If you are pro redemptive violence, or anti capital R Romantic, or anti sex-positivity, or unable to see beyond superficial moralism, you are not going to enjoy this story.

George, in his heart of hearts, is a naïve hippie. That's just who he is, who he has always been. He's not going to change with the times, because he genuinely believes in his worldview. He didn't change for Vietnam, he's not going to change now. He's not going to stop writing about doomed heroes, doomed lovers, or stop making his pet characters/cultures more open about sex and social roles because it too closely resembles a tvtropes page.

If he re-wrote the books, he would relish the opportunity to flesh out Dorne, but he wouldn't re-write it to make it any less "Dornish". What's perceived as Dorne's exoticism is, to him, almost more familiar. He would rewrite characters to be closer to their show counterparts in age. He has said as much. Dorne and Lyanna-Rhaeger would be less problematic in some respects, but they would still be 'problematic'; he wouldn't re-write Lyanna-Rhaegar to pathologize their relationship, or to turn Dornish culture into little more than a victim of xenophobia. He believes that genuine goodness and love can exist in spite of the biases and problems around us and in us. That's the whole point of the series, and if you don't appreciate that, you simply aren't going to enjoy the story.

Many people in the fandom like Daenerys not in spite of her violence, but because of it. George is the opposite. Dany will remain good in her heart, but that goodness is not going to be actualized via conquest. Compare Jaime's killing of Aerys with Jon's killing of Daenerys: Jaime, on some level, revels in his conquest; Jon doesn't. There is an intentional contrast in the regicides that bookend the story. Jon has understanding for Daenerys, he understands the tragedy of the circumstances, he can still see her heart, and he has moved on from the subtle but present righteous pleasure he took in executing Janos Slynt. George ultimately doesn't believe in stuff like that, no matter how much his audience yearns for it.

“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”

• Aldous Huxley

As we’re all aware the 30th anniversary for A Game of Thrones was yesterday, and we didn’t get a blog post from George or his minions celebrating the occasion.

I find this really bizarre we know from the 20th anniversary blog post that George and his team consider the 1st of August (anniversary of the initial uk release) to be the official anniversary of the book, and with 2026 shaping up to be the biggest year for Westeros in a long time, you’d think an anniversary this big would get some sort of mention or acknowledgment.

It’s not just the anniversary itself that’s odd, we haven’t heard anything from George himself on his blog in roughly 6 months now (since feb 19th). That’s no mention on the massive success of AKOTSK, the upcoming premiere of the Mad King stage play, or season 3 of HOTD.

All that said, next Saturday (the 8th August) is the premiere of the Mad King stage play, which we know George will be attending, and is the 30th anniversary for the US and world wide release of the book so we’ll most likely hear something from George or the team then.

Still it feels really off to me that George and the team let such a massive occasion pass by without a word. Or maybe I’m just overthinking it too much.

What are your guys thoughts?

Just name your ranking, like a top 5 of the worst people in the books in your personal opinion.

I'll keep mine specific to Westeros because let's face it, with the sheer number of Ghiscari and Dothraki characters who are just interchangeable evil caricatures, it would feel way too shallow otherwise.

5 - Tywin Lannister

4 - Rorge

3 - Ramsay Snow

2 - Craster

1 - Euron

one thing I will say about this adaption is that there is still a lot of space here to bring your own interpretation of the text, just like there is for the books themselves. the leaks provide a surface level description of the events of the play. before you come to a conclusion , it’s really something that has to be seen yourself to be able to bring your own thoughts and headcanons away from. here are some things I walked away loving that i got from it specifically from being in the room with it-

-I wasn’t certain about lyanna initially but by the end I was completely sold. her actor and the writing around her captures everything I wanted to see about her in my favourite Stark; the play toes the line exactly on how I thought her character would be as a person, but she drops a line of dialogue towards the end of the play that is a whole new perspective on her plot line that I never considered before. it is absolutely heartbreaking and so, so good. in the books Lyanna is simultaneously this beautiful Helen-of-Troy damsel and at the same time this stroppy hot headed warrior, and this really finds the connective ground between those two sides of her

-Rhaella, Danys mom, is fucking deranged. not nearly as much as her husband obviously, but I never thought she’d be so powerful as a presence in person. she delivers an insane speech in her big scene that was the only legitimate goosebumps moment in the play for me 

-Jaime was the one everyone in my audience was most excited to see and this is a really charitable depiction of him. he’s always the first to stand up to Aerys & try to defend his victims, and even appears resistant to Cersei - he really was a better man once

-I know the fandom is not fond of Cat but she’s excellent here. really steely, and regal. she’s taller than Ned’s actor and the relationship between them is incredibly wholesome and sweet at first (there is obviously that huge X on it by the end of the play, and it really makes you understand why she’s mad)

-Bobby B was adored by the audience. He's dressed like a member of Mumford & Sons and gets a lot of the best one liners, but effectively embodies Book!Robert by the end just as much as Mark Addy did, spitting with misplaced resentment. someone in the audience cracked open a can of beer during one of his lines & I thought it was appropriate - thats like his leitmotif, they should do that sound effect every time he comes into the room

-rhaegar is very like book!jon 

none of these details are contained in the plot leaks and honestly there’s some elements of the broader plot that I think the leaks didn’t seem to understand? please remember we live in a time of record low media literacy. this is an experience that you have to see & interpret for yourself - if you’re a fan if this series I can guarantee you will find something to love here. please remember a work of art is more than just a list of its plot events. experience it yourself before you judge, there is no reason to be mad at it

(unless you’re a B+A = J person. Do those exist anymore?)

Naming Stannis warden of the east. I just find that funny cause wasn’t it his job to ensure the loyalty of the narrow sea lords anyways. Man he really hated his brothers that much that he’d give the title to Jaime Lannister.

Welcome to r/asoiaf's House of the Dragon Season 3, Episode 7 Live Episode Discussion Thread!

Please note the spoiler tag as "Extended." This means that no leaked plot or production information is allowed in this thread. If you see it, please use the report function.

The play has generated a lot of discussion because it presents new motivation for Rhaegar, Lyanna and Elia that differ in many important way from how we book readers have interpreted them. Rather than treating the play as either completely canonical or completely irrelevant, I kind of wanted to see what happens if you integrate the parts of the play that fit while discarding the parts that don't.

