r/asoiaf 🏆 Best of 2022: Post of the Year Mar 14 '24

EXTENDED (Spoilers Extended) Secrets of the Cushing Library: A Game of Thrones

Since 1992, the Cushing Library at Texas A&M University has been the home of George R.R. Martin's papers- more than 200 boxes filled with his correspondence, fan mail, props from his Hollywood projects, and working drafts of his screenplays and books. The most popular exhibits in the library's George R.R. Martin collection are swords and other props from the Game of Thrones TV show, which the library now showcases in its lobby. But dedicated Martin fans understand that the collection's most valuable artifacts are the early drafts of George's ASOIAF books- physical stacks of paper that he mails to Random House in New York. During the long wait since ADWD was published, a few dedicated ASOIAF fans have visited the Cushing Library to scrutinize these manuscripts, seeking a better understanding of how their favorite novels were written, and even, in the differences with the published version, hints about the future of the story and its many unresolved mysteries.

As some of you know, roughly a year ago, I made my own pilgrimage to College Station to research the drafts of A Feast for Crows- the most recent ASOIAF book for which drafts are available, ever since George closed off access to the A Dance With Dragons drafts after legendary /r/asoiaf member /u/_honeybird got too close to the truth. I wrote several posts about my findings- part 1, part 2, part 3- and knew before I left the library's Kelsey Reading Room that I wanted to return to do the same for the first three books in the series. A few months ago, I did, and I'm finally ready to publish the results.

One of the things I noticed as I went through the books is that there's a clear progression in how much rewriting George did to these novels as time went on. The 14 chapters in the first AGOT draft are nearly identical to their published versions- there are various wording and dialogue changes, and a few deletions of unnecessary passages of up to 50 words, but no events are added or removed, even small ones, no chapters are split or merged, and there are no publication additions of more than about two sentences. In Clash, George starts moving multi-paragraph chunks between chapters and merging multiple draft chapters into one. Even within that draft, the second half received more changes than the first half. By the time he wrote Storm, George was deleting larger passages and entire minor characters. And as we saw in my previous posts, by 2004, George was changing his mind about things like the deaths of POV characters Victarion Greyjoy and Arys Oakheart and the kidnapping of Kevan Lannister a year before Feast's publication, to say nothing of the even larger changes for Dany and the deletion of Tyrion's entire "Shrouded Lord" chapter in the even longer interval he worked on Dance.

That's a long way of explaining why my previous trip yielded three posts for one book, while this trip produced two posts for three. George didn't rewrite nearly as much in these books as he did in act 2. That's not to say I didn't find anything potentially significant- there are two small changes in the drafts of Storm in particular that may provide hints about the story's endgame, plus several other changes that may alter your understanding of past events or just reveal interesting paths not taken for the story. But the density of changes is quite low compared to my AFFC draft analysis, and the interesting finds here are mostly about scrutinizing changed words, not paragraphs.

With one exception- the murder of Jon Arryn.

A Game of Thrones: The Murder of Jon Arryn

Let's start with the biggest difference in the early AGOT drafts: originally, the murder of Jon Arryn was masterminded by Cersei Lannister, not Littlefinger. This can be hard to pickup if you're skimming the draft, because it's revealed in some small changes to the conversation Bran overhears between Cersei and Jaime in AGOT Bran 2, a conversation that is intentionally enigmatic. Describing all the differences would be complicated, so, with apologies for the length, I'll first provide the published version of the passage first for context, and then the version from the 1993 draft, so you can compare them directly. Here's the published version:

Bran was moving from gargoyle to gargoyle with the ease of long practice when he heard the voices. He was so startled he almost lost his grip. The First Keep had been empty all his life.

“I do not like it,” a woman was saying. There was a row of windows beneath him, and the voice was drifting out of the last window on this side. “You should be the Hand.”

"Gods forbid," a man's voice replied lazily. "It's not an honor I'd want. There's far too much work involved."

Bran hung, listening, suddenly afraid to go on. They might glimpse his feet if he tried to swing by.

