image

samwpmarleau

replied to your post

“nobodysuspectsthebutterfly
replied to your post “I am an Elia fan…”

A conspiracy theory I’ve pondered (but doubt actually happened) is that it was Pycelle who examined her and declared her incapable. Not because she actually was but because he was pro-Lannister and perhaps if Elia was deemed unable to have more kids (a tragic “accident” befalling Aegon and/or Rhaenys, ofc) Rhaegar would be persuaded to set her aside in favor of younger, healthier Cersei, especially in exchange for Tywin helping dethrone Aerys. A plan which then backfired SPECTACULARLY.

I too am highly skeptical of this theory. My first issue with it is a question of access. Elia and Rhaegar took residence on Dragonstone after their wedding while Pycelle, by virtue of his position as Grand Maester, was in King’s Landing. While I guess it’s possible for him to have made the trip to Dragonstone for the delivery considering Elia’s station, I really doubt that Aerys cared enough to send him and I doubt that Pycelle himself made the suggestion considering Aerys’ feelings about both Rhaegar and Elia, especially after the “smells Dornish” awfulness. So I highly doubt that Elia was ever placed under Pycelle’s care while on Dragonstone. But even if she had, Pycelle wouldn’t have been her sole or even primary caretaker. Noble households have their own maester(s) and I don’t discount the possibility that the Princess of Dorne took the initiative to include a maester in the retinue that accompanied Elia to court, considering her knowledge of Elia’s health issues and since it’d be useful if someone who was familiar with Elia’s condition was on hand to look after her. So while it’s possible that the maester that looked after Elia during her pregnancy would have conceded his position as the lead in her delivery out of respect for Pycelle’s position, I highly doubt he’d have left her care completely to the Grand Maester. Elia’s health complications probably ensured that the person who had been her primary physician over the course of her pregnancy would have definitely

been involved since he knew her case better than anyone, and I reckon that there might have been multiple trained professionals in the room anyway considering the difficulty of Elia’s deliveries. Pycelle can’t pass a bogus diagnosis of that magnitude right under everyone’s noses under these circumstances.

Another issue I have with this theory is that it involves way too many shifting pieces and requires more involvement than Pycelle was capable of. He can’t well arrange accidents for the children if he was in another city, and we’ve gotten no indication that he was conspiring with someone else to do it. And if he had this plan in his back-pocket, why wait till Aegon was born and everything got more complicated? Why wait till he had to sell two murders as accidents instead of just one? Rhaenys came to King’s Landing as an infant so why didn’t he act when she was within his reach?

Finally there is what Jon Connington says which I consider the most conclusive piece of evidence against this theory. While thinking of Elia, he says that “the maesters” told Rhaegar that Elia could bear no more children. Connington knew Pycelle and would have used the Grand Maester’s name if he was the source of the diagnosis. Also, his wording suggests that this was the conclusion of multiple people, not just one maester whoever he was. So while Pycelle might have had the motive in being the biggest Tywin fanboy this side of Kevan Lannister, his means were pretty limited and his opportunity almost non-existent.

That is too many words arguing against a theory you already disbelieve but I regret nothing.

kat8porgs:

blackphoenix1977:

toast-potent:

this post is a roller coaster, not in the way that people call wild posts “roller coasters,” but in the way that i knew something was up when i started reading the first paragraph, it was like the track slowly rising up, the wording just tipped me off, i knew there was going to be a serious drop that was going to give me whiplash, but when it arrived i still wasn’t ready for it

Is this real or one of those weird “Fucked by a T-Rex” porn books you find on Amazon or whatever?

Look, I’ve read far too many of those books and none of them contain this level of self-awareness.

I have a question, why a degree 6? What’s the difference between a degree 6 and a degree 1?

What happens to the Dance if all of Alicent’s children and grandchildren die before Viserys? No other candidates? Jace and his brothers maybe ‘bastards’ but they are dragonrders and the acknowledged heirs of Rhaenyra. I doubt Daemon is going to be doin

Daemon is not letting Jace sit the throne. He has two trueborn children in the would be Aegon III and Viserys II to install instead. A few unfortunate accidents for the Velaryon princes would do the trick. That is if Daemon himself doesn’t challenge Rhaenyra for the throne or has her killed.

