Is Jon and Dany's blood relationship supposed to be a problem?

[Meera of Tarth]

2 minutes ago, lojzelote said:

At the end of S6 D&D also said that S7 will see conflict between Jon and Sansa, because Sansa feels overlooked and dissatisfied with Jon becoming king... which ultimately instead of treason or rebellion translated into like three scenes of whinging. Also according to the behind the episodes comments, the Sansa-Arya beef this season was super serious. OMG, will Sansa kill Arya or will Arya kill her first? Tune up next episode to see what will happen. Stark blood will run!

I'd be seriously willing to bet my five years' worth of pay that the great incest drama will go the same route as the above examples.

But if you really still buy D&D hyperboling a faux conflict... at least you will be surprised by the development, I guess. Much like with the Lads leaks for this season, LOL.

As I said, I have not predicted how it will end, but I think it will end in a marriage if there is a baby 'cause "I won't father a bastard" thing. What I don't know is the ending.

They said there's conflict and trouble. For both things.

12 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I did watch this - and just re-watched it again, and you are not giving an even-handed portrayal of D&D's discussion.  It is clearly primarily about Jon being the rightful heir.  Conveniently, you neglect to quote Benioff's statement that introduces this portion:

This is the direct lead in to the longer Weiss quote you included, which is describing the main points they wanted to emphasize in intercutting Rhaegar/Lyanna's marriage with Jon/Dany sex.  And those main points of emphasis are clear by the parts of Bran's narration they highlight in this segment - which was also clear from the show - "Robert's Rebellion was built on a lie" (meaning R and L loved each other just as Jon and Dany) and "[Jon's] the heir to the iron throne."

Now, certainly Weiss mentions Dany's his aunt at the end - and Benioff goes on to point out that they'll have "personal" as well as political struggles in the least season, obviously referring to their relation.  And I think that will be part of the "inner-conflict" (mostly for Jon of course) that informs the larger issue.  But no objective recounting of that segment would say D&D's main purpose here is to hint at the incest as the main point of contention; they are plainly stating the main potential issue of conflict is that Jon is the heir.

I do not say this, btw, because I want the main conflict to be Jon's place in the line of succession - on the contrary I think that's just more faux tension and interminably stupid.  But that's the clear implication of what was presented in the show (with Bran's narration) and was reiterated by D&D.

It's both things, incest, the claim to the throne. Ultimately the claim thing is more related to Dany, and the incest thing will have more impact to Jon. I have no said the contrary. They are highlighting both things, clearly not the kingship thing more than the other.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

They are highlighting both things, clearly not the kingship thing more than the other.

Yes, very much so the kingship thing more than the incest thing.  The entire conversation is rooted in Jon being they heir, whereas the incest thing is addressed with a throwaway four words by Weiss.

[Commander Jon Snow]

28 minutes ago, Faint said:

Perhaps I'm in the minority but I actually think Emilia is really good in her scenes with Kit. The part of her character that I think does not match her abilities are all the "Fire and Blood" scenes. 

Nah I'm with you. I thought it was one of the few well done things this season. And also agree that her biggest weakness are the scenes where she is meant to be "badass". Except for the scene in s3 where she killed the slavers. That was cool as fuck

[Meera of Tarth]

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yes, very much so the kingship thing more than the incest thing.  The entire conversation is rooted in Jon being they heir, whereas the incest thing is addressed with a throwaway four words by Weiss.

 I think that by saying political and also personal, they are highlighting that the incest thing is also personal. We should agree to disagree.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

We should agree to disagree.

Agreed!

[Meera of Tarth]

8 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Agreed!

[Blackwater Revenant]

17 hours ago, Newstar said:

He's not portraying a message in regards to the implications of Targ incest, no more than he's portraying a message in regards to the merits of political marriages even though ASOIAF has a number of miserable political marriages (GRRM has said that happiness in Westeros marriage is a tossup, with happy and miserable political marriages, and happy and miserable love matches). Targ incest in the world of Westeros is more comparable to magic or dragons: a value-neutral feature of the fictional world he has created, exempt from real world considerations or consequences.

First off, you are ignoring the point of my comment, and attempting to deflect away from the fallacy in your argument. You are trying to state that just because incest is prominent in the story, that means GRRM doesn't have a negative view of it. Regardless of what one believe is GRRM'S stance on this matter, the inclusion of it in the story does not support either side. As I stated, feudalism, murder, rape, torture, etc. are all prominent aspects of the world that GRRM has built. Does that mean he doesn't view these as negative and detrimental?

