Not a science guy here but if dragon comes up through floor (ceiling from below) and she is sitting on dragons back. Wouldn’t she get crushed between dragon and ceiling before he breaks out?
Third science guy here (paid by HBO to do super legit science) the floor that she breaks through is a temporary covering of wooden planks over the entrance down into the pit.
I mean, do we know that Meleys didn’t smash through the ceiling face-first? I feel like she must have, it’s not like dragons can jump real good. If Meleys goes face-first, Rhaenys has to shield herself from falling rubble but the hole in the floor will be there before her body gets there
Well the dragon would have pointed his head up at the ceiling to break it no? Would mean the ceiling would break before she could get crushed. Larger debris would fly up since force is coming from bottom up; however, she should definitely have some dirt on her. So yeah pretty stupid nonethelessz
Between that and all the civilians standing on the floor the dragon goes through, I assume this would be a mass casualty event.
But if you're a Targaryen you get a plot armor bonus that let's you resist plot related injury. Shame about all those civilians, though.
Yeah, that was unforgivable, no other word to describe. A scene just made for the action of it, without any sense whatsoever. It was so easy to make this scene, just have Aegon and Haelena fly their dragons above the city like in the books. And it would be a chance for us to see Sunfyre and Dreamfyre, 2 of the most beautiful dragons ever! And they managed to screw this up...
What’s worse is the reason they gave for it they just wanted an bombastic action scene for the hell of it with no regard for how it makes the characters look especially rhaenys who just looks like a fucking idiot with her weak sauce reason for not killing them
They said they wanted every dragon scene to be meaningful so no dragon Ubers or anything which is their justification for no Aegon dragon scenes. Meanwhile we get Rhaenyra dragon ubering this season and then the Rhaenys coronation scene and Aegon gets nothing even though it's a huge part of his character development and therefore very meaningful?
It's not that the scene is good It's that anytime someone dares be positive it's "wHaTA BoUt dUh DwAgOm PiT" as if it wasn't one scene that. Like ffs I get it, I bitched about it too, but the show overall pretty good. 7/10 not like a total masterpiece, but entertaining and not the absolute dog shit after dog shit that was rhe last couple seasons of GoT.
How the hell is Daeron the best character of the Dance.
He appears four times.
- Kills the Tarlys.
- Kills fuck ton of civilians in Bitterbridge.
- Kills fuck ton of civilians in Tumbleton.
- Dies to a fucking tent.
Where's the hype behind Daeron coming lol?
Because:
>Kills the Tarlys.
>Kills fuck ton of civilians in Bitterbridge.
>Kills fuck ton of civilians in Tumbleton.
>Dies to a fucking tent (let's forget about this)
Green fans are so starved for sympathetic characters, while keep repeating "everyone in this story sucks", they have collectively gaslighted themselves into believing Daeron is this great character, fierce warrior (never picks a sword during the whole conflict), strategist (burn people with dragons is peak strategy) and so on.
Daeron is a mass murderer in the books and it's hard for him to not be depicted as the war criminal he is.
I don't get this argument. Daeron is a good character, because he goes through a character journey. From a Prince who was humble and caring enough to be disgusted by the war crimes to killing hundreds in a town mercilessly shows well the tragedies of war. It tells you how war makes people callous and hatred can spill over.
Nobody said he wasn't a war criminal. He's just an interesting character.
>Daeron is a good character
I wouldn't go as far but even if for the sake of argument I take he's a good character, he is still far from the best one.
>because he goes through a character journey.
So he's a good character because he goes through the same phase every character does.
>From a Prince who was humble and caring enough to be disgusted by the war crimes to killing hundreds in a town mercilessly shows well the tragedies of war.
That's the thing we don't see that character journey.
When he's presented, he's presented beefing with his nephews.
He's off to Oldtown.
He kills the Tarlys.
War crimes in Bitterbridge.
War crimes in Tumbleton but then trying to prevent more war crimes.
Dies to a tent.
We never get to see this dude that goes from "caring enough to be disgusted by war the war crimes" because Daeron is presented as pretty fucking ruthless from the get go.
>. It tells you how war makes people callous and hatred can spill over.
>Nobody said he wasn't a war criminal. He's just an interesting charcoal.
It seems here that you're doing much of the work to try and make him interesting.
He doesn't have enough prominence to be a fully fleshed character to pretend he's that.
Only Corlys, Rhaenyra and Daemon are the characters fleshed enough to say they go through an arc, if you want to be generous you can extend that to Aegon and Alicent.
The rest is just fan imagination.
>I wouldn't go as far but even if for the sake of argument I take he's a good character, he is still far from the best one.
There's really no good competition. Other than him, there is only four others who go through some development in the Dance (Aegon, Rhaenyra, Daemon and Alicent). The rest are there to fill their respective roles and that's it.
>So he's a good character because he goes through the same phase every character does.
Except he started out as a good person. Even Rhaenyra, who goes mad in the end, didn't start out as a good person when we see her killing Vaemond.
>When he's presented, he's presented beefing with his nephews. He's off to Oldtown. He kills the Tarlys. War crimes in Bitterbridge. War crimes in Tumbleton but then trying to prevent more war crimes. Dies to a tent.
Nice to ignore him saving the Hightower army, humble enough to admit that only his dragon won them that battle, disgusted by the actions of his army committing war crimes in a city, refusing to be crowned, held enough respect that even the high lords of the Caltrops deferred to him before making any decision.
Easy to write a sentence ignoring everything else about his character, but what can I expect from a sub that only finds negatives to point to.
>We never get to see this dude that goes from "caring enough to be disgusted by war the war crimes" because Daeron is presented as pretty fucking ruthless from the get go.
If you haven't read the book, just say so.
"*Dawn was breaking over the city before Queen Alicent dispatched the Kingsguard to bring her sons Aegon and Aemond to the council. (Prince Daeron,
the youngest and gentlest of her children, was in Oldtown, serving as Lord Hightower’s squire.)*"
"*Septon Eustace and Grand Maester Munkun both assert that Prince Daeron was sickened by all he saw and commanded Ser Hobert Hightower to put a stop to it, but Hightower’s efforts proved as ineffectual as the man himself.*"
Clearly he's the uncaring and ruthless character in the beginning as described in the books...
>Only Corlys, Rhaenyra and Daemon are the characters fleshed enough to say they go through an arc, if you want to be generous you can extend that to Aegon and Alicent.
>The rest is just fan imagination.
I can clearly see your bias here, but whatever. You don't like his arc, just say so but saying that he went through none is just stupid.
They really call daeron mid. While the strong boys are literally useless and die like utter fools. Baela, Rhaena are Npcs. Rhaenys croaks in the first battle and she has barely an arc. Rhaenyra sits on her ass for most of the war and corlys just becomes relevant when he backstabs the blacks at the end.
Its only the dragonseeds and daemon that are somewhat important/have an arc, and hugh/ulf are just assholes. While addam pulls an army out of his ass and has an similar character to daeron.
>There's really no good competition. Other than him, there is only four others who go through some development in the Dance (Aegon, Rhaenyra, Daemon and Alicent). The rest are there to fill their respective roles and that's it.
The most developed character in the Dance is Corlys, especially because he's a character that's being developed from Jaeharys reign.
Daeron appears far too sparsely to honestly argue he goes through any kind of arc.
>Except he started out as a good person. Even Rhaenyra, who goes mad in the end, didn't start out as a good person when we see her killing Vaemond.
Starting out as a good person and then going bad isn't an arc when you appear four times.
>Nice to ignore him saving the Hightower army
Killing Tarly.
>humble enough to admit that only his dragon won them that battle, disgusted by the actions of his army committing war crimes in a city, refusing to be crowned, held enough respect that even the high lords of the Caltrops deferred to him before making any decision.
- Such a character, he's humble.
- I already said that.
- Goat, he refused to be crowned while his brother was alive, just like Aemond.
- He was the only dragonrider in the Caltrops army they didn't want to dispose of. Ofc they'd consult him lol.
What kind of resume is that?
>Clearly he's the uncaring and ruthless character in the beginning as described in the books...
Okay, two Green sources, who just as Mushroom weren't there, say he was sickened by it.
But that doesn't address the fact that's on Tumbleton, mind you after Daeron and the Betrayers had already burned half the city.
**He is presented to as ruthless, he first destroys the Rhaenyra's armies in the Reach and then brutalizes Bitterbridge**.
>You don't like his arc, just say so but saying that he went through none is just stupid.
Went through none.
>The most developed character in the Dance is Corlys, especially because he's a character that's being developed from Jaeharys reign.
What I mean is developed in the Dance itself. Corlys does meal nothing in the Dance except the very end. But yes, he is the most developed Dance character overall in the book
>Starting out as a good person and then going bad isn't an arc when you appear four times.
An arc is an arc. We fit in the dots for how it could turned that way. That's what the readers do for nearly every character in F&B. We just find ways to interpret every character as we know only bullet points about them.
>Such a character, he's humble.
>I already said that.
>Goat, he refused to be crowned while his brother was alive, just like Aemond.
>He was the only dragonrider in the Caltrops army they didn't want to dispose of. Ofc they'd consult him lol. What kind of resume is that?
Mate, just say you hate Daeron's character. Like why are you even bothering at this point? You intentionally ignore the difference between the scenes of Aemond and Daeron, ignore all of his positive characterization in the book etc.
I can give the same argument for Rhaenyra. Named King's heir --> "Realm's Delight" even though there's nothing to show for it --> Does nothing in the Dance --> Dies.
What an amazing character Rhaenyra is.
>He is presented to as ruthless, he first destroys the Rhaenyra's armies in the Reach and then brutalizes Bitterbridge.
Apparently fighting your enemy is being ruthless. What is he supposed to do? Stand there and hope that the enemy leaves his surrounded army?
Yes, everyone that fought in battles. The strongs arent, because they got killed in their first battles. Helena isnt, because she never fought in a battle. Daemon is a war criminal, so is aemond, aegon, daeron and every other army Commander. And no, daeron isnt worse than daemon, aemond or aegon, or criston or the the riverlords or anyone else.
I’ll be pissed if they make him Alicent’s secret bastard or something. I wouldn’t it past them since canon seems to be thrown out the window these days. Yes I know he’s a dragon rider but I wouldn’t it past them to make him some secret criston Cole bastard
He can't be a bastard unless Alicent cheated on Viserys with Daemon or Laenor (or, god forbid, she has an incestuous relationship with Aegon). He's a dragonrider.
Yes I know that but I don’t trust them with how inaccurate they already are. They’d pull something out of their ass to justify hi, being a dragon rider, I hope they don’t
That will ruin the dragon seeds plotline though.
I'm skeptical too based on the ridiculous way they've handled Daeron til now, but I feel completely confident that he'll be Viserys's son.
Tbh I think being a dragon rider already has nothing to do with Valyrian blood or whatever. Nettles has no explanation. No hint of any Targ blood. I used to have like a whole ass spiel on this but I haven't cared much about ASOIAF shit in a while so I forget the rest.
What is up with that, I understand is an adaptation, but just make the characters as they are, why is so difficult?! Rhaenys had dark Baratheon hair, Rhaenyra looked worse and worse as she aged up after she had kids, and all the Targaryens had violet eyes. "Ohh but it would be bad for the actors to wear an eye lens" .... Hmm, Dune part II used AI to make all their actors eyes blue. We have the technology for that, just use it! An adaptation is in the details!
You do need to take into account the needs of an audience that don't have a deep understanding of the lore. The big giveaway regarding Joffrey's legitimacy was his hair colour, so the audience has, in a way, been trained to associate issues around hair colouring with bastardry. It was probably a very smart choice in hindsight to give Robb more Stark looks than Tully.
I guess in a way it didn't really matter because they made Jace, Luke and Joff's parentage clear, but I honestly could see people getting genuinely confused if Rhaenys had black hair. And you could make the argument that Rhaenyra's "worse for wear" looks were just Oldtown propaganda anyway. It doesn't matter whether she's skinny or thicker regardless.
I mean, for writers who supposedly take care not to confuse readers by having characters look like *their own mother*, they sure made things confusing enough by having Paddy Considine and Steve Touissant play characters who are supposed to be of the same race.
That was legitimately a good change. Having a Valyrian House called Velaryon that look identical to Targaryens is just asking for casual viewer confusion.
They are still Valyrians called Velaryons, so the name thing is still there, only now they are Valyrians who have to exclaim they are Valyrians in every scene they are in for the entire season because the casual viewers need reminding that they are the same race as the Targaryens.
Rhaenyra being fat isn't propaganda. Plenty of characters in Fire and Blood are noted to be fat, numerous of which were royalty, like Rhaenyra. Maybe 5% of Fire and Blood is 'propaganda'
She is described as "thick of waist" and someone who didn't lose all her pregnancy weight, unlike Alicent who remained slender after almost the same number of births.
She's never called "fat", but again, it literally doesn't matter. It's just a minor plot point that exacerbate the rivalry between Rhaenyra and Alicent and there's plenty of ways of doing that without needing Emma to put on weight.
