“Appeal To A Wider Audience” Is Corporate Lingo For “strip More Themes From A Piece Of Media So

Saw this post by @queenaryastark and just wanted to add my two cents in spite of the problem always having been that people just want things to be what works better for them and "to make sense" in a simplified way and don't want to hear otherwise-

There are a very few things known about Elia Martell - that the author finds relevant enough to even share with us about a small background character - and yet one of those few things is that she had a good relationship with her arranged husband (political, non-romantic and all, "complex", but he took the time to outline that it was not one of those cases when these things have negative connotations). The only other relationship I can think of that he finds relevant enough to be known the quality of is that with her brothers - because it is a key element to the Dornish plot, no less. And he places her dynamic with Rhaegar beside it!

# No, we do not know that she was best friends with Ashara and depended on her and that she would have done anything out of love and how she was angry because her life was actually awful because of her husband! (she's merely one of a dozen ladies in waiting - a political position meant to benefit one's noble family - who just happens to be the only named one, and that for other plot reasons than Elia)

# No, we do not know that Rhaella loved her dearly and hated her son and thought he was so awful and they both see him as awful and (a silly puerile little fic that made me laugh once) wanted to make her "Crown Princess" ...instead .... somehow! We don't even know if they had a relationship. They didn't live in the same city, and Rhaella's day to day life is heavily monitored and controlled at ths point in her life. It's questionable whether they could even be in any amount in eachother's confidence, hence, even through letters, even if you take out the distance.

ETC.

We don't even know what kind of relationship she had with her own mother. People just want it to be good. They don't want details like putting a daughter with frail health in a very dangerous situation no matter how "responsible" Rhaegar turned out to be for ambition and spite against a political adversary to speak of anything negative. And I'm not saying it is a must for it to have been negative. What I am trying to get to is people are trying to write any other relationships of hers we know nothing about, or might not exist, or might actually have negative correlations from as much as we know as definitely deep and good and rewrite the only other relationship we are given other than her brothers that we are actually told what it was, and make it bad and weak instead. We don't know her dynamic with her own mother to be good, yet we know it is with Rhaegar.

It is a noted fact in the story, and the fact that the author cares little or not at all about others on the other hand but this was noteworthy to write makes it significant, too. And it isn't even a matter of being isolated and lonely and making do because she has no one else to have a pleasant relationship with. She is surrounded by men and women alike, Dornish no less, loyal to her, and they also get along with Rhaegar.

And if we are to take most of Dany's vision of them as real (as there are details like him seeming to talk to her at the end that may be skewy) then they are on good terms until nearly the end. If fanon that claims she hated him/thought herself as slighted and humiliated after the flower crown were true, then this would actually do characterise her as a simpleton/'doormat' instead, which there being an understanding behind his action would not and it doesn't seem to me that the author wants Elia a simpleton.

Yeah, yeah, consequences of his actions ultimately hurt her, though. And so people walk backwards then on the apparent idea that if someone's actions hurt you in any circumstances, then it can only be willful, and someone doing something that ends up hurting someone can only be an 'abuser' and such. All over the place, there are dramatic fanon theories about these two to rewrite what is canon of their dynamic as 'abuser' and 'victim', so that it would simplify the concept of his actions indirectly hurting her.

Canon doesn't support that. Canon gives the fact that he removes his arranged wife from the capital where there is the danger of his father, although that means the removal from the centre of political power, during a very tense political dynamic (literally described as 'like before the Dance'!). Canon says that when Aerys' cruel actions start a Rebellion, and he removes Elia and her children from the relative safety of Dragonstone (with authority no one can undo), Rhaegar comes forth to lead Aerys' armies. And fanon (against previous signs) paints it as him being a one-dimensional evil creature (from the author praised to write things complex) who cares not about fighting Lyanna's family or his lawful spouse and children being in danger near that man... rather than the fact that he is known as looking out for Elia's safety from his father, told to have had his last straw after said father rejects his daughter that he seems to have inspired love and trust in - hence the likelihood of him being caught in between and having no more choice than Dorne. Less, because he also has to go against the family of the girl the author says he's 'lovestruck' about also, because Aerys is dangling Elia and the children, that the author cared to give hints he cares about. Or the fact that he hints of having reached THE breaking point about his father as a follow-up fact at this point through Jaime's memory.

