Do you think we'll ever see Jaime and Brienne in an actual fully fledged relationship?

[Cruella]

I think Elizabeth is pretty clearly attractive, she's just not the great beauty of the family, that's Jane.

Ugly guy gets pretty girl much more often, but yes, we can bring up stuff from classics like Bronte to pop culture like Yo Soy Betty, La Fea (where heroine gets pretty in the end, but was supposed to be ugly in the beginning).

Myself, I can't see Jaime surviving the end of series, and doubt he and Brienne will have time for playing house before that. There is also foreshadowing that she'll outlive him (though it's also possible that the dream suggests that she'll save him, here is hoping). I definitely can see confession or a tryst, bittersweet affair.

On Martin and romance, Dying of the Light actually ends with one couple going off into sunset together, their relationship renewed and healthier than ever. Yet it is helluva bitter ending, IMO.

ETA: Jon, LOL, I always admired Brienne's tendency to go for most unavaliable man around. If she's not crying over super handsome, gay brother of the king and pretender to the throne, she's developing feelings for super handsome knight of Kindsguard, brother of the queen, who is in monogamous relationship with his siter! I mean, she could be great beauty and these guys would be still way out of her league. And, yes, I too thought that Loras could be next best thing. I guess if Jon turns out to be Targ heir AND decides to keep his holy vows she could go for him, but I don't think he's hot enough. Aegon could do, if he were gay.

[Currawong]

I don't think Brienne would settle for an average-looking man; her unrequited love demands the very best.

I think you have misunderstood Brienne, as looks are not what she is about at all. Her 'unrequited love' for Renly was not based on his looks, but on his courtesy to her (the first man to do so despite her appearance), and his apparent acceptance of her as she is, a warrior woman. (Loras later on tells Jaime that Renly thought her strange). After all, 'acceptance' was the core of her rejection of Ser Humphrey Wagstaff, when he told her that she would have to behave like a normal woman after they were married. She swiftly dealt with that idea! And before Ser Humphrey, the handsome Red Ronnet had openly rejected her because of her looks. I doubt she would ever have any romantic feelings for Loras, no matter what he looks like, given their history. And it wasn't Jaime's looks that attracted and impressed her initially, it was his fighting prowess. Not to mention that after months locked in a dungeon cell, Jaime was anything but 'handsome' when they first met! Sure, there is the sizzling sexual tension in the bath scene at Harrenhal, and Brienne remembers how Jaime walked in, unselfconsciously naked - but in AFFC she also recalls that "Jaime had done many bad things, but he could fight". Brienne may dream about tales of handsome knights and romances, just as many other young girls like Sansa do, but in RL Brienne doesn't want pretty boy looks in a man - above all, she wants acceptance of her as a person, just as she is. So far Jaime is the only man we have seen to give her that acceptance.

ETA: It's also a key part of the personal journeys for both Brienne and Jaime, learning to look behind outward appearances and reputations to find the real person beneath.

[Cruella]

And yet she falls for two hottest guys in the kingdom. Pardon me for being cynical, but I don't think it's a coincidence. And if Tyrion can drool over hot chicks, I don't see why Brienne shouldn't like hot guys. It's more interesting this way, and obviously she's not interested only in looks.

She considered Jaime still hot after the prison, she thinks he's hot in Harrenhall! She thinks he looked half-god and half-corpse. I am not sure how that works - he should just plainly look like shit, IMO. and he threw up on her and she had to clean after him, I am not sure why she doesn't feel strongly nauseous when she looks at him, but here we are.

[Le Cygne]

Yep although I would say that Elizabeth Bennet is not ugly, just that her sister Jane is considered the real pretty one. And as for an "ugly" heroine who ends up getting her man in the end, let me direct everyone's attention to - Jane Eyre.

And Mr. Rochester lost a same certain something, too (can we spoil 150 year old books?)

Big age gap, too, she was 18, he was at least twice her age. Lots of big age gaps in Austen, Dickens, and others, too.

[rmholt]

Do you mean a lover's relationship?

I think they already have a full fledged relationship - mutual respect and trust.

