Heresy 185

[TheMiddleHero]

9 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Not a problem  but that's the very point I'm making. The story GRRM wanted to tell back in 1993 is still in there but in order that the story is told he's found it necessary in the writing of it to attribute some aspects to different characters and sometimes to entirely new characters - rather as the mummers do.

I was agreeing with you in my non fact checking way . What do you think about parts of what was intended as Jon's personality moved onto Sandor?

Quote

As to Tyrion, yes, GRRM has written a different character, but that's also why I'm interested in trying to figure out who those character arcs have switched to.

Think much of this ended up going into Littlefinger.

 

Also think he moved the Starks away from Winterfell earlier than he intended in the story, but once written there wasn't any going back.

[e1kabong]

On 5/21/2016 at 9:38 PM, Lord Pumpkin said:

For the record, as I can see this discussion coming up, I don't believe first cousins to be incest. 

While real world opinions can vary, Westeros seems 100% OK with cousin marriage. Remember that Joanna and Tywin Lannister were first cousins. There's no indication that I can remember in the books where this was considered at all questionable and, by most accounts, they were sort of an ultimate "power couple". 

Unrelated to the ethics of the situation, I often use their first-cousin relationship as an indicator that Tyrion is not a secret Targaryen. Various recessive birth defects are more likely to occur (generally speaking) the closer two people are genetically. In Game of Thrones, there are already indications that GRRM is using some rudimentary ideas of genetics (the seed is strong). It's not far-fetched to believe that Tyrion's dwarfism could be a direct result of inbreeding between two cousins. 

[e1kabong]

I was in the middle of reading some Nietszhe; specifically, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra". I was delighted to find that there is some extremely interesting correlation with the series. One of the main themes of the book is the creation of the "Ubermensch" (overman or superman, depending on how you want to interpret). Basically, it's an ideal state of man that has rejected any "other-wordliness" (ie - after-life, gods, etc.) in favor of a life-affirming predisposition for morality based on the "now" (ie - materialism). On the path to this idealized state, there is a series of lines that had my heresy-radar perking up:

Here the spirit becomes a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness...

For victory will it struggle with the great dragon.

What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? ‘Thou-shalt,’ is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion says, “I will.”

The dragon lies in its path, sparkling with gold—a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glitters golden, “Thou shalt!”

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons: “All the values of things—glitter on me.
All values have already been created, and all created values—do I represent. Verily, there shall be no ‘I will’ any more..."

My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit?...

To create itself freedom and give a holy "Nay" even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.

If that isn't the spitting image of a metaphor for Jaime Lannister, I don't know what is. I'm probably just scratching the surface on this stuff, but this quote, tied in with the idea of the Ubermensch just reinforces my opinion that Jaime is the true hero of Westeros. The one who will be willing to stand against gods, lords, and tradition in the pursuit of what is moral.

I should also note that the "Three Metamorphoses" in this part of the book also coincides nicely with the three attempts to forge lightbringer. These metamorphoses of the spirit are as follows: camel (characterized by burden), the lion (mentioned above, characterized by standing against authority), and the child (characterized by innocence). The first stage of forging emphasized labor alone. After that was insufficient, the sword was thrust into a lion. Then, the sword was tempered in the breast of his innocent wife. 

I also came across this post from another who draws the same literary connections between ASoIaF and Zarathustra, but regarding Bloodraven's similarities to the main character:

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/28lvvp/

[Aryya Stark]

I don't know if the Jon+Sansa equation is even feasible so late in the story. I haven't read the TWoW sample chapters because I prefer waiting for the book, but perhaps there is something in the sample chapters that indicates that such a thing is possible? If not then I just don't see how this will happen. Five books into the story and there isn't anything in either Jon's chapters or Sansa's chapters that even remotely indicates the story will be moving in that direction. The two weren't even close as children and hardly think of each other, except on very rare occasions. In order for something to happen, the two need to interact which I think might be a bit difficult with Sansa being in the Vale and Jon at the Wall. I also think Sansa might have issues with an Un-dead Jon. I don't think it's in her character to accept such a thing. 

However, this is not the case with Arya and Jon. Arya represents death and would probably have no problems in accepting an Un-dead Jon, this is apart from the fact that GRRM has laid a foundation for the two to work from. There are many instances in the 5 books which we can quote of the unique relationship between the two.

