A Song Of Ice And Fire

I always love Shakespeare parallels in the series.

I've noted previously similarities between Jaime's threat and the speech Henry V gives in that play to break the Siege of Harfleur, where he basically says that if they don't open the gates his men will kill the old men, rape all the women and spear babies with their pikes (seriously).

Also, while I really doubt Martin read this one, since it's very obscure, I also came across this play about the Borgias called The Devil's Charter by Barnabee Barnes. In that play, Cesare Borgia (who like Jaime is having sex with his sister) gets a female castellan to surrender by kidnapping her sons and he psyches her out by telling her that he's killed them. After her forces surrender, he reveals her children alive and well. And it's played as an Even Evil Has Standards moment, since (unlike Jaime) Cesare would never kill children.

But I definitely think the Jaime scene is similar to Henry V in having the disquieting element that a fairly sympathetic character probably would go through with their threats if they were pressed.

Edit - I've also kind of mused on possible parallels between The Bastard in King John and Daemon Targaryen, which is another case where the play character is much more of a softie than Martin's character, as the Bastard is willing to steal the inheritance of a child but wouldn't murder a kid (or at least wouldn't murder a kid he's related to).

Edited by Hodor2 on Mar 22nd 2024 at 12:41:41 PM

Upon rechecking, it seems like per Cersei's and Kevan's ADWD chapters Jaime has been missing for about three weeks at least. Going by fan timeline, it took 6 days for Brienne to get him, so it's probable that he hasn't spend all his time travelling. I think it's likely that Stoneheart has decided to not kill him immediately, but only as part of the Frey massacre ... just like she was forced to watch her son die, he'll see the massacre.

Apparently the hostages Jaime had are accounted for, per Cersei's chapters, rather than being with the BWB as I was supposing...but Tom O'Sevens is indeed with Jaime for the entire siege of Riverrun and only leaves after Jaime orders the Freys to hand over their hostages. That's Stoneheart's chance.

About Ghis:

Kinda? I dont know if a coment about iraq but it does feel about a US war of sorts and also the idea of Dany as this plunky girl protagonist that liberate people. It also try to hint that targ madness kinda lurk at her and her desire to destroy.

Also you cant change a culture by force and your subject cant respect you if you dont show some apriciation for it, Dany just dont care and she kinda hate all that, it kinda show how in a way she feel more at home with the goddamn dotharki than Ghis.

Issue I think are twofold: one that Martion deliberaly show Ghis as this utterly shithole that nobody give a shit and make Dany sit there feeling miserable. Its hilarious how we dont even know the gods of Ghis at all for example.

GRRM's writing when it comes to Dany's plot has been bad in general.

My take on the Mereen situation is that Dany is trying to work with the nobility versus the people.

That's at least a flaw shared by the entire fucking cast. And the writer. We sure don't see a lot of pov chapters from non-nobility.

The only pov characters who seem to give a shit about commoners are Jon and Arya.

Edited by M84 on Mar 23rd 2024 at 2:40:37 AM

in theory the plot is a bit like this:

-Dany get victory and is all good and nice and not surprising, GRMM always deal with the exhilartion of victory and horror of what come afterward.

-Turn out when slavery is so strench into the order and economic power, you kinda become a asshole to ruin it out if you cant replace it with something else, or in short, buring the slaver is kinda half of the job.

-pissing a lot of people mean they can call another people who will be piss at you, also son of the harpy show you can harm a dragon, how? in the shadows. Yeah

-Finally Dany love the free slaves...she just hate the culture around it. their love to cruelty, their pointless robes, everything around it as meeren know said, she kinda love the freedom of do what she wants but that also means the typical "You cant tell me what to do" and gods the targaryen does hate being told what to do.

Issue with is Ghis is very much orientalism 9000, it feel very much inspired by sword and sorcery(this is something we forget, for all history nerd he is, this series feel closer to Elric stormbringer and Conan) and is very much stygia or edgy version of thay and George clearly and deliberary try to make us feel in Dany shoes so it show us all the bad part of Ghis, from their pointless cruelty, their love for slave, the faded glory, etc.

