#way to miss GRRM’s point

[dragondream-ing]

Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension knows GRRM’s message in F&B is, in large part, that misogyny = bad. It may sound obvious but it is actually crucial to make this point out loud, in fact louder than the naysayers. The shitshow gave cover to a bunch of losers who vocally and unapologetically spew their misogyny. They’re out here claiming that reinforcing and supporting sexist tropes is subverting them.

Show TG “arguments” summarized:

Alicent: pure, behaved as expected, duty and sacrifice, muh tradition

Rhaenyra: wh0re, should’ve r*ped her gay husband for pure-blooded legitimate children, used her vagina wrong, didn’t know her place

Not to mention they minimize book Alicent to an evil stepmother—another sexist af trope— because she was ambitious and ruthless. She was a schemer like Tywin and Roose and so many men in F&B and ASOIAF who are never described as one-dimensional. I’m sorry, a female character isn’t one-dimensional just because you can’t handle a woman that betrays and schemes and does evil. If you think making antagonistic women more moral and palatable is an improvement, I have news for you—that’s misogynistic af.

On top of that, we’ve all seen the vile things they say about Rhaenyra. They wish she died in childbirth, they call her fat and ugly, they relish the thought of her being subjected to intimate partner violence a la the shitshow, they salivate over the fact that her brother k!lls her because she dared to reject the notion that women can’t inherit.

It is hatred of women that do not perfectly conform in its baldest, most gleeful form, and these types think they should be safe from criticism because they’re aiming this loathing at fictional characters. Rhaenyra wasn’t even remotely a feminist, and in fact “conformed” in many ways, but the little bit she didn’t conform—that she had the audacity to believe she could be traditionally feminine and a mother and a lover and still be Queen in her own right—is enough for these people to wish death and abuse upon her. Because she’s not their perfect representation of a meek and dutiful woman, she deserves scorn, hatred, and violence. This is a sickness.

This level of hatred and the specifically gendered attacks don’t come from nowhere. Some people may be TG because they think the actors playing Aegon and Aemond are hot, or they aren’t doing anything more than consuming fast-food media, but there are enough people out there with hearts full of hatred for women and it shows. Then they come into the fandom and insist loud and proud that their vile interpretation is canon.

Like sweetie, you wouldn’t know canon if it smacked you upside the head, you’re just grasping so you can cover for the fact that you’re a misogynist. But we see you.

And yes, this was inspired by me seeing a thread of incredibly gross and sexist takes on Twitter.

[ladystoneboobs]

no of fence to jon snow fans who for some reason care about his exact age, but these discussions just annoy me no end. not only bc there's no way any weirwood flashbacks bran has to rhaegar/lyanna will come with time/datestamps, but also bc there's always comments like this:

SEVERAL turns of the moon (ie, months)?! have these people never seen a human baby before or just have no concept of their ages? even if we take into account travel time from the toj to wf, meaning jon was not a newborn too fresh out the oven when catelyn and robb arrived, there's still a difference between a newborn and a 3mo and an even bigger difference between those infants and an older baby 5-7mo. there's very good reasons these lines were cut. whatever birthdates can be worked out internally for jon and robb from when they're first mentioned as 15 and 16 don't matter in the end, bc grrm doesn't care about a consistent timeline and the actual text of catelyn's pov and ned's convo with robert about cheating on her should outweigh any guesstimates about jon's official nameday wrt robb's. catelyn may not have cared for jon, but she would sure as hell have noticed his nameday if it came before robb's and made him ned's firstborn. if jon's birthday canonically came before robb's then either ned's cover story would not involve adultery (not impossible for him to sire a bastard before his wedding), or he'd just give jon a new nameday along with his new name to fit the adultery lie. it makes no sense for him to lie about one and not the other, undermining the big lie with a little public clue of his story not adding up. whatever else she was as a stepmother, cat wasn't stupid and a bastard who was actually the eldest son being raised alongside her trueborn heir could be an even bigger insult than whether he was born of adultery or not.

BUT, the unknowability of jon's true birthday is not the only reason this annoys me, it's bc this is all based on the assumption that jon must be older since rhaegar/lyanna ran off together before ned married cat, as if both boys must have been conceived asap as robb canonically was when his parents consummated their marriage. and that's not how human reproduction works! even if you don't understand how fast babies grow in the first year, you should know that people who get pregnant do so through ovulation cycles and a lucky sperm finding an egg and all that, not just immediately getting knocked up as soon as one has p-in-v sex for the first time. not unless you only know mean girls sex ed where if you have sex you will get pregnant and die. (even tho lyanna did die, there's plenty of canon examples where pregnancy did not lead straight to death. also examples of people who did not get pregnant right away and even some who are/were sexually active and childless without always having moon tea on hand.) we can't know how long lyanna was having sex before that sperm+egg match happened or even how long she was with rhaegar before losing her technical virginity. if they were married, doesn't it make sense to think they didn't consummate their relationship until the wedding night either? that's the only leverage there is to ensure a status as wife rather than just mistress.

and while i just said grrm doesn't care about exact timelines and a lot is still foggy surrounding the rebellion and esp rhaegar, there is one timemarker wrt robert's rebellion he voluntarily threw in, time and time again: that stannis was besieged at storm's end for almost a whole year. that siege, which mind you, did not match the duration of the entire war. it only started after robert won his battles at gulltown and summerhall, returned to storm's end, and then went out and lost the battle of ashford, leaving his homeland open to the reachermen. the same siege which only ended when ned made a detour there after the sack of king's landing, before going to the toj. even if lyanna may not have given birth that exact day ned found her, she could only be waiting in that bloody bed for weeks at the most, not months. so if rhaegar knocked her up the very same night he carried her off and jon was still a newborn when ned found her after the siege of storm's end had ended, wouldn't that mean lyanna was pregnant for well over a year? that's not how human pregnancy works either! so, maybe that's proof that jon and robb, whichever order they were actually born in, were actually very close in age as babies, much closer than if they were both conceived asap.

and really, jon's actual birthdate does not matter imho, when he was raised not just as the bastard to robb's trueborn heir, but with robb also known by catelyn and the world as ned's firstborn (which he was, in any case, as jon was ned's nephew by birth). what difference could a birthdate before robb's make (even were there some means of discovery) after ned, cat, and robb are all dead? if one is looking only at his birth parents then he's only a firstborn child on lyanna's side, but definitely a second son on rhaegar's side. maybe he was always meant to be a second son with a not much older half-brother! even if the aegon fka young griff is not in fact rhaegar's son, he'll still be known as aegon vi targaryen, meaning jon will never be known as any father's elder son. if i may reference mean girls again, it's not going to happen.

