AVRORA

I think George makes Danys fulfilment of the prophecy as clear as Rands fulfilment of the prophecy. She awakens the dragons from stone; beneath a bleeding star; amidst salt and smoke. She has her figurative rebirth. The fact this is so hotly debated in the ASOIAF fandom, whereas Rand being the Chosen One of his world, which I imagine isn’t a hot debate, is further evidence that any debate surrounding Dany=AA is mostly due to misogyny. This is something a lot of people in the fandom refuse to acknowledge. They can’t fathom that a girl who doesn’t wield a sword can be the hero of the story.

People state Dany = AA is “too obvious” (whilst simultaneously using that argument to state it isn’t her), that she isn’t a subversive enough choice. She IS the subversion. The Dragons are the subversion. It is not a secret, it is not a plot twist. When has the Chosen One prophecy ever been a secret throughout the majority of the series? How would that work? How could the author accomplish anything if it’s a mystery for the most part? Chosen One Tropes aren’t mysterious. It defeats the purpose of the trope. They are known. And frankly, Dany isn’t even recognised in the world in a widespread fashion as the chosen one. It’s the audience and a few characters that know.

With WoT, the mystery in relation to the Chosen One, is if he’ll succumb to the madness; stay with the Light or go to the dark, that was Jordan’s choice of subversion, in ASOIAF, George chooses to subvert with gender and no literal sword at play (however we do see a play on Exacalibur- pulling dragons from stone). The mystery is how in the FUCK do we get our Hero to Westeros whilst she is hellbent on ending an oppressive regime and having a hard time ending it. THAT is the struggle. That is the mystery.

she deserves to plant her trees and to watch her kingdom grow. she deserves to eat lemoncakes and watch her dragons grow bigger and bigger until she is wrinkly and happy. she deserves to save the world and wield a sword and get her happily ever after with a loving family with someone who loves her, and her castle should be filled with the sound of her children giggling and their cousins laughing. she deserves to learn about the good her family did and not just the bad. she deserves to see her targaryen name mean something good.

ASOIAF:

HOTD:

"They enslaved our people"

Bro they literally just introduced another level of aristocracy onto an already existing feudal aristocracy, and the underpinning exploitation and oppression of peasants continued as it always had done.

Unless by "our people" you mean your fellow lords and ladies*, and by "enslaved" you mean "the great houses now have to answer to a higher house, the same way the smaller houses already had to answer to the great houses above them".

*On that note, I've got to imagine that when that old woman gave Egg his fortune and said "all who know you will rejoice in your death" she was mainly referring to the other nobility who resented his pro-smallfolk reforms.

Raymun brings up the Field of Fire, but not the fact that vast majority of the men who died were forced to be there against their will. The nobility commanded them onto that field with the expectation that most would die a bloody and gruesome death. This isn't a DEFENCE of the Field of Fire - but why should oppression by non-Targaryens be viewed as morally superior to oppression by Targaryens?

Take Septon Meribald's Broken Man speech:

Would the plight of the Broken Man be worse if the Lords who exploited him was also an 'incestuous alien'? Or does it make zero material difference? I don't care if they're an incestuous alien, what's the price of eggs?

Meanwhile when the Targaryen's first arrived there was actual slavery taking place in the Riverlands under Ironborn rule:

Hence why the Riverlords eagerly sided with the Targaryens and most likely saw them as liberators:

Generations previously, they had also sided with the Ironborn against the Durrandons when they had been the conquerors ruling over them.

Fear of Ironborn expansion was also why Argilac Durrandon initially invited House Targaryen to take buffer lands between the Stormlands and the Riverlands in the first place.

And because I know this criticism is coming - yes the argument of "the savages were already fighting/enslaving each other anyway" was used to justify imperialism and colonialism. But the Targaryens of Dragonstone (unlike their Valyrian ancestors, unlike the Ghiscari, unlike the Tigers of Volantis - all explicitly identified as imperialist) did not practice imperialism or colonialism. There was no extraction of resources and slaves from a Westerosi periphery to an imperial Valyrian homeland, there was no displacement or cleansing of Westerosi to make way for Valyrian settler colonialism, there was no erasure of Westerosi culture, there was no racial coding of the westerosi as second class citizens.

Just same feudal trash, different feudal trash can.