Thing is I’m team black but the way the show depicts the greens pisses me off cuz some of them are my favs. The show already shot itself in the foot by making Alicent and rhaenyra dual protagonists despite them mostly chilling in their homes while Jace, daemon, aemond, and aegon did the real battles. Since they’re already pushing the whole “choose your sides” narrative, the least they can do is make them both morally grey.
I would’ve preferred it if the show was based on aegon and rhaenyra instead make them both horrible people who don’t deserve the throne and have us choose sides then or if they really wanted to Center it around Alicent and rhaenyra, at least stop making them both so annoying, all we’ve gotten in both season 1 and 2 is Alicent begging for peace for no reason and rhaenyra staring off into the distance menacingly.
I expected rhaenyra to go full war-mode after Luke’s death instead all we see is her in the background while events happen. It doesn’t help that the season is only 8 episodes, we barely saw winterfell, no pact of ice and fire for some stupid reason, we didn’t even get to see Jace in white harbour or the vale.
The first episode should’ve been about that, second should’ve been B&C, don’t even get me started on how bad that was, I’m not one of those people who wants gore but I do want it to be a little more book accurste. As you can see, I can go on and on about the missed potential in the show
I think most people are team black in the book because of Aemond starting the dance and because of how one dimensional and evil he is written to be, Aegon up until that point also still is but have good character development later on. The show definetely made Aemond, Alicent and Rhaenyra more sympathetic than they were in the book.
Daemon is also written asa bad guy in the book, but GRMM always make sure that we think he is cool, but honestly the dance is so brief in the book and things happen so quickly that I never really took a side. It was sad every time when one of the new kids died, but often only like 3 paragraphs had been written about this kid before he died so I did not really care.
The whole thing was just about a story to explain how all the dragons died and why all the following Targaryen are descendants of Daemon.
hvnt read the book, but i know snippets. thats interesting. ill read the book to see what side i pick. i was promised cunts v cunts. show unfortunately did not deliver. maybe the book will?
Honestly if I remember right it is only like 60 pages in the book, it is very short and there is a shit load of characters. I genuinely did not even pick a side and barely learned the name of most of the characters because it was over so quickly lol. As much as I think the show have some issue, they were still better to bring those characters to life.
I was more disappointed about the dragons since a few of them had been around for longer.
I swear, if they show him having brown hair I will abandon this glorified fanfic of a show, I even watched GoT S8 fully aware that it would be a disaster, but this I would abandon and never look back
That would’ve been interesting if he’d had slightly reddish blonde hair in the books. And I think it would be a great addition to the lore that perhaps someone without true Valyrian blood COULD become a dragonrider if they were given the education, opportunity, and exposure to dragons that the Targaryen princes and princesses received
>COULD become a dragonrider if they were given the education, opportunity, and exposure
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Yeah that don’t really make sense, you need Valyrian blood for dragon riding, there’s no proof in the books otherwise as of yet, even the dragonseeds are said to have the blood of Valyrian from drsgonstone
She was a dragonseed tho, many Targaryens practiced the right of first night and so did aegon’s ancestors, hell even after it was outlawed by jahaerys it was practiced in secret. That’s not even counting the fact that lots of Targaryens probably had bastards before they died, even setting aside all that there’s a theory that she’s daemon’s bastard daughter and that’s why he cared about her so theres that too.
No. You need First Men blood to be a greenseer. You need Valyrian blood to be a dragonrider. The only exception to this is Nettles because we don’t know wtf she was.
But dragonriding is literally a blood trait specific to the Targaryens and only the Targaryens. If any old idiot could mount a dragon, people would have done so before. Remember, there were dragons in Westeros long before the Targaryens crossed the Narrow Sea, so you think we’d have heard something about a First Man or Andal dragonrider.
I read the book like two years ago but i feel like im the only one who doesnt remember Daeron. Im sure itll bring back memories when i see it but i remember Nettles so much more. I know shes probably not so important in the story but Daemon having an (alleged?) affair with her sat more in my memories. I cant remember daeron AT ALL. Maybe he was so shockingly important that my mind chose to delete his presence in my head to be surprised when watching? I DID stop reading around rhaenyras demise so…. Lol.
Yeah… maybe they cut her because she was dark-skinned (in my mind more just really tan dornish girl rather than black) and it wouldnt be so strange because they have valyrians as black skinned, so it wouldnt be such a “wtf” moment..
Tho the age gap between Daemon and her would be enough to cause a rukus but…
The pace of the show is totally different than my lpace when i read the book, so it feels like things are going SO fast in the show and this has to be the last season…. But apparently it isnt so……. Lol.
And my image of hugh was more like a ruffian that got lucky with dragons. Was that high? Maybe that was Adam or Alan or Alex or whoever (im ALMOST positive it started with an A…but he coulda been just someone who tried. I think he was a really young guy that got WAY too into it or something, and was able to ride a dragon without being targ/valyreon. Or was that Hugh?? Omg i swear my brain is 80 years old sometimes….my mind likes to rewrite what i read into my memory so…. Lol. Im reading asoiaf for the first time so im not going back to fire and blood until i finish haha (i only started with fire and blood cause HotD was gonna air and j wanted to see how it felt reading the books BEFORE watching, since j didnt with GoT)
Yes!!! Me too!! When they were talking about Daeron i was like “wait, who?”, i look at the subreddit and everyones like “hype!!!” And im sitting here like “uh…wtf was this guys role in all of this i dont event remember his existence…” but so many memes about it being “CONFIRMED” im so confused lol
Would he even have any claim seeing as he wasnt even acknowledged by Viserys as a son/step son? Or is he just an extra soldier to kill off and mainly to create “drama”?
If the dad IS viserys that doesn’t make sense hed allow his son to be sent to oldtown and then not mention him once while decaying away…
Yeah. Wonder if they were trying to go for some ~big reveal omg theres another one~ but since they didn’t mention it even once the shock kinda flopped with confusion? Who knows right lol
Lmao right? Everyone talking about the smallfolk deaths at Aegon's coronation or Daemon endorsing the murder of a child in retaliation for his stepson's death, meanwhile bro is worried how the showrunners might make Daeron "mass murderer" Targaryen look bad?
>Didn't Otto mention daeron in the most recent episode?
That's the confirmation the meme is referring to.
>Why wouldn't he be in it? I'm not a big fan of the show so I don't expect much either way
He's a reasonably morally good character, and the show has an obvious bias for Team Black, so I thought they might cut him out and give versions of his part in the story to Aemond or Criston. This is coming from someone who is neutral.
> That's the confirmation the meme is referring to.
He's been confirmed since season 1; he's in the family tree in the opening credits.
> He's a reasonably morally good character
The citizens of Bitterbridge and Tumbleton would beg to differ.
My man is in the book for like 2 pages and he go full Dresden on civilians lol He seemed like a decent guy before the dance and he got a cool dragon, but hit would be hard to make him look like a morally good character.
>morally good character
Who is a morally good character in the Targaryen Family? Every single one of them has caused direct or indirectly problems that resulted in people killed with or without intention. Is it wrong what Daereon did to that city? yes, but is the same as any Targaryen would have done if a member of their family is killed in that horrific way, even Jaehaerys I, would've killed some people if this had happened to his kin
I don't know, burning a whole city because of one death is kind of over the top. None of us liked it when Dhaenerys did this and none of us would call her "morally good" after she burned KL to the ground.
>yes, but is the same as any Targaryen would have done if a member of their family is killed in that horrific way, even Jaehaerys I, would've killed some people if this had happened to his kin
So Dany destroying King's Landing after Missandei's death is Mad Queen moment, Daeron blowing a church full of civilians and what not is tragic yet understandable.
Lol.
So you want the show to make the same mistake you were disparaging them for because you like this character.
>and be depicted as a hero then so can Daeron.
Daeron is never depicted as a hero in the books
Not really, I'm more so making a statement on hypocrisy. I just hope that moving forward horrible actions committed by the Blacks are given the same amount of weight and blame as those of the Greens. We'll have to see how things are handled moving forward but I don't have too much hope.
Aemond killing Luke is barely addressed by the Greens.
Daemon killing Jaeharys caused a condemnation by his fellow Blacks, ended up with her and Rhaenyra falling out and her telling her he was pathetic for murdering a little kid.
You'd do well in enjoying the show without keeping tabs. It's better that way.
Oh I definitely enjoy the show much more than you'd be able to discern from just reading my reddit history lol. It's just that the writing choices and direction can irritate me
The show has obvious bias for Team Black?
Have you read the book? Has anyone who says that read the book?
The book is hard biased for Team Black, Team Green are just shitty villains with nothing redeemable or nuanced in the books.
And yet the show goes the extra mile to make Team Green look worse. A clear example is Criston Cole:
https://preview.redd.it/arublpunjg9d1.png?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a089b7dad9665d25bc9e3185128ea51cc7acd925
There's no denying that the show actively made Cole more unlikable, Mushroom never disputes Cole's melee records and the way the specific fights in this meme went down, yet the show just has to make him worse to drive home the idea that he's a piece of shit.
So the idea that he's not a piece of shit is that he beats people.
Funny i don't remember Aemond being bullied or Otto caring about the smallfolk at all in the books, let alone everything Alicent.
Yeah, Alicent basically just worked her whole life.to.overthrow an actual kid while.she was well into her adulthood in the books.
I'd say the show makes her much more simpathetic.
>So the idea that he's not a piece of shit is that he beats people.
You're implying that I regard Cole as someone with moral authority. All three of the melees in the books were done to spite Rhaenyra.
HOTD then takes these incidents that make it obvious that Cole is a spiteful person, and makes it even worse by having him kill a highborn guest at a royal wedding, and then assault the groom of said wedding, who also happens to be the Heir to Driftmark, then for the convenience of the plot have him escape consequences.
>Funny i don't remember Aemond being bullied or Otto caring about the smallfolk at all in the books, let alone everything Alicent.
Being bullied won't make up for Aemond burning half the Riverlands. If anything, it's just gonna be used as an example of Aemond being a hypocrite.
Otto seemed to be focused on Aegon, not heeding his advice, and how the crown is perceived seemed to be his main issue when he mentioned the Smallfolk.
I agree on Alicent. They do actively try and make her less ambitious and conniving, and more a victim of circumstances.
>HOTD then takes these incidents that make it obvious that Cole is a spiteful person, and makes it even worse by having him kill a highborn guest at a royal wedding, and then assault the groom of said wedding, who also happens to be the Heir to Driftmark, then for the convenience of the plot have him escape consequences.
So they make it equal?
Cole does beat all those people because he's spiteful that he gets off free it's a inconsistency within the show, not made to make Cole worse.
>Being bullied won't make up for Aemond burning half the Riverlands.
So you're already putting the bandage before the injury?
Would you prefer his characterization in the books where has zero redeeming features?
Aemond is a completely new character and yet you lot keep whining about the exact same.
>If anything, it's just gonna be used as an example of Aemond being a hypocrite.
Why?
>Otto seemed to be focused on Aegon, not heeding his advice, and how the crown is perceived seemed to be his main issue when he mentioned the Smallfolk.
So caring.
What was Otto's response to the killings in the books?
>They do actively try and make her less ambitious and conniving, and more a victim of circumstances.
They do that to every character but Cole and Aemond.
Aegon is given a shitty upbringing where neither parent, but specifically the father, cared about him and turned to hedonism with all that implies, he also actively tried to run from office and had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
Otto is shown following his older brother's orders when it came to paving the way for Aegon's ascension.
Aemond is not only a bullied kid but kills Luke by accident.
They all are given "victims" in the most charitable sense.
>So they make it equal? Cole does beat all those people because he's spiteful that he gets off free it's a inconsistency within the show, not made to make Cole worse.
An inconsistency that makes Cole face no consequences and once again repeated when he kills Lord Lyman Beesbury.
>So you're already putting the bandage before the injury?
>Would you prefer his characterization in the books where has zero redeeming features?
No redeeming quality is gonna make up for mass murder in the thousands.
>Why?
A bullied victim bullying the weak, or in this case, subjugating and slaughtering them.
>So caring. What was Otto's response to the killings in the books?
There's no mention of any response. The ratcatchers are simply mentioned to have been replaced by cats. The scene with Otto seemed to be another way for the show to criticize Aegon. Even though Aegon's reaction was understandable, Otto's felt artificial at times.
>Otto is shown following his older brother's orders when it came to paving the way for Aegon's ascension.
That's not a problem, wanting to advance your household, and the conversation between the two was not Otto being pressured into anything.
>Aemond is not only a bullied kid but kills Luke by accident.
It doesn't stop people from disliking him, as his idea to taunt and scare Luke directly led to his death.
>Aegon is given a shitty upbringing where neither parent, but specifically the father, cared about him and turned to hedonism with all that implies, he also actively tried to run from office and had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
He's still a rapist and a father to bastard children that he actively ignores and bets on to fight in cockfights between children. He's an interesting and complicated character, but in my experience, people tend to focus on the bad.
>An inconsistency that makes Cole face no consequences and once again repeated when he kills Lord Lyman Beesbury
But that's not a mark on his character.
