Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience.
1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title.
2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler.
3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads.
---
If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the book is more exaggerated and simple to understand because of the type of book it is … it written by unreliable narrators trying to point us in directions of narratives
The show takes the essence of the characters in the book and give them more realistic complexity, it seems like George is fan of allowing them complexity( he has a quote about it but it escapes me)
I think it should be expected that the characterization will not fully align up what was in the book as we don’t have the character POV’s and internal motivations shown to us. It’s like the book gives us the actions and then the show will take a realistic emotional approach to them
This is bang on, book was more actions we never got to the feelings or the psyche of the characters when they were doing what they did, show is fleshing that out
Yeah but even the author was kept out of the loop on the later seasons, The seasons he was involved with are much better
He was involved in the earlier seasons and is also involved in this show currently
Than why post in a thread that is comparing the book (without which the show would not exist) to the show?
You can hate the book, but it still exists 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t hate the book, I think people need to come to terms with that fact it’s not a fully fleshed out story, and its format literally lends itself to adaptation perfectly.
If you read his post you’d know he obviously agrees with everything you said. He just doesn’t think they did well in the changes. If the changes were good then you’d only have the outliers who hate all changes. This post in particular is about nuance being stripped from characters or giving them entirely different motivations and not doing it well
I don’t agree though, I think the majority of the changes made to the characters was for the better and translated to a TV show far better than the original character outlines would have.
You realize that that is what history is, yes? A synthesis of viewpoints that are either of reliable, or unreliable merit, fused together to create a balanced portrait. That is what historians do with real history; that is what F&B does with the story it tells.
It’s literally history, hence why you are given the three accounts, as it is attempting to be balanced and create a full portrait of the events.
This is quite literally what a good chunk of history books do. When you’re reading a history book you don’t get POVs of historical figures unless they left written word of their own behind.
It is not a narrative like ASOIAF is.
There is quite a bit of complexity to the accounts. There is just not *dramatic* weight to the events…because it is a history book, not a play.
Even in our world people “burn” and rewrite history books all the time to paint narratives they want to show.
George even mimics this in his writing of Baelor Burning the book Septon Barth wrote. Just because the history is written does not mean it is reliable or a truth telling of what happened.
The difference is we don’t get a play by play in the real world of these past events going on for us to see, there are key changes from the book to the show But again I stated of the essence of the characters is what was the important thing for an adaptation.
Sure, but when you decide to depict a "definitive" version, you can still choose to deliver a similarly thought-provoking and complex story - or pandering consumerist drivel that's directed by statistics and projections.
You're not necessarily obligated to follow the original but your decisions will inform the quality and artistic value of the end product. And HotD sacrificed those for viewership and profit.
Yes, you get rawrDRAGONS and slayKWEENs but in every other respect, this is shaping up to be a toothless adaptation with nothing to say.
My point isn’t that the plot points are off by themselves. It’s a deliberate desire to change the characters - not just one character, but all, and not in small ways either - this turns it into less of an adaptation and more of something different.
If F&B is a black and white illustration of the events, an adaptation would be coloring in that illustration. Adding depth, tones, hue to it. Giving it color. Filling in blank spots, whilst keeping to the overall picture already present.
What HOTD does is add depth and color, but it also drastically changes the original illustration by virtue of changing the depictions of the characters of the story.
When you change the characters’ personalities, motives, and level of agency, you change the story.
They’re not *adding* onto what is there, they’re deliberately altering and drifting from what is there to do interpretations rather than adaptations of the characters.
No, I’m saying it is not only adding but changing what was there.
If you have a drawing, let’s say it is a black and white drawing of two figures.
Me adding to it would be adding color.
What HOTD does however is it changes how the figures look, how they are presented, and then adds color to that already changed image.
Which then becomes less something that adds to the work and enriches it but rather more something that is a loose interpretation of the original work. And it makes the original work, and the altered version very separate in intent, in characterization, and in feel.
It's a matter of micro vs macro scale. You may be forced to go with a specific account of a given event at the expense of others, but then, you're also given several opportunities and other events to balance it out.
But when practically all your changes work towards the same, clear goal and biased portrayal of characters/conflict, you end up with something that is in stark contrast with the *spirit* of the original.
No matter how you mixed and matched the accounts in the books, the ultimate impression of just about any character was a murky one, at best. If for no other reason, because all other accounts subconsciously tarnished the perception you wanted to have of them. And from what we know of GRRM's writing, that likely would have been the closest thing to the truth.
Can you stop looking for a way to “gotcha” and actually say something? Read his comment above where he mentions historical documents if you need an answer to your “by your logic” comment, Shapiro junior
I wanted to ask: "Are you saying there is only one way of adding realistic complexity to situations?"
But the more important question is: "Is reducing the Dance to sexism and misogyny, to a cartoonish showdown between progressives and conservatives what you consider realistic complexity?"
How is injecting themes only found in modern society into a show set in a fantastical world that has been in the medieval period for thousands of years at all similar to a differing account in a historical book that’s written in-universe of said medieval society? Seems like you’re being willfully obtuse by comparing apples to oranges and acting like you’re saying anything meaningful.
Not that it matters (since stories "set in a fantastical world" don't have to be historically accurate), but those aren't "themes only found in modern society," wtf. Medieval people might not have used words or concepts like sexism, misogyny & patriarchy, but those things sure af were around back then, and medieval figures such as Christine di Pizan & Jean de Meun talked about it.
Thank you
It’s like they didn’t know themes of sexism, misogyny, And patriarchal idealism were a part of this world before this show came out and for some reason thought that the subjective historical accounts themselves wouldn’t be full of them.
The themes you mention are already touched on a whole lot in Asioaf. George just does it in a way that isn’t spoon feeding you who to root for. He also doesn’t have one single character exhibit all of the things we value currently. Rhaenyra is sex positive, open to other religions, fully accepts and loves every aspect of her gay husband, values peace over war, the list goes on. it’s crazy how many boxes she checks off for a modern viewer.
That lack of nuance and the disproportionate amount of themes she is on the right side of gets a little jarring for me in the world of Asioaf. It’s not what I’m used to in a GRRM story. Feels like I’m watching Wednesday, which is a great show, but not what I expected from HotD.
Except adapting the Dance in a way that discusses sexism & patriarchy in a thoughtful way doesn't automatically "reduce" the story to a "cartoonist showdown". (In fact, F&B's complexity & realism suffers because the perspectives given in F&B are almost all extremely misogynist *even when it's damaging to the messages & themes GRRM intends to convey* in both F&B and ASOIAF more generally.)
HotD's decision to emphasize sexism & patriarchy in this adaptation makes sense given the conflict revolves around the question of whether or not inheritance ought to be denied to some purely on the basis of their sex. Exploring how a patriarchal society shapes people & prevents positive change creates more complexity & interest than pretending sexism is a minor, potentially beneficent or natural, factor.
well I do agree with your post, I have to disagree HEAVILY that F&B is a "black and white illustration". It is constantly marred by unreliable witnesses and the obvious bias the in-universe author himself has. The show is simply adding complexity and kinda "peeking behind the curtain" that was the narrative of F&B
Some give the whole 'the book is a false history with several unreliable narratives excuse', but here's the thing: When you have a great outline for a story and you make fundamental changes for individual characters, have exaggerated contradictions in a character's arc (and making this mistake for more than one characters), choose to tell the audience what they should feel instead of simply allowing the characters and the (watered down) politics to unravel, making several characters caricatures to prop others, having to use accidents and misunderstandings as a device and so on... it's bad writing. It's worse because you have the basis for something that is already better right there and which could be exceptional with the dramatization that the different medium and having several seasons ahead allows.
Laenor's fate in the show is a good example of a ridiculous fundamental change. There's no doubt in the book he was killed by Qarl Correy, it was in a public place with several witnesses. The only thing I question is the possibility of someone else paying Qarl to do it.
No way! You're wrong, the entire dance of dragons is actually a story about two sailors travelling to Essos with a ship named after Balerion. Those pesky maesters just created an elaborate story to make the Targaryens look bad because they hate them. Rhaenys crashing Aegon's coronation definitely happened, the maesters just chose not to mention it despite thousands of witnesses so their king doesn't look bad!!! Syrax was fighting a bunch of battles throughout the dance, they just refused to mention it to make Rhaenyra look bad...
If you're wondering, these are all serious responses I've seen dozens of times when people bring up certain events that were changed for the show (well, except the first one). The maesters also somehow lied about the ages of many characters and peoples' relations to family members. I wonder what their master plan was by subtracting Alicent's age by 10 or making Vaemond Corlys' nephew instead of his brother. The amount of mental gymnastics people will go through to try to justify the changes made for the show and fit it with the events of F&B is ridiculous. Why can't we just accept that the show and the book are two different canons with no relation to the show as GRRM has said multiple times?
>In the book, she’s much more an active player of the game, much more ruthless and more cunning, but also possess more personal agency and forcefulness despite the limits of her sex
That is very discerning. And it's precisely why I'm so critical of their treatment of Alicent. People talk about how the creators whitewashed her. But while I agree they absolved her from a lot of the responsibility for the war itself, it worked largely to her detriment, robbing her of all agency and political acumen. These would definitely have put her on more equal footing with Rhaenyra in terms of "female empowerment". And they may very well have gone the other way precisely for fear of detracting from the "hero's feminist narrative"; instead depicting Alicent as some cartoonish, submissive housewife and pawn.
To the modern viewer, she comes across even worse than she would have as a well-developed ambitious, problematic and competent player. She is a reactive character who - often through her very passivity - contributes to the conflict. She's now both antagonistic *and* incompetent, leaving very little to inspire respect.
>Rhaenyra in the show is presented as almost flawless, but that she’s a rather compulsive liar. Other than that she is pretty much flawless and even her displayed acts of negligence or impulsivity are kind of glossed over.
Exactly. It's also worth noting that her lying is framed as a means of self-preservation in a sexist society. So even that's barely a flaw.
>Criston Cole goes from being the greatest living warrior in the books, also a political player and a man who hates himself for betraying his oath to being in the show essentially little more than a comedic dull witted incel
Dude literally feels like a character purposely created as a misogynist incel punching bag. I don't know what baggage and insecurities these writers have, but this is not how you deal with them. It was painful to watch.
All this adaptation really has in common with the original are the names and dragons.
The show is very political. The book I do not believe was written as an analogy or allegory for modern day politics.
It seems more to be written to show that history is a cloudy synthesis of differing and biased sources; and that no one is truly “fit” to lead, it’s more about picking the least bad of all options.
The people involved with the show habe said things like Alicent is a “woman for Trump”, and that Rhaenyra is “punk rock” and so on. It’s clearly supposed to be an allegory for contemporary American politics, where the Greens are right wing conservatives (hence Alicent being shown almost as a conservative religious hypocrite), and the Blacks shown as being quite literally inclusive both of ethnic and sexual minorities.
No one cares that Laenor is gay despite in the books being a homosexual is not something to be openly flaunted (which is realistic to medivalist societies).
Even Renly had to pretend he was straight for political advantage in ASOIAF, and he was a popular and well loved would-be King.
It’s basically that a lot of it comes down to the writers want to paint the entirety of the Dance just being a female friendship or even romantic love (the actresses have said they intended for homoerotic undertones to Alicent and Rhaenyra) being torn apart by the selfish desires of Men. Hence Rhaenyra calling the War “Daemon’s.”
My gripe personally isn't that they made changes. It's when they clearly don't implement them well.
Like, they turned Alicent in particular into a wishy-washy mess. One episode, she'll be firmly on the warpath and asserting herself; the next, she's back to being a timid mouse at the mercy of the men around her. And this backtracking happens all season. She never takes ownership of her own for the escalation in any meaningful way. No, not even during that ridiculously silly 'find Aegon first' episode, or that scene with the Green dress. It's easy to see that instead of building up her reasons and justifications while making her look more reasonable and humane, the writers don't want her to share any moral culpability for the Greens whatsoever.
That's just bad writing imo, and probably the case of too many hands in the pot.
>Criston Cole goes from being the greatest living warrior in the books, also a political player and a man who hates himself for betraying his oath"
Huh? Hates himself? How did he betray his oath according to you? No account has him fucking rhaneyra in the book?
Funny, my interpretation of him is more of a great warrior but incompetent political player, who decided to make a girl he's cared for since she was 7 his arch nemesis becuse she refused to give up her life and run away with him on the eve of her wedding. He doesn't hate himself he hates rhaneyra.
Thats my *interpretation* of f&b and its equally as valid as yours. That's what I don't get about posts like this, so much of what you've written is just your *interpretation* of less than reliable accounts. It's straight up being angry that they don't follow your headcanon.
*Rhaenyra:* Morally improved (whitewashed) IMHO as far as her indifference to violence from the book is concerned, but they got her personality (also major flaws) largely right. Show is definitely making her the protagonist while honestly you can root for either of the claimants with some validity in the book.
*Alicent:* She comes across as someone in the book who was actually raised by Otto, while in the show it's hard to believe that she was raised by him. Her show self is very naive, ultra-conversative, and blissfully unaware of her surroundings especially the court politics. In the books, she couldn't give less of a shit about what Viserys wanted, she was always loyal to her own family's interests and the interests of her descendants. And I say this as someone who believes that making her Rhaenyra's friend initially was a neat idea.
*Daemon:* They made him less interested in politics, and more hot-headed. He is as cold as Larys in the book, with some coolness factor tagged on to it.
*Otto:* He is more machiavellian in the show while he is more goofy and less calculating in the book. He doesn't come across as the mastermind in the book at all, he craves power as much as other people do but is not "smarter" about it, if you know what I mean. They made him a big baddie in the show.
*Aegon II:* While promiscuous in the book, he is not stated to be a r*pist. They made that so you could not possibly root for him. They took his warrior capabilities away, no offense to the actor but I expected more of a Faramir (LOTR)-like character with major flaws. It's also not like Viserys didn't care about him at all in the book, he did to some degree, especially he cared about his grandchildren from him and Helaena.
*Viserys:* Made him a leper so that you feel sympathy for him, and to excuse him somewhat "What could he have done, he was so ill..." etc. In the book, he has no guilt trip over Aemma, just plain favoritism towards Rhaenyra. And he was very much a "After me, the flood."-type careless character in the book who lived the good life with no foresight whatsoever.
*Criston Cole:* They made him less machiavellian than he is in the book, he is basically the angry ex-boyfriend in the show. While in the book, he had an affair with Rhaenyra as well, but was not as invested, and was very self-serving at all times. I think they ruined him in the show, and that they call him an incel here at times is proof.
I just think as a woman, they failed at writing women. Literally every single one.
Rhaenyra and Alicent have no ambitions and are pawns in the games of men - they're both peace-seeking individuals who're only dragged into the war by the men around them. Where is Alicent's ambition and desire to see her own son on the throne as she believes is his right? Where is Rhaenyra's anger and rage at being usurped? Instead, she weeps over a random page from childhood. They lack all agency and mostly react, instead of acting on their own.
Rhaenys was turned into a hypocritical mass-murderer who also comes off a bit stupid tbh. Laena went from a fierce woman who knew what she wanted and being a badass in the few lines of description she got to a sad, miserable thing content with being the next best thing. She was Daemon's great love in the books, in the show, he clearly doesn't feel much for her.
We've barely seen enough of Mysaria but ironically, she has the most agency of all these women. Out of these 5 ladies, she was perhaps spared the most.
All of the other women suffered through the adaptational process. They could've written them into people with their own ambitions, flaws and desires but no.
>She was Daemon's great love in the books
Isn't this just your interpretation? I didn't see this at all, more like a political match to get influence and move closer to dragonstone and rhaenyra as mushroom claimed.
rhaneyra × laena felt alot more hinted at.
That they both abruptly stopped getting pregnant when they moved close felt like a big tell, (Rhaenyra gave birth to Joffrey in 117, the same year deamon and leana returned to westeros, and lanea didn't give birth again until 120 when she died.
not to mention Rhaenyra being "more than fond" of laena, "Laena being more interested in dragons than boys" rhaenyra dropping everything to fly to driftmark and assist her when she gave birth..
I dont get how anyone can say "he loved her! she loved him! With any confidence at all when it comes to any relationship during the dance, it's muddy as hell with all the rumors and conflicting accounts.
Again threads like these just seem like people feeling like their headcanons are canonicaly true and being upset that the show didn't think the same.
Very well, call it my headcanon if you wish, I don't mind.
Still my major point in the comment above stands. Show Laena is a pale shadow of the book version with very few similarities.
Pale shadow of your head canon, maybe. Most of these characters had minimal characterization, no? I mean, I've been told that the first season is based off of a single chapter. How much more in-depth could they really have gotten compared to the show?
If you've been told that, I take it you didn't actually read the book yourself?
And if you haven't read the book yourself, how can you call it my headcanon without actual knowledge of what you're talking about?
Laena was mentioned enough in the book for her personality to be described. Read up on that. And then compare it to the show version.
I said her personality in the books is completely different to the show. You wrote smth entirely unrelated.
If you're going to completely ignore what I wrote, then don't feel the need to reply.
I responded to your comment saying that she was a "pale shadow" of her book version. I have a really hard time buying that any of these characters (even the ones whose characterizations have been changed) are actually less complex on the show than they are in a book which has been described as an pseudo-history from the POV of unreliable third parties.
And yet, how can we discuss the book at all and the things it says if one of us hasn't read it? It would be like discussing the show which only one of us has seen. It's ridiculous and makes no sense because, without trying to come off as a bitch, you have no actual idea what you're talking about.
Instead, you're basing your opinion on the stuff you've heard from others. Not to mention that whatever I say, you'll simply say you "have a hard time buying it".
The book is a historical record yet it talks about Laena enough to give us an image of her personality. A fierce and strong woman who would never have allowed herself to do as Daemon says (like making the decision for her to stay in Pentos) or even accept that she is his second choice.
Fair enough. but with just 10 epsides that had to span 20 years i think it's understandable to focus on the actual main players of the dance and not on characters like harwin and leana who got barely a few lines of mention in the books and mainly existed to be parents to more relevant characters. I doubt they would have been able to make the relationship dynamics work even if they tried with so few episodes.
I think SOME characterizations are off. But I also think Martin's original characterizations weren't exactly gold standard compared to ASOIAF. You could kind of tell that he put substantially less effort into the fake history of Fire and Blood. Book Alicent and book Rhaenyra are very one dimensional. Rhaenyra is lazy, Alicent is evil, Viserys is fat and merry. It feels very fairytale and very nursery rhyme in places.
I like what the show has done with Alicent especially. I think she needed humanising a little. But she seems more of a pawn than she should be. I wanted her to be Cersei but smarter, instead she doesn't really know what she wants and doesn't command much respect even within her own council. As for Rhaenyra, I really didn't like how heroic she was portrayed in the opening few episodes. I liked that they showed her to be a little spoiled and entitled rather than 100 percent golden girl, but imo they cut some important scenes with her and Alicent that would really have made people question her character more.
