http://moonlitgleek.tumblr.com/post/168335555530/audio_player_iframe/moonlitgleek/tumblr_p0m9soSIpG1r0rx8m?audio_file=https%3A%2F%2Fa.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_p0m9soSIpG1r0rx8mo1.mp3

jenndesq:

I am posting this clip from the Larry Flick interview because you can actually hear all of the Going Nowhere track, although after a while it’s playing under their voices while they talk about it. So good! 💗

image

@samwpmarleau

replied to your post

“Anonymous asked: What was going on in the Tower of Joy. I am so…”

Re: Rhaegar and Lyanna marrying, I read the meta you linked but I didn’t see a third option, which is incidentally the one I follow: Rhaegar promised to dissolve her betrothal to Robert (perhaps using his clout as a crown prince or promising to do so after he ascended to kingship, whether or not it could actually be done), and Lyanna believed him. I just can’t see why Lyanna “I don’t like cheaters” Stark would support Rhaegar leaving his wife and infant children…

That’s a little too convoluted, I think. It makes the scenario too difficult to follow, not to mention necessitates some inexplicable twists on the part of the characters. Okay so Rhaegar promised a dissolution of the betrothal and Lyanna believed him. But why did she run away with him? What is it about this scenario that explains Rhaegar’s desire to run away with Lyanna? How did Rhaegar convince her to go with him? I just don’t see how they get from “break the betrothal” to “run away together” unless running together was the way to break the betrothal? But the very public way of their disappearance was the make of a scandal that would have ruined Lyanna’s reputation beyond breaking her betrothal to one man. 

Or did Rhaegar tell Lyanna that he wanted a baby in exchange? But that goes against your point about Lyanna’s stance on cheaters and would actually only make Lyanna associate Rhaegar with Robert and think very lowly of him that he was taking advantage of her.

 I’m just not sure how the scenario would work. 

….

nor do I think Rhaegar wanted to either.

He thought his CHILDREN would mirror the three conquerors, not himself, so why would he insist on following his ancestors’ precedent? What would he get out of alienating everyone? Marrying Lyanna doesn’t do anything for him. Certainly it’s not said the third head needs to be legitimate. To me, marriage just doesn’t make sense for either Rhaegar or Lyanna.

I don’t think it was a matter of insisting on following his ancestors as much as it was about using the precedent to assure Lyanna that he could take another wife and that there is no slight to her honor because she’d be his wife. Marriage in this case may be a fig leaf but it does add a semblance of legitimacy and alleviate the dishonor of their relationship, which makes Lyanna more prone to go with him than the alternative.

I also don’t think marrying Lyanna was about benefiting Rhaegar beyond convincing her to go with him willingly. And it’s not like not marrying Lyanna doesn’t alienate everyone (especially if she left with him with no expectation of a sexual relationship only for him to physically force her). That ship sailed the minute he vanished with her. The Martells are pissed over the insult to Elia and danger to her children (once Jon’s existence comes to light), the Starks are still pissed over the slight and their daughter’s ruined virtue and reputation, Robert is still pissed that Rhaegar raped his betrothed. It does not really change anything for Rhaegar. It makes nothing better.

This scenario also doesn’t take into account some connections, like the crowning at Harrenhal that gives a romantic framing to the story, not made any better by several characters telling us that Rhaegar loved Lyanna. I don’t really buy this narrative as a love story as you well know, but that does give a clear lens through which to see the relationship. It makes a “romantic” relationship, however we differ in defining it, more likely than a scenario where Rhaegar unambiguously raped Lyanna (and I don’t think GRRM is going there)

Fandom, after all, is born of a balance between fascination and frustration: if media content didn’t fascinate us, there would be no desire to engage with it; but if it didn’t frustrate us on some level, there would be no drive to rewrite or remake it

Henry Jenkins (via jbaillier)
image

@riana-one

replied to your post

“Anonymous asked: What was going on in the Tower of Joy. I am so…”

Considering Jon was already born, Lyanna, to be cold, was no longer a concern for the Kingsguard. One could have taken the newborn to Starfall, find a wet nurse, and disappear. They didn’t. They were waiting- for someone to come, someone to fight, someone to kill them. Their prince was dead, the dynasty they swore to defend gone, there only remain exile or death. They choose not to run.

Not necessarily. If Rhaegar ordered the Kingsguard to guard Lyanna, they would stand there and guard Lyanna. She was still alive so they remained. We also do not know when exactly she gave birth: consensus is that she died of childbed fever which occurs after the first 24 hours and within the first ten days according to the wiki. But Ned mentions Lyanna’s bed of blood several times so unless Lyanna was left in a dirty bloodied bed for days after giving birth (which would make her infection a matter of course because who does that. One does not need to be a medical expert to know that is a terrible idea), this suggests that she may have been bleeding still so it can’t be that she had given birth that long ago.

