Common Fandom Complaint That Youre Tired Of Hearing? It Can Be More Than One

Common fandom complaint that you’re tired of hearing? It can be more than one

I'm tired of hearing about Sansa being the most unfairly hated character, especially when it comes with no acknowledgment of how horrible her stans act or the hate they give other female characters. It's just a demonstrably incorrect claim. Every other character is allowed to be disliked but we're all just expected to put Sansa on a pedestal cause she represents "true womanhood" or whatever the nonsense argument of the week is. Arya and Dany are two of the most casually hated and rewritten characters in the fandom and it barely gets talked about cause "feminism" in this fandom is only about female characters "pure" enough to deserve it. I just think it's gross to try and quantify how worthy a female character is of being defended from misogyny. At that point it's not even about defending Sansa from unfair hate, it's being upset that she isn't getting special treatment.

"When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone."

"What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it."

"Her coming is the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy. From smoke and salt was she born to make the world anew. She is Azor Ahai returned... and her triumph over darkness will bring a summer that will never end... death itself will bend its knee, and all those who die fighting in her cause shall be reborn ..."

— George R. R. Martin, A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE

Random thought I just had: interesting how people in this fandom are horrified by Daemon's action of killing a child as a way to get revenge on the child's father/uncle, but at the same time are totally ok with Mirri killing a child as a way to get revenge on the child's father.

"dragons plant no trees" gets thrown around a lot as fact, but i think the veracity of that claim is still up for debate in the books. because dany (like bran and jon and many others) is a narrative symbol of hope and rebirth within the series because of her connection to dragons and fire, not in spite of it. this is because dragons in asoiaf have a much more expansive narrative function than simply 'nuke metaphor'. the 'exclusively weapons of war' image they have acquired breaks down immediately if you recall that the first thing dany does with them is begin dismantling an unjust status quo. she rallies the unsullied at the gates of astapor with cries of dracarys! dracarys! freedom! <- dragons as a symbol of hope and freedom for the persecuted. and obviously they've been built up as an oppositional force against the others. we're told when the last dragon died summers became shorter. in that respect the dragons, or more specifically, fire which is warmth which is passion—very much embodies life against the numbing, deadening threat of eternal winter that the others represent. but fire also consumes, which simultaneously makes dragons agents of destruction, or as adwd shows: the monsters who eat little girls and leave behind their bones. but when dany found herself chained to a false peace which effectively undid her cause in meereen, it was the dragon that rescued her and reignited her fire to fight back—which is to say that dragons represent a wealth of contradictions within the text and this is likely something grrm means to parallel with the others to some extent, by questioning their apparent narrative role as the one true evil. because i doubt the series is gearing up towards a spectacle-esque battle wherein our heroes get to practice righteous, easy violence on a monolithic army of monsters. that feels like it would undo a lot of asoiaf's preoccupation with investigating violence against socially acceptable targets, even if said target is ice sidhe. and this binary between a one true good and a one true evil, i.e. melisandre's philosophy ("if half an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. a man is good or he is evil.") is not something the story takes as given.

instead there's this exchange between bran, jojen, and meera in asos: "but you just said you hated them." / "why can't it be both?" / because they're different. like night and day, or ice and fire." / "if ice can burn. then love and hate can mate."—and i think it's talking about reconciling two conflicting ideas. because the dream of an eternal summer is just as unsustainable as the threat of eternal winter. i think the battle for dawn is more about questions of seasonal harmony. the first line from agot's summary says, "long ago, in a time forgotten, a preternatural event threw the seasons out of balance", so it's not totally out of question for the series to end with that seasonal balance restored once more. and that question of balance and how it can be achieved then works as a metaphor for a bunch of other things. because asoiaf at its core is very interested in exploring big contradictions, like love and duty? how do you keep all your oaths without betraying someone you love? how can one hope for a just, rightful ruler in a world where the systems in place can never allow such a thing? how do dragons plant trees?

you cannot frame dany's arc as a binary choice between planting trees or embracing (dragon)fire. because the fire is hers, it is a part of her, that's who she is. and her character has always existed outside of rigid dichotomies. at the end of agot she had two options, resign herself to a life of seclusion as a widow or die with the last of her family in that pyre, instead she performed a miracle. presently, i think grrm means to explore necessary, revolutionary violence with her arc because you cannot deal with institutional slavery by simply negotiating with slavers like she does in adwd. and the consequences thereof because she's also been set up to be more reckless with dragonfire in the future. but i think there will be an eventual reconciliation there, between her dreams "to plant trees and watch them grow." and her role as the mother of dragons, as a revolutionary figure. because if ice can burn, then maybe dragons can plant trees. they'll learn how to.

HOTD finale leaks, Daenerys and TPtwP, retcon?

Okay. So this is something that is just irritating as hell right now. Currently some Jon fans (and I am one myself too--to some extent-- so this is not coming from a Jon hater) are really unhappy that the leaks show that Daemon already saw centuries ago that Dany will be the The Prince that was Promised. They are alleging that this is somehow a retcon of the original. To them, here is my question: Original what? Show or Book?

In the show, there is no clear Prince that was Promised. The last time the Prophecy is mentioned is in 7x02 when it is clarified that it is nuetral with respect to gender. It never shows up in season 8. Nor do the events of season 8 give us any further clue on the prophecy. Every plan made by Jon and Dany failed to stop the Night King in 8x03. By the end of the episode both Jon and Dany are in hopeless situations. Only the surprise attack by Arya (of all people) defeated the Night King after he had, by all rights, won. Arya, of course, if we follow the show's narrative was prepared by the Lord of Light (and knew nothing about any of this) and had nothing to do with Jon and Dany. Not even the show claimed that Arya was the Prince that was promised.

In the books, there is no case for claiming that this is a retcon in any way. In fact, by the end of Book 5 (the last one so far released), Dany is the most obvious candidate for the position. We have the red priests proclaiming it (btw they are also proclaiming it in the show, recall Kinvara). Maester Aemon, who seems to have spent his whole life looking for the fulfilment of the prophecy and is an expert on it also identifies Dany. The signs are all there ('dragons from stone' etc.). Born amidst 'salt and smoke' (Dragonstone), 'bleeding star' (red comet) and so on.

So what gives?

I should also point something out that is essentially stated again and again as if it were established canon:

That Jon IS THE SONG OF ICE AND FIRE, becasue he is THE SON OF ICE (Stark) AND FIRE (Targaryen). It seems that the ones who make this argument think that repeating it often enough and loudly, along with derisive dismissals of those who do not agree with them is sufficient to make it a canonical fact. However, none of this changes the fact that THIS IS AN UNCONFIRMED FAN THEORY.

I will be the last to deny that there is evidence poiting towards Jon as well. However, as of ADwD, Jon and Dany are the only plausible characters who can be TPtwP. To make either fit, some parts of the prophecy need to be interpreted metaphorically (with there being canonical support for such metaphorical interpretations, no less) while the others fit literally (for example, 'sword' has to be given a metaphorical interpretation for Dany, while she fulfils the part about awakening dragons from stone literally). If one of them is the one, it can hardly be called retcon.

When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone.