Hello! Your blog is great, first of all. I’m curious: do you think there’s any chance of a happy ending for both the Starks and the Targaryens? I’m optimistic that the Starks will get a happy ish ending (PLEASE let them be happy, Martin!), but I feel like there’s no way both Jon and Dany can end the show happily. Thoughts on Stark restoration vs Targaryen?

That’s kind of you to say. But I think my answer took a swerve into gloomy land. Sorry!

Here’s what GRRM said about the end.

I think you need to have some hope…we all yearn for happy endings in a
sense. Myself, I’m attracted to the bittersweet ending. People ask me
how Game of Thrones is gonna end, and I’m not gonna tell them …
but I always say to expect something bittersweet in the end. You can’t just fulfill a quest and then pretend life is perfect.

That last sentence is the driving force of the ending, I believe. Throughout his writing, Martin took care to get to the core wounds and the real trauma behind “glorious quests”. The Starks wage war against the Lannisters and Dany liberates the slaves and we root for them. We root for them with everything we are. But throughout it all Martin pulls back the curtain and makes us look at the ugly side of war to understand the cost whether to our heroes or to others affected by their actions. He doesn’t leave it at the idealized concept of a righteous war but pulls us into the suffering involved and forces us to face it. To understand its effects. Wars leave scars and demons and fears behind, wars cause suffering. You don’t end a war then go on with life like all that loss didn’t wrench a part of you with it. Like Frodo in LoTR which Martin cited as one of his favorite endings. They won but Frodo was never whole again. Those scars will always be there, just like the scars of Robert’s Rebellion haunts everyone involved, sometimes to their graves. That’s been Martin’s writing ethos from the very start.

This isn’t a story where the hero goes on a righteous and glorious quest, slay the monster and then live happily ever after. That’s not a knock on those story, btw, it’s just that this story is not one of them. Martin will send his heroes on righteous and glorious quests, then he is going to make them excruciatingly aware of what it really means to be on such a quest. There is no room for romanticization here. The hero’s journey, as poor Quentyn Martell discovered, is awful in reality. It is bloody and scary and traumatizing. It chips away at you. It does not end in happily ever afters. Martin doesn’t do happily ever afters or traditional happy endings. His endings are almost always bittersweet. There is hope at the end, yes, but one tinged by loss and pain because that’s what it cost to win and the story will acknowledge it, will acknowledge the sacrifices made for the war to be won and for humanity to prevail.

My money is currently on Jon and Dany being among those sacrifices.
This fight with the Others is gonna take everything our heroes have to
push them back. That’s no simple fight; all those scary horror
manifestations that have been eluded to in legends are coming for
Westeros and humanity is going to pushed to the limit in fighting for life and survival.

There is a popular LoTR quote that many writers have used while discussing the stoyr’s endgame that’s extremely relevant, but I’m more struck by the back-end of it.

I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved,
but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger:
some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.

Jon and Dany are messianic figures with themes of death and resurrection
swirling through their arcs and both fit the “living on borrowed time”
trope. Both have steadfastly shown willingness to sacrifice themselves throughout their arcs and now they (and Tyrion) are the spearheads of a fight for life itself. That really sends the chances of them giving theirs to save
the world and all that they love sky high.

How does that bode for a Targaryen restoration? It does not. Martin has repeatedly said that he writes the human heart in conflict with itself and the books put so much stock in our choices. And what’s Dany’s heart’s desire? She wants to return home to Westeros and reclaim her ancestral seat. But Dany is not a ruler, she is a savior. Not that those are mutually exclusive but Dany’s role transcends being a queen (at least in the traditional sense of the word) to being a champion of humanity.
She is the Breaker of Chains, a liberator whose mission is to strike down the chains of servitude the Others use to enslave their victims. The conflict in Dany’s story is gonna involve turning her back on the idea of a Targaryen restoration and her ancestors’ legacy because fighting over who sits a bloody chair is worthless where there are eldritch slavers coming for them all. The real enemy is the cold and that’s where Dany comes in with her fire and her willingness to sacrifice herself that we’ve seen multiple times through her arc. Dany’s real queenship does not lie in sitting an empty throne, it lies in protecting the realm.

Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?