We also run to another question: did the Kingsguard know that someone was on the way? Did they know it was Ned? The Tower of Joy was remote enough and obscure enough for them to expect to remain safe there, at least until they decided on what to do. After all, they had been there for nearly slightly less than two years and only Gerold Hightower managed to find them. Now, the Kinsguard obviously received the information of the sack from Starfall which was almost certainly also the source of Ned’s knowledge of Lyanna’s location. So did Arthur know that Ned Stark knew their location and was expecting him? We don’t know.

But the biggest hurdle to the idea that they were just waiting for someone to kill them is that we know that Arthur Dayne would have killed Ned if not for Howland Reed. This is not someone just waiting to be killed rather than choose exile because if Ned is dead, if Howland is dead, Arthur has to disappear with Jon. So I can see them standing their ground and refusing to surrender even if meant their death in a misguided quest for honor because that’s what’s expected of the Kingsguard, but to essentially commit suicide-by-northmen does not fall in line with their actions.

luvlydoll reblogged your post and added:

War is ugly. War isn’t going to be kind just because you are a woman. Argella wished to have not only her but all her men burned alive by dragons like everyone at harrenhall rather than surrendering. Would it have been a nicer end to you if Argella was just burned alive along with all the men she as leader of her house was supposed to protect? Can we blame them for having a will to live and having no loyalty to Argela? Her father ruled over them like an evil tyrant and now they were expected to die for a stubborn sixteen year old who never led them into battle or done anything to earn their loyalty. In rebellions usually the king or queen (because equality) are beheaded and their heads put on spikes. When a king or queen losses usually they are killed and their lands pillaged, the woman raped and the people sold into slavery. Neither of these things happened. Orys tom their words and the banner and she still got to rule as queen all you are complaining about is a moment of humiliation. When thorough out history women and men who have lost wars are treated much worse.

image

*takes a deep breath*

Okay, I’ll bite. Here’s the thing: you’re literally making things up to justify something that is glaringly an anomaly in the text and using the decadent “that’s how things were like back then” argument to…. justify sexual violence? Really?

First of all, you are creating a false dichotomy that does not exist. You’re making it as if Argella’s men faced a choice between being burned alive or humiliating Argella, which isn’t true. Argella’s men could have surrendered the castle just as easily without visiting unnecessary humiliation on her (which, you know, I point out in my original post). Open the gates, imprison her in her rooms and treat her as befits her station, lead Orys to her once he arrives. That I can understand. But stripping her naked and parading her across an enemy camp to Orys’ tent? Yeah, that did not have to happen. There was no need for that. There is no justification for that. Nothing could ever warrant abusing a woman no matter the pretense. 

Second, I’m sorry but where did you get that evil tyrant stuff from? Are you by any chance confusing Argilac with Harren the Black? Argilac was not an evil tyrant whose subjects hated him (indeed, TWOIAF makes a point of comparing the Stomrlanders’ loyalty to Argilac to the Riverlanders rising against Harren the Black who was an evil tyrant). He might have been a misogynistic racist ass (hence the the Yellow Toad of Dorne thing) He might have been a stubborn and tempestuous man who showed needless cruelty and breached safe conduct by maiming Aegon’s messenger. But I can not find anything to point to Argilac abusing his subjects or being a tyrant, or of his people hating him and thus turning on him like the Riverlanders did with Harren. Not that it would justify abusing Argella if he was an evil tyrant.

Third, did Bran or Rickon or Arya do anything specific to earn the Northmen’s loyalty? Did Robert Arryn do anything to earn the Valemen’s? I mean, if you’re going to argue that one has to lead men in battle to earn their men’s loyalty, please do explain the above cases. And who says that one can only earn someone’s loyalty by being a battle commander anyway? And the thing is, the men of Storm’s End were loyal to Argilac Durrandon and you’d think that loyalty would at least have afforded Argella some humane treatment, even if for nothing but the memory of her father. There is also a lot of be said about the image of the Stormlanders in the eyes in the Conquerors when they showed how easily they can show such careless cruelty towards their own ruler.

And forget about loyalty to Argella’s person, what about honor? Basic human decency? One does not need to be loyal to someone to treat them with basic decency. And what about loyalty to the Stormlands? Remember, Aegon and his sisters were foreigners coming to conquer Westeros, and people generally tend to resist invasion of their homelands. The Dornishmen did not resist the dragons for so long out of loyalty to the Martells but to Dorne. The Company of the Rose chose to live in exile because they valued Northern independence and refused submission. That does not mean I condemn the garrison of Storm’s End for not wanting to be burned alive but I absolutely condemn them for forcing submission on Argella’s person and visiting such careless humiliation on her. That’s cruel and cowardly and vile. Not having loyalty to her is another thing I do condemn them for – many of these people would have seen her grow up ffs and they were fine with doing that to her? These people took oaths and accepted the responsibility that came with it to defend Storm’s End and to defend Argella only to betray her and be more vicious than her enemies. It says a lot that it was Argella’s enemy covered her up and her own men who stripped her and humiliated her. 

