#Not saying the Targaryens are evil just that neither Rhaenyra or Aegon were or would be good rulers

[synchodai]

Rhaenyra is a rich kid

This is just my opinion, but I am so disappointed how HotD doesn't acknowledge how absolutely stinking RICH the Targaryens were during Viserys's reign, even by royal standards.

You can trace all their problems to the fact that Jaehaerys I and Alysanne did all the work to stabilize and make the Realm prosperous, so much so that their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are all some level of spoiled, sheltered, and/or entitled.

These kids never had to work to consolidate their rule or war against the lords to secure their authority over their lands. Hell, they don't even make any royal progresses like their ancestors did.

Kings from Aegon I to Jaehaerys I would do a tour of the Realm, both to learn of their subjects' culture and needs and also to intimidate them with their dragons. I assume Viserys didn't do these because 1) his dragon Balerion died (in which case, he should have sent Rhaenyra or Daemon to do it instead), and 2) he got complacent, believing his hold on the Realm was secure enough without the progresses.

So instead of royal progresses on dragonback, what did Viserys do to ingratiate himself with his subjects? FEASTS! TOURNEYS! GIFTS! He had so much money, he just gave away stuff and threw so many parties so people would like him. This is why he's seen as a weak and pliable king. He didn't do anything to earn his subjects' favor—he bought it. While Jaehaerys convened a council to designate his heir, Viserys consulted no one and just announced it during a feast.

This is why Rhaenyra's detractors in the books characterized her as an entitled brat whose go-to argument was "Because my daddy said so!" And this is why Alicent's detractors made her out to be this opportunistic, social-climbing black widow who took advantage of her husband by leeching off his wealth and prestige.

If HotD did more to point out the excess and prosperity of the Targaryen reign during this time, it would add more layers of tragedy to what they had lost and taken for granted.

[saintclarkegriffin]

I'm sorry the more I think about the last scene the less I like it. I mean, did it feel good to see Alicent and Rhaenyra on screen again? Yes, absolutely! Emma and Olivia have top tier chemistry, and their acting in the scene did not disappoint. However, I can't help thinking that the writing of the scene just doesn't make any sense whatsover and makes both Rhaenyra and Alicent look bad. Not in a "they're bad people" kind of bad, but in the "their motivations and personalities are inconsistent" kind of bad.

Putting aside the realism of Rhaenyra sneaking in and out of King's Landing completely undetected... It just doesn't make sense for this scene to happen now, at this point in the story. It's been, what, a month, since Luke has died? And it's been a couple of weeks since a grief-stricken Rhaenyra has said "I want Aemond Targaryen" in front of her entire council. I'm pretty sure that meant that she wanted him dead. But now she's willing to negotiate for peace with Alicent, the mother of that very same Aemond? So what, she just put aside her grief and need for revenge in the span of two weeks? Or did she think that Alicent was going to roll over and accept the murder of her son in retribution? 'Cause in the former case, she's inconsistent, in the latter, she's dumb. Neither looks good.

And Alicent also doesn't look good at all in this scene. First of, the idea that she had no intention whatsover of putting Aegon on the throne BEFORE Viserys' death is completely inconsistent with her characterization in the second half of season 1. There's a whole scene in ep 6 where she makes it clear to Aegon that he is the challenge to Rhaenyra's claim and that he will become king. And then there's the scene in ep 8 where she and Otto are clearly plotting and she says "he may yet live" talking about Viserys... even if her main concern in that moment was Driftmark, she was still very much plotting against the Blacks and Viserys' wishes. But now we're supposed to believe that she really did care about Viserys' wishes and that she only put Aegon on the throne because she misunderstood Viserys' dying words??

And don't get me wrong, I think in part Alicent did delude herself in believing that Viserys wanted Aegon to be king, as a way to ease her conscience. But in season 1 it was pretty clear that her biggest drive and motivation was her love for her children, and the fear that Otto had instilled in her that Rhaenyra or Daemon would kill them in order to get rid of any competition for the throne. It's why she got so mad and scolded Aegon in ep 6, because in her mind he didn't understand the very real danger he was in. It's why she snapped in ep 7, after seeing Viserys' blatant favorism for Rhaenyra and her children, over the physical well-being of Aemond, their child.

And none of this excuses Alicent's actions by the way, it doesn't excuse putting Aegon on the throne and causing a civil war, but it explains why Alicent did what she did. She was a mother concerned for the lives of her children. That makes perfect sense and it's all the audience needs to understand and sympathize with Alicent. But now, after that scene, what are we meant to understand about Alicent? That she was perfectly fine with the idea of leaving her children to Rhaenyra and Daemon's mercy even AFTER the events of Driftmark? That she was so devoted to Viserys that his dying words were enough for her to go against Rhaenyra, put Aegon (who was and still is unfit to rule) on the throne and cause a civil war, even though she was willing to go against Viserys' wishes just a few hours before his death?