I am sorry to be so blunt, but these comments of yours have me questioning your understanding of the depth and the underlying themes running throughout the story that GRRM is telling. The novels are not just a mindless accumulation of plot points being checked off for the sake of spectacle and cheap, unearned shocks; As is the case in regards to the show. I can assure you that there is a lot more to the inclusion of these aspects you have referred to than just as a "value-neutral" means of world building. I don't think it's even debatable that GRRM is commenting on and portraying such things as arranged marriages, and the use of magic as negative and detrimental.

You seem to be taking the present situations being portrayed in the books at face value, and ignoring the fact that the story is not finished, as well as all of the hints and foreshadowing in regards to the direction the story is going.

Quote

I think it's safe to say that GRRM loves the Targs. He has made two out of three ASOIAF lead characters Targs (three if you count A+J=T). He has written about them at great length (even to the point of neglecting to work on ASOIAF as a result). He has lovingly detailed the hair colour, eye colour, clothing choices, love lives (usually with other Targs), and biographies of the Targs going back hundreds of years in Westeros history. We know virtually nothing about Lyarra Stark, even though she's Ned's mother, but we know Elaena Targaryen's hair colour, eye colour, fashion preferences, childhood, personality, and marriages to a tee, even though she was never even queen!

If GRRM is so horrified about writing about incest and so determined to show with ASOIAF and related works set in Westeros that Incest is Bad, creating a fictional dynasty where incest is no big deal and carries no real world consequences and writing hundreds of thousands of words about the various members of that dynasty and their various incestuous liaisons is a funny way of showing it.

Edited 16 hours ago by Newstar

So what? I love the Targs as well. I find them interesting and fascinating to read about. That does not mean that I endorse incest.

Where do you get that anyone is implying that he is horrified with writing about incest? And again, I question your understanding of the novels. The fact you think GRRM has created a world where "incest is no big deal and carries no real world consequences" in fact has me questioning whether you have even read the books at all.

[BalerionTheCat]

56 minutes ago, Faint said:

Perhaps I'm in the minority but I actually think Emilia is really good in her scenes with Kit. The part of her character that I think does not match her abilities are all the "Fire and Blood" scenes. 

I like all Emilia did. Even the "badass" the things like the Dosh Khaleen. Even the bad things like burning the Tarlys. This is what Daenerys is in my eyes.

[falcotron]

I think people are missing something really crucial here.

Neither the show nor the books give the Targaryens a pass for their incest, either in-universe or out. They've repeatedly struggled with the Faith over it, their own subjects look down on them for it, and they have much more frequent birth defects than anyone else, and seem to concentrate negative presumably-recessive traits like pyromania. And likewise, everyone is disgusted by Jaime and Cersei, and their incest has led to all kinds of tragic consequences.

But neither the show nor the books pass any judgment at all, either in-universe or out, about cousin marriages, which are frequent among the Westerosi nobility. People whose parents are first cousins are just fine, and are just as disgusted at sibling incest as anyone else, and nobody ever thinks they're hypocrites.

And this makes perfect sense. Different cultures have different incest taboos. That's true even today.* And there's nothing inherently good about widening the taboo—in fact, attempts to widen the taboo are usually counterproductive.** I think it's pretty clear that the position of Westerosi society is that incest is very bad, but it only means siblings and parents. And the position of the books and the show is that the problem is that the Targaryens don't follow the Westerosi taboo, not that it uses too narrow of a definition.

So, Jon and Dany should not be a problem because they're nephew and aunt.

(Of course Dany will have a problem with the fact that he has a better claim than her, and in fact I think that's central to her character arc—it's how she will end up overcoming the dangerous notion that her birthright is an inviolable justification for her taking the throne.)

---

* For example, there's a strict Islamic rule against incest, but different Muslim cultures define the concept of incest differently, so Arab Muslims are horrified by two siblings marrying but see no problem with cousins, while Chinese Muslims (much like American Christians) see siblings and first cousins as almost equally horrifying but see little problem with second cousins.

** For example, when the Catholic Church tried to enforce prohibitions against incest up to the sixth degree, this led to them selling the equivalent of indulgences for people to marry their fourth cousins, which is part of what led to the Protestant Reformation, and also may have contributed to a lot more closer incestuous marriages (because if it's legally and theologically no worse than a sixth cousin, why not)?

[The Bard of Banefort]

I doubt this will sway anyone on their opinions, but it would be a bit odd for a show that spent seven years portraying Jaime and Cersei's relationship as something unnatural to then endorse Jon and Dany. And yes, I know, Jaime and Cersei are actual siblings whereas Jon and Dany are not. But seeing as this is the same show that expected the audience to accept that Gendry could run to Eastwatch, send a raven to Dragonstone, and then have Dany arrive in the nick of time to save everyone within the span of a few hours without questioning the logistics, I doubt they expect the viewers to sit down and map out how varying degrees of relation should effect their judgement of different familial-couples. 