[dragonseeds]

Yeah make it make sense, every day I log in here and see people cursing out Daemon while calling Aegon their silly little guy.

i rarely see this anymore because my dash is so curated and i have half the fandom blocked (i’m trying to be in my lucille bluth i won’t hear it and i won’t respond to it era) but lmfaooo i know what you’re talking about. many people absolutely incapable of being normal about daemon despite continually wishing everyone on team black was on his level!

no one has to like him—and i obviously get why some people wouldn’t—but the difference in the way people talk about him and aegon really is sooo funny because it always comes across to me as like “our sacred canonical rapist who is just a silly boy actually so we’re going to ignore that vs your vile groomer who shouldn’t be around children or on my blog and i WILL bring this up every time i am forced to mention him.” like…. the dissonance? anyway all of these characters are insane and fun and compelling to me. i love them all (rhaenyra alicent dameon most), so i really don’t get it.

[mxwhore]

I'm this fucjing close to doing an asoiaf/tma crossover where jon is a spooky king and martin his sworn sword or some shit

[aethersea]

another thing fantasy writers should keep track of is how much of their worldbuilding is aesthetic-based. it's not unlike the sci-fi hardness scale, which measures how closely a story holds to known, real principles of science. The Martian is extremely hard sci-fi, with nearly every detail being grounded in realistic fact as we know it; Star Trek is extremely soft sci-fi, with a vaguely plausible "space travel and no resource scarcity" premise used as a foundation for the wildest ideas the writers' room could come up with. and much as Star Trek fuckin rules, there's nothing wrong with aesthetic-based fantasy worldbuilding!

(sidenote we're not calling this 'soft fantasy' bc there's already a hard/soft divide in fantasy: hard magic follows consistent rules, like "earthbenders can always and only bend earth", and soft magic follows vague rules that often just ~feel right~, like the Force. this frankly kinda maps, but I'm not talking about just the magic, I'm talking about the worldbuilding as a whole.

actually for the purposes of this post we're calling it grounded vs airy fantasy, bc that's succinct and sounds cool.)

a great example of grounded fantasy is Dungeon Meshi: the dungeon ecosystem is meticulously thought out, the plot is driven by the very realistic need to eat well while adventuring, the story touches on both social and psychological effects of the whole 'no one dies forever down here' situation, the list goes on. the worldbuilding wants to be engaged with on a mechanical level and it rewards that engagement.

deliberately airy fantasy is less common, because in a funny way it's much harder to do. people tend to like explanations. it takes skill to pull off "the world is this way because I said so." Narnia manages: these kids fall into a magic world through the back of a wardrobe, befriend talking beavers who drink tea, get weapons from Santa Claus, dance with Bacchus and his maenads, and sail to the edge of the world, without ever breaking suspension of disbelief. it works because every new thing that happens fits the vibes. it's all just vibes! engaging with the worldbuilding on a mechanical level wouldn't just be futile, it'd be missing the point entirely.

the reason I started off calling this aesthetic-based is that an airy story will usually lean hard on an existing aesthetic, ideally one that's widely known by the target audience. Lewis was drawing on fables, fairy tales, myths, children's stories, and the vague idea of ~medieval europe~ that is to this day our most generic fantasy setting. when a prince falls in love with a fallen star, when there are giants who welcome lost children warmly and fatten them up for the feast, it all fits because these are things we'd expect to find in this story. none of this jars against what we've already seen.

and the point of it is to be wondrous and whimsical, to set the tone for the story Lewis wants to tell. and it does a great job! the airy worldbuilding serves the purposes of the story, and it's no less elegant than Ryōko Kui's elaborately grounded dungeon. neither kind of worldbuilding is better than the other.

however.

you do have to know which one you're doing.

the whole reason I'm writing this is that I saw yet another long, entertaining post dragging GRRM for absolute filth. asoiaf is a fun one because on some axes it's pretty grounded (political fuck-around-and-find-out, rumors spread farther than fact, fastest way to lose a war is to let your people starve, etc), but on others it's entirely airy (some people have magic Just Cause, the various peoples are each based on an aesthetic/stereotype/cliché with no real thought to how they influence each other as neighbors, the super-long seasons have no effect on ecology, etc).

and again! none of this is actually bad! (well ok some of those stereotypes are quite bigoted. but other than that this isn't bad.) there's nothing wrong with the season thing being there to highlight how the nobles are focused on short-sighted wars for power instead of storing up resources for the extremely dangerous and inevitable winter, that's a nice allegory, and the looming threat of many harsh years set the narrative tone. and you can always mix and match airy and grounded worldbuilding – everyone does it, frankly it's a necessity, because sooner or later the answer to every worldbuilding question is "because the author wanted it to be that way." the only completely grounded writing is nonfiction.

the problem is when you pretend that your entirely airy worldbuilding is actually super duper grounded. like, for instance, claiming that your vibes-based depiction of Medieval Europe (Gritty Edition) is completely historical, and then never even showing anyone spinning. or sniffing dismissively at Tolkien for not detailing Aragorn's tax policy, and then never addressing how a pre-industrial grain-based agricultural society is going years without harvesting any crops. (stored grain goes bad! you can't even mouse-proof your silos, how are you going to deal with mold?) and the list goes on.

the man went up on national television and invited us to engage with his worldbuilding mechanically, and then if you actually do that, it shatters like spun sugar under the pressure. doesn't he realize that's not the part of the story that's load-bearing! he should've directed our focus to the political machinations and extensive trope deconstruction, not the handwavey bit.

point is, as a fantasy writer there will always be some amount of your worldbuilding that boils down to 'because I said so,' and there's nothing wrong with that. nor is there anything wrong with making that your whole thing – airy worldbuilding can be beautiful and inspiring. but you have to be aware of what you're doing, because if you ask your readers to engage with the worldbuilding in gritty mechanical detail, you had better have some actual mechanics to show them.

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

On the "Choose a Side" Discourse

With HBO leaning veryyyy heavily into "pick a side" for their promos, the "no team" people are crawling out of the woodwork. I want to preface this post by saying that I'm not saying people shouldn't have favorite characters who aren't mine, nor that people should just be totally invested in fandom discourse.

I already made a post about the issues with the arguments of the "no team" people, so I'll just summarize my thoughts from that real quick. A majority of their arguments and metas are thinly veiled anti Rhaenyra thoughts. That's still true of this new wave of this group.

Now, one thing I will agree with them on is: GRRM did not write this story to be one of choose a side. However, that is not because the Blacks and the Greens are equally bad or the Targaryens are all evil. No, it's because the Greens were always in the wrong and GRRM makes this abundantly clear to us in F&B.

Let's look at some facts from the Dance. While male primogeniture is tradition, it's not the law; the king's word is law, something ASOIAF has established time and again. The Greens took the throne through underhanded ways. They left Viserys' body to rot for days while they prepared for Aegon's coronation to prevent Rhaenyra from learning and coming to KL. They forced the smallfolk to attend and most didn't cheer for Aegon, with some even calling for Rhaenyra while most were confused and angry.

Aemond drew first blood by killing the unarmed thirteen year old envoy, Lucerys Velaryon. A majority of the realm declared for Rhaenyra; 53 houses supported her, while only 28 supported Aegon. The Greens committed the greatest atrocities of the Dance: Aemond burning the Riverlands and Daeron massacring Tumbleton. They also committed the greater number of atrocities.