[Blindsie]

Interesting part of their relationship is Brienne, starts out very black and white in her views. Whereas Jaime is such a grey character. Where we left Brienne in the books is that she is facing the conflict in oathes that Jaime faced. The difference between the two is one started it out beautiful, admired, skilled, and arrogant, the other ugly, humble, strong, and loyal. But I think Brienne will soon find she is not as different from Jaime as she first thought. She's been steadily sympathizing with him more and more, and can see his good qualities better than most. Similarly Jaime is faced with one of the few people he knows that is pure of heart, and he can admire that.

*sigh*

I hope something happens between them, I think a mutual respect that has grown between them. Sadly it does seem to be doomed, if they do die, I hope they do it fighting side-by-side.

[Currawong]

I think they already have a full fledged relationship - mutual respect and trust.

I find one of the most interesting aspects of their relationship is how GRRM is writing it, because so much of it actually develops when the two of them are physically far apart, in AFFC. Their last meeting in KL was one of initial understanding and tentative appreciation, followed by misunderstanding and defensive prickliness, and then Brienne heads off on her quest. They are obviously more alike than either of them would be prepared to admit, and deep down you can see them subconsciously re-evaluating what they think of the other in terms of the qualities they truly value in a man/woman. Brienne's honesty and loyalty, her care for maimed Jaime, and her simple determination about matters of honour, stand in sharp contrast to Cersei's scheming, her unfaithfulness and rejection of her now-less-than-physically perfect twin. Jaime's implied acceptance of Brienne becomes all the more meaningful as she encounters prejudice and scorn on the road. As Blindsie said, Brienne is now facing the same conflict of oaths that Jaime did, so that her single-minded devotion to the ideals of knighthood will be put to the test. It will be interesting to see where GRRM is taking this, now they have headed off together, apparently to Lady Stoneheart.

[Angmar]

Dany being married 50 years to Daario- oh please no! :laugh: If I couldn't take him seriously enough already...

And we all know the unhappy long couple is Walder Frey with any of his wives- damn that's the worst fate possible.

Hum, back on topic....I really like their interactions, but I can't see them setting down or something like that...If only I wanna see them together just for Cersei's reaction... :laugh: She would spit blood like Tyrion said.

[Newstar]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, I know that Martin admires Tolkien's work and I know that the sack of WF was a direct allusion to the scouring of the shire. IIRC, Martin has brought up the end of LotR as an example of bittersweet but someone else may know better.

However GRRM may feel inspired by Tolkien, it gets translated to the books quite differently. I'm pretty sure I missed the part in LOTR where Boromir loses his head to a petulant boy king's last-minute reversal, where Frodo gets flayed and castrated, or where Eowyn is threatened with gang rape and beaten and stripped. (Just saying.) I don't think it's much of a stretch that GRRM's "translation" of Tolkien-inspired concepts to ASOIAF will look very different from the original, as he has far less interest in writing about lasting romance than Tolkien. Tolkien "does" lasting love stories; GRRM doesn't, for the most part. One thing that you'll notice about ASOIAF versus LOTR is that ASOIAF has no Aragorn/Arwen equivalent. Why not? GRRM has killed off all the potential candidates to date, and I have every reason to think he'll continue to do so.

How an author who claims his work all boils down to the human heart in conflict with itself is excluded from having "romance" is a bit of a mystery to me.

Because you're misunderstanding and misreading the quote. GRRM is actually referring to the words of Faulkner, and assuming he agreed with what Faulkner meant, it's important to understand that Faulkner meant other, much more beautiful, profound and important things than matchmaking characters in the trite romcom exercise that makes up a lot of shipping:

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.

He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

(...) He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

It's actually quite a beautiful idea, that the writer needs to forget the fear of imminent apocalypse (this is a speech from 1950) and get in touch with these "universal truths": honour, pity, pride, compassion, endurance and sacrifice. It's an idea much stronger and deeper than notions of characters deserving "happy endings," and it seems clear to me from this passage that "the problems of the human heart in conflict" for Faulkner, and by extension GRRM, have nothing to do with sex, romantic subplots, happy couples paired off or lasting romantic happiness, but rather with concepts like courage, honour, hope, pride, compassion, pity, sacrifice.

