I understand logically why the game of thrones show aged up so many characters for practical reasons (child labor laws, canon scenes which would be inappropriate to film w a child without traumatizing them, etc.) but having most of the main characters be adults really takes away from the tragedy of the entire story. Dany is only 13 when she’s sold to Khal Drogo, she is a scared and quivering child with no home and no family when we meet her. Jon is also 13, keenly aware of his branding as an outcast by the rest of his family, longing to simply be accepted alongside his big brother robb. robb himself is 14 and rides off into war, his death, before he can even properly grow himself a beard. his own mother is unsure if he’s ever kissed a girl, yet he commands an army. podrick is 10. bran is 8. brienne is only 19, not in her early 30s. missandei is around 9, a child of the slave trade who has lost absolutely everything and yet clings to her fellow former child slave (Dany) as a mother. They’re all so terribly, horribly, tragically young when the stories begin, and all either already the victims of multiple tragedies or the prey for narrative darkness. In this way, asoiaf is a story not about political savvy and connections, but of a hundred desperate and forsaken children grasping for safety and family and trying to ensure the next generation of children will never suffer as they have (and they fail at that too)

Make the Black kids Interesting

So, everyone keeps saying how much more interesting the Green kids are compared to the Black kids given their traumas and depth of characters, and season 2 can be the perfect chance for the HotD writers to rectify that. Luke is already gone. But they can give us a scene between Jace and Sara Snow in Winterfell, before or after they've fallen in love, talking about what it's like being the bastard children of the royals and the nobles. Jace can share how it felt to constantly to be criticized about being the visibly bastard children of Rhaenyra, how much they had to prove they're also as much Valyrians as Aegon, Aemond, and how only having the king as their grandfather favoring their mother and having a deranged stepfather (Daemon) protected them from being either disinherited or outright assassinated. He can talk about the stigma of being the bastard kids of the Princess of Dragonstone and the pain of having their mom be called a whore publicly while their eldest uncle can simply visit the whorehouses without repercussions. Get to him talk about losing Luke and not even having a body to mourn.

There can also be a scene between Baela and Rhaena talking about the pain of losing their mom and watching their dad move on to another woman so quickly, having to be disinherited from ruling Driftmark without having to marry Jace and Luke, and how, despite Rhaenyra being the Princess of Dragonstone, women still are viewed through sexist double standards.HotD writers, you can rectify the boringness of the Black kids this season. Give them depth. Get them to talk long ass monologues. Don't disappoint us.

the horrifying what happened to aemma in episode one about this is that it is only when the woman is ACTUALLY dying or are already dead that c-sections are performed. that told me they do not care of about the historical telling of the story AT ALL. so i just wanna break down the situation and why i dont think that scene in episode one was necessary in the way it was.

now we have a precedence of this shown in the form of queen dowager alyssa velaryon in f&b. the first birth of her marriage to rogar had not been good, she was already weakened by that and her second pregnancy in the marriage was worse, to the point she was dying.

the maester informs that alyssa was already dying and that the only solace they could give is dreamwine. if she had consented or never woke up, we dont really know - but either way the baby, jocelyn, would actually die if they hesitate longer and that if nothing is done, alyssa could take the baby with her as well.

so jaehaerys and alyssane are told and its jaehaerys that tells rogar - that alyssa is dying and the babe could be as well, but they would have to cut her open. rogar was horrified but its something that had to be decided. yet it was a hard choice to make, because no matter the outcome, there would be pain and death - brutal one at that.

but because alyssa was already dying, it was offered as an option and hence it aligns heavily with the medieval standards. in fact, we can find this in a book by historian renate blumenfeld-kosinski called not of woman born where she talks about this.

there's a passage where she mentions saint thomas aquinas and the conundrum of conducting a c-section as soon as possible to annoint the child in holy baptism, to 'save its soul' from damnation — which details a conversation but saint thomas wrote against that, in defense of the mother and explicitly details that he rejects killing the wives.

if the mother is already dead but child is still alive, that's where you move to cut open because the child would die just the same as the mother. thomas rejects the idea that you should kill the mother in order to baptize the child. it is so interesting that the church is against abortion, but one of its outspoken individuals has this sort of perspective.

in fact, there is a passage on three instruction manuals for women's health and medicine called trotula (the little work of trotula) in medieval italy in the 12th century. the midwives who study these texts are encouraged to take care the mothers first. this was at a time where people are HIGHLY religious and would have caused such a social taboo. it was a shock wave to the population seeing these radical ideas for the first time.

