Thursday, February 12, 2015

Supreme Court of Westeros, ruling 65

Thursday is court day! This week, in honor of Valentine's Day, we take in not three, not four, but five questions with a context of love. Enjoy! And don't forget the damn roses.
Welcome to the Supreme Court of Westeros! Every week, three pressing questions from the community will be answered by the esteemed judges Stefan (from your very own Nerdstream Era) and Amin (from A Podcast of Ice and Fire). The rules are simple: we take three questions, and one of us writes a measured analysis. The other one writes a shorter opinion, either concurring or dissenting. The catch is that every week a third judge from the fandom will join us and also write a dissenting or concurring opinion. So if you think you're up to the task - write us an email to stefan_sasse@gmx.de, leave a comment in the post, ask in the APOIAF-forum or contact Amin at his tumblr. Discussion is by no means limited to the court itself, though - feel free to discuss our rulings in the commentary section and ask your own questions through the channels above.
One word on spoilers: we assume that you read all the books, including the Hedge Knight short stories, and watched the current TV episodes. We don't include the spoiler chapters from various sources in the discussion, with the notable exception of Theon I, which was supposed to be in "A Dance with Dragons" anyway.
Casting Call: We're searching for guest judges again! If you like to participate, even if you have been part of previous rulings, send us an email.
And now, up to ruling 65 of the Supreme Court of Westeros! Our guest judge this week is Anton Jumelet, a philosophy student living in Amsterdam. He is usually not an active member of the fandom, but does ferociously follow everything ASOIAF-related. He is also a staunch advocate of replacing Machiavelli with Martin in all university curricula.

If there was an equivalent to Valentine’s Day in Westeros, what would it involve and who would celebrate it?

Main Opinion: Amin
The idea of romance coming from Valentine’s Day would potentially fit the Reach quite well. It might be tied into existing ideals of chivalry and honour already there. Surprisingly, the notion might also fit well with the Dornish, in the sense that lovers and paramours are more openly accepted there, so they could openly celebrate if it actually existed. There is already the idea of crowning a Queen of love and beauty at a tournament, which could fit if there was a specific tournament held for that day. On the other hand, I would think the idea of courtship or seeking the hand of a lady is more established in Westeros than being ‘romantic’ once you are already married. So those ladies that are already married may be out of luck in this case, unless a husband is particularly enamored with them.

Concurring opinion: Stefan
It seems like Valentine’s Day would be a feast in honor of the Maid, celebrating young love in a chaste way (officially, at least). The exchange of roses or other tokens of love, singing of songs and composing of verses would fit the thing and the knightly culture (therefore, no northern or Ironborn Valentine’s Day). As the climax (heh) of the day, the lovers could hold hands in public or even exchange a kiss. Whatever happens once the sun sets, of course, is a different matter. And in Dorne, they would laugh at the stupid idiots in the rest of Westeros and fuck just because.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Anton
A proper equivalent of Valentine's Day could hardly exist in Westeros (maybe with the exception of Dorne and the lands beyond the Wall). Though it pays lip service to the ideals of courtly love and chivalric romance, its society is essentially too feudal. It couldn't allow encouraging youthful flirtations and solidifying them into stable, public relationships (betrothals, marriages) by everyone sending messages and giving presents to one another. Romantic love is trumped by the need to forge political alliances, to return favors, and not to dishonor yourself or your order, family, friends, and acquaintances. If anything, Westeros would celebrate (or commemorate) the tragedy rather than the comedy of love. Imagine an Anti-Valentine's Day on which Westerosi nobility exclusively celebrate star-crossed love and think about those they love (loved) but cannot (couldn't) have. Either their relationship is forbidden or frustrated, or their significant other is already taken by someone else or has died. On such a day, dreamy maidens would read about Queen Naerys and Prince Aemon the Dragonknight. Singers perform bittersweet songs like 'The Seasons of My Love'. Brothels offer discounts. And for all that, the societal norm that dalliances don't equate stable relationships is still reinforced.

Final Verdict: It might fit the chivalric traditions if adapted well, but not the rest. 

Who told Eddard that Lyanna was at the Tower of Joy?