Having said that, I would prefer if Jon is not connected romantically with either of the Stark girls. Not so much because of the "ick" factor per se but because I was hoping their marriages would take into consideration the political climate and be made to consolidate political alliances that bind other houses to the Starks after all the enmity and bloodshed that resulted from the war of the 5 kings.

 

 

[Black Crow]

10 hours ago, TheMiddleHero said:

Also think he moved the Starks away from Winterfell earlier than he intended in the story, but once written there wasn't any going back.

Up to a point, I think that the dispersion probably began on schedule but that was when he was still writing a trilogy [or even allowing for the possibility of needing a fourth book] and as you say once they were out there was no going back.

As to a Sandor/Jon switch I'm not sure, but I'm be interested to see the parallels worked up

[Black Crow]

5 hours ago, e1kabong said:

While real world opinions can vary, Westeros seems 100% OK with cousin marriage. Remember that Joanna and Tywin Lannister were first cousins. There's no indication that I can remember in the books where this was considered at all questionable and, by most accounts, they were sort of an ultimate "power couple". 
 

I think that we also need to bear in mind that GRRM is writing of a High Mediaeval society in which marrying cousins was unexceptional, especially if it enabled land and property to remain firmly within the family. Whilst sibling relationships have always been rejected the disapproval of unions between cousins appears to be a relatively recent development - in Europe at least.

[Arry'sFleas]

On 21/05/2016 at 2:42 PM, wolfmaid7 said:

Val is the only female built up this way naturally

Not sure if I am reading your comment the right way but to me Val must somehow have a further role to play in the story. What would be the point of her presence so far if it is only to become just another wildling?

is she doomed to be added to the back of the milk carton?

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, Aryya Stark said:

Having said that, I would prefer if Jon is not connected romantically with either of the Stark girls. Not so much because of the "ick" factor per se but because I was hoping their marriages would take into consideration the political climate and be made to consolidate political alliances that bind other houses to the Starks after all the enmity and bloodshed that resulted from the war of the 5 kings.

One of the reasons for substituting Sansa is that not only are they much closer in age and that while Arya is very much a damaged child she is still a child and adding that into the consanguinity equation probably still will be too much. On the other hand a reconciliation between Jon and Sansa who were such bitter rivals as children would be much more satisfying in story-telling terms.

As to future marriages being political, I'm not so sure. After all of this are the brides to be bartered?

[Arry'sFleas]

6 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

I think that we also need to bear in mind that GRRM is writing of a High Mediaeval society in which marrying cousins was unexceptional

to add to this, with much inspiration's from the Accursed Kings and their flawed offsprings.

One can hope he may spare a similar outcome to the Stark progeny.

[Aryya Stark]

25 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

One of the reasons for substituting Sansa is that not only are they much closer in age and that while Arya is very much a damaged child she is still a child and adding that into the consanguinity equation probably still will be too much. On the other hand a reconciliation between Jon and Sansa who were such bitter rivals as children would be much more satisfying in story-telling terms.

As to future marriages being political, I'm not so sure. After all of this are the brides to be bartered?

Hi Black Crow,

I too would like to see a reconciliation between Sansa and Jon, like you say but I don't see why it has to be as lovers instead of siblings/cousins. I also would like to see a reconciliation between Sansa and Arya, who were more bitter rivals than Jon and Sansa ever were. Regardless though, I don't see how GRRM will manage to fit a a romantic relationship between Sansa and Jon with just two books left, them being apart geographically and no foundation to build from. This would be a relationship that would have to first reconcile the two, bury the old feelings and finally start from scratch to finally make them see each other in a totally different light. I am not saying it can't be done but that sort of thing takes time, it can't be done quickly if it's to be convincing and that's the only reason I have a problem with this theory.

The reason why I think it is important that their marriages be political rather than for love is because they have all grown up, especially Sansa who now realizes that "life is not a song", and part of growing up is being responsible. Therefore, it won't be a case of bartering but they themselves realizing the necessity of such political matches. The girls are Starks through and through and the Stark words, unlike any other house in Westeros are about winter..."winter is coming..." They understand the implications of winter better than any other house and would want to unite a realm their family played a part in ripping apart, especially if the realm is going to face an enemy like no other. I just don't think they can afford to marry out of love, neither the girls nor the boys for that matter. I hope they marry for love especially after everything they have each been through, they deserve that at least but life is not always fair and it's especially unfair to those of the nobility. IRL, historically most noble marriages were done for political expediency rather than love and since ASOIF is supposed to mirror the Middle Ages, I am wondering if that doesn't apply here.