the text on c-section on the trotula goes as follows: "whan the woman is feble and the chyld may noght comyn out, then it is better that the chylde be slayne than the moder of the child also dye." - which means it was highly encouraged that they ONLY CUT when the woman is already dying or is dead. this text tries to tells that the mother and child need tp be looked on but women need to be cared for as much as the child. if there is any other way, it should be taken. only in the event of no more choices should there be cutting.

in fact the woman who was behind ideas in trotula — trotula of salerno was a radicalist in her time. she believes both women AND men can have defects. specifically how men's semen can be medically unfit to conceive a child. and that WOMEN should not be suffering at child bed, discussing the use of opiates from herb plants to help with pain and just like saint thomas, she believes that women are not meant to suffer or die from childbirth and that women should not have to make up for the sins committed by even in eden.

in fact, c-sections were also heavily regulated by local authorty. jakob nufer in 1580s for example was a veterinarian who found that his wife was having such a hard time with childbirth that he was so concern and begged to be allowed by local authorities to perform a c-section on his wife because he feared she would die and he succeeded, which his wife surviving AND that child living a long life according to the records.

historians have said that this would not happen just without any reasonable cause to do forced c-sections on their wives for the fact that their wives are also belonged in other royal houses and strong noble families. the people in charge needed these alliances and connections in order to keep the peace going. foul play cannot be a must, the childbed is risk enough for these alliances already. marriages and childbed tied the peace together. alas, the best childbed care is a MUST.

aemma's death would have been fine as a regular death in childbirth or even a similar situation as alyssa's, which would have at least dignified her death. unless it was the natural progression of childbed and or foul play, aemma arryn would have no need to die like that on her childbed. this was not a good way for aemma to die.

it was just insulting to the book material, historical record and aemma herself. not to mention to viserys i. losing his son was tragic enough but having him decide prematurely without her consent, without her actually nearing death or without discussing it in depth with the maester and or not insisting any other way was so off to me. he would have been making a bunch of questions, this was his wife - she was tied to house arryn and she was a high ranking woman. he would not HAVE had her cut open like that when she was not dead yet or actually on her death bed.

the progression of targaryen kings sowing the seeds of civil war through the way they left things with their children is so funny to me because it really does go from viserys i “up until his death was trying to reconcile the separate branches of his family and create lasting peace” targaryen to aegon iv “i’m going to legitimize every single one of my bastards on my deathbed just for fun and to cause problems on purpose” targaryen

the thing that makes me go insane when it comes to jonsa is that even though it’s not canon - and probably never will be - it’s a ship that’s got everything. it’s got everything you could ever wish for in a pairing. the shared history, the childhood memories, the complex family dynamics, being family yet being strangers, going from being strangers to being family. the parallels in their individual journeys - being in turn a traitor and a prisoner, learning to survive by playing a role in a place where they can never rest nor trust anyone. jon going from bastard to lord and sansa going from lady to bastard. being hurt over and over again, forced to grow up too soon, their dreams and ideals crushed, their innocence taken from them. the years-long separation, the pain of losing everyone they love, the longing for home and thinking they’re all alone in the world. and then… and then the reunion. unexpected and all the more beautiful because of it, all the more beautiful because of the distance that existed before, because she wasn’t his favourite sister, because of all the hardships they endured that made them into different people, people who could understand each other, love each other. the fact that with him sansa is finally safe, and with her jon finds his purpose again. avenging their family, avenging each other, and the house stark of it all - reclaiming their stolen home together when they used to be the two people who wanted to leave it the most. finding their identity as starks, an identity which was taken from sansa and never belonged to jon, by gifting it to each other - jon helping her get winterfell back and sansa letting him know he is a stark in her eyes, giving him the acceptance he never got from her mother. the comfort and protection, being each other’s safe haven, helping each other heal, learning to trust again, learning that they deserve to be loved. sansa’s wish of being loved for who she is, all her little girl dreams that she thought were impossible, coming true when she finds her prince in the most unlikely candidate of all. jon, with his lower status and feelings of inadequacy, being the hero she so desperately wished for, someone brave gentle and strong. but the anguish, the shame and the denial, a forbidden love, a burning desire fighting against the need to be honourable. jon’s parentage being revealed. the layers, the LAYERS guys!!! and that’s not even all of it. fics, meta, fanvids and edits have opened up this world of possibilities, they’ve taken these characters, understood them so perfectly, and created the most nuanced, compelling, beautiful relationship i’ve seen in all my years of obsessing over fictional couples.

There is something vaguely heartbreaking about Sansa's crush on Waymar Royce.

He has the Stark look. We all joke about how Sansa has a type and about how Jon looks like Ned and how Freudian it all is.