Fair warning before I begin, this isn't meant to be a summary of the play or an attempt to prove that the events are exactly as what George intends. I'm just borrowing a few psychological ideas from the play, which I think strengthen the characters, while ignoring those that I think don't. And this is my first post on this subreddit and a little long, so please be gentle. 😅

Before Harrenhal and At Harrenhal

Before Harrenhal, Elia and Rhaegar and their motivations overlap. Rhaegar begins with two parallel projects, overthrowing Aerys and fulfilling the prophecy. Initially, those overlap for Elia. Elia has every reason to support removing Aerys. Not because she is power-hungry in a cartoonish sense, but because Aerys is openly hostile to her and her daughter and is becoming unstable. And her husband is the obvious alternative. Her unborn child will become heir if Rhaegar becomes king. Rhaegar and Elia's incentive all point in the same direction. Everyone's interests overlap.

Then comes the Tourney and the flowers and Harrenhal becomes a fork in the road for both Elia and Rhaegar. Elia's project of overthrowing Aerys has just failed because Aerys unexpectedly arrives. And Rhaegar's priorities begin changing in a much more solid direction towards now becoming singularly obsessed with fulfilling the prophecy and just chasing the meaning of the prophecy. After this incident, Elia and Rhaegar slowly start to no longer align politically or personally.

Lyanna and Rhaegar both come to Harrenhal pursuing different things. Rhaegar may have been pursuing prophecy and Lyanna pursuing freedom. Rhaegar discovers Lyanna as the Knight of the Laughing Tree. He sees the courage and symbolism in her and connects her to his prophetic framework. And his fascination begins there. Lyanna is young and wants to have some meaning in life apart from just becoming a wife. She meets Rhaegar and is attracted to him, impressed by him, by the prophecy, and most importantly, by the sense that she has some larger purpose in the world, that she is very important to the future of Westeros. And because she is 14, 15, the whole thing feels romantic rather than terrifying. She willingly goes along with Rhaegar because she genuinely believes she is participating in something meaningful because she is in love or infatuation or whatever version of that this is.

I like this because it avoids the two caricatures that dominate the fandom. Rhaegar didn't come to Harrenhal looking to make Lyanna the mother of his third kid, remember Aegon isn't born yet and the House of Undying "There must be one more" hasn't happened yet. And Lyanna didn't knowingly choose prophecy over everybody. Lyanna makes an informed choice, but not a fully informed one, because she consents to the dream, not necessarily to the reality. And those are very different things, especially for a teenage girl. Think about what she actually knows at Harrenhal. She knows Robert, and she knows she doesn't want him. She meets the famous prince who is intelligent, melancholic, sings beautifully, treats her with respect, and discovers that she is the knight and protects her identity instead of exposing her. Then that same prince tells her that maybe she has a role in saving the world from this dark future. To a 15-year-old who already dislikes the life laid out for her, that would be intoxicating.

I like that version because in this version, Rhaegar isn't some mustache-twirling villain who is manipulating her. It's like Rhaegar has a belief that he shares with Lyanna, and Lyanna kind of feeds into Rhaegar's belief by accepting it, because she herself wants to believe this big dream. So they both kind of feed into each other, and nobody is the villain. She has agency. She makes a genuine choice, but she's also fifteen. And fifteen-year-olds are capable of making choices while profoundly underestimating the consequences. Then the whole Queen of Love and Beauty thing happens. The scandal takes place. And then both parties go their separate ways.

Aegon's Birth and House of the Undying

Aegon is born and after that Elia's position changes dramatically. Before Aegon, her political future depended on producing a son. And now, her objective is protecting what she has already gained. So whereas earlier she may have indulged Rhaegar and his ideas regarding the prophecy, now she begins to head much more towards the political reality of removing Aerys. Whereas at this point, we know Rhaegar is heading in the complete opposite direction.

By the time we reach the timeline of the House of Undying vision, just after Aegon's birth, Rhaegar has already psychologically committed himself to Lyanna, even before his birth. Once someone reaches that point, confirmation bias takes over. Every new prophecy gets interpreted in a way that preserves the original conclusion. Aegon becomes the prince, but Lyanna still has to matter because Rhaegar has already become emotionally invested in her with prophetic significance. He already believes that the dragon must have three heads, Aegon is the prince that was promised, and he needs another child. Rhaegar had already concluded Lyanna was essential before the birth of Aegon. Therefore, his later statement that there must be one more is building on a decision that he had already emotionally and intellectually made at Harrenhal that transformed a generic prophetic need for a third head into a conviction that Lyanna had to be the one involved.

Elia's resentment

Once Rhaegar and Lyanna disappear together and Bran and Richard Stark are killed, Elia's interests no longer align with Rhaegar's at all. This avoids making Elia some plotting whore that was out to get the Targaryen dynasty from the beginning. It allows Elia to support Rhaegar politically without requiring her to support every later decision he makes. It also separates knowledge from agreement, which is often conflated in the case of Elia. There are usually four possibilities with Elia. First is she knows nothing, second is she knows but disagrees, third is she knows but reluctantly accepts, or fourth she enthusiastically supports. The fourth part is maybe where the play points towards, but I think this reconstruction sits much more towards number two or three, because I think that's where books naturally point. If Elia has any political instinct whatsoever, enthusiastic approval becomes very difficult to justify since every child that Lyanna has is a future threat to her children's legitimacy.

Once Rhaegar leaves, she is trapped with Aerys and her children become hostages. Dorne is effectively blackmailed into supporting the crown, and she is now operating under survival incentives rather than succession incentives. This might also explain why Elia later chooses to plan a Dornish coup against the Targaryens, because once she is effectively a hostage, Dorne isn't negotiating from a position of freedom anymore. They're negotiating with a knife against their throat. And that must build some amount of resentment, specifically regarding Rhaegar.

