ASOIAF: Did Tywin sleep with Shae out of pure spite?

Original question was: Did Tywin sleep with Shae out of pure spite?

Spite, yes, it it’s purest, vilest essense. That, and the natural desire to get your rocks off with a fine-looking woman.

Of course, it is popularly believed by pretty much everyone that Tywin was a hypocrite of the first order, basically banning his son from having sex while he himself rolls around in whores, albeit in a more clandestine manner.

But, imagine having a son.

Having his first girlfriend brutally gang-raped. Forcing him to join in.

Giving him the worst, (literally) shittiest jobs you can find for him.

Seeing him succeed at all of them. See him distinguish himself in not only one but two battles. See him broker two great deals with two rival houses turning enemies into allies while a fifteen year old boy kicks your bald ass all over the Riverlands.

So what do you do?

You give all the credit to Littlefinger, his brainless sister Cersei and your son’s hired thug; give him a further shitty job trying to unravel Littlefinger’s finances; you preside over two of his murder trials; you condemn him to death; and on the eve of his execution you fuck the living shit out of his girlfriend.

Your son’s girlfriend. The night before he’s sentenced to die.

I don’t care how horny you are; I don’t care if you have some suspicion about his paternity; I don’t care if your son is physically disabled and you think that makes it look like the gods have cursed you. I don’t care.

You just don’t do that.

Unless you fucking HATE your son.

Game of Thrones: Are the Starks all a bunch of idiots?

Yes, they are idiots.  For trusting other human beings.

Ned was an idiot for not wanting to kill three innocent children and for trusting Littlefinger. Oh, he had no reason to distrust Littlefinger; and he certainly had no other choice, really. But he should have known.

Catelyn was an idiot for trusting her childhood best friend who almost died for her. She should have known.

Sansa was an idiot for….uh…like…not taking up a weapon and bursting out of her confines in the Red Keep, slaying all the guards and knights standing in her way. Just like those idiots in concentration camps or the gulag.

Arya is an idiot for…wait. Arya is not an idiot because she trusts no one.

Robb was an idiot for not expecting his bannerman to betray him; and for not predicting his murder in an unprecedented atrocity that is almost unheard of in Westerosi history. I mean, anybody could have predicted that, amiright?

And JON: talk about an idiot. Takes a hard and unpopular decision for the sole purpose of saving the entire human race. How stupid!

Of course, he should have expected his subordinates to knife him in the back(and the gut, and the throat and the heart.) He should have KILLED THEM all. A pre-emptive strike on the Men of the Night’s Watch? How else to save the…er, Men of the Night’s Watch?

Meanwhile let’s look at the "smart" actors of the series:

The Lannisters:

• Papa Lannister has been shot on the shitter by his own son.
• Cersei Lannister has had all three of her children killed. One of them self-defenestrated just to piss her off.
• Jaime Lannister is, well, an ineffectual nincompoop for the most part*; he can’t fight; he can’t protect his kids; his sister-lover is a crazy-ass bitch.
• Walder Frey: the whole Realm laughs at him and hates him. He was fed his own children — including their disgusting and mossy toenails (every one knows that Freys don’t bathe)— before having his throat cut. Yum.
• Alisser Thorne, currently cross-eyed, blue in the face and hanging from an ice-cold gallows.
• Roose Bolton had his baby and wife eaten by dogs; he himself was stabbed in the heart by his own son.
• Ramsay Bolton, eaten alive by dogs sic’ed on him by one of the idiots, one of the suckers.

I don’t know. I think I’d rather be an idiot than one of the smart ones.

*I am obviously referring to the show in this post.

What do you think of the anti-Tolkien backlash in modern fantasy?

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a fantasy author who is truly anti-Tolkien. Other than Michael Moorcock, who is there? I’ve seen a few critiques of a few aspects, but most authors recognize him as one of the main pillars of modern fantasy.

Having said that I have read a more than a few fans who don’t admire the Lord of the Rings. I think there are a number of reasons for them.

This kind of thing leads to an irrational backlash.

1. Tolkien is rather weak on female characters. Oh, he has a few interesting ones if you dig beneath the surface; but they are not readily apparent to casual fans.
   
