Fiction Mimics Reality In The Sense That Mary I Is Remembered As Bloody Mary Despite Having Only Executed

fiction mimics reality in the sense that mary i is remembered as ‘bloody mary’ despite having only executed 300+ people during her reign as opposed to her father who executed 50,000+ people during his. cut to rhaenyra who is remembered as ‘maegor with teats’ because she raised taxes after tyland lannister hid the royal treasury right before she retook king’s landing; all while her half-brother aemond was complicit in massacring the riverlands and the wiping out of house strong, along with her *other* half-brother daeron being liable for the atrocities that are bitterbridge/both battles of tumbleton. funny how that works.

MORNING NATION WE LOST

I've seen many people questioning what Rhaenyra has done to deserve to become queen. Even setting aside that her political opponent is the most inappropriate person to become ruler, I find this questioning very sexist. No one is questioning various male Targaryen who became Kings due to being heirs ( like Rhaenyra was proclaimed heir by her father, King Viserys I). No one is questioning what Daeron the Good or Jaehaerys II did to deserve their throne. Just like no one is questioning the various lords who inherited their lordship from their fathers, like Robb Stark or Doran Martell. But when it comes to a female heir ( Rhaenyra) suddenly she has to prove that she's worth the title she inherited?? Why is that? Your misogyny is showing.

The "human heart in conflict with itself"

More often than not, when I see or experience an exchange with somebody arguing that Jon and Dany are "more interesting" as enemies/"rivals", that person ends up being a Jonsa.

For instance, this is a classic view:

It's funny how many who would identify themselves as a Jonsa fan would say the same of Jonerys: "more interesting" as enemies, as "rivals", as antagonists. No "stale bread conflictless romance" for Jonsas!... Unless it's Jonsa, that is. These are the same people saying Jon will come back hyper fixated on protecting Sansa, reset his personal preferences and characteristics, will play "Beast" to Sansa's "Beauty", the "Prince Eric" to Sansa's "Ariel", and will literally manifest Sansa's happily ever after (or Sansa must sadly and gracefully let go of it and her love Jon as a selfless sacrifice for the independence of the North...) Jonsa fantasies aside, what exactly makes an antagonistic relationship between two strangers "interesting"? What dynamic exists here? It's just, at its most passionate, hate. There's no contrasting emotion, no push and pull, no exchange with another set of feelings. It's just one thing -- bad. Even if Jon found out he and Ramsay were blood related, I don't think Jon is going to have much of an inner conflict over killing the guy. This is the only "humanity" Jonsas allow Jon where Dany is concerned (a bit of shame of kinslaying), which I think is telling. More telling still is how Jonsas want Jon to deal with this and Dany: to sexually exploit, use, abuse, deceive Dany before deciding to coldly kill & dispose of her. And this is one of their leading theories. Most, if not all, of their theories depend on Dany going dark/"mad" -- they seem to involve more of Dany than Sansa. Sansa's chapters have both positive and negative contexts when 'sweet' is used but who's going around claiming how this means Sansa will be betrayed by a lover and killed by his hand? Yet, for Dany, this means Jon will betray her with a knife to the back during their intimacy so he can marry Sansa.

The word 'shadow' has been used 657 times in ASOIAF throughout all POVs and chapters -- it has been used descriptively, to convey mystery, uncertainty, it can be physical blocked light or a metaphor. In Jon's case, it's often used in terms of his mysterious/uncertain/unknown identity. But who cares? When it comes to Dany, it now means betrayal and ulterior motive and Pol!Jon. Jon will betray her with a knife to the back during their intimacy so he can marry Sansa. Sansa throws a feast for the nobles with a lemon cake "just for her" while famine spreads across the country? Queen. Dany feels hungry in the middle of nowhere, malnourished, and feverish? And the wolf cry didn't stop her from being hungry? She's Aerys come again. That's why it'll be a-ok when Jon will betray her with a knife to the back during their intimacy so he can marry Sansa.