[falcotron]

3 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I doubt this will sway anyone on their opinions, but it would be a bit odd for a show that spent seven years portraying Jaime and Cersei's relationship as something unnatural to then endorse Jon and Dany. And yes, I know, Jaime and Cersei are actual siblings whereas Jon and Dany are not. But seeing as this is the same show that expected the audience to accept that Gendry could run to Eastwatch, send a raven to Dragonstone, and then have Dany arrive in the nick of time to save everyone within the span of a few hours without questioning the logistics, I doubt they expect the viewers to sit down and map out how varying degrees of relation should effect their judgement of different familial-couples. 

It's not that complicated. Nobody's confused by the fact that Tywin is against Jaime and Cersei, and the gods seem to agree with him, even though he married his cousin. Nobody has a problem with Ned's parents being cousins. And nobody has to sit down with a family tree to figure out how they feel—Jaime and Cersei are brother and sister; Tywin and his cousin are not, and neither are Jon and Dany.

And, since our reactions are as much emotional or visceral as they are intellectual, the show can choose to push us either way. Plot-wise, Dany and Jon weren't raised together, they didn't even meet until they were adults, and they don't think of each other as family. Presentation-wise, their sex scene is presented the same way as mostly-healthy sex scenes rather than as dark and twisted like Jaime and Cersei banging on their families' corpses. They haven't actually used the word "aunt" to refer to Dany. And so on.

Of course people who have a hate-on for Dany or Jon or the show are still going to find something to have a problem with, but there's nothing D&D can do about that, and they don't seem to be trying to steer normal viewers to feel that way.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Well, if you seem to ignore the obvious, what the showrunners have said, I can't convince you otherwise.

Well, why do you take those guys seriously at all? They don't understand the story they are telling nor are they making sense.

Quote

No, I have no need to write arguments about how.... did you call it? projected feelings? to convince people that this is gonna be turbulent. In fact, I just need the showrunner's words and the scene of the boatsex juxtaposed with the revelation and many people will see it.

But why should they have issues with it? You actually suggested that Jon should keep the origins of his child by Daenerys a secret, apparently because it would be 'evil' for the child to know that his parents were aunt and nephew? If that isn't you projecting your feelings on Jon and Daenerys and their 'unnatural relationship' I'm not sure what is.

Quote

Maybe you are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that Jon would behave in character or that incest is not a common thing in Westeros and that's why you ignore it or think I am the one projecting feelings, I don't know; if that's the case it won't be me who will destroy that projected fairytale, since I am not writing the story; and each their own. And,oh, and I've never said they would not continue the incestuous thing.

There is nothing 'in-character' about Jon Snow being abhorred or disgusted by incestuous relationships. The man never shared his feelings about incest with anyone, but he clearly does not abhor nor is he disgusted by the incest brat Gilly nor by her incest brat.

And he grew up with the knowledge that the members of House Targaryen do marry their own. That is ingrained in the culture. The Targaryens are different, above the laws of gods and men. If Jon Snow is a Targaryen prince he can marry his aunt without having any problems at all. He might have some adjusting to do with his new identity but the fact that he is a Targaryen prince is what's going to help him with marrying his aunt. It is not going to cause a problem there.

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I do not say this, btw, because I want the main conflict to be Jon's place in the line of succession - on the contrary I think that's just more faux tension and interminably stupid.  But that's the clear implication of what was presented in the show (with Bran's narration) and was reiterated by D&D.

It is clear that this what they are playing at here. They made Jon Snow 'Aegon Targaryen' and are going to give him whatever they can draw from George's Aegon story.

That is why they came up with this ridiculous annulment story. At this point, they do what they want, and they most likely decided to hand out parts of Aegon's plot to Cersei and Jon when they cut him, just as they decided to make Sansa Ramsay's wife. But just as with the Winterfell plot this season there is really no potential for conflict there. There could have been a political struggle if the Jon thing had come out before Dany and Jon fell in love if the Targaryen claim really meant something to the people of Westeros (and Dany's people). But this did not happen.

Thus we'll have them talk about this in 1-2 scenes and then it will be over with. After all, we don't even know when they will finally tell Jon and whether they will tell anyone else. If Jon just ignores the whole thing there won't be any open conflict at all.

