Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience.
1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title.
2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler.
3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads.
---
If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly, it’s still too early to tell what direction they will go in and a good tv show doesn’t put all their cards on the table in the beginning.
I do think for the people that read the books and got to know the original characters it’s never going be the same. And any deviations from the book probably feel a bit too forced and “tv like.”
Agreed. And I will also add: that's because the book itself—and the characterizations in it—are *thin*. Too much of a fealty to it is to misunderstand its literal genre as a fictional history book. Readers pretend like its ASOIAF but the difference is one of night and freaking day. One is dense as can be—the adaptation had to subtract, subtract, subtract. The other is thin and dubious on purpose—the adaptation has to add, contextualize, flesh out, make anew. It's a completely different project, deviations may not actually BE deviations.
GRRM's greater involvement here and the fact that he loved the first 2 episodes makes absolute sense in this regard. Fans' "it didn't happen this way!" makes none. Literally anything in it that is said privately and not to the crowd is basically hearsay by the nature of the book itself.
And everything said to the crowd could still be edited by the (biased) Maester that wrote Fire&Blood decades after the Dance. The only thing that's certain is that lots of people and lota of dragons die
Was just coming here to say this. The showrunners are going off the premise that the F&B narrators are unreliable, which gives them leeway as to how they portray Rhaenyra.
Yep. Hell, I was actually wondering the other day if a certain, very pivotal death happens exactly the way we are told it does—because the most reliable witness never speaks of it again (to the best of my memory). It probably does but still.
Yes, the book gives "truth" an IMMENSE amount of creative license. It's basically fantasy satire because the narration spends more time weighing and assessing the various accounts according to the character of their sources than literally anything in the story itself. Mushroom's more of a character than anyone else lol
Bruh y’all need to be careful with this Maesters conspiracy shit.
It worked kind of well for Aemond killing Luke (although I still think it’s inferior to the book scene), but if they lean more into it and start making more of the upcoming events accidental, then those scenes will lose so much of their power.
They’ve already neutered so much of Alicent and Rhaenyra’s motives. All because they seem to be afraid of letting women have evil/negative motives? Or they were more interested in making a point about misogyny?? Either way the result is slightly weaker characterization.
And I would argue this kind of filmmaking ultimately ends up being sexist in its own way. It’s one thing to acknowledge historical misogyny in these kinds of settings. It’s another thing to attribute EVERY negative attribute a female character has, to something a man did., therefore absolving her of all agency.
**Yes and no. Mostly yes but I'll start with the no lol.** First, Alicent would have to be Cersei. Think about it. Cersei was one of a HUGE ensemble of characters, very few of whom were that extreme, and she wasn't a POV character till later either. It worked, but they set up HOTD as The Alicent and Rhaenyra Show, by their own admission. We can argue with that logic forever, and I'm guessing we will because I don't think it should have been distilled to it, but that's what they did. Within that framework, you just cannot have a Cersei!
**The big Yes'es are many.** You're not wrong—both Alicent & Rhaenyra have no truly trustworthy man or confidante of any sort in their life, and that is the core reason for their dysfunctions. That's the way the show is set up, unfortunately. It does end up being sexist in its own way because it means they have to resort to flat-out stupidity a lot of the time (Alicent with the council, with Viserys' last words; Rhaenyra, I would argue, is sooooooo fucking stupid with Daemon, a man who slapped her in the S1 finale, but in all her romantic entanglements). They can come off clumsy. But... from here on out, it's a whole lot of consequence for their own actions as well. That's what I *personally* see as the rationale for them being further isolated from other characters.
But I also don't think we can constantly complain about what the show said it was on day 1, either. It's just silly. This is the show. Either they sharpen their commentary on gender or they keep it surface-level. I think they CAN do the former. They may have to take far MORE creative license to do it (thus pissing off readers on Reddit), but it's not an *impossible* task. Jury's out. But that is all to say: they can deviate a whole lot more, even, and end up with far "stronger" characters. They literally did storytelling 101: they're telling two women's stories starting with foundational traumas, which can wear thin, but it's not an intrinsically bad way to go about it. They may well have to deviate a lotttttttt more to do it justice. Maybe that means they're far more evil at times, who knows.
Again, that argument goes null when we have things like Rhaenys in Aegon crowning in Dragon Pit. Things like that definitely cannot be hidden in the history books.
Yes. Lol I'm a historian so yes, absolutely. Especially medieval history books like this—they're considered sources in and of themselves, and particularly propagandist ones. A lot of the histories GRRM drew on for ASOIAF have had completely revionist interpretations in previous decades because of new finds etc.
I get the complaints for GOT, but I do not get the complaints for HoTD. The source material is an in universe history book that's written to be unreliable and full of bias, propaganda, and uncertainty. How someone can complain about character deviation is mind blowing to me
>Exactly, it’s still too early to tell what direction they will go in
This is what bothers me most about the discourse lead by F&B purists. So much criticism is directed at the show for taking aspects of the story in a different direction but *they don't know what those directions are yet*.
Wich is in fact book accurate ("Broken by the loss of one son, Rhaenyra Targaryen seemed to find new strength after the loss of a second. Jace’s death hardened her, burning away her fears, leaving only her anger and her hatred. Still possessed of more dragons than her half brother, Her Grace now resolved to use them, no matter the cost. She would rain down fire and death upon Aegon and all those who supported him, she told the black council, and either tear him from the Iron Throne or die in the attempt.
)
I think to an extent the show runners are trying to avoid what happened with Daenerys. They’re giving us more of a build up, a slow decline into ruthlessness and madness. It’s what we should have had with Dani, it could have been brilliant. Instead we got… yeah we got what we got.
Also, we had Cersei in GoT, who is basically the vibe that OP gives in their post. While people loved Cersei as a character, we didn’t really root for her. The show needs us to root for Rhaenyra at least at first, so when she goes off the rails there’s already that history there. We only love villains when we resonate with them at least to some small extent. Them painting Alicent and Rhaenyra as power hungry privileged cunts who only care about the throne, doesn’t make them compelling characters the audience is going to give a shit about.
I think the showrunners are taking a lot of lessons from the end of GoT to learn from, I commend them for that.
Yes exactly this. They already did the "villain-from-start", power-seeking woman in Cersei (well), why repeat it? And they saw how NOT to do the innocent-daughter-transformed-into-savvy-queen thing with Sansa (sadly, rushed towards the end) and the Rightful-Queen-liberator-descends-into-madness in Daenerys (terribly rushed).
This is a great time to try doing those last two right in Alicent and in Rhaenyra instead of just redoing Cersei but a couple centuries before.
Okay I feel like I’m the only one that thought Dany was always a bit crazy. Even from the beginning you know when she walked into a funeral pyre. I loved her character but I always thought she was always a bit cuckoo.
Which is funny because that was the critique of Daenerys in S8 GOT- her meltdown happened too fast.
I think we saw bits of Rhae Rhaenyra going mad after Luke’s death.
I have bit more issue with Creston Cole’s character and the obvious writing in the show regarding him.
I think you're right. It would work well. Also, we who've read the book know where this story is going. Amd we've all seen the downfall of Danaerys. Despite how unpopular the ending of GoT was, I think it was generally accepted that Dany would have a fall from grace (it just should have been handled better). It would work very thematically (especially with the theme of history repeating) if Rhaenyra (who is generally very well liked as a character) loses her shit before the end of her story.
This, and I think the version of the story that the show is telling is one in which the maesters tainted Rhaenyra’s character after the Dance concluded.
Also didn't Alicent say something like, "Bastard blood shed in war. What does it matter?" to Luke's death?
Give me ambitious, multi dimensional, morally ambiguous, crazy women in the show. Alicent is reduced to her 'sin' and Rhaenyra to being a mother.
When Rhaenyra took KL Alicent has one of the coldest lines in F&B.
"The city is yours Princess, but you will not hold it for long. The rats play when the cat is gone, but my son Aemond will return with fire and blood."
Interestingly enough, this quote becomes prophetic when under Rhaenyra’s rule the "rats" of Kings Landing start getting more bold and riotous, until they take the city from her.
GRRM gave the Greens the best quotes in the book.
Maybe but I think he’ll end up back in King’s Landing after the events of E4. The fallout from that will require a seasoned veteran of politics and if nothing else, Otto is that.
That could be their plan potentially. But I’m now convinced Otto will just take the place of Lord Hightower and be in charge of the Hightower host in the Reach with Daeron.
God, I hope they do not delete that exchange from Aegon. It's literally my favorite quote from the entire ASOIAF series. I'm scared Condal is gonna fuck it up again and make Rhaenyra's death some heroic bullshit or something in which Aegon looks like a chump.
I have hope they keep it true.
In the books it’s said that all sources agreed on the words of that exchange, so that is most certainly what happened.
Although I’d just ABSOLUTELY love to see how the showrunners would justify that scene as "green propaganda" as they’ve done with like everything else.
Alicent says that after the Fall of King's Landing, while being dragged before Rhaenyra while she's on the throne, so it's still possible she could say that line, if they woek hard enough to make her really bitter and angry. IDK if they'll go that route, though...
There is NO WAY she could say that. Rhaenyra won't order or have any hand in Tyland's torture, we won't get the bastardphobic Alicent, we won't get Rhaenyra putting up a bounty for Maelor's head. Unfortunately, they will not give these traits to these two main female characters because they chose the narrative of women=good, men=bad.
You are on the internet, a place where people will write 10 page essays on why a woman showing cleavage on a TV show is literal oppression lol. What do you think?
Please. Alicent instilled jack shit into Aegon. He still did not want it and believed neither of his parents wanted him to be king. Alicent went back and forth on Aegon's claim three times in the day preceding Viserys's death.
You can deny it because you enjoy the show as it is, but the massive softening of the female characters and comical villainisation (is that a word lol) of the males is evident to anyone familiar with both the book and the show.
Which is fine. Like I said, you can enjoy the show for what it is.
Rhaenyra and Alicent are both nearly entirely different characters from their book counter parts. personality, temperament appearance and even age etc etc have all been changed and almost all of those changes serve to make them more sympathetic characters (or in Alicents case just pathetic). The writers aren’t stupid, they know what they are doing, it’s a deliberate choice that I’m sure even they would agree they have done. If you are cool with that choice that’s awesome, if other folk are not that’s also fine.
Why deny it though?
Multi dimensional? Morally ambiguous? Did we read the same book? Because Book Alicent is neither of those things. She's a one dimensional evil stepmother who becomes irrelevant when the war starts. Rhaenyra is fairly one dimensional in the book as well
I honestly love how Rhaenyra and Alicent are in the show. They’re very different from the book, yes, but I’ve been obsessed with how the show has handled their dynamics as women (even/especially high born women) at the top of this patriarchal system.
At the very start of season 1 Rhaenyra learns how she can do everything expected of her as a noble lady and still suffer for it when her mother is killed. It compounds her desire for freedom and to be taken seriously so that her fate isn’t left to another’s hands. Meanwhile Alicent steadily drowns under the expectations of her father and the men around her until she is left with nothing despite sacrificing everything.
Their rivalry is so great because Rhaenyra views Alicent as a paragon of the stifling role others might force onto her while Alicent can only see Rhaenyra as carelessly ignoring the very rules that Alicent has suffered so much by following to the letter.
Firstly, Rhaenyra being "whitewashed" is a surface level take.The show is setting Rhaenyra up as the protagonist who disillusions the audience, to drive home the point that despite good intentions no one can change autocracy. They will be crushed by its wheel. F&B is an outline history book with no chance for character arcs. In a TV show with 4 seasons, we'll see circumstances forcing Rhaenyra to change after she takes KL. The show actually did a good job of putting various subtle red flags about her Rhaenyra (like "their wants are of no consequence" or her total ignorance about spending money) without ever making her flaws too prominent. Then it would've defeated the purpose of her arc.
**Now, yeah the "I shall have his head" sums up the Dance in f&b...a bunch of snappy hollywood one-liners uttered by a bunch of amoral characters doing comically exagerrated cartoon villainy....the show is a far more grounded, nuanced, empathetic & realistic portrayal of noblewomen trapped in patriarchal medieval feudalism. The show will never be a b&w war movie with aegon & rhaenyra lined up on either side of a football field (there's always Hercules to watch). It's better to consume Hotd by understanding they're telling a tragedy about the cyclical nature events, the inevitability of fate, & how people trying to avoid things inadvertently bring them about like Oedipus Rex (like viserys trying to avoid a succession crisis). That is what the accidents and misunderstandings signify : a self-fullfing prophecy.**
Rhaenyra & Alicent's complex relationship IS what separates the show from being yet another generic war movie ("i shall have is head🤓"). Even if you interpret it as entirely platonic, them being torn between the "childhood companion" vs their children & the socially expected roles placed put on them by society...this duality of heart & mind is what makes the show compelling : Crowning Aegon was supposed to keep them safe. It was supposed to be a fait accompli. It was supposed to keep daemon from killing them. It was supposed to give them control over their own destiny. But it just led to more bloodletting, an endless spiral! & the female characters forever stuck b/w the innate (children) & the familial (the "lost friendship"). The Larys monologue already connected it all..."What are children but a weakness, a folly, a futility"! It's delicious even NYT noticed it.
GoT did generational damage by making it seem like Cersei/Maergery girlboss caricature as the only way "strong women" antagonists can be portrayed. The "ambitious" wicked sl*tty resentful conniving jezebel archetype who manipulates society's sympathy towards the weaker sex & uses her sexual prowess to get what she wants. It's masked as progressive but it's really the core tenant of the misogynstic trope since the dawn of civilization. Boxing all female characters into that "perfect victim or not trying hard enough to be a villain" superficial binary. So when there's an empathetic portrayal of women under violent patriarchy, it's chalked up as "weak" & "unnecessary victimhood". After all, Alicent is not wearing black shoulder straps to blow up the Sept & smirking while sipping wine or telling Tommen "OUR LITTLE SECRET🤓". Then there's the Visenya targ warrior princess OC archetype. It irks me when multi-dimensional female characters having logical internal conflict was chalked up as weak or inconsistent.
The women in Hotd are an uncomfortable reminder of women's subjugation to patriarchal feudalism & the immense pressure required to navigate it. That's why it's easier to chalk her up as "lacking agency" or "ambition" as it's harder to imagine living in a harsh society where all our choices are curtailed. It's easier to go "if it was me I'd do this and that and wouldn't be bound". Identifying with the shallow "i shall have her head" targ girlboss on the other hand, with their beauty & magical powers, become a psychological projection of power. But most real humans are indecisive, impulsive, their actions often self-contradictory. Rarely do ppl act with calculated ruthless efficiency of hollywood villains. Passive characters are interesting & relatable. Obsessing over "clear goals" & thinking other forms of narrative are inferior is seeking an escape from the powerlessness of the consumer's own lives. Stories abt ppl reacting to conditions they're forced into & making most of their situation is reflective of the lives real humans actually live. Characters exist to convey themes. Every adaptational change HOTD made was with the purpose of emphasizing that misogyny cannot be separated from the way political & social schemes are carried out in patriarchal Westeros. So yes, Alicent and Rhaenyra would come off as "victims" in a way that would not have been included in historical documentation(F&B) of the very men who upheld that society.
>The "ambitious" wicked sl\*tty resentful conniving jezebel archetype who manipulates society's sympathy towards the weaker sex & uses her sexual prowess to get what she wants. It's masked as progressive but it's really the core tenant of the misogynstic trope since the dawn of civilization.
