[Spoilers] Episode 108 Discussion

[RumHam]

19 hours ago, Mark Antony said:

I always thought it would be more interesting however unlikely that Nettles didn’t actually have Valyrian blood and just managed to bond with Sheepstealer by feeding it every day and gaining its trust. 

Agreed. I like to think the dragons have personalities and she formed a different kind of bond with hers. Like that video where the lion runs up and hugs that dude. Shit happens. Most people would be too afraid to even try to befriend a lion/dragon. 

I also read her as someone who loves her dragon more than anything else. I can't think why else she'd hide out with it. She could have gone to essos but I think she picked the cave so Sheepstealer would be safe. Dragons dying over human quibbles is fuuucked up if you think about it. 

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by RumHam

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Agreed. I like to think think the dragons have personalities and she formed a different kind of bond with hers. Like that video where the lion runs up and hugs that dude. Shit happens. Most people would be too afraid to even try to befriend a lion/dragon. 

Me three.  Don't get me wrong, I like how the Targaryen/Valyrian blood makes them eminently more likely to bond with a dragon.  But let's face it, it's also incredibly elitist - and it seems kinda reductive to conclude blood is the only way to bond with a dragon.  The (other) dragonseeds and subsequently the apparent "one drop" rule make this even more egregious.  The Velaryons were never dragonriders in Old Valyria, so are we to believe everybody with any Valyrian blood has the potential to bond with dragons while everybody else is precluded from ever doing so?

[SeanF]

7 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Then the scene of marital rape is only relevant in how it further adds emotional consequences behind Aegon’s action (something Daemon and the Blacks are free of).

And yet Alicent knowing her son is a rapist damages her case even more, even if there are other deficiencies to his (Aegon’s) character. 
 

It in no way makes Alicent’s position more sympathetic nor Aegon’s. All it does is further decrease the moral ambiguity between the factions and makes the conflict even more one sided. 
 

The fact that Alicent cares *at all* about the rape of a servant girl, places her as more enlightened than most of her class.

Most would just dismiss a servant who complained of rape by a Prince.

[ShadowKitteh]

17 hours ago, Crixus said:

just check out the longstanding popularity of straight up asshole characters like Walter White from Breaking Bad, the Roy family - especially the men - from succession, Don Draper from Mad Men, Jaime Lannister and on and on.

Jamie has no business being lumped into the likes of White, Draper, and the horrific Roys. Jamie literally saved the world when he killed Mad King Aerys. 

Edited October 13, 2022 by ShadowKitteh

[Raksha 2014]

14 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Putting aside how I think Vince made a few missteps in playing up WW badass nature and his all around (unearned) heroic death, Daemon’s crimes don’t haunt him or his character like they do Walter’s. 
 

Walt at least has to deal with the damage he has caused. Daemon just smoothly transitions from resident baddy to the loyal brother helping Viserys to the throne and wacking the guy who called his daughter a whore.

We celebrate his awfulness as a tool the good guys can use to even the playing field, which is one of the problems with splitting the sides into clear cut good vs. evil. 

 

The Facebook posts I see extolling Daemon's appeal do bother me.  I will admit that he is hot, flashy, and a great fighter.  (Matt Smith is doing a fine job in the role) But he murdered his wife while she was lying helpless on the ground - he doesn't get a pass because she insulted him first, or reached for her bow (he was advancing on her and there was no one else around and they hated each other; obviously she feared him).  Daemon also murdered the servant/squire in Driftmark to provide a fake Laenor so the real Laenor could go live in happy exile with Ser Qarl.  And maybe he murdered the messenger who brought him Viserys' promise of reinforcements to the Stepstones; or perhaps he just badly beat him; we don't know.  

Daemon is not a nice man.  He's a powerhouse in battle; but he is also arrogant and cruel and vicious.  Doesn't seem to be a good father either.  So far, the only person that I think Daemon Targaryen has loved unconditionally besides Daemon Targaryen has been Viserys; and now his big brother is gone.  I would hate to ever fall in love with a man like Daemon, or be involved with someone like him.  Much better to admire his flash-n-dash from a comfortable distance, i.e. through the TV screen.

 

 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

Jamie has no business being lumped into the likes of White, Draper, and the horrific Roys. Jamie literally saved the world when he killed Mad King Aerys. 

Well, he saved a city.  He also did much more horrible things than Don Draper ever did, especially show Jaime.  And, while I don't watch Succession, I'm assuming at least most of the Roys.  Hell, even Walter White didn't directly try to kill a kid, even if he caused and excused it.

[ShadowKitteh]

6 minutes ago, Raksha 2014 said:

 

The Facebook posts I see extolling Daemon's appeal do bother me.  I will admit that he is hot, flashy, and a great fighter.  (Matt Smith is doing a fine job in the role) But he murdered his wife while she was lying helpless on the ground - he doesn't get a pass because she insulted him first, or reached for her bow (he was advancing on her and there was no one else around and they hated each other; obviously she feared him).  Daemon also murdered the servant/squire in Driftmark to provide a fake Laenor so the real Laenor could go live in happy exile with Ser Qarl.  And maybe he murdered the messenger who brought him Viserys' promise of reinforcements to the Stepstones; or perhaps he just badly beat him; we don't know.  

Daemon is not a nice man.  He's a powerhouse in battle; but he is also arrogant and cruel and vicious.  Doesn't seem to be a good father either.  So far, the only person that I think Daemon Targaryen has loved unconditionally besides Daemon Targaryen has been Viserys; and now his big brother is gone.  I would hate to ever fall in love with a man like Daemon, or be involved with someone like him.  Much better to admire his flash-n-dash from a comfortable distance, i.e. through the TV screen.

 

 

I think it’s a matter of perspective, considering everyone in GRRM’s universe are various shades of gray. 

Remind me when he’s been a bad father. (Seriously. I just don’t remember the book that well.) I think show Daemon is a good father.

In the show his wife basically insults him into putting her out of her misery, because his first instinct was to abandon her. Considering there’s no Cedars-Sinai or UCLA Medical Center to airlift her to via Dragonback which she likely wouldn’t have survived anyway, he showed her mercy, which is likely what she was after with her, “I knew you couldn’t finish.” comment.

I think show Daemon always loved his brother and Rhaenyra.

If he was truly “not nice,” he would have killed Vaemond instead of laughing at him during his ridiculous eulogy that insulted Laena and her children more than it insulted Rhaenyra’s and the King’s offspring.

Yes, he killed the body double quietly instead of killing Laenor. And Cristin Cole murdered Laenor’s lover by beating him to a bloody pulp very publicly at the first feast of Wedding Week because Rhaenyra wouldn’t give up her life and leave her responsibilities, family, and everyone she loved in order to save his private honor by running away with him, and likely destroying her life (and breaking her father’s heart) in the long term… by running away with a guy with huge anger control issues  (Fabian Frankel is not only a clone of his late father, he’s rocking the F out of this role!! Love love love this cast! And Paddy needs an Emmy.)

Many, many shades of gray.

 

[Crixus]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, he saved a city.  He also did much more horrible things than Don Draper ever did, especially show Jaime.  And, while I don't watch Succession, I'm assuming at least most of the Roys.  Hell, even Walter White didn't directly try to kill a kid, even if he caused and excused it.

Yeah, I agree. Also in the show, which I was referring to, they seemed to throw seasons worth of character development out the window when he basically told Tyrion he didn't give a single shit about small folk. 

[ShadowKitteh]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, he saved a city.  He also did much more horrible things than Don Draper ever did, especially show Jaime.  And, while I don't watch Succession, I'm assuming at least most of the Roys.  Hell, even Walter White didn't directly try to kill a kid, even if he caused and excused it.

Walter White intentionally poisoned Brock and framed Gus for it. Not to mention all the other countless deaths he’s responsible for including the collision of two aircraft because he caused Jane’s death.

The only person Draper isn’t cruel to is his first wife (how he got his name.)

Everyone in Succession is a narcissistic sociopath.

King’s Landing isn’t just “a city.” The ramifications of it getting destroyed will hopefully be in the Snow sequel. Jamie prevented that the first time. He also saved the world by attempting to kill Bran (Helaena’s bug with no legs on the last ring), because Bran is integral to defeating the Night King. Bran’s fall was what triggered his visions and who he became.

 

[Crixus]

56 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

He also saved the world by attempting to kill Bran (Helaena’s bug with no legs on the last ring), because Bran is integral to defeating the Night King. Bran’s fall was what triggered his visions and who he became.

 

Except that wasn't his intent at all, nor did he have the faintest idea of what Bran would become. He wanted him dead. I don't think this works as proof of Jaime's goodness. 

Caveat: Jaime is one of my favourite characters in the books, because he is nuanced and complex and also evolves through the series. My original post where I clubbed him in with Walt White et al was more to make the point of audiences liking 'cool badass' guys even if they do shitty stuff, where I think Bran's defenestration definitely fits in. 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

Walter White intentionally poisoned Brock and framed Gus for it.

Indeed he did.  In a manner he knew was non-lethal.  And LOL at Jaime "saving the world" by pushing Bran out a window, as if he wasn't just trying to murder a kid.

[butterweedstrover]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

The problem is you're conflating motivations, objectives, and actions.  Alicent likely doesn't see Aegon raping a serving girl as in any way related to her decision to put him on the throne.  And why should she?  She obviously isn't thrilled about Viserys raping her herself, but that doesn't mean she thinks he's an unfit king.  And, again, viewers have been exposed to numerous rapists-as-kings throughout the series.  The two are orthoganal in the universe/society therein. 

I honestly don't understand the converse of your argument here.  It suggests you're saying if Aegon wasn't a rapist, that would give her moral justification for putting him on the throne.  Why?  He's still unfit and doesn't even want it - which outside of the obvious fact Rhaenyra is the named heir - makes Alicent bereft of any "moral justification."  Or even "nuance."  Aegon could be Baelor the Blessed (who, coincidentally, was also manifestly unfit), still doesn't change that fact.

Again, as I've said before. The two things are related because there is contrast between Alicent telling him "you are no son of mine" in the morning and naming him king that same night.  

Saying that there are other reasons why this action is immoral doesn't change the fact that her knowing he is a rapist deprives Alicent of further motivation. 

Take the Robert example you gave. While I don't find Cersei to be a person (in the books) who evaluates circumstances based on their moral fidelity, one could easily (if they felt so inclined) connect the abuse she received at the hands of Robert as a motivating factor behind her decision to betray him. 

If that was further explored, it would constitute as sympathy and provide an added layer of nuance behind her actions. Alicent who has already been suffering from a lack of rational behind her decision up until this point is now faced, not only with the consequences of her pushing Aegon to be king, but also with the knowledge that he a.) is willing to use his power to abuse other women and b.) is not a son that Alicent should want to protect 

9 hours ago, DMC said:

 

Again, what is their "moral" stance in the books?  The only one presented is the fear for their own lives, which we've already discussed but again, seems like a delusion (willful or otherwise) on their behalf in the books and similarly does in the show.

The first five episodes did a good job developing some potential motives. It showed off Rhaenyra's flippancy and lack of diplomacy that might turn the realm against her. It showed her ability to lie and cheat. It impressed upon Alicent a deep love for her children, and a desire to protect them. 

Alicent just needed to have the perception that what she was doing would be for the safety of her children, or the betterment of the realm. And yet the last three episodes have exhaustively deprived her of reason, depicting her turning down olive branches that would offer her children protection, depicting Rhaenyra as diplomatic and level-headed, showing Alicent's relationship with her children to be self-destructive, and pinning the violence onto one side whereas the Blacks only ever attempt to defuse tensions. 

It all reaches a climax at the end of this episode where Alicent concedes Rhaenyra will be queen, making us question the past 10+ years of conflict which seemingly have been fueled by... what exactly? And then for the plot to admit it has failed in its task (something which it had ample opportunity to do) simply because it was unwilling to tarnish Rhaneyra's image constitutes a fundamental failure in the story.   

There was speculation in the book and by readers that Viserys might have had Harwin Strong killed to silence any threat to his daughter's legitimacy. That Daemon had Laenor killed so that he might wed Rhaenyra. That they executed Vaemond for speaking the truth. And yet none of that came about. 

[butterweedstrover]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

The fact that Alicent cares *at all* about the rape of a servant girl, places her as more enlightened than most of her class.

Most would just dismiss a servant who complained of rape by a Prince.

That is such a low bar seeing as no one else seems to be raping serving girls. Not, Daemon, not Luke, not Jace, not Viserys, etc. 

If it was such a meaningless thing it would be more wide spread. Alicent is the only one who has to deal with it because (as the show itself says) she put undo pressure on Aegon to be king, and this is the outcome. If all wanting her son as heir does is show the moral depravity of the Greens, no one will care about their side and put to question what the point of this conflict is in the first place. 

And Alicent doesn't even change course. She feels bad then shrugs it off and continues down the same path unaffected. Showing that she knows her own objective is evil doesn't add sympathy to her character because she sticks by her own objective for no apparent reason.  

To add nuance, they would have to explain why she is doing what she is doing, not give further examples about why it makes no sense. 

[butterweedstrover]

5 hours ago, Raksha 2014 said:

 

The Facebook posts I see extolling Daemon's appeal do bother me.  I will admit that he is hot, flashy, and a great fighter.  (Matt Smith is doing a fine job in the role) But he murdered his wife while she was lying helpless on the ground - he doesn't get a pass because she insulted him first, or reached for her bow (he was advancing on her and there was no one else around and they hated each other; obviously she feared him).  Daemon also murdered the servant/squire in Driftmark to provide a fake Laenor so the real Laenor could go live in happy exile with Ser Qarl.  And maybe he murdered the messenger who brought him Viserys' promise of reinforcements to the Stepstones; or perhaps he just badly beat him; we don't know.  

 

The reason why people don't care about those deaths is because the show doesn't care about those deaths. It moves on like they never happened, altering not his relationships, his demeanor, or even suggesting some emotional fallout due to them being murdered. 

It just happens to show what Daemon is capable of and leaves it by the wayside. The stuff that matters, like him choosing his wife instead of the unborn babe, helping his brother up onto the throne, loving Rhaenyra (the hero of the story) and aiding her battle with the Greens, this is the stuff the show puts emotional weight behind. 

[DMC]

53 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

The first five episodes did a good job developing some potential motives. It showed off Rhaenyra's flippancy and lack of diplomacy that might turn the realm against her. It showed her ability to lie and cheat. It impressed upon Alicent a deep love for her children, and a desire to protect them. 

Alicent just needed to have the perception that what she was doing would be for the safety of her children, or the betterment of the realm. And yet the last three episodes have exhaustively deprived her of reason, depicting her turning down olive branches that would offer her children protection, depicting Rhaenyra as diplomatic and level-headed, showing Alicent's relationship with her children to be self-destructive, and pinning the violence onto one side whereas the Blacks only ever attempt to defuse tensions. 

So, the extent of the "moral argument" you're asserting is out of fear for their lives and the ever-nebulous "for the good of the realm."  The former was discussed at length last week, and it's clearly a delusion (either willingly or not) on behalf of the greens in both the books and the show.  Same goes for the latter. 

On a personal level, there's no reason to believe Aegon will be a better monarch than Rhaenyra - he certainly wasn't depicted as such in the books.  The reasons you raise here the show offers for Alicent to think as much are similarly meritless.  First, Rhaenyra lied about having sex, and second, obviously, the bastardy.  The first is an absurd reason.  If Rhaenyra was male nobody would have cared about her having affairs - whether she was married or not.  Hell, in the books, the Green Council can't find Aegon because he's having an extra-marital affair when they're trying to tell him they're going to proclaim him king.  Alicent may have felt personally betrayed that Rhaenyra lied to her about it, sure, but that's hardly in any way a legitimate reason to assert it's for the "betterment of the realm."

As for the bastardy, this too has been discussed ad nauseam, and it's clearly not a legitimate "moral" reason for the modern reader or viewer.  Her husband acknowledges the sons as his own, as does her king.  If that's a moral reason for you, fair enough, but I don't think you're going to find many people that agree this "moral failing" constitutes a legitimate reason to start a war.

On a public level, you could say "for the betterment of the realm" is because Rhaenyra as queen will "tear the realm apart" and precipitate a war.  Except it's manifestly apparent this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If Otto and Alicent backed Rhaenyra's claim there's clearly no one that would oppose a united Targaryen family.  There is no legitimate "moral argument" offered in the books, and subsequently there is none in the show.  This isn't due to "a lack of nuance," it's simply the story Martin has offered.  The only people claiming otherwise are naked partisans, which certainly lacks "nuance" as well.

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

It all reaches a climax at the end of this episode where Alicent concedes Rhaenyra will be queen, making us question the past 10+ years of conflict which seemingly have been fueled by... what exactly?

Oh c'mon, the reconciliation was touching, and clearly prompted by the sheer force of Viserys' words and sympathy for the fact he's dying, but even before the prophecy/dying words, the show makes clear such peace is not going to last - precisely because Viserys can't wash away 10+ years of conflict with a dinner.  The fight between the children literally immediately after Viserys goes to bed demonstrates that the well has already been poisoned.

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

There was speculation in the book and by readers that Viserys might have had Harwin Strong killed to silence any threat to his daughter's legitimacy. That Daemon had Laenor killed so that he might wed Rhaenyra. That they executed Vaemond for speaking the truth. And yet none of that came about. 

The first is just a rumor (and always seemed to be an implausible one at that), the third does come about - just not the way you prefer, and the second is altered in a way that still make Daemon and Rhaenyra (and Laenor) look like assholes for not telling Rhaenys (not to mention Daemon still killing a dude).  Plus, we have Daemon killing his wife so that he might wed Rhaenyra (and settling for Laena), which is rumored but logistically extremely unlikely in the books.

[SeanF]

It seems Vaemond won this year’s Darwin Award.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It seems Vaemond won this year’s Darwin Award.

I honestly don't know what he thought was going to happen.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I honestly don't know what he thought was going to happen.

It’s a bit like telling Joseph Stalin he’s a bit of a wanker, at a meeting of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

[butterweedstrover]

37 minutes ago, DMC said:

So, the extent of the "moral argument" you're asserting is out of fear for their lives and the ever-nebulous "for the good of the realm."  The former was discussed at length last week, and it's clearly a delusion (either willingly or not) on behalf of the greens in both the books and the show.  Same goes for the latter. 

On a personal level, there's no reason to believe Aegon will be a better monarch than Rhaenyra - he certainly wasn't depicted as such in the books.  The reasons you raise here the show offers for Alicent to think as much are similarly meritless.  First, Rhaenyra lied about having sex, and second, obviously, the bastardy.  The first is an absurd reason.  If Rhaenyra was male nobody would have cared about her having affairs - whether she was married or not.  Hell, in the books, the Green Council can't find Aegon because he's having an extra-marital affair when they're trying to tell him they're going to proclaim him king.  Alicent may have felt personally betrayed that Rhaenyra lied to her about it, sure, but that's hardly in any way a legitimate reason to assert it's for the "betterment of the realm."

As for the bastardy, this too has been discussed ad nauseam, and it's clearly not a legitimate "moral" reason for the modern reader or viewer.  Her husband acknowledges the sons as his own, as does her king.  If that's a moral reason for you, fair enough, but I don't think you're going to find many people that agree this "moral failing" constitutes a legitimate reason to start a war. 

All of this is a creative decision on the part of the showrunners. It is a decision they made that leaves the central conflict without merit or substance and puts into to question the purpose of having a duel narrative at all. 

They could have taken from the concepts introduced in the first few episodes and expanded them to depict Rhaenyra as a problematic ruler. The bastards could have been portrayed as a result of Rhaenyra's infidelities rather than Laenor's lack of effort. The murders could have been shown to be the outcome of the Blacks paranoia or entitled attitude. 

None of these flaws are however developed leaving Alicent with no real basis for opposing Rhaenyra. There were so many ways to make this story interesting, it could have delved into Alicent's internal conflict between her best friend and loyalty to her father, her principles, and her children. We could have seen a conflicted woman try and mend the gaps in a relationship doomed to fail and see Rhaenyra's anguish at having a friend who is undermining her fraught claims. 

Instead the rivalry is established on nothing. For the majority of the episodes since the time skip they pretend to have never been friends. They show no real connection to each other and Alicent pursues Rhaenyra's downfall incessantly despite Rhaenyra doing everything to appease her.  

And that reflects poorly on Rhaenyra's character development because she is shown to not even care what Alicent thinks of her. She does not respond to Alicent's cruelty with anger, or grief, or any emotion. She takes it by the chin and shrugs it off as if it was coming from a complete stranger. 

What we get is an Alicent who doesn't show concern for her children, who is obsessed with seeing Rhaenyra's claim taken from her, and who is wholly unsympathetic being as her actions don't even have a modicum of sense. 

 

37 minutes ago, DMC said:

On a public level, you could say "for the betterment of the realm" is because Rhaenyra as queen will "tear the realm apart" and precipitate a war.  Except it's manifestly apparent this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If Otto and Alicent backed Rhaenyra's claim there's clearly no one that would oppose a united Targaryen family.  There is no legitimate "moral argument" offered in the books, and subsequently there is none in the show.  This isn't due to "a lack of nuance," it's simply the story Martin has offered.  The only people claiming otherwise are naked partisans, which certainly lacks "nuance" as well. 

The book doesn't establish them having a deep seated friendship, nor does it show their conflict to be a betrayal of some preexisting trust. And their lack of communication can result into a great many interpretations as how each perceived the other.  

The show forces Alicent to be illogical because she is betraying all reason in seeing her friend's downfall, at the expense of the children she proclaims to love. 

37 minutes ago, DMC said:

Oh c'mon, the reconciliation was touching, and clearly prompted by the sheer force of Viserys' words and sympathy for the fact he's dying, but even before the prophecy/dying words, the show makes clear such peace is not going to last - precisely because Viserys can't wash away 10+ years of conflict with a dinner.  The fight between the children literally immediately after Viserys goes to bed demonstrates that the well has already been poisoned.

It was a touching scene in isolation. But in context, it depicts the mending of ties that were seemingly ignored for ten plus years. They didn't act as enemies turned friends so seeing their rejoining losses all its affect and seems more a concession by the show that their conflict had no reason to exist anyway and was just artifical drama that ends at the smallest request by Viserys. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

None of these flaws are however developed leaving Alicent with no real basis for opposing Rhaenyra.

Just as there wasn't in the books either, beyond their personal animosity and Otto's stated fear of Daemon, is my point.  The pattern of your posts and complaints therein are singularly predictable - you dislike any time the blacks are portrayed in a favorable light, and any time the greens are portrayed in a negative light.  Moreover, you nitpick and conjure random complaints when the show does depict the blacks in a negative light and the greens in a positive light.  It's quite apparent this has nothing to do with wanting a more "nuanced" narrative, but rather one that is more favorable to your "side."  You say the show - or at least the last three episodes - did nothing to portray Alicent as conflicted, when indeed episode 8 does just that.