[F&B spoilers] Adapting Fire and Blood's characters - Will they be faithful?

[miyuki]

Quote

I do want to stress… indeed, I want to shout… that FIRE & BLOOD is not a novel. This is not a traditional narrative and was never intended to be.

GRRM said this in his blog before Fire and Blood was released. 

Obviously with such heavy bias by maester Gyldayn and the multiple accounts he uses, the show has a lot of creative freedom when it decides how to portray an event or a character. There is no correct way to adapt a character for this show since the descriptions in the book are made by a biased source many years after the characters lived and the events happened. So when the show does something that is different from how Gyldayn portrays it then it isn't necessarily an unfaithful adaptation. 

[C.T. Phipps]

7 hours ago, miyuki said:

GRRM said this in his blog before Fire and Blood was released. 

Obviously with such heavy bias by maester Gyldayn and the multiple accounts he uses, the show has a lot of creative freedom when it decides how to portray an event or a character. There is no correct way to adapt a character for this show since the descriptions in the book are made by a biased source many years after the characters lived and the events happened. So when the show does something that is different from how Gyldayn portrays it then it isn't necessarily an unfaithful adaptation. 

I suppose this sort of argument doesn't really strike me as overly needed either as I've always viewed Game of Thrones as an Alternate Universe from A Song of Ice and Fire anyway.

[C.T. Phipps]

11 hours ago, Raksha 2014 said:

From everything I remember about the laws of Westeros, Queen Aemma's permission or input was not necessary, only her husband's (as it would be in the European middle ages).  I had the impression that Viserys was not emotionally capable of telling his wife that they were about to cut her open to save the baby.

There's sadly places now that it is the husband's right over a wife's. I'm just pointing out from a modern perspective of morality that's the biggest issue there.

[Raksha 2014]

4 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

There's sadly places now that it is the husband's right over a wife's. I'm just pointing out from a modern perspective of morality that's the biggest issue there.

The fact that there are still, in the modern world, places where a husband's rights take precedence over a wife's, presuming the wife is conscious, is obscene.

But in Westeros, husbands' rights trump those of a wife unless the wife is the ruling princess of Dorne (I'd assume).  I'm not sure how much I blame Viserys for not discussing the issue with his doomed wife - the impression was given that time was of the essence to make the decision.  I don't know how good I would be at getting out the words if I were in his place either, looking into the eyes of a beloved wife and asking her for her permission to kill her in a painful way to save their child, since she was going to die either way?

I can certainly understand Viserys retreating to his chamber and fiddling with a model of Maegor's Keep after later - he had ordered the brutal killing of his wife in order to save his unborn son, his son had been born and then died, he had exiled his brother for being obnoxious and mocking that dead child, and endured the funerals.  His family was decimated; he needed a retreat and solitude and a semblance of control (the model of Maegor's Keep).  Poor guy.  Paddy Considine did a great job playing King Viserys.

[EggBlue]

On 8/23/2022 at 6:13 PM, BlackLightning said:

When Rhaenyra took over the city, there were mass executions and curfews and all sorts of drab events. Which is understandable as her taking of the capital didn't end the war, she still had a lot of enemies in the field and the city that she had taken over had been pro-Green for quite some time. I don't think she was mad or cruel but there was a reason why she was called "Maegor with Teats."

Stannis would likely take the same courses of action when he took over the city....why? Because they both had enemies in the field and enemies within the city. In fact, it would probably an even grimmer place under his control as he would outlaw every vice that serves to distract the smallfolk with the most fleeting bits of pleasure.

Stannis-ruled King's Landing would also be a grimmer place but for the religious persecution that is guaranteed to take place. In fact, the riots that would probably expel or slay Stannis would probably be religious in nature if not in basis.

well , yes , the fact that Stannis and Rhaenyra were both true heirs who had to fight for their rights  is true and I fully agree with the rest of your post.

