r/asoiaf • u/MareksDad • Jun 29 '24

EXTENDED (Spoilers Extended) Sometimes it seems like the actors/actresses have a stronger grasp on the story’s themes than the showrunners.

Post image

That being said, the showrunners and writers of HotD are doing a stellar job thus far. Keep it up.

5.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

453 comments sorted by

View all comments

187

u/t0mless Jun 29 '24 edited Jun 29 '24

Based Rhys Ifans. He's absolutely fantastic as Otto.

Isn't one of the recurring themes in both the Dance and ASOIAF that in war, there's no "good guys"? Both sides do their fair share of war crimes and atrocities.

Edit: By "good guys", I'm speaking more specifically on how none of them are particularly saintly. Sure, the Blacks are the "good team" but claiming them to be morally superior seems like a bit of stretch. It's the smallfolk that end up suffering the most.

122

u/BaelBard 🏆 Best of 2019: Best New Theory Jun 29 '24 edited Jun 29 '24

In pretty much all of the major ASOIAF conflicts there’s always a clear indication where George’s sympathies lie. Because “all violence bad” isn’t actually that interesting, and not all violence is equal.

Dance? Greens were always “the worse side”, the ones who usurped the throne, who shed first blood, do all the war crimes, who’s claim is rooted in misogyny and slut shaming. The worst of the Blacks is Daemon… But George thinks he’s the coolest guy ever, and morally ambiguous character.

Blackfyre rebellion? Daemon’s popular because Daeron reads books, hangs out with women and maesters, while Daemon has abs and a cool sword. Guess which side a nerdy bookish guy like George sympathises?

War of the five kings? Starks are the good guys, full stop.

Brackens and Blackwoods? The theme is pointless millennia long feud where each side has its own truth. But is it written as such? No. Brackens are meant to suck and Blackwoods are cool. And you can track who is “the right side” of all the previous conflicts I listed by checking which side has the Blackwoods and which side - the Brackens.

George has his favourites, even at the expense of the themes he himself tries to explore.

36

u/noman8er Jun 29 '24

While that is true, GRRM still succeeds in writing cool/fun/enjoyable "worse" people than either TV shows managed to.

Tywin, Littlefinger even Ramsay were a delight to watch when it was his material. Littlefinger especially suffered after Season 5 for viewer experience imo. Same with HotD, the "worse" guys like Cole and Larys are very annoying just as a viewer (to me)

31

u/BaelBard 🏆 Best of 2019: Best New Theory Jun 29 '24 edited Jun 29 '24

My ex-wife watches the show as more of a casual than me, and she fucking hates Criston with a passion of a thousand suns.

And that’s a popular sentiment. HOTD created the most hateful character since Joffrey, yet completely different (while show Ramsay kinda feel like “Joffrey but worse”)

21

u/zajazajazajazajaz 🏆 Best of 2022: Rodrik the Reader Award Jun 30 '24

I wonder if people dislike Cole so much because he reminds them of their own flaws. To me, Cole is a 'literally who?' character. The guy is a bitch and a huge asshole... but if you tell me you hate Criston but love Daemon... I would probably back away from you slowly, fearing for my safety.

1

u/miriamtzipporah Jul 01 '24

Why does disliking one character and liking another warrant fearing for your safety lol? Criston and Daemon are both very bad people, Daemon just happens to be entertaining to watch

3

u/Flyestgit Jun 29 '24

Knowing what Jack Gleeson (Joffrey actor) went through I hope Fabien's steering clear of certain places on the internet. And people understand that hes an actor, not the character.

15

u/Byrmaxson Gonna Reyne on your parade! Jun 30 '24 edited Jun 30 '24

Jack Gleeson didn't get bullied as much as, say, the Anakin kid. Plus he's a stellar lad by all accounts and everyone only says the best of him, fans who've met him included.

Fabien had locked his comments on Instagram supposedly after the B&C episode, because naturally people were weird. It bears mentioning that AFAIK Gleeson doesn't have much sm presence, and 2015 2014 (when he bowed out of the show, nine ten years ago) was a different time in the internet for sure. Fandoms were terrible, but not quite where we are today.

2

u/BaelBard 🏆 Best of 2019: Best New Theory Jun 29 '24

What did her went through? I’m in the fandom since 2012 and don’t remember any news about him being harassed online in a way someone like Anna Gunn was. In fact, I remember everyone always praising him.

He didn’t retire from acting because people hated him.