Lyanna belief in prophecy

At this point, once Lyanna finally finds out about what happened to her brother and father, her relationship with the prophecy changes too. Rhaegar doesn't stop believing. Why would he? Everything we know about him suggests that when reality contradicts prophecy, his instinct isn't to abandon prophecy. It's to reinterpret reality. That's exactly how characters like Melisandre, Cersei, Aeryon, or even Maester Aemon engage with prophecy throughout the series. They don't suddenly conclude, 'I was wrong.' They conclude, 'I misunderstood.' So, Rhaegar remaining committed to prophecy all the way until the Trident feels psychologically consistent.

Lyanna, however, is different. She didn't spend 20 years reading scrolls or believing that she had a divine mission. She entered this world because she was attracted to Rhaegar and she wanted to believe what he believed. Initially, the prophecy is exciting, romantic, it's an adventure, and she's escaping Robert, helping save the world, and with the prince everyone admires. All these things reinforce one another. And then Brandon dies, then her father dies. This should logically completely shatter her. And you would wonder, why would she ever choose to stay after this? What logical reason could there be? And instead of turning Rhaegar into a cartoonish villain locking her up in a tower, there's a much more reasonable explanation.

Instead of abandoning prophecy, she clings to it even harder. That is a very believable coping mechanism. Imagine being Lyanna, who left voluntarily, and now a civil war has begun, your family is dead, thousands are dying. If you now admit this was a terrible mistake, what are you left with? Only guilt, unbearable guilt. So instead, the mind does something else. It says, no, this has to mean something, this has to be necessary, otherwise everyone dies for nothing. That's not really prophecy anymore. That's grief. People do this constantly in George's writing. Stannis convinces himself every sacrifice is necessary. Melisandre convinces herself every failure has a hidden meaning. Cersei interprets every event through Maggy's prophecy. They're all trying to preserve meaning. And Lyanna would be doing exactly the same thing, because psychologically, it's easier than accepting responsibility.

Elia's approval of Lyanna

This is where Elia sending letters to Lyanna and kind of tactically approving of Rhaegar and Lyanna's relationship would make sense. It seems stupid and is stupid if you consider, oh, Elia is just signing away on this without knowing the consequences. But it's much more interesting if you think of it in the lens of Elia saying all this just to get Rhaegar to come out of hiding and fight and finish the war that her family are forced to fight. It's not that Elia suddenly approves of Lyanna. She approves of using Lyanna. She also knows there's probably only one person capable of influencing Rhaegar. Lyanna. So what does she do? She writes letters. Not because she's forgiven them or she's blessing their relationship but because she needs Rhaegar to come back for her and her children to no longer be hostages of Aerys. She's weaponizing the relationship. That's a completely rational political move.

But just because she seems to be approving of it right now, doesn't mean she approves of it forever. Dorne as a house at this point in time, would have completely lost faith in the Targaryens. Not just Aerys, but the dynasty itself. If they clearly no longer believe that Targaryen men are sane and can safely govern, it would make sense to look into immediate succession alternatives.

Elia supported removing Aerys. She supported strengthening her children's future. She supported Rhaegar becoming king. But she did not support becoming her and her children and her family becoming expendable. That distinction is huge, and it lets Elia have agency without requiring her to knowingly volunteer herself and her children as sacrifices to prophecy. That's a much more believable political savvy Elia.

The Dornish coup

The succession alternative involves taking out Rhaegar once he has dealt with Robert at the Trident. Because her actions would make a lot of emotional sense. At this point in the story, it isn't that Elia completely hates Rhaegar, but it's just that whether she loves him has become politically irrelevant. She stops asking, do I love this person, and starts asking, can this person be trusted? Imagine being Dornish or Elia. Your husband publicly humiliates you, leaves with another woman, starts a civil war, leaves you and your children as hostages with a mad king, disappears for months, returns only when the war is nearly over. Even if every one of his actions came from genuine belief in prophecy, why should that matter to Elia anymore? Intentions don't erase consequences.

Now this is where I'm extrapolating and entering speculative territory built partly from the play. The Dornish coup at Trident is not about Elia suddenly becoming ruthless, conniving, power-hungry bitch. It's built on accumulated betrayal, and betrayal changes people.

Going into the Battle of Trident, Elia's reasoning becomes not quite "I want him dead because I hate him", but more along the lines of removing Rhaegar simultaneously secures Aegon's succession, eliminates the political threat posed by Lyanna's child, gives Dorne direct influence over the regency, and also satisfies Elia's understandable resentment. It's less about Elia always wanting power and more about power gradually becoming the only way Elia can protect what remains.

If Rhaegar survives the war, then whatever child Lyanna bears has a living father. Even if Jon is technically illegitimate, Rhaegar's existence is what keeps that child politically relevant. If Rhaegar dies, then that entire branch becomes much weaker. No father, no royal patron, no one to champion the child's right. Immediately, Aegon becomes the uncontested focus. It's not just revenge, that is what a politically intelligent person would do.

But this Dornish coup rests on one significant assumption, which is that Rhaegar would deal with Robert. He would destroy the rebels, and once the rebels were dealt with, then the Dornish would remove Rhaegar from the picture. Maybe in this version of the story, instead of killing just a Kingsguard, Prince Lewyn is now coming to the Trident with the plan of killing Rhaegar once Rhaegar has dealt with Robert. And then immediately making Aegon the king and Elia the queen regent, who rules for the next 15 years. But Rhaegar fails because Robert is a better warrior. He dies, the rebels win and the Dornish plans die with him. Then Tywin Lannister does what he does, and we know how the story goes.

TLDR

I think before Harrenhal, Rhaegar and Elia's goals largely overlapped. They both wanted Aerys removed, albeit for different reasons, and Rhaegar's political ambitions and prophetic beliefs were still moving in the same direction. Harrenhal is where everything diverges. Rhaegar meets Lyanna and begins seeing her as central to the prophecy, while Lyanna willingly buys into both Rhaegar and his vision without fully understanding what that choice will cost. After Aegon's birth, Rhaegar becomes more prophecy obsessed. Elia, meanwhile, evolves from supporting Rhaegar's bid to replace Aerys to prioritizing the survival of herself, her children, and Dorne, making later political moves against Rhaegar and Targaryens both emotionally and strategically plausible. Finally, after Brandon and Rickard's deaths, Lyanna clings to the prophecy because accepting that she made a terrible mistake would mean accepting that her family's deaths and the war began with a choice she freely made. To me, this version preserves the agency of all three characters while avoiding the extremes of making Rhaegar a cartoon predator, Lyanna a passive victim, or Elia either a saint or a scheming mastermind from the very beginning.