But the result was that a) people thinking Ghis is a shithole that should be burn and focus in what matter and b) well, acusing george of being racist or kinda a hack.

Essos has a general Orientialism problem and Slaver's Bay is arguably the worst example of it.

Though I think the (in-story) problem with Daenerys is that she's kinda flip-flopping at times - she wants to erase slavery, but doesn't want to actually crush the people who want to bring it back.

When she first showed up in the city, she selected a bunch of ruling nobles at random and had them crucified in retalation of what they did to the slaves - only for the son of one them seeking an audience later and claiming his father actually spoke out against crucifying the slaves. Now we don't actually know if that guy was talking the truth, but Daenerys felt bad enough that she's just becomes... averse to any harsh measures, while there's a literal terrorist group murdering people in the streets.

It also doesn't help that she's received a really vague prophecy about somebody betraying her and she's basically mistrusting any advice anybody gives her as a result.

And when she does make a call and actually marries a local noble to shore up her reign, said noble tries to poison her and the Sons of the Harpy attack her anyway.

The Meereen story arc honestly seems to lean towards "Should have just executed the entire nobility", considering how any attempt by Daenerys to reform - no matter how flip-floppy - is thrown back in her face anyway.

But it's just incredibly frustrating to read because of Daenerys' paranoia and how most of the characters involved are flat/and or completely unsympathetic. The Ghiscari as a whole are so flat, a lot of them sharing the same name is literally something characters mock within the story.

I kinda like the Shavepate because he actually stands out and honestly hope he turns out to be one of the people in Meeren who were actually loyal (the whole "who's gonna betray me next" arc has been seriously tiresome).

Still end up skipping most of the Meereen chapters whenever I re-read the books.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Mar 23rd 2024 at 8:18:20 PM

Also, Daenerys is a literal teenager (she is 13 in AGOT) , so she serves as a deconstruction of A Child Shall Lead Them type of heroes in fantasy stories, who comes into the setting with innocent eyes and powerful magic to save the corrupt mortals from themselves.

Honestly, that entire plot arc seems like some kind of a "phase" for her, that she will grow bored with eventually before going to Westross, like a teenager who join a karate club or something for a couple of months, before deciding that it is not for him.

....................

Thinking about it, Jon Snow is also an example of a A Child Shall Lead Them, and he too doesn't end up well, 

Despite the best of intentions, all his plans backfire horribly, and he ends up murdered for his trouble.

Edited by jawal on Mar 23rd 2024 at 7:39:01 PM

None of the young rulers do well.

• Dany doesn't know what she's doing or even what she wants.

• Jon forgets he's dealing with an Army of Thieves and Whores and not a badass honorable order.

• Robb was more or less pressured into becoming king by everyone around him and wasn't ready for it.

• Joffrey is Joffrey.

I mean, what undoes Jon isn't the general shadiness of a lot of Night's Watch recruits.

He's pretty much murdered by the old guard who think he's gonna drag them into Westerosi politics.

A lot of it honestly comes down to Poor Communication Kills - Jon considers the bigger picture (the undead army massing north of the Wall), while a lot of Night's Watch veterans still interpret the whole "shield that guards the realms of men" thing as "keep those dirty Wildlings out".

Jon's pretty much pulling a Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right! because the Others are a much more pressing issue than whoever the fuck's gonna sit on the Iron Throne - which might as well be the tagline of the book series because the political intrigue is supposed to be basically be the sideshow to the mankind-threatening threat the Others pose.

Of course if you don't believe that threat exists - most of the survivors of Mormont's ill-fated expedition tend to be younger recruits, i.e. Jon's peers, and the other people most likely to believe him (like Aemon) are either elsewhere or dead by that point - all you see is your commander potentially jeopardising neutrality by making deals with a guy who's actively fighting the royal government.

The last straw being Jon actually wanting to ride south to confront the Boltons, which is honestly the one thing he does that's unrelated to shoring up their defenses.