Lords from the Westerlands, Riverlands, Stormlands, the North etc alike base their wealth and privilege on the labour of the smallfolk, obtained through violence or the threat of violence. And all these lords conscripted smallfolk to fight in their conflicts over power and land - so no Raymun, House Targaryen is not uniquely guilty of dragging people into their wars. The Blackwood-Bracken feud, the mass drowning of civilians at Castamere by Tywin Lannister, the succession crises in the Vale, the WAR OF THE FIVE KINGS* - all non-Targaryen conflicts in which the smallfolk have suffered for infighting amongst the nobility.

(*Honestly, if Joffrey Baratheon had been a normal well-meaning kid like Tommen, would you have been rooting for Ned or Stannis at all? Ned would be the villain for not leaving well-enough alone - endangering a child and risking a war over a lack of a biological relation to King Robert. If Joffrey and the Lannisters weren't cruel or sadistic tyrants, we wouldn't really care).

Conflicts such as the Dance weren't just a case of Targaryen infighting either. House Hightower was the driving force, as was every other house that had a vested interest in the outcome of the Dance. Upholders of the patriarchy weren't dragged against their will; they joined the war on a particular side because they wanted to uphold the patriarchy. Had they not answered the Green's call then the coup would have fizzled out and failed.

Other houses joined the war because they wanted to uphold law and order - Houses Arryn and Stark had both experienced coups by relatives and had a vested interest in ensuring the greens did not set a successful precedent. War is a corollary of a feudal monarchy - the nobility will inevitably go to war to secure the foundations of their continued wealth and status, to secure the continued stability of their own inheritance.

Same with the Blackfyre rebellion - that wasn't just another case of Targaryen siblings fighting. It was the other lords who supported one claim over the other and decided they were willing to conscript their peasants into a war for it - and their decision to fight for Daemon Blackfyre stemmed in large part from racism and misogyny and Daemon being their preferred Strongman:

And yes, dragons gave the Targaryens a greater capacity for violence and coercion than the other nobility. The issue with this "dragon nukes" argument is that it assumes that the greater capacity for violence is worse than the actual violence. 100,000 civilians died in the firebombing of Tokyo - is that less of a war crime than the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was the firebombing of Tokyo more moral? Are the war crimes Arya witnessed on the road to Harrenhal more moral because a Lannister did them rather than a Targaryen? Does murder and oppression become more moral if less efficient tools of violence are used?

Dragons are not nukes - dragons are power and violence. And power and violence can be a tool of oppression and of liberation. That's why Egg tried to hatch dragons for his pro-smallfolk reforms, that's why Dany is a breaker of chains, that's why the first time GRRM ever wrote the phrase 'fire and blood' it was this abolitionist speech in Fevre Dream:

First, it’s funny how this anti considers that Dany smashing ants is a sign of her being evil, when Sansa has a thought like this:

Around the walls the hosts of Lords Declarant were stirring, emerging from their tents like ants from an anthill. If only they were truly ants, she thought, we could step on them and crush them. - Alayne I AFFC

How are these same people not saying that Sansa is evil and will massacre innocents too? I mean, Dany woke up with actual ants attacking her, and killed them to defend herself. Meanwhile, Sansa is wishing that the lords, ACTUAL PEOPLE, were ants, so she could kill them all. But DANY is the evil one????

I don’t think any of this is foreshadowing of either Dany or Sansa being evil, btw. At most, you could try to claim that these moments are meant to be symbolic of how easy it is to distance yourself from violence and forget about the actual people. And this is actually much more clear in Sansa’s passages than in Dany’s. But even if this is the case and this is the actual symbolism, it still doesn’t mean that any of them will actually do anything, it could simply be a reflection on the subject.

Like… has it ever occurred to this person that maybe the ants are just there to showcase Dany’s struggle being in the wild? Together with the hunger, the thirst, the sickness, etc, the ants are there to show that Dany is having a hard time. And Dany kills the ants because the ants are biting her.

If the ants are meant to be symbolism for anything, there’s a much more obvious symbolism right there:

The next morning she woke stiff and sore and aching, with ants crawling on her arms and legs and face. When she realized what they were, she kicked aside the stalks of dry brown grass that had served as her bed and blanket and struggled to her feet. She had bites all over her, little red bumps, itchy and inflamed. Where did all the ants come from? Dany brushed them from her arms and legs and belly. She ran a hand across her stubbly scalp where her hair had burned away, and felt more ants on her head, and one crawling down the back of her neck. She knocked them off and crushed them under her bare feet. There were so many … It turned out that their anthill was on the other side of her wall. She wondered how the ants had managed to climb over it and find her. To them these tumbledown stones must loom as huge as the Wall of Westeros. The biggest wall in all the world, her brother Viserys used to say, as proud as if he’d built it himself. - Daenerys X ADWD

Dany, in self defense (because the ants were biting her), kills ants that climbed over a wall that she compares to the Wall of Westeros? Is there a more obvious symbolism for Dany fighting against the Others? Hell, if this is symbolism for anything, it’s symbolism of Dany being a hero.