Isn’t it also ridiculous to blame Rhaegar for Elia’s death? Like POD Rhaegar wasn’t psychic he could not have foreseen what would happen to Elia.

(Follow up to this)

I was expecting this message. Fandom did not disappoint.

This is a blatantly false equivalence that I’m more than happy to debunk. The Princess of Dorne and Rhaegar do not remotely exist in the same position on the simple basis that Princess of Dorne had absolutely nothing to do with the sequences of events that ended in Elia’s murder. Rhaegar, on the other hand, was not only a proactive party, he was

the person who started that sequence of events when he crowned Lyanna Stark as queen of love and beauty at Harrenhal. It’s Rhaegar’s decisions, both in his action and inaction, that spurred the whole tragedy. He instigated the events and literally created the conflict that put his wife and kids in jeopardy. That is why Rhaegar is culpable. Elia’s confinement in King’s Landing did not happen in a vacuum. You can not separate it from the events at Harrenhal and how Rhaegar chose to conduct his “affair” with Lyanna. Harrenhal was a turning point in the story not only because it marked the tension in Rhaegar’s relationship with the Starks and Robert Baratheon or because it was the beginning of the Rhaegar/Lyanna narrative. It’s also significant because it had quite a lot to do with ramping up Aerys’ paranoia which probably contributed to his overt reaction to the Starks and to Elia and her children.

Aerys had been long suspicious of Rhaegar by the time of the tourney of Harrenhal but the tourney still marks a significant development in his reaction towards Rhaegar and Tywin, the two parties he suspected of conspiring against him. In one fell swoop, Aerys foiled whatever plans Rhaegar had for the tourney (assuming that the reports about the true purpose of the tourney is correct) and procured a valuable hostage in Jaime Lannister. That makes it clear that Aerys’ suspicions towards Rhaegar had taken a more tangible form if he’d left the Red Keep for the first time in years specifically to block Rhaegar’s plans. And that he’d moved to taking hostages against those he suspected. These are hard facts that Rhaegar should have taken into account when deciding the next step. Instead, Rhaegar inexplicably crowned Lyanna in front of everyone, which was then painted by Aerys’ lackeys as the crown prince trying to win the allegiance of Winterfell as a prelude to Aerys’ own usurpation. For Rhaegar to then vanish with Lyanna was the absolute worst thing to do and certainly more than enough to rile Aerys up after the fiasco at Harrenhal and make his suspicion of his wayward heir skyrocket.

These are not future events that no one could have predicted. This is information that Rhaegar knew and a conflict that he created.

With this kind of information, one needn’t be a psychic to understand that leaving Elia and the children vulnerable on Dragonstone when Rhaegar had done his damnest to make Aerys suspicious of him (including taking Arthur freaking Dayne of all people with him . A pro-Rhaegar Dornishman whose sister was Elia’s lady-in-waiting and who had a connection to the Starks that could be traced back to Harrenhal? That would not look suspicious at all in the eyes of a paranoid king.) Rhaegar had every piece of information needed to

at the very damn least

make him wary of his father’s reaction and careful to put safeguards for Elia and the children. He didn’t. That’s strike one.

Strike two is far more damning. It’s one thing to fail to act on information you have to plan accordingly, and a whole other thing to return to your wife and kids being held hostage by your own father and do nothing about it. Rhaegar knew Elia and his children were hostages and he still rode out with almost all of the remaining Kingsguard, including his wife’s uncle, and left them behind with his father. Actually no, let’s go back further because Rhaegar probably knew that Elia and the children were hostages while still in Dorne and still chose to leave three Kingsguard (whose allegiance clearly belonged to him) behind. And let me preemptively block the argument that Elia was only a hostage after the trident because I’m not impressed with that argument at all. Why the hell would Aerys make Elia go to King’s Landing if not to make a hostage out of her? Elia was not in any danger on Dragonstone. Aerys recalled her to King’s Landing specifically so that he could hold her and the children against Rhaegar (and Doran of course). And if Rhaegar understood that Aerys kept Jaime Lannister by his side as a hostage against Tywin, then he unquestionably knew that Elia and the children were also hostages against him. He just chose to do nothing about it. All because he put so much stock into the prophecy he failed to take the possibility of defeat into account. Magic had his back, what could possibly go wrong?

