#grrm is writing us a tragedy

[talesofthepinktape]

I feel like this whole quote is one of the most moving and beautiful ones I've ever read, "What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms, or the memory of a brother's smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy."

I'm sure GRRM has his faults, it's just he truly has his moments of writing brilliance.

[aryas-faces]

Westeros, as grrm said, is an absolute monarchy and the definition of it is =a form of monarchy in which the sovereign is the sole source of political power, unconstrained by constitutions, legislatures or other checks on their authority. Not to mention that viserys in the book made a decree where he said that rhaenyra was his heir, so it's litterally write into the law that she is the rightful heir to the throne. if aegon was the rightful ruler, i assure you that grrm "my books are full of characters that made bad things and get repaid with the saim coin like jaime loosing the hand he used to push bran or tywin being killed by the child he neglected and abused" wouldn't kill the greens entirely bloodline (on the throne). aegon himself said in the screen you posted the throne was Rhaenyra's birthright so what's the point of deny it?

and the part where alicent say she fears for the life of her children is the funniest 😂

i fear for my children so let's torment the king's heir, and put the crown on my son (that DID NOT want it) and consequently start a war where i send my teenager children to fight (daeron was litterally 13 and aegon 19) on dragonback!!! everything will go ok, cause rhaenys the conqueror wasn't killed by an arrow even tho she had a big dragon in the conquest of dorne and jaehaerys' oldest son wasn't subject to same fate! what can possible go wrong??

1) The point of the Dance is that they both have a claim. Neither can be considered the Sole heir because Viserys named Rhaenyra heir, but by every law Aegon is heir. That’s one of the reasons the Dance happens. I’m not denying Rhaenyra is Heir, I’m saying Aegon is also Heir and that’s how we got in this mess

2) The Greens are not the villains. Both sides have good and bad people on it. George said he likes that people argue and debate who are the heroes and who are the villains when it comes to the Dance because neither side is totally in the right and neither side is totally in the wrong

3) If Rhaenyra wasn’t meant to be looked at as villainous, George wouldn’t write that Aegon’s victory is bittersweet in the Princess and the Queen

This is not the writing of someone who is a villain. What happens to Aegon is a tragedy, George treats it and writes it as such. And “narrative punishment” doesn’t really work here because Aegon was doomed from the start and like I said, he is written as a walking tragedy. If you want to talk about “narrative punishment” talk about Rhaenyra getting eaten by Sunfyre and how what comes next for House Targaryen through her bloodline is near total extinction

4) Ah yes. Fearing for your family’s life is SO funny! Also, she didn’t torment Rhaenyra. The book says there was tension between them, not that Alicent was terrible to her. And no, calling bastards bastards isn’t torment. Alicent is no saint, but she was never evil like you all make her out to be. She put the crown on Aegon’s head because she thought that would save from him from Rhaenyra and Daemon’s wrath if they were to be crowned, as she says, and than is one of the people who helps write peace terms. We, as the audience, know how misguided this is, but Alicent thought she protecting her children

[trinuviel]

God. Damon's vision at the weirwood tree is so damn stupid and it looked so damn hokey too. It is also an example of the unfortunate marvelization of the ASoIaF IP. Bloodraven's face in the middle of a tree (which looked so damn bad) is clear supposed to be an easter egg for the next show and the rest a call back to GoT, which is kinda of funny because it was never Daenerys and the dragons that defeated the White Walkers.

Adding that prophecy sent the show off the rails.

The reason the Dance is a tragedy is the fact that all the main players had their choices curtailed by the very fabric of their society, of how power is gathered and enacted. It could only ever lead to war as soon as Viserys had sons while still keeping Rhaenyra as his heir. And that is because these characters live in a feudal patriarchy where the universal custom is that the eldest trueborn son inherits. That IS unfair to Rhaenyra but those are the facts of this world. She would ALWAYS have to kill all of her half-brothers to sit safe on her throne (I won't even go into how she has created a succession crisis of her very own with her bastard sons vs their trueborn younger brothers).

Even if all of Alicent's sons had no design on the throne, they still would not be safe. Elizabeth I was literally imprisoned and almost executed because others rose in rebellion against Mary I in Elizabeth's name. Several people argued for Mary to execute but Elizabeth was only spared because she had powerful supporters, there was no hard evidence for involvement and because Mary had no children and thus no heir.

The inclusion of the prophecy could be interesting as a way the Targaryens convince themselves of their "divine" right to rule (which is the ideology the pre-democratic kings in Europe used to justify their rule). However, the show seems to go the route of the prophecy being true and thus validating Rhaenyra's war (and the tragedy being the Targaryens and their dragons all die?). I just think that decisions rests upon a profound misunderstanding of how GRRM uses prophecy. They aren't much use for the characters and he is very elegant in the way he uses the AA/tPtWP prophecy as a misdirection, leading the readers' attention away from a myth that is very likely much more important: the story of the Last Hero (who was most likely Bran the Builder), a story in whose footsteps Bran Stark is currently travelling.

Finally, I do think that Daenerys is AA. I just think that this is not a good thing. Considering how GRRM writes, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that he will play this prophecy straight. It is much more likely that he will he use a major Prophecy Twist. I have written extensively about this elsewhere.

[brandnewfridge]

re: the leaks, but honestly just the entirety of s2

Listen, I really liked the first season. Even though I think it had some pacing issues that could be solved by using that material for two seasons instead of craming everything into just the one, and despite the fact I found it sloppier than GoT in its prime and I disliked the way they were messing with the family trees. I have rewatched it multiple times. I have discussed it extensively with my father and my friends. I waited eagerly for s2.

And despite everything, I am feeling very disenchanted with the writing for this show. I feel like the problems it suffered last season have increased tenfold, and they added some new ones as well. I understand taking liberties from the source material, and in fact I think its part of the point of the show, since its a heavily biased history text with multiple unreliable sources, but I think there's a difference between that and whatever the hell it is that they're doing.

A good example of this, I think, presents itself very early in the season: Blood and Cheese.

I think having it come from Daemon and a "misunderstanding" is a good idea. Specially with the way it was treated after the fact: the conversation with Rhaenyra, how the other lords + Alys treat Daemon in the Riverlands, etc. It also makes sense that it would be portrayed in F&B the way that it was. However, how they adapted it pales in comparison with what actually happened in the book, which I think makes Halaena's character arc suffer in turn. I think this happened because they didn't show Maelor in the first season and they didn't want to add him in now? Even though I think he wouldnt be that difficult to introduce, and the audience would be able to accept his existence quickly, as Aegon's and Halaena's children weren't discussed that much in the first place. I'm not even sure they're mentioned by name in s1. And also, they're fine with giving a similar treatment to Daeron? Which I think it's strange, since the bulk of relevant characters in the conflict is mainly comprised of Viserys' children, and the complete absence, even in mention, even in passing, of one of them just to namedrop him in s2 is much more jarring than just, showing Jahaera playing with Maelor when Aegon comes in asking for Jahaerys. I don't know.

This is to say, it's not that I'm a book purist and dislike every single new thing they add. I like that the source material gives the adaptation room to breathe, and some of these new additions I do enjoy, at least in theory if not in practice. But they're making very strange changes, to characters, to plotlines, to family trees. The whole Rhaena/Nettles issue, for example.

