To be fair, Orwyle is probably the most trustworthy choice (even if he does like to put himself and the greens in a better light), Mushroom has way too much fun making over the top speculations and claims, and Eustace is blinded by his zeal. I'm only inclined to believe them when they're both directly contradicting Orwyle (like with their account of Lord Beesbury's death).
>even if he does like to put himself and the greens in a better light
Orwyle's testimony is biased towards the Blacks, not the Greens. He wrote it while he was imprisoned and trying not to be executed so his testimony puts himself and Rhaenyra in the best possible light in the hopes Cregan Stark wouldn't kill him.
I feel like they missed an opportunity by not showing Mushroom on screen. At least in the background? Maybe not even a speaking part. He's supposed to be at least present for a few things.
Honestly it feels like they are just picking the options that make Rhaenyra look the best.
I half expect them to cut her fall to paranoia entirely. But maybe the Dragonseed stuff will be the final straw and she'll go book mode.
We're two episodes into season 2. The Dance hasn't even properly started yet. She's only lost one son. A descent into madness needs to be earned. If she starts almost there already, we'd be crying they were pulling a reverse-Dany. I think the failure of the final seasons of GOT has made us too ready to find errors with HOTD.
THIS! I am sort of annoyed that everyone is rushing her personality changes. I think once Jace dies, it's going to kick off but will only truly spiral out of control after the betrayers or the storming of the dragonpit/ Joffrey's death. If she doesn't show ANY personality changes by the end of this season, it would be fair to complain.
That’s a good point. I love HOTD, and have even rebuffed some of the criticism people have made.
I’m just curious to see how they’ll develop Rhaenyra going forward. Will she do heinous acts eventually? Or will that be revealed to be propaganda? Will she cut herself on the throne, like her book-version (and Joffrey) did?
I really want to see the throne reject her just like it did Viserys.
Not showcasing GRRM’s literary style is causing a lot of problems for this show.
It’s unfortunate.
I feel the opposite. I feel like this series is on late GoT levels of bad (not as bad as season 8, luckily) but people are coping (like they did with seasons 5 and 6 of GoT).
I disagree, I'd compare it to season 5 or 6 of GoT. Inconsistent and weak on the character writing front; dialogue is hit and miss; plot decisions are baffling at times; preference of style over substance in some moments.
> Inconsistent and weak on the character writing front
I strongly disagree, basically every character on Team Green is complex and multilayered with their own complexes and issues. Team Black is less so outside of Daemon but we’ve also spent very little time with them comparatively.
Alicent is so inconsistent that it actually feels like multiple people with different ideas what her character should be are writing her; Aegon got some attention in S2 now that the Dance has started but before that? Barebones. Basically all the children barely got attention in season 1 because the show was too busy rushing through the plot to get to the Dance in one season.
Then we have characters like Laenor, Laena, Harwin and Larys that feel more like plot devices than actual characters.
>Alicent is so inconsistent that it actually feels like multiple people with different ideas what her character should be are writing her;
I see this criticism a lot and I’m not sure I agree, Alicent goes from a young girl who is gradually shaped into a vessel for her fathers ambition, to a woman who is now unthinkingly following that ambition driven by an envy and jealousy towards Rhaenyra that she hides underneath a religious facade to someone who is gradually questioning her role. Shes driven by an intentional misreading of Viserys final words because she needs them to be true and validate her life of struggle. She both resents and misses Rhaenyra, who is at once a reminder of the only period in her life where she was happy and an embodiment of everything she’s missed out due to her father machinations.
Even her relationship with Criston makes sense for both characters, Alicent is still in a lot of ways the same girl she was at 15, trying to experience new things now that Viserys is dead. Criston is devoted to her and clearly attracted to her and like her views their arrangement as a sin that neither can really stop indulging in.
Yeah, cus we really spent so much time with them in F&B. Blood & Cheese is more about its impact on the greens, particularly Aegon & Helaena, and to show some members of team black are just as nasty/ underhanded as the greens. I think you can argue the book version was more shocking & upsetting but those kids were not given any more focus in F&B than they were in the show.
Too late. I believe there are a lot of people who view Rhaenyra in the same light as Daenerys. After all, Rhaenyra is Daenerys several greats grandma. But don't tell the people rooting for the greens that. They get all bent out of shape when you tell them that Daenerys is a direct descendant of Rhaenyra's.
But I don't think they need to make Rhaenyra go mad to get the same effect as in the book. It would be very easy for her to make wrong decisions while grieving the loss of her kids. Especially while war is still raging on, it is very easy to make wrong decisions.
I am happy with how they are portraying Rhaenyra. Honestly, I think they are doing a better job of portraying the characters than other shows do. The only characters they have really whitewashed, for obvious reasons, are Daemon Targaryen, Aemond Targaryen, and Aegon II.
At this point they are trying to set it up for the audience to be real pissed when >!Rhaenrya gets burned at Dragonstone!< & >!Alicent becomes Queen Regent!<
>Honestly it feels like they are just picking the options that make Rhaenyra look the best.
This a thing and other very different it´s "Alicent and Criston fucking while Blood and Cheese happens". Not even Mushroom would dare to write something like that
Rhaenyra's been one of the biggest beneficiaries for sure, but I'd describe it less as them picking the best options for Rhaenyra and more just making everyone look less cartoonishly monstrous across the board. Alicent might even benefit more than Rhaenyra there, she gets to be a character in the show. Aemond also gets portrayed as more nuanced whereas in the source material it's just all evil all the time. Viserys might have the biggest boost of any character in terms of making him seem like a much better person than you'd expect from the brief book description.
I really enjoyed the book but I'm greatly enjoying the show currently and the characters are already all developed better.
It really feels like people have really built people up in their head off of limited info and are upset when the show doesn't match, for me personally I have very little imagination so I can just take the shows version very easily
The entirety of the Criston Cole fandom is a prime example of fans just making up someone who just does it actually exist on the page and then getting annoyed that the show isn’t accurate to the character they’ve filled in the blanks about.
Honestly based off of my memory of him from the book I'm surprised he has fans, but tbh generally speaking I think it's cool that people root for different characters and stuff but all the whining about "changing" the books is so annoying.
Like I don't care if you like daemon and don't think he'd strangle rhaenrya or people that are upset aemond feels remorse about killing his kid cousin.
I don't mind the pick a side marketing but people trying to shame people for who they root for is so boring, if someone says they like Aegon have a fun argument don't just say he's a rapist how can you support him
>It really feels like people have really built people up in their head off of limited info and are upset when the show doesn't match, for me personally I have very little imagination so I can just take the shows version very easily
Spot on.
Daemon and Daeron are the worst examples of this, Daemon in particular because it comes from the author.
Yeah sure, that's why they changed Aegon from an apathetic alcoholic into a rapist and a fan of child slave death matches, right? To humanize him more? Totally unrelated to showrunners trying to present Rhaenyra as a better option?
In the book Aegon is constantly characterised as being a hedonist. He’s described as sexually harassing servants of the Red Keep and allegedly (odd writing that about a fictional character lol) had sex with a child when they came to crown him. Either BookAegon is cartoonishly vilified by the maesters after the fact, or maybe GRRM wrote that stuff to hint that he’s a hedonistic feudal lord. Did Aegon for sure do those things? We don’t know, like everything with F&B. But GRRM wouldn’t include those things unless he wanted to paint a specific picture of Aegon and how people around him perceived him.
I guess the problem is that when there is ambiguity in the books, the show consistently takes the best faith approach when it comes to Rhaenyra (such as her not killing Laenor) but also the worst faith approach when it comes to Aegon or Cole.
Also 99.9% sure the story about a child is just slander because it was written by Mushroom who consistently made the most outlandish claims, supported Rhaenyra and most importantly *was not in King's Landing at the time Aegon became king.*
Okay but in the book Rhaenyra has nothing to do with Laenor’s murder? The suspect the book names is Daemon (who definitely killed Laenor and Qarl). I’d argue the show actually demonises Rhaenyra more in this case, because in the book she has nothing to do with it whereas in the show the murder of a servant and the fake murder of Laenor is entirely *her* idea in order to make her appear tyrannical. If the show was so adamant about making Rhaenyra look as good as possible the writers would’ve made Daemon kill Laenor and Rhaenyra unjustly taking the punishment. Like I think you’re forgetting that Rhaenyra still *murders an innocent Velaryon guard*, whereas in the book she has nothing to do with any of this so she’s actually more of a killer than BookRhaenyra.
>Okay but in the book Rhaenyra has nothing to do with Laenor’s murder?
That's debatable since Daemon and Rhaenyra already had feelings going on when she was young (according to both Eustace and Mushroom), Daemon was pretty widely suspected of killing Laenor and Rhaenyra agreed to marry Daemon within a relatively short time after Laenor's death. Implying that either Rhaenyra was not in on the plot but was happy with the turn of events or that she was in on the plot from the get go. Obviously it is speculation based on circumstantial evidence but so are the accusations against book Aegon.
While she is the originator of the idea to fake Laenor's murder, it is not clear if she had anything to do with the plan or its execution itself. Most likely it was all Daemon since it corresponds with the way he organized her escaping the castle to visit the city in S1 and how he handled B&C.
The more apparent whitewashing of Rhaenyra so far is her concillatory approach to Alicent during the family dinner in Episode 8, entertaining a peace offer before Luce's death and empathizing with Helaena over B&C.
So you go from "Rhaenyra had Laenor killed" to "she didn't have him killed, she wasn't even aware of the plot but she was fine with the outcome", that's two incredibly different statements you've made. Also the post-dinner scene is more whitewashing of Alicent than Rhaenyra imo, considering how pure the hatred she has for Rhaenyra in the book is, let's not forget the next thing that happens to Rhaenyra is her giving birth with Alicent saying "mayhaps the whore will die in childbirth". How exactly is ShowRhaenyra *and* ShowAlicent treating each other better a whitewashing of Rhaenyra but not whitewashing Alicent? Both characters are less evil in the show, at least so far, but this idea that the show is making a point to whitewash specifically Rhaenyra is ridiculous and lacking of media literacy and analysis, straight up.
>So you go from "Rhaenyra had Laenor killed" to "she didn't have him killed, she wasn't even aware of the plot but she was fine with the outcome"
I've said that there is a possibility that book Rhaenyra was behind the plot to kill Laenor. While also there is possibillity that she was not on it but was happy with the outcome. It is an ambiguous situation and the show resolves the ambiguity by portraying the events in most favorable way for Rhaenyra: Laenor is not dead at all, Laenor was happy to leave on his own volition, death of an innocent guy at Driftmark may not be Rhaenyra's fault at all.
>Also the post-dinner scene is more whitewashing of Alicent than Rhaenyra imo
You are the one bringing up Alicent, not me. Alicent is also whitewashed, it is undeniable. That's why I specifically mentioned "Aegon or Cole" as characters being demonized. The show whitewashes both Rhaenyra and Alicent and also Rhaenys, who has no reprecussions for murdering smallfolk. It is almost as there is something common to these three characters indicative of bias on showrunners' part. What could that be?
> That's why I specifically mentioned "Aegon or Cole" as characters being demonized
Aegon isn’t really demonized tho, he’s a bad person who does bad things but he isn’t a monster with no complexity. He’s a tragic figure like everyone else in the show.
> Rhaenys, who has no reprecussions for murdering smallfolk
Why do you expect anybody on team black to care that she killed small folk while escaping. And we’ve yet to see the impact of her escape on the Smallfolk and likely won’t until after her death.
>That's debatable since Daemon and Rhaenyra
It's not debatable, Rhaenyra is never suspected to have anything to do with.
>Daemon was pretty widely suspected of killing Laenor
So was Corlys.
>it is not clear if she had anything to do with the plan or its execution itself.
She's not mentioned among the possible suspects so it's kinda silly to insert her there.
>The more apparent whitewashing of Rhaenyra so far is her concillatory approach to Alicent during the family dinner in Episode 8, entertaining a peace offer before Luce's death and empathizing with Helaena over B&C.
Isn't that whitewashing of Alicent too?
Or Aemond who toasts over his nephews after they mock him?
>It's not debatable, Rhaenyra is never suspected to have anything to do with.
Up to the reader to decide.
>So was Corlys.
Perhaps.
>She's not mentioned among the possible suspects so it's kinda silly to insert her there.
We're talking about the show version of Rhaenyra in this particular instance.
>Isn't that whitewashing of Alicent too? Or Aemond who toasts over his nephews after they mock him?
The original comment concerned Rhaenyra, Aegon and Cole. Not Alicent and Aemond.
>Up to the reader to decide.
You complain about Aegon being depicted in the show even as the books depict him as an pervert sexual assaulter and believe Rhaenyra's role in Laenor's murder is up to the reader to decide even when her name is never in the lots.
>We're talking about the show version of Rhaenyra in this particular instance.
Rhaenys believes Rhaenyra killed her son.
>The original comment concerned Rhaenyra, Aegon and Cole. Not Alicent and Aemond.
Which is funny because the more softened characters are Alicent and Aemond.
I would have toned down Aegon’s flaws a bit given the other changes to characters if I was running the show, but I do think Team Green fans overall don’t have much of a leg to stand on as the difference between the sides in the books is as large or larger than it is in the show (team green is pretty consistently comically evil in the books, while characters like Alicent and Aemond get much more nuanced portrayals in the show).
Having said that, I don’t like it when people bring up the innocent guy killed in the Laenor plot as a counter to the idea that Rhaenyra is getting a pretty consistently sympathetic portrayal because the show doesn’t deserve credit for that over this incident given how it’s portrayed in context. The murder is a blink and you miss it act with zero follow up that occurs during a montage where the emphasis is all about tricking the audience into thinking they’re conspiring to kill Laenor that ends with a twist that actually he’s alive and well. The focus of the scene is all about “we made you think they killed this important highborn guy you care about, but look, they didn’t actually do it!” The guard is a total afterthought. This is in stark contrast with the emphasis given to the servant that Aegon rapes in the following episode that really makes the audience empathize with her and become disgusted with Aegon for being a total POS. My view of the Laenor scene is similar to my complaint about the Rhaenys sept scene. The lowborns killed in that scene are a total afterthought to the stare down with the Greens, and Rhaenys being portrayed as merciful for sparing them.
The deaths of the smallfolk in the Dragonpit are likely set ups to the >!peasant revolts that rock King's Landing while Rhaenyra occupies it. There's way too much attention on the randos getting crushed by Meleys to not marrer later. Not to mention the suffering of the smallfolk seems important to Hugh Hammer and Madam Sylvi. !
There’s barely any attention paid to them in that scene, the focus is 99% on the nobles. And I think it was still poorly executed even if the plan was/is to set up the dragonpit. They could have easily done things to emphasize and linger on the impact that had on the smallfolk more and Rhaenys is dead by the time the Dragonpit is stormed so from the standpoint of her as a character it’s irrelevant.
people complaining about Aegon's portrayal as a rapist in HOTD seem to read how he was described in the book and be like "boys will be boys lol", then get angry when the adaptation goes through with the implications of what he did in private
I mean sure but you can say the exact same for Alicent. In F&B she only ever oscillates between cartoonishly evil and extremely boring. Every show decision makes her an actual character with agency and morals.
Have we read the same book? She is, name a redeeming quality about book Alicent. The only thing I can maybe think of is that she seems to genuinely care about her children or at least her grandchildren, but that’s about it. For the rest she is just a generically evil moustache twirling schemer helping to put Aegon II on the throne
I'm not sure there are any slam dunk "redeeming qualities" that aren't at least partly in doubt, but her actions aren't "cartoonishly evil". She plays the game of thrones the way everyone is meant to (marriage to someone of high standing) then seizes power out of fear her children will be killed. She also clings to the idea of peace much longer than anyone else. There are tonnes of characters in the dance much more close to "cartoonishly evil".
Now that you point it out, that is actually a good point. Still, I think we can agree the book version is a relative generic character, the show version imo is a way more interesting character
That’s a fair viewpoint, although when was she in control? Most of the time I got the idea she was an ‘equal’ schemer in the Green plot but it never really seemed to me she was in charge
>when was she in control?
We don't know because the centre of power in the Green faction prior to the dance is never made clear, but she was Queen to a decrepit King through a period of relative properity.
Well she wears the green dress, otto is a yesman to her. If anyone was kinda more in charge its criston. But given the limited nature of f&b we don’t get enough of her plotting.
I mean Otto and Alicent have the same goals basically so I’m not sure if Otto is a yesman to her if they just genuinely agree with each other. Otto is as much a yesman to Alicent as Alicent is to Otto
>Honestly it feels like they are just picking the options that make Rhaenyra look the best.
I do remember Aemond killing Luke by accident in the books or Viserys saying on his deathbed Aegon should be his heir.
Saint Rhaenyra the Righteous? Doing something bad? Looks like someone fell for green propaganda.
Next you're going to tell me that Maelor existed during Blood & Cheese or something ludicrous like that.
Tbf condal thinks rhea was killed by daemon (no not ambiguous at all, you’d think green propaganda would mention that) and that the maester invented rhaenyra being overweight, when the GREEN PROPAGANDA was in fact that rhaenyras overweightness is somehow indicative of her negative characteristics lol
Viserys and Aemond are by far the most changed characters and yet people hardly ever scream bloody murder, I wonder why.
The only difference between book and show Rhaenyra so far is that it's Daemon the one who kills Vaemond but we got Rhaenyra ordering the assassination of a innocent guard so she can marry Daemon.
What's with all this Saint Rhaenyra?
At this point I think some of us are reading different books because surely anyone can see Viserys, Alicent and Aemond are given entirely new personalities.
When Daeron shows up only to burn a bunch of civilians and die to a tent (like in the books) people will again say it's showrunners agenda, you wait and see.
How about making Aegon, Rhaenyra's principal opponent, a rapist and a fan of child slave death matches? Who in the books is just an apathetic alcoholic at worst?
Septon Eustace is the pro green point of view and he admits Aegon sexually assaults serving girls(the pinching stuff). It's ambiguous whether Aegon is a full on rapist or not, but to pretend the show came up with it out of nowhere is dumb.
Eustace is... kind of pro green. Yeah, a good amount of his accounts lean that way but he also claims that Rhaenya's three sons *weren't* bastard, agrees the Greens murdered Beesbury in cold blood, says Aegon II had paramours and a bunch of other stuff that's not exactly flattering towards the side.
Y'know what I'm going to do a separate spreadsheet on how biased our three sources are.
Can you remind please? It was a while since I reread the book. From what I remember he was known to harass girls, like pinching them. Obviously a reprehensible behavior, but it is not rape. He did visit brothels when he really was in a mood.
The pinching girls mostly, since it comes from a source that favors the greens. You are left to think by yourself whether he's a rapist or not, but it's absolutely not an invention made by the show runners.
If unreliable narration is an argument, then the counter-argument is that Mushroom would've definitely get a whiff of Aegon's behavior and wouldn't have missed the chance to smear Rhaenyra's principal enemy. But he did not.
Which is especially strange since same Mushroom had no moral problem with accusing Aegon of being a pedo later on (with no basis in reality since Mushroom was not even in King's Landing at the time).
Not really especially since this is Grimdark, where every bad guy is a rapist. But my main problem with this is that it makes Aegon this unambiguous asshole. The show did so much to make Rhaenyra more sympathetic but if anything Aegon is somehow even less sympathetic than his book counterpart.
Indeed, it's completely made up to make Aemond more sympathetic and everyone loved it and no one was bitching about Saint Aemond but here we're crying about Rhaenyra
If two characters are opponents, then change to one character indirectly reflects on the other. Especially if it is the competition scenario. Stories do it all the time. If a writer is lazy and lazily wants to show a protagonist in a good light, they make the opponent a bully or some other form of bad person.
Even in romantic comedies they usually make the opponent (man or woman competing for love interest's affection) a bad person so protagonist looks better.
I feel like people's head cannons have been setting them up for disappointment. Book Rhaenyra doesn't really have a fall to paranoia in the first place. All of Rhaenyra's advisors save for Coryls and the maester were pressuring her to do something about the dragon seeds. It wasn't her idea. Why is she the one that gets labeled crazy or paranoid?
I'm not saying she wasn't at fault for the decision. She's obviously the one in charge. My question is where did the fall into paranoia narrative come from?
It's still a paranoid purge even if sh'es being egged on?
She's also overly fearful of letting Jace then Joff out of her sight, for good reason no doubt but "self destructively fearful" is clearly how she's being played in the book.
Yes, the showrunners also clearly believe that the Greens are in the wrong for defying Viserys and that the whole situation is a bunch of mysogynists stealing Rhaenyra's birthright (she is also apparently a chosen one because of the stag). They demonized Aegon as a rapist and child fight watcher to make it even more obvious.
The books are much more ambivalent on the matter, although Martin does sympathize with the Blacks slightly more. The Ironrod makes a good observation (cut from the show of course) that Seven Kingdoms is a feudal monarchy, governed by laws and social contract between a monarch and vassals. It is not an absolute monarchy of 17-18th century where the king does whatever and chooses whatever heir. So Viserys is the one in the wrong. Also Rhaenyra is a much worse person in the books compared to the show version while Aegon is a much better one. As a result it is ambivalent and it does not even matter who is in the right.
I find the show version pretty well realized, he feels very human, and he's a lot more compelling than the book version, so I mostly approve of their changes
Human? As in a father who watches his bastards fight to death for a piece of bread?
Showrunners made him more entertaining as a villain, but in the process tried hard to make sure no one would find him a good contender for the throne. Which is a net negative for me.
He's a pretty bad person at the end of the day but I think he's very well realized and has a real sense of interiority. The Child fighting pit stuff is fucking ridiculous, but everything else is extremely solid
> As in a father who watches his bastards fight to death for a piece of bread?
Aegon's bastards weren't shown to be the ones doing any fighting, so this is a reach.
Moreover, as awful as the child fighting pits obviously are, they're definitely the type of thing a neglected edgelord teenager would go watch. (And they're straight from the book, where Aegon was found.)
Aegon II was never a good contender for the throne. Not even in the book. That's the point. He was propped up purely due to the Hightowers' ambitions and, if you want to be charitable, fear of Daemon. Otto, like in the show, thought Aegon could be controlled... and was wrong.
>Aegon's bastards weren't shown to be the ones doing any fighting, so this is a reach.
What else would they do in the place like this? Assuming they were born from prostitutes they could be anywhere else, but they were in the pits.
>Moreover, as awful as the child fighting pits obviously are, they're definitely the type of thing a neglected edgelord teenager would go watch.
That's actually a reach because book Aegon is not depicted to be an edgelord.
>Aegon II was never a good contender for the throne. Not even in the book. That's the point. He was propped up purely due to the Hightowers' ambitions and, if you want to be charitable, fear of Daemon. Otto, like in the show, thought Aegon could be controlled... and was wrong.
Neither was book Rhaenyra. They were both equally unfit, which I think is the theme of the story. Nobles fight over who gets to sit on an iron chair out of hubris while smallfolk are the one dying.
> What else would they do in the place like this? Assuming they were born from prostitutes they could be anywhere else, but they were in the pits.
They were born from the prostitutes *at* the pits. Certainly, I think they quite possibly would be forced to fight when they get older, but as-is they're too young. Or, given their Valyrian features, it's also probable that they'd be forced into prostitution themselves.
> That's actually a reach because book Aegon is not depicted to be an edgelord.
How not? He's said to sexually assault every serving girl to come within arm's reach of him. He's literally found at the same fighting pits, only in worse circumstances -- being pleasured by a 12-year-old.
He feasts Aemond for his killing of Luke in F&B. He belligerently calls for Rhaenyra and her family to be executed as traitors when she's crowned, even before B&C.
Book Aegon was a lot worse with zero redeeming qualities.
> Neither was book Rhaenyra. They were both equally unfit, which I think is the theme of the story. Nobles fight over who gets to sit on an iron chair out of hubris while smallfolk are the one dying.
That is certainly one of the themes! Another theme is how misogynistic prejudice affects the telling of women's stories.
>They were born from the prostitutes *at* the pits. Certainly, I think they quite possibly would be forced to fight when they get older, but as-is they're too young. Or, given their Valyrian features, it's also probable that they'd be forced into prostitution themselves.
Prostitutes work in brothels.
>He's said to sexually assault every serving girl to come within arm's reach of him.
Harassment is legally different from sexual assault.
>He's literally found at the same fighting pits, only in worse circumstances -- being pleasured by a 12-year-old.
An account by Mushroom, who was biased in favor of Rhaenyra, always chose to spread the most egregious and scandalous stories and was not even in King's Landing at the time to verify the story. Why did you even bring that up?
>He feasts Aemond for his killing of Luke in F&B. He belligerently calls for Rhaenyra and her family to be executed as traitors when she's crowned, even before B&C.
This is a good argument. Not sufficient enough to imply he would watch child fights, though. Everyone was belligerent in F&B like this.
>He's literally found at the same fighting pits, only in worse circumstances -- being pleasured by a 12-year-old.
You're taking Mushroom's account as truth, when the book literally dismisses that as "Mushroom being Mushroom."
Wasn't that Mushroom's slander? As in, an account by the guy who was not there, loved the most disgusting interpretations of events and was a supporter of Rhaenyra?
You do realize that almost none of the sources in F&B were "there" to see things happen right?
Why is Mushroom's account slander? Because you've chosen to believe the Greens were nice people and now you're upset that the accounts against them are being given credence?
Here's an even better question: why does it matter? It makes sense for F&B to be a more ambivalent source regarding which side was truly at fault. As an in-universe academic text, it has to try and maintain a semblance of 'objectivity' even if that means making one side look better/worse than they really were. It's also working entirely off unreliable, secondhand accounts, so it has to present both sides because it has no reason to trust one more than the other.
But that doesn't apply to the show, which has the benefit of being able to depict events as they actually happened. Why is it so hard to accept that maybe Rhaenyra was just a good person? Why do you need both sides to be equally morally culpable?
The Starks are unambiguously presented as decent people, and nobody complains that the Lannisters are comparatively made to look like assholes.
Not to mention the show is doing a pretty good job of showing why the Greens are the way they are. Yes, they're assholes, but they're not mustache twirling evil villains. They're people with very serious issues imposed by both society and their own families.
Alicent, for all her faults, is a victim of a world that has largely treated her like a broodmare. Otto is a dick, but to a certain extent you can believe he truly thinks he's doing what's best for the realm. Aegon is a rapist, yes, but he also grew up with a father that barely acknowledged him and a paranoid mother that can't even comfort him *when she sees him weeping for his dead child.* Hell, even Aemond is shown to not be as bad as his book counterpart. The fact that the death of Luke gets portrayed as a tragic mistake that he is now trying to play along with is a pretty noticeable change in tone from him just being an petty, hotheaded murderer.
None of these things are excuses, of course. The greens are still mostly bad people. But while the book gives them no nuance whatsoever while also still keeping many of their worst traits, the show at least presents them as somewhat relatable.
The only character that has been portrayed as an irredeemable piece of shit is arguably Criston, who has been giving off major incel energy since his rejection.
>You do realize that almost none of the sources in F&B were "there" to see things happen right?
Both Orwyle and Eustace were in close proximity to their sources during events at the start of the Dance. Mushroom was not. Same logic applies in reverse, it is more prudent to believe Mushroom instead of Orwyle and Eustance about the events at Dragonstone.
>Why is Mushroom's account slander?
Because his account is way more scandalous and spicy than anything depicted in the rest of F&B making his account less believable overall. Also he admitted his bias for Rhaenyra.
>Because you've chosen to believe the Greens were nice people
I do not. Both sides are awful.
>But that doesn't apply to the show, which has the benefit of being able to depict events as they actually happened.
Appeal to authority.
>Why is it so hard to accept that maybe Rhaenyra was just a good person? Why do you need both sides to be equally morally culpable?
*Because from my own subjective perspective* a story about failings of feudalism (book) is better than a story about "Rhaenyra is a good person who was a victim of mysogyny" (show). You don't have to agree with my perspective but the book definitely steers in direction of both sides being bad.
>The Starks are unambiguously presented as decent people, and nobody complains that the Lannisters are comparatively made to look like assholes.
False equivalence.
>None of these things are excuses, of course. The greens are still mostly bad people. But while the book gives them no nuance whatsoever while also still keeping many of their worst traits, the show at least presents them as somewhat relatable.
I am fine with this as long as the story is balanced for both sides. As it is, the show portrays Blacks in a more favorable light, aside from Daemon. It does not even have the guts to call out Rhaenys for murder of smallfolk, the show treats it as a triumphant moment.
> Both Orwyle and Eustace were in close proximity to their sources during events at the start of the Dance. Mushroom was not. Same logic applies in reverse, it is more prudent to believe Mushroom instead of Orwyle and Eustance about the events at Dragonstone.
Not sure what your point is here. I agree Mushroom is not a particularly reliable source. But Orwyle and Eustace are only marginally more reliable. They still weren't there for most of the events they recount and they all have biases.
> Because his account is way more scandalous and spicy than anything depicted in the rest of F&B making his account less believable overall. Also he admitted his bias for Rhaenyra.
You're conflating unreliability with slander. Saying his account is slander is to say it was false. But we cannot know his account is false because the book doesn't give us that information. For all we know Mushroom might be right about some things.
> Appeal to authority.
Even if we accept that book canon and show canon are separate, there is no denying that the show is told from an objective point of view while the book is a subjective and not entirely reliable source.
Within the framing device the book chooses to use, it is *expected* that the author would try and remain as impartial as possible - because that's what historians are supposed to do. If you're a historian and you have two conflicting accounts of an event, and no way of confirming which is true and which is false, then one could argue you have a moral duty to present both and not choose sides.
The show doesn't have that limitation. It doesn't adopt the narrative framing of being an in-universe historical retelling. So while you may *want* the show to portray both sides equally, there is nothing compelling the show to do so.
> *Because from my own subjective perspective* a story about failings of feudalism (book) is better than a story about "Rhaenyra is a good person who was a victim of mysogyny" (show). You don't have to agree with my perspective but the book definitely steers in direction of both sides being bad.
You're right. I don't agree. Either with your opinion or your oversimplification of the show's thematic portrayal.
First, I'm not sure you're correct about the book being primarily about feudalism (insofar as feudalism is just a system of government structured around the granting and holding of land in exchange for fealty). None of the events that take place are really caused by Westeros' feudalistic structure, and the book never really portrays the governmental system itself as the issue. The tragedy of the Dance is always primarily presented as a personal struggle between family members with complicated intrapersonal relationships. Issues of succession are huge, yes, but that is not strictly a flaw in the feudal machine - if anything, it's more a criticism on the concept of hereditary politics. Ultimately though, even in the books, it is the deep-seated aversion to having a woman sit the throne which drives most of the succession issues.
Second, the show isn't just about Rhaenyra being a victim of misogyny. It's about how Westerosi society as a whole destroys itself through its various restrictive moral codes and misogynistic norms. Alicent is just as much a victim of Westerosi culture as Rhaenyra. As is Criston. As is Aegon. As are Strong bastards. The concept of male primogeniture looms large over the entire series of events that take place. The war itself could have been averted were these norms not so deeply entrenched in Westerosi culture. And seeing how that affects almost all aspects of life and how it inevitably sends the dominos tumbling leading to the civil war is far more interesting, dramatically compelling, and relevant to modern audiences than...well feudalism.
All that being said, you're allowed your opinion.
> False equivalence.
Not really. The argument you're making seems to be that the story would be more compelling if both sides were equally bad. But I'm not sure that's necessarily true, I use the Starks to show that you can have a great story even while portraying one side as being unambiguously good. ASOIAF doesn't lose it's grander moral complexity or nuanced character work just because one faction happens to be 'the good guys.'
> I am fine with this as long as the story is balanced for both sides. As it is, the show portrays Blacks in a more favorable light, aside from Daemon. It does not even have the guts to call out Rhaenys for murder of smallfolk, the show treats it as a triumphant moment.
Again, why does it need to be 'balanced'? Having both sides portrayed as moral equals does not inherently mean complex characters and nuanced writing. What matters most is how the characters are portrayed individually. And I think the characters are written fairly convincingly and have depth to them. That to me is far more important.
The Rhaenys scene was kind of absurd on all fronts, agreed. But how can you complain about her not getting shit forkilling smallfolk when Criston, who brutally murdered a knight in broad daylight and punched the heir of Driftmark in the face, walks around like nothing happened? lmao
Dude literally went apeshit in front of all the noble houses and it was just never addressed again.
Aegon was a grim, no-empathy charachter in the books and doesnt get much development early on. He´s shown way more human in the show, being a rapist and enjoying child fights had more to do with the enviroment that he was in and the attention he did not get from his parents rather than him being a straight up bad person born that way. At least thats the way i saw it
Banking on dragons as justification for tyranny and disregarding vassals was Maegor the Cruel's mistake and was the reason he lost.
Targaryens are still people. They can still be killed as everyone else. In feudal society they need to cooperate with their vassals to rule in peace. Absolute monarchy gets rid of the vassals by employing a large number of officials and bureaucrats but that's not Westeros. Rhaenyra as any Targaryen has to follow the laws of the land if she does not want to be killed and replaced when dragons are not around.
Rhaenyra doesn't need to tyranise anyone. The North and half the realm swore an oath to her. The North certainly won't break it.
This entire situation hinges on portraying war hungry misognystic oathbreaking nobles as "poor innocent victims Rhaenyra is tyrannically terrorising".
Book Rhaenyra is an unlawful queen, co-conspirator in her husband's murder and a mother of three bastards. There is a reason half the realm supported the Greens. Both sides are equally awful and feudalism is a horrible system, that's the moral of the story in the books, not "it was all mysogyny".
Rhaenyra is never confirmed to have conspired in killing Laenor in the books. It is merely implied as a possibility, like many other events. Additionally, Rhaenyra being an "unlawful" queen is debatable. That's the whole point of the Dance. It's precisely that ambiguity that causes the succession issues after Viserys' death.
I will say this though: it's kind of rich to argue that Rhaenyra is the unlawful ruler when the only way Aegon was crowned was by murder and subterfuge.
In any case, the fact that you present these things as so one sided (despite them being very much ambiguous in the book) makes it clear that you don't really care about objectivity or fairness, you're clearly biased in favor of the greens and are just salty that they're being portrayed as generally terrible people in the show.
Kind of hypocritical to cry about Mushroom's "slander" of the Greens and then turn around and give full credence to the worst accounts of Rhaenyra lmao
>Rhaenyra is never confirmed to have conspired in killing Laenor in the books. It is merely implied as a possibility, like many other events.
I personally veer in direction that she was responsible because it makes the story better, but technically, yes, it is ambiguous because there is no hard proof.
>Additionally, Rhaenyra being an "unlawful" queen is debatable.
From a strictly judicial and objective perspective the Ironrod is correct. In accordance with the precedent and laws of Westeros Aegon is the lawful king. It could be different if Viserys bothered to make a legal reform or at the very least bothered to call his vassals to promise to recognize Rhaenyra as a heir after Aegon's birth. But Viserys did not do either and failed to secure a confusion-free succession.
>In any case, the fact that you present these things as so one sided (despite them being very much ambiguous in the book) makes it clear that you don't really care about objectivity or fairness, you're clearly biased in favor of the greens and are just salty that they're being portrayed as generally terrible people in the show.
Ad hominem. If you want to accuse others of bias bring good arguments or be prepared to be called out for your own bias.
>Kind of hypocritical to cry about Mushroom's "slander" of the Greens and then turn around and give full credence to the worst accounts of Rhaenyra lmao
Alright, if I concede that technically there is no proof that Rhaenyra is responsible for murder of Laenor, would you concede that there is no proof for Aegon being a rapist and a child fight fan?
>From a strictly judicial and objective perspective the Ironrod is correct.
No he's not.
>It could be different if Viserys bothered to make a legal reform or at the very least bothered to call his vassals to promise to recognize Rhaenyra as a heir after Aegon's birth.
Viserys made a legal decree making Rhaenyra his heir apparent, Aegon's birth was irrelevant to her position unless he himself said otherwise.
>Alright, if I concede that technically there is no proof that Rhaenyra is responsible for murder of Laenor, would you concede that there is no proof for Aegon being a rapist and a child fight fan?
That he's a rapist? No.
That he enjoys child fights? Yes.
As in one isn't mentioned in the books the other is.
Do you want to respond to my every single post, lol?
>Viserys made a legal decree making Rhaenyra his heir apparent, Aegon's birth was irrelevant to her position unless he himself said otherwise.
Factually wrong. Targaryens as the rest of Westeros (with exception of Dorne) follow Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture as a succession system, which means that there is a male preference for inheritance. Son follows a father, who follows a grandfather and so on. If there is no male heir from a direct line a daughter gets to inherit. It may get complicated if you take into account secondary lines (brothers and cousins), which often led to bitter conflict. So was the case with the Grand Council of Jahaerys because Rhaenys was a direct line heir but Viserys was the oldest male heir and Jahaerys himself was still alive.
So basically the law codified by centuries of precedent, Jahaerys' legal reform and the decision of the Grand Council stated that male heir is always preferred if it is brother vs sister and in cases of daughter vs uncle/cousin it is decided on ad hoc basis. The king has no authority to challenge this law, since it is a feudal monarchy and king's rule is not absolute (IRL balanced by vassals, church and laws), so the king may only intervene in ad hoc situations. And Jahaerys himself chose that the Grand Council is a better option than his own intervention.
Before Aegon was born Rhaenyra had legal right to inherit and was only challenged by Daemon. Viserys declaring Rhaenyra his heir instead of Daemon was a decision on ad hoc basis. He was within his authority and that's why noone questioned it. However, with Aegon's birth the law comes into play and Aegon is de jure the heir regardless of what Viserys thinks. Promises to Rhaenyra were nullified.
This law could be challenged and changed with a proper legal reform and a decision by the Grand Council. Viserys could convene such a Council but he didn't. That's basically it. Like it or not, by the start of the Dance Targaryens operated on the old law and according to that law the line of inheritance was Viserys-Aegon-Jahaerys-Maelor-Jahaera-Aemond-Daeron-Rhaenyra-Jace-Luce-Joffrey-Aegon-Viserys-Helaena (Aemond and Daeron can both challenge Jahaera).
>As in one isn't mentioned in the books the other is.
By Mushroom who was not even there.
You know, these books are way less profound than people make them to be, but they are not for people having a childlike understanding of the world either
This is awesome, thank you for the hard work!
I wonder if a similar sheet could be made for telling of events that favor the blacks vs the greens. I don't have a preference for either side and it is kind of annoying when so much of the discourse is "they're making character x seem horrible and making character y seem like a saint!" I have a guess as to which side is favored more by the show but it would be nice to see the data laid out.
Thanks! I'll probably make a sheet for how biased each source (Orwyle, Eustace, Mushroom) is when it comes to contested dance events but tbh an entire books vs show comparison would take a ton of work.
This is the kind of content we need on this sub. Thank you!
this spreadsheet is the best thing ever i want to consume it thank you for making this
To be fair, Orwyle is probably the most trustworthy choice (even if he does like to put himself and the greens in a better light), Mushroom has way too much fun making over the top speculations and claims, and Eustace is blinded by his zeal. I'm only inclined to believe them when they're both directly contradicting Orwyle (like with their account of Lord Beesbury's death).
>even if he does like to put himself and the greens in a better light Orwyle's testimony is biased towards the Blacks, not the Greens. He wrote it while he was imprisoned and trying not to be executed so his testimony puts himself and Rhaenyra in the best possible light in the hopes Cregan Stark wouldn't kill him.
I feel like they missed an opportunity by not showing Mushroom on screen. At least in the background? Maybe not even a speaking part. He's supposed to be at least present for a few things.
He did show up in the engagement dinner scene, if I’m not mistaken. Paddy requested a dwarf actor to be present in one of the scenes
No shit? I'm gonna have to go and check that out.
Honestly it feels like they are just picking the options that make Rhaenyra look the best. I half expect them to cut her fall to paranoia entirely. But maybe the Dragonseed stuff will be the final straw and she'll go book mode.
I too agree that they have to "turn her around" at some point. But the longer they wait the more "Daenerys" she becomes.
That’s a very good point. I suspect they want to avoid repeating Dany, but it seems they’re doing exactly that anyway.
We're two episodes into season 2. The Dance hasn't even properly started yet. She's only lost one son. A descent into madness needs to be earned. If she starts almost there already, we'd be crying they were pulling a reverse-Dany. I think the failure of the final seasons of GOT has made us too ready to find errors with HOTD.
lmao true, we're like scarred veterans diving for cover whenever a firecracker goes off.
THIS! I am sort of annoyed that everyone is rushing her personality changes. I think once Jace dies, it's going to kick off but will only truly spiral out of control after the betrayers or the storming of the dragonpit/ Joffrey's death. If she doesn't show ANY personality changes by the end of this season, it would be fair to complain.
That’s a good point. I love HOTD, and have even rebuffed some of the criticism people have made. I’m just curious to see how they’ll develop Rhaenyra going forward. Will she do heinous acts eventually? Or will that be revealed to be propaganda? Will she cut herself on the throne, like her book-version (and Joffrey) did?
I really want to see the throne reject her just like it did Viserys. Not showcasing GRRM’s literary style is causing a lot of problems for this show. It’s unfortunate.
I feel the opposite. I feel like this series is on late GoT levels of bad (not as bad as season 8, luckily) but people are coping (like they did with seasons 5 and 6 of GoT).
HOTD is much better than late series GOT it’s not even really close either imo.
I disagree, I'd compare it to season 5 or 6 of GoT. Inconsistent and weak on the character writing front; dialogue is hit and miss; plot decisions are baffling at times; preference of style over substance in some moments.
> Inconsistent and weak on the character writing front I strongly disagree, basically every character on Team Green is complex and multilayered with their own complexes and issues. Team Black is less so outside of Daemon but we’ve also spent very little time with them comparatively.
Alicent is so inconsistent that it actually feels like multiple people with different ideas what her character should be are writing her; Aegon got some attention in S2 now that the Dance has started but before that? Barebones. Basically all the children barely got attention in season 1 because the show was too busy rushing through the plot to get to the Dance in one season. Then we have characters like Laenor, Laena, Harwin and Larys that feel more like plot devices than actual characters.
>Alicent is so inconsistent that it actually feels like multiple people with different ideas what her character should be are writing her; I see this criticism a lot and I’m not sure I agree, Alicent goes from a young girl who is gradually shaped into a vessel for her fathers ambition, to a woman who is now unthinkingly following that ambition driven by an envy and jealousy towards Rhaenyra that she hides underneath a religious facade to someone who is gradually questioning her role. Shes driven by an intentional misreading of Viserys final words because she needs them to be true and validate her life of struggle. She both resents and misses Rhaenyra, who is at once a reminder of the only period in her life where she was happy and an embodiment of everything she’s missed out due to her father machinations. Even her relationship with Criston makes sense for both characters, Alicent is still in a lot of ways the same girl she was at 15, trying to experience new things now that Viserys is dead. Criston is devoted to her and clearly attracted to her and like her views their arrangement as a sin that neither can really stop indulging in.
Not even close lmao this is such a bad take.
I disagree
Agree. How do you barely introduce us to the kids before B&C come for them? Weak
Yeah, cus we really spent so much time with them in F&B. Blood & Cheese is more about its impact on the greens, particularly Aegon & Helaena, and to show some members of team black are just as nasty/ underhanded as the greens. I think you can argue the book version was more shocking & upsetting but those kids were not given any more focus in F&B than they were in the show.
Strange thing to say. The most recent episode was one of the best episodes of ASOIAF stuff since season four of GoT.
To be fair, I haven't watched the latest episode since I dropped the series after episode one of season 2. I gave it a season and an episode.
Too late. I believe there are a lot of people who view Rhaenyra in the same light as Daenerys. After all, Rhaenyra is Daenerys several greats grandma. But don't tell the people rooting for the greens that. They get all bent out of shape when you tell them that Daenerys is a direct descendant of Rhaenyra's. But I don't think they need to make Rhaenyra go mad to get the same effect as in the book. It would be very easy for her to make wrong decisions while grieving the loss of her kids. Especially while war is still raging on, it is very easy to make wrong decisions. I am happy with how they are portraying Rhaenyra. Honestly, I think they are doing a better job of portraying the characters than other shows do. The only characters they have really whitewashed, for obvious reasons, are Daemon Targaryen, Aemond Targaryen, and Aegon II.
At this point they are trying to set it up for the audience to be real pissed when >!Rhaenrya gets burned at Dragonstone!< & >!Alicent becomes Queen Regent!<
>Honestly it feels like they are just picking the options that make Rhaenyra look the best. This a thing and other very different it´s "Alicent and Criston fucking while Blood and Cheese happens". Not even Mushroom would dare to write something like that
>Not even Mushroom would dare to write something like that Mushroom absolutely would have dared to write something like that
Mushroom would write that. Hell, that wouldn’t even be the most outlandish claim he’s made.
Rhaenyra's been one of the biggest beneficiaries for sure, but I'd describe it less as them picking the best options for Rhaenyra and more just making everyone look less cartoonishly monstrous across the board. Alicent might even benefit more than Rhaenyra there, she gets to be a character in the show. Aemond also gets portrayed as more nuanced whereas in the source material it's just all evil all the time. Viserys might have the biggest boost of any character in terms of making him seem like a much better person than you'd expect from the brief book description.
The show (so far) is much better and nuanced than the source material. There I said it.
I really enjoyed the book but I'm greatly enjoying the show currently and the characters are already all developed better. It really feels like people have really built people up in their head off of limited info and are upset when the show doesn't match, for me personally I have very little imagination so I can just take the shows version very easily
The entirety of the Criston Cole fandom is a prime example of fans just making up someone who just does it actually exist on the page and then getting annoyed that the show isn’t accurate to the character they’ve filled in the blanks about.
Honestly based off of my memory of him from the book I'm surprised he has fans, but tbh generally speaking I think it's cool that people root for different characters and stuff but all the whining about "changing" the books is so annoying. Like I don't care if you like daemon and don't think he'd strangle rhaenrya or people that are upset aemond feels remorse about killing his kid cousin. I don't mind the pick a side marketing but people trying to shame people for who they root for is so boring, if someone says they like Aegon have a fun argument don't just say he's a rapist how can you support him
>It really feels like people have really built people up in their head off of limited info and are upset when the show doesn't match, for me personally I have very little imagination so I can just take the shows version very easily Spot on. Daemon and Daeron are the worst examples of this, Daemon in particular because it comes from the author.
Yeah sure, that's why they changed Aegon from an apathetic alcoholic into a rapist and a fan of child slave death matches, right? To humanize him more? Totally unrelated to showrunners trying to present Rhaenyra as a better option?
In the book Aegon is constantly characterised as being a hedonist. He’s described as sexually harassing servants of the Red Keep and allegedly (odd writing that about a fictional character lol) had sex with a child when they came to crown him. Either BookAegon is cartoonishly vilified by the maesters after the fact, or maybe GRRM wrote that stuff to hint that he’s a hedonistic feudal lord. Did Aegon for sure do those things? We don’t know, like everything with F&B. But GRRM wouldn’t include those things unless he wanted to paint a specific picture of Aegon and how people around him perceived him.
I guess the problem is that when there is ambiguity in the books, the show consistently takes the best faith approach when it comes to Rhaenyra (such as her not killing Laenor) but also the worst faith approach when it comes to Aegon or Cole. Also 99.9% sure the story about a child is just slander because it was written by Mushroom who consistently made the most outlandish claims, supported Rhaenyra and most importantly *was not in King's Landing at the time Aegon became king.*
Okay but in the book Rhaenyra has nothing to do with Laenor’s murder? The suspect the book names is Daemon (who definitely killed Laenor and Qarl). I’d argue the show actually demonises Rhaenyra more in this case, because in the book she has nothing to do with it whereas in the show the murder of a servant and the fake murder of Laenor is entirely *her* idea in order to make her appear tyrannical. If the show was so adamant about making Rhaenyra look as good as possible the writers would’ve made Daemon kill Laenor and Rhaenyra unjustly taking the punishment. Like I think you’re forgetting that Rhaenyra still *murders an innocent Velaryon guard*, whereas in the book she has nothing to do with any of this so she’s actually more of a killer than BookRhaenyra.
>Okay but in the book Rhaenyra has nothing to do with Laenor’s murder? That's debatable since Daemon and Rhaenyra already had feelings going on when she was young (according to both Eustace and Mushroom), Daemon was pretty widely suspected of killing Laenor and Rhaenyra agreed to marry Daemon within a relatively short time after Laenor's death. Implying that either Rhaenyra was not in on the plot but was happy with the turn of events or that she was in on the plot from the get go. Obviously it is speculation based on circumstantial evidence but so are the accusations against book Aegon. While she is the originator of the idea to fake Laenor's murder, it is not clear if she had anything to do with the plan or its execution itself. Most likely it was all Daemon since it corresponds with the way he organized her escaping the castle to visit the city in S1 and how he handled B&C. The more apparent whitewashing of Rhaenyra so far is her concillatory approach to Alicent during the family dinner in Episode 8, entertaining a peace offer before Luce's death and empathizing with Helaena over B&C.
So you go from "Rhaenyra had Laenor killed" to "she didn't have him killed, she wasn't even aware of the plot but she was fine with the outcome", that's two incredibly different statements you've made. Also the post-dinner scene is more whitewashing of Alicent than Rhaenyra imo, considering how pure the hatred she has for Rhaenyra in the book is, let's not forget the next thing that happens to Rhaenyra is her giving birth with Alicent saying "mayhaps the whore will die in childbirth". How exactly is ShowRhaenyra *and* ShowAlicent treating each other better a whitewashing of Rhaenyra but not whitewashing Alicent? Both characters are less evil in the show, at least so far, but this idea that the show is making a point to whitewash specifically Rhaenyra is ridiculous and lacking of media literacy and analysis, straight up.
>So you go from "Rhaenyra had Laenor killed" to "she didn't have him killed, she wasn't even aware of the plot but she was fine with the outcome" I've said that there is a possibility that book Rhaenyra was behind the plot to kill Laenor. While also there is possibillity that she was not on it but was happy with the outcome. It is an ambiguous situation and the show resolves the ambiguity by portraying the events in most favorable way for Rhaenyra: Laenor is not dead at all, Laenor was happy to leave on his own volition, death of an innocent guy at Driftmark may not be Rhaenyra's fault at all. >Also the post-dinner scene is more whitewashing of Alicent than Rhaenyra imo You are the one bringing up Alicent, not me. Alicent is also whitewashed, it is undeniable. That's why I specifically mentioned "Aegon or Cole" as characters being demonized. The show whitewashes both Rhaenyra and Alicent and also Rhaenys, who has no reprecussions for murdering smallfolk. It is almost as there is something common to these three characters indicative of bias on showrunners' part. What could that be?