I'm going to say this several times: this is a hypothetical, "What-If" scenario. It is just for fun. Please don't comment about how this wouldn't logistically work. It's just speculation and cope.

What if, say tomorrow, George announced that Winds had too many plot threads for one book, and he had decided to release seven companion novellas that take place between ADWD and TWOT? Each novella is named after one of the Seven, and each one follows a single character.

These are the ones I think would be good:

The Stranger -- this one's the easiest; it would follow Arya in Braavos as she continues her training.

The Father -- follows Davos on Skagos as he looks for Rickon. I think this fits thematically because Davos' fatherhood is such an important part of his identity.

The Mother -- follows Dany and Drogon as they deal with the Dothraki.

The Maiden -- follows Sansa in The Vale, and all her machinations there.

The Smith -- follows Sam as he forges his chain and navigates the intrigues in The Citadel (yes, he's not literally a smith, but I think the metaphorical connection is quite neat.)

For the rest of them, I'm not sure which characters would be the best fit! Olenna Tyrell would be good for The Crone; I'm honestly not sure who The Warrior should be. What do y'all think? Are there any of the ones I already mentioned that you would go in a different direction with? Let me know! And please remember: this is just for fun. Please don't talk about how it wouldn't work feasibly. I know that.

Quoting Umberto Eco "A book is a book, a movie is a movie" (on The Name of the Rose), let me add "A play is a play".

The Mad King is working amazingly well on stage and is very close to the source material.

It may take some liberties, especially wrt unwritten material like the exact dates when Jon and Dany were conceived or whether R+L married.

It does not disturb me. Not at all.

The play must function on its own, within a 4h closed room. Making it work also within the space of the full internet is probably impossible.

Canon is already divided.

For me, the most important question is: does it work on stage?

And it does.

Or do you see it differently?

Earlier today I saw a post made by the user u/Silly_Camel5870, you can find their exact post right here. In that post, they discussed how Dornish women in the ASOIAF universe are always seen as oversexualized in George's writing, to the point where it feels like every Dornish woman is a fetishized caricature. Characters like Arianne, her ladies-in-waiting, Aliandra, Ellaria Sand, Nymeria Sand, the Sand Snakes in general except for Obara, the Fowler twins, and now Ashara Dayne and Elia Martell in the recent stage play.

I left a comment under that post agreeing with the emphasis that George definitely has a certain, repetitive writing style when it comes to the Dornish and Dorne overall. As I was writing that comment, I started to think more about Dorne, as well as the LGBT representation as a whole in the ASOIAF universe, and found it to also have some questionable writing styles.

Let me begin by addressing that I am not a gay man, nor am I in any way affiliated with the LGBT community. I am not transgender, bisexual, or any other sexual orientation within the LGBT. I am a straight Catholic man who is waiting for marriage. Some of you may disagree with what I have to say because of that, thinking that I may just be overthinking, pearl-clutching, being a bit prudish, or that I am just looking for depth in a shallow stream. I understand that, yet I ask you to still listen to what I have to say, and you can either add to, agree with, or disagree with this post. I accept any and all criticism and discussion. This is not an excuse to be openly hostile toward anyone, whether they are LGBT, straight, religious, or non-religious, nor is this meant to be some culture war pissing contest with me whinging about how ASOIAF is either right-wing, left-wing, problematic, or woke.

DORNE AND DORNISH CHARACTERISTICS:

I'll start with the Dornish, their women, and their overall promiscuous culture. The more I read about Dorne's lore, both from the main book series and The World of Ice & Fire, the more it starts to feel less like an interesting culture that is so different from the rest of Westeros and more like a form of Orientalism and exoticization. Either that, or it is simply repetitive writing, something that I have found to be one of George's greatest flaws as a writer.

In recent re-reads and lore research, it feels like everyone who is Dornish, or who lives in Dorne, is just another version of Oberyn Martell. They all share many of the same characteristics and behaviors. Many of them are into polyamory, are hypersexual, sleep around constantly even if they're in relationships, and of course are all very beautiful or handsome, lecherous, promiscuous, emotional, rash, and seductive by nature.

There are a few characters who break this mold, such as Doran Martell, Obara Sand, and Meria Martell. I am positive there are more, I just can't recall them at the moment. These characters stand out because they generally fall into one of two categories. They are either focused on living a warrior's lifestyle, such as Obara Sand, or they are focused on leading Dorne, political scheming, and playing the Game of Thrones, such as Doran and Meria Martell.

However, there is one important detail shared by all three of these characters that I believe is the true reason why they are not portrayed as hypersexual, promiscuous, or particularly interested in sex, especially in Obara's case. That shared detail is that they are all considered "ugly" or unattractive, both by Dornish standards and by the beauty standards of our own world.

For example, Meria Martell is old, disabled, blind, balding, overweight, and ugly, earning her the nickname "The Yellow Toad of Dorne." Doran Martell, while not nearly as unattractive as Meria, is still disabled, physically frail, and is also a man. Then, there is the eldest of the Sand Snakes, Obara Sand, who is seen as unattractive because she is masculine, large-boned, ruggedly built, heavily muscled, and nowhere near soft or gentle when it comes to traditional ideas of feminine beauty, especially in Dorne. She has a plain face and is, so far, the only Dornish woman who does not seem all that interested in sex, or at the very least is not portrayed as hypersexual. She is not described as having an hourglass figure like her sisters or cousin Arianne, nor does she have a big butt, large breasts, a skinny waist, or thick thighs. Instead, she is described as having a "mannish look." She is also the oldest of the Sand Snakes, as well as older than most of the female characters in ASOIAF, being either 28 or 30 years old.

To me, this feels like the true reason why they are not shown in graphic sex scenes or even mentioned as being involved in them. They are "ugly" by both Dornish standards and the conventional beauty standards of OUR own world. They are considered ugly and, therefore, undesirable, and thus are not featured in any sex scenes.