But Waymar is not just an image of Jon but also an image of Ned, but young and handsome and - most importantly of all - surrounded by an air of self-sacrificing nobility. A Black Knight of the Wall. Pure and ideal. No flaws. A Stark hero prototype.

I mean, Sansa essentially fell in love with an image of who she thought Ned was - before she realized "what bastard meant". The unblemished version of the man Ned used to be in her eyes, a faithful and fully honorable man.

What a strange relief it must have been for baby romantic ten-year-old Sansa to see that ideal from the songs embodied in someone who looked like home - a Ned-alike, seeking a Northern life, aiming to live his chivalric values in the land of the old gods, where she had been disappointed in them by her own father's infidelity.

No wonder she fell wildly in love.

i feel like i dont post enough of my wips on tumblr but i'm working on an asoiaf themed deck of cards and... 🫣

the designs of the characters are based on a mix of the books descriptions and my own imagination

bonus some that ive barely coloured

I think the thing that’s really striking about the got books as opposed to the show is the way Martin never shies away from how physically damaged everyone is left. In the show Tyrion gets a badass scar but in the books he looses half his nose, Briennes teeth are broken and a chunk of her face is literally bitten out. Theon looks like an old man, his body is completely wrecked -

But they’re still not beyond hope. Their stories don’t finish with the horrible things that happen to them, their scars and deformities, they go on, and it’s not pretty and tragic and romantic like a story

And that’s the whole point.

Every single book in the series makes a point about how violence and war is romanticised in literature and history and Martin makes his character a living testament to the reality of war, the ugliness, the trauma, and that depth is just another thing that got glossed over in the show where people stay pretty and everything that made the books special is watered down.

Let your characters be ugly. Let them get hurt. Let them be scarred, and watch them get up anyway.

I spent like months on these so if anyone says anything about anyone not being included or time periods not lining up for the clothes i will CRY

Wildling King Jon x Queen in the North Sansa AU~

Commissioned again by the amazing @littl3bird (@j0nsansa on twitter)! This one was a lot of fun to work on, and the concepts and ideas were stunning. Thank you, once again for reaching out to me about this commission!

asoiaf is actually mainly about being 15 and suffering more than jesus

On Valyria and the Doom

Warning: this is mostly conjecture

I want to write in-depth theories on the history of Planetos, but in order to do that, I need to address the fading of magic.

And in order to do that, I have to talk about Valyria.

The prevailing view in Westeros is that magic died in the west when the doom fell on Valyria. And I do believe that that view is mostly correct. However, I also don’t think that magic didn’t suddenly stop working one day. I posit that because of Valyrian practices, magic was pulled from other regions of the world and concentrated in Valyria.

This is because Valyria was a conquering, enslaving, brutal empire. The function of an empire is always to extract value from outlying regions and pull it into the center of said empire. Whether that value be in the form of gold, or slaves, or crops, or mineral resources, the outcome is the same. And in the world of Planetos, there is another resource: magic.

The concentration of magic in Valyria may have been purposefully done by the Valyrians. Or perhaps it was a natural consequence of their imperialism. Whatever the case, this would explain why Luwin refers to Valyria as the “last ember” of magic. As Valyria concentrated more and more magic on itself, there was naturally less magic in other places. Although it does seem like magic was able to keep going strong in far-flung Asshai, magic was weakened everywhere even remotely near to Valyria.

But we all know what magic is like on Planetos. It’s strange, and esoteric. It is a sword without a hilt. It’s powerful and dangerous and unpredictable and…

Explosive.

With so much magic concentrated in one place, Valyria would’ve been a magical powder keg. Just one thing going wrong could’ve caused the magical chain reaction that destroyed Valyria and created the Smoking Sea. Perhaps a volcano goes off, causing all of the concentrated magic to violently react and destroy everything. And with that explosion, all of the taken magic is gone. It doesn’t flow back or anything. It’s gone.

And once all the magic got exploded, it took a while to really start coming back. First, it starts coming back into the edges of the affected region, in the lands of always winter with the Others. And then it flows inward, bringing direwolves, bringing giants, bringing resurrection, bringing dragons and flaming swords. The greed of the Valyrians damaged the magic of Planetos, and now it’s beginning to heal. For better or worse.

TL;DR

The Valyrian Doom was caused by the Valyrians concentrating a bunch of magic in one spot, and because magic is dangerous, the magic blew up. This damaged the magic of Planetos, and now the magic is healing.

Davos Seaworth: A Lifetime of Smuggling

An aspect of Davos' backstory which I do not believe I have seen discussed much, likely because to my knowledge it appears to have only been brought up fairly briefly, is the age of which Davos first became involved in illegal smuggling and the potential implications of this own his character, backstory and general morality.