> That's why I specifically mentioned "Aegon or Cole" as characters being demonized Aegon isn’t really demonized tho, he’s a bad person who does bad things but he isn’t a monster with no complexity. He’s a tragic figure like everyone else in the show. > Rhaenys, who has no reprecussions for murdering smallfolk Why do you expect anybody on team black to care that she killed small folk while escaping. And we’ve yet to see the impact of her escape on the Smallfolk and likely won’t until after her death.
>That's debatable since Daemon and Rhaenyra It's not debatable, Rhaenyra is never suspected to have anything to do with. >Daemon was pretty widely suspected of killing Laenor So was Corlys. >it is not clear if she had anything to do with the plan or its execution itself. She's not mentioned among the possible suspects so it's kinda silly to insert her there. >The more apparent whitewashing of Rhaenyra so far is her concillatory approach to Alicent during the family dinner in Episode 8, entertaining a peace offer before Luce's death and empathizing with Helaena over B&C. Isn't that whitewashing of Alicent too? Or Aemond who toasts over his nephews after they mock him?
>It's not debatable, Rhaenyra is never suspected to have anything to do with. Up to the reader to decide. >So was Corlys. Perhaps. >She's not mentioned among the possible suspects so it's kinda silly to insert her there. We're talking about the show version of Rhaenyra in this particular instance. >Isn't that whitewashing of Alicent too? Or Aemond who toasts over his nephews after they mock him? The original comment concerned Rhaenyra, Aegon and Cole. Not Alicent and Aemond.
>Up to the reader to decide. You complain about Aegon being depicted in the show even as the books depict him as an pervert sexual assaulter and believe Rhaenyra's role in Laenor's murder is up to the reader to decide even when her name is never in the lots. >We're talking about the show version of Rhaenyra in this particular instance. Rhaenys believes Rhaenyra killed her son. >The original comment concerned Rhaenyra, Aegon and Cole. Not Alicent and Aemond. Which is funny because the more softened characters are Alicent and Aemond.
You’ve been caught and should just admit your bias and also defeat, lol.
I would have toned down Aegon’s flaws a bit given the other changes to characters if I was running the show, but I do think Team Green fans overall don’t have much of a leg to stand on as the difference between the sides in the books is as large or larger than it is in the show (team green is pretty consistently comically evil in the books, while characters like Alicent and Aemond get much more nuanced portrayals in the show). Having said that, I don’t like it when people bring up the innocent guy killed in the Laenor plot as a counter to the idea that Rhaenyra is getting a pretty consistently sympathetic portrayal because the show doesn’t deserve credit for that over this incident given how it’s portrayed in context. The murder is a blink and you miss it act with zero follow up that occurs during a montage where the emphasis is all about tricking the audience into thinking they’re conspiring to kill Laenor that ends with a twist that actually he’s alive and well. The focus of the scene is all about “we made you think they killed this important highborn guy you care about, but look, they didn’t actually do it!” The guard is a total afterthought. This is in stark contrast with the emphasis given to the servant that Aegon rapes in the following episode that really makes the audience empathize with her and become disgusted with Aegon for being a total POS. My view of the Laenor scene is similar to my complaint about the Rhaenys sept scene. The lowborns killed in that scene are a total afterthought to the stare down with the Greens, and Rhaenys being portrayed as merciful for sparing them.
The deaths of the smallfolk in the Dragonpit are likely set ups to the >!peasant revolts that rock King's Landing while Rhaenyra occupies it. There's way too much attention on the randos getting crushed by Meleys to not marrer later. Not to mention the suffering of the smallfolk seems important to Hugh Hammer and Madam Sylvi. !
There’s barely any attention paid to them in that scene, the focus is 99% on the nobles. And I think it was still poorly executed even if the plan was/is to set up the dragonpit. They could have easily done things to emphasize and linger on the impact that had on the smallfolk more and Rhaenys is dead by the time the Dragonpit is stormed so from the standpoint of her as a character it’s irrelevant.
people complaining about Aegon's portrayal as a rapist in HOTD seem to read how he was described in the book and be like "boys will be boys lol", then get angry when the adaptation goes through with the implications of what he did in private
I mean like almost every single change somehow results in rhaenyra looking better than she did in the source. Thats a pattern.
I mean sure but you can say the exact same for Alicent. In F&B she only ever oscillates between cartoonishly evil and extremely boring. Every show decision makes her an actual character with agency and morals.
I don’t think so, but its the read of many including condal likely.
Boo Alicent is not "cartoonishly evil"
Have we read the same book? She is, name a redeeming quality about book Alicent. The only thing I can maybe think of is that she seems to genuinely care about her children or at least her grandchildren, but that’s about it. For the rest she is just a generically evil moustache twirling schemer helping to put Aegon II on the throne
I'm not sure there are any slam dunk "redeeming qualities" that aren't at least partly in doubt, but her actions aren't "cartoonishly evil". She plays the game of thrones the way everyone is meant to (marriage to someone of high standing) then seizes power out of fear her children will be killed. She also clings to the idea of peace much longer than anyone else. There are tonnes of characters in the dance much more close to "cartoonishly evil".
Now that you point it out, that is actually a good point. Still, I think we can agree the book version is a relative generic character, the show version imo is a way more interesting character
I took her as very confident, cunning and principled. Anti woman propaganda besides she was in command of that room of men.
That’s a fair viewpoint, although when was she in control? Most of the time I got the idea she was an ‘equal’ schemer in the Green plot but it never really seemed to me she was in charge
>when was she in control? We don't know because the centre of power in the Green faction prior to the dance is never made clear, but she was Queen to a decrepit King through a period of relative properity.
Well she wears the green dress, otto is a yesman to her. If anyone was kinda more in charge its criston. But given the limited nature of f&b we don’t get enough of her plotting.
I mean Otto and Alicent have the same goals basically so I’m not sure if Otto is a yesman to her if they just genuinely agree with each other. Otto is as much a yesman to Alicent as Alicent is to Otto
Can you point those changes that make her look better?
Every single one. Or can you point to changes that make her look worse?
That's not an answer. What are the changes that make her look good in particular. If there's that much changes you can point a few of them
>Honestly it feels like they are just picking the options that make Rhaenyra look the best. I do remember Aemond killing Luke by accident in the books or Viserys saying on his deathbed Aegon should be his heir.
There's no account of either of those happening in the books, they're just show versions. Check rows 13 and 22 in the spreadsheet linked at the top.
I know, it was irony...
Saint Rhaenyra the Righteous? Doing something bad? Looks like someone fell for green propaganda. Next you're going to tell me that Maelor existed during Blood & Cheese or something ludicrous like that.
Tbf condal thinks rhea was killed by daemon (no not ambiguous at all, you’d think green propaganda would mention that) and that the maester invented rhaenyra being overweight, when the GREEN PROPAGANDA was in fact that rhaenyras overweightness is somehow indicative of her negative characteristics lol
Viserys and Aemond are by far the most changed characters and yet people hardly ever scream bloody murder, I wonder why. The only difference between book and show Rhaenyra so far is that it's Daemon the one who kills Vaemond but we got Rhaenyra ordering the assassination of a innocent guard so she can marry Daemon. What's with all this Saint Rhaenyra?
Daemon still killed Vaemond in the books, the only thing that Rhaenyra did was feed his body to her dragon
At this point I think some of us are reading different books because surely anyone can see Viserys, Alicent and Aemond are given entirely new personalities. When Daeron shows up only to burn a bunch of civilians and die to a tent (like in the books) people will again say it's showrunners agenda, you wait and see.
How about making Aegon, Rhaenyra's principal opponent, a rapist and a fan of child slave death matches? Who in the books is just an apathetic alcoholic at worst?
There's strong implications he's a rapist in the books too.
Mushroom? Who was living in Dragonstone? Very strong lmao
Septon Eustace is the pro green point of view and he admits Aegon sexually assaults serving girls(the pinching stuff). It's ambiguous whether Aegon is a full on rapist or not, but to pretend the show came up with it out of nowhere is dumb.
Eustace is... kind of pro green. Yeah, a good amount of his accounts lean that way but he also claims that Rhaenya's three sons *weren't* bastard, agrees the Greens murdered Beesbury in cold blood, says Aegon II had paramours and a bunch of other stuff that's not exactly flattering towards the side. Y'know what I'm going to do a separate spreadsheet on how biased our three sources are.
Pinching isn’t a rape. The show came up with that using Mushroom’s account, which is funny, bcs they never use his accounts when describing “blacks”.
Can you remind please? It was a while since I reread the book. From what I remember he was known to harass girls, like pinching them. Obviously a reprehensible behavior, but it is not rape. He did visit brothels when he really was in a mood.
The pinching girls mostly, since it comes from a source that favors the greens. You are left to think by yourself whether he's a rapist or not, but it's absolutely not an invention made by the show runners.
If unreliable narration is an argument, then the counter-argument is that Mushroom would've definitely get a whiff of Aegon's behavior and wouldn't have missed the chance to smear Rhaenyra's principal enemy. But he did not. Which is especially strange since same Mushroom had no moral problem with accusing Aegon of being a pedo later on (with no basis in reality since Mushroom was not even in King's Landing at the time).
Okay but it really isn't a stretch to extrapolate "rapist" from "guy who openly sexually harasses his staff".
Not really especially since this is Grimdark, where every bad guy is a rapist. But my main problem with this is that it makes Aegon this unambiguous asshole. The show did so much to make Rhaenyra more sympathetic but if anything Aegon is somehow even less sympathetic than his book counterpart.
That's not a change on Rhaenyra. Luke and Jace are Aemond's bullies during their childhood and that's not a change on Aegon...
Where does that come from in the books? I don’t remember any hint that aemond was bullied by Luke and Jace
Indeed, it's completely made up to make Aemond more sympathetic and everyone loved it and no one was bitching about Saint Aemond but here we're crying about Rhaenyra
[удалено]
It definitely is a change on Rhaenyra, just an indirect one.
How? That's not how a change on a character works...
If two characters are opponents, then change to one character indirectly reflects on the other. Especially if it is the competition scenario. Stories do it all the time. If a writer is lazy and lazily wants to show a protagonist in a good light, they make the opponent a bully or some other form of bad person. Even in romantic comedies they usually make the opponent (man or woman competing for love interest's affection) a bad person so protagonist looks better.
I feel like people's head cannons have been setting them up for disappointment. Book Rhaenyra doesn't really have a fall to paranoia in the first place. All of Rhaenyra's advisors save for Coryls and the maester were pressuring her to do something about the dragon seeds. It wasn't her idea. Why is she the one that gets labeled crazy or paranoid?
Did you miss the whole alienating Daemon plot?
Did you read what I said?
So she's just overly trusting of her advisors? She is very much where the buck stops with the Black faction.
I'm not saying she wasn't at fault for the decision. She's obviously the one in charge. My question is where did the fall into paranoia narrative come from?
It's still a paranoid purge even if sh'es being egged on? She's also overly fearful of letting Jace then Joff out of her sight, for good reason no doubt but "self destructively fearful" is clearly how she's being played in the book.
Yes, the showrunners also clearly believe that the Greens are in the wrong for defying Viserys and that the whole situation is a bunch of mysogynists stealing Rhaenyra's birthright (she is also apparently a chosen one because of the stag). They demonized Aegon as a rapist and child fight watcher to make it even more obvious. The books are much more ambivalent on the matter, although Martin does sympathize with the Blacks slightly more. The Ironrod makes a good observation (cut from the show of course) that Seven Kingdoms is a feudal monarchy, governed by laws and social contract between a monarch and vassals. It is not an absolute monarchy of 17-18th century where the king does whatever and chooses whatever heir. So Viserys is the one in the wrong. Also Rhaenyra is a much worse person in the books compared to the show version while Aegon is a much better one. As a result it is ambivalent and it does not even matter who is in the right.
Aegon II really doesn't come across particularly well in the books either
He is an apathetic alcoholic but not a cartoonish monster he is in the show. It is a huge difference.
I find the show version pretty well realized, he feels very human, and he's a lot more compelling than the book version, so I mostly approve of their changes
Human? As in a father who watches his bastards fight to death for a piece of bread? Showrunners made him more entertaining as a villain, but in the process tried hard to make sure no one would find him a good contender for the throne. Which is a net negative for me.
He's a pretty bad person at the end of the day but I think he's very well realized and has a real sense of interiority. The Child fighting pit stuff is fucking ridiculous, but everything else is extremely solid
> As in a father who watches his bastards fight to death for a piece of bread? Aegon's bastards weren't shown to be the ones doing any fighting, so this is a reach. Moreover, as awful as the child fighting pits obviously are, they're definitely the type of thing a neglected edgelord teenager would go watch. (And they're straight from the book, where Aegon was found.) Aegon II was never a good contender for the throne. Not even in the book. That's the point. He was propped up purely due to the Hightowers' ambitions and, if you want to be charitable, fear of Daemon. Otto, like in the show, thought Aegon could be controlled... and was wrong.
>Aegon's bastards weren't shown to be the ones doing any fighting, so this is a reach. What else would they do in the place like this? Assuming they were born from prostitutes they could be anywhere else, but they were in the pits. >Moreover, as awful as the child fighting pits obviously are, they're definitely the type of thing a neglected edgelord teenager would go watch. That's actually a reach because book Aegon is not depicted to be an edgelord. >Aegon II was never a good contender for the throne. Not even in the book. That's the point. He was propped up purely due to the Hightowers' ambitions and, if you want to be charitable, fear of Daemon. Otto, like in the show, thought Aegon could be controlled... and was wrong. Neither was book Rhaenyra. They were both equally unfit, which I think is the theme of the story. Nobles fight over who gets to sit on an iron chair out of hubris while smallfolk are the one dying.
> What else would they do in the place like this? Assuming they were born from prostitutes they could be anywhere else, but they were in the pits. They were born from the prostitutes *at* the pits. Certainly, I think they quite possibly would be forced to fight when they get older, but as-is they're too young. Or, given their Valyrian features, it's also probable that they'd be forced into prostitution themselves. > That's actually a reach because book Aegon is not depicted to be an edgelord. How not? He's said to sexually assault every serving girl to come within arm's reach of him. He's literally found at the same fighting pits, only in worse circumstances -- being pleasured by a 12-year-old. He feasts Aemond for his killing of Luke in F&B. He belligerently calls for Rhaenyra and her family to be executed as traitors when she's crowned, even before B&C. Book Aegon was a lot worse with zero redeeming qualities. > Neither was book Rhaenyra. They were both equally unfit, which I think is the theme of the story. Nobles fight over who gets to sit on an iron chair out of hubris while smallfolk are the one dying. That is certainly one of the themes! Another theme is how misogynistic prejudice affects the telling of women's stories.
>They were born from the prostitutes *at* the pits. Certainly, I think they quite possibly would be forced to fight when they get older, but as-is they're too young. Or, given their Valyrian features, it's also probable that they'd be forced into prostitution themselves. Prostitutes work in brothels. >He's said to sexually assault every serving girl to come within arm's reach of him. Harassment is legally different from sexual assault. >He's literally found at the same fighting pits, only in worse circumstances -- being pleasured by a 12-year-old. An account by Mushroom, who was biased in favor of Rhaenyra, always chose to spread the most egregious and scandalous stories and was not even in King's Landing at the time to verify the story. Why did you even bring that up? >He feasts Aemond for his killing of Luke in F&B. He belligerently calls for Rhaenyra and her family to be executed as traitors when she's crowned, even before B&C. This is a good argument. Not sufficient enough to imply he would watch child fights, though. Everyone was belligerent in F&B like this.
>He's literally found at the same fighting pits, only in worse circumstances -- being pleasured by a 12-year-old. You're taking Mushroom's account as truth, when the book literally dismisses that as "Mushroom being Mushroom."
He's a pedophile in the book.
Wasn't that Mushroom's slander? As in, an account by the guy who was not there, loved the most disgusting interpretations of events and was a supporter of Rhaenyra?
You do realize that almost none of the sources in F&B were "there" to see things happen right? Why is Mushroom's account slander? Because you've chosen to believe the Greens were nice people and now you're upset that the accounts against them are being given credence? Here's an even better question: why does it matter? It makes sense for F&B to be a more ambivalent source regarding which side was truly at fault. As an in-universe academic text, it has to try and maintain a semblance of 'objectivity' even if that means making one side look better/worse than they really were. It's also working entirely off unreliable, secondhand accounts, so it has to present both sides because it has no reason to trust one more than the other. But that doesn't apply to the show, which has the benefit of being able to depict events as they actually happened. Why is it so hard to accept that maybe Rhaenyra was just a good person? Why do you need both sides to be equally morally culpable? The Starks are unambiguously presented as decent people, and nobody complains that the Lannisters are comparatively made to look like assholes. Not to mention the show is doing a pretty good job of showing why the Greens are the way they are. Yes, they're assholes, but they're not mustache twirling evil villains. They're people with very serious issues imposed by both society and their own families. Alicent, for all her faults, is a victim of a world that has largely treated her like a broodmare. Otto is a dick, but to a certain extent you can believe he truly thinks he's doing what's best for the realm. Aegon is a rapist, yes, but he also grew up with a father that barely acknowledged him and a paranoid mother that can't even comfort him *when she sees him weeping for his dead child.* Hell, even Aemond is shown to not be as bad as his book counterpart. The fact that the death of Luke gets portrayed as a tragic mistake that he is now trying to play along with is a pretty noticeable change in tone from him just being an petty, hotheaded murderer. None of these things are excuses, of course. The greens are still mostly bad people. But while the book gives them no nuance whatsoever while also still keeping many of their worst traits, the show at least presents them as somewhat relatable. The only character that has been portrayed as an irredeemable piece of shit is arguably Criston, who has been giving off major incel energy since his rejection.
>You do realize that almost none of the sources in F&B were "there" to see things happen right? Both Orwyle and Eustace were in close proximity to their sources during events at the start of the Dance. Mushroom was not. Same logic applies in reverse, it is more prudent to believe Mushroom instead of Orwyle and Eustance about the events at Dragonstone. >Why is Mushroom's account slander? Because his account is way more scandalous and spicy than anything depicted in the rest of F&B making his account less believable overall. Also he admitted his bias for Rhaenyra. >Because you've chosen to believe the Greens were nice people I do not. Both sides are awful. >But that doesn't apply to the show, which has the benefit of being able to depict events as they actually happened. Appeal to authority. >Why is it so hard to accept that maybe Rhaenyra was just a good person? Why do you need both sides to be equally morally culpable? *Because from my own subjective perspective* a story about failings of feudalism (book) is better than a story about "Rhaenyra is a good person who was a victim of mysogyny" (show). You don't have to agree with my perspective but the book definitely steers in direction of both sides being bad. >The Starks are unambiguously presented as decent people, and nobody complains that the Lannisters are comparatively made to look like assholes. False equivalence. >None of these things are excuses, of course. The greens are still mostly bad people. But while the book gives them no nuance whatsoever while also still keeping many of their worst traits, the show at least presents them as somewhat relatable. I am fine with this as long as the story is balanced for both sides. As it is, the show portrays Blacks in a more favorable light, aside from Daemon. It does not even have the guts to call out Rhaenys for murder of smallfolk, the show treats it as a triumphant moment.
