James Arryn

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951 “Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”*― Adam Smith, 1776 *Yes, I know, but carry his counters forward and it’s even more profoundly apt today than when he wrote it.

9ers sign Javon Hargrave. Interesting move. Because of Kinlaw’s knee and Kochurek’s magic, they had been kind of going with rotations of lower picks or bargain basement signs that then play great and sign big deals elsewhere. This signing seems to signal that they’ve always wanted a star there, and that Kinlaw’s freakish talent kept them hoping he’d be that guy if he could ever stay healthy, but I didn’t think they’re holding their breath and this signing more or less confirms it. I have a general sense of what kind of player he is, but my toddler-caused scarcity of games watched over last few years has left me pretty ignorant of many good players on other teams, so any comments would be welcome.

Could be smoke, but apparently Niners medical people are very happy with Purdy’s surgery today. TJ was not required and the damage was less than feared. Supposedly expected to be throwing within 3 months.

This is why, if possible, I try and avoid having monarchs as my favourite characters, because with each (Dany, Jon, Rhaenyra, Stannis, etc.) we see a lot of exactly what you are saying here, where that person being the True Ruler is the bedstone and everything and everyone else is judged primarily on how readily they adjust to that, fuck w/e else they have going on in their lives. Even when as, say with Stannis fans and Renly, it expects ridiculous mental/moral gymnastics and a complete willingness to surrender their own power, agency and safety in order to do ‘the right thing’ from the other characters that they would never expect of realistic characters in another context.

We’re not getting each other. You think I’ve been defending him? I will defend him in some ways, but none of those are the things I’ve been talking about, except to wonder if his system might possibly be the exception to the philosophical rule in pro sports. And just wondering, definitely not all in. That said, I don’t think we can seriously blame him for much this season unless, as i might do, you think his philosophy makes players more expendable, and his usage of them absolutely walks the talk. But that aside I think it was one of the best coached seasons I’ve seen in a long time. He had the Niners the statistical betting odds on (ie home field spread <3) favourite to rep the NFC in the Suoerbowl on his third string (drafted that year as 4th string) quarterback. I…that’s remarkable. And consequentialism doesn't impress me, so outside of that health question, I don’t think we can have a reasonable conversation on the basis that that game wasn’t massively dictated by an injury. So unless you do think Kyle treating players as disposable is the cause there, how can we deduct anything from how it ended. They were tied before the back-up took a snap. Edit: sorry, forgot to finish my thought. On the health issue I am extremely open to the idea that he’s an extremist when it comes to treating his players as embodiments of Carpe Diem in a way that only has the potential to cost them more than it does him. Otoh he’s amazing at mane the two most important aspects of head coaching: remarkable game planning and excellent assistant coach hiring. And on top of that the Niners have a fantastic locker room, though I’m not sure if that’s a Kyle thing or an organizational refusal to take on people they think might be problems, I don’t know. So to me it’s how do I weigh that great, elite level coaching against a very real possibility that his downside will continue to be injuries because in part because of how little he cares about how well their careers are going in 3 years. I go back and forth on this tbh, but then I consider the Niners remarkable run as the injury outlier goes back several coaches/front offices/stadiums, so…is that just historically bad luck? Or an ownership philosophy? The latter seems extremely unlikely to me, but it’s the best alternate explanation I can come up with. There’s the possibility that it was luck before Kyle and Kyle since, I guess.

