[Spoilers] Episode 104 Discussion

[butterweedstrover]

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

This post was paid for by AEGON FOR KING.

Seriously, Alicent is at her nastiest so far here because she immediately sides with her father against Rhaenyra and starts working against her.

And Rhaenyra has a pleasant enough reaction to the Smallfolk, you know, who are shit talking her in PUBLIC with a play.

She handled it rather well given this is treason and is just annoyed.

 

The revisionism here is spectacular. 

Alicent follows her father's wishes because she is a good daughter, but her attitude towards Rhaenyra has been nothing but supportive. In fact she has gone beyond what is required of her as a friend. 

Meanwhile Rhaenyra gives the adorable reaction to peasants because she doesn't view them as humans. You think if Lady Redwyne even suggested anything like that Rhaenyra would laugh it off? 

She is not charming, likable, astute, or even practical. She wants power and freedom. She ignores her duties but abuses her claims. There is no such thing as rightful heir, in history if you could not justify your position you were removed. Rhaenyra has done everything to deserve being usurped.  

"Given this is treason." 

Wow. It's amazing how people here judge Rhaenyra based on modern standards as concerns her sexual promiscuity and independent lifestyle but when it comes to stuff like fair play and comedy they become the most extreme absolute-monarchist. 

44 minutes ago, Darryk said:

She's not supposed to be entirely likeable. The show's actually doing a good job of foreshadowing what she becomes later.

At least she feels like a well-rounded character.

But she is entirely unlikeable. Give me one likeable trait. Give me an instance where she was anything but an awful person. 

[Caligula_K3]

14 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Didn't Jeor Mormont tell something similar to Jon Snow when he ran off to fight for Robb? I guess some things never change. 

I think this is a long-term problem facing this show. All the squabbles of ASoIaF/Game of Thrones are played against the backdrop of a much more important conflict that the reader knows about but the majority of characters don't. You also know there's a major contender off to the side (Dany) who will disrupt everything. This actually gets you more invested in the political conflicts, because it's important for the reader/viewer that the Seven Kingdoms get their shit together to confront the real threats.

At the same time, Martin gets you invested by giving you a starting faction to root for (the Starks) and a faction to root against (the Lannisters). Maybe by the time A Clash of Kings/Season 2 rolls around, there are some viewers/readers who prefer Stannis or Dany or Robb or Renly as the ultimate contender, but nobody out there wants Joffrey to end up on top (or, later on, the Greyjoys). Things then get more complex as you realize that some of the villains have more complex motives (Jaime) and some of those on the sympathetic side aren't so heroic, but you have that central investment to keep you grounded.

In House of the Dragons, though, you're being asked to care about a succession crisis without any real stakes other than the succession crisis, and no immediate characters to root completely for or against. This is one reason a lot of my friends and family seem to be struggling with the show: aside from the feminist angle for Rhaenyra, there's not a reason to get invested in one side or the other, unless you happen to really like Alicent's character or Daemon's or Rhaenyra's. This is why I'm so glad this last episode focused more on character development, and why I think it's really, really important the show start fleshing out all these different characters - if the show doesn't, many viewers won't ultimately care about who gets the Targaryen throne.

[BlackLightning]

32 minutes ago, Darryk said:

She's not supposed to be entirely likeable. The show's actually doing a good job of foreshadowing what she becomes later.

At least she feels like a well-rounded character.

What exactly does she become later? Because, as far as I can tell, she is a female Stannis without the religious zealotry.

I never really saw what the problem was with that. Especially since the same people who fawn over Stannis tend be so intolerant towards people similar to him...such as Rhaenyra.

 

The issue I am having is that they are whitewashing Alicent and Otto even more by making Rhaenyra so heedless and bad-tempered. Which isn't what she was in the books..

 

Plus, I think it sends a very poor message where the sole two ruling dragon queens that the series has seen can be described as tyrannical and dangerous. With Rhaenyra it makes sense but Daenerys it was a horror-show. D&D jammed the last third of Dance of the Dragons into the show ending and it's going to ruin HotD

[C.T. Phipps]

31 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

In House of the Dragons, though, you're being asked to care about a succession crisis without any real stakes other than the succession crisis, and no immediate characters to root completely for or against. This is one reason a lot of my friends and family seem to be struggling with the show: aside from the feminist angle for Rhaenyra, there's not a reason to get invested in one side or the other, unless you happen to really like Alicent's character or Daemon's or Rhaenyra's. This is why I'm so glad this last episode focused more on character development, and why I think it's really, really important the show start fleshing out all these different characters - if the show doesn't, many viewers won't ultimately care about who gets the Targaryen throne.

