Worst Romance in Westeros...

[ARYa_Nym]

Many in the fandom don't believe that there was any rape. There was a big thread on it once. QC1 also mentioned that GRRM said that Dany's wedding night is one of the most romantic in the series but the interview wasn't working for me.

ETA:http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/65975-drogo-didnt-rape-dany/

Many believe that Drogo was good to her and that their relationship was sweet.

[Newstar]

I love the Handmaid's Tale, and yes, I agree that portrays these issues very critically, which is not what Martin does in many of these cases.

Yes! Love The Handmaid's Tale, even though I found it an incredibly painful read.

I'm extremely reluctant to get into a full discussion about their sexual relationship because the positive portrayal of "brutal sex as a trial to overcome" makes it really hard to analyze without running into the risk of seemingly endorsing this trope. Suffice it to say, I agree that it's portrayed in a way that's not only uncritical, but an endorsement. I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying that Martin himself endorses this problematic trope, but it is certainly presented as highly positive, and a great "triumph" for Dany.

The "being traumatized and put through excruciating physical pain by brutal rape is Dany's problem to overcome" is bad enough, but there's also "Raping your partner repeatedly is fine, since she'll learn to like it eventually" (this trope was quite frequently used in romance novels, where the hero rapes the heroine until she gets into it, and this is suggested to be totally okay, but it seems to be dying out, thank God), which is the other side of the equation. Hard to say which is worse, but GRRM serves them both up with a smile as twu wuv in the making. Not cool.

I also object to characterizing Drogo raping her multiple times--leaving out the wedding night (which was sort of consensual, although it's pretty clear Drogo was going to have sex with Dany no matter what and it's not like she could have just stormed off if she'd wanted, but at least she did tell him "Yes")--as "brutal sex" and not rape, since Dany clearly did not consent to that shit. Let's call a rape spade a spade.

I think sometimes a lot of discussion on a topic can appear to be more of an endorsement than it's meant to be

It depends; there's neutral literary analysis of complex relationship dynamics, and then there's posting a 5,000-word essay on how Sansa and Sandor are exactly like Lizzie and Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice and are therefore clearly destined to be together, even if examples of the time Mr. Darcy threatened Lizzie at knifepoint are hard to come by. I guess I'd just like a little more intellectual honesty and critical examination of some of this stuff, especially since benign or nonchalant attitudes towards abusive undertones in relationships and eroticization/romanticizion of abusive behaviour are so sadly common and go so often unquestioned or unexamined. Turn on any TV at any time and you'll see some guy grabbing a girl's arm who's trying to get away from him and yanking her to him (and this suggested to be "hot"...he just can't keep his hands off her!), a guy not listening when a girl tells him "No" or "Stop" (not necessarily in a sexual context), a guy insulting or shouting at his girlfriend/wife (and this being presented as benign or no big deal), etc. This stuff is poison, and it's everywhere, and people who ship relationships like Sandor and Sansa's perpetuate it and are part of the problem, since they feed into these ideas:

1. It's sexy/romantic when a man touches a woman without her permission, or shoves her around, and especially sexy/romantic if the woman is much weaker and smaller than the man and has no way of physically resisting his violent actions towards her. Nothing is (apparently) more erotic than a woman's total physical helplessness and vulnerability. (The eroticization of feminine physical fragility and weakness is a classic misogynist trope.)

2. It's sexy/romantic when a man deliberately tries to frighten and intimidate a woman, and her enduring his mistreatment is a mark of her strength rather than of his lack of character.

3. It's sexy/romantic when a man doesn't listen when a woman tells him "No" or "Stop," since she obviously doesn't really mean it (a lot of rapes can be blamed on the oddly popular idea that it's a turn-on when someone resists or protests sexual or romantic advances, or just a token resistance and not reflective of true lack of consent, so way to go, SanSan shippers! You're doing God's work!).