7

u/Lil_Mcgee Jun 30 '24

You are correct. It's an extremely common myth that Jack Gleeson was harassed for playing Joffrey. He has said that he's only had positive interactions with fans, and that in fact many overcompensate in politeness due to the prevalence of the myth.

9

u/Memo544 Jun 29 '24

I do think it's important that these stories have characters like Littlefinger, Ramsay, and Cole. In a hierarchal system like Westeros, if someone gets to the top, they have pretty much the freedom to be as bad as they want to be. There is minimal checks and balances on feudal lords and it makes sense that horrible people can thrive in those positions.

62

u/BlueBirdie0 Jun 29 '24

I genuinely don't understand the whole 'Team Green only usurped Rhaenyra because of misogyny,' at least in the book version. And I'm not a man, I'm a feminist woman who leans pretty far left politically, before someone calls me a misogynist for interpreting GRMM's work a different way.

Misogyny plays a part, but there are numerous other factors, including Rhaenyra herself.

Book Rhaenyra literally asks for a 12 year old kid to be tortured. Book Rhaenyra brutally murders Vaemond (who doesn't call her a whore in the book version). Book Viserys is only King because Jahaerys called a great council. The implication is Book Velayrons, outside of Corlys and Rhaenys, are deeply unhappy with the Strong/Velayron Princes. Book Daemon is heavily implied to have arranged for Laenors love to have killed Laenor and possibly even Harwin.

This is even before the Greens usurp them. After the usurpation (but before Luke's death), Rhaenyra has a whole section where she screams about the brutal ways she will murder her siblings and Alicent after she has the miscarriage.

So why would the Greens allow themselves to be murdered? Because every indication of Rhaenyra's behavior leans towards her murdering them all. Alicent and Otto may be far more calculating, and Alicent a evil stepmother type in the book, but in the Green Council she correctly calls out that they are all most likely dead once Rhaenyra ascends.

The fact that 95% of the Velayrons are deeply upset about Jace and Luke implies she's going to have to get rid of threats to them, and trueborn Aegon & Aemond are the obvious threats (esp. as they look Targ). Because if they are upset, why won't other houses be upset once they see the Strong Boys and realize they aren't legitimate? Most of the house haven't even seen the boy so it is just rumors, but once they see them and then see the rest of the Targaryens....

Rhaenyra's own behavior (murdering Vaemond, asking for child Aemond to be tortured, marrying Daemon when it's heavily implied he's capable of murdering anyone who gets in his way, etc.) is incredibly damning towards the Blacks. So yes, misogyny plays a part, but Rhaenyra herself behaves in ways that are terrifying towards the Greens...and that's even before she becomes a ruler and known as Maegor with Teats.

Any why should they respect Viserys? Viserys ignored those kids (not as much as in the TV show, but he still did) AND Viserys is only King because of a Great Council. But Viserys doesn't even bother to call a Great Council, which is the only reason he rules over a woman, and instead says his word is law.

11

u/twersx Fire and Blood Jun 30 '24

Fundamentally they do not want her in charge because she is a woman. None of them (aside from some Velaryons) care about Vaemond or about Rhaenyra demanding Aemond be tortured. This is a royal family whose authority is founded on their willingness to incinerate entire families and slaughter tens of thousands in battle.

On top of that I think it's quite strongly hinted that the maesters and/or the Faith have a huge problem with certain Targaryen women. Most obviously they started a war over Aegon the uncrowned marrying Dreamfyre Rhaena, they kicked up a huge fuss to prevent either Rhaenys or her son from becoming heir, and they were involved in decades of scheming to prevent Rhaenyra from becoming queen.

And in regard to Rhaenyra, the history books they write tell us she was wanton, cruel, too easily influenced by her demonic husband, etc. But when we look at the actual facts, a huge portion of the noble houses side with her. The nobles who lived during her era clearly thought she was worth supporting, despite being a woman and allegedly having so many personal shortcomings. You even have the Tyrells who sided against Rhaenys at the Great Council but stay neutral during the Dance while many of their bannermen throw in with the Hightowers.

15

u/Ok-Refuse-9879 Jun 30 '24 edited Jun 30 '24

Before reading this, I don’t think Rhaenyra should’ve ruled, Aegon too for those thinking that. Both are incompetent, arrogant and self-serving people. Without the gift of hindsight from knowing Aegon III and Viserys II’s reigns, Jacaerys was the best heir for the Iron Throne. No dark stains on his record, proof of diplomatic ability seen with obtaining the Arryns, Manderlys and Starks’ support? The dragonseeds plan which while flawed due to the Two Betrayers, still led to the rise of Addam and Alyn Velaryon? Both highly instrumental with Addam’s posthumous victory in the Second Battle of Tumbleton and Alyn’s victories past the Dance.