While love does figure into it, Faulkner's much more emphatic about honour, pity, pride, compassion and sacrifice, which he mentions more than once, especially "compassion and sacrifice." And these are demanding, harsh "truths": compassion, not passion, sacrifice, not happiness, endurance, not joy. They're demanding and harsh because it puts the human heart in conflict with itself to struggle, strive, and be honourable, sacrificing, courageous, enduring. They're not about self-actualization, getting the love you deserve, or landing your man. Faulkner considers concepts like compassion, etc. "universal truths," the core without which writing is worthless. Unless you place compassion, sacrifice and endurance and other high aspirations of the human spirit as themes to your writing first and foremost, there is no real "heart" to your writing, and it will be nothing but soulless and superficial (lust, defeats where no one loses anything, painless losses, etc.); it's the writer's duty to elevate the soul of the reader by reminding him or her of these things. The "problems of the human heart in conflict" are those universal truths, and reducing them to something as shallow as romantic conflicts and happily ever after romantic love is a fundamental misreading of this quote, I think. In fact, this quote in some measure explains to me why GRRM has so little apparent interest in writing about romantic happiness.

To me, assuming GRRM read this speech as I read it, ASOIAF does reflect these concerns: the books are about honour (and how!), pity, pride, compassion and sacrifice. What they are not about, to date or in the foreseeable future (in my opinion), is happily ever after, characters walking into the sunset, the ugly gal getting the guy like the plucky dame that she is, establishing lasting romantic happiness as a story goal like a Harlequin romance author would, or pairing off suitable characters like an expert matchmaker would, and to suggest that GRRM using Faulkner's quote somehow supports that reading is completely wrong, in my opinion.

On Martin and romance, Dying of the Light actually ends with one couple going off into sunset together, their relationship renewed and healthier than ever. Yet it is helluva bitter ending, IMO.

They were decidedly not happy as I recall (they were pretty much the opposite of happy), and had lost the "third" in their relationship (well, not quite, but the subtleties of the "teyn" dynamic are outside this thread) to tragedy, resulting in the awfulness you might expect, so I question describing it as an example of a happy romantic ending, unless you want to discount the fact that they were essentially in a three-way marriage. By that token, yes, I'd say "cut tragically short" sounds about right. I guess if you define the man and woman's relationship as a separate dynamic by itself, then yes, they do "go off into the sunset," but it seems to be ignoring the realities of the teyn relationship.

Its absence may be his way of setting the tenor of the story, keeping things feeling harsh. Maybe it's just a harsh land.

Yeah, I think the no-lasting-romantic-happiness is actually GRRM's way of keeping it real, in his way. Maybe he views happy romance as cheap or easy? Sometimes I get the sense with his stuff that when he kills off half of a happy couple or separates them forever, there's almost a sigh of relief in the writing, like "Thank God that's over with, now we get to the good stuff!" I sometimes have a "C'mon, GRRM, you're killing off half of another couple? Can't you just leave them alone for once?" reaction, too.

[Currawong]

While love does figure into it, Faulkner's much more emphatic about honour, pity, pride, compassion and sacrifice, which he mentions more than once, especially "compassion and sacrifice." And these are demanding, harsh "truths": compassion, not passion, sacrifice, not happiness, endurance, not joy. They're not about self-actualization, getting the love you deserve, or landing your man. They're about what Faulkner considers these "universal truths," the core without which writing is worthless. Unless you place compassion, sacrifice and endurance as themes to your writing first and foremost, there is no real "heart" to your writing, and it will be nothing but soulless; it's the writer's duty to elevate the soul of the reader by reminding him or her of these things. The "problems of the human heart in conflict" are those universal truths, and reducing them to something as shallow as romantic conflicts and happily ever after romantic love is a fundamental misreading of this quote, I think.

To me, assuming GRRM read this speech as I read it, ASOIAF does reflect these concerns: the books are about honour (and how!), pity, pride, compassion and sacrifice. What they are not about, to date or in the foreseeable future (in my opinion), is happily ever after, characters walking into the sunset, the ugly gal getting the guy like the plucky dame that she is, establishing lasting romantic happiness as a story goal like a Harlequin romance author would, or pairing off suitable characters like an expert matchmaker would, and to suggest that GRRM using Faulkner's quote somehow supports that reading is completely wrong, in my opinion.

Yes, we understand all that, but you seem to be assuming that honour, pity, compassion, sacrifice and all those other qualities cannot ever lead to a lasting relationship. You make it sound as though all the characters who exhibit these qualities somehow have to die in order for the qualities to be 'true'. Which is absolutely not the case.