I don't know how much harder I can clap and upvote this.
People who are complaining about them simplifying the story cause the characters aren’t as evil as they are in the books right now are actually arguing for a more simplified story. They don’t realize they’re missing the complexities of what is indeed a tragic story not made up of power hungry cartoon villains but realistic people with faults even with sometimes good intentions, horrific mistakes, and not always the best judgements etc. we’ve seen them be sympathetic as well as ruthless. We’ve seen them kill but we’ve also seen them help and be vulnerable themselves.
I don’t get how someone sees all this and think there is just the bad side and the good side. All these character seem pretty human to me
I feel like they try to make the two sides equally likeable to balance the story when they should really focus on making them equally hateable. Especially because ultimately this is a story about 2 groups of power hungry greedy people who both think they're right.
I don't think that will be too compelling. Fire and Blood's demonization of its main characters works because we don't actually follow them. We don't get invested in them though. What HOTD is doing is getting us invested in these characters so that we are conflicted when they take their morally grey aciton.
See, this is why I’m watching it. I loved the book, and I love the setting and the storyline, but I intensely dislike Targaryens so I don’t give a toss who wins. There’s a Pratchett quote “Sometimes it’s like watching a wasp land on a stinging nettle: someone’s going to get stung and you don’t care.” That’s how I’m watching it. They’re all a bunch of fucking weirdos, and they’re all in the wrong. Fuck em.
>”Ulf White and Hard Hugh Hammer would fly to Tumbleton, some fifty leagues southwest of King’s Landing, the last leal stronghold between Lord Hightower and the city, to assist in the defense of the town and castle and destroy Prince Daeron and Tessarion. Lord Corlys suggested that mayhaps the prince might be taken alive and held as hostage. But Queen Rhaenyra was adamant. “He will not remain a boy forever. Let him grown to mayhood, and soon or late he will seek to revenge himself upon my own sons.”
>Words of these plans soon reached the ears of the Dowager Queen, filling her with terror. Fearing for her sons, Queen Alicent went to the Iron Throne upon her knees, to plead for peace. This time the Queen in Chains put forth the notion that the realm might be divided; Rhaenyra would keep King’s Landing and the crown lands, the North, the Vale of Arryn, all the lands watered by the Trident, and the isles. To Aegon II would go to the storm lands, the westerlands, and the Reach, to be ruled from Oldtown.
>Rhaenyra rejected her stepmother’s proposal with scorn. “Your sons might have had places of honor at my court if they kept the faith,” Her Grace declared, “but they sought to rob me of my birthright, and the blood of my sweet sons is on their hands.”
>“Bastard blood, shed at war,” Alicent replied. “My son’s sons were innocent boys, cruelly murdered. How many more must die to slake your thirst for vengeance?
>”The Dowagner Queen’s words only fanned the fire of Rhaenyra’s wroth. “I will hear no more lies,” she warned. “Speak again of bastardy, and I will have your tongue out.” (Martin, 479-481).
This discussion has to be kept on the show. Please showrunners. IIRC this is the last time Alicent and Rhaenyra speak with each other. Despite being a history book, the hatred and the grief of these two women is palpable. It could be made even greater with the context of their past friendship.
Wait. What is morally ambiguous about saying "bastards blood shed in war? What does it matter?" Thats not a morally ambiguous statement. That's a pretty cold and borderline sociopathic statement. The show is giving you morally ambiguous characters and you don't see it.
No one wants stupid characters that act unrealistically for the sake of "moral ambiguity". It's morally ambiguous because you know she's saying these things out of geniune pain and sorrow for her children and everything that has taken place, you understand her comment yet it is still evil.
What mother would react any differently after her oldest boys have all been killed? Fake moral ambiguity should be trumped by the real evils and cynicism of humanity.
Yeah she said.
It's crazy how much cooler and edgy both Alicent and Rhaenyra are in the book.
Alicent also says, when Rhaenyra is pregnant "mayhaps the whore will die in childbirth".
Right, let women be evil too. It’s like they’re only allowed to do bad things out of weak and misguided attempts to do the right thing and never allowed to actually want power.
Alicent says that to Rhaenyra, after Rhaenyra basically threatens to brutally murder all of Alicent's kids.
Neither one are good people in the book, even in the beginning, though because Alicent is older and the evil stepmother trope....she's taken as being far more evil in the book...when in reality they are both terrible (and if Brothel Queens is true, Rhaenyra's a bigger monster than Cersei or Tywin).
I like F & B, but I feel like it would have been stronger if the whole thing had been a criticism of the Targaryens as a whole, in that the incest, racist, nuclear weapon riding people are truly shitty people.
I think part of the problem is GRMM himself wavers on Targs. They are definitely morally complex, but GRMM often romanticizes them, when it'd be more interesting (imo) to have them as morally complex but ultimately terrible for society (which Mad Dany might be the point of).
Anyway, F & B is entertaining, but it's hard for me to see it as feminist tale when Rhaenyra treats other women like shit, is racist about Nettles, and is generally a terrible ruler and it's all because of Daddy's word (not even a great council) while Alicent goes psycho and was an evil step mom.....but Daemon, pedo and monster, gets the "cool ending".....
I do think it would have been more interesting to see it as an explicit take down of the Targaryens, through the eyes of people like Corlys, Otto, and even Criston Cole, with them, the non-incesty people, being viewed as more objectively right.
It’s too early in the dance for Rhaenyra to be ruthless and “mad”. I see people on here go on about “character development”, but expect Rhaenyra to be unhinged at the beginning of season 2, when she still has a lot to go through. I think watching that (hopefully) unfold will be more interesting.
F&B characters are concepts and footnotes in history with very few lines of dialogue that we cant even fully believe. Their extreme personalities are there to spice up a history book.
For the show that goes on for multiple season, you need something more complex than an evil caricature.
I think these deviations from the source material are actually what makes the show a bit more interesting to watch. Fire & Blood itself spells out for us that it’s not a firsthand account of what happened, like all history it can be biased depending on whoever is telling the story, the truth itself is illusive because we’re relying on unreliable narrators with their own interpretations.
The book gives us an Alicent and Rhaenyra that are both power hungry homicidal maniacs. But the show gives us two characters that are more complicated than that (albeit they might be in the process of setting them up to be homicidal maniacs). I’m actually kind of glad that we see Rhaenyra look at things through the perspective of a mother and to opt for a course of action that avoids war. It makes more sense that someone who is a mother and understands the importance of the realm being united to take that route than to jump to asking for her brothers head at the first opportunity.
Same applies to Aegon, I enjoy a character that’s been portrayed as a spoiled, brutish, and self absorbed brat at first that we now get to see morph into a character that’s been deeply flawed by the ambitiousness of his mother & grandfather. Same applies to Aemond who is just as flawed, it gave me more reasons to sympathize with him after unaliving an innocent child, knowing that unlike the books make it out to be, he didn’t intend to.
I think I’m in the minority here but I can appreciate the showrunners taking a different course than what was given in the books. Although to be clear I do draw the line at ridiculous and unnecessary changes like Rhaenys’ surprise appearance at the coronation in the dragon pit.
GRRM reads historical sources. He's a history nut. He knows as much as anyone that histories are as much mythology and propaganda as they are journalism.
*Fire & Blood* is definitely all of these things. The maester appears to give careful consideration to many sources, but the stories we get are ultimately going to be the stories that people most liked to tell, and which were most useful politically to those who came afterwards.
I think the show takes that into account, and in this way, they don't actually deviate from the book at all (Rhaenys notwithstanding), because the book should be presumed to be largely inaccurate about many details.
Ultimately, all of these characters should have some humanity, insofar as they're all human. I have really appreciated the nuance that the show has brought to people like Aemond and Rhaenyra.
And one of the takeaway messages for Westeros when it comes to the Dance (and to a certain extent RL history) is “this is why women shouldn’t have power.” This entire war starts essentially because Rhaenyra is instantly passed over for the throne because of her gender. If she’d been male even all the bastard children would have been hand waved away as just one of those things. A huge segment of the population doesn’t care about her suitability for the throne, her tax policies, or even if she’d be decent at the job, they just care that she has a younger brother so of course she should have stood aside.
And you see that all the time in RL history accounts of powerful women, even the ones that seem to have been great rulers. Cleopatra was a sneaky sex witch. Catherine the Great may have been ‘great’ but people swear she fucked a horse. Eleanor of Aquitaine gets the sex witch treatment too sometimes. Queen Elizabeth was too good at her job so she had to secretly have been a man.
GRRM is history savvy, he’d know these tropes. More, he’s writing female characters in a society he’s made strictly patriarchal because he shows other places that don’t have the same hang ups. If this story had been set in Dorne the Dance never would have begun because they don’t have the “men inherit first” rule.
But in a lot of ways history is the story we tell about ourselves so there’s always an element of propaganda. And one of the major takeaways of the Dance is “this is why women can’t rule, they wreck everything” and the bad stories about Alicent and Rhaenyra tearing everything down because they can’t come together as a family pretty much plays into that story.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I wish book purists would be more open to the nuance that the writers are giving these characters in the show versus what’s given to us in the books.
I don't mind it either because knowing the characters' ties to the likes of Aemon, Jon Snow, & Dany, I think that the portrayal of Rhaenyra & Aegon as conflicted personalities really ties together how complicated the Targaryen family is and their legacy in Westeros.
Idk what you guys want Rhaenyra to do lol. The character of Rhaenyra is not the same as the book especially from the introduction and you’ve known that since season 1. I’m all for a dark arc for Rhaenyra but it has to be done well otherwise we get another season 8 Daenerys. I guess its unrealistic that Rhaenyra has sympathy for an innocent infant, that the grief of losing her son didn’t send her into a murderer where she killed anyone and fuck the consequences. We’re only two episodes into the season, just be fucking patient, especially when the trailers have her saying things like “I mean to fight this war and win it” or “We need to break the will of our enemy” or “they must see me as a ruler, and the symbols of my authority are not jewels and gowns but the shield and the sword”. Just wait lol
that has been my thought. i would like to see rhaenyra’s descent into a ruthless and traumatized, throne-motivated opponent, but i feel this is the chance we get to see a once good intentioned targaryen go “mad” (but for reasons other than, uh, incest) in a cinematic setting, done the right way.
Doesn't Rob vow to kill every member of House lannister when he hears about Ned's execution? Where's his fascist quote comparison? 😢 where's stannis? They are both responsible for sooo much death and rape bcs of them pressing claims and to get "what they think is theirs". Did I miss the stannis = fascist comparisons during got? I must have missed all the treatsies on if Rob had a right to march on kings landing, if we as an audience should even "applaud" that.
Why does it always seem that as soon as the one gunning for power in this fantasy universe happen to not be a white male everyone suddenly turns into freefolk justice advocates tallying up the costs of war.
Just for the record, the Stannis fascist comparisons were *rife* during the GOT era. People would certainly joke about “Stannis the Mannis” but those who weren’t his super-fans absolutely understood his role as a bringer of both conflict and strife.
As for Rob, both the book and the show made a conscious decision to explicitly show just how much the Stark-Lannister war was ravaging the riverlands. Not only do you have the Brotherhood without Banners to give you an in depth look at what the common-folk experience, but the Hound visits a peasant family with Arya, whom he later steals from and makes mention of them “not surviving the winter”(which their later skeletons attest to exactly that). Add this to the fact that when you get Jamie and Brienne’s POV, you are shown the dastardly nature of the Stark bannermen when they hang the three women who’s only crime is that they “lay with lions”. All this is to say that both D&D as well as GRRM made it explicitly clear what kind of price others have to pay for Robb to get his revenge.
Ultimately however, you have to understand that the Dance is written as an allegory to the Anarchy period in England. This a period of time between 1138 and 1153 in which the forces of Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I fought her cousin King Stephen’s forces for the control of England. Even for medieval conflict, this fight between the two was considered wildly destructive. It is said in the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” that this is the moment when “Christ and all his saints were asleep”. Even the Gesta Stephani, a pro-Stephen publication makes consistent mention of the great strife and destruction this conflict between the two claimants causes.
Essentially, this focus on how the small-folk are affected is a *constant* refrain through GRRM’s works, but it is especially potent and necessary in any allegory of the Anarchy, because of how the chroniclers described the conflict and its ravages upon England.
Agree to disagree, she was one dimensional in F&B. I think HoTD’s version of Rhaenyra is far more interesting and it’ll be even more tragic when Rhaenyra decides to fully commit to the war as the show goes on and everything starts to unravel.
I think the criticism is likely to be premature as well, because we're barely into the 2nd season and the war has not yet really started. Surely Rhaenyra is going to face more personal losses when it does, and I would be very surprised if the the impact of the war wasn't to harden her heart and push her towards being more ruthless. I'd wager the same is going to happen with Alicent.
The show would be one dimensional if they adapted the book as it is written.
What blows my mind while looking around this subreddit is that GRRM wrote these book characters *to* sound over the top, one dimensional, and likely inaccurate from the “real” people who once lived…. (Just like our own real-life medieval histories, especially about women figures).
If the show adapted the book choices, all the women would mean, vengeful, simple, cruel, and so on. I honestly cannot understand why this fandom clings so close to a book that was never meant to be clung so close to.
There will be more F&B adaptations on the way, and they will all likely take the same approach as HotD. Wanna know why? Because the characters in the book are not fleshed out and nuanced characters.
Plus the show has to give arcs to these characters so they can get more violent and over the top as the war progresses. We’re only still in the beginning of season 2.
Yes I think they missed this aspect. The books arent an accurare description of the events, unlike Game of Thrones. He was making a meta commentary of the historical tales. The one that I remember the most is Anne Boleyn when thinking on how Rheanyra and Alicent are described in the books, how she was a complex human reduced to a seductress witch for a long time, with a lot of ridiculous rumours around her, when in reality she was harassed by the king. This was purposeful of Martin.
Also in another note, they dont want to make Alicent or Rhanyra another Cersei. Theres people like her sure, but they dont want to have other comically evil queen (Lena did a great job on the take of the character, but Joffrey and Cersei had no reendeming qualities, while Alicent and Rhaenyra and even Aegon while being flawed and no good people they are still human)
>and Cersei had no reendeming qualities, while Alicent and Rhaenyra and even Aegon while being flawed and no good people they are still human
I'd argue that Aegon has no reedeming qualities at all: he sent his young children (almost babies) to fight pits, he raped a maid and he abuses his sister-wife. And, even though there's some evidence that he may love his kids (seemed like he genuinely loved Jaehaerys), I would say that he's more than flawed. Agree on Rhaenyra and Alicent.
I get it I think Aegon is dumb, but still want to be a decent king. I suppose he is a good friend? The point is that to me Cersei and Joffrey are barely humans. I said barely because I know that every kind of crazies in this world, so I dont even think its bad writting (even though she is way worse in the books and Lena and the writting still humanized her a bit). Its just that Cersei and Joffrey have no friends, no hobbies, no relatable qualities other than loving each other. Even some sociopats can have charismatic qualities.
I think Aegon is a shitty person and what he did with children is the reason why I cant like the greens and even side eye Viserys. But I know people like him in real life, maybe its the actor who can make him realistic, but he remembers some idiots I knew in high School, I even hanged with him before we fought (barring the pedophilic stuff... I hope) and Alicent looks like those wasps zealots you know. In the other hand, I dont know any teen or adult like Joffrey irl other than serial killers that I see in discovery documentaries, (the actor is great and made a cartoonish character interesting to the point that we can overlook this).
