steady hands, gentle hearts

It's a nasty situation. Luwin's the one who brings up Jon Snow at all in the conversation he was having with Catelyn and Ned - as someone had to, because Ned's talking about what's to be done with the kids when he's down south. And this is the exchange that ensues:

"Jon must go," she said now. "He and Robb are close," Ned said. "I had hoped …" "He cannot stay here," Catelyn said, cutting him off. "He is your son, not mine. I will not have him." Catelyn II, AGoT

Catelyn's not budging. And Luwin would have to be truly ignorant of history and politics not to understand why she'd be so insistent. It's the hard reality of the situation that by the unfair standards of the patriarchal, classist society these characters live in, Ned insisting that Jon Snow was raised in Winterfell was an insult to Catelyn.

It's horrible. A decent society wouldn't make that an insult. But it is the case in the books we're reading and it's meant to reflect poorly on the system.

So now there needs to be an answer to the question "What of Jon Snow?" Ned's not wrong that Jon Snow would be judged for his birth in the south. (Unknown to Catelyn or Maester Luwin, there are other compelling reasons why Ned can't take Jon south, but that's a good enough reason to start with.) But here Luwin knows something Ned does not:

"Another solution presents itself," he said, his voice quiet. "Your brother Benjen came to me about Jon a few days ago. It seems the boy aspires to take the black."

Benjen went to Luwin, not Ned (and I would not be surprised if Benjen deliberately started setting up this path with Luwin to soften the blow to deeply traumatised Ned). Luwin's the one who's had the initial discussion. And now, as Catelyn's internal narration points out, everything works itself out. Jon will still be with family, satisfying Ned. Jon has an avenue for honourable service and a measure of social advancement, satisfying Jon. And Jon's permanently out of succession for Winterfell, satisfying Catelyn. Not ideal by any means, but it's an arrangement that meets some bare bones conditions for everyone involved.

brienne compares the grey stoneheart dresses in to that of the silent sisters' (Grey was the color of the silent sisters, the handmaidens of the Stranger. Brienne felt a shiver climb her spine. Stoneheart.), and is that profession not a means through which westeros discards and punishes its women for having broken social codes, for transgressing westerosi patriarchal ideals. that catelyn's misery doesn't end with her death is doing something similar. she is both being discarded by the narrative—she stops being a POV character, just as she loses her voice ("She don't speak,"—"You bloody bastards cut her throat too deep for that. But she remembers.") and being punished for having resisted her socially expected passivity. and i know catelyn discussions focus a lot on the mistakes she makes over the course of the books, but i do think her spontaneous decisions would've turned out differently if she had possessed the power her husband and son were given freely by westerosi society. ned wouldn't have had to carry tyrion to the eyrie only to lose him to lysa's jurisdiction, he had the personal authority to conduct a trial all by himself. robb had power and men at command to transport jaime entirely unharmed to king's landing. which is something to consider when discussing her character, that her reasonable decisions (given what information she had, capturing tyrion was the smart thing to do) not panning out well, had a bit to do with the power denied to her as a woman.

The only other viewpoint we get in the main books, besides Stannis’ comments in ASOS (and a few scattered references to the Dance in general, or Rhaenyra being eaten by Sunfyre), are the words exchanged between Arianne and Arys Oakheart in “The Soiled Knight”:

“You twist my words. I never said … Dorne is different. The Seven Kingdoms have never had a ruling queen.”

“The first Viserys intended his daughter Rhaenyra to follow him, do you deny it? But as the king lay dying the Lord Commander of his Kingsguard decided that it should be otherwise.”

“The dragon is time. It has no beginning and no ending, so all things come round again. Anders Yronwood is Criston Cole reborn. He whispers in my brother’s ear that he should rule after my father, that it is not right for men to kneel to women … that Arianne especially is unfit to rule, being the willful wanton that she is.”

That Arianne sees Rhaenyra as a useful precedent to her plans for Myrcella seems clear: she brings up the would-be Targaryen queen specifically to counter Arys’ argument that a woman could not sit the Iron Throne in her own right, further bolstering her plan to crown Myrcella in Dorne. I do think as well, though, that Arianne probably felt a strong personal parallel with Rhaenyra. In as much as she sees Princess Nymeria as a personal heroine, I think Arianne might have looked at Rhaenyra in a similar way. Here was another woman whom men (in Arianne’s reading of it, perhaps) longed to rob of her birthright, a woman looked down upon for “wantonness” and her very femininity (heck, Arianne’s scornful words on Anders Yronwood could be a paraphrase of the arguments used against Rhaenyra’s succession at the council meeting immediately following Viserys I’s death). Arianne has feared Quentyn’s supposed ambitions for a while (thanks to the artificial rivalry imposed upon them by their father), and so the story of a strong-willed princess fighting for the right to succeed above a younger brother might very well have appealed to her. 