   And in a post-Jackson fantasy world, this fact seems even more heightened. Frankly speaking, some women understandably just don’t relate.
2. In a surging genre that in many ways is in its golden age and where Robert Howard-influenced fantasy seems to have made a strong comeback, Tolkien probably seems rather quaint. Again if one digs beneath the surface, one finds that not to be the case; but digging beneath the surface of Tolkien requires patience that not all fantasy readers have.
3. Tolkien tale of powerlessness triumphing over ultimate power is timeless; yet Tolkien is very much of his time. The Lord of the Rings is very much the work of a man who grew up in a mighty empire in a world that has vanished as definitively as Doriath or Gondolin. Younger readers, divorced of real-world context, simply might have a harder time relating. Modern fantasy with it’s tinges of post-Vietnam, post-Holocaust themes, fits more snugly in the milieu of today’s mores and attitudes.
   
   It’s always been somewhat of a young readers’ genre. The political stances of younger authors like Joe Abercrombie (whether expressed intentionally or not), couched as they are in modern irony and cynicism, seem more real and honest to those young readers.

As to what I think of it…well I don’t agree with it. But people are free to feel how they will. The Lord of the Rings(and attendant stories of the same world, like Silmarillion) will always be one of my top epic stories of my life.

Time has proven the Lord of the Rings to have real staying power. If it fades somewhat in history, well that is par for the course. Even Moby Dick or Faust seems stale to many modern readers. That doesn’t lesser their value; only their commerciality.

Has the Truth become 'a matter of opinion' rather than 'a matter of fact' for the modern American voter?

Yes, and not only in the USA.

In every Western country.

IN the old days, the rational man formed his opinion based on the facts that he processed. But that is all changed now. It is a new world.

Nowadays, the rational human being forms his or her opinion based on the prejudices, ideas and feelings they have; then they go looking for facts to support their opinions; using their general belief in the way things are ordered as a compass.

It is a mess, but that is the only way to go about it.

If Putin says one thing is happening in Syria; and Obama says another, who does the rational man believe?

He could choose to believe neither; or he can decide whom to believe depending on which one he deems the most trustworthy based on past interactions that he has had with this person’s image in the media.

That is one example; but it applies to almost any example in politics in almost any country in the world right now.

In fact, when you think about it, it has always been like this. One of the chief differences between our time and the past is that in the past, the common man was always the recipient of propaganda and information; now, though, he also joyfully relays it to other ordinary people not by word of mouth but through the awesome transmitter he has at his own desk, the computer—communicating to potentially millions of ordinary people who he is connected by via a web of acquaintances and acquaintances of acquaintances; all of whom, increasingly, shape themselves to think exactly the same way as he does; while those who have opposing opinions are increasingly marginalized and dehumanized in a kind of war about what actually is the real truth.

All of this points to one thing: the spool around which society is ravelled has vanished without a trace.

Written November

ASOIAF: Why did the Andals wipe out all the weirwood trees?

Wiping out the weirwood trees had a dual purpose.

1. Tactical:
   
   The trees have eyes.
   
   If you are fighting a war of defense against some foreign invaders, wouldn’t it be good to be able to see and hear where they were and what they were doing? Wouldn’t that be a great advantage?
   
   Ever noticed what happens when a character prays to a heart tree?
   
   His prayer gets answered. 
   The First Men weren’t just fighting the Andals with bronze swords and such. And they weren’t fighting alone. They were fighting with magic. They were fighting with the green-seers and even, at times, the Children of the Forest, who emerged from their hollow hills to fight the marauding invaders.
   
   It probably took awhile but at some point the ancient Andals must have figured out that the weirwood trees, one way or another, were aiding the enemy.
2. Cultural: The second reason was cultural.Of course, the Andals mixed with the First Men, intermarried; and I would expect the majority of the inhabitants of South Westeros are very much descended from the First Men. But, culturally, they are pretty much Andal to the core.
   
    The early Andal invaders seem to have been more fanatic than the modern Andals. They carved Seven Pointed stars on trees, rocks, caves…even their own bodies. Wiping out the weirwoods helped wipe out the religion of the First Men, which was an important step in imposing Andal culture on them.
   
   Not much different, perhaps, in this regard than the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, or European/American conquest of the Americas.