A point that one of my friends has made is that oftentimes they treat the time that has passed between the airing of s1 and s2 as the time it has passed in-universe, which is very much decidedly not the same. There have been a very busy couple of weeks (as stated by Alicent in that one conversation with Larys in 02x04) in universe, and I think they're not giving the incredibly important things that have happened enough room to breathe per se. If it was time that they worried about, why shorten the season to eight episodes instead of the original ten the first season posessed? While simultaneously adding new plotlines or scenes like the Alicole affair, Daemon getting the Spirit Halloween experience at Harrenhall, or Rhaenyra going to KL to see Alicent, or Alicent frolicking in the woods. I have nothing against these things per se, I think they could add a lot to the story, the characters and their tragedy, but if I'm being honest I'd rather they used some of that runtime differently. It's like they want to stretch this show for as many seasons as they can but they also want to get to the next cool thing as soon as possible while the last one is still happening.

GoT started to shorten the number of episodes in s7.

GRRM has stated in his blog that he will not be attending the writers room for s3.

It's just a shame. Just a damn shame.

[esther-dot]

Idk how to explain it in better terms but the fact that Jaime focuses more on wanting to be perceived as good than actually doing good is a huge turn off for me and the reason why I don't believe grrm is writing a redemption arc for him.

So, here's a definition of redemption arc,

What exactly is a Redemption Arc? It's a type of character development in which your protagonist starts bad and becomes good in the end, often culminating in a heroic act that atones for their past

And I agree with you. His story won't fit the above. Jaime is bitter that doing the right thing is viewed the way it is by Westeros, and we can understand why he's angry, but I haven't seen any genuine regret about trying to kill Bran, for example, and kid killing is a big no-no, so imo, the flow of the story hasn't been to move Jaime from morally bad to morally good the way that expression implies.

In fact, in AFFC, he's talking about how he would have killed Arya and threatens to trebuchet a baby. When we have Ned's horror over Elia and her kids' deaths, over how the Hound murdered Mycah, his refusal to participate in the assassination of Dany, and his decision to risk his life/jeopardize his family by committing treason to protect Jon, I think we know Martin hasn't moved Jaime over into his "good" column. Our perception of his infamous act evolves, but that's not the same thing as Jaime changing.

What I think is so often perceived as a redemption arc is merely that Martin engaged our sympathy for Jaime later in the series and fans equate understanding/caring for a character with moving them into the "good" category rather than accepting that Martin routinely does this. The Hound, Tyrion, Theon...he calls them all villains, but at one point or another, we get tragedy and suffering in their lives That leads fans to conclude that the Hound and Tyrion are actually decent people, when by any objective standards, they aren't. The point isn't to move them from villain to hero, it's to offer believable explanations for why they are who they are, do what they do, and make them dynamic characters. Embracing the idea that good and bad impulses can exist in the same person, that the same person can be brave and kind as well as murderous and cruel, that's not too big of an ask. And imo, it's a shame fans want to use one to negate the other.

Even Jaime killing Aerys which kinda seems heroic is shaded by not only his greater loyalty to his family, but his own feelings about Aerys, and part of his memory is how he stood by while Aerys committed other cruel acts. In killing Aerys, he saved countless people, familial loyalty or no, it was the right thing to do, but we have all the rest of the series showing us, doing what is right really isn't of the utmost concern to Jaime. His loyalty is to his family of origin, he has an obsession with Cersei, and doesn't even seem to care much for his own children which again, I think indicates that as layered as he becomes with each new book, it's a misread to settle on the idea of redemption/good guy.

Fans think he's gonna kill Cersei as that final redemptive act, but to me that feels like looking at things from a Cersei hater perspective, not Jaime's. The man has been written as rather, disinterested in acting on a right/wrong spectrum, and is generally more concerned with family, it seems a little unreasonable to think a suitable ending for him is to reject that because how would such a man continue? He needs peace with his decisions, what he does has to flow from the essence of who he is, so it seems more likely to me that his end is dying with Cersei. That isn't redemption in the eyes of the fandom, but I think it could very well be redemption for himself. He has that nightmare about Rhaegar blaming him for Elia and the children's deaths, his own children may all die, there is nothing he can do about that, but going to their mother, the person he was faithful to his entire life, who is essentially his life partner/wife, it allows him to be truly loyal when all others think him faithless, and as annoying as some will find it, I think it gives him his own form of honor.

I wrote once about thinking he would die with Cersei:

I'm ok with Jaime deciding his fate is to be with Cersei, in birth, in life, even in death. As I thought it worked in the show, returning to Cersei in the books will likewise mean he is able to have some self-respect. I don't think you can read his, I mean, I would say Cersei obsession and believe he'd ever have any peace of mind if she died alone while he had to go on living. (link)

In that post I linked to meta about that and a great write-up on Jaime that I think you'll enjoy!

[agentrouka-blog]

Considering jon's dynamic with ygritte to be a romance is an insult to the definition of romance. He never once told her he loved her 💀, understandably, since she coerced him into a relationship and he gaslit himself. The most interest jon ever shows in val, and also the coldest he acts with her is when she looks like other characters. As much as it is the ultimate reddit male dream, romance =/= sex with a hot blonde with cardboard personality who exists solely to serve as a stand in.

I always laugh when people go "GRRM is so bad at romance, lol" because... he is not writing romance. He is writing abusive relationships or codependent messes or tragedies. He is challenging the reader to perceive how literally everyone (including Jon!) is projecting onto Val who gives nothing of herself away, or how awkward traumatized teenagers make awkward choices driven by trauma (Hi, Gilly!), or enhancing complex interactions around knighthood and disilusionment with the same imagery of knightly valor and chivalry that underpins the early origins of literary "romance". (Hello, Jaime and Brienne.)

He gave us a plethora of Really Bad False Knights.

And then he gave us Brienne. He's capable.

When he wants things to be actually romantic, we will know.

[hamliet]

at its core what makes something a good adaptation vs bad? chabhes will be made from one medium to another but like what is the most important thing to keep in mind?

Honestly, I think it's very specific to a specific work, and there aren't hard and fast rules or a checklist.

Generally, I consider it to be one of two things:

Is it faithful to the spirit of the work?

Is it telling a good story?

I also think there are two other items to talk about that aren't as directly connected but still matter:

Cultural context

Did you enjoy it?

Spirit of the Work

I generally think The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy is one of the best adaptations, because while it reworks order of events and cuts certain parts, it gets the main themes and character arcs across. The spirit of the work holds firm even when they're adding battles. In fact, as someone who likes alchemical literature, I find it really cool how the films used alchemy too--but used different markers than the books.

Contrast this with Game of Thrones. The problem was there in the earlier seasons but didn't become as apparent until the ending. They kept the characters for the most part and combined some characters, namely characters fans generally don't care a ton about (Arianne, f!Aegon). However, in doing so they neglected to think of the purpose of Arianne and f!Aegon in the story, and by combining them with the characters whose arcs A&A literally exist to comment on (Dany and Jon), they created a disaster thematically. Plus, they took the likely events of the ending, but completely altered the order and thereby the framing, changing it from a romantic tragedy that gives hope to a confusing mess that lives in infamy.

A Good Story

Is it telling a good story? Is it well done, or when watching/reading an adaptation, are you left with people saying "well that doesn't make sense here, but it did make sense in the manga/book"?

House of the Dragon is kind of failing here, and the cracks are starting to show more and more... but this was the case with GoT too, and it honestly does revert to "spirit of the work" in a lot of ways, too. Someone, anyone, who loves Romanticism and is well-versed in it, please adapt GRRM's stories so that the poor man doesn't have to write things like this which he did about a month ago:

"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 ... Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl, Ursula K. Le Guin, J.R.R. Tolkien, Mark Twain ... 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."

Yeah.

Works that I think have great adaptations (a non-exhaustive list):

The Lord of the Rings

Banana Fish

Attack on Titan

Oshi no Ko (so far)

Hunter x Hunter

Pride & Prejudice (many times)

Les Miserables (book to musical)

MDZS*

Context

This is where the asterisk comes in for MDZS. I'm actually talking about The Untamed, not the donghua. And The Untamed fails a bit at a sensical story at times, and does change aspects of the novel that directly negate the main themes (and made fandom unbearable).

However, given the fact that it was made in China, where they can't show queer characters directly and cannot promote gray morality (central to the story) they did the best they could. They kept all the characters human, and even expanded on some of their roles in ways that felt very faithful to the spirit of the novel.

And? That is partially based on the next question.

Did you enjoy it?

Something doesn't have to be a good adaptation for you to enjoy it. You can really like something while acknowledging it's strong on its own, but is a different beast than the original work.

[ilynpilled]

I like your jaime opinions but you have such bnf takes on jb and marriage that kind of baffles me

bnf takes 😭😭? cmon man. im just not that interested in that. like i am just not crazy about the marriage/children endgame aspect, simply out of preference. do not care for that kind of clean happy ending for any of my faves, i think it would emotionally resonate with me less. i also internalized what george had said about what romances he likes to write and read and the “we’ll always have paris” example he used. i do like some kind of tragedy or bittersweetness in romantic stories too. and the love was and would still always be there and all that. i do want some kind of departure, some key choice and sacrifice perhaps. i see the possibility of jaime dying too, which could achieve the same, but not executed the way it was in the show. i do not at all deny the possibility of interpreting the set up for what u guys r saying either, i think you can find foreshadowing for it (certainly has more of a basis than a majority of what ppl skew as marriage foreshadowing for other ships), i just dont feel crazy about it as a “happily ever after” scenario, dont think it would fit:

like i see this. i even thought that stage direction (if it was that and not a directorial choice that was not in the script) in the lion and the rose could be alluding to a union. the one where loras and jaime discuss the cersei-loras marriage and the dialogue ends with “you will never marry [cersei]” “neither will you” and then brienne enters the frame while the camera is on jaime. followed up by the cersei brienne convo. grrm wrote it after all. this is the technique he kept using with olenna regarding joffrey’s murder as well.

i am just fine with if all this just indicates future romance between them, and is being used to emphasize their desire for each other that they both repress in different ways (oathkeeper itself can be read as an engagement metaphor: “He will bring a rose for you,” her father promised her, but a rose was no good, a rose could not keep her safe. It was a sword she wanted.”, “Ser Galladon was a champion of such valor that the Maiden herself lost her heart to him. She gave him an enchanted sword as a token of her love.”) i do not think it would be made lesser if the relationship does not necessarily operate within the boundaries of westerosi society. i dont care if the marriage is a symbolic one rather than a literal one (like a knighting.) i do not think that would take away from the romantic relationship. we will see. i know jaime deals with failure when it comes to fatherhood but i am still pretty lukewarm when it comes to that kind of ending for him. i would prefer that remaining a tragedy. could that change? idk.

brienne too is a complex character. her relationship with her desires is complicated. part of her does crave marriage and a child etc. again, it is not as simple as her not at all desiring any aspect of the role she is assigned due to her gender. it is a role that society made for her, but also did not allow her to fit due to how she looks. so that is already very loaded and highlights the contradictory nature of this strict binary. but she also is a knight. she likes it. there is a reason she is a little relieved as well. she has agency to be what she wants to be. she is operating outside of society’s moulds in her own way. is there a way to make these things compromise? maybe.

if you want an “anti-bnf” 😭 opinion from me i do absolutely want their relationship to be consummated, and i disagree with the ppl who want it to be/read it as just a courtly love/chivalric romance type deal in that sense. sexual themes permeate the dynamic, and i wouldn’t like it if george, who does not shy away from dealing with sexuality, didn’t deal with this one relationship, ESPECIALLY because Brienne is an unattractive woman. would unironically rub me the wrong way if she ended up being the one ‘major’ female character, with a key romance, who is also an adult, to not have that. do not want her to be desexualized in this context. i am also tired of the relationship being “purified” in this sense in a lot of general discussion bc i think it often ventures into backwards territory. i would not be really happy with them only getting sex metaphors (which there are plenty of already) + i do believe it would actually mean a lot for both of their characters too.

[greenerteacups]

Hi GT! Any thoughts on GRRM's (now deleted 👀) blog post about HOTD? Both in terms of content and authorial conduct?

My first reaction was some combination of sympathy and cringe. I can see where his frustrations would arise — especially if he's correct that Ryan Condal intended Helaena to kill herself "for no reason," although I doubt that's the whole story (most of the coming seasons haven't been written yet). GRRM was burned badly by the ending of GOT, which is why he's harping so much on the (to be honest, pretty minor) removal of a child who really has no role in the source material except to be the sacrificial lamb prompting Helaena's suicide. He can repeat the words "butterfly effect" until he's blue in the face, but that still won't actually make Maelor into a major character, and it still won't explain why changing Helaena's arc is necessarily a bad thing for the story the show's telling. Helaena in the books is a very happy person whose death by suicide would be uncharacteristic unless prompted by a slew of gruesome personal tragedies. Helaena in the show is much more melancholy and withdrawn, and the audience doesn't need to see (another) one of her children brutally slaughtered in order to believe that she might pull a Tommen, especially since we don't know what the HOTD team are actually planning for her. Getting pissy about cutting Maelor is like finding out someone's replaced all the furniture in your living room — while you watched — and complaining that the upholstery's the wrong color. My brother in Christ, it's a different chair.

Apart from that, I recently saw one blogger argue persuasively that the choice to eliminate Maelor was not just efficient, but a defensible and deliberate creative decision: whether George realizes it or not, removing Maelor puts Aegon in the same situation his father Viserys was before his marriage to Alicent, where his only choices of heir are his daughter (Rhaenyra/Jahaera) or his brother (Daemon/Aemond), the latter of whom has recently proved himself an untrustworthy and outright dangerous candidate (the King of the Stepstones arc in Daemon's case, and the assassination attempt from Aemond). This traps Aegon, because the only laws supporting him as king require that he pass over Jahaera and place his regicidal brother — who has already tried to kill him once, probably having realized this fact — directly in the line of succession. And I'm pretty sure the show is intentionally going for this, because they make a point of telling us that Aegon can't have more children, so unlike Viserys, he can't get out of this by having more sons. Is this necessarily more compelling than the Maelor/Helaena guilt storyline? No, but we don't know if that storyline would have been compelling either. The success or failure of a narrative decision is almost totally in the execution, and HOTD is, crucially, not finished executing yet.

Siloing the question of the post's merits, it's also incredibly unprofessional for one of the most successful authors in history to start publicly beating up on a writer's room that he's supposedly collaborating with. Like, frankly, I don't care what Ryan Condal said. I don't care if he said he was going to kill off half the cast in S3E1 and turn the show into an isekai about his self-insert avatar falling in love with Rhaenyra. You work that shit out in the writer's room, or, if need be, the negotiating table, and not by dumping on the guy's creative decisions on a platform where the core of the show's fanbase hangs on your every word (most of them in the hope that you've announced the completion of the book you're supposed to be writing). It's catty, it's spiteful, and, judging by the content of the post itself, grossly disproportionate to the scale of the creative conflict at play. If I were an industry creative, I would have serious reservations about working with Martin after this, and the level of poor behavior on display should be evident by the fact that any author whose IP wasn't making HBO a bajillion zillion dollars would have been rightfully shitcanned for doing something like this.

If I sound angry at him, I'm not; I think he's just an old guy who's been told by lots of people that he's good enough to be above the rules, and he's consequently forgotten some of the industry etiquette. I'm also, frankly, a little contemptuous, mostly because most creatives I know would give all the fingers of their writing-hand to have the opportunities that George does, and would conduct themselves with significantly more grace and generosity for their collaborators even if they did disagree on adaptational differences.

[allovesthings]

I was thinking of a song of ice and fire and the way it is seen as hopeless by certain people and I actually disagree with that in general. I wasn't surprised at all when GRRM said it would be a bittersweet ending and not just a tragic ending.

Terrible things and tragedies happened in it but when I'm reading it, I think he does balance all of that well with the hope keeping us invested and rooting for the characters still alive.

And that balance of gritty tragedy and sadness with hope is also part of the reason why I think it's stupid to say that two of the main protagonists of the books are either going to become a mad queen murdered and an assassin too far gone who had to leave because she can't live in a society. Without talking about how out of character that would be for both of them (because The Mad Queen is clearly Cersei not Dany and Arya cannot erase Arya Stark's identity from herself) that's not bittersweet that's just bitter.

Also the idea that because GRRM likes to write shade of grey when he writes characters means there are no antagonists or protagonists, no good people and no bad one is just plain stupid.

[emilykaldwen]

Hi, I’m disgusted with how the show has demonised TG and feel sorry for Aegon, Aemond, Helaena and Daeron. Book Alicent would never do that to her children.

Hey you!

I think for me, I am definitely frustrated though with the route the show took and then weirdly doubled down on even though Condal had been saying how the GA would have sympathy for TG.

Are they demonized? That feels like a strong word but I see where you're coming from. They have definitely been punished in the weirdest of ways. What TG had going for them was their loyalty to one another, their ride or die. But now they're a house further divided and it's just weird to me.

When you look at S1 and S2 as a whole, you can see the throughline: Rhaenyra believes she's ordained by the gods, and combined with the prophecy shared with her by Viserys, she's shifted from the 'The throne is mine because my father named me his heir' to 'The Gods have decreed I must sit the throne and unite the realm and here are the symbols of that'. Is it fascinating? Yes.

It would be more intriguing to pit Rhaenyra's descent into prophecy (shades of Rhaegar plunging the realm into civil war anyone?) with the counter of the TG side coming at it from 'We live in a feudal society, the throne is Aegon's as his right as first born son' and not... what are they doing with TG anyway? The point of the stories GRRM is writing is that gunning for the Iron Throne is bad. Subjugation and Feudalism and using the people of the realm as canon fodder for war is BAD. That is the tragedy of it. Instead, the narrative has set up that Oh My Gods it's So Insane and Unheard Of! That in a feudal society, it's.... silly? Evil? Ridiculous? For one to assume that the first born son would not become the heir and How Dare You Support That.

And so by giving Rhaenyra these symbols of Divine Right of Prophecy vs Aegon having his symbols of legitimacy that are recognized by the realm at large, you're in this weird place where TG is having to kowtow and get punished for getting in the way of Prophecy.

Here's the Thing:

I'm so okay with Rhaenicent. I loved the change the show did to make them friends and throw this wrench into that relationship and shows how vying for the throne will tear friends and families apart, right? The Alicent of episodes 1x06/1x07 would fucking never. Where is that woman? Yes, she is horrified by how she acted, but oh no, she cut Rhaenyra's arm after Aemond's maiming and the public disavowment of Alicent and her children by their father, the king and... now she's sitting on her hands not plotting payback?

Rhaenyra and Alicent have been enemies far long than they were friends, and it's okay for that to all be really complicated because of the closeness of formative years and Situationship but Alicent choosing to give up her son like that?

She would never. I get that she's scared, I get that she sees what Aemond sees: Rhaenyra with three more dragons ready to clearly burn them all alive (since they came and butchered her grandson) But when Olivia Cooke is saying she's having to work backwards from the decision to see how Alicent gets there it's like... no. You're sacrificing all three of your sons, the three sons you have spent your entire life protecting, to get your daughter and granddaughter out.

And it's some of those things where it's like 'what else is she supposed to do? Condemn them all to death??' which no, she shouldn't. But she's like 'I'm throwing the gates open for you and you can let us leave but you know, you can totally kill Aemond while you're at it, he's become something else' and Rhaenyra was totally right to call out that fantasy! Because Alicent Hightower Would Never.

It's this weird hopeful naivete Alicent Hightower shouldn't have. Like, Alicent has known for twenty years her sons' lives have been hanging in the balance. Because that's how contested succession works: The boys would always be used against Rhaenyra the moment someone with enough clout gets pissed at her. The idea that this wasn't ever going to happen underscores how bad of a ruler Viserys was (please don't get me started on this season deifying him in the weirdest way).

I dunno. The point is, if this was the route they wanted to go, you're expecting us to believe that Alicent Hightower is just as mid-milquetoast as her late husband and she just isn't. This is a mama bear fighting for her children and spitting on the trappings of the Targaryen dynasty (which Jaehaerys weakened by inviting the realm to have a say in the succession in the first place) and Rhaenyra fighting (rightfully) for her stolen throne.

Because BOTH Rhaenyra and Aegon got screwed over. BOTH Rhaenyra and Aegon were let down by their conflict-averse father. Both of them were left unprotected by the king, but while Rhaenyra made her own protections (such as marrying Daemon), Aegon had his mother.

I don't even know if any of this makes sense. I'm annoyed. I'm not disgusted, I'm just frustrated. But it is what it is. There's a lot of things that have gone in there. Where this season shone bright, it shone bright, and where it failed, it failed hard. But it was already built on a rocky foundation to begin with.

Remember to support your fic writers!

[lesbianalicent]

cycling between three main issues while writing this fic:

1. AUs where rhaenyra survive usually negate the tragedy aspect of the dance which is like the entire reason i enjoy the show in the first place. fics where alicent recognizes her feelings let alone act on them also usually negate what i enjoy about the rhaenicent dynamic. this fic has both of those things, so i literally have to suspend my own disbelief while also writing something that feels in character to me and has the tragic elements i enjoy. bc hobbies are supposed to be fun or whatever.

2. i refuse to write hotd fic in anything other than past tense even though past tense become weirdly hard for me. i feel like my writing style when i use present tense becomes a lot more...casual if that makes sense? like, frankly it feels more fanfic-y. which is not a bad thing but i think that style works better with more contemporary fic and not high fantasy. i'm not trying to mimic grrm's prose or anything but i do still want it to feel like westeros and not wiskayok.

3. employment 😔

[horizon-verizon]

Something that bothers me about DotD is that I feel GRRM doesn't help his case much if he means the reader to sympathize with Rhaenyra's cause despite her shortcomings with the nature of the trajectory he chooses for her downfall. Now I'm not at all saying it's wrong to show her as flawed person, with hints of era-typical bigotry. But her acts against Nettles etc. make a reading that she wasn't good enough to support her after all not uneasy, leading to sexist implications considering the theme.

*EDIT (5/31/24):

Doylistically

Rhaenyra suffers from really bad sexist writing on GRRM's, not just the maesters', part and it undermines his own point.* And no, she doesn't need to be necessarily "moral" like Dany to be a deserving ruler.

The point of her story was to highlight how no matter how good or evil or morally ambiguous a person you are, if you are female, you are subject to losing a power men are just granted and subject to "mobilized" male violence. Or usurped. And this is inherently wrong. Rhaenyra chose to go to war rather than give up. This is valuable. Visenya was not thinking "for the realm" or for the benefit of smallfolk or outside of her family, yet she as so many fans bc she was not passive or restricted by "madness". She has less sexist writing. The below is still relevant.

*EDITED POST* (5/4/24)

Found this lovely post by la-pheacienne HERE, explaining how Rhaenyra's tragedy is an ancient Greek on as well, how Rhaenyra became what she was.

It's strange. The Dance is both very very simple, yet it presents interesting questions.

I go back and forth, bc I see GRRM's sexist folly AND some points abt how one evaluates and has discrepancies of the "worth" of a female vs male leader.

ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THIS BOOK, IN-WORLD, WAS WRITTEN WITH THE IDEA THAT FEMALE-RULER=BAD RULER=BAD-FOR-THE-REALM!!!

It's a story of two very flawed factions (one still, I think, in the actual wrong) vying for power, but it essentially is the bloody catalyst for the need of sets up the death of the dragons and Daenerys'/Rhaegar's existence in Westeros--Dany's being Azor Ahai!

Rhaenyra unequivocally relied much on on her posiiton and class privilege to carry her through, as many female rulers and nobles would because without it they cannot hope to have the power they often are denied. But bc this privilege comes with the price of some level of compliance with the status quo AND can make one develop forgo looking at things apart from one's survival or dignity, it can also lead us into hurting others like Nettles who would have actually helped us succeed.

"Nature" vs Nurture--Doylist 'nature' vs Watsonian 'nurture'.

What makes a person who they are? Their environment and history (the parameters and foundations for their decision-making), or just their decisions? Where is the line between showing a woman affected by her lack of political training (but still having to self-determine red/black dress moment and her drawing strength from her Valyrian heritage) AND showing her fairly as a person in her own right with many flaws? OR where do we realize that we ourselves are subject to making arguments based on principles we haven't learned are sexist in themselves?

And I am not a mother, so I don't know what it's like to lose not one but two kids in quick succession and under a year. There was a clear choice on GRRM/probably really Gyldayn/the story-teller's, part in making Rhaenyra seemingly "incapacitated" to be involved with politics after KL until Daemon left and she was left with the envious Mysaria (our Iago-figure) to have her fears played on.

We have to remember that this account is the least well-documented in F&B and the one with the most deliberately unreliable narrators with agendas in presenting some characters, esp Rhaenyra, a certain way. Septon Eustace writes Rhaenyra stuffed her face with pies AND that she cut her hand on the throne so the throne must have rejected her after landing in KL. This is most likely a retrospective exaggeration of the real situation out of spite AND plain slander, because:

even if she were eating a lot, it'd most likely be depression/grief/stress-eating and she had a lot to be worried about, her 2 sons died, PLUS she'd maybe eat her fav foods to feel more at the home that always should have been hers

we already heard the writers fat shame her for not putting off her pregnancy weight -- sexist patriarchal body standards ignoring real health & anatomy/medicine to affirm itself -- meanwhile Helaena & Aegon the Elder both were plump-fat, and we hear of no insults or repetitive notes about them?!

Eustace really hated her probably for not using him as he wanted her to or what he was used to as Viserys, Viserys' courtiers, & Alicent most often did PLUS Rhaenyra was ultra-femme, but was not demure nor pretended to be -- again, sexist standards of feminine behavior or presentation

Aegon IV was as unworthy a leader as anything we ever see in Westeros...yet we hear nothing of the throne cutting him...Aenys I? Maegor, and not in his death!; it's a chair made of literal swords...people are going to get cut; OR it never happened bc Rhaenyra was wearing armor at the time -- basically superstition needs to be logically analyzed before we go "that's symbolism!"

A) GRRM Othellos Rhaenyra...Kinda. I just See some Things that Remind Me of the Play

Here, we know Rhaenyra definitely ordered Nettles' death, this isn't a Gyldayn invention or misunderstanding for the "Othello-ing" I name. It is narratively important that Rhaenyra become a tyrant not bc she was an evil person or stupid from the jump, but because she is an example of one who didn't manage to work through her own fear, grief, and paranoia (caused by the system's constant failures against her) to do as Dany did and rely on compassion instead of fear to assure her survival.

1.

Without as much proper or as-much-political/military training as Jaehaerys I's and Baelon and Aemon had--Rhaenyra was that much more vulnerable. BUT she also could have gained a lot of experience in ruling Dragonstone in all thsoe years (15-16, or 20?) alone.

Let's take the first scenario: To not be fully ready or developed enough to put up much of a necessary fight against those that would oppose her and dissolve further than the already shaky bonds between Targ family members that existed since (honestly) either the generation of Aenys' and Maegor or Jaehaerys I.

After adopting much of Andal/Westerosi noble customs and especially male primogeniture, the Targs began betraying its female members and underdeveloping them almost since its dynasty's inception.

So GRRM makes Rhaenyra's flaws a direct result of her generational deprivation and gender discrimination, coming from Maegor and Aenys, but at the same time, it seems he went too hard in the paint to make Rhaenyra a woman without some necessary sense to accentuate her victimhood by making most of the bigger strategic decisions the blacks make come from the men around her BUT he also made sure to clue us in on how Rhaenyra is not like Dany in that she ultimately chooses her class privilege instead of measured compassion to maybe save herself.

A question some may have: Why make your female character so flawed instead of making her more of a great & strategic or very compassionate foe to reckon with, which would further hammer in how unfair it was that she was usurped? We can extrapolate that GRRM not making her active enough (w/o her being a warrior necessarily, at least a strategist or bring one startegy up!) was just sexist of GRRM. this plus the sex abuse agianst her, We didn't need all that.

I mentioned how Rhaenyra serves as a way to re-contextualize Daenerys and the importance of ingenuity & compassion that will really carry one one into both personal and collective success/survival. (HERE is a Tweet by former brideoffires explaining).

Also, they both refuse to bow down to the oppressive standards of their time in their own ways. Even with Rhaenyra fighting for her claim and to protect her kids, she defying patriarchal restrictions of female leadership by refusing to just give up the crown despite the greens' usurpation and crowning Aegon. There is value in that, even with it going to war. Rhaenyra is an aspect of Dany's own struggles. She is where a woman in either position could falter. They share a pride needed to resist against those sociopoilitical circumstances and assert themselves.

Basically, Rhaenyra's most critical mistake and error and moment of self destruction was to accuse Nettles & use her own class privilege against a vulnerable. She relied on a thing that ultimately was set against her (you can't really separate the misogyny of the aristocratic class) to use against her "enemy", in order to feel powerful, even with her having been driven to that state from mainly others' desire for her throne.

After all, male claimants and rulers who are insane, predatory, or just weak are pushed towards the throne (Aegon the Elder, prime example for this story) all the time, so why not have a flawed or "mediocre" woman be the center of this story to accentuate the double standard held against her? To show how people like Cersei get...that, and what Dany as a woman could & has gone up against? Rhaenyra being as she was rather highlights how Misogyny doesn't care if you are a genuinely good person leader, one bad move, you're done. And Rhaenyra--to go back to the scenario abt "training" or if she did obtain "enough" experience, and even then we should wonder how much or if GRRM just wanted her to be that way for plot-sake--wasn't the most strategic, much of it due to her class entitlement. Which the greens share.

Men like Robert Baratheon, Stannis, Ramsay Snow/Bolton, or any of the current male Greyjoys who grew up in the Iron Islands? Even Canon!Jon Snow is better than most men of his time, but he is cruel when he thinks he has to be and has himself executed a child for disobedience and treachery. He also makes emotion-based/involved/inspired decisions (not often, but they exist), and he also makes mistakes. They get to hold positions of power without any added troubles (as Rhaenyra had) to the regular ones of greedy challengers or those resisting their plunder and reaping.

Why should we hold Rhaenyra to a much higher standard than these men, as much censure, as the fandom and canon society does? Especially since it's not really her story (overall), it's Dany's? None of the autonomously ruling female leaders of the story receive half as much censure for character or leadership skills (true or false) as those men I listed. Rhaenyra and Daenerys "Stormborn" Targaryen are usually the subjects, with some other Westerosi women as well, sometimes Catelyn even. All that is obviously due to misogyny, to this idea that because you are not the typical candidate or desired one for the position of power, you need to "prove" yourself to specifically those who get that power without having to fight that hard or experience the doubt of leadership similar to a woman.

