#TV canon vs Book canon

[lurafita]

While I can understand where OP is coming from (because God knows that I'm in the same kind of agnoy where Peter Parker is concerned and people who only know him from the MCU),

I believe that it is important to understand and respect that different people like different things, and that no one version of a character or a universe should be seen as superior to others.

I like to think of the show as a visualized "what if" canon divergent fanfiction. And while I can rant on and on about how many details and explanations in the show's canon are just not given, and how I would have liked more background info for Magnus especially (because his history must be so rich!), I can't say that I have any interest in the books.

I like that Alec is taller than Magnus

I love that Magnus is portrayed by Harry Shum Jr.

I am so, fucking, unbelievably, immesurably glad that they didn't do a secret relationship for Malec in the show. I HATE secret relationship plots.

I like that the characters are aged up.

I like that Alec has brown eyes instead of blue. Everyone always idolizes blue eyes so much, while brown is seen as so boring. I love how warm brown eyes are. How deep they seem.

I love Madzie.

I like that it has not been established that Alec will never become immortal. I can't stomach the thought of Magnus having to bury his husband. And any kids that they might have in the future. I can't think of him going through that. My headcanon is that Alec will become immortal, purely out of love for his husband, because he can't bear to be yet another person who will leave Magnus.

I like that there was no war. I like that the show didn't kill a kid character. I like that this gives me the opportunity to think up all kinds of headcanons for young Max being a prankster and how his relationship with his warlock brother in law developes as well.

I like that they didn't kill Raphael.

I like that the show stopped before they got to the rumored evil!Magnus arc.

I like that I am free to imagine what comes after for Magnus and Alec.

I like that I'm not tied to either canon, but am free to imagine everything and anything I want for them.

I like that ao3 has a feature that makes me exclude tags that I don't want to read about, like "book canon", or "secret relationship", or "blue-eyed Alec".

I like that people have book canon, and tv-show canon, and movie canon, and are free to pick and choose and create a narrative, a plot, a world that fits their own desire.

I like that, even the things I don't like, even the things that frustrate me, are there. To inspire and tease and challenge the fandom into greater and greater numbers of fandom content.

And lastely, I like that people are free to vent their frustration in a way which is safe, like this post. That gives them a place and a means to shout when they need to, and fuel discussion if they want to, and find like minded people who think the same as they do.

I hope every Malec fan has a wonderful fandom experience and a great rest of the week.

i truly hate the show bc YOU GUYS DONT KNOW WHAT YOURE MISSING WHEN YOU WATCH THE SHOW BEFORE READING THE BOOKS

you dont know that magnus’ magic is the same striking blue as alec’s eyes

you dont know alec’s eyes are the same color as the ancestors of a family so intertwined with his

you don’t know that magnus sees ghosts in the blue of alec’s eyes

you don’t know magnus is two inches taller than alec

you dont know that alec loves that magnus is taller than him

you don’t know that they dated in secret for months

you dont know alec’s wardrobe is absolutely hopeless and he only wears years old worn out sweaters with holes in the cuffs and magnus loves it

you dont know that sometimes magnus wears his worn out sweaters

you dont know that they didnt get married for years until alec became consul and they could get married in warlock blue and shadowhunter gold under his new law

you dont know they have two kids, before they ever married

you dont know their first son is named after alec’s brother max, who actually died during the war

you dont know that max’s skin is blue, and his eyes are just a shade darker than alec’s

you dont know that alec loved one man so much he changed the world for him

[horizon-verizon]

Daemon is ultimately right. Thing is we know how the story plays out so he can’t possibly know the true consequences of his actions. But in sending B&C, he actually caused several things to happen that weakened the Greens. In this episode alone, the assassination led to Aegon pissing off the smallfolk for inflicting collective punishment, making a lunatic his chief advisor and dismissing Otto who was definitely making smart plays for the most part.

I mean, I think that you could have done something with the death of Aemond, the primary target of that plan? And what exactly was he right about, that violence against the greens was necessary? Because with his characterization of seemingly being more loyal to/prioritizing Viserys than Rhaenyra or seeking Viserys' approval over his own family's safety as the show changed from the original really redefines the lines here. Now Rhaenyra has a real reason to believe he isn't as dedicated or trustworthy, apart from how she believed he was so back in S1 E7.

You could argue that she spent too long apart from him to know the "real" him and just misconstrued his character and that she didn't know the "real" him as a teenager. And you could say that she was right to conclude that he used her against Viserys even in the canon with the brothel moment, that he mostly wanted her for access to the throne and not for her herself. You'd be welcome to that conclusion, esp with how he's written in the show and how we don't have any insight into their life at Dragonstone with their new family that the showrunner also have divided by sending Baela off to Driftmark 🙄. Plus how this Rhaenyra simply is not the same Rhaenyra of canon--proud, little more than a "little" vain, defiant, self-interested, etc., uncaring of others' thoughts of her unless in a practical bent (thus I'm not really mad abt there being an argument at all, but what was argued about and the motivations for thinking as such).

Except that in canon, there's a lot more room to suspect that Daemon wasn't using her as what she claims is to get back his "stolen inheritance" and do whatever he wanted behind her back. Rhaneyra did seem to be emotionally distant or angry with Daemon in canon for a bit, having realized that he used her to get back at Viserys and a little bc Viserys caused Mysaria to miscarry what would have been Daemons first child as well as having otherwise distanced himself from Daemon for Otto's "advice". But after Daemon has his family with Laena, Rhaenyra and Laena become friends, Rhaenyra sees Daemon in this new role....they reconcile. There's really little room to say Rhaenyra still didn't think him trustworthy as to allow him to be her husband and allow him around her first 3 kids, which makes show!Rhaenyra a little...not smart.

btw, some of these conclusions abt how bk!Rhaenyra and Daemon were distant and reconciled I was out on by a mutual on Twitter, who pulled some details I missed:

Like his idea of them being "peak" Targs is correct and true to character, but it's a lot more complicated and more...realistically(?) emotional here than in the show.

[to-the-batcomputer]

i appreciate comic people who are niceys to non-comic people

[kalcium-yippee]

Some of yall are so obsessed with what the creator of media says down to how many breaths they took between words that you forget you are supposed to think about the art you take in

[twinsarekeepers]

It always gives me the ick when y’all try to say there’s a specific book canon, especially concerning only the show, because that’s not true. The “book canon” has been changing since literally the very beginning of the series. From tlt to som, Rick changed so many things not just about the lore in his universe but the characters too. He did it from PJO to HOO as well. This is a consistent writing pattern of his where he changes physical and personality traits of his characters depending on his whims and that’s just the way the pjo verse is. This is why the whole “book canon” vs “show canon” thing does not make any sense because firstly, the books are like 50 steps ahead of the show. The show characters are literally in the first book phase of their character arcs and it’s relatively the same other than minor plot changes. And secondly, the books have so many conflicting character moments for all of the characters that the fandom was having arguments about what was book canon long before the show was even announced.

while i love and adore the new percy jackson trilogy so far, i have to admit that i am both disappointed and a little upset at the mischaracterisation of the characters, specifically the main trio. percy, annabeth, and grover, are no longer percy, annabeth, and grover. not their book versions, anyway.

i know that rick has said this before; that he is writing these characters now with the actors in mind, and i do understand that, but it’s not working. the books and the show are two very different things. while both are wonderful and i love them (and the movies!!), they are different. and that is okay.

but yes, there are so many moments (more in wrath of the triple goddess than in the chalice of the gods i think) especially regarding percabeth, where it just… isn’t. that isn’t my percabeth. it’s a weird mix of book canon and show characteristics, and it’s just a mess when you do that.

i love and respect rick riordan with all my heart, and i am not in any way against him or his writing, but i don’t think that the way he is writing these new book is even remotely a good decision. i think it needs to be changed. book canon should be remaining book canon, and the show versions portrayed by walker, leah, and aryan should remain their portrayals. (which are incredible, they are perfect for their roles but they can never be the book versions. they are different).

[billiewena]

FOUR YEARS SINCE NOV 5TH, 2020, as summed up by Supernatural

past recaps: year one / year two / year three / year four

full context and sources below:

various explanations + resources/sources/extra reading on this year's recap:

balls deep: misha collins says the quiet part out loud at Cross Roads 8 Supernatural Convention, saying "if the CW wasn't so homophobic dean and cas would've been balls deep for sure" at a con (x) (x) (x)

garthbenny canon: supernatural actors DJ Qualls (who played hunter-turned-werewolf Garth Fitzgerald) and Ty Olsson (who played the vampire Benny Lafitte) reveal they're married, delighting crack shippers like myself everywhere (x)

spn spooky picture book: official supernatural children's picture book is released, retconning things like john winchester as a happy father figure and castiel being their cowardly childhood friend who sorta hangs around (x) (x)

boop button: tumblr introduces a feature people enjoy for once for april fool's day and halloween and allows users to boop each other, spn bloggers re-awake like sleeper agents to use it in full force (x) (x)

bedlund speaks on destiel: former spn writer ben edlund goes on a tweet fest replying to fans, talking about destiel multiple times including this profound tweet (x)

clear text, not subtext: jensen speaks out again on the confession at Purcon 8, this time taking a more open stance on how the relationship was textual, his take on dean's feelings about cas's feelings, and how the scene with cas deserved a resolution (x)

bury your gays: famed author chuck tingle (known for his plethora of highly specific and delightfully inclusive, if strange, indie erotica novels) publishes his second mainstream horror novel, inspired by TV network studios' infamous history of censoring LGBT relationships and openly killing off queer characters. In a non-subtle nod to supernatural fans, the main character is named misha. (sidenote: did end up reading this and this book is actually really good commentary on the industry in general and really good, 10/10 recommend) (x) also someone got the book signed by misha, to further break the fourth wall (x)

tracker: jensen ackles begins starring in a CBS show where he is basically csoplaying dean winchester, with the show featuring many non-subtle spn references (i.e. him pretending to almost get in an impala before going to his truck, characters wearing spn necklaces, etc.) (x) (x) (x) (special shout-out to clarice @youre-only-gay-once for expertly tracking the tracker show and these easter eggs, highly recommend their tag for their show)