I don't know, I just feel like the writers of the show want so badly to show Alicent in a sympathetic light that they accidentally made her character inconsistent. Like "see she can't be evil if she never, ever wanted to usurp Rhaenyra's throne, it was just a big misunderstanding, she's good!". But the thing is... an "evil" character who is consistent in their motivs and actions will always, always be more interesting than a character who is "good" but inconsistent. Not to mention, that if people understand a character, they are far more likely to sympathize with that character because they understand where that character is coming from. It was easy for me to like and root for Alicent in season 1 because I understood her, but now that I don't, who or what am I supposed to like/root for?

Also, I think the writers are doing the exact thing with Rhaenyra... going out of their way to make her more peaceful/less blood-thirsty than book!Rhaenyra in order to make her more sympathetic to the general audience... She lost her throne, her father, her unborn daughter, and one of her sons in the span of a few days... She should be angry!!! She should be furious!!! She should want to light things on fire!!! Not risking her life to try and make peace with the very person who is partially to blame for all of this!!! Let. Rhaenyra. Be. Mad. People will still love her, I promise.

[horizon-verizon]

those twt and tiktok fans used the the book description when it's convenient, bc it is said that rhaenyra was quick to anger, so are we going to say that she abused her children?? they are such short-sighed people. the maesters hated daemon targaryen, it was said by then that he fucked maidens, that he fucked nettles, they would have loved to paint D as an abuser to his family if existed a minimal sign of that. and this is why i'm so dissapointed in jj (i thought she was a book purist)

Anon refers to these tweets and retweets ladydragonjj made on the day the Daemon-Abuser-for-3-Seconds clip was made known on Twitter:

There are also people going after Jacaerys, saying that it makes "sense" for him to turn out "abusive" as well towards women because he lives in a sexist world where noblewomen are breeders and "F&B is unreliable anyway":

When before, it was just team-greens.

People--those who prefer PoV chapters just in most fiction esp after havign read the main series, misunderstood the point of having sources other than the MCs tell the MC's story(ies) OR those who never read the book--

Ozymalek, who I depicted answering JJ above first, had this to say in a tumblr post before they left tumblr (it's my reblog):

Excerpt:

The Dance era in "Fire and Blood" is something that will fundamentally cause the feelings of cognitive dissonance. I think this is why people initially disliked this book when it first came out. It did not provide easy answers, it was written as a historical account, the in-universe historians were clearly biased. People, however, had trouble realizing who the historians are biased for and against. Team Green would have you think that "F&B" is biased against the Greens, because their allegiance as maesters clearly being to Hightowers notwithstanding, they could not evade simple historical facts: that most of the kingdom supported Rhaenyra, that Greens were horrendously misogynistic and that her usurpation was clearly wrong. That's why, approaching it from the "choose your favorite war criminal" point of view, it was difficult for Greens to accept that their preferred side is so cartoonishly evil - obviously bias must have been involved, even though the only pro-Black narrator of F&B is Mushroom, the rest are Greens. The maester's anti-Targaryen bias, however, manages to sneak in and mess with the reader's balance, causing said cognitive dissonance. It's hard to deal with it as a reader, let alone as a showrunner who's trying to adapt a story in which not everything is set in stone. They incorrectly assumed that, because they are constantly forced to question what is happening in the story, the bias is with the underlying idea that there was a correct side. As such, they assumed that all the inconsistencies result from maesters not choosing to view it that way. Ryan Condal repeatedly stated that he does not want watchers to pick sides, while George RR Martin embraces it and even encourages it (and I think that he himself has picked the Blacks). Such is our nature as human beings. So they decided that they have to balance the scales. Because Greens are poorly developed, they added more characterization for them that contradicts their book personas (abused child bride meow meow Alicent who is clueless about the plans that in the books she herself set in motion, for example) while simultaneously taking the characterization AWAY from team Black members.