There is no reason to think that some - note I say 'some' - characters cannot demonstrate these qualities and come through their experiences as better people on the other side, and perhaps better capable of entering a lasting relationship. It's called character growth and development. No one is wanting or assuming that ASOIAF will end up with a Harlequin romance finale, with rosy light and a heavenly chorus as various couples wander into the sunset holding hands. We know perfectly well that it won't.

What is being challenged is your apparent assumption that none of the relationships we see in the books can or will ever end up happily, no matter what the people concerned have been through, or what sort of admirable qualities they have exhibited in their respective journeys. That is just as wrong as assuming the rosy sunset Harlequin ending.

(edited for typos)

[Newstar]

Yes, we understand all that, but you seem to be assuming that honour, pity, compassion, sacrifice and all those other qualities cannot ever lead to a lasting relationship. You make it sound as though all the characters who exhibit these qualities somehow have to die in order for the qualities to be 'true'. Which is absolutely not the case.

No, I wasn't (at least, I don't think I was). I was clarifying that "problems of the human heart, etc. etc." as Faulkner explains the concept does not refer specifically or even mostly to romance, so it's wrongheaded to use that as evidence that GRRM is invested in the long-term or ultimate romantic happiness of his characters.

And really, even if there is quickly ended or tragically ended romance--and there is in the books, as I said--it seems to be in service to these "problems" (compassion, sacrifice, endurance, honour, etc.) and not the other way around: Dany enduring the tragedy of losing Drogo and becoming stronger for it, Jon torn between his honour and his love for Ygritte, Robb's tragic marriage to Jeyne to rescue her honour, etc. What romance there is is a servant to these themes, I think, (and a rather low-ranking servant at that), not the other way around.

There is no reason to think that some - note I say 'some' - characters cannot demonstrate these qualities and come through their experiences as better people on the other side, and perhaps better capable of entering a lasting relationship. It's called character growth and development.

Sure, but for GRRM, at least, for whatever reason, lasting romance and the ASOIAF books are mutually exclusive. I don't see anything that sets Jaime/Brienne apart from all the other doomed ships that have come and gone along the way. They're not special. Nobody's special.

No one is wanting or assuming that ASOIAF will end up with a Harlequin romance finale, with rosy light and a heavenly chorus as various couples wander into the sunset holding hands. We know perfectly well that it won't.

Would you mind telling some of the other posters in ship-related threads? Because from what I can tell, I don't think that they got that memo.

What is being challenged is your apparent assumption that none of the relationships we see in the books can or will ever end up happily, no matter what the people concerned have been through, or what sort of admirable qualities they have exhibited in their respective journeys. That is just as wrong as assuming the rosy sunset Harlequin ending.

Not really, though. My belief is based on a reasonable interpretation of everything I've seen in the books to date where most of the loves are unrequited and of those that aren't, no happy, devoted romantic couple is "allowed" to stay happy for any length of time before the romance is tragically cut short (and in the Targ backstories, mostly, and in the other ASOIAF works). The Harlequin ending belief is based on...wishful thinking and blind optimism, I think. Mine is based on the books to date and the pattern they've established.

What is being challenged is your apparent assumption that none of the relationships we see in the books can or will ever end up happily, no matter what the people concerned have been through, or what sort of admirable qualities they have exhibited in their respective journeys.

If you think that GRRM is at all invested in awarding deliriously happy endings like gold stars--romantic or otherwise--for characters who "deserve" it because of their trials and travails or their character development, I think you've got a rude awakening coming...and I think you should run through the list of doomed ASOIAF ships to date I put down a few pages back, many of whom suffered great ordeals, developed or exhibited admirable qualities, and went on to die anyway.(And even if GRRM is invested in handing out happy ending gold stars to characters for a character arc well done, I'm pretty sure Jaime wouldn't be one of those characters...the would-be child murderer thing, you know.)

This is the quote about happiness versus victory from the German interview GRRM gave (transcribed by Woman of War, I think):

Out there in the future adventures are waiting for us. You should not look for paradise, paradise is grossly overestimated. Life is not about eternal happiness, life is about competition, difficulties, problems and about victory. And problems make the taste victory (what kind of victory has not been specified) only sweeter.

