ASOIAF: Timely and Relevant?

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Most of the people will vote to unite.  The Starks and Stannis won't.  They want to rule after all.  But so what.  They do not constitute the majority.  So if you are concerned about having things democratic then everybody should get to choose.  Including the regular folk.  The Starks will lose the vote because their population is lower.  It will get even lower, unless you want to give the wights a vote.  

 

I'm not arguing for Stark rule tho I think the best ruler would likely come from Dorne maybe? but it still isn't the point, colonialism is not the answer.

[Lady Dacey]

Isn't literature destined to always be timely and relevant? I was rereading a novella I really like this past week. Just looked it up, it was published in fascicles between october 1881 and march 1882, though the story is set some fifty years prior. Its subject matter (madness and saneness, politcs and tyrany) remains very relevant, I would say. 

Edited to add: of course there are things that don't 'age well'. All for the better, we can scrutinize such work under critical lenses. Well written stuff is that that never ceases to be interesting and to stir us as we read it.

[Lady Dacey]

Also for the people arguing pro an united Westeros, come on, have you got any clue how hard it is to have political unity over such large territory? It makes no sense. Since there are people here arguing for a democractic transition or at least some constitutional monarchy, why not have coexisting nations with independent administrations and peaceful boarders? Not that I think any of it is likely to occur in the books, but since this is purely speculative discussion on what would be best for the continent... yeah, I argue in favor of independent nations exercising civil diplomacy when dealing with each other. 

[Aebram]

1 hour ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Most of the people will vote to unite.  The Starks and Stannis won't.  They want to rule after all.  But so what.  They do not constitute the majority.  So if you are concerned about having things democratic then everybody should get to choose.  Including the regular folk.  The Starks will lose the vote because their population is lower.  It will get even lower, unless you want to give the wights a vote. 

Sorry, I find it wildly improbable that there will be any sort of vote. For one thing, they don't have the infrastructure for it. The fastest form of transportation is a horse, and the fastest form of communication is a bird. And Winter is coming! There's no way they can have elections across an entire continent. Ballots would be stolen or lost, fake ballots would be added in, and some of the winning candidates would probably be dead by the time the results were announced.

Also, in terms of the narrative, that seems like too big of a transition, to go from monarchy to democracy just like that. To me, that would be kind of like if a platoon of Starship Troopers dropped out of the sky at Castle Black, and killed off all the Others with lasers and high explosives.

[Lady Dacey]

30 minutes ago, Aebram said:

Also, in terms of the narrative, that seems like too big of a transition, to go from monarchy to democracy just like that. To me, that would be kind of like if a platoon of Starship Troopers dropped out of the sky at Castle Black, and killed off all the Others with lasers and high explosives.

Agreed

30 minutes ago, Aebram said:

fake ballots would be added in

Doesn't that still happen tho? 

[Rose of Red Lake]

I think the story is timely in a very eerie way. The rise of strongmen dictators who rely on authoritarianism (left or right) has some parallels to Daenerys and Joffrey. The way readers defend Daenerys is like the MAGA cult. Someone even wrote a book making the Dany-Trump comparison. When Trump caught COVID because of his carelessness and perceived invincibility I was reminded of Dany and the bloody flux. When the Targaryens make choices based on to cryptic statements from people they just met, I think of Dany, Rhaegar, and their grandad joining QAnon. Crazy times right now, ya'll.

[The Commentator]

A Targaryen restoration is not really colonialism.  They are not a foreign power.  The Targaryens built the kingdom of Westeos.  It belongs to them.  Dragonstone, which is part of Westeros, has always been the property of the Valyrians. 

[The Commentator]

On 10/17/2020 at 12:57 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

A Game of Thrones was published in the middle of the 1990s.  Operation Desert Storm and the war in Kuwait was a recent global conflict.  Eastern Europe was in disarray after the collapse of the USSR.  This then was the backdrop during the story's writing.  No doubt the concept existed in Mr. Martin's mind before that.  However, being a man who has always had strong political views, he would like his story to have value outside of the pages. 

I am of the opinion that the land and the peoples of Westeros are better off under Targaryen rule.  A united land is better than a fractured land that is in a constant state of conflict.  I still believe so.  But we must look at our world today, almost thirty years after the start of the conflict.  The parts of Yugoslavia have separated and coexists quite peacefully.  Kuwait mended.  Iraq is on the mend.  We have to consider that it is possible for Westeros to divide and coexists with manageable conflicts.  I cannot say what the original plan was for the story but Martin will want the plot to have relevance in today's world.  It will be timely.  The message will be timely in order to have relevance. 