I don’t understand. I’m off the wall because I think our coach is a serious control freak who prioritizes system over talent, which 9/10 times in pro sports is a formula for failure? I haven’t even said if I think it would work, if I’d do it, if I think Lamar fits, etc., just evaluating the priorities of the guy who calls the shots? All Rhom questioned was fit, so far as I can see, and that’s always a question with quarterbacks and offensive head coaches. You’re talking like we’re saying ‘great move’ on Lance or we’re super happy about the qb situation. Anyways, my take on the above: there are ways this can break where the Niners have 2 cheap, controllable young starting calibre quarterbacks, an incredibly advantageous situation. Before Purdy’s injury I’d have put the odds of that much higher than now. Right now I see a lot of moving parts that have to come together for us to even be starting the season with a guy you can confidently call that, and I personally am getting the impression, over time, that the Niners/Kyle have an exceptionally low investment in the longer term values of their players, ie health etc. over what can you give me this week. I think everyone in the NFL has that element, but I am increasingly thinking that Kyle is…borderline sociopathic with that shit. And consequently I would absolutely not be taking medical advice from the Niners if I’m Purdy, but I think in the end he’ll have to, and therefore his career prospects depend a lot on whether the Niners ~ disposable attitude towards players happens to by chance line up with the right call medically. Let’s say I’m not really excited about this situation. As for Lance, aside from the real time cost of erosion and opp. cost, I don’t really understand anyone whose opinion on him is all that different than it was 3 years ago. And yes, that’s a huge problem. But it doesn’t change the eventuality odds except where the Niners decide, belatedly, that now is not a great time for a test drive. But even there, unless the answer’s Purdy, I don’t see what has happened in a couple seasons where he’s thrown ~ 100 passes and you’ve won zero championships to change your assessment of the need for more from a qb and a surrounding team that almost requires a rookie deal qb to function as some version of itself. Unless it’s an internal eval that he’s just not that guy, which is possible. I don’t think they’ve blown the doors off anyone’s house with their enthusiasm for him recently, but then Kyle doesn’t really do anything but the bare minimum there, and even less when talking injured players, so dunno. The upside…always forget that part…is that our roster makes qb value as relatively benign as it can get in pro football, so they can go on unbeatable looking runs with a Purdy playing…I mean, great in a lot of ways, how much if that is the talent around him? Or is he just a perfect discount fit for Kyle’s system? If so, do I want to move off that? But I really don’t know where that line is, if I’m betting I’m probably betting against him even without the injury. Upside! On Lamar, yes, of course he makes us a bette team on paper, talking certainties. But if Kyle thinks he’s a bad fit, he’s a bad fit whether that’s true or not. So it really depends on why they were previously not too interested in him. But they’ve been uninterested in several generational qbs who openly wanted to go there, so there’s a lot of form there, is I think our point.

Yeah, and the impression I’m getting is that push comes to shove Kyle will take the less talented guy who won’t swim against the current in his system over the more talented guy he has to build the offence around. I generally think this is bad coaching but his system presents arguments of it’s own so I’m more undecided. I think this in part explains so many flirtations with big names who openly wanted to go to SF and always ultimately passing. I think he knows that better qb = easier game, so he’s always looking, but every fit doesn’t because of the adjustments he’d have to make. Could be wrong, just a sense I get from comments of players, ex-players, etc.

Increased ~ insider 9er chatter that missing last season may have been fatal to Trey Lance’s status within the org, not so much thinking he’s a bust, just that their team cannot really afford much more development time with so many prime time stars getting older, and he’s obviously going to need it after basically only playing a bit above 1 season of football in the 4.5 years since HS. Now Purdy’s increasingly uncertain timeline for return probably at least gets him a lot of reps come camp, and I guess they’ll decide there, but I can see names like Rodgers being attached to the Niners again if this chatter persists. Another aspect is that while Lance IS fast…clocked at 22 mph more than once in college, which is elite for almost any position, let alone qb…he’s a somewhat slow starter, almost the inverse of Purdy in that way…and that he has yet to look anywhere near as comfortable running with the ball in limited pro action as he did in college. Now imo the way Shanahan has run him has been a big part of it, but I am not sure his kind of speed translates to designed runs as much as it does improv. Or at least until he gets his confidence back, the lack of suddenness might just be uncertainty. But anyways, this is part of the picture. And to be completely fair, there are also ‘insiders’ saying it’s Lance’s job to lose, though they’ve gotten a bit quieter lately. Personally, and this is probably just frustration talking, I mostly want a relative lack of insanity. I’m not even sure how that translates to decision making, just want off the broken roller coaster for a bit. Pretty resigned to the probability that that’s not going to happen, though.