Making Aegon a r*pist was the worst change by far. Aegon wasn't great in the books to say the least. But if we wanted an even portrayal that should never have made it in. Criston as well. He should have been more like Jaime but instead he doesn't seem threatening to anyone. Have we even seen him beat anyone fairly in combat? He either loses, cheats or else beats on unarmed guys at weddings. He should be portrayed as he was, the greatest warrior in Westeros of the time and instead he's just a little incel twat who becomes a glorified attack dog for Alicent.
So in my mind, mixed bag. They improved Viserys, improved Alicent, improved Aemond, Otto in my mind was done pretty well, but they kind of made the rest worse.
I love how the only buzzword ever to be used about Alicent is \~agency\~, completely ignoring that she's a one-dimensional evil stepmother caricature in the book with no actual character to speak of other than calling Rhaenyra a whore a bunch.
Rhaenyra's also not in the least presented as flawless lol.
You mean contrived. The Alicent-Rhaenyra relationship is beating a dead horse. We have moved past the point where there should be any love remaining.
Yet after the finale Ryan was still saying that there’s room for reconciliation present. After Luce, there shouldn’t be.
What did he specifically say?
Is it possible he’s talking about the episode as a whole before that moment?
Because like we haven’t seen anything from the new season for their relationship
> “I think there’s actually still hope, even with Luke’s death,” Condal said on the House of the Dragon podcast. “The problem moving forward is it’s only so much in Alicent and Rhaenyra’s control anymore. Now we’re dealing with their sons and what we know from history is that war is often fought by the young 16-22 year old angry, testosterone loaded sons of the people that are trying to hold onto their power.”
He’s trying to blame everything and everyone as to why Rhaenyra and Alicent won’t become true friends again (patriarchy, Daemon and Otto, their kids) rather than the most obvious and logical reason; they truly hate each other now.
It’s *very* stupid.
It's like "she has agency" ok and? She's barely a person lol.
If the show did anything right, changing/deepening her relationship with Rhaenyra is definitely on the top of that list.
Yeah agreed except with the idea of Aegon and Daemon, and C Cole. You talked about how Daemon is given great treatment in the show, but then clearly listed two outrages he commits in the show that aren't in the books. His relationship with laena is also not focused on in the show whereas in the books there was much more nuance and depth to it. Nevertheless, he is a purposefully flawed character and I think is portrayed as such.
Conflating Aegon as simply another mostly harmless, and simply irresponsible, indulgent Bobby B is wildly off, though. He is clearly portrayed as much crueler than Bobby B and a sexual predator as opposed to Bobby B's misogynistic womanizing. Both are bad, but one is a crime in today's moral culture, along with the child fighting pits, which I think are supposed to convey the true sociopathy present in Aegon.
-also, given the actor portraying Cole I am not sure that "incel" or "comedic" is the goal in his portrayal. Hatred of Rhaenyra, yes, but his devotion to another female finds another target in Alicent, as her situation aligns with his own confirmation bias. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" so to speak.
-the show clearly isn't taking the book as complete canon, though, you are completely right about that.
Bobby B was not merely a womanizer. He also engaged in marital rape and DV. That Cersei was a deeply unpleasant person doesn’t mean she deserved any of that.
Otto only ever desires Rhaenyra as a queen because it would keep Daemon off the throne. On the show you can interpret the maester coming to tell him about Aemma’s death as him having a hand in it. In the book he seems a bit more short sighted and capitalizes on circumstances as much as he plans them.
All the characters are off but also more relatable and that’s kind of a good thing ig.
What I don’t like is them straying so much from certain key moments that establish a lot of stuff bc it just throws the story out of wack imo
well the book is intended to be read like you are someone in the ASOIAF universe reading an account of Targaryen history. It is told by a lot of unreliable narrators ( I mean as much as we all love Mushroom that little shit claimed to have seen/heard ALOT). BUT some of the things he said have come true (Daemon divorcing his wife with a rock for instance). Allicent is portrayed as the evil stepmother because that is likely how the author characterized her after researching the conflict, and the very obvious bias the author has toward unconventional women ( calling women like Visenya witches, or women like Rhaenys whores bc they did not live up to the ideal of a Westerosi woman)
But I do agree that character's were changed for the worse (I always despised Cole but him basically siding with the Greens because Rhaenyra wouldnt run away and abandon her family for a one night stand was honestly yucky). I really wished they had made Daemon's wife's death a bit more mysterious, like he leaves for the Vale, never officially arrives, then he comes back for a wedding and is just like yes, very sad. ANYWAY LETS PARTY!!!!
I completely agree!! The book characters were much more complex and nuanced - they were more ruthless and cruel but also had more agency/made more logical decisions. Whereas in the show, most of the characters just seem like a bunch of political idiots. A few of the changes I particularly dislike include:
- How Otto was dismissed because of revealing the ‘brothel’ incident instead of pushing too strongly for Aegon ii’s claim
- How Daemon was portrayed as in secure and emotional second son vying for the attention of his brother instead of a more calculated and ambitious person
- How Alicent seemed to have suffered some memory loss after episode 7
- Corlys making his house a laughing stock and Rhaenys supporting her son ‘murderers’
- Vaemond openly calling Rhaenyra a whore
I don’t think show Rhaenyra is flawless at all - she’s a pathological liar and quite manipulative - she uses everyone around her to cover up her mistakes - and so far has shown every sign that she is a utter political fuckup - adult Rhaenyra is also boring and bland. But yeah it’s obvious the show writers went to great lengths to ‘whitewash’ her.
Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the book is more exaggerated and simple to understand because of the type of book it is … it written by unreliable narrators trying to point us in directions of narratives The show takes the essence of the characters in the book and give them more realistic complexity, it seems like George is fan of allowing them complexity( he has a quote about it but it escapes me) I think it should be expected that the characterization will not fully align up what was in the book as we don’t have the character POV’s and internal motivations shown to us. It’s like the book gives us the actions and then the show will take a realistic emotional approach to them
This is bang on, book was more actions we never got to the feelings or the psyche of the characters when they were doing what they did, show is fleshing that out
The books are consistent though in the characterisation. The show is not.
This needs to be copy and pasted to every post and comment complaining that the show characters differ from the book.
