Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sir Hedge of Hog

Jon and the North

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

I'd say the show is pushing this narrative though: Jon didn't end up following her because she's Aerys daughter or the "rightful queen" either - he follows her because he too started to believe in her after seeing what she was capable of and willing to do, and this time she was humbled by it.

I think that's intentional. 

Assuming the books are going to have a similar plotline, it's obviously going to run through a number of Dany PoV chapters, which means we're going to see her internal struggle to deal with things. The show can't possibly do things that way. At best, they can have two short conversations—maybe one with Tyrion where she's frustrated, then one with Jon where she makes the breakthrough.

So, how can they fix that? By pushing the narrative—showing other people come to the same conclusion before she does. So we'll already be thinking it. And when she gets there too, it will make sense, rather than looking like a ridiculous breakthrough to get from just one 2-minute chat.

As long as they don't drag it out to long (unlikely, given how little show is left) or sledgehammer us too badly, that could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, falcotron said:

So, how can they fix that? By pushing the narrative—showing other people come to the same conclusion before she does. So we'll already be thinking it. And when she gets there too, it will make sense, rather than looking like a ridiculous breakthrough to get from just one 2-minute chat.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sir Hedge of Hog said:

So do u think both of them will survive the war of the dawn and the series?

They might both survive, Jon might sacrifice himself to save Dany and/or the world, Dany might die in childbirth… All three possibilities could work if done well.

5 hours ago, Sir Hedge of Hog said:

What I am going to do with myself for two years I haven't got a clue! 

  • Read The Sons of the Dragon when it comes out next month
  • Reread everything in in-universe order—The Rogue Prince, The Princess and the Queen, the Dunk & Egg novellas (the first two have pretty faithful graphic novel adaptations, if you haven't read those yet), the main series (there's an ongoing comic book adaptation of that too, and illustrated novels). I'm not sure where to fit the World book in, so maybe read it multiple times.
  • Read other GRRM stories. Everyone looks to The Ice Dragon first, but if you haven't read his Thousand Worlds stories, they're probably a better fit to ASoIaF.
  • Read some of the stories that influenced GRRM that you haven't read before. I'm sure you've read Lord of the Rings, but what about Children of Hurin? Or Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar series? Clark Ashton-Smith? Roger Zelazny's non-Amber stuff?

Or, if you're not into reading that much:

  • Watch GRRM shows—Beauty and the Beast, his Twilight Zone episodes, the Outer Limits version of The Sand Kings
  • Watch other shows with the same actors. And not just the recent or obvious stuff—watch Diana Rigg kicking people in the head in The Avengers, Julian Glover as a spaghetti-headed monster in the highest-rated classic-series Doctor Who story City of Death, Jonathan Pryce's episodes of Whose Line is it Anyway, …
  • There's lots of other TV and film fantasy out there these days. Most of it sucks, but not all of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks v much. I have pretty much read all of tolkiens works and was a bit of an Tolkien but back in the day (b4 wife and kids) but will check out some of the works of GRRM - I am up to date with the books, although I read them years ago. kinda lost my way a bit as I was not really interested in dany, more of the starks storyline. think I will start with rogue prince....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 0:47 AM, MinscS2 said:

Very good point.
As Missandei put it: "She's not our queen because she's the daughter of some king we never knew. She's the queen we chose."
Daenerys just has to realize this for herself: People don't and won't follow her because she's Aerys daughter, they will follow her because of what she does or doesn't do. I'd say the show is pushing this narrative though: Jon didn't end up following her because she's Aerys daughter or the "rightful queen" either - he follows her because he too started to believe in her after seeing what she was capable of and willing to do, and this time she was humbled by it.

In echo of Missandei's quote, Jon could very well say something similar: "I didn't bend the knee and made her my queen because she's the daughter of Aerys. I bent the knee and made her my queen because she deserves it and I believe in her." 