Now, unlike the Anarchy which inspired the Dance, Aegon III did not succeed, strictly speaking, because he was the son of Rhaenyra. After all, Aegon was also the elder (and, as far as anyone in Westeros knew in 130 AC, only surviving) son of Prince Daemon, himself the younger brother of Viserys I. With all the trueborn sons and grandsons of King Viserys dead by the end of the Dance, a strict male-only reading of the Iron Throne’s succession would mean that Prince Daemon should succeed - but, because Prince Daemon was himself dead, his claim would pass to his elder son, the new Aegon III. In reality, I think, the succession of Aegon III was a convenient outcome which gave both sides the appearance of being right: former greens could confirm that the Iron Throne would only ever pass through male lines to male inheritors (and would also, hopefully, have a grandson of Aegon II as king to follow the Dragonbane), while former blacks could look approvingly at this last-surviving son of Rhaenyra taking the throne that she had claimed was hers.

Have we done this one already? This fandom is very large and very old. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has talked about this, however I haven't encountered it yet personally, so I'm typing it up myself.

I think Bran is going to enact The Ultimate Traditional Stark Beheading, that is, breaking the continent of Westeros at the Neck just as it was broken once before at the Arm of Dorne, and let me tell you why!

First off, background context on what exactly took place at the Arm of Dorne in the words of Maester Luwin:

"But some twelve thousand years ago, the First Men appeared from the east, crossing the Broken Arm of Dorne before it was broken. They came with bronze swords and great leathern shields, riding horses. No horse had ever been seen on this side of the narrow sea. No doubt the children were as frightened by the horses as the First Men were by the faces in the trees. As the First Men carved out holdfasts and farms, they cut down the faces and gave them to the fire. Horror-struck, the children went to war. The old songs say that the greenseers used dark magics to make the seas rise and sweep away the land, shattering the Arm, but it was too late to close the door." - AGOT Bran VII

Okay so, the shattering of entire landforms is within the capabilities of the greenseers. I think it's safe to assume that such a feat is not exactly a walk in the park— not only in terms of the magical cost, but in terms of judgement as well. Under what circumstances is it appropriate for a greenseer to split the continent? And where should they make that split geographically, assuming they have any precision at all? Is it possible to give any warning before sweeping the land out from under the feet of the living population? Are there motions of honor and tradition which the greenseer ought to adopt as they do this?

This question of judgement is presented to us in Bran's very first POV chapter. Many people have written about this to various ends before, but it's no accident that Bran's first-ever chapter centers around his initiation into the Stark execution traditions:

"Yet our way is the older way. The blood of the First Men still flows in the veins of the Starks, and we hold to the belief that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die."

As Ned goes on about this, his expectation that Bran will one day perform such a beheading himself is made clear to the reader. It's not a question of if, but when.

"One day, Bran, you will be Robb's bannerman, holding a keep of your own for your brother and your king, and justice will fall to you. When that day comes, you must take no pleasure in the task, but neither must you look away. A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is."

Blah blah blah, we know what happens after this, Bran becomes disabled by his fall and mourns the loss of his future as a warrior, you will never walk again but you will fly, etc etc.

The Three-Eyed Crow (whatever its true identity may be) shows Bran the Heart of Winter and tells him, "now you know why you must live." We understand that Bran is meant to wield his emerging magical abilities in the War For The Dawn; however, the specifics of how this is actually going to work are hazy at best. Bran is not Dany.

Like okay, bear with me for a second— Dany is a dragon rider. If threatened by a deathless, mindless horde of ice zombies, Dany is in a position to punch the problem directly in the face, so to speak. She can meet them in battle firstly, and secondly, the magic at her fingertips (fire) is a perfect counterweight to the Others (ice). Bran does not have access to either of these, and for this reason I expect that Bran's use of his own magic in the confrontation with the Others must necessarily entail, like, continual decision-making. Passing of judgement. Swinging of the sword.