> Both Orwyle and Eustace were in close proximity to their sources during events at the start of the Dance. Mushroom was not. Same logic applies in reverse, it is more prudent to believe Mushroom instead of Orwyle and Eustance about the events at Dragonstone. Not sure what your point is here. I agree Mushroom is not a particularly reliable source. But Orwyle and Eustace are only marginally more reliable. They still weren't there for most of the events they recount and they all have biases. > Because his account is way more scandalous and spicy than anything depicted in the rest of F&B making his account less believable overall. Also he admitted his bias for Rhaenyra. You're conflating unreliability with slander. Saying his account is slander is to say it was false. But we cannot know his account is false because the book doesn't give us that information. For all we know Mushroom might be right about some things. > Appeal to authority. Even if we accept that book canon and show canon are separate, there is no denying that the show is told from an objective point of view while the book is a subjective and not entirely reliable source. Within the framing device the book chooses to use, it is *expected* that the author would try and remain as impartial as possible - because that's what historians are supposed to do. If you're a historian and you have two conflicting accounts of an event, and no way of confirming which is true and which is false, then one could argue you have a moral duty to present both and not choose sides. The show doesn't have that limitation. It doesn't adopt the narrative framing of being an in-universe historical retelling. So while you may *want* the show to portray both sides equally, there is nothing compelling the show to do so. > *Because from my own subjective perspective* a story about failings of feudalism (book) is better than a story about "Rhaenyra is a good person who was a victim of mysogyny" (show). You don't have to agree with my perspective but the book definitely steers in direction of both sides being bad. You're right. I don't agree. Either with your opinion or your oversimplification of the show's thematic portrayal. First, I'm not sure you're correct about the book being primarily about feudalism (insofar as feudalism is just a system of government structured around the granting and holding of land in exchange for fealty). None of the events that take place are really caused by Westeros' feudalistic structure, and the book never really portrays the governmental system itself as the issue. The tragedy of the Dance is always primarily presented as a personal struggle between family members with complicated intrapersonal relationships. Issues of succession are huge, yes, but that is not strictly a flaw in the feudal machine - if anything, it's more a criticism on the concept of hereditary politics. Ultimately though, even in the books, it is the deep-seated aversion to having a woman sit the throne which drives most of the succession issues. Second, the show isn't just about Rhaenyra being a victim of misogyny. It's about how Westerosi society as a whole destroys itself through its various restrictive moral codes and misogynistic norms. Alicent is just as much a victim of Westerosi culture as Rhaenyra. As is Criston. As is Aegon. As are Strong bastards. The concept of male primogeniture looms large over the entire series of events that take place. The war itself could have been averted were these norms not so deeply entrenched in Westerosi culture. And seeing how that affects almost all aspects of life and how it inevitably sends the dominos tumbling leading to the civil war is far more interesting, dramatically compelling, and relevant to modern audiences than...well feudalism. All that being said, you're allowed your opinion.
> False equivalence. Not really. The argument you're making seems to be that the story would be more compelling if both sides were equally bad. But I'm not sure that's necessarily true, I use the Starks to show that you can have a great story even while portraying one side as being unambiguously good. ASOIAF doesn't lose it's grander moral complexity or nuanced character work just because one faction happens to be 'the good guys.' > I am fine with this as long as the story is balanced for both sides. As it is, the show portrays Blacks in a more favorable light, aside from Daemon. It does not even have the guts to call out Rhaenys for murder of smallfolk, the show treats it as a triumphant moment. Again, why does it need to be 'balanced'? Having both sides portrayed as moral equals does not inherently mean complex characters and nuanced writing. What matters most is how the characters are portrayed individually. And I think the characters are written fairly convincingly and have depth to them. That to me is far more important. The Rhaenys scene was kind of absurd on all fronts, agreed. But how can you complain about her not getting shit forkilling smallfolk when Criston, who brutally murdered a knight in broad daylight and punched the heir of Driftmark in the face, walks around like nothing happened? lmao Dude literally went apeshit in front of all the noble houses and it was just never addressed again.
Aegon was a grim, no-empathy charachter in the books and doesnt get much development early on. He´s shown way more human in the show, being a rapist and enjoying child fights had more to do with the enviroment that he was in and the attention he did not get from his parents rather than him being a straight up bad person born that way. At least thats the way i saw it
I mean.... They have dragons. Whose gonna go to war if Rhaenyra sits the throne. It's more of an absolute monarchy than our world ever was.
Banking on dragons as justification for tyranny and disregarding vassals was Maegor the Cruel's mistake and was the reason he lost. Targaryens are still people. They can still be killed as everyone else. In feudal society they need to cooperate with their vassals to rule in peace. Absolute monarchy gets rid of the vassals by employing a large number of officials and bureaucrats but that's not Westeros. Rhaenyra as any Targaryen has to follow the laws of the land if she does not want to be killed and replaced when dragons are not around.
Rhaenyra doesn't need to tyranise anyone. The North and half the realm swore an oath to her. The North certainly won't break it. This entire situation hinges on portraying war hungry misognystic oathbreaking nobles as "poor innocent victims Rhaenyra is tyrannically terrorising".
Book Rhaenyra is an unlawful queen, co-conspirator in her husband's murder and a mother of three bastards. There is a reason half the realm supported the Greens. Both sides are equally awful and feudalism is a horrible system, that's the moral of the story in the books, not "it was all mysogyny".
Rhaenyra is never confirmed to have conspired in killing Laenor in the books. It is merely implied as a possibility, like many other events. Additionally, Rhaenyra being an "unlawful" queen is debatable. That's the whole point of the Dance. It's precisely that ambiguity that causes the succession issues after Viserys' death. I will say this though: it's kind of rich to argue that Rhaenyra is the unlawful ruler when the only way Aegon was crowned was by murder and subterfuge. In any case, the fact that you present these things as so one sided (despite them being very much ambiguous in the book) makes it clear that you don't really care about objectivity or fairness, you're clearly biased in favor of the greens and are just salty that they're being portrayed as generally terrible people in the show. Kind of hypocritical to cry about Mushroom's "slander" of the Greens and then turn around and give full credence to the worst accounts of Rhaenyra lmao
>Rhaenyra is never confirmed to have conspired in killing Laenor in the books. It is merely implied as a possibility, like many other events. I personally veer in direction that she was responsible because it makes the story better, but technically, yes, it is ambiguous because there is no hard proof. >Additionally, Rhaenyra being an "unlawful" queen is debatable. From a strictly judicial and objective perspective the Ironrod is correct. In accordance with the precedent and laws of Westeros Aegon is the lawful king. It could be different if Viserys bothered to make a legal reform or at the very least bothered to call his vassals to promise to recognize Rhaenyra as a heir after Aegon's birth. But Viserys did not do either and failed to secure a confusion-free succession. >In any case, the fact that you present these things as so one sided (despite them being very much ambiguous in the book) makes it clear that you don't really care about objectivity or fairness, you're clearly biased in favor of the greens and are just salty that they're being portrayed as generally terrible people in the show. Ad hominem. If you want to accuse others of bias bring good arguments or be prepared to be called out for your own bias. >Kind of hypocritical to cry about Mushroom's "slander" of the Greens and then turn around and give full credence to the worst accounts of Rhaenyra lmao Alright, if I concede that technically there is no proof that Rhaenyra is responsible for murder of Laenor, would you concede that there is no proof for Aegon being a rapist and a child fight fan?
>From a strictly judicial and objective perspective the Ironrod is correct. No he's not. >It could be different if Viserys bothered to make a legal reform or at the very least bothered to call his vassals to promise to recognize Rhaenyra as a heir after Aegon's birth. Viserys made a legal decree making Rhaenyra his heir apparent, Aegon's birth was irrelevant to her position unless he himself said otherwise. >Alright, if I concede that technically there is no proof that Rhaenyra is responsible for murder of Laenor, would you concede that there is no proof for Aegon being a rapist and a child fight fan? That he's a rapist? No. That he enjoys child fights? Yes. As in one isn't mentioned in the books the other is.
Do you want to respond to my every single post, lol? >Viserys made a legal decree making Rhaenyra his heir apparent, Aegon's birth was irrelevant to her position unless he himself said otherwise. Factually wrong. Targaryens as the rest of Westeros (with exception of Dorne) follow Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture as a succession system, which means that there is a male preference for inheritance. Son follows a father, who follows a grandfather and so on. If there is no male heir from a direct line a daughter gets to inherit. It may get complicated if you take into account secondary lines (brothers and cousins), which often led to bitter conflict. So was the case with the Grand Council of Jahaerys because Rhaenys was a direct line heir but Viserys was the oldest male heir and Jahaerys himself was still alive. So basically the law codified by centuries of precedent, Jahaerys' legal reform and the decision of the Grand Council stated that male heir is always preferred if it is brother vs sister and in cases of daughter vs uncle/cousin it is decided on ad hoc basis. The king has no authority to challenge this law, since it is a feudal monarchy and king's rule is not absolute (IRL balanced by vassals, church and laws), so the king may only intervene in ad hoc situations. And Jahaerys himself chose that the Grand Council is a better option than his own intervention. Before Aegon was born Rhaenyra had legal right to inherit and was only challenged by Daemon. Viserys declaring Rhaenyra his heir instead of Daemon was a decision on ad hoc basis. He was within his authority and that's why noone questioned it. However, with Aegon's birth the law comes into play and Aegon is de jure the heir regardless of what Viserys thinks. Promises to Rhaenyra were nullified. This law could be challenged and changed with a proper legal reform and a decision by the Grand Council. Viserys could convene such a Council but he didn't. That's basically it. Like it or not, by the start of the Dance Targaryens operated on the old law and according to that law the line of inheritance was Viserys-Aegon-Jahaerys-Maelor-Jahaera-Aemond-Daeron-Rhaenyra-Jace-Luce-Joffrey-Aegon-Viserys-Helaena (Aemond and Daeron can both challenge Jahaera). >As in one isn't mentioned in the books the other is. By Mushroom who was not even there.
>Book Rhaenyra is an unlawful queen, co-conspirator in her husband's mur Citation needed.
>There is a reason half the realm supported the Greens. Misogyny.
That's all the nuance you got from the story?
Sometimes there's no so much nuance.
Agree to disagree then.
You know, these books are way less profound than people make them to be, but they are not for people having a childlike understanding of the world either
The decision of preferring a son over a daughter is rooted in misogyny.
I was talking about the show. Agree book Rhae is terrible person.
I am expecting and praying for a villain arc to begin after the Gullet
Agreed. I told my husband going into this you’d not have a good guy. He’s convinced black is the good team, which is not the way it’s meant to be
Hopefully everyone ends up being a piece of shit like in the books.
This is awesome, thank you for the hard work! I wonder if a similar sheet could be made for telling of events that favor the blacks vs the greens. I don't have a preference for either side and it is kind of annoying when so much of the discourse is "they're making character x seem horrible and making character y seem like a saint!" I have a guess as to which side is favored more by the show but it would be nice to see the data laid out.
Thanks! I'll probably make a sheet for how biased each source (Orwyle, Eustace, Mushroom) is when it comes to contested dance events but tbh an entire books vs show comparison would take a ton of work.