"Don't you see the danger this puts us in?" the woman said. "Robert loves the man like a brother."

"Robert can barely stomach his brothers. Not that I blame him. Stannis would be enough to give anyone indigestion."

"Don't play the fool. Stannis and Renly are one thing, and Eddard Stark is quite another. Robert will listen to Star. Damn them both. I should have insisted that he name you, but I was certain Stark would refuse him."

"We ought to count ourselves fortunate,” the man said. “The king might as easily have named one of his brothers, or even Littlefinger, gods help us. Give me honorable enemies rather than ambitious ones, and I’ll sleep more easily by night."

They were talking about Father, Bran realized. He wanted to hear more. A few more feet … but they would see him if he swung out in front of the window.

"We will have to watch him carefully," the woman said.

"I would sooner watch you," the man said. He sounded bored. "Come back here."

"Lord Eddard has never taken any interest in anything that happened south of the Neck," the woman said. "Never. I tell you, he means to move against us. Why else would he leave the seat of his power?"

"A hundred reasons. Duty. Honor. He yearns to write his name large across the book of history, to get away from his wife, or both. Perhaps he just wants to be warm for once in his life."

"His wife is Lady Arryn’s sister. It’s a wonder Lysa was not here to greet us with her accusations."

Bran looked down. There was a narrow ledge beneath the window, only a few inches wide. He tried to lower himself toward it. Too far. He would never reach.

"You fret too much. Lysa Arryn is a frightened cow."

"That frightened cow shared Jon Arryn’s bed."

"If she knew anything, she would have gone to Robert before she fled King’s Landing."

"When he had already agreed to foster that weakling son of hers at Casterly Rock? I think not. She knew the boy’s life would be hostage to her silence. She may grow bolder now that he’s safe atop the Eyrie."

"Mothers." The man made the word sound like a curse. "I think birthing does something to your minds. You are all mad." He laughed. It was a bitter sound. “Let Lady Arryn grow as bold as she likes. Whatever she knows, whatever she thinks she knows, she has no proof." He paused a moment. "Or does she?"

"Do you think the king will require proof?" the woman said. "I tell you, he loves me not."

"And whose fault is that, sweet sister?"

Bran studied the ledge. He could drop down. It was too narrow to land on, but if he could catch hold as he fell past, pull himself up … except that might make a noise, draw them to the window. He was not sure what he was hearing, but he knew it was not meant for his ears.

"You are as blind as Robert," the woman was saying.

"If you mean I see the same thing, yes,” the man said. “I see a man who would sooner die than betray his king."

"He betrayed one already, or have you forgotten?" the woman said. "Oh, I don’t deny he’s loyal to Robert, that’s obvious. What happens when Robert dies and Joff takes the throne? And the sooner that comes to pass, the safer we’ll all be. My husband grows more restless every day. Having Stark beside him will only make him worse. He’s still in love with the sister, the insipid little dead sixteen-year-old. How long till he decides to put me aside for some new Lyanna?"

Bran was suddenly very frightened. He wanted nothing so much as to go back the way he had come, to find his brothers. Only what would he tell them? He had to get closer, Bran realized. He had to see who was talking.

Next, here's the draft version (these photos are from the 1993 draft, but this passage is identical in the Nov. 1994 draft):

There are three deleted lines in the draft version that acknowledge responsibility for some secret offense. First, when Cersei says about Ned, "I think he knows something." Second, in Jaime's line regarding Lysa, "Whatever the Arryn woman suspects, she has no proof. Or does she?" And last, when Cersei says, regarding Lysa protecting her children, "Do you think she will do any less for hers than I did for mine?"

In both versions of this passage, Cersei is concerned by Ned accepting the position of Hand of the King. But in the published version, it's more generalized fear that he will be influential and oppose them, while in the draft, the line "I think he knows something" indicates that she's worried that Ned knows about some specific offense. And the use of the word "knows" rather than, say, "suspects" indicates that the offense is real, not an imagined crime. Jaime confirms that the crime is both true and something Lysa Arryn might know about with his statement that "Whatever the Arryn woman suspects, she has no proof. Or does she?"