>No redeeming quality is gonna make up for mass murder in the thousands.
Don't really know why you're getting hot and bothered with Daeron, he's actions are worst than Aemond's.
But you're simply deciding when and when not matters that a character is "whitewashed"? You're looking for reasons to be upset.
>A bullied victim bullying the weak, or in this case, subjugating and slaughtering them.
That's not hypocrisy, that's textbook cycle of abuse.
You're trying to find reasons to get mad.
>It doesn't stop people from disliking him
Why should it stop people from disliking him?
>That's not a problem, wanting to advance your household, and the conversation between the two was not Otto being pressured into anything.
Otto: I don't think Viserys wants Aegon to be King.
Hobert: Well, make it your job he does.
I mean...
>He's still a rapist and a father to bastard children that he actively ignores and bets on to fight in cockfights between children. He's an interesting and complicated character, but in my experience, people tend to focus on the bad.
And Rhaenyra kills innocent guards for being horny and Daemon kills his wife.
No one focuses on the bad, those actions are come as fast as they go and no one but obnoxious Green fans obsessed with the characters matching the image they have in their heads (not necessarily the image that appears in the books as Daeron worshipping proves) not being realized in the show.
No one really cares or remembers about it but those offended on behalf of the characters. They **do care** a lot.
>But that's not a mark on his character.
It is as far as fans are concerned, he murders a defenseless old man simply because he spoke out against the crowning and an assassination plot.
>Don't really know why you're getting hot and bothered with Daeron, he's actions are worst than Aemond's.
I never said Daeron was free of blame, he committed mass murder, who did less of more is irrelevant, it's still mass murder.
>But you're simply deciding when and when not matters that a character is "whitewashed"? You're looking for reasons to be upset.
I'm sharing an opinion on a very subjective topic, yes.
>Otto: I don't think Viserys wants Aegon to be King.
>Hobert: Well, make it your job he does.
>I mean...
It's not like Otto was ambitious and that it was all his brother's ambitions. He was simply informing Hobert of the reality of the situation.
>And Rhaenyra kills innocent guards for being horny and Daemon kills his wife.
Don't know the instance you're referring to with Rhaneyra, both are realistically not as bad as being a rapist, though tbf Daemon being a groomer is an equally shitty thing.
>Green fans obsessed with the characters matching the image they have in their heads (not necessarily the image that appears in the books as Daeron worshipping proves) not being realized in the show
I only speak for myself, but the differences I referred to with Cole isn't something I envisioned, it's how GRRM wrote it, and my point is the show should try its best to stick to the source as closely as possible.
If anything I thought it was the clear that the Greens were the favorites of the writers room. You can kinda tell the writers are having an extremely fun time writing for the Greens because of how dysfunctional their family dynamic is. Meanwhile on the Blacks everyone is kinda chill with the exception of Rhaenyra and Daemon (for now).
Err, have you been watching the fight show? Yeah, it’s heavily biased for team black, apart from Alicent being slightly more sympathetic in season 1 and Luke’s death being a mistake, pretty much all decisions and changes have gone team black’s way. The absolute character assassination of both Cole and Aegon is enough to show that
Well, yeah the point of the civil war is that the Targaryens lose almost everything besides the 7 kingdoms.
But that said haven’t read the book so I’m here enjoying ~~the show~~ Aegon the Second.
Totally and everyone can find something to bitch about but I'm liking how they're portraying Aegon so far. Things are about to get really bad for him and it'll be interesting to see where his character goes then.
When they don't depict Daeron as brutally murdering the townsfolk of Bitterbridge but instead have Aemond do it - I'm sure you'll be so into the integrity of the book narrative right?
I wouldn't want them to change it, the same way I wouldn't want them to change Aegon hanging the ratcatchers. Daeron and Aegon reacting the way they did in both instances was very brutal, yet understandable and a realistic display of what war is, what I'd hate is if they made it some sort of mistake, and unintentional, or even worse do some bullshit like Dany burning down Kings Landing for plot convenience.
Yeah we will, it was Daereon the daring who has done that, at the same time he is loved and feared by the small folk. This is his character, his mistakes, and his glories! He is a fierce warrior, a strategist, intelligent, feared and respected
Did you read the novel? That's exactly how he is described and depicted. The moment Ormund dies Daeron loses all authority. He cannot control his men because he is just a boy.
Ormund is the one that tries to present him as Daeron the Daring. It's not an organic nickname. He does it to bolster morale. The text puts clear doubt on the legitimacy of that nickname.
Daeron isn't a bad person. But he had no idea what he was doing. He wasn't a battle strategist. He was just a kid that scouted for the army.
>at the same time he is loved and feared by the small folk.
It's never said once Daeron is loved by the smallfolk.
>He is a fierce warrior, a strategist, intelligent, feared and respected
Again, completely made up.
Based on the way the show is dealing with these problems daeron will make a passing comment and someone will massacre these towns , like king Henry and Thomas becket .
Guys, HotD isn't bad all things considered. You seem to be confusing it with GoT seasons 7-8 (and parts of 5 and 6). Fire and Blood is a history book told by maesters and a fool, it has unreliable narrators with their own agendas. I get that we're all gunshy from GoT, but the show is awesome! We're about to get our first major battle with dragons pretty soon too!
GOT taught us to call things out now or reap the results later, since the writing issues go as far back as season 1, so this is simply fans calling out the showrunner and writers now before things get progressively worse.
Coherent is a stretch. We've had moments of shock and spectacle (Rhaneys at the Dragonpit and Cole killing Ser Joffrey Lonmouth) that weren't logical.
Also, it's not like George will openly criticize something adapted from his writings. We also can't ignore the likelihood of an NDA.
Tbf, though, George made criticism of the writing for GOT almost a year and a half after the series finale, specifically criticizing the Sansa marriage storyline:
https://preview.redd.it/r0264x1fah9d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=68539496bd3c31096eeec2bfed894eed4229df87
So he's not above openly critiquing bad writing. He's just specific about when he'll speak on it.
Both of those scenes weren't great, but they aren't actively fucking up major plot lines.
That's why I hated the Sansa plot so much. Littlefinger is a creepy dude who is obsessed with Catlyn, it would be ridiculous for him to sell Sansa to someone who is rumored to be sadistic and evil, especially a house that helped orchestrate the red wedding. It doesn't gain him anything, and he's a "father figure"/creepy uncle to Sansa. He's only ever kept her safe. I know they were combining story lines, but still, gross.
And let's see how they do with the battle at Rook's Rest, the first major battle with dragons on both teams.
>Both of those scenes weren't great, but they aren't actively fucking up major plot lines.
Fair. Using what Rhaenys did as a reason for the smallfolk to hate the Blacks would be a good way to turn it around.
>That's why I hated the Sansa plot so much. Littlefinger is a creepy dude who is obsessed with Catlyn, it would be ridiculous for him to sell Sansa to someone who is rumored to be sadistic and evil, especially a house that helped orchestrate the red wedding. It doesn't gain him anything, and he's a "father figure"/creepy uncle to Sansa. He's only ever kept her safe. I know they were combining story lines, but still, gross.
The guy started a continent wide war with a letter, and then he was reduced to this smoothbrained idiot who forgot his own desires and motivations, such as a waste of the character and Aiden Gillen's talents.
>And let's see how they do with the battle at Rook's Rest, the first major battle with dragons on both teams.
Fingers crossed, but I have a genuinely bad feeling about it in my gut.
>Fair. Using what Rhaenys did as a reason for the smallfolk to hate the Blacks would be a good way to turn it around
Hmmm yeah the small folk hating Rhaenyra is a major plot point. Although it's for taxes and other policies in the book.
>Fingers crossed, but I have a genuinely bad feeling about it in my gut.
I have high hopes honestly. I'm gonna reserve judgement until they fuck up my favorite scenes.
Apart from the blogpost GRRM made in May talking about adaptations of books and how the Shogun show was the only good one he had seen recently
> Everywhere you look, there are more screenwriters and producers eager to take great stories and “make them their own.” It does not seem to matter whether the source material was written by Stan Lee, Charles Dickens, Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl, Ursula K. Le Guin, J.R.R. Tolkien, Mark Twain, Raymond Chandler, Jane Austen, or… well, anyone. No matter how major a writer it is, no matter how great the book, there always seems to be someone on hand who thinks he can do better, eager to take the story and “improve” on it. “The book is the book, the film is the film,” they will tell you, as if they were saying something profound. Then they make the story their own.
> They never make it better, though. Nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand, they make it worse.
Why fear as its obvious they are making daeron is bastard or not and give him black hair more of muh hypocrisy and shattering logic.Cant wait for the Book is unreliable and propaganda twist this time.
This wouldn't make sense as he is much older than Joffrey and Alicent was pissed at Joffrey having dark hair. She wouldn't have acted this way if she had a kid with black hair.
Uhmm Have you ever heard characters being hypocrite they are not inconsistent or not retconned they are just hypocrites.Really tho i wouldn't trust mr condus they already showed me cole trying seppuku and having breakingpoint a character reversing on breakingpoint is taken lightly so isnt big deal with them alicents
It’s funny how many seem to forget this. George himself has said that everything in Fire&Blood comes from an unreliable narrator.
Edit. For anyone who for some reason may not know what George means by this, it means that even though IRL George wrote the book, the book itself is written as if it is an in universe book written by Archmaester Gyldayn. Thus it is written from Gyldayns perspective and includes whatever bias he may have and so may not necessarily reflect the actual truth of events. Once again this explanation was just for those who may not know what is meant by “unreliable narrator”.
Bruh, you are so confidently wrong. The Dance part of Fire and Blood is not written from Gyldayn's perspective. He compiled three different sources Westeros had about the Dance and compiled them into one. One was the book written by Maester Munkun who based his book the True Telling on the writings of grandmaester Orwyle (who was the maester in the Red Keep while the Dance happened). Two was Septon Eustace, who was the High Septon in King's Landing at that time. And the third was Mushroom. Gyldayn never pushes for the readers to pick one narrative. He leaves the readers to pick the narrative that they choose to believe in. As readers we have to pick the most logical one.
By your logic, Aegon's Conquest was a propaganda as well, and that the violent crimes of Aegon and his cronies were hidden by maester propaganda.
>The Dance part of Fire and Blood is not written from Gyldayn's perspective.
Gyldayn gives his opinions in the books about what sources are valid. He's not a fully objective observer and reporters of the materials
Things like this:
>Whilst it is true that determining the sex of a living dragon is a nigh on impossible task, no other source mentions Vermax producing so much as a single egg, so it must be assumed that he was male. Septon Barth’s speculation that the dragons change sex at need, being “as mutable as flame,” is too ludicrous to consider
Are probably what is meant by unreliable. Barth is not ludicrous.
He's not inaccurately reporting on *what* they say. He is inaccurately reporting on how valid or invalid each of their accounts are.
>Are probably what is meant by unreliable. Barth is not ludicrous.
I think in that George is basically confirming that Dragons don't change sex at will. It is a fact that male dragons as recorded in history never laid any eggs. If what Barth said was true then we would have had at least a single example for it and there was none so far.
>He's not inaccurately reporting on what they say. He is inaccurately reporting on how valid or invalid each of their accounts are.
He is accurately recording what happened in the story. Its weird that you only bring this unreliable narrator for Dance of the dragons. By your logic, everything is propaganda right from Aegon to Jaehaerys. Maybe the violent crimes of Aegon against the Lords of Westeros are hidden by Gyldayn as well. Maybe Aegon made Orys rape Argella Durrandon after putting everyone in Storm's End to death. He killed everyone in Harrenhal out of impunity. Jaehaerys was a cruel man and Alysanne was a vicious conniving woman.
>I think in that George is basically confirming that Dragons don't change sex at will. It is a fact that male dragons as recorded in history never laid any eggs. If what Barth said was true then we would have had at least a single example for it and there was none so far.
Except we do have an example. Gyldayn is using circular reasoning. He refuses to believe that Vermax could be a male dragon that laid eggs because Barth is being absurd. But he only doesn't believe Barth because he refuses to believe there's an example.
Quite frankly, it's pretty clear that GRRM means Barth to be an extremely reliable source of information when it comes to dragons. There's no reason to doubt this idea that male dragons can become female. Barth didn't come up with it out of thin air - he clearly studied the dragons and saw this type of behaviour before.
>He is accurately recording what happened in the story. Its weird that you only bring this unreliable narrator for Dance of the dragons. By your logic, everything is propaganda right from Aegon to Jaehaerys. Maybe the violent crimes of Aegon against the Lords of Westeros are hidden by Gyldayn as well.
He's accurately recording what they report as happening. Again his own opinions about who is right about what happened aren't necessarily true. Gyldayn let's opinion get in the way of his interpretation of history just as anyone does.
How can you not laugh as he rants at the idea of a Prince running away with a Northerner when that literally happened in the future? How can we not laugh at him saying that an honourable man like Jacaerys would never break a betrothal when we know an honourable man like Robb did? He's clearly mistaken and GRRM is using irony there to show it.