So no, anon. It’s not ridiculous to hold Rhaegar accountable here. Not only did he fail to act on information that begged him to notice that he was leaving his wife and children in danger, not only did he knowingly leave them as de facto hostages, he is literally the one who created the situation that endangered them in the first place after all the crap he put Elia through and after he personally guaranteed that her political authority was effectively undermined.
This is one of Rhaegar Targaryen’s most outrageous fails.

He does not get to claim innocence when Elia and the children were left vulnerable to his father’s whims as a direct result of his actions.

image

nobodysuspectsthebutterfly

replied to your post

“I am an Elia fan so I might be biased but I rolled my eyes so far when…”

there are plenty of reasons besides a hysterectomy? damage to the uterus, scarring, damage to the vaginal canal – things we could solve today with antibiotics or c-sections (note a c-section without modern antibiotics or anesthesia is a *great* way to kill a woman from shock) – the list is really long. hell, anemia or low levels of coagulants could do it.

Ah, this is great. Thanks Butterfly. I knew that there were other reasons but I didn’t have sufficient knowledge to know what they actually are.

image

inkykate

replied to your post

“What do you think about the idea that the unnamed Princess of Dorne…”

Every time I see this come up on Tumblr, I have the most awful feeling – mainly because I posted a statement that included this to underscore how ridiculous a segment of the fandom was being, and there’s this sick feeling that that it may have been taken literally.

I didn’t know this was something that’s being widely discussed.
That’s really going around? I’d say I’m surprised but this is the same
fandom that loves to argue that Ned caused the War of the Five Kings and
put his honor above the realm. I’ve learned to roll with it.

That said, that message is old. I received it months ago right before I rode into the sunset for about 4 months. I don’t know when you posted your statement but if it’s recent, then it wasn’t the source.

hi! i really enjoyed your post on what was so appealing about rhaegar and it’s something i can relate to as i still have a soft spot for rhaegar and lyanna because of the way they are written and the trope that they inhabit despite the glaring problems in their relationship. that being said, i’m really interested in how you became so disillusioned with rhaegar? it seems at first you didn’t hold him in the same regard as you do now. your posts have been really insightful to me so thank you!

Yeah, my opinion about Rhaegar is not what it used to be, partly because my first introduction to the world of asoiaf came through the show, and the show sucks at depicting complicated situations or nuanced character motivations without oversimplifying everything to fit in neat boxes, partly because I came in “conditioned” by regular romantic tropes to fall into the idea of Rhaegar and Lyanna as this sort of star-crossed Romeo and Juliet-esque romance where they are separated by warring families and their forbidden love ends in a tragedy. I fell hard for Martin’s imagery and the positive picture that many PoV characters paint of Rhaegar. Not that I didn’t note the troublesome indicators of the relationship but the romanticism was too strong and I gave Rhaegar the benefit of the doubt in places where it could not be given. I really was speaking from experience when I talked about why Rhaegar appeals to readers.

I don’t think I can pinpoint how I became disillusioned with Rhaegar or when he turned from this image of a tragically romantic prince to the train wreck I’m currently fascinated with. It was a process that resulted from engaging with the text on a meta level because I tend to register things better that way as opposed to my initial surface-read (my first reaction to any material is usually wildly different from subsequent rereads) and engaging with meta writers that offered a different perspective than my own. Ironically, the significant push against criticism of Rhaegar whether it originated from me or others bloggers played a huge part too because it made his narrative (and by association that of Elia and Lyanna) one of my most examined. I spent a lot of time talking about Rhaegar and diving into his story which only solidified my current view of him because the more I look, the more I notice how bloody idiotic he was. I do not hate him per se, nor do I find him unsympathetic. I’m often frustrated by him and by the scale of the lost potential that exists in his story, but I’m still drawn to the figure he cuts because he is still tragic in many, many ways. I’m extremely interested in how he became so immersed in the prophecy that he let it control his life, how that might be traced back to his possible knowledge of the purpose of his parents’ forced marriage and how much growing up in an abusive household and witnessing his mother’s abuse played into that. I mean, where did his “necessary sacrifice” mindset come from? Could it be because he needed to rationalize his parents’ marriage and find a point to Rhaella’s suffering? Could he
have internalized that the prophecy takes precedence regardless of
the price specifically because his parents’ forced marriage was a result of that train of thought? Or, on the flip side of that,
could it be that he was so obsessed with the prophecy so that he might
cling to the idea that Rhaella’s suffering meant something and that it
wasn’t in vain? 