Fourth, let’s address that whole point about how monarchs who were defeated had their lands pillaged and their people sold into slavery. Point me to one single monarch during the Conquest that had that happen to them, I’ll wait. You start your post by

condescendingly

telling me that war is ugly (thank you, Sherlock) and it is not going to be kind just because you’re a women, but somehow it’s only a woman who suffered such a fate. None of the other monarchs suffered Argella’s fate. Argella was by no means the only ruler who refused to submit but she was the only one who suffered such trauma, one of five women involved in the Conquest and she just happens to be the one victimized by gendered violence? And miss me with trying to paint her as someone who did not care if her lands were pillaged and her people sold into slavery. Fuck no. These atrocities did not happen not because Argella’s men humiliated her and humbled her to the dragons so they can convince Orys not to punish the Stormlands and raze it to the ground, but because that was not what the conquerors meant to do. Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya did not just mean to conqueror Westeros, they meant to establish a unified monarchy and rule it. Starting your rule with destroying the land you claim the right to rule means a perpetually unstable rule and endless rebellions. That was never on their agenda in the first place (and honestly it’s so utterly disgusting that you honestly think that sexual violence inflicted on a woman is an acceptable cost to pay in any context.)

Which brings me to my final point, that appalling statement about “a moment of humiliation” I do not know what to say to someone who is so cavalier about sexual violence, who minimizes it to simply a moment of humiliation. Argella was stripped of her will, her voice, her dignity and her body autonomy by her own men. She was carried from Storm’s End to Orys’ camp naked and gagged and chained. She suffered in a way no other person did in the conquest, man or woman. And you have the audacity to actually put the blame of that on her, because she refused to surrender to the people who killed her father and who were invading her lands. You absolve the wrongdoers from the blame of the atrocity they committed and blame the victim for her own abuse. You imply that this was somehow a kinder fate and hey, it’s not like she lost anything, she got to rule as queen. Except she did not. She lost her castle. She lost her faith in her men (did they even get punished or did Orys not bother?). She lost her voice (because GRRM did not bother to give her one after taking it away from her. What happened to Argella after she married Orys? Who the hell knows). Orys took her House words, he took her sigil, he took her kingdom. Everything that belonged to Argella was transferred to Orys, including the defining character moment because hers got swiftly punished in a despicable way and the focus was transferred to Orys. 

Anonymous asked:

What was going on in the Tower of Joy. I am so confused by it. Why did Rhaegar leave THREE King’s Guard with his baby mama and one teenager with his wife and lawful heir? 

Because it seems that Rhaegar did not take into account the possibility of defeat. 

Rhaegar had put his hand on Jaime’s shoulder. “When this battle’s done I
mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long
ago, but … well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken. We
shall talk when I return.”

In his mind, he’d have ridden to the Trident to crush the rebellion then returned to call a Great Council and overthrow Aerys. So Elia and the children, inside the Red Keep and surrounded by guards if not Kingsguard, weren’t in danger as far as he was concerned. That, of course, leaves Aerys but Rhaegar was fighting for Aerys and so was Dorne so Aerys had no reason to harm Elia or the children. Their stay in the Red Keep might not be pleasant (or by choice) but Rhaegar probably did not see a pressing danger in it as long as his father saw that Rhaegar was fighting for him. By the time their presence within Aerys’ reach could turn dangerous (when Rhaegar put whatever plans he had into motion), Rhaegar supposedly would have been back and in place to remove Aerys without posing a danger to his family. Of course Rhaegar failed to take into account his father’s unpredictability and the extent of his paranoia into account, and what that could lead him to do. Indeed, Aerys randomly decided that the loss at the Trident was because the Dornish had betrayed them and refused to send Elia and the children to the relative safety of Dragonstone which ultimately left them at the mercy of the Lannister forces, but oh well.

Note that Rhaegar’s belief in the prophecy has to be taken into account here as well because it’s probably what underlay his conviction of victory. He firmly believed that his children were the three heads of the dragon and meant to save the world, so it’s entirely possible that he believed the same magic that foretold the birth of the three heads of the dragon and that would bring the dragons back would ensure the safety and survival of his children, prophesied saviors that they were. That might have played into his firm conviction of his victory, and could explain how his plans to “protect” Lyanna were equally suspect, or why he committed so many glaring blunders without a thought to the consequences. If you have prophecy and magic on your side, what could possibly go wrong? 

For a guy so fond of Summerhall, you’d think he would learn something.

Why, after most of the Royal family was killed because of poor guarding, did they not go to the new King, and pregnant dowager Queen who were actively being percussed? 