 

 

It may be true for Missandei and co., but the Westeros situation, is, I believe, different. Birthright etc. as well as the Targaryen name means something for the succession. I doubt Dany could make the same play on the basis of force alone. Maybe 300 years ago with a disunited Westeros and no Westerosi nationalism or identity. But Ironically, Aegon's conquest changes that situation. Within Westeros itself, Aerys is hated (although in the books there is substantial cache in the Targaryen name, on the show it will be whatever they want it to be. In the books even Brienne tells Catelyn (before Jaime's confession) that supporting Renly is not problematic on the basis that he is usurper (vs. Stannis) since everyone is a usurper ever since Jaime killed the "true King." These things have mattered a lot and been emphasized many times "It is the dragons we bowed to" and so on. Varys talking to Tyrion about a monarch with the "right name." Most of the great houses resent bending the knee to one of the other great houses from what I see. On that front the Targaryens don't have the same problem as others. This was the undisputed lead house for centuries and apart from the interlude by Robert, no one can seriously claim that their house has had a higher standing or would never bend the knee to them. United Westeros was a Targaryen creation and its legends, ideas, etc. are still infused with Targaryen motifs and imagery. When you want to call someone pious you invoke "Baelor the blessed." When you want to mention someone who is an honorable knight, you mention "Aemon the Dragonknight." Etc.

That said, I think too much is being made of Daenerys' reaction to this situation. It seems to me to almost be on par with the question of whether Jon could bend the knee. Some held that he was loyal to "the North" and this would be a betrayal so he could never do it. Hence his doing it seems too out of character to them. The issue with Dany, I think is similar. Some have the view that her desire for the throne is all consuming and nothing in the world would ever make her give that up. That it is an ambition for that McGuffin that drives her. But I don't see that as her characterization at all. Yes she does feel a duty to reclaim the throne which she was indoctrinated by Viserys to believe was their right and was usurped from them. But this is a duty she feels (as the last of her line etc.). That is why this whole Westeros venture is more important than trying to create an empire ion Essos (which may have been easier with the Dothraki etc. and the frankly disunited nature of the continent). In some sense then, her quest for the throne seems closer in spirit to Stannis than to someone like Cersei. Stannis, I feel would have stood aside easily if he had come to believe that someone had a genuinely superior claim to his. But for Dany I have not even heard anyone hold that this is possible. Remember that Dany has very little Westerosi experience. If she doesn't like it she can easily return to the continent where she spent her whole life. She has a massive amount of force under her now. But I don't even see why Dany has to be seen to insist that only she must be queen. That insistence is based on a particular understanding of the situation in which she feels duty bound to assert this claim as the last Targaryen.

There is also another side to Dany's character, and that is that she is willing to use all manner of terrible methods to acquire power, but once she has power she feels she has a mission to use it to make people's lives better. This is easier when she can objectify a class of opponents as evil and then use cunning and force against them. This is what happened in the collective punishment where she crucifies the Meereenese masters (163?). She sees some opponents as evil and is willing to be ruthless, even merciless to destroy them and remove them as well as those that stand in her way. As she said to Jon in 7x05 "We both want to help people, but we can only do that from a position of strength. Sometimes strength is terrible." This, I think is actually quite descriptive of her mentality. Its an "ends justifies the means" logic of course. But she has come to accept that strength is sometimes terrible, but that is a sort of necessary evil, and she is fine with it (i.e. even the evil in it, unlike some other characters who wouldn't be). All of this works well as long as she can plausibly believe that the rulers she is deposing are terrible compared to her for people at large. It doesn't work so well when that is not so clearly the case. The case was obvious against slaver masters or Dothraki Khals, or even Cersei. But as she eventually realized (it took a while but she'd never seen this before), not with Jon Snow. And as this realization set in, she stopped even demanding his allegiance (another side to "we both want to help people", she's begun to recognize he's different from most of what she's been confronting, and she never asks for his allegiance after this conversation). She was insistent and admant in 7x03 that there was no way in hell she wouldn't have the North, yet she didn't even seem to demand it by 7x06. In fact the situation is almost reversed with her being the one who is concerned that Jon's followers may not accept her (compared to 7x04 where she thought they'd accept her if Jon did), and wondering if she is deserving (Jon is, as I can gather, the only major Westerosi leader who has actually shown any faith in her, rather than come to her side for revenge against Cersei, unlike Olenna and the Sands). This is what she can be when the case for her being better than the current ruler is not so clear. So I don't see much reason to believe that she will somehow feel very threatened etc. if Jon were to be shown to be the rightful king. He's not Viserys after all. I wouldn't even find it out of character if she is willing to help him take the throne with her forces (as Ned and Jon Arryn did for Robert after all, Robert's forces were't enough to win it on his own). None of this sems out of character to me if they go this way.