I feel like people have overstated the need for someone to be the "good guy" as the story is interesting just for the characters involved going back and forth in it. You don't need a villain or a hero for a story to be interesting as plenty of stories have been just from the personalities involved.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

I’d add that the Stark soldiers *did* carry out plenty of atrocities in The War of the Five Kings (at least as we would define such things).  They murdered civilians, they raped, and they pillaged.  That’s simply the way of war, in this world.

But, Robb and Catelyn remain much more attractive characters than their enemies.

There's a distinction to be made between war crimes that are incidental and war crimes as part of terror campaign that is part of a broader strategy. Tywin specifically targets the civilian population of the river lands in a way the Rob doesn't.

-

Is this the last episode with Carey and Alcock? Are we getting a new Rheanyra and Alicent next episode?

I really liked this episode. Paddy Constantine just keeps getting better and better.

Stil no comments on Viserys' very homoerotic tapestries?

[C.T. Phipps]

10 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

What exactly does she become later? Because, as far as I can tell, she is a female Stannis without the religious zealotry.

Aside from fighting for her claim to the throne, I honestly see NO similarity to Stannis. Mostly her qualities are more like Cersei's positive qualities (being an overbearing mother) cripple her military progress. Alicent gets all the scheming and general craziness.

[C.T. Phipps]

12 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Plus, I think it sends a very poor message where the sole two ruling dragon queens that the series has seen can be described as tyrannical and dangerous. With Rhaenyra it makes sense but Daenerys it was a horror-show. D&D jammed the last third of Dance of the Dragons into the show ending and it's going to ruin HotD

Speaking as an anarchist in RL, one thing I love about Westeros is that Martin is quite clear that there's no such thing as a good king. It is an evil institution and a vile classicist society that he doesn't shy away from being inherently corrupt. Indeed, one of the central themes of the show is that power is inherently corruptive. On the Mary Sue site this actually led to a fun argument about feminism where the women commentators got into a bit of a fight.

A lot of feminist theory points out that women should seek more power and this leads to supporting of Daenerys (and now Rhaenyra) while others point out Martin is consistent that power and heirarchy are corruptive as well as self-defeating.

[butterweedstrover]

14 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

What exactly does she become later? Because, as far as I can tell, she is a female Stannis without the religious zealotry.

 

As far as the show is concerned Rhaenyra is just as entitled and mean as Stannis but without any dedication to the concept of Duty and Honor. 

She is a free spirit that wants to ride off and fuck whoever she can, but she also wants power. She is the worst combination. 

[butterweedstrover]

1 minute ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Martin is quite clear that there's no such thing as a good king.

What? lol. 

He has extensive videos when he talks about what makes a good king. And his material is never against the abolishment of the monarchy (actually, he prefers absolute monarchy).  

I mean, readers have there own interpretations, but this is a massive stretch. 

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

There's a distinction to be made between war crimes that are incidental and war crimes as part of terror campaign that is part of a broader strategy. Tywin specifically targets the civilian population of the river lands in a way the Rob doesn't.

-

Is this the last episode with Carey and Alcock? Are we getting a new Rheanyra and Alicent next episode?

I really liked this episode. Paddy Constantine just keeps getting better and better.

Stil no comments on Viserys' very homoerotic tapestries?

Harming civilians is *the point* of the Western chevauchee.  You seize the the livestock of the enemy, burn what you can’t carry off, with their homes, and kill any who resist.  That enriches you, and leaves your enemies starving.

However, the Lannisters were unquestionably worse, as well as aggressors.  

[C.T. Phipps]

7 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

What? lol. 

He has extensive videos when he talks about what makes a good king. And his material is never against the abolishment of the monarchy (actually, he prefers absolute monarchy).  

I mean, readers have there own interpretations, but this is a massive stretch. 

I find the idea of George R.R. Martin as a 20th century man believing in absolute monarchy...questionable.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

12 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I feel like people have overstated the need for someone to be the "good guy" as the story is interesting just for the characters involved going back and forth in it. You don't need a villain or a hero for a story to be interesting as plenty of stories have been just from the personalities involved.

GRRM is very big on most people having both light and darkness within them, so even in a conflict where there are "no good guys", people might find characters that resonate with them more than others, and side with them.

[C.T. Phipps]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Harming civilians is *the point* of the Western chevauchee.  You seize the the livestock of the enemy, burn what you can’t carry off, with their homes, and kill any who resist.  That enriches you, and leaves your enemies starving.

However, the Lannisters were unquestionably worse, as well as aggressors.  

Part of what sold A Song of Ice and Fire to me was when Jaime shows the hanged young women by the Stark bannermen.

That was like, "This is not typical fantasy."

Even more than Ned's execution.

[zajaz]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Harming civilians is *the point* of the Western chevauchee.  You seize the the livestock of the enemy, burn what you can’t carry off, with their homes, and kill any who resist.  That enriches you, and leaves your enemies starving.

However, the Lannisters were unquestionably worse, as well as aggressors.  

I'm sure the Westerlands smallfolk that suffered under the Northerner invasion cheered when they heard that the evil "King" Robb Stark and his cronies died like dogs, so I guess you are right.

Edited September 13, 2022 by zajaz

[butterweedstrover]

Just now, C.T. Phipps said:

I find the idea of George R.R. Martin as a 20th century man believing in absolute monarchy...questionable.

I mean in his world. Westeros to him is better off with a central power (with dragons) that a divided realm of bickering lords.

[butterweedstrover]

1 minute ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

GRRM is very big on most people having both light and darkness within them, so even in a conflict where there are "no good guys", people might find characters that resonate with them more than others, and side with them.

Well, he certainly has characters of pure darkness. 
 

The show is doing a good job of adding positive qualities to Alicent. People just want to hate her because it makes it easier to root for Rhaenyra. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Harming civilians is *the point* of the Western chevauchee.  You seize the the livestock of the enemy, burn what you can’t carry off, with their homes, and kill any who resist.  That enriches you, and leaves your enemies starving.

However, the Lannisters were unquestionably worse, as well as aggressors.  

The Mountain's band killed everyone, regardless of whether they resisted or not. And it was more about terror than forraging and scorched earth tactics. Tywin also turned Harrenhal into a concentration camp. 

12 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

What? lol. 

He has extensive videos when he talks about what makes a good king. And his material is never against the abolishment of the monarchy (actually, he prefers absolute monarchy).  

I mean, readers have there own interpretations, but this is a massive stretch. 

What makes a good king is not the same thing as an endorsement of a monarchy. Monarchies will always produce good kings and bad kings out of sheer statistical probability if nothing else. When you get the wrong guy at the wrong time and absolute power rests in that person, they can cripple it for generations or even bring the whole thing down. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

[BlackLightning]

12 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

As far as the show is concerned Rhaenyra is just as entitled and mean as Stannis but without any dedication to the concept of Duty and Honor. 

She is a free spirit that wants to ride off and fuck whoever she can, but she also wants power. She is the worst combination. 

Stannis does not have authentic dedication to duty and honor.

1. If he did, he would not have abandoned his brother and the realm when he had proof that evil was afoot.
2. If he did, he would not have sat on his hands and waited until everyone else had marshalled their forces or barred their gates before he took action.

The list goes on...

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Speaking as an anarchist in RL, one thing I love about Westeros is that Martin is quite clear that there's no such thing as a good king. It is an evil institution and a vile classicist society that he doesn't shy away from being inherently corrupt. Indeed, one of the central themes of the show is that power is inherently corruptive. On the Mary Sue site this actually led to a fun argument about feminism where the women commentators got into a bit of a fight.

A lot of feminist theory points out that women should seek more power and this leads to supporting of Daenerys (and now Rhaenyra) while others point out Martin is consistent that power and heirarchy are corruptive as well as self-defeating.

The system is undoubtedly shitty in Westeros, worse in most of Essos, and Slavers Bay is like Mordor.

That said, I don’t read the protagonists of  the tale as all being evil people trying to outwit each other (unlike, say, The First Law).

And, someone has to be king or queen and/or exercise power.  The world won’t transform into a liberal democracy overnight.  It will only get better gradually, as a result of there being being in power people who are more enlightened than the norm of their times.  It’s better to have a ruler who thinks that women are inferior to men, but still abolishes First Night, than one who adheres to the status quo.

I reject totally the idea, that the show tried to peddle, that those who seek power do not merit it.  That just entrenches hereditary privilege, where power is bestowed on the basis of bloodline.

[zajaz]

Also, regarding GRRM and his thoughts on monarchy (whatever those might be), perhaps he is a follower of Aristotle? Aristotle did believe in three good and the three bad forms and government: Monarchy > Aristocracy > Polity > Democracy > Oligarchy > Tyranny.

Edited September 13, 2022 by zajaz