Written Oct 26

Trump book report: the Lord of the Rings

The Lord of the Rings:

They want to put the ring in a volcano? Here you have a ring, a weapon, really, a fantastic, terrific weapon..best weapon ever. And what do they want to do? Well we know what they want to do, the same thing they want to do with your guns. Do they want to use them? I say use the weapons. No, they want to —get this, this is gonna knock your socks off. They want to put the ring in a volcano. Can you believe it? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard! It is so stupid, you are not going to believe it! Really, really stupid. So stupid!

I mean, you can’t make it up! Fact is truly stranger than…stories. I’m gonna take that ring, if I have that ring it is going to be incredible! It’s gonna be something else!

I’m saying, you have the ring, you have a lot of leverage!

Let me tell you, I know something about leverage. I’ve built an incredible company. And I am SO PROUD of the company that I have built. I am so proud. What have the Elves built lately? What about Denethor? Don’t see them building anything. Three thousand years they’ve been fighting. Three thousand years. Vast swatches of time, we’re talking. And what do they have to show for it? Give me a break. Give me a break!

And I don’t know Sauron. I’m not paid by him. I think it would be great if we got along with Sauron; wouldn’t that be great? Why is that so bad?

You take that ring — and this is what I am going to do, without a doubt. WITHOUT A DOUBT. And you meet with Sauron, you got this leverage over him, you make a negotiation with him. A strong negotiation. It’s gonna be beautiful. A beautiful negotiation. And believe me, I am the man who is going to get it done.

Edit: Twitter version: Gandalf talking about sending Ring into volcano. Stupid or what? Take that ring and make a deal and I am going to do it. Believe me.

Written Oct 26

ASOIAF: Could Daenerys have freed the slaves without wreaking havoc on Slaver's Bay?

I think so. But she would have to get over her squeamishness with breaking eggs.

Danerys was way too moderate. She wavered between wanting a bloody revolution and wanting peace. Look. IN a place like Slavers’ Bay you have one or the other. You cant have both. As a result she may have ruined her options, barring some nearly supernatural help, (you know, like, from dragons or a ahundred thoursand Dothraki scramers…)

Astapor:

She wiped out the ruling class of Astapor completely. You know what? People criticizize her for that, but the Astapori were really the vilest of the vile; think of all the deaths that go into making the Unsullied, for example. It’s a city whose blood-red bricks are founded on the death of thousands of innocents—for thousands of years.

That was not her mistake, though. Her mistake was that she created a power vacuum and did nothing to fill it. So here is what she should have done:

• She should have appointed one of her advisors(maybe Jorah) as a council member as governor, i.e., a defacto ruler and representative of the Queen. Who would make sure that the farms in the area were under control.
• Appointing a wise counsel to rule alongside the governor was not a bad idea; l but without any force to back them up, they were essentially doomed. And of course, it left Astapor a sitting duck for Yunkai.
• Control and secure the the food supplies coming into Astapor from the surrounding area.
• After leaving, she should have left a hefty portion of the Unsullied at Astapor to back up the counsel and governor she appointed.
  
  2000 might have been sufficient to establish order and protect the council. After that a police force can be trained, culled from the freed slaves. WE learned in Game of Thrones from Ned’s example that pulling off a coup without an army is a risky and dangerous enterprise. You simply need force at your back if you are to rule.
• The freed slaves are free to go or stay, but they are NOT free to follow Dany around. With a competent government in Astapor, perhaps they wouldn’t feel the need to do so.

Yunkai:

Yunkai got off the easiest of all of them. It had its slaves freed and some of its wealth taken, but it was essentially untouched. She conquered the city; she should have conquered more of it.

The freed slaves were allowed to take ‘all the wealth’ that they could carry; but the bulk of the wealth was untouched. And with the ruling class intact, that left them able to just hire more sell-swords, and also make alliances with Qarth and Volantis.

• It’s harsh. But wipe out the ruling class. Take those Wise Masters, stick a stake up their collective ass and have done with it.
• Again, she should have appointed a governor(Barristan) and a council with a sizable army (not the sellswords, though) to represent her interest and wishes.
• Seize control of the wealth.
• Makes sure that food and water supplies are accounted for,
• Again, do NOT let the freed slaves become a huge unsanitary mass of starving mouths wracked by dysentary. They don’t get to follow her.