Daenerys' story line has so far included a lot of exposure to various cultures and languages.  She has become quite a skilled multilingual person.  Her travels through the Free Cities, Vaes Dothrak, Slaver's Bay, and Qarth will teach her to see that a diverse group of people can coexists quite peacefully.  Westeros will fracture because of the upheaval caused by the long night.  Social order and government will collapse.  A strong force will be needed to bring order and discipline during the ensuing chaos.  But Daenerys has unfinished business in Slaver's Bay.  She will give the peoples of Westeros a choice.  Most of the seven will agree to unite and remain one realm.  Probably this will be under her "nephew," Aegon Blackfyre's rule.  Some kind of deal will be negotiated there.  There are troublemakers like the Iron Islands, Free Folk, and the North who will want to go their own way.  The North in particular will not be keen to fall under Blackfyre or Targaryen rule because most of the ruling class in Iceland will be dead.  Mance and his Free Folk will change the culture of the north back to what it was during the primitive days of the kings of winter.  I think she will give them that chance if they have leaders who can control the more savage among them. 

There are people who will not be onboard with peaceful coexistence.  They want revenge.  All that never forgetting a wrong stuff.  These troublemakers are the Sand Snakes, Jon Snow, Cersei, Arya, Arrianne, Baelish, and Ramsay.  Peace will be very difficult to make happen with those characters around.   Doran is vindictive but his time is short.  Dorne will need Ellaria Sand or somebody like her to keep a watch on the Sand Snakes.  A calm person among the Starks, Bran, will need to keep his thumb over Arya and Jon.  It could be as one of the fans suggested, a dark path awaits the Starks.  I just do not think it will be all of them.   Asha and Reader Harlaw are the reasonable people among the Ironborns.  Ramsay and the Boltons will lose to Stannis (or Mance).  Aegon and his allies will send Cersei to the grave.  The families are not monolithic in character.  There are the odd sheep among the flock.  Peace is possible as long as those who want to get even go away, dead, or somebody strong keeps them checked. 

 

 

I would not mind getting rid of the north and ironborn.  But they are the buffer zones between civilization and the White Walkers.  Food will also run out in the north before it does anywhere else.  So a lot of refugees from the north will turn their backs on their lords and start walking to the south.  Independence and a higher title would stroke the egos of the Starks and the Greyjoys but it will doom their people to starvation.  They need the help of the south and Essos in order to survive this winter.  I don't want them to get to have their cake and eat it too.  They need to bend their knees in order to get help. 

[Lady Dacey]

35 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

It belongs to them.

I'm with Ygritte here:

Quote

"The gods made the earth for all men t' share. Only when the kings come with their crowns and steel swords, they claimed it was all theirs. My trees, they said, you can't eat them apples. My stream, you can't fish here. My wood, you're not t' hunt. My earth, my water, my castle, my daughter, keep your hands away or I'll chop 'em off, but maybe if you kneel t' me I'll let you have a sniff. You call us thieves, but at least a thief has t' be brave and clever and quick. A kneeler only has t' kneel." (...) She raised her chin defiantly and gave her thick red hair a shake. "And men can't own the land no more'n they can own the sea or the sky."

Storm, Jon V

[kissdbyfire]

10 minutes ago, Lady Dacey said:

I'm with Ygritte here:

Storm, Jon V

Yup, 100%

And claiming the island of Dragonstone always “belonged” to Valyrians is more  since it was settled by Valyrians only some 600 yrs ago, so fairly recently when you think in terms of Westeros history.

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

A Targaryen restoration is not really colonialism.  They are not a foreign power.  The Targaryens built the kingdom of Westeos.  It belongs to them.  Dragonstone, which is part of Westeros, has always been the property of the Valyrians. 

Nope, Targs only came to Dragonstone a few years before The Doom.

They didn't built any kingdom, they colonized it, took it by war. It'd be the same problem if the Starks did it, yeah, they are of The North and of Westeros, but them ruling over The Reach, or Dorne just by right of conquest would be colonialism.

Now, if some sort of agreement could be reached in which a king is chosen from the lords, any lord ruling would not be colonialism, save the Targs, who conquered the realm by fire and blood. Also the presence of a Targaryen undermines democracy of any sorts, as traditionalist would be inclined to vote for Targaryens regardless of their proposals or capability to rule.

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

On 10/17/2020 at 12:57 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

A Game of Thrones was published in the middle of the 1990s.  Operation Desert Storm and the war in Kuwait was a recent global conflict.  Eastern Europe was in disarray after the collapse of the USSR.  This then was the backdrop during the story's writing.  No doubt the concept existed in Mr. Martin's mind before that.  However, being a man who has always had strong political views, he would like his story to have value outside of the pages. 