Dany might never sit the Iron Throne. I don’t even think there is going to be an Iron Throne at the end of the story. The closest thing we’re gonna get to a Targaryen restoration is through Young Aegon who is not even a Targaryen in all probability. Dany will come in to reclaim her place from him with fire and blood and it’s going to be devastating and terrible. But it’ll also destroy the symbol of the futile political fight over an ugly chair that’s been leeching resources and attention away from the real fight. Dany’s queenship won’t be born of a Targaryen restoration but of breaking the chains the Others want to shackle humanity with and it is highly possible that she’ll sacrifice herself to do it, sacrifice her desire to rule Westeros in favor of ensuring that there is a Westeros to rule, even if she doesn’t get to do it. 

As for the Starks, I think I’ve mostly said my piece about their chances at restoration ( 1, 2.) I do think they are surviving the War for the Dawn except for Jon (wellll, Rickon is one big question mark for me.) But I’m quite confident that Bran, Sansa and Arya are going to survive and be part of the rebuilding of Westeros after the devastation of the War for the Dawn. They are the hope at the end of the story, the embodiment of the dream of spring and the ones preserving and honoring
the memory

of those who fell for humanity. I’m afraid I don’t have specific predictions for them post-war beyond that.

Do you think that because of how much the Ryswells and Dustins hate the Starks, Ned should have trusted William and Mark? House Ryswell and House Dustin are the first to declare for the Boltons. It seems odd how William and Mark go from being among the most loyal and trusted of Ned to their houses being the most hateful and hellbent on destroying Ned/the Starks. If there really is a Stark restoration (not that I think that’s happening), their houses will survive or even should survive to rule?

It is far from accurate to claim that Houses Ryswell and Dustin hate the Starks or are hellbent on destroying them. It is Barbey Dustin that has a personal grudge against Ned (and his father Rickard) but we have no reason to believe that her feelings were shared widely across the two houses or are indicative of some historical animosity that should have been taken into account by Ned. Ned named both Willam Dustin and Mark Ryswell friends and I’d be hard pressed to argue that he was mistaken or that he should not have trusted them when both died in defense of their lord and his sister, and when both probably shared personal relationships with Brandon Stark (Willam was his foster brother and Mark belonged to a house that routinely hosted the heir to Winterfell). Willam Dustin insisted on joining Robert’s Rebellion himself despite Barbrey begging him not to, something that she ascribes solely to his pride but I attribute also to his loyalty and connection to the Starks. I see now reason to devalue the sacrifice of good men when we have no evidence to doubt their sincerity or loyalty.

Regardless, I don’t think that the Ryswells or the Dustins harbor a special animosity towards the Starks. Barbrey isn’t even a Dustin by blood so I find it hard to speak of her as a source of information about how the Dustins feel when we are yet to meet a single Dustin. It is true that the house declared for the Boltons but
I don’t think it’s the enthusiastic agreement of its members that the broad
declaration of “the Dustins hate the Starks” imply. House Dustin
declared for the Boltons because its current ruling lady did, and it
seems like its main ruling branch was extinguished by Willam’s death
allowing Barbrey to rule instead. As for the Ryswells, Rodrik Ryswell was sure very welcoming to Brandon at one point and while that was tinged by self-interest, feudal politics unavoidably color personal relationships with a degree of self-interest in most cases. Even the most loyal of the Stark bannermen are still playing the political game and looking for favors so that’s not a knock on the Ryswells in and of itself. Furthermore, I didn’t get any strong feelings from either of Barbrey’s brother wrt the Starks and it sure sounded like their siding with the Boltons was simply a matter of their interests currently lying with them rather than any strong negative feelings towards the Starks. So perhaps they might not be particularly loyal but I don’t think they are particularly hateful either. They certainly have no forgotten the Freys’ involvement in the Red Wedding and that they lost people there. They are just going with where the current wind blows and that happens to be with the Boltons right now (which I predict will change because I also don’t think the Ryswells are all that loyal to Roose either and definitely not to Ramsay. The upcoming showdown with Stannis should see a lot of shifting loyalties as the pro-Stark northmen defect and turn on the Boltons and Freys. I suspect the Ryswells and Barbrey will follow suit).