What does appear as a concern here, in my humble opinion, however, is something else. Something that is often left unarticulated. That is the notion that this would be damaging to the portrayal of Daenerys as a feminist icon, something that D&D have anachronistically turned her into by giving her lines that never appear in the books (e.g. "we are not men" to Valar Marghulis etc., as if that'd allow her to live forever; also some interactions with Yara). This may seem like a clever move for a 21st century audience, but will make any move such as the above harder to swallow for those who have turned her into an embodiment of their vision of female empowerment etc. Now it would seem like the issue of a "powerful female becoming submissive to a male character and giving up everything that she has worked for" etc. This then seems like a re-affirmation of the patriarchy that brings a bad taste to the mouths of many. I think that this is highly anachronistic. Dany is not a feminist. That philosophy does not exist in this context. She may like other powerful women (although this is again more the show--Arya comes closer to this archetype otherwise) as kindred spirits, but a crusade against the patriarchy and for female empowerment has not been her mission. Its mainly been about herself having this status as the "Last Dragon" or "Blood of the Dragon" etc., which is quite in line with the aristocratic ethics of this series, where one's blood gives one the right to behave/act in ways that one wouldn't otherwise. But D&D have written themselves into a corner on this one. They probably thought "Hey, we have  a woman doing some real badass stuff, lets sprinkle some modern feminist motifs in there, that'll be cool." Now some people will feel offended unless Dany does become basically a modern feminist and challenge for the throne (if Jon ends up wanting it, which seems unlikely, however given who he is, but let's assume for the sake of argument) on the basis that there is no reason why a male should get precedence, even though this has never been shown to be her actual view of things. This Dany is then supposed to feel incensed that a man may want the throne on the basis of something like primogeniture when she is the one who has been working hard for it. But I see no real evidence that this motive for meritocracy is Dany's cause. There is the vague phrase "breaking the wheel" thrown about but what does it even mean? Modern constitutional democracy? That would be another anachronism. Even in this world, even with the introduction of democratic reforms, patriarchal institutions held very strongly for a very long time and some still do. They were often even upheld, believed and strengthened by very powerful women as well (Elizabeth 1, Catherine the Great etc.). Nor is meritocracy the way this world actually works (or something Dany has been shown to have any interest in supporting). That would be at the root of getting something because one has "worked hard" for it. But she is seen as something like this due to some throwaway lines that D&D thought would be cool and now anyone who has projected a lot of modern feminism onto her will find any actions like what I mentioned above out of character. I would find that to be a misreading of the character. The character in the books now seems even clearer on this. She even has thoughts about being willing to give up her crown for Daario, but knows that he'd never want her if she did that as he wants the Dragon Queen, not just Daenerys.

So to conclude, I don't think there is much reason to worry about deep tension over the throne between Jon and Dany if the issue ever comes up (Jon can keep it to himself and die with the secret, that's what Ned did). At least the text does not demand this sort of tension. Dany wants and feels duty-bound to regain the throne for House Targaryen. But that duty can change. I do feel, however, that the way they are going with this is some sort of co-ruler formula like William and Mary (William was a foreign invader and Mary was a rightful heir)/Glorious revolution plot. Season 7 showed that Dany has a hard time getting Westerosi credibility and is seen as a foreign invader by everyone--due to a Westerosi nationalism that only makes sense as a result of the united Westeros produced by the Targaryen conquest in the first place! Irony), which would never be the case for Rhaegar's true born and fully Westerosi son. But who knows? They may be going towards both dying and Tyrion left to raise their baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Hajk1984 said:

It may be true for Missandei and co., but the Westeros situation, is, I believe, different. Birthright etc. as well as the Targaryen name means something for the succession. I doubt Dany could make the same play on the basis of force alone. Maybe 300 years ago with a disunited Westeros and no Westerosi nationalism or identity. But Ironically, Aegon's conquest changes that situation. Within Westeros itself, Aerys is hated (although in the books there is substantial cache in the Targaryen name, on the show it will be whatever they want it to be. In the books even Brienne tells Catelyn (before Jaime's confession) that supporting Renly is not problematic on the basis that he is usurper (vs. Stannis) since everyone is a usurper ever since Jaime killed the "true King." These things have mattered a lot and been emphasized many times "It is the dragons we bowed to" and so on. Varys talking to Tyrion about a monarch with the "right name." Most of the great houses resent bending the knee to one of the other great houses from what I see. On that front the Targaryens don't have the same problem as others. This was the undisputed lead house for centuries and apart from the interlude by Robert, no one can seriously claim that their house has had a higher standing or would never bend the knee to them. United Westeros was a Targaryen creation and its legends, ideas, etc. are still infused with Targaryen motifs and imagery. When you want to call someone pious you invoke "Baelor the blessed." When you want to mention someone who is an honorable knight, you mention "Aemon the Dragonknight." Etc.