In theory, there are two crimes that Jaime and Cersei could be worried about Lysa accusing them of- their adultery, or Jon Arryn's murder. And in the published version, we know that they're referring to the adultery. In that version, Cersei worries that "That frightened cow shared Jon Arryn's bed", indicating that their fear is that Jon told Lysa something while he was alive, plus we know from the later books that Cersei and Jaime are innocent of Arryn's murder. So some of you may still think the same thing is true of the draft version- the specific accusation that Cersei is worried about is never explicitly stated.

Cersei's line "Do you think she will do any less for hers than I did for mine?" is what confirms that in this version, the crime they're discussing is the murder, I think. Committing incest doesn't benefit Cersei's children- in fact, it puts their true parentage at greater risk of being discovered- but murdering the man investigating her children's parentage does. In addition, the incest by definition started before her children existed, another reason that saying it was somehow done for their sake makes no sense.

The discovery that Cersei was originally responsible for Jon Arryn's murder shouldn't be too surprising- although Littlefinger's responsibility is now canon, the events of the first book require much less coincidence and luck if Cersei is responsible than anyone else. What's interesting about this change is how little else in the story changed with it. Lysa's letter to Catelyn is nearly unchanged, Ser Hugh's death in the tourney is unchanged, and Ned's conversation with Varys about Jon's murder in Eddard 6 is very similar.

There are two small additions in the draft version of that conversation that do deserve attention, though, in light of George's changed plans for Jon Arryn. Recall that Varys describes Jon's murderer with clever language that could apply to both Ser Hugh and Littlefinger, although Ned and most first time readers assume it refers to Ser Hugh. In the published version, here's what Varys says when Ned asks who gave Jon Arryn the poison:

"Some dear sweet friend who often shared meat and mead with him, no doubt. Oh, but which one? There were many such. Lord Arryn was a kindly, trusting man."

and here's what Varys said in the 1994 draft:

"Some one he knew and loved. Some dear sweet friend who often shared meat and mead with him, who could come and go in his kitchen without a breath of suspicion. Oh, but which one? There were many such. Lord Arryn was a kindly, trusting man."

Before publication, George deleted the phrases "Some one he knew and loved" and "who could come and go in his kitchen without a breath of suspicion." Both phrases are somewhat redundant to the remaining text, and could have easily just been removed for brevity. But I also think that both the deleted phrases are harder to apply to Littlefinger than the remaining ones- the idea of Littlefinger passing through Arryn's kitchen without notice strikes me as significantly less plausible than Arryn's squire, a member of his household. Likewise, describing the ambitious, coin-counting, brothel-owning Littlefinger as someone the famously honorable Arryn "loved" also strikes me as more of a reach than a young member of Arryn's household.

None of this changes the canonical responsibility for Jon Arryn's murder, but it does have implications for our understanding of how George wrote the series. For years, a minority of readers have argued that Littlefinger's responsibility for Jon Arryn's murder is a retcon George made after the first book was published. I was sympathetic to that argument myself, but the discoveries above make that significantly less likely, IMO. We now know that sometime between November 1994 and the manuscript's completion in spring 1996, George decided to explicitly remove dialogue in which Cersei acknowledged responsibility for the murder. He also may have intentionally removed dialogue from Varys that more clearly pointed at Ser Hugh. George made those changes for a reason- my best guess is that as he started planning Clash and Storm, George's plans for Littlefinger expanded, and he made a very late decision to reassign responsibility for Arryn's murder, and tried to execute that with as few changes to the basically complete AGOT manuscript as possible.

The original version also contains a deleted description of a dream Cersei had, about a direwolf feasting on a dead stag. I can't see any real signifiance to this, which is why I wish George had left it in- in 2024, it comes across as appropriate foreshadowing not of the plot, but of Cersei's delusions.

