angry plum color had faded to yellow, and the swelling was down, but there was no mistaking it for anything but what it was. “Why here?” Cersei Lannister asked as she stood over him. “So the gods can see.” These do not seem like the actions of a man who believes children born of incest are abominations to the gods. 4 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: That seems to be the crux of the common misconception in these books. See the GRRM quote above. In the real world, it was, but it has evolved, expanded in branches, and even died out all together. How common was it truly amongst the book nobility... besides the Targaryens? Like actual names to show it is extremely common. It is much more common to make arranged marriages outside of the family line because that is how you secure loyalties. You bring two different houses together through marriage for strength. Even when the husband and wife don't like each other, and then they usually take other lovers and Westeros is covered with bastards. Even the "primitive" free folk know this "He's of my village. You know nothing, Jon Snow. A true man steals (marries) a woman from afar, t' strengthen the clan. Women who bed brothers or fathers or clan kin offend the gods, and are cursed with weak and sickly children. Even monsters." I quite agree with Ygritte's advice, in both life and fiction. And this brings me to a point I said I would get to, above. House Stark disagrees with Ygritte. The family tree makes this point plain to see. Beyond that, Ned's own actions reveal he was not at all against the act nor offspring of incest. The family tree tells us the apple didn't fall far from the tree on that front, as Ned's father married a woman from House Stark. And, beyond that, we know that House Stark had no issue with Targaryen incest. In Ned's own mind, the rebellion was waged to put an end to the murder of children. In Robert's, it was to end dragonspawn. And, again, it should not surprise us that Ned is cool with Targaryen and Lannister incest. Not only was his family cool with inbreeding, they were cool with marrying people born of sibling-incest... The Pact of Ice and Fire was a political alliance between Queen Rhaenyra Targaryen and Lord Cregan Stark. Part of the alliance called for a royal princess to marry into the family of Lord Cregan Stark. (link) Unfortunately, Cregan was never able to marry one of his sons to an inbred dragonprincess, as she died shortly after Rhaenyra gave birth to her. From the wiki: "According to Mushroom, Princess Rhaenyra had cursed Visenya while giving birth, calling her a monster. Mushroom also claims that Visenya had dragon-like birth defects. He described her as having been twisted and malformed, with a hole in her chest where her heart should have been and a stubby, scaled tail." Rhaenyra was married to her own uncle, so I suppose birth defects might indeed have been an issue. Still, it is notable that this was a risk Cregan Stark was willing to take. Cregan Stark proposed a marriage with a child that was, quite literally, an abomination born of incest. Last, and certainly not least, I must point out an additional quote from GRRM: Jon Snow, the bastard, will remain in the far north. He will mature into a ranger of great daring, and ultimately will succeed his uncle as the commander of the Night's Watch. When Winterfell burns, Catelyn Stark will be forced to flee north with her son Bran and her daughter Arya. Hounded by Lannister riders, they will seek refuge at the Wall, but the men of the Night's Watch give up their families when they take the black, and Jon and Benjen will not be able to help, to Jon's anguish. It will lead to a bitter estrangement between Jon and Bran. Arya will be more forgiving... until she realizes, with terror, that she has fallen in love with Jon, who is not only her half-brother but a man of the Night's Watch, sworn to celibacy. Their passion will continue to torment Jon and Arya throughout the trilogy, until the secret of Jon's true parentage is finally revealed in the last book. Read more: http://thelasthearth.com/thread/77/spoilerish-grrms-letter-agent-vicinanza#ixzz4dsn0EXXf Now, I am sure I am not alone in hoping the outline above does not come to pass. I am glad the story has grown and evolved from what GRRM originally proposed. BUT... the idea of incest within House Stark has been a part of our author's thinking for a very long time. Not only was Ned not against the idea of inbreeding, his grandparents and ancestors arranged marriages incorporating it. And, as GRRM was writing these characters, the man who sat in the godswood with Cersei at sunset that day had children who were tormented with passion for each other. We tend to idealize and identify with House Stark. We defend them even while they commit treason, behead their relatives, and eat lunch with zombies. But that kinship and admiration we feel for them tends to obscure our ability to see them for what they truly are. Wolves tend to mate rather indiscriminately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel of Oldstones Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 On 3/27/2017 at 5:21 PM, ravenous reader said: That's actually quite brilliant, @Voice! It's the best thing I've read re: the mysteries of ASOIAF all year. Still reading and very much enjoying this post, but ditto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fattest Leech Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, Voice said: I couldn't agree more that humans are built to avoid incest, but "Nobility" is, at its core, a exercise in inbreeding. The books state that Dorne and the North are more alike than any of the other five kingdoms, and they don't do have the same societal norms and they pray to queer gods. Plus, the Starks have the blood of the first men in them, and the true first men (wildlings/free folk) do not demonize bastards, just like Dorne doesn't. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Sure, the Targaryen version in Westeros was far more proximal, and one that is accurately labeled as "incest," but that does not mean other houses had a strict aversion to it. As I will discuss below, House Stark has been a notable advocate of the practice. I never saw where you mentioned this specifically for the Starks. There were the two instances that have repercussions and that is also expressly mentioned as being against the old gods. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: So while I take your point, and agree that House Stark has not been practicing a Targaryen-level of incest generation after generation, I can appreciate the other side of that debate too. Honestly, I didn't realize it was even a matter of contention. Nobility itself if predicated on selective breeding within an exclusive and closed gene pool. Please show me where, by names, who and how many families made a common practice of this in the stories. I do not mean to sound argumentative, but I have asked for this info before from other posters, and in my previous response here, and have never been given an answer. We have the family trees online of the major characters/family trees, and there is never a common practice of it that I have ever seen. That is part of my confusion about why posters tend to think it was common. The books tell us that the Targs did it because they could do whatever they wanted because they had dragons and the Targs thought of themselves above the gods, and men. It even goes against the teachings of the Seven. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: One only need look at the demonization of bastards in 7K culture, and the sanctity of marriage pacts, to see this is remains true in asoiaf. Sure. But were you see genetic diversity, I see First Men and Stark blood by other names. The gene pool is closed. At a certain point, everyone is a cousin. Yes, I agree with this. And it seems George does as well because that was what he was getting at with his Stark/Karstark quote. But we are talking about not mating with people from your own clan, or village, or town, or castle. This is what I was saying with the recent talks that at what point is the relation spread far enough that it is not an issue, and it seems that two generations past, once removed, is the closest it normally comes to. But there is a difference between me marrying a guy in California as an American, and me marrying my brother or cousin because he is here. I am sure I can trace something about me to someone somewhere, but that is really getting into a silly style of debate and no reason to excuse true incest. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Compounding that, Rodrik and Edwyle, uncle and nephew, decided that their children ought to marry. Well these would be the children that are cousins once removed from each other. So they really have only about 1/4 the same DNA, while they each bring in another set of genes from other past families. And these children did not grow up as siblings either. I accept the world book as really good semi-cannon because George did contribute a considerable amount to it. But George also said time and again that it is not to be trusted 100%. The world book is full of partial facts and full exaggerations for a few reasons. First, the tales are so old and were never documented properly to begin with that the retelling changed along the way. Also, it was written by maesters, and maesters have an interest (and an intere$t) to downplay any magic at all as being tales of child's play that does not require any deeper discussion. Also, the book was ultimately written to keep Cersei happy, so anything that could cast any doubt on her lineage, or her children's lineage, is twisted or lied about to make the Lannister's look sparkly clean amazing. Ask the maesters and septon she has tortured when they displease her 6 minutes ago, Voice said: And yes, it was I who mentioned Dark Dark. Great story. And again, I agree with your point. I am only pointing out that the family tree gives us very direct evidence that, unlike the race of people living on the moon in DDWtT, House Stark was not against the idea of marriages between fellow Starks. And, in my opinion, this evidence shouldn't surprise us. Aside from the cousins once removed, and the other Sansa/Serena case that I explained above, there are no other Stark incest cases. The Starks follow the old gods and it is shown that they follow the other old god "codes?", so why would they decide to skip over this big one? 6 minutes ago, Voice said: I think it is surely seen as an abomination to gods, old and new, when Westerosi nobles have a political reason for viewing it as an abomination. But the reverse is also true. When people have a political reason to see it as fine, they see it as fine. That happens with inheritance, I give you that, but again, the books, and George, say it is not common and not ideal. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Craster keeps the old gods, and isn't against the idea. Sure, he is an abomination, but Jeor Mormont didn't mind breaking bread with him. No way. It is stated that Craster worships different gods, darker gods. He is an abomination unto himself. People at Castle Black even snivel at "Monster" for being an inbred monster. Craster was said to be cursed because of his incest and gods. Jeor HAD to break bread with Craster. Jeor was not happy about it. He needed information that Craster could provide, and he had to give gifts to get it. Man o man, this is a threads worth of discussion unto itself In no way shape or form was Craster a true old gods follower and he paid for it. Lesson learned. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Tywin and Joanna are a great example. People do not call their children bastards born of incest, because it isn't at all uncommon for nobles to marry within their own house. As GRRM stated, it serve the purpose of "reinforcing" the family's bloodline. Um, yes they do. A few times actually. https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=incest+ 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Genetic diversity is not a priority in the Seven Kingdoms, the way it is north of the Wall (i.e., theft a girl from a distant village) or in most real-world societies. I don't know what to tell you besides maybe take another look at how George describes it. The common practice was for the houses to marry other houses to bring loyalty and strength (and money) together. I have gone through the family trees of different houses and I cannot find a one (besides the obvious we are talking about here) that practiced incest. I can't even think of a case of some lord finding their children playing house- aside from Jamie and Cersei, and Joanna was horrified it happened and had them separated. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: More than shades, imo, but I agree. Oh yeah, despite how this all may sound, I don't think any family or person is totally a white knight. It seems this past old gods discretion is part of the dark spot on the Stark tree. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: My point is that they do not see it as a matter of cleanliness or uncleanliness at all. Nobility prizes such unions as a "reinforcement" of the bloodline. In real life in the past, yes. But as George says in the story and in the books, the "keeping the bloodlines pure" was only done by the Targs and Tywin... who is just as arrogant and elitist as the Targs. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Ned's silence on the matter doesn't strike you as odd by comparison? Not at all when you look at the entire scene and how it gets flipped aorund, and how Cersei uses it against Ned later in the story. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Ned put himself at a great disadvantage for the sole purpose of protecting Cersei's twincest children. If Ned believed the children were abominations to the Old Gods, would he have done that? Because Ned does not kill children. He hides baby Jon from his king and best friend, and he doesn't want Dany killed either. It is part of his nature and consistent within his character in the story. It does not strike me as odd. He wanted to punish Cersei by making her leave the country and her creature comforts, but not to harm the kids. Ned is kinda dumb sometimes anyway 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Ned quit the Handship when Robert planned to kill Dany, another child born of sibling-sex, and her unborn child. And again, this shouldn't surprise us. What one man deems the eradication of dragonspawn, another names murder. That is my point. Ned has a different sort of honor that Robert does not have. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: These do not seem like the actions of a man who believes children born of incest are abominations to the gods. See above. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: I quite agree with Ygritte's advice, in both life and fiction. And this brings me to a point I said I would get to, above. House Stark disagrees with Ygritte. The family tree makes this point plain to see. Beyond that, Ned's own actions reveal he was not at all against the act nor offspring of incest. The family tree tells us the apple didn't fall far from the tree on that front, as Ned's father married a woman from House Stark. And, beyond that, we know that House Stark had no issue with Targaryen incest. Again, as George says in SSM's and in the story, NO ONE could fight against the Targs because they had dragons. It was bow or burn. At different times in the history of Westeros, there are clues that a long game was played to try and rid the world of magic, which probably included the dragons, and it was headed by the septons and maesters. The world book is riddled with these clues. That is another thread entirely. Again, because Ned won't kill the children, but he tells them and their mother to get out of Dodge does not mean he condones or promotes it. It means his honor is different than others. Ultimately the children are blameless. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: In Ned's own mind, the rebellion was waged to put an end to the murder of children. In Robert's, it was to end dragonspawn. And, again, it should not surprise us that Ned is cool with Targaryen and Lannister incest. Not only was his family cool with inbreeding, they were cool with marrying people born of sibling-incest... Nope. Sorry, but you are assuming and making it sound like fact. He follows his gods in everything else, why chose this to ignore? By the way, notice how whenever a Stark tries to go south and deal justice or rules they always die. All of them. Ned, as man of ice, was described as literally pysically melting being down south. He was making rash decisions and was not thinking right. Most of our experience with Ned is him on a slow wall slide down in to misery. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: The Pact of Ice and Fire was a political alliance between Queen Rhaenyra Targaryen and Lord Cregan Stark. Part of the alliance called for a royal princess to marry into the family of Lord Cregan Stark. (link) And it never happened for a reason either Wonder why???? (see below as part of the clues) 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Unfortunately, Cregan was never able to marry one of his sons to an inbred dragonprincess, as she died shortly after Rhaenyra gave birth to her. From the wiki: "According to Mushroom, Princess Rhaenyra had cursed Visenya while giving birth, calling her a monster. Mushroom also claims that Visenya had dragon-like birth defects. He described her as having been twisted and malformed, with a hole in her chest where her heart should have been and a stubby, scaled tail." 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Now, I am sure I am not alone in hoping the outline above does not come to pass. I am glad the story has grown and evolved from what GRRM originally proposed. Don't worry, most of it was changed, and we also never, ever saw the ending because it was blacked out. It could easily have said something like, "and the old gods stepped in and drowned Arya for trying to hump her brother....." It really seems like Cersei was invented and the sib incest was moved to her and Jamie anyway. George seems to be making a lesson in that relationship. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: BUT... the idea of incest within House Stark has been a part of our author's thinking for a very long time. Not only was Ned not against the idea of inbreeding, his grandparents and ancestors arranged marriages incorporating it. No, the idea of incest as a way to manipulate genes and the ramifications that come with it has been in his mind since 1970-whatever. He does this in most of his books and the result is always the same. It fails miserably or is outright rejected. This is not an ASOIAF solitary idea. This speaks to his sci-fi side and the distorted abominations that come along with it 6 minutes ago, Voice said: And, as GRRM was writing these characters, the man who sat in the godswood with Cersei at sunset that day had children who were tormented with passion for each other. Honest question, where in the books does it say this? I don't remember. 6 minutes ago, Voice said: We tend to idealize and identify with House Stark. We defend them even while they commit treason, behead their relatives, and eat lunch with zombies. But that kinship and admiration we feel for them tends to obscure our ability to see them for what they truly are. I agree that happens a lot. I identify with the north as a whole, but we have atleast two (more?) people of the true north tell us very plainly that they have shitty shitheads just like the rest of the kingdoms do. I like the fact that no one, no where is not pearly white. It is more realistic that way. Bloodraven is my favy favorite and I still think he is up to no good. George is just that talented in writing hos characters 6 minutes ago, Voice said: Wolves tend to mate rather indiscriminately. Not in real life. I know a thing or two about this. Gotta go get dinner now for my pups! TTYL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsunray Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 11 hours ago, Voice said: Craster keeps the old gods, and isn't against the idea. Sure, he is an abomination, but Jeor Mormont didn't mind breaking bread with him. Craster does not hold to the old gods, he does what he likes and holds to the Others. Check out my essay Craster's Black Blooded Curse in relation to him being a copy of the Blood Emperor. People seem to think he keeps to guest right, but his "guest right" practice is one-sided: from guest to host, not the other way around. In fact, he does not follow the proper basic code for guest right, and the only time that actual guest right is in place, he jumps on the table to assault a man at his table with an axe. He practices incest of the abusive kind, he sacrifices children, he doesn't care a flip about guest right (only insofar it prevents a large group of strong men not to attack him), certainly no weirwood tree in the vicinity, and long pork sausage in the secret larder (that is - cannibalism isn't wrong, but I'd betcha that some black brothers he had as guests ended up being black sausage). Jeor expresses disgust in private to Jon about the man. And he also left the axe on the table for the wives and daughters to kill Craster sleeping in the loft if they wished it. Jeor tolerates him because he has nobody else as an informant or source. 12 hours ago, Voice said: Nobility itself if predicated on selective breeding within an exclusive and closed gene pool. That depends on how people can become nobility. As long as people can become landowners, because of say a heroic deed, then the gene pool isn't closed. Or if they allow a house of thousands of miles away to receive land and set up shop. 12 hours ago, Voice said: One only need look at the demonization of bastards in 7K culture, and the sanctity of marriage pacts, to see this is remains true in asoiaf. And yet, legitimized bastards can make good marriages at times, or even become the heir, or receive lands, and become a new house. I don't see how the sanctity of a marriage pact proves selective inbreeding, when said marriage pacts are between Starks and Baratheons (with Targaryen geness) and Starks and Tullys (with more Andal blood than the Northerners). 12 hours ago, Voice said: If Ned believed the children were abominations to the Old Gods, would he have done that? Murdering children is a greater sin in his opinion perhaps? It isn't the children's fault. The abomination is on the parents in his eyes. Exiling said abominable parents and her children isn't exactly the same thing as condoning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted April 11, 2017 Author Share Posted April 11, 2017 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: The books state that Dorne and the North are more alike than any of the other five kingdoms, and they don't do have the same societal norms and they pray to queer gods. Plus, the Starks have the blood of the first men in them, and the true first men (wildlings/free folk) do not demonize bastards, just like Dorne doesn't. I completely agree. But it remains true that House Stark arranged marriages with fellow noble houses for the business of producing heirs to Winterfell. They did not seek bastardy for that purpose. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: I never saw where you mentioned this specifically for the Starks. There were the two instances that have repercussions and that is also expressly mentioned as being against the old gods. Below: 12 hours ago, Voice said: House Stark disagrees with Ygritte. The family tree makes this point plain to see. Beyond that, Ned's own actions reveal he was not at all against the act nor offspring of incest. The family tree tells us the apple didn't fall far from the tree on that front, as Ned's father married a woman from House Stark. And, beyond that, we know that House Stark had no issue with Targaryen incest. In Ned's own mind, the rebellion was waged to put an end to the murder of children. In Robert's, it was to end dragonspawn. And, again, it should not surprise us that Ned is cool with Targaryen and Lannister incest. Not only was his family cool with inbreeding, they were cool with marrying people born of sibling-incest... The Pact of Ice and Fire was a political alliance between Queen Rhaenyra Targaryen and Lord Cregan Stark. Part of the alliance called for a royal princess to marry into the family of Lord Cregan Stark. (link) Unfortunately, Cregan was never able to marry one of his sons to an inbred dragonprincess, as she died shortly after Rhaenyra gave birth to her. From the wiki: "According to Mushroom, Princess Rhaenyra had cursed Visenya while giving birth, calling her a monster. Mushroom also claims that Visenya had dragon-like birth defects. He described her as having been twisted and malformed, with a hole in her chest where her heart should have been and a stubby, scaled tail." Rhaenyra was married to her own uncle, so I suppose birth defects might indeed have been an issue. Still, it is notable that this was a risk Cregan Stark was willing to take. Cregan Stark proposed a marriage with a child that was, quite literally, an abomination born of incest. Last, and certainly not least, I must point out an additional quote from GRRM: Jon Snow, the bastard, will remain in the far north. He will mature into a ranger of great daring, and ultimately will succeed his uncle as the commander of the Night's Watch. When Winterfell burns, Catelyn Stark will be forced to flee north with her son Bran and her daughter Arya. Hounded by Lannister riders, they will seek refuge at the Wall, but the men of the Night's Watch give up their families when they take the black, and Jon and Benjen will not be able to help, to Jon's anguish. It will lead to a bitter estrangement between Jon and Bran. Arya will be more forgiving... until she realizes, with terror, that she has fallen in love with Jon, who is not only her half-brother but a man of the Night's Watch, sworn to celibacy. Their passion will continue to torment Jon and Arya throughout the trilogy, until the secret of Jon's true parentage is finally revealed in the last book. Read more: http://thelasthearth.com/thread/77/spoilerish-grrms-letter-agent-vicinanza#ixzz4dsn0EXXf Now, I am sure I am not alone in hoping the outline above does not come to pass. I am glad the story has grown and evolved from what GRRM originally proposed. BUT... the idea of incest within House Stark has been a part of our author's thinking for a very long time. Not only was Ned not against the idea of inbreeding, his grandparents and ancestors arranged marriages incorporating it. And, as GRRM was writing these characters, the man who sat in the godswood with Cersei at sunset that day had children who were tormented with passion for each other. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Please show me where, by names, who and how many families made a common practice of this in the stories. I do not mean to sound argumentative, but I have asked for this info before from other posters, and in my previous response here, and have never been given an answer. We have the family trees online of the major characters/family trees, and there is never a common practice of it that I have ever seen. That is part of my confusion about why posters tend to think it was common. The books tell us that the Targs did it because they could do whatever they wanted because they had dragons and the Targs thought of themselves above the gods, and men. It even goes against the teachings of the Seven. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Yes, I agree with this. And it seems George does as well because that was what he was getting at with his Stark/Karstark quote. But we are talking about not mating with people from your own clan, or village, or town, or castle. This is what I was saying with the recent talks that at what point is the relation spread far enough that it is not an issue, and it seems that two generations past, once removed, is the closest it normally comes to. But there is a difference between me marrying a guy in California as an American, and me marrying my brother or cousin because he is here. I am sure I can trace something about me to someone somewhere, but that is really getting into a silly style of debate and no reason to excuse true incest. Indeed. And here, I agree with you. Again, I didn't even know this was a contentious issue. So I truly have no stake in it. LOL I was just laying out some reasons why it makes sense to see the Starks as inbred. While they are certainly not as linearly propagated as Targaryens, they do seem to be about as self-breeding as other noble houses, such as House Lannister. (With Cersei+Jaime being a unique exception, of course) And, historical evidence demonstrates Cregan Stark had no issue with marrying into a House that practiced sibling sex for generations. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Well these would be the children that are cousins once removed from each other. So they really have only about 1/4 the same DNA, while they each bring in another set of genes from other past families. And these children did not grow up as siblings either. I accept the world book as really good semi-cannon because George did contribute a considerable amount to it. But George also said time and again that it is not to be trusted 100%. The world book is full of partial facts and full exaggerations for a few reasons. First, the tales are so old and were never documented properly to begin with that the retelling changed along the way. Also, it was written by maesters, and maesters have an interest (and an intere$t) to downplay any magic at all as being tales of child's play that does not require any deeper discussion. Also, the book was ultimately written to keep Cersei happy, so anything that could cast any doubt on her lineage, or her children's lineage, is twisted or lied about to make the Lannister's look sparkly clean amazing. Ask the maesters and septon she has tortured when they displease her Now, you're just preaching to the choir. I couldn't agree more. When it comes right down to it, the world book is as canonical as the cook book, but that is a discussion for another place. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Aside from the cousins once removed, and the other Sansa/Serena case that I explained above, there are no other Stark incest cases. The Starks follow the old gods and it is shown that they follow the other old god "codes?", so why would they decide to skip over this big one? I disagree regarding inbreeding. The North is big, but there aren't that many noble families. If you and your family only married into these ten others, for thousands of years, you would all end up with the same cousins. Granted, this is a far cry from what we see in Targaryen bedchambers, thank the gods. But still, it is a very small and closed gene pool. I don't think they did skip. I have yet to see a weirwood with commandments etched upon it. So far as I can tell, people have constructed their own codes and dogma. I don't see why trees (which can inbreed to the point of reproductive masturbation) would care if Stark married Stark, or if Lannister twins would make the two-backed beast with each other. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: That happens with inheritance, I give you that, but again, the books, and George, say it is not common and not ideal. The Princess of Dorne didn't have a problem betrothing her daughter to Rhaegar Targaryen, a man born from sibling incest. Cregan Stark didn't have a problem betrothing a son to one of Rhaenyra's future daughters, even though she would have been born from Uncle+Niece incest that followed generations of sibling incest. If inbreeding truly is/was an abomination to the Old Gods, it seems the above are examples of Northern and Dornish families, the Great Houses of each no less, spitting in the weirwood face of those ethics. Either they knew there was some wiggle room in the Old Gods' ethos, or they became abominations. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: No way. It is stated that Craster worships different gods, darker gods. He is an abomination unto himself. People at Castle Black even snivel at "Monster" for being an inbred monster. Craster was said to be cursed because of his incest and gods. Jeor HAD to break bread with Craster. Jeor was not happy about it. He needed information that Craster could provide, and he had to give gifts to get it. Man o man, this is a threads worth of discussion unto itself In no way shape or form was Craster a true old gods follower and he paid for it. Lesson learned. Jeor certainly rationalized it, begrudgingly. But that doesn't change the fact that the Night's Watch viewed Craster as a friend to the watch. And I didn't hear Craster proclaim any loyalty to "different/darker" gods. He simply considered himself to be "godly." When not starving, and needing his bread, the different/dark criticisms were easy to toss his way, because, well, the dude was a sicko. LOL I think another misstep we readers tend to take is that we idealize followers of the Old Gods. House Bolton keeps the Old Gods. House Karstark serves them. The Lannisters are fellow First Men descended from Lann the Clever – an ancestor akin to Bran the Builder, and fellow hero from the Age of Heroes. And their godswood is said to have a twisted weirwood. Just as not all who follow the Seven are as politically suicidal as Catelyn, not all who keep the Old Gods are as honorable as our dearest Ned. Heck, we are told of one Stark who went so dark that his name was forbidden. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Um, yes they do. A few times actually. https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=incest+ I clicked the link and saw a bunch of talk about Cersei and Jaime's children. I saw no mention of Tywin and Joanna's. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: I don't know what to tell you besides maybe take another look at how George describes it. The common practice was for the houses to marry other houses to bring loyalty and strength (and money) together. I have gone through the family trees of different houses and I cannot find a one (besides the obvious we are talking about here) that practiced incest. I can't even think of a case of some lord finding their children playing house- aside from Jamie and Cersei, and Joanna was horrified it happened and had them separated. I think we are debating cross purposes here. I agree that the noble houses reached out to other noble houses. I am just saying that they were reaching out to a very small percentage of the population. Wildlings, for example, do not have a small percentage of their folk earmarked as being "noble." Their gene pool is as large as the population itself. Nobility in the 7K does not enjoy that level of diversity (hence a "Waymar Royce" who looks an awful lot like a "Jon Snow"). 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Oh yeah, despite how this all may sound, I don't think any family or person is totally a white knight. It seems this past old gods discretion is part of the dark spot on the Stark tree. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: In real life in the past, yes. But as George says in the story and in the books, the "keeping the bloodlines pure" was only done by the Targs and Tywin... who is just as arrogant and elitist as the Targs. I wasn't quoting real life, I was quoting GRRM. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Not at all when you look at the entire scene and how it gets flipped aorund, and how Cersei uses it against Ned later in the story. I think the "flipping around" angle is rather subjective. You are free to interpret it that way, but to me, Ned seems quite comfortable, calm, and articulate. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Because Ned does not kill children. He hides baby Jon from his king and best friend, and he doesn't want Dany killed either. It is part of his nature and consistent within his character in the story. It does not strike me as odd. He wanted to punish Cersei by making her leave the country and her creature comforts, but not to harm the kids. Ned is kinda dumb sometimes anyway LOL I agree Ned is kinda dumb sometimes anyway. And sure, Ned protects kids. It's his thing. But I think it is interesting how often we see him actively protecting children born of incest, vs children not born of incest. It seems that like Tyrion, Ned had a tender spot in his heart for cripples and bastards and broken things. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: That is my point. Ned has a different sort of honor that Robert does not have. See above. Sure. But I mean, those kids were truly a threat to the reign of Robert. One does not simply usurp the throne and leave the heirs in the castle. It was horrific and horrible, but necessary. At least we agree as to the differing motives between these two men regarding the nature of their foster father's rebellion. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Again, as George says in SSM's and in the story, NO ONE could fight against the Targs because they had dragons. It was bow or burn. At different times in the history of Westeros, there are clues that a long game was played to try and rid the world of magic, which probably included the dragons, and it was headed by the septons and maesters. The world book is riddled with these clues. That is another thread entirely. Again, because Ned won't kill the children, but he tells them and their mother to get out of Dodge does not mean he condones or promotes it. It means his honor is different than others. Ultimately the children are blameless. I think you are missing my point. Sure, the Targs got to do whatever they wanted because dragons. But House Stark had no dragons, yet married Stark to Stark anyway. Again, I agree that Targs were practicing a far closer form of inbreeding. That is obviously true. But we have repeated examples of Starks condoning inbreeding, practicing inbreeding, and protecting those who inbreed (Cersei) as well as the resulting offspring. It seems silly to me to argue that House Stark was against the practice and that their gods forbade it. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Nope. Sorry, but you are assuming and making it sound like fact. He follows his gods in everything else, why chose this to ignore? By the way, notice how whenever a Stark tries to go south and deal justice or rules they always die. All of them. Ned, as man of ice, was described as literally pysically melting being down south. He was making rash decisions and was not thinking right. Most of our experience with Ned is him on a slow wall slide down in to misery. That came from Ned's own mouth. "Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?" 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: And it never happened for a reason either Wonder why???? (see below as part of the clues) That doesn't change the fact that Cregan wanted it to happen. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Don't worry, most of it was changed, and we also never, ever saw the ending because it was blacked out. It could easily have said something like, "and the old gods stepped in and drowned Arya for trying to hump her brother....." It really seems like Cersei was invented and the sib incest was moved to her and Jamie anyway. George seems to be making a lesson in that relationship. No telling. But this doesn't change the fact that GRRM had been intertwining the protagonists of House Stark with a very passionate incest dynamic at the time he was writing them. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: No, the idea of incest as a way to manipulate genes and the ramifications that come with it has been in his mind since 1970-whatever. He does this in most of his books and the result is always the same. It fails miserably or is outright rejected. This is not an ASOIAF solitary idea. This speaks to his sci-fi side and the distorted abominations that come along with it While it comes up more than once, I wouldn't go so far as to say that incest is a theme in most of his books. And it certainly doesn't always fail when it is a theme in one... and I can only remember it being "rejected" in one (Dark Dark). Incest was completely accepted in Bitterblooms. In any case, I'm not seeing how this disputes my point. I think we might actually be arguing the exact same thing, here. LOL 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Honest question, where in the books does it say this? I don't remember. I was quoting GRRM's 1993 letter, and I think you know that. As GRRM was writing AGOT, he had Stark-cest on the brain. 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: I agree that happens a lot. I identify with the north as a whole, but we have atleast two (more?) people of the true north tell us very plainly that they have shitty shitheads just like the rest of the kingdoms do. I like the fact that no one, no where is not pearly white. It is more realistic that way. Bloodraven is my favy favorite and I still think he is up to no good. George is just that talented in writing hos characters I think Bloodraven is a good guy. People look at him funny just because he's turning into a tree. It's rude. lol 11 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: Not in real life. I know a thing or two about this. Gotta go get dinner now for my pups! TTYL A quick google seems to suggest otherwise... https://www.facebook.com/113171248737451/posts/784880841566485 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.13797/pdf http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2014/april/inbred-wolves-struggle-moose-proliferate-isle-royale-national-park.html Considering the Starks had a Wall to the North, and the Neck to the South, I think that once again it should not surprise us that inbreeding was acceptable in their House. Again, I'm not saying it was their mission. I am only stating (and restating LOL) that the practice and idea was not at all out of bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted April 11, 2017 Author Share Posted April 11, 2017 13 hours ago, Rachel of Oldstones said: Still reading and very much enjoying this post, but ditto! Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fattest Leech Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 @Voice we could go round and round on this, and I only like doing that at a pub! We seemingly have plenty of other ideas in common that are better fun than incest , err,uh, ideas that make more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted April 11, 2017 Author Share Posted April 11, 2017 6 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said: @Voice we could go round and round on this, and I only like doing that at a pub! We seemingly have plenty of other ideas in common that are better fun than incest , err,uh, ideas that make more sense. LOL! yes totally. Completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoodedCrow Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Many people have heard of the very proper Queen Victoria--who married her first cousin Albert. The nobility and royalty of England were pretty blasé about the inbreeding. There are lots of examples. Have a good look at the Habsburg royal family while you are googling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted April 16, 2017 Author Share Posted April 16, 2017 On 4/11/2017 at 2:56 PM, HoodedCrow said: Many people have heard of the very proper Queen Victoria--who married her first cousin Albert. The nobility and royalty of England were pretty blasé about the inbreeding. There are lots of examples. Have a good look at the Habsburg royal family while you are googling. Exactly. And thanks for the search suggestion. After only a few generations of continual marriage alliances within a closed gene pool, the amount of genetic diversity would diminish greatly. After a few centuries, as we find in the examples you provide, this genetic diversity would shrink to the point that a nobleman marrying a very distant cousin creates the same genetic mating as a common man marrying his sister. In Westeros, this practice has gone on for thousands and thousands of years! That means that noble men and women in Westeros are an EXTREMELY pure breed – like a Maltese. But selectively bred to fellow Maltese cousins for four thousand years longer than the dog breed. I truly didn't even know this sort of thing was a matter of debate. And I certainly didn't mean for this OP to bring it up. I wouldn't hold it against fictional Starks if they had things/flings with their cousins or siblings. What is of far more interest to me, is that Lyanna Stark had the wolf blood – like Arya. Lyanna died in a bed of blood, which thankfully, Arya has not. But, if Arya (hypothetically) did eventually become pregnant in Braavos, and die in a bed of blood... what might we expect if Nymeria, separated by space and time on the other side of the Narrow sea, became pregnant with a litter of wolf pups. Now imagine, if Arya had died in her bed of blood in Braavos, and her child just happened to be wandering around the Riverlands in time to find Nymeria's pups, what sort of bond that might imply. There might be pups for Arya's nephews and nieces as well. That would be a kind gesture of loyalty to her house. But what of the pup intended for Arya's own son? Might it be special? Might that wolf serve to anchor her son to her in a way that the other pups do not? I think so. While Summer and Nymeria and Shaggy Dog are great and all, there was something that intended for Jon to have a puppy. A strong, silent voice. Halfway across the bridge, Jon pulled up suddenly. "What is it, Jon?" their lord father asked. "Can't you hear it?" Bran could hear the wind in the trees, the clatter of their hooves on the ironwood planks, the whimpering of his hungry pup, but Jon was listening to something else. A strong, silent voice, coming from the direction of a dead she-wolf in a bed of blood. Regardless of whether it was Ghost's own silent howl, or Lyanna's from beyond the grave, I think the fact that Jon is able to hear the weir-frequency is Lyanna's gift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Dragon Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 On April 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Voice said: Most definitely. Jon is the gift. And I could not agree more that Jon stands in stark contrast with Dany, who, as you say, is a gift from the Old Valyrian gods of fire. Dany = Valyrian Fire Jon = Old Gods And the weirwoods are not fond of fire. But this begs the question, from whence did the Old Gods gift of "Jon Snow" originate? Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon are all Starks with direwolves. And as I've stated in the OP, all five of them are wargs. One is even a greenseer. They are all very Old Gods-y, and displaying far greater weirwood influence than is normal, even by Bloodraven's standards (See BR's quote and the other works/ratios cited in the OP). So why does Jon Snow seem to be even more of an avatar of the Old Gods than his "half-siblings"? The answer is Ghost. Ghost is different from his siblings, and Lyanna is the reason Ghost is albino. As the night grows long, and shadows emerge from the wood, here bleeds a bastard at the end of the world, with a weirwood ghost. Can that be mere happenstance? If not, the origin and reason comes back to Lyanna, assuming she is Jon's mother, and the presence of Jon's mother in Winterfell's crypts. Choices matter, and Lyanna chose to be buried there, you will recall. "She was more beautiful than that," the king said after a silence. His eyes lingered on Lyanna's face, as if he could will her back to life. Finally he rose, made awkward by his weight. "Ah, damn it, Ned, did you have to bury her in a place like this?" His voice was hoarse with remembered grief. "She deserved more than darkness …" "She was a Stark of Winterfell," Ned said quietly. "This is her place." "She should be on a hill somewhere, under a fruit tree, with the sun and clouds above her and the rain to wash her clean." "I was with her when she died," Ned reminded the king. "She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father." He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister's eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it. "I bring her flowers when I can," he said. "Lyanna was … fond of flowers." I think Lyanna's choices were more heavily influenced than the Old Gods than Ned's, around the time of her death. These choices need not be conscious of spiritual duty. I think what makes them interesting is that they seem to fulfill spiritual duties regardless of intent. It seems the Old Gods are as easy to ignore and as easy to escape as gravity itself. Wow. I just read most of the link you gave me at Last Hearth. Sorry, I have been busy at school recently. I never imagined the books had so much in them like that level you describe. I think Jon and Daenerys are opposites, but don't you think opposites can attract? It seems these two are destined for each other. I mean, Daenerys freed the slaves, so that must mean something against her just being fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted April 25, 2017 Author Share Posted April 25, 2017 On 4/23/2017 at 8:27 AM, Sea Dragon said: Wow. I just read most of the link you gave me at Last Hearth. Sorry, I have been busy at school recently. I never imagined the books had so much in them like that level you describe. GRRM's writing is heavily influenced by his knowledge of mythology, philosophy, and science. And, once you've read his non-asoiaf works, you can really appreciate how much he incorporates and blends them together. I hope you'll join the Hearth and contribute to the discourse and debate! But yeah, I would call GRRM's style something like Environmental Nietzscheism, or Nietzsche-Environmentalism. It is extremely well-informed, and original even in its imitation of esoteric tropes. It is also extremely nihilistic in its treatment of humanity, but does seem to have hope/respect for nature itself and the evolution of the species. On 4/23/2017 at 8:27 AM, Sea Dragon said: I think Jon and Daenerys are opposites, but don't you think opposites can attract? It seems these two are destined for each other. I mean, Daenerys freed the slaves, so that must mean something against her just being fire. Mayhaps. Jon really cared for Ygritte, but she was never his wife. Jon's wife has always been Duty. Jon's mistress has always been Honor. Dany wants pretty men with very little between the ears. She is not attracted to selflessness. And, once she comes to Westeros, I have a feeling her child-eating dragons will make her seem less like the naive young girl she pretends to be. Opposites can attract though, so who knows? I can't say I think Jon will want Dany, and I can't say Dany will want Jon. Thus far, their love interests have seemed to point in very different directions. And, this is GRRM we're talking about. He's about as likely to write a happily-ever-after love story as Stephen King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Voice said: Dany wants pretty men with very little between the ears. She is not attracted to selflessness. Really? Is that how you see Daario? He has survived in the cutthroat company of sellswords, and come out on top. I doubt he is really stupid. Extremely clever and manipulative would be closer to the mark, I think. I would also think we have more than enough information to point to Dany knowing just who Daario really is, and her need for the open and honest greed and lust he represents. It is not just his good looks Dany is attracted to, or so it seems to me. What Jon will be like when they meet is anyone's guess. "Selflessness?" Maybe. But all we have to go on is a blue rose growing out of a wall of ice. That seems to indicate doomed and impossible love. Much like Rhaegar and Lyanns. Of course, it is probably a reference to Dany and Dolorous Ed. No one can resist Eeyore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted April 25, 2017 Author Share Posted April 25, 2017 53 minutes ago, SFDanny said: Really? Is that how you see Daario? He has survived in the cutthroat company of sellswords, and come out on top. I doubt he is really stupid. Extremely clever and manipulative would be closer to the mark, I think. I would also think we have more than enough information to point to Dany knowing just who Daario really is, and her need for the open and honest greed and lust he represents. It is not just his good looks Dany is attracted to, or so it seems to me. I was speaking more to substance, than intelligence. Dany is attracted to aggressive, power-hungry men who are willing to kill their colleagues. Daario is but the latest such mate. He was not the first. Jon stands in stark contrast to that sort of man. Rather than sacrifice his brothers, he's put himself in harm's way for the greater good. That's Quentyn Martell, and we saw how attracted Dany was to Quent. And yes, Dany is quite honest with herself. And she's willing to sleep with bad men. I'm glad she is, as it makes her far more interesting a character, but I think we're barking up the wrong tree if we think she'll be attracted to Jon. 53 minutes ago, SFDanny said: What Jon will be like when they meet is anyone's guess. "Selflessness?" Maybe. But all we have to go on is a blue rose growing out of a wall of ice. That seems to indicate doomed and impossible love. Much like Rhaegar and Lyanns. Of course, it is probably a reference to Dany and Dolorous Ed. No one can resist Eeyore. Flowers=Womanhood in asoiaf. Post-pubescent men are "men grown," post-pubescent women are "women flowered." A blue flower, growing from a chink in a wall of ice, tells me that Lyanna's flowering caused a crack in Winter. So I would place her first bed of blood in the Year of the False Spring. Barristan believes that Rhaegar loved Lyanna, but he confesses he did not know Rhaegar very well. Still, that remains quite plausible. The idea that Lyanna loved Rhaegar, or would even find him attractive, is far more difficult to demonstrate. The text tells us that Lyanna was more like Arya, who did not swoon for princes – let alone married princes. And even Sansa did not swoon for Joffrey after the execution of her father. We also know that Lyanna did not look kindly upon men who kept more than one bed, and sired bastards within them. So while I can see why Barristan might believe Rhaegar loved Lyanna, as it fits with a pro-dragon POV reconciling the narrative that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna (which we still do not know actually happened), it is far more difficult for me to see why/how Lyanna would love Rhaegar. To the point of this OP, I think the blue flower+crack represent the way Lyanna's presence was able to break the barrier that had kept direwolves from Winterfell for 200 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 6 hours ago, Voice said: I was speaking more to substance, than intelligence. Ahh ... my mistake. The phrase "between the ears" usually, in my experience, is associated with attributes like intelligence. Attributes like "substance" maybe should be the first thing one thinks of associated with the functioning of the brain, but too often it is not. I'm going to assume you mean moral substance, and not wealth, property, or status. If so, then I agree Daario has little moral substance anywhere in his body. It's part of killing people for money. Goes with the job description of sellsword. However, I would argue Daario's lack of moral substance isn't what attracts Dany to Daario. Rather, I think it is his openess with his feelings of lust and attraction towards Dany. It's very uncomplicated in someways. Something that Dany needs on a very human level, as opposed to all the men with their lusts for power through using her and her dragons for their own ends. Everyone has their schemes, and Dany needs some simple things in her life. Sex with Daario is one of those things. That's how I read it anyway. I would also argue, that is not the same as what attracted her to Khal Drogo. To begin with she is frightened by him and his strangeness, but what she finds with Drogo is, in the context of a arranged marriage, someone who unexpectedly shows kindness towards her, and someone who becomes her protector. This is not the simple sex attraction of Daario. 