#and particularly how shiv weaponised it against him in living+

[pynkhues]

So I know people tend to have lots and lots of opinion about dog pound but more often then not, I’ve seen a tendency for folks to give Roman’s recollection of the game (that dog pound was bulling/abusive/messed up in some way shape or form) the most weight…and this candidly baffles me for a bunch of reasons. I know the actor's opinions don't need to be given weight, but I see tons of weight given to actor interviews for Succession in other contexts and both Jeremy and Kieran (per an interview with Kieran around S3) signed on to the read that dog pound wasn’t traumatizing but was instead a rewritten memory because Roman generally felt like a victim and I tend to agree with that read. It also kind of fits in more with the dynamic we generally see Kendall and Roman have throughout the show and especially in Seasons 1-3. Add to this that Roman was around 4 when this took place if we're taking his word for it (making Kendall under 10 and Connor early 20’s-ish?) and again I’m wondering why his memory is given so much more weight than Connors.  Do you have any view or thoughts as to why Roman is treated as the more reliable narrator when it comes to dog pound and more broadly how do you tend to think about the siblings various contradictory childhood memories?  

It's an interesting one, isn't it?

I agree with you (and the actors, haha), that I think the dog pound wasn't traumatising or that it even really meant anything at the time they were playing it. It's just a children's game that took on a different meaning in their adulthood as Roman and Kendall's particular dynamic crystalised. I talked about it a little bit in this post about games on the show if you're interested in reading more about that in particular!

I do think the context of Roman bringing up the dog pound game when he did is also important and not talked about as much as it should be. After all, Kendall's kind of seen to have the more defined arc over these episodes between the failed coup, his relapse, then the upswing of him getting in bed with the enemy (Sandy and Stewy).

Roman though has a really complicated arc too - it's his inability to stand with Kendall which makes the coup fail, and his elevation as prized son in Austerlitz is undermined by what I tend to interpret as a mix of guilt and shame first over letting Kendall down and then over his relapse, which bleeds into a degree of protectiveness which we don't usually see from him, both in that episode and in the next (it's an underrated moment, but Roman offering to make everyone stop doing drugs at the party before they go in in 1.08 is very special to me).

But there's a shift then in 1.08 which is triggered by Stewy pretty blatantly cutting him out of something and folding Kendall back in. It's this teetering new power dynamic where any guilt he felt is swallowed up by the realisation he doesn't want to lose this new station as the dog at their father's side, and I think he uses this distorted memory from childhood to justify his anger and try to reinforce this position. Kendall thought Roman was the weak dog once, but he's not, Kendall is. Kendall's the one out, Kendall's the weird one, Kendall is, as Shiv aptly put it in 1.01, not emotionally strong and has addiction issues.

(Interestingly too, while it's not in the episode, in the 1.08 script it shows that Roman's there when Kendall realises their dad's sent Greg to keep an eye on him, and I think there's this interesting emphasis there in Roman realising Kendall needs a babysitter twice - himself in the last ep and Greg in this one - which for him reinforces Kendall as the 'weak' one.)

He weaponises a long past memory that he treats as an immovable truth to not just play victim, but I think as a yardstick to show how far he's come, and how far Kendall's fallen.

As for why Roman's treated as the more reliable narrator, I think there are a few reasons for it. In particular, I do think Kendall is the Known Liar of the show, haha. All the kids lie to varying degrees of course, but Kendall really lies in a way that I tend to think can feel more insidious, particularly as he lies in such a wildly broad spectrum - sometimes it's aching self-flagellation, sometimes it's mortifying self-aggrandisement, sometimes it's just straight up pathetic, and sometimes it's just the awkward vulnerability of trying to save face (particularly when he's relapsing).

We don't see Roman explicitly lie all that much on the show, at least not in the way many of the other characters do. In some ways he's actually the opposite to Kendall because Kendall tends to use lies as a means of defense or a way to hide while Roman absolutely and often weaponises a truth. Orrr at least I'd say that's what he would like to think of himself? I actually think Roman lies all the time, it's just less through actual lying like Kendall does, and more through undermining the truth or playing around in the grey of it. He likes to lean on a question and see what it does to the truth, like he knows that it's malleable and wants to see the shape it could take, and that's overall something I find super interesting about his character, and I think feeds into a distortion of truth / memory.

But back to your question about why people see Roman as the more reliable narrator of their shared past, yes, I think it's viewed through the prism of Kendall being the one more likely to lie, but I also think it's due to Roman's abuse being easier to understand and more textual than Kendall and Shiv's. We see him get hit, both Shiv and Kendall talk about Roman being hit, Roman jokes about it and diminishes it, and even in 3.09 blames Kendall and Shiv for it (I actually think there's such an interesting parallel there to Roman being abandoned with the waterpistols and the story of Shiv being abandoned with the chocolate milk in the car, but that's a whole other story, haha).

We get childhood stories from Roman more than any of his siblings, so he feels like the one who thinks about it the most. Is that true? I don't know, but I get why that would make people put more stock in his role as the narrator of it.

As for the contradictory childhood memories, I do think the show is interested in the subjectiveness of memory overall, and the way people influence the past and make history malleable, and I think that exploring that through the very specific context of a family like the Roy's, who have a loose relationship with the truth at the best of times, is a pretty remarkable way to do it.