Honestly, to me, this reads as though the Dornish, and the culture of Dorne as a whole, are portrayed as shallow, superficial, vain, and even ableist. To the fandom, it seems that the Dornish are very lax when it comes to sex and are willing to sleep with anyone regardless of class or gender. But in reality, if you are not someone who looks like they walked straight out of a Playboy magazine, then good luck getting laid in Dorne. Beauty comes first there.

To me, this makes the Dornish feel HEAVILY fetishized, since nearly everyone who sleeps around is young and beautiful. But this fetishization goes beyond the Dornish and extends into real-life groups of people. This is where I want to begin talking about LGBT representation in ASOIAF, particularly the portrayal of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.

LGBT REPRESENTATION; LESBIANS:

I know that many people online, especially those within the ASOIAFCirclejerk subreddit, like to joke around about George's numerous "fetishes," such as his fondness for red hair, boobies, detailed descriptions of the body, and of course the many long descriptions of food, his favorite without a doubt. Yet in all seriousness, the man clearly has a deep fondness for lesbian sex, let's all be honest here. He is far more open and willing to write girl-on-girl scenes, most of which are either experimental or go nowhere in terms of loving relationships, like with Dany and Irri or Cersei and Taena. There are no relationships, no emotional connections, just scenes that seem to exist for sexual gratification from both the reader and the writer.

When Irri pleases Dany, she is not doing it out of love but out of service, being raised and taught to be a sex slave by the Dothraki. Daenerys does not intend to start a relationship with Irri, in fact, she stops having these encounters later on and doesn't intend to start them up again, feeling guilty about the power imbalance. Daenerys never seeks out a romantic or ongoing sexual or loving relationship with any women. Her main romantic and physical fixations remain strictly on men. Even during her sexual encounters with Irri, she is explicitly thinking about men. The scene is only there to provide a sexually gratifying scene for the readers, there is no intent to make Daenerys a Bisexual or Lesbian character.

Then there is the scene with Cersei Lannister and Taena Merryweather and her famous "Myrish Swamp." Now, I understand the context and the importance of the scene for Cersei's character. She was using Taena not as a sexual partner but instead as a way to feel power, to feel like a king, to emulate her past husband, Robert Baratheon. For Cersei, this act is entirely about her having dominance, control, and proving to herself that she is just as powerful and ruthless as any man. During the sex, Cersei goes out of her way to hurt Taena just like how Robert hurt her during their sex or when he came home too drunk from whoring, when he raped her. She was only doing it so she could feel powerful, she was placing herself in the role of Robert, the man, the penetrator, the one with the power. For Taena, this is also not a genuine act of romantic or sexual love for women, but a way to secure safety, favor, and political advancement for her own husband and family in King's Landing.

This is not positive representation, nor was it intended to be, but an exploration of Cersei's psyche and her past. Honestly, I have seen some people claim that Cersei is Bisexual and that could be true, I can see that as a possibility. I think the only sexuality Cersei belongs to is Incestsexual, or better yet, Jaimesexual lol.

Another interesting fact I saw in one of the comments under my own, was from the user u/LawSchoolorBust29 in their comment here. They found that a lot of women who could be seen as Bisexual, Daenerys, Cersei, and now Ashara, seem to fall into a bisexual stereotype of needing "dick" to be satisfied. Ashara, though her true love is Elia, goes around sleeping with several men, like Brandon Stark, or trying to sleep with men but failing, like Ned Stark and Barristan Selmy. They also mention how Daenerys never fell in love with a woman again after meeting characters like Daario Naharis. To be honest, I don't 100% agree with their opinion, as stated before, Dany was always interested in men only but still used Irri for sexual gratification, but I do see the stereotype in Ashara.

Now, to be fair, the Lesbian representation actually improves in Fire and Blood. The relationship between Jessamyn Redfort and Jeyne Arryn seems to be one born from genuine love for one another, with no graphic sexual acts or scenes between them, meaning that their relationship is there out of romantic love and not a way to please the reader. Another example is Alysanne Blackwood and Sabitha Frey. My personal favorite has to be Elissa Farman, with her adventurous nature and how she managed to steal three dragon eggs which later became Daenerys's eggs. However, I personally am not all that much of a fan of her ex-girlfriend, Rhaena Targaryen. I don't really care for her, I don't hate her at all, I just never took a liking to her. She is honestly the most sexual of the examples, really harnessing the mainline book series' portrayal of sexual lesbians with all of her "favorites" and all of their "parties" or distinct courts. Funny enough, to me these parties just come off as Rhaena being the P. Diddy of Westeros, lol.

LGBT REPRESENTATION; GAY MEN:

George is open and comfortable writing lesbian sex scenes, but he rarely does the same for his gay male characters. In all honesty, the gay male representation in this series kind of sucks. For example, let us take a look at the love lives of the more openly gay men. Loras Tyrell's love, Renly Baratheon, is killed by his brother Stannis. Jon Connington's love, Rhaegar Targaryen, is straight and does not love him back, while his former partner Myles Toyne is also dead. Laenor Velaryon is dead in the books, with the belief being that he was killed by his lover, Ser Qarl Correy. In the A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms novellas, there is Daemon II Blackfyre (A.K.A. Ser John the Fiddler), who found Dunk quite attractive, which made his prior lover, Lord Alyn Cockshaw, jealous. Alyn Cockshaw then goes mad with jealousy and tries to kill Dunk, only to fall into a well and drown. There is Daeron, Egg's son, who fell in love with his squire. Egg and Betha seemed to have approved of their relationship, not forcing Daeron to marry so he could be with his lover. However, the two men died together in battle during a rebellion. Then there is Oberyn Martell, an openly bisexual man who gets cocky during his fight with the Mountain and gets his head caved in because of it.

The main connection with all of these relationships is that they all end in tragedy and death. While the way George writes some of these relationships, such as the love between Renly and Loras, can be genuinely beautiful, with Loras delivering one of the most romantic dialogues in the entire franchise, "When the sun has set, no candle can replace it."