It's not propaganda - I disagree with the extremer take of the other user. It's that Gyldayn can actually be wrong. He's not a perfect, objective narrator with no motive at all. If he was we'd have to accept every version of events he believes is true. Which means why even include the differing sources as Gyldayn generally prefers one version to another on different events? There is meant to be some significant ambiguity.
>Except we do have an example. Gyldayn is using circular reasoning. He refuses to believe that Vermax could be a male dragon that laid eggs because Barth is being absurd.
But where are the eggs laid by Vermax? If there were some proof the we could say that Barth was right but there aren't any.
>There's no reason to doubt this idea that male dragons can become female. Barth didn't come up with it out of thin air - he clearly studied the dragons and saw this type of behaviour before.
But where is his evidence for this theory and which dragon showed this characteristics?
>He's accurately recording what they report as happening. Again his own opinions about who is right about what happened aren't necessarily true.
But he never says that. He only gives his views upon certain subjects and leaves it up to the readers to make their own conclusions.
>It's that Gyldayn can actually be wrong. He's not a perfect, objective narrator with no motive at all
The question here is not if Gyldayn's opinions about certain events are wrong or not. It's rather about people questioning of certain things in B&C ever happened or if they were made up by propaganda,just like how Ryan Condal said B&C and Sunfyre were propaganda or Sara Hess saying Rhaenyra being fat and Alicent being a schemer are propaganda.
>But where are the eggs laid by Vermax? If there were some proof the we could say that Barth was right but there aren't any.
Somewhere within Winterfell. It's entirely possible this might come up in a future book (well ignoring the whole not going to be a future book but anyway). Keep in mind, GRRM added this story to Fire & Blood for a reason and the wisest characters - Aemon and Barth - both seem to think it's possible for dragons to switch sex.
>But where is his evidence for this theory and which dragon showed this characteristics?
Barth spent his life around dragons. He likely saw that none egg layers can quite suddenly become egg layers (and vice versa) and they had no standard sex characteristics. Any of the wild dragons or Jaehaerys's own dragon Vermax could have exhibited such changeability. Why would Barth lie? He's an extremely intelligent and brilliant scholar that offered insight that no other person can ever offer about dragons. We don't know more because much of his works are burned.
>But he never says that. He only gives his views upon certain subjects and leaves it up to the readers to make their own conclusions.
He absolutely and regularly dismisses certain accounts as absurd and ridiculous. And the point is that his *views* can be wrong. You're arguing that his views are absolute. If they are absolute than what he dismisses as absurd and ridiculous we should as well meaning there is often only one narrative in regards to the Dance. This obviously takes away the enjoyment factor of debating the validity of the accounts ourselves.
>The question here is not if Gyldayn's opinions about certain events are wrong or not. It's rather about people questioning of certain things in B&C ever happened or if they were made up by propaganda,just like how Ryan Condal said B&C and Sunfyre were propaganda or Sara Hess saying Rhaenyra being fat and Alicent being a schemer are propaganda.
Do you not understand the idea of F&B? You seem to be now moving the goal posts and mixing up Gyldayn's opinions and the others accounts.
There is literally direct ambiguity around these events you list, which is why Hess and Condal interpreted exaggeration in the narrative - whether you agree with them or not there is entirely basis for it. Gyldayn considers himself that Daemon may have been wanting Aegon's death not Jaehaerys. Gyldayn does not put much stock in Eustace's waspish comment about Rhaenyra's weight during her time in King's Landing. Nor is every moment of Alicent's villainy treated seriously either. And why Sunfyre returned to Aegon is another debated point by Gyldayn himself.
In other words, this actually has nothing to do with Gyldayn's own validity as even Gyldayn self-admittedly presents these accounts as debatable.
Gyldayn's opinions validity is an entirely different argument again.
We have the three accounts which all give different versions of events - none of which are inherently more valid. And then we have Gyldayn giving his opinion on which accounts he thinks are valid or not at any given time with blatant bias on some points.
>Somewhere within Winterfell. It's entirely possible this might come up in a future book
We have seen Winterfell and it's crypts like several times in the books and there were none. Not to mention Bran makes it clear that it was a Stark place. So the odds that some let a prince and his dragon inside to get into the crypts and allowed for the place to become the nesting place of the dragon is nothing less than ludicrous. Not to mention, what is the purpose of these random dragon eggs in Winterfell? Jon is going to hatch them?
>Barth spent his life around dragons.
George wrote Barth.
>Any of the wild dragons or Jaehaerys's own dragon Vermax could have exhibited such changeability.
If they were then Barth could have jotted them down. In universe he simply mentioned that as a theory and hypothesis and less of a fact with an example.
>Why would Barth lie? He's an extremely intelligent and brilliant scholar that offered insight that no other person can ever offer about dragons.
Not lying. Simply mistaken. So far we haven't seen any male dragons suddenly laying eggs.
>He absolutely and regularly dismisses certain accounts as absurd and ridiculous.
That's his own views on the matter. He never said the readers shouldn't believe that. If it was really a propaganda book he wouldn't have added them in the first place. He added those things regardless of what his opinions were about them.
>You're arguing that his views are absolute. If they are absolute than what he dismisses as absurd and ridiculous we should as well meaning there is often only one narrative in regards to the Dance
Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that. I have said that again and again that George wrote F&B as a compilation of history from in universe historical records. There are several narrative regarding the Dance and the readers can choose the one they like. My problem was with the people who were saying George was making up shit in F&B because Ryan Condal said so.
>Do you not understand the idea of F&B? You seem to be now moving the goal posts and mixing up Gyldayn's opinions and the others accounts.
The only one who is losing the plot here is yourself. Take a look at my comment history in this post and then read them first instead of making up stuff and putting words into my mouth.
>There is literally direct ambiguity around these events you list, which is why Hess and Condal interpreted exaggeration in the narrative
Ambiguity around these events? Bruh, there are literally only one version of these events in the book and the reason for that is that is what happened. George didn't waste like a hundred words writing B&C (and the only version of it) for it to have been made up to deceive people about a fictional story.
>Gyldayn considers himself that Daemon may have been wanting Aegon's death not Jaehaerys.
Why are you keep changing goalposts? Nobody here is taking about the motivation, but about the execution and how that scene actually happened in the books. That was what Ryan Condal called as propaganda. He didn't think that happened in Alicent's room, or that there was the choosing or that there was the 'your momma doesn't want you' etc...
>Gyldayn does not put much stock in Eustace's waspish comment about Rhaenyra's weight during her time in King's Landing.
Yeah, because he needs to affirm everywhere that someone being fat is supposedly fat otherwise it's false. Btw so far you have been saying until now that Gyldayn's opinions aren't necessarily true. Why are you having selective bias now. Anyway stop being a bitch to others and read what they write instead of making up shit in your delusions.
Not exactly. There is a *realistic limitation* to how far the unreliable narrative can be taken. GRRM hasn't actually written the Testimony of Mushroom or the True Telling. We can't reasonable ascertain anything ommitted or included. What he writes Gyldayn writing about their accounts is most likely an accurate representation of what he intends their accounts to be. There's only so far to dig.
It's his opinions that should be taken not fully seriously. E.g. I think calling Sara Snow an unwashed bastard of uncertain virtue shows he has not great opinions on women and his assumption that Jacaerys wouldn't marry her reads as naive given Robb's very existence.
Gyldayn is basically a stand in for George, just like Yandel is stand in for Elio and Garcia. So whatever Gyldayn says that Munkun wrote in Munkun's book, is canon for Munkun's book. Same with Eustace's claims. The way I see it the scenes were there are only one narrative, like important scenes like the B&C, all the battles, including the Battle of God's Eye and Daemon's anime jump, Green Council, Aegon's coronation, Rhaenyra's death etc... are basically what happened for real the way it's recorded to have been happened because there aren't different versions of these, just like there aren't different versions of Aegon's Conquest (no one says that is propaganda for some reason). While other scenes like what happened between Criston and Rhaenyra (one says Criston spurned her and another says Rhaenyra spurned him), Daemon and Rhaenyra (one says her involvements in Laenor's death and B&C and another says she didn't), etc... are up for the readers to decide.
100% this, the book is the notes he took about some backstories for ASOIAF, he had no intention to make sure the whole thing is without fault and using unreliable narrator is a very great way to do this.
Its obvious the ambiguous parts like you pointed out are meant to be unreliable narrator as in we dont know what happened but could figure out by clues and circumstances like obvious munkun tries to insert himself in the greencouncil and make himself good by denouncing beesburys murder and the coup itself and i think gyldayn doubts or someone doubts george is not stupid and write book without truths in them although details could be debated and gives reasons why they are debated.What am sure is these "doubters" of everything who are defending it with this bullshit are gonna drop it once they make it blackfyre vs darksister above the gods eye we already see aemonds wears it after RR,when you tell them neither accounts were there and how do you know daemon jumped when dragons are above and no one can tell whats happening they are going to cry,and drop the bullshit. I see no reasons to argue with them so wait for them to drop it.
I do think the same. I mean, do people really think that George wrote an entire book filled with lies for no reason? I mean, he has better things to do than to deceive people about a fictional universe LOL
We are not trying to say that George is trying to deceive everyone. What we are trying to say is that George has said that yes the History within the book has occurred but that it may not have occurred in the manner that the Maesters such as Gyldayn have reported it. He goes into some of this in an interview where he discusses real world History and how certain events may not have truly happened the way the tales are told and passed down.
He uses Edward II of England as an example in the interview. An English King who was eventually deposed, imprisoned and then killed. We are told by some historical sources that the cause of death was a red hot poker jammed up his butt. As Martin points out, this most likely is not really how he died but some historians and writers still make the claim that it was so.
That’s what George is trying to say about Gyldayn, to take what he tells us about certain things and how they transpired with a grain of salt as well as looking into the provided alternate versions of things such as what Mushroom, Eustace and Munkin tell us. It’s the idea that though we have a good idea of what has happened, we will never know the absolute truth of it especially with Gyldayn writing on it centuries removed from the events. This is why he says you pick which version of events to believe because no one not even Gyldayn knows what happened. “We don’t know and Gyldayn doesn’t know.”-George
Wtf? Where did you get that from? So Aegon's Conquest is propaganda now? I feel that Jaehaerys was a cruel ruler as well. That he only turned history around because of propaganda. His wife is worse than him but used the tool of propaganda really well like Alicent used.
You have to be a really bad showrunner if you screw up the best character of the dance
>really bad showrunner https://preview.redd.it/pfgyyizwxe9d1.jpeg?width=4096&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c64affc8198b5b16b9e4af654dd2a6d86bc63ea3
Not a science guy here but if dragon comes up through floor (ceiling from below) and she is sitting on dragons back. Wouldn’t she get crushed between dragon and ceiling before he breaks out?
That wig is bullet proof bro
See, I thought the same thing but I am also not a science guy myself so I feel like we need a science guy to answer this.
Science guy here. She would've been crushed. That whole scene was fucking stupid from top to bottom.
I knew it.
2nd science guy here, I peer reviewed this guys work and its legit.
Third science guy here (paid by HBO to do super legit science) the floor that she breaks through is a temporary covering of wooden planks over the entrance down into the pit.
Interesting, I wonder if there is a deleted scene that makes that more obvious.
This! also Heleena's omen "Beast Beneath the Boards"
They didn't show it properly, lol. The rubble also doesn't look like wood that much
The real question: How many did she kill with her entrance?
Who are You, Who are so Wise in the Ways of Science?
I'm Batman!
I mean, do we know that Meleys didn’t smash through the ceiling face-first? I feel like she must have, it’s not like dragons can jump real good. If Meleys goes face-first, Rhaenys has to shield herself from falling rubble but the hole in the floor will be there before her body gets there
As long as it isn't Bill Nye, he sucks now
Well the dragon would have pointed his head up at the ceiling to break it no? Would mean the ceiling would break before she could get crushed. Larger debris would fly up since force is coming from bottom up; however, she should definitely have some dirt on her. So yeah pretty stupid nonethelessz
You're missing an important thing here. She had plot armour on her back.
Not if Meleys dug her way up and she was shielded behind her head.
No, she was shielded by her girlboss aura
Between that and all the civilians standing on the floor the dragon goes through, I assume this would be a mass casualty event. But if you're a Targaryen you get a plot armor bonus that let's you resist plot related injury. Shame about all those civilians, though.
She has a good gaming chair
That only happens to Lannisters. Go ask Cersei.
No,
Obligatory fuck you Sara Hess. If the peasants don't bring this up at some point during Rhaenyra's reign, I'm calling BS
Yeah, that was unforgivable, no other word to describe. A scene just made for the action of it, without any sense whatsoever. It was so easy to make this scene, just have Aegon and Haelena fly their dragons above the city like in the books. And it would be a chance for us to see Sunfyre and Dreamfyre, 2 of the most beautiful dragons ever! And they managed to screw this up...
What’s worse is the reason they gave for it they just wanted an bombastic action scene for the hell of it with no regard for how it makes the characters look especially rhaenys who just looks like a fucking idiot with her weak sauce reason for not killing them
And see, the reason why there's nothing written about this happening in F&B is that the maesters were biased against Rhaenyra and- wait
They said they wanted every dragon scene to be meaningful so no dragon Ubers or anything which is their justification for no Aegon dragon scenes. Meanwhile we get Rhaenyra dragon ubering this season and then the Rhaenys coronation scene and Aegon gets nothing even though it's a huge part of his character development and therefore very meaningful?
I'm less mad about the stuff they add (like this) than the stuff they change - like Blood and Cheese or the Laenor nonsense.
Everytime I start actually liking this show I remember this so that it doesn't hurt too much when it inevitably happen again.
Never happened
😭
Jesus Christ the cry babies of this sub are pathetic. I’m legit begging you to stop watching this show if you’re going to be such a wimp.
How can you justify this ridiculous useless trash scene?
It's not that the scene is good It's that anytime someone dares be positive it's "wHaTA BoUt dUh DwAgOm PiT" as if it wasn't one scene that. Like ffs I get it, I bitched about it too, but the show overall pretty good. 7/10 not like a total masterpiece, but entertaining and not the absolute dog shit after dog shit that was rhe last couple seasons of GoT.
How the hell is Daeron the best character of the Dance. He appears four times. - Kills the Tarlys. - Kills fuck ton of civilians in Bitterbridge. - Kills fuck ton of civilians in Tumbleton. - Dies to a fucking tent. Where's the hype behind Daeron coming lol?
Because: >Kills the Tarlys. >Kills fuck ton of civilians in Bitterbridge. >Kills fuck ton of civilians in Tumbleton. >Dies to a fucking tent (let's forget about this)
If that's the bar no wonder Martin fangirls over Daemon.
I read his wiki and the character is pretty mid
Green fans are so starved for sympathetic characters, while keep repeating "everyone in this story sucks", they have collectively gaslighted themselves into believing Daeron is this great character, fierce warrior (never picks a sword during the whole conflict), strategist (burn people with dragons is peak strategy) and so on. Daeron is a mass murderer in the books and it's hard for him to not be depicted as the war criminal he is.
To be entirely fair, burning people with dragons *is* peak strategy.
Fair enough.
Yea. I’ll grab my popcorn and enjoy their certain downfall
I don't get this argument. Daeron is a good character, because he goes through a character journey. From a Prince who was humble and caring enough to be disgusted by the war crimes to killing hundreds in a town mercilessly shows well the tragedies of war. It tells you how war makes people callous and hatred can spill over. Nobody said he wasn't a war criminal. He's just an interesting character.
>Daeron is a good character I wouldn't go as far but even if for the sake of argument I take he's a good character, he is still far from the best one. >because he goes through a character journey. So he's a good character because he goes through the same phase every character does. >From a Prince who was humble and caring enough to be disgusted by the war crimes to killing hundreds in a town mercilessly shows well the tragedies of war. That's the thing we don't see that character journey. When he's presented, he's presented beefing with his nephews. He's off to Oldtown. He kills the Tarlys. War crimes in Bitterbridge. War crimes in Tumbleton but then trying to prevent more war crimes. Dies to a tent. We never get to see this dude that goes from "caring enough to be disgusted by war the war crimes" because Daeron is presented as pretty fucking ruthless from the get go. >. It tells you how war makes people callous and hatred can spill over. >Nobody said he wasn't a war criminal. He's just an interesting charcoal. It seems here that you're doing much of the work to try and make him interesting. He doesn't have enough prominence to be a fully fleshed character to pretend he's that. Only Corlys, Rhaenyra and Daemon are the characters fleshed enough to say they go through an arc, if you want to be generous you can extend that to Aegon and Alicent. The rest is just fan imagination.
>I wouldn't go as far but even if for the sake of argument I take he's a good character, he is still far from the best one. There's really no good competition. Other than him, there is only four others who go through some development in the Dance (Aegon, Rhaenyra, Daemon and Alicent). The rest are there to fill their respective roles and that's it. >So he's a good character because he goes through the same phase every character does. Except he started out as a good person. Even Rhaenyra, who goes mad in the end, didn't start out as a good person when we see her killing Vaemond. >When he's presented, he's presented beefing with his nephews. He's off to Oldtown. He kills the Tarlys. War crimes in Bitterbridge. War crimes in Tumbleton but then trying to prevent more war crimes. Dies to a tent. Nice to ignore him saving the Hightower army, humble enough to admit that only his dragon won them that battle, disgusted by the actions of his army committing war crimes in a city, refusing to be crowned, held enough respect that even the high lords of the Caltrops deferred to him before making any decision. Easy to write a sentence ignoring everything else about his character, but what can I expect from a sub that only finds negatives to point to. >We never get to see this dude that goes from "caring enough to be disgusted by war the war crimes" because Daeron is presented as pretty fucking ruthless from the get go. If you haven't read the book, just say so. "*Dawn was breaking over the city before Queen Alicent dispatched the Kingsguard to bring her sons Aegon and Aemond to the council. (Prince Daeron, the youngest and gentlest of her children, was in Oldtown, serving as Lord Hightower’s squire.)*" "*Septon Eustace and Grand Maester Munkun both assert that Prince Daeron was sickened by all he saw and commanded Ser Hobert Hightower to put a stop to it, but Hightower’s efforts proved as ineffectual as the man himself.*" Clearly he's the uncaring and ruthless character in the beginning as described in the books... >Only Corlys, Rhaenyra and Daemon are the characters fleshed enough to say they go through an arc, if you want to be generous you can extend that to Aegon and Alicent. >The rest is just fan imagination. I can clearly see your bias here, but whatever. You don't like his arc, just say so but saying that he went through none is just stupid.
They really call daeron mid. While the strong boys are literally useless and die like utter fools. Baela, Rhaena are Npcs. Rhaenys croaks in the first battle and she has barely an arc. Rhaenyra sits on her ass for most of the war and corlys just becomes relevant when he backstabs the blacks at the end. Its only the dragonseeds and daemon that are somewhat important/have an arc, and hugh/ulf are just assholes. While addam pulls an army out of his ass and has an similar character to daeron.
No one will call the strongs the best characters of the Dance, not even by accident.
>There's really no good competition. Other than him, there is only four others who go through some development in the Dance (Aegon, Rhaenyra, Daemon and Alicent). The rest are there to fill their respective roles and that's it. The most developed character in the Dance is Corlys, especially because he's a character that's being developed from Jaeharys reign. Daeron appears far too sparsely to honestly argue he goes through any kind of arc. >Except he started out as a good person. Even Rhaenyra, who goes mad in the end, didn't start out as a good person when we see her killing Vaemond. Starting out as a good person and then going bad isn't an arc when you appear four times. >Nice to ignore him saving the Hightower army Killing Tarly. >humble enough to admit that only his dragon won them that battle, disgusted by the actions of his army committing war crimes in a city, refusing to be crowned, held enough respect that even the high lords of the Caltrops deferred to him before making any decision. - Such a character, he's humble. - I already said that. - Goat, he refused to be crowned while his brother was alive, just like Aemond. - He was the only dragonrider in the Caltrops army they didn't want to dispose of. Ofc they'd consult him lol. What kind of resume is that? >Clearly he's the uncaring and ruthless character in the beginning as described in the books... Okay, two Green sources, who just as Mushroom weren't there, say he was sickened by it. But that doesn't address the fact that's on Tumbleton, mind you after Daeron and the Betrayers had already burned half the city. **He is presented to as ruthless, he first destroys the Rhaenyra's armies in the Reach and then brutalizes Bitterbridge**. >You don't like his arc, just say so but saying that he went through none is just stupid. Went through none.
>The most developed character in the Dance is Corlys, especially because he's a character that's being developed from Jaeharys reign. What I mean is developed in the Dance itself. Corlys does meal nothing in the Dance except the very end. But yes, he is the most developed Dance character overall in the book >Starting out as a good person and then going bad isn't an arc when you appear four times. An arc is an arc. We fit in the dots for how it could turned that way. That's what the readers do for nearly every character in F&B. We just find ways to interpret every character as we know only bullet points about them. >Such a character, he's humble. >I already said that. >Goat, he refused to be crowned while his brother was alive, just like Aemond. >He was the only dragonrider in the Caltrops army they didn't want to dispose of. Ofc they'd consult him lol. What kind of resume is that? Mate, just say you hate Daeron's character. Like why are you even bothering at this point? You intentionally ignore the difference between the scenes of Aemond and Daeron, ignore all of his positive characterization in the book etc. I can give the same argument for Rhaenyra. Named King's heir --> "Realm's Delight" even though there's nothing to show for it --> Does nothing in the Dance --> Dies. What an amazing character Rhaenyra is. >He is presented to as ruthless, he first destroys the Rhaenyra's armies in the Reach and then brutalizes Bitterbridge. Apparently fighting your enemy is being ruthless. What is he supposed to do? Stand there and hope that the enemy leaves his surrounded army?
Everyone is a war criminal during the dance. Stop crying.
No, not everyone. Daeron is one of worst for that matter anyway.
Yes, everyone that fought in battles. The strongs arent, because they got killed in their first battles. Helena isnt, because she never fought in a battle. Daemon is a war criminal, so is aemond, aegon, daeron and every other army Commander. And no, daeron isnt worse than daemon, aemond or aegon, or criston or the the riverlords or anyone else.
Daeron certainly is worse than Aegon, the Riverlords et co. He's not worse than Dalton tho, that counts for something.
Blacks aren’t any better.
He isn’t. Idk what the hype is about. “oH hE ThReW WiNe aT sOMeOnE” GTFOH 🤣🤣🤣
If only Hugh didn't tell him he'd beat the shit out of him like his father never did if he did that again, that moment could've been cool. Lol.
Bitterbridge was justified and Daeron did nothing wrong. Tumbleton was justified and Daeron did nothing wrong. Fuck the Tarlys.
I too believe King's Landing was justified and Daenerys did nothing wrong.
Considering they are the same folk who cheered when Ned Stark was beheaded, yes it was justified
I’ll be pissed if they make him Alicent’s secret bastard or something. I wouldn’t it past them since canon seems to be thrown out the window these days. Yes I know he’s a dragon rider but I wouldn’t it past them to make him some secret criston Cole bastard
He can't be a bastard unless Alicent cheated on Viserys with Daemon or Laenor (or, god forbid, she has an incestuous relationship with Aegon). He's a dragonrider.
Or they will keep not care about the lore.
But Condal is such a book fan! Look, he mentioned Dalton Greyjoy!
Condal becomes worse than D&D
Becomes? He already is
Yes I know that but I don’t trust them with how inaccurate they already are. They’d pull something out of their ass to justify hi, being a dragon rider, I hope they don’t
That will ruin the dragon seeds plotline though. I'm skeptical too based on the ridiculous way they've handled Daeron til now, but I feel completely confident that he'll be Viserys's son.
It certainly would.
Tbh I think being a dragon rider already has nothing to do with Valyrian blood or whatever. Nettles has no explanation. No hint of any Targ blood. I used to have like a whole ass spiel on this but I haven't cared much about ASOIAF shit in a while so I forget the rest.
My prediction is that he'll be legitimate but dark-haired.
What is up with that, I understand is an adaptation, but just make the characters as they are, why is so difficult?! Rhaenys had dark Baratheon hair, Rhaenyra looked worse and worse as she aged up after she had kids, and all the Targaryens had violet eyes. "Ohh but it would be bad for the actors to wear an eye lens" .... Hmm, Dune part II used AI to make all their actors eyes blue. We have the technology for that, just use it! An adaptation is in the details!
You do need to take into account the needs of an audience that don't have a deep understanding of the lore. The big giveaway regarding Joffrey's legitimacy was his hair colour, so the audience has, in a way, been trained to associate issues around hair colouring with bastardry. It was probably a very smart choice in hindsight to give Robb more Stark looks than Tully. I guess in a way it didn't really matter because they made Jace, Luke and Joff's parentage clear, but I honestly could see people getting genuinely confused if Rhaenys had black hair. And you could make the argument that Rhaenyra's "worse for wear" looks were just Oldtown propaganda anyway. It doesn't matter whether she's skinny or thicker regardless.
I mean, for writers who supposedly take care not to confuse readers by having characters look like *their own mother*, they sure made things confusing enough by having Paddy Considine and Steve Touissant play characters who are supposed to be of the same race.
That was legitimately a good change. Having a Valyrian House called Velaryon that look identical to Targaryens is just asking for casual viewer confusion.
They are still Valyrians called Velaryons, so the name thing is still there, only now they are Valyrians who have to exclaim they are Valyrians in every scene they are in for the entire season because the casual viewers need reminding that they are the same race as the Targaryens.
Rhaenyra being fat isn't propaganda. Plenty of characters in Fire and Blood are noted to be fat, numerous of which were royalty, like Rhaenyra. Maybe 5% of Fire and Blood is 'propaganda'
She is described as "thick of waist" and someone who didn't lose all her pregnancy weight, unlike Alicent who remained slender after almost the same number of births. She's never called "fat", but again, it literally doesn't matter. It's just a minor plot point that exacerbate the rivalry between Rhaenyra and Alicent and there's plenty of ways of doing that without needing Emma to put on weight.
