Manston Was On His Legs Again In An Instant. A Fiery Glance On The One Side, A Glance Of Pitiless Justice

when talking about sansa supposedly not being a sympatheic character in AGOT, I don't think antis really understand they're not making the point they think are (like those who think sansa is only kind because of courtesy rather than it being like Ned's "lord face" and seperate from her kindness as a person) a sympatheic character isn't necessarily someone who is good or to root for - one example is Tyrion. His backstory makes him a sympatheic but that doesn't make him a hero.

Yes, exactly. Sympathetic isn’t defined by whether or not you are a nice person, but by whether you are attracting the liking of others (in this case: The readers).

Tyrion is a villain, but he is clearly written for people to find him sympathetic in spite of this. My favourite example of is Glokta from Joe Abercrombie’s First Law who is a horrible, horrible person, but readers still sympathise with him because of his backstory, his painful disabilities and his dry sense of humor (... that sounded like a description of Tyrion too, actually).

If Sansa isn’t sympathetic in AGoT, it’s because GRRM didn’t write her to be someone the readers sympathize with - And he did that very deliberately by POV trapping her and pitting her against other characters that he clearly wrote to be immediately liked, and by giving her flaws that people don’t usually associate with fantasy protagonists (or really it’s just one of her flaws; the touch of snobbery).

The thing is, though, that GRRM seems to have taken great pains to write her in a way that doesn’t make most readers immediately fall for her, while at the same time never making her not nice. He didn’t have to use a POV trap in Arya I; he could have just made Sansa behave badly towards her. He could have included Sansa when Arya thinks of Jeyne calling her “horseface”. He didn’t have to make such an effort to show the Arya-Sansa conflict as so clearly rooted in society’s expectations and the teachings of Septa Mordane. He could have written Sansa taking Joffrey’s side at Darry Castle instead of having her pretend she forgot to avoid taking sides. He didn’t have to spend literally all of Sansa’s chapters dropping hint after hint about how nobody ever answers her critical questions, or how Ned’s interactions with Arya was teaching Sansa the lesson that disobedience wasn’t as big an offence as she thought.

He might have overdone it a bit, because even after 3 more books of Sansa clearly being written to be sympathetic, people are still refusing to believe that they were initially fooled, and are looking for signs that she was a horrible person all along, blowing every flaw that she has out of proportion to be right.

But the point is that GRRM might not have tried to write AGoT Sansa as sympathetic, but he never wrote her as not a nice person, or with any irredeemable flaws; clearly intending to develop her further in the following books.

The fact that a lot of us still found her sympathetic in AGoT in spite of this, I suppose says something about how much you related to her, or how much effort was put into analyzing the text and understanding Sansa’s motivations on the first read. I know that a lot more people who initially didn’t care for her found her sympathetic when they went back to read AGoT again, looking at Sansa with different eyes and trying to see past GRRM’s smoke screen.

So, no. They really aren’t making the point they think they are making. I also don’t really know why they are trying to make it in the first place tbh. Their point seems to be the usual stuff; that Sansa isn’t nice, isn’t a main character, is supposed to become a villain. But as I recall that quote, GRRM even goes on to say that Sansa becomes more sympathetic as the story progresses.

So I suppose I don’t really see how the point they are trying to make would get them what they want either.

I think Sharon Tate was there to show the new wave of young actors and actresses that were up and coming in Hollywood at the time. Her husband was one of the most celebrated new directors at the time. While she wasn’t a star in her own right, she symbolized the young actresses of the late swinging sixties, in the way that Leonardo diCaprio’s character represented the old Hollywood that was dying out. 

As for Charles Manson, there’s the Tate connection and the Hollywood connection. He and his followers lived at Spahn Ranch, which used to be a movie set for movies and TV Westerns a few decades earlier, the same time Rick Dalton was on Bounty Law (clearly loosely inspired by Lancer, Gunsmoke, Bonanza, etc). Spahn Ranch is the symbol of broken dreams and abandoned sets from old Hollywood. It also represents death and decay in the film (I mean, look who’s living there--an old, blind, dying man and a sinister group of fake-hippies that would go on to produce some of the most infamous and grisly murders in Los Angeles history--literal bringers of death). 