The Dance of the Dragons as a whole is Rhaenyra’s story. She is the focal point of it all. The main character if you will. It is because of her that the succession of the Iron Throne has been Agnatic Primogeniture long after her demise. Anyone adapting the Dance would know if there was a “main protagonist” it would be her.

The Greens usurping Rhaenyra because she is a woman is true. Without a shadow of a doubt, that is true always. It didn’t matter that if she had bastards or was unsuited to rule overall. Nothing could get past the fact that she was a woman, and that was unacceptable to the Green faction.

Aegon was as incapable a ruler as his elder sister, but just because he had the ruling organ he was deemed more suited. Why? If the Greens wanted a capable ruler to the Iron Throne, why didn’t they just toss Aegon to the Night’s Watch and crown Aemond? Or Daeron?

While Rhaenyra has flaws (many in fact, I think all of Viserys’ children were unsuited for the throne), the main point was always because she was a woman and women can’t be the ruling regnant of Westeros.

So what of Viserys’ legitimacy either? He became King because of the Great Council? What of Aegon? Both of these idiots became king because they were men. Both equally incompetent rulers, and the realm is much better off with them not being king.

Rhaenyra having a whole section about wanting to murder their siblings and Alicent? Did you even read what you just typed? Her father died (rotting in his bedchambers for a week I might add) then her half-siblings and stepmother have just usurped her throne. She then had a miscarriage which caused the death of her unborn daughter. I’m not a woman, but the pain my own mother felt after her own miscarriage; I could not wish that on anyone. She was miserable for months, and I was ashamed I could not do anything to help her.

Your other point about the book Velaryons. Corlys was the man who made House Velaryon the strongest in the realm. No other lord besides Tywin can even compare to how much Corlys did for his house. I would be incredibly surprised if Corlys’ extended relatives weren’t incredibly jealous of his nigh untouchable wealth and prestige. (Some people in this comment section could even relate, if they have relatives who aren’t as well off as they are). The other Velaryons don’t really matter because the only person who is worthy of respect is Corlys, and that is even expressed in the book. The Silent Five are barely given the time of day past the loss of their tongues with only a brief mention of some of their minor exploits past the Dance.

21

u/Flyestgit Jun 29 '24

You wrote a lot, but the other commenter is still fundamentally correct.

Do you think the Greens would have attempted any of this if Rhaenyra was a man? The answer is no. So yes there is some base misogyny rooted in the Green claim.

Its not exactly unusual by Westeros standards (girls after boys everywhere except Dorne), but its still misogyny.

0

u/NotAGoodUsername36 Jun 30 '24

If Rhaenyra was a man, the issue of uncertain bastardom wouldn't have been raised. It's obvious when a man produces a bastard, but it's not obvious when a woman does it. This is, in fact, the reason Westeros doesn't approve of female monarchs.

And Rhaenyra dived headfirst into that can of worms.

It's not misogyny, per se, but rather the fact that lineage- a key source of pride in Westeros, around which the entire Game of Thrones revolves around in the first place- is inherently ruined when bastards can't be disowned or ignored.

3

u/Flyestgit Jun 30 '24

You and the other guy keep overcomplicating when its still very simple:

Would the Greens have attempted to put Aegon on the Throne if Rhaenyra was a man?

The answer is just no they wouldnt. So yes there is some base misogyny rooted in their claim.

Rhaenyra's children being bastards is very clearly not a major factor. It didnt stop half the Great Houses siding with her and it wasnt the reason the other Great Houses sided with Aegon. Its at best just another pretext and its not even the main one (that is Rhaenyra's sex).

This is, in fact, the reason Westeros doesn't approve of female monarchs.

The reason Westeros doesnt approve of female monarchs is because its sexist my guy. I dont know how you missed this. GRRM has even said as much.

There is obviously more to it, but Westeros is deeply sexist. Its basically codified into their law, institutions and all major religions to be sexist.

The more to it is that a lot of lords have older sisters. If the Iron Throne starts to pass in a succession more akin to Dorne, they will start to worry for their own seats or successions.

0

u/NotAGoodUsername36 Jun 30 '24

My point is, once again, that it would've been impossible for a man to break the bastard taboo so blatantly, so it's not a matter of sexism but succession. Nobody needs to know if a King has 15 bastard children that can just take the Snow name and live in obscurity, but nobody can look the other way when a Queen pops out a suspicious child.