6 hours ago, Voice said: Dany is attracted to aggressive, power-hungry men who are willing to kill their colleagues. Daario is but the latest such mate. He was not the first. Both Khal Drogo and Daario are warriors. They kill their enemies, whether those are colleagues or not. But that isn't the feature of either that attracts her to them. You seem to think there is some other attractions in Dany's life, am I missing someone? 6 hours ago, Voice said: Jon stands in stark contrast to that sort of man. Rather than sacrifice his brothers, he's put himself in harm's way for the greater good. That's Quentyn Martell, and we saw how attracted Dany was to Quent. I think you're omitting some of Jon's history. Jon is willing to kill. Not only to follow orders or to defend himself, but also to maintain his own authority. Janos Slynt tells us that. Jon also is willing to send men out to their likely deaths to do as he commands, as he sees fit. The days in which he always puts himself in harm's way instead of others are over. It's part of growing into being the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. So, while I agree that Jon is a different sort of man than either Drogo or Daario, he also shares some of the same warrior attributes. I just don't think you are right about these traits are what attracts Dany. I also think you judge Quentyn wrongly as well. Martell is sent on a long and hazardous journey and he does his best to do his duty. He shows some courage in doing so, but Dany witnesses none of this. She only knows him as another suitor for her hand. A suitor who arrives too late, and whose offer doesn't help her in her immediate circumstances. That she sees him a plain and unexciting only makes it easier for her to choose another plain and unexciting man - Hizdahr - over him. Dany's attraction is to neither, but she decides she has to marry Hizdahr despite that lack. 8 hours ago, Voice said: And yes, Dany is quite honest with herself. And she's willing to sleep with bad men. I'm glad she is, as it makes her far more interesting a character, but I think we're barking up the wrong tree if we think she'll be attracted to Jon. Well, we don't know what Jon will be like when Dany meets him, assuming she does, but I really don't see how she would not be attracted to him. He is, after all, a seemingly attractive young man who has proven his courage and his commitment in fighting the central threat to Dany's kingdom and to the people of their world. The boy has lots of things going for him, including, I'm assuming, coming back from the dead. Mysterious. Brooding. And a hero. Whats not to like? Seriously, we will have to wait, but I don't think it is a stretch to see the two attracted to each other. Of course, by then, maybe Jon is leading the zombie army instead of the Night's Watch. Which would be a mark against him. 8 hours ago, Voice said: Flowers=Womanhood in asoiaf. Post-pubescent men are "men grown," post-pubescent women are "women flowered." A blue flower, growing from a chink in a wall of ice, tells me that Lyanna's flowering caused a crack in Winter. So I would place her first bed of blood in the Year of the False Spring. Since when is a "bed of blood" a phrase used to describe menstruation? Childbirth, possibly, but menstruation, no. Surely you are not saying Lyanna gave birth in the Year of the False Spring? Do all images of flowers, in your view, point to menstruation? It is quite a jump to go from noting the phrase "woman flowered" is related to post pubescent women to your equation of "flowers=womanhood" or the idea all flower images are a reference to post pubescent women. How then is Rhaegar's presentation of blue roses a symbol of Lyanna's menstruation? Or her dying holding dead blue roses a symbol of the same? This is stretching a phrase far too far, it seems to me. I'm prepared to believe a lot of amazing things about Lyanna, but pardon me if I'm not yet sold on the idea her "flowering" caused a crack in Winter. 9 hours ago, Voice said: Barristan believes that Rhaegar loved Lyanna, but he confesses he did not know Rhaegar very well. Still, that remains quite plausible. I think the quote actually says that Rhaegar did not trust him as he trusted Ser Arthur. Selmy knows that Rhaegar kept secrets from him, but that is not the same as saying he did not know Rhaegar very well. As a knight of the Kingsguard, Ser Barristan watched Rhaegar grow up. He was hardly a stranger to the prince. It would seem likely that in the months they spent together after Rhaegar returns from the Tower of Joy to take up command of the new loyalist army, that he just might say something about Lyanna and his feelings toward her in Selmy's presence. At that point it isn't quite a state secret that he has been in hiding with her. 10 hours ago, Voice said: The idea that Lyanna loved Rhaegar, or would even find him attractive, is far more difficult to demonstrate. The text tells us that Lyanna was more like Arya, who did not swoon for princes – let alone married princes. And even Sansa did not swoon for Joffrey after the execution of her father. We also know that Lyanna did not look kindly upon men who kept more than one bed, and sired bastards within them. So while I can see why Barristan might believe Rhaegar loved Lyanna, as it fits with a pro-dragon POV reconciling the narrative that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna (which we still do not know actually happened), it is far more difficult for me to see why/how Lyanna would love Rhaegar. It should be harder to demonstrate, or Martin isn't doing his job. Yet we have clues like Lyanna being moved by Rhaegar's singing, and, much more important the fact Lyanna dies holding onto roses that sound very much like the ones Rhaegar presents to her at Harrenhal. I agree it is hard to reconcile the idea of abduction with Lyanna falling in love with Rhaegar. I think the quotes of Dany about how she needed Daario to rescue her from the wedding to Hizdahr just as Rhaegar had done with his "northern girl" shows the way to resolve the difference. He doesn't abduct her. She goes willingly to avoid her marriage to Robert. Lyanna may have even asked for help from Rhaegar in avoiding the marriage. Robert names it a kidnapping and rape because Lyanna is his. His by all the rights granted in the marriage pact between House Stark and House Baratheon. But that is not the same as winning Lyanna's consent or her love. 10 hours ago, Voice said: To the point of this OP, I think the blue flower+crack represent the way Lyanna's presence was able to break the barrier that had kept direwolves from Winterfell for 200 years. As with all of your ideas, Voice, this idea has interesting aspects to it. If there is anything to it, I would think we will find out from Bran's POV. Look forward to finding out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.