The Greens also lost the war. The Blacks weren't just fighting for Rhaenyra, they fought for her heirs as well. This is why they swore to her and Jacaerys; later for Aegon III after the deaths of his older brothers. The Black forces continued to fight after Rhaenyra's murder and took KL. Aegon was murdered by his own men when the Blacks were marching on KL; in other words, the Greens knew they were beat, so they killed Aegon in an attempt to save themselves. Since Aegon left no heirs aside from Jaehaera, Aegon III was crowned and married to Jaehaera. The Blacks won the war.

Aegon the Usurper's bloodline is destroyed with the deaths of Jaehaera and Gaemon Palehair. This is the final affirmation of the Greens being in the wrong. GRRM's books punish usurpers by wiping out their bloodlines; Maegor and Robert Baratheon being the most obvious examples. Aegon and all the Greens have no descendants, their bloodline is dead.

Rhaenyra's bloodline, on the other hand, continues all the way through to the main series. Daenerys Targaryen, the most powerful character in the series, is her descendant, as is Jon Snow (unconfirmed as of now in the books) who is another of the key five. Rhaenyra may have died, but her faction won the war and her bloodline will save the world through her two greatest descendants (alongside the rest of the key five).

The Dance of the Dragons is, ultimately, a story of the damage the patriarchy does and how misogyny is destructive to the world. The Dance caused the death of the dragons and a great loss of power for women in the realm. Queen consorts after Rhaenyra had markedly less power and there was a drop in female leaders of the great houses. The loss of the dragons caused the weakening of magic in the world as a whole.

The Dance isn't about who your favorite war criminal is, nor is it about the evil of the Targaryens. It's about misogyny; something HOTD seems to have forgotten. Even before they started pushing TB vs TG so hard, they still missed the point.

It doesn't matter that Rhaenyra isn't a perfect, or even a good, person. It doesn't matter that Rhaenyra is non-conforming, plays the political game, and exploits her father's favor. Rhaenyra could have been as pious and well-behaved as Naerys and the Greens still would have usurped her. Rhaenyra could have had children with Laenor, and still the Greens would have usurped her. HOTD tries to paint the usurpation as partially being on Rhaenyra and her choices, but nothing Rhaenyra could have done would have been good enough.

The Blacks are the protagonists of the Dance. Are they perfect? No. Are they heroes? No. GRRM loves his gray characters, the Blacks are no exception. If you people want a story with black and white morality and perfect protagonists, go read another book. Just because people aren't perfect and don't operate exclusively in what's right according to our modern standards doesn't mean they aren't the protagonists.

In conclusion: there isn't a TB vs TG discourse in the Dance because the Greens are the antagonists and completely in the wrong. The point of the Dance is that the misogyny of the Greens damaged the realm. Rhaenyra is the rightful queen, there is no actual argument for Aegon or any of his allies.

Rhaenyra is the rightful queen to Westeros, go cry to George if you don't like it.

[maybeiwasjustjade]

“Maelor’s just a baby. He’s unimportant and can be replaced by anyone!”

You’re right: Maelor as himself is unimportant; GRRM already stated that. But what y’all weird Condal defenders and extreme Rhaenyra stans seem to be missing is that: Maelor isn’t an important character, but he is an insanely important plot device. Just as both Luke and Jaehaerys were both needed to kickstart the Dance.

Unlike Joffrey or Rhaena or Baela, Jaehaera and Maelor are not interchangeable. Rhaena and Baela were so irrelevant in the Dance that merging Rhaena and Nettles was actually possible to bolster Rhaena’s character. If Baela and Rhaena were to switch places in terms of plot relevance it also changes nothing. Joffrey didn’t even do anything until he died, and it still didn’t do squat. Whether he dies at the Gullet in s3 or in KL, it matters not.

But Maelor and Jaehaera? If Maelor doesn’t exist, Bitterbridge doesn’t happen. Daeron’s whole arc in the beginning revolves around the horrific murder of his baby nephew. Hugh and Ulf switch teams at First Tumbleton, which allows for Second Tumbleton to happen and the subsequent deaths of Seasmoke, Vermithor, and Tessarion.

And if Maelor never existed and his head never delivered to Rhaenyra, then the last shred of Helaena’s sanity won’t snap. Beloved Queen Helaena, who was driven to near insanity by the butchering of both her sons, whose daughter and husband were hidden far away from her. Sweet Queen Helaena who jumped from a tower and died, and whose spilled blood ignited a riot that destroyed the Targaryen’s divine symbols.

Jaehaera cannot take Maelor’s place because she has a more important role to play. She needs to be alive by the end of the Dance to unify the factions in marriage.

If Jaehaera were to die at Bitterbridge, the ending is useless. She is his only heir, and 2x08 states that he’s incapable of siring more. The whole point of the Dance was for it to end with the union of Jaehaera and Aegon III, and while Jaehaera wouldn’t live long enough to be the progenitor of the Blackfyres, she is still the key to ending the Dance. Same way Condal will need to be very careful and smart in how he arranges the Gullet to ensure Aegon lives. Viserys is sadly a ??? situation, because Condal could very well decide he doesn’t care that the GoT Targs came from Viserys’ line and not Aegon’s.

If Bitterbridge is to happen, it needs to be one of Aegon’s kids, not Rhaenyra’s. And Aegon only has one child now.

They could skip Bitterbridge entirely, I suppose. But then what causes First Tumbleton and the Two Betrayers?

I can even guess that Maelor was originally removed not because of the many dumb reasons I’m sure Condal spewed to GRRM, but for the sole reason of it casting a massive blight over Rhaenyra. Saint Rhaenyra, the Realm’s Delight, ordered a bounty placed on the head of her three year old nephew, leading to his body being torn apart so badly the only part that survived to be sent was his head. Condal and Hess would never be brave enough to do that to their precious queen. So Maelor had to go.

[crimsoncold]

WHAT IT FEELS LIKE IN THE HOTD FANDOM RIGHT now as someone who is disappointed in the show's handling of team green and really just critical the show's writing in general

Team Green Stans and/or HOTD critics:

"I know I'm going to get a barrage of criticism or even hate/harassment for saying this but...

HOTD's writing is rather biased and strays from the source material in ways that are frequently ridiculous, fails to actually improve the story, and totally ignores the anti-war and the general targ/ruling class critical tone of GRRM's writing.

Yes villain or dark character centric shows can be really good even when the purpose of the story isn't to condemn their actions- BUT purposefully changing an adaptation of a story so that it no longer contains the original message/themes that did criticize the characters and their actions is at the very least a questionable writing choice.

The characterization and the messages of the show are inconsistent in a way that doesn't feel intentional or in order to make a point- instead it just doesn't make sense. ALL characters suffer due to the choices of the writers/showrunners- including team black- but team green is obviously getting the worst of it (seriously its cartoonishly bad). It's all so nonsensical and frustrating that it's getting harder and harder to watch- really at this point its no longer even a fun bad! show that can still manage to be entertaining even when the story itself sucks.