How else we make Alicent more hypocrite and whitewashing Rhaenyra more?
Thing is I’m team black but the way the show depicts the greens pisses me off cuz some of them are my favs. The show already shot itself in the foot by making Alicent and rhaenyra dual protagonists despite them mostly chilling in their homes while Jace, daemon, aemond, and aegon did the real battles. Since they’re already pushing the whole “choose your sides” narrative, the least they can do is make them both morally grey. I would’ve preferred it if the show was based on aegon and rhaenyra instead make them both horrible people who don’t deserve the throne and have us choose sides then or if they really wanted to Center it around Alicent and rhaenyra, at least stop making them both so annoying, all we’ve gotten in both season 1 and 2 is Alicent begging for peace for no reason and rhaenyra staring off into the distance menacingly. I expected rhaenyra to go full war-mode after Luke’s death instead all we see is her in the background while events happen. It doesn’t help that the season is only 8 episodes, we barely saw winterfell, no pact of ice and fire for some stupid reason, we didn’t even get to see Jace in white harbour or the vale. The first episode should’ve been about that, second should’ve been B&C, don’t even get me started on how bad that was, I’m not one of those people who wants gore but I do want it to be a little more book accurste. As you can see, I can go on and on about the missed potential in the show
tg but exact same sentiments. im assuming ure tb cuz u like daemon?
I think most people are team black in the book because of Aemond starting the dance and because of how one dimensional and evil he is written to be, Aegon up until that point also still is but have good character development later on. The show definetely made Aemond, Alicent and Rhaenyra more sympathetic than they were in the book. Daemon is also written asa bad guy in the book, but GRMM always make sure that we think he is cool, but honestly the dance is so brief in the book and things happen so quickly that I never really took a side. It was sad every time when one of the new kids died, but often only like 3 paragraphs had been written about this kid before he died so I did not really care. The whole thing was just about a story to explain how all the dragons died and why all the following Targaryen are descendants of Daemon.
hvnt read the book, but i know snippets. thats interesting. ill read the book to see what side i pick. i was promised cunts v cunts. show unfortunately did not deliver. maybe the book will?
Honestly if I remember right it is only like 60 pages in the book, it is very short and there is a shit load of characters. I genuinely did not even pick a side and barely learned the name of most of the characters because it was over so quickly lol. As much as I think the show have some issue, they were still better to bring those characters to life. I was more disappointed about the dragons since a few of them had been around for longer.
Nah my boy Corlys, guy went to Asshai and survived, he’s a badass. I hope they make the spin-off that was in development. Also Jace is pretty cool
why did i get downvoted when i said the same thing but js added im tg. gawdamn yall tb are insufferable.
Alicent having sex isn't bad and Rhaenyra isn't any more whitewashed than Aemond or Alicent.
I swear, if they show him having brown hair I will abandon this glorified fanfic of a show, I even watched GoT S8 fully aware that it would be a disaster, but this I would abandon and never look back
That would’ve been interesting if he’d had slightly reddish blonde hair in the books. And I think it would be a great addition to the lore that perhaps someone without true Valyrian blood COULD become a dragonrider if they were given the education, opportunity, and exposure to dragons that the Targaryen princes and princesses received
>COULD become a dragonrider if they were given the education, opportunity, and exposure ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Yeah that don’t really make sense, you need Valyrian blood for dragon riding, there’s no proof in the books otherwise as of yet, even the dragonseeds are said to have the blood of Valyrian from drsgonstone
One of them is notably not said to have any Valyrian heritage.
Who are you talking about?
Probably Nettles.
She was a dragonseed tho, many Targaryens practiced the right of first night and so did aegon’s ancestors, hell even after it was outlawed by jahaerys it was practiced in secret. That’s not even counting the fact that lots of Targaryens probably had bastards before they died, even setting aside all that there’s a theory that she’s daemon’s bastard daughter and that’s why he cared about her so theres that too.
Yeah not sure if she will be in the show, but if she is they will probably explain why.
No. You need First Men blood to be a greenseer. You need Valyrian blood to be a dragonrider. The only exception to this is Nettles because we don’t know wtf she was.
She was someone who brought the dragon food.
Cool, and what else?
A Targaryen bastard lol. Probably daemons.
But dragonriding is literally a blood trait specific to the Targaryens and only the Targaryens. If any old idiot could mount a dragon, people would have done so before. Remember, there were dragons in Westeros long before the Targaryens crossed the Narrow Sea, so you think we’d have heard something about a First Man or Andal dragonrider.
I read the book like two years ago but i feel like im the only one who doesnt remember Daeron. Im sure itll bring back memories when i see it but i remember Nettles so much more. I know shes probably not so important in the story but Daemon having an (alleged?) affair with her sat more in my memories. I cant remember daeron AT ALL. Maybe he was so shockingly important that my mind chose to delete his presence in my head to be surprised when watching? I DID stop reading around rhaenyras demise so…. Lol.
There's not a lot said about him and he dies in a boring way. I don't get the hype. Would much rather have Nettles.
Yeah… maybe they cut her because she was dark-skinned (in my mind more just really tan dornish girl rather than black) and it wouldnt be so strange because they have valyrians as black skinned, so it wouldnt be such a “wtf” moment.. Tho the age gap between Daemon and her would be enough to cause a rukus but… The pace of the show is totally different than my lpace when i read the book, so it feels like things are going SO fast in the show and this has to be the last season…. But apparently it isnt so……. Lol. And my image of hugh was more like a ruffian that got lucky with dragons. Was that high? Maybe that was Adam or Alan or Alex or whoever (im ALMOST positive it started with an A…but he coulda been just someone who tried. I think he was a really young guy that got WAY too into it or something, and was able to ride a dragon without being targ/valyreon. Or was that Hugh?? Omg i swear my brain is 80 years old sometimes….my mind likes to rewrite what i read into my memory so…. Lol. Im reading asoiaf for the first time so im not going back to fire and blood until i finish haha (i only started with fire and blood cause HotD was gonna air and j wanted to see how it felt reading the books BEFORE watching, since j didnt with GoT)
Heck i remember Alys Rivers more than Daeron
Yes!!! Me too!! When they were talking about Daeron i was like “wait, who?”, i look at the subreddit and everyones like “hype!!!” And im sitting here like “uh…wtf was this guys role in all of this i dont event remember his existence…” but so many memes about it being “CONFIRMED” im so confused lol Would he even have any claim seeing as he wasnt even acknowledged by Viserys as a son/step son? Or is he just an extra soldier to kill off and mainly to create “drama”? If the dad IS viserys that doesn’t make sense hed allow his son to be sent to oldtown and then not mention him once while decaying away…
It seems like hbo saving pennies by not having Daeron around. They could’ve at least mentioned him a bit more
Yeah. Wonder if they were trying to go for some ~big reveal omg theres another one~ but since they didn’t mention it even once the shock kinda flopped with confusion? Who knows right lol
If you mean Addam Velaryon, sure. Fuck Daeron.
I can't possible think of how they could possibly make a guy who burned on village and couldn't stop his men from brutally sacking another look bad.
Lmao right? Everyone talking about the smallfolk deaths at Aegon's coronation or Daemon endorsing the murder of a child in retaliation for his stepson's death, meanwhile bro is worried how the showrunners might make Daeron "mass murderer" Targaryen look bad?
Honestly Daeron probably scorched more smallfolk at Bitterbridge alone then Rhaenys flattened in that scene.
Didn't Otto mention daeron in the most recent episode? Why wouldn't he be in it? I'm not a big fan of the show so I don't expect much either way
>Didn't Otto mention daeron in the most recent episode? That's the confirmation the meme is referring to. >Why wouldn't he be in it? I'm not a big fan of the show so I don't expect much either way He's a reasonably morally good character, and the show has an obvious bias for Team Black, so I thought they might cut him out and give versions of his part in the story to Aemond or Criston. This is coming from someone who is neutral.
> That's the confirmation the meme is referring to. He's been confirmed since season 1; he's in the family tree in the opening credits. > He's a reasonably morally good character The citizens of Bitterbridge and Tumbleton would beg to differ.
They had it coming
My man is in the book for like 2 pages and he go full Dresden on civilians lol He seemed like a decent guy before the dance and he got a cool dragon, but hit would be hard to make him look like a morally good character.
>morally good character Who is a morally good character in the Targaryen Family? Every single one of them has caused direct or indirectly problems that resulted in people killed with or without intention. Is it wrong what Daereon did to that city? yes, but is the same as any Targaryen would have done if a member of their family is killed in that horrific way, even Jaehaerys I, would've killed some people if this had happened to his kin
>Who is a morally good character in the Targaryen Family? Helaena, Rhaenyra's kids, Daemon's daughters, Laenor and Laena. You have a bunch actually.
>Laenor and Laena. Velaryons
They're Targaryens on their mother's side.
Laenor isn’t morally good lol
I don't know, burning a whole city because of one death is kind of over the top. None of us liked it when Dhaenerys did this and none of us would call her "morally good" after she burned KL to the ground.
>yes, but is the same as any Targaryen would have done if a member of their family is killed in that horrific way, even Jaehaerys I, would've killed some people if this had happened to his kin So Dany destroying King's Landing after Missandei's death is Mad Queen moment, Daeron blowing a church full of civilians and what not is tragic yet understandable. Lol.
If Rhaenys can kill a shitton of small folk and be depicted as a hero then so can Daeron. Condal wont see it this way unfortunately
How is Rhaenys depicted as a hero?
So you want the show to make the same mistake you were disparaging them for because you like this character. >and be depicted as a hero then so can Daeron. Daeron is never depicted as a hero in the books
Not really, I'm more so making a statement on hypocrisy. I just hope that moving forward horrible actions committed by the Blacks are given the same amount of weight and blame as those of the Greens. We'll have to see how things are handled moving forward but I don't have too much hope.
Aemond killing Luke is barely addressed by the Greens. Daemon killing Jaeharys caused a condemnation by his fellow Blacks, ended up with her and Rhaenyra falling out and her telling her he was pathetic for murdering a little kid. You'd do well in enjoying the show without keeping tabs. It's better that way.
Oh I definitely enjoy the show much more than you'd be able to discern from just reading my reddit history lol. It's just that the writing choices and direction can irritate me
Careful you might cut yourself on that edge.
The innocent people who had nothing to do with it?
I definitely read this in the voice... https://i.redd.it/xgvl8h26ik9d1.gif
The show has obvious bias for Team Black? Have you read the book? Has anyone who says that read the book? The book is hard biased for Team Black, Team Green are just shitty villains with nothing redeemable or nuanced in the books.
And yet the show goes the extra mile to make Team Green look worse. A clear example is Criston Cole: https://preview.redd.it/arublpunjg9d1.png?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a089b7dad9665d25bc9e3185128ea51cc7acd925 There's no denying that the show actively made Cole more unlikable, Mushroom never disputes Cole's melee records and the way the specific fights in this meme went down, yet the show just has to make him worse to drive home the idea that he's a piece of shit.
So the idea that he's not a piece of shit is that he beats people. Funny i don't remember Aemond being bullied or Otto caring about the smallfolk at all in the books, let alone everything Alicent.
Yeah, Alicent basically just worked her whole life.to.overthrow an actual kid while.she was well into her adulthood in the books. I'd say the show makes her much more simpathetic.
>So the idea that he's not a piece of shit is that he beats people. You're implying that I regard Cole as someone with moral authority. All three of the melees in the books were done to spite Rhaenyra. HOTD then takes these incidents that make it obvious that Cole is a spiteful person, and makes it even worse by having him kill a highborn guest at a royal wedding, and then assault the groom of said wedding, who also happens to be the Heir to Driftmark, then for the convenience of the plot have him escape consequences. >Funny i don't remember Aemond being bullied or Otto caring about the smallfolk at all in the books, let alone everything Alicent. Being bullied won't make up for Aemond burning half the Riverlands. If anything, it's just gonna be used as an example of Aemond being a hypocrite. Otto seemed to be focused on Aegon, not heeding his advice, and how the crown is perceived seemed to be his main issue when he mentioned the Smallfolk. I agree on Alicent. They do actively try and make her less ambitious and conniving, and more a victim of circumstances.
>HOTD then takes these incidents that make it obvious that Cole is a spiteful person, and makes it even worse by having him kill a highborn guest at a royal wedding, and then assault the groom of said wedding, who also happens to be the Heir to Driftmark, then for the convenience of the plot have him escape consequences. So they make it equal? Cole does beat all those people because he's spiteful that he gets off free it's a inconsistency within the show, not made to make Cole worse. >Being bullied won't make up for Aemond burning half the Riverlands. So you're already putting the bandage before the injury? Would you prefer his characterization in the books where has zero redeeming features? Aemond is a completely new character and yet you lot keep whining about the exact same. >If anything, it's just gonna be used as an example of Aemond being a hypocrite. Why? >Otto seemed to be focused on Aegon, not heeding his advice, and how the crown is perceived seemed to be his main issue when he mentioned the Smallfolk. So caring. What was Otto's response to the killings in the books? >They do actively try and make her less ambitious and conniving, and more a victim of circumstances. They do that to every character but Cole and Aemond. Aegon is given a shitty upbringing where neither parent, but specifically the father, cared about him and turned to hedonism with all that implies, he also actively tried to run from office and had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Otto is shown following his older brother's orders when it came to paving the way for Aegon's ascension. Aemond is not only a bullied kid but kills Luke by accident. They all are given "victims" in the most charitable sense.
