Jump to content

Discussing House of the Dragon Episode 4


Recommended Posts

We’re back to discuss the events of “King of the Narrow Sea”, with our usual non-review focus on providing some more background information and changes from the source material to the screen. It’s an eventful episode, although one distinctly lacking in new dragon facts to discuss:

If you enjoyed the video, please do consider liking and subscribing, and feel free to comment with your own thoughts or questions!



https://www.westeros.org/Graphics/Gallery/_medium/HotD_EP104-Still_Daemon.jpg

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC George wrote that Daemon at first had no designs on marrying her and wanted to show her what a wife needed to know before she married Laenor. I would have preferred it that way as it doesnt make Daemon seem to be constantly chasing the throne. He wants it, yea, but hes also a sly and wanton man who just likes to have a good time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the worries about Sealord/Seasnake deal was something missing from F&B . however , I'm surprised that showrunners keep *forgetting* about mentioning Velaryon's dragon power when they have all the opportunity to . Targaryen's thing is being dragon lords , closer to gods than men and all. king Viserys has one single fully grown dragon belonging to Rhaenyra and Aegon's hatchling . meanwhile ,Velaryons have 3 huge dragons , one of which is Vhaegar. adding to that, an alliance with Bravos and a new Bravosi house with dragons. the choice of making Laena's betrothal a big deal was spot on, but with the reasoning, they missed out a lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I have been wondering about before:

The Worldbook says: 

It was only a few moons later that Daemon was exiled. As for the reason? Our sources differ greatly. Some, such as Runciter and Munkun, suggest that King Viserys and King Daemon quarreled (for brotherly love rarely stands in the way of disagreements), and that is why Daemon left.

But F&B doesn't mention Munkun in this case, and I think this makes more sense. Munkun isn't mentioned when Gyldayn discusses his sources for the reign of Viserys, and Munkun seems to write about the Dance and the aftermath, basing his account on Orwyle who came to court only in 127 AC. So in my opinion it's just not likely Munkun has anything to say about this incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really an issue, because there's no reason to suppose Munkun did not in fact write about this incident as an aside in his account of the Dance or in some other text not explicitly mentioned. Either way, he would be basing his remarks on Runciter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

, I was just surprised this wasn't in the source material

Which source material do you mean? F&B? The published "Rogue Prince" edited by Gardner Dozois? GRRM's unpublished earlier drafts?

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Well, I don't have access to these, so just TRP and F&B. If the unpublished earlier drafts mentioned that Munkun also covered incidents from earlier points, this would certainly explain where you got the idea from.

I'd view this as a clear mistake in TWoIaF. Eustace wrote a history on both the reign of Viserys I and the Dance of the Dragons, his work touches on both Viserys' reign and Aegon's (if we want to view him as the king who reigned during the Dance ;-)).

Munkun only wrote an exhaustive history of the Dance. While we can expect Munkun to briefly or not-so-briefly touch on origins of the conflict, there is no reason to believe his work would even discuss or offer an opinion on why the hell King Viserys exiled Prince Daemon back in 111 AC. That small episode has literally nothing to do with the Dance of the Dragons. More importantly, we know that Munkun's work focused on the actual war in all its detail. He was not obsessed speculating about or digging deep into court intrigues and stuff, being content following Orwyle's account on that matter (who would also not have written about stuff in 111 AC since that had nothing to do with his confession).

Regarding the Braavosi match:

I think the show just fleshes out things that are there in the book. Laena was spurned by the king, and rather than looking for a Westerosi match for her Corlys turned to the Sealord of Braavos. At best (for the Targaryens) this is a sign that Corlys started to see House Velaryon's future in Essos, deepening already existing trade relations and stuff. At the worst it was an attempt to forge an alliance which could enable House Velaryon to challenge Rhaenyra's or Aegon's or Daemon's succession to the Iron Throne upon Viserys' death. There is a political aspect to all this and it could very well have been part of the reason why the Laenor match was suggested to the king.

Eventually, the Sealord's son proved to be a bad match, but it could have gone very differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...