That said, I really don’t think it’s a coincidence that there is a force of northmen that Roose left behind in the Riverlands whose whereabouts are currently unknown, a force that just happens to include spearmen from the Rills and men from House Stout which is sworn to House Dustin, under the command of Ronnel Stout who shares an undetermined relation to Harwood Stout who hosted Roose Bolton in Barbrey’s name. Those men should have a role at one point.

Lastly…

If there really is a Stark restoration (not that I think that’s
happening), their houses will survive or even should survive to rule?   

Oh, a Stark restoration is happening. Even if we put aside all the foreshadowing in the Starklings’ arcs that points straight to Winterfell, we still have the North remembers and the fact that Jojen dreamed that “the wolves will come again”. The very history of the North and of the Starks’ role in the fight against the Others demands that a Stark hold Winterfell during the War for the Dawn. Winterfell was built as an engine to fight the Others and we continually hear that there must always be a Stark in Winterfell, all while the Starks historically take on the mantle of being both protectors and providers for their people. Gosh, even Tyrion knows that the Lord of Winterfell would always be a Stark. Also, consider what he says of Winterfell’s godswood.

He remembered their godswood; the tall sentinels armored in their
grey-green needles, the great oaks, the hawthorn and ash and soldier
pines, and at the center the heart tree standing like some
pale giant frozen in time. He could almost smell the place, earthy and
brooding, the smell of centuries, and he remembered how dark the wood
had been even by day. That wood was Winterfell. It was the north. I
never felt so out of place as I did when I walked there, so much an
unwelcome intruder. He wondered if the Greyjoys would feel it too. The
castle might well be theirs, but never that godswood. Not in a year, or
ten, or fifty.
   

Now Bran.

The stone is strong, Bran told himself, the roots of the trees go deep,
and under the ground the Kings of Winter sit their thrones. So long as
those remained, Winterfell remained

A castle built by a Stark for the specific purpose of fighting the Others with a name that denotes their downfall and whose survival Bran directly ties to the Kings of Winter. A godswood that has been pretty much described as the heart of the entire North and that offers access to the weirwood network of greenseers, the last of whom is a Stark (whose face and voice were carried through the heart tree in both dreams and reality). A house whose entire existence is intrinsically tied to the magical war and to the survival of the North, to safety and order in the North according to the Liddle that meets Bran and co. That’s too much history and symbolism that necessitate a Stark restoration. It is happening. The story demands it.

Don’t you think you’re making elia too submissive by having her be solely a victim of rhaegar? If you like her than you should want her to have some culpability in rhaegar’s plans as it’d give her agency. She was a viper she must’ve played the game too. If she hadn’t then why would she be staying in King’s landing. I think she saw the importance of his actions and agreed to handle aerys In his absence. If it turns out that she encouraged him to take another consort it’d give her a spine, no?

I do not see the correlation between being a victim and being
submissive, neither do I think that only submissive people can get
victimized. Not only does this fundamentally misunderstands how trauma, abuse and power dynamics work, but it implicitly puts blame on the
victim in a roundabout way. It ascribes negatively-coded attributes to victims and
derails the conversation to be about some idealized standard for how a
victim should behave so that they wouldn’t be victims. It puts the
responsibility of the prevention of the abuser’s actions on the abused which heavily overlaps with the dichotomy of good victim/bad victim. I really, really hate that argument in all its shapes and forms, regardless of how it’s being used and who it’s being used with.

As far as agency goes, I
understand fandom’s need for Elia to have some kind of agency in her story and I share the frustration that so far she has been mostly used as a plot device in a male character’s story. I just don’t think that arguing that Elia was “culpable” (wth?!) in Rhaegar’s actions accomplishes that. The very act used to supposedly give Elia agency actually diminishes her character
on both personal and political fronts. It is built on a bizarre belief that Elia
must have believed in the prophecy and in Rhaegar’s quest. But no one seems to give me any logical explanation to why she’d do that all while ignoring that this baseless assumption inadvertently implies that people think that Elia believed in the prophecy simply because Rhaegar did. The idea that Elia supported Rhaegar’s action is based on a frankly perplexing dismissal of history (this is about Lyanna but 1 and 2 apply to Elia as well) and
politics which in turns implies that Elia was either weirdly apolitical
or weirdly ignorant. Why would Elia endanger herself and her children like?
Because reasons.