I hope i'm making sense: House of Dragons are people that we know everyday in certain positions. Its a tragedy. Flawed people but we can still meet them. Game of Thrones is a story of sociopathic people in power, people that we dont know everyday.
You did (yet an other) list of Aegon's flaws and sins while the other guy was talking about him still being human despite all that. It added nothing to the discussion. He was (obviously) right : Aegon is a very human character (human being absolute degenerates :D). His qualities are : a desire to please, even the smallfolk (it didn't last long but still) ; an obvious love for his now dead son ; his great affection for his dragon, Sunfyre (it counts).
As a rule of thumb, when someone says "X has Y redeeming qualities" you say yes. Because everything has redeeming qualities. Even mosquitos. Even piles of shit. And, yes, even Aegon (and Cerci, for that matter).
>he sent his young children (almost babies) to fight pits
You didn't understand very well that scene I believe. He didn't send his young children to fight in pits lol. He just got prostitutes pregnant, and never thought that they would give birth to future pit fighters. Source : my eyes, a fair amount of logic, and the actor's own interview. So, still a shitty guy, but not "I get prostitutes pregnant and then send the child to fight to the death nyahahaha" level of evilness.
Exactly. I especially enjoy the people acting as if they’re somehow champions of women’s rights and representation by wanting all the women to be represented as they are in the books. Like the book is pretty transparently commenting on how medieval (and to some extent modern) societies saw women in positions of power as selfish, hungry for power, basically totally evil, whereas men in similar positions are often presented as powerful, impressive, righteous for acting in similar ways. And people think that the feminist take on these books is to unquestioningly represent the female characters as they are in the books as if it was actually perfectly accurate when it made them out to be evil??
>What blows my mind while looking around this subreddit is that GRRM wrote these book characters to sound over the top, one dimensional, and likely inaccurate from the “real” people who once lived…. (Just like our own real-life medieval histories, especially about women figures).
A LOT of "book readers" either missed this point entirely or didn't actually read the books with their brains on lol. All of the characters are over the top and one dimensional, and we have conflicting narrators. These were all intentional, yet you have posts like this claiming X character is being "butchered by show"...like the whole point of the book is that we don't actually know how these people were lmao
I think the book was written to copy the reign of Matilda (Maude) during The Anarchy in medieval England. She was a mother and wife but did some really nasty shit during the civil war ( Stephen’s side passed off a random child for the required hostage, she killed the child even tho he was a victim)
Agreed. There’s also *plenty* of time left for Rhaenyra to unravel, and I think it’ll feel a lot more meaningful/tragic because of the dimensions added to her character in the show.
Yeah, I totally agree. Show Rhaenyra is so great, because there is conflict in her (like, you know, in the heart, like George loves) while in the books she is percieved as a little dumb and plump and without progression. I love show Rhaenyra - like I love the show women a lot more than those in the book.
Same! I appreciate the post but I am unsure how that kind of story would play out in a tv format for a general audience. I do think having a strictly principled character in the Fascist sense is more interesting to read about with a pace that a reader can control. I don't think that would be a rewarding format for an hour long episode every week.
> This is what makes her an interestingly controversial character. Someone who is willing to plunge the realm into war to get what she thinks is hers.
…is this not exactly what Cersei, Dany and even Alicent all do to varying extents?
Sure, but if it’s a trait of almost every single major female Queen figure (hell even *Sansa* fits this bill to a gentler extent)across two shows - how interesting is it? I’d argue it’s more interesting to explore something different with a woman in power than just another “this woman is going to take what’s hers, hell or high water”…again… OP is making it sound like it’s a unique defining characteristic. It isn’t.
It’s sort of crazy that people are looking at things like this when people didn’t even bat an eye at the wars in Game of Thrones. “Rhaenyra is interesting because she wants what is hers and is willing to go to war for it”. So was Stannis, Rob, Baelon, and Tywin/Joffrey. No one though about whether they were war criminals or being selfish. The only time it came up was with Dany because she had dragons.
The other thing is the book is a history book. That is the point and something reiterated by GRRM. There’s propaganda in there as well as biases from the perspective of the maesters who wrote it and the witnesses they referenced. So when people are complaining about the differences between the show and the book I don’t think they understand the original source material.
Honestly, I think she's infinitely more interesting in the show than the book. Same with Alicent. They don't actually feel like real people in the book at all, just extreme caricatures who have been twisted by the histories.
All the women have been bleached into infinity.
There seems to be a common belief in their writers' room that all women are passive, gentle, soft and not capable of any raw, merciless ambition. Rhaenyra, Rhaenys, Alicent, Mysaria....
Thank you, my god I started noticing this watching this episode while Rhaenyra and Mysaria were discussing, they don't even dare making any woman be slightly insulting, or having a behvior that would tend even in the slightest way towards evil. Rhaenyra dismissing carelessly Mysaria after she told her story might be the most crual thing we've seen a woman commit in this show, which is telling. Also, I am not at all forgetting that Rhaenys killed many innocent, it's more that the showrunners seem to have completely not noticed that this was a horrible thing her character could do and simply thought it was some "strong womenz" cool moment instead.
And they keep coming with the dumb motto "Women keep calm, men wage war" thing for whatever reason external to the show...
Couldn't Allicent put Aegon on the throne ultimately by ambition? No they had to make her appear excessively dumb by misinterpretating mumblings, they didn't even use it as an excuse for her ambition but made her appear as really believing this.
Even Mysaria looked so vanilla as the white worm when she was basically supposed to be a local mafia boss in a district of King's Landing.
And why did they make Otto go safely to Dragonstone where he should in all logic at least be detained if not straight up burned by the Queen he tried to usurp putting his grandson instead...? But no, he goes there safely, for absolutely nothing (this brought nothing to the story), and makes Rhaenyra appears weak in the process.
Give us actual strong women for fuck sake, doing nothing is not being strong it's being apathetic, where are the Cersei, the Brienne, the Arya, the Daenerys, the Olenna Tyrell, the Catelyn Stark (notice that both her and Cersei's motherhoods were included way more subtly and deeply into their characters actions and ambiguities), the Lady Mormont, the Osha, the Ygritte, the Red Witch...
>Couldn't Allicent put Aegon on the throne ultimately by ambition? No they had to make her appear excessively dumb by misinterpretating mumblings, they didn't even use it as an excuse for her ambition but made her appear as really believing this.
It should've just been ambition, because I honestly find it very hard to believe she had no idea of the plot until the night of Viserys' death, especially considering Larys was her confidant.
I think you could of had her hesitate, but ultimately decide to pull the strings to lead the charge. Or you could make it where she finds out and chooses takes the reigns of the plot herself.
Tbh if they want to make her more rootable they should’ve just gone with she is terrified for her children like they build it up to be, suddenly forgot about and then never mentioned again
I agree that it should have been only ambition, but having her be in an ambiguous mental state where she denies her ambition trying to convince herself that it is what Vyseris want would have worked well too and could have been interesting screentime use than Cole licking Allicent or Rhaenyra and Daemon having basically the same conversation they had last season when he choked her.
And you know what? Maybe the above is what they actually went for but failed to convey, we can't know because the dialogue are to unsubstantial.
One of my gripe so far is that I find them to show us too much useless things, too much figuration without substance. Compare the councils scene of GOT with those of HotD, the first ones surely provided thorough figuration of the characters depicting their personalities and current behaviors along with their current relational states, but their conversations were also meaningful to the progress of the story pushing it forwards even if very slightly, those of HotD are just for figuration, take the council scene of the first episode for example, all it serves is depicting the people of the court relational states at the beginning of the season, all they exchange during this scene is meaningless and already tacitely known by the viewers, even maybe by the characters themselves (which also, for me at least, breaks the fourth wall a bit making us feel like we're watching actors displaying an act rather than actual people discussing in a medieval fantasy world where we're entirely immersed).
The way I would've done it, if they wanted to push the "it's all a misunderstanding" narrative:
* Have Rhaenyra and Daemon have an argument where they're talking about what grim fate should happen to her half-siblings when Vyseris dies, Rhaenyra is receptive but in the end decides against it.
* Have Alicent accidentally listen to said convo believing that they'll kill them all, she'll leave before they're done arguing.
* Have Alicent look after Vyseris in his deatbed and make up the lie about Aegon on the spot.
You keep the "it is a misunderstanding" angle but give more agency to the characters, imho
And in 3/4 of these cases, the reason for them to be soo gentle is directly tied to their motherhood. With the exception of Mysaria, every adult woman in the show tries to bond with each other over being caring mothers
For a story that tries to be critical of the patriarchy, it's also very dedicated to put women in a slight romanticized version of the patriarchal gender-roles
They do it to the men too. Criston is a passive whiny fuck. Aemond as a child isn't "twice as fierce" as Aegon.
Writers are allergic to characters making decisions that hurt others, while having understandable reasons for it
Takes like this make me appreciate the show writers for being more cautious when writing a female character in a ruling position because like Dany before her Rheanyra is treated unfairly by book fandom and has her flaws and mistakes blown up,distorted and scrutinized the way no male ruler has. I have a lot of complaints about them making her too passive but none are ‘I loved her because she’s so horrible and power hungry and actually caused all her own problems cause she didn’t give up to her brother usurping her or didn’t rape her gay husband,misogyny totally didn’t cause this woman’s suffering and psychological breakdown,her being a woman barely matters”. Maybe they do need to make her a saint to have the fandom give her even a bit of grace if she dared act half as violent as a man.
I mean, Alicent is treated unfairly by show fans. Alicent basically gets shafted by every man in her life, while she sees Rhaenyra get handed everything, get away with doing whatever she wants to do. She sees her son (the king's son as well) mutilated with no repercussions. None of this is to justify how bad of a mother Alicent is, but I can at least understand why she resents Rhaenyra. Hell, Alicent gets roasted by TB Stans for banging Criston Cole. How is that different from Rhaenyra in season 1?
I think the flaw with the dance to me has always been when it comes down to it , do you support the greens deciding to usurp the throne for reasons that aren’t hey look she’s a mad queen killing people. Then it’s like you’re going to accept surrender terms from liars who just usurped you ? No you woukd have 0 trust. In them . After that I’d feel justified in any act to regain my throne and punish the traitors
People acting like they’re great feminists for wanting a female character in a position of power to be represented as being totally single mindedly self interested (because that couldn’t perpetuate any harmful stereotypes…) is so funny to me. Yes, so amazing of you to ask for complicated female characters who *checks notes* only think about themselves and seek power at any cost. The books are literally a commentary on the way historians and the societies they exist in distort historical events to reflect their biases and a bunch of you guys were like “oh yeah this is so true, thank God that evil selfish bitch Rhaenyra didn’t win!!”. And now you spend your entire lives complaining that the show characters aren’t all unambiguously evil shits, as if that would be an enjoyable show.
Edit: I would also add that idk how you came to the conclusion from watching the show that Rhaenyra is only fighting for her children. I don’t think the show has ever really suggested that. Just because she didn’t instantly decide that waging war on half her family (with dragons, essentially weapons of mass destruction) is a sick idea doesn’t mean that she doesn’t want power. She’s also far from the only character without hesitance about starting a war. The hightowers were also trying to force a peaceful resolution, only really Aegon and Daemond (and Aemond) seem all aboard the war train. Ultimately a big part of the show is about how both sides greed for power (that includes Rhaenyra) basically makes a peaceful resolution impossible even if they ostensibly want one.
And its not as if making every woman aggressively anti-war doesn't also perpetuate a stereotype. I also don't understand how you can make the leap from Rhaenyra being the saint that she is in the show to being an "unambiguously evil shit", there's a lot of room between those two extremes where an interesting character might be found. Rhae doesn't need to be a Daenerys level tyrant, but perhaps she could make practical decisions that stretch her moral compass like for instance keeping Mysaria imprisoned and not letting her go free when she could hatch all manner of schemes against you.
This is a tv series…. It’s called character progression and development. They can’t just start Rhaenyra and Alicent off this way, casual viewers are gonna lose interest feeling like there’s really no one to support no one wants to watch a series where every main character is unlikable and annoying.
Jesus Christ, HOTD 'fans' might just be the most insufferable people on earth.
Everything you've just written sounds like a far more boring, 1 dimensional character than what we've actually gotten. And thank god for that
Star Wars fans are worse, but that r/HOTDgreens and r/HOTDBlacks exist is pretty strong evidence this is one of the most unbearable fanbases of all time
I don’t hate what they’re doing to her. She’s trying to do the right thing and I feel like some people hate this because she’s not an evil psychopath the way the books make her seem…
I prefer the show Rhaenyra way more than the book
I think that the telling of the story in the show is very nuanced. You can sympathise with both the greens and the blacks. The addition of Rhaenyra and Alicent being childhood friends, and them both having reasonable justification for their claims, further reinforce how this story is a tragedy and there will be no winners.
I don't really have an issue with how adult Rhaenyra is portrayed in the show. Do I wish she was a bit more merciless, vicious, proud, arrogant and ambitious? Yes. I really liked how they characterised young Rhaenyra and they kinda discarded almost everything about her when she transitioned into an adult. I don't like how passive Rhaenyra is in the show compared to book canon. But overall, I guess the showrunners needed Rhaenyra to be a bit more whitewashed as a character to make the casual audience root for her more. A more book accurate Rhaenyra would've alienated the casual fans.
My main issue is honestly the fans pretending that the showrunners don't have a bias for her character. People like to say the show is pro-Black/anti-Green. It's neither. It's pro-Rhaenyra.
I think if they have Rhaenyra's story end like it ends in the book, especially after making her so likeable, the general audience is going to go MENTAL. Lmao. I definitely think it's a bit of a mistake to set her up in such a good light knowing what happens in the end. Guarantee the ending isn't going to go down well with non book readers.
I do find it interesting that people are way more concerned with spending a lot of ink on whether or not it's acceptable for rhaenyra to be morally conflicted about this or whether she should just go full warlord when I don't think *anyone* had this issue over stannis being real murdery early on, and he was presented by both the books and the fans as being a reasonably morally upstanding dude, lol.
Like, kinda damned if you do, damned if you don't if you're a female ruler.
For the sake of historical comparisons, the actual Elizabeth the first was fairly Machiavellian with how she handled rival familial claimants to the throne but still is remembered well.
Remember that at this point, Rhaenyra is still the realms delight. It is a progressive and harrowing loss of her children and dignity that leads her down to become extremely cold to the common folk and merciless to her enemies.
The book is quick to jump to bold statements and drastic actions, it is a historical telling after the fact with not much dialogue to inform the reader as to the true thoughts of the players. Of course the most drastic words will be documented, it is a perspective of a war told after the fact.
Rhaenyra will have a dark turn, of that I am sure.
At this point it seems like they'v missed the point of the Dance: There are no good guys, and civil war wrecks a prosperous realm.
Rhaenyra was called "Maegor with teats" by the smallfolk.
Here, she is a saint, and any wrongdoing from her side is conveniently blamed on the "men around her".
When the majority are taking sides, a subset of fans feel they should outsmart the normies and "understand" all the characters, to them this means keeping a distance from playing favorites
On the flip side, the show added in an outright murder for Rhaenyra and show Rhaenyra is far, far, far and away the worse human being than book Rhaenyra was so far for it. I do think her framing - particularly in S1 - skewed her a bit to the bland side and I missed her fieriness and entitlement - but there’s still time to get there and her Green counterparts (Alicent, Aegon, Aemond) have similarly been massively humanized compared to their book selves
>the show added in an outright murder for Rhaenyra
except she also take part in an outright murder in the books
>*The princess was not slow in answering this charge. She dispatched Prince Daemon to seize Ser Vaemond, had his head removed, and fed his carcass to her dragon, Syrax.*
Definitely not Aegon that's for sure. Instead of a Robert Baratheon figure who is not a warrior, we got closer to a Joffrey.
But i agree that Alicent and especially Aemond were definitely humanized far more than any other character.
Meh. I feel like “someone who is willing to do horrible things to get what they want” has been done every way under the sun. I’m more intrigued by this show version of her who tries to remain moral and seeing her pushed to the edge rather than default ready to be a terrible person.
it is too black and white, rhaenyra after the war is the same person she was before, she has no arc, no evolution and that's just not compelling character writing imo
Yeah in the books she certainly came of just as bratty, undignified, greedy, and foolish as the rest of her siblings. In the books it literally took Viserys threatening to name Aegon to get her to do what he wanted.
Interestingly, young Rhaenyra seemed much more compatible with her book counterpart than older Rhaenyra and she still managed to be very sympathetic. Show adult Rhaenyra, unlike literally any ASOIAF character ever, is being portrayed as 100% fully realized. That, anything that goes wrong is the fault of her prejudiced enemies or allies within her ranks. HOTD has a lot of opportunities to take liberties because of the nature of the source material and every single one they took (Especially Alicent being 10 years younger and Criston being utterly black washed) were made to favor Rhaenyra. It's unnecessary too as Rhaenyra's popularity is unconditional anyway.
Contrast this with Aegon (Just an example) who organically battles his flaws in many of his scenes and makes mistakes. Even though they are undoubtedly mistakes, they also feel super understandable from his perspective and he still manages to be sympathetic.
Alicent and Rhaenyra are the main characters and they've been changed for the worse. I think at this point we would've all preferred an Alicent who actually was an "evil" stepmother and co-conspirator that supported her effectively disinherited sons from the beginning. Yes, it would make her a villain but still make her sympathetic and understandable because where there are conflicting claims, "You win or you die." That's just the reality of the medieval setting. Oh wait! HOTD doesn't care about any authentic medieval political intrigue which is why a lot of it in the book was cut for pointless side plots designed to make Rhaenyra look good and the rest of the cast look like clowns.
What's even worse is that in order to whitewash her, they've dismantled other characters and plot points, completely ruining the conflict and story. Now Rhaenyra is as bland a protagonist as anachronistic self-inserts come, while everyone else is a joke.
That's why so many reviewers are rightly complaining about HotD being boring - it's not that it's moving too slow or that there's a lack of potentially exciting events - the issue is that they all fall flat emotionally, because they hinge on characters other than Rhaenyra - but there's nothing there.
Most of these characters have been butchered just to prop up the progressive heroine, leading to empty spectacle. And it's bound to only get worse. That's just what happens when you try to turn the Dance into a didactic fairy tale featuring good guys and bad guys.
I too really appreciated book Rhaenyra and sympathized with her. But the show's marketing ploy of a character ruined her for me.
>You see she doesn’t even consider the peace terms in the book.
The peace terms she gets are laughable, it's basically "We get all the fertile, rich lands with large population, and you get the squabbeling riverlands, the frozen desert and the Vale... Nobody with half a brain would consider these terms.
Or do you mean the "accept Aegon as King and deliver your sons as hostages and we will let you live" terms?
(I agree with you overall, just not with that point\^\^ give me deep and flawed characters and I'm happy.)
>There’s no acceptable outcome for her other than sitting on the throne. If her siblings yield, good; otherwise they will be eliminated. This is what makes her an interestingly controversial character.
Nothing about this makes her controversial. She was selected as heir, she expects that to be upheld. Sure we could consider it “naive” of her, when people get usurped semi-regularly all the time. But this isn't controversial of her at all. Other characters have done the same and their claim wasn't controversial, it was normal.
>But I guess at this point, we as readers are posed with the question of whether we should root for this extremely privileged person’s fight for absolute power, just because she’s a woman.
This is precisely what this is about, except in reverse. I haven't read the book so I don't know how it's framed there, but at least in the show the ambiguity and nuance of a female character being denied the throne, yet again, especially after Daenerys, didn't escape them in the slightest and they played that card to the max. There is no good reason to depose Rhaenyra other than greed, but this is too coincidental with her being the sole female heir being picked in, correct me if I'm wrong, ever since Aegon's time. And when we place this in the whole universe's context, she really is being shoved aside because she's female and for whatever reason GRRM just really doesn't like to see female characters do alright for too long.
>There is also no indication given to us that her rule will be good for the realm and its people.
Same for Aegon's, or any other of their ancestors or descendents, because royalty rulership is hereditary and isn't a meritocracy. The entire system in itself is flawed and nitpicking over whether one single character is worth the position because of their ability for it ironically proves the point. No one else questions whether other male heirs are capable, but everyone wants to question if Rahenyra is worth retaking the throne again because is she even worth holding the position. This would never matter for any other character being usurped.
>she bears the burden of a prophecy that saves humanity,
This can easily be interpreted as Targaryen biases. Every single royal has believed their kid was the chosen one, down to Rhaegar thinking it was going to be his own kids, when it turns out it was his little sister all along, whom he overlooked? It's a common trait in the story, that every single character believes that whatever portent omen there is, is destined to them, like the red comet being interpreted as a symbol of luck by literally everyone who has witnessed it & whose pov we've been into.
>considers giving up everything for the good of the realm
I agree that was ridiculous and visibly out of character and done as a narrative trick to delay the conflict. It made zero sense whatsoever, same with the consequence of Daemon choking her because of it. I get the sense that in truth they're both perfectly aligned with the same goal.
>They seem allergic to complexity in women
They are not because she is already complex. Same with Alicent who makes questionable decisions herself because of what happened to her, which actually seem to elevate her from being a basic bitch in the book, who wasn't as young when she married Viserys. The book portrays Rhaenyra as fat in a way that is degrading and derogatory, like she is less than attractive after her pregnancies the same way that Cersei is regarded as less attractive after becoming an alcoholic, both instances that are blamed on the character like somehow they're the problem to what is happening to them. Rhaenyra in the book doesn't seem to have depth either and I'm frankly delighted with what they've done in the show. D'Arcy with her non-binary stuff in my opinion accidentally makes the character even better and takes it to the next level, because this isn't a woman (the character) burdened by things like expectations and gender roles, and who therefore is able to be fully and 100% themselves. D'Arcy with a wing, especially next to Matt Damon, is exactly the image of dragon lords as we'd expect to see them in their height: it makes Rhaenyra look powerful, incredibly badass, magnetic and compelling and interesting. The fact that she wasn't bothered by being forced into a sex life that would rob her of her femininity, joy and happiness, makes it on top of it that she's basically really free. Which in GRRM's world is honestly a feat to accomplish. This is already a complex character because she has got depth and dimension and presents an image of something that frankly even regular mainstream media doesn't always bother to portray because they don't understand what female empowerment really looks like. Just because she doesn't make choices you'd find questionable doesn't mean she isn't complex or dimensional.
Whenever I see a "where is the I shall have his head non peace term rhaenyra", I correctly chalk it up as the most superfiicial surface level take on "muh ambitious wimmin". I prefer the realistic ones in hot with depth and layer.
I agree.
We are getting generic cookie cutter heroine from Rhaenyra (most boring character in the show). When in reality she was just as bad as everyone else.
But so many people in this fandom will ignore all these unsavory traits from her in the books by saying it’s a biased Maesters account. They actually say this for every single unsavory thing about the Blacks honestly lmao.
Alicent meanwhile has had all of her book agency stripped from her for the sake of… feeding the misogynistic theme down our throats. Like yes, we get it that in her younger years she was a pawn in the games of her father (as most daughters are in ASOIAF honestly). But her book arc is literally gaining real power for herself in this misogynistic world. This is taken from her in the show and now she’s kinda just there.
The writers had nothing for her to do this season so now have her banging Ser Criston all season.
The show and the fan base very much favors one side. They’ll demonize Daemon (which I feel fits hit character) then contradict Alicent and Cole, but Show Rhaenyra and Book Rhaenyra are just polar opposites.
I think after Jace dies is when the show will have her totally flip into a psycho. I also dislike how the tv show is making everything seem like an accident, instead of showing the true hate between the houses.
I hated how they showed last season her turning her head in almost pure anger and despair and she is nothing like so in season 2. I know there’s a little bit of a time skip but holy shit seriously? Nothing?? I want her to be so much worse and broken but nothing happened and I can’t even like the character since it’s boring scene whenever she comes up. Unless other more interesting characters speak to her or do something to her (Rhaenys, Daemon, or her turmoil after AEMOND did something to her son). They were building up the grey character in the beginning as Rhaenyra was shown to be a little too adventurous, reckless and hard headed, with her violence shown after killing the boar which is now thrown out of the window. I just HOPE for an arc right now but if it doesn’t come soon it’ll be such and excruciating watch for me honestly
Careful some HBO bot on here is going to call you a book purist and try to turn the idea that you’re wrong into sone kind of provable quantifiable fact
I don't like how the show is making so much effort to make Rhaenyra good. Not that she's bad, but they leave no shades of grey. On the other hand Alicient has been shown to be a hypocrite with no moral compass. And then they ask are you with greens or blacks ? Bruh like duh do you even want anyone to side with the greens?
The series has very little to do with FAB by now. Neither Rhaenyra nor Alicent has any Agency. Rhaenyra treads in one place and is even appalled at B&C while Alicent stole Rhaenyra‘s throne „by honest mistake“. It‘s all so laughable.
F&B has a complete and utter lack of complexity. Anyone arguing otherwise is just plain wrong. Rhaenyra in the show has more initiative and does more than the Rhaenyra presented in the book. Right now if the show was 100% " book accurate" Rhaenyra would be bedridden and wandering aimlessly through Dragonstone.>!That would have been her narrative until maybe the beginning of the Dragon Sowing. And that's just a maybe because in the book Dragon Sowing was Jace's idea. Even when Rhaenyra arrives in Kingslanding she does little to nothing.!
i think your all judging so much cause were half thru the 2nd season n not much as happened. I think what theyre doing is a more realistic n gradual change in the characters as the ruthlessness n cunningness of both sides is only just startin to show. Luke is killed horrifically and but she tries to just focuz that anger at aemond, then Jahaerys is killed, which to the realm looks like Rhaenyra has done it. Then Rhaenyra has an assassination attempt on her. They are slowly showing us just a preview of just how messy the war n these women are about to get. Yall are asking where are all the women like the ones from the OG series, when it took 2-3 seasons for alot of those women to develop into the person their characters becomes. Its nothing new that they changed up things, n the things that have changed havent been as drastic as the changes to the OG series. Not that i dont like the book characters but this way seems more natural to me than girls who were once bestfriends grow up to have no care for one another whatsoever n just plunge the realm into a messy war for their selfish needs.
My biggest pet peeve about huge parts of this fandom and *all the readers* is that...you guys, so many of you fundamentally don't get the ***genre*** of Fire and Blood.
It is a *history book* with multiple unreliable sources, things transpire within mere sentences or short paragraphs, and they've drawn all of this out to be some ASOIAF-style characterization.
We don't actually know what GRRM intended with Rhaenyra, actually. That's you extrapolating! It is literally an interpretation, because it's not written as present-in-time-and-body the way someone's POV in ASOIAF is. The characterization is not complex. It's thin AF *on purpose*.
I often agree with ASOIAF readers and criticisms of GoT. I cannot say that in this case. I have MANY criticisms of the show—but I actually don't think pointing to Fire & Blood helps my cause in my most cases. The problem with the show is that it has set out to deepen the characterization, and it often falls short by having characters vacillate or through a deus ex machina that doesn't quite jibe. They also chose the framing device of Alicent & Rhaenyra within the patriarchy that is genuinely limiting and cannot be properly explored within the context of the many shifts their characters must make—buuuuuut I admit I can't be sure about this yet because I haven't seen all of that yet.
Yes, there are points of ambiguity (All of which were made to favor Rhaenyra) but there is a lot of evidence, including a lot of first hand testimony (which is the basis of historical knowledge) of the main characters. Yes, this won't account for anything but ironically, what they say about Alicent and Rhaenyra were somehow more robust and interesting than the characterizations we are getting in HOTD. They seem less like loosely adapted characters from a vague story but rather just complete transformations.
You think at this point most people wouldn't prefer the Alicent that actually was the "evil" stepmother and co conspirator that always support her effectively disinherited sons from the beginning of only because if there are conflicting claims "You win or you die", over what we have now? It's equally, if not more, compelling, logical, and more compatible with GOT that a medieval succession crisis would force people into situations like this. With Viserys for example, it wasn't as big an issue because everything that was added in to show is still compatible with his book counterpart and serve to explain why he did what he did in the books. It doesn't completely go against it.
A lot of nuance and authentic political intrigue that was in the history book were cut to make the show more simplified as well.
Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the show is maybe leaving room for more of an arc that leads her to the truly dark shit, I'm guessing Jace's death will be her breaking point
Exactly, it’s still too early to tell what direction they will go in and a good tv show doesn’t put all their cards on the table in the beginning. I do think for the people that read the books and got to know the original characters it’s never going be the same. And any deviations from the book probably feel a bit too forced and “tv like.”
Agreed. And I will also add: that's because the book itself—and the characterizations in it—are *thin*. Too much of a fealty to it is to misunderstand its literal genre as a fictional history book. Readers pretend like its ASOIAF but the difference is one of night and freaking day. One is dense as can be—the adaptation had to subtract, subtract, subtract. The other is thin and dubious on purpose—the adaptation has to add, contextualize, flesh out, make anew. It's a completely different project, deviations may not actually BE deviations. GRRM's greater involvement here and the fact that he loved the first 2 episodes makes absolute sense in this regard. Fans' "it didn't happen this way!" makes none. Literally anything in it that is said privately and not to the crowd is basically hearsay by the nature of the book itself.
And everything said to the crowd could still be edited by the (biased) Maester that wrote Fire&Blood decades after the Dance. The only thing that's certain is that lots of people and lota of dragons die
Was just coming here to say this. The showrunners are going off the premise that the F&B narrators are unreliable, which gives them leeway as to how they portray Rhaenyra.
Yep. Hell, I was actually wondering the other day if a certain, very pivotal death happens exactly the way we are told it does—because the most reliable witness never speaks of it again (to the best of my memory). It probably does but still. Yes, the book gives "truth" an IMMENSE amount of creative license. It's basically fantasy satire because the narration spends more time weighing and assessing the various accounts according to the character of their sources than literally anything in the story itself. Mushroom's more of a character than anyone else lol
Bruh y’all need to be careful with this Maesters conspiracy shit. It worked kind of well for Aemond killing Luke (although I still think it’s inferior to the book scene), but if they lean more into it and start making more of the upcoming events accidental, then those scenes will lose so much of their power. They’ve already neutered so much of Alicent and Rhaenyra’s motives. All because they seem to be afraid of letting women have evil/negative motives? Or they were more interested in making a point about misogyny?? Either way the result is slightly weaker characterization. And I would argue this kind of filmmaking ultimately ends up being sexist in its own way. It’s one thing to acknowledge historical misogyny in these kinds of settings. It’s another thing to attribute EVERY negative attribute a female character has, to something a man did., therefore absolving her of all agency.