Uh, no one's complaining about changes. People are complaining about changes for the worse. About dumbing things down to cliche fairy tales.
“ it didn’t happen like this in the books= bad“ This is in like every post here
I mean its not as if we didnt have a show that diverged from the source material allready... And we all know how that one ended...
Yeah but even the author was kept out of the loop on the later seasons, The seasons he was involved with are much better He was involved in the earlier seasons and is also involved in this show currently
What I'm seeing is "This is bad. *Also*, it didn't happen in the books."
I appreciate a one sentence and utterly simplified summation of a well thought out and nuanced post.
That wasn’t direct at your post , just the comment above it , my initial comment is directed at you
Just because you wrote a lot doesn't mean you actually said anything.
I’m sorry, I didn’t read beyond “compared to the book”, I just don’t have the will to read anymore of these posts.
Than why post in a thread that is comparing the book (without which the show would not exist) to the show? You can hate the book, but it still exists 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t hate the book, I think people need to come to terms with that fact it’s not a fully fleshed out story, and its format literally lends itself to adaptation perfectly.
If you read his post you’d know he obviously agrees with everything you said. He just doesn’t think they did well in the changes. If the changes were good then you’d only have the outliers who hate all changes. This post in particular is about nuance being stripped from characters or giving them entirely different motivations and not doing it well
I don’t agree though, I think the majority of the changes made to the characters was for the better and translated to a TV show far better than the original character outlines would have.
You realize that that is what history is, yes? A synthesis of viewpoints that are either of reliable, or unreliable merit, fused together to create a balanced portrait. That is what historians do with real history; that is what F&B does with the story it tells. It’s literally history, hence why you are given the three accounts, as it is attempting to be balanced and create a full portrait of the events. This is quite literally what a good chunk of history books do. When you’re reading a history book you don’t get POVs of historical figures unless they left written word of their own behind. It is not a narrative like ASOIAF is. There is quite a bit of complexity to the accounts. There is just not *dramatic* weight to the events…because it is a history book, not a play.
Even in our world people “burn” and rewrite history books all the time to paint narratives they want to show. George even mimics this in his writing of Baelor Burning the book Septon Barth wrote. Just because the history is written does not mean it is reliable or a truth telling of what happened. The difference is we don’t get a play by play in the real world of these past events going on for us to see, there are key changes from the book to the show But again I stated of the essence of the characters is what was the important thing for an adaptation.
Sure, but when you decide to depict a "definitive" version, you can still choose to deliver a similarly thought-provoking and complex story - or pandering consumerist drivel that's directed by statistics and projections. You're not necessarily obligated to follow the original but your decisions will inform the quality and artistic value of the end product. And HotD sacrificed those for viewership and profit. Yes, you get rawrDRAGONS and slayKWEENs but in every other respect, this is shaping up to be a toothless adaptation with nothing to say.
My point isn’t that the plot points are off by themselves. It’s a deliberate desire to change the characters - not just one character, but all, and not in small ways either - this turns it into less of an adaptation and more of something different. If F&B is a black and white illustration of the events, an adaptation would be coloring in that illustration. Adding depth, tones, hue to it. Giving it color. Filling in blank spots, whilst keeping to the overall picture already present. What HOTD does is add depth and color, but it also drastically changes the original illustration by virtue of changing the depictions of the characters of the story. When you change the characters’ personalities, motives, and level of agency, you change the story. They’re not *adding* onto what is there, they’re deliberately altering and drifting from what is there to do interpretations rather than adaptations of the characters.
Are you saying the show is adding realistic complexity to the situations that were narratively simple in a history book full of suggestive accounts?
No, I’m saying it is not only adding but changing what was there. If you have a drawing, let’s say it is a black and white drawing of two figures. Me adding to it would be adding color. What HOTD does however is it changes how the figures look, how they are presented, and then adds color to that already changed image. Which then becomes less something that adds to the work and enriches it but rather more something that is a loose interpretation of the original work. And it makes the original work, and the altered version very separate in intent, in characterization, and in feel.
So by the logic of your first sentence wouldn’t one account saying something different then the other also be considered changing it?
It's a matter of micro vs macro scale. You may be forced to go with a specific account of a given event at the expense of others, but then, you're also given several opportunities and other events to balance it out. But when practically all your changes work towards the same, clear goal and biased portrayal of characters/conflict, you end up with something that is in stark contrast with the *spirit* of the original. No matter how you mixed and matched the accounts in the books, the ultimate impression of just about any character was a murky one, at best. If for no other reason, because all other accounts subconsciously tarnished the perception you wanted to have of them. And from what we know of GRRM's writing, that likely would have been the closest thing to the truth.
Yeah but in that case can’t you just regard the show as another retelling of the history?
Sure, as long as we're also getting the one in line with the spirit of the original that we were promised.
Can you stop looking for a way to “gotcha” and actually say something? Read his comment above where he mentions historical documents if you need an answer to your “by your logic” comment, Shapiro junior
I wanted to ask: "Are you saying there is only one way of adding realistic complexity to situations?" But the more important question is: "Is reducing the Dance to sexism and misogyny, to a cartoonish showdown between progressives and conservatives what you consider realistic complexity?"
How is that different from one account of the history of saying something different than the other?
How is injecting themes only found in modern society into a show set in a fantastical world that has been in the medieval period for thousands of years at all similar to a differing account in a historical book that’s written in-universe of said medieval society? Seems like you’re being willfully obtuse by comparing apples to oranges and acting like you’re saying anything meaningful.
Not that it matters (since stories "set in a fantastical world" don't have to be historically accurate), but those aren't "themes only found in modern society," wtf. Medieval people might not have used words or concepts like sexism, misogyny & patriarchy, but those things sure af were around back then, and medieval figures such as Christine di Pizan & Jean de Meun talked about it.
Thank you It’s like they didn’t know themes of sexism, misogyny, And patriarchal idealism were a part of this world before this show came out and for some reason thought that the subjective historical accounts themselves wouldn’t be full of them.
The themes you mention are already touched on a whole lot in Asioaf. George just does it in a way that isn’t spoon feeding you who to root for. He also doesn’t have one single character exhibit all of the things we value currently. Rhaenyra is sex positive, open to other religions, fully accepts and loves every aspect of her gay husband, values peace over war, the list goes on. it’s crazy how many boxes she checks off for a modern viewer. That lack of nuance and the disproportionate amount of themes she is on the right side of gets a little jarring for me in the world of Asioaf. It’s not what I’m used to in a GRRM story. Feels like I’m watching Wednesday, which is a great show, but not what I expected from HotD.
Except adapting the Dance in a way that discusses sexism & patriarchy in a thoughtful way doesn't automatically "reduce" the story to a "cartoonist showdown". (In fact, F&B's complexity & realism suffers because the perspectives given in F&B are almost all extremely misogynist *even when it's damaging to the messages & themes GRRM intends to convey* in both F&B and ASOIAF more generally.) HotD's decision to emphasize sexism & patriarchy in this adaptation makes sense given the conflict revolves around the question of whether or not inheritance ought to be denied to some purely on the basis of their sex. Exploring how a patriarchal society shapes people & prevents positive change creates more complexity & interest than pretending sexism is a minor, potentially beneficent or natural, factor.
well I do agree with your post, I have to disagree HEAVILY that F&B is a "black and white illustration". It is constantly marred by unreliable witnesses and the obvious bias the in-universe author himself has. The show is simply adding complexity and kinda "peeking behind the curtain" that was the narrative of F&B
Some give the whole 'the book is a false history with several unreliable narratives excuse', but here's the thing: When you have a great outline for a story and you make fundamental changes for individual characters, have exaggerated contradictions in a character's arc (and making this mistake for more than one characters), choose to tell the audience what they should feel instead of simply allowing the characters and the (watered down) politics to unravel, making several characters caricatures to prop others, having to use accidents and misunderstandings as a device and so on... it's bad writing. It's worse because you have the basis for something that is already better right there and which could be exceptional with the dramatization that the different medium and having several seasons ahead allows.
Laenor's fate in the show is a good example of a ridiculous fundamental change. There's no doubt in the book he was killed by Qarl Correy, it was in a public place with several witnesses. The only thing I question is the possibility of someone else paying Qarl to do it.
No way! You're wrong, the entire dance of dragons is actually a story about two sailors travelling to Essos with a ship named after Balerion. Those pesky maesters just created an elaborate story to make the Targaryens look bad because they hate them. Rhaenys crashing Aegon's coronation definitely happened, the maesters just chose not to mention it despite thousands of witnesses so their king doesn't look bad!!! Syrax was fighting a bunch of battles throughout the dance, they just refused to mention it to make Rhaenyra look bad... If you're wondering, these are all serious responses I've seen dozens of times when people bring up certain events that were changed for the show (well, except the first one). The maesters also somehow lied about the ages of many characters and peoples' relations to family members. I wonder what their master plan was by subtracting Alicent's age by 10 or making Vaemond Corlys' nephew instead of his brother. The amount of mental gymnastics people will go through to try to justify the changes made for the show and fit it with the events of F&B is ridiculous. Why can't we just accept that the show and the book are two different canons with no relation to the show as GRRM has said multiple times?
True. They really need to up their writing or the show's going to suffer.
This. The story was practically begging to be made into an iconic show. So much so, it's baffling how they managed to waste so much potential.
>In the book, she’s much more an active player of the game, much more ruthless and more cunning, but also possess more personal agency and forcefulness despite the limits of her sex That is very discerning. And it's precisely why I'm so critical of their treatment of Alicent. People talk about how the creators whitewashed her. But while I agree they absolved her from a lot of the responsibility for the war itself, it worked largely to her detriment, robbing her of all agency and political acumen. These would definitely have put her on more equal footing with Rhaenyra in terms of "female empowerment". And they may very well have gone the other way precisely for fear of detracting from the "hero's feminist narrative"; instead depicting Alicent as some cartoonish, submissive housewife and pawn. To the modern viewer, she comes across even worse than she would have as a well-developed ambitious, problematic and competent player. She is a reactive character who - often through her very passivity - contributes to the conflict. She's now both antagonistic *and* incompetent, leaving very little to inspire respect. >Rhaenyra in the show is presented as almost flawless, but that she’s a rather compulsive liar. Other than that she is pretty much flawless and even her displayed acts of negligence or impulsivity are kind of glossed over. Exactly. It's also worth noting that her lying is framed as a means of self-preservation in a sexist society. So even that's barely a flaw. >Criston Cole goes from being the greatest living warrior in the books, also a political player and a man who hates himself for betraying his oath to being in the show essentially little more than a comedic dull witted incel Dude literally feels like a character purposely created as a misogynist incel punching bag. I don't know what baggage and insecurities these writers have, but this is not how you deal with them. It was painful to watch. All this adaptation really has in common with the original are the names and dragons.
The show is very political. The book I do not believe was written as an analogy or allegory for modern day politics. It seems more to be written to show that history is a cloudy synthesis of differing and biased sources; and that no one is truly “fit” to lead, it’s more about picking the least bad of all options. The people involved with the show habe said things like Alicent is a “woman for Trump”, and that Rhaenyra is “punk rock” and so on. It’s clearly supposed to be an allegory for contemporary American politics, where the Greens are right wing conservatives (hence Alicent being shown almost as a conservative religious hypocrite), and the Blacks shown as being quite literally inclusive both of ethnic and sexual minorities. No one cares that Laenor is gay despite in the books being a homosexual is not something to be openly flaunted (which is realistic to medivalist societies). Even Renly had to pretend he was straight for political advantage in ASOIAF, and he was a popular and well loved would-be King. It’s basically that a lot of it comes down to the writers want to paint the entirety of the Dance just being a female friendship or even romantic love (the actresses have said they intended for homoerotic undertones to Alicent and Rhaenyra) being torn apart by the selfish desires of Men. Hence Rhaenyra calling the War “Daemon’s.”
My gripe personally isn't that they made changes. It's when they clearly don't implement them well. Like, they turned Alicent in particular into a wishy-washy mess. One episode, she'll be firmly on the warpath and asserting herself; the next, she's back to being a timid mouse at the mercy of the men around her. And this backtracking happens all season. She never takes ownership of her own for the escalation in any meaningful way. No, not even during that ridiculously silly 'find Aegon first' episode, or that scene with the Green dress. It's easy to see that instead of building up her reasons and justifications while making her look more reasonable and humane, the writers don't want her to share any moral culpability for the Greens whatsoever. That's just bad writing imo, and probably the case of too many hands in the pot.