cw's walker cancelled: fans rejoiced upon hearing the cancellation news for jared's post-supernatural show, walker, a remake of "walker texas ranger." in addition to generally being a copaganda show for the notoriously racist texas rangers, jared's inspiration for the show's direction caused much concern. the actor himself said the show was inspired by the US border crisis, not by the immigrant families affected by the separation and internment, but instead wanting exploring the POV of the law enforcement agents working at the border and the moral dilemmas they had to face (x)

pro-destiel Wonder Woman: Lynda Carter (aka the iconic and beloved original actress for Wonder Woman, not the z*onist one) says she could "go for some Destiel" when promoting #GeeksandNerdsforHarrisWalz and Misha's involvement (x) the rest of the spn cast and original Showrunner Kripke were also a big part of this event

chili's backfire: the chain restaurant chili's drags destiel while interacting with 9-1-1 bucktommy shippers on twitter, immediately gets backfire. notably, their stock takes a dip the next day. coincidence? maybe so, maybe not (x) (x)

samgirl voting fraud: "who is the gayest spn character" tumblr poll surprisingly gets heated, with a blogger straight-up admitting they used a bot on the "castiel vs. sam" poll to rig the poll in sam's favor, which they apparently also did for w*ncest in another poll in the past, and posting a guide on how anyone could do the same. luckily democracy wins in this one instance and castiel prevails anyways, leading to an also contested "castiel vs. charlie bradbury" round (x) (x)

pink pony jarpad: jared is spotted at lesbian pop star chappell roan's set at a festival, un-likely place for him to be (x) also may have been one of the "boring" people called out by chappell? (x)

pro-kamala castiel: in a last-ditch effort to get out the vote, misha uses the power of castiel photo ops to campaign for harris-walz and even shouts-out destiel. I feel depressed writing this sentence, if you've made it this long in your read and you're in the states I hope you're doing alright! maybe by the time I wake up things will be a little different though. (x)

[david-talks-sw]

The OTHER type of Star Wars fan

We've already covered (through this longer post and this addendum) that research shows George wasn't that involved or interested in the derivative material of the Star Wars franchise, also known as the Expanded Universe (EU). Aside from approving a few points, he let Howard Roffman and Lucasfilm Licensing handle it.

He is the first to say that he ain't as knowledgeable about Star Wars lore as we fans are.

Thing is... he's also not as passionate as we are.

Recently, I was watching some Q&A videos of George R.R. Martin, the author of Game of Thrones... and it occurred to me:

Martin is what most Star Wars fans wish Lucas was.

Think about it.

He's a talented writer who likes to focus on morally "gray" characters and complex political plotlines,

who created a series of novels for a mature audience in which his narrative merely asks questions and lets the reader draw their own conclusions,

knows and engages in the lore behind his creation and will often respond to those lore-heavy questions, and has gone on record stating that canon is the glue that holds a story together and keeps it coherent.

Contrast that with George "continuity is for wimps" Lucas, who:

Wrote a movie franchise which is also, partially, political... but he makes it for kids, and he's explicit about how this is thematically a clear-cut story about how the conflict of "good vs evil" is really about "compassion vs greed",

with flat dialogue, boring cinematography,

and whose approach to lore and canon can be summed up in his answer to how Anakin got his scar:

"I don't know. Ask Howard [Roffman]. That’s one of those things that happens in the novels between the movies. I just put it there. He has to explain how it got there. I think Anakin got it slipping in the bathtub, but of course, he's not going to tell anybody that." - Pablo Hidalgo’s set diary, August 2003

And as a Star Wars fan, I will admit that some of his casual retcons felt disrespectful, growing up.

"Boba Fett is NOT Mandalorian?!"

I had the same reaction when I saw an interview of Kathleen Kennedy stating she was a fan of Star Wars... from a filmmaking perspective. That seemed like such a finagling cop-out for me, at the time.

"Just say you're not a real fan, God!"

And it's easy to divide it in two camps, like that. You have 1) the fans, who will delve into deep lore, and you have 2) the average moviegoer.

But looking back on it... holy shit, that is actually a completely valid way of being a Star Wars fan.

Yes, Star Wars is a transmedia franchise, it's books, it's video-games, it's deep lore, it's lightsabers and Jedi and Sith and bounty hunters and Ewoks and Jabba and High Republics and Tython and Revan etc.

But before it was that, Star Wars was a filmmaking revolution. A juggernaut of innovation for the silver screen that inspired most of today's filmmakers.

So, sure, George Lucas isn't an avid lore-loving Star Wars fan like you and me. But he is a movie fan.

"I'm not that passionate about this story. I like it, it's fun and I enjoy doing it. But it's definitely not my life. I'm a bigger movie fan than I am Star Wars fan. I like making movies. At the end of nine years of making Star Wars, I was not ready to continue it. I was completely burned out on it. I was more passionate about raising my kids than making movies and especially making Star Wars. So I made other kinds of movies and TV shows and advanced the technology I needed. It's not a matter of passion. My passion is for filmmaking. I'll go and do filmmaking that is easier to do, where you can realise your ideas better. And nine years is a big part of your life, and to commit to another nine years, I didn't wanna do that right away." - EMPIRE, 1999

And you can tell this, when you watch the Star Wars films.

There are honestly so many homages and interesting filmmaking techniques, peppered throughout the six films, which only a nerd for cinema history like George would know how to implement.

C3-PO being based on the droid from Metropolis (1927) is a perfect example of this.

And that's interesting.

Because there's essentially this entire other dimension to the films, where it's not just the story unfolding, but to filmmakers it's also a series of techniques that make them go "I wonder how they did that!" or homages that make them go "OH! I know where that's from!" like we do when an comics characters appears in live-action.

Here's other examples:

CINEMA HOMAGES

All of Star Wars is absolutely littered with homages to cinema history.

I mean, you may already know this, but Flash Gordon is what George originally wanted to shoot, but the copyright holders said they only wanted Fellini to direct it (ironically, George wasn't artsy-fart enough for them). So he decided to write Star Wars instead.

As such, the inspiration from Flash Gordon is also present visually and spiritually throughout the two trilogies.

"It was like a Republic serial, a 1930s-style matinee adventure. The idea was that you came in, saw Episode IV, had missed the first three episodes, and wouldn't get to see the rest of it." - Starlog Magazine #300, 2002

The dialogue that a lot of people refer to as "campy" and "flat" is actually a mix of George being an experimental filmmaker who doesn't give much of a fuck about dialogue (and is by his own admission, not the best at it)...

"I'd be the first person to say I can't write dialogue. My dialogue is very utilitarian and is designed to move things forward. I'm not Shakespeare. It's not designed to be poetic. It's not designed to have a clever turn of phrase. [...] I just wanted to get from point A to point B. This film doesn't lend itself to that sort of thing because it's not about snappy one-liners.  I think that Lethal Weapon-style dialogue is overused, it's a necessary aspect of high action films where you have to have the smart retort. You have to say "I'll be back baby" and stuff. It's not my style. It takes away from the integrity of the movie. [...] I'm aware that dialogue isn't my strength. I use it as a device. I don't particularly like dialogue which is part of the problem." - EMPIRE, 1999

... which is convenient, because it helped him simulate the dialogue of 1930s matinee serials, such as Flash Gordon.

"Let’s face it, their dialogue in that scene is pretty corny. It is presented very honestly, it isn’t tongue in cheek at all, and it’s played to the hilt. But it is consistent, not only with the rest of the movie, but with the overall Star Wars style. Most people don’t understand the style of Star Wars. They don’t get that there is an underlying motif that is very much like a 1930s Western or Saturday matinee serial. It’s in the more romantic period of making movies and adventure films. And this film is even more of a melodrama than the others." - Mythmaking: Behind the Scenes of Attack of the Clones, 2002

But beyond that, literally it's everywhere.

The scene where Palpatine ascends to being Emperor as Anakin slaughters his political rivals parallels the final scene in The Godfather, where Michael becomes the Don while his goons do the same thing.

This video compiles all the tributes beautifully. Check it out.

Even The Clone Wars has whole episodes that are direct homages to cult classics. The Zillo Beast episode is a clear reference to Godzilla, the episode The Wrong Jedi is inspired by The Wrong Man, etc.

"CINEMA VÉRITÉ" CINEMATOGRAPHY

I've already written a whole post (one of my favourites) showing how his fascination with cinéma vérité documentaries is reflected in the cinematography of all six Star Wars films, and it's part of what makes the entire franchise feel so immersive.

You can check it out here:

KUROSAWA

We've gone over how he's a big fan of Akira Kurosawa, and how big an influence Hidden Fortress was on both the Star Wars trilogies...

... but so is the mise-en-scène and the way George approaches production design. The reason Star Wars feels so "lived in" is also a lesson George learned from Kurosawa, which is that by making everything just a bit off-kilter, a bit dirtied-up and imperfect...

... and yet keeping it all consistent, in a way, you manage to make the film feel grounded and immersive, no matter how alien it is.

"[It] may sound odd in a movie like this, but credibility and realism, even in the most unrealistic situation… to sorta create that sense of realism is very important to making the story work and making you feel like you’re actually in the environment that transports you and gives you the suspension of disbelief that you need in order to enjoy a movie. [...] Kurosawa used to call it “immaculate realism” which is to make it slightly off-kilter, slightly eccentric, like things are in real life. Even if it’s a very predictable situation, give it that little funny edge that takes it away from that and makes it realistic. And I had to struggle very hard, in the Star Wars films, to make them appear to be realistic, even though they’re totally fantasy." - The Phantom Menace, Commentary Track #2, 1999

POST-PRODUCTION & VFX

Another one of the more impressive aspects of the first Star Wars was the dogfights and the trench raid of the Death Star. The camera pans with the spaceship, the dynamism of the cuts. The space battles is what made George creat ILM in the first place.

He was determined to do the opposite of what 2001: A Space Odyssey had done with that opening scene where the space ship moves into frame slooooowly...

... so he gave the team a collection of WWII dogfight footage to give them ideas.

(note: this was the same approach he would take years later with Dave Filoni, when teaching the latter how to edit and craft dogfights in The Clone Wars)

The attempt to film the trench run eventually led to the creation of the first motion control camera dolly.

Best analogy I can think of, when describing George's approach to Star Wars, is the following:

An avant-garde esoteric contemporary artist - y'know, the type who puts a blue dot on a white canvas and calls it art - creates a comic.