4. It's sexy/romantic when a man threatens violence against a woman, either openly or through a veiled threat.

5. It's sexy/romantic when a man kisses a woman when physically threatening her.

6. It's sexy/romantic when a man insults a woman, since he's doing the courtesy of keeping it real (or something).

7. Its sexy/romantic when a man comes close to hurting/killing a woman but restrains himself from doing it, and it's even more sexy/romantic than never dreaming of harming her to begin with.

8. It's sexy/romantic when a man transgresses a woman's boundaries: showing up where he isn't invited, refusing to stop when someone begs him to do so, acting inappropriately despite the other's obvious discomfort, etc.

9. It's sexy/romantic when a man threatens sexual violence against a woman (I guess because he wants her so badly he can't help himself, or something).

10. It's not assault if the perpetrator feels bad about it afterwards (bonus points for crying).

11. It's not assault if the victim romanticizes the assault as a coping mechanism.

12. It's not assault if the perpetrator loves the victim (even though someone who really loved someone else would never deliberately hurt them).

And so on.

Looking at a work like ASOIAF and certain fannish reactions to some of these relationships is a really good place to start examining some of these attitudes critically. Why is that certain fans don't care that Dany's great love raped her repeatedly? Why is it that certain fans don't even apparently consider it rape? Why is it that certain fans find Sandor's (imagined) "cruel kiss" so appealing? Why do certain fans consider assault and the deliberate infliction of pain and fear as sexy? Why do certain fans focus more on Sandor's tears and remorse than on his initial assault? Why do Sansa fans ship her with someone who threatened to kill her at knifepoint? Why is a man slapping a woman accepted as unsexy, while a man in other ways hurting/threatening/menacing a woman sexy? And so on. Responding to these questions with the equivalent of "SHUT UP IT'S FICTION LEAVE ME ALONE I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" is not constructive, so why should we accept it as an answer? We challenge Tyrion fans and Littlefinger fans about their attitudes towards their characters' horrible actions and don't accept their rationalizations or excuses. Why do shippers of relationships with abusive undertones get a pass from the same kind of scrutiny?

So we pretty much agree, right?

Pretty much, my wall of words and all. :D

[nara]

Dany/Daario

Or

Jaime/Cersei

What does it say about this series that it takes twelve posts to see a mention of the incestuous twins who have three children and have been "involved" since they were seven or eight years old? There are some pretty terrible romances in these books!

[Newstar]

What does it say about this series that it takes twelve posts to see a mention of the incestuous twins who have three children and have been "involved" since they were seven or eight years old? There are some pretty terrible romances in these books!

Yeah, there's a veritable buffet of options for horrible romances in the books. If this were "Best Romance in Westeros," the thread would be, like, a page long. :D

[Annara Snow]

What does it say about this series that it takes twelve posts to see a mention of the incestuous twins who have three children and have been "involved" since they were seven or eight years old? There are some pretty terrible romances in these books!

Depends on what the definition of "worst romance" or "terrible romance" is?

I'd say that Jaime/Cersei is one of the best "romances" in the book, not because they are a good couple (they're definitely not, and not even just because it's incest) but because it's really interesting, well-developed and compelling story. That makes it a "good romance" in my book. Most of those mentioned as "worst" in this thread are actually among the best, because unconventional, unlikely, challenging and even disturbing, but still convincing in terms of characterization and chemistry, is far more likely to be a "good romance" in the literary sense.

"Worst romances" would, for me, be those that are plain boring and not well developed (like Robb & Talisa in the show). I think that the Dany and Daario "chemistry" felt forced, they were supposed to be incredibly attracted to each other the moment they met, but it was more like we were directly told they were attracted to each other, but I didn't feel it. In some other cases, Martin was good in developing chemistry between characters while not outright telling the readers: "Yo, they are into each other!" but in this one his writing wasn't that good.

[SeanF]

The other part of it is that it's not just on GRRM selling this stuff; it's on those eating it up with a spoon and going on and on about how romantic Dany/Drogo and Sandor/Sansa are. It's bad enough that GRRM is selling this garbage; what's even worse is that there are people who are buying what he's selling, and frankly they're part of the problem. If you find a relationship where one partner hurts, abuses, or assaults the other romantic, in any context, fictional or otherwise, you are part of the problem ..............