Some argue that this is the biggest piece of evidence of Jon’s legitimacy and that the Kingsguard were there to protect their infant king. I disagree, because a surprise legitimacy reveal would be a deus ex machina that loses Jon’s story a lot of its narrative weight. And because even if Rhaegar took Lyanna for a second wife (probable), that does not mean their marriage was legal or would be recognized by anyone. More importantly, Jon did not have to be trueborn for the Kingsguard to be assigned to protect him.

Some
kings thought it right and proper to dispatch Kingsguard to serve and
defend their wives and children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins of
greater and lesser degree, and occasionally even their lovers,
mistresses, and bastards.

Of course we then run into one main obstacle: Rhaegar was not king. He never was. But Rhaegar was also not king when he instructed the Kingsguard to stay in Dorne to “guard” Lyanna instead of fulfilling their duty to the king they were sworn to obey

The first duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or
threat. The white knights were sworn to obey the king’s commands as
well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and
keep silent when it was not, serve his pleasure and defend his name and
honor. Strictly speaking, it was purely the king’s choice whether or not
to extend Kingsguard protection to others, even those of royal blood.

Aerys was facing an active rebellion that the Kingsguard vows compelled them to defend him against but the three Kingsguard eschewed their duty to the king and followed Rhaegar’s orders instead. So, in practice, Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower had all but treated Rhaegar as de facto king. They sat out the rebellion because Rhaegar told them to remain at the Tower of Joy, so remain they did. That says much about the allegiance of the three of them to Rhaegar’s person, which falls in line with what Yandel tells us about the state of Aerys’ court in recent years and the factionalism that permeated it between those loyal to Aerys and those loyal to Rhaegar. Arthur Dayne was an open supporter of Rhaegar whereas Oswell Whent is speculated to have been involved in whatever scheme was supposed to take place at Harrenhal. Our knowledge of Gerold Hightower is more limited but it says a lot that the Lord Commander didn’t return to fight for the king but stayed behind where Rhaegar instructed him to stay.

So the Kinsguard stayed with Lyanna instead of going to Viserys because 

Rhaegar ordered them to, and dead or not, their loyalty to him remained.

(And to be fair, Aerys was murdered by his own guard, while Gregor Clegane scaled Maegor’s Holdfast to get to Elia and Aegon at a time when the city was crawling with an overwhelming number of Lannister soldiers. Those are not good odds for any Targaryen guard.)

Why, when Ned, Howland, et al, finally came for Lyanna, did they fight. It was her brother and a bunch of Northmen. I assume they had a Stark banner. Yeah, if it had been Robert, I’d have been worried, but it was Ned and his buddies. It wasn’t like an army, it was 9 guys, they could have talked for five minutes. Ned wasn’t going to hurt Lyanna or her baby.

Yeah, that’s one of the reasons many of us question Lyanna’s assent to remain in that tower and just how “willing” her stay was. According to GRRM: 

The King’s Guards don’t get to make up their own orders. They serve the
king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they’re also bound
to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order,
they would do that. They can’t say, “No we don’t like that order, we’ll
do something else.”

 

Which by no means absolve them from the responsibility of choosing to follow Rhaegar’s orders even in defiance of their knightly vows, btw. It’s not like their vows render them physically incapable of defying the king. That was still a choice on their part.

But the fact that Ned had to cut his way to Lyanna’s side does not give the best impression of Rhaegar’s orders to the Kingsguard or speak of Lyanna’s wishes being respected or taken into account. It is quite possible that the Kingsguard were not sure of Ned’s intentions: after all, Ned was one of the leaders of the rebellion and the three knights had received the news about what happened with Elia and her children, and who knows how accurate or comprehensive the account was. They might not have known that Ned spoke against the crime or quarreled with Robert over Clegane, Lorch and Tywin escaping punishment – indeed, he left King’s Landing to lift the siege of Storm’s End and accept the surrender of Lords Tyrell and Redwyne so in their eyes he was working for “the Usurper".

However, my issue with this is that they chose to meet Ned sword-to-sword (using their vows to justify it) without even attempting to suss out his intentions, or you know, listening to the sister who knew that her brother would never hurt her or her baby. Lyanna clearly trusted Ned and had faith that he’d help her protect her child so it’s not like the Kingsguard had no grasp on who Ned Stark was or what he was capable of. Even if they did not fully trust Lyanna’s account due to her age, illness or general familial bias, surely escorting Ned to her under guard wouldn’t have cost them anything. Or a conversation that wasn’t centered on how the Kingsguard do not flee and that’s why they were fighting the guy who only wanted to get to his sister and who was literally pushed into war, on the assumption that he might just turn out to be a kinslayer after all. I’d have hoped that three of the finest knights in the land would have enough moral judgement to recognize the position Ned was in, his family murdered and his sister missing for over a year and a half. He was only trying to reach Lyanna (who may have been yelling for him, if that part of his fever dream is correct.) Ned did not want to fight. He was sad about having to fight the Kingsguard but they were giving him no choice to get to Lyanna but to cut his way through. The fact that they were keeping him from his sister and that they were complicit in carrying her off means that the onus was on them to prevent bloodshed. 