Also, member of the Manson family threatened different Hollywood actors like Steve McQueen (who feared for his life so much he didn’t show up at his friend Sharon Tate’s funeral), Richard Burton, Frank Sinatra, etc. 

Another important thing to connect Manson to the main plot of the movie is that he and a couple other male members of his “family” killed movie/tv stuntman Donald Jerome Shea, called Shorty, who they believed ratted on them to the police when the ranch was raided by police a few weeks after the murder (police at the time didn’t connect Manson and his followers to the murders, it was a drug bust). Manson, Tex (Charles Watson, who is in the film), Clem (Steve Grogan, the blond guy Brad Pitt beats up at the ranch), and Bruce Davis brutally murdered Shorty and hid his body near the ranch. Throughout the movie, up until the very end, I thought Brad Pitt was going to be this movie’s stand-in for Shorty, which is part of what made the scene at Spahn Ranch so intense. 

The Manson family and Sharon Tate are a part of this movie because they add to the film’s idea that this is the end of an era for Hollywood and for America--the end of the sixties, which started out full of hopes and dreams (like actors who first make it to Hollywood) only to end in cynicism and violence.

Once upon a time in Hollywood

This movie came out about a week ago in Australia; 15th August 2019.  I wanted to see the movie when it came out but due to uni, I had to make Once upon a time in Hollywood my last priority. One of my lecturers recommended seeing it, saying “Use it as a celebration movie for getting through tri 1.”

Quentin Tarantino’ s 9th movie and rumoured second last movie of his to be done. Starring amazing talent; Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie and Al Pacino just to name a few.

This movie follows Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his stunt double, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) in 1969 and 1970,where Rick goes through a career crisis. With tie-in’s to Sharon Tate and Charles Manson.

I’ll be honest all this was before my time. Charles Manson’s cult was in jail by the time I had grasped a concept of who they were. I may have grown up on Bruce Lee movies but my non-martial art movie knowledge of him is unknown nor do I know who Sharon Tate is. Seeing this movie is more from an outsiders point of view, looking into a team that I don’t know.

Some have said to take Once upon a time in Hollywood with a grain of salt; few say this is a work of fiction while few say this is true. While Quentin Tarantino has admitted this is, he love letter to Hollywood.

I hadn’t heard much about Once upon a time in Hollywood except that no one was allowed to spoil the ending due to it being a huge thing that needs to be seen first-hand.

Once upon a time in Hollywood has limited sessions in Australia due to the run length of the movie but if you do see it than you’ll find that time flew by even if you didn’t like it.

Once upon a time in Hollywood is an interesting story, I want to say I hated it but as a film student it was fantastic, I absolutely loved it. The way a dolly was put to use, jump cuts well and countless other things I’ve been studying; the cinematographer, Robert Richardson seems like someone a film student can use as inspiration. Unfortunately, if I wasn’t a film student, I would have found this movie incredibly boring except for the last ten minutes where it shows gruesome yet somehow hilarious ending.

My issue with this movie was why get Sharon Tate and Manson’s cult involved? The movie would’ve have been fine without those two.  I sort of understand why a Bruce Lee impersonator was used but after his fight scene with Cliff there wasn’t a reason to why Bruce was needed any more.

Once Upon a time in Hollywood is a movie that will show a different perspective of the late 60’s and early 70’s but not quite how you’d think. Even I’m not sure what to think of it.

I think they know exactly what they’re doing. They know Martin’s endgame plans more than we do. Sure their writing has some flaws (every writer has flaws), but considering all the great scenes and characters this show has given us, I’m willing to suspend some of my disbelief for a fantasy series.

is the title of this episode “WE’RE ALL DUMB AS SHIT AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE’RE DOING” or is that just how we’re calling D&D now

i’m sorry

They probably will in later seasons. She did NOT get on well with her youngest daughter Marguerite or her youngest son Hercule (also called Francis). Both children went on to rebel against her. So much family drama!

Sure she had to run the country while these two were growing up, but still...things got tense between them. 

i wish they expanded on catherine being a deadbeat mother. this is where series bias in her favor is showing imo (or is it catherine storytelling bias? either way it's unsatisfactory.) because none of her scenes with her children explain why francis is so bitter and untrusting with her. i believe he had strong reasons to act that way and him leaning on mary who was always here for him makes complete sense. unlike his mother who i suspect secretly liked to spent time busy with court intrigues instead of wasting her lively brain energy on clueless little kids. she's like one of those fathers who prefer to only acknowledge their kid when they are old enough to hold adequate conversation not bothering to form any kind of bond with them beforehand. but i am sure catherine will fix that mistake with little charles.