That said, I think too much is being made of Daenerys' reaction to this situation. It seems to me to almost be on par with the question of whether Jon could bend the knee. Some held that he was loyal to "the North" and this would be a betrayal so he could never do it. Hence his doing it seems too out of character to them. The issue with Dany, I think is similar. Some have the view that her desire for the throne is all consuming and nothing in the world would ever make her give that up. That it is an ambition for that McGuffin that drives her. But I don't see that as her characterization at all. Yes she does feel a duty to reclaim the throne which she was indoctrinated by Viserys to believe was their right and was usurped from them. But this is a duty she feels (as the last of her line etc.). That is why this whole Westeros venture is more important than trying to create an empire ion Essos (which may have been easier with the Dothraki etc. and the frankly disunited nature of the continent). In some sense then, her quest for the throne seems closer in spirit to Stannis than to someone like Cersei. Stannis, I feel would have stood aside easily if he had come to believe that someone had a genuinely superior claim to his. But for Dany I have not even heard anyone hold that this is possible. Remember that Dany has very little Westerosi experience. If she doesn't like it she can easily return to the continent where she spent her whole life. She has a massive amount of force under her now. But I don't even see why Dany has to be seen to insist that only she must be queen. That insistence is based on a particular understanding of the situation in which she feels duty bound to assert this claim as the last Targaryen.

There is also another side to Dany's character, and that is that she is willing to use all manner of terrible methods to acquire power, but once she has power she feels she has a mission to use it to make people's lives better. This is easier when she can objectify a class of opponents as evil and then use cunning and force against them. This is what happened in the collective punishment where she crucifies the Meereenese masters (163?). She sees some opponents as evil and is willing to be ruthless, even merciless to destroy them and remove them as well as those that stand in her way. As she said to Jon in 7x05 "We both want to help people, but we can only do that from a position of strength. Sometimes strength is terrible." This, I think is actually quite descriptive of her mentality. Its an "ends justifies the means" logic of course. But she has come to accept that strength is sometimes terrible, but that is a sort of necessary evil, and she is fine with it (i.e. even the evil in it, unlike some other characters who wouldn't be). All of this works well as long as she can plausibly believe that the rulers she is deposing are terrible compared to her for people at large. It doesn't work so well when that is not so clearly the case. The case was obvious against slaver masters or Dothraki Khals, or even Cersei. But as she eventually realized (it took a while but she'd never seen this before), not with Jon Snow. And as this realization set in, she stopped even demanding his allegiance (another side to "we both want to help people", she's begun to recognize he's different from most of what she's been confronting, and she never asks for his allegiance after this conversation). She was insistent and admant in 7x03 that there was no way in hell she wouldn't have the North, yet she didn't even seem to demand it by 7x06. In fact the situation is almost reversed with her being the one who is concerned that Jon's followers may not accept her (compared to 7x04 where she thought they'd accept her if Jon did), and wondering if she is deserving (Jon is, as I can gather, the only major Westerosi leader who has actually shown any faith in her, rather than come to her side for revenge against Cersei, unlike Olenna and the Sands). This is what she can be when the case for her being better than the current ruler is not so clear. So I don't see much reason to believe that she will somehow feel very threatened etc. if Jon were to be shown to be the rightful king. He's not Viserys after all. I wouldn't even find it out of character if she is willing to help him take the throne with her forces (as Ned and Jon Arryn did for Robert after all, Robert's forces were't enough to win it on his own). None of this sems out of character to me if they go this way.