How this thing can really cause any conflict within the framework of the show I really don't understand at all. Dany's people serve her, personally. The Unsullied and Dothraki don't give shit about the Targaryen blood claim. And Dany doesn't have any other followers. The Northmen chose some king believing the man is Ned Stark's bastard - which he is not - and they apparently all hate House Targaryen. So they should also hate 'Aegon Targaryen' when the truth comes out. In fact, this whole thing would have provided Sansa/Littlefinger with a really good pretext for a power grab. A Targaryen is not a Stark, after all. Even if they magically find 'Aegon Targaryen' still a great king and a perfect Targaryen because he doesn't wear one of those stupid wigs they still don't have the strength to demand that Daenerys submit to Jon Snow. And if 'Aegon' suddenly began bitching around Dany that she should bent the knee to him she could just take her two remaining dragons and leave for Dragonstone or Essos with her armies.

However you spin this thing there is no real potential for conflict there. None at all. Which is why this is all fake tension.

If they wanted to create (fake) tension around the incest thing they would have done it completely differently.

George's Dany-Jon romance must be very sketchy at this point - he might have dim visions and pictures in his mind of their romance and story, but not all that many details. Does he really know in detail how they meet, what they do, when they have first sex, what draws them together, etc.? I'd not put a lot of money on all that. Those are plot lines that are still very far away at this point, and the way things unfold in TWoW and perhaps even ADoS will set the stage for their eventual meeting.

28 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I doubt this will sway anyone on their opinions, but it would be a bit odd for a show that spent seven years portraying Jaime and Cersei's relationship as something unnatural to then endorse Jon and Dany. And yes, I know, Jaime and Cersei are actual siblings whereas Jon and Dany are not. But seeing as this is the same show that expected the audience to accept that Gendry could run to Eastwatch, send a raven to Dragonstone, and then have Dany arrive in the nick of time to save everyone within the span of a few hours without questioning the logistics, I doubt they expect the viewers to sit down and map out how varying degrees of relation should effect their judgement of different familial-couples. 

Do people really care so much about Jaime-Cersei being wrong? Incest is not discussed all that often in the show, is it?

And even in the books the real crime Cersei and Jaime commit is cuckolding the king and producing children they pass for royal Baratheons. Yes, it is also incest that they are doing, but the high treason there is the queen committing adultery.

In fact, considering that the royal dynasty of Westeros actually practiced incest for three hundred years the (Lannister-)Baratheons could actually have decided to follow in their footsteps. Just Robert and his sons could have decided to call themselves Targaryen - they are descended from King Aegon V through the female line, after all.

[Faint]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I doubt this will sway anyone on their opinions, but it would be a bit odd for a show that spent seven years portraying Jaime and Cersei's relationship as something unnatural to then endorse Jon and Dany. And yes, I know, Jaime and Cersei are actual siblings whereas Jon and Dany are not. 

It is not so much that Cersei and Jaime are siblings, Daenerys and Jon are as related as siblings because they are both so inbred, it is that they were raised as siblings -- Daenerys and Jon do not have a familial relationship; they are not equivalent situations.

[falcotron]

1 minute ago, Faint said:

It is not so much that Cersei and Jaime are siblings, Daenerys and Jon are as related as siblings because they are both so inbred, it is that they were raised as siblings -- Daenerys and Jon do not have an familial relationship; they are not equivalent situations.

You are right that familial relationship also enters into it, because we put ourselves in their shoes and see whether we'd think of the other person as family or not.

Power relationships also enter into it, especially for modern people. We're extra uncomfortable about Craster because he was not just a close relative and one with a familial relationship, but also the person with absolute power over his daughters.

But nobody actually sits down and works out how much DNA two people share before deciding whether to be revulsed by a pairing. People consider brother and sister different from aunt and nephew if their culture considers brother and sister different from aunt and nephew, and don't otherwise. If you met someone who'd married his half-sister and said, "Ewww" but then he pulled out a piece of paper saying, "Don't worry, we had our DNA sequenced and by chance we actually happen to share fewer alleles than even most third cousins", would it really bother you any less?

[The Bard of Banefort]

26 minutes ago, falcotron said:

It's not that complicated. Nobody's confused by the fact that Tywin is against Jaime and Cersei, and the gods seem to agree with him, even though he married his cousin. Nobody has a problem with Ned's parents being cousins. And nobody has to sit down with a family tree to figure out how they feel—Jaime and Cersei are brother and sister; Tywin and his cousin are not, and neither are Jon and Dany.