Why? Because he wants to make this one art installment for a gallery exhibition. After that, he intends to move on to other things.

But the comic is really good! And like, its audience quickly expands beyond just gallery visitors, no, everyone likes it.

Suddenly, the comic develops a cult following, and the entirety of comic book geek culture has zeroed-in on the artist and they're all asking him to make more art! And he makes more! And more!

Then he stops for two decades, moves on to other art projects, raises his kids. Years later, he discovers new ways of drawing, and he's like "I'm making a Prequel to the comic, y'all wanna see it?"

Everyone cries out gleefully: "Oh God, yes! Finally! Show us!"

But this motherfucker makes a manga.

Why? Because he feels like it.

And of course he does, he's just creating art, right? He discovered the graphic tablet, so he's having fun with it, because he's always innovating and pushing the envelope with his art.

And the movies are fine, by manga standards. But by comic book standards, they obviously suck! The comic book audience is mad. They wanted another comic book, not a manga. Why is it in black and white? Why is read right-to-left? This comic sucks!

(And arguably, they have a point... as a savvy businessman, he's made a whole lot of money off this comic, he built a media empire out of it, and instead of giving them what they want, he made something else)

But again... this guy isn't a comic book illustrator, and has been very explicit about saying this.

He's an artist who - for a very specific project - drew a comic.

Many things can be true at once:

the fact that these creative decisions didn't always hit their mark for the average moviegoer, or fans of "Star Wars, the space fantasy movies and expanded universe" (usually the lore-loving geeks like myself)...

... and the fact that they were meticulously and carefully crafted in a way that fans of "Star Wars, the revolutionary film" (aka fans of cinema and filmmaking) can appreciate.

There's a spectrum of the fandom, and there is a spectrum in the way we can appreciate Star Wars. Which kinda reminds me of that scene in Chef (2014) where Carl goes on a rant explaining the intricacies of making his chocolate lava cake to a food critic.

It's not just undercooked chocolate.

It's molten.

Conversely, it's not just flat, campy dialogue. It's an homage to the 1930s matinee serials à la Flash Gordon.

It's not just boring cinematography. It's a reproduction of cinéma vérité documentary-style camera work which effectively grounds the film.

Having considered all this, when I hear that Tony Gilroy or Kathleen Kennedy were more in the latter camp, I go "fair enough".

First of all, because like it or not, so was George. He clearly didn't give a single crap about the comics and books, besides signing off on minor plot points. He's not a "sci-fi movie director", he's an experimental filmmaker who makes movies set in space.

But secondly, because - aside from children - it's clear the audience he was targeting was these cinema-savvy folks who'd get his references and would be inspired by the filmmaking techniques.

Not the fans or the critics.

[neil-gaiman]

Hello, Neil, how are you? Hope you're doing good.

I apologise in advance if this has been asked before, but I looked it up and didn't find it. My question is regarding canon in Good Omens (and adaptations of other stories of yours as well). I recently saw you referred to book-canon vs TV-canon regarding GO, and it makes sense because they aren't literally the same as, among other things, they happen in different periods of time and so the context is different.

Considering that, are book Aziraphale and book Crowley exactly the same characters as TV Aziraphale and TV Crowley in core stuff like personality, ways of seeing the world, likes and dislikes, etc.?

I hope I expressed myself clearly, English is not my first language. Thank you very much in advance and have a great day.

I think they are very similar. TV Aziraphale seems gentler than his book equivalent, Book Crowley seems more focused and less of a disaster-puppy than his TV equivalent. But in each case that may simply be the performances.

[destinationtoast]

Have you ever done an analysis of which fandoms are most dominated by a single ship?

I hadn't done so before. I just took a quick pass at doing so, but only among the biggest fandoms on AO3 as of Jan 2024 (ones with over 10K public works at that time). I sorted them by the size of their biggest ship relative to the size of the fandom. This gives us a bunch of very big fandoms with a high % of works tagged with a particular ship:

The raw data used to make this graph, including the corresponding biggest ships, is available in a spreadsheet here, or at the end of this post.

A few notes:

This is based on January 2024 data. Some things may have changed!

Not all these works are necessarily about these ships. Especially in the cases where the ships are canon, they may often be tagged as background ships.

There are undoubtedly many smaller AO3 fandoms that have higher percentages devoted to the top ship.

I removed some highly overlapping fandoms (e.g., Good Omens book fandom).

This is AO3 data only, and (as always!) AO3 does not represent fandom overall. In particular, ship popularity tends to vary A LOT by archive/platform. See some past cross-platform shipping comparisons from 2019 (comparing het vs. slash vs. gen on Wattpad/FFN/AO3), and 2014 (comparing popular ships from HP, SPN, and Sherlock on AO3/FFN). One highlight:

Raw data:

Fandom | Top relationship | % tagged with most common ship

Shameless (US) | Ian Gallagher/Mickey Milkovich | 92.5%

Phandom/The Fantastic Foursome (YouTube RPF) | Dan Howell/Phil Lester | 92.1%

Good Omens (TV) | Aziraphale/Crowley (Good Omens) | 83.8%

9-1-1 (TV) | Evan "Buck" Buckley/Eddie Diaz (9-1-1 TV) | 79.2%

Hannibal (TV) | Will Graham/Hannibal Lecter | 75.6%

Shadowhunters (TV) | Magnus Bane/Alec Lightwood | 75.1%

All For The Game - Nora Sakavic | Neil Josten/Andrew Minyard | 75.0%

Inception (2010) | Arthur/Eames (Inception) | 74.0%

The Old Guard (Movie 2020) | Joe | Yusuf Al-Kaysani/Nicky | Nicolò di Genova | 72.2%

Hawaii Five-0 (2010) | Steve McGarrett/Danny "Danno" Williams | 71.9%

The Mortal Instruments Series - Cassandra Clare | Magnus Bane/Alec Lightwood | 71.2%

IT (Movies - Muschietti) | Eddie Kaspbrak/Richie Tozier | 71.1%

陈情令 | The Untamed (TV) RPF | Wang Yi Bo/Xiao Zhan | Sean | 70.9%

X-Men (Alternate Timeline Movies) | Erik Lehnsherr/Charles Xavier | 69.6%

Yuri!!! on Ice (Anime) | Katsuki Yuuri/Victor Nikiforov | 66.3%

Supernatural (TV 2005) RPF | Jensen Ackles/Jared Padalecki | 66.0%

She-Ra and the Princesses of Power (2018) | Adora/Catra (She-Ra) | 63.9%

Deadpool - All Media Types | Peter Parker/Wade Wilson | 63.6%

The Witcher (TV) | Geralt z Rivii | Geralt of Rivia/Jaskier | Dandelion | 63.1%

Our Flag Means Death (TV) | Blackbeard | Edward Teach/Stede Bonnet | 63.0%

[loving-family-poll]

Ultimate Incest Tournament - Round 4

Propaganda under the cut:

Sam/Dean:

I'm sorry but they have it all. children of metaphorical incest just continuing the cycle in any way they can. they are brothers and mother + son and wives and each other's scorned lovers and life partners they've had multiple infidelity arcs they are sexually psychopathic together they have forsook life and morality and the earth itself for each other and just love each other so much . They are literally in a heaven of their own making together for eternity, incestuously. Come on!!! Blueprint!!!!! It's not gay if he's your brother!!!!!

dean did stuff to sam's dead body in ahbl. i just know it

Messed-up, isolated sibs with all the daddy and abandonment issues. Their lives are so claustrophobic with the brothers no more than five feet apart in the car, a motel room, or standing next to civilians (face it, they are frigging magnets). Can't leave out that they are always touching each other to check for wounds which is a huge PLUS for any shipper.

Sam and Dean ARE literally the blowjob brothers. They walk into a situation and everyone goes well well well if it isn't the blowjob brothers....... And they say. Yep. That's us. And then they fix the situation with their epic love story

THE classic, iconic, show shopping, never done before etc. etc. incest ship. It changed fandom and it changed the world

Amma/Camille:

The sexual and romantic overtones in both the book and the TV show are deliciously disturbing and creepy. They love each other so much, and it is horrible

amma and camille literally kissed with tongue and camille loves her so much she's worried she'll hurt her. THEY SLEEP IN THE SAME BED BECAUSE SHE BEGGED HER TO.

Amma canonically refers to her as her soulmate. They KISSED.

[horizon-verizon]

In the book, didn't Rhaenyra have her first ladies-in-waiting at the age of 8 in the year 105? Weren't they, moreover, the sisters of Harwin? Why are they non-existent in the series?!

Yes she was 7-8. Lyonel Strong brought his 2 sons and 2 unnamed daughters with him to court:

Thrice-wed and thrice a widower, the Lord of Harrenhal brought two maiden daughters and two sons to court with him. The girls became handmaids to Princess Rhaenyra, whilst their elder brother, Ser Harwin Strong, called Breakbones, was made a captain in the gold cloaks. The younger boy, Larys the Clubfoot, joined the king’s confessors.

(Fire and Blood; A Question of Succession)

No handmaiden/lady-in-waiting or other young girl exists in HotD’s royal court, which is both historically unrealistic and canonically incorrect. All the nobles are adults aside from Young Alicent and Young Rhaenyra. 

And none of these girls existed in the series because Rhaenicent has to have its day, anon. 

You see, these two girls are supposed to be the only ones who live at court so that they can be lonely asf and get together. Plus, they don’t have to hire women and girls that they’d have to write more lines for or pay. 

(Unlike the placid and silent actors who play Borros’ Baratheon’s daughters of episode 10. Maris’ words are lost, so what was the point of having these actors there at all?! Borros could have just mentioned them and Aemond’s acts and the episode would be the same without these actors.)

[horizon-verizon]

This will be long, so disclaimer if you don't want to read long stuff.