Much like with d&d with the later seasons of GOT it's disappointing to see the poor quality of work coming from paid professional writers, this could have been a show about a tragic and dramatic conflict between characters who are mostly bad people yet are still compelling or sympathetic and instead we got ...well...this."

Some Team Black Stans:

"Come on people HoTD is an adaptation so of course things will differ from the books but the show still stays true to the heart of the book, the changes were not a big deal- in fact some were good choices by the showrunners making more disturbing and violent aspects of the book more palatable for the audience without lessening their emotional impact... B&C was toned down not to whitewash team black but because no one should want to see the multiple child homicides from the book take place on screen...and the violence here really isn't as important to the plot as it was for say GOT's red wedding... toning the violent or horrific nature of these deaths down and having it occur off screen is the right thing to do! It's still sad- and this way we didn't need to traumatize the actors OR the audience!

Really people just stop complaining... both sides of the conflict are presented as EQUALLY culpable and in the wrong as the other side, team green stans are just missing the subtle points being made in the show and are exaggerating when they criticize the writing or supposed inconsistent characterization and accuse the showrunner's of being biased.

These TG stans are just being so mean and should stop criticizing the writers/showrunners-who are just doing their job!- and even if they feel they have to criticize the writing it's really just so inappropriate to ever specifically name the writers/showrunners when doing so! It's one thing for fandom to anonymously criticize other fans- especially since TG Stan's takes are so misguided that they obviously need someone to explain to them how they are misinterpreting things- but criticizing the professional writers and showrunners through tumblr posts is out of line! Its not the writer's fault that Alicent and TG are hypocritical or less likable than TB- that may just be how they are in canon- to say that the storytellers are purposefully changing things to make TG less sympathetic or competent than they were in the books and to set them up as the unlikeable antagonistic opposite to the now more tragic and heroic TB is a ridiculous accusation!"

Other Team Black Stans:

"Daemyra is just the best ship, they have loved eachother since she was a teenager and now after years of pining and being kept apart they are finally free to be together, you never see supportive or healthy relationships like this in asoiaf, we stan a man who will do literally anything and kill anyone for his niece wife.

Lucerys was just an innocent baby when he sliced up Aemond's face, he was just protecting his big brother, it only happened because he was afraid for their lives! Viserys made the right choice not to punish anyone since the team black kids only attacked Aemond after he stole Rhaena's dragon and Lucerys was only using self defense when he used a knife on Aemond. Most especially Lucerys and his mother didn't deserve to be attacked by that bitch Alic*nt. And Rheanyra trying to have Aemond tortured for calling her sons bastards was just her being a rightfully protective mother! Team Green means her family harm and no way will a bamf like Rhaenyra let that slide... this is what a good mother does not like that terrible Alic*nt! Lucerys' death was so tragic can't wait to see a grieving mother get her revenge... TG believes in an eye for an eye don't they? Well how will they like a son for a son?

TG stans keep saying that Rhaenyra is just as violent entitled and problematic as anyone else on hotd! They are so wrong! They are just delusional haters that can't stand to see a woman have sexual freedom and be in a position of power! She is the better daughter/wife/mother and the only people she hates are the ones who deserve it!

See she isn't evil like the Hightowers- B&C was an accident and the book description was exaggerated to be used as propaganda against Rhaenyra- she didn't even know it was happening. It wasn't even team blacks intent to kill little Jaehaerys only to kill Aemond- but he's a kinslayer so them sending someone to assassinate their nephew/brother is totally in the right and not something any character in canon would judge them for!... Rhaenyra is just too good of a person to wish harm on any of her innocent family members. Everything that happened to Rhaenyra, Rhaenys, and Meleys is just so tragic... they are the only true queens in this series ...god i wish all of their pain was only experienced by team green lol.

You know what ...are TG stans children or something? Why do they keep complaining that team green is being unfairly villainized to make team black look better? Don't they know they can just watch a show where the characters are flawed/bad people without needing the story to spoon feed the audience the message that bad people need to be condemned? Why do they take things so seriously? Why is this their whole personality? Get a life and stop overthinking a book/tv show -not everything needs to be deep you know so just shut up and enjoy watching the dragons destroy things.

But for real how can you people stan misogynistic women haters like team green or a trad wife/women for trump like Alic*nt? Like yikes what does your fictional character preferences say about you as a person. Hey EVERYBODY look these weirdos are really out here defending and woobifying violent predatory and sexist characters like team green! This fandom is the worse i swear lmfao."

Meanwhile...

Showrunners/Writers:

"What if the civil war, brutal violence, and tragic kinslaying that happened in the dance of dragons was really just a series of accidents and misunderstandings?

What if Rhaenyra and Alicent were friends who never really hated one another, and Alicent was pining for Rhaenyra's friendship and acceptance for the last 20 years, what if neither of them even wanted to go to war?

Who cares about house stark or the pact of ice and fire, or Jace's interactions with Cregan or Sara? You know what Sara Snow doesn't even exist, Jon i mean Jace would never betray his betrothal/loyalty/vows to his dragonrider soulmate and future wife for some stark girl! This whole stark side plot isn't important lets just go back to the dragons!

What if Rhaenyra wanted the throne because she knew that from her descendants the prophesied saviour/prince that was promised would be born? What if instead of her surviving son Aegon being so traumatized by the horrors of this meaningless war that he actually hated and feared dragons afterward- and supposedly was even responsible for killing the last one- it is Rhaenyra who was actually responsible for saving Daenerys' future dragon eggs- and thus she the one who ensured the return of dragons to Westeros! It will be Rhaenyra through her choices and her descendants that will be responsible for saving the entire realm and defeating the others with dragon fire!

What if Alicent pushing her son to be crowned was all because she was a fool who misunderstood the words of her dying husband NOT because she felt her son was unfairly robbed of his birthright by his father?

What happened with Daenerys in the later seasons of GOT was so unfair- just terrible writing -she NEVER should have been made out to be a mad queen and i bet Rhaenyra wasn't actually a cruel or violent ruler either! I bet it was the men who slandered her, and the men who were pushing for war and violence while all the women were actually trying to keep the peace.

Wait...wait.... What if everything in the book that criticized Rhaenyra was actually propaganda made by her enemies to ruin her reputation!?!!? Yeah B&C and team black arranging the horrific murder of a child? That story was TOTALLY team green exaggerating the violent murder of their child/grandchild. Daenerys I mean Rhaenyra deserved so much better... and all the injustices that happened to her will be the most impactful and tragic element of this show.

What if TG didnt actually have strong bonds with their dragon or spend much time riding them?... just more propaganda! Yes! CGI is expensive so this also means we dont really have to show their dragons unless they are fighting the blacks. Team Black's bond with their dragons is much more powerful and important though so we should still show them spending time together and riding them.