What does appear as a concern here, in my humble opinion, however, is something else. Something that is often left unarticulated. That is the notion that this would be damaging to the portrayal of Daenerys as a feminist icon, something that D&D have anachronistically turned her into by giving her lines that never appear in the books (e.g. "we are not men" to Valar Marghulis etc., as if that'd allow her to live forever; also some interactions with Yara). This may seem like a clever move for a 21st century audience, but will make any move such as the above harder to swallow for those who have turned her into an embodiment of their vision of female empowerment etc. Now it would seem like the issue of a "powerful female becoming submissive to a male character and giving up everything that she has worked for" etc. This then seems like a re-affirmation of the patriarchy that brings a bad taste to the mouths of many. I think that this is highly anachronistic. Dany is not a feminist. That philosophy does not exist in this context. She may like other powerful women (although this is again more the show--Arya comes closer to this archetype otherwise) as kindred spirits, but a crusade against the patriarchy and for female empowerment has not been her mission. Its mainly been about herself having this status as the "Last Dragon" or "Blood of the Dragon" etc., which is quite in line with the aristocratic ethics of this series, where one's blood gives one the right to behave/act in ways that one wouldn't otherwise. But D&D have written themselves into a corner on this one. They probably thought "Hey, we have  a woman doing some real badass stuff, lets sprinkle some modern feminist motifs in there, that'll be cool." Now some people will feel offended unless Dany does become basically a modern feminist and challenge for the throne (if Jon ends up wanting it, which seems unlikely, however given who he is, but let's assume for the sake of argument) on the basis that there is no reason why a male should get precedence, even though this has never been shown to be her actual view of things. This Dany is then supposed to feel incensed that a man may want the throne on the basis of something like primogeniture when she is the one who has been working hard for it. But I see no real evidence that this motive for meritocracy is Dany's cause. There is the vague phrase "breaking the wheel" thrown about but what does it even mean? Modern constitutional democracy? That would be another anachronism. Even in this world, even with the introduction of democratic reforms, patriarchal institutions held very strongly for a very long time and some still do. They were often even upheld, believed and strengthened by very powerful women as well (Elizabeth 1, Catherine the Great etc.). Nor is meritocracy the way this world actually works (or something Dany has been shown to have any interest in supporting). That would be at the root of getting something because one has "worked hard" for it. But she is seen as something like this due to some throwaway lines that D&D thought would be cool and now anyone who has projected a lot of modern feminism onto her will find any actions like what I mentioned above out of character. I would find that to be a misreading of the character. The character in the books now seems even clearer on this. She even has thoughts about being willing to give up her crown for Daario, but knows that he'd never want her if she did that as he wants the Dragon Queen, not just Daenerys.

So to conclude, I don't think there is much reason to worry about deep tension over the throne between Jon and Dany if the issue ever comes up (Jon can keep it to himself and die with the secret, that's what Ned did). At least the text does not demand this sort of tension. Dany wants and feels duty-bound to regain the throne for House Targaryen. But that duty can change. I do feel, however, that the way they are going with this is some sort of co-ruler formula like William and Mary (William was a foreign invader and Mary was a rightful heir)/Glorious revolution plot. Season 7 showed that Dany has a hard time getting Westerosi credibility and is seen as a foreign invader by everyone--due to a Westerosi nationalism that only makes sense as a result of the united Westeros produced by the Targaryen conquest in the first place! Irony), which would never be the case for Rhaegar's true born and fully Westerosi son. But who knows? They may be going towards both dying and Tyrion left to raise their baby.

Great analysis. 

I get the same impression from Daenerys. 

This quote really stands out. 

5x08

When Tyrion suggests she want something else then the Iron Throne:

 “I fought so that no child born into Slaver’s Bay would ever know what it was like to be bought or sold. I will continue that fight here and beyond. But this is not my home.”

This does not sound like a woman who is obsessed on a personal level, when she opens up, about her birth right or being Queen out of personal desire. At her core, Daenerys is just someone who wants go home and use her power to ensure that others are not treated the way she was. 

Regarding the feminist icon piece, i am loathe to use that term becauses its introducing modern concepts into this society, but I do think there is something revolutionary and anti patriarchy about her even absent extra tv only quotes. One, just her very existence is anti patriarchy. If I am not mistaken, Dorne itself has more liberal views on women and female inheritance because it was conquered by Nymeria. If Dany is ultimatley succesful, it is likely that the patriarchy as has existed in westeros will be radically altered if for no other reason that a Warrior Queen saved and ruled them. 

Two, i think dany would want that. At the end of the day, part of her struggle and the reason she has this compassion and vision is because she herself was sold against her will. Not sure what continuing that “fight ... beyond” means if not at the very least making it so that women can’t be sold off like property the way she was. It would also make sense seeing as how Lyanna secretly married Rhaegar in part because she did not want to accept her marriage to Robert. 