3 year old twins + weather + flu, just a bad combination. Just switched from cribs to beds, too, to add to the concoction. But it’s nothing every other parent hasn’t faced many times, nor indeed anywhere near my first of these. Grinding headache is probably adding to my bitchiness. But you are a sweetheart for being concerned, truly. edit: just noticed another way that my twins have changed me: I now use the word ‘sweetheart’ un-ironically.

Sorry. 4/ 1/2 hours sleep over the last 3.5 days has me foggy brained and feeling unreasonably sorry for myself.

Viserys as we see him in the books is almost entirely unsympathetic. But there’s this drawing of young Viserys carrying Dany on his back, both of them looking fearful, that brought home to me that he was pretty heroic in the sense of keeping her alive, fed, and educated while having to trade with only his pride to sell off, excepting all the symbols of his family’s legacy. To highlight the difference; younger Viserys sold his crown before he sold his sister. Later Viserys probably wouldn’t, nor indeed would later Dany. Dany seems to think that all the years keeping them alive…and when you are struggling to feed yourself, another mouth is a great burden…by more or less being willing to have his shattered pride mocked as entertainment to a variety of hosts…is what left him twisted and bitter. I think she’s probably right. But almost no one includes that in their assessment of him, and in fact he is called ‘entitled’ so often that most must have expunged it from the history of the character they are assessing.

Are we heading towards such an orthodoxy that pointing out actual events from the books regarding broadly sympathetic characters is immediately ridiculed and ascribed to some kind of polemic agenda?

As far as his ‘blow up’…and in a book filled with violence, this seems a tad overblown…think of it as another example if that which constitutes fAegon’s almost entire life: learning. I won’t list all the things he has learned, practically and academically, over the course of his young life. I will just mention that he had already learned what it is to be hunted and hated…by outsiders. So he already knew about distrusting people he did not know, but life on the boat has also been safe for him from the inside. No one on the boat would try and trick him, no one would lie to him, that he knows of. It’s a very inside vs. outside compartmentalization, probably necessary for his sanity growing up, and to allow so much learning. Hugor has been brought on board and accepted as a member of the crew and, as with everyone on the boat, is presumably there to teach YG something. YG would know this. Now there are schools of learning that use open deception, but none so far as I know that do it without warning the learner, because it’s at exact cross purposes with the kind of mindset needed to really learn. Life, importantly, can quickly teach you that those you trust can lie to you and manipulate you, that there is no reliable inside vs. outside, but first that’s almost always a traumatic experience, and second because of his unique situation, that is one of the (seemingly few) things fAegon was never taught. He thought he was supposed to be open to Tyrion because that’s his role on the Shy Maid. So it would have been something he was unprepared for, completely, in the truest sense of the word. It would have challenged a fundament of his life, it would have been…on a very small scale, to be sure, but nevertheless impactful…painful. And that, imo, is what he reacted to. Not losing; we know he’s lost before without anything happening. What Tyrion was doing, out of boredom or malice or because he saw a gap in his learning, or with Dance Tyrion, likely some imprecise combination of all three…was shaking his faith in the one way he felt safe. But he learns. After that his guard is up around Tyrion, and eventually he starts distrusting some of the advice of JC et al, an important development. But at the same time he values Tyrion and prioritized saving his life, and graciously thanks him for saving his. So he learns, but he does not become closed. From an educational point of view, that’s great. You can read the tantrum as somehow revealing the fatal flaw, but I doubt GRRM’s mind works that sophomorically and I doubt he wastes so much time impressing us with all of fAegon’s abilities and virtues if the cyvasse game is the only really important moment for his future. To me the better reading of that is to arrest our attention to what lesson Tyrion just taught him, and it had nothing…in the literal sense…to do with where you put what pieces on the board when. It was, in short, trust no one completely, regardless of ‘inside or outside’, everyone can have other agendas. We’ve seen other characters learn that lesson and do a lot more than knock over a cyvasse table.

That’s certainly arguable; realpolitik covers a lot of ground, ie calling it that, even accurately, isn’t necessarily a defence. There’s a reason great men are rarely good men.