What if the book description of the respect and loyalty team green had to one another and the terrible grief they felt at the loss of their family members was ALSO just team green propaganda? What if Alicent only ever struggled as a mother and failed to connect with her kids and actually didn't even like or respect her children? How many kids did she have anyway? Three? Yeah that sounds right. Oh wait! Wait! What if none of TG got along with or trusted one other? No...no...What if they actually hated and betrayed each other? YESSSS!!!!!!!

Team black and their descendants are the true Targaryens, no one is really interested in the boring team green anyways so at least these changes will make them more interesting and better foils for team black! This type of story is exactly what people want I just know they are going to love it."

NOTE: (because i know idiots will be lurking in the anti tags to complain or harass people)

this is mostly meant to be very critical of the showrunners and somewhat critical of a specific type of stanning behaviour and the weird criticism or harassment that gets directed at people who like team green or who criticize hotd - sure i may be exaggerating slightly for effect but l'm STILL pulling from real posts/comments/opinions that I see from TB stans ...Like sure they aren't putting ALL of this in a single post but collectively this is definitely the type of attitude and language many TB stans have

Fandom is just about enjoying a special interest - I dont actually care about or want to police who you stan or ship. I DO care that some of you purposefully and directly harass real people because you disagree with their opinion on fictional characters and that some of you leave uncharitable, ignorant, critical, or unpleasant comments on properly tagged Team Green/anti or TB critical/or hotd critical posts.

Most of all i just find it really funny the juxtaposition there is between how underwhelming and juvenile the show's storytelling choices are compared to how eloquently, persistently, or vehemently fans will write up either criticism or defense pieces for these characters, this objectively bad show, and it's deeply unimpressive writing... like sure some fans put more effort into understanding the source material and comparing it to the show and some put more effort into criticizing or defending the show,the writing, or specific characters but collectively nearly all of us are putting in more time, effort, and thought into hotd than ANY of the showrunners/writers.

In conclusion Guys just like or dislike whatever show/characters you want...you don't have to justify the things you like by being willfully in denial about what canon sources say/the nature of certain characters/or the quality of the show's writing. You definitely don't need to be disrespectful or attack people on behalf of fictional characters or the well paid hbo showrunners/writers.

[racefortheironthrone]

Hello, I’ve a part asoiaf part medieval history question. So despite the strict gender roles, we know that women (at least noble women) can enjoy some “male” activities like horse riding and some kinds of hunting (Cat says Arya can have a hunting hawk). Are there any other “male” activities women can partake too without being judged about it, or even encouraged to do so (both in Westeros and real world)?

So as medievalists and historians of gender have pointed out, ASOIAF is far more restrictive for women than actual medieval Europe. I'm actually going to leave aside the situation of noblewoman for a second, because the vast majority of women were not nobles and their experience of gender would be radically different.

What counted as "male activities" for example would vary enormously by location (rural vs. urban) and thus occupation (farmer vs. artisan). Among the peasantry, while men tended to work in the fields and concentrated on cereal-crop production and women tended to do the manifold work of maintaining the home, the reality is that the irregular nature of agricultural labor meant that in times of high demand (especially spring sowing and autumn harvest) it was a matter of survival for every single member of the household to work in the fields. So women absolutely knew how to work a plow, and swing a scythe.

As for the urban worker, while there was also a high degree of gender segregation by occupation and guilds could often be quite misogynistic when it came to trying to masculinize trades (especially those involving higher rates of capital investment), it was also true that the entire household was expected to contribute their labor, so that wives, daughters, collateral female relatives, and female servants picked up the trade alongside their male counterpart. Moreover, as biased towards men as guilds could be, they were even more committed to the principle that guild businesses were family businesses, and so in situations where a master artisan had only daughters or died childless or died with underage heirs, it was absolutely routine for guilds to admit daughters and widows as guild members, indeed usually at the rank of master, all so that the business could remain in the same family. This is why medievalists can point to so many examples of women who worked in skilled trades, often at a high level.

That's what I think GRRM's portrait of medieval society is missing: an entire world of women in business, working elbow-to-elbow with men to make a living.

As for noblewomen, part of the difficulty is that a big part of being a noble was not doing stuff - not working for a living, chiefly - and instead engaging in leisure activities as much as possible. And women were very much a part of those activities (indeed, for many of them the point was to mingle with eligible people of the opposite gender), whether that's feasting, dancing, hunting, hawking, theater and other entertainments, fireworks, tourneys and jousts, etc.

However, women were also engaged in the main "occupations" of the nobility - estate management and politics - way more than GRRM really takes note of. To begin with, as even GRRM acknowledges to some extent, the lady of the house was expected to take an active role in running the house, which meant managing servants, keeping track of accounts payable and receivable, making sure the supplies arrive on time and in the right quality and quantity, keeping an eye on maintenance and repairs (with the help of servants, natch), etc.

Given that even the manor houses of the nobility were units of economic production, the lady of the house would also be responsible for oversight of how the house was doing with its pigs, goats, chickens and pigeons and geese, bees (because beeswax and honey were really important commodities), sheep, and so on, and what kind of figures they were pulling down at the mill and the weir, and so forth.

As medievalists have known for a long time, this list of duties got even longer whenever the lord of the house was away at war or on business, when the lady would be expected to pick up all his work too - which means making sure the rents and taxes get paid, deciding which fields to distribute manpower to and when, dealing with legal disputes in the manorial court, and so on. And if the war came home, the lady of the house was expected to lead the defense of the castle and there are many, many examples of noblewomen who had to organize sieges that lasted months and even years.

However, we also have to consider the impact of inheritance by birth and the inherent randomness of sex at birth - as much as they tried to avoid it, plenty of noble houses ended up with female heirs or in the hands of widows. Most of the time in most countries, women could and did inherit (or at the very least their male children and relatives could inherit through them) titles and fiefdoms, and while their husbands would often take on overlordship de jure uxoris, unmarried women and widows very much exercised their authority as the Lady or Baroness or Countess or whatever, and history is also full of women who were extremely influential in medieval politics and backed up their influence by any means necessary.

[fromtheseventhhell]

I'm not sure how to get it into people's heads that Arya is a female character. She's not a boy, not nonbinary, trans, agender, or genderless. I don't intend this in a way to be negative or wanky, but her girlhood is imbedded within her character. The problem isn't that Arya stans are missing the point by overemphasizing her femininity and wanting her to be a barefoot tradwife baby making machine, but that we're stating it exists when the majority of fandom and the show itself have gone out of the way to minimize the relevancy of her gender. I'm fully convinced there are a lot of people who think Arya would be the exact same character had GRRM created her as a male character named Arry instead, perhaps they'd do a better job at acknowledging her importance.

What's most ironic to me is how these same fans will gush and coo over the sisters being more alike than we think, but only if it involves giving Arya's characteristics to Sansa. Well acktually, Sansa likes to ride horses just as much as Arya does! They're so alike uwu! But dare acknowledge that Arya has traits and aspects commonly associated to Sansa then not only does that get accusations of wanting Arya to become Sansa, but that it's solely about showing Sansa up and wanting her to grovel in Arya's shadow and superiority 🙄 Hypocrisy and projection showing itself.

Somewhat of an aside, but I recently saw a post on reddit complaining about the fact that all four of Daemon's children survived the Dance specifically focused on the fact that both Rhaena and Baela lived. According to the OP, one of them should've died and their post-war roles in the story should've been given to only one of them. Which at its core is really the main conflict between Sansa and Arya stans, no matter how much the Stansas want to cover their ears and play dumb. It's not about Arya stans projecting their sibling squabbles onto the two of them but simply the fact that it's not possible for two characters to fulfill the same role in the story, specifically when it involves two female characters. The existence of two Stark sisters is an inconvenience for the people who want the story to revolve around Sansa.

I have to believe there's some bubbles that they don't want to admit will burst if TWOW will ever be released and that's why they cling to the idea that Arya stans are the delusional ones. They have to believe that the parts of Sansa's seasons 5-8 storyline they like came from GRRM instead of D&D or else their Jonsa and QITN fantasies will fall apart. I have no idea how someone can watch the scene where Sansa tells Arya she couldn't survive what she had while Arya can only sputter out that she was training and believe 1) it makes sense for their book characters and 2) D&D didn't blatantly favor Sansa and Sophie over Arya and Maisie.

This ask came literally seconds after I drafted a post talking about this exact topic and it's so wild to me that we were both up thinking about Arya + her girlhood and wanting to discuss it 🥹

As for this ask, you really hit the nail on the head. Arya's gender is an essential aspect of her journey but fandom ignores that because they've decided that there's only one "right" way to exist as a female character. Arya's self-esteem issues stem from her being a non-conforming Lady in a misogynistic society, she has to disguise herself as a boy in part because of the threat of sexual violence, in Harrenhal she is assigned gender-specific tasks/labor, political matches are made without her knowledge/consent, she is threatened with sexual violence multiple times, and even her role within the FM is influenced by her gender. Her being non-conforming doesn't mean she's the complete antithesis of everything feminine. The obsession with propping up Sansa has ruined people's ability to perceive complex female characters, ironically including Sansa herself. They genuinely would've respected Arya more if she had died passively rather than fight for her life and you can't tell me that isn't misogyny.

That Reddit post is a great example of how people genuinely can't (or refuse to) comprehend the idea of two female characters occupying the same space. Cause you're right, that is the root of the issue. I think the only reason they bother with the fake "Stark sisters uwu" crap is because they've backed themselves into a faux-feminist corner and they don't want to look hypocritical for disliking Arya. So instead, they pretend to care all while rewriting her to serve as Sansa's prop. This is also why so many Queen!Sansa truthers are also anti-Dany + think that Sansa becoming Queen depends on Dany's downfall. They desperately cling to the show as canon, when D&D have openly admitted they changed the story because they favored Sansa/Sophie. They're fine with how show!Arya is written because to them, that's exactly how she should be; a subservient lapdog for Sansa. TWOW is definitely going to ruin that illusion, and one of the reasons I'm optimistic about it being released is getting to see fandom's reaction.

[agentrouka-blog]

Hi rouka 👋 Do you think that ghost dying is a possibility? I really hate that theory and i hate even more because I know that the ones who believe it are the "Jon will embrace his targaryen side" side of the fandom, and we can blame that infamous alt shift x video about Jon coming back with white hair and red eyes. They want ghost dead so Jon can bond with a dragon. I hate it so much.

You can really tell people are Missing The Point(tm) when they think GRRM gives more weight to prophecy-obsessed Rhaegar as Jon's parent than to Lyanna, who spent her last breath begging Ned to protect her child and who maintains Jon's connection to House Stark, but in a completely different and unexpected way. The mother whom Jon resembles in looks and personality. The mother.

The idea that House Targaryen won't be a step up for Jon, but rather a complication that is at first devastating but then opens up Yet Another Way for him to bind himself to House Stark... unthinkable to them.

GRRM already gave us the answer to your question:

"An albino," Theon Greyjoy said with wry amusement. "This one will die even faster than the others." Jon Snow gave his father's ward a long, chilling look. "I think not, Greyjoy," he said. "This one belongs to me." (AGOT, Jon I)

Ghost is practically immortal, narratively.

[horizon-verizon]

People who see the dragons as nukes who must die are completely misinterpreting the story. Let’s apply this analysis to the books though. Does Daenerys receive 3 deactivated nukes as a gift in her wedding day ? Does she press a nuke against her pregnant belly and the chemicals inside of it reach out to her unborn child ? Does she lay 3 nukes in her husband’s funeral pyre to honor him ? Does she lovingly hold and breastfeed 3 nukes ? Does Jon Snow wish that he had a nuke to fight off the freezing cold ? Does Arya consider nukes to be her friends ? Does young Tyrion beg his uncles for a nuke so he can be less lonely ?

Dragons aren’t single purpose objects, they’re living, thinking, breathing creatures, and Daenerys specifically views them as such, she literally thinks of them as her children. Historically, the dragons were essentially enslaved by the blood bond and the problem was that they were used by people who viewed them as weapons first and foremost. Daenerys (a character who is extremely invested in liberation by the way) being mother of dragons, specifically, as in giving them life and literally nursing them herself, is meant to show how her relationship to the dragons is unique from her ancestors. They aren’t just a bunch of flying weapons to her.

Dragons are the living embodiment of a primordial natural magical force (fire), and their extinction was caused by misogyny, human ambition, greed, and by people in the story doing exactly what the “dragons are nukes” crowd does, which is look at them as just Big Weapon (e.g. Aemond and Daeron), and said extinction is heavily implied to be the reason winters are getting harsher (“the summers have been shorter since the last dragon died, and the winters longer and crueler”, “the real enemy is the cold”).  Calling them nuclear weapons is wayyyy missing the point. It was the greater Valyrian sin of trying to control and dominate nature/magic and bend it to their whims that lead to chaos (hello The Doom and hello Valyria Fanboy Euron), which manifested in the dragon lords like the Targaryens as them controlling dragons, but “dragons are nukes” flattens the theme and misses the forest for the trees, and it’s why you get absolutely mind numbing takes like “yeah George brought back the dragons after centuries of extinction just to kill them all off again after two years in existence because Magic Bad”.

I talked about dragons, their symbolism, etc. HERE.

George at one point did compare dragons to nuclear "deterrents" when he speaks about Dany being the most powerful person in the world in 🔗a Vulture article:

When civilizations clash in your books, instead of Guns, Germs, and Steel, maybe it's more like Dragons, Magic, and Steel (and also Germs). There is magic in my universe, but it's pretty low magic compared to other fantasies. Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only Dany has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world. But is that sufficient? These are the kind of issues I'm trying to explore. The United States right now has the ability to destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but that doesn't mean we can achieve specific geopolitical goals. Power is more subtle than that. You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn't give you the power to reform, or improve, or build.

and GRRM does bring it up to express that dragons are so destructive that one can't use their fire for everything, for every problem when it might spell so much disaster. Can you can use dragons more often if the situation will not spiral out of control--Dragonfire does not persist when one attempts to put it out, like with wildfyre, so it's destructiveness is not in the exact same scope or horror as a radioactive nuclear missile that can leave behind radiation/devastation for years afterward...nor does it have the sort of reach these modern weapons have. Dragonfire remains within the confines of its targets unless you got really dry ground and don't put it out in time. The reason why dragonfire is compared to nuclear warfare is because like nuclear weapons now, for the world it exists in, it is the most powerful possible weapon of war.

It's about how Dany or anyone uses and regards dragons and others' own conceptions of magic and strength/danger that will make/break how they will perceive dragons. Not that dragons are innately evil; you sound like an overly superstitious and hypocritical Seven septon/over zealous Christian that way.

[alicentflorent]

the amount of cope I'm seeing from that fandom about helaena since the blog post is so entertaining. reading comprehension is dead because they'll try to argue that helaena was only popular because of "a missing treasury" and rhaenyras taxes when no that's not what george wrote! grrm pointing out helaena was a "sweet and gentle soul" was not accidental - its clear that he intended her being well liked because of this!! it had nothing to do with rhaenyra herself being in a shitty position.

furthermore when it comes to helaena & rhaenyra it makes a lot of sense - helaena has lived in KL her entire life. rhaenyra on the other hand has been away on dragonstone. with the timeline being different it was even longer - about 9 years (120-129).

it's so annoying because rhaenyra has other things going for her but that lot is determined to take this from her sister

like lmafo alicent girlies are even half as mad about alicents own popularity among the smallfolk not being a thing as tb are mad about grrm confirming this about helaena. because in fire & blood grrm wrote that alicent was "beloved of the smallfolk" i can definitely see that starting off as alicent being genuinely compassionate and kind hearted like helaena in the early youth of her queenship (remember this is the woman who looked after a dying jaehaerys with great tenderness) and then maturing into more calculating as she began to see that smallfolk favor could be vital given the situation with rhaenyra and aegon. but nor do I think it was all calculation and pr - I think alicent having genuine care adds more depth to her character in that no was she a sweet woman who was the soul of gentleness? no, she could be capable of cruelty but at the same time there was a side of her that made her naturally do well with the smallfolk

This!! Helaena died as a sweet young woman, her story is tragic because she was genuinely a kind person and I always imagined she was seen the way people saw princess Diana. It’s never mentioned how much she interacted with the smallfolk but I just imagine she had this natural warm, kind, loving way about her which is why she is always called “sweet”.

As for Alicent, I imagine she had some genuine care early on like you said but I imagine she was like show!margaery, she probably did charity and won the people over with her charm and charisma (she must have been charismatic, intelligent and likeable if viserys fell for her and the men on the green council respected her) and she knew how to play the game, she knew how to win over smallfolk and nobles alike. Even Rhaenyra who may not have been well liked as queen, during the destruction of war by dragon fire, was known as the realms delight, the people loved her once and she always had lots of friends and ladies around her. Alicent and Rhaenyra got more ruthless and cutthroat with age when they were women and mothers trying to protect themselves and their children and the deaths of their innocent children/grandchildren pushed them over the edge and brought out their darkest sides.

[jackoshadows]

The most ridiculous aspect of all this 'it's just sisters being sisters' nonsense is that we actually do see an example of siblings being siblings with the other Stark kids.

The affection and concern for each other amongst the Stark brothers - Robb and Jon embracing each other fiercely in their parting goodbye, their care and concern for each other, Robb telling Bran they can visit Jon at the Wall, Jon nearly deserting the NW for Robb and Robb telling Catelyn - “You forget. My father had four sons.”

Are the 'this is just how sisters are' folks implying that the boys can be loving and affection brothers with each other while 'sisters being sisters' is just bullying, shaming one's appearance and nonconformity and not caring that their little sister has been literally attacked with a sword? How very sexist of them.

Jon and Robb have that complex and very human sibling bond, where when they were little children Robb hurts Jon with his words and now in their teens, Robb has a deeper empathy for Jon than anyone else.

There's a reason Arya felt really alone and missed her brothers while in King's Landing - that was where the real sibling love was.

That was when Arya missed her brothers most. She wanted to tease Bran and play with baby Rickon and have Robb smile at her. She wanted Jon to muss up her hair and call her "little sister" and finish her sentences with her. But all of them were gone. She had no one left but Sansa, and Sansa wouldn't even talk to her unless Father made her. - Arya, AgoT

She went back to the window, Needle in hand, and looked down into the courtyard below. If only she could climb like Bran, she thought; she would go out the window and down the tower, run away from this horrible place, away from Sansa and Septa Mordane and Prince Joffrey, from all of them. Steal some food from the kitchens, take Needle and her good boots and a warm cloak. She could find Nymeria in the wild woods below the Trident, and together they'd return to Winterfell, or run to Jon on the Wall. She found herself wishing that Jon was here with her now. Then maybe she wouldn't feel so alone. - Arya, AGoT

So we do see siblings being siblings amongst the love the brothers have for each other and their love for their sisters, especially Jon's concern and love for Arya. Bran is concerned for Sansa's well being and Sansa is confident that Robb will win. This is all siblings being siblings - not bullying and throwing siblings into danger for selfish reasons.

So it's not that GRRM cannot write affectionate and complex sibling dynamics and siblings being siblings - he has done so with the rest of the Starks. It's just that the character of Sansa was created specifically to create that discord amongst the Starks and so we end up not getting a loving sisterly relationship between the Stark sisters like we do with the brothers.

Now one can criticize the author for choosing a female character to create that discord or for not writing in a strong sisterly female relationship like he did with Jon and Robb or Robb and Bran or even the beautiful brother/sister relationship we get with Jon and Arya.

That's perfectly legitimate to critique the narrative from a Doylist perspective and, if Sansa is one's favorite character, to call out GRRM for not giving Sansa the same sibling dynamics he has done for Arya, Jon and Bran.

What is not okay is to equate Sansa's treatment of her little sister Arya in AGoT as 'just sisters being sisters', or even more egregiously 'that's just how older sisters are' and attempting to normalize the bullying and mocking of one's appearance.

An elder sister is typically one of the most protective in a family, IMO and we see that in Arya's concerned thoughts about Bran and Rickon in Winterfell after she goes on the run and in how Bran clutches Arya's hand for protection when Robb/Jon prank the younger ones with a ghost.

We have Sansa's POV chapters and at no point is Sansa ever concerned for Arya the way Jon and Bran are concerned for their sisters in King's Landing in their POV - which is what siblings being siblings means in my books. Quite the opposite - Sansa victim blames Mycah and Arya for sadistic Joffrey's actions, throws Arya under the bus by telling Cersei that it's Arya who is the traitor and forgets to even ask where Arya is and what happened to her when things go south in KL.