Here Davos is shown reflecting on his experiences while serving upon the Cobblecat, which was the first ship he served on, and notes he saw the wall during this time and was "younger than Devan" at this point.

In this same chapter, Davos remarks that Devan is "not quite twelve", therefore indicating that Davos was presumably no older than eleven himself (at the maximin) when he first joined the crew of the Cobblecat. We do not know much of Davos' childhood prior to this, but it is known that he grew up in Flea Bottom which is the poorest slum of King's Landing.

The HBO show does state he is a "Crabber's son" (for the record though I have only ever seen clips of the show) but this does not appear to be mentioned anywhere in the books. Instead we get this;

So we know young Davos was a beggar, so likely not from a family with any stable employment or means to support themselves. When Davos' family is brought up, only his wife and sons are mentioned. He is never alluded to having living parents, siblings, cousins etc. Given his family-oriented nature, one might also expect he'd be at least a bit guilty if he had abandoned any family to join the Cobblecat's crew (although granted it has been decades). So while I do not think its outright stated that Davos is an orphan, it seems likely.

I feel the reason why this might be important to note, and why it might have some notable implications, is because it shows how and why Davos became involved in smuggling in the first place. One criticism I have seen of Davos' character a few times is that he does not necessarily feel like the type of man who'd break the law for profit for many years, as he is one of the most morally upright and honest characters in ASOIAF.

While I do think these criticisms have some merit, I also think that there is nothing about being a criminal which necessarily means Davos would prevent Davos from being a generally moral man. This is especially the case in Westeros, which is a highly stratified feudal society where the commons have little protection or upward morbility.

On this same note; there is also another thing worth mentioning when considering the time Davos become a smuggler... the tenure of Tywin Lannister as Hand of the King.

A Wiki of Ice and Fire calculates Davos' birthdate as being no later than 260, although notes that Davos was likely born a few years earlier. Tywin was Aerys' hand from 262–281 AC, and one of his famed actions is removing the pro-smallfolk reforms. I've seen this theorised as contributing to the eventual rise of the Kingswood Brotherhood and their initial popularity with the smallfolk.

So judging by what we know; Davos was born into extreme poverty in a society in which distinctions between classes are part of the law, and likely grew up during a time where the rights and conditions of commoners were being taken away and decreased.

I do not mean to claim Davos is free of fault; he has cheated on his life, he associates with morally ambiguous folk such as Salladhor Saan (A pirate who has no scruples with pillaging innocent civilians) or Stannis Baratheon (a very fascinating character as well).

But I do think this history and context could be worth noting to inform how Davos grew up, and how he is the man that he is. He got into smuggling when he was young enough to possibly not fully grasp the implication of this, and likely continued all those years because smuggling was his main skill-set to support himself, and later his family.

Transitioning to being a legitimate merchant would likely carry a number of obstacles; having to explain where he gained his wealth and cargo he'd have to sell at first, paying tariffs, making himself more well-known to authorities which could risk his old crimes being uncovered and making it easier to arrest him for them. I do not think it is a contradiction between Davos generally being good-natured, but also continuing to do the (dishonest) job he is best at. Especially when his commitment to his family is such a major part of his character that it also likely was why he continued the job of a smuggler to support them.

something i’m observing in knight of the seven kingdoms is how people are drawn to dunk. after just one conversation, they seem to trust him implicitly and rely on him to uphold ideals of justice and honor. for example: egg, baelor breakspear, the fossoway squire raised to be a knight, eustace osgey. (i say men and not “people” bc the only woman given any page time so far is tanselle; her service worker/customer relationship with dunk + lower position in the hierarchy at the tournament + Westerosi Misogyny very likely informs their interactions. i’m about to meet rohanne and may update with my thoughts afterward.)

it would be wrong to say that dunk is wholly good. this is asoiaf; both grrm’s heroes and villains typically have complex moral values. rather, dunk 1) tries to be good and 2) believes it’s possible to be good in a world that rewards power and violence over anything else. he also maintains these convictions when “common sense” says otherwise and/or his bodily safety is at risk—i.e. kicking a targaryen prince in the mouth. men who want to be good and recognize how fucked westerosi society is are drawn to dunk like moths to a flame. these men also believe they’re shrewder than dunk; their convictions clash with their notion of “common sense.”

The grave has claimed them, every one, yet he endures, this pale bird with bloody beak who perches on King Aerys's shoulder and caws into his ear. The mark of hell is on his face and in his empty eye, and he has brought us drought and pestilence and murder.

Happy Halloween @slavonicrhapsody 👁❤️

Lyanna

Arya and Nymeria

Sansa doods