There’s so much to unpack in Rhaegar’s narrative and so much we don’t know but that I’m extremely eager to find out. Unfortunately, discussion in fandom tends to be derailed by the hyper-focus on exonerating Rhaegar which doesn’t give much space to examining him and we all get sucked into that vortex of yelling opposite each other. It really doesn’t help that attempts to defend Rhaegar often come at the expense of Elia and Lyanna, even though examining their story is plenty disillusioning. But I’m still glad that I had those discussions (or fights, depending on the day) because that made me look closer at the story. Even if it’s so ironic that the strong reaction to criticism of Rhaegar is what placed me firmly in the “he is an idiot who screwed over Elia, Lyanna and the entirety of Westeros” camp. Handsome and dreamy he may be, but still an idiot.

One of the metas I’ve always wanted to write but for a bad case of scattered thoughts is a further examination of what The North Remembers means and the possibility of it having a magical origin. I guess I’m doing it now.

I’ve touched upon the political meaning on The North Remembers before and how it’s connected to the legacy of the Starks in the North but I’ve become to wonder about the genesis of that statement, who coined it and how it became to be used so wide across the North that it became the only nationalist statement from an entire kingdom we hear in the books. We’ve heard declarations from separate Houses but this is the only one that encompasses an entire region, that belongs to an entire region rather than just one House. The North Remembers is a huge part of the collective conscience of the North that is so deep-rooted and revered that even Barbrey Dustin can not help but fling it at the Freys who are supposedly her allies. She might be working with them for now but she does not forget that they are Southron and not of hers. Alys Karstark uses it as an oath of friendship and good faith when she promises Jon Snow that “Karhold remembers” and promises aid to the Watch against the Others. The power within The North Remembers is absolute no matter how it’s being used. Whether a warning or a pledge, it does not get used lightly for it carries the power of thousands of years of history behind it.

But Northern history is so intrinsically tied to the Starks that you can’t separate the two. Northern history is Stark history, and Stark history is part and parcel of the fight against the Others that it’s not a reach to link The North Remembers to both the Starks and the Long Night. Indeed, several hereditaments amongst the Starks seem to be directly linked to the Long Night and the construction of the Wall, even if they were later appropriated by the political side of the narrative and used almost exclusively in a political frame. Winterfell has a distinct structure that was a curiosity because castles aren’t usually built like that but Winterfell was actually built as the second line of defense against the Others after the Wall and with a structure that makes it prime to defend against the Others while keeping the people inside alive and protecting them against the true enemy, the cold. The Stark words “Winter Is Coming” carries a double meaning – it’s a warning of the Northerners who’d come raiding south in the winter when things grew hard in the North, and it’s a warning of the return of the Others, of winter. “There must always be a Stark in Winterfell” – why? The current Starks don’t know. It’s just a deep-rooted conviction they were taught to honor that almost certainly would be traced back to the first war against the Others, but that has also inspired a conviction across the North that order, safety and justice in the North is tied to the presence of a Stark in Winterfell. The Starks are the Kings of Winter.

Ultimately, it all stems from the magical side of the narrative.

And so, using the magical war as a frame – if Winterfell is a defense structure meant to fight the Others, Winter Is Coming is the warning, the Stark in Winterfell is the rallying point, that would make The North Remembers the oath, a vow to preserve the knowledge of the war and to show up for the fight. A vow to unite against the true enemy, and perhaps to a lesser extent to remember the position of the Stark of Winterfell as the spearhead. That works within our knowledge of the place the Starks hold in the North and the personal responsibility Winterfell took to protect and provide (”the wolves took us in and nourished us”). It goes back to Bran the Builder who built the Wall to protect, and Winterfell to both protect and provide. The Stark’s legacy in the North is tied to their people’s very survival and it has been the same ever since with generations of Stark learning that it’s an obligation to do so.