AGoT Sansa is a rather shitty elder sister to have. However, Arya has loving brothers in Jon and Bran and I can't wait for her to reunite with characters who genuinely love her, want to protect her, look after her and have showed concern for her well being.

And wanting Arya to be with characters who have shown her that love and affection in the actual text of the books instead of a sister who bullied her and didn't care a bit for her is not sexism, no matter how much one attempts to gaslight the fandom with faux feminist nonsense.

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

I’m going to say this as an Alicent anti: wtf are they doing to her??? 😂

The whole argument for Team Green is that Alicent usurped Rhaenyra because she feared for her children’s safety but now she’s going to turn on them after FORCING Aegon to crown himself king when he didn’t want to?!

I don't even know what the show runners are on. I do think that their laughable attempts to make TG look better are actually proving my point though. The obsession with making "both sides bad" has rendered their characters inconsistent and completely unbelievable. Their storyline is jumbled and makes no sense. The entire show is a complete mess.

The idea of both sides being equally bad destroys everything in the story. GRRM wrote a story about how sexism and hunger for power damage the world. Rhaenyra being usurped marked a dramatic drop of the power women held in Westeros. Otto and Alicent's greed and misogyny caused the deaths of thousands and the dragons. The loss of the dragons led to the Others gaining strength.

Obviously, the blacks aren't perfect, or even heroes. Daemon is as morally gray as it gets, Rhaenyra is classist and kills to get her way, many of the blacks' allies committed atrocities. However, the fact is the greens are the villains of the Dance and the blacks are the protagonists.

The greens are all irredeemable and awful people, that's the whole point. Just like the slavers are monsters, Euron is basically a demon, and Ramsay is completely evil. Certain characters of ASOIAF are meant to be completely evil, it part to show how the ideas they champion are also completely evil.

The show runners have completely missed the idea and themes of the Dance. Because of that, their story and characters are destroyed and just incomprehensible.

[nogoodsheepstealing-greatgrandma]

Team Green: Sorry your faves are boring 😊🤷‍♂️ Sure you're supposed to root for the Blacks but the Greens are just more fun. Jace is boring I'm here for my angsty disaster mess 💚

You realise that's bad writing, right? This is a family civil war drama. One side of that family civil war shouldn't be populated with blank slates. If no effort is made into making Rhaenyra and Daemon's children as fleshed out as Alicent's children then that is bad writing.

Some people find the Lannisters more fun than the Starks, but the Starks are still fleshed out characters (and considering in the books Jace is 14/15, Luke is 13, Joffrey, Baela & Rhaena are 12, Aegon the younger is 9 and Viserys is 7 - these kids ages almost map straight onto the Starklings so they were so meant to be our Targlings). It didn't have to be a zero sum "you can only have ONE side that's interesting". The show is poorer for it. Game of Thrones was a disaster in many ways, but at least the different sides of the conflict had equal screen time and attention.

How hard would it have been to flesh out Jace, or at least give him a half-decent haircut? He could have been a mirror to Jon Snow (they technically have the same initials). One is a bastard who does not know he's a targaryen prince, the other is a targaryen prince who discovers he is a bastard. In a world that hates bastards, that insists they are 'wanton and treacherous by nature', there was plenty of potential to explore some complicated emotions, to give weight to how he feels about being a bastard. The whispers that would have followed him, the scrutiny he would have felt, the internalised guilt and shame, his protectiveness over his little brothers and wish to spare them the truth. Maybe after Alicent confronted Aegon over the pig there could have been a shift where Aegon turns his bullying away from Aemond and towards Jace (more in keeping with book canon). Maybe Jace could feel anxious about lessons with Criston Cole due to his open hatred of him. Maybe he could be equal parts devoted to and resentful of his mother over his parentage, maybe he could be driven to perfectionism to prove himself worthy.

The show made Jace more violent in the fight with Aemond than in the book, by changing who started the fight (from Aemond to Rhaena and co.), by narrowing the age gap to make Jace more of a match for Aemond, and by having him draw a knife instead of a wooden toy sword. But they didn't earn that moment. How much more satisfying would it have been if both Aemond and Jace were given equal emotional weight in the build-up to the fight? If the hurt and anxiety at discovering he was a bastard had been building and building until it burst out. The entire reason the show changed the age dynamic between Rhaenyra and Alicent to make them peers and best friends was supposedly to make their conflict more dramatic - why would you then drop that approach with their kids? How does it make the civil war story better if one half of the next generation of characters aren't really characters?

They didn't even have to put much effort into Baela, as GRRM already had her brimming with personality on the page, but they just... ignored that and made her a non-entity. Oh she gets one punch in, and there's a blink and you'll miss it background shot of her trying to hit Aegon (at this point I don't think the actors were even directed to do that I think they just took it upon themselves). Meanwhile Baela in the books is wild and fearless and deliberately provocative and quick to anger and fiercely defensive of her loved ones and wrestles squires in the training yard and has a pet monkey and sneaks out in search of adventure and brings home 'unsuitable' friends. Including a legless beggar, a blacksmith's apprentice whose muscles she admired, a street conjurer, twin prostitutes and an entire troupe of mummers. And she alarms everyone due to being 'overly fond of boys' and gets epic lines like this when it is suggested she marry Lord Rowan:

“I’ve bedded two of his sons. The eldest and thirdborn, I think it was. Not both at once, that would have been improper.”

She could have been an absolutely chaotic presence onscreen. Rhaena meanwhile is a little more like Sansa to Baela's Arya, but would have needed more work to flesh her out onscreen. Her insecurities and wish for a dragon seemed promising at first, but they were dropped as soon as Aemond lost his eye. Because that was ultimately the narrative purpose she served - to provide a new reason for the fight to start that wasn't Aemond hitting and pushing a toddler into a pile of dragon poo. She helps Aemond's image by being the one to start the fight instead of him, and from then on she becomes a voiceless non-entity. We watch Aemond fly away victoriously on Vhagar, we don't see Rhaena tearfully watching the last link to her mother vanish over the horizon.

Considering the prominent role of bastards during the dance (especially the dragonseeds), the uninterest in exploring bastardy in Jace makes little sense. Considering the centrality of gender to the story (and considering a certain event involving key players during the dance), the lack of effort into Baela and Rhaena makes zero sense (the show doesn't even bring up their right to Driftmark in an episode dedicated to discussing the rightful heir to Driftmark).

Considering especially that in fantasy black women are so often consigned to minor Missandei roles, the fact that we were robbed of Baela and Rhaena as main characters particularly stings. Baela in particular was an easy fan favourite in the book, and its a role that black women and girls so rarely get to play. If you had told me before the show that Helaena would be a fan favourite over Baela, I wouldn't have believed it. And don't get me wrong, I like that they fleshed out Helaena in the show, like Rhaena she didn't have much of a presence in the book. But it is so typical that the relative non-entity that they kept white gets to be fleshed out, while the more fleshed out character that they made black becomes a non-entity. And Helaena is skinny now, of course (all love to Phia Saban, but I am mourning plump Helaena).

And don't get me started on Kylo Raemond.