**Yes and no. Mostly yes but I'll start with the no lol.** First, Alicent would have to be Cersei. Think about it. Cersei was one of a HUGE ensemble of characters, very few of whom were that extreme, and she wasn't a POV character till later either. It worked, but they set up HOTD as The Alicent and Rhaenyra Show, by their own admission. We can argue with that logic forever, and I'm guessing we will because I don't think it should have been distilled to it, but that's what they did. Within that framework, you just cannot have a Cersei! **The big Yes'es are many.** You're not wrong—both Alicent & Rhaenyra have no truly trustworthy man or confidante of any sort in their life, and that is the core reason for their dysfunctions. That's the way the show is set up, unfortunately. It does end up being sexist in its own way because it means they have to resort to flat-out stupidity a lot of the time (Alicent with the council, with Viserys' last words; Rhaenyra, I would argue, is sooooooo fucking stupid with Daemon, a man who slapped her in the S1 finale, but in all her romantic entanglements). They can come off clumsy. But... from here on out, it's a whole lot of consequence for their own actions as well. That's what I *personally* see as the rationale for them being further isolated from other characters. But I also don't think we can constantly complain about what the show said it was on day 1, either. It's just silly. This is the show. Either they sharpen their commentary on gender or they keep it surface-level. I think they CAN do the former. They may have to take far MORE creative license to do it (thus pissing off readers on Reddit), but it's not an *impossible* task. Jury's out. But that is all to say: they can deviate a whole lot more, even, and end up with far "stronger" characters. They literally did storytelling 101: they're telling two women's stories starting with foundational traumas, which can wear thin, but it's not an intrinsically bad way to go about it. They may well have to deviate a lotttttttt more to do it justice. Maybe that means they're far more evil at times, who knows.
Again, that argument goes null when we have things like Rhaenys in Aegon crowning in Dragon Pit. Things like that definitely cannot be hidden in the history books.
Isn’t history always inaccurate to some degree? Adaptations cannot stay true to what the chronicles say since they are way detailed
Yes. Lol I'm a historian so yes, absolutely. Especially medieval history books like this—they're considered sources in and of themselves, and particularly propagandist ones. A lot of the histories GRRM drew on for ASOIAF have had completely revionist interpretations in previous decades because of new finds etc.
I get the complaints for GOT, but I do not get the complaints for HoTD. The source material is an in universe history book that's written to be unreliable and full of bias, propaganda, and uncertainty. How someone can complain about character deviation is mind blowing to me
>Exactly, it’s still too early to tell what direction they will go in This is what bothers me most about the discourse lead by F&B purists. So much criticism is directed at the show for taking aspects of the story in a different direction but *they don't know what those directions are yet*.
Wich is in fact book accurate ("Broken by the loss of one son, Rhaenyra Targaryen seemed to find new strength after the loss of a second. Jace’s death hardened her, burning away her fears, leaving only her anger and her hatred. Still possessed of more dragons than her half brother, Her Grace now resolved to use them, no matter the cost. She would rain down fire and death upon Aegon and all those who supported him, she told the black council, and either tear him from the Iron Throne or die in the attempt. )
I'm looking forward to her Maegor with t*** era
Definitely season three. Most likely ends with her death too.
The show is said to be 4 seasons, they aren’t going to kill her in the 3rd
Not just Jace. Also Viserys.
She's already pretty far gone by the time that happens
IIRC Viserys' "death" happens before the battle of the Gullet
Does she die thinking Viserys is dead?
Yes. She goes back to Dragonstone to seek refuge for Aegon.
Oh you're right I mixed him up with Joffrey
I'm thinking that even if Rhaenys dies, we'll feel her desperation amplify multiple times
The book even says that the death of Jace is her breaking point. She is totally different person from that point on.
I think to an extent the show runners are trying to avoid what happened with Daenerys. They’re giving us more of a build up, a slow decline into ruthlessness and madness. It’s what we should have had with Dani, it could have been brilliant. Instead we got… yeah we got what we got. Also, we had Cersei in GoT, who is basically the vibe that OP gives in their post. While people loved Cersei as a character, we didn’t really root for her. The show needs us to root for Rhaenyra at least at first, so when she goes off the rails there’s already that history there. We only love villains when we resonate with them at least to some small extent. Them painting Alicent and Rhaenyra as power hungry privileged cunts who only care about the throne, doesn’t make them compelling characters the audience is going to give a shit about. I think the showrunners are taking a lot of lessons from the end of GoT to learn from, I commend them for that.
Yes exactly this. They already did the "villain-from-start", power-seeking woman in Cersei (well), why repeat it? And they saw how NOT to do the innocent-daughter-transformed-into-savvy-queen thing with Sansa (sadly, rushed towards the end) and the Rightful-Queen-liberator-descends-into-madness in Daenerys (terribly rushed). This is a great time to try doing those last two right in Alicent and in Rhaenyra instead of just redoing Cersei but a couple centuries before.
Okay I feel like I’m the only one that thought Dany was always a bit crazy. Even from the beginning you know when she walked into a funeral pyre. I loved her character but I always thought she was always a bit cuckoo.
Hopefully! Emma would be absolutely brilliant as the part.
Which is funny because that was the critique of Daenerys in S8 GOT- her meltdown happened too fast. I think we saw bits of Rhae Rhaenyra going mad after Luke’s death. I have bit more issue with Creston Cole’s character and the obvious writing in the show regarding him.
Would be the best case scenario
What dark shit she does nothing in fire and blood but sit at dragon stone
That's not true! She also sits at Kings Landing
I think you're right. It would work well. Also, we who've read the book know where this story is going. Amd we've all seen the downfall of Danaerys. Despite how unpopular the ending of GoT was, I think it was generally accepted that Dany would have a fall from grace (it just should have been handled better). It would work very thematically (especially with the theme of history repeating) if Rhaenyra (who is generally very well liked as a character) loses her shit before the end of her story.
Right? God forbid we allow character development and realism.
This, and I think the version of the story that the show is telling is one in which the maesters tainted Rhaenyra’s character after the Dance concluded.
Also didn't Alicent say something like, "Bastard blood shed in war. What does it matter?" to Luke's death? Give me ambitious, multi dimensional, morally ambiguous, crazy women in the show. Alicent is reduced to her 'sin' and Rhaenyra to being a mother.
When Rhaenyra took KL Alicent has one of the coldest lines in F&B. "The city is yours Princess, but you will not hold it for long. The rats play when the cat is gone, but my son Aemond will return with fire and blood." Interestingly enough, this quote becomes prophetic when under Rhaenyra’s rule the "rats" of Kings Landing start getting more bold and riotous, until they take the city from her. GRRM gave the Greens the best quotes in the book.
I could see the show version of Alicent being provoked into saying that after Rhaenyra sentences a certain someone to something.
I think they are changing that death. It looks like they are setting for that certain someone to not be in KL when Rhaenyra takes the city.
Maybe but I think he’ll end up back in King’s Landing after the events of E4. The fallout from that will require a seasoned veteran of politics and if nothing else, Otto is that.
That could be their plan potentially. But I’m now convinced Otto will just take the place of Lord Hightower and be in charge of the Hightower host in the Reach with Daeron.
Tessarion hype has reached critical levels.
I better see my girl shine in honeywine and tumbleton
He will come back in the second half of the season
Of course!
> GRRM gave the Greens the best quotes in the book. "If they search the seven hells, mayhaps."
That might be the coldest line in all of ASOIAF.
God, I hope they do not delete that exchange from Aegon. It's literally my favorite quote from the entire ASOIAF series. I'm scared Condal is gonna fuck it up again and make Rhaenyra's death some heroic bullshit or something in which Aegon looks like a chump.
I have hope they keep it true. In the books it’s said that all sources agreed on the words of that exchange, so that is most certainly what happened. Although I’d just ABSOLUTELY love to see how the showrunners would justify that scene as "green propaganda" as they’ve done with like everything else.
If you think it's going to be remotely similar to the book you're living in blissful ignorance
If they don't depict the exchange between Aegon and Rhaenyra word for word, I'm gonna be so freaking mad.
Who are the rats? Small folk?
Rhaenyra & the Blacks. Vhagar/Aemond is the cat in the metaphor.
Rhaenyra and her family are the rats in the analogy. The Greens would be the cats.
Especially Aegon. Dude had badass quotes.
"You shall receive the same terms you gave my nephew Maelor."
Alicent says that after the Fall of King's Landing, while being dragged before Rhaenyra while she's on the throne, so it's still possible she could say that line, if they woek hard enough to make her really bitter and angry. IDK if they'll go that route, though...
There is NO WAY she could say that. Rhaenyra won't order or have any hand in Tyland's torture, we won't get the bastardphobic Alicent, we won't get Rhaenyra putting up a bounty for Maelor's head. Unfortunately, they will not give these traits to these two main female characters because they chose the narrative of women=good, men=bad.
Episode 6-7 Alicent could definitely say this, but the writers backtracked significantly, which is a real shame.
Does it ever get exhausting making up things to get mad about
You are on the internet, a place where people will write 10 page essays on why a woman showing cleavage on a TV show is literal oppression lol. What do you think?
Please. Rhaenyra and Alicent are entirely toothless. Neither makes a single decision that leads to the war. Not a single decision.
I mean that false.. Alicent wanted Aegon to be king and instilled it into him. Rhaenyra wanted Aemond and that caused Daemon to send B&C.
Please. Alicent instilled jack shit into Aegon. He still did not want it and believed neither of his parents wanted him to be king. Alicent went back and forth on Aegon's claim three times in the day preceding Viserys's death.
You can deny it because you enjoy the show as it is, but the massive softening of the female characters and comical villainisation (is that a word lol) of the males is evident to anyone familiar with both the book and the show. Which is fine. Like I said, you can enjoy the show for what it is. Rhaenyra and Alicent are both nearly entirely different characters from their book counter parts. personality, temperament appearance and even age etc etc have all been changed and almost all of those changes serve to make them more sympathetic characters (or in Alicents case just pathetic). The writers aren’t stupid, they know what they are doing, it’s a deliberate choice that I’m sure even they would agree they have done. If you are cool with that choice that’s awesome, if other folk are not that’s also fine. Why deny it though?
what is he wrong about?
Multi dimensional? Morally ambiguous? Did we read the same book? Because Book Alicent is neither of those things. She's a one dimensional evil stepmother who becomes irrelevant when the war starts. Rhaenyra is fairly one dimensional in the book as well
Didn’t you know? Multi dimensional strictly means anti-hero!!! Any character that doesn’t follows that trope is boring and one dimensional!!!
Yeah they’re both pretty evil.
I honestly love how Rhaenyra and Alicent are in the show. They’re very different from the book, yes, but I’ve been obsessed with how the show has handled their dynamics as women (even/especially high born women) at the top of this patriarchal system. At the very start of season 1 Rhaenyra learns how she can do everything expected of her as a noble lady and still suffer for it when her mother is killed. It compounds her desire for freedom and to be taken seriously so that her fate isn’t left to another’s hands. Meanwhile Alicent steadily drowns under the expectations of her father and the men around her until she is left with nothing despite sacrificing everything. Their rivalry is so great because Rhaenyra views Alicent as a paragon of the stifling role others might force onto her while Alicent can only see Rhaenyra as carelessly ignoring the very rules that Alicent has suffered so much by following to the letter.
Firstly, Rhaenyra being "whitewashed" is a surface level take.The show is setting Rhaenyra up as the protagonist who disillusions the audience, to drive home the point that despite good intentions no one can change autocracy. They will be crushed by its wheel. F&B is an outline history book with no chance for character arcs. In a TV show with 4 seasons, we'll see circumstances forcing Rhaenyra to change after she takes KL. The show actually did a good job of putting various subtle red flags about her Rhaenyra (like "their wants are of no consequence" or her total ignorance about spending money) without ever making her flaws too prominent. Then it would've defeated the purpose of her arc. **Now, yeah the "I shall have his head" sums up the Dance in f&b...a bunch of snappy hollywood one-liners uttered by a bunch of amoral characters doing comically exagerrated cartoon villainy....the show is a far more grounded, nuanced, empathetic & realistic portrayal of noblewomen trapped in patriarchal medieval feudalism. The show will never be a b&w war movie with aegon & rhaenyra lined up on either side of a football field (there's always Hercules to watch). It's better to consume Hotd by understanding they're telling a tragedy about the cyclical nature events, the inevitability of fate, & how people trying to avoid things inadvertently bring them about like Oedipus Rex (like viserys trying to avoid a succession crisis). That is what the accidents and misunderstandings signify : a self-fullfing prophecy.** Rhaenyra & Alicent's complex relationship IS what separates the show from being yet another generic war movie ("i shall have is head🤓"). Even if you interpret it as entirely platonic, them being torn between the "childhood companion" vs their children & the socially expected roles placed put on them by society...this duality of heart & mind is what makes the show compelling : Crowning Aegon was supposed to keep them safe. It was supposed to be a fait accompli. It was supposed to keep daemon from killing them. It was supposed to give them control over their own destiny. But it just led to more bloodletting, an endless spiral! & the female characters forever stuck b/w the innate (children) & the familial (the "lost friendship"). The Larys monologue already connected it all..."What are children but a weakness, a folly, a futility"! It's delicious even NYT noticed it. GoT did generational damage by making it seem like Cersei/Maergery girlboss caricature as the only way "strong women" antagonists can be portrayed. The "ambitious" wicked sl*tty resentful conniving jezebel archetype who manipulates society's sympathy towards the weaker sex & uses her sexual prowess to get what she wants. It's masked as progressive but it's really the core tenant of the misogynstic trope since the dawn of civilization. Boxing all female characters into that "perfect victim or not trying hard enough to be a villain" superficial binary. So when there's an empathetic portrayal of women under violent patriarchy, it's chalked up as "weak" & "unnecessary victimhood". After all, Alicent is not wearing black shoulder straps to blow up the Sept & smirking while sipping wine or telling Tommen "OUR LITTLE SECRET🤓". Then there's the Visenya targ warrior princess OC archetype. It irks me when multi-dimensional female characters having logical internal conflict was chalked up as weak or inconsistent. The women in Hotd are an uncomfortable reminder of women's subjugation to patriarchal feudalism & the immense pressure required to navigate it. That's why it's easier to chalk her up as "lacking agency" or "ambition" as it's harder to imagine living in a harsh society where all our choices are curtailed. It's easier to go "if it was me I'd do this and that and wouldn't be bound". Identifying with the shallow "i shall have her head" targ girlboss on the other hand, with their beauty & magical powers, become a psychological projection of power. But most real humans are indecisive, impulsive, their actions often self-contradictory. Rarely do ppl act with calculated ruthless efficiency of hollywood villains. Passive characters are interesting & relatable. Obsessing over "clear goals" & thinking other forms of narrative are inferior is seeking an escape from the powerlessness of the consumer's own lives. Stories abt ppl reacting to conditions they're forced into & making most of their situation is reflective of the lives real humans actually live. Characters exist to convey themes. Every adaptational change HOTD made was with the purpose of emphasizing that misogyny cannot be separated from the way political & social schemes are carried out in patriarchal Westeros. So yes, Alicent and Rhaenyra would come off as "victims" in a way that would not have been included in historical documentation(F&B) of the very men who upheld that society.
Cosigning everything you wrote. People like OP do not understand true nuance lol
A truly fucking goated comment, holy shit.
>The "ambitious" wicked sl\*tty resentful conniving jezebel archetype who manipulates society's sympathy towards the weaker sex & uses her sexual prowess to get what she wants. It's masked as progressive but it's really the core tenant of the misogynstic trope since the dawn of civilization. I don't know how much harder I can clap and upvote this.
I think a lot of people fail to realize its misogynistic in like 90% of the time its utilized. Just painted as progressive.
A lot of people just have problems with women being people, I guess.
People who are complaining about them simplifying the story cause the characters aren’t as evil as they are in the books right now are actually arguing for a more simplified story. They don’t realize they’re missing the complexities of what is indeed a tragic story not made up of power hungry cartoon villains but realistic people with faults even with sometimes good intentions, horrific mistakes, and not always the best judgements etc. we’ve seen them be sympathetic as well as ruthless. We’ve seen them kill but we’ve also seen them help and be vulnerable themselves. I don’t get how someone sees all this and think there is just the bad side and the good side. All these character seem pretty human to me
Omfg this is truly amazing, thank you. I kind of want to go around the world with you every day as you explain everything around us.
Well said.
Louder for the people in the back with the media literacy of a fuckin tin can
I feel like they try to make the two sides equally likeable to balance the story when they should really focus on making them equally hateable. Especially because ultimately this is a story about 2 groups of power hungry greedy people who both think they're right.
I don't think that will be too compelling. Fire and Blood's demonization of its main characters works because we don't actually follow them. We don't get invested in them though. What HOTD is doing is getting us invested in these characters so that we are conflicted when they take their morally grey aciton.
See, this is why I’m watching it. I loved the book, and I love the setting and the storyline, but I intensely dislike Targaryens so I don’t give a toss who wins. There’s a Pratchett quote “Sometimes it’s like watching a wasp land on a stinging nettle: someone’s going to get stung and you don’t care.” That’s how I’m watching it. They’re all a bunch of fucking weirdos, and they’re all in the wrong. Fuck em.
>”Ulf White and Hard Hugh Hammer would fly to Tumbleton, some fifty leagues southwest of King’s Landing, the last leal stronghold between Lord Hightower and the city, to assist in the defense of the town and castle and destroy Prince Daeron and Tessarion. Lord Corlys suggested that mayhaps the prince might be taken alive and held as hostage. But Queen Rhaenyra was adamant. “He will not remain a boy forever. Let him grown to mayhood, and soon or late he will seek to revenge himself upon my own sons.” >Words of these plans soon reached the ears of the Dowager Queen, filling her with terror. Fearing for her sons, Queen Alicent went to the Iron Throne upon her knees, to plead for peace. This time the Queen in Chains put forth the notion that the realm might be divided; Rhaenyra would keep King’s Landing and the crown lands, the North, the Vale of Arryn, all the lands watered by the Trident, and the isles. To Aegon II would go to the storm lands, the westerlands, and the Reach, to be ruled from Oldtown. >Rhaenyra rejected her stepmother’s proposal with scorn. “Your sons might have had places of honor at my court if they kept the faith,” Her Grace declared, “but they sought to rob me of my birthright, and the blood of my sweet sons is on their hands.” >“Bastard blood, shed at war,” Alicent replied. “My son’s sons were innocent boys, cruelly murdered. How many more must die to slake your thirst for vengeance? >”The Dowagner Queen’s words only fanned the fire of Rhaenyra’s wroth. “I will hear no more lies,” she warned. “Speak again of bastardy, and I will have your tongue out.” (Martin, 479-481).
This discussion has to be kept on the show. Please showrunners. IIRC this is the last time Alicent and Rhaenyra speak with each other. Despite being a history book, the hatred and the grief of these two women is palpable. It could be made even greater with the context of their past friendship.
Wait. What is morally ambiguous about saying "bastards blood shed in war? What does it matter?" Thats not a morally ambiguous statement. That's a pretty cold and borderline sociopathic statement. The show is giving you morally ambiguous characters and you don't see it.
No one wants stupid characters that act unrealistically for the sake of "moral ambiguity". It's morally ambiguous because you know she's saying these things out of geniune pain and sorrow for her children and everything that has taken place, you understand her comment yet it is still evil. What mother would react any differently after her oldest boys have all been killed? Fake moral ambiguity should be trumped by the real evils and cynicism of humanity.
Yeah she said. It's crazy how much cooler and edgy both Alicent and Rhaenyra are in the book. Alicent also says, when Rhaenyra is pregnant "mayhaps the whore will die in childbirth".
Right, let women be evil too. It’s like they’re only allowed to do bad things out of weak and misguided attempts to do the right thing and never allowed to actually want power.
The reductionism is real
Alicent says that to Rhaenyra, after Rhaenyra basically threatens to brutally murder all of Alicent's kids. Neither one are good people in the book, even in the beginning, though because Alicent is older and the evil stepmother trope....she's taken as being far more evil in the book...when in reality they are both terrible (and if Brothel Queens is true, Rhaenyra's a bigger monster than Cersei or Tywin). I like F & B, but I feel like it would have been stronger if the whole thing had been a criticism of the Targaryens as a whole, in that the incest, racist, nuclear weapon riding people are truly shitty people. I think part of the problem is GRMM himself wavers on Targs. They are definitely morally complex, but GRMM often romanticizes them, when it'd be more interesting (imo) to have them as morally complex but ultimately terrible for society (which Mad Dany might be the point of). Anyway, F & B is entertaining, but it's hard for me to see it as feminist tale when Rhaenyra treats other women like shit, is racist about Nettles, and is generally a terrible ruler and it's all because of Daddy's word (not even a great council) while Alicent goes psycho and was an evil step mom.....but Daemon, pedo and monster, gets the "cool ending"..... I do think it would have been more interesting to see it as an explicit take down of the Targaryens, through the eyes of people like Corlys, Otto, and even Criston Cole, with them, the non-incesty people, being viewed as more objectively right.
It’s too early in the dance for Rhaenyra to be ruthless and “mad”. I see people on here go on about “character development”, but expect Rhaenyra to be unhinged at the beginning of season 2, when she still has a lot to go through. I think watching that (hopefully) unfold will be more interesting.
F&B characters are concepts and footnotes in history with very few lines of dialogue that we cant even fully believe. Their extreme personalities are there to spice up a history book. For the show that goes on for multiple season, you need something more complex than an evil caricature.
I think these deviations from the source material are actually what makes the show a bit more interesting to watch. Fire & Blood itself spells out for us that it’s not a firsthand account of what happened, like all history it can be biased depending on whoever is telling the story, the truth itself is illusive because we’re relying on unreliable narrators with their own interpretations. The book gives us an Alicent and Rhaenyra that are both power hungry homicidal maniacs. But the show gives us two characters that are more complicated than that (albeit they might be in the process of setting them up to be homicidal maniacs). I’m actually kind of glad that we see Rhaenyra look at things through the perspective of a mother and to opt for a course of action that avoids war. It makes more sense that someone who is a mother and understands the importance of the realm being united to take that route than to jump to asking for her brothers head at the first opportunity. Same applies to Aegon, I enjoy a character that’s been portrayed as a spoiled, brutish, and self absorbed brat at first that we now get to see morph into a character that’s been deeply flawed by the ambitiousness of his mother & grandfather. Same applies to Aemond who is just as flawed, it gave me more reasons to sympathize with him after unaliving an innocent child, knowing that unlike the books make it out to be, he didn’t intend to. I think I’m in the minority here but I can appreciate the showrunners taking a different course than what was given in the books. Although to be clear I do draw the line at ridiculous and unnecessary changes like Rhaenys’ surprise appearance at the coronation in the dragon pit.
GRRM reads historical sources. He's a history nut. He knows as much as anyone that histories are as much mythology and propaganda as they are journalism. *Fire & Blood* is definitely all of these things. The maester appears to give careful consideration to many sources, but the stories we get are ultimately going to be the stories that people most liked to tell, and which were most useful politically to those who came afterwards. I think the show takes that into account, and in this way, they don't actually deviate from the book at all (Rhaenys notwithstanding), because the book should be presumed to be largely inaccurate about many details. Ultimately, all of these characters should have some humanity, insofar as they're all human. I have really appreciated the nuance that the show has brought to people like Aemond and Rhaenyra.
And one of the takeaway messages for Westeros when it comes to the Dance (and to a certain extent RL history) is “this is why women shouldn’t have power.” This entire war starts essentially because Rhaenyra is instantly passed over for the throne because of her gender. If she’d been male even all the bastard children would have been hand waved away as just one of those things. A huge segment of the population doesn’t care about her suitability for the throne, her tax policies, or even if she’d be decent at the job, they just care that she has a younger brother so of course she should have stood aside. And you see that all the time in RL history accounts of powerful women, even the ones that seem to have been great rulers. Cleopatra was a sneaky sex witch. Catherine the Great may have been ‘great’ but people swear she fucked a horse. Eleanor of Aquitaine gets the sex witch treatment too sometimes. Queen Elizabeth was too good at her job so she had to secretly have been a man. GRRM is history savvy, he’d know these tropes. More, he’s writing female characters in a society he’s made strictly patriarchal because he shows other places that don’t have the same hang ups. If this story had been set in Dorne the Dance never would have begun because they don’t have the “men inherit first” rule. But in a lot of ways history is the story we tell about ourselves so there’s always an element of propaganda. And one of the major takeaways of the Dance is “this is why women can’t rule, they wreck everything” and the bad stories about Alicent and Rhaenyra tearing everything down because they can’t come together as a family pretty much plays into that story.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. I wish book purists would be more open to the nuance that the writers are giving these characters in the show versus what’s given to us in the books.
I don't mind it either because knowing the characters' ties to the likes of Aemon, Jon Snow, & Dany, I think that the portrayal of Rhaenyra & Aegon as conflicted personalities really ties together how complicated the Targaryen family is and their legacy in Westeros.
You really wrote word for word what I think about the liberties the show takes. Amazing
Idk what you guys want Rhaenyra to do lol. The character of Rhaenyra is not the same as the book especially from the introduction and you’ve known that since season 1. I’m all for a dark arc for Rhaenyra but it has to be done well otherwise we get another season 8 Daenerys. I guess its unrealistic that Rhaenyra has sympathy for an innocent infant, that the grief of losing her son didn’t send her into a murderer where she killed anyone and fuck the consequences. We’re only two episodes into the season, just be fucking patient, especially when the trailers have her saying things like “I mean to fight this war and win it” or “We need to break the will of our enemy” or “they must see me as a ruler, and the symbols of my authority are not jewels and gowns but the shield and the sword”. Just wait lol
that has been my thought. i would like to see rhaenyra’s descent into a ruthless and traumatized, throne-motivated opponent, but i feel this is the chance we get to see a once good intentioned targaryen go “mad” (but for reasons other than, uh, incest) in a cinematic setting, done the right way.
Doesn't Rob vow to kill every member of House lannister when he hears about Ned's execution? Where's his fascist quote comparison? 😢 where's stannis? They are both responsible for sooo much death and rape bcs of them pressing claims and to get "what they think is theirs". Did I miss the stannis = fascist comparisons during got? I must have missed all the treatsies on if Rob had a right to march on kings landing, if we as an audience should even "applaud" that. Why does it always seem that as soon as the one gunning for power in this fantasy universe happen to not be a white male everyone suddenly turns into freefolk justice advocates tallying up the costs of war.
This is such an important point.
A-fucking-men
Waiting for the replies on this comment lol. Would sure have ruffled a lot many feathers with the truth.
Just for the record, the Stannis fascist comparisons were *rife* during the GOT era. People would certainly joke about “Stannis the Mannis” but those who weren’t his super-fans absolutely understood his role as a bringer of both conflict and strife. As for Rob, both the book and the show made a conscious decision to explicitly show just how much the Stark-Lannister war was ravaging the riverlands. Not only do you have the Brotherhood without Banners to give you an in depth look at what the common-folk experience, but the Hound visits a peasant family with Arya, whom he later steals from and makes mention of them “not surviving the winter”(which their later skeletons attest to exactly that). Add this to the fact that when you get Jamie and Brienne’s POV, you are shown the dastardly nature of the Stark bannermen when they hang the three women who’s only crime is that they “lay with lions”. All this is to say that both D&D as well as GRRM made it explicitly clear what kind of price others have to pay for Robb to get his revenge. Ultimately however, you have to understand that the Dance is written as an allegory to the Anarchy period in England. This a period of time between 1138 and 1153 in which the forces of Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I fought her cousin King Stephen’s forces for the control of England. Even for medieval conflict, this fight between the two was considered wildly destructive. It is said in the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” that this is the moment when “Christ and all his saints were asleep”. Even the Gesta Stephani, a pro-Stephen publication makes consistent mention of the great strife and destruction this conflict between the two claimants causes. Essentially, this focus on how the small-folk are affected is a *constant* refrain through GRRM’s works, but it is especially potent and necessary in any allegory of the Anarchy, because of how the chroniclers described the conflict and its ravages upon England.
I mean those people are facists as well and so is Rhaenyra and Aegon. Making them not be fascists for feminism is dumb.
Agree to disagree, she was one dimensional in F&B. I think HoTD’s version of Rhaenyra is far more interesting and it’ll be even more tragic when Rhaenyra decides to fully commit to the war as the show goes on and everything starts to unravel.
I think the criticism is likely to be premature as well, because we're barely into the 2nd season and the war has not yet really started. Surely Rhaenyra is going to face more personal losses when it does, and I would be very surprised if the the impact of the war wasn't to harden her heart and push her towards being more ruthless. I'd wager the same is going to happen with Alicent.
The show would be one dimensional if they adapted the book as it is written. What blows my mind while looking around this subreddit is that GRRM wrote these book characters *to* sound over the top, one dimensional, and likely inaccurate from the “real” people who once lived…. (Just like our own real-life medieval histories, especially about women figures). If the show adapted the book choices, all the women would mean, vengeful, simple, cruel, and so on. I honestly cannot understand why this fandom clings so close to a book that was never meant to be clung so close to. There will be more F&B adaptations on the way, and they will all likely take the same approach as HotD. Wanna know why? Because the characters in the book are not fleshed out and nuanced characters. Plus the show has to give arcs to these characters so they can get more violent and over the top as the war progresses. We’re only still in the beginning of season 2.
Yes I think they missed this aspect. The books arent an accurare description of the events, unlike Game of Thrones. He was making a meta commentary of the historical tales. The one that I remember the most is Anne Boleyn when thinking on how Rheanyra and Alicent are described in the books, how she was a complex human reduced to a seductress witch for a long time, with a lot of ridiculous rumours around her, when in reality she was harassed by the king. This was purposeful of Martin. Also in another note, they dont want to make Alicent or Rhanyra another Cersei. Theres people like her sure, but they dont want to have other comically evil queen (Lena did a great job on the take of the character, but Joffrey and Cersei had no reendeming qualities, while Alicent and Rhaenyra and even Aegon while being flawed and no good people they are still human)
>and Cersei had no reendeming qualities, while Alicent and Rhaenyra and even Aegon while being flawed and no good people they are still human I'd argue that Aegon has no reedeming qualities at all: he sent his young children (almost babies) to fight pits, he raped a maid and he abuses his sister-wife. And, even though there's some evidence that he may love his kids (seemed like he genuinely loved Jaehaerys), I would say that he's more than flawed. Agree on Rhaenyra and Alicent.
I get it I think Aegon is dumb, but still want to be a decent king. I suppose he is a good friend? The point is that to me Cersei and Joffrey are barely humans. I said barely because I know that every kind of crazies in this world, so I dont even think its bad writting (even though she is way worse in the books and Lena and the writting still humanized her a bit). Its just that Cersei and Joffrey have no friends, no hobbies, no relatable qualities other than loving each other. Even some sociopats can have charismatic qualities. I think Aegon is a shitty person and what he did with children is the reason why I cant like the greens and even side eye Viserys. But I know people like him in real life, maybe its the actor who can make him realistic, but he remembers some idiots I knew in high School, I even hanged with him before we fought (barring the pedophilic stuff... I hope) and Alicent looks like those wasps zealots you know. In the other hand, I dont know any teen or adult like Joffrey irl other than serial killers that I see in discovery documentaries, (the actor is great and made a cartoonish character interesting to the point that we can overlook this). I hope i'm making sense: House of Dragons are people that we know everyday in certain positions. Its a tragedy. Flawed people but we can still meet them. Game of Thrones is a story of sociopathic people in power, people that we dont know everyday.
You did (yet an other) list of Aegon's flaws and sins while the other guy was talking about him still being human despite all that. It added nothing to the discussion. He was (obviously) right : Aegon is a very human character (human being absolute degenerates :D). His qualities are : a desire to please, even the smallfolk (it didn't last long but still) ; an obvious love for his now dead son ; his great affection for his dragon, Sunfyre (it counts). As a rule of thumb, when someone says "X has Y redeeming qualities" you say yes. Because everything has redeeming qualities. Even mosquitos. Even piles of shit. And, yes, even Aegon (and Cerci, for that matter). >he sent his young children (almost babies) to fight pits You didn't understand very well that scene I believe. He didn't send his young children to fight in pits lol. He just got prostitutes pregnant, and never thought that they would give birth to future pit fighters. Source : my eyes, a fair amount of logic, and the actor's own interview. So, still a shitty guy, but not "I get prostitutes pregnant and then send the child to fight to the death nyahahaha" level of evilness.
Exactly. I especially enjoy the people acting as if they’re somehow champions of women’s rights and representation by wanting all the women to be represented as they are in the books. Like the book is pretty transparently commenting on how medieval (and to some extent modern) societies saw women in positions of power as selfish, hungry for power, basically totally evil, whereas men in similar positions are often presented as powerful, impressive, righteous for acting in similar ways. And people think that the feminist take on these books is to unquestioningly represent the female characters as they are in the books as if it was actually perfectly accurate when it made them out to be evil??
>What blows my mind while looking around this subreddit is that GRRM wrote these book characters to sound over the top, one dimensional, and likely inaccurate from the “real” people who once lived…. (Just like our own real-life medieval histories, especially about women figures). A LOT of "book readers" either missed this point entirely or didn't actually read the books with their brains on lol. All of the characters are over the top and one dimensional, and we have conflicting narrators. These were all intentional, yet you have posts like this claiming X character is being "butchered by show"...like the whole point of the book is that we don't actually know how these people were lmao
Or they didn’t read the book at all. Probably read a few wiki pages and thinks it sounds cool.
I think the book was written to copy the reign of Matilda (Maude) during The Anarchy in medieval England. She was a mother and wife but did some really nasty shit during the civil war ( Stephen’s side passed off a random child for the required hostage, she killed the child even tho he was a victim)
Agreed. There’s also *plenty* of time left for Rhaenyra to unravel, and I think it’ll feel a lot more meaningful/tragic because of the dimensions added to her character in the show.
Yeah, I totally agree. Show Rhaenyra is so great, because there is conflict in her (like, you know, in the heart, like George loves) while in the books she is percieved as a little dumb and plump and without progression. I love show Rhaenyra - like I love the show women a lot more than those in the book.
Same! I appreciate the post but I am unsure how that kind of story would play out in a tv format for a general audience. I do think having a strictly principled character in the Fascist sense is more interesting to read about with a pace that a reader can control. I don't think that would be a rewarding format for an hour long episode every week.
> This is what makes her an interestingly controversial character. Someone who is willing to plunge the realm into war to get what she thinks is hers. …is this not exactly what Cersei, Dany and even Alicent all do to varying extents?
Yeah… do you think they’re not interesting characters? Genuine question
Sure, but if it’s a trait of almost every single major female Queen figure (hell even *Sansa* fits this bill to a gentler extent)across two shows - how interesting is it? I’d argue it’s more interesting to explore something different with a woman in power than just another “this woman is going to take what’s hers, hell or high water”…again… OP is making it sound like it’s a unique defining characteristic. It isn’t.
It’s sort of crazy that people are looking at things like this when people didn’t even bat an eye at the wars in Game of Thrones. “Rhaenyra is interesting because she wants what is hers and is willing to go to war for it”. So was Stannis, Rob, Baelon, and Tywin/Joffrey. No one though about whether they were war criminals or being selfish. The only time it came up was with Dany because she had dragons. The other thing is the book is a history book. That is the point and something reiterated by GRRM. There’s propaganda in there as well as biases from the perspective of the maesters who wrote it and the witnesses they referenced. So when people are complaining about the differences between the show and the book I don’t think they understand the original source material.
Honestly, I think she's infinitely more interesting in the show than the book. Same with Alicent. They don't actually feel like real people in the book at all, just extreme caricatures who have been twisted by the histories.
All the women have been bleached into infinity. There seems to be a common belief in their writers' room that all women are passive, gentle, soft and not capable of any raw, merciless ambition. Rhaenyra, Rhaenys, Alicent, Mysaria....
It comes across more as, "women don't start wars silly. Its always those pesky men causing all the problems."
Thank you, my god I started noticing this watching this episode while Rhaenyra and Mysaria were discussing, they don't even dare making any woman be slightly insulting, or having a behvior that would tend even in the slightest way towards evil. Rhaenyra dismissing carelessly Mysaria after she told her story might be the most crual thing we've seen a woman commit in this show, which is telling. Also, I am not at all forgetting that Rhaenys killed many innocent, it's more that the showrunners seem to have completely not noticed that this was a horrible thing her character could do and simply thought it was some "strong womenz" cool moment instead. And they keep coming with the dumb motto "Women keep calm, men wage war" thing for whatever reason external to the show... Couldn't Allicent put Aegon on the throne ultimately by ambition? No they had to make her appear excessively dumb by misinterpretating mumblings, they didn't even use it as an excuse for her ambition but made her appear as really believing this. Even Mysaria looked so vanilla as the white worm when she was basically supposed to be a local mafia boss in a district of King's Landing. And why did they make Otto go safely to Dragonstone where he should in all logic at least be detained if not straight up burned by the Queen he tried to usurp putting his grandson instead...? But no, he goes there safely, for absolutely nothing (this brought nothing to the story), and makes Rhaenyra appears weak in the process. Give us actual strong women for fuck sake, doing nothing is not being strong it's being apathetic, where are the Cersei, the Brienne, the Arya, the Daenerys, the Olenna Tyrell, the Catelyn Stark (notice that both her and Cersei's motherhoods were included way more subtly and deeply into their characters actions and ambiguities), the Lady Mormont, the Osha, the Ygritte, the Red Witch...
>Couldn't Allicent put Aegon on the throne ultimately by ambition? No they had to make her appear excessively dumb by misinterpretating mumblings, they didn't even use it as an excuse for her ambition but made her appear as really believing this. It should've just been ambition, because I honestly find it very hard to believe she had no idea of the plot until the night of Viserys' death, especially considering Larys was her confidant. I think you could of had her hesitate, but ultimately decide to pull the strings to lead the charge. Or you could make it where she finds out and chooses takes the reigns of the plot herself.
Tbh if they want to make her more rootable they should’ve just gone with she is terrified for her children like they build it up to be, suddenly forgot about and then never mentioned again
I agree that it should have been only ambition, but having her be in an ambiguous mental state where she denies her ambition trying to convince herself that it is what Vyseris want would have worked well too and could have been interesting screentime use than Cole licking Allicent or Rhaenyra and Daemon having basically the same conversation they had last season when he choked her. And you know what? Maybe the above is what they actually went for but failed to convey, we can't know because the dialogue are to unsubstantial. One of my gripe so far is that I find them to show us too much useless things, too much figuration without substance. Compare the councils scene of GOT with those of HotD, the first ones surely provided thorough figuration of the characters depicting their personalities and current behaviors along with their current relational states, but their conversations were also meaningful to the progress of the story pushing it forwards even if very slightly, those of HotD are just for figuration, take the council scene of the first episode for example, all it serves is depicting the people of the court relational states at the beginning of the season, all they exchange during this scene is meaningless and already tacitely known by the viewers, even maybe by the characters themselves (which also, for me at least, breaks the fourth wall a bit making us feel like we're watching actors displaying an act rather than actual people discussing in a medieval fantasy world where we're entirely immersed).
The way I would've done it, if they wanted to push the "it's all a misunderstanding" narrative: * Have Rhaenyra and Daemon have an argument where they're talking about what grim fate should happen to her half-siblings when Vyseris dies, Rhaenyra is receptive but in the end decides against it. * Have Alicent accidentally listen to said convo believing that they'll kill them all, she'll leave before they're done arguing. * Have Alicent look after Vyseris in his deatbed and make up the lie about Aegon on the spot. You keep the "it is a misunderstanding" angle but give more agency to the characters, imho
And in 3/4 of these cases, the reason for them to be soo gentle is directly tied to their motherhood. With the exception of Mysaria, every adult woman in the show tries to bond with each other over being caring mothers For a story that tries to be critical of the patriarchy, it's also very dedicated to put women in a slight romanticized version of the patriarchal gender-roles
They do it to the men too. Criston is a passive whiny fuck. Aemond as a child isn't "twice as fierce" as Aegon. Writers are allergic to characters making decisions that hurt others, while having understandable reasons for it
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Power does not corrupt, power reveals.
Takes like this make me appreciate the show writers for being more cautious when writing a female character in a ruling position because like Dany before her Rheanyra is treated unfairly by book fandom and has her flaws and mistakes blown up,distorted and scrutinized the way no male ruler has. I have a lot of complaints about them making her too passive but none are ‘I loved her because she’s so horrible and power hungry and actually caused all her own problems cause she didn’t give up to her brother usurping her or didn’t rape her gay husband,misogyny totally didn’t cause this woman’s suffering and psychological breakdown,her being a woman barely matters”. Maybe they do need to make her a saint to have the fandom give her even a bit of grace if she dared act half as violent as a man.
I mean, Alicent is treated unfairly by show fans. Alicent basically gets shafted by every man in her life, while she sees Rhaenyra get handed everything, get away with doing whatever she wants to do. She sees her son (the king's son as well) mutilated with no repercussions. None of this is to justify how bad of a mother Alicent is, but I can at least understand why she resents Rhaenyra. Hell, Alicent gets roasted by TB Stans for banging Criston Cole. How is that different from Rhaenyra in season 1?
I think the flaw with the dance to me has always been when it comes down to it , do you support the greens deciding to usurp the throne for reasons that aren’t hey look she’s a mad queen killing people. Then it’s like you’re going to accept surrender terms from liars who just usurped you ? No you woukd have 0 trust. In them . After that I’d feel justified in any act to regain my throne and punish the traitors
People acting like they’re great feminists for wanting a female character in a position of power to be represented as being totally single mindedly self interested (because that couldn’t perpetuate any harmful stereotypes…) is so funny to me. Yes, so amazing of you to ask for complicated female characters who *checks notes* only think about themselves and seek power at any cost. The books are literally a commentary on the way historians and the societies they exist in distort historical events to reflect their biases and a bunch of you guys were like “oh yeah this is so true, thank God that evil selfish bitch Rhaenyra didn’t win!!”. And now you spend your entire lives complaining that the show characters aren’t all unambiguously evil shits, as if that would be an enjoyable show. Edit: I would also add that idk how you came to the conclusion from watching the show that Rhaenyra is only fighting for her children. I don’t think the show has ever really suggested that. Just because she didn’t instantly decide that waging war on half her family (with dragons, essentially weapons of mass destruction) is a sick idea doesn’t mean that she doesn’t want power. She’s also far from the only character without hesitance about starting a war. The hightowers were also trying to force a peaceful resolution, only really Aegon and Daemond (and Aemond) seem all aboard the war train. Ultimately a big part of the show is about how both sides greed for power (that includes Rhaenyra) basically makes a peaceful resolution impossible even if they ostensibly want one.
And its not as if making every woman aggressively anti-war doesn't also perpetuate a stereotype. I also don't understand how you can make the leap from Rhaenyra being the saint that she is in the show to being an "unambiguously evil shit", there's a lot of room between those two extremes where an interesting character might be found. Rhae doesn't need to be a Daenerys level tyrant, but perhaps she could make practical decisions that stretch her moral compass like for instance keeping Mysaria imprisoned and not letting her go free when she could hatch all manner of schemes against you.
This is a tv series…. It’s called character progression and development. They can’t just start Rhaenyra and Alicent off this way, casual viewers are gonna lose interest feeling like there’s really no one to support no one wants to watch a series where every main character is unlikable and annoying.
Jesus Christ, HOTD 'fans' might just be the most insufferable people on earth. Everything you've just written sounds like a far more boring, 1 dimensional character than what we've actually gotten. And thank god for that
Star Wars fans are worse, but that r/HOTDgreens and r/HOTDBlacks exist is pretty strong evidence this is one of the most unbearable fanbases of all time
I don’t hate what they’re doing to her. She’s trying to do the right thing and I feel like some people hate this because she’s not an evil psychopath the way the books make her seem… I prefer the show Rhaenyra way more than the book
I think that the telling of the story in the show is very nuanced. You can sympathise with both the greens and the blacks. The addition of Rhaenyra and Alicent being childhood friends, and them both having reasonable justification for their claims, further reinforce how this story is a tragedy and there will be no winners.
If I had to rip out My child of my body then Know my other was butchered peace of the relm would be beyond my interest I would want fire and blood .
I don't really have an issue with how adult Rhaenyra is portrayed in the show. Do I wish she was a bit more merciless, vicious, proud, arrogant and ambitious? Yes. I really liked how they characterised young Rhaenyra and they kinda discarded almost everything about her when she transitioned into an adult. I don't like how passive Rhaenyra is in the show compared to book canon. But overall, I guess the showrunners needed Rhaenyra to be a bit more whitewashed as a character to make the casual audience root for her more. A more book accurate Rhaenyra would've alienated the casual fans. My main issue is honestly the fans pretending that the showrunners don't have a bias for her character. People like to say the show is pro-Black/anti-Green. It's neither. It's pro-Rhaenyra.
I think if they have Rhaenyra's story end like it ends in the book, especially after making her so likeable, the general audience is going to go MENTAL. Lmao. I definitely think it's a bit of a mistake to set her up in such a good light knowing what happens in the end. Guarantee the ending isn't going to go down well with non book readers.