That is all to say that the Kingsguard gave more weight to Rhaegar’s orders – which seem to have been “no one gets past. Period” – over the needs and wants of the dying woman inside the tower who, if nothing else, deserved to have her brother by her side when she died and deserved to have the comfort of knowing that her baby was safe with her beloved brother, instead of taking her last breath as another of her brothers was cut down outside her door.

And what was the plan for them? They didn’t know Lyanna was going to die (unless that was the plan), so what where they planning on doing with her and the baby? WTF King’s Guard guys? (you write the best meta so I thought I’d ask if you could help me understand.)

It would have been clear by the time Ned made it there that Lyanna was dying but I really have no idea what their plans were after that, if they had any. My best guess is that they would have taken Jon and crossed the Narrow Sea to Essos, though their reaction to Ned telling them that Willem Darry did exactly that with Viserys and Daenerys could be a counter-indicative to that. But I don’t know what else they could have done.

(Sometimes I entertain the possibility that Davos’ words about Cortnay Penrose “trying to yield with honor…. [e]ven if it means his own life" apply to these Kingsguard, hence their words about how the Kingsguard do not flee. Not that that would have been any better because killing Ned’s companions to accomplish that does not make them honorable, it only makes them awful. Idk, just a thought I had.)

“I do have some issues with how GRRM chose to frame Sansa in AGOT”. Could you expand on that? What are those issues?

maidenoftheforestlight:

omgellendean:

maidenoftheforestlight:

Well I’ve reblogged quite a few metas on this subject and written a bit about it myself and I’d love to link some of that here but… how to find that stuff on my blog without slogging through months of irrelevant posting? Hmm… I really  need to organise this blog better… 

Assuming I don’t manage to find the relevant posts (or at least some of them) then I’ll just say that my issues with Sansa in AGOT have to do with how GRRM (apparently) originally conceived of her character and how much of that actually remained in the final product; that is to say, she was originally intended to be a foil to Arya and the one Stark kid who caused problems in the happy family group dynamic. This was apparently because GRRM thought it wouldn’t be realistic for all the kids to get along perfectly and for there to be no internal strife in the Stark family at all… but isn’t it odd that out of all the kids he chose the two girls to set at odds with one another? And isn’t it doubly odd that of these two girls it is the more stereotypically feminine one who was initially created to be that little “problem” in the family dynamic? Robb and Jon could easily have been the warring siblings instead, no? Or maybe Sansa could have been a boy instead and Arya could’ve had a male foil to argue with… but instead…

Sansa, despite clearly becoming a well rounded character in her own right by the final draft of AGOT, still retains quite a bit of that original character sketch. She is written to be a foil to Arya and to cause complications for her family due to her relationship with Joffrey. While with close reading – keeping in mind the social mores of her society and the way she has been raised – Sansa’s actions and beliefs about her world are quite understandable, she is not generally written in such a way that suggests the author meant to endear her to the reader… Contrast to the way Arya is written (because Sansa is her foil and GRRM wants us to compare them in this book!); introduced as a plucky underdog who challenges the status quo. We are meant to immediately identify with, like and root for Arya, and we do. We are not meant to immediately identify with, like and root for Sansa. 

We are introduced to Arya first and Sansa makes Arya feel bad about herself by being good at everything and prettier and getting her in trouble and… you get the point. Even though 9 year old Arya has biases, and we as readers should understand that, the mere fact that our introduction to Sansa comes through her POV already gives the reader a bias against Sansa on Arya’s behalf because that’s all we know about her! There’s also the fact that the quickest way to get your readership to identify with and like a character within a historical setting is to give them the values and opinions of a more modern person… and we get quite a bit of that with Arya, what with her challenging of gender norms and disregard for class and rank. We don’t get that short cut with Sansa. 

 When we actually meet Sansa in her own POV she is once again acting in her role as the foil… it’s the incident at the Trident where Sansa fails to stand up to Joffrey for Arya and Mycah the butcher’s boy and then doesn’t tell the king what really happened and “gets Lady and Mycah killed”, to hear some fans tell it (never mind her reasonable reasons for being confused about what to do and refusing to speak). It’s not a glowing moment for her here and tbh… there really is only one real glowing moment for Sansa in AGOT (before Ned’s imprisonment/death that is); the moment where she feels empathy for Sandor Clegane, overcomes her fear, and offers him the comfort he needs. 