"Are you saying she was complicit in endangering herself? On purpose?"

It is very exhausting to hear such a train of thought from people who supposedly read books, and understand how conflict works, and that being a 'realistic story' with complex characters it means they don't know/understand everything and things are out of their control and happen unexpectedly.

That's how you get ridiculous theories such as "Rhaegar then planned it all to go exactly how it went and knew each thing that would happen and it was for some magical mass sacrifice or whatever!!" Because this is how things work. People make plans and it happens exactly as they expect, bullet points and all. And you'd have millions claiming that's a good writer who does well foreshadowed 'shocks' that the character would not know about and needs to be re-read to fully comprehend and appreciate.

Yeah, it doesn't mean that the plans and goals they may have had would be summarised as 'choosing Rhaegar mistresses from a catalogue' the way I saw it put somewhere. Yeah, that is dumb. But if we don't have the information on characters' train of thoughts from a point in time we don't fully understand, it doesn't mean it is fine to change base facts (the relationship of the two) to make a simple version that explains it away.

"Are you saying she is dumb to think this or that would work certain ways, whatever they thought they were doing/going towards for whatever reasons?"

Again, are we even reading books here? Have we not seen smart characters (sometimes older than these 2) making certain sound sounding choices with certain predictions at the time, and in the end none working out and everything falling apart? Don't we applaud it as good writing? Isn't Varys for example cathegorised as one of the BIG manipulators of history and planner, yet what we hear from people working for Young Griff is the frustration of plans changing all the time because what he predicts/wants/plans doesn't work as intended multiple times?

And since we're on the topic and fanon has mythologised characters like her into ridiculous heights, let's stop for a second to think who Elia Martell would be as a (actually honest) baseline. Young, inexperienced, sheltered by privilege as anyone of her rank and more so for her own health (according to her brother), very optimistic sounding, etc. Yes, most likely intelligent (described as witty), but it doesn't change the implications of the previous qualities. Rhaegar is also most of that (at least idealistic if not optimistic) - though I would say he would at least have the perspective of "harsh realities" due to his family situation, while hers was a loving one as far as we're concerned. So, yes, she could have even made/agreed with "naive plans" as well as him, and they could even have been intelligent about it too, as they both seemed to have been, but it being beyond the point because the world works chaotically and there's no smart enough character that never had plans go wrong ever in ASOIAF.

Another thing that I mentioned but want to emphasise again, though it is hard to believe that a fandom that wouldn't give a break even to characters 16 and younger for 'miscalculations' and not having it all figured out and not doing everything perfectly is... they are both young, too! I don't know what's the overall age demoraphic in this fandom, but it always baffles me that this is not addressed - early 20s is clueless, young, and inexperienced. If one is past it they should know it. There are way too many young characters I guess to conceptualise that (but, again, it is not like this fandom give the VERY young characters a break also so I don't know), but it is very odd when these two are seen as 'very adult' who should have known better (Rhaegar) or knew 100% everything like some 'hit by godly visions' Cassandra (Elia), especially, again, when you account for both being inexperienced and privileged. The 16 and lower characters we know would rank above them both (especially sheltered Elia!) simply by actually being forced into learning experiences.

All in all, whatever the details are or how things can be explained from that point on, people have to accept the fact that the writing makes it more understandable that they would have been 'in cahoots' rather than a cartoonish evil being and a young woman without agency whatsover that is cutie pieing with the man who she is also angry at for doing some great misdeed against her.

Would she think otherwise by the end, when all fell apart? Would there be targeted hate and blame? We can theorise either way, but I am thinking how Lyanna is theorised as such in spite of the author writing roses in her hand when she dies in the same wavelength as writing her brother's hand holding hers - just like we only know of noteworthy positive relationships in Elia's life being a brother and Rhaegar, to the writer.

Sorry, but we're reading a story, and if you don't like what the author writes and implies it's fine. But at the same time you are wrong by default in 'predictions' as to what he would write next instead.