I do find it interesting that people are way more concerned with spending a lot of ink on whether or not it's acceptable for rhaenyra to be morally conflicted about this or whether she should just go full warlord when I don't think *anyone* had this issue over stannis being real murdery early on, and he was presented by both the books and the fans as being a reasonably morally upstanding dude, lol. Like, kinda damned if you do, damned if you don't if you're a female ruler. For the sake of historical comparisons, the actual Elizabeth the first was fairly Machiavellian with how she handled rival familial claimants to the throne but still is remembered well.
Remember that at this point, Rhaenyra is still the realms delight. It is a progressive and harrowing loss of her children and dignity that leads her down to become extremely cold to the common folk and merciless to her enemies. The book is quick to jump to bold statements and drastic actions, it is a historical telling after the fact with not much dialogue to inform the reader as to the true thoughts of the players. Of course the most drastic words will be documented, it is a perspective of a war told after the fact. Rhaenyra will have a dark turn, of that I am sure.
At this point it seems like they'v missed the point of the Dance: There are no good guys, and civil war wrecks a prosperous realm. Rhaenyra was called "Maegor with teats" by the smallfolk. Here, she is a saint, and any wrongdoing from her side is conveniently blamed on the "men around her".
I’m curious why you don’t support her claim? When she was the chosen heir. Hers is the only claim.
When the majority are taking sides, a subset of fans feel they should outsmart the normies and "understand" all the characters, to them this means keeping a distance from playing favorites
It’s not even a favorite thing she is the legitimate heir, it’s fine if someone’s team green but even the greens need to admit they usurped it.
On the flip side, the show added in an outright murder for Rhaenyra and show Rhaenyra is far, far, far and away the worse human being than book Rhaenyra was so far for it. I do think her framing - particularly in S1 - skewed her a bit to the bland side and I missed her fieriness and entitlement - but there’s still time to get there and her Green counterparts (Alicent, Aegon, Aemond) have similarly been massively humanized compared to their book selves
>the show added in an outright murder for Rhaenyra except she also take part in an outright murder in the books >*The princess was not slow in answering this charge. She dispatched Prince Daemon to seize Ser Vaemond, had his head removed, and fed his carcass to her dragon, Syrax.*
Definitely not Aegon that's for sure. Instead of a Robert Baratheon figure who is not a warrior, we got closer to a Joffrey. But i agree that Alicent and especially Aemond were definitely humanized far more than any other character.
Meh. I feel like “someone who is willing to do horrible things to get what they want” has been done every way under the sun. I’m more intrigued by this show version of her who tries to remain moral and seeing her pushed to the edge rather than default ready to be a terrible person.
That’s too black and white for TV, duhhh /s
it is too black and white, rhaenyra after the war is the same person she was before, she has no arc, no evolution and that's just not compelling character writing imo
Imagine saying this like black and white morality is a good and entertaining thing that has opportunity for character development
Yeah in the books she certainly came of just as bratty, undignified, greedy, and foolish as the rest of her siblings. In the books it literally took Viserys threatening to name Aegon to get her to do what he wanted. Interestingly, young Rhaenyra seemed much more compatible with her book counterpart than older Rhaenyra and she still managed to be very sympathetic. Show adult Rhaenyra, unlike literally any ASOIAF character ever, is being portrayed as 100% fully realized. That, anything that goes wrong is the fault of her prejudiced enemies or allies within her ranks. HOTD has a lot of opportunities to take liberties because of the nature of the source material and every single one they took (Especially Alicent being 10 years younger and Criston being utterly black washed) were made to favor Rhaenyra. It's unnecessary too as Rhaenyra's popularity is unconditional anyway. Contrast this with Aegon (Just an example) who organically battles his flaws in many of his scenes and makes mistakes. Even though they are undoubtedly mistakes, they also feel super understandable from his perspective and he still manages to be sympathetic. Alicent and Rhaenyra are the main characters and they've been changed for the worse. I think at this point we would've all preferred an Alicent who actually was an "evil" stepmother and co-conspirator that supported her effectively disinherited sons from the beginning. Yes, it would make her a villain but still make her sympathetic and understandable because where there are conflicting claims, "You win or you die." That's just the reality of the medieval setting. Oh wait! HOTD doesn't care about any authentic medieval political intrigue which is why a lot of it in the book was cut for pointless side plots designed to make Rhaenyra look good and the rest of the cast look like clowns.
What's even worse is that in order to whitewash her, they've dismantled other characters and plot points, completely ruining the conflict and story. Now Rhaenyra is as bland a protagonist as anachronistic self-inserts come, while everyone else is a joke. That's why so many reviewers are rightly complaining about HotD being boring - it's not that it's moving too slow or that there's a lack of potentially exciting events - the issue is that they all fall flat emotionally, because they hinge on characters other than Rhaenyra - but there's nothing there. Most of these characters have been butchered just to prop up the progressive heroine, leading to empty spectacle. And it's bound to only get worse. That's just what happens when you try to turn the Dance into a didactic fairy tale featuring good guys and bad guys. I too really appreciated book Rhaenyra and sympathized with her. But the show's marketing ploy of a character ruined her for me.
>You see she doesn’t even consider the peace terms in the book. The peace terms she gets are laughable, it's basically "We get all the fertile, rich lands with large population, and you get the squabbeling riverlands, the frozen desert and the Vale... Nobody with half a brain would consider these terms. Or do you mean the "accept Aegon as King and deliver your sons as hostages and we will let you live" terms? (I agree with you overall, just not with that point\^\^ give me deep and flawed characters and I'm happy.)
>There’s no acceptable outcome for her other than sitting on the throne. If her siblings yield, good; otherwise they will be eliminated. This is what makes her an interestingly controversial character. Nothing about this makes her controversial. She was selected as heir, she expects that to be upheld. Sure we could consider it “naive” of her, when people get usurped semi-regularly all the time. But this isn't controversial of her at all. Other characters have done the same and their claim wasn't controversial, it was normal. >But I guess at this point, we as readers are posed with the question of whether we should root for this extremely privileged person’s fight for absolute power, just because she’s a woman. This is precisely what this is about, except in reverse. I haven't read the book so I don't know how it's framed there, but at least in the show the ambiguity and nuance of a female character being denied the throne, yet again, especially after Daenerys, didn't escape them in the slightest and they played that card to the max. There is no good reason to depose Rhaenyra other than greed, but this is too coincidental with her being the sole female heir being picked in, correct me if I'm wrong, ever since Aegon's time. And when we place this in the whole universe's context, she really is being shoved aside because she's female and for whatever reason GRRM just really doesn't like to see female characters do alright for too long. >There is also no indication given to us that her rule will be good for the realm and its people. Same for Aegon's, or any other of their ancestors or descendents, because royalty rulership is hereditary and isn't a meritocracy. The entire system in itself is flawed and nitpicking over whether one single character is worth the position because of their ability for it ironically proves the point. No one else questions whether other male heirs are capable, but everyone wants to question if Rahenyra is worth retaking the throne again because is she even worth holding the position. This would never matter for any other character being usurped. >she bears the burden of a prophecy that saves humanity, This can easily be interpreted as Targaryen biases. Every single royal has believed their kid was the chosen one, down to Rhaegar thinking it was going to be his own kids, when it turns out it was his little sister all along, whom he overlooked? It's a common trait in the story, that every single character believes that whatever portent omen there is, is destined to them, like the red comet being interpreted as a symbol of luck by literally everyone who has witnessed it & whose pov we've been into. >considers giving up everything for the good of the realm I agree that was ridiculous and visibly out of character and done as a narrative trick to delay the conflict. It made zero sense whatsoever, same with the consequence of Daemon choking her because of it. I get the sense that in truth they're both perfectly aligned with the same goal. >They seem allergic to complexity in women They are not because she is already complex. Same with Alicent who makes questionable decisions herself because of what happened to her, which actually seem to elevate her from being a basic bitch in the book, who wasn't as young when she married Viserys. The book portrays Rhaenyra as fat in a way that is degrading and derogatory, like she is less than attractive after her pregnancies the same way that Cersei is regarded as less attractive after becoming an alcoholic, both instances that are blamed on the character like somehow they're the problem to what is happening to them. Rhaenyra in the book doesn't seem to have depth either and I'm frankly delighted with what they've done in the show. D'Arcy with her non-binary stuff in my opinion accidentally makes the character even better and takes it to the next level, because this isn't a woman (the character) burdened by things like expectations and gender roles, and who therefore is able to be fully and 100% themselves. D'Arcy with a wing, especially next to Matt Damon, is exactly the image of dragon lords as we'd expect to see them in their height: it makes Rhaenyra look powerful, incredibly badass, magnetic and compelling and interesting. The fact that she wasn't bothered by being forced into a sex life that would rob her of her femininity, joy and happiness, makes it on top of it that she's basically really free. Which in GRRM's world is honestly a feat to accomplish. This is already a complex character because she has got depth and dimension and presents an image of something that frankly even regular mainstream media doesn't always bother to portray because they don't understand what female empowerment really looks like. Just because she doesn't make choices you'd find questionable doesn't mean she isn't complex or dimensional.
Whenever I see a "where is the I shall have his head non peace term rhaenyra", I correctly chalk it up as the most superfiicial surface level take on "muh ambitious wimmin". I prefer the realistic ones in hot with depth and layer.
The story of F&B are from the perspective of a biased archmaester that hates the targaryens that's why there's less nuance in them
I keep seeing this and yet it’s just not true. This isn’t how she is until much later in the story.
I agree. We are getting generic cookie cutter heroine from Rhaenyra (most boring character in the show). When in reality she was just as bad as everyone else. But so many people in this fandom will ignore all these unsavory traits from her in the books by saying it’s a biased Maesters account. They actually say this for every single unsavory thing about the Blacks honestly lmao. Alicent meanwhile has had all of her book agency stripped from her for the sake of… feeding the misogynistic theme down our throats. Like yes, we get it that in her younger years she was a pawn in the games of her father (as most daughters are in ASOIAF honestly). But her book arc is literally gaining real power for herself in this misogynistic world. This is taken from her in the show and now she’s kinda just there. The writers had nothing for her to do this season so now have her banging Ser Criston all season.
The show and the fan base very much favors one side. They’ll demonize Daemon (which I feel fits hit character) then contradict Alicent and Cole, but Show Rhaenyra and Book Rhaenyra are just polar opposites.
I think after Jace dies is when the show will have her totally flip into a psycho. I also dislike how the tv show is making everything seem like an accident, instead of showing the true hate between the houses.
Rhaenyra to Dedra Meera of Andor is a great comparison
This got crossposted to the tb sub lmao, and needless to say, it wasn't well received.
I hated how they showed last season her turning her head in almost pure anger and despair and she is nothing like so in season 2. I know there’s a little bit of a time skip but holy shit seriously? Nothing?? I want her to be so much worse and broken but nothing happened and I can’t even like the character since it’s boring scene whenever she comes up. Unless other more interesting characters speak to her or do something to her (Rhaenys, Daemon, or her turmoil after AEMOND did something to her son). They were building up the grey character in the beginning as Rhaenyra was shown to be a little too adventurous, reckless and hard headed, with her violence shown after killing the boar which is now thrown out of the window. I just HOPE for an arc right now but if it doesn’t come soon it’ll be such and excruciating watch for me honestly
Careful some HBO bot on here is going to call you a book purist and try to turn the idea that you’re wrong into sone kind of provable quantifiable fact
I don't like how the show is making so much effort to make Rhaenyra good. Not that she's bad, but they leave no shades of grey. On the other hand Alicient has been shown to be a hypocrite with no moral compass. And then they ask are you with greens or blacks ? Bruh like duh do you even want anyone to side with the greens?
I have to agree with you. It has become an averagely written fanfiction.
The series has very little to do with FAB by now. Neither Rhaenyra nor Alicent has any Agency. Rhaenyra treads in one place and is even appalled at B&C while Alicent stole Rhaenyra‘s throne „by honest mistake“. It‘s all so laughable.
F&B has a complete and utter lack of complexity. Anyone arguing otherwise is just plain wrong. Rhaenyra in the show has more initiative and does more than the Rhaenyra presented in the book. Right now if the show was 100% " book accurate" Rhaenyra would be bedridden and wandering aimlessly through Dragonstone.>!That would have been her narrative until maybe the beginning of the Dragon Sowing. And that's just a maybe because in the book Dragon Sowing was Jace's idea. Even when Rhaenyra arrives in Kingslanding she does little to nothing.!
i think your all judging so much cause were half thru the 2nd season n not much as happened. I think what theyre doing is a more realistic n gradual change in the characters as the ruthlessness n cunningness of both sides is only just startin to show. Luke is killed horrifically and but she tries to just focuz that anger at aemond, then Jahaerys is killed, which to the realm looks like Rhaenyra has done it. Then Rhaenyra has an assassination attempt on her. They are slowly showing us just a preview of just how messy the war n these women are about to get. Yall are asking where are all the women like the ones from the OG series, when it took 2-3 seasons for alot of those women to develop into the person their characters becomes. Its nothing new that they changed up things, n the things that have changed havent been as drastic as the changes to the OG series. Not that i dont like the book characters but this way seems more natural to me than girls who were once bestfriends grow up to have no care for one another whatsoever n just plunge the realm into a messy war for their selfish needs.
My biggest pet peeve about huge parts of this fandom and *all the readers* is that...you guys, so many of you fundamentally don't get the ***genre*** of Fire and Blood. It is a *history book* with multiple unreliable sources, things transpire within mere sentences or short paragraphs, and they've drawn all of this out to be some ASOIAF-style characterization. We don't actually know what GRRM intended with Rhaenyra, actually. That's you extrapolating! It is literally an interpretation, because it's not written as present-in-time-and-body the way someone's POV in ASOIAF is. The characterization is not complex. It's thin AF *on purpose*. I often agree with ASOIAF readers and criticisms of GoT. I cannot say that in this case. I have MANY criticisms of the show—but I actually don't think pointing to Fire & Blood helps my cause in my most cases. The problem with the show is that it has set out to deepen the characterization, and it often falls short by having characters vacillate or through a deus ex machina that doesn't quite jibe. They also chose the framing device of Alicent & Rhaenyra within the patriarchy that is genuinely limiting and cannot be properly explored within the context of the many shifts their characters must make—buuuuuut I admit I can't be sure about this yet because I haven't seen all of that yet.
Yes, there are points of ambiguity (All of which were made to favor Rhaenyra) but there is a lot of evidence, including a lot of first hand testimony (which is the basis of historical knowledge) of the main characters. Yes, this won't account for anything but ironically, what they say about Alicent and Rhaenyra were somehow more robust and interesting than the characterizations we are getting in HOTD. They seem less like loosely adapted characters from a vague story but rather just complete transformations. You think at this point most people wouldn't prefer the Alicent that actually was the "evil" stepmother and co conspirator that always support her effectively disinherited sons from the beginning of only because if there are conflicting claims "You win or you die", over what we have now? It's equally, if not more, compelling, logical, and more compatible with GOT that a medieval succession crisis would force people into situations like this. With Viserys for example, it wasn't as big an issue because everything that was added in to show is still compatible with his book counterpart and serve to explain why he did what he did in the books. It doesn't completely go against it. A lot of nuance and authentic political intrigue that was in the history book were cut to make the show more simplified as well.
You let your bias out from the time you said “ I don’t support her claim”. You’re just mad they didn’t make her the villain you wanted.
This show is really making me miss Cersei right now 😔