That action basically confirms the old guard's suspicions, so they murder him "for the Watch" - though if the TV series is anything to go by (and I very much doubt that part was made up by the writers), this isn't gonna end well for them.

One major mistake Jon made is one he shares with Robb - don't keep your direwolf away from your side.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Mar 23rd 2024 at 9:08:47 AM

Well, the thing is that Jon Snow is dragging them into Westeros politics - deciding who gets Winterfell/the North/"Arya"/Alys Karstark is none of his business. The reason why Ramsay sent that letter is because he (correctly) thinks that Jon Snow sent Mance and Stannis to attack him; it's not an instance of Ramsay abusing someone just because he can. Neutrality exists specifically to prevent people from attacking the Watch/refusing assistance because they think the Watch is their enemy. Sure, Tywin and Roose Bolton did abandon the Watch with no justification, but you are creating a precedent that will have effects far beyond Tywin and Roose. And before that, Jon has the habit of making controversial decisions with little/no effort to get buy-in from fellow Watchmen. I've seen people compare Jon with Rhaegar and I think they check out.

Note that Maester Aemon sent letters to Northern lords too - and yet only the non-Northerner Stannis Baratheon answered. The rest of the North doesn't seem to be doing any better a job at protecting the Wall than the Boltons are.

That's why I called it a case of Poor Communication Kills. A lot of Jon's decisions are motivated by actually getting the help they need to fend off the Others and Stannis has so far been the only one who's actually taking the threat seriously, while the Boltons and Lannisters are more likely to stab the Night's Watch in the back at the worst possible moment.

So he's got a vested interest in making it easier for the guy who's actually willing to help - nevermind that brokering the marriage between Alys and Sigorn also helps with the issue of finding the Free Folk new homes (which is arguably easier in the Thenns' case already because they're more hierarchical than other tribes already).

The thing is that he's pretty bad at actually communicating a lot of his reasoning to his subordinates, nevermind them actually believing him.

Also, Jon may be playing politics, but so are they. Though I'd still argue he was trying to keep the Night's Watch out of things as best as he could under the circumstances, until he let Ramsay provoke him directly. It's not like beggars can be choosers when there's a Zombie Apocalypse on the horizon.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Mar 23rd 2024 at 10:51:33 AM

The mutiny is something that we're meant to condemn as readers. However, I tend to think Villain Has a Point. Jon has a lot of sympathy for the Wildlings that comes from his time among them while completely ignoreing that their original plan was to invader and murder in the North with impunity.

Invading Refugees and all that.

Stannis DOES want them to be part of his war against the North and takeover.

And then Jon was going to kill Ramsay because, well, Ramsay needs killing.

There's no good way out of this situation even if he explained everything as Jon is inherently a hot potato.

I have similar feelings with Arya among the Faceless Ones. A lot of fans just see it as her leveling up to go on a vengeance spree (and it probably is) but she SHOULD be letting go of her past life and trauma.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 23rd 2024 at 2:56:28 AM

No, this isn't just a problem of poor communication. The Watch and the Free Folk have been enemies for millennia, and a lot of Watchmen were killed very recently in Mance's attack. Asking Watchmen to suddenly 180 degree turn on Watch-Free Folk relations is quite hard. There is no proof that the Boltons planned to attack them, either. The Weeper business, Hardhome etc. Even if Marsh and co. got their explanations, I can see them disagreeing still.

Ramsay did not provoke the Watch. Jon did provoke Ramsay first, by sending Mance to take his wife away. I can't wait for this beast to die horribly, but let's not pretend that he cast the first stone against the Watch.

Edited by SeptimusHeap on Mar 23rd 2024 at 10:55:36 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if Ramsey plans something for Jon because Jon is a threat and seemingly cooperating with Stannis.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 23rd 2024 at 2:56:01 AM

He wouldn't be the only one - Cersei was also planning to have one her stooges sent to the Wall to assassinate Jon. Then the High Sparrow got his hands on him and well...