"You are victim blaming if Elia thought or did anything ever than being a silent perfect victim who just had things happening to her while having the foresight of a God and the wisdom of a 100 years old and if it were up to this sheltered inexperienced early 20s woman she would have REAISTICALLY Mary Sued her way through it and everyone would agree and kiss her feet. REALISTICALLY!!!"

No, you are. This fandom is famous for victim blaming (young) female characters most of all who have no control over circumstances around them, not being able to predict the future, not having experience, or just mean well and think better of the world, as long as they are anything but 'perfect victims' whose whole act is expcted to be being pitiful stoned mummies that things happen to, and are held up to unfair standards by the heavy in expectations pedestal that's supposed to be a compliment.

Just to be clear, I am not actually American. I do not stay up to date on American politics. It come up on the news and I'm like 'that's wild. Anyway-', partially because they don't go into depth and partially because I have better things to do than worry about things I can't affect. I get involved with local stuff but I've only got so much time and energy.

If Biden stood where I am everyone would stare and wonder how the hell that nut job got so far. Then go and vote for someone who will actually try to make the country better, or at least won't be actively making it worse.

I draw the line at actively screwing over the people you're responsible for, at pissing on migrants and refugees, and trying to start a war.

alright gang, let's do a fun little thought experiment.

which city would biden have to completely annihilate before you decide not to vote for him?

for the sake of this thought experiment, let's ignore actual real-world alliances between countries. it can be london, or paris, or athens, or barcelona, or rome, or berlin, or even an american city like new york or new orleans or los angeles or honolulu. this is all a hypothetical after all.

really consider it. if you're gonna bother to yap in my notes, at least try to engage with this question in good faith. imagine opening up the news, and you see that a bomb was dropped on this city, and then the bombs never stop. imagine you had a friend there. imagine you'd had a trip planned to meet them and see the sights. imagine every museum, every historical monument, every theatre, every university destroyed. imagine that one day, you lived in a world where this city existed, and the next, it has completely ceased to be. it's effectively been pompeii-ed out of our world entirely. there is no longer a big ben, or a parthenon, or a colosseum, or what have you. there is no longer that foreign musician you loved from this city. there are no longer sweet old grannies to share old family recipes from this part of the world. there is no longer the online friend you wanted to visit. there is no longer your vacation plans.

don't hit me with, "but it's netanyahu doing this," because israel would literally run out of ammunition in weeks without the US. don't hit me with, "but trump!" because that quite literally is not the fucking question.

which city has to completely cease to exist before you even consider that this system isn't ever going to work?

if you are still planning to vote for biden, then either a) biden could drop a nuke on any city on earth and it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for you, or b) in your mind, people and places are divided into ones that are acceptable to destroy and ones that are not. or at least, there are ones that are more acceptable to destroy than others.

come up with your answer and either realize you sound like a fascist and work to change it, or embrace that you are a fascist and stop lying to us about caring about people of color.

Brandon : Look who's here guys ! Wouldn't that be the Demon of the Trident ?!

Robert : I... was killed by a pig

Rhaegar :

Rhaegar : Same

Lyanna : Oh my god Rhaegar

Elia : Stop

So y’all know the classic edge trope of “my blade cannot be sheathed until it has tasted blood”? What if a magic sword that has that requirement, except it’s sort of inverted. A sword that, instead of being inhabited by an evil spirit which once awakened cannot be lulled back to sleep except by blood sacrifice, was inhabited by a benevolent spirit who would not allow the sword to be drawn unless bloodshed were the only possible solution. A sword whose power could never be misused because it would only allow itself to be used in situations where it was justified. What about a Paladin who spends their entire journey fighting with a sheathed sword, incapacitating but never killing or maiming. The party believes that the Paladin has taken an oath of no killing, until they face the big villain. And it is in that moment, and that moment alone, that the sword will allow itself to be drawn.

Idk, this image set my mindwheels a-turning.

But do y’all see the vision?

i wanna try an experiment

reblog for sample size pls thx

New official Gaara art!! He looks so pretty with his hair like that 🥺🥺🥺

And now suddenly the swifts are back and chattering overhead whenever I step outside, as if we're on a floating island that's been sailing south for weeks and have suddenly reached the place where it's always summer.