I do think this is leading to a William and Mary situation assuming Jon and/ or Dany don’t die. Its really the only resolution to the story absent death that makes any sense and is true to the characters. On a political level, marriage is really a no brainer. Almost strains credulity that it has not already been mentioned. On a personal level, no way after all that boat sex Dany is not pregnant. Which if nothing else would lead to marriage. 

On a character level, their lives have been one giant parrallel. Jon bent the knee to her. Now she needs to bend the knee to Jon. Jon will not have her just be his consort because he already made an oath to her. On a symbolic level, they are already strongly hinting at this. “We will destory the night king... together” “we sail together” there will be a “we rule together” next year. Even the visual imagery is communicating this. Them walking out of the cave together as equals. Them standing on the platform at the Dragonpit together again as equals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Great analysis. 

I get the same impression from Daenerys. 

This quote really stands out. 

5x08

When Tyrion suggests she want something else then the Iron Throne:

 “I fought so that no child born into Slaver’s Bay would ever know what it was like to be bought or sold. I will continue that fight here and beyond. But this is not my home.”

This does not sound like a woman who is obsessed on a personal level, when she opens up, about her birth right or being Queen out of personal desire. At her core, Daenerys is just someone who wants go home and use her power to ensure that others are not treated the way she was. 

Regarding the feminist icon piece, i am loathe to use that term becauses its introducing modern concepts into this society, but I do think there is something revolutionary and anti patriarchy about her even absent extra tv only quotes. One, just her very existence is anti patriarchy. If I am not mistaken, Dorne itself has more liberal views on women and female inheritance because it was conquered by Nymeria. If Dany is ultimatley succesful, it is likely that the patriarchy as has existed in westeros will be radically altered if for no other reason that a Warrior Queen saved and ruled them. 

Two, i think dany would want that. At the end of the day, part of her struggle and the reason she has this compassion and vision is because she herself was sold against her will. Not sure what continuing that “fight ... beyond” means if not at the very least making it so that women can’t be sold off like property the way she was. It would also make sense seeing as how Lyanna secretly married Rhaegar in part because she did not want to accept her marriage to Robert. 

I do think this is leading to a William and Mary situation assuming Jon and/ or Dany don’t die. Its really the only resolution to the story absent death that makes any sense and is true to the characters. On a political level, marriage is really a no brainer. Almost strains credulity that it has not already been mentioned. On a personal level, no way after all that boat sex Dany is not pregnant. Which if nothing else would lead to marriage. 

On a character level, their lives have been one giant parrallel. Jon bent the knee to her. Now she needs to bend the knee to Jon. Jon will not have her just be his consort because he already made an oath to her. On a symbolic level, they are already strongly hinting at this. “We will destory the night king... together” “we sail together” there will be a “we rule together” next year. Even the visual imagery is communicating this. Them walking out of the cave together as equals. Them standing on the platform at the Dragonpit together again as equals. 

The feminist icon reading is one that I often get in many places (with some sources openly identifying her as feminist) and that, coupled with some other modern concepts seems to be deeply entwined with some readings of her that I find problematic. It also seems to create problems about the characters that shouldn't exist as per the text.

As for her existence being anti-patriarchy, perhaps so, but only to a very superficial patriarchy. Otherwise, as I mentioned, the patriarchy has managed to work quite well with one exceptionally powerful woman at the top so long as she got there via institutions that the patriarchy itself deems respectable in some way, and so long as she believes in the general set up of patriarchal institutions. That is how women like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth 1, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra etc. could rise so high. It explains how some of the most patriarchal societies today can have female heads of state (who have sometimes risen to the position due to becoming the dynastic matriarchs). It also explains how they can rise to the top of otherwise extremely patriarchal crime families and drug cartels (often again due to rules of inheritance etc). So I don't know how much of a revolution I expect on this front. I don't think it is out of character to actually not be a revolutionary on this front.

I do hope the co-rule situation happens. Jon may not often pursue power, but he does take the roles when they are given to him, and he has too much potential to just be relegated to consort status. They both have good qualities that the other can benefit from and bad qualities that the other can help with (or such is my reading at any rate).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hajk1984 said:

The feminist icon reading is one that I often get in many places (with some sources openly identifying her as feminist) and that, coupled with some other modern concepts seems to be deeply entwined with some readings of her that I find problematic. It also seems to create problems about the characters that shouldn't exist as per the text.