Just like with the other examples, the "distance" of fiction is no excuse. If anyone on these boards posted a screed about how Ramsay is the real hero of the books and put Theon in his place like a boss, we would have no trouble labeling that person as an abuse apologist, and that person's cries of "But it's fiiiiiiiction, these books are about messed-up people, leave me aloooooooone!" would be rightly ignored. And yet the reams and reams and reams of writing devoted to Dany's touching love story with her rapist and Sansa's profound emotional connection with the man who assaulted her go strangely ignored. And while we can blame GRRM for feeding us this garbage, the writers of those many, many pages are part of the problem of perpetuating and normalizing abuse within relationships, too. If you write about how romantic the relationship is between an assault perpetrator and their victim, you're part of the problem. If you think "He loves her so much he can't help but hurt/assault/stalk/threaten her!" is preferable to "He loves her so much he could never bring himself to hurt/assault/stalk/threaten her!", you're part of the problem. If you think rape can be viewed in certain contexts as a good character builder, you're part of the problem. If you focus on the perpetrator's emotional distress and remorse about committing the assault (if any) instead of, you know, the fact that the perpetrator committed the assault to begin with, you're definitely part of

the problem. There's no fiction exemption, sorry, because if you think this kind of treatment is okay or unproblematic, or even sexy and romantic, in any context, that means on some level, you believe that there can be something sexy or romantic about somebody hurting or abusing another human being. Most people these days don't find racism in any context, fictional or otherwise, awesome or even acceptable, and would recoil from any positive depictions of racism. Most people these days don't find homophobia in any context, fictional or otherwise, awesome or even acceptable, and would recoil from any positive depictions of homophobia. Maybe one day, just one day, we can get to the point where no one considers intimidating, sexually/physically abusing, threatening, hurting or harming others in any context, fictional or otherwise, sexy or romantic, and where everyone recoils from any positive depictions of relationships with those features. I'm an optimist, I guess.

I really couldn't disagree more with your assertion that readers who view this relationship as romantic are "part of the problem", as if they have a moral obligation to interpret the text in the same way that you do. No one has such an obligation, and whether they do or not says nothing about their character. To take your Ramsay example; if someone makes him out to be a hero, I think that's a pretty bizarre interpretation of the story, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that that person is somehow immoral for making that argument.

[Newstar]

I really couldn't disagree more with your assertion that readers who view this relationship as romantic are "part of the problem", as if they have a moral obligation to interpret the text in the same way that you do. No one has such an obligation, and whether they do or not says nothing about their character. To take your Ramsay example; if someone makes him out to be a hero, I think that's a pretty bizarre interpretation of the story, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that that person is somehow immoral for making that argument.

So you wouldn't consider a reader who openly and repeatedly praises a positive depiction of a racist character in a novel as a put-upon victim of political correctness run amok part of the racism problem? Or a reader who openly and repeatedly praises a glowing depiction in a novel of a vicious homophobe who beats up gay men for kicks part of the homophobia problem? No? Then why is it different for readers who openly and repeatedly gush about how romantic a relationship is where the man has abused the woman? I have a few ideas, personally, and they don't say anything good about anyone who thinks that way, anymore than I'd want anyone who thinks Humbert Humbert is a noble, deeply sympathetic victim anywhere near teenage girls. Our opinions about positive depictions of racism, homophobia, and yes, abuse, with respect to fictional contexts or real life, say a lot about what kind of people we are. In general, we have no problem judging people who think positive depictions of racism--either literary or otherwise--are awesome, or who think that positive depictions of homophobia--either literary or otherwise--are awesome. And yet, somehow, somehow judging people who think relationships with abusive undertones can be totally romantic is somehow crossing the line and grounds for getting all huffy about how no one is under a moral obligation to feel anything. Do you really consider women so worthless?