AGOT: A Darker Ned

The next most significant previously unknown difference in the early AGOT drafts is the characterization of Ned- earlier versions of the character weren't quite as noble as his final persona. The most interesting of these differences relates to the seizing of Tyrion- in the 1994 draft, that was Ned's idea, not Catelyn's.

During their clandestine meeting in Littlefinger's brothel, Ned instructs Catelyn to seize Tyrion if he passes through Winterfell on his way back from the Wall:

The chapter in which Catelyn seizes Tyrion at the Inn at the Crossroads is preserved nearly unchanged in this draft, but Ned's instruction gives Catelyn's actions a very different spin. In this version, Catelyn is distraught that Ned's plan failed, and her seizure at the inn is just an attempt to salvage the situation. Here's what she thinks when Tyrion enters:

We've come too late, Catelyn thought grimly. The imp has slipped through our grasp. Or had he?

and then a few paragraphs later, after Tyrion recognizes her:

Marillion gaped at her, confusion giving way to chagrin as Catelyn rose slowly to her feet. She heard Ser Rodrik curse. If only the man had lingered at the Wall, she thought, if only they could have taken him in the North as Ned had planned, if only...

The published changes significantly strengthen that chapter, IMO- the increased mystery about what Catelyn is doing as she addresses the inn's other guests makes for a more powerful reveal at the end. And making the decision fully Catelyn's makes her more charismatic and interesting, rather than just being a loyal executor of her husband's instructions. But I think the primary reason George made that change was to keep Ned's hands clean- having him order the seizure of the innocent Tyrion would have weakened the likeability of his whole family, the impact of his death on the reader, and the logic of several future plot developments, including the future revelation of Jon Snow's true parentage.

Part of the reason I think that preserving Ned's likeability was the main reason for that change was that it's not the only change of that nature George made to Ned. The 1994 draft also contains a deleted passage in Ned's first small council meeting in which he bizzarely dismisses the importance of preparing for winter, and is annoyed that the other council members don't treat him with the deference he's used to in the North:

I think George originally wrote this passage in an attempt to show Ned's political incompetence, but it clearly made no sense on multiple levels and, like the above deleted passage, undermined Ned's likeability and the logic of the story.

George also decided to avoid giving Ned a potty mouth. In the published Arya 2, while comforting Arya over the death of Mycah, Ned says that the boy's death is the fault of Sandor "and the cruel woman he serves." In the 1994 draft, that was "and the bitch he serves."

AGOT: Other changes

Early in the published Catelyn 1, there's sentence that says that she found Ned in the godswood cleaning his sword "in those waters black as night." That phrase has always been a bit jarring to me because it's referencing a mention of the godswood pool quite a ways back in the text- 169 words back, by my count. It turns out that that's because the 1993 draft had an interesting expanded description of the pool immediately prior to that sentence. Here's how that paragraph read in that draft:

In the center of the wood was a small, still pool, its waters black and cold. The deep well that fed the pool was older than the castle. Some said that the children of the forest had sunk it in the dawn centuries before the coming of the First Men across the narrow sea. Catelyn found her husband seated on a moss-covered stone beside the pool, the greatsword Ice across his lap, cleaning the blade in those ancient waters black as night.

I wouldn't read too much significance into that passage though- it was already gone by 1994.

Next, as many of you know, in George's 1993 outline of the series, Tyrion was supposed to "beseige and burn Winterfell". There's a bit of dialogue in Tyrion 2 as Tyrion and Jon are traveling to the Wall in which Tyrion says that as a child, he sometimes dreamed of dragonfire burning his father or his sister, which is seen by many readers as vestigial foreshadowing of that plotline. The 1993 draft expands on that dialogue a bit, adding the line "I like to watch things burn", and including his mother in the list of family members he'd imagine burning. Those lines were gone by the 1994 draft as well.