Other than this, her POV mostly focuses in on the trivialities of her interests and concerns, on how very little she actually understands the adult world around her, and we hardly see her interact with others in a positive way. Again… other than Sandor Clegane! She and Arya bicker, her relationship with Ned is somewhat strained since the Trident, and you get the vague impression that of his children, Sansa is probably the one he is the least accustomed to spending time with or talking to (we get no scene of parental bonding with Sansa, unlike Arya) and even Jeyne – Jeyne who is supposed to be Sansa’s best friend – we get no scenes of them having fun together, braiding each other’s hair, gossiping about cute boys, playing cyvasse… nada. Oh we get scenes of them talking, but it’s mostly in scenes which, again, are there to place Sansa in her role as the foil; demonstrating her naivety and ignorance of the dangers at court. The actual fun times they have together as friends, the actual comfort and happiness they give each other, well we’re told about this in a few stray lines here and there… we don’t actually ever “see” it! 

And that’s important! That’s the stuff that makes you like a character! But GRRM didn’t want to show us Sansa being fun and a caring friend in AGOT or even showing off any of the things she is reportedly so good at (she does actually show off some of these things; she shows she is naturally apt at diplomacy and has a good memory for important persons, houses and sigils and rank in this book… but this is all quite subtly introduced. Her cleverness is not meant to be something the reader immediately picks up on). He didn’t particularly want us to start sympathizing with her until near the end of the novel… and it shows. Sansa’s more positive character traits are de-emphasized by the author for most of AGOT and this, more than anything she actually does in this particular novel, is why so many fans come away seriously disliking her as a character

(imho of course); many with the claim that she has no positive traits!

This ties into my larger issues with GRRM’s writing of women in general. He definitely treats his POV female characters like people who deserve to be just as well developed and complex as his male characters, and I appreciate that! However, he seems to have problems with depicting women’s relationships with other women. That is to say, if he can avoid female friendships, he does… at least in the early novels (things may be looking up based on more recent stuff). We get great male friendships, and male/female friendships, but when it came  to showing women who genuinely like each other interacting, GRRM just… didn’t go there at the beginning. Yeah, you’ve got Arya and Sansa not getting along, and Sansa and Jeyne’s friendship happening mostly offscreen but surely there must be more women who can be getting along… right? Well… no. 

Catelyn seems to have no female friends or companions at all, even from memory (which is ridiculous!) and her relationship with Lysa is extremely strained. Later she meets Brienne and while their relationship is a positive one for them both, it is more that of a Lady and her sworn shield than of friends. Cersei has no real friends at all, let alone female ones… she actually killed her childhood “bestfriend”. Margaery and the Tyrell cousins were not real friends to Sansa, Arya’s best friends and travelling companions are all male (albeit she does have a brief but very sweet interaction with Lady Smallwood) and Dany’s female companions are all servants to her. All in all, the situation with regards to sisterhood and female friendship in ASOIAF ain’t great. 

Topping this off, there’s also the fact that while GRRM’s understanding of what medieval noblewomen actually got up to in a day’s work is better than GOT’s, there are yet still some suggestions that feminine gendered activities are quite trivial and frivolous, and these suggestions are, again, most evident in Sansa and Arya’s AGOT chapters where they, again, serve to highlight Sansa as the silly, blinkered, girly-girl, to Arya’s rebellious, open-minded tom boy. 

To sum it up, it is of great significance that Arya, who we are meant to identify with and like, is a tom boy and Sansa, her foil, is extremely feminine. The negative aspects of Sansa’s personality, the ones being highlighted above her more positive qualities in AGOT, are therefore associated with that femininity because her negative traits are framed in contrast to Arya’s positive ones, and Arya’s interests and behaviour are more stereotypically masculine. I liked Sansa despite all of this because, paying attention while reading her chapters and fed up with trope of cool tomboys vs annoying girly girls, I was actually able to see the subtle allusions to there being more to Sansa than what the author was choosing to place on the surface. However, I understand how a reader who has no inclination to pay such close attention while reading her chapters could easily be put off from her character. GRRM did that on purpose… and I just don’t think it’s fair to the character who otherwise might have been given more of a chance by so many readers who, even now, still disregard her value to the story. 

I always felt that Arianne and her relationships with Tyene and Elia were GRRM’s attempt to introduce extremely feminine female character in positive light since the start as well as to write more fleshed out female friendship. 

I mean, a noble girl, very pretty, very invested into finding a proper husband, who is childhood friends with another feminine girl of lesser status, and they really care for each other and spend all the time together, and whose storyline is mainly political. And then there is her tomboy-ish “little sister”, who loves horses and ignores rules and is definitely not a lady. But this time it’s girly girl who is portrayed more sympathetically and from whose PoV we see everything from the start. Of course, Arianne is older than Sansa, and is more open and bold, but still, I see some parallels there.