[SeanF]

So you wouldn't consider a reader who openly and repeatedly praises a positive depiction of a racist character in a novel as a put-upon victim of political correctness run amok part of the racism problem? Or a reader who openly and repeatedly praises a glowing depiction in a novel of a vicious homophobe who beats up gay men for kicks part of the homophobia problem? No? Then why is it different for readers who openly and repeatedly gush about how romantic a relationship is where the

man has abused the woman? I have a few ideas, personally, and they don't say anything good about anyone who thinks that way, anymore than I'd want anyone who thinks Humbert Humbert is a noble, deeply sympathetic victim anywhere near teenage girls. In general, we have no problem judging people who think positive depictions of racism--either literary or otherwise--are awesome, or who think that positive depictions of homophobia--either literary or otherwise--is awesome. And yet, somehow, somehow judging people who think relationships with abusive undertones are totally romantic is

somehow crossing the line and grounds for getting all huffy about how no one is under a moral obligation to feel anything. Do you really consider women so worthless?

You'd need to give specific literary examples. I certainly think it's quite possible that an author could depict a racist or anti-gay character sympathetically, and for readers to view that character sympathetically, without that being a moral failing on the part of either the author or the readers.

Within the context of these books, there are many things that readers can find at least partly excusable, without in any way wishing to see these things happen in real life. The example that stands out to me is the use of torture. Dany, like many rulers in the series, tortures suspects. she's not depicted as a sadistic monster for doing so, because she lives in a world in which the use of torture is routine. Most readers don't view her as a sadistic monster either (though some do). It doesn't follow that her defenders think that torture should be routine in our societies.

[butterbumps!]

snip

I agree with the arguments and explanation, but I kind of want to make sure we're not categorizing certain attitudes that don't deserve to be put under the umbrella of endorsing problematic views.

I can't speak to some of the specific essays you mention, but I want to clarify that where I'm whole-heartedly agreeing with you is with propagating abusive relationships as "healthy, desirable ideals." In my first response to you I was using "romantic-comedyesque" to signify relationships that are supposedly "healthy ideals" interchangeably.

Being more precise, though, I think the important distinction here is whether these problematic relationships are being sold as healthy, desirable ideals, versus compelling "romances," in the true sense of the term. That is, relationships people celebrate, enjoy or even "endorse" as romance from a literary point of view.

I'm not privy to everything that's been written on some of these pairings, but what I do tend to see falls under the category of being enthusiastic about the pairing from that literary perspective. I don't mean simply distanced analysis, but in terms of what makes sense for the characters and the plot, and give readers satisfaction in terms of some literary sense of completeness.

Not to pull out the tired "characters are grey!" argument again, but I think the same concept applies to relationships. Even after standing back and acknowledging serious moral flaws and personality quirks, I think most of us come to have strong feelings toward most of these characters, often loving some in spite of or because of those moral failings. I'm not endorsing child defenestration by liking Jaime, and I'd never try to pass off his kid-chucking as some morally defensible act, but he's a damn good character, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't want him to get out of this ok.

By the same token, I don't think that the majority of readers who support San/San or Drogo Dany on here are endorsing rape apology or spousal abuse, unless the posts in question are selling it as an ideal, healthy relationship (or completely glossing over all of the abuse as non-existant or unimportant, perhaps).

Supporting San/San as a romance (in the true sense) isn't truly that different from liking Jaime, Tyrion, Theon, or Dany as characters. It's when the relationship is discussed as something other than a literary romance that I think the doors open for problems, but I don't really see that happening on here for the most part (kind of the equivalent of posters arguing that tossing Bran was a heroic moral action of noble self-defense). I don't think there's a problem in readers favorable to the idea of Drogo-Dany or San/ San in and of itself; there are more or less satisfying literary reasons for wanting or liking these pairings (but as an aside, from the literary view, I'm less amenable to the "triumph rape" trope as I am with San/San).