@darklinaforever

You protest too much. lagosbratzdoll is saying that:

people have used HotD's rewrite (and it is a rewrite) where Daemon doesn't seem to care about his Black wife as he did in the book to attack others and be racist to fans to either complain about this change and express concerns over the bias or those like lagosbratzdoll, who happen to come across people being racist [their experience]

since the Velaryons of HotD are so obviously Black--counter to the pale skinned, thin-haired canon descriptions of the Velaryons that have existed for years before HotD--every Velaryon who marries into the Targs have been subject to bad faith and racist "critiques", undermined, denied their narrative purpose and value, etc. [the trend]

It happens to Nettles when some Daemyras claim that Nettles "wasn't an important character". Or when they say Jaehaera should have remained alive and be Aegon's queen to birth Daeron I, Daena, Baelor, Elaena, and Rhaena instead of Daenaera Velaryon--some Daemyras and green stans or claimed neutrals even saying that GRRM "changed his mind" and "realized it was unfair to Jaehaera" to kill her off that way. (And to be honest, there is fair critique in making Helaena die so violently in lieu of how GRRM tens to horribly kill off several female characters in the way and frequency that he does it, but I speak to how many just use this as a way to deny Daenaera her importance in the story being written).

And they claim they they aren't wrong to counterclaim that the people saying HotD is being racist--consciously or unconsciously, it's still racism--are being "stupid" or "don't know the original story" because they think that just because Daemyra do end up together and it would have been better if they had just ended up together for one or both of their political sakes that Daemon didn't love Laena or thought her as inferior to Rhaenyra. Or they prefer Daemyra's dynamic and think Laena/Harwin passive interlopers on their ship, which ironically prevents them from really analyzing and understanding the story presented. In other words, they use the canon to prove their points and to justify their racism towards a show that is not even canon-compliant both where it really matters AND where it doesn't.

Do I think that Rhaenrya and Daemon would have preferred to have married each other from the get go? Absolutely. Do I think this makes Laena "second choice". No.

I do love bk!Daemyra & there are parts of show!Daemyra that I like bc they believably show what bk!Daemyra would have been like. However, it must be said that bk!Daemon very much loved bk!Laena AND it was not that she was 2nd choice to Rhaenyra. He made many moves for her and he doesn't tolerate people to be around him and so close to him if he didn't genuinely like or respect him as much as one would think he did anyone.

It was a matter of timing and circumstance that Rhaenyra became his 3rd wife; him, her 2nd husband and it doesn't mean he or she loved their prior partners "less" and I mean Harwin, not Laenor.

...............................................................................

I talked about Laena and Daemon HERE, but now let's talk about them within the context of the show and fandom.

A)

I don't think that Daemon was banished from the entire realm after he did whatever with Rhaenyra. Eustace says that Viserys told them both not to speak of what Eustace says was Daemon seducing and having sex w/Rhaenyra and to leave...but he doesn't specify whether this is a permanent departure or if has a mortal consequence if disobeyed.

I do take part of Eustace's assumptions as true--something happened b/t them and Viserys told Daemon to leave bc of it. It is also the more detailed and believable account given, even if Alicent urged Viserys to banish Daemon. We have the neutral-er GM Runciter (who only-mostly ever gives factual records of the king's declarations) say that Daemon & Viserys fought. Runciter doesn't say Daemon was banished--again, key words are "banished" and "royal declaration". So Runciter corroborates Eustace saying that they fought and Dameon left but banishment, esp from the entire kingdoms, is more up in the air. I think it's unlikely bc that would have caused a greater stir.

But Daemon definitely wasn't banished from wherever (court or kingdom) bc he married Laena either.

Daemon knew that it was possible and that he'd have some sort of punishment bc he married her without Viserys' permission (running theme here), so he decided to leave Westeros ("A Question of Succession"):

He and Laena then took advantage of this by making it into a tour of Essos and really be "free" from all their political restraints for a time. They left for Essos and had the space to become and grow into their own unit.

They go back to Driftmark/High Tide before Daemon takes the time to send Viserys a letter asking for forgiveness and to bless the twins' (thus giving respect/obeisance to Viserys' authority). While this is likely Daemon thinking, again, politically and trying to get back "home", I don't think Daemon wasn't also thinking of his kids' growing up amongst family and to please his wife...something the show completely contradicted ("A Question of Succession"):

It doesn't have to be only about Rhaenyra or the greens. S

And yes, I think that it was inevitable that they'd have to go back, both bc:

a) Laena would wan tto see her own family, which would also put them at proximity to King's Landing and Dragonstone:

b) again the threat of the greens and the greens own eye on Daemon being a threat to them (again why Rhaenys trying to get her grandkids to not join Rhaenyra nonsensical, but a digression). But people can disagree with the idea that Daemon was always conscious and motivated in part (not the whole) by making sure the greens wouldn't be confident in their supremacy at court. 🤷🏽‍♂️

lagosbratzdoll said this:

Daemon didn't seem to give a fuck that Viserys had banned him from the Seven Kingdoms when he returned to Runestone and then the Eyrie and then Driftmark after his wife died.

Daemon can't be said to have been banned from the entire country after the Rhaenyra incident as I mentioned.

B)

darklinaforever said this:

Viserys banished Daemon under penalty of death after he asked for Rhaenyra's hand if he ever came back... That's why he didn't come back. Additionally, at the time Rhea died, Rhaenyra was already married.

when lagosbratzdoll said this:

After his alleged rejection he did not end his marriage and fly back to King's Landing to beg Viserys for Rhaenyra's hand. No, he went back to the Stepstones and was content to remain there for another year, unhappily married to his "bronze bitch". Then immediately his wife died, instead of heading back to King's Landing to use his wife's death to reconcile with his brother and "first choice", he went to Driftmark. Fell in love at once, asked for Laena's hand from her father and then slew her betrothed.

("A Question of Succession")

And yes, at the time of Rhea's death, Rhaenyra had already been married to Laenor that he would but he couldn't go back for her for that. Espe since one speculative rumor that Eustace reports is that he bedded or did stuff w/Rhaenyra to spoil her for any other prospects. No point to trying to get her then, so as lagosbratzdoll says he went back to the Stepstones.

However, again, he's not banished from the realm, just from the court IF we believe Eustace 100%. There is no mention of a mortal punishment at all, if Daemon were to come back w/o Viserys leave.

And, lagosbratzdoll was correct to say

It is only after they (Daemon, Laena and their daughters) returned to Westeros and after Laena and Rhaenyra grew closer that Daemon and Rhaenyra are reconciled.

Key word here is "reconciled", bc yes Daemon manipulated Rhaenyra and likely did try to ruin her prospects Because, once more, he may not want or be equipped to lead as a politician like a monarch should, but he definitely was still politically interested in his family's legacy and a marriage to Rhaenyra would allow him to stay close to the family, be involved to be at least father the next line of heirs, and have him protect them Rhaenyra and those kids and even Viserys. Plus, I think he wanted to shove it in his brother's face for the long-existing issues between them (Viserys' suspicion despite Daemon raising those soldiers for his claim before the GC of 101; his ordering Mysaria away so she miscarried what would have been Daemon's first kid...after he took one of the eggs for said kid w/o Viserys' leave; Viserys refusing to annul his first marriage which had no political necessity bec Rhaenyra was Aemma Arryn's daughter, etc.). Was Daemon wronged, yes. But this was definitely a wrong he performed against Rhaenyra--she should not have been used as a device or "way in". (Messy Targaryens) No matter what he felt for her at the same time. Even if one doesn't think he groomed her, he definitely used her negligibly and without really taking her feelings into account....ironically just as whoever married him to Rhea Royce did.

And they truly became a "couple" that we know and love (some of us) after Laena dies. After he comes back with Laena and Rhaenyra befriends Laena, they had the time and space to likely discuss what happened between them, esp since Rhaenyra's ruling of Dragonstone (thus her becoming more autonomous and familiar with having authority over most others), her marriage, and her kids (solidification of getting heirs/becoming a parent and responsible for others...similar to him) made it easier for them to come to terms with what occurred b/t them. It made Rhaenyra is on more "even keel" with him, or really has more authority and power.

So after Laena's death, they decide to marry to fully become and manifest as the couple they were and that some of us enjoy.

C)

I think he didn't love-love Laen in the very beginning/from the start or when he laid eyes on Laena like the singers claim. Because singers will almost always give you the highly romanticized version of the truth. for coin, patronage, shelter, and legacy. The last either/both their own or for the house/lord/lady's who they are serving and is sheltering at the time. We first hear of the singers and how they fit into the Westerosi system through Rhaenys the Conqueror, how she uses them to paint pictures of court under the new conquerors, which doesn't mean the Targs were doing untoward stuff. It just means she used them to get people more to see them all in a more positive light and encourage them not to think of them as foreign weirdo tyrants. Which they're weren't and proved to be through:

her & Visenya arranging noble marriages, taking on noble scions as their cupbearers or ladies-in-waiting

Aegon going on progresses and adjudcating between lords in their conflicts before it can come to blows/arms

long enough and many enough times without people making a fuss or records of complaints filing down in popular history that we can see that very few lords and ladies were actually "oppressed" or had anything serious or true to accuse the Conquerors of. (Dorne doesn't count bc they were never a part of the first condition of kingdoms thus Aegon never went there to meet with lords to judge their cases and issues and conflicts as if he were their lord).

When I think of "love-love", as I say about what sort of "love" the singers are talking about, I mean the kind of "love" that makes you want to really know someone and be close to them before you really know them--an important part of emotional attraction, thus love, but this is a digression. Necessary, but a digression, still. We'd have to go into what types of "falling in love" or just "love" people talk about when they say "I loved you even in the first moments we had together", and that's a discussion for another time entirely. Something literature has been bounding about for centuries.

Also, I think that it's not enough for us to say that because he killed someone he must have fallen "in love" w/Laena and then say he "risked" his reputation. Daemon canonically doesn't really give a damn about his reputation for its own sake. And the Sealord's son was not as important as you think bc the Sealord died way before Daemon even dueled the son ("A Question of Succession"):

He had no solid backing anymore. He was a courtesy guest by the time Daemon rolled up. The outrage that could have erupted if Daemon just killed him, duel or not, would be more towards the son's youth and Daemon riling him up--being "unfair"--which again why would Daemon be intimidated by that? And he had little to no real problems killing him ("A Question of Succession"):

So yes, he dueled to get Laena, but it wasn't really a as much of a bother or a risk for him.

BUT

None of this precludes Daemon being drawn to Laena and ardently wanting to marry her because he was attracted to her. Because he thought she'd make an excellent partner. Or that Laena wasn't involved and wanted him to get rid of her "problem" or that she didn't reciprocate. I haven't seen the contrary, suggestive or clear.