Not sure I have the energy for this tonight, might be part 1, we’ll see how we get on; 1) how…in any way…does w/e ‘Stannis attempted diplomacy’ with storm lords…what do you mean by this, btw, surely not the ravens…remotely disqualify a surprise attack against his own brother…introduced to us accompanied by being the only think Cersei and Tyrion celebrate/laugh at together, btw…as an act of naked aggression? Like seriously, how does that work in your head? And, to extend the metaphor, did you know that Pearl Harbour was preceded by literal months of diplomatic meetings and that the Japanese had officially walked out of them, but literally not even the Japanese thought that made PH anything but a surorise attack/naked aggression? And that was like I said, formal talks over months and months as opposed to…what were these remarkable diplomatic efforts? Anyways, this is helping me get my bearings on how you Stannis things in the Stannis about the Stannises, bit nostalgic for E-Ro if I’m honest. 2) How would Edric change that either? Stannis lives in a world where if he thinks he has a reason for doing something everyone should get on board. Do you? Not that it would in any way be less naked aggression from Renly’s POV, but Penrose, Davos, subsequent events and the absolute un-usage of Edric in this dramatic court room drama you are imaging suggest Stannis might have slightly mixed motives for wanting his nephew. You know, the whole…stop me if this sounds familiar…killing his kin for a crown? 3) You forgot the ambiguities of the shadow baby having his face, of his own defenders admitting he went there to kill Renly with Mel, etc. And what do you think Davos knew was wrong? Do you actually doubt his guilt? 4) Yes, they were equally rebelling. As surprising as it might seem, hair colour does not a legal case make, nor does the understanding of readers of a series to the characters in it. Fwiw a big part of Stannis’ certainty comes from ‘knowing’ the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn, so…But also, I can see an issue going forward; you apparently take anything Stannis says as gospel truth but handwave Renly’s statements about the twincest…which btw, given his openly stated motivation, he would have no reason to lie about, as pure lies. I can only say that I find it unlikely you will disagree with yourself here. Stannis does not have the ‘rightful’ claim, btw. Robert named Joff his heir. Hey, maybe he knew too? Anyways, you’ve built a claim on hair colour, so far as Stannis knows. Good stuff. Neither brother were traitors, btw, unless you count Stannis attacking Renly as a familial betrayal. Research feudalism; treason is the breaking of a personal oath sworn to your liege. This is not post-nationalism, nobody owes anyone allegiance just because they expect it. That’s what all the lords coming to WF was about. 5) I have written too many essays on this stuff to want to go into it again, but feudal succession laws, in RL and the books, are more scorecard than rulebook. 6) The fact that Stannis’ fans accept that incredibly weak non-excuse for not telling Robert is one of their more defining characteristics; so…it would have been better coming from JA, okay, I can go that far. But then, so Stannis thinks, they kill JA. These Lannisters surrounding his brother kill Jon Arryn, and so Stannis…leaves without a word, for, what, a year? Months anyways, while his brother and king is unknowingly surrounded by deadly enemies, and Stannis…sulks on DS? The guy who says everyone’s first duty is to their king…couldn’t even send a warning? That strike you as within an infinite number of miles as an excuse? Here’s a thought exercise: Person A is, so far as he knows, the only person to know the king is surrounded by deadly enemies who will only realize their ambitions once he’s dead. Person A happens to be the king’s brother. Person A takes himself and his knowledge and the royal fleet and sets off to an island fortress for months on end without a word. Oh, did I mention that in person A’s opinion, the knowledge he possesses just happens to mean that in the entirely unforeseeable eventuality that the king’s secret deadly enemies secretly make the king dead, Person A inherits the kingdom? Quite an interesting scenario, no? Cui bono, all that. Oh, and in a complete aside, person A subsequently killed another brother for the crown, wanted to kill his nephew, and will probably kill his daughter. What would a complete outsider make of person A’s actions and motives, do you suppose? What would Occam suggest? 7) I feel like the Pearl Harbour example again. RENLY’s taking the throne would mean might makes right? Renly?!?! Not, say, let me think…wait, Robert? And you think everyone else would have thought ‘hmmmm, blond, you say? Yes, that one uncle is just doing the right thing and upholding truth, justice and the American way by taking his nephews throne, not like that younger brother and his ambitions…that way madness lies. What if Renly countered with the damning ‘Stannis is bald!’ campaign? Btw, might makes right is what feudal succession is about. It’s what feudal kingship is about, come to that. 8) On the battle, Stannis had no chance. First, one of the absolute rules of warfare is ‘never get caught engaged in a siege with an enemy army in the field’. It’s as close to a sitting duck as you can get even without accounting for the vast differences in size and quality of troops. It’s as much of a no-brainer as GRRM could make it, though anyone can clutch at straws if they want.