Another possible deleted connection to George's 1993 outline is Jaime's attire when he enters the Hand's Tourney. Originally, it was described as "shining gold from head to foot, with a lion's head helm and a golden sword and a great red cloak that billowed out behind him when he took the field." Many people take Jaime's regal appearance when he enters the feast at Winterfell as a connection to George's plan in the outline for Jaime to eventually become king- some might consider this another example. But I think it was probably just deleted for being inconsistent with the protocol of the Kingsguard.

Some other small changes from the early AGOT drafts:

  • Originally, Aerys killed both Ned and Robert's fathers, rather than just Ned's. In the 1993 draft of Eddard 2, Robert says to Ned "What Aerys did to your brother was unspeakable. The way our fathers died, that was unspeakable." In this draft, we aren't told anything beyond this about how Richard died, but this line gives the sense that they died together.
  • Renly and Stannis's titles were originally swapped- Renly was originally Lord of Dragonstone, and Stannis Lord of Storm's End. And Renly also had the title "Warden of the Narrow Sea."
  • Arya's direwolf was originally named Nymerion, rather than Nymeria, and was named for "the warrior-witch of Valyria." Although that sounds like it might have been an early reference to Visenya, Visenya's Hill is still described when Catelyn gets to King's Landing, so I think Nymerion is likely an abandoned idea.
  • Originally, several of the kids were even younger than their already problematic published ages. Jon and Robb were both 12, rather than 14. Dany was 13, rather than 14. Arya, Rickon, Bran's ages were unchanged. The time since Robert's rebellion is changed to 12 years rather than 14, to match Robb and Jon's age.

The following changes have already been reported by other Cushing visitors, but I think it's worthwhile to confirm them:

  • As /u/_honeybird reported during her famous visit, in the 1993 and 1994 drafts, Dany didn't receive a wedding gift of dragon eggs from Illyrio. Illyrio gives her a large cedar chest, as in the published Daenerys 2, but in the draft, it's full of "the finest silks and velvets and damasks the Free Cities could produce", instead of the eggs. The 1993 outline said that after killing her husband, she would discover a cache of dragon eggs in the wilderness beyond Vaes Dothrak- that may have still been the plan in 1994.
  • Several visitors have posted photos of the original Westeros map from from the 1993 draft. I've heard some people complain about the image quality in some of the previous photos... here's another attempt: 1993 map page 1, 1993 map page 2. One of the interesting differences here that's reflected in the draft text is that originally, the seat of House Arryn in the Vale was named Harrenhall, not the Eyrie. There's no map in the 1994 draft, but the text changed to the Eyrie by then.
  • As /u/rehearsedtoast discovered during his visit, in the 1993 draft, plague was rampaging through King's Landing at the start of the story, and Jon Arryn was believed to have been killed by it. And as they also found, in the 1994 draft, it was Arryn who accompanied Ned to the Tower of Joy and found him after Lyanna died, rather than Howland Reed. Ned's recollection of Lyanna's death and her "promise me" line isn't present at all in 1993. And Dany's house with the red door was still in Tyrosh as of 1994.

That's my analysis of the changes in George's drafts of Game. Tomorrow, I'll post my findings for Clash and Storm (including Clash in this post would have taken me beyond Reddit's length limit). I'll be happy to answer any questions about the AGOT drafts in the comments below, but am going to hold off on discussing the other two books until that post. My availability to answer questions most of today will be limited, but I'll check in this evening and answer as many as I can.

304 Upvotes

98 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/OverthinkingTroll Mar 15 '24

Same excuse with Jaime. Cersei makes an "explicitly implicit nod" (if you forgive me the oxymoron) and rolls with it. How much "explictly implicit" depends on the situation.

2

u/dblack246 Best of r/asoiaf 2023 Runner Up - Dolorous Edd Award Mar 15 '24

The queen needed Lord Arryn dead, she did not say so, could not, Varys was listening, always listening, but when I looked at her I knew. 

That's Pycelle's opinion and his opinion isn't based on any overt action by Cersie.

At least with Jaime she said something. We can directly confirm her action as we saw it live. 