Meereen:

Part of Dany’s big problems in the book, and, more opaquely, in the show is Yunkai’s enmity. If that threat is neutralized, at least it takes much longer before Meereen is put to siege by the Qartheen and the forces of Volantis, and these besiegers would, potentially, face opposition from Yunkai and Astapori both.

The crucifixion of 163 in retaliation for the 163 slave children was a mistake. What gets me is how senselessly unfair it is. Inevitably, some innocent Wise Masters are killed, while several guilty get off.

• She needs to crucify ALL OF THEM. Hizdarh. The Green Grace. The…perfumed seneschal guy. Kill them all and make a big fire and scatter the ashes. No ruling class=no insurgency.
  
  Otherwise, her revolution is not going to work. She needs to have her people in charge, surrounded by the best brains of the freedmen and the already-freed shavepates, who apparently, had some beef with the ruling class.
• Secure the farmlands! Take control of the farmlands up the Skahazadhan. Keep the line of supply going.
• Use the wealth to necessary buy food from her dominions of Astapor and Yunkai.

Doing all of these things eliminates the threat of Yunkai at her back; keeps Yunkai from allying with Volantis and Qarth; gives her time, perhaps several years, to consolidate Slaver’s Bay into a viable state, secure a strong alliance with the anti-slavery Braavos; time to deal with the inevitable threats from Qarth and Volantis and New Ghis; the Dothraki, and the other cities of Slavers’ Bay….

Written Oct 22

What are some places worth visiting in the Czech Republic, besides Prague?

While Prague’s undisputed position as one of the most beautiful cities in Europe makes it indubitably a must-see, there are tons of other rewarding places to visit off the beaten path in the Czech Republic.

One of the few benefits to Western Europe selling Czechoslovakia down the river in 1938 is that the archetecture and infrastructure of the country was relatively untouched by the War, despite the enormous human toll it took.

1. First and foremost, check out the beautiful town of Český_Krumlov. Originally settled in the twelfth century and subject to a fifteenth century gold rush, entering the Old Town is like stepping back in time. There is such a concentration of medieval architecture as I have never seen anywhere else. Step along the cobble-stoned wynds and winding alleys, visit the churches and many restaurant. It is romantic as hell and utterly beautiful — and while it is popular it is nowhere near as crowded as Prague. Here’s a couple of pictures….When I went there, there were bears in the moat around the castle! I stayed in a hotel from the 17th century and dined in a restaurant that has been serving food —mostly roast meat dripping with fat— for almost half a millenium.

2. Another popular destination is Karlštejn Castle, the seat of the medieval king Karel IV(Charles IV), the Holy Roman Emperor. They have (fascinating) tours in English and a small souvenir market on the long road up the hill to the castle.

3. A little south, closer to Cesky Krumlov, is the gorgeous 18th century chateau of Hluboká_nad_Vltavou. I mean, this is the kind of place you think of when you dream of living in a castle. It is just jaw-droppingly gorgeous. Especially if you are a fan of antlers. 

1. It’s within spitting distance of the aforementioned Cesky Krumlov.

4. Most people get a kick out of Kutná_Hora a charming old town with a medieval silver mine, open to tours, a cathedral and the famous Sedlec Ossuary - Wikipedia…made completely of human bones.

5. In Moravia, I recommend a day or two at Olomouc. A thriving university town with a ton of great bars and restaurants, and the usual unspoilt architecture, it boasts a ton of great cathedrals and towers. Furthermore southern Moravia, around Brno is studded with vinyards and wine cellars for travellers to visit.

above, olomouc

6. There are simply too many places for the outdoor-minded holidayer to list here. The whole country is criss crossed with beautiful countryside, especially wooded highland areas ideal for hikers and mountain cyclists. One of my personal favorite places is the Bohemian Switzerland area. I could have spent a week in this area. Instead I spent only a couple of days. Ach jo.

All of these places are pretty much a day trip from Prague.

In fact, the whole country is pretty much a day trip from Prague. There are many other examples of beautiful nature and gorgeous vintage architecture EVERYWHERE here. Too many to really list…and I am sure there are things I don’t even know about.

And of course each town and village is going to have it’s own folk festivals, featuring local folklore music and folk dancing and food. Here are some local lads and lasses getting down at the annual international folk-dance festival in my town in Eastern Moravia…

ASOIAF: What are the flaws of the Stark family?