And at the same time, killing Rhea vs killing the Sealord's son is a different matter altogether. I think he'd definitely kill Rhea Royce if he could get away with it, esp with the new motive to marry Rhaenyra if you want to take it there. But, bc:

Rhea's house was a house sworn as a vassal to the Arryns (Aemma's house, so not only bad politically but also Viserys would take it even more personally...likely)

her marriage to Daemon was royally arranged (likely by Alysanne)

and Daemon had already been trying to get the marriage annulled for years and Viserys refused

And why would Daemon want to get away with it if he actually didn't care about his people declaring him so evil if he had killed Rhea? Because it would also still risk Viserys react by full out banning him from coming to court, maybe the realm. Which is counterintuitive to any possible plan on getting Rhaenyra.

Plus the Sealord's son was killed in Corlys'/the Velaryon's domains under circumstances Corlys created. Daemon has much more plausible deniability or protections here.

D)

I do believe that bk!Daemon was drawn to bk!Laena more for more than just her looks (which fit the criteria of his visual preferences) in the beginning and came to be deeply in love with her, something I amend from my recent 2 posts about physical vs emotional attraction. She was 22 when he arrived at Driftmark and she bonded w/Vhagar at 12--the oldest, biggest, and most war-experienced dragon that existed then--which absolutely would have impressed the Targ/Valyria-legacy-obsessed Daemon. It also ties Visenya to his him, narratively as we know he also has Visenya's sword. Visenya, who like him was first and foremost, for the continuation of the Targ dynasty and political power, even as they both chafed at its traditional/historical joinedness with the the Andal Faith culture. Laena herself was reportedly a pleasure to just watch and interact with, and as bold as Daemon seems to like his partners.

Laena comes from a family who--for all intents, history of going to marry her to a late-twenty yr old man (Viserys), and had Laenor marry Rhaenyra--seems to be more able to practice the freedoms that the crown doesn't the Targs while still (through Rhaenys) enjoy the presence and political/psychological effects of dragonriding. We already know through Rhaena [Dreamfyre's rider] that Valyrian-descent people can become much more self confident after bonding w/a dragon. Rhaenys, we know, was a very proud woman and I doubt she and the sea-proud/explorative/ambitious Sea Snake Corlys would have not imparted some values and ideas to their kids that developed both of their boldness. For 12 years, even w/o a dragon, she had nothing to feel inferior about her Velaryon sea-bound heritage. At least not horribly enough to say she developed any sort of inferiority complex or felt terribly inferior to Laenor or Rhaenys before she bonded w/Vhagar at 12.

Rhaenys claimed Meleys when she was 13, so she was not a"cradle-bonding-baby" either, IF we argue that Laenor was (we have no undebatable evidence of Laenor being this or having claimed Seasmoke as a baby/egg). In a way, Laena had enjoyed more freedoms than Rhaenyra, too, as she got to be "alone" for 22 years while Rhaenyra had to marry at 17 to someone who'd never be attracted to her, much less romantically love her. AND she escaped an unworthy marriage to some Sealord's son who couldn't manage money fand didn't control himself.

Again, she escaped another bad marriage others arranged for her, this time through Daemon. And this would have been discussed b/t them, I think, very soon either before or after Daemon talked with Corlys. Maybe at the same time (wouldn't have that been so nice to see in the show?!) Because it was a way for her to marry someone she wanted.

So Laena had a different relationship to herself and dragons by the time she and Daemon "hung out". Is it really any wonder that many prefer shipping Daemon with her over Daemyra?

It would have been a different dynamic, but not without love or true care.

At the same time, I think in the beginning that Daemon thought getting close to her and the rest of the family who already have his cousin, Rhaenys, around would better tie the Velaryons to the Targaryens/Rhaenyra & Viserys against the greens/Otto. Even as Viserys banished him--for nothing else, that legacy-keeping.

E)

While show!Daemon doesn't take that long to sleep w/Rhaenyra (a few weeks at most) after Laena's death and Laenor's deaths.

First, Laena, Laenor , and Harwin ALL die in the same year--120, the "Year of the Red Spring". Laena dies in the very first few days; Aegon the younger/Aegon III is born in the very last few days of the same year.

Second, Laenor dies not very long after Laena does ("A Question of Succession"):

AND the text says that it was not "half a year" (5-6 months) since BOTH Laena and Laenor died that Daemyra marries ("A Question of Succession"):

I talk about the timing of Aegon's birth HERE, and how it makes me think that, for once, Mushroom's testimony about their marriage is not totally incorrect. Yes, Aegon was conceived before Daemyra married.

It takes 8-9 months to have a healthy, safe infant (taking into consideration how these people have no medical tech like our own. Even after labors of full-term, women died a lot more frequently in their labors, esp in this House), Aegon seems to have been conceived at most, 2-3 or so months earlier than when they got married. Which also means that Rhaenyra and Daemon began sleeping with each other not long at all after Laena's death--depending on your measurement and definition of "long" here.

Still, unlike HotD that makes it literally maybe a few weeks after she dies, the book gives us at least some grace-time of 4-5 months before the earliest possible day they began having sex after Laena's death. I don't think this was the reason or the primary reason for them to want to marry each other--I think it was the catalyst--but this doesn't preclude Daemon having loved Laena.

Daemyras are so violently racist towards Baela, Rhaena and Laena, it baffles me. Sometimes, I’ll be having a good time on the internet or reading a fic, and then I’ll stumble upon something profoundly racist. The racism I've seen is actually turning me off the ship and the characters.

Laena was not Daemon's second choice. He loved her. They were happy, and they had three wonderful children together. They toured Essos together, and he flew to Dragonstone to get Rhaenyra's maester to try to save her life. He loved her deeply, and he mourned her when she passed. 

You can love more than one person, and admitting that Daemon loved Laena will not kill you or take away his love for Rhaenyra. Admitting that Baela and Daemon are practically twins will not kill you, it does not take away from the love that he had for Rhaena, Aegon, Viserys and Rhaenyra’s boys. Love is infinite, it can be shared. 

[ingravinoveritas]

Following up on this excellent post from @nightgoodomens, it really is astonishing to see so many people in the GO fandom misunderstanding the characters/personalities of Aziraphale and Crowley. While I by no means am against people having head canons or differing interpretations, it has become frustrating to see people pushing their ideas about Aziraphale and Crowley onto others and declaring them to be official canon, leaving no room for any kind of discussion.

One of the things spoken about in the above linked post is the denigrating of Crowley, which seems to be a near constant in the fandom at this point, particularly in relation to the "apology dance" scene. (Which, to be fair, is chock full of soft!Dom Aziraphale vibes--thank you, Michael Sheen.) What seems to keep getting missed is that the entire apology dance routine is something that Aziraphale and Crowley do to each other. There is just as much of a possibility that Crowley sat there with a similarly smug look on his face and let out a guttural, snakey "Very nice" when Aziraphale did the dance in the years he listed off, because they play this game together.

Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship is one of equals, and I think this is also something people seem to not understand well. It seems as though a lot of fans who project themselves onto Crowley want to be taken care of, and so they want to believe the same of Crowley, and that the reason he wants to be taken care of is because he is broken. But someone doesn't have to be broken to want someone to take care of them. Sometimes the people who are a shambles on the outside can be dominant, just as sometimes the most buttoned up, put together people can also be submissive. And sometimes the people who look in control on the outside can feel not at all that way on the inside.

But this nuanced thinking seems to increasingly be difficult for many GO fans, particularly those who spend a great deal of time on social media, a place where people are either blindly praised or denigrated and torn down, and where such behavior greatly reinforces that binary, black-and-white mindset. We so badly want the world to be clear-cut--good vs. evil, heroes vs. bad guys--but very often that just isn't how things work. And it is exactly what Terry and Neil were trying to speak against in the GO book (and subsequently, the TV show).

The other thing that I think influences a lot of fans' perceptions about Aziraphale and Crowley is their chosen corporations (i.e., Crowley being thin and Aziraphale being plump). There is an automatic assumption that thin somehow equals more vulnerable, and for all of the emphasis that is placed on Aziraphale and Crowley being genderfluid/nonbinary/not subscribing to traditional gender roles, it's Crowley who seems to be viewed as more androgynous/femme, and is therefore looked at as inherently vulnerable. Meanwhile Aziraphale is thicker and viewed as more masculine, and therefore he is somehow inherently not vulnerable. Yet if the body types were reversed, it seems highly likely that fans' attitudes toward them would be much different.

(It also saddens me that this seems to mirror the fans' treatment of Michael and David, where Michael serves as a target for the fans' venom and is seen as less desirable/more threatening because he presents more traditionally masculine, while David is not targeted or attacked and is seen as more desirable/less threatening because he presents much more androgynously. Consequently, many fans find it easy not to sympathize with Michael, and when you can readily disregard someone's feelings, it becomes easier to see them as "less." In the case of Aziraphale and Michael, it leaves no room for either one to be vulnerable and is unfair to both of them.)

What I have always taken away from Good Omens--and from Michael and David's portrayal of Aziraphale and Crowley and how deeply they both understand these characters--is that Crowley doesn't need to be a perfect angel for Aziraphale to like him. He just needs to be a little bit of a good person. And Aziraphale doesn't need to be a perfect demon for Crowley to like him--he just needs to be enough of a bastard to be worth knowing. Neither one has to fully subscribe to the other's outlook or point of view to listen to what they have to say.

Aziraphale and Crowley meet in the middle. In the place that becomes their side, and where they take care of each other, fight with each other, and love each other. And that's more than most of us could ever ask or hope for...

[applepie2523]

" HOTD's Issues Writing Women Part 2: The Whitewashing of Rhaenyra

**This is part 2 of my analysis on the issues with the writing of the two main female characters. If you haven’t already please read my part 1 post where I analyze Alicent’s character assassination which you can find on my profile.** I think many fans on the Blacks and Greens and in between regarding HOTD have been concerned and disappointed with the way the two main female characters: Rhaenyra Targaryen and Alicent Hightower have been written in HOTD seasons 1-2. This is very understandable. Female characters in general in HOTD and I think a lot of Hollywood films nowadays are not being written as well as they used to be and could be. Go on Youtube or Google and you'll find many film reviews/tv show reviews that critique the Mary Sue and Girlbossification or just poorly written in general female characters that are taking up a chunk of characters in Hollywood. Rhaenyra and Alicent to me were such great characters in F&B. They were two different kinds of medieval women in a fantasy setting. One, the medieval queen who gains power/influence through her relationship with men and advocating for her son. Two, the medieval queen who sought power in her name and defied some norms that make her compelling but also immoral in their eyes. They are two deeply flawed and complex characters fighting on opposite sides of a dynastic civil war.