Anyway, I think the aforementioned "it's fiction" posts were trying to get at the issue of romances desirable from a literary perspective rather than a reprieve to confront abuse simply because it's fiction. While I agree with your breakdown of this, I want to specify that most of what I see tends toward enthusiasm for the pairings as literary romance, not necessary endorsing them as healthy or ideal.

[northernshe-wolf]

I don't actually think there's a worst romance in ASOIAF. I think each relationship, romantic or not, has a certain depth to it and so many different facets. There are definitely problematic romances, unhealthy or codependent or impulsive romances, such as Jaime/Cersei or Dany/Drogo- but that's why I find them all so interesting. It's fiction, so I try hard not to apply real life to the books, because they're two totally different worlds with different morals and different codes.

[Newstar]

Within the context of these books, there are many things that readers can find at least partly excusable, without in any way wishing to see these things happen in real life. The example that stands out to me is the use of torture. Dany, like many rulers in the series, tortures suspects. she's not depicted as a sadistic monster for doing so, because she lives in a world in which the use of torture is routine. Most readers don't view her as a sadistic monster either (though some do). It doesn't follow that her defenders think that torture should be routine in our societies.

That analogy doesn't work (romanticizing abuse vs. condoning torture), because for all the abuse and dysfunction in these relationships, there are several relationships in ASOIAF which are not marked by abusive behaviours, so even if the use of torture is "routine," as you claim, and I personally don't know about that, the presence of abusive behaviours within relationships is not, so that excuse goes out the window, and we can cast a very skeptical eye on those who elevate as the pinnacle of romance those ASOIAF relationships marked by abusive behaviours.

One can even say the same thing for Drogo and Dany. Often, his rapes of her are defended by pointing to how considerate he was on their wedding night, waiting until she was aroused and waiting for her obvious permission before doing anything. However, that just makes it worse. He clearly knows what to do to make it as gentle and painless and enjoyable for her as possible, and right after the wedding night he starts raping her with no thought to her lack of consent, her need to be aroused, and her obvious pain. It actually makes these rapes a million times worse, since he clearly knows what to do not to hurt her, and he doesn't give a shit and proceeds to hurt her repeatedly. Without the wedding night, one could at least claim that this was his understanding of sex, he didn't know any better, brutal Dothraki culture, blah blah blah. However, the wedding night makes it clear that he knows exactly what Dany wants and needs for painless, consensual sex, and he can't be bothered. Horrible.

By the same token, I don't think that the majority of readers who support San/San or Drogo Dany on here are endorsing rape apology or spousal abuse, unless the posts in question are selling it as an ideal, healthy relationship (or completely glossing over all of the abuse as non-existant or unimportant, perhaps).

I don't know how one can ship Dany/Drogo or San/San without "completely glossing over all of the abuse," because the alternative would be to admit that one is fully aware that the man abused the woman and that regardless of that awareness one finds the pairing romantic, and there's really no way around that being abuse and/or rape apologism and an implicit endorsement of abusive relationship behaviours as sexy and romantic. There's really no way around that cognitive dissonance, so yeah, pretty much if you ship SanSan or Dany/Drogo, you're an abuse denier or an abuse apologist by definition.

Being more precise, though, I think the important distinction here is whether these problematic relationships are being sold as healthy, desirable ideals, versus compelling "romances," in the true sense of the term. That is, relationships people celebrate, enjoy or even "endorse" as romance from a literary point of view.

Here's the thing, though. We have no patience for, say, enjoyment or endorsement of child abuse from a literary point of view (just ask any Tywin fan who's gotten an earful). We have no patience for enjoyment or endorsement of pedophilia from a literary point of view (just ask any Littlefinger fan who's gotten an earful). Why does abuse within relationships get a pass? The distance of fiction is no excuse. And that some people--a lot of people, evidently--can consider relationships featuring rape or abusive behaviours to be even capable of being "compelling 'romances'" that we should root for in the first place is something incredibly disturbing and frightening that we need to attack head on and dismantle, not something we should just accept uncritically by waving it off as a literary bit of fun, anymore than we would wave off enjoyment of a fictional depiction of child abuse or pedophilia as a literary bit of fun.