And, since our reactions are as much emotional or visceral as they are intellectual, the show can choose to push us either way. Plot-wise, Dany and Jon weren't raised together, they didn't even meet until they were adults, and they don't think of each other as family. Presentation-wise, their sex scene is presented the same way as mostly-healthy sex scenes rather than as dark and twisted like Jaime and Cersei banging on their families' corpses. They haven't actually used the word "aunt" to refer to Dany. And so on.

Of course people who have a hate-on for Dany or Jon or the show are still going to find something to have a problem with, but there's nothing D&D can do about that, and they don't seem to be trying to steer normal viewers to feel that way.

Well, like I said, nothing I can say will sway anyone from how they already feel about all of this. Truthfully, I think the conversation at large has less to do with how people feel about incest in this story and more to do with how they feel about Jon and Dany as a couple. Obviously that's not true for everyone, and I'm certainly not suggesting that of you, but I suspect that these conversations tend to be more about shipping than anything else, and there's no point in debating ships. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

9 minutes ago, falcotron said:

You are right that familial relationship also enters into it, because we put ourselves in their shoes and see whether we'd think of the other person as family or not.

Power relationships also enter into it, especially for modern people. We're extra uncomfortable about Craster because he was not just a close relative and one with a familial relationship, but also the person with absolute power over his daughters.

But nobody actually sits down and works out how much DNA two people share before deciding whether to be revulsed by a pairing. People consider brother and sister different from aunt and nephew if their culture considers brother and sister different from aunt and nephew, and don't otherwise. If you met someone who'd married his half-sister and said, "Ewww" but then he pulled out a piece of paper saying, "Don't worry, we had our DNA sequenced and by chance we actually happen to share fewer alleles than even most third cousins", would it really bother you any less?

That's what I was getting at before. Most of the casual viewers I know aren't very supportive of Jon and Dany's romance, or even find it all that interesting. The ones I know seem to view it more as a tragedy waiting to happen (not that there's anything wrong with a good tragic romance every now and then, of course). None of them have been saying, "well, they're not twins like Jaime and Cersei, so I'm going to make the conscious decision not to be turned off by them." Book readers tend to see it through the lens of what they've read, which includes the Targaryen history of inbreeding, but non-readers are going off of instinct, just like you said.  I'm sure there are plenty of casual viewers that love them, but this is what I've seen first-hand thus far. 

[Meera of Tarth]

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, why do you take those guys seriously at all? They don't understand the story they are telling nor are they making sense.

But why should they have issues with it? You actually suggested that Jon should keep the origins of his child by Daenerys a secret, apparently because it would be 'evil' for the child to know that his parents were aunt and nephew? If that isn't you projecting your feelings on Jon and Daenerys and their 'unnatural relationship' I'm not sure what is.

There is nothing 'in-character' about Jon Snow being abhorred or disgusted by incestuous relationships. The man never shared his feelings about incest with anyone, but he clearly does not abhor nor is he disgusted by the incest brat Gilly nor by her incest brat.

And he grew up with the knowledge that the members of House Targaryen do marry their own. That is ingrained in the culture. The Targaryens are different, above the laws of gods and men. If Jon Snow is a Targaryen prince he can marry his aunt without having any problems at all. He might have some adjusting to do with his new identity but the fact that he is a Targaryen prince is what's going to help him with marrying his aunt. It is not going to cause a problem there.

Seriously, stop telling me that I project feelings about incest or whatever in order to write my statements in this thread, please because I haven't done that and, as the writer of my own posts, I have already stated that it is not he case and explained why (this is not a Jonerys is good or bad thread and I'm being honest with what I've seen and heard in the interviews of the guys who know the ENDGAME and WRITE THE SHOW).

I don't like Jonerys but I'm not projeting anything HERE, so stop please...

I strongly disagree with the bolded. Suggesting that the bolded thing is real makes no sense for me, as I have not read or watch the Jon Snow character you are describing. 

And I insist, if you consider your version to be the real truth, where people sho don't talk about marrying aunts means they are not disgusted by it because they haven't shared their feelings before; fine, but that's not how I view these characters beyond the Targaryen family and the Lannister twincest, so I won't comment further on it.

We can agree to disagree. 

[Newstar]

2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

snip

As I said before, "Nuh uh!!!!" is not an argument. Neither, for that matter, is "You don't agree with me, so you obviously don't understand the books." What nonsense. If you can't actually respond to my points, and if you can't stop yourself from condescendingly implying I don't get GRRM's themes because I don't immediately agree with you, don't bother responding at all.

[Meera of Tarth]

del

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 minute ago, Meera of Tarth said:

 NCW, in his last interview, said that one incest ends and the other starts 

NCW gives great interviews. Do you happen to have a link?