I would say he did a better work this time, despite some problems staying here too (GRRM clearly doesn’t know how write girls spending their time if they are not  with boys, and by gods, he really overly sexualises his Dornish characters). Though Arianne is still dismissed as stupid, boring and “100% going to die next book” by a big chunk of auditory, and I wonder if it is a writing’s problem or a reader bias, too.

The positive representation of female friendship with the Dornish characters was somewhat soured for me by how overtly sexualised they are… (And after hearing the prejudiced stereotypes about wanton dornish women I was rather hoping GRRM would actually prove them wrong… He didn’t…).
I think he’s doing a bit better with Sansa and Myranda’s developing friendship, but of course that is also dampened by us not quite knowing whether Myranda is friend or foe to Sansa yet. I hope she is, and that Mya is too, because them all being friends would be a great addition to the novels. A group of female friends, made up of well developed characters, including a main POV, where we actually see them interacting in a positive way and being supportive of each other despite their differences in ASOIAF? Sign me up.
I also have hopes for cool friendships when Sansa and Arya meet Brienne (not sure who’ll meet her first at this point…I once thought it would be Sansa, but now I’m actually leaning towards Arya), and of course, I think the Sansa and Arya reunion and the development of their relationship from there should be great.
Reader bias is definitely an issue but it is exacerbated by the author in this case. GRRM, especially writing AGOT in the time he was, would’ve known the misogynistic mentality that a lot of readers would come to his books with (whether they intended to or not) and therefore known that they would take many of the casually misogynistic attitudes of his characters at face value, especially when he, as the author, does not do much to prove them wrong in his framing of feminine female characters.
It’s a very similar situation to what is going on with the Dornish… Racist Westerosi from other parts of the seven kingdoms claim that they are libidinous and have very “exotic” views on sexuality (and there’s definitely a lot of exotic erotic fetishization going on with the Dornish), but it’s hard to say GRRM is criticizing this kind of stereotyping when he engages in exotic erotic with his writing of the Dornish himself!
Think how different it would’ve been if the Dornish actually had a very conservative culture and thought that other Westerosi were the oversexed animalistic ones…
That actually would have better mirrored the medieval/Renaissance world GRRM is drawing from as Western Europeans often thought of Eastern and Southern peoples as having fiery passions and unusual sexual appetites but foreign travelers into Europe often thought european cultures were more sexually permissive. It’s all perspective and bias. Authors can do great things with challenging the readers’ biases… But here GRRM sometimes falters and leans into old stereotypes himself.

And the problem actually surpasses the limited presence of positive
female friendship in the text to being the overwhelmingly negative
female relationships in the text. GRRM tends to frame most of the
female/female relationships in his story in a really negative light which, combined by the very few examples of good female/female relationships, makes it as if GRRM doesn’t know how to write female relationships that isn’t immersed in jealousy and conflict, and hits too close to the “catty women” stereotype for my taste. As discussed above, the only two girl Starklings are the ones in direct conflict with one another, and it’s specially peculiar when compared to how the text deals with Jon’s relationship with Robb. The latter has its share of conflict and tension at its core but Martin goes to great lengths to frame it as a positive affectionate relationship that is very important to both Jon and Robb. Jon repeatedly describes Robb as his best friend and his thoughts on his brother are mostly loving and warm, while Robb demonstrates absolute trust in Jon in defiance of society’s dominating prejudice and distrust of bastard. Robb is constantly present on Jon’s mind in a way that screams affection. Sansa and Arya, on the other hand, mostly think of each other while thinking of the Stark family as a whole, and more often than not their thoughts are accompanied by “even Sansa” or “even Arya” tacked at the end like an afterthought. Their positive memories of each other are rare and clipped, and often goes to frame the warmth of their childhood at Winterfell more than their specific relationship.

That contrast goes to frame how different GRRM handles feelings of jealousy in male vs female friendships. Jon is jealous of Robb but that jealousy never defines their relationship, but look at how jealousy defines Lysa’s relationship with Catelyn, or Cersei’s with Melara Hetherspoon, both of which boiled down to jealousy over a boy, which is another maddening tendency of Martin – to have a male presence as the source of the tension. Cersei and Margaery’s conflict is a fight over control of Tommen, which Marg lays out explicitly. Hell, that goes back historically to Visenya and Rhaenys Targaryen and their marriage to Aegon. Even Sansa’s budding friendship with Myranda Royce (which I have hopes for) introduces a potential conflict in Myranda’s jealousy of Sansa over Harry Hardyng before the text even builds the relationships. Martin quite literally introduced the conflict before he did anything with the relationship. It’s like two women can not be friends without fighting over a guy in some capacity in Martin’s world. 