There's a big distinction drawn between seeking "paradise" or "eternal happiness" and "victory." The way he describes "victory" is decidedly lacking in romantic connotations ("competition," for one). As his books and I think ASOIAF suggest, you can achieve great victory after struggle and strife without achieving any kind of eternal (romantic or otherwise) happiness. I tend to think that of the characters who survive ASOIAF, they'll be "victorious" and will have conquered their problems, but they won't have found romantic or any other kind of happiness. As GRRM seems to say here, eternal happiness isn't the point. And that sounds about right to me. Taking a character I'm pretty sure will survive the series, what could the concept of a "happy ending" possibly mean to a boy who has godlike powers but will never be able to walk again? What could the concept of a "happy romantic ending" mean to a young woman who already had her one true love and lost him forever? There's hope, certainly, and endurance, and survival, and victory in the face of overwhelming struggle, all that good stuff, but happiness?

[Cruella]

Dying of the Light

This threeway relationship wasn't functioning for the woman, who didn't understand what she was signing up for, so while it's tragic ending for the hero (he doesn't get the girl), her husband (who lost husband #2 (so to speak) and obviously husband #2, in the end, woman's relationship with her husband is reestablished (though he's hit hard by tragedy, naturally) and they actually get a shot at equal, functioning relationship.

So you get very sad, bitter ending AND functioning couple at the end of it.

[Clariana]

It is unsurprising that there are no happy couples because that is not what ASoIaF has chosen to focus on... Its focus is the game of thrones, the fight for power and survival and that tears people and families asunder.

[pamparius]

I can see it...

But I have a feeling one of them will die before it comes to that.

I want Jaime to have a baby he gets to hold D=

Why? So he can throw it out a window?

[King Daemon Blackfyre]

I think Brienne will die saving Jaime and helping him escape from the BWB, (and kill Lady Stoneheart for good in the process).

[Lyanna Stark]

However GRRM may feel inspired by Tolkien, it gets translated to the books quite differently. I'm pretty sure I missed the part in LOTR where Boromir loses his head to a petulant boy king's last-minute reversal, where Frodo gets flayed and castrated, or where Eowyn is threatened with gang rape and beaten and stripped. (Just saying.) I don't think it's much of a stretch that GRRM's "translation" of Tolkien-inspired concepts to ASOIAF will look very different from the original, as he has far less interest in writing about lasting romance than Tolkien. Tolkien "does" lasting love stories; GRRM doesn't, for the most part. One thing that you'll notice about ASOIAF versus LOTR is that ASOIAF has no Aragorn/Arwen equivalent. Why not? GRRM has killed off all the potential candidates to date, and I have every reason to think he'll continue to do so.

You know this how? Romance is a small part of Tolkien's work, a very small part. GRRM has far more romantic influences and many of the "movers and shakers" moments are due to romance. Rhaegar and Lyanna act as a framing device to the ASOIAF novels as a whole, and what are they if not romance? I find your statement about knowing GRRM's intentions totally baffling, especially since lots of people have commented that if we look at the actual text and not just imagining things, you're dead wrong.

Also, to qualify Arwen and Aragorn as a "lasting love story" is rather odd, since it means you don't understand Arwen's fate or her choice. Aragorn will die and leave Arwen alone, so what they have will be by its definition, termporary, and Arwen has to accept that fate. It's actually hinted that she committed suicide out of sorrow, so again, happy jolly ending? It's missing.

But Arwen went forth from the House, in the light of her eyes was quenched, and it seemed to her people that she had become cold and grey as nightfall in winter that comes without a star. Then she said farewell to Eldarion, and to her daughters, and to all whom she had loved; and she went out from the city of Minas Tirith and passed away to the land of Lórien, and dwelt there alone under the fading trees until winter came. Galadriel had passed away and Celeborn was also gone, and the land was silent.

There at last when the mallorn-leaves were falling, but spring had not yet come, she laid herself to rest upon Cerin Amroth; and there is her green grave, until the world is changed, and all the days of her life are utterly forgotten by men that come after, and elanor and niphredil bloom no more east of the Sea.

It's also stated that when Rosie Cotton eventually dies sam will go west as a ringbearer, making his "love story" also of a temporary nature.

Then of course we have the great ones of the past, Turin Turambar and Niënor Niniel, Beren and Luthien, for example, hardly happy jolly stories. (Also, Tolkien did sibling incest before GRRM with Turin and Nienor.)

Hence your point about Tolkien making lasting love stories is wrong. Most of them are in fact not. The "main" on in LOTR, Arwen and Aragorn is certainly not as we can glean from understanding Arwen's choice as a child of Elrond. Even the movie got that absolutely and totally right. The wording is even similar to how Tolkien originally described it.