I want to specify that most of what I see tends toward enthusiasm for the pairings as literary romance, not necessary endorsing them as healthy or ideal.

Completely glossing over or denying that there's any abuse to begin with (endorsing the pairings as healthy or ideal) is bad enough, but it's even worse to acknowledge that there is abuse or mistreatment, but that one finds the relationship romantic regardless. Even if the person acknowledges straight-up that what they're supporting is messed-up, dysfunctional, oh so wrong, etc. etc., (although they'll never use the word "abuse"), in the end, they're still writing positively about and rooting for an abusive relationship, and that's not "enthusiasm for the pairings as literary romance," it's one thing and one thing only--abuse apologism--and it's deeply disturbing and deeply toxic. It's something we need to drag kicking and screaming into the light, not shrug off as "enthusiasm for literary romance." That anyone can consider abusive relationships romantic in any context is part of the problem. That's the point!

[Nictarion]

I don't actually think there's a worst romance in ASOIAF.

Not even Stannis and Selyse?

[northernshe-wolf]

Not even Stannis and Selyse?

I don't even think that can be classified as a romance. I like to amuse myself by thinking of them conceiving Shireen. Imagine the teeth-grinding.

[Lady Howell]

I don't even think that can be classified as a romance. I like to amuse myself by thinking of them conceiving Shireen. Imagine the teeth-grinding.

O.O

So much grinding...(shivers with fear and disgust)

[Addam of Hull]

O.O

So much grinding...(shivers with fear and disgust)

"We must all... (grind, grind)... do our duty (grind, grind)... wouldn't you agree... (grind, grind)... Lady Selyse?"

(Just kidding, more grinding.)

(Not the good kind.)

[Nictarion]

I don't even think that can be classified as a romance. I like to amuse myself by thinking of them conceiving Shireen. Imagine the teeth-grinding.

Its probably the only time they ever had sex.

[SeanF]

Here's the thing, though. We have no patience for, say, enjoyment or endorsement of child abuse from a literary point of view. We have no patience for enjoyment or endorsement of pedophilia from a literary point of view. Why does abuse within relationships get a pass? The distance of fiction is no excuse. And that some people--a lot of people, evidently--can consider relationships featuring rape or abusive behaviours to be even capable of being "compelling 'romances'" that we should root for in the first place is something we need to attack head on and dismantle, not something we should just accept uncritically by waving it off as a literary bit of fun, anymore than we would wave off enjoyment of a fictional depiction of child abuse or pedophilia as a literary bit of fun.

Who is this "we"?

I'll enjoy any work of fiction that's compelling and well-written.

[Newstar]

Who is this "we"?

I'll enjoy any work of fiction that's compelling and well-written.

"We" = those who object to child abuse/pedophilia and child abuse/pedophilia apologists. If you can't count yourself as part of that "We," and if you enjoy and endorse literary depictions of child abuse and pedophilia, then frankly I wouldn't have much to say to you in any event...and you should probably seek professional help for your mental health issues. :D

...I find it kind of hilarious the lengths to which some will go to defend their or others' love of certain fictional abusive relationships. A lot to unpack there. Instead of challenging me, your time is far better spent asking yourselves why you're so invested in pairings where a man abuses a woman, or defending those people invested in those pairings, or why you care more about the grand romance between two fictional characters than the very real damage such "grand romances" cause by feeding into and normalizing abusive relationship dynamics (it's sexy when a man refuses to stop when a woman begs him to do so, e.g.), or why you care more about supporting fictional characters' love lives than about living, breathing women's struggles with men refusing to take no for an answer, touching them without their consent because they think it's sexy, thinking that rape is no big deal, etc. That would serve you far better than arguing with me for pointing out the obvious.

[SeanF]

"We" = non-racists//racism apologists and non-homophobes/homophobia apologists. If you can't count yourself as part of that "We," then frankly I wouldn't have much to say to you in any event. :D

I can live with that.

[Minstral]

Arianne and Gerold Dayne are up there I would think.