Now, it might sound incredibly ironic to some people to say that The North Remembers is a vow to preserve knowledge of the Others since the main problem in the series is that Westeros forgot about them so if the North did indeed pledge to retain the memory, then they’ve failed. Except that the North did comparatively retain much of what the other kingdoms forgot, even if it wasn’t complete and if they ultimately did forget that the Others did exist. But the memory never really faded. It remained as a residual ancestral memory of the true purpose of the Wall
and why the Night’s Watch is important.

That’s why it’s mainly the Northmen (plus some First Men families like the Royces whose house words also seem to carry the same pledge) that maintain that service in the Night’s Watch is an honorable and worthy purpose and who see the Wall as an intrinsic part of Northern identity. It’s the Northmen that still send provisions to the Wall as
an ingrained commitment that is being passed down to every new generation. They respect the Night’s Watch – where the other kingdoms have come to see it as merely a penal colony to send the criminals, the unwanted and the disfranchised, the North has members of its own ruling house joining the order. The Starks have steadfastly held to Winterfell’s obligation to provide and protect. Northern children learn of the Others – in the form of legends and fanciful stories it may be but still, Northern children are told these stories about the Others and the Last Hero and the War for the Dawn which does preserve knowledge of the true enemy. It’s imperfect to say the least but it’s there, preserved in the collective
consciousness

of the North.

It’s really not for nothing that Alys Karstark specifically says
“Karhold remembers” when promising aid to the Watch. It’s a vow that reflects thousands of years of the North carrying a similar vow.

We’re Ready

shannonhale:

I was presenting an assembly for kids grades 3-8 while on book tour for the third PRINCESS ACADEMY book.

Me: “So many teachers have told me the same thing. They say, ‘When I told my students we were reading a book called PRINCESS ACADEMY, the girls said—’”

I gesture to the kids and wait. They anticipate what I’m expecting, and in unison, the girls scream, “YAY!”

Me: “’And the boys said—”

I gesture and wait. The boys know just what to do. They always do, no matter their age or the state they live in.

In unison, the boys shout, “BOOOOO!”

Me: “And then the teachers tell me that after reading the book, the boys like it as much or sometimes even more than the girls do.”

Audible gasp. They weren’t expecting that.

Me: “So it’s not the story itself boys don’t like, it’s what?”
The kids shout, “The name! The title!”

Me: “And why don’t they like the title?”

As usual, kids call out, “Princess!”

But this time, a smallish 3rd grade boy on the first row, who I find out later is named Logan, shouts at me, “Because it’s GIRLY!”

The way Logan said “girly"…so much hatred from someone so small. So much distain. This is my 200-300th assembly, I’ve asked these same questions dozens of times with the same answers, but the way he says “girly” literally makes me take a step back. I am briefly speechless, chilled by his hostility.

Then I pull it together and continue as I usually do.

“Boys, I have to ask you a question. Why are you so afraid of princesses? Did a princess steal your dog? Did a princess kidnap your parents? Does a princess live under your bed and sneak out at night to try to suck your eyeballs out of your skull?”

The kids laugh and shout “No!” and laugh some more. We talk about how girls get to read any book they want but some people try to tell boys that they can only read half the books. I say that this isn’t fair. I can see that they’re thinking about it in their own way.

But little Logan is skeptical. He’s sure he knows why boys won’t read a book about a princess. Because a princess is a girl—a girl to the extreme. And girls are bad. Shameful. A boy should be embarrassed to read a book about a girl. To care about a girl. To empathize with a girl.

Where did Logan learn that? What does believing that do to him? And how will that belief affect all the girls and women he will deal with for the rest of his life?

At the end of my presentation, I read aloud the first few chapters of THE PRINCESS IN BLACK. After, Logan was the only boy who stayed behind while I signed books. He didn’t have a book for me to sign, he had a question, but he didn’t want to ask me in front of others. He waited till everyone but a couple of adults had left. Then, trembling with nervousness, he whispered in my ear, “Do you have a copy of that black princess book?”

He wanted to know what happened next in her story. But he was ashamed to want to know.