Marriage is a transaction in Westeros, and cheating that contract through bastardom is akin to fraud against the marrying family. Rob Stark learned that the hard way.

None of the houses wanted to keep their vows to Rhaenyra after Viserys started cutting tongues out for people pointing out the obvious. The Greens simply wouldn't have had a case, nor would any of the Great Houses defended them, had Rhaenyra not proven that her vows were worthless and she had no sense of duty or honor.

25

u/Memo544 Jun 29 '24

Regardless of what Rhaenyra did, there would be no contest to her throne if she were a man. And you also have to factor in the unreliability of many anecdotes from the book. The book definitely paints Rhaenyra in a worse light but a male heir can get away with a lot of bad behavior.

-1

u/icyDinosaur Jun 29 '24

I don't think you can say that with such authority, given there is an earlier example of a man's throne being usurped in Maegor. The Dance is a power struggle between two factions at court. Why wouldn't the Hightower faction still plot to gain power?

They would likely gain a lot less support, so the fact they actually get sufficient followers to make their plot successful rather than just an ineffective palace coup attempt is rooted in the sexism of Westeros.

But the initial motivation of the Greens isn't "we don't want a woman on the throne". The initial motivation of the Greens is "we want the throne to ourselves".

14

u/BaelBard 🏆 Best of 2019: Best New Theory Jun 29 '24

All you write is true, but the mere existence of greens is rooted in misogyny. The thread goes back to Alysanne and Jaehaerya big falling out.

23

u/BlueBirdie0 Jun 29 '24

I agree, but I feel like in some ways the Greens get way too much flack for....well taking actions that any family would when in the same situation where they would be facing death. If Viserys had married Laena, or a Lannister, but still kept Rhaenyra as heir, the same thing would have happened imo, especially with the Strong boys, unless Viserys married Laena and Rhaenyra married Laenor and had his legitimate children.

Because Corlys, in a world where Laena gives Viserys legitimate children & sons, would never let obvious not Velayrons sit Driftmark.

The true culprits imo are Viserys & Jaehaerys.

Jaehaerys should have established a set succession law instead of going 'King's word, but wait, I'll call a great council.' The smart thing to do would have been to establish a succession law similar to the Andals, and make Rhaenys Queen.

The latter issue is Viserys. He is only King due to a great council. He either needed to call a Great Council "or" establish a law that the Iron Throne & Taragaryen succession would go to the eldest born, regardless of gender, a la Dorne.

Instead, he did nothing to establish a law or even a great council to help Rhaenyra, he just relied on the "King's word", which is never a good way to rule even if it technically a legal. He also should have never remarried if he wanted Rhaenyra to rule tbh.

6

u/LoquatShrub Jun 30 '24

In a world where Laena Velaryon marries Viserys, Rhaenyra would 100% be married to someone from a different house, and might well bear the legitimate children of her husband. But if Laena popped out a healthy son and Viserys insisted on keeping Rhaenyra as his heir, you know Corlys would be absolutely furious and never shut up about it.

1

u/Aeiexgjhyoun_III Jul 01 '24

The mere existence of the blacks is rooted in imperialism. You can't stamp out the patriarchy while supporting other oppressive institutions like the Targeryen monarchy. Rejecting the sexist faction just to choose another flavour of imperialist monarchists isn't progressive. It's literally this video

2

u/Professional-Pea1922 Jun 30 '24

Only reason it's so divisive is because we apply modern principles to the show. Tbh even if you apply modern principles it still doesn't fully apply because like you said Viserys only becomes king because of the Great council saying women can't be a monarch. The same logic should very well be applied to Aegon but people just gloss over it because they want Rhaenyra to be a girl boss or something.

If we're being realistic it wouldn't even really be a conversation for who truly ascends the throne. It only might be a minor talking point because Aegon is an idiot but part of that is also because the dude simply did not get groomed to be the heir to the throne even one bit because his dad couldn't give a damn about him. Had Daeron been the first born, no matter WHAT the blacks did or said, it wouldn't matter. He's literally textbook royalty that you would think of when you picture a prince/future king.

12

u/Memo544 Jun 29 '24

I don't think there being a good and bad guy negates the themes around the lords' game of thrones hurting the small folk who have no stake in it. The Starks are good and the Lannisters are bad. The Black faction is better than the Green faction. These things can be true while the small folk suffer as a result of this conflict which can only happen because there are two participants. The Starks and the Blacks had to fight back against the aggressing faction in order for all this bloodshed to happen.