AS far as the current crop of Starks, i.e., the ones alive in the story that we are reading, I am going to have to put my pro-Stark prejudice aside in order to point out what their flaws are.

Eddard Stark:

I believe that Eddard Stark’s primary flaw is that he has a nasty case of post-traumatic stress disorder. And who could blame him? His father, brother, sister were killed in a horrific war against his King (a total mind-fuck in and of itself to the eighteen year old law-and-honor focused Ned.) Who knows what war-time atrocities he may have witnessed in the long war, but I am sure that there were some. But most of all he was traumatized by the brutal murder of Rhaegar’s children; traumatized not only by the murders…but at his best friend Robert’s tacit approval. Put a secret Targaryen in his arms, born in a bed of blood from his dying sister and there you have it. Every time the mere mention of killing a child(Daenerys and her unborn son, or the Jaime/Cersei bastards), Ned’s PTSD gets triggered and he starts hyperventilating; flashing back to the War, his dead sister in her bed of blood and blue rose petals.

Those people who think that Ned is too honorable or too trusting are just wrong. His problem is that he is traumatized; his reliving of war-time atrocities kicks in and he loses all the rationality and coldness that his family is famous for.

Robb:

Robb Stark is a wunderkind. With the help of his de facto Hand, the Blackfish, he is one of the great generals of the age. One flaw he has, though is his youth. NO matter how intelligent and competent he is; no matter how aware he is of political realities; his age simply doesn’t add up to enough ooomph in the eyes of his Northern bannermen. As a result, they end up being the tail wagging the dog. And Robb knows it.
But of course his Achilles’ heel is his sense of honor. This is what drives him to marry Jeyne Westerling. It an interesting thing because I strongly believe that the problem is that Robb’s main reason for making the choice lies not in the abstract but in the very real existence of his best friend and half brother Jon Snow. Seeing Jon Snow grow up in Winterfell; being close to a bastard has convinced him never to make the same mistake he thinks Ned made. Never to besmirch his honor that way: because the repercussions can very well mean an infant alone in the world.

Sansa:

Sansa of course suffers by buying what society tells her hook, line and sinker. But in that she is no different than 99 percent of the world. Of course as a child she had the insufferable good little girl thing going on. But, you know, lots of good little girls grow up to be good women. I don’t think it is a real flaw.

I think Sansa’s has two main flaws. The first is that she is cut off from her instinctive self. This is symbolized by the death of Lady in Game of Thrones, as each of the Stark direwolves represent the animalistic id of the Stark children. Without the instinct that allows Arya to “look with her eyes” and see people for who they really are based on their actions, Sansa is lost. Oh, she is developing a flair for politics, which is sort of the domain of the ego and superego; the world of the anti-instinct….a place where brainpower is more effective than gut instinct. But it is a flaw that leads her to fraternize with some people that we as readers know are just not good.

Sansa’s second main flaw is that she disassociates from reality all-too-easily. It’s not just her love of tales: (who among us readers doesn’t share the same love?) It’s in the way she rationalizes Joffrey’s horridness at first; at the way she “remembers” events that did not actually happen(like the Hound’s rough kiss). This has yet to come around and make a difference to the story. But I am convinced it will.

Arya:

The younger the characters get, the harder it feels to criticize them. Their frontal lobes have not fully developed! Arya of course is hot-headed and too impulsive, at least at first. We readers feel for this fierce would-be warrior trapped in the body of a scrawny young girl in a society that, frankly, values strength and all things masculine; and where gender roles are strongly enforced. Yet, these things turn out to be her strengths.

Perhaps her flaw is her inability to control her urges, her lust for revenge in particular. Maybe she is sort of the yin to Sansa’s yang: if Sansa is all intellect and no instinct, maybe Arya is all instinct and no ego…and that is why she sheds identities and names so readily. Deep down, the direwolf rages. What goes on above….doesn’t matter. Let’s face it, this stuff kind of makes her a superhero. We love Arya. Most of us, anyway.

But if she survives, what kind of woman is she going to grow into? She is going to have some problems at the interpersonal level I think. Big time.