Obviously there's a lot more to be filled-in here, but I just think that Bran's beheading of the entire continent at the Neck (it's literally CALLED the Neck, like that's about as subtle as a foghorn!) could aptly serve as the climax of his magic-arc towards the end of the series.

And he doesn't even have to actually do it, also! It could be equally as interesting if Bran were to agonize over the decision to swing the sword, and ultimately decide not to. For one thing, breaking the Neck would mean obliterating the Reeds' homeland. For another, if Bran owes it to a man to "look into his eyes and hear his final words," then how does this translate in a situation where Bran is not beheading one man but rather an entire landform? Whose eyes should he look into? Whose final words should he hear?

(prev tags @dragonseeds)

yeah, doing it to stop the Others from coming south, like cutting off an infected limb before it spreads to the heart. I am quite stoned right now but very excited as well and I have so many more (7) thoughts about this:

always very striking whenever areas on the map are named after body parts: the Arm of Dorne, the Neck, hmmmm what else?? OH the Greenblood. the HEART of Winter. anyway, the arm versus the neck. Clearly, life and magic on the continent of Westeros has managed to survive the loss of an arm, despite much diminishing. The loss of a head, though? Hmmmmmm.

The North is capped on either side by two fortifications dating back to the age of the First Men— the Wall in the north and Moat Cailin in the south— each of them only defends the North in their respective single direction. stay with me. in ADWD when Theon carries out the disarming of Moat Cailin, he finds his former brethren in a bleak as fuck state, etc etc, I could totally see something similar happening with Bran when he eventually crosses back south of the Wall. Like it would be so so cool for the Bran and Theon connection. And I think that like, given who Bran is in the broader scheme of the war for the dawn, the moment when he crosses back south again is going to have to be a major event in itself. (edit: AND another major event if Bran were pushed so far south as to have to cross Moat Cailin, that's where that thought was going)

Bran's magical abilities are kind of a huge puzzle no matter how you slice it. like, right out of the gate, we know they're for something (zombie apocalypse/climate change/whatever) but as we learn more both about Bran's magical abilities and about The Threat, the more it seems like, idk, like if you were asked to swim across the whole ocean and in order to help you achieve this, you are given a blowtorch and a gun. Like, okay. Those are two very powerful tools. But how the fuck are they supposed to help me swim across the ocean?? (I can see the suggestions being made in the similarities between skinchanging and re-animating the dead; or like, between climate change and becoming one with the trees, that's fine, I do see why Bran has the superpowers that he does. But like lmao.)

Possible issue with this theory: iirc the continent-breaking abilities of the greenseers are only brought up once. like, Bloodraven hasn't mentioned it at all (but he has only been around for a grand total of two chapters thus far, so maybe he just hasn't clicked that far through his powerpoint presentation yet. We gotta get through the whole Shiera-interlude first I'd assume.)

another possible "issue" if we even want to call it that, is the whole justice-angle of the traditional Stark beheading. That wouldn't really apply in the case of shredding your friends' homeland to stop the spread of the Others— i mean i guess you could get all socratic about it like oooohhhhhhh what is "justice"???? Do we not call "justice" that which is done for the "health" of the state????? pfft whatever. also I feel like that question would be better spent with another Stark character like Jon or Arya at this point in the story. (Not that it isn't Bran's "place" to think about justice at all, but I'd need a bit more of a build-up first, you know?)

oh, which side of the split is Bran himself going to be on in the moment, if he were to do this? Safely south of the Neck, or...?

(Continuation) Of course, it couldn't have been proven a 100%. Eddard Stark and Jon Arryn did a lot of research before they came to the conclusion that Cersei's children were not fathered by Robert, and Rhaenyra was also an Arryn through her mother (though her mother was half Targ), so it's theoretically possible that her kids could have gotten brown hair through their Arryn side. We see Targs in the future with brown or black hair.

Yes, I do think all three of Rhaenyra’s Velaryon sons were fathered by Harwin Strong. I think this conclusion is strongly (no pun intended) suggested by the text: the in-world authors all appear to agree that this was the case, while the narrative both consistently emphasizes Laenor’s lack of interest in Rhaenyra (or any women, especially compared to other men) and Rhaenyra’s closeness to Harwin Strong and very blatantly presents the specifically non-Valyrian appearance of Rhaenyra’s children without any attempt to justify such a look in the context of her marriage to Laenor. I don't think the author is trying to be obtuse or misleading here; he's presenting the most obvious conclusion with really no alternative explanation.

Now, because the conceit of Fire and Blood Volume 1 places the narrator (as well as the author) at arm’s length from the characters in the story, we don’t have a way of knowing exactly what was in Rhaenyra’s head when she decided to have children by Harwin Strong. Nor do we know to what extent Rhaenyra understood the risk of having children who might not (and in fact did not) look like either herself or her husband (although it seems that in-universe, the very obviously non-Valyrian appearance of her sons drew immediate comment on their potential illegitimacy). Rhaenyra herself certainly never did anything either to suggest that her sons were not the products of her marriage to Laenor or to explain their distinctly non-Valyrian appearance.

So if I were to guess, I would say that this choice was the conflation of the personal and political for Rhaenyra. From her early years, she had been feted and praised as the "Realm's Delight"; at the age of eight, she had been proclaimed heiress to the Iron Throne. Ostensibly, she was the most important person in the realm after her father, and should have the second-most power in the kingdom ... but when it came to the question of marrying and propagating the dynasty, Rhaenyra found that she had no more power than the least smallfolk woman. Viserys very bluntly equated her political rights with her willingness to breed with whomever he selected for her; all those years of being celebrated and dueled over by the greatest aristocrats in the realm suddenly evaporated in the face of the patriarchal Westerosi expectation that, as a woman, her first responsibility was to churn out the next generation of (male) royal heirs.

Worse, perhaps (at least in her mind), Rhaenyra had (male) familial examples which only contrasted with the expectations placed on her. Her father had flouted a politically convenient Velaryon marriage in order to marry Alicent Hightower for love, yet he expected her to make a politically convenient Velaryon marriage and not pursue a love affair of her own instead - and when she balked, he dared suggest that the eldest child of this love marriage would replace her dynastically. Her uncle Daemon, for his part, had abandoned his politically advantageous Royce marriage to take up with a mistress, but she was expected to be faithful to her politically advantageous Velaryon marriage and have no male equivalent of a mistress.

So I could see where someone like Rhaenyra might have been deeply offended at such a suggestion, and looked for a way to assert her power (or what she saw as her own power). If her father could flout a Velaryon marriage for his personal romantic/sexual happiness, then she would do the same (and with an aristocrat just as highborn - the Strongs might never have been kings, but they still boasted descent from the First Men, and since the days of Jaehaerys I ruled the mighty seat of Harrenhal). If her father had decided that she was no more than the vessel for future (male) royal heirs, then she would give him those male heirs - but fathered by the man she chose, getting their royal claim solely from her and not from the male dynast Viserys had selected to share her bed (just as Viserys' children by Alicent, whom he had used to threaten Rhaenyra into the Laenor marriage, boasted Targaryen descent only from Viserys, and not also from their mother as Rhaenyra did). Just as her uncle Daemon had flaunted his Lysene mistress, pointedly leaving Rhea Royce in the Vale to live (and fly) with Mysaria on Dragonstone, so Rhaenyra would flaunt her lover Harwin, leaving Laenor on Driftmark while she kept Harwin on as her sworn shield on Dragonstone (and even publicly gave him her favor at her wedding tourney).

People in the fandom never talk about how confirming R+L=J confirms the last treason. If you go back to the original book and look at the structure, Ned Stark hiding the last Targaryen child from King Robert's wrath was always supposed to be the central twist of the tale, "treason for love." It is hidden in the House of the Undying with the image of Prince Rhaegar murmuring Lyanna's name as he falls dying in the Trident. This is the one. Yet in their zeal to consider only R+L=J proving Jon Snow as Azor Ahai reborn, the prince that was promised, the guy with a sword, people always miss this.

"Serve the boar at my funeral feast," Robert rasped. "Apple in its mouth, skin seared crisp. Eat the bastard. Don't care if you choke on him. Promise me, Ned."