Day 5 : Unification

Georgian Daenerys and Jon 🇬🇪

DAENERYS TARGARYEN APPRECIATION MONTH 2022|| Day 15: Embodiment of hope

Daenerys is prophesied to bring exactly what Jorah tells her that the smallfolk pray for (“a summer that never ends”), which just goes to show that she’s the answer to their prayers:

“The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends,” Ser Jorah told her. “It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace.” He gave a shrug. “They never are.” (AGOT, Daenerys III)

~

“Her. Daenerys?”

Haldon nodded. “Benerro has sent forth the word from Volantis. Her coming is the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy. From smoke and salt was she born to make the world anew. She is Azor Ahai returned … and her triumph over darkness will bring a summer that will never end … death itself will bend its knee, and all those who die fighting in her cause shall be reborn … (ADWD, Tyrion VI)

For Robert, it was the fact she could birth more “dragonspawn”, for Viserys, it is an army in which to conquer his father’s throne, for Drogo, it is the ability for her to give him children and serve as his sex slave whenever he desires; for Euron and Young Griff, it is her dragons. This same train of thought tends to be exuberated by the fandom at large with ideas that Jon and potentially Tyrion would claim Daenerys’ dragons. Daenerys is often regulated as the same “gift-tool” often presented in literature where female characters exist to be gifts or tools for the male hero to use to win against the great evil (displayed in story with Nissa Nissa’s sacrifice). There is no real attempt to met out Daenerys’ character at her own, instead the dangers or uses she can provide for other, mostly male characters, with often ideas that she will be put down like a rabid dog because of some “female hysteria” that does not exist and her corpse to be the stepping stone upon which a man can fulfill his destiny.

We are now going back in terms of feminism and equality for all. Humans are becoming more racist, more homophobic, more misogynistic and more idiotic as a whole.

But the ASoIaF fandom for what I have heard (or read) has always been very misogynistic, but it got way worse after GoT. The treatment and understanding of Dany has only been muddied by the idiots who made GoT and people's own brain-rotting misogyny.

Now, her end was horrible. But I honestly don't think Dany would have killed her had she only killed Drogo. She literally debates with herself what life is worth, and decides to bring life from Mirri's and Drogo's death (and her own sacrifice)

And Bran hears him

Wow. Wow. I am the one that is biased, clearly *sarcasm*. Also notice how this anti doesn’t provide a single book quote to support their wild claims.

“The only reason Dany took Astapor was for an army”

Then why did she free the Unsullied when she didn’t need to? Then why did she delay her invasion of Westeros to stay in Slaver’s Bay freeing slaves? Then why did she refuse Yunkai’s gold, Xaro’s ships, Quentyn’s alliance, all things that would have been given freely to her if she decided to leave, and instead chose to stay to ensure people’s freedom? Also, see this meta:

https://rainhadaenerys.tumblr.com/post/182893726737/tatticstudio55-i-didnt-think-id-have-the#notes

“She was ok with Drogo selling the Lhazareen into slavery, she said it was the price of the Iron Throne”.

Dany was a 14 years old girl who had no experience on war. Antis like to say that Dany convinced Drogo to invade knowing that he was going to enslave people to do it, but this is not an argument supported by the text at all. When Dany asks Drogo to help her take the Seven Kingdoms, no one mentions the need to sell slaves:

The khal’s mouth twisted in a frown beneath the droop of his long mustachio. “The stallion who mounts the world has no need of iron chairs.”

Dany propped herself on an elbow to look up at him, so tall and magnificent. She loved his hair especially. It had never been cut; he had never known defeat. “It was prophesied that the stallion will ride to the ends of the earth,” she said.

“The earth ends at the black salt sea,” Drogo answered at once. He wet a cloth in a basin of warm water to wipe the sweat and oil from his skin. “No horse can cross the poison water.”

“In the Free Cities, there are ships by the thousand,” Dany told him, as she had told him before. “Wooden horses with a hundred legs, that fly across the sea on wings full of wind.”