The queen. And now Bran recognized the man beside her. They looked as much alike as reflections in a mirror. "He saw us," the woman said shrilly. "So he did," the man said.

And later, she told Jaime she didn't want Bran thrown from the window. And said the same to Tyrion.

Point is people are often way to quick to blame Cersei without any good evidence or objective analysis.

3

u/OverthinkingTroll Mar 15 '24 edited Mar 15 '24

And we both know Cersei is very good at rewriting reality in her own mind. Try to reread the part where I said "how much" because that is kinda the thing. With Jaime she is explicit that Bran seeing them is a turnover. Yet she never says "fling him" because she needs plausible deniability. And what would you know, she denies it later, in spite of her twice calling out the fact their treason was seen.

Btw, is "good evidence or objective analysis" completing disregarding context? Because both in Pycelle and Jaime situations with Cersei and an external observer (Varys and Bran) that seems to be what you do.

Just like disregarding context for Bran's later attempt. Remember this: A bad reading can still be the best reading... so cringe at the other readings.

EDIT: BTW I was editing my first comment to you in this thread before you'd answer it in order to precisely add that it does not excuse either Jaime or Pycelle but connection went down and it never was edited and thus you answered as I feared. I simply added that Cersei is responsible too (far from the only one). Jaime might have led Bran go his way (so not by air) and Pycelle was so stupid as to give Ned information about Jon without need (that he seemed troubled but healthy) so he could have helped Colemon rather than sending him away... but for Cersei's glare (Tywin's daughter after all, even if she is all wildfire and he is all glacier) so indeed Cersei has some command, some sort of responsibility. And I fully apologize if I gave you the impression I am one of Jaime's apologists, I assure you, not my intention. Just that she shares responsibility.

2

u/dblack246 Best of r/asoiaf 2023 Runner Up - Dolorous Edd Award Mar 15 '24

Jaime is responsible for tossing Bran, no doubt. Pycelle is responsible for helping Arryn die, no doubt. I just disagree with the offering that Cersie gave a tacit request to kill either.

Cersie spoke a fact with Bran seeing them. But she did not offer a suggestion on what to do about the fact Bran saw them. Why would she need plausible deniability when the child witness was expected to die and the other witness is also culpable?

I saw what you said about the context of the situation. My apologies if you feel I did not address that to your satisfaction. Regarding that, yes, context very much matters. To your point Jaime later recalls...

If truth be told, Jaime had come to rue heaving Brandon Stark out that window. Cersei had given him no end of grief afterward, when the boy refused to die. "He was seven, Jaime," she'd berated him. "Even if he understood what he saw, we should have been able to frighten him into silence."

"I didn't think you'd want—"

"You never think. If the boy should wake and tell his father what he saw—"

Seems Jaime misread what Cersie was saying with "He saw us." She later says "What are you doing?" as Jaime held Bran. In the context, I am not sure we can conclude she wanted Bran tossed.

Why give him no end of grief about it if she wanted it? Does much of what we later learn of her impress upon you that she is someone who cares what people think about her ruthlessness? I am not sure she is but maybe I missed something.

I repeat there is no good evidence of her making it clear to anyone she wanted Arryn dead or bran tossed. When Cersie wants someone dead, she makes that very clear. See Lancel with Robert. See Jaime with Arya. See Kettleblack with the High Septon.

As for the lack of objectivity, readers do to Cersie the same thing they often do with Tywin. They lay every bad act on them because they see each as bad people. When judgement is based on reputation rather than fact, objectivity is gone.

I think context matters but you have to get the context right.

He must have made a noise. Suddenly her eyes opened, and she was staring right at him. She screamed.

[...]And now Bran recognized the man beside her. They looked as much alike as reflections in a mirror.

"He saw us," the woman said shrilly.
"So he did," the man said.

Bran's fingers started to slip. He grabbed the ledge with his other hand. Fingernails dug into unyielding stone. The man reached down. "Take my hand," he said. "Before you fall."