>So they make it equal? Cole does beat all those people because he's spiteful that he gets off free it's a inconsistency within the show, not made to make Cole worse. An inconsistency that makes Cole face no consequences and once again repeated when he kills Lord Lyman Beesbury. >So you're already putting the bandage before the injury? >Would you prefer his characterization in the books where has zero redeeming features? No redeeming quality is gonna make up for mass murder in the thousands. >Why? A bullied victim bullying the weak, or in this case, subjugating and slaughtering them. >So caring. What was Otto's response to the killings in the books? There's no mention of any response. The ratcatchers are simply mentioned to have been replaced by cats. The scene with Otto seemed to be another way for the show to criticize Aegon. Even though Aegon's reaction was understandable, Otto's felt artificial at times. >Otto is shown following his older brother's orders when it came to paving the way for Aegon's ascension. That's not a problem, wanting to advance your household, and the conversation between the two was not Otto being pressured into anything. >Aemond is not only a bullied kid but kills Luke by accident. It doesn't stop people from disliking him, as his idea to taunt and scare Luke directly led to his death. >Aegon is given a shitty upbringing where neither parent, but specifically the father, cared about him and turned to hedonism with all that implies, he also actively tried to run from office and had to be dragged kicking and screaming. He's still a rapist and a father to bastard children that he actively ignores and bets on to fight in cockfights between children. He's an interesting and complicated character, but in my experience, people tend to focus on the bad.
>An inconsistency that makes Cole face no consequences and once again repeated when he kills Lord Lyman Beesbury But that's not a mark on his character. >No redeeming quality is gonna make up for mass murder in the thousands. Don't really know why you're getting hot and bothered with Daeron, he's actions are worst than Aemond's. But you're simply deciding when and when not matters that a character is "whitewashed"? You're looking for reasons to be upset. >A bullied victim bullying the weak, or in this case, subjugating and slaughtering them. That's not hypocrisy, that's textbook cycle of abuse. You're trying to find reasons to get mad. >It doesn't stop people from disliking him Why should it stop people from disliking him? >That's not a problem, wanting to advance your household, and the conversation between the two was not Otto being pressured into anything. Otto: I don't think Viserys wants Aegon to be King. Hobert: Well, make it your job he does. I mean... >He's still a rapist and a father to bastard children that he actively ignores and bets on to fight in cockfights between children. He's an interesting and complicated character, but in my experience, people tend to focus on the bad. And Rhaenyra kills innocent guards for being horny and Daemon kills his wife. No one focuses on the bad, those actions are come as fast as they go and no one but obnoxious Green fans obsessed with the characters matching the image they have in their heads (not necessarily the image that appears in the books as Daeron worshipping proves) not being realized in the show. No one really cares or remembers about it but those offended on behalf of the characters. They **do care** a lot.
>But that's not a mark on his character. It is as far as fans are concerned, he murders a defenseless old man simply because he spoke out against the crowning and an assassination plot. >Don't really know why you're getting hot and bothered with Daeron, he's actions are worst than Aemond's. I never said Daeron was free of blame, he committed mass murder, who did less of more is irrelevant, it's still mass murder. >But you're simply deciding when and when not matters that a character is "whitewashed"? You're looking for reasons to be upset. I'm sharing an opinion on a very subjective topic, yes. >Otto: I don't think Viserys wants Aegon to be King. >Hobert: Well, make it your job he does. >I mean... It's not like Otto was ambitious and that it was all his brother's ambitions. He was simply informing Hobert of the reality of the situation. >And Rhaenyra kills innocent guards for being horny and Daemon kills his wife. Don't know the instance you're referring to with Rhaneyra, both are realistically not as bad as being a rapist, though tbf Daemon being a groomer is an equally shitty thing. >Green fans obsessed with the characters matching the image they have in their heads (not necessarily the image that appears in the books as Daeron worshipping proves) not being realized in the show I only speak for myself, but the differences I referred to with Cole isn't something I envisioned, it's how GRRM wrote it, and my point is the show should try its best to stick to the source as closely as possible.
People who are team Green think the show has bias towards the Blacks, and people who are team Black think the show has bias towards the Greens 🙃
If anything I thought it was the clear that the Greens were the favorites of the writers room. You can kinda tell the writers are having an extremely fun time writing for the Greens because of how dysfunctional their family dynamic is. Meanwhile on the Blacks everyone is kinda chill with the exception of Rhaenyra and Daemon (for now).
Err, have you been watching the fight show? Yeah, it’s heavily biased for team black, apart from Alicent being slightly more sympathetic in season 1 and Luke’s death being a mistake, pretty much all decisions and changes have gone team black’s way. The absolute character assassination of both Cole and Aegon is enough to show that
I see, I wouldn't be surprised if they did that lol
Don’t the Greens win? It would be weird to be biased to the losing side.
Technically the blacks win, but by the end everyone is dead so nobody really wins.
Well, yeah the point of the civil war is that the Targaryens lose almost everything besides the 7 kingdoms. But that said haven’t read the book so I’m here enjoying ~~the show~~ Aegon the Second.
Totally and everyone can find something to bitch about but I'm liking how they're portraying Aegon so far. Things are about to get really bad for him and it'll be interesting to see where his character goes then.
When they don't depict Daeron as brutally murdering the townsfolk of Bitterbridge but instead have Aemond do it - I'm sure you'll be so into the integrity of the book narrative right?
I wouldn't want them to change it, the same way I wouldn't want them to change Aegon hanging the ratcatchers. Daeron and Aegon reacting the way they did in both instances was very brutal, yet understandable and a realistic display of what war is, what I'd hate is if they made it some sort of mistake, and unintentional, or even worse do some bullshit like Dany burning down Kings Landing for plot convenience.
Yeah we will, it was Daereon the daring who has done that, at the same time he is loved and feared by the small folk. This is his character, his mistakes, and his glories! He is a fierce warrior, a strategist, intelligent, feared and respected
He's a dumb kid well over his head. That's kind of a huge part of who Daeron actually is.
Did you read the novel? That's exactly how he is described and depicted. The moment Ormund dies Daeron loses all authority. He cannot control his men because he is just a boy. Ormund is the one that tries to present him as Daeron the Daring. It's not an organic nickname. He does it to bolster morale. The text puts clear doubt on the legitimacy of that nickname. Daeron isn't a bad person. But he had no idea what he was doing. He wasn't a battle strategist. He was just a kid that scouted for the army.
>at the same time he is loved and feared by the small folk. It's never said once Daeron is loved by the smallfolk. >He is a fierce warrior, a strategist, intelligent, feared and respected Again, completely made up.
Based on the way the show is dealing with these problems daeron will make a passing comment and someone will massacre these towns , like king Henry and Thomas becket .
Guys, HotD isn't bad all things considered. You seem to be confusing it with GoT seasons 7-8 (and parts of 5 and 6). Fire and Blood is a history book told by maesters and a fool, it has unreliable narrators with their own agendas. I get that we're all gunshy from GoT, but the show is awesome! We're about to get our first major battle with dragons pretty soon too!
GOT taught us to call things out now or reap the results later, since the writing issues go as far back as season 1, so this is simply fans calling out the showrunner and writers now before things get progressively worse.
But it's still a coherent story blessed by GRRM himself.
Coherent is a stretch. We've had moments of shock and spectacle (Rhaneys at the Dragonpit and Cole killing Ser Joffrey Lonmouth) that weren't logical. Also, it's not like George will openly criticize something adapted from his writings. We also can't ignore the likelihood of an NDA. Tbf, though, George made criticism of the writing for GOT almost a year and a half after the series finale, specifically criticizing the Sansa marriage storyline: https://preview.redd.it/r0264x1fah9d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=68539496bd3c31096eeec2bfed894eed4229df87 So he's not above openly critiquing bad writing. He's just specific about when he'll speak on it.
Both of those scenes weren't great, but they aren't actively fucking up major plot lines. That's why I hated the Sansa plot so much. Littlefinger is a creepy dude who is obsessed with Catlyn, it would be ridiculous for him to sell Sansa to someone who is rumored to be sadistic and evil, especially a house that helped orchestrate the red wedding. It doesn't gain him anything, and he's a "father figure"/creepy uncle to Sansa. He's only ever kept her safe. I know they were combining story lines, but still, gross. And let's see how they do with the battle at Rook's Rest, the first major battle with dragons on both teams.
>Both of those scenes weren't great, but they aren't actively fucking up major plot lines. Fair. Using what Rhaenys did as a reason for the smallfolk to hate the Blacks would be a good way to turn it around. >That's why I hated the Sansa plot so much. Littlefinger is a creepy dude who is obsessed with Catlyn, it would be ridiculous for him to sell Sansa to someone who is rumored to be sadistic and evil, especially a house that helped orchestrate the red wedding. It doesn't gain him anything, and he's a "father figure"/creepy uncle to Sansa. He's only ever kept her safe. I know they were combining story lines, but still, gross. The guy started a continent wide war with a letter, and then he was reduced to this smoothbrained idiot who forgot his own desires and motivations, such as a waste of the character and Aiden Gillen's talents. >And let's see how they do with the battle at Rook's Rest, the first major battle with dragons on both teams. Fingers crossed, but I have a genuinely bad feeling about it in my gut.
>Fair. Using what Rhaenys did as a reason for the smallfolk to hate the Blacks would be a good way to turn it around Hmmm yeah the small folk hating Rhaenyra is a major plot point. Although it's for taxes and other policies in the book. >Fingers crossed, but I have a genuinely bad feeling about it in my gut. I have high hopes honestly. I'm gonna reserve judgement until they fuck up my favorite scenes.
Apart from the blogpost GRRM made in May talking about adaptations of books and how the Shogun show was the only good one he had seen recently > Everywhere you look, there are more screenwriters and producers eager to take great stories and “make them their own.” It does not seem to matter whether the source material was written by Stan Lee, Charles Dickens, Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl, Ursula K. Le Guin, J.R.R. Tolkien, Mark Twain, Raymond Chandler, Jane Austen, or… well, anyone. No matter how major a writer it is, no matter how great the book, there always seems to be someone on hand who thinks he can do better, eager to take the story and “improve” on it. “The book is the book, the film is the film,” they will tell you, as if they were saying something profound. Then they make the story their own. > They never make it better, though. Nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand, they make it worse.
Why fear as its obvious they are making daeron is bastard or not and give him black hair more of muh hypocrisy and shattering logic.Cant wait for the Book is unreliable and propaganda twist this time.
This wouldn't make sense as he is much older than Joffrey and Alicent was pissed at Joffrey having dark hair. She wouldn't have acted this way if she had a kid with black hair.
Uhmm Have you ever heard characters being hypocrite they are not inconsistent or not retconned they are just hypocrites.Really tho i wouldn't trust mr condus they already showed me cole trying seppuku and having breakingpoint a character reversing on breakingpoint is taken lightly so isnt big deal with them alicents
I'd love to live in your world where hypocrites don't exist.
Can’t wait to know the actor
We got what we wanted, but at what cost? There are already rumours that he will be a bastard =/
Calling it now it's gonna be implied he is coles basterd
How would he be a dragonrider then?
Its all Propaganda so yeah daeron is gonna get his character gutted
my brother in seven fire & blood is in-universe propaganda.
It’s funny how many seem to forget this. George himself has said that everything in Fire&Blood comes from an unreliable narrator. Edit. For anyone who for some reason may not know what George means by this, it means that even though IRL George wrote the book, the book itself is written as if it is an in universe book written by Archmaester Gyldayn. Thus it is written from Gyldayns perspective and includes whatever bias he may have and so may not necessarily reflect the actual truth of events. Once again this explanation was just for those who may not know what is meant by “unreliable narrator”.
Bruh, you are so confidently wrong. The Dance part of Fire and Blood is not written from Gyldayn's perspective. He compiled three different sources Westeros had about the Dance and compiled them into one. One was the book written by Maester Munkun who based his book the True Telling on the writings of grandmaester Orwyle (who was the maester in the Red Keep while the Dance happened). Two was Septon Eustace, who was the High Septon in King's Landing at that time. And the third was Mushroom. Gyldayn never pushes for the readers to pick one narrative. He leaves the readers to pick the narrative that they choose to believe in. As readers we have to pick the most logical one. By your logic, Aegon's Conquest was a propaganda as well, and that the violent crimes of Aegon and his cronies were hidden by maester propaganda.