As for her existence being anti-patriarchy, perhaps so, but only to a very superficial patriarchy. Otherwise, as I mentioned, the patriarchy has managed to work quite well with one exceptionally powerful woman at the top so long as she got there via institutions that the patriarchy itself deems respectable in some way, and so long as she believes in the general set up of patriarchal institutions. That is how women like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth 1, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra etc. could rise so high. It explains how some of the most patriarchal societies today can have female heads of state (who have sometimes risen to the position due to becoming the dynastic matriarchs). It also explains how they can rise to the top of otherwise extremely patriarchal crime families and drug cartels (often again due to rules of inheritance etc). So I don't know how much of a revolution I expect on this front. I don't think it is out of character to actually not be a revolutionary on this front.

I do hope the co-rule situation happens. Jon may not often pursue power, but he does take the roles when they are given to him, and he has too much potential to just be relegated to consort status. They both have good qualities that the other can benefit from and bad qualities that the other can help with (or such is my reading at any rate).

 

What do you mean the patriarchy has managed to work quite well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

What do you mean the patriarchy has managed to work quite well? 

That it has managed to survive, to perpetuate its institutions etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first issue(trivial to Night Kings issue) that Jon will have a hard time addressing, is to convince  the Northern lords to accept Daenerys as their Queen. The Starks( Sansa, Arya and Bran)  by carrying out the execution of little finger, have sent a strong signal across the North that they are in control. Bran will support Jon as he transcends all sentiments and prejudices. Sansa( Lady of winterfell now) may be skeptical of accepting Jon's Queen. Besides, both being Targyrians, will only complicated their leadership over the North.......But, what about Arya? She, in my opinion would recognize Dany as a respectable military leader and view her as a reliable ally. To analyze, let's understand the personalities which has influenced Arya........ When the entire world rants only of Aegon the conquerer and his dragon- Balerion the black dred,  Arya has been in awe of  Rhaenys and Visenya, and recognises their contribution as much as Aegons', along with their Dragons Vhagar and Meraxes, in the Conquest of Westeros. Another strong women, not mentioned in the show, is the Rhoynish warrior princess Nymeria( the name Arya chose for her Direwolf). History remembers Nymeria as the military commander who captured Dorne after taking Ser Davos Dayne( "sword of the morning", just like Ser Arthur Dayne) as her third husband. And finally Lyanna Stark, whom Arya resembles so much in personality ,chose Rhaegar Targyrian to be her husband. Infact Arya of all people would understand  it and does deserve to learn the truth about Jon....... Coming back to Danerys, who is  bit of Rhaenys , Visenya and Nymeria, all rolled into one, would  not only be acceptable as a leader but also be admired by Arya, who I believe has come of age........ Targyrians and Starks have shared a healthy mutual respect between their Houses for centuries untill Robert's Rebellion, which was based on a lie......As for enumerating Symbolism in the show-
1.  s'TAR'ks(S)and 'TAR'gyrians(T), follow one after another....like ..S... T in alphabetical sequence. 
2.  Starks are purest of the First Men, Targyrians purest of the Valarians.
3.   Ice &Fire , Dragon & Wolf( main symbols of the show) comes from these two houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hajk1984 said:

That it has managed to survive, to perpetuate its institutions etc.

Got it. Yes. From a pure survival perspective yes. Its still around. 

I think this is somewhat debatable though. I think you could make a pretty good case that Westeros has been collapsing in on itself since the beggining of the series. The system seems fundamentally flawed and while the patriarchal aspect of it is not the whole reason for it by any stretch, its part of it. 

I can think of three women who rebelled against a marriage they did not want that lead to disastrous consequences. Lyanna with Robert. Cersei with Robert. Lysa with Jon Arryn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hajk1984 said:

The feminist icon reading is one that I often get in many places (with some sources openly identifying her as feminist) and that, coupled with some other modern concepts seems to be deeply entwined with some readings of her that I find problematic. It also seems to create problems about the characters that shouldn't exist as per the text.

As for her existence being anti-patriarchy, perhaps so, but only to a very superficial patriarchy. Otherwise, as I mentioned, the patriarchy has managed to work quite well with one exceptionally powerful woman at the top so long as she got there via institutions that the patriarchy itself deems respectable in some way, and so long as she believes in the general set up of patriarchal institutions. That is how women like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth 1, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra etc. could rise so high. It explains how some of the most patriarchal societies today can have female heads of state (who have sometimes risen to the position due to becoming the dynastic matriarchs). It also explains how they can rise to the top of otherwise extremely patriarchal crime families and drug cartels (often again due to rules of inheritance etc). So I don't know how much of a revolution I expect on this front. I don't think it is out of character to actually not be a revolutionary on this front.