Who did this to him? How will this affect how he feels about himself? How will this affect how he treats fellow humans his entire life?

We already know that misogyny is toxic and damaging to women and girls, but often we assume it doesn’t harm boys or mens a lick. We think we’re asking them to go against their best interest in the name of fairness or love. But that hatred, that animosity, that fear in little Logan, that isn’t in his best interest. The oppressor is always damaged by believing and treating others as less than fully human. Always. Nobody wins. Everybody loses. 

We humans have a peculiar tendency to assume either/or scenarios despite all logic. Obviously it’s NOT “either men matter OR women do.” It’s NOT “we can give boys books about boys OR books about girls.” It’s NOT “men are important to this industry OR women are.“ 

It’s not either/or. It’s AND.

We can celebrate boys AND girls. We can read about boys AND girls. We can listen to women AND men. We can honor and respect women AND men. And And And. I know this seems obvious and simplistic, but how often have you assumed that a boy reader would only read a book about boys? I have. Have you preselected books for a boy and only offered him books about boys? I’ve done that in the past. And if not, I’ve caught myself and others kind of apologizing about it. “I think you’ll enjoy this book EVEN THOUGH it’s about a girl!” They hear that even though. They know what we mean. And they absorb it as truth.

I met little Logan at the same assembly where I noticed that all the 7th and 8th graders were girls. Later, a teacher told me that the administration only invited the middle school girls to my assembly. Because I’m a woman. I asked, and when they’d had a male author, all the kids were invited. Again reinforcing the falsehood that what men say is universally important but what women say only applies to girls.

One 8th grade boy was a big fan of one of my books and had wanted to come, so the teacher had gotten special permission for him to attend, but by then he was too embarrassed. Ashamed to want to hear a woman speak. Ashamed to care about the thoughts of a girl.

A few days later, I tweeted about how the school didn’t invite the middle school boys. And to my surprise, twitter responded. Twitter was outraged. I was blown away. I’ve been talking about these issues for over a decade, and to be honest, after a while you feel like no one cares. 

But for whatever reason, this time people were ready. I wrote a post explaining what happened, and tens of thousands of people read it. National media outlets interviewed me. People who hadn’t thought about gendered reading before were talking, comparing notes, questioning what had seemed normal. Finally, finally, finally.

And that’s the other thing that stood out to me about Logan—he was so ready to change. Eager for it. So open that he’d started the hour expressing disgust at all things “girly” and ended it by whispering an anxious hope to be a part of that story after all. 

The girls are ready. Boy howdy, we’ve been ready for a painful long time. But the boys, they’re ready too. Are you?

I’ve spoken with many groups about gendered reading in the last few years. Here are some things that I hear:

A librarian, introducing me before my presentation: “Girls, you’re in for a real treat. You’re going to love Shannon Hale’s books. Boys, I expect you to behave anyway.”

A book festival committee member: “Last week we met to choose a keynote speaker for next year. I suggested you, but another member said, ‘What about the boys?’ so we chose a male author instead.”

A parent: “My son read your book and he ACTUALLY liked it!”

A teacher: “I never noticed before, but for read aloud I tend to choose books about boys because I assume those are the only books the boys will like.”

A mom: “My son asked me to read him The Princess in Black, and I said, ‘No, that’s for your sister,’ without even thinking about it.”

A bookseller: “I’ve stopped asking people if they’re shopping for a boy or a girl and instead asking them what kind of story the child likes.”

Like the bookseller, when I do signings, I frequently ask each kid, “What kind of books do you like?” I hear what you’d expect: funny books, adventure stories, fantasy, graphic novels. I’ve never, ever, EVER had a kid say, “I only like books about boys.” Adults are the ones with the weird bias. We’re the ones with the hangups, because we were raised to believe thinking that way is normal. And we pass it along to the kids in sometimes  overt (“Put that back! That’s a girl book!”) but usually in subtle ways we barely notice ourselves.

But we are ready now. We’re ready to notice and to analyze. We’re ready to be thoughtful. We’re ready for change. The girls are ready, the boys are ready, the non-binary kids are ready. The parents, librarians, booksellers, authors, readers are ready. Time’s up. Let’s make a change.