And if that element is not present, other sources of conflict that define the relationship exist. Alysane Mormont and Asha Greyjoy have some vague friendly vibes that I very much enjoy but that are still immersed in a long historical conflict, especially for a Mormont of Bear Island who grew up with the threat of the ironborn. There is a distinct vibe of Melisandre replacing Selyse as Stannis’ true queen, and their relationship is permeated by fanaticism. Cersei is a case study in negative female-female interactions which dominate her narrative. There’s a built-in feeling of jealousy and competitiveness in the YMBQ prophecy. She kills the girl she describes as a friend for having feelings for Jaime at the tender age of ten (ffs, GRRM.) She is condescending and cruel to Sansa. She is in a perpetual fight with Margaery and Olenna. The way she talks about Lysa Arryn drips with disdain (she repeatedly refers to her as a “cow”) Her thoughts on pretty much every single woman she deigns to think about are appalling. Even the two not-glaringly-hostile somewhat-friendly relationships she has with Taena Merryweather and Falyse Stokeworth are completely fucked up: she rapes the first in an imitation of the abuse of power Robert constantly subjected her to, and the entire relationship is a lie because Taena is a double-agent who has been playing her from the start, and she sends the second to a fate worse than death by giving her to Qyburn. That’s a long list of awful relationships that only get intercepted by some good ones like Sansa and Jeyne Poole (which still has its problems), or the one between Margaery and her cousins (which has shades of the Tyrell Family Unit’s approach to politics but that remains genuine enough, though we only get to hear some scattered reporting on it.), or the short friendly anecdotes like the ones between Arya and Lady Smallwood, or Catelyn and Dacey and Maege Mormont.

And of course, there is the glaring contrast in how Martin fleshes out female relationships vs male relationships, which intersects with the problem of the Dead Ladies Club in some places. We know a lot about the relationship between Aerys and Steffon, and Aerys and Tywin, but nothing about Rhaella’s relationship with the Unnamed Princess of Dorne or Joanna Lannister. Arthur Dayne is Rhaegar’s bestest friend and confidant but we have no idea what relationship Elia had with Ashara Dayne. To go back in history, Jaehaerys I had a fruitful and long friendship with Septon Barth but we hear nothing about a similar female friend for Alysanne. Orys Baratheon was Aegon’s right hand but Visenya and Rhaenys have no significant female friends (and a bitter rivalry between them). Ned and Robert are friends, and Oberyn and Willas Tyrell are pen-pals, but Ellaria and Catelyn are alone. It goes on and on.

In the case of Arianne and her cousins, I have to say that I also do not like how Martin’s framing of Dorne as an outlier in the text also gives the implication that good female relationships are also an outlier in Westeros. I mean, it’s a positive view of Dorne (and god knows that I’ll take every positive attribute to Dorne in the face of the excessive exotic-eroticism of Martin’s text), but I also do not like how that frames positive female relationships as something unusual to the ordinary Westerosi woman outside of Dorne. I agree with what’s been said above about the treatment of the Dornish characters and it’s something that I can’t even give Martin the benefit of the doubt for, or argue that maybe he meant to criticize the stereotyping of Dorne when he is the one who fueled it in the first place. I’m not about to wave away reader bias but I do agree that Martin is culpable. The dismissal of Elia in fandom? Has roots in how GRRM dismisses her in the text. The stereotyping of the Dornish characters? Well, our first introduction to a Dornish character (which happened in book 3) is Oberyn Martell, and Martin infuses it with references to threesomes and brothels and has Oberyn describe Ellaria as a lusty wench. Our overall view of Oberyn is colored by Tyrion’s own opinions since he is our POV character which is not ideal at all, but that gets exacerbated when we meet Arianna through the incredibly racist Arys Oakheart and his “she is Dornish” before we hear from Arianne herself. And though the relationship between Arianne and her cousins is strong, Martin chooses to inject a sexual vibe in the tidbit about Tyene and Arianne having a sexual encounter with Drey at a young age while at the same time having Arianne reflect on how Tyene was her almost sister (and I just can’t with how that builds a connection to Cersei here, the one sleeping with her brother and who also had a sexually-tinged friendship with Taena in the very same book. The dreadfulness and dysfunction of Cersei’s experiences gives an unavoidable negative attachment to Arianne’s own.) Nym was in bed with the Fowler twins (both girls, which along with the TyeneArianne thing, makes this more of a “oooh, women having sex with each other” than a positive handling of polyamory) when the news about Oberyn arrived, Elia Sand is so sexualized it’s ridiculous, it’s all just very uncomfortable and stereotypical and lazy.

And of course, while all this goes on, we are introduced to the 18 years old virgin Quentyn and his unsexualized friendship with his companions. Just to hammer the point home.

So to sum up, the state of female relationships in the text is:

  1. Don’t exist/don’t warrant mentioning.
  2. Are built on competitiveness and jealousy often over a guy.
  3. If they do exist, they either have a needless sexual component with negative associations,
  4. Or are very brief andor not properly fleshed out.