![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakMy Merlin muse came back and at last I could write the story about Arthur and Morgana I've been wanting to write throughout season 4. It's off to be beta'd now. Arthurian family dynamics are screwed up in any incarnation of the myth, but, to misquote Tolstoy about unhappy families, they're differently screwed up in every single one. Oh, messed up family dynamics, how I love you.
Speaking of messed up families: Game of Thrones has started and continues to be this weird thing which I can enjoy precisely because I'm not emotionally invested and thus do not fret for any of these people. I'll say that on screen Cersei continues to feel three dimensional in a way on the page Cersei never did, though. Also, while the general aging up for the young 'uns may have created a bit of bother on the Stark side of things (as many people have pointed out, Jon Snow behaving like a fourteen years old is okay if he is, in fact, fourteen, but feels quite differently when he's played by an actor who looks like he is in his 20s), the fact that Peter Dinklage looks older, not younger than the actors who play Jaime and Cersei makes for a slightly different type of sibling dynamic which to me is more interesting. The conversation between Tyrion and Cersei, for example, is far less omg eternally maltreated youngest brother and evil stupid sister and more two equals.
Another thing: since I only read the books once and have no intention of re-reading them again, I can't for the life of me remember anything about the Stannis plot. Looking forward to surprises there, then. Also, his insistence on correct designations for Jaime Lannister cracked me up to no end.
Historical aside: fannish osmosis tells me that Martin was vaguely inspired by the War of the Roses. It occurs to me that the most likely match for the Lannisters then might not be the Lancasters but the Woodvilles (though Edward IV. was a far smarter man and more competent king than Robert Baratheon; but he did overindulge himself to his death), except for the part where Tyrion is a transplanted very vague Richard III analogue, i.e. a York. Now A Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire prides itself on bringing gritty medieval realism to the fantasy genre, but personally, I find it rather telling that the later War of the Roses is actually chock full of matriarchs and female power players, Edward IV.'s queen Elizabeth Woodville and her mother Jacquetta being two of them, and singularly lacking in patriarchs (no Tywin Lannister equivalent around in any family, or any other influential patriarch, unless you count Warwick the Kingmaker who instead of being an icy cunning supermachiavellian was a egotastic, incredibly touchy diva dying due to believing in his own hype ). On the Lancaster side, we have Marguerite d'Anjou as the primary mover and shaker, saddled with an insane king at her side, and Margaret Beaufort whose son Henry Tudor is the endgame survivor of the lot in great parts due to her. On the York side, Cecilly Neville, the House of York matriarch, kept things going after the early death of her husband and one of her sons in battle, in the end outlived all her children except for two of her daughters, and her daughter Margaret of York as duchess of Burgundy didn't just provide backup and asylum for her brothers Edward and Richard during those times when York was losing but after the early death of her husband Charles the Bold ruled and saved the duchy. (You can easily make a case for Margaret being the most successful member of the House of York as a ruler, full stop.) All the Margarets in the War of the Roses were tough as nails. So were the Elizabeths, Elizabeth Woodville being one of the all time great pragmatists and survivors as she went from widow of a Lancastrian knight to Edward IV's's queen to coming to terms with Richard III. (whatever you think happened to the princes of the Tower) to seeing her daughter and namesake marry the last king standing, Henry Tudor. And you know what didn't happen to a single one of these women (as far as we know)? Rape. Insanity. Or an early death.
Speaking of messed up families: Game of Thrones has started and continues to be this weird thing which I can enjoy precisely because I'm not emotionally invested and thus do not fret for any of these people. I'll say that on screen Cersei continues to feel three dimensional in a way on the page Cersei never did, though. Also, while the general aging up for the young 'uns may have created a bit of bother on the Stark side of things (as many people have pointed out, Jon Snow behaving like a fourteen years old is okay if he is, in fact, fourteen, but feels quite differently when he's played by an actor who looks like he is in his 20s), the fact that Peter Dinklage looks older, not younger than the actors who play Jaime and Cersei makes for a slightly different type of sibling dynamic which to me is more interesting. The conversation between Tyrion and Cersei, for example, is far less omg eternally maltreated youngest brother and evil stupid sister and more two equals.
Another thing: since I only read the books once and have no intention of re-reading them again, I can't for the life of me remember anything about the Stannis plot. Looking forward to surprises there, then. Also, his insistence on correct designations for Jaime Lannister cracked me up to no end.
Historical aside: fannish osmosis tells me that Martin was vaguely inspired by the War of the Roses. It occurs to me that the most likely match for the Lannisters then might not be the Lancasters but the Woodvilles (though Edward IV. was a far smarter man and more competent king than Robert Baratheon; but he did overindulge himself to his death), except for the part where Tyrion is a transplanted very vague Richard III analogue, i.e. a York. Now A Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire prides itself on bringing gritty medieval realism to the fantasy genre, but personally, I find it rather telling that the later War of the Roses is actually chock full of matriarchs and female power players, Edward IV.'s queen Elizabeth Woodville and her mother Jacquetta being two of them, and singularly lacking in patriarchs (no Tywin Lannister equivalent around in any family, or any other influential patriarch, unless you count Warwick the Kingmaker who instead of being an icy cunning supermachiavellian was a egotastic, incredibly touchy diva dying due to believing in his own hype ). On the Lancaster side, we have Marguerite d'Anjou as the primary mover and shaker, saddled with an insane king at her side, and Margaret Beaufort whose son Henry Tudor is the endgame survivor of the lot in great parts due to her. On the York side, Cecilly Neville, the House of York matriarch, kept things going after the early death of her husband and one of her sons in battle, in the end outlived all her children except for two of her daughters, and her daughter Margaret of York as duchess of Burgundy didn't just provide backup and asylum for her brothers Edward and Richard during those times when York was losing but after the early death of her husband Charles the Bold ruled and saved the duchy. (You can easily make a case for Margaret being the most successful member of the House of York as a ruler, full stop.) All the Margarets in the War of the Roses were tough as nails. So were the Elizabeths, Elizabeth Woodville being one of the all time great pragmatists and survivors as she went from widow of a Lancastrian knight to Edward IV's's queen to coming to terms with Richard III. (whatever you think happened to the princes of the Tower) to seeing her daughter and namesake marry the last king standing, Henry Tudor. And you know what didn't happen to a single one of these women (as far as we know)? Rape. Insanity. Or an early death.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-02 09:30 am (UTC)I have to say, one of the other thing the women of the era were good at, as well as not being raped, going insane or dying of surfeit was shrugging off accusations of witchcraft (Jacquetta, Elizabeth Woodville) or adultery (Cicely Neville) or any of the other Typical Techniques for Undermining Stroppy Women of the Era.
And, of course, Elizabeth I was the direct lineal descendant of all that cumulated awesomeness.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-02 09:51 am (UTC)True. The tried and still in use technique of slut-shamming comes to mind as well; when Warwick tried this on Marguerite d'Anjou it had the end result of him being on his knees in front of her for at least fifteen minutes before she would as much as speak to him. And Margaret of York would never have become Margaret of Burgundy if the slut-shamming intended to sabotage her marriage negotiations had worked, but it didn't, and she never seems to have been the slightest bit fazed
She so was.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-02 10:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-02 04:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-02 10:17 am (UTC)That's an excellent point. As you'll probably have noticed, I love the novels and a lot of their female characters, but every time I hear the argument that grimdark misogyny is "realistic", I want to scream and club the person who makes it over the head with a few volumes of women's history. Preferably really clunky hardcover ones.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-02 10:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-03 10:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-02 04:55 pm (UTC)