This post is here to address the main issues of whitewashing when it comes to writing Rhaenyra Targaryen.

\***Some disclaimers: This is no issue with the actor themself. Emma D'Arcy while I may disagree with their opinions from time to time, they are a wonderful actor who is doing the best they can with the scripts they're given, so this is by no means a critique of them. I am going off of the show canon although the book will be mentioned.**

**So firstly... What is whitewashing?**

The modern definition of white washing is to cast in a show/movie or rewrite a character of a minority and make them white. For example, if someone decides to do a movie about Rosa Parks and they cast Emma Stone. However, white washing has another definition. It means to essentially remove or hide negative unpleasant facts or traits of a person or thing. I think Rhaenyra Targaryen suffers from this problem as many of her written negative traits or deeds so far are either not shown, projected onto another character close to her (Daemon Targaryen mostly), or severely downplayed. This results in a character that is almost too virtuous and bland for the setting she is in and a far cry from who she should be. A character whom doesn't seem to fit in the ruthless at times immoral world of Westeros. A character whom is almost a close to a Mary Sue. As I am very much on the belief that flaws versus virtues are what make a character compelling and human.

**I will say not every change made to Rhaenyra story arc and personality are necessarily all bad. Some are good ideas just poorly executed (ex - exploring more of Rhaenyra's hinted bisexuality, as there are hints in F&B that her close relationship with Laena may or may not have been more than platonic) and others are just good changes in general.**

*1. Victims vs. Villains - Biases in Writing Female Characters*

In the words of the iconic Grey's Anatomy actress Ellen Pompeo, “Women are one of two roles. You’re either the victim or the villain. But the victims are only victims because they don’t have what it takes to be the villain.” I think she states the major issue with writing female characters nowadays that HOTD has an issue with. Women must either be victims or villains. The character assassination of Alicent and white washing of Rhaenyra to me stems from this: Alicent is the villain in Rhaenyra's story to Rhaenyra's victimhood.

*2. Rhaenyra's Negative Traits: Arrogance, Hot Temper, Frivolity, and Bad Decisions to Peace-Loving and Plainness*

Rhaenyra had many great qualities in the book but it is only when coupled with major character flaws are we truly compelled. She was a loving mother, passionate, intelligent to a degree, etc. However, she was also very ambitious and power-hungry, arrogant at times, quick to anger, slow to forgive, and frivolous at times. **As a writer myself, I firmly believe that characters are truly humanized and compelling when they have major character flaws coupled with their virtues. Flaws they either have to overcome or use to their advantage. Flaws that make them who they are. Flaws create layers of complexity in a character. Or Flaws that help foster the characters downfall.**

I'm not saying the Rhaenyra in the show isn't flawed. She is! For example, I think what's great is that a flaw they gave Rhaenyra is something show Viserys also had: the ability to ignore or downplay potential conflicts or hard truths versus facing them head on. Viserys refused to see the potential conflicts in naming Rhaenyra heir or pretending her elder three children are trueborn. Rhaenyra in the show refused to listen to Jace whose concerns regarding his parentage as her successor and the dragonseeds were ignored or dismissed. The issue is thought, Rhaenyra is not given the flaws that she most certainly had, **flaws that helped lead to her downfall**. She's not flawed the way she's supposed to be.

Similar to many other Targaryens including her half-brother Aegon II, Rhaenyra was quick to anger and slow to forgive. We have some brief moments where we see Rhaenyra's temper and quick witt, but we don't see the major moments where her major character flaws are shown. Alicent provokes Rhaenyra for example in season 1, having her take Joffrey to her moments after he is born. We never see Rhaenyra provoke Alicent back. Any times where we should have seen Rhaenyra's sharp temper at the slightest of remarks are not shown.

Rhaenyra's actions herself were also very whitewashed with how they were portrayed. We either see their negative consequences downplayed, not shown, or the actions were projected onto another male character. In the books due to how similar Laenor and Rhaenyra were in looks (I mean they were both white) there was still a tad more ambiguity as to whether or not Jace, Luke, and Joffrey were bastards. Race changing the Velaryons made it even more obvious her elder three boys were bastards. I took issue with the writing of Rhaenyra's dialogue and that of the characters around her, not truly showcasing why having bastards, especially as a woman, is a truly egregious thing. The potential chaos Rhaenyra could cause was completely downplayed.

A few actions for example that were incredibly violent and evil were butchered. First example being the murder of Vaemond Velaryon. I was disappointed with this scene. Firstly, we only see Vaemond protest Luke inheriting Driftmark which sets it up as more so an ambitious second son seeking power versus a man who doesn't want his house to be run by someone not of his blood. We don't see other Velaryons protesting with him. After Vaemond made his little speech, Rhaenyra orders him dead and Daemon kills him on **her orders**. She then viciously has his corpse fed to her dragon Syrax. I think this scene was crucial as it foreshadows the danger Rhaenyra would be in the future to House Velaryon and sow more seeds of discontent that are crucial to the house's eventual turn to the Green side. Not only is Vaemond killed more viciously, Viserys orders the tongue removal of even more Velaryons who sided with Vaemond with Rhaenyra's consent! Instead, the show projects this entirely onto Daemon. Daemon goes Rogue (see what I did there) and kills Vaemond on his own accord. Rhaenyra stands there shocked and doesn't even order the body fed to her dragon. Rhaenyra is absolved from all blame to Vaemond's unjust execution without trial.

The thing about B&C is Rhaenyra was paralyzed with grief for her son, Luke. The moment her child died was the moment where her descent into madness and powerful wrath began to truly manifest and she would stop at nothing. I was very disappointed in the fact that she has one episode of grieving and then continues to be so level-headed. I couldn't feel her grief, rage, and resentment towards the Greens for her son's death that makes the war even worse. Daemon tells Rhaenyra that he would avenge her son. I loved the acting of Matt and Emma during their argument about the aftermath. However, I felt like Rhaenyra wasn't acting on character with the book. I don't think book Rhaenyra was 100% okay with a child dying as her vengeance, but I do feel with how angered and filled with grief and hatred Rhaenyra should be, Rhaenyra should be a bit more hardened. She should have not been so sorry about the child's death.

I also think that one of Rhaenyra's most controversial and evil decisions in the future are going to either not be included, blamed on someone else, or downplayed. It's very clear at the end of season 2 episode 8 that my favorite dragonseed Nettles is being cut and given to Rhaena who had her own plot and dragon hatchling. After Ulf the White and Hugh Hammer betray her, Rhaenyra's paranoia goes overload and declares that all the dragonseeds are traitors. Corlys advocates for Addam Velaryon and Nettles and Rhaenyra responds by having him arrested. He warns Addam, and is then bound, beaten, and thrown into the black cells. One of her most powerful allies is now thrown in the black cells. This causes the fleet of House Velaryon to turn against her. Later, she attempts to violate guest right, which is sacred in Westeros (which is why the Red Wedding was so horrific to Westeros even more so), by plotting to have Nettles murdered. As Nettles is being cut, I doubt they'd show this truly negative action as Rhaena can't have Nettles's complete plot. Rhaenyra's unjust arrest of Corlys and House Velaryon turning from her from what they're doing so far might just be blamed on someone else, have a different excuse that is not the one that the book gave, or not shown whatsoever.

I also think they might just be setting her up to be innocent of the torture of Tyland Lannister. After the Greens flee with most of the treasury leaving Rhaenyra in Kingslanding pretty broke, he refused to tell her where the gold was sent. Under Rhaenyra's orders he was tortured and castrated and blinded and disfigured to point of being disgusting. They might just have him be tortured by Mysaria or Daemon on their own accord without Rhaenyra's orders, leaving her innocent, or they will have him tortured by the Triarchy or something. Maybe after Mysaria and/or Daemon torture him, they'll frame it as vengeance for Jace and then Rhaenyra might let him go to appear merciful to an audience. As they cut Maelor whose murder was the breaking point that caused Helaena's suicide, we might not see how another child under the war was murdered by her faction. I worry that they won't show how how her cruelties that she did on her own accord caused her to be hated just as much if not more than her half brothers Aegon II and Aemond. They might not truly set the tone and show actions that lead to her being "Rhaenyra the Cruel" and "Maegor with Teats" they might not show the actions, or blame them on someone else or something else. They might not have her tax into oblivion the smallfolk or send her knight inquisitors to execute dozens upon dozens of supposed or proven Green traitors. I was also confused by the characterization of the smallfolk as these naive little lambs who will follow whatever. There is no famine or riot against the Greens at the point the show showed it. I was pleased with the fact that we saw the book-accurate support the smallfolk gave to Helaena after her son was murdered and how angered they were at Rhaenyra and the Blacks. However, days later they are singing her praises. It makes no sense to me that they would forget something so easily. Of course, I argue in another post on my profile why the riot and famine made no sense. So they might continue to get rid of her all of her negative actions.

**These evil actions make her even more compelling and even more realistic in a violent medieval world. It shows how both sides commit great evils as both Rhaenyra and Aegon II were not remembered fondly by their own descendants, smallfolk, and nobles alike.**

I also hate how they hardly showed just how feminine almost girly Rhaenyra was. Rhaenyra notably loved fashion and wearing beautiful intricate gowns that always showed off her beauty and figure. She dressed very richly as befitting her station, wearing gowns of purple with maroon velvet and Myrish lace. Her bodices often had pearls and diamonds. She always wore rings on her finger that she'd play with and turn when anxious. I honestly found these traits very endearing and relatable as someone who is a girly girl. Finally, a "strong female character" who is a leader who is also very feminine and girly. She doesn't need to be a tomboy and wield a sword to be a badass. But no... we don't see that. Yes the costumes Emma D'Arcy wore were nice I guess on the show but they didn't feel like something book Rhaenyra would wear. I get they had budgets but still... you couldn't have made something else? Like where is the purple and maroon? She's mostly wearing just red and black. No rings. No nothing!