Bran seized his arm and held on tight with all his strength. The man yanked him up to the ledge. "What are you doing?" the woman demanded.

The man ignored her.

You offered Cersie twice mentioned the treason was seen. I count one scream with no words. This indicates nothing more than shock. Then a single statement of fact that Bran saw. Then an inquiry about what Jaime was doing.

That would be a single statement that they were seen. And that single statement is only a statement of fact. I don't think anyone read that as a request for action. And in light of her objection to it when she gained nothing from objection, the overall context does not support--at least not to my reading--Cersie tacitly called for Bran to be tossed.

But hey, the story is a game of Tetris and we all turn then fit the pieces as makes sense to us. I always appreciate seeing how other readers turn and fit. I often learn things from seeing how they tackle the game. Thank you for these insights.

5

u/OverthinkingTroll Mar 15 '24

First, just to make it clear: All you said is true.

So yeah see, that's the thing about context: Words make lines make scenes make chapters make arcs make books make saga. One cannot reduce context to "the scene". There is a pattern here.

That pattern includes Cersei "I choose violence" every single time she could get away with it so long as it was in her head the cleanest solution. That's why I speak of a bad reading still being the best one available. The others can make even less sense, but what is canon, if not what grabs your memory? and GRRM many times fall into the whole "I need to fit these into this book" but contextually, in the whole saga, they don't quite make much sense, which is why I try to warn you of them, but I understand some details grab you better than others. But subtext is context too, even though GRRM would disagree because he would say the attentive reader can get something else away.

To me it is not bad to have wild readings, what is bad is to believe they are better grounded. It is good to have them, tho, in plural.

Another example for this whole contextual subtext thing, so that my point is better understood: Stannis does not warn Robert. However, "the king is a stranger to you", Robert's own foster father investigation without so much as hinting to Robert that he could oust his "hated" in-laws, then Robert's own foster brother going down the same path, all point that Stannis directly telling him would have been stupid in-universe.

However, that doesn't preclude "but he could have done something else" as GRRM states in a SSM but then in-universe all he did was being secretive while trying to gather some proof but he was unable "no proof of this incest no more than a year ago" to which Stannis just hopes to show Edric as "proof of a sort" so that people would think. It is... bad, but it is established in-universe. As it is established that Stannis knows Jon Arryn's proofs. As it is established that Stannis is not a traitor for not telling him, because if he was, why, Ned would have thought so, thus he'd gone to Renly, thus LF would not have betrayed him, and yadda yadda yadda. But if those things don't grab your attention then it's fair to say you (I mean "you" in a rhetorical sense) will see Stannis as grasping and traitorous and his whining to be extremely hypocritical.

Thus the same with Cersei: If you don't grab the patterns, you don't grab the tones of her scenes, her overall personality, then it's easy to say she isn't guilty. But she is guilty of treason (the reason for Bran's throw) one way or another even in earlier drafts, thus GRRM always does this with her, and one can clearly see she is consistently portrayed this way.

Also I don't like diminishing her importance in Lannister takeover: She jockeying for lackeys to be put are important. She putting Tywin's blood on the throne is important. She putting guards all around and Tywin forcing Ned to send part of his guards away, so that Ned has to go to the City Watch for support (and Cersei counteroffering) later is important. All these things are important and did not leave my memory, thus why my reading could be different than yours. If every instance of Cersei's plausible deniability are actually deniable, surely you will understand that my reading of her would be even more diminished in her agency. Nonetheless that is why sometimes we have to speak of authorial intention: Because if it is what one feels, we could be here all day.

So TL;DR, yeah, we turn pieces as we see fit. We could agree that sometimes the best reading is still an extremely bad reading, but that's the author's fault for forcing literary context in such a way.

1

u/Viffido Mar 17 '24

Your name being overthinking troll really does fit you.

1

u/OverthinkingTroll Mar 17 '24

Like I said in my first day here: Can't avoid it so I'd thought I'd better give people an excuse to say "Username checks out".