I am of the opinion that the land and the peoples of Westeros are better off under Targaryen rule.  A united land is better than a fractured land that is in a constant state of conflict.  I still believe so.  But we must look at our world today, almost thirty years after the start of the conflict.  The parts of Yugoslavia have separated and coexists quite peacefully.  Kuwait mended.  Iraq is on the mend.  We have to consider that it is possible for Westeros to divide and coexists with manageable conflicts.  I cannot say what the original plan was for the story but Martin will want the plot to have relevance in today's world.  It will be timely.  The message will be timely in order to have relevance. 

Daenerys' story line has so far included a lot of exposure to various cultures and languages.  She has become quite a skilled multilingual person.  Her travels through the Free Cities, Vaes Dothrak, Slaver's Bay, and Qarth will teach her to see that a diverse group of people can coexists quite peacefully.  Westeros will fracture because of the upheaval caused by the long night.  Social order and government will collapse.  A strong force will be needed to bring order and discipline during the ensuing chaos.  But Daenerys has unfinished business in Slaver's Bay.  She will give the peoples of Westeros a choice.  Most of the seven will agree to unite and remain one realm.  Probably this will be under her "nephew," Aegon Blackfyre's rule.  Some kind of deal will be negotiated there.  There are troublemakers like the Iron Islands, Free Folk, and the North who will want to go their own way.  The North in particular will not be keen to fall under Blackfyre or Targaryen rule because most of the ruling class in Iceland will be dead.  Mance and his Free Folk will change the culture of the north back to what it was during the primitive days of the kings of winter.  I think she will give them that chance if they have leaders who can control the more savage among them. 

There are people who will not be onboard with peaceful coexistence.  They want revenge.  All that never forgetting a wrong stuff.  These troublemakers are the Sand Snakes, Jon Snow, Cersei, Arya, Arrianne, Baelish, and Ramsay.  Peace will be very difficult to make happen with those characters around.   Doran is vindictive but his time is short.  Dorne will need Ellaria Sand or somebody like her to keep a watch on the Sand Snakes.  A calm person among the Starks, Bran, will need to keep his thumb over Arya and Jon.  It could be as one of the fans suggested, a dark path awaits the Starks.  I just do not think it will be all of them.   Asha and Reader Harlaw are the reasonable people among the Ironborns.  Ramsay and the Boltons will lose to Stannis (or Mance).  Aegon and his allies will send Cersei to the grave.  The families are not monolithic in character.  There are the odd sheep among the flock.  Peace is possible as long as those who want to get even go away, dead, or somebody strong keeps them checked. 

 

 

I would like to see an empire which encompass western Essos and Westeros under Targaryen rule.  Your  prediction may happen but it will be temporary.  The history of Westeros has proven that the lives of the people are improved when the land and its people are united and the power of the great houses are curbed.  Queen Allysanne proved that.  Things went south when the Baratheons and their Stark and Arryn allies took over.  They could not keep the ironborn in line for long.  Westeros broke apart under their watch.  The Starks are even  part of the problem because Robb attempted to make the north independent.  It is a good thing he failed. 

[Lady Dacey]

There are people among us ASOIAF readers who want Daenerys to be queen because they believe she'll make a good ruler for Westeros. I tend to disagree, but I respect such an opinion and I usually find myself willing to read what they have to say and engage in some arguing. But saying "Westeros belongs to xxx" is truly a non-argument. As modern readers, we should understand what it means to be a 'ruler'. In most countries where we reside we elect presidents and prime ministers for executive functions (albeit arguably we have been doing that very poorly) and also legislators that go by different officers and names and attributions. These guys "administer" or "manage" our countries, they make most of the political and pragmatic decisions that affect each and every one of us. Now, in asoiaf we are talking about a monarchy, and that's that. There is no separation of powers, not system of checks and balance. That's that. Okay. Sad but true. Now when we argue about what we want for Westeros, 'birthright' arguments really baffle me. I understand (though not necessarily agree with) the notion of hereditary property. But when it comes to ruling... Why should ruling be hereditary at all? Why is that even brought up by modern readers? We're not talking about reclaiming a castle or an ancient sword, but an entire continent. How come Westeros belongs to anyone? Is it theirs to do whatever they want with? What about the people that live therein? When one says Westeros belongs to xxxx, does it mean it is xxxx's duty to rule it? Why? Are we talking about ruling or owning here? In modern days, there is a common understanding that a sovereign state collects taxes and uses those to manage the needs of its people. Tax money is for the state, it doesn't go into public officers' pockets (or shouldn't go, but if you're Latin-American you know the difference). Not so in a monarchy, where the crown's money is the King's (or Queen's) money. But what to do with it? And who gets to decide?  And how to menage the natural resources of the realm? "My trees, they said, you can't eat them apples. My stream, you can't fish here. My wood, you're not t' hunt. My earth, my water, my castle, my daughter, keep your hands away or I'll chop 'em off" this explanation is really pedagogic, the state is the entity that holds legitimate use of violence. Of course a bunch of people living together require some sort of organization and that usually requires someone ruling... but where do ownership and birthright and 'belonging' fit in?

edited to add: sorry for the rant.