*3. Unequal Screen Time and Too "Modernized": Rhaenyra is the Main Modern Girl*

I feel like HOTD has a problem with perspective. GOT had it perfectly done! The original ASOIAF were written from the perspective of multiple characters so we got a perfect ensemble cast with writing that highlighted the stories and perspectives of many different characters. Jon Snow's narrative didn't overtake Daenerys's screen time and vice versa which is just how it should be. However, I feel HOTD makes a mistake especially in season 1 with framing. Rhaenyra as the main with secondary-main perspectives of Alicent and Daemon. We get most of season 1 from Rhaenyra's perspective and to a lesser extent Daemon and Alicent when the show should have been formatted like GOT as multiple perspectives were given in F&B. We should have gotten an ensemble cast with equal development and perspective from multiple characters, especially an equal development of both Aegon II and Rhaenyra. We get both of Rhaenyra's weddings, two births, her raising her children, many scenes with her dragon, her perspective, and her interactions. Our first intro to her sets her up in a more heroic light as she's a beautiful princess riding her dragon. We don't get Aegon II's wedding or Alicent's. No birth scenes for Alicent or Helaena. We hardly get their perspectives compared to Rhaenyra. We should have seen more of Aegon II's childhood and perspective versus just him being a bully and later a rapist. While they improved perspective a bit more in season 2, it's not enough to take away from what was done in season 1. Rhaenyra is the protagonist and **THE main character versus A main character.**

What I think they should have done is showcase the real dynamic of Alicent and Rhaenyra more. They can start off with their friendship but then transition it to the dynamic that both women had at court: competition. Both women wanted to be First Lady of the Realm and first priority to King Viserys. The Queen vs the Princess and named heir.

Rhaenyra does at times come off as more modern than she should be. I think her and even her aunt Rhaenys. For example, in the book Rhaenyra is at times very homophobic by our standards to Laenor. When she discovers she's to marry Laenor Velaryon in the show, we see her initially not too excited about it, but not fully antagonistic. She in fact has a very decent and friendship like conversation where she uses the metaphor of preferring roast duck to insinuate she understands and accepts Laenor for being gay, deciding to do their duty and support one another, while pursuing their own pleasure with each other's consent with whomever that may be. They appear to be very supportive of one another times, at least on Rhaenyra's end. She compliments him deeply when he says he wishes he were different.

While I'm sure on some level Rhaenyra wishes Laenor was bisexual at the very least so they can have more than a friendship and have trueborn kids together, Rhaenyra is almost too accepting for her medieval context. In the medieval world, same sex relationships were a HUGE no-no. In fact being gay was considered a mental illness and sickness up until the 20th century! Rhaenyra appears too accepting of Laenor, appearing too modern in just how accepting she is. In reality, while I'm sure Book Rhaenyra cared for Laenor on some level and had some kind of respect for him and affection, it wasn't this deep and this accepting. Laenor did mean something to her on some level, after all he is still the man she married, and very important to her storyline---however Rhaenyra in the book as a much more medieval reaction and medieval view on his sexuality. She was notably very unhappy about her betrothal to him. It took serious threats from King Viserys to remove her from the line of succession in order to get her on board and she did so reluctantly. She notably even said that "My half brothers would be more to his taste." This is a very cutting and almost homophobic statement. I mean her half-brothers were still toddlers. However, we never get any true antagonism, frustration, or even subtle or outward homophobia on Rhaenyra's end. While this statement is mean and homophobic, that is a more medieval response. It's sad, but it's true. Rhaenyra is a medieval woman in a medieval setting. She is a product of what her society raised her to be, which is being gay isn't something one should accept.

The same issue occurs with Rhaenys having an almost too modern point of view or opinion that doesn't fit with her medieval setting. When she discovers her husband Corlys Velaryon has bastard children, Addam and Alyn of Hull, she is neither furious nor disappointed or horrified. In fact, Rhaenys advocates that they deserve to be "raised up and honored not hidden in the tides." This is an incredibly unrealistic and unfitting reaction on Rhaenys's end. In our modern day society, even, if a woman finds out her husband cheated on her and sired kids off his side chick, she'd be furious. Of course, I think a moral modern woman wouldn't take her anger out on the children, but still. Rhaenys's reaction is almost too modern and too gracious. Characters are products of their circumstances. Despite Westeros being a fantasy world, we feel how medieval the characters are through their beliefs and behaviors. Catelyn Stark or Cersei Lannister's reactions to their husband's bastards is far more realistic---specifically how Catelyn and Cersei hated what their husbands had done and felt it was an affront to them personally. Corlys in the books was terrified of Rhaenys finding out as it would dishonor him, her, and their dead children together which is why he tried to pass them off as Laenor's no matter how ridiculous is sounded. Rhaenys should have been more realistically horrified at Corlys and angry. She shouldn't be advocating for them to be anywhere near her house or imply they should have been raised amongst their own trueborn children.

I think this does two things: 1) Makes it though Rhaenys is fully on Rhaenyra's side when raising her bastard children of Harwin as if they are her trueborn grandsons and 2) Modernizes her too much. That is a main issue. The show attempts to modernize her and make her appeal to a more modern audience. However, there is a way to do that without modernizing her so much that she doesn't seem to fit with her medieval context.

was very disappointed when I heard that the directors told Olivia Cooke to portray Alicent as "woman for Trump" and Rhaenyra is this "punk-rock Hillary Clinton." Modern day politics and movements and ideologies have little to no place in the way Westeros should be written as its a **realistic medieval setting with realistic medieval characters in a fantasy world**. Rhaenyra is too modern in her interactions and beliefs that she doesn't seem to fit well in Westeros. Rhaenyra as well is also presented as this more feminist character.

*4. Two Things Can Be True At Once: Women Can Be Victims of Sexism AND Still Do Terrible Things, Be Self-Serving, and Wield Significant Amounts of Power*

**What I ultimately believe that Condal and the HOTD production seem to get wrong is that in a medieval setting like Westeros, women are ALWAYS overlooked and dismissed and cannot take so much significant power. I feel like they believe that women can't do terrible things in the patriarchal system of Westeros while being victims of sexism.**

Women in the real middle ages and Westeros in Martin's story are not feminists by our definition. At times we see women take advantage of and gain power from the sexist patriarchal society they live in. We see it with Cersei Lannister, Margaery Tyrell, Daenerys Targareyen, Catelyn Stark, Olenna Tyrell, Ellaria Sand, Lysa Arryn, Melisandre, Arya Stark, Sansa Stark, every woman in the original GOT series were victims of sexism and an oppressive patriarchal system of Westeros just like real women of the Middle Ages AND YET they still were able to wield some power and do terrible or morally gray things. We can view them as victims of a horrible system but still see how they take advantage of it, gain power and agency as they have no choice to use the system versus fight it, do horrible things, but still view them as victims.

Rhaenyra is one example! I will say that this is partly more so the interpretation of the modern casual audience versus a writing issue, but it is still a writing issue that there are people who believe her to be a feminist. She's not! Of course just because she isn't one doesn't mean you can't root for her, but don't root for her if you think she's a feminist. We might never see the moments where Rhaenyra herself is denying women rights of inheritance from Lady Stokeworth to Lady Rosby. We should have been emphasized that Rhaenyra is not the closest thing to a modern day feminist. She is not advocating for women's rights or to make the world better for women, but to be an exception to the rule. Like most medieval woman in power, she takes advantage of the patriarchal system and gets power from it. Laena Velaryon is older than Laenor. She takes advantage of patriachal rulings to install her (bastard) "son of Laenor" as future Lord of Driftmark versus advocating that the eldest child, Baela Targaryen, daughter of Laena Velaryon, the elder sibling, to inherit Driftmark.

Victims can be villainous too! Soft power. Rarely in the Medieval world do we see women wield a hard power in their own name. Of course we have outliers, but in the end most medieval women wielded a soft power---gaining influence and power through manipulating their relationships with men (their husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, etc.). Did real Medieval women know they were oppressed? Perhaps they did, and perhaps they accepted it. Did real Medieval women make efforts to change it? I wouldn't say so. Many women upheld the status quo of men being dominant.

For example, in keeping with British history that Martin is so inspired by, going off of blood-ties alone, Lady Margaret Beaufort had a stronger claim to the English throne via her Lancastrian blood than her own son Henry VII, and yet she advocated for her son not herself to be the next ruler of England. Queen Elizabeth Woodville had three daughters (Elizabeth, Cecily, and Mary) before she had her son Edward V. Like any medieval woman with three daughters alone there was growing pressure to secure her husband's line and her own position by producing a male heir. She never tried to name any of her elder daughters over her son once she had him nor did she ever try to advocate to her husband King Edward IV that he didn't need a male heir, he had his eldest daughter Elizabeth of York.

Rhaenyra Targaryen as well is presented almost like she's pursuing power to make Westeros better and that she has more altruistic and kind intentions behind her actions. I mean this weird "Aegon Prophecy" contributes to it. I think we should have seen a more realistic medieval and Westerosi character by having Rhaenyra, just like Alicent or Aegon II, pursue power because she can! Pursue power and queenship for the sake of having it and because she believes herself entitled to it versus these more "virtuous reasons." I mean in the book she never considered accepting the peace terms despite how generous they were because she refused to renounce her claim and back down! She wanted power because felt entitled to it and because every character in Westeros wants power to some degree. Ambition is a theme and characteristic that unites every character in Martin's world.

**My Takeaway? The Writers are Biased and Fail to Understand the Medieval Context of Westeros and Martin's Female Characters. Don't implement modern politics and biases into a medieval show**

I love that Martin tries to write his women the way he writes his men. He has explicitly stated that he writes his women the way he writes his men. He states that women are people too. They can be driven by the same things men are in Westeros and/or the real world: love, anger, hatred, a desire for power, vengeance, grief, guilt, bringing glory to their name and themselves, a desire to protect their family, etc.

Most of all: **Westeros is a realistic medieval world with realistic medieval characters in an unrealistic fantasy setting.** So you have to look at it from primarily a medieval lens in order to fully understand it and its character. While its okay to analyze using some modern concepts and lenses (ex - analyze how Daemon is a pedophile) you have to couple it with a lot of grace and understanding of their medieval context and morals that impacts the way the characters behave as we are products of our own historical context (ex - remembering that pedophilia and child grooming isn't much of a concept in the medieval world. The moment a girl has her first period, they are a consenting woman in his context).