Bran:

I really feel Bran is almost too young to criticize. People complain about his self-pity after his accident; but I think that a period of self-pity that can last months or years is probably pretty normal. Heck, I broke my ankle and couldn’t walk for 9 months and I was twice as whiny as Bran.

For the most part his decisions are wise and based both on a heroic urge to save the world and a deep need to free himself from the bonds of his disability. Even the Hodor incident as shown in Season 6 of the show doesn’t really indicate a flaw so much as a shitty moral choice that GRRM laid before the young Bran. But maybe that is it.

Maybe Bran’s flaw is that he considers the actions he takes to be justified no matter what. He knows that Hodor doesn’t like being possessed; he knows it is a violation, almost a psychic rape. But he does it constantly. He simply doesnt have any moral qualms about it. But again, he is only 8 years old. So this flaw is simply: he has too much power for a child.

Rickon:

Rickon, abandoned by his parents and by his siblings, raised by a direwolf and a Wildling, purportedly living among cannibals….well, how much can a five year old be called flawed? Seriously. Yes, he has no control of himself or his wolf. Yes, he is terrifyingly filled with irrational rage. He is a traumatized child barely out of toddler-hood…what do you want? Pass.

Jon Snow:

Jon Snow’s flaw is perhaps the easiest for me to see.

He simply has a hero complex.

This comes from being Ned’s Stark’s son; from choosing to join the Night’s Watch, a choice which makes no sense whatsoever if you don’t consider yourself a hero; from growing up a resentful outsider in an insider’s court. How many times did Jon Snow fantasize of great feats that elevated his status from lowly bastard to conquering hero when he was a child? And you see it. He is unable NOT to make a heroic decision. Whether it is helping Stannis; marrying off Alys Karstark to put her out of the clutches of her uncle; attempting to rescue fake-Arya from the clutches of Ramsay Bolton; sending an army to Hardhome against all counsel or reason whatsoever; showing mercy to Ygritte, or leading an army of Wildlings against the Warden of the North, he simply can’t say no.

Written October 27

Election 2016: What will you remember about this election cycle?

1. The Length. This was the longest campaign I’ve ever witnessed, made all the longer by Trump’s masterful playing of the media ensuring that his picture and pithy one-liners were plastered on the headlines nearly every day. It got the point where, instead of saying to myself, “Let’s see what’s happening in the world”, I found myself thinking, as I typed in bbc.com, let’s see what Trump said today.
2. The rancor. Not only between the candidates. Between the people. The mass of disinformation and propaganda spread not by the political party itself, but by supporters, foreign states, and, most of all ordinary people. Everybody jumped on the propaganda bandwagon in 2016. AS the USA is tipped slowly into the same vat of nationalist totalitarianism the EU is slowly being tipped into, it’s disheartening to see this playing out with the ordinary person gleefully spreading obvious propaganda without restraint, with glee. It’s a game-changing development.
3. The confusion. Nobody knows what is going on. The Democrats attacked Democrats, even after the convention. The post-election blame game is unreal. Let's see who has been blamed so far: Clinton...the media...fake stories on Facebook...white women...Latino voters who didn't vote according to their skin color...Putin...the FBI...   Before the election, the Republicans seemed to be imploding; suddenly the Democrats are imploding. All this stems from one basic fact: policies and positions do not win elections. Personalities (and a stupid electoral system) do.
4. The Eastern Europeanization of American politics. I don’t know how else to say it. The nastiness, the bitterness, the unchecked rudeness and vulgarity, the poor sportsmanship, the anger, the focus on selfishness, the dick jokes, the no-holds-barred sexist comments; and the shock and horror of a people unused to this kind of thing. Something has changed, in a deep and profound way and the name of that change is Trump. His celebrity and oodles of personality (love to hate him, he is definitely personality plus) have forever changed the pace of American politics. Mark my words. Celebrity is powerful.  Clinton’s graceful concession speech might be the last of it’s kind we ever see, as the polarization brought on by a two-party system literally no one thinks works continues down it’s nation-ripping path.
5. Marco Rubio. The first(and probably only) person I’ve ever actually met competing in person. Personally, I wish that the Republicans had gone with Rubio. And if Rubio had had just a smidgen more personality and experience, they probably would have. I think they would have won the popular vote too.

This election was a total game changer and, let’s face it, things are never going to be the same in electoral politics.