Main Opinion: Amin
I believe it was fairly common knowledge that Rhaegar preferred or had some sort of connection to the Tower of Joy. After King’s Landing was occupied and Lyanna was not there, it would seem to be a natural place for Eddard to turn toward himself, or have someone tell him about. I’m not sure who specifically it would be if it is the latter case, or if even George thought through this particular detail. Even if Lyanna was in a more hard to determine place, there is Howland Reed, who might be able to tap into his abilities to find out where she was. But I don’t think we need to go as far and postulate something like that when there Eddard could have found out more straightforwardly.

Concurring Opinion: Stefan
There isn’t really that great a mystery there. The rebellion took scores of prisoners after the Battle at the Trident, and again in King’s Landing. Someone was bount to know where Rhaegar was before he shored up the Dornish support for his battle. I don’t think that Howland Reed plays into it; at best, he would have dreamt of a tower in red mountains, which is about as useful as nipples on a breastplate. Eddard’s reactions to Catelyn’s superstitions and the direwolves in “A Game of Thrones” pretty much rule that out, though, because if he ever witnessed something like Green Dreams, he wouldn’t dismiss magic the way he does. Therefore, some good old-fashioned intelligence was at work. Eddard fighting out the last battles after Robert was wounded suggests that he only learned of Lyanna’s destination at King’s Landing or even as late as Storm’s End, but I’d think it was the former, with Storm’s End more or less laying on the way.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Anton
I also thought that the existence and location of the Tower of Joy were common knowledge, but I cannot find it in the text. However, even if it was an obvious place for Ned to look, you must explain why he believed it was sufficient to bring only six others with him. This suggests that someone did tell him about the situation at the ToJ. Four candidates spring to mind. (1) One of the three knights of the Kingsguard could have sent a raven (presumably to Storm's End where Ned lifted the siege). But why they would do that is unclear. (2) Someone with magical abilities could have 'seen' it. Howland Reed might have had this role. But thus far there's no solid evidence that Howland has any greensight, so this idea remains unfounded as well. The two remaining possibilities are not well-supported either, but a more plausible story can be told about them. (3) It's possible that Ashara Dayne knew the situation at the ToJ, either because Starfall, where she lived, helped supply the ToJ, or because her brother Arthur told her. She might have told Ned in turn (by raven or in person) from a sense of loyalty to the brother and sister of her love Brandon Stark. That her telling Ned led to the death of her own brother may have been a factor in her suicide. (4) Lyanna could have sent a raven herself, maybe even unbeknownst to her attendants. She knew that she couldn't stay at the ToJ forever and supposed that protection for her Targaryen child was most likely to come from honorable Ned. All in all, though, there's too little evidence as yet to make a convincing case for any of these candidates.

Final Verdict: It wasn't that hard to figure out, really.

Is Melisandre the daughter of Bloodraven and Shiera Seastar?
See also here.

Main Opinion: Amin
At first glance, I would say it is unlikely because 1) Melisandre remembers she was sold as a slave and it is unlikely Shiera would have fallen so low to allow that to happen 2) Melisandre is not particular good at interpreting visions, compared to her alleged parents (Bloodraven is a master and Seastar was presumably good at whatever magic she mastered) and 3) It is likely that she wears a glamour, which can explain any physical comparisons or connections suggested between characters. Now, is it still possible? Possible, yes. Perhaps beyond the realm of crackpot, but I am not convinced at this time. I note that future submissions to the Court should be provided in written form rather than audio, as I had to locate a written version of the theory to evaluate it.

Concurring Opinion: Stefan
Possible, yes, but highly unlikely. The slavery background doesn’t fit and it is just one connection too many between all of this. Besides, neither Bloodraven nor Shiera Seastar are ever mentioned of having any connection to R’hollor and the Blood Magic stuff.