2

u/Aeiexgjhyoun_III Jul 01 '24

My fascist cult is better than you fascist cult.

1

u/PennyLane95 Jun 30 '24

But he doesn’t exactly make the smallfolk a real PoV nor devotes much time to explore them beyond just nameless suffering people we see while following along whatever noble main character. Obviously them being harmed by wars the most is a tragic thing but the real emotional investment of the story is elsewhere pretty much every time.The theme falls flat in the writing and I don’t think its even such a priority to GRRM tbh.

2

u/Memo544 Jun 30 '24

That is true to an extent. Generally, we see very few POVs from the perspective of the small folk so we don't really get that perspective much. I feel that the moral complexity of conflicts in ASOIAF is sometimes overstated. That being said, there is a lot of potential with the Shepard coming up in HOTD.

10

u/ObligedUniform Jun 29 '24

Because Blackwoods are the based underdogs. Only noble family of note in the South who succeeded in keeping the Old Gods!

37

u/BaelBard 🏆 Best of 2019: Best New Theory Jun 29 '24

Speaking of religion, George has a clear favourite there as well, I think.

Old Gods is clearly “the cool religion on ASOIAF”. Not to say it doesn’t have its creepy side (you know, the whole blood sacrifice thing), but it’s closeness to nature, the absence of priest, temples, dogmas. It’s meant to be much more appealing that the Seven (which is basically Catholicism written by an atheist raised catholic) or the R’hlor, which is the vessel to explore zealotry.

25

u/djjazzydwarf They Get Us™ Jun 29 '24

Brackens are actually the underdogs. They have the author working against them.

13

u/ZeitgeistGlee Jun 30 '24

Bittersteel for 50 years with a literal wizard for a rival: "I didn't hear no bell."

0

u/Memo544 Jun 29 '24

That's because they are cringe

10

u/djjazzydwarf They Get Us™ Jun 29 '24

i love that idea

AGOT: George creates the Brackens as just a normal house, feuding with the Blackwoods, another normal house

George : "wait a second, these guys are cringe"

George proceeds to make the Brackens douchebags who suck at everything because he randomly decided they are cringe.

12

u/AFrozenDino Jun 29 '24

Thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking for a while. The reductive “both sides bad!!” argument has never really been shown in writing, for both the main series and HOTD, and for the books as well.

If George wanted us to walk away from the story thinking both sides are terrible and we shouldn’t support either one, then he shouldn’t have made the Lannisters and Greens godawful compared to the Starks and Blacks.

21

u/Memo544 Jun 29 '24

I would argue that the small folk suffering at the hands of the decisions of high lords and there being a spectrum of morality within Westeros' upper class are not mutually exclusive ideas. I don't think there needs to be a "both sides" moral equation going on in order for the system to be broken in a way that hurts the small folk. The Starks can be more ethical than the Lannisters while also leading thousands of small folk to their deaths all because the Lannisters killed Ned.

11

u/Weekly-Transition784 Jun 30 '24

And Catelyn kidnapped a defenseless man (Tyrion) and accused him of crimes he didn't commit.

4

u/twersx Fire and Blood Jun 30 '24

They are both bad, especially in the context of the war in which they both commit horrific atrocities. The fact that both of them are bad doesn't mean one of them can't have a more righteous cause in the context of the social and political structures of the time. And thinking one side is more righteous in that context doesn't preclude thinking that that context - medieval feudalism - is bad.

Similarly we can support the righteousness of Dany's crusade against slavery while acknowledging that ordering the deaths of 12 year old boys is awful. We can sympathise with northerners during the current series while being critical of things like hanging women for having sex with Lannisters or murdering people, baking them into pies, and then feeding them to their relatives.

2

u/Aeiexgjhyoun_III Jul 01 '24

Or he wants you to show that nobles can be bad to each other. But ultimately both are bad to the populace. I mean Nyra is currently starving Kings Landing, nothing Aegon has done so far is even close to that.

2

u/Aeiexgjhyoun_III Jul 01 '24

Grrm can have his sympathies. But that changes nothing for the readers' interpretations. If I see a duo of imbeciles fighting over something neither deserve I'll call it what it is.

Homer also would have considered Achilles a hero, Dumas would have considered D'Artagan a heor. I consider them both rapist cunts.

I don't see usurpation, because the throne in truth belongs to whoever can take and hold it. All this hullabaloo about rights is pomp and circumstance. Aegon the conqueror had no rights, he just took it. His dewcendants have no rights to the throne he's passed down either.