Tempted to actually put this on spotify so I can secretly stream it at work...

sort of. i would claim it only works briefly because the true mirroring is with the conqueror trio, there are other relationships that evoke aemon/naerys more easily. and the comparison here is less about the characters and more the archetypes they embody. he's interested in investigating gender relations within the chivalric paradigm and the knight & maiden story is his favoured medium for that because it provides the model of ideal behaviour to knights and noblewomen. naerys & aemon are perhaps the quintessential version of that story and the two other relationships that echo it are jaime & cersei and jon & arya, and i can guarantee you this is all deliberate! i know fandom has a habit of extrapolating from incidental similarities but that’s no reason to suddenly dismiss every historical parallel, especially since asoiaf does cyclical historical narratives as a way of commenting on the same patriarchal forces that shape these characters' lives hundreds of years apart. aemon & naerys have nothing in common with jaime & cersei in terms of personal character but they are all famously miserable people on account of embodying the role of the knight and the maiden.

naerys gets the usual fate of the noblewoman whose existence revolves around being sexually exploited for the reproduction of dynastic heirs and aemon is incapable of forswearing his kingsguard oaths to choose his sister over their brother and king, he ends up dying while protecting a despotic king and is remembered as this paragon of virtue while he does nothing to protect naerys. so my reading of the aegon iv - naerys - aemon narrative is that it’s an ugly but accurate representation of gender roles in westeros, the romance is not quite what it’s about.  jaime & cersei’s particular brand of misery also involves being forced to surrender their bodies to tywin as patriarch and robert/aerys as king (in his dream, jaime tells joanna “i am a knight and cersei is a queen” and she begins to weep), then there’s the thing that naerys is afforded sympathy as queen but cersei is maligned in the same position because she has ambitions and desires beyond being a septa plus jaime kills his own despotic king instead of dying for him and is reviled for it.

jon & arya are also playing out a version of the knight and maiden story except their relationship is founded on a rejection of/inability to conform to dominant chivalric ideals - if arya had remained in westeros she would’ve been resigned to naerys’s fate, as jeyne was in her place. (jeyne & theon also have a knight & maiden bit wherein they’re both victims: “All singers were half mad. In songs the hero always saved the maiden from the monster's castle. Life is not a song… and there are no heroes here; only whores.” but theon does save jeyne, just as she remembers his name) and then jon faces the same dilemma of the life of a girl against a kingdom (it’s a wedding/marriage he has to save his sister from, so an extremely blatant aemon/naerys bit because jon & arya have a lot of leftover romantic subtext from the original drafts) and instead of torturing himself by doing nothing, jon disavows his night’s watch oaths at 16 for the love he bears his sister (again, a contrast to “Jaime had joined the kingsguard [at 15] for love, of course.”) but then grrm does an inversion of the knight & maiden story here as jon fails at staging a rescue and in braavos arya says, “He sang about some stupid lady throwing herself off some stupid tower because her stupid prince was dead. The lady should go kill the ones who killed her prince”

in the context of jon & dany’s relationship, naerys/aemon/aegon iv becomes more about the targaryens’ family mythos of “the dragon must have three heads” originating in the conqueror trio—there’s the patriarch and his sisterwife whose body is required for dynastic continuity and the other sisterwife who’s the enforcer of dynastic violence, visenya’s sword has historically been wielded by second sons locked out from inheriting the throne and sacrificing your personal desires for the higher purpose of political expediency—for your king—is a kind of marriage as well. in the beginning dany's at the mercy of her brother/king and is resigned to the same fate as naerys. and she’s not even viserys’s queen, he sells her for an army. jon pledges his life and honour to the night’s watch by sacrificing all his personal desires and familial connections. the night’s watch, again, doesn’t have the reputation or the glamour of the kingsguard. but then viserys dies and dany goes from being someone’s sister, then wife, then mother to possessing authority in her own right and instead of simply dying in service to a terrible cause, jon is afforded enough power to begin reforming the night's watch in adwd. 

Lost a father traumatically at a young age, witnessed all kinds of god-knows-what horrors at a young age, became killers / child soldiers at a young age, reacted with a buildup of extreme anger (Arya is basically defined by her anger at many points, Sandor is all anger by the time we meet him) and a callous attitude towards the weak and helpless, but with a buried need to protect them (not nearly as buried in Arya’s case, but it depends on how recent her trauma is); broken idealists; skilled fighters (including excellent reflexes and instincts); perceptive and judgemental; resourceful and quick-witted; with a need to belong to some kind of “pack”, a hatred of liars, a tendency to think the system is stupid, etc. Sandor’s just far more jaded and cynical and brutal and has seen and done a lot more terrible things. (He became part of the system of brutality; Arya will hopefully avoid that fate.)