Dissenting Opinion: Anton
We don't know much about Melisandre, Bloodraven and especially Shiera (most about her comes from a single entry in the So Spake Martin archive). That makes S+B=M difficult to disprove – not a point in its favor – but also plausible given the surprising number of clues that do seem to point in its direction. First, it fits with the known facts that S and B had a sexual relationship and that M is significantly older than she seems. Second, there is a striking resemblance between M and S (heart-shaped face, slim waist, full breasts, beauty, prominent necklace, magical abilities, using those to stay young, knowledgeable, free sexual agent) and between M and B (red eyes, association with the color red, pale skin, tallness, wearing hooded cloaks, magical abilities, moral ambiguity). Not to mention those with her maternal grandmother (magical abilities, using those to stay young, knowledgeable) and her paternal grandmother (name starts with 'Mel'). Third, the theory has merit from a literary point of view. It makes certain prophecies come to fruition in unexpected ways. A dramatic father-daughter confrontation could be in the offing. And it may set up M for a self-sacrifice given that she ironically possesses some king's blood herself. Sure, the theory relies on certain assumptions (e.g., M still looks like a younger version of herself) and conjectures (e.g., S got pregnant from B, went to Lys and was captured by slavers), and you can certainly cast doubt on those. But if forced to make a wager on the truth of the theory, I'd bet it's correct. By the way, I would like to commend the makers of Radio Westeros. Their character-based approach has made it my favorite ASOIAF podcast (all due respect to my podcasting fellow Justices, of course).

Final Verdict: Most likely not, but there isn't much evidence either way. 

Do you think Dany truly loves Daario or are her feeling for him more likely just lust and attraction to danger (like the Meereenese Blot argues)?

Main Opinion: Amin
Somewhere in between lust and love? Dany is still a teenager, and like other teenagers (i.e. Robb Stark), may have trouble with determining the difference. I do agree that the lust and attraction to danger was a crucial motivated Dany’s early interest in Daario. However, she definitely became more attached to him over the course of A Dance with Dragons. At the same time, Dany knows that Daario is not good for her, and could never be more than a paramour. I am certain what Dany feels for Daario at the end of A Dance with Dragons, following her vision walk in the plains. We’ll have to wait and see in the next book. I’lll ask a relevant question for the other judges to comment on as well: does Daario love Dany? I say no, he is just using her, but I’ve heard doubts on the issue.

Concurring in part, dissenting in part: Stefan
I definitely agree that Daario doesn’t love Dany. She admits as much herself, asking herself whether he’d take her if she wasn’t queen, answering in the negative. I do agree wholeheartedly with Adam Feldman on the matter, however. Dany doesn’t love Daario, it’s pure lust. She has been without good sex for a long time, and he presents not only an attractive option for her but also the personification of war and violence she so craves and tries to supress throughout the story arc of “A Dance with Dragons”.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Anton
As far as I know, Adam Feldman hasn't argued that Dany doesn’t love Daario. He describes Dany’s character as consisting of two distinct components: the mother and the dragon. The mother is the part of her that longs for peace. The dragon desires war. Dany has grown to fear this second part of her personality and has to repress it to achieve peace in Meereen. Still, she's drawn to the dragon's symbolic representation: Daario. And Feldman claims that Dany, in her final chapter of ADWD, embraces the dragon in her, thereby choosing Daario over Hizdahr. If anything, this analysis supports that Dany has fallen for Daario (I’m less convinced of the reverse, by the way). Dany has always been physically attracted to Daario’s blue eyes and lithe body. But I also think that especially the dragon in her genuinely connects with this amoral, aggressive, and romantic rogue — though they have been lovers for only one month, and the affair was sparked by Dany simply feeling lonely and betrayed. Even if the mother in Dany thinks Daario is cruel and should be avoided, that doesn’t make her other feelings for him superficial. Knowing that you fall in love with the wrong type does not negate the feeling. However, I do think that Dany would be better off with someone who can relate to her inner dragon as well as her inner mother. The ending of ADWD could be promising in this regard. I agree that Dany decides to accept the dragon in herself (not chaining it up anymore). But contrary to Feldman, I believe that Dany also resolves not to use the dragon heedlessly, as in her conquest of Slaver's Bay, but more wisely (reining it in and steering it in the right direction). If Dany can make dragon and mother join forces — like a true Valyrian sphinx — I expect guys like Drogo or Daario lose some of their appeal for her.

Final Verdict: While Daario doesn't love Dany, she may have feelings for him. 