Right. Okay, one by one, Stannis’ overtly using black magic to actually premeditatedly kill his brother is a bit vague in the blame game, but Renly expecting to win a (defensive) battle he will certainly win is…worse? That makes perfect sense to some people, I understand. Forgetting that Renly was not rebelling against Stannis, they were both rebelling against Joffrey, forgetting that Renly’s, er, tone might, to a generous ear, be sort of kind of maybe slightly explained by his brother actually attacking him, forgetting that I guess a Lannister loss would somehow be worse for Westeros than the current situation, or that Stannis let Robert die, or that one show concept GRRM has explicitly not pushed back on is Shireen’s fate, etc. But I mean, he’s laconic, and if old American cop movies have taught me anything it’s that those guys are the heroes.

Entertain my perversity, if you will. I am saying that assessing each brother’s language to determine who was the aggressor in a conversation that occurs when one of them is literally attacking the other is a bit…academic? I was attempting to cite the apparently boorish behaviour of the DEFENDERS of a RL sneak attack to demonstrate the (imo) surreal nature of the discussion on it’s purported merits.

I agree, I tend to quibble about things like open acts of war being pretty = aggression, always been a hang-up of mine, but maybe with help that will fade into the background like a shrimp in the sand.

Point 1) the entire conversation people are parsing to see who was ruder or w/e happens in front of the backdrop of Stannis out of nowhere attacking and besieging Renly’s capital. Forget everything else, forget how much Stannis intended to kill Renly o w/e, I guarantee you that if it were reversed that context would not escape defining the role of aggressor for the majority of people currently overlooking it.

Lol, some American servicemen apparently shouted curses AND shot guns at the Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbour. Let us now deconstruct whose fault that engagement was.

Possibly the sweetest way to call someone an opinionated old loudmouth I’ve ever seen. No, seriously, appreciated.

You’re only saying that for Renly’s sake, but I’ll take it.

Pffft, whenever I say I’m dumb, not only do people on here not argue, they compare anecdotes.

This is why he’s affectionately known as Bespoke Martin.

And it’s not like George is subtle about it; “I am not without mercy!” thundered he who was famously without mercy. Also, this story he tells; "When I was a lad I found an injured goshawk and nursed her back to health. Proudwing, I named her. She would perch on my shoulder and flutter from room to room after me and take food from my hand, but she would not soar. Time and again I would take her hawking, but she never flew higher than the treetops. Robert called her Weakwing. He owned a gyrfalcon named Thunderclap who never missed her strike. One day our great-uncle Ser Harbert told me to try a different bird. I was making a fool of myself with Proudwing, he said, and he was right." Stannis Baratheon turned away from the window, and the ghosts who moved upon the southern sea. "The Seven have never brought me so much as a sparrow. It is time I tried another hawk, Davos. A red hawk." …is stolen almost word for word from a ~ 70’s? tv miniseries version of Ivanhoe. The younger brother still jealous about everything/a bird his older brother had? Bad King John. And yet readers bend over backwards to avoid looking at how everything in Stannis’ mind is about Stannis. What others get that Stannis doesn’t, what Stannis deserves, how wronged Stannis was, how Robert should have made Stannis Hand, how Stannis should have gotten the Stormlands, how unfair life has been to Stannis, etc. And the best part is if you said ‘I can’t stand characters who think they are entitled to everything’ his fans would whole-heartedly agree with you. Honestly, taken on his own without accounting for the inexplicable MAGA, sorry, hero worship, Stannis is a pretty fun character to read about and does possess real strengths. But if he’s this myopically ego-centric from the outside, can you imagine what a Stannis POV would read like? Jesus Christ, it’d make Cersei look like she’s all about other people.