Literally how?! They certainly don’t have the destructive ability of nuclear weapons; AT BEST they reach the level of conventional bombers, and they probably were truly equivalent to those back in the Valyrian Empire, where there were hundreds of them. But in Westeros during the Targaryen era?! There’s never more than about a dozen of ridden dragons - which is another thing. A dragon without a rider is useless or worse. The ability to ride dragons is (intentionally, at least in part) confined within a single ruling family, and even that family relies on ancient knowledge from the now extinct civilization to even be able to use them. The destructive potential of the entire useable dragon population at any point in Targaryen history just doesn’t fucking compare to a fleet of bombers, though admittedly it doesn’t have to - since noone else has them and the only way to counteract them, that is, the Dornish scorpions, seems to be in limited supply, they can get much closer to their targets at ideal conditions (as opposed to conducting raids by night) and hit them with greater accuracy. As a nice bonus, the collateral damage they cause is actually lower, because they don’t have to destroy everything around them to make absolutely sure they hit their intended target. Either way, it’s absolutely preposterous to compare the destruction a dozen dragons can cause with an entire fucking nuclear arsenal.

They certainly don’t have the strategic implications that nukes carry - the one characteristic of nuclear warfare since its first and only uses on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is how much we AVOID using them in order to not make our rivals even think it’s acceptable to do the same. In fact, the mere possibility of using nukes is often used as a strategy - a concept known as nuclear deterrence (https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101/) You could maybe argue that the Targs are using dragons as deterrents too, at least internally - but that doesn’t mean that much, because a) internally, they are good deterrents, but guess what, so is a regular professional army of a stable modern state (which is a bit out of reach for medieval rulers, so dragons are a workable substitute); b) externally, they don’t seem to work all that well, see all the squabbling over Stepstones, where dragons did help in battles against the Free Cities, but they certainly didn’t deter them from fighting in the first place.

Lastly, the cultural view of dragons is very different. Again, there is no moral weight attached to them like there is in our world. People are certainly afraid of them, but aren’t appalled at the mere thought of using them at all and don’t claim owning them makes Targaryens as a whole complete monsters. Sure, Viserys in the show and I am sure some people in-universe can be apprehensive, but that doesn’t seem to be the majority opinion. In Westeros, dragons are simply particularly strong weapons used by one family of feudal lords to get ahead of their competitors, terrifying, but not any different in their moral implications from, say, ballistae. But many people still use that comparison in order to evoke those moral implications IN THE READER, no matter how stupid and inaccurate it is.

Which is ultimately what bugs me the most. The comparison is not only inaccurate, it’s lazy and shallow; it doesn’t tell us anything deeper about dragons in ASOIAF, and in fact it obfuscates not only our view of the dragons in this fictional universe (which while harmless is still annoying as fuck) but of nuclear weapons (and conventional bombers, for that matter) in real life.

Because yes, giant fire breathing reptiles are terrifying. But we, the people of the post-industrial age, have outdone them. Wars in our era regularly cause destruction that medieval lord, even fantasy ones owning magical beasts, could merely dream of - and the worst part is, we do not seem to even realize it.

Above is a technical breakdown and comparison of modern nuclear weapons to dragons specifically used as weapons. A very important first point is that dragons are unlike nuclear weapons in that they don’t cause mass destruction of left be. Favorite parts are about collateral damage and the observations about deterrent use.

Which is ultimately what bugs me the most. The comparison is not only inaccurate, it’s lazy and shallow; it doesn’t tell us anything deeper about dragons in ASOIAF, and in fact it obfuscates not only our view of the dragons in this fictional universe (which while harmless is still annoying as fuck) but of nuclear weapons (and conventional bombers, for that matter) in real life.

I said in the reblog of that post this post follows that the “dragons are nukes” take really ignores or doesn’t explore how dragons are rather more dualistic or complicated thematically than something to be feared.

Of course, a fire-breathing dragon is scary and destructive. A dragon by itself is pretty scary and similar to other predatory animals, can very easily kill a human(s) if it puts its mind to it or a human got in its way.

You also see dragons still being a part of several cultures: mythologies and religions, some of those in positive manners linked to fertility, prosperity, good leadership, wisdom, good weather, wealth, etc. (ancient China). It is mainly a large part of Europe where dragons are symbolic of greed, excess, evil, darkness, destruction, and oblivion and linked to the Devil in Christian mythology and yet many feudal coats of arms also included the dragon in their designs, representing the house. Dragons were never one-dimensional creatures even in places where their dominant symbolism is one of terror or a challenge to a human hero to become even greater through killing them. A device to test the strength and value of the warrior to his society and lord. Dragons are first symbolic of overwhelming power that can make great changes to the environments of the natural world as well as sociopolitical landscapes, and to some, this alone means evil.