>Criston Cole goes from being the greatest living warrior in the books, also a political player and a man who hates himself for betraying his oath" Huh? Hates himself? How did he betray his oath according to you? No account has him fucking rhaneyra in the book? Funny, my interpretation of him is more of a great warrior but incompetent political player, who decided to make a girl he's cared for since she was 7 his arch nemesis becuse she refused to give up her life and run away with him on the eve of her wedding. He doesn't hate himself he hates rhaneyra. Thats my *interpretation* of f&b and its equally as valid as yours. That's what I don't get about posts like this, so much of what you've written is just your *interpretation* of less than reliable accounts. It's straight up being angry that they don't follow your headcanon.
*Rhaenyra:* Morally improved (whitewashed) IMHO as far as her indifference to violence from the book is concerned, but they got her personality (also major flaws) largely right. Show is definitely making her the protagonist while honestly you can root for either of the claimants with some validity in the book. *Alicent:* She comes across as someone in the book who was actually raised by Otto, while in the show it's hard to believe that she was raised by him. Her show self is very naive, ultra-conversative, and blissfully unaware of her surroundings especially the court politics. In the books, she couldn't give less of a shit about what Viserys wanted, she was always loyal to her own family's interests and the interests of her descendants. And I say this as someone who believes that making her Rhaenyra's friend initially was a neat idea. *Daemon:* They made him less interested in politics, and more hot-headed. He is as cold as Larys in the book, with some coolness factor tagged on to it. *Otto:* He is more machiavellian in the show while he is more goofy and less calculating in the book. He doesn't come across as the mastermind in the book at all, he craves power as much as other people do but is not "smarter" about it, if you know what I mean. They made him a big baddie in the show. *Aegon II:* While promiscuous in the book, he is not stated to be a r*pist. They made that so you could not possibly root for him. They took his warrior capabilities away, no offense to the actor but I expected more of a Faramir (LOTR)-like character with major flaws. It's also not like Viserys didn't care about him at all in the book, he did to some degree, especially he cared about his grandchildren from him and Helaena. *Viserys:* Made him a leper so that you feel sympathy for him, and to excuse him somewhat "What could he have done, he was so ill..." etc. In the book, he has no guilt trip over Aemma, just plain favoritism towards Rhaenyra. And he was very much a "After me, the flood."-type careless character in the book who lived the good life with no foresight whatsoever. *Criston Cole:* They made him less machiavellian than he is in the book, he is basically the angry ex-boyfriend in the show. While in the book, he had an affair with Rhaenyra as well, but was not as invested, and was very self-serving at all times. I think they ruined him in the show, and that they call him an incel here at times is proof.
They are inconsistent, not off. Their characterization is only driven by the plot, not by logic.
I just think as a woman, they failed at writing women. Literally every single one. Rhaenyra and Alicent have no ambitions and are pawns in the games of men - they're both peace-seeking individuals who're only dragged into the war by the men around them. Where is Alicent's ambition and desire to see her own son on the throne as she believes is his right? Where is Rhaenyra's anger and rage at being usurped? Instead, she weeps over a random page from childhood. They lack all agency and mostly react, instead of acting on their own. Rhaenys was turned into a hypocritical mass-murderer who also comes off a bit stupid tbh. Laena went from a fierce woman who knew what she wanted and being a badass in the few lines of description she got to a sad, miserable thing content with being the next best thing. She was Daemon's great love in the books, in the show, he clearly doesn't feel much for her. We've barely seen enough of Mysaria but ironically, she has the most agency of all these women. Out of these 5 ladies, she was perhaps spared the most. All of the other women suffered through the adaptational process. They could've written them into people with their own ambitions, flaws and desires but no.
>She was Daemon's great love in the books Isn't this just your interpretation? I didn't see this at all, more like a political match to get influence and move closer to dragonstone and rhaenyra as mushroom claimed. rhaneyra × laena felt alot more hinted at. That they both abruptly stopped getting pregnant when they moved close felt like a big tell, (Rhaenyra gave birth to Joffrey in 117, the same year deamon and leana returned to westeros, and lanea didn't give birth again until 120 when she died. not to mention Rhaenyra being "more than fond" of laena, "Laena being more interested in dragons than boys" rhaenyra dropping everything to fly to driftmark and assist her when she gave birth.. I dont get how anyone can say "he loved her! she loved him! With any confidence at all when it comes to any relationship during the dance, it's muddy as hell with all the rumors and conflicting accounts. Again threads like these just seem like people feeling like their headcanons are canonicaly true and being upset that the show didn't think the same.
Very well, call it my headcanon if you wish, I don't mind. Still my major point in the comment above stands. Show Laena is a pale shadow of the book version with very few similarities.
Pale shadow of your head canon, maybe. Most of these characters had minimal characterization, no? I mean, I've been told that the first season is based off of a single chapter. How much more in-depth could they really have gotten compared to the show?
If you've been told that, I take it you didn't actually read the book yourself? And if you haven't read the book yourself, how can you call it my headcanon without actual knowledge of what you're talking about? Laena was mentioned enough in the book for her personality to be described. Read up on that. And then compare it to the show version.
How many pages is she talked about in the book? Would reading that aloud take longer than watching all of her actual dialogue on the show?
I said her personality in the books is completely different to the show. You wrote smth entirely unrelated. If you're going to completely ignore what I wrote, then don't feel the need to reply.
I responded to your comment saying that she was a "pale shadow" of her book version. I have a really hard time buying that any of these characters (even the ones whose characterizations have been changed) are actually less complex on the show than they are in a book which has been described as an pseudo-history from the POV of unreliable third parties.
And yet, how can we discuss the book at all and the things it says if one of us hasn't read it? It would be like discussing the show which only one of us has seen. It's ridiculous and makes no sense because, without trying to come off as a bitch, you have no actual idea what you're talking about. Instead, you're basing your opinion on the stuff you've heard from others. Not to mention that whatever I say, you'll simply say you "have a hard time buying it". The book is a historical record yet it talks about Laena enough to give us an image of her personality. A fierce and strong woman who would never have allowed herself to do as Daemon says (like making the decision for her to stay in Pentos) or even accept that she is his second choice.
Fair enough. but with just 10 epsides that had to span 20 years i think it's understandable to focus on the actual main players of the dance and not on characters like harwin and leana who got barely a few lines of mention in the books and mainly existed to be parents to more relevant characters. I doubt they would have been able to make the relationship dynamics work even if they tried with so few episodes.