LOTR romances are not Hollywood romcom style happy every after at all. Instead, they are mainly bittersweet. Which is just what GRRM has said that he is looking at making ASOIAF, in a total shocker.

Because you're misunderstanding and misreading the quote. GRRM is actually referring to the words of Faulkner, and assuming he agreed with what Faulkner meant, it's important to understand that Faulkner meant other, much more beautiful, profound and important things than matchmaking characters in the trite romcom exercise that makes up a lot of shipping:

You are the one who is mistaking "romance" for "trite romcoming", hence you are the one who don't understand romance in literature. It is not Hollywood romcom style. Romance in literature is sturm & drang, it's passion and darkness. It has very little in common with "trite Hollywood Romcom" which anyone knows who has the faintest clue about literature canon.

Yeah, I think the no-lasting-romantic-happiness is actually GRRM's way of keeping it real, in his way. Maybe he views happy romance as cheap or easy? Sometimes I get the sense with his stuff that when he kills off half of a happy couple or separates them forever, there's almost a sigh of relief in the writing, like "Thank God that's over with, now we get to the good stuff!" I sometimes have a "C'mon, GRRM, you're killing off half of another couple? Can't you just leave them alone for once?" reaction, too.

You seem to equate any romance that has any happiness with "trite romcom" though, and that is not what we're looking at. His "happy romances" (Ned and Cat, Davos and Mariya, Olenna and her oafish Luthor) were all realistic and based in reality. Even so, none of these have lasted forever, strangely just like Tolkien's. Only in RomCom land does it seem like romances are forever.

Also, one of the most poignant comments in the novels pertains directly to love:

"Love is the bane of honor, the death of duty. What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms ... or the memory of a brother's smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy."

Maester Aemon's comment is by now a classic and it links directly into one of the main themes of ASOIAF, which is strongly tied to love.

[Lyanna Stark]

It is unsurprising that there are no happy couples because that is not what ASoIaF has chosen to focus on... Its focus is the game of thrones, the fight for power and survival and that tears people and families asunder.

There are, or at least were, happy couples. Ned and Cat, Tywin and Joanna, Olenna and Luthor, Davos and Maryia. However, ASOAIF so far has been about the destruction and ware of the seven kingdoms. It would certainly be strange to se a random couple marrying and settling down happily in a cottage with white picket fences during this, don't you think?

Tis lack of Hollywood romcom ending style relationship does not prevent romance from actually *developing* though.

[rmholt]

GRRM characters repeatedly illustrate the incompatibility of love and the Game of Thrones. But there is love to be found in those who are not playing. Look at Jeyne Farman for one example. Kevan Lannister and his wife for another. Tyrion's love was ended for him by his father who was definitely playing and his son was a pawn. So love is inimical to success in the Game but perhaps not in the bigger scheme of things. Perhaps it is the Game that is inimical to a full life for the players.

[Clariana]

GRRM characters repeatedly illustrate the incompatibility of love and the Game of Thrones. But there is love to be found in those who are not playing. Look at Jeyne Farman for one example. Kevan Lannister and his wife for another. Tyrion's love was ended for him by his father who was definitely playing and his son was a pawn. So love is inimical to success in the Game but perhaps not in the bigger scheme of things. Perhaps it is the Game that is inimical to a full life for the players.

Yes exactly, I said the GoT was the focus of the books, not the sum total of the universe... There are happy couples but they are going to be marginal to the GoT, the couple punting Young Griff up the Royne occur to me, they have a chance of happiness, but for those caught up in it, voluntarily or not, it is "win or die", and of course, mostly it's "die" and stable relationships also fall by the way. Unfortunately both J & B are in it up to their necks (literally so) now.

[rmholt]

Yes exactly, I said the GoT was the focus of the books, not the sum total of the universe... There are happy couples but they are going to be marginal to the GoT, the couple punting Young Griff up the Royne occur to me, they have a chance of happiness, but for those caught up in it, voluntarily or not, it is "win or die", and of course, mostly it's "die" and stable relationships also fall by the way. Unfortunately both J & B are in it up to their necks (literally so) now.

Love, or perhaps irrational attachments, is a frequent visitor to GoT players. True mutual love may actually be a plus for some players - it's the unrequited love, the unhealthy attachments, that sort of thing, that seems to be destructive.