In other words, trying to actually 100% buy into what the Westerosi male lords or what we think they'd want in a leader was never going to work for Rhaenyra. She kinda already did, and look where that got her?

2.

How much of her paranoia (actually her breakdown) is understandable and consequential, as GRRM wants us to consider?

Gyldayn would say or think she should have been better, but considering what she was up against as a woman, does he really think he could do better? Or rather, how much do we excuse her for in lieu of her victimhood in the face of lifelong concentrated abuse and misogyny at almost every front?

Even if she had somehow quickly overcome her own grief in less than a year after both of her oldest sons died before she took KL, why are we so expectant of that? That's inhumane to me. Or I could be over emotionalizing it, idk & I don't think so.

And with the green having taken the royal coffers before they left, what would someone else have done under the immediate pressures of the lack of money, fear from smallfolk around the executions whose observations are charged and hate against the taxes raised bc of said lost moneys, and then the worst rioting exacerbated/caused by a crazy man most likely sent by the Citadel to turn everyone not just against her but all the Targs and destroy the dragons....

It's a lot all at once and something that not even Jaehaerys had to deal with, since:

Maegor at least was very dead by the time he actually got to KL.

The royal treasury was always intact AND he had Rego Draz (a Pentoshi man) help him develop his strategy of taxation, which encouraged the nobles to spend more....again in totoal PEACETIME.

since he was male, he never had to face widespread and local disfavor or contempt for his abilities (subtle or unsubtle) on account for things he cannot change or of beliefs against his gender, right to occupy a space, etc. as a woman does, esp a woman slotted to rule over other men -- people doubted him for his age/lack of experience, but they gave him more grace than they did Rhaena, his older sister

Finally, Jaehaerys may have lost two brothers (Viserys and Aegon) and a father, but Aenys didn't die by cold murder. His brothers we: A) don't even know he was close to or not, there were big age differences b/t him and them B) they were siblings, not one's children

Even without the losses of her kids, after a lifetime of having to decide how and even if one should try to legitimize oneself as one deserving of the same sort of respect and claims to power that another demographic just gets w/o trying--what does that do to the mind of a person, and under the pressures listed?

For Othello, it was using illusions and misunderstandings of adultery to put his sense of his masculinity in danger (as black masculinity is always put into question as being too "bestial" and inhuman, oversexualized--undeserving of the white chaste woman/high prize/object of white male power/public and political respect or "trust").

For Rhaenyra, it was her gender held against her AND then the betrayals, and she defaulted to feudal classism and misgynoir. Her conformity to that white female chastity of body and mind: what right did she think she had to claim power or herself without doing it in the name of a living "true" male heir/authority? And like Othello, she endured it her entire life, beginning with Alicent. At the same time, enjoying the trappings of a royal dragonrider who grew up believing that Targaryens were awesome beings who quite literally built Westeros the way it is?

That, I think, is what GRRM tries to create, this state of ethical "ambiguity".

It is true that compared to his other female Targ characters, the ambiguity is lacking because Rhaenyra is made too vulnerable to circumstances before her birth without her having quite enough substantial pushback or strategic will.

But Gyladyn wrote this book and we need to be careful with how he frames things or describes them.

B)

This will read back and forth, because I think there are other merits in some criticisms of Rhaenyra's character and her characterization.

1. Maybe you can skip this if you have repetition

I think that GRRM does try to write her from that Shakespearean aspect of psychological ambiguity from Othello, but I kinda agree that the symbol of the hysterical woman unfit to decide important matters of community and state fits Rhaenyra too well, whereas Othello actively resisted Iago more than Rhaenyra did Mysaria or her other councilors OR better yet, why not subvert Shakespeare a bit and have Rhaenyra do it better than Othello and last longer?

But that could be bc its' a maester, GYLDAYN, writing this book as propaganda!

And comparing her to Dany, again, "really quick", for a reminder:

Even with Dany still existing and Rhaenyra losing, I'd prefer to see her still be more creative and active--just more engaged before more principal players in her camp betrayed her without her provocation, rather than just two dragonseeds when she had other dragonseeds with her and a full council (even if Celtigar had to go). Again, why not have her make one plan or get inspired once and have others refine that plan/beginnings of a plan? Perhaps make Celtigar the betrayer, so that she is faced with relying more on less conservative mindsets in her council? IDK.

(disagreement w/anon) But then this story would be so much less obviously confrontational, as I have already said above, 7 people are dumb:

the hate against her tells us much about other readers and ourselves as to what expectations we have towards men vs women put into situations like Rhaenyra's, where she's usurped on account of societal sexism AND one of her ancestors (Jaehaerys) making it that much harder for women to be considered fit rulers/inheritors of power.

2.

Aside from her other mistakes:

not keeping close tabs on the greens while at Dragonstone so she'll be alerted to Viserys' worst days so she can travel back to KL and make sure the greens couldn't do anything w/o resistance -> 12/2/23 EDIT: Alicent wasn't planning the gathering the green council so much as improving immediately after Viserys died: her imprisoning Rhaenyra's supporters at court, her gathering the lords for the council, and her keeping it a secret Viserys died were all quieted events that she likely did not share with many people, maybe Otto and that's it. Not even Criston. These movements were what "saved" her the necessary few hours to get the jump on Rhaenyra; she would not have been very vocal or repetitive even if she did share her "plans" that could have been more wishes-turned-into action-in-the-moment than real, detailed, and prepared plans. So it's not that out of possibility to believe that even if Rhaenyra or Mysaria sent spies they'd pick up on this.

*not going to Jeyne Arryn after fleeing KL (this was a very understandable move to make, as she needed dragons & there was nothing left or safe for her back in KL)

Rosby and Stokeworth: for all that we say she was grieving, that Corlys/advisors pressured her, that she felt that the need for supporters around KL for the present dangers outweighed far-reaching ones for her rule later, she was still Queen and it was still a mistake because she needed to shore up female claims for herself and her descendants (two things can be true at once); this I see as Rhaenyra bowing to a real, concerning pressure that you may not think is heavy but is, and one can choose to "forgive" her for it or not and deal with the implications for either scenario because she was b/t having some crownlands close lords on her side while still in KL. Her ability to maintain herself on the throne depended on convincing men like Corlys/as many men as possible on her side. That's just the lot for female rulers of ancient, medieval, early-mod period patriarchal societies.

the dragonseeds & Nettles (nail in the coffin, the actual undisputed wrong)

I think that I can say that Rhaenyra was not the ideal leader in case of temperament or intelligence. She wasn't 100% dumb as hell by "nature" (whatever that is in ASoIaF), indicated by her making fewer mistakes before her sons died, but she still made a pretty dumb one before they died (#3 in the list above). She was purposefully made a bit more shortsighted than Alicent.

And here's another thing. She only started to be hated in KL after the taxes (that needed to be raised after Aegon/Tyland Lannister/the greens stole all the treasury money, even when he himself organized a feast celebrating Aemond and himself for Lucerys' murder and Aemond burned down one of the major suppliers of food in Westeros' "south" regions: the Riverlands and esp their farmer's villages and fields) AND when Larys purposefully spread rumors about her before the Shepherd came along and worsened it with his own misogynist rhetoric. Because all these beleaguered people wanted was to get out of danger and starvation, & when she couldn't immediately provide it, they understandably got riotous.

However, it is also true that with what she dealt with after taking KL--riots incited by Larys and the Shepherd, accusing her of killing Helaena; Larys taking out Maelor in the first place when he was perfectly safe in the Keep; being unsure of how long her followers would follow if she didn't at least comply with the Stokeworth and Rosby incidents.

And her moving to Dragonstone, to me, was not an absolute mistake or at least something she could avoid without losing another valuable thing. She and her family needed their own base, which is psychologically and politically true. But, again...not monitoring her father and waiting for the aftermath of his death at all, if that is in fact what she did? smh.

Why isn't it enough to know that she was unfairly usurped? Why do we look for the ideal leader in the woman during her own disempowerment, and not at how there is a difference in expectation for her versus her male rival in terms of competency?

3.

Let's play a little here. Even if Nettles and Daemon did sleep with each other, it is very clear that the better strategic decision would have been to question her after all her true enemies were defeated and make use of her until then.

But, once more and as I say in this Twitter thread, the deal with Nettles was accompanied and carried by the already existing Targ-Andal sexist paradigm of legitimizing one's rule through blood-purist/sexist principles. In that way, canon!Rhaenyra was not that much more exceptional than other Westerosi women under the condition of pressure looking to shore up their own claims.

AND again, it's a maester, GYLDAYN, writing this book as propaganda against female rulership/autonomy!

The Dance, more than any other account in F&B, is the most unreliably told tale because its sources (Mushroom, Orwyle/Munkun, and Septon Eustace) all seek to besmirch or objectify Rhaenyra for their own ends and are the only ones that provide the "clearest" narrations for Gyldayn, another master, to narrate. And GRRM does it on purpose:

We only get specific events that are told through a hateful gaze; what other traits and behaviors Rhaenyra could have done or said, we do not have access to and sometimes must use context to conclude our best guess. Thus, Rhaenyra also feels, to the reader, as if she could be something more than what's presented. Unlike its male characters, the Dance account gives one-note descriptions of its adult female participants because women already do not occupy or perform the same public activities as their male counterparts and thus are given less attention, unless they are Rhaenys, Alicent, and Rhaenyra. And we aren't privy to their most vulnerable moments (unless they are likely made up to disparage them OR so public as to be noticed). Emphasis on it feeling that way. It is Mushroom who says that Rhaenyra was angry that Daemon disobeyed her about Nettles: "By evenfall, Rhaenyra Targaryen found herself sore beset on every side, her reign in ruins. “The queen wept when they told her how Ser Lorent died,” Mushroom testifies, “but she raged when she learned that Maidenpool had gone over to the foe, that the girl Nettles had escaped, that her own beloved consort had betrayed her ("Rhaenyra Overthrown")". Which I can believe, since it follows her need for backup that she lost in Ser Lorent and the lack of such backup due to Daemon's refusal to follow orders or allow her orders followed. I can see Rhaenyra being angry and feeling betrayed by that. But Mushroom, as ever, also injects himself where it is impossible that he'd even be seriously considered as her companion and confidante: "At dawn, a hundred men attended her in the throne room, but one by one they slipped away or were dismissed, until only her sons and I remained with her. ‘My faithful Mushroom,’ Her Grace called me, ‘would that all men were true as you. I should make you my Hand.’ When I replied that I would sooner be her consort, she laughed. No sound was ever sweeter. It was good to hear her laugh" ("Rhaenyra Overthrown")". So is Mushroom using the hypothetical event where Rhaenyra was angry with Daemon and raged at the defiance, or did he make it all up to aggrandize himself and establish an intimate relationship with Rhaenyra for the audience, what we the readers are faced with? I tend to think the former because my idea of Rhaenyra and her tyranny coming from grief-misogyny follows such.

this is the event (the civil war/the Dance) where the women, the center, the moment of Targ history where the dragons and life-supporting magic were lost and started to die without its matriarch, occurs when the would-be autonomous female heir loses her power? Not a coincidence -> context and ratcheting up the stakes for Dany, bc what would the reception to her be like?

And again, without a closer look at her upbringing, with all these people telling her story in their way and with their own agendas and misogyny....well it's hard for me, the reader, to totally devote myself to writing Rhaenyra's comparative simpleness to just her being her and it not her developing herself to what was available to her.

5.

Another theory is not a theory, it's obvious. Rhaenyra is a character developed after Daenerys was created and Rhaenyra is not meant to surpass Daenerys in military leadership acumen or potential (because she grew up in a context where Targ women lose much power and go untrained) AND he is mean to be her "sword", her "Visenya". Again, GRRM might have gone a bit overboard...but he's not terribly wrong.

Also, once again, they both refuse to bow down to the oppressive standards of their time in their own ways. Even with Rhaenyra fighting for her claim and to protect her kids, she defying patriarchal restrictions of female leadership by refusing to just give up the crown despite the greens' usurpation and crowning Aegon. There is value in that, even with it going to war. Rhaenyra is an aspect of Dany's own struggles. They share a pride needed to resist against those sociopoilitical circumstances and assert themselves.

If Dany didn't exist, I would have preferred to see a more non-motherhood sense of responsibility, a more altruistic side of Rhaenyra (that still doesn't outperform Dany).

6. (inspired by & courtesy of brideoffires's post HERE)

It's not a coincidence that more female Targs display the most pleasure and affinity for dragonriding:

Rhaena (Alyssa's daughter), who after bonding with Dreamfyre came more into herself and bestowed her siblings with dragon eggs so that they themselves would bond with their dragons sooner and thus would be one self-possessed early on to even become rulers

Alysanne, who cried when she couldn't ride Silverwing anymore

Saera, who would have tried to bond with a dragon and ride to freedom

Aerea, who claimed Balerion and also rode to escape her damaged mother

Daenerys Stormborn, who restored dragons to the dynasty with fire and blood (blood magic & bravery)

Rhaenyra, who became a dragonrider at 7 years old

Rhaena (Laena's daughter), who also managed to have her egg hatched when no other dragon existed

Rhaenys (Jocelyn Baratheon's daughter) protested in favor of her unborn child and died with her dragon

Baela, who fight a usurper on behalf of her stepmother and lost her dragon but made sure to give Aegon the Elder much more injuries that turned him inside out enough to be so contemptible to be put down by his own followers

and Rhaenys the Queen, who loved dragon-riding the most of her siblings despite not being a warrior like her sister, yet being the literal mother/direct ancestor of the entire dynasty

Yes, you have male dragonriders but looking at Targ history, who usually has a closer metaphorical relationships with the Targ dragons? And after who, chosen by right, was usurped because she was a woman, and whose kids then continue the line?

Notice how a running theme is motherhood as well? In ASoIaF (all of it, not just the novels) GRRM is fixated on motherhood and a woman bringing forth new/restored things. Or when she's stifled from doing so. Daenerys is a prime example. She brought dragons back when Aegon V tried and failed, when Aegon III tried and failed and when Aegon IV did a mockery of it by trying to take Dorne. Rhaenyra gave birth to accomplished people (Jace, and Viserys II) and became a mother to two more (Baela and Rhaena). Again, it is through her that the Targs can even continue. Yes, Daemon is the father, but he wasn't made heir--Rhaenyra was--and Jace would have been a good king. And she was fertile, having birthed five kids and safely. Unlike Alysanne, who had many miscarriages and stillbirths and infants dying before they got to 3.

Conclusions

Again, I go back and forth, bc I see GRRM's sexist folly AND some points abt how one evaluates and has discrepancies of the "worth" of a female vs male leader.

Rhaenyra is a good example of a victim who wasn't necessarily a good person or an ideal ruler and neither was she a horrible ruler or an evil person (until Nettles).

GYLDAYN is writing this book as propaganda against female rulers/women having power that men traditionally are granted and have. But GRRM still puts Rhaenyra through a lot of abuse without coming up with more than 1 or 2 ways to avoid or resist them (red-black dress; moving to Dragonstone, we don't see her try to manipulate Viserys..etc.).