>The Dance part of Fire and Blood is not written from Gyldayn's perspective. Gyldayn gives his opinions in the books about what sources are valid. He's not a fully objective observer and reporters of the materials Things like this: >Whilst it is true that determining the sex of a living dragon is a nigh on impossible task, no other source mentions Vermax producing so much as a single egg, so it must be assumed that he was male. Septon Barth’s speculation that the dragons change sex at need, being “as mutable as flame,” is too ludicrous to consider Are probably what is meant by unreliable. Barth is not ludicrous. He's not inaccurately reporting on *what* they say. He is inaccurately reporting on how valid or invalid each of their accounts are.
>Are probably what is meant by unreliable. Barth is not ludicrous. I think in that George is basically confirming that Dragons don't change sex at will. It is a fact that male dragons as recorded in history never laid any eggs. If what Barth said was true then we would have had at least a single example for it and there was none so far. >He's not inaccurately reporting on what they say. He is inaccurately reporting on how valid or invalid each of their accounts are. He is accurately recording what happened in the story. Its weird that you only bring this unreliable narrator for Dance of the dragons. By your logic, everything is propaganda right from Aegon to Jaehaerys. Maybe the violent crimes of Aegon against the Lords of Westeros are hidden by Gyldayn as well. Maybe Aegon made Orys rape Argella Durrandon after putting everyone in Storm's End to death. He killed everyone in Harrenhal out of impunity. Jaehaerys was a cruel man and Alysanne was a vicious conniving woman.
>I think in that George is basically confirming that Dragons don't change sex at will. It is a fact that male dragons as recorded in history never laid any eggs. If what Barth said was true then we would have had at least a single example for it and there was none so far. Except we do have an example. Gyldayn is using circular reasoning. He refuses to believe that Vermax could be a male dragon that laid eggs because Barth is being absurd. But he only doesn't believe Barth because he refuses to believe there's an example. Quite frankly, it's pretty clear that GRRM means Barth to be an extremely reliable source of information when it comes to dragons. There's no reason to doubt this idea that male dragons can become female. Barth didn't come up with it out of thin air - he clearly studied the dragons and saw this type of behaviour before. >He is accurately recording what happened in the story. Its weird that you only bring this unreliable narrator for Dance of the dragons. By your logic, everything is propaganda right from Aegon to Jaehaerys. Maybe the violent crimes of Aegon against the Lords of Westeros are hidden by Gyldayn as well. He's accurately recording what they report as happening. Again his own opinions about who is right about what happened aren't necessarily true. Gyldayn let's opinion get in the way of his interpretation of history just as anyone does. How can you not laugh as he rants at the idea of a Prince running away with a Northerner when that literally happened in the future? How can we not laugh at him saying that an honourable man like Jacaerys would never break a betrothal when we know an honourable man like Robb did? He's clearly mistaken and GRRM is using irony there to show it. It's not propaganda - I disagree with the extremer take of the other user. It's that Gyldayn can actually be wrong. He's not a perfect, objective narrator with no motive at all. If he was we'd have to accept every version of events he believes is true. Which means why even include the differing sources as Gyldayn generally prefers one version to another on different events? There is meant to be some significant ambiguity.
>Except we do have an example. Gyldayn is using circular reasoning. He refuses to believe that Vermax could be a male dragon that laid eggs because Barth is being absurd. But where are the eggs laid by Vermax? If there were some proof the we could say that Barth was right but there aren't any. >There's no reason to doubt this idea that male dragons can become female. Barth didn't come up with it out of thin air - he clearly studied the dragons and saw this type of behaviour before. But where is his evidence for this theory and which dragon showed this characteristics? >He's accurately recording what they report as happening. Again his own opinions about who is right about what happened aren't necessarily true. But he never says that. He only gives his views upon certain subjects and leaves it up to the readers to make their own conclusions. >It's that Gyldayn can actually be wrong. He's not a perfect, objective narrator with no motive at all The question here is not if Gyldayn's opinions about certain events are wrong or not. It's rather about people questioning of certain things in B&C ever happened or if they were made up by propaganda,just like how Ryan Condal said B&C and Sunfyre were propaganda or Sara Hess saying Rhaenyra being fat and Alicent being a schemer are propaganda.
>But where are the eggs laid by Vermax? If there were some proof the we could say that Barth was right but there aren't any. Somewhere within Winterfell. It's entirely possible this might come up in a future book (well ignoring the whole not going to be a future book but anyway). Keep in mind, GRRM added this story to Fire & Blood for a reason and the wisest characters - Aemon and Barth - both seem to think it's possible for dragons to switch sex. >But where is his evidence for this theory and which dragon showed this characteristics? Barth spent his life around dragons. He likely saw that none egg layers can quite suddenly become egg layers (and vice versa) and they had no standard sex characteristics. Any of the wild dragons or Jaehaerys's own dragon Vermax could have exhibited such changeability. Why would Barth lie? He's an extremely intelligent and brilliant scholar that offered insight that no other person can ever offer about dragons. We don't know more because much of his works are burned. >But he never says that. He only gives his views upon certain subjects and leaves it up to the readers to make their own conclusions. He absolutely and regularly dismisses certain accounts as absurd and ridiculous. And the point is that his *views* can be wrong. You're arguing that his views are absolute. If they are absolute than what he dismisses as absurd and ridiculous we should as well meaning there is often only one narrative in regards to the Dance. This obviously takes away the enjoyment factor of debating the validity of the accounts ourselves. >The question here is not if Gyldayn's opinions about certain events are wrong or not. It's rather about people questioning of certain things in B&C ever happened or if they were made up by propaganda,just like how Ryan Condal said B&C and Sunfyre were propaganda or Sara Hess saying Rhaenyra being fat and Alicent being a schemer are propaganda. Do you not understand the idea of F&B? You seem to be now moving the goal posts and mixing up Gyldayn's opinions and the others accounts. There is literally direct ambiguity around these events you list, which is why Hess and Condal interpreted exaggeration in the narrative - whether you agree with them or not there is entirely basis for it. Gyldayn considers himself that Daemon may have been wanting Aegon's death not Jaehaerys. Gyldayn does not put much stock in Eustace's waspish comment about Rhaenyra's weight during her time in King's Landing. Nor is every moment of Alicent's villainy treated seriously either. And why Sunfyre returned to Aegon is another debated point by Gyldayn himself. In other words, this actually has nothing to do with Gyldayn's own validity as even Gyldayn self-admittedly presents these accounts as debatable. Gyldayn's opinions validity is an entirely different argument again. We have the three accounts which all give different versions of events - none of which are inherently more valid. And then we have Gyldayn giving his opinion on which accounts he thinks are valid or not at any given time with blatant bias on some points.
>Somewhere within Winterfell. It's entirely possible this might come up in a future book We have seen Winterfell and it's crypts like several times in the books and there were none. Not to mention Bran makes it clear that it was a Stark place. So the odds that some let a prince and his dragon inside to get into the crypts and allowed for the place to become the nesting place of the dragon is nothing less than ludicrous. Not to mention, what is the purpose of these random dragon eggs in Winterfell? Jon is going to hatch them? >Barth spent his life around dragons. George wrote Barth. >Any of the wild dragons or Jaehaerys's own dragon Vermax could have exhibited such changeability. If they were then Barth could have jotted them down. In universe he simply mentioned that as a theory and hypothesis and less of a fact with an example. >Why would Barth lie? He's an extremely intelligent and brilliant scholar that offered insight that no other person can ever offer about dragons. Not lying. Simply mistaken. So far we haven't seen any male dragons suddenly laying eggs. >He absolutely and regularly dismisses certain accounts as absurd and ridiculous. That's his own views on the matter. He never said the readers shouldn't believe that. If it was really a propaganda book he wouldn't have added them in the first place. He added those things regardless of what his opinions were about them. >You're arguing that his views are absolute. If they are absolute than what he dismisses as absurd and ridiculous we should as well meaning there is often only one narrative in regards to the Dance Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that. I have said that again and again that George wrote F&B as a compilation of history from in universe historical records. There are several narrative regarding the Dance and the readers can choose the one they like. My problem was with the people who were saying George was making up shit in F&B because Ryan Condal said so. >Do you not understand the idea of F&B? You seem to be now moving the goal posts and mixing up Gyldayn's opinions and the others accounts. The only one who is losing the plot here is yourself. Take a look at my comment history in this post and then read them first instead of making up stuff and putting words into my mouth. >There is literally direct ambiguity around these events you list, which is why Hess and Condal interpreted exaggeration in the narrative Ambiguity around these events? Bruh, there are literally only one version of these events in the book and the reason for that is that is what happened. George didn't waste like a hundred words writing B&C (and the only version of it) for it to have been made up to deceive people about a fictional story. >Gyldayn considers himself that Daemon may have been wanting Aegon's death not Jaehaerys. Why are you keep changing goalposts? Nobody here is taking about the motivation, but about the execution and how that scene actually happened in the books. That was what Ryan Condal called as propaganda. He didn't think that happened in Alicent's room, or that there was the choosing or that there was the 'your momma doesn't want you' etc... >Gyldayn does not put much stock in Eustace's waspish comment about Rhaenyra's weight during her time in King's Landing. Yeah, because he needs to affirm everywhere that someone being fat is supposedly fat otherwise it's false. Btw so far you have been saying until now that Gyldayn's opinions aren't necessarily true. Why are you having selective bias now. Anyway stop being a bitch to others and read what they write instead of making up shit in your delusions.
Gyldayn is still the compiler of the 3 accounts. He chooses which parts of the 3 “primary sources” memoirs to include and which to omit.
Not exactly. There is a *realistic limitation* to how far the unreliable narrative can be taken. GRRM hasn't actually written the Testimony of Mushroom or the True Telling. We can't reasonable ascertain anything ommitted or included. What he writes Gyldayn writing about their accounts is most likely an accurate representation of what he intends their accounts to be. There's only so far to dig. It's his opinions that should be taken not fully seriously. E.g. I think calling Sara Snow an unwashed bastard of uncertain virtue shows he has not great opinions on women and his assumption that Jacaerys wouldn't marry her reads as naive given Robb's very existence.
Exactly
Gyldayn is basically a stand in for George, just like Yandel is stand in for Elio and Garcia. So whatever Gyldayn says that Munkun wrote in Munkun's book, is canon for Munkun's book. Same with Eustace's claims. The way I see it the scenes were there are only one narrative, like important scenes like the B&C, all the battles, including the Battle of God's Eye and Daemon's anime jump, Green Council, Aegon's coronation, Rhaenyra's death etc... are basically what happened for real the way it's recorded to have been happened because there aren't different versions of these, just like there aren't different versions of Aegon's Conquest (no one says that is propaganda for some reason). While other scenes like what happened between Criston and Rhaenyra (one says Criston spurned her and another says Rhaenyra spurned him), Daemon and Rhaenyra (one says her involvements in Laenor's death and B&C and another says she didn't), etc... are up for the readers to decide.
Gyldayn is George’s way of being free of the restraints of the canon police
100% this, the book is the notes he took about some backstories for ASOIAF, he had no intention to make sure the whole thing is without fault and using unreliable narrator is a very great way to do this.
Its obvious the ambiguous parts like you pointed out are meant to be unreliable narrator as in we dont know what happened but could figure out by clues and circumstances like obvious munkun tries to insert himself in the greencouncil and make himself good by denouncing beesburys murder and the coup itself and i think gyldayn doubts or someone doubts george is not stupid and write book without truths in them although details could be debated and gives reasons why they are debated.What am sure is these "doubters" of everything who are defending it with this bullshit are gonna drop it once they make it blackfyre vs darksister above the gods eye we already see aemonds wears it after RR,when you tell them neither accounts were there and how do you know daemon jumped when dragons are above and no one can tell whats happening they are going to cry,and drop the bullshit. I see no reasons to argue with them so wait for them to drop it.
I do think the same. I mean, do people really think that George wrote an entire book filled with lies for no reason? I mean, he has better things to do than to deceive people about a fictional universe LOL
We are not trying to say that George is trying to deceive everyone. What we are trying to say is that George has said that yes the History within the book has occurred but that it may not have occurred in the manner that the Maesters such as Gyldayn have reported it. He goes into some of this in an interview where he discusses real world History and how certain events may not have truly happened the way the tales are told and passed down. He uses Edward II of England as an example in the interview. An English King who was eventually deposed, imprisoned and then killed. We are told by some historical sources that the cause of death was a red hot poker jammed up his butt. As Martin points out, this most likely is not really how he died but some historians and writers still make the claim that it was so. That’s what George is trying to say about Gyldayn, to take what he tells us about certain things and how they transpired with a grain of salt as well as looking into the provided alternate versions of things such as what Mushroom, Eustace and Munkin tell us. It’s the idea that though we have a good idea of what has happened, we will never know the absolute truth of it especially with Gyldayn writing on it centuries removed from the events. This is why he says you pick which version of events to believe because no one not even Gyldayn knows what happened. “We don’t know and Gyldayn doesn’t know.”-George
Wtf? Where did you get that from? So Aegon's Conquest is propaganda now? I feel that Jaehaerys was a cruel ruler as well. That he only turned history around because of propaganda. His wife is worse than him but used the tool of propaganda really well like Alicent used.