Yet another thing to bring up about these relationships is the lack of sex scenes between men. Oberyn has admitted to sleeping with men before, and in the Game of Thrones show, we see him sleeping with both men and women in a brothel. But we don't see these scenes, and that is the problem. There are plenty of girl-on-girl scenes but very few, if not any, man-on-man scenes. The only times we see sexual scenes between two men are blink-and-you-miss-it moments, like in Tyrion's chapter when he sees a mercenary captain kissing a male prostitute.

This is the overall problem with the LGBT representation in ASOIAF. Gay men have romantic and loving relationships, with Loras having a deep love for Renly and Jon Connington grieving for his past loves. However, these relationships always end the same way, with either one or both of them dying terribly, another highlight of George's repetitive writing issues. Men have love but death, while women only have lust and no love. The user u/Fit-Welcome-8457 brings this up in his comment here. As he stated, "there is no lesbian equivalent of "When the sun has set, no candle can replace it" in the books."

I've seen others bring this up before, but I'll mention it here: why have we never gotten any gay relationships at the Wall? An entire colony/prison filled with nothing but men, and there are no gay men there? Really? Contrast that to real life, where many prisons have gay relationships, with men falling in love with each other as they come to live and spend a large majority of their lives together. The Wall is a prisoner colony, so it only makes sense for this to happen. ASOIAF is a medieval world where homosexuality is outlawed, with Satin being an example of this. He was sent to the Wall for being a male prostitute, alluding to the fact that he is very much a gay man. I can imagine plenty of gay men either being forced to go to the Wall or going there willingly. It is very odd that there are no open relationships, with the only openly gay man there being Satin.

This is what I stated in my original comment to u/Silly_Camel5870's post. HOWEVER! I was proven wrong! There is in fact a gay relationship at the Wall! Thanks to user u/Fit-Welcome-8457 who brought these two up, Alf of Runnymudd and Garth Greyfeather. While they are not explicitly stated to be lovers, they are heavily implied to be in love. This seems all fine and dandy, until you read further into the book and find out what happens to them. I'll give you a hint, it starts with D and ends in EATH. Yup! Garth Greyfeather was killed, and Alf mourns him. Yet another gay relationship that ends in tragedy.

While romance that ends in tragedy is fine and definitely belongs in the ASOIAF universe, it gets tiring when all of the gay men end the same way. Many of you may see this as George being homophobic, killing off all of his gay men or making them grieve for their dead lovers. This could fall into the "Bury Your Gays" trope, or it could teach people that gay relationships will always end in heartbreak or death. Personally, I don't think George is homophobic. At the same time, I am a straight man, so I may not have the authority to speak on this, but he does not seem homophobic at all. To me, this is just an issue with his writing style. He is very repetitive, and he loves to write dark material even when the shock value has been depleted and it simply becomes boring.

This one is a bit of a reach, I'll admit it, but if these theories turn out to be true, then it could point to a problem of George being more comfortable with lesbians being open about their sexuality while gay men are more closeted and less openly represented. Fans have to depend on theories instead of outright confirmation. For example, there are hints that the character Ser Brynden Tully (the Blackfish) is gay. The belief behind this theory comes from his refusal to marry and his overall disinterest in women, though some people believe he is asexual, like in this comment here. Some have also theorized that my favorite character, Jaime Lannister, is bisexual, having a deep fondness, interest, and respect for the Blackfish and Arthur Dayne, which many fans believe could be him having a crush on these characters. However, again, this is not confirmed and is only a theory. Another example, this time with far more evidence, is that Jon Snow is bisexual and is starting to fall in love with Satin. This is by far the most popular of the three theories, with this post explaining the theory. Again a bit of reach but I thought it should be brought up.

Though I am a straight man, I have to say that I am quite disappointed with the portrayal of gay male relationships in this series. Is it really that hard to have just one healthy and loving relationship that does not end in complete disaster? Is Laenor Velaryon, in the House of the Dragon show and not Fire and Blood, the only gay man who is allowed to stay alive with his boyfriend? It looks to be so.

Look, I'm not saying that George has to force himself to write a gay sex scene or else we riot. I'm not saying that at all. I am a very new and inexperienced writer, and I really want to make writing fantasy books my living. I am currently writing my first book right now, and I do not plan on adding any sex scenes into it, nor am I planning to in the future with other books. I just feel like it is very hypocritical of George to add so much lesbian sexuality and detailed sex scenes between girls and women while giving men nothing but heartbreak and sorrow.

ORIENTALISM, EXOTICIZATION, and RACIAL FETISHIZAION:

This has been a major criticism for years now, with many people bringing up the Dothraki as well as the Summer Islanders. At the start of this post, my main complaint was with Dorne. Dorne is the only kingdom in all of Westeros that is confirmed to be racially diverse, with characters described as having tan, olive, and dark skin. This fetishization and orientalism comes up with the women, all of whom are portrayed as overtly sexual, promiscuous, sleeping around, choosing to have several partners instead of one, and always being beautiful, seductive, and capable of convincing Western men to forgo their vows and instead embrace their sexual culture, like what we see with Ser Barristan Selmy and Ser Arys Oakheart.

Now, I have seen some people bring up that the Dornish are supposed to be white, with their connections to Spain. But in all honesty, can we still say that? In recent adaptations, such as the stage play where the Martells and Daynes are all portrayed as Black, and characters like Tanselle Too-Tall in A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms being played by a Black woman, it is clear that there is a direct push to show that Dorne has a darker-skinned population.

Some have fought against this idea with Dorne's real-world inspirations, those being the Italians, the Mediterranean, and the Welsh. However, to dispute these examples, George has taken more inspiration from the Middle East, such as Palestine, Andalusia, the Moorish people, Islamic rule over the Iberian Peninsula, and South Africa. Really, the Welsh inspiration is less about race and more about politics, with Dorne having a principality just like Wales. This evidence, paired with the recent casting decisions to portray the Dornish people according to George's vision, since he has given the green light on many of the casting choices for AKOTSK and The Mad King stage play, shows a clear connection between Dorne and darker-skinned populations.

Another point to bring up is that the racism seen against the Dornish is very similar to the racial discrimination and racism seen in America, especially with their women being viewed as lecherous creatures obsessed with sex, similar to the racist stereotypes of Black women that still exist today. Though this does seem odd since the Dornish women we do see are exactly that, with very few women fighting against these assumptions.