Sorry if I am incoherent, was typing this really fast

 

[redrose]

what's the protocol on talking about the mummers version? Is it still to put conversation behind spoiler tags as in the past? You might want to pour yourself a nice glass of Chivas before you sit down for this one BC. ( you too mace if your still out there)

[Black Crow]

2 hours ago, Arry'sFleas said:

to add to this, with much inspiration's from the Accursed Kings and their flawed offsprings.

One can hope he may spare a similar outcome to the Stark progeny.

A much overlooked source and for some reason whenever I think of Robert d'Artois I can't help seeing Jaime Lannister

[Black Crow]

17 minutes ago, redrose said:

what's the protocol on talking about the mummers version? Is it still to put conversation behind spoiler tags as in the past? You might want to pour yourself a nice glass of Chivas before you sit down for this one BC. ( you too mace if your still out there)

We tried that but in the first place conversations tend to get like a game of blind man's buff with one blind spoiler replying to another blind spoiler, secondly the Mods don't like it and have threatened dire prognostications

Mind you if you're talking about two children of Winterfell...

[Matthew.]

10 hours ago, e1kabong said:

While real world opinions can vary, Westeros seems 100% OK with cousin marriage. Remember that Joanna and Tywin Lannister were first cousins. There's no indication that I can remember in the books where this was considered at all questionable and, by most accounts, they were sort of an ultimate "power couple". 

I don't think the "in-world" implications of a cousin relationship are significant, what is significant is that Sansa's relationship to Jon is that of a little sister; even if that turns out to not be biologically true, that is what their dynamic has been for their whole lives. That, to me, is what I suspect both the characters themselves and the readers would find to be "icky."

More to the point, the reason I'm skeptical about any variation of that storyline being in play is because the emotional struggle that was meant to be at the center of that romance doesn't exist in the story. That means, that with two books left, Jon and Sansa have to have all of their ongoing plotlines - which are unrelated, for the moment - resolved, then be reunited, then begin to develop feelings for one another, then have this development resolved in whatever manner the reveal of Jon's true lineage is revealed. It's not just enough that a relationship or marriage happen, this was supposed to be a significant emotional arc, which means he doesn't just have to write the resolution, he has to write the struggle.

Not impossible, though the books have a more difficult path to chart on that front, and I'm not really seeing why that story, of all the things abandoned by the 1993 letter, is something so important the he has to manufacture some romantic relationship between Jon and a sibling.

[Matthew.]

4 hours ago, Aryya Stark said:

The reason why I think it is important that their marriages be political rather than for love is because they have all grown up, especially Sansa who now realizes that "life is not a song", and part of growing up is being responsible. Therefore, it won't be a case of bartering but they themselves realizing the necessity of such political matches. 

This was my take as well--after the devastation of the war, at least part of knitting the realm together again is likely to be political marriages.

I think what's going to happen with Jon is particularly complicated, since there's a question of whether or not he'll even be able to live a normal life after what has happened; if we're to assume he's resurrected, will that magic still "work" at the end of the story? Is it his destiny to take up a more lonely role, such as reigning in the forces of ice?

Beyond all of that, if Jon is both legitimized (by Robb's decree, or otherwise) and of the lineage that many people suspect, then he's also in a position to create significant inroads toward peace through a political marriage, something that marrying a sister does not achieve. Though, again, I suspect marriage and a normal life aren't in the cards for Jon Snow, as part of GRRM's bittersweet ending.

[Black Crow]

The bittersweet ending is one of the great unknowns in all of this since it can be interpreted in so many different ways. At the very least it implies that whilst there will be a resolution too few of them will be standing to enjoy it even if they survive up to the last page before bravely falling to close the gate or whatever. That said, while I remain sure that Jon and Sansa will get it together I'm also mindful of the hurt suffered by Jon as a bastard and his determination to create no bastards of his own. It would be bittersweet indeed were he to have the stigma of bastardy removed from himself only to learn that being dead he can father no children at all. 