I don’t see how having Elia’s character solely revolve around the primacy of Rhaegar’s opinions
and wants gives her agency.

I don’t see how turning Elia into a person who
mindlessly parroted Rhaegar’s beliefs and careless singleminded pursuit
of the prophecy right into a civil war gives her agency. I guess I find it more productive for arguments of
Elia’s agency for us to treat her as a person with her own mind and her
own set of beliefs that’s not reliant on what her husband believed. I
like to think she had the agency to have thoughts and opinions that are not blindly reflective of Rhaegar’s.

Or Oberyn’s for that matter since his example is often what drives theories that Elia was fine with Rhaegar absconding with Lyanna. Because Elia was a viper and she played the game. Except 1) she wasn’t. Oberyn is the Red Viper. Elia is a separate person from him.
The conflation of the two and of their personalities and opinions are a facet of the stereotyping of Dornish culture that treats Elia as beholden to Oberyn’s actions and
outlook as if Oberyn is the Representative of Dornish Culture. But Elia is her own person. I don’t know why this is a
radical statement in fandom.

2) the game that you are adamant that Elia was playing is actually what makes me reject the idea that Elia supported Rhaegar’s affair with Lyanna. History, politics, danger to her children and everything I’ve honestly talked ad nauseam about to the point where I’ve grown tired of it.

Too, I question how it came to be that having a spine became tied to Elia “encouraging” Rhaegar to have an affair, not only for the reasons listed above that fly in the face of that but also…. are we now acting like acceptance of adultery is a baseline for “having a spine”? Why is it that Elia, contrary to all the women in Westeros, needs to not simply accept but welcome being cheated on to prove vigorousness or proactivity? How does it give Elia a spine to passively accept public humiliation, become a willing participant in a situation that has historically proven perilous
to half-Dornish monarchs, and support and “encourage” her own political authority being compromised for no reason whatsoever? Do you honestly think that’s logical? That’s playing the game to you? For Elia to go against her own interests and that of her children’s by supporting
Rhaegar taking a highborn mistress with the
explicit purpose of having a child on her. As if the Blackfyre rebellions weren’t a thing. As if that’s proof that she had a spine.

Frankly anon, I’m scratching my head over the contradiction in your
message. You act like saying that Elia was a victim of Rhaegar makes her
submissive, but seem to argue that her passively accepting an insult
after another to enthusiastically make way to Rhaegar absconding with
another woman is the epitome of agency and proactive behavior. She is a capable political actor and a partner in Rhaegar’s plans that she goes to King’s Landing to stave off Aerys, but also an ignorant woman who saw nothing wrong with being put in danger alongside her children for the sake of the prophecy. She is a viper, except when she is being happily cheated on. She is playing the game, except when she is
enthusiastically

inviting a huge political risk to her doorstep. She is culpable in Rhaegar’s actions because she has a spine, except when she doesn’t care about being needlessly humiliated in public. Pick a person, please. This is giving me whiplash.

image

syraxes

replied to your post

“I highly doubt Rhaegar actually thought this far ahead, but what do…”

Could Dany’s birth change his mind? He’s expecting a girl and Jon is born. But then… his mother has a daughter. Born of the right line, female, close in age to his children, a babe that survived when so many others died. Two sets of ‘threes’ and, in some way, it’d explain why Elia was unable to have any more children – She wasn’t meant to!

Not if he was invested in the theory that the three heads of the dragon were siblings which I think he was, hence his “there must be one more”. Why didn’t he consider Viserys to be a viable option? Why didn’t he consider himself to be an option? For him to express the need for a third child then hightail it to the Riverlands then Dorne to acquire it says he thought said child had to be his.

Then there is the Lyanna of it all. It remains to be seen if Lyanna’s ice connection is what drew Rhaegar to her in the first place, but whatever his reason was, the multitude of risks he took to abscond with her suggest there was something specific about her that made him decide she had to be the mother of the third head. Dany is not Lyanna’s so she’d lack whatever it was that Rhaegar was seeking in his child with Lyanna.