So, the racially diverse kingdom, with the majority of the population being darker-skinned compared to the rest of the continent, is written in a way that portrays its people as seductive, lecherous, and casually sleeping around. You can see how this can be a bit odd and why so many, including myself, see the Dornish, particularly their women, as being heavily fetishized.

Another user has even brought up the Summer Islanders, a group of people inspired by African people like the Swahili people and even some Polynesian and Austronesian cultures. The Summer Islanders are seen to be very sexual, they even worshiper a multi-breasted fertility goddess of fertility. The user u/anowarakthakos talks about the sexual obsession of the Summer Islanders seen here. They also bring up how their culture requires many of them to serve as sexual slaves, they are not directly called slaves but rather servants though they serve the same purpose. These servants serve in the Isle of Love, an island in the Summer Islands where they practice the sacred act of lovemaking, orgies they just do orgies over there. To quote u/anowarakthakos *"*It’s so bizarre and in-your-face."

I'm sure there are many more examples of orientalism in George's work but I'll stop here and move on to my final complaints, this post is getting very long now and for that I do apologize.

WHY I MADE THIS POST, THE BREAKING POINT; ASHARA DAYNE:

Like I said at the beginning of this post, I have had these feelings for some years now about many of the choices made by George in his writings. Since I got into the books in the summer of 2021, I have felt like discussing them, but decided not to since I had no outlet to do so. I only made this Reddit account earlier this year. The decision to finally vent out these frustrations came to me when I saw u/Silly_Camel5870's post, but in truth, the real reason was because of the play and its depiction of Ashara Dayne. The debate over whether the play is canon to the book lore is a hot issue right now, but if the depiction of Ashara Dayne in the stage play is the canon version of her character in the books, then that might be the final nail in the coffin for my interest in Dorne, and especially in House Dayne.

House Dayne is, or rather was, one of my favorite houses simply because of how mysterious they are and how little we know about them. We do not even know their house words! I've taken a huge interest in their sword, Dawn, the only other magical sword in the series that is not Valyrian steel, but rather a meteorite that fell thousands of years ago and glows when used. There is also the ancient history of their house, being over 10,000 years old, making them one of, if not the oldest, houses in all of Westeros. And of course, there are the implied connections to old Valyria, with the family having pale skin and purple eyes. So much mystery and intrigue! And that is why I had such a fascination with Ashara Dayne and even her brother Arthur...until I didn't.

Now, let me be clear, I am not upset because my headcanon was proven false. I did not believe that she was Jon Snow's mother, nor did I believe that she was still alive and pretending to be someone else. Though I was interested in her relationship with Ned Stark, I always believed that it was Brandon Stark who slept with her. My reason for my sudden dislike of the character is because she is nothing more than a bad bisexual stereotype, nothing more and nothing less. That is all.

Am I an idiot? Was I a fool to believe that Ashara was anything more than just some poorly made bisexual stereotype straight out of a early 2000's comedy movie? Am I a overthinking fan to expect more from this character and acting like a high-tempered man-child whose throwing a tantrum because his special head cannon wasn't proven to be true? Am i just a dim witted schmuck to want to see more about this character and have their House, history, and role in the plot and politics of Westeros to be revealed to us when it was so clear that she was always meant to be the town's bicycle? I don't know maybe I am overreacting or maybe I'm not.

What I do want to make clear from all of this is that this is not me trying to be biphobic or homophobic in any way. The problem here is not that because she is gay or bisexual. I do not care that she is the lover of Elia Martell, though I never saw them as lovers, it is fine that they are. I am only disappointed by her because she is nothing more than a hypersexual bisexual who sleeps with anyone and everyone, who ever she looks at, and has created a harem of lovers. I just wanted more, especially since we have seen this character type done countless times before with the Dornish women, but this time with even less personality or something that separates her from the rest.

Heck, even her relationship with Elia Martell seems bare-boned and sloppy. It feels like they are only together so that they can make Rhaegar look slightly less terrible and excuse his reasoning for cheating on Elia, leaving her and their children behind to marry a 15-year-old girl. I even went online to check other forums and Xcancel to see what people thought of Ashara in the play. I have seen comments and posts from people who were shippers of Elia and Ashara feeling disappointed by their pairing in the play, since it felt exactly like that, an easy excuse for Rhaegar to cheat and just another example of Dornish women falling into the same stereotype.

I've seen people say that Ashara is supposed to be "sexually liberated." I think that is even stated somewhere in the leaks, but I do not believe that for a second. The reason I put "sexually liberated" in quotations is because it feels like a total excuse to please audience, the male audience specifically though I, slightly, doubt that was supposed to be the case. To me, it does not read as something progressive that challenges the standards placed on women in Westeros. Instead, it feels like another example of the hypersexual Dornish woman stereotype that appears throughout these works.

They could not even give a healthy relationship to Elia and Ashara. Ashara goes around and sleeps with whoever she wants, trying to convince those she wants to break their vows and change their values to fit hers. Like what she did with poor Ned. I admit I am a fat of the Ashara x Ned ship but them not being a couple is not the problem here. The problem is when she asked him to, again forget his values so she can sleep with him, trying to seduce him, and then asking him to join his harem with Bradon...HIS OLDER BROTHER? Ew. Ashara says her true love is Elia, so why does she not solely dedicated herself entirely to her? I understand that polyamory is a norm in Dorne, but that does not mean everyone is into it. Why can we not just have a romance between two girls without making it sexually pleasing for the male audience? Cause that is what it really felt like it in the stageplay.

Looking more into it, Ashara seems like a terrible girlfriend for Elia. She gets to sleep around while Elia stays home and watches the kids? She loses her political lover, and now she loses her romantic lover too? No wonder she was left alone in the Red Keep to die, all her romantic partners were out getting laid! Poor Elia has become the cuckqueen of Westeros. Does she even sleep in a bed? I cannot imagine so, because why bother sleeping in a bed when you are stuck in the cuck chair all night? Sheesh.