But seriously, I don't have any expectation that Jon/Dany would be without conflict, especially in ASOIAF because it's GRRM and things are messy. However, ASOIAF's relationships are always full of emotion, though, and that's what I'd expect and really love to read. Lots and lots of emotions, conflicting, confusing, surprising, fun fun emotions. Jon and Dany are both very young and they're both pretty scarred with one currently dead. And you know, maybe it's Dany who'd have the issue with Jon rather than Jon clutching his pearls at Dany because what if a child does die due to Jon's actions/commands or Jon is pushed to execute a wildling hostage? Yeah? What if it's Dany clutching pearls and Jon telling her to deal with it. And then they go into the back and Maybe maybe that's what we'll see one day, hey. I need to get sober.

The Demonizing of Change

A trend I've noticed in modern media is that many stories have the message of "protect the status quo". Whether it's a Marvel movie or a fantasy book, the fact that so often the villains are the only ones who fight to change society remains the same.

We all know the story: they were hurt by the system's flaw(s) and so they rose up to destroy that harmful system and in the process destroyed themselves. I'm not saying that this character type is wrong or bad (definitely overused imo), but the framing of the narrative and the protagonists is the issue.

The narrative typically shows the villain's first wrong doing to be the act of rebelling against the system. From the moment the person chose to reject the harmful system, they were in the wrong, or so the narrative frames it. Meanwhile, the protagonist may question and see injustice but they never fight it; it's just accepted and blindly defended. What's worse is the audience chooses to completely accept this telling and sides with the harmful regime the protagonist defends.

I find that some of the most drastic examples of these issues are Daenerys in GOT and the Darkling in the Grishaverse/SaB.

Daenerys Targaryen

One thing I want to specify before I go into this is that Dany's GOT ending is purely bad writing. It's not foreshadowed or justified in any way, so I'll be addressing how D&D tried to frame her past after S8e6 aired and how her antis interpret her.

According to D&D, we should see the beginning of Dany's "madness arc" from the very first season. Namely how she reacted to Viserys' death. While this isn't Dany rejecting a harmful system, her choosing to not defend Viserys (why would she??) is also her choosing to leave behind the cycle of abuse of her early life. It also sets the precedent of Dany killing/allowing the deaths of evil men.

Speaking of evil men, D&D also tried to paint Dany's campaign against slavery as a sign of her "megalomania and madness". This is where we get to the actual fighting against the system. Dany is leading a slave revolt and forcefully overthrowing the masters and the oppressive governments.

The way D&D tried to spin it was that Dany was wrong for using violence, and Tyrion's peaceful method was more successful. Except Dany did try peace in Meereen, it didn't work. She made concessions, she made agreements, she locked up her dragons and they weren't working. That's the whole point of her last chapter in ADWD.

However, the show chose to make it so Dany was failing because she was "too violent" and ultimately made the freedmen hate her. This choice, a clear deviation from the book, is the beginning of them trying to make Dany fall into the trope of "as bad as those you're fighting". In her fight to end slavery, she becomes as oppressive as the masters.

Which is just blatantly wrong. We see in the show that the freedmen are still free, they sit in her councils, they can come to her with their complaints and she listens. Dany is a queen, not a master. The show was already trying to gaslight its audience into believing the opposite of what they wrote. The same goes for her supposed violence. The violence she exerts is almost always towards the slavers, except when she executed Mossador for murder. That was her carrying out justice, why that was portrayed as a bad thing is beyond me.

The implications of the choices D&D made in adapting Dany's Meereen arc are very disturbing. They're basically saying that systematic and centuries old oppression should never be addressed with violence. The people who actively fight oppression are just as bad as the oppressors. If you can't magically fix a system that's been flawed for centuries immediately, you're a tyrant.

The choice to resolve the arc by having Tyrion come in with some great peaceful solution was plain stupid and sexist. We have seen in history that trying to unobtrusively phase out slavery doesn't work. By leaving the elite slave owners in peace, they are allowed to simply find ways to get around or wear down the changes. We see that in ADWD in Meereen by the way. Also the whole idea that a wise man had to come and fix the irrational woman's problem is so gross.

So basically: D&D took an arc about fighting oppression and learning that concessions only continue the cycle of violence and made it into a story about how violence is bad and you can actually just reason with slavers.

The disgusting ideas continue in season eight, where Dany torches KL for no reason and is put down like a rabid dog. Dany is the only character who wants to end oppression in this show. She's the only person to see and experience the suffering of the oppressed and chooses to do something about it. Season seven is full of her talking about leaving the world a better place and breaking the wheel. But in season eight "breaking the wheel" is turned into th deranged battle cry of her desired empire.