Briefly, in ASoIaF and Fire & Blood, dragons represent freedom, especially for women, esp when the Targs assimilate more and more into FM/Andal Westerosi culture. And the Targ connection to dragons is mainly dependent on/runs parallel to female autonomy and less domestication of said dragons. We can even link the more sophisticated dragon domestication (what made dragons smaller and sicker and overall weaker until they died out, after and apart from the Dance) to the process and progression of Targ women’s oppression (Alysanne, Saera, Viserra, Rhaenyra, Daenerys Stormborn).

NonTarg women are excluded from this equation since they never had that level of personal and political freedom which Valyrian women and pre-Alysanne Targ women practiced. They are not Valyrian, dragonriders are “98%” of Valyrian descent, so they are not and never were dragonriders. Only some, speculatively, could become so if they were shown to be descended from those philandering Targs (“dragonseeds”). And we don’t know if Nettles was one of them or simply one in a 100,000 chance girl with the right approach and patience that could tell us how the very first Valyrians managed to approach dragons or anything like them (apart from magic). *EDIT 10/30/24* Yes we do, Nettles was most likely Dameon’s bio bastard daughter AND her tactic in basically just treating Sheepstealer as a living creature needing care and sustenance both refers to how the first Valyrians may have bonded with dragons AND Dany’s ingenuity. *END OF EDIT*

It is when a female dragonrider loses a major political conflict that we see the end of dragons, and the burgeoning of another who brings them back in threefold to bring dragons back. Meanwhile, after the Dance, it is at least twice that we hear of Targ men trying and failing to bring back dragons and the last one (Summerhall) ended in self-immolation and tragedy.

We may even count Aerion Brightflame, who thought to make himself a dragon, really transform into one by drinking wildfyre. Symbolically, that incident shows us how he and other Targs tried to reach inside himself and bring out that “dragon”, or claimed they already embodied one (Daeron I and Aerion have a similarity here). The force, and hopefully flexibility or adaptability, of their will itself (the symbolic and near-technical core, defining element of magic itself) defines what a “dragon” is. Whatever is part of human psychology, that stuff that enables humans to persist and pursue despite metaphorical, social, and physical barriers, that is what a “dragon” comes to mean in ASoIaF and Westerosi culture. We even see both Cersei and Tyrion Lannister look to dragons, Targs, and dragonriding as vehicles or symbols of personal freedom, happiness, love, and self-protection. Both dreamed of riding dragons or being linked to them in some way. Aemon the Dragonknight is lauded everywhere in Westeros for his constant loyalty to an evil king and skill, called one of the greatest knights….yet also rumored to be in love with his sister Naerys, which both conflicts with the Westerosi taboo of sibling marriage and easily pairs with the Andal courtly romance narrative of courtly lovers (a knight and his aristocratic female lover who he devotes his sword and entire being to protect and honor).

Viserys, Dany’s brother, called himself a dragon when he wanted to make an impression and especially when he wanted to suppress Dany’s words and actions, while he abused her, etc. It signifies his impotent rage, his anger at his own helplessness and his taking it out on his weaker sibling under his care. Yet Dany routinely calls herself or compares herself to a dragon to self-inspire strength and confidence in a seemingly impossible or insurmountable situation, to become a better leader and again, protect those she has taken under her care.

We saw how dragons enable Daenerys to not only protect herself but assure the abandoned members of Drogo’s khal are protected and allowed in several cities, even within those cities. How she frees the Unsullied and many other slaves. How enslaved Volantenes are actually waiting for her arrival. It’s gotten to a point were some fans are hoping/speculating that the word “dracarys” itself will and is becoming another word for “freedom” in-universe.

To become the prime warrior, fighter, defender, etc. to enact not only selfish or socially damaging changes, but also either simple protection of the realm or positive changes to infrastructure and systems (some of which are not Valyrian or Targ by origin, reminder).

We see Jaehaerys I abolish the right of first night (by the inspiration and insistence of Alysanne and Septon Barth), but how well could that have gone without dragons? The right of first night is an unadulterated aristocratic and patriarchal device of social control over women and peasant peoples using sexual violence that has been a FM, then generally Westerosi, practice for centuries BEFORE the Targs ever stepped foot in Westeros. Dragons and the promise of their flames were needed to enforce this abolishment. Aegon V wanted dragons to easier execute his plans for the smallfolk against the lords by using them to put their rebellions and intimidate the lords–as large armies tend to also do in real life and in ASoIaF. The Lannisters were partially feared for their massive army and ability to restock, so to speak. Although minette above specifies a modern army: “internally, they are good deterrents, but guess what, so is a regular professional army of a stable modern state (which is a bit out of reach for medieval rulers, so dragons are a workable substitute)”, it is also the presence of a working, organized, easily resupplied and confident, a large force of soldiers that could be used to intimidate enemies into not bothering to contest the commander/leader.

Yes, the Valyrians used dragons to destroy their opponents to then take the rest and enslave them. Textually, dragons receive that significance through human action though, and we know that human action itself is shaped and inspired by those circumstances and developments of the persons and their sociopolitical limitations. What they know and think they know. Slavery itself was not invented nor began with the Valyrians we know that the Ghiscari practiced slavery for years before the first Valyrian ever approached a dragon, thus slavery as a concept and practice was not first enabled by nor did it originate with humans practicing dragonriding. Dragonriding certainly enabled its continuance, but that was by the convenience and decision of the riders themselves, who like most humans of real history and the Andal-FM Westerosi lords only thought about power for themselves at the cost of those without that access to getting more power. The Westerosi lords would do similar if they had gotten their hands on dragons, so Valyrians, dragonriding, and dragons are not “by nature” evil and should not be treated as such. (The Queen Dowager Rhaena Targaryen’s interactions with the Lannisters of her time show how the lords were both not appalled nor hesitant in their desire for dragon control). That’s some ethnocentric bullshit.

All goes to show how female autonomy and the old ubiquitous mythology of the female ability to “make things grow by being present and involved” is necessary to the Valyrians and the Targs to themselves AND OTHERS be able to EITHER/BOTH overpower others quickly OR/AND destroy those who wish to abuse and victimize them/you/others. Destructiveness by itself is not evil–it is scary, but it also can be wielded and how it is wielded depends on the intentions of the wielder and what they think they could do or not do in any given circumstance. We see that in the ASoIaF universe, esp with Dany. That people really argue about dragons just being terrifying animals is frankly shortsighted and boring. It ignores that empowering element and easily slides into a misogynist view (again, dragons are inexorably linked to female autonomy, leadership, and happiness) when we see a woman as the center and/driver of the story AND the dragonrider enacting any sort of substantive change.

We can say that the cultural and textual meanings of dragons, empowerment, etc do not stay in one status of good or evil. So the fuck about “dragons are nukes”?!!

What minette said about the obsufaction of reading or knowing anything about dragons both in their technical reality within Westerosi history what they bring thematically really reaffirms the unfortunate online fan practice of flattening the fluidity of meaning in the original texts (esp fantasy) to become moral activists, or really, social media warriors of decency. In their work to do what they think is truth seeking, they really ignore the text and discourage others from looking at the dragons, Targs, etc apart from their own takes. Ironically suppressing any level of introspection or greater analysis or even practical empathy which fiction itself seeks to inspire in the reader when they pick up a book telling a story in a completely different universe. A different set of rules and reality with nevertheless similar core rules of human psychology and political circumstances (abuse, war, love’s many facets and appearances, etc.) which we may use and can’t help to compare to our own world. But a more sophisticated analysis of the world and its people, just like in real life to some degree if a smaller one, requires attention to detail and a willingness to put aside ones own desires & fears to inspect these characters’. But no, the “dragons are nukes” take has one totally submerged in fear. Which ultimately and ironically makes a person blind to nuance and subtext, less intelligent.

You certainly can have an opinion or a theory. Doesn’t mean that some opinions are not based on misperceptions, misinterpretations, ignorance, or incorrect information. Or that a theory doesn’t have serious flaws due to those same things.

My stepmother did NOT like the way her Libertarian Viking Neighbor framed pregnancy as the fetus "attacking the woman". She incredulously told him this was extremely disrespectful to expectant mothers to portray pregnancy as so violent and negative.

Libertarian Viking Neighbor's response was that people consensually hurt each other all the time, and "there's like a whole community about that, with the acronym the one that starts with a B" And his reasoning was that if the mother was consenting to bring attacked by the baby, it in fact wasn't violent and negative because there was consent.