[SeanF]

Arguments about colonialism make no sense in this context.  Westeros has never been the colony of a foreign State.  

[CamiloRP]

4 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

I understand (though not necessarily agree with) the notion of hereditary property.

One thing to love about ASOIAF is the amount of fans with political beliefs such as this one <3

 

5 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

Tax money is for the state, it doesn't go into public officers' pockets (or shouldn't go, but if you're Latin-American you know the difference).

This I disagree with tho. Political corruption happens everywhere, Latin American media just tries to convince us that we are the biggest culprits of it so we don't get involved in politics and let them do what they want with us. But hey, is nice to know an hermana latinoamericana

[Lady Dacey]

20 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

One thing to love about ASOIAF is the amount of fans with political beliefs such as this one <3

 not sure we are that many, but happy to find resonance anyway... I think I'm a full fledged old-school commie at heart, though publicly I assume a much more moderate persona because of pragmatic reasons 

23 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Political corruption happens everywhere

It sure does! We do have a tradition of public scandals that's hard to match, though, or so I believe... It's precisely that media thing you're referencing I guess 

25 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

so we don't get involved in politics

Say what? I'm up to my neck involved in politics around here.   

[CamiloRP]

1 minute ago, Lady Dacey said:

 not sure we are that many, but happy to find resonance anyway... I think I'm a full fledged old-school commie at heart, though publicly I assume a much more moderate persona because of pragmatic reasons 

Honestly? same

1 minute ago, Lady Dacey said:

It sure does! We do have a tradition of public scandals that's hard to match, though, or so I believe... It's precisely that media thing you're referencing I guess 

Say what? I'm up to my neck involved in politics around here.   

Yeah, probs. Me too! we actually had elections last year and I managed to 'turn' a lot of people, felt good.

Can I ask where are you from? I'm from Argentina

[Lady Dacey]

15 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

we actually had elections last year

ooh I was following that really closely. Congratulations, hermano! That was a close call. I can only hope your victory means we can work some similar miracle here in a couple years. I'm Brazilian, from Rio de Janeiro. Municipal election are happening within one month, so that should give us a good thermometer of Bolsonaro's true popularity and support at least.   

I was actually visiting Buenos Aires in 2015 during Macri's first campain, what a disgusting guy. Your prospects seemed grim then, but of course that was before the coup we had here in 2016... These are not easy times to live through. I take solace in fantasy.

[CamiloRP]

5 minutes ago, Lady Dacey said:

ooh I was following that really closely. Congratulations, hermano! That was a close call. I can only hope your victory means we can work some similar miracle here in a couple years. I'm Brazilian, from Rio de Janeiro. Municipal election are happening within one month, so that should give us a good thermometer of Bolsonaro's true popularity and support at least.   

I was actually visiting Buenos Aires in 2015 during Macri's first campain, what a disgusting guy. Your prospects seemed grim then, but of course that was before the coup we had here in 2016... These are not easy times to live through. I take solace in fantasy.

Let's hope irmã, not so long ago we both had great united presidents, and the whole region worked together, after Macri won I had lost all hope and it still shocked me that a fucking nazi won the election in Brazil, and believe me or not I was in Rio in 2016, my first time there, tho I had been many times to Florianopolis. Now with whatever happened in Uruguay and Ecuador, a fucking coup in Bolivia, I don't know, Cristina came back, let's hope Lula will too (and work for it aswell) 

Eu falo um pouco de portugues, a Patria Grande voltara!

 

[Lady Dacey]

6 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Patria Grande voltara!

Well met, Camilo! Mátria amada, Brasil. I've never met a brazilian who didn't boast of speaking spanish (though most don't) but few hermanos speak portuguese. Que legal. Há outros lusófonos aqui no fórum também. I believe there are even more spanish-speaking people. Unfortunately I feel much more comfortable in english than spanish, though it shames me to admit it. I read and understand spanish well enough, expressing myself is a different matter. It tangles with portuguese and then I choke, and when I try to extricate myself from my mother tongue I fall in the traps of more foreign langagues, and next thing I know there are words in dutch finding their way between hola and mucho gusto.

But not to derail this thread too much, I believe we have given some examples of how 'timely and relevant' asoiaf is - though I mantain that applies to most litetature. We use it as fodder for imagination, and that in itself can be political. In engaging with the narrative our views and opinions about the story and its characters are constantly informed by our political and ideological beliefs. In a similar fashion, I believe that in exercing critical thinking about fictional narratives we are ever honing our abilities to engage with the "real world".