Let me restate that: the one character who fought to end systematic oppression is turned into the "true oppressor". Dany's desire to tear down the system that the entire show established as being unjust and awful is made into a sign of madness. Even in season seven, people were rolling their eyes at her talking about breaking the wheel.

Meanwhile, the protagonists of the show end it benefitting from the same system that tortured them the whole time. Westerosi society is shit, but the show ends glorifying the sexist, homophobic, classist, and feudalist kingdoms. They even laugh at Samwell Tarly when he suggests destroying the monarchy. All this sends the message that embracing the system is good, rebellion bad, and shut the fuck up if you're not happy.

Dany was reduced to a cautionary tale against fighting the system. I've seen people frame it as "seeking power is bad", but that doesn't make sense, as characters like Sansa actively seek power and are rewarded by the narrative. Dany's mistake was trying to change the world, rather than supporting it as it is.

The Darkling

The Darkling is a very different character from Dany; he's an actual villain. Aleksander is someone who has already reached the "become what you hate most" part of the trope, so he spends the whole story committing atrocities. The issue with his portrayal is the fact that the narrative and protagonists never address his very real reasons for fighting in the first place.

The grisha as a group are persecuted all throughout Ravka, they have been for centuries. The whole reason Aleksander begins his fight was to protect his people. By the time the series begins, the grisha are more protected, though only because they have become weapons of the state. That was only through Aleksander's mechanisations.

Aleksander became a villain in his attempts to save his people, making him a tragic character. So he has perfectly fallen into the trope, and, unfortunately, so do the protagonists. Alina and her allies all have seen and suffered under the cruelty of the Ravkan monarchy, however, they quickly dismiss just how awful it is. By the end of the story, the Darkling has become, in their eyes, the sole perpetrator of evil in Ravka.

There are no attempts made to rectify the constant damage done by the Apparat, in fact he's left to run free. Alexander Lanstov and Tatiana Grimjer are simply shipped off to a private island where they never are made to pay for the awful things they have done. There are no political reforms done to ensure the safety of grisha in the future; they're basically relying on the goodwill Zoya and Alina have bought with the people.

So basically, the minor villains who all had no reason to be completely atrocious receive basically no punishment from the narrative. Meanwhile, Aleksander, who had very valid reasons for wanting to overthrow the government, is ultimately given a fate worse than death. All his reasons for hating the Ravkan government and the power it has are ignored, even though the story set up that he's not wrong. The resolution of the story leaves the grisha just as, if not more, vulnerable to the prejudice and hatred of the world than they were before.

The narrative is communicating that Aleksander rising up for his people is worse than the centuries of corrupt Lanstovs. Aleksander is worse than the man who stirs up religious fanaticism and exploits the people through it. Yes, Aleksander did horrible things, but so did every other antagonist in the series, but he's somehow the worst because...well, he's grisha.

That's the only other difference between him and the others, aside from his motives. So either Bardugo is supporting the in-universe prejudice against grisha or she's saying rising up against an oppressive system is wrong. I don't expect her or any other author to have complex political and social commentaries in her story. However, she chose to create a world containing those elements and a main character who suffers from them. She chose to make the issues with the system have a prominent place in the story. And she chose to ignore them in the end.

Aleksander did awful things in the name of a just cause, this creates a complex moral issue that the story just never addresses. The established injustices and sanctioned atrocities by the Lanstovs are all ignored in favor of bringing down the dangerous rebel. That kind of message is pretty fucked up. Yes, Nikolai is a better man than his father, but what about his descendants? The propaganda of the Apparat and his church are extremely strong, it's only a matter of time before that propaganda once again starts turning people against grisha. The hatred of grisha is still embedded into Ravkan society.

Aleksander was the only character who was actually set on protecting and bettering the lives of the grisha. His original mission was still extremely important, no matter what he devolved to. The fact that the protagonists just blatantly dismissed just how dangerous Ravka still is for grisha is frustrating.

The treatment of both Dany and Aleksander by their writers and narratives show a hatred/mistrust of rebellion against the status quo, no matter how atrocious it is. The message of the trope is that people who fight against a system are worse than the system itself. I'm not saying that was Bardugo's intention (D&D I'm much less sure about though), but the way both the Darkling and Dany were written combined with the endings of the stories support that idea.