Khal Drogo did not want to hear it. “We will speak no more of wooden horses and iron chairs.” He dropped the cloth and began to dress. “This day I will go to the grass and hunt, woman wife,” he announced as he shrugged into a painted vest and buckled on a wide belt with heavy medallions of silver, gold, and bronze.

“Yes, my sun-and-stars,” Dany said. Drogo would take his bloodriders and ride in search of hrakkar, the great white lion of the plains. If they returned triumphant, her lord husband’s joy would be fierce, and he might be willing to hear her out. - Daenerys VI ADWD

That’s it. That’s the moment Dany asks Drogo to help her take the Seven Kingdoms. There’s no mentions of selling slaves at all in their conversation. We don’t even know if Dany is aware or not of what taking the Seven Kingdoms is going to take. Given how young and inexperienced she is, it doesn’t seem like she gave much thought about the ugly aspects of war at all. Besides, it’s only after the wineseller tries to poison Dany that Drogo mentions that he will rape women and enslave children in Westeros, and at this point, Dany doesn’t have much of a say, because Drogo didn’t decide to invade Westeros because Dany asked. He decided to invade Westeros because the lives of wis wife (his property) and his son were threatened. This is an affront to his honor, his decision has nothing to do with pleasing Dany, so if she asks him to give up on invading Westeros, he won’t do it (just like he wouldn’t invade Westeros just because he asked). Dany didn’t seem to be aware of what taking Westeros back with Drogo would take, and after she finds out, she doesn’t really have the power to stop it.

And saying that Dany was ok with enslaving the Lhazareen is a blatant lie:

I am the blood of the dragon, Daenerys Targaryen reminded herself as she turned her face away. She pressed her lips together and hardened her heart and rode on toward the gate.

“Most of Ogo’s riders fled,” Ser Jorah was saying. “Still, there may be as many as ten thousand captives.”

Slaves, Dany thought. Khal Drogo would drive them downriver to one of the towns on Slaver’s Bay. She wanted to cry, but she told herself that she must be strong. This is war, this is what it looks like, this is the price of the Iron Throne.

“I’ve told the khal he ought to make for Meereen,” Ser Jorah said. “They’ll pay a better price than he’d get from a slaving caravan. Illyrio writes that they had a plague last year, so the brothels are paying double for healthy young girls, and triple for boys under ten. If enough children survive the journey, the gold will buy us all the ships we need, and hire men to sail them.”

Behind them, the girl being raped made a heartrending sound, a long sobbing wail that went on and on and on. Dany’s hand clenched hard around the reins, and she turned the silver’s head. “Make them stop,” she commanded Ser Jorah. - Daenerys VII AGOT

Dany has little say in what’s happening here, little agency. She is just the wife of the khal, and what he decides is what happens. This is the very first time Dany is seeing the Dothraki attack anyone (before this, she was just traveling through the Dothraki Sea to Vaes Dothrak). And she is horrified by what she is seeing. Antis love to take the line “this is the price of the Iron Throne” out of context, but looking at the context in which the line is said tells us a very different story: when Dany says “this is war, this is the price of the Iron Throne”, she’s not saying it because she’s ok with slavery. Quite the opposite: she hates what she’s seeing, and she says this to convince herself that she doesn’t care, to tell herself to be strong. But it doesn’t work, Dany can’t look past the awful things that she is seeing, and only two paragraphs later, she starts trying to save as many women as she can, in the only way she can: by claiming those women for herself.

By the way, Dany puts herself at a huge risk by trying to protect those women, because she is defying Drogo’s men. When her khas goes to enforce her order, the Dothraki fight, and some men die trying to defend their rights to the spoils of war. Many of the men look at her with cold eyes. These men try to complain to the khal about this, and when Drogo dies and Dany loses the protection of his authority, Dany is in grave danger.

Also see this meta:

https://rainhadaenerys.tumblr.com/post/186687986788/adamparrush-dany-burning-mirri-maaz-duur-alive#notes

“Dany was murdering children in Astapor”

This is just bad reading comprehension, or this person is trying to distort things. Dany didn’t order the killing of children. She ordered only masters and soldiers to be killed, those actively fighting against her to keep slavery. She tell them not to harm any child below 12 to avoid the Unsullied killing innocents. Also, saying “don’t kill anyone under 12″ is not the same thing as saying “kill everyone over 12″, stupid anti.

Also, see this meta:

https://rainhadaenerys.tumblr.com/post/184630644137/hi-i-really-enjoy-your-blog-and-your-meta-i#notes

“Dany didn’t want the entire caravan from Astapor and Yunkai to follow her”

That’s a really dishonest distortion of the facts. This is what Dany actually says:

The raggle-taggle host of freedmen dwarfed her own, but they were more burden than benefit. Perhaps one in a hundred had a donkey, a camel, or an ox; most carried weapons looted from some slaver’s armory, but only one in ten was strong enough to fight, and none was trained. They ate the land bare as they passed, like locusts in sandals. Yet Dany could not bring herself to abandon them as Ser Jorah and her bloodriders urged. I told them they were free. I cannot tell them now they are not free to join me. She gazed at the smoke rising from their cookfires and swallowed a sigh. She might have the best footsoldiers in the world, but she also had the worst. - Daenerys IV ASOS

Dany says that the freedmen are a burden. She is simply stating a fact, the freedmen are a burden. But she refuses to abandon them as her advisors urged, because she freaking cares about them, you idiot.

“The pile of bodies was high when she took Meereen”

Of course the pile of bodies was high! A battle to take the city just happened! Usually, when there’s a battle, people die, and there are bodies. I guess this idiot must think that Jon and Robb won all of their battles without killing a single soul. Let’s just pretend that none of Robb’s victories had any pile of bodies. Like, wow. What kind of argument even was this?

“They don’t talk about the torturing of the wineseller’s daughter”

Another blatantly lie. I do talk about the torture of the wineseller’s daughters in my books vs show meta, let me quote what I wrote here:

4) Then, after Dany executes Mossador in the name of a fair trial, she decides to throw “fair trial” out of the window by feeding one of the slavers to her dragons for revenge. This is something that never happens in the books. The closest we have to a problematic action like this is when Dany allows the wineseller’s daughters to be tortured. But this isn’t anywhere near as dark as feeding people to her dragons, for various reasons: 1) because Dany’s actions in the books are inserted in a context in which torture is seen as a normal and legitimate means of investigation by the society. Dany is not the only one that does this, and even honorable Jon Snow considers throwing Janos Slynt in an ice cell to force him to comply, and later throws Cregan Karstark in one. So Dany’s actions in the books are lawful, while in the show, they are not; 2) because Dany was trying to investigate. She was angry about what happened, but revenge was not the only motivation; 3) in the books, Dany learns a lesson from this and becomes the only ruler in ASOIAF to explicitly forbid torture.

Another thing that makes the dragon feeding scene so bad is that Dany tells the masters that she doesn’t care who’s innocent or not. But book Daenerys does care about it:

“We have no proof this is their work. Would you have me slaughter my own subjects?” – Daenerys IV ADWD

Feeding people to her dragons in the show was a criminal action taken by show Dany, and it was made out of revenge, with show Dany saying that she doesn’t care about innocence. This is very different from Dany in the books, and much much darker.

“They don’t talk about Dany enslaving people once she becomes queen”

I don’t talk about this because this never happened. Dany does allow people to sell themselves back into slavery, but only if they want to, and she very clearly doesn’t want to allow it:

Dany was shocked. “They want to be slaves?”

“The ones who come are well spoken and gently born, sweet queen. Such slaves are prized. In the Free Cities they will be tutors, scribes, bed slaves, even healers and priests. They will sleep in soft beds, eat rich foods, and dwell in manses. Here they have lost all, and live in fear and squalor.”

“I see.” Perhaps it was not so shocking, if these tales of Astapor were true. Dany thought a moment. “Any man who wishes to sell himself into slavery may do so. Or woman.” She raised a hand. “But they may not sell their children, nor a man his wife.” - Daenerys VI ASOS

Dany does this because she thinks it’s for the best. Because people convince her that otherwise, those people will live in fear and squalor. But she makes it very clear that no one is allowed to force another person into slavery. And actually, the majority of the former slaves choose to remain free. I write in more detail about this here:

https://rainhadaenerys.tumblr.com/post/182694132667/do-the-slaves-of-westeros-really-want-danys-help#notes

“They don’t talk about how Dany treated Irri”

You mean how Irri started to have sex with Dany on her own free will without Dany ever asking her? You mean how Dany treats Irri wih dignity, respects her consent, and makes it very clear to Irri that she doesn’t have to have sex with her if she doesn’t want it?