We cannot judge either of the feelings or of the characters of men with perfect accuracy, from their actions or from their appearance in public; it is from their careless conversations, their half-finished sentences, that we may hope with the greatest probability of success to discover their real characters.

Maria Edgeworth, preface to Castle Rackrent (Unitarian, author)

So now we’re Calling D&D sexists misogynists because we’re not going to get the ending we wanted!!!  

 Cersei is playing men  like a fucking piano she’s using her fake pregnancy to get them to do what she wants( jamie prolly left brienne and went South to try to save her and their baby) euron would do anything for his future prince and tyrion dumbly believes that cersei can be trusted because of the supposed baby she’s expecting.

Sansa is the most powerfull person in the north she’s loved  respected by the northerners lords and they even  wanted her to be their queen because she’s absolutely  brilliant at what she does , she outsmarted littlefuckingfinger  killed ramsay the man who put her through hell( jon could have done it but he didn’t sansa did it herself like a Fucking G)

Arya stole the show in 8x03 she killed the Fucking night king who saw that one coming?! we all thought jon was going to kill TNK and we were Fucking wrong. She also had sex with gendry and then left him because being a lady isn’t for her she left him not the other way around.

Brienne won a fight against  the hound and she’s now a knight

 Dany’s  been kicking men ass since seaon 2, jon gave up the north’ independence and now he’s giving up his birthright just to please her.

we also had margaery ollena catelyn…GOT writers are not  misogynists if anything they’re feminists the women are the ones who run shit in westeros .

Hercule de Valois

Hercule Valois, aka Francois Duke of Anjou and Alencon, would like to challenge (former) Prince Harry to a literary duel.

If Anjou could write a memoir about his life as the “spare” brother, it would be far more entertaining than Harry’s “Spare.” 

Elizabeth II seems a much nicer grandmother than Catherine de Medici was a mother to her youngest two children. 

{Megan and Harry fans, please disregard this post, this post is for people who know a lot about the Valois family and Catherine de Medici’s children. I don’t know (or care) enough about Megan and Harry to have an opinion on them. I do, however, love to learn about 16th century royal scandals.} 

I need closure, so I’m going to write about this one last time.

It boils down to admitting that I was completely wrong in interpreting what the story is about. I have to admit that I have been duped into thinking that Jonsa was the main story. I mean, of course the first reaction that I have when I saw the leaks and witness that the leak was real was denial. This can’t be the ending.

But now I think acceptance is coming.

I thought I had GoT (and by extension ASOIAF) figured out. GRRM hides his true protagonist underneath other characters and their stories. First we thought Ned Stark was the detective that was going to solve Jon Arryn’s murder. He died, we were shock. Jon Arryn’s murder was also not that important. Then Robb Stark rises, we root for him and it seems that he is winning. Then the Red Wedding happened. We were shocked. The War of Five Kings falter.

Then season 6 happened and Jon becomes the King in the North, his true identity is a Targaryen prince and an heir to the throne, he’s got hot sexual tension with his redhead Stark sister Sansa who after the parentage reveal will become his cousin. A Targaryen hidden prince and a Stark girl who is a queen material. Poetry. Fairytale. Perfection.

At that time, it suddenly clicks to me, well of course Ned must die and of course Robb must die, otherwise how will Jon the true hidden protagonist can rise and become king? So we expect the story will come to the conclusion for Jon to become the king and marries his love interest and solve all the political issues in the Seven Kingdoms. Because he is the true hidden protagonist, right?

Gosh, I really should have known better.

(I know that I am oversimplifying things with the whole “one true protagonist” thing but I’m just trying to make this make sense somehow. Also this is not to say that Jonsa is not important to the story. It is important, but in the same way Ned and Robb’s story is important but it is just not endgame)

When I took that conclusion I forgot about Brandon Stark. The character that Jojen Reed claims as the only thing that matters. The first character that GRRM made when he started ASOIAF. The fairytale that is Jonsa turns out to be just another layer of a very intricate and elaborate red herring to cover up GRRM’s true protagonist Brandon Stark (and to some extent Arya Stark, because she killed the Night King). So of course Jonsa must fall and that fall was brought upon by one Daenerys Targaryen.