I never saw JJ really sell or convey that she herself as a book purist. She just loves the books like many popular creators AND she likes the show even with some critiques here and there. Like a lot of popular creators. She and HallowedHarpy--very good explainers of canon, btw,, the latter esp for Dany's arc and being to Azor Ahai--are those who like HotD for what it is and continue to express reasons why fans should take chill pills for stuff released from the show or do not think of some things as "changes" bc of how the book is written as a historical propaganda tool. Or like some changes that they know are changes, like Rhaenyra's initial anti-warness or her fighting, which they both make a few persuasive points or I know where they are coming from to think so (like GRRM has made Rhaenyra too separate from battle by using the miscarriage thing [there were 3-9 months that Rhaenyra MIGHT have used to properly/fully recover from the stillbirth for her to be absent from Rook's Rest if we ignore the argument of how rulers were not always fighting bc it put them in danger...as what happened to Rhaenys & Aegon at Rook's Rest AND how Criston clearly planned that ambush, likely for her so I can't hate Rhaenrya for not being there but I dislike GRRM for writing that way]...but in the show idk/we don't know how long show!Rhaenyra will take to recover from her miscarriage/Visenya stillbirth either, since in the book, it's said that Rook's Rest happened not that long after the first black council...but time also works funky in the book, so 🤷🏼‍♂️).

Here are some thoughts I've taken down abt HH's convictions (italics are direct quotes and words used in video):

It's from a tiktok called "Feminism: F&B Rhaenyra vs HotD Rhaenyra." I agree and disagree with some points (bc HERE, HERE, (authorial intent, how this is still a fiction piece), HERE, HERE, how we know abt Daemon v Aemond's fight despite no one being up there with them, how we know abt Aegon's 12 yr old "paramour" thru the green-sympathizer Septon Eustace, and just abt every post of mine with the tag "Rhaenyra's characterization" [in particular those where I defend *some* of her decisions]).

Nonetheless, I also don't think it's productive to go shame people for their thoughts...unless they are just (-ist). Even then, the energy.

[jaundicity]

this might be a hot take depending on whoever comes across it, but if the writing crew at HOTD had pushed themselves into truly showcasing the horrors of war and conflict within the dance throughout the show, i doubt that there wouldn't be as much team-related animosity as there is right now inside this fandom.

this can either be interpreted as fact or assumption, i'm okay with both and neither, but genuinely, if the show that we were given had been a lot more true to its original themes of war and its devastating effects along with many other factors like necessary evils, the failure of government through the targaryen royal family, the unjust acts towards innocent people regardless of social status through tumbleton and blood & cheese, etc.. and had explicitly shown that; no glorification, no glamourization, no nothing– just straight up horror?

we would all be too horrified to even think of rooting for one side or the other.

and to be honest? i really wish that were the case.

war isn't something to root for. it's something to dread, something to fear. the dance was exactly that, and we need to be more aware of the fact that just like war in general, it was utterly pathetic, pointless, and downright a cruel attack on the entire country through its own rulers.

sure, we can root for our faves all we like.. but we can't save them entirely from the fates that george originally wrote for them.

for example, i like alicent. she's one of my favourite characters, but am i gonna let her off the hook for the part she played in the war? not really. the same goes for rhaenyra, aegon, aemond, jace and co, who are all characters that i do genuinely like despite the show giving them all the worst writing that doesn't even concede with their major actions in the book. i'm not gonna come out and say that they're all innocent angel babies who just got dealt a bad hand. i know what they did in the OG story, and that's on them for doing it in the first place.

we can love our faves and all, and i do appreciate how much us fans do care for these characters, but let's be real. they played a part in this violence. not one or two, but a lot of them. all of them did.

[horizon-verizon]

A)

babe, i am not the one who refuses to read books💀.

You sound like a person who'd benefit from reading these two posts showing how Dany never profits or uses slavery...from brideoffires:

POST #1

POST #2 they go into why you're just wrong about Dany somehow making slavery her new cashcow.

But since you seem to be satisfied with being very intellectually challenged, you probs won't. Doesn't matter, I am very satisfied this will be out for posterity.

B)

So this post on the erroneous take about ASoIaF just about "feudalism bad!" [by dragonseeds] will also help.

"War of the Five Kings" and "Robert's Rebellion" are two different wars...friend, you good? You need some saline? No, not all wars are the same.

because to be honest when the targaryen ruled they never had civil wars or tyrants(aegon the unworth,rhaenyra and aegon,the mad king,maegor the cruel,daemon)

Bro is making as if the Dance were two separate events by separating Daemon from Rhaenyra in their list💀. that's one war, bro. Aegon the Unworthy (IV) didn't actually go to war, he failed utterly before anything could happen, so no war there. BFR. But if you're talking the Blackfyre Rebellion, sure. You still refused to check out my link, si I'll just have to post it as pic here, it's critical to flout your stupid argument:

Once again, much different and much less war than when the 7 kingdoms existed as autonomous kingdoms.