[Black Crow]

27 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

I don't think the "in-world" implications of a cousin relationship are significant, what is significant is that Sansa's relationship to Jon is that of a little sister; even if that turns out to not be biologically true, that is what their dynamic has been for their whole lives. That, to me, is what I suspect both the characters themselves and the readers would find to be "icky."

I'd say that whilst "little sister" is absolutely true of Arya's relationship to Jon, that dynamic certainly isn't true of Sansa. She is younger than Jon, but that is as far as it goes; she very deliberately distanced herself from him while they were growing up in Winterfell and this is why I believe that in the game of kissing cousins GRRM may have decided to substitute her for Arya as being far less "icky". Whatever else Sansa might be then, now or in the future, she was never and never will be Jon's "little sister".

[Aryya Stark]

47 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

This was my take as well--after the devastation of the war, at least part of knitting the realm together again is likely to be political marriages.

I think what's going to happen with Jon is particularly complicated, since there's a question of whether or not he'll even be able to live a normal life after what has happened; if we're to assume he's resurrected, will that magic still "work" at the end of the story? Is it his destiny to take up a more lonely role, such as reigning in the forces of ice?

Beyond all of that, if Jon is both legitimized (by Robb's decree, or otherwise) and of the lineage that many people suspect, then he's also in a position to create significant inroads toward peace through a political marriage, something that marrying a sister does not achieve. Though, again, I suspect marriage and a normal life aren't in the cards for Jon Snow, as part of GRRM's bittersweet ending.

Agreed! Especially your views about Jon. I would just like to add that I think all the Starks were damaged in some way, either physically or psychologically, not just Arya. None of them escaped unscathed from the events that unfolded in the previous books. These experiences damaged them but also taught them to become effective and shrewd players themselves. Their house was nearly destroyed because of their naiveté.

In order to resurrect their house from the ashes, I seriously don't think they have any choice but to make political matches. The advantage they have is the north is still loyal to them, so that's a start.

On a tangent, we saw what happened to Robb when he decided to follow his heart instead of going through with a political match. That should have been a harsh lesson to all the remaining Starks. Anyway, that's just what makes sense to me, I may be completely wrong and it wouldn't be the first time lol.

[Matthew.]

34 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Whatever else Sansa might be then, now or in the future, she was never and never will be Jon's "little sister".

Of course she is. I imagine that, even if Jon were to be reunited with, say, Rickon, the significance of the familial bond would be more profound than ever; regardless of biology, they've all lost their 'father', lost one another, and lost their home.

We can understand GRRM's original plan because we can see how it was meant to comprise a significant amount of the 'journey' for three of his five central characters. Beyond the external threats, this would be the foundation for a "bitter rivalry" between Jon and Tyrion, while Jon and Arya struggle with forbidden love. Instead, Jon has already had that arc with Ygritte, and the bitter rivalry is even more unlikely than the love triangle that was meant to fuel it.

The journey does not exist, which means we must presume that the destination "Jon has a romance with a sister-turned-cousin" is an idea he values so much that he will foist that journey upon the existing narrative at the last moment. Why? Is it a good journey, a good destination? A highly subjective question, but given that GRRM has abandoned so many other ideas in favor of ideas he likes more, I'm not seeing the compelling argument for why this is important, or even a natural fit for the story that GRRM has ended up telling.

Put another way, there's no objective reason for why there couldn't be a Jon and Sansa romance, but I'm not convinced that, of all the abandoned ideas from the 1993 letter, this is the one thing that must happen, even with the foundation largely absent from the existing narrative. It seems like the very definition of "architect writing" rather than "gardener writing."

[Matthew.]

17 minutes ago, Aryya Stark said:

On a tangent, we saw what happened to Robb when he decided to follow his heart instead of going through with a political match. That should have been a harsh lesson to all the remaining Starks. Anyway, that's just what makes sense to me, I may be completely wrong and it wouldn't be the first time lol.

Yep, this was my feeling too; marriage for love is a rare luxury in GRRM's world - and often ends disastrously when it happens -, and in this case it's proposed as the payoff to a romance that doesn't even exist in the first place, so I'm not convinced that GRRM is going to contradict his own themes just because, once upon a time, he'd considered pairing Jon and Arya.