I have to laugh to my own argument about Jonsa being the main endgame couple because the very first shot of the Starks was Jon Snow with his brother Bran followed by Sansa Stark with his sister Arya. 

It’s the other way around. It’s a shot of Bran Stark with his secret prince adoptive brother Jon followed by Arya Stark with her sister Sansa.

I had a tiny bit suspicion when I was working on my jonsa parallel series. They have always been clever with the episode titles. One title that stood out to me was 4x05 - First of His Name. At that episode, King Tommen was crowned and that was the first reference to this episode title. But the jonsa parallel in that episode relates heavily to Bran, and specifically Lysa Arryn brought up Sansa’s uncle Brandon Stark. And of course Bran the Builder is the founder of House Stark. This should have been a clue to how big Bran’s role is, but who would’ve guess if they only give us cryptic clues like this?

Then there was 2x08 - The Prince of Winterfell. Bran along with Rickon was the the Stark princes that still stayed at Winterfell. Bran as the oldest is the one who has authority towards Winterfell. Theon took Winterfell from Bran.

The other brilliant one is 3x08 - Second Sons which refers to Daario Naharis’ company, but it also revolves around Sansa’s marriage to Tyrion Lannister, who is the second son of the Lannister family. Who else is a second son? Yes, Jon (Aegon) who is Rhaegar’s second son and also… Bran. Bran is Ned Stark’s second son.

So I believe that the Starks at the end are where GRRM wanted them to be. I remember a leak that takes the form of five questions and that leak state that Jon’s last scene is the Wall. It also ties in very nicely with the first scene in GoT with Waymar Royce. Yes, this was always to be his ending. Jonsa must dissolves by making Jon a traitor, queenslayer and kinslayer and to be exiled to the Wall.

But does this story with Jonsa as the final and biggest red herring works? As it is now with the show, the answer is a definitive no for me for several reasons.

First the build up time. Ned’s story was given ample time to build up with enough focus, 9 episodes until his death. And Robb’s story was given even more, a whole of season 2 and large part of season 3 until the red wedding. Jonsa was built up in season 6 with their fall starting on episode 3 of season 7. But when did Bran ever became focus of the story. We always thought, he MUST be important, but how, when, why? Bran Stark never rises, he’s always in the background until suddenly in the very last episode, he’s king…. It also doesn’t help at all that he’s becoming this emotionally detached being that we find hard to empathize with. It is just a sad sad irony that jonsa as the red herring is a much more emotionally compelling story, with characters played by actors that happens to spark chemistry to the roof, rather than the true hidden Prince Bran. (And I’m not even going to try to address the cult personality of Daenerys Targaryen that add a complex layer of red herring)

Second, Jonsa never truly happened in the show. We were given subtext after subtext and the culmination never happened. I am inclined to think that in the books Jonsa will happen and pol!Jon is real. The betrayal towards Daenerys Targaryen will be full blown Jon having an incest affair with his sister and he will father a bastard with her (Yes, I am still holding on to that theory because it only make sense given all the clues. And think about it, Bran’s fall was brought by an incest couple Jaime/Cersei and later his rise will be brought by Jonsa).  I think the show just didn’t have the balls to fully materialize that betrayal and either way, the ending would still be the same, Jon exiled at the Wall for killing Dany and Sansa stayed in Winterfell ruling (in my version, with a bastard son named Snow).

The third and most important aspect of why Bran doesn’t work is because his power is supernatural and so his kingship does not feel earned at all. I really don’t know why GRRM is going with this…like….at all, or if he even going with this in the books? But I believe this is the ending that he wanted: Aegon Targaryen kneeling before Brandon Stark.

“You were exactly where you were supposed to be” 

In the end this deceit got me hurt, heartbroken, sad, unfulfilled. But I will never regret to be a part of this lovely fandom that has taught me so much. Seriously, I learn so so much from everyone’s meta and I am forever thankful for that. I wouldn’t have reach this conclusion without reading all of your wonderful meta and I wouldn’t have been able to write shit without you setting the example. So again, thank you and I hope everybody will recover soon!