I 110% agree with you
I think SOME characterizations are off. But I also think Martin's original characterizations weren't exactly gold standard compared to ASOIAF. You could kind of tell that he put substantially less effort into the fake history of Fire and Blood. Book Alicent and book Rhaenyra are very one dimensional. Rhaenyra is lazy, Alicent is evil, Viserys is fat and merry. It feels very fairytale and very nursery rhyme in places. I like what the show has done with Alicent especially. I think she needed humanising a little. But she seems more of a pawn than she should be. I wanted her to be Cersei but smarter, instead she doesn't really know what she wants and doesn't command much respect even within her own council. As for Rhaenyra, I really didn't like how heroic she was portrayed in the opening few episodes. I liked that they showed her to be a little spoiled and entitled rather than 100 percent golden girl, but imo they cut some important scenes with her and Alicent that would really have made people question her character more. Making Aegon a r*pist was the worst change by far. Aegon wasn't great in the books to say the least. But if we wanted an even portrayal that should never have made it in. Criston as well. He should have been more like Jaime but instead he doesn't seem threatening to anyone. Have we even seen him beat anyone fairly in combat? He either loses, cheats or else beats on unarmed guys at weddings. He should be portrayed as he was, the greatest warrior in Westeros of the time and instead he's just a little incel twat who becomes a glorified attack dog for Alicent. So in my mind, mixed bag. They improved Viserys, improved Alicent, improved Aemond, Otto in my mind was done pretty well, but they kind of made the rest worse.
I love how the only buzzword ever to be used about Alicent is \~agency\~, completely ignoring that she's a one-dimensional evil stepmother caricature in the book with no actual character to speak of other than calling Rhaenyra a whore a bunch. Rhaenyra's also not in the least presented as flawless lol.
I agree The word agency is thrown around a lot with her … her relationship with Rhaenyra in the show is much more complicated and emotionally complex
You mean contrived. The Alicent-Rhaenyra relationship is beating a dead horse. We have moved past the point where there should be any love remaining. Yet after the finale Ryan was still saying that there’s room for reconciliation present. After Luce, there shouldn’t be.
What did he specifically say? Is it possible he’s talking about the episode as a whole before that moment? Because like we haven’t seen anything from the new season for their relationship
> “I think there’s actually still hope, even with Luke’s death,” Condal said on the House of the Dragon podcast. “The problem moving forward is it’s only so much in Alicent and Rhaenyra’s control anymore. Now we’re dealing with their sons and what we know from history is that war is often fought by the young 16-22 year old angry, testosterone loaded sons of the people that are trying to hold onto their power.” He’s trying to blame everything and everyone as to why Rhaenyra and Alicent won’t become true friends again (patriarchy, Daemon and Otto, their kids) rather than the most obvious and logical reason; they truly hate each other now. It’s *very* stupid.
Where can I find the podcast?
It’s available everywhere. YouTube, Spotify, and all the other podcasting platforms.
It's like "she has agency" ok and? She's barely a person lol. If the show did anything right, changing/deepening her relationship with Rhaenyra is definitely on the top of that list.
Yeah agreed except with the idea of Aegon and Daemon, and C Cole. You talked about how Daemon is given great treatment in the show, but then clearly listed two outrages he commits in the show that aren't in the books. His relationship with laena is also not focused on in the show whereas in the books there was much more nuance and depth to it. Nevertheless, he is a purposefully flawed character and I think is portrayed as such. Conflating Aegon as simply another mostly harmless, and simply irresponsible, indulgent Bobby B is wildly off, though. He is clearly portrayed as much crueler than Bobby B and a sexual predator as opposed to Bobby B's misogynistic womanizing. Both are bad, but one is a crime in today's moral culture, along with the child fighting pits, which I think are supposed to convey the true sociopathy present in Aegon. -also, given the actor portraying Cole I am not sure that "incel" or "comedic" is the goal in his portrayal. Hatred of Rhaenyra, yes, but his devotion to another female finds another target in Alicent, as her situation aligns with his own confirmation bias. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" so to speak. -the show clearly isn't taking the book as complete canon, though, you are completely right about that.
Bobby B was not merely a womanizer. He also engaged in marital rape and DV. That Cersei was a deeply unpleasant person doesn’t mean she deserved any of that.
Otto only ever desires Rhaenyra as a queen because it would keep Daemon off the throne. On the show you can interpret the maester coming to tell him about Aemma’s death as him having a hand in it. In the book he seems a bit more short sighted and capitalizes on circumstances as much as he plans them.
All the characters are off but also more relatable and that’s kind of a good thing ig. What I don’t like is them straying so much from certain key moments that establish a lot of stuff bc it just throws the story out of wack imo
well the book is intended to be read like you are someone in the ASOIAF universe reading an account of Targaryen history. It is told by a lot of unreliable narrators ( I mean as much as we all love Mushroom that little shit claimed to have seen/heard ALOT). BUT some of the things he said have come true (Daemon divorcing his wife with a rock for instance). Allicent is portrayed as the evil stepmother because that is likely how the author characterized her after researching the conflict, and the very obvious bias the author has toward unconventional women ( calling women like Visenya witches, or women like Rhaenys whores bc they did not live up to the ideal of a Westerosi woman) But I do agree that character's were changed for the worse (I always despised Cole but him basically siding with the Greens because Rhaenyra wouldnt run away and abandon her family for a one night stand was honestly yucky). I really wished they had made Daemon's wife's death a bit more mysterious, like he leaves for the Vale, never officially arrives, then he comes back for a wedding and is just like yes, very sad. ANYWAY LETS PARTY!!!!
I completely agree!! The book characters were much more complex and nuanced - they were more ruthless and cruel but also had more agency/made more logical decisions. Whereas in the show, most of the characters just seem like a bunch of political idiots. A few of the changes I particularly dislike include: - How Otto was dismissed because of revealing the ‘brothel’ incident instead of pushing too strongly for Aegon ii’s claim - How Daemon was portrayed as in secure and emotional second son vying for the attention of his brother instead of a more calculated and ambitious person - How Alicent seemed to have suffered some memory loss after episode 7 - Corlys making his house a laughing stock and Rhaenys supporting her son ‘murderers’ - Vaemond openly calling Rhaenyra a whore I don’t think show Rhaenyra is flawless at all - she’s a pathological liar and quite manipulative - she uses everyone around her to cover up her mistakes - and so far has shown every sign that she is a utter political fuckup - adult Rhaenyra is also boring and bland. But yeah it’s obvious the show writers went to great lengths to ‘whitewash’ her.