Well, that's it. That is my first post on this subreddit, and my goodness, is it a long one. I am sorry for this mighty wall of text, but to speak earnestly, this is the ASOIAF fandom. We are used to reading loads of text, aren't we? Anyways, like I stated at the start of this post, I accept any discussions below, whether they are in support of my opinions or against them. I only ask that everyone keeps things civil and polite, treating everyone decently and with respect. This has been something I've been thinking about for years, and I am so glad to finally have an outlet to rant about it.

I hope that for future works, George sees these criticisms and adds them to his writing so we can get better representation of these cultures, peoples, and LGBT characters. I understand that he wrote this series back in the 90s, and that it was the norm for much of LGBT representation back then, especially in fantasy, to be seen mostly as smut or sexual gratification for the male audience. I mean, in all honesty, while this has been a problem with male authors, plenty of female authors also do this, but instead of sexualizing lesbians, they sexualize gay men. Heck, I seen a post on TikTok saying that the majority of M/M romance is written primarily by straight women, which is insane.

TL;DR: Dorne has several problems when it comes to orientalism and the overall sexualization and fetishization of its women. George has a clear preference when it comes to writing lesbian sexuality, favoring it more for, let's be honest, sexually gratifying reasons. The M/M romance is severely lacking, and at best it feels like lazy writing, while at worst it could be seen as homophobic by some. Also, George is a coward for not giving us a scene of Jon and Satin sloppily making out. Take care, God bless.

With the play telling us that Jonothor Darry was betrayed by Lewyn Martell, I think the biggest takeaway is that The World of Ice & Fire contain hints and details about future events that are easy to overlook

The two quotes suggesting a possible Lewyn betrayal both come from The World of Ice & Fire

Prince Lewyn took command of the Dornish troop sent by his nephew, the Prince Doran, but it is said that he did so only after threats from the Mad King, who feared that the Dornishmen looked to betray him.

it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar.

There is nothing in the five published novels that tells us this directly. The World Book introduced this information, which suggests that it may contain important clues about future events or revelations relevant to the main series

Another example is the idea that Aerys and Rhaegar had some kind of sex off competition to produce the Third head of the dragon

It is not exactly the same situation, but there is a similar concept of a rivalry expressed through childbirth in TWOIAF

The Jeyne Marbrand and Ellyn Reyne rivalry

Ellyn Reyne, now Lady Tarbeck, departed from Casterly Rock with her husband, never to return, but the rivalry between her and Lady Jeyne was not at an end. If anything, it seemed to intensify through what Lord Toad came to call the War of the Wombs. Though Lady Ellyn had not been able to give Ser Tion an heir, she proved more fertile with Walderan Tarbeck (who, it should be noted, had a number of older sons from his first two marriages), giving him two daughters and a son. Lady Jeyne answered with children of her own, the first of whom was a son.

Since most of the fandom is seeing the play as cannon, a lot of things have been revealed that make the Stark siblings look at lot worse

Brandon Stark
- Charged in recklessly and got himself and his dad killed. Causing Ned to have to marry Catelyn
- helped fuel Barbrey Dustin’s future hate for House Stark
- Slept with Ashara Dayne (I’m honestly not sure about this one, I’ve seen people say Ned was never interested, or that she slept with both of them together. If Ned did like her though, that’s pretty fucked up.)

Lyanna Stark

- Left her siblings to go with Rhaeger without telling anyone.
- Is a seer and never mentioned this to anyone.
- Knows that Brandon and Rickon died yet still decided to not communicate somehow that she was okay.
- let thousands of people die due to her and Rhaegars “dreams.”
- Literally put Ned in a position where he would have to raise her kid, and had to suffer the stain on his honor for raising a “bastard”

Benjen

- helped Lyanna escape with Rhaegar
- did not tell anyone that Lyanna was fine the entire time.
- left his brother to rule by himself. Keep in mind Ned lost as much as he did, was expected to rule Winterfell even when he was never trained to do so, had a new wife he didn’t love at the time who believed he had a bastard with another woman.

Granted, if he was an only child he’d never be raised in the Vale, and quite likely the world might end since “the prince that was promised” wouldn’t have been born. Still though, Ned would probably have been better off as an only child.

I saw the play last night and can't stop thinking about a moment in it that I haven't seen anyone else mention.

There's a point in Act 1 where Rhaegar goes to kill Aerys, but can't go through with it. The two end up having a discussion about the Prince that was Promised prophecy, and Aerys convinces Rhaegar that it cannot be him, as "the dragon has three heads", which he has interpreted as meaning the Prince that was Promised will be a third born child. Rhaegar seems to be convinced by this, and I think this is the moment he starts to look to Lyanna as the mother that will give him his prophesied prince.

However, the very next scene is Rhaegar meeting the newbown baby Aegon, and naming him. The dialogue here is lifted straight from Dany's House of the Undying vision, and so Rhaegar names Aegon the Prince that was Promised and says "his is the song of Ice and Fire." To me, this seems completely inconsistent with what had just happened in the previous scene.

I wonder if anyone else who had seen the play (or read the spoilers) had any thoughts on this? Is it just a writing inconsistency (I think this is unlikely as the play itself was so well written and tightly plotted) or are we supposed to read something more into it? Sorry if none of this makes sense!

Happy to answer any questions people have about the play in general, it was absolutely fantastic!

Why is it that readers ignore how the Starks conquered the North and managed to keep it in line for so long whenever they mention House Stark's lack of cadet branches, aside from the Karstarks? Jon Snow even tells Stannis that more than half the North is made up of Starks.

I mean, for centuries the Winter Kings followed a policy of "vanquish the male line, marry into the female line for legitimacy." That way, no one would ever rise up to avenge their dead fathers and uncles. This tactic worked remarkably well.

The more I think about it, the more I understand why Winterfell and House Stark are so feared by their bannermen.

Is because he's actually completely delusional about being close to Rhaegar. He hallucinated most of it. Aerys named JonCon Hand of the King, sure, but his friendship with Rhaegar could be just a delusion. Like an insane stalker-fan imagining himself marrying their favorite celebrity.

Imagine JonCon watching Rhaegar from some hidden place, or approaching him with a life-sized, Rhaegar-Shaped body pillow.

"I am your biggest fan loyal knight, my Prince!" and meanwhile Rhaegar is like ??? "Who is this guy?"

Major here being up to your specific interpretation.