So I find it disingenuous to write off all of Rhaenyra Targaryen's negative traits as just nothing but maester propaganda and due to sexism. I disliked how they downplayed her ambition, arrogance, rage, and cruelties to make her appear more modern and peaceful and the most virtuous character on the show. Yes, perhaps sexism could have had some tie into how Rhaenyra was viewed in Westeros. However, historians in the real world can't just dismiss reports about what a medieval woman was like simply because of the sexist world they were living in. By that standard, perhaps a woman like Queen Anne of Brittany wasn't all that bad or Margaret of Anjou. By that standard anything that was negative about the personalities of any medieval woman in power is all just rubbish and not true.

I felt we should have seen more of the kind of women that Martin writes. The kind of women that fit with his medieval-fantasy narrative that showcases how pursuing power at all costs leads to nothing but ruin. We should have seen layered women. We should have seen a more book-accurate Rhaenyra. We shouldn't have to settle for a lackluster story where Rhaenyra is nowhere close to her book counterpart.

**And most of all, the HOTD team shouldn't subtly or outwardly bash the original source material as nothing but sexist propaganda to excuse the lackluster writing of the female characters being nothing like their book counterparts or subtly or outwardly write off critics and fans like myself as toxic for pointing it out.**

**If you like this analysis, read on my profile my part 1 when I delve into the issues with HOTD’s Alicent.** "

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

I read GRRM’s interview regarding book vs show canon and I thought the way he was approaching an adaptation of his own story, and fiction as a whole, was very interesting. I do wonder though - does the concept of having a separate show canon kind of become like a cop-out? Because in that case, any TV/film adaptation can just decide to change the plot as they see fit and go “oh, well, that’s our canon, the book is a different canon.” Doesn’t it cease to be an adaptation after a point, or at least become a loose one? In the HotD context, a lot of the changes being made I actually quite like because I can see them fitting in the canon, because there’s nothing suggesting otherwise.

But say, Sansa marrying Ramsay (or, alternatively, the moment that show was dead to me) we can say with absolute certainty did not take place and will almost definitely never take place. D&D knew that too but they went ahead with it anyway; it’s not quite like the Scarlett example where it makes no difference to the story because this change does. I feel like the whole point of adapting written words into something visual loses some of its sanctity if we just accept TV changes a whole separate canon, as opposed to simply a change made by the writers (good change or bad change is up to personal opinion).

I have followed your blog for almost a decade so I’m really curious to hear your thoughts on the subject.

GRRM's "Scarlett example" -- his question of "how many children did Scarlett O'Hara have?", because in the book Gone With the Wind she had three, one with each of her three husbands, whereas in the movie she only had one -- has been his go-to when asked about the difference between book and show canon since at least 2012. Or to quote him from 2015,

How many children did Scarlett O’Hara have? Three, in the novel. One, in the movie. None, in real life: she was a fictional character, she never existed. The show is the show, the books are the books; two different tellings of the same story.

This is IMO one of the most sensible ways for an author to look at adaptations of their work (even if I have gotten rather tired of GRRM using the Scarlett example specifically, pick something different George, we've seen it before lol). There is book canon and there is show canon. They are different parallel universes. They're separate canons because they contain changes made by the writers, and also because the very process of moving from the written word to visual media must involve some kind of change.

And this applies to all adaptations. That's why I brought up X-Men comics vs the Fox X-Men movies vs the X-Men cartoon (original 90s and 2024's '97). For example, there's 4 different versions of the Dark Phoenix Saga between those canons, at the very least. Wait, sorry lol, I forgot the Ultimate canon version. And the various in-comics alternate universe versions. And god knows when they finally bring the X-Men into the MCU they'll probably do yet another DPS there too. And that's only one of many storylines that are radically different between the various canons.

Or look at the various Interviews with the Vampire. Is the new tv show "not an adaptation" because its Claudia is a teenager rather than 5 years old as in the book or portrayed by an 11 year old as in the movie, thus resulting in extremely different relationships and a reshaped plot? (Among many other changes?) No. IWTV has book canon, movie canon, and show canon.

And I can't speak that well about Transformers since it's not a major fandom of mine, but go take a look at their various continuities if you want some more perspective about just how very far the meaning of "adaptation" can stretch.

Or hell, look at Stephen King, where among his many many many adaptations, some of which just barely resemble the original text, the only one he sued to have his name removed from was The Lawnmower Man, because they literally used an entirely different story and just slapped his title on it.

And then there's the movie Adaptation, which is a wildly meta-adaptation of the non-fiction book The Orchard Thief (it's a story about the process of adapting that book and involves a fictional version of the writer, the screenplay writer, and an entirely invented screenplay writer's twin brother)... and it was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay for multiple film awards (and won a few times), and the original writer even said it kept to the book's themes.

Suffice it to say, HOTD has a long, long, long way to go before it could ever "cease to be an adaptation after a point". Changing the timeline to make Alicent and Rhaenyra the same age, or doing Blood & Cheese differently, do not even compare to what some book-to-visual media "loose adaptations" have done. Even GOT, as wildly terrible as their non-book storylines could be, both their changes to the text and after they had no actual text to work with, never became a "loose adaptation". Certainly it became a less than faithful adaptation -- and let's be real, it always was unfaithful for both themes and the essential elements of so many characters -- but it also always was a remarkably accurate adaptation of the whole span of Westeros (in geography and breadth of characters) and the general (not specific) book plot. (Consider previous attempts at adaptation that GRRM rejected, such as a single 2 hour movie, or eliminating Jon and Dany for being "irrelevant", or only making a Jon movie with none of the other storylines, etc.) Which is why, when GOT was different (and awful) it was such a betrayal, like a zombie or evil alien wearing the skin of your best friend or beloved child, and worse, that this twisted lookalike was the only version millions and millions of viewers ever saw and believed to be true.

But again, this just underlines what GRRM has said. "The show is the show, the books are the books." There is book canon and there is show canon. They are separate things. Parallel universes -- very close parallels, often touching in many places, but sometimes they're quite different. Sometimes the differences in adaptation enhance the themes of the original canon; sometimes the author may even consider certain adapted characters (Shae, King Viserys, Helaena) to be better than his original canon; sometimes you know there's only those tricky NDAs (and payments of lots of money) that prevent him from expressing his disappointment in more ways than dropping the Sansa TWOW preview chapter only days before the release of GOT S5. But perhaps if we're lucky, maybe one day we'll have yet another parallel canon to compare to the others.

[pinazee]

First season wrap up:

Okay, to start, i should mention my general opinion on first seasons for shows, especially cable shows, is not to read too much of it as canon. The writers, producers, actors- everyone- are all trying to figure out what works and what doesn’t, so i give them latitude, particularly when it conflicts with later seasons. That being said, i do enjoy jumping through the hoops to make it all fit haha

So heres a few leftover notes i had as i revisited the eps to rank them:

I bet part of Lassie was craving the father figure in Henry, since we find out later his own father passed away when he was quite young. I wonder if thats part of the reason why he became a cop, as they are portrayed as the protectors and in the 80’s they were mainly men (i don’t really remember if he states his reason later, i suspect he did and im just not remembering). So when Henry didn’t meet up to the expectation he had in his mind, i bet it hurt a little more as it reminded him of what he lost :/

I think the other reason Shawn plays dumb so much, besides hiding his genius so ppl believe hes psychic, or for laughs, is because its how he gets people talking. Like in Shawn vs. the red phantom, he purposely guessed the wrong room number so the boys would correct him. My apologies if someones pointed this out before, i haven’t combed through the internet for everyone’s theories 😬 i only now noticed. I’m not the quickest at picking these things up lol

If i had to guess, Shawn didn’t want to be a cop for halloween, he probably wanted to be something star wars related to go with Gus’s Lando. So i wonder at what age Shawn stopped trying to please his dad. But also, why didn’t his mother ever stand up for him?? I’ll come back to her later -_-

I somehow missed it the first time, but shawn clearly asked Gus to come to the dinner and Gus even points out that it was a big deal for henry to reach out. Soo, yeah, shawn obviously didn’t wanna be alone with his dad, and even henry seemed nervous about it as hes pretty drunk.

Shawn has a right to be afraid of pointy things, his dad hid his easter eggs under glass when he was 6! Not to mention he later gets stabbed 3 times! (Also its just a legitimate fear???)

So far the list of Shawns knowledge (things i wouldn’t expect an average person to know) includes (beyond the obvious observational skills, deductive reasoning, reading people (poker), and all things police (marksmanship, police codes, etc.)):

Incredible spatial and physical reasoning skills (knowing how much money could fit in the duffle bag, knowing to rotate the water pitcher to catch the reflection from the tv)

Kurt Vonnegut (well, I didn’t know who he was at least)

How to spell aggiornamento (and probably all words because of his photographic memory)

Handwriting expert

Casually spoke and understood german

Has every road he’s driven mapped in his brain, and likely all of Santa Barbara

Familiar with paint (enough to know to mix latex enamel for no messy drips)

Animal tracks (i went back and forth on this but ultimately decided he must have known what to look for)

And heres a list of Gus’s niche interests:

Forensics

Spelling bee

Safe cracking

Historic rifles

Comic books

Astronomy (even though he was going to the planetarium for the girl)

Law

Local tennis

Online poker

Lastly, Ive decided instead of ranking them, im putting them in tiers. I feel like too many of them are hitting at the same level and I can’t differentiate:

Sweetest, Juiciest Golden Pineapple Tier

Scary Sherry, Biancas toast (ohmygod i just got the biancas toast 🤦🏽‍♀️)

Blue Psych Logo Tier

Weekend warriors

Forget me not

From the earth to starbucks

Poker? I hardly know her! (Sorry @pineapple-psychic!)

Pepto Bismo Pink Tier

Spelling bee

Pilot

She loves me, she loves me not, she loves me oops hes dead

Who ya gonna call?

Shawn vs the red phantom

Oops Canadian Flag Tier

Cloudy with a chance of murder

9 lives

Game set muuurder

Speak now or forever hold your piece

Woman seeking dead husband, smokers okay, no pets