I think it's quite hilarious that Rhaenyra is treated as a  more terrible person than Stannis by fans ... especially that she was not a fanatic , she was the recognized heir in contrary to Stann who just assumed his brother's sons are bastards and didn't bother telling him when he was alive and despite the fact that although her people killed her dragons, she did not burn them alive unlike Stann who has zero problem with burning people alive .

[BlackLightning]

1 hour ago, Raksha 2014 said:

The fact that there are still, in the modern world, places where a husband's rights take precedence over a wife's, presuming the wife is conscious, is obscene.

But in Westeros, husbands' rights trump those of a wife unless the wife is the ruling princess of Dorne (I'd assume).  I'm not sure how much I blame Viserys for not discussing the issue with his doomed wife - the impression was given that time was of the essence to make the decision.  I don't know how good I would be at getting out the words if I were in his place either, looking into the eyes of a beloved wife and asking her for her permission to kill her in a painful way to save their child, since she was going to die either way?

I can certainly understand Viserys retreating to his chamber and fiddling with a model of Maegor's Keep after later - he had ordered the brutal killing of his wife in order to save his unborn son, his son had been born and then died, he had exiled his brother for being obnoxious and mocking that dead child, and endured the funerals.  His family was decimated; he needed a retreat and solitude and a semblance of control (the model of Maegor's Keep).  Poor guy.  Paddy Considine did a great job playing King Viserys.

I don't blame him.

Family members (especially parents on behalf of children, no matter their age) make these kinds of emergency medical decisions all the time. This happens all the time...especially to the elderly. So, to me, it's not completely obscene or beyond the pale for a husband to be able to decide what happens to his wife in the case of a medical emergency.

Was Aemma even in the right condition to make that kind of decision. Nowadays, there are legal issues involved when someone is so impaired that they can't make a contractual decision such as an split-second emergency c-section.

Most people, when faced with this kind of decision, would have made the same decision as Viserys. Why should both mother and child die when the mother is clearly doomed and the child still has a chance to live?

 

I do blame the maester and the midwives for not giving her more anesthetic and for being so ill-prepared for this possibility. I know they said that they had given her all the milk of the poppy that they could give but if she's dying anyway...just give her more and let her sleep.

[Bael's Bastard]

I think we should be cautious not to take for granted that there was no way to save Aemma, as we have no way of knowing if they considered trying to save the life of the mother at the expense of the life of the child an option.

[C.T. Phipps]

48 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I think we should be cautious not to take for granted that there was no way to save Aemma, as we have no way of knowing if they considered trying to save the life of the mother at the expense of the life of the child an option.

That would be on the Maesters, though.

Though while we might suspect that, there's no sign that it is intended by the showrunners.

[Curled Finger]

On 8/22/2022 at 8:45 AM, BlackLightning said:

Honestly, Rhaenyra is just a female version of Stannis without the fanatics.

I made that connection only last night.  At the end of the episode it reoccurred to me that Viserys is really the cause and shame in all the loss and destruction here.   He came directly from a strong ruling couple.   I suppose Jaehaerys and Alisanne made it all look easy long as they sat the Iron Throne.   However, Viserys looks to too young Rhaenyra to be strong, keep promises and fulfill prophecy while he himself caves into desire and lesser evils while giving her no instruction for ruling.  Like Stannis, she has no understanding of this duty.  She has no teacher or support.  Now she appears to have no ally or friend.   It's very sad for a young child to be ignorant and friendless anticipating rule of a nation.  I would imagine judging by her interest in her studies, that she will base her future decisions upon the actions of those she witnessed in small council.  If that isn't a dish of maggots what is?  

At only 2 episodes in I am really enjoying the extra layers of all the characters we are getting in this telling of The Rogue Prince and The Princess and The Queen.  I will never be a green, but I am already less black, being far more simply saddened by the whole tale.  Though my heart still beats very fast seeing Daemon draw Dark Sister.