Will any characters find true love and will they be able to live happily ever after (No deaths or one of them marrying someone else for political reasons)?

Main Opinion: Amin
Sure. But I don’t think it will be the big three: Don, Jon, and Tyrion. They have greater duties and responsibilities to face, and the story of Nyssa Nyssa doesn’t bode well. I don’t think George will be going that route with those three. But some characters will certainly find love and have relatively good partnerships. Will we hear about it is another question, as wrapping up romantic loose ends will be low on the priority as the series nears its end. In any case, what is happily ever after? All good things must come to end. Ned and Catelyn had a good ~15 years together before they died, more than 50% of couples don’t make it that long in our contemporary society. If Davos survives, he’ll go back to the wife he loves, with a better record for faithfulness. Perhaps the other judges can think of some examples.

Concurring Opinion: Stefan
Some people will, but most likely not those at center stage, with a notable exception: I’d guess Sansa will finally find some man to love, but on equal terms and not in the stupid fairy tale version she’s been dreaming up for the better part of the first three books. Davos should be one, of course, too.I also hope the Fossoway with his pregant bride from Joffrey's wedding and the "tender and protective gesture" makes it, by the way.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Anton
War is coming. Winter too. Only a few members of our main cast will survive this ordeal. It may be too much to ask that they also must overcome their scars and traumas, find someone they truly love, and live together for an extended period. Remember that the novels don't provide many examples of successful couples to begin with. Justice Amin mentions Ned & Catelyn, and Davos & Marya. The few other seemingly happy couples I can think of are Oberyn & Ellaria, Renly & Loras, and Tywin & Joanna. Of course, given the hundreds of characters that pass by, some of them are bound to conclude the series in a way that is sweet rather than bitter. But especially the shippers of the couples that are often proposed in the fandom are setting themselves up for a great disappointment. What pairings are definitely not happening? Neither Gendry nor anyone else will hook up with some seriously traumatized, psychopathic angel of vengeance currently living in Braavos. And Sansa is way too valuable to ever be marrying some grave digging novice on the Quiet Isle. At best, some of those wished for couples have a minor fighting chance. I'd say those are Gilly & Sam, Brienne & Jaime, Roslin & Edmure, and Asha & Qarl (or Tristifer for that matter). But you shouldn't get your hopes up.

Final Verdict: Some people will make it, yes, but not many.

21 comments:

  1. Outstanding guys, out-f*cking-standing! Tackling 5 questions is just too awesome. Was this the first time? Anyhow, thanks for answering my Dany and "Happily ever After" questions.
    Yeah, Dany and Daario are probably fond of each other, but they definitely know where they stand and the reality of their situation.
    Nothing lasts indeed. Some characters will definitely be able to survive with their loved ones, but not that many. Sam and Gilly are probably one of the most likely couples, Bran and Meera too now that I think about it. Bran will probably survive and since Meera can't really go anywhere else for a while they will get the chance to grow closer together, Meera seems to like Bran and he already has a crush on her, who knows.
    Happy Valentine Guys!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you very much, guys! I have one question: do you think it possible that Arthur Dayne might have been the "bleeding star" at Jon's birth, to make him (one of) the prince(s) who was promised?