“Should I pleasure the khaleesi?"Dany stepped away from her. "No. Irri, you do not need to do that. What happened that night, when you woke … you’re no bed slave, I freed you, remember? You …” - Daenerys II ASOS

Talk all you want about power difference, but Dany respected Irri’s consent, she treated her with dignity.

See also this meta:

https://rainhadaenerys.tumblr.com/post/187867805480/hiya-mindset-love-your-blog-i-was-reading#notes

And they continued on their bullshit:

They repeat a lot of the stuff I already refuted here, but there are some more:

“Jorah killed Rhaego, not MMD”

Mirri Maz Duur admits she killed Rhaego when Dany accuses her:

Dany gestured at Ser Jorah and the others. “Leave us. I would speak with this maegi alone.” Mormont and the Dothraki withdrew. “You knew,” Dany said when they were gone. She ached, inside and out, but her fury gave her strength. “You knew what I was buying, and you knew the price, and yet you let me pay it.”

“It was wrong of them to burn my temple,” the heavy, flat-nosed woman said placidly. “That angered the Great Shepherd.”

“This was no god’s work,” Dany said coldly. If I look back I am lost. “You cheated me. You murdered my child within me." 

"The stallion who mounts the world will burn no cities now. His khalasar shall trample no nations into dust.” - Daenerys IX AGOT

MMD killed an innocent child for revenge, and to prevent a supposed future. She admits it.

“She said to kill everyone in a tokar, this is every freeborn”

No, the tokar is not worn by every freeborn. The tokar is a master’s garment, and it makes it impossible to work. Those who wore it are only those who have the wealth and power and don’t have to work, aka, the freaking slave masters:

The garment was a clumsy thing, a long loose shapeless sheet that had to be wound around her hips and under an arm and over a shoulder, its dangling fringes carefully layered and displayed. Wound too loose, it was like to fall off; wound too tight, it would tangle, trip, and bind. Even wound properly, the tokar required its wearer to hold it in place with the left hand. Walking in a tokar demanded small, mincing steps and exquisite balance, lest one tread upon those heavy trailing fringes. It was not a garment meant for any man who had to work. The tokar was a master’s garment, a sign of wealth and power. - Daenerys I ADWD

Ugh. Then they went on:

Again, this freaking obsession antis have to convince people that they loooooove Daenerys. I could go on refuting this idiot, but it can be summed up in “You Dany stans can’t see things objectively, I’m the only one that uses logic, blah, blah, blah”. They go on to complain that Dany killed soldiers (none of their faves ever killed soldiers, right?), to say that Dany killed slaves and freed people (no, she didn’t), that you can’t see things in black and white and divide the situation into slavers and slaves (I guess they’re trying to say that Dany is bad for killing some supposedly nice slavers), blah, blah blah.

Compared to Daenerys, Jon is, perhaps, a less obvious villain subversion since he so easily fits the hero archetype, what with his special sword and his secret royal lineage. Still, it’s worth remembering that John the Bastard is the name of the baddie in Much Ado About Nothing. The first time I read A Game of Thrones and reached this description of Robb and Jon –

Jon’s eyes were a grey so dark they seemed almost black but there was little they did not see. He was of an age with Robb but they did not look alike. Jon was slender where Robb was muscular, dark where we was fair, graceful and quick where his half brother was strong and fast … they galloped off down the trail, Robb laughing and hooting, Jon silent and intent. – A Game of Thrones

– it reminded me so strongly of Marvel’s Thor and Loki that I thought Martin was setting Jon up for a tragic villain arc. Of course, my suspicions dissipated as I read on further but it is remarkable just how much of Jon’s upbringing feels like a villain backstory, being raised on the periphery of a family that wasn’t truly his own, side by side with a favored half-brother. And surely, out of context, the image of a dark-haired, black-clad man with a red-eyed wolf inspires more nefarious assumptions than benign. Then, of course, there’s his supposed illegitimate birth. Bastardy may not mean much anymore in the 21st century but, as with female sexuality, many of our archetypes and storytelling conventions remain steeped in the cultural values of long ago. Jon had every excuse to become the villain of the piece and yet he didn’t.

[…]

It’s difficult to address archetypal subversion when we, as a culture, are at such an introspective phase in our storytelling, where it’s no longer groundbreaking if the princess takes the romantic initiative with her prince, if the dragon is written with pathos or if the hero has a dark side. “Witches can be right, giants can be good. You decide what’s right. You decide what’s good.” That lyric from Into the Woods is thirty-one years old.