Some come away with the feeling that Rhaenyra has less depth because she relies on her heritage and the fact Viserys bestows her: What else, other than her Valyrian heritage and her kids, keeps Rhaenyra going, they may ask? Similar to Dany, Rhaenyra uses the fact that she does come from Valyrian dragonriders and conquering Targs to validate to herself that she deserves to fight for the throne. Differently from Dany, she does this with the fact that her father clearly named her heir and would have given it with his own hands.

This is what rhaenin-time says in this reblog:

It just rings so familiar to real-world politics and conversations. How many people with reactionary/conservative politics have we all encountered who, instead of arguing about why their stance is better, start to nit-pick inconsistencies and hypocrisy in liberal and leftist stances, even though what they offer is far worse? Because they're not saying their side does not have the same problems. They're saying those problems are natural, those problems cannot be resisted, that anyone who tries and does so imperfectly is a hypocrite, so you're a bad person for trying at all.

At the same time, I've also felt the frustration with the negligence of some more personal depth that is similar to women like Visenya or Rhaena (the Queen Dowager).

Again, to repeat myself (from point #4), it all comes from the desire for the alternative leader to the conservative type to be morally better than them for the greatest possible change. But we already have that in Dany and Rhaenyra is only mean to serve as to re-contextualize Dany & hammer in how she is so important.

Rhaenyra's one main "flaw" (shaped by society/history) is that she was blinded by her need to self-assert herself above all else in the face of her dissenters...since childhood and never developed past that crutch partly bc that was where she was.

*EDIT* (8/21/23):

THIS is a great post by @mononijikayu about medieval queens, female rulers, the history of how women in leadership positions were made and seen as threats to the very structure of social "order", and contextualizing Rhaenyra thru Empress Matilda. I didn't even know about Matilda's husband being comparable to Rhaneyra's Daemon! PLZ READ!!!!

Excerpt:

just as much, along with these fictitious portrayals, more lies are depicted. these women are considered vixens that cause havoc to men by shifting them into desires and danger. through the written word, we see how women are cast in roles of villains in men’s lives. it is because by their conclusive thoughts, women are the only creatures that are able to turn ‘good honorable men’ into despicable creatures who do shameful, deplorable acts for the sake of women’s pleasures.  [...] it is within this narrative that ancient chroniclers declare that women were in fact the doom of men. if they were not able to control the dangers posed by the wiles of women, then the foundations of the mighty society they had built would be up in flames.  [...] as i mentioned, these factors of community are written down and preserved. and with that, the example of the ancients were the foundations by which medieval society built itself. the same concepts continued to cause the same issue within society and that was the exclusion of women from participating in the bigger picture of community and state, much so with governing states in their own right—without judgment or disapproval. 

[gothicprep]

i finished HOTD and here's my little review for it. my main takeaway from it is that i'm a little bit concerned about where the show is going because it's so heavy handed with callbacks to the GOT tv series. it doesn't feel necessary, and i think a lot of the reason why the fan reaction to this is as mixed as it is has to do with it serving up constant reminders of the season of tv everyone hated.

the spoiler-y version of my take is below the cut

one of the plot details in the show is that there's a prophecy which targaryens are aware of, and the reason why aegon the conqueror came to westeros is because he wanted to stop the white walkers. grrm is involved in this show, and this is such a bold choice that the idea probably isn't something the showrunner & writing staff made up on their own. not sure whether there is confirmation about where exactly this came from. that said, i feel like this is information that i'd rather not know. ASOIF danaerys has visions and prophetic dreams, so i'm willing to accept that some of her ancestors did too and about the long night... but that's more fun if it's left a bit ambiguous. especially with aegon i, because making a war of conquest somehow noble is narratively very weird. it can just be politics and power.

what makes this awkward is that we already saw the end of the long night depicted in GOT, and the night king is defeated by arya. the targaryens barely have anything to do with this. so it's a very strange choice for HOTD to double down on the targ/ww in light of that.

i also do not like that they're featuring the catspaw's dagger so prominently in the show, with the white walker prophecy engraved into it... you're going somewhere with this and i kindly ask that you turn the car around.

like, seriously, how are white walkers relevant to the dance of the dragons anyway? maybe this is all to say that this knowledge was all lost because of the civil war and this is another layer of tragedy. it's a concept that i wouldn't hate if it wasn't all based around the dagger that arya uses. if i hadn't seen GOT season 8, then fine. it might work. but i have so... eugh.

the white walkers we see in daemon's vision in the finale have the GOT season 1 model, which i think is meant to communicate that what's being depicted here is a separate story from the adaptation's ending, but this doesn't land well when the books are unfinished.

other than that, i think the show suffers a lot from the WB merger-related budget cuts. the pacing was undercut terribly and the season feels incomplete and empty because of it, in spite of it not having a single episode that i'd consider truly, capital-b Bad

[ilynpilled]

Hey! So I'm from the Jaime/Lannister side of the fandom but wanted to ask your opinion on where you think GRRM is going with Dany. I don't mean spell out her endgame or anything, but what messages do you think he is trying to impart through her character? I see so much Dark!Dany! theory shaped by the show that has just never really resonated with how I read her in the books. I see her more as a figure who will try to be Queen of Westeros, but will ultimately end up abdicating or even sacrificing herself during the LN because finding "home" is more important to her than ruling... but that is not based on much other than gut feeling. What do you think?

yeah idrgaf about the show tbh. i think it fundamentally misunderstood key themes that the books were exploring. corrupted/mad dany feels so deeply cynical to me. people have been reiterating this: she is a subversive messiah figure & she is given a narrative that is so often reserved for the “male hero”. the gender commentary in that would fall flat on its face to me if she becomes mad fascist female ruler like bffr. yeah, she will get darker come winds, like everyone else she will have to make choices and will face moral dilemmas because she is resolved to continue combatting the institution of slavery. she knows she will not be able to do it without dirtying her hands in some way. i think grrm is gonna explore the concept of necessary force and the question of when it is more moral to take a stand and draw blood: is it justified to cut off and burn something at the root, especially if the alternative is allowing the cancer to exist and continue to spread? the institution of slavery is a wound that cannot just be covered up with a bandaid. like this is a very important aspect of abolition. the only way i can see the idea of “madness” be relevant is in a more subversive john brown paralleling way with how people thought that man was insane bc he wanted to end slavery lmfao. if terrible people think you are mad for attempting to make radical changes that harm them that is a good sign. also would hate her becoming an aerys parallel like in the show like that is cringe bio essentialism territory, again, antithetical to the themes prevalent in these books. d&d’s #subversive #dark #unexpected ending was unironically the equivalent of:

do not want her ‘idealism’ to be completely robbed from her at any point either really. im not opposed to tragedy but i dont think id vibe with it being too cynical in this instance. this series is about earned romanticism. its heroes are the dreamers yada yada. it is about a dream of spring. i always thought she represented hope in some way. she is gonna be the flame during TLN, literally and metaphorically imo. i do think there are thematic and more abstract aspects to lightbringer, like yeah humanity uniting over an ideal for a better future & it can be about hope or whatever, which is why multiple characters have some kind of flaming sword foreshadowing, but a main one is gonna be dany and her dragons. like on top of all the pretty overt foreshadowing, like let us think about the logistics here, what is gonna do more damage to the others?? three magic nukes or some convenient dues ex machina magical flaming toothpick we forge out of murdering a woman? i also do not want to instantly write her off as a doomed martyr either though. i see the appeal in the tragedy of the kind girl who wanted a home dying without ever getting to live in the one she created but still leaving it for millions upon millions of people present and future… but also idk i am just not crazy about martyrdom as a trope unless it is executed very well. i like when characters survive for a cause rather than die for it. dany always kept persevering, not just for herself, but others: her children and her people, so i like when altruism is framed in that way. also i might be a little bitter if she is the only one to die from the new generation or whatever like in the show