The second war after the Targs were gone (Robert's Rebellion) was supposed to end the evil Targ rule...yet only a 1 decade or so later, Robert dies and neither he nor Tywin prevented a war, all w/o an Targ help. Again, you may want to refer to the years of peacetime and the calculations for that I linked before.

I also find it funny who you completely ignored my stuff about the Targs shaping and benefiting Westereos outside of the blanket statement you tried to make for them...perhaps bc you can't defend yourself bc you never read the books? and you thought going by the sexist-writtenly show Dumb & Dumbee wrote for you small pea-brain meant your brain grew three sizes the day season 8 premiered.

C)

You also could have clarified what you mean by them "not liking" dragons, bc that is vague enough to be a catch all. The Faith didn't like dragons bc they were magic and out of their control. And the lords were wary precisely bc they didn't have control over them themselves. You realize that some wanted to intermarry with the Targs to have access to their power, dragons and ordinary political. Have you read of Rhaena and the Lannisters? Doesn't seem like it.

Also, the Seven people "don't" like the old gods for the same reasons above as well as being generally xenophobic towards anythign that is not Seven-based. You really seek to undermine a lot of the themes of ASoIaF, don't you? It's a good thing I already provided links to other posts where I explained why to think the Targs uniquely evil or amoral when the Westerosi lords themselves are peachy-keen or morally superior to the Targs, otherwise we'd be having a stupid-off.

and to your statement about finding dragons dangerous eurocentric is wrong

bro, we're talking dragons...as in their fire...as in their fire will be used in the "song" (war) between "ice" (the Others) and "fire" (Dany and the dragons).....you're being obtuse and you think dragons are not going to important to the REAL war that's coming, I feel very bad for you. your pro-Westerosi flaw is showing.

Learn to have some nuance, life will be more fun for you.

finally, this is what GRRM says:

But I think it is a mistake to generalize about 'the Westerlings,” just as it would be to generalize about “the Lannisters.” Members of the same family have very different characters, desires, and ways of looking at the world… and there are secrets within families as well.

Source (May 1, 2001)

The fact that so many people think the Starks are honorable anticolonial fighters and the pinnacle of morality is absolutely insane, they literally built a massive wall to isolated a bunch of people they considered as “savages”, they hunted and slaughtered the Free Folk, the Children of the Forest, giants, exterminated whole houses and clans and took their daughters as “prizes” while conquering the North, etc. The Blackwoods were originally from the North and ruled most of the wolfswood, before being driven out by the Starks and forced to flee south. The Starks are the OG COLONIZERS in ASOIAF.

Even this did not give Winterfell dominion over all the North. Many other petty kings remained, ruling over realms great and small, and it would require thousands of years and many more wars before the last of them was conquered. Yet one by one, the Starks subdued them all, and during these struggles, many proud houses and ancient lines were extinguished forever. — The World of Ice and Fire – The North: The Kings of Winter.

I recently finished a Tiktok series that will probably just be as lost to the internet if we lose TikTok but I had to get out in response to a particular creator who bashes Rhaenyra while also proclaiming themselves as black stans. I think they are really more black stans because they hate Alicent personally and feels the thrill of the side-taking, but that's neither here nor there. 😏

To quote one of my mutuals here [rhaenin]:

It just rings so familiar to the way so many people view the other in real life. Because the Targaryens are overtly, and intentionally written as the other. It's the reason so many people identify with them, and it's the very same reason that other people vilify them. They're not just the in-universe other to the 'default' culture established in the text, but they're also given characteristics that we, the reader and audience, can recognize as other and even sometimes anathema to Western Christian culture. To paraphrase the annoying people that love to cite Ramsay when they feel like it: If you look at a morally complex family surrounded by other morally complex families in a morally complex world in a story that's famed for seeking to challenge your underlying assumptions, and think that their association with fire and brimstone is meant to signify their singular satanic evilness, rather than say... challenge that very Eurocentric assumption, you haven't been paying attention. This vilification mindset where the Targaryens are the singular evil of Westeros is so common to people who seem to want to consume ASoIaF without engaging with the criticisms of the Eurocentric worldview of history at the heart of it. And they end up using the convenient “others” to project all the wrongs of that world onto so they don't need to examine it any deeper. ........... It comes from the same place with how someone pointed out that the baffling bastardphobia that would have medieval peasants giving the side eye is so often people jumping at the chance to “cosplay” as bigots who base their arguments in misogyny and bio-essentialism. Because it's an acceptable channel to indulge in that mindset in a way that they'd often otherwise question, or at least hold back from expressing out of caution.