I do hope the co-rule situation happens. Jon may not often pursue power, but he does take the roles when they are given to him, and he has too much potential to just be relegated to consort status. They both have good qualities that the other can benefit from and bad qualities that the other can help with (or such is my reading at any rate).

 

To build on the idea of together.... i had two quotes. 

But its really more than that 

"i've brought ice and fire together" - Mel 7x3

"together. we will save this country from those would destroy it"- Dany 7x3

"if we don't put aside our enmities and band together, we will die" - Davos 7x3

"and together, our armies will protect the north" - Tyrion 7x3

"they fought together against their common enemy" - Jon 7x4

"despite their differences, despite their suspicions. Together" - Jon 7x4

"together, they'd be difficult to defeat" - Littlefinger 7x7 

"if we sail to white harbor together, i think it sends a better message" Jon 7x7 

That is some heavy foreshadowing right there. Those two either rule together or die together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jcmontea said:

To build on the idea of together.... i had two quotes. 

But its really more than that 

"i've brought ice and fire together" - Mel 7x3

"together. we will save this country from those would destroy it"- Dany 7x3

"if we don't put aside our enmities and band together, we will die" - Davos 7x3

"and together, our armies will protect the north" - Tyrion 7x3

"they fought together against their common enemy" - Jon 7x4

"despite their differences, despite their suspicions. Together" - Jon 7x4

"together, they'd be difficult to defeat" - Littlefinger 7x7 

"if we sail to white harbor together, i think it sends a better message" Jon 7x7 

That is some heavy foreshadowing right there. Those two either rule together or die together. 

Ahem... "We sail together"...Dany 7x07

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

That scene was hilarious. 

The whole scene played like them arranging boat sex and everyone else with the “we know what you two are doing” faces. 

Then Dany doesn’t even know what to do with her hands...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hajk1984 said:

Ahem... "We sail together"...Dany 7x07

Had quoted that one already above.

but that one is the all timer. The westerosi version of netflix and chill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jcmontea said:

That scene was hilarious. 

The whole scene played like them arranging boat sex and everyone else with the “we know what you two are doing” faces. 

Then Dany doesn’t even know what to do with her hands...

Westerosi booty calls are a thing now :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Westerosi booty calls are a thing now :P

Lol. The real mystery of Season 7 is did Jon get pre clearance for that ahead of time or did he actually have the game to just pull that off. 

Jon has come a long way from Season 1 when he not very convincingly tells Sam he knows where to put it

EDIT: he still is not at dario level though. Dario would not have knocked. Although she loves Jon and not Dario so props to Jon for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Then Dany doesn’t even know what to do with her hands...

And Jorah stomps his foot in frustration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/09/2017 at 9:58 AM, Sir Hedge of Hog said:

What do you think the reaction of the northern lords will be when they find out about his lineage. I don't think he will be KiTN for much longer, and this then throws the whole alliance into chaos. He wont want the iron throne and being 'unamed' will hurt him deep. How will they pull things together? The lords are bound to find out. Jon will feel obligated, but so distraught when he finds out about Ned not being his father, but also someone might reveal the secret to drive Jon and Dany apart.

I'm not certain there will be enough time left for any of this to be a significant factor. The Northern lords are already going to be upset about Daenerys Stormborn rocking up to Winterfell but with the Wall breached, everyone is going to be scrambling to get themselves ready for Walkerbowl.

Even though Jon will undoubtedly struggle with the revelation, (personally, if I were Jon, I would request better evidence than some diary saying Rhaegar and Lyanna got married and my semi-catatonic little brother telling me he saw a vision of a baby that he assumes was me!), it ultimately changes very little from a practical standpoint. After all, Jon is no less a Stark than he was before, he'll likely always view Sansa, Arya and Bran as his little siblings, and while Ned might not be his biological father he is, and always will be, Jon's "true" father.

As for someone revealing the truth to drive a wedge between Jon and Dany, I suspect Jon himself will be the one to put distance between them without any need for a third party. Bran is unlikely to hold back once Jon gets home, so he'll probably have plenty of time to brood over it before finally taking his own advice to Theon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×