And that feud becomes rather trivial when there's ice monsters raising a zombie army around. It's been kind of a running theme since the first book that everybody's so preoccupied with realm politics that they either miss or actually ignore that something is going on up north.

That Jon is unable to promote that bigger picture is what ultimately gets him killed; because the people killing him don't realise there's bigger problems than Wildlings.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Mar 23rd 2024 at 10:59:57 AM

The point of the Slaver's Bay arc is actually quite straightforward, in my opinion: nation-building is hard, you can't just topple an unjust system and expect a better one to arise on its own. (So yes, the Iraq parallels are clear.) Astapor shows what happens when Dany doesn't even try. Mereen is Dany trying to do better, except it's hard. Especially when you and your inner circles are outsiders with no clue about the socio-cultural context you're wading into, which I think is the point of the "they all have the same name" quip. And eventually she might be forced to cut her losses and leave, and leave a second Astapor behind.

What is the greater purpose of this in the narrative? I think it's part of the attack on Dany's core identity and purpose in life as the last Targaryen, only rightful ruler of Westeros. On the one hand there's now another purported Targaryen who's also claiming the throne, as she'll learn sooner and later. And on the other hand she's now discovering that ruling is difficult and she's not particularly good at it. (Of course in Westeros she wouldn't have half those problems, but pushing someone in the deep end of the pool is a good way to put them off swimming).

I don't know what this will lead to, perhaps a mental break like in the show, perhaps something else, but to me that seems to be the direction her story is taking.

Does treating with the Weeper actually further the cause of stopping the Others? The second Hardhome mission? I mean, sure, they could succeed in getting some people out of the Others' clutches. Or it results in a lot of Watchmen being killed pointlessly - and frankly, that strikes me as the more likely outcome. For that matter, even if we assume that the Boltons had designs on the Watch, it's not at all obvious that Jon deserting to fight them would help the fight against the Others. Just because Jon has the right end goal in sight doesn't mean that his way to get there is indisputably correct.

I'm pretty sure I've specifically excluded Jon's desertion from "actions taken for the sake of defending the Wall" earlier already, so no idea why you're bringing it up now.

And yes, his decisions to get as many Freek Folk behind the Wall instead of letting them get killed and zombified do help (or would, had they been more successful). Any living person you get behind the wall is one fewer body the Others are gonna throw at you - nevermind getting more able-bodied warrriors to hold the Wall.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Mar 23rd 2024 at 11:21:07 AM

And when she does make a call and actually marries a local noble to shore up her reign, said noble tries to poison her and the Sons of the Harpy attack her anyway.

I've always found the theory it wasn't him but the Shavepate wanting to ruin that plan working to be really convincing.

I don't quite buy that one because Skahaz' position - and the shavepates' in general - pretty much hinges on Daenerys' survival.

The shavepates are Les Collaborateurs in the eyes of the rest of Meereen's nobility after all.

Well, Skahaz outmaneuvered Hizdahr & Harpy after Dany flew away, so either he got lucky or he was ready for her untimely demise/disappearance - per fan timeline, Skahaz got Barristan on board four days or so after Dany left, and a week later the military coup.

Edited by SeptimusHeap on Mar 23rd 2024 at 1:42:27 PM

I wrote an essay I wish I'd saved on my blog that basically says that George R.R. Martin has two potential ways that the Mereen plot can go or should. Whether it's a parallel to Iraq or whether it's a parallel to the Confederacy.

Because Iraq's problem was that it was a war based on false pretenses and probably should never have been there in the first place.

While the Confederacy angle is that they didn't go FAR ENOUGH in destroying the ruling class and rooting out all of the collaborators as well as terrorists.

I tend to think that Skahaz will murder the child hostages and then all nobles in Meereen that aren't already on his side the instant Barristan's back is turned. His hatred for Hizdahr is quite obvious as is his desire to kill the hostages, I think he'll act on them as soon as opportunity presents ... and in the released TWOW chapters, Barristan is sallying out of Meereen with an army.

So I guess it's the second scenario (Confederacy angle) that I expect.