    Also, to the Tower of Joy question: I never got why it was a mystery how Ned knew. Three of the greatest knights and a beautiful woman had travelled there. They either had a huge supply train, a number of servants, or someone like Arthur Dayne made regular supply trips into the nearest settlement. Neither is exacty subtle. Nevermind that one of the seven Northerners present had been a prisoner at the Red Keep for a while, so very close to any such source of information.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Do you think Mace Tryell will force Cersei to return to Casterly Rock now Kevan is dead? I think it is a ruse that she will sit as Regent again because the people and faith will not allow it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You know Stefan, as I'm rereading through Feast and Jamie's chapters I think you might have been too harsh on Blackfish in regards to Edmure during the siege of Riverrun. So many interests want Edmure dead, and they make that plain to Jaimie, which means surrendering Riverrun at that point basically wouldn't have changed anything, in fact HOLDING Riverrun up to that point saves Edmure's life because he can bargain directly with Jaimie for it. That Bryden surrenders the castle when Edmure enters speaks better of his nature on that matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surrendering Riverrun changes a whole lot. It ends the war and stops the danger of immediate and violent death for all the people involved - the servants and soldiers in the castle, the soldiers outside, the people in the countryside who suffer under the war, and so on and so forth. Literally the only person in the whole of the Riverlands who doesn't want Riverrun to surrender is the Blackfish.
      I also want to remind you that the Blackfish does, in fact, NOT bargain for Edmure's life, neither with the Frey host nor with Jaime. He shot an arrow at Frey when he came to bargain, and he insults Jaime all the time. He has zero interest in bargaining. For him, Edmure is already dead. The deal is struck with EDMURE, not with the Blackfish. Jaime sends him in the castle, whose legal overlord he is, and Edmure yields it. Not the Blackfish. That one leaves the castle to start a guerilla war in the countryside and prolong utterly useless suffering and to bring even more violence to the people, for naught. He could have chosen an honorable way out - going down in single combat, taking the black - if he had wanted, but he didn't.

      Delete
    2. When was this discussion about the Blackfish? I want to read it

      Delete
    3. It's ongoing. ^^ One important piece is here:
      http://towerofthehand.com/blog/2011/11/17-2-characters-unworthy-of-praise/

      Delete
    4. I have just read it and it is very interesting. I am a big fan of the Blackfish but I can see your point. Edmure does make many mistakes though and he displays very poor leadership skills, so I can see why he is scolded so often. Whether this is because his father has been unwell for so long or it is a personality issue, you can decide. I agree he should have known about the plan but to say it was not formulated does not make attacking the Westerlands sensible because Tywin could have trapped the Northern army in the Westerlands if he gave up Kings Landing.
      Great read though

      Delete
    5. That's not true and we both know that, people don't WANT Riverrun to surrender, they feel that Riverrun has no choice but to ultimately surrender. After the Red Wedding you can't tell me that anyone in the Riverlands is happy with their submission to the Freys. For all the death and destruction of the war tyranny is one of the few alternatives people WANT to choose war over if that's the only way. It simply isn't at this point. And I didn't say Bryden bargained Riverrun for Edmure, I'm saying that Brynden NOT bargaining for Riverrun affords EDMURE the opportunity to bargain for Riverrun, thus once again not negating my point that it saved Edmure's life in the end. Nor did Brynden offer any resistance to Edmure when he entered the castle to surrender it, which he could have done so if he truly didn't care about Edmure's person. I can agree with you to an extent about the failure to include Edmure into the war Council, but in this case as I keep reading through Jaime's chapters prior to Riverrun's surrender it seems like EVERYONE wanted Edmure dead and the only thing keeping him even a little bit was that Riverrun hadn't fallen. Roslin's already pregnant after all. I'm not trying to be critical of you here stefan, I'm just saying that you might have been too harsh on Blackfish in this one instance and ignored his point that in his mind whatever HE did would not have changed Edmure dying.

      Delete
    6. You can be as critical as you like, I can take it ;)

      But seriously, I don't get the argument. Brynden, who expressly doesn't give a rat's ass about Edmure either way because the war is lost anyway somehow saves his life because Frey is too stupid to kill him until Jaime arrives...? That's where I don't get your point. If "everyone" wanted to kill Edmure so bad, why didn't he die long ago? He's standing up there with a noose around his neck, for crying out loud. Why does Frey keep him alive, sheer stupdity aside, if the Blackfish clearly doesn't negotiate?
      By the way, I'm not faulting Brynden for not trusting Frey and for not caring that much about Edmure in this situation. You couldn't trust the Freys, that's clear enough. What I fault Brynden for is the decision to hold out at all, because there is no one coming.

      Delete
    7. Oh, and the failure not to include Edmure in the war council is Robb's fault. While Brynden in his fits of machismo might be forgiven - he's a tactician, not a strategist, after all - Robb can't make a similar excuse.

      Delete
  5. No, no that's not what I'm saying. Let me break this down sequence by sequence. At the start of the siege I fully concede that Brynden held out fully prepared for Edmure to die. But I argue that his ill feelings to Edmure are not what drives his actions based on the evidence presented to Jamie in the chapter where he reaches the siege line and confirmed by Brynden himself in his discussion with Jaimie the chapter afterwards. Anyone who knows the basics of feudal politics knows Edmure's continued existence is a threat to the Freys and their hold over the Riverlands and in the case of Emmon Frey his hold over Riverrun itself. At this point it isn't a question of if Edmure will die, only when. Given that, why should Brynden logically trade Riverrun for Edmure's life if it won't save him anyway? However, that dynamic takes a different turn when Edmure isn't killed outright. Now Brynden knows that while he still can't save Edmure, his continuing to hold Riverrun can EXTEND Edmure's life for however long Riverrun can last because Ryman Frey is that stupid and Brynden knows it now, so while it doesn't change what Black Fish was prepared to do it does serve to reinforce him doing it in the first place, which Jaimie confirms upon speaking to Brynden about it. And while Brynden holding Riverrun won't save anyone in his mind because that same logic that applies to the political threat posed by Edmure in turn applies to him, the Westerlings insider with him, and the Tully's personal bannermen holding the castle. In his conversations with Jaime Brynden fully expresses his belief that none of them in Riverrun will survive anyway, that the Lannister's and their allies words cannot be trusted after all that's happened going back to Eddards execution. And that's a fair point on his part.

    My previously stated points are why I think you give Brynden too much blame if we consider things fairly from his perspective. Now to give Bynden credit, which is the fact that when Edmure does come to talk Riverrun down Brynden actually agrees to it. Remember that those same troops with Brynden were prepared to stand by him in letting Edmure die before, now that Edmure's safety inside the castle they now decide to surrender? This to me speaks of Jaime finally giving them a reason to believe, a way out, that if he was willing to risk sending Edmure as a show of good faith then there's at least some hope that they'll make it through this and it speaks well of Brynden that he takes it, though not before slipping away to continue the fight himself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And that gets to the tangible reason what Brynden gains by holding Riverrun. If he already thinks he and those soldiers who serve House Tully directly are already dead men because of the potential political threat they represent, then all he can hope to gain is to make sure it costs the Lannisters and the Freys dearly, which a lengthy siege would have done in terms of time, money, and troops should they decide to storm the castle which has never fallen to storm before. In point of fact this strategic objective does work out for Black Fish given that it leaves the Lannister army still stuck in the Riverlands when all the instability hits the capital at around the same time with Cersei's arrest by the Faith and now the city's virtual occupation by the Tyrells, so he scored an indirect victory in a way. Also, that he sent out the non-combatants before the siege speaks well of Brynden once again in this case and why I think he warrants a less harsh light being cast on him taking all these circumstances and perspectives of his into consideration.

    I will ultimately admit that luck is what saves Edmure's life in the end, but that luck comes in three forms. One, Brynden continuing to hold Riverrun to use as a bargaining chip. Two, Ryman Frey being too stupid and cowardly to make good on his threat long enough for Jamie to arrive. And three, Jamie, the one person on the opposing side whose complex regarding his honor means he's the only one of the enemy commanders who would keep his word to Edmure in the end. So while I don't think Brynden should get the full credit for saving Edmure's life, he doesn't warrent the blame of needlessly putting it at risk either.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Slight edit in the second paragraph for the lines 'And while Brynden holding Riverrun won't save anyone in his mind because that same logic that applies to the political threat posed by Edmure in turn applies to him, the Westerlings insider with him, and the Tully's personal bannermen holding the castle.'

    I meant to say 'And Brynden surrendering Riverrun won't save anyone in his mind because the same logic that applies to the political threat posed by Edmure also in turn applies to him, the Westerlings inside with him, and the Tully's personal bannermen still holding the castle.'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, now I get your point. I agree.

      Delete
    2. Wait, really? Does that mean I get to write an essay for towerofthehand now? :D

      Delete
    3. If you like to ^^ Write Johnny, he's responsible. johnny@towerofthehand.com

      Delete
    4. Much appreciated. Got to think of a topic that would sufficiently garner interest. Please put